the self replicating watch argument

[brinny]

many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it has those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch (or a robot) that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a natural process (because as far as we know a watch with springs and a motion system and so on need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day. check also this argument:My favorite argument for the existence of God

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

Good points.

What comes to mind for me, is the very origin of any authentic living organism. The very fact that the "life" in the living organism "replicates" at all is unique and can only be possible through an Originator of this "life" and/or the creator of it. And that would be a Creator.

 

[dad]

Remember that the magic dingo in the tree is your invention, not mine. I said nothing about it.

A simple search of evolutionary dolphin ancestors revealed the creature. What, we need you to rubber stamp it?

I am taking about mammals that spent time at sea, similar to the way otters live today.

The issue is whether sea creatures or even part time sea creatures used to be land animals. Evolution says they were.

No way to deny it. You might as well try to claim elephants became whales. They spend time at the water hole!

I make no claim for the animal in your picture.

Whatever you claim does not matter since the ancestor of dolphins is claimed to be exactly the creature in the pic.

Dolphin Evolution

Mesonyx - Wikipedia



How sweet it is.

 

[dad]

What is asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason.

So we dismiss godless evolution beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So we dismiss godless evolution beliefs.

+200.000 peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic, each covering a wide range of evidence.

Peer reviewed publications against evolution / in support of creationism?
Exactly 0.

 

[dad]

but i showed that even one of the largest animal family on earth can "evolve" in about 2000 years. more then that: even if we assume that about 10,000 lagre species were on the ark (mouse size and above) it will give us about 10 sq feet for every creature. and most creatures are much smaller then a tiger.

"
That is a new, estimated total number of species on Earth -- the most precise calculation ever offered -- with 6.5 million species found on land and 2.2 million (about 25 percent of the total) dwelling in the ocean depths.

Announced today by Census of Marine Life scientists, the figure is based on an innovative, validated analytical technique that dramatically narrows the range of previous estimates. Until now, the number of species on Earth was said to fall somewhere between 3 million and 100 million.

Furthermore, the study, published by PLoS Biology, says a staggering 86% of all species on land and 91% of those in the seas have yet to be discovered, described and catalogued.

How many species on Earth? About 8.7 million, new estimate says


Then there are all the animals that went extinct...some say most animals that lived. In any case 10,000 seems a bit low.

So what was the animal that changed species in 2000 years? I must have missed that.

 

[dad]

Indeed.
Like when it leads to claims about "different state past", invented out of thin air with as only purpose a desperate attempt at upholding the fantasy.

A simple reading of the only good record man has of the early days on earth, as well as a cursory look at earliest history shows that it actually was not the same.

To claim it was is invented! Unsupported. Religion.

 

[dad]

+200.000 peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic, each covering a wide range of evidence.

Peer reviewed publications against evolution / in support of creationism?
Exactly 0.

None cover evidence with anything but the paint of beliefs. Name any of those religious studies that even deal with what nature existed, and why most creatures would have to fossilize?

It is not looking at evidence to pick out the few fossils in the fossil record that represent only animals that could fossilize at that time in that nature...and claiming they must be our ancestors!

 

[DogmaHunter]

A simple reading of the only good record man has of the early days on earth, as well as a cursory look at earliest history shows that it actually was not the same.

To claim it was is invented! Unsupported. Religion.

Religion, is what you are preaching.

 

[DogmaHunter]

None cover evidence with anything but the paint of beliefs. Name any of those religious studies that even deal with what nature existed, and why most creatures would have to fossilize?

It is not looking at evidence to pick out the few fossils in the fossil record that represent only animals that could fossilize at that time in that nature...and claiming they must be our ancestors!

The fact is that fossils make up for some of the weakest evidence for evolution theory.
Still strong, but among the weakest overall.

The real smoking gun is found in DNA.

But whatever. It's clear that you are so far gone that it would be an exercise in futility to discuss this topic with you.

There's nothing I can say to someone who's views are indistinguishable from "last thursdayism"...

It's like Gregory House infamously said in some episode:
"You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place".

 

[pitabread]

There's nothing I can say to someone who's views are indistinguishable from "last thursdayism"...

Yep. Once someone throws away the rational philosophical basis for comparison of ideas, there's not much you can do but leave 'em to their own insanity.

 

[dad]

The fact is that fossils make up for some of the weakest evidence for evolution theory.
Still strong, but among the weakest overall.

The real smoking gun is found in DNA.

Thanks for admitting that. Since you can't prove DNA as we know it today even existed then, there goes your case. I see you are backpeddling on the fossil record also.

Ha.

But whatever. It's clear that you are so far gone that it would be an exercise in futility to discuss this topic with you.

You have nothing. That is all we need to discuss.

There's nothing I can say to someone who's views are indistinguishable from "last thursdayism"...

Correct. When you grab some fossil from an animals in a tree and claim it became king of the seas that is absolute fantasy. (an animal we might note you have no DNA from either)

Hoo ha

 

[Abraxos]

Pft. The theory of evolution is so dumb. It's for dumb people.

 

[DogmaHunter]

None cover evidence with anything but the paint of beliefs. Name any of those religious studies that even deal with what nature existed, and why most creatures would have to fossilize?

It is not looking at evidence to pick out the few fossils in the fossil record that represent only animals that could fossilize at that time in that nature...and claiming they must be our ancestors!

pick up a book and read.

Don't ask me to do your homework.
Your ignorance on the subject is your own responsability.

Information is only a library away.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thanks for admitting that.

"admit"?

Since you can't prove DNA as we know it today even existed then, there goes your case.

Since you can't prove the universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, wasn't created just 5 seconds ago by extra-dimensional aliens, there goes your case.



Last thursdayism. Again.

I see you are backpeddling on the fossil record also.

I am not.
The fossil record is very strong evidence.
It's just that in the totality of evidence in support of evolution, it is by far not the strongest kind.

That should tell you something about how strong the genetic evidence is.


But whatever... Go try and prove the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since you can't prove DNA as we know it today even existed then, there goes your case.

Imagine a dude in an alimentation court case saying that, after a DNA test shows that some kid is his biological child.

 

[dad]

pick up a book and read.

Don't ask me to do your homework.
Your ignorance on the subject is your own responsability.

Information is only a library away.

No book tells us why animals living in the far past all would need to fossilize as they perhaps would be subject to doing in many cases in this nature.

The only issue is whether this nature existed.

Otherwise, we can easily envision most life on earth decomposing too rapidly for a fossilization process to take place.

Dust to dust.

An evo believes we are stardust, no? Yet it seems a problem for them to believe that early man returned to dust quickly.

 

[dad]

Since you can't prove the universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, wasn't created just 5 seconds ago by extra-dimensional aliens, there goes your case.

Quite a case you have there.

I am not.
The fossil record is very strong evidence.

That is not correct.
To be strong evidence, for one thing, it would need to represent most life on earth of the various ages. We do not know it does. I suspect it represents closer to 5% of life than 100%. So you grasp at the straws in such a hopelessly incomplete record to try to put together a complete picture of life on earth and origins! No wonder you need to have some dingodoglion in a tree as the ancestor of flipper! Then you grab some swamp animals or something, that maybe have some similar features such as a long snout or something, and try to say that was the dingodoglion evolving toward a dolphin!! Comically inept.

It's just that in the totality of evidence in support of evolution, it is by far not the strongest kind.

Well, get to it then. I can see why one would distance themselves from the fossil record as origins evidence of evolution.

That should tell you something about how strong the genetic evidence is.

What should tell me that? Your abandoning the fossil record as a chief source of evidence? Why is that? Why would we assume that Noah had genes such as we do? I don't live 1000 years. Or is this purely a matter of religion for you? Why assume modern genetics existed?

 

[dad]

Imagine a dude in an alimentation court case saying that, after a DNA test shows that some kid is his biological child.

Imagine that dude in court claiming that he had identical DNA to Adam.

Imagine we're in heaven
It's easy if you try
No more hell around us
A crystal clear pure sky.....

As John Lennon pointed out, imagining is easy.

 

[VirOptimus]

Imagine that dude in court claiming that he had identical DNA to Adam.

Imagine we're in heaven
It's easy if you try
No more hell around us
A crystal clear pure sky.....

As John Lennon pointed out, imagining is easy.

Using metaphysics in science is stupid.

 

[dad]

Using metaphysics in science is stupid.

How would you know? What we do know is that using physics in origins is not applicable unless physics as we know it existed from the getgo.

We can't use metaphysics, because we do not know how that works, or what rules and laws and forces the creator used.