the self replicating watch argument

[pitabread]

Not saying you can't post what you want. Just pointing out, in a science forum, folks expect some sort of science discussion. Quoting scripture, unless you can connect it to science, falls short.

And not only that but just preaching at people isn't conducive to a good discussion nor debate.

It's just clutter.

 

[ScumYetServant]

Yet it is in a Christian chat with debate. I belive I am welcome here.

Yet again I posted that earlier with science and it progressed to the word. If you want a endless loop here is the beginning. Creation screams out intelligent design, it is pure insanity to say it all came together by chance or accident. If you care to give this a shot watch the following YouTube please in full.
"Evolution vs. God" (Movie) - Shaking the Foundations of Faith

 

[pitabread]

If you care to give this a shot watch the following YouTube please in full.
"Evolution vs. God" (Movie) - Shaking the Foundations of Faith

Interestingly enough PZ Myers (who runs the blog pharyngula and was interviewed for that "movie") had a few things to say regarding the editing of his responses in it:

Comfort came to me asking for the evidence for evolution. The way it went is that he would a) ask for evidence, b) I would give him an example (like the research on sticklebacks or bacteria), c) Comfort would raise an irrelevant objection (they’re still fish! They’re still bacteria!), and d) I would explain why his objection was invalid, and how his expectations of the nature of the evidence were wrong. Somehow, though, in the movie (d) always ended up on the cutting room floor, so that he could announce in all of his promotional materials and in the movie itself that I was unable to provide any evidence for evolution.

Ray Comfort confesses

Apparently Myers is now carrying around a recorder with him for future interviews to avoid having his responses misrepresented.

This of course speaks to the fundamental problem with Comfort's interview format for his videos and fact that being in full control of the editing process gives selective control on presentation of individuals and arguments. He tends to do much poorer when in open debate where responses aren't edited to shape his own narrative.

 

[Speedwell]

Yet it is in a Christian chat with debate. I belive I am welcome here.

Not if you deny the faith of Christians who also accept the theory of evolution. Not only will you not be welcome, the moderators will boot you off because it is against forum rules.

 

[dad]

Right, but you cannot tell me if the horse and the donkey are the same kind. You cannot tell me if the zebra and eohippus are the same kind. You cannot tell me if the bear and the lion are the same kind. Perhaps the fish and the hippo are the same kind.

What was the starting point for evolution? Why can it not be the first cell?

Bear and lion...no. Zebra and eohippus...I doubt it. Horse and donkey? I see no reason they should be. Bears and donkeys and lions are mentioned in the bible, no indication exists that they were not kinds.

 

[dad]

And yet you credit "The blind watchmaker", that is, evolution, as being responsible for some of that design.

Not in any way. Evolution is part of creation, much the same way as reproduction is. Evolution gets NO credit at all. God set up the way things adapt and evolve and created the kinds where any and all adapting/evolving started.

You say that God started with created kinds and the rest evolved from there. How much evolved from there? You won't even guess.

Yes, I have guessed. I look at the list of animals in the bible and take them as kinds. If I see there are horses in heaven, I assume a horse is a created kind. If I see a raven was sent from the ark, I assume that was a created kind.

If some of the features we see were there from creation, and some are there because they evolved, how do you tell if a feature was there from the beginning or it evolved?

The question is how does science tell? They can't!
So who really cares?

And if you cannot tell the difference, how have you proven creation was needed at all?

If you have a cool glass of water and a hug from the wife or mom or your son, do you ask why they are needed at all?

 

[dad]

I am not the one claiming different states past, genius.

I am not the one claiming same states past, genius.

 

[dad]

I'm not sure what you mean by "negates similarities in creations of man", since that's never been what this is about. This is about the creation of phylogenetic trees of artificial objects and the fact I didn't get statistically convergent trees from independent characteristics of said objects. Which makes sense given the lack of hereditary dependence of created objects like vehicles and the fact that most characteristics are independent of vehicle classification. And for that matter most characteristics also appear polymorphic as well (owing to the fact that vehicles often have different options for various things).

If you want to learn more about statistical significance testing you can always read about it here: p-value - Wikipedia and here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Statistics of Incongruent Phylogenetic Trees

Looking at your smoke and mirror link, I saw this right away..


" The tree at left is based upon morphological data; the tree at right on the molecular sequence of the c-myc proto-oncogene (Harshman et al.2003)...."

Since you only have a SMALL fossil sampling in the far past to judge any morphology, and we have NO genes from the far past, and do not even know there was any present nature genes then at all....your trees are 100% based on religion!

Hoo ha.

The similarities, then, are internal to your religion.

 

[pitabread]

Looking at your smoke and mirror link, I saw this right away..

" The tree at left is based upon morphological data; the tree at right on the molecular sequence of the c-myc proto-oncogene (Harshman et al.2003)...."

Since you only have a SMALL fossil sampling in the far past to judge any morphology, and we have NO genes from the far past, and do not even know there was any present nature genes then at all....your trees are 100% based on religion!

Hoo ha.

The similarities, then, are internal to your religion.

Regardless of what you think the trees represent, this doesn't address the prior point which is dealing with relative statistical convergence of trees based on biological organisms versus those based on manufactured objects.

Even if you think the trees representing hereditary relationships are complete fiction, it doesn't change the relative statistical convergence between them.

At the end of the day we're just dealing with math. Unless you disagree with that as well.

 

[dad]

Regardless of what you think the trees represent, this doesn't address the prior point which is dealing with relative statistical convergence of trees based on biological organisms versus those based on manufactured objects.

If they are based on what your own link claims, the relevance is internal to your religion.

If I assume that the present nature along with our genes have always existed, and proceed to look for ancient convergences and links based on that...my links all rest on something I only believe in, but which has no evidence or reality. It does not matter what imaginary trees I draw up they are all based on the same belief.

Even if you think the trees representing hereditary relationships are complete fiction, it doesn't change the relative statistical convergence between them.

I do not need to change any relationships in the unknown past that are belief based only. If you feel that Santa created it all, and that whenever we see red in nature, or something you think evolved from a reindeer, or something happening on Christmas time..etc etc...that all links up on a tree...who cares?
The ONLY issue is the basis you build it all on.

At the end of the day we're just dealing with math. Unless you disagree with that as well.

Santa math, and same state past math doesn't count at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet again I posted that earlier with science and it progressed to the word. If you want a endless loop here is the beginning. Creation screams out intelligent design, it is pure insanity to say it all came together by chance or accident. If you care to give this a shot watch the following YouTube please in full.
"Evolution vs. God" (Movie) - Shaking the Foundations of Faith

I see that you do not understand evolution. Evolution does not rely on "chance or accident". That is a strawman that creationists use all of the time. You should spend a little time studying how the insurance industry works. That companies can insure against mishaps and make a profit is no "accident".

 

[ScumYetServant]

I see that you do not understand evolution. Evolution does not rely on "chance or accident". That is a strawman that creationists use all of the time. You should spend a little time studying how the insurance industry works. That companies can insure against mishaps and make a profit is no "accident".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looking at your smoke and mirror link, I saw this right away..


" The tree at left is based upon morphological data; the tree at right on the molecular sequence of the c-myc proto-oncogene (Harshman et al.2003)...."

Since you only have a SMALL fossil sampling in the far past to judge any morphology, and we have NO genes from the far past, and do not even know there was any present nature genes then at all....your trees are 100% based on religion!

Hoo ha.

The similarities, then, are internal to your religion.

You are of course wrong. We have a small sampling of any particular species but we have a huge sampling of fossils. All of which can only be explained by the theory of evolution. Creationists have no explanation that has not been refuted a thousand times. You are the one that only has religion and strangely enough thinks that having a religion is a bad thing.

I do not understand why creationists belittle religion, all that they have, and make false claims about others having a religion. They not only attack their own beliefs by doing so, they are not following their own rules of behavior in those attacks.

There are countless Christians that can accept both science and the story of Jesus. Creationists appear to be unable to do so. They think for some strange reason that evolution disproves Christianity, a claim I have never seen by those that accept the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ScumYetServant

Your quote of my post has no content in it.

 

[ScumYetServant]

When it comes to evolution I understand what was thought to me in a secular college. But I chose to belive in absolute truth. I do not accept lies. And I kick off the previbial dust off my shoes and depart this thread. Belive what you chose to belive. But know that death comes to all. And the odds are there is a judgment. Farewell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When it comes to evolution I understand what was thought to me in a secular college. But I chose to belive in absolute truth. I do not accept lies. And I kick off the previbial dust off my shoes and depart this thread. Belive what you chose to belive. But know that death comes to all. And the odds are there is a judgment. Farewell.

Actually if you believe the likes of Ray Comfort you believe lies. I can help you to understand why we know that we are the product of evolution, as can others here. It is easy to show how Comfort lies when he edits his videos.

 

[pitabread]

Santa math, and same state past math doesn't count at all.

"Same state past math." Wow. Are you sure you're not just here to parody creationists?

Anyway since you have nothing to offer but off-topic, nonsensical ranting, I'd say we're done here.

 

[pitabread]

But know that death comes to all. And the odds are there is a judgment.

And it comes down to a veiled threat in the end. How sadly predictable.

I hope one day you'll discover a better approach for discussing things with others when it comes to beliefs. Throwing the Bible at people is not a good approach and why you haven't had any success in this thread.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Bear and lion...no. Zebra and eohippus...I doubt it. Horse and donkey? I see no reason they should be. Bears and donkeys and lions are mentioned in the bible, no indication exists that they were not kinds.

Oh my. You claim that there were a limited number of animals on the ark, and that the few onboard evolved into different species. And yet you can't seem to name one set of animals that might have been represented by one common ancestor on the ark. One of the most common illustrations is that a single hordonkey pair could have evolved into separate horse and donkey species. But you don't even accept that. So give me an example of an ancestor you think evolved into more than one species.

The eohippus, a multi-toed dog-sized browser is found in rocks about 55 million years ago, but then they disappear from the fossil record. Further up we find the larger Orohippus, with fossils from 52-45 million years ago, and then they disappear. Further up we find fossils of Mesohippus, 37 to 32 million years ago. And so on up through the rocks, the animals get more horse like and bigger as time goes on. Now how do you explain that?

I understand you will start by compressing every rock that dates from 65 million years ago to about 4000 years ago into a 500 year time span from 4500 to 4000 years ago. That is shear nonsense. For instance, there is about a mile deep of fossil bearing rocks in this geologic age range in North Dakota. How can rock be piling on that fast in that short of time? See The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota .

Compressing the fossil record does not solve the problem. How is it that the fossils form such a clear sequence? Are you going to claim there was an eohippus-fossilizing nature, followed by a Orohippus-fossilizing nature, followed by a whole sequence of different natures?

 

[doubtingmerle]

But know that death comes to all. And the odds are there is a judgment.

You taking lessons from the mafia? "Nice soul you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it."