the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

I say that you are in over your head, you dont understand the basics and cannot therefore answer incredibly basic questions that has to be answered if its science.

but you asked for creation predictions so i gave you one. if you refer to falsifiability then you can try to prove that a creature can evolve into another kind of creature. but remember that evolution itself cant be test so its not scientific either.

 

[pitabread]

great. so what is the difference between this and that?:

That's easy. The one with bicycles, cars, etc, isn't a real phylogenetic tree. It just looks like something you drew in Paint.

 

[VirOptimus]

but you asked for creation predictions so i gave you one. if you refer to falsifiability then you can try to prove that a creature can evolve into another kind of creature. but remember that evolution itself cant be test so its not scientific either.

... you seriously saying that the ToE isnt scientific?

 

[VirOptimus]

Since creation involved more than the natural, it cannot be falsified only by the natural!

Then its a worthless "model".

 

[pitabread]

so a car and a truck basically share the same level of similarity?

No, that's not what I've claimed.

Rather what I found was that depending on the individual tree, certain trucks will have more in common with other cars than each other.

In order words vehicles aren't sorting themselves into the perfect categories you think they should.

you just tets it with 14 traits. when in re ality we should check the entire object.

If you don't like the data I used or think there should be more characteristics used, then go ahead and test it yourself. Just whining about the data I picked isn't getting us anywhere.

Besides, when phylogenetic trees are constructed on biological organisms they often aren't created via the "entire object". They can be created with as little as a single gene for example.

as i showed before: many of such independent characteristics exist in vehicles too: most trucks have a mudflap and most cars dont. most trucks have big wheels and most cars dont. many trucks have a reverse beeper and most cars dont (if any). although those traits can be exist in cars usually they dont.

You're just reinforcing my point. All the characteristics you list aren't specific to a category of vehicle. A truck doesn't have to have mudflaps or big wheels or a reverse alarm to be classified as a truck.

The fact that so many characteristics have no basis on the vehicle's classification is why we shouldn't expect to be able to create statistically convergent trees based on vehicle characteristics.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not in any way would time need to exist the same as here for something to move. You see time is only observed at one point in the universe...here. We do know time exists here, and how much time is involved in moving here. One example is it seems to have taken days for you to almost make a point.

And yet you claim that light takes eight minutes to get to here from the Sun, which, in case you missed it, is not "here."

You seem to believe this -- but why? Have you seen time on the Sun?

 

[dad]

Then its a worthless "model".

To folks who are not aware of the big picture and all that is involved, basing all things on haplessly partial info might seem cool. Others see the willing ignorance in such ritualistic abuses of intelligence and honesty.

 

[dad]

And yet you claim that light takes eight minutes to get to here from the Sun, which, in case you missed it, is not "here."

Since I have defined the fishbowl as the solar system, and area, it is right in the heart of here actually.

 

[doubtingmerle]

great. so what is the difference between this and that?:
View attachment 222923

vs:

"This" is not a unique, consistent, well-supported tree. "That" is.

Again, here is a quote from the file I keep linking to

The difference between classifying cars and classifying languages lies in the fact that, with cars, certain characters (for example, color or manufacturer) must be considered more important than other characters in order for the classification to work. Which types of car characters are more important depends upon the personal preference of the individual who is performing the classification. In other words, certain types of characters must be weighted subjectively in order to classify cars in nested hierarchies; cars do not fall into natural, unique, objective nested hierarchies.

Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
​

If you would actually read that link you would know what we are taking about. But you refuse to read it and ask us to explain it over and over again. If you would actually click on the link it would save us endless repetition.

 

[daleksteve]

I was not saying you did not make a good point, it is just that that question in this forum is absurdum as infintum because a Creator with no beginning or end would neither arise naturally (being the maker of that which is called Nature) or be designed since design was His idea (it started with Him/It)

A creator must have a beginning though. I think God maybe is a paradox.

Lets say in the the future humnas create

 

[daleksteve]

I was not saying you did not make a good point, it is just that that question in this forum is absurdum as infintum because a Creator with no beginning or end would neither arise naturally (being the maker of that which is called Nature) or be designed since design was His idea (it started with Him/It)

A creator must have a beginning though. I think God maybe is a paradox.

Lets say in the the future advanced humans create God and then he goes on to Create humans. in essence a time paradox.

 

[daleksteve]

s

so basically you are saying that a watch isnt an evidence for design. i guess that most peoples will claims otherwise.

A watch is not good evidence. DNA though is good evidence for intelligent design.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Forget spacetime existing in the far universe. That equals fishbowl time and space. Try to stick to what you know.


Drawing lines on a paper is one thing, drawing a line that involves time to the stars is quite another. That is slate of hand, not trig.
So far you have offered no proof that the earth had the same physics. Make no claims based on a belief that earth did have the same physics.

Any true story about the future or far past would NEED to defy the temporary physics of the present on earth.

so you hypothesized that the laws of nature were the same back then. But the other option is that your story is fiction and God's record is true.

Got it. You are just going to parse our posts into chunks and just repeat the same nonsense, hoping that the rubes are impressed that you keep getting the last word in. I don't have time for that so I am just going to just tell you how it is.

There never was a global flood. You have appealed to a different nature with different rates of radioactive decay and evolution to argue for the flood. All this requires a different physics. But we know the laws of physics have been constant in time and space. We have seen it for ourselves in the light that comes from distant stars, which we can tell was made in a place with the same physics long ago.

The stars are trillions of miles away. This has been confirmed multiple ways by science. You don't understand why scientists say this, you apparently have no interest in understanding this, and you apparently disagree without ever understanding. The evidence is there if you wish to look.

Light has never traveled faster than the speed of light. Again this has been confirmed repeatedly by science. You don't understand the science, appear to have no interest in understanding, and again apparently disagree.

But we can tell how far the stars were when the light left them, and know the speed of the light, and thus we can tell when the light left the stars. Its a simple calculation.

So go ahead and parse this into bits with stupid comments after each sentence to impress the rubes. That means nothing. Meanwhile science marches on.

 

[pitabread]

So go ahead and parse this into bits with stupid comments after each sentence to impress the rubes. That means nothing. Meanwhile science marches on.

Considering dad even gets into it with other creationists, I wonder who he's really impressing on these forums. Does *anyone* agree with his views?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Since I have defined the fishbowl as the solar system, and area, it is right in the heart of here actually.

And your definition is worth what, exactly?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And yet you claim that light takes eight minutes to get to here from the Sun, which, in case you missed it, is not "here."

You seem to believe this -- but why? Have you seen time on the Sun?

He actually claimed 8 seconds. But that's probably right using dad-physics.

 

[dad]

And your definition is worth what, exactly?

Well, if you are calling 'here' in reference to what time is like anything else than the defined area, you are talking nonsense asking how we know time exists here.

 

[dad]

Considering dad even gets into it with other creationists, I wonder who he's really impressing on these forums. Does *anyone* agree with his views?

You are here to try to impress? So how do you get that done, agree with whatever religion that called science says without pause or question?

 

[dad]

He actually claimed 8 seconds. But that's probably right using dad-physics.

No, let's give science credit for what is actually knowable, measured, and observed in this here lovely little fishbowl we live in. Man has sent a probe almost a whole light day away. Don't try to take that from them.

 

[dad]

A watch is not good evidence. DNA though is good evidence for intelligent design.

It is evidence someone made it. That may not be as good as what God made but it is designed.