My Snowman Challenge II

[AV1611VET]

I build a snow ape, then build a snowman.

Two questions:

1. What am I demonstrating, since I built the snowman ex materia from snow on the ground, instead of building him from snow taken from the ape?
2. Since the snowman has at least 95% of the same materials as the snow ape, how can you say I didn't make the snowman from the snow ape?

Here are my answers:

1. Instant creation.
2. There's plenty of snow on the ground left over for the snowman.

Let's see your answers.

 

[Davian]

 

[VirOptimus]

You are demonstrating that you are bad at analogies and that you dont understand evolution theory.

 

[SkyWriting]

You are demonstrating that you are bad at analogies and that you dont understand evolution theory.

He's trying to help you understand creation theory.

Similar materials and/or designs don't rule out independent origins.

Parallel evolution

 

[VirOptimus]

He's trying to help you understand creation theory.

-snip-

What would falsify "creation theory"?

 

[lasthero]

He's trying to help you understand creation theory.

Similar materials and/or designs don't rule out independent origins.

Parallel evolution

Bad example. A shark and a dolphin have far more differences than similarities.

 

[pgp_protector]

I build a snow ape, then build a snowman.

Two questions:

1. What am I demonstrating, since I built the snowman ex materia from snow on the ground, instead of building him from snow taken from the ape?
2. Since the snowman has at least 95% of the same materials as the snow ape, how can you say I didn't make the snowman from the snow ape?

Here are my answers:

1. Instant creation.
2. There's plenty of snow on the ground left over for the snowman.

Let's see your answers.

That you don't understand procreation.

 

[Aureus]

I build a snow ape, then build a snowman.

Two questions:

1. What am I demonstrating, since I built the snowman ex materia from snow on the ground, instead of building him from snow taken from the ape?
2. Since the snowman has at least 95% of the same materials as the snow ape, how can you say I didn't make the snowman from the snow ape?

Here are my answers:

1. Instant creation.
2. There's plenty of snow on the ground left over for the snowman.

Let's see your answers.

You're demonstrating a profoundly terrible ability to construct meaningful analogies as well as a lack of knowledge of evolution.

 

[Gracchus]

Wow! There's evolution for you. From snowman to strawman!

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL

 

[Loudmouth]

I build a snow ape, then build a snowman.

Two questions:

1. What am I demonstrating, since I built the snowman ex materia from snow on the ground, instead of building him from snow taken from the ape?
2. Since the snowman has at least 95% of the same materials as the snow ape, how can you say I didn't make the snowman from the snow ape?

Here are my answers:

1. Instant creation.
2. There's plenty of snow on the ground left over for the snowman.

Let's see your answers.

In order for your challenge to be analogous to life, you would have to have multiple snow figures that fall into a nested hierarchy. Simple similarities are not what evidences evolution. It is the pattern of similarities that evidence evolution.

The question for you is why you would take extra effort to make sure the snow figures fall into a nested hierarchy.

 

[AV1611VET]

In order for your challenge to be analogous to life, you would have to have multiple snow figures that fall into a nested hierarchy.

You mean life, according to cosmic evolution?

Life that was preceded by abiogenesis?

No, I'm not having "multiple snow figures that fall into a nested hierarchy."

Just what's in the OP.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean life, according to cosmic evolution?

No, that is not what I mean. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Did I ever use the phrase "cosmic evolution"? No. I am talking about biological organisms, so the correct phrase is "biological evolution".

Life that was preceded by abiogenesis?

Life that evolved from a common ancestor.

No, I'm not having "multiple snow figures that fall into a nested hierarchy."

Then your analogy is not analogous to life and evolution. It is a meaningless challenge.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that is not what I mean. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Did I ever use the phrase "cosmic evolution"? No. I am talking about biological organisms, so the correct phrase is "biological evolution".

Cosmic evolution includes biological evolution, chief.

Life that evolved from a common ancestor.

And was preceded by abiogenesis?

Then your analogy is not analogous to life and evolution. It is a meaningless challenge.

Feel free to answer the two questions though.

I did.

 

[Loudmouth]

Cosmic evolution includes biological evolution, chief.

The term "cars" includes "Fords", but that doesn't mean that all cars are Fords. You are using a category fallacy.

And was preceded by abiogenesis?

Irrelevant for determining if evolution occurred. Abiogenesis or creation of a common ancestor. What creates the nested hierarchy is evolution from that common ancestor. In your analogy, you don't have one snowman giving birth to the next snowman, so it isn't analogous.

I did.

I just showed you why it isn't analogous.

 

[whois]

What would falsify "creation theory"?

the very same thing that would prove abiogenesis.
these 2 concepts are opposite sides of the same coin, proof of one is disproof of the other.
science is already coming to the conclusion that abiogenesis research is a failure, and it certainly isn't due to the lack of effort.

 

[Loudmouth]

the very same thing that would prove abiogenesis.
these 2 concepts are opposite sides of the same coin, proof of one is disproof of the other.

Lack of proof is not proof for any of them.

science is already coming to the conclusion that abiogenesis research is a failure, and it certainly isn't due to the lack of effort.

Real scientists don't share your opinion.

 

[whois]

Real scientists don't share your opinion.

actually, they do.
read my friend, read.

 

[Loudmouth]

actually, they do.

No, they don't.

read my friend, read.

You mean read the papers where scientists are doing abiogenesis research? Why would they be doing abiogenesis research if it was a failure?

 

[AV1611VET]

read my friend, read.

I think his name is Adam, but I don't think so.