the self replicating watch argument

[DogmaHunter]

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

Exactly!

In fact, all of this, including all our memories of having lived our entire lives, could have been created just Last Thursday!!!!!

No. It means that we cannot expect the current rules of nature to have applied.

Exactly!

In fact, all of this, including all our memories of having lived our entire lives, could have been created just 5 Minutes ago!!!!!

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

Well that, or in those ancient times, we actually all lived on a planet orbitting Alpha Centauri! So the remains of our ancestors are on that planet and not this one!!!!

That is, off course, unless all of this, including all our memories of having lived our entire lives, were created just 10 seconds ago!!!!!

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

Or the fossil record is just the way the deity created all of this, including all our memories of having lived our entire lives, just 2 seconds ago!!!!!





(I bet, dad, that you didn't even get the point of this post)

 

[dad]

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.

You base what is likely on two misconceptions.

-That there was no creation, so we need to look in the fossil record for a sequence of evolved life.

- That the fossil record represents a good cross section of life on the planet in the early record.

So, you grasp at straws of the partial fossil record to try to put together the account of all life on earth. That is religion.

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

What, did the cousins of this creature decide to descend into goldfish or sea lions? Tell us about them.

 

[dad]

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

Doesn't matter. What matters is what else living also had this feature that was never preserved in the fossil record.

Besides, if the dolphin was descended from, say a kind of animal that was both in the water and land, why would it not have that?

Adam named the animals, maybe the whale and dolphin walked out of the water to be named!?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Awesome!!

So basically, I can invent any "scientific theory" out of thin air. And if the facts of reality don't match the predictions of the theory, I just can say "the theory is correct - reality just changed!!!" and receive my nobel prize anyway.

Fantastic!

I think I'm gonna quit my job and become a millionaire collecting nobel prizes. Whoever thought it would be that easy.........................

 

[DogmaHunter]

Adam named the animals, maybe the whale and dolphin walked out of the water to be named!?

You know...honestly.... I die a little inside when I read such things.
I actually really literally feel physical discomfort.

It is really unsettling to see a human mind so far gone that it is capable of saying such things and actually be serious about it.

 

[dad]

Well that, or in those ancient times, we actually all lived on a planet orbitting Alpha Centauri! So the remains of our ancestors are on that planet and not this one!!!!

I agree that perhaps the planets or some of them moved closer to earth after the nature change. Possibly. But remember not to offer your speculation as science.

That is, off course, unless all of this, including all our memories of having lived our entire lives, were created just 10 seconds ago!!!!!

I understand that if we dismiss your fantasy that all reality in your world may be shaken.

Or the fossil record is just the way the deity created all of this, including all our memories of having lived our entire lives, just 2 seconds ago!!!!!

Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater. Just because most life on earth could not fossilize in former times, does not mean the few fossils we do have are not real.

 

[dad]

Awesome!!

So basically, I can invent any "scientific theory" out of thin air. And if the facts of reality don't match the predictions of the theory, I just can say "the theory is correct - reality just changed!!!" and receive my nobel prize anyway.

Fantastic!

I think I'm gonna quit my job and become a millionaire collecting nobel prizes. Whoever thought it would be that easy.........................

Science tries to fit the facts. So called science specializes in ignoring the most important facts, and assaulting the rest with their beliefs.

 

[dad]

You know...honestly.... I die a little inside when I read such things.
I actually really literally feel physical discomfort.

It is really unsettling to see a human mind so far gone that it is capable of saying such things and actually be serious about it.

It can be a shock to the religious system of science to really contemplate how wrong they have been.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree that perhaps the planets or some of them moved closer to earth after the nature change. Possibly. But remember not to offer your speculation as science.

You mean like your "science" of a "different state past"?

I understand that if we dismiss your fantasy that all reality in your world may be shaken.

Just because most life on earth could not fossilize in former times

More of that wonderfull "science" of yours?

, does not mean the few fossils we do have are not real.

I'm not the one who's denying any facts of reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It can be a shock to the religious system of science to really contemplate how wrong they have been.

Uhu, uhu.

More irony.

 

[loveofourlord]

Doesn't matter. What matters is what else living also had this feature that was never preserved in the fossil record.

Besides, if the dolphin was descended from, say a kind of animal that was both in the water and land, why would it not have that?

Adam named the animals, maybe the whale and dolphin walked out of the water to be named!?

it does, the evolutionary form after pakisetus is Ambulocetus, which lived in water and land

 

[dad]

You mean like your "science" of a "different state past"?





View attachment 221754


More of that wonderfull "science" of yours?



I'm not the one who's denying any facts of reality.

One can try to dismiss the record of creation and early times for no reason at all, if one wants. One also can use the word science to describe a belief set with no support in evidence and fact.

But do not call it science evermore.

 

[dad]

it does, the evolutionary form after pakisetus is Ambulocetus, which lived in water and land

Nah. That is just a fossil of one type of creature. You may not assume and claim that dolphins or whales came from that. By the way it is not an evolutionary form. It is one of a few creatures that were able to leave remains at the time. Whales were probably here at the time also.

 

[pitabread]

One can try to dismiss the record of creation and early times for no reason at all, if one wants.

Which record though? Because there are a lot of them.

It's not like Judeo-Christian beliefs have a monopoly on creation stories or mythological history.

 

[dad]

Which record though? Because there are a lot of them.

It's not like Judeo-Christian beliefs have a monopoly on creation stories or mythological history.

Read whatever you like. Science has creation belief stories also, Don't call it science.

 

[pitabread]

Science has creation belief stories also, Don't call it science.

Neither you nor I get to decide what qualifies as science.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What, did the cousins of this creature decide to descend into goldfish or sea lions? Tell us about them.

The ancestors of dolphins didn't decide to evolve into anything. Rather they found themselves in a position where they could survive well as mammals that spent some time at sea. Their descendents had variations. Those that were the most seaworthy survived, and eventually the process led to whales and dolphins.

 

[dad]

Neither you nor I get to decide what qualifies as science.

False. Science is about knowledge. It is not knowledge to claim some dingo thingie in a tree became king of the seas.

 

[dad]

The ancestors of dolphins didn't decide to evolve into anything. Rather they found themselves in a position where they could survive well as mammals that spent some time at sea[.

You can support this fairy tale...how?

Their descendents had variations.

In your fantasy, obviously.

Those that were the most seaworthy survived

Ah, the test for the dog/lion in the tree..

..the most seaworthy survived! What a joke.

, and eventually the process led to whales and dolphins.

I guess made up fantasy can eventually lead wherever you like.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You can support this fairy tale...how?

In your fantasy, obviously.



Ah, the test for the dog/lion in the tree..

..the most seaworthy survived! What a joke.





I guess made up fantasy can eventually lead wherever you like.

It's not a fairy tale that some land based animals find themselves in a position that they do well spending some of their time at sea. Otters do it today. Dolphin ancestors could have done the same.

And no, it is not a fantasy that ancestors have variation. This is a known fact.

If an animal and its relatives spend much of their day at sea, and some of these are more seaworthy than others, why wouldn't they be more likely to survive?