the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

Dad,

You still have not explained how you can account for the nested hierarchy we find in living forms if evolution had not occurred. You suggested animals were created that way, but that makes no sense. Other things you think were created, such as streams and rocks, do not have nested hierarchies. The only things that have nested hierarchies are things like languages and ancient manuscripts that were made by copying with modifications. So why is it that life is the only natural thing that has this attribute that makes it look like it was copied with modifications?

God is alive. He gave life to us creatures. Part of life is changes. He made us able to roll with the changes. Able to evolve. Evolution is part of creation. It makes sense.

Well, you said that Noah took a pair of each family into the ark, and they evolved into other members of the family after the flood. You also said all fossils above the KT boundary are after the flood. So if we find fossils above the KT boundary that clearly look like they are in the horse family, wouldn't it be safe to assume they were probably in the horse family?

Give us an example?

So what all was in the horse family? Were the horse, zebra, and donkey all in that family? How about the extinct merychippus, mesahippus, and eohippus, all of which have left abundant fossils after the KT boundary? Did these all descend from one pair on the ark?

If the flood was at the KT layer or thereabouts, that was 4500 years ago. With hyper evolving possible in the former nature, the question becomes when did the nature change occur...not when the flood was. If you look at changes in animals, you assume a long period of time was involved.

The nature change would have been post flood. That means a LOT of evolving would have happened in a short time.

Now, before going on we need to ask how the periods were dated when all these changes were going on and mammals started to fossilize etc.

It seems possible that a lot of the geologic column was laid down in that short time after or around the nature change.

So, can you provide evidence that the various phases of the Cenozoic actually involved the sort of old ages you claim? Remember, you can't use radioactive dating or evolution for dates.


Thinking about it, is makes sense that by the time apes and man appear in the record, we are well into the present nature.

Missing fossils only imply that some animals may have lived and never been found yet. That does not change the fact that many fossils clearly in the horse family have been found.

No, it could imply that the animals could not leave fossilized remains also.

And if science is not in a position to know what is what, doesn't that imply there is a lot of gray area between families? If families were created distinct, why aren't the divisions between them easy to tell?

The created kinds could evolve very fast in the former nature, presumably, so divisions would not be distinct in many cases. Since there were not remains from all creatures, that further complicates divisions of fossilized remains.

Ha, so your assumption is wrong. For many thousands of fossils exist from that "former nature".

Pre KT fossils exist of course. But most animals could NOT fossilize so do NOT exist IN the fossil record!

That's odd. For a lot of people here start with science and evolution, and appear to be Christians of high moral character. How dare you claim that you are godly and they are not?

Godly? Can you cite that claim you say I made?

 

[dad]

HOW?! It's the same freaking mud in my example! It's a glorified dent in mud that gets fossilized, so please do explain how the shape of the human foot, in any way, could influence fossilization so much as to make it impossible within the brief moment of making the imprint. Flipping jellyfish, which are 95 percent water, have managed to be fossilized in this manner, and yet you think humans left something behind in their footprints that makes the mud go "oh no, can't hold this shape"?

You have some nerve to call me ridiculous on this one.

Not sure why man would leave footprints with jelly fish? You do realize fish live in the...sea?

Are you actually claiming you think there are footprints representing the spectrum of life on earth?

 

[dad]

Nice try but your wrong. Even wit 2 of each basic kind he could not every single spices animal in 24 hours

Species?? No. KINDS.

 

[dad]

And there is no evidence in the bible that Adam was any different from us today.

No evidence he was....anything at all as far as science goes. That ain't very far.

 

[dad]

Quite right. We need to start with the belief that God created the universe
and us. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with that belief, one way or the other.

Nothing at all to do with creation, indeed.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The idea of a watch is keeping time, not creating time. Hence, it is not a valid comparison to God.



You can use any term you like to describe where the whole universe was when the magic BB singularity did this.


"
According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity."




According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?

Hahahaha

Zero evidence. You have only a religion with beliefs superimposed onto things in the universe you do not comprehend.

Great...so?

You saying that something does or does not 'make sense' does not in any way argue whether or not it is true or false.

I leave the rest of your post above to show that you are trying to apply your personal 'logic' to the big bang, and it's failing miserably. You are trying to think of the singularity as being one 'thing' in a larger space and applying the physics of space. This is completely wrong. The singularity was the whole universe at that time, which is entirely different. See, e.g., Was the universe a black hole at the beginning? for further discussion. That is: if you want to really understand things. Rather than wanting to preserve your misunderstandings as that's where God lives.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Godly? Can you cite that claim you say I made?

For crying out loud! You responded to the place where I cited it. Once more, you said:

Here is the thing...to be godly as I see it we need to start with creation.

And there are many good Christians of high moral character that believe there was a big bang that led to the evolution of life on earth from a single common ancestor. It is rude of you to come here and say that those good Christians are not godly.

 

[xianghua]

And regarding the tree you posted of animals, that is a complex trees with 17 taxa showing a complex hierarchy.

last time: here it again with 8 "taxa":

as i said: no difference.

 

[xianghua]

A phylogenetic tree is a hierarchy depicting relationships between *all* the objects in the tree.

of course. we can do it with many objects like this one:

and if we had all the information about the parts of those vehicles we can get a tree specific for each group.

 

[pitabread]

of course. we can do it with many objects like this one:
View attachment 224150

That's not a phylogenetic tree. As has been repeatedly explained now, phylogenetic trees are depictions of hereditary relationships constructed via mathematical algorithms based on datasets.

All you have is a picture you drew in Paint.

and if we had all the information about the parts of those vehicles we can get a tree specific for each group.

It's not about getting "a" tree. It's about re-creating statistically convergent trees based on different subsets of characteristics.

And as I already demonstrated with cars and trucks back in post #1552, not only do cars and trucks NOT sort themselves into perfect little groups, but when using different subsets of characteristics I got wildly different trees. Exactly what you'd expect with designed objects not constrained by hereditary relationships.

You can keep claiming otherwise all you want, but since I actually tested this claim, it doesn't bear out in reality.

 

[Speedwell]

Nothing at all to do with creation, indeed.

Right. God created the universe whether the theory of evolution is true or not. And if the theory of evolution is true it is a glorious and awesome way for God to have created us.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

of course. we can do it with many objects like this one:
View attachment 224150

and if we had all the information about the parts of those vehicles we can get a tree specific for each group.

I have seen this vehicle tree a lot of times in lots of instances and each time, it has been stated how it is wrong.
Even other animals exhibit learning. What species are you?

 

[doubtingmerle]

last time: here it again with 8 "taxa":

View attachment 224149

as i said: no difference.

Ah, you are just going to keep on posting it until you get the last word in, while ignoring our responses.

So be it. You can read our responses sometime if you want.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Dad, you have not explained why the basic categories of life fit into a nested pattern, whereas other natural objects such as minerals and mountains do not do this.

God is alive. He gave life to us creatures. Part of life is changes. He made us able to roll with the changes. Able to evolve. Evolution is part of creation. It makes sense.

ok you accept evolution at a family level and admit it can be responsible for the nested hierarchy at the family level. How do you explain that all of life fits this pattern, that there is a tree of the families of life that shows a nested hierarchy? See figure 1 here. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Phylogenetics

Give us an example?

You can't be serious. You cut off the words following that gave you a few examples:

So what all was in the horse family? Were the horse, zebra, and donkey all in that family? How about the extinct merychippus, mesahippus, and eohippus, all of which have left abundant fossils after the KT boundary? Did these all descend from one pair on the ark?
​

Can you actually address this please?

​

If the flood was at the KT layer or thereabouts, that was 4500 years ago. With hyper evolving possible in the former nature, the question becomes when did the nature change occur...not when the flood was. If you look at changes in animals, you assume a long period of time was involved.

Ok 65 million years of the geologic column is 4500 years in Dad years.

The nature change would have been post flood. That means a LOT of evolving would have happened in a short time.

And yet the fossil record shows horse evolution took tens of millions of years in geologic years. How many years did it take in Dad years?

It seems possible that a lot of the geologic column was laid down in that short time after or around the nature change.

if the flood was at the kt boundary, than over 90% of the fossil record was before the flood. So why is it that we have an abundance of fossils before the flood, most of which are very different from modern life?

So, can you provide evidence that the various phases of the Cenozoic actually involved the sort of old ages you claim? Remember, you can't use radioactive dating or evolution for dates.

remember that we can use radiometric dating.

In addition we have evidence such as the great layers of rock, the many volcanoes, the distance traveled by the continents, and ice layers. The kt boundary was formed long ago.

 

[pitabread]

as i said: no difference.

What software did you use to construct your tree? What was the data set on which it was based? What process or algorithms were used?

If you don't have an answer for the above, then you've already demonstrated the difference.

 

[dad]

You saying that something does or does not 'make sense' does not in any way argue whether or not it is true or false.

You saying it does make a good comparison to the One who created time and a man made watch does not argue it is.

I leave the rest of your post above to show that you are trying to apply your personal 'logic' to the big bang, and it's failing miserably. You are trying to think of the singularity as being one 'thing' in a larger space and applying the physics of space.

It is imaginary. They call it a soup. A little singularity...etc etc. I have no respect for the fable or the terminology whatsoever.

The fact is that all that is the universe now is said to have come from it.

This is completely wrong. The singularity was the whole universe at that time, which is entirely different.

In your story only.

The actual universe was nowhere near being your little hot soup.

See, e.g., Was the universe a black hole at the beginning? for further discussion. That is: if you want to really understand things. Rather than wanting to preserve your misunderstandings as that's where God lives.

Maybe you could study Hans Christian Anderson, and tune up on other fables?

 

[dad]

For crying out loud! You responded to the place where I cited it. Once more, you said:



And there are many good Christians of high moral character that believe there was a big bang that led to the evolution of life on earth from a single common ancestor. It is rude of you to come here and say that those good Christians are not godly.

To them, I think they would call that creation. Too bad the bible has another description though. Creation is godly as godly could be.

 

[dad]

Right. God created the universe whether the theory of evolution is true or not. And if the theory of evolution is true it is a glorious and awesome way for God to have created us.

Great. If you feel it is glorious to tell us in His word to man that Jesus confirmed as true, that it was one way when it was totally not true, and some other way, then I guess you overrule the Almighty. Good luck with that.

 

[VirOptimus]

Great. If you feel it is glorious to tell us in His word to man that Jesus confirmed as true, that it was one way when it was totally not true, and some other way, then I guess you overrule the Almighty. Good luck with that.

Again, using magic in an science debate is not rational and an auto-loss.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You saying it does make a good comparison to the One who created time and a man made watch does not argue it is.

This was a parody argument. It's quite concerning that you don't seem to realise that.

It is imaginary. They call it a soup. A little singularity...etc etc. I have no respect for the fable or the terminology whatsoever.

The fact is that all that is the universe now is said to have come from it.

You, without evidence, try to dismiss the big bang theory as a fable when it's a testable hypothesis tells us more about you than it does the hypothesis.

In your story only.

The actual universe was nowhere near being your little hot soup.

Maybe you could study Hans Christian Anderson, and tune up on other fables?

You seem to be unable to tell the difference between a testable hypothesis which fits actual evidence and a fable.

The big bang theory has evidence behind it. See, e.g., Big Bang | COSMOS

There are plenty of ways in which the hypothesis is falsifiable. E.g. if we found distant supernovae with a blueshift.

I understand that creationists often want to portray scientific theories as 'fables' in an attempt to make them match the level of support of their own religious beliefs. However, five seconds on Google easily shows that this is wrong.