proving evolution as just a "theory"

[doubtingmerle]

because they are both complex and they are both able to reproduce in this case. so why not?

Self-replicating cars are fiction, but by definition, if they existed, they could replicate.

But evolution requires more than just replication. It requires reproduction with modifications, with some kind of selection pressure to select the most successful variations.

 

[doubtingmerle]

on the same principle that such a system cant evolve in a man-made objects.

How many times do we need to repeat this? Animals can do some things that man-made objects cannot do.

if you cant prove that there is indeed such a different, why should we believe that such a different exist?

I need to prove to you that animals can do some things that watches cannot?!? Sigh.

Here is a cow with a newborn baby:

Can you show me a watch with a watch baby? If not, I have made my point.

 

[xianghua]

Self-replicating cars are fiction, but by definition, if they existed, they could replicate.

But evolution requires more than just replication. It requires reproduction with modifications, with some kind of selection pressure to select the most successful variations.

so if this suppose car will has this trait you will agree that such a car can evolve naturally?

I need to prove to you that animals can do some things that watches cannot?!?

no. i talk about ic systems. we know that such systems exist in both man made objects and creatures (since in both we can r emove parts and get the same result- non function). so what make you believe that such systems exist in man made objects but not in living creatures?

 

[pitabread]

because they are both complex

In what way are they complex?

and they are both able to reproduce in this case. so why not?

But cars can't reproduce in reality. So why do you think it makes sense to create an analogy where you imagine that cars can do things they otherwise can't?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Such a long post with absolutely no scientific evidence. The usual evo rhetoric. Thanks.

What do you expect, when we are told the attention span here is for 50 words or less? How can we express complex subjects like speech evolution in 50 words?

For more on the concept of gossip as a key factor in speech evolution, see Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language — Robin Dunbar | Harvard University Press

and What gave rise to gossip?

For more on the evolution of the mechanics of speech see http://www.cog.brown.edu/people/lieberman/pdfFiles/Lieberman P. 2007. The evolution of human speech, Its anatom.pdf

 

[xianghua]

But cars can't reproduce in reality. So why do you think it makes sense to create an analogy where you imagine that cars can do things they otherwise can't?

fine. so if they were able to reproduce they can evolve by evolution?

 

[pitabread]

fine. so if they were able to reproduce they can evolve by evolution?

That's irrelevant.

I'm asking you to explain why you think this analogy makes sense. So please, explain why you think the analogy makes sense.

So far all you've claimed is that they are both "complex" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Beyond that you still haven't given any real reasons.

 

[Speedwell]

so if this suppose car will has this trait you will agree that such a car can evolve naturally?



no. i talk about ic systems. we know that such systems exist in both man made objects and creatures (since in both we can r emove parts and get the same result- non function). so what make you believe that such systems exist in man made objects but not in living creatures?

What makes you believe that what you call "IC systems" in biological structures can't evolve?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

@xianghua - if cars had artificial intelligence, and they were the size of a grain of sand, how many of them would be able to rollerskate on the head of a pin?

 

[BradB]

We know the Egyptian Civilisation built the Pyramids because of the Evidence! Their writing are on the walls talking about their Gods and their Leaders and their Civilisations.... We can examine The Pyramids 'til the cows come home and then some.

Look my friend, you can nit pick apart an obvious analogy that I just threw out there at the top of my head but you and I both know the point is made very well. What this boils down to is a simple question that strikes at the heart of the issue. That being "If it could be proven to you that creation were true and that the God of the Bible were real would you become a Christian?" Because I know exactly how I would answer that question in reverse. If it could be proven to me that evolution were true it would mean that the Bible could not be inspired from an all knowing God and thus I would promptly toss mine in the waste can and never darken the doorway of another church. That is how dedicated I am to what is true, are you? If you are not then we are just spinning our wheels here.

Could a Multiverse be infinite?

I don't know you tell me... can something finite also be infinite? If pink can't be invisible then finite things cannot also exist infinitely can they?

Could (as mentioned) this universe be infinite

Again if we observe evidence that our universe had a beginning (which we do)...then you tell me if things with beginnings fit within the standard definition of "infinite?"

Snowflakes aren't observed coming from any intelligence, chemical reactions aren't observed coming from intelligence, Crystals aren't observed coming from any Intelligence, radioactive decay and nuclear reactions aren't observed coming from an intelligence, DNA isn't observed coming from intelligence, RNA isn't observed coming from Intelligence, etc.

Patterns in snowflakes and crystals and chemical reactions are just basic laws of physics but those patterns do not display intent or purpose. A pattern in a snowflake may be beautiful but it doesn't do anything. For example the pattern in a snowflake could be expressed as a repeating pattern. A line like BCABCABCABCA. But the code found in the DNA molecule expresses specified information. A CAT SAT ON THE MAT is an example of how information can be expressed with intention or purpose as opposed to repetition. DNA uses specific code sequence arrangements as blue prints to produce the cells of a body and to produce them in the correct location.

 

[pitabread]

If it could be proven to me that evolution were true it would mean that the Bible could not be inspired from an all knowing God and thus I would promptly toss mine in the waste can and never darken the doorway of another church.

If your faith is contingent on the validity (or lack thereof) of a scientific theory, then it seems a rather precarious thing to begin with.

I've never understood why some Christians make their faith contingent on science.

 

[Speedwell]

Look my friend, you can nit pick apart an obvious analogy that I just threw out there at the top of my head but you and I both know the point is made very well. What this boils down to is a simple question that strikes at the heart of the issue. That being "If it could be proven to you that creation were true and that the God of the Bible were real would you become a Christian?" Because I know exactly how I would answer that question in reverse. If it could be proven to me that evolution were true it would mean that the Bible could not be inspired from an all knowing God and thus I would promptly toss mine in the waste can and never darken the doorway of another church. That is how dedicated I am to what is true, are you? If you are not then we are just spinning our wheels here.

LOL! All that shows is that you're an Evangelical Protestant. But I sincerely hope that if you ever conclude that evolution is true you merely abandon Evangelical Protestant Christianity--no loss, IMO--but maintain the faith in Christ on which your salvation depends.

 

[Spirit Child of God]

You spirit blind atheist and science cannot find evidence of my most high spirit father, with your PhD, your instruments of matter and your spirit blindness! You can only find evidence of my spirit father with your spirit! You will continue to search for thousands of years to come, and you still will not find any evidence of my most high spirit God; because of your spirit blindness and hatred for him! And in your hatred for God, your very own power source of life; after finding evidence of him, what will you do? Will you bow down and humble yourself and acknowledge your stupidity of spirit blindness? Or will you seek to capture and kill him, and take his infinite power for yourself, and satisfy your unquenchable greed for power and hatred for him? You spirit blind idiots have no idea of how powerful your spirit really is! Your spirit is so powerful, that if mankind tries to capture it; it can destroy the entire earth a million times over, even the entire universe; because it is the power of God in you, and in all of us! You monkey people are so foolish; you search for evidence of God; when your very own life is all the evidence you need! You hate God so much; that you hate your very own power source of your own life! I continue to pray for the salvation of your spirit and your spirit blindness! Take care and God bless!

 

[BradB]

Delete

 

[xianghua]

That's irrelevant.

I'm asking you to explain why you think this analogy makes sense. So please, explain why you think the analogy makes sense.

why not? they both contain many parts that work together for a function. a motion system exist in both man made objects and creatures for isntance. so if you believe that a motion system can evolve in object that is able to reproduce, you should also believe that its possible to made such a system (stepwise) a man made object too.

 

[pitabread]

they both contain many parts that work together for a function.

So what? Lots of things are made of multiple parts which work together. Why is that relevant?

a motion system exist in both man made objects and creatures for isntance.

Again, so what? Why is that relevant?

so if you believe that a motion system can evolve in object that is able to reproduce, you should believe that its possible in a man made object too.

This isn't logical at all. There is no reason to assume that just because a particular object shares a specific characteristic with another object that that means that both objects would share other characteristics as well. This is a logical fallacy known as False equivalence.

On top of that, you've already admitted that things like cars capable of self-reproduction don't even exist in the first place. So that's even more reason your claim makes no sense. You're just contradicting yourself.

 

[BradB]

If your faith is contingent on the validity (or lack thereof) of a scientific theory, then it seems a rather precarious thing to begin with.

I've never understood why some Christians make their faith contingent on science.

Apparently you don't understand the biblical definition of faith. Which is by far just a blind leap into a dark chasm. Instead is putting your trust in something that is demonstrated itself to be trustworthy. Romans 1:20 for example tells us that we are without excuse through the study of science. And tells us that by studying the things that are created God is clearly seen. In Hebrews 11:6 we are told that without faith it is impossible to please God but it describes this as a two-step process. Number one we must believe that God exists and number two that he rewards those who diligently seek him. You may not understand this simply because you're not a student of the Bible.

 

[Speedwell]

If your faith is contingent on the validity (or lack thereof) of a scientific theory, then it seems a rather precarious thing to begin with.

I've never understood why some Christians make their faith contingent on science.

it's not that, exactly. Creationists don't believe the Bible is true because they believe in God. They believe in God because they believe that the Bible is true. Their faith in God rests on what they see as the objective historical facticity of scripture. It's a Protestant thing, I can't say that I understand it myself very much.

 

[BradB]

LOL! All that shows is that you're an Evangelical Protestant. But I sincerely hope that if you ever conclude that evolution is true you merely abandon Evangelical Protestant Christianity--no loss, IMO--but maintain the faith in Christ on which your salvation depends.

Translated... I am a person who doesn't try to pour his own meaning into the words of the Bible but rather studies the Bible to arrive at it's intended meaning.

 

[Speedwell]

Translated... I am a person who doesn't try to pour his own meaning into the words of the Bible but rather studies the Bible to arrive at it's intended meaning.

Whoa, what a nasty crack! You don't think other Christians do that?