the self replicating watch argument

[loveofourlord]

Before jumping to conclusions we might ask if some creatures maybe used to be both land and water animals?

well yeah thats what evolution says.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

lets say that this kind of watch will have living traits. like organic components (proteins, DNAׁ) and a self replication system.

That just barely fits the definition of living. We know nothing about its anatomy, morphology (other than looking like a watch) and physiology. We cannot classify it without these three and cannot find evolutionary similarities. So, for the information provided, enough data is not given to come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Before jumping to conclusions we might ask if some creatures maybe used to be both land and water animals?

Uhh, amphibians?

 

[dad]

well yeah thats what evolution says.

So a dolphin may have been both land and water I guess. Therefore it was not a land animal.

 

[dad]

Uhh, amphibians?

In this case the dolphin is the animal that was claimed to have been at one time a land animal. I don't think they claim amphibians were like that.

The theory of evolution links creatures found in the fossil record by means of a perceived common ancestors. That is how they try to connect the dots. If the fossil record were actually a record only of a relatively few animals, and not representative of all life on earth in the early record, then trying to do so would be ridiculously impossible.

If the nature in the past was different, then the bacteria and chemical processes etc etc would also be different. We could have certain creatures taking longer to break down and decompose than others.

In a biblical perspective, all basic animals and plants and fish were here from the start. There is no reason to assume the fossil record is anything but the remains of some types of creatures that could break down in such a way as to be able to leave fossil remains.

Man was here as were lions and all kinds of plants and fish and birds at the very same time the fossils we have were made.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So a dolphin may have been both land and water I guess. Therefore it was not a land animal.

Uh, the ancestors of dolphins have been shown to be land animals that had descendents who spent a lot of time at sea who had descendents who spent most of their time at sea who had totally marine descendents.

If you want to critique evolution, first understand what it is you are evaluating.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In a biblical perspective, all basic animals and plants and fish were here from the start. There is no reason to assume the fossil record is anything but the remains of some types of creatures that could break down in such a way as to be able to leave fossil remains.

Man was here as were lions and all kinds of plants and fish and birds at the very same time the fossils we have were made.

Uh, the "start" of multicellular life was hundreds of millions of years ago. It strains the imagination to think men were here from the start without a single stone axe being found until modern times. It strains the imagination that trilobites back then survived in the record, but not stone axes.

 

[dad]

Uh, the ancestors of dolphins have been shown to be land animals that had descendents who spent a lot of time at sea who had descendents who spent most of their time at sea who had totally marine descendents.

If you want to critique evolution, first understand what it is you are evaluating.

Uh, then show us the ancestor. Show us why it is believed. We will get round to the same underlying beliefs.

Show us the land animal dolphins came from.

Apparently they believe it is this one ..

What a joke. So you remember that it is just baseless beliefs we are evaluating in the theory of evolution.

 

[dad]

Uh, the "start" of multicellular life was hundreds of millions of years ago. It strains the imagination to think men were here from the start without a single stone axe being found until modern times. It strains the imagination that trilobites back then survived in the record, but not stone axes.

Too bad, we were here, despite your strained imagination.

 

[Kylie]

Uh, then show us the ancestor. Show us why it is believed. We will get round to the same underlying beliefs.

Show us the land animal dolphins came from.

Apparently they believe it is this one ..

What a joke. So you remember that it is just baseless beliefs we are evaluating in the theory of evolution.

Are you actually able to give us a good reason why it's a joke? Or do you just belittle things in a futile effort to make them unappealing?

 

[dad]

Are you actually able to give us a good reason why it's a joke? Or do you just belittle things in a futile effort to make them unappealing?

Woof woof, the animals says. So now we put a little caption on that with the words..' oh, I want to dive into the great blue sea and become flipper now'?

The real question is why on God's earth would we believe such a story?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Too bad, we were here, despite your strained imagination.

We were here, yes.

But were we there?

You claim humans were there at the beginning of life, which means there should be remains of human society in rocks that date to four billion years old. Your excuse, that in that nature human remains decayed without fossilizing makes no sense. That would mean hand axes were decaying but not bacteria. That is flapdoodle.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The real question is why on God's earth would we believe such a story?

Because of the fossils.

 

[dad]

We were here, yes.

But were we there?

You claim humans were there at the beginning of life, which means there should be remains of human society in rocks that date to four billion years old.

False. It does not mean that the present nature existed.

Your excuse, that in that nature human remains decayed without fossilizing makes no sense. That would mean hand axes were decaying but not bacteria. That is flapdoodle.

No. It means that we cannot expect the current rules of nature to have applied. Dust to dust. We apparently didn't stick around once dead at that time, in the way of remains.

The fossil record has been misinterpreted...something fierce.

 

[dad]

Because of the fossils.

What, you take fossils of different animals that could leave remains in that former time and nature, and try to patch a scenario together from that, to where godless evolution connected the creatures? Sorry. Just because something died and did leave remains in Pakistan, does not mean dolphins came from that.

Your idea is that some animal went from being king of the trees to king of the seas!

 

[doubtingmerle]

. We apparently didn't stick around once dead at that time, in the way of remains.

But what about our tools? Wherever we find advanced hominids we find tools. Somehow you would have us believe that human toolmakers existed throughout the Precambian and all other time periods, but their tools were not preserved. I find this a ridiculous claim.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What, you take fossils of different animals that could leave remains in that former time and nature, and try to patch a scenario together from that, to where godless evolution connected the creatures? Sorry. Just because something died and did leave remains in Pakistan, does not mean dolphins came from that.

Your idea is that some animal went from being king of the trees to king of the seas!

Ah, you wanted birth certificates that would date dolphins to a particular fossil in the past. Sorry these are fossils of immigrants to the sea without documents. But what we have is fossils that look very much like what we would expect a series of animals to look like that led from land animals to dolphins. Most likely these were distant cousins of the actual ancestors.

Anyway, you can dispense with the silly caricatures of intermediates, and talk about these cousins of the actual intermediates.

 

[Kylie]

So, dad, just to clarify: Once again, the best counter argument you have provided is, "Fraid not!"

 

[loveofourlord]

Woof woof, the animals says. So now we put a little caption on that with the words..' oh, I want to dive into the great blue sea and become flipper now'?

The real question is why on God's earth would we believe such a story?

well it has the structure of a whales inner ear if I remember right which i unique to whales and it's sort.

 

[dad]

But what about our tools? Wherever we find advanced hominids we find tools. Somehow you would have us believe that human toolmakers existed throughout the Precambian and all other time periods, but their tools were not preserved. I find this a ridiculous claim.

A few factors..

- To allow the rapid continents drift, and water to come up through the ground from below, and no great heat to be created by friction from rock....one would deduce that the nature and consistency of rock in that former nature was different. Rock may not have been something at that time we made tools from.

- metals would not leave the sort of remains rocks now do. Remember, all the tools you have found are post flood, and all remains of man. Would you expect to find iron intact from the KT layer time and before?

- Because the uplifts, mountain thrusting and building, subduction of plates, and ice age and etc etc were post flood, where would we even look...miles under a mountain range?

-