the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

ok, but why actually?

1. I believe in God as creator of the universe and author of our existence.
2. I accept the theory of evolution as a plausible, well-evidenced scientific theory which does not conflict with my belief in God.
3. I reject "biblical" creationism as ignorant nonsense.

 

[RealityCheck01]

so this is also a stepwise way from a car into a space shuttle: a car, a jet fighter, a space shuttle.

I know English is a second language for you but that is ignorant about the science that you have given.
A better analogy would be a catapult being used to power a roundabout. The linear mechanism of the catapult has been reused to give rotation.

 

[SkyWriting]

I agree that were we to find an organic, self-replicating watch it would be evidence for design. It just wouldn't be good evidence for design.

And it would be contradicted by the evidence from physiology, anatomy, genetics, palaeontology, biochemistry and the like. An organic, self-replicating watch would not just suddenly appear in the biosphere. It would have antecedents. These antecedents would reveal themselves through the aforementioned specialities. That view of the evidence would trump the speculative suggestion that it demonstrated design.

Now, if the watch were to appear without any evidence of the antecedents referenced above, then the design case would be strengthened. But that sudden, one might say miraculous, appearance has not occurred and is therefore irrelevant.

But how would that negate design in any way?

I've studied billions of planets in my day and not found anything that attempts to replicate itself.
I've sifted through billions of tons of materials and matter, and no simple elements even show
a hint of replicating. (Much of that virtually)
I've never found any matter attempting to replicate itself
or intentionally move itself, trying to control it's
surroundings, or self regulating in any way.

That would take engineering effort.

 

[Speedwell]

But how would that negate design in any way?

Design can't be negated. It's an unfalsifiable proposition. The presence of design may be inferred in various ways, but it can never be ruled out.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

ok, but why actually?

Theistic Evolution may be the way God created and developed life on Earth. I think this because God made the natural laws. In the absence of free will and Satan cursing things, which he can only do using free will and sin, God used matter and energy... like gloves or tools. God doesn't shock enter and walk on the clay and apply his hands to the ground and form complex life forms that resemble each other separately, nor is this more dignified than God developing us from single cells over billions or years. It is repeated in the womb. Including that a foetus of one type, resembles the others.

It starts with one cell and grows alike the others, and diverges into a particular type late in the gestation.

Water that was extracted from faeces and urine and corpses.. is an unpleasant idea. But all the water in the world has been through such processes anyway. In time it becomes clean again. So it is with animals and evolution.

We have more than 95% of our DNA in common with other primates.

The universe is full of order, patterns and beauty, not by chance alone. The chances are extraordinary. Scientists fairly expect no more than simple organisms on other worlds, not humanoids.

There is design in nature, but not human logical design, boxes, wrought iron, tools, wheels... it is God's type, and a planet and an organism are made in the same mind, two fingers on the same glove. Cotton and polyesters and dye.

Our logic started after the fall with clothing.

God can appear in nature and be vivid. And he clothes us.

God makes extraordinary things over such a long time and with such a dovetail fit and so many chances, that it seems to be just a chance product of the universe.

 

[pitabread]

so this is also a stepwise way from a car into a space shuttle: a car, a jet fighter, a space shuttle.

I have no idea what you are going on about. Are you still confused about living things versus non-living things?

Because I feel all of this would be much clearer if you'd at least operate on the same page as everyone else when it comes to the most basic understanding of biology.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I've studied billions of planets in my day and not found anything that attempts to replicate itself.

How old are you?

Lets say you worked 4,000 hours a year studying planets, about 80 hours a week. Let's say you study 1000 planets an hour, or one every 3.6 seconds. We are up to 4 million planets a year. If you studied over 2 billion planets, you must have done this for over 500 years. You must be tired of studying planets!

I've never found any matter attempting to replicate itself
or intentionally move itself, trying to control it's
surroundings, or self regulating in any way.

That would take engineering effort.

Ever see a dog? If not, you might want to take a little break from studying planets.

 

[xianghua]

Theistic Evolution may be the way God created and developed life on Earth. I think this because God made the natural laws. In the absence of free will and Satan cursing things, which he can only do using free will and sin, God used matter and energy... like gloves or tools. God doesn't shock enter and walk on the clay and apply his hands to the ground and form complex life forms that resemble each other separately, nor is this more dignified than God developing us from single cells over billions or years. It is repeated in the womb. Including that a foetus of one type, resembles the others.

It starts with one cell and grows alike the others, and diverges into a particular type late in the gestation.

Water that was extracted from faeces and urine and corpses.. is an unpleasant idea. But all the water in the world has been through such processes anyway. In time it becomes clean again. So it is with animals and evolution.

We have more than 95% of our DNA in common with other primates.

The universe is full of order, patterns and beauty, not by chance alone. The chances are extraordinary. Scientists fairly expect no more than simple organisms on other worlds, not humanoids.

There is design in nature, but not human logical design, boxes, wrought iron, tools, wheels... it is God's type, and a planet and an organism are made in the same mind, two fingers on the same glove. Cotton and polyesters and dye.

Our logic started after the fall with clothing.

God can appear in nature and be vivid. And he clothes us.

God makes extraordinary things over such a long time and with such a dovetail fit and so many chances, that it seems to be just a chance product of the universe.

so what is your evidence for evolution? the similarity between species?

 

[xianghua]

I have no idea what you are going on about. Are you still confused about living things versus non-living things?

Because I feel all of this would be much clearer if you'd at least operate on the same page as everyone else when it comes to the most basic understanding of biology.

i talking about stepwise way from a car into a space shuttle. you said that the flagellum can evolve from simpler other systems. so i gave you this example to show it cant.

 

[pitabread]

i talking about stepwise way from a car into a space shuttle. you said that the flagellum can evolve from simpler other systems. so i gave you this example to show it cant.

I think you should take a basic Biology 101 course and learn the difference between living and non-living things. You still appear confused about that.

Cars and space shuttles are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so what is your evidence for evolution?

Sigh.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Non sequitur]

This thread shows a lot of effort in trying to shove a square peg in a round hole.

 

[SkyWriting]

How old are you?

Lets say you worked 4,000 hours a year studying planets, about 80 hours a week. Let's say you study 1000 planets an hour, or one every 3.6 seconds. We are up to 4 million planets a year. If you studied over 2 billion planets, you must have done this for over 500 years. You must be tired of studying planets!



Ever see a dog? If not, you might want to take a little break from studying planets.

Other than life on earth, no "matter" or chemicals have properties
conducive to life. Chemicals or minerals have no interest in self replicating
or any of that difficult stuff. They just site there and degrade just as they desire to.

 

[RealityCheck01]

so what is your evidence for evolution? the similarity between species?

You should learn and remember the massive amount of evidence for evolution, including as already seen in this thread:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[RealityCheck01]

i talking about stepwise way from a car into a space shuttle. you said that the flagellum can evolve from simpler other systems. so i gave you this example to show it cant.

That is a very wrong example because a car is not an animal . Cars do not evolve. Cars are designed by engineers.

It is an even worse example because a flagellum is a part of a bacteria and a car is not a part of anything. You are talking about a bacteria evolving into an elephant which is obviously true because an ancestor of elephants was bacteria.

The evidence is that the flagellum did evolve from simpler other systems.

 

[DennisTate]

i talking about stepwise way from a car into a space shuttle. you said that the flagellum can evolve from simpler other systems. so i gave you this example to show it cant.

I want to see all of this later..... but for now this is a good place to save this.....

 

[RealityCheck01]

I want to see all of this later..... but for now this is a good place to save this.....

You need to read the thread, DennisTate .
The example is blatantly wrong. Cars are not animals. Cars do not evolve.

This thread is not about the existence of God. A long video possibly lying about scientific evidence for God is not relevant.
The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross

This paper will examine some of the scientific claims of Hugh Ross, particularly in his discipline of astronomy. While science is the primary emphasis here, it is important to mention a few theological issues as well. It will be shown that in both science and theology, Ross often grossly overstates his case and handles information incorrectly.

The author does not mention a close to a lie from the astronomer Hugh Ross - the Big Bang is not the creation of the universe. The Big Bang is as far back as we can extrapolate known physics and starts at a time > 0. The status of the universe before then is unknown. Postulating a cause for an unknown event is useless.

A mistake by the author: Mach's principle is not a basic assumption of GR (it was a guide in the formulation of GR). GR has no absolute frames of reference. Astronomers use a preferred frame of reference which is different.
Ross was right in 1999 that the Moon (radiometric dating of lunar rocks) was measured to be younger than the Earth (radiometric dating of meteorites). He was wrong that the impact hypostheis for the origin of the Moon has Theia colliding head on.

 

[pitabread]

Cars do not evolve. Cars are designed by engineers.

But of course xianghua's predictable response will be, "well, let's pretend that we have a car that is made of organic components and can reproduce..."

And round and round this thread goes in an endless circle of ridiculous logic, monstrous reproducing fantasy cars, and utter insanity.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

so what is your evidence for evolution? the similarity between species?

Evolution seems factual because of the most ancient forms of life in the rocks, being the simplest first and then growing more complex over time. And despite missing links there are changes over time, single celled animals, fish, frogs, reptiles, mammals. There is iron ore that oxidised billions of years ago. So it started with an atmosphere of CO2 then algae turned it into more algae and Oxygen. The pure iron rusted.

And yes, the similarities in our DNA points to common ancestry, similar DNA similar shape, genotype, phenotype. Lungs, two eyes, symmetry, head on the front of the body...

In Genesis too there is the description of simple life made first, then the complex.

 

[DogmaHunter]

-_- why would there be a calculation in regards to specific traits?

Because of the strawman of hindsight teleological fallacy, off course.

But regardless as to how many different card decks you shove together that consist of no repeating cards, if you deal out 5 cards, some combination of 5 cards will be dealt. Doesn't matter how many more you add to make a given combination less likely, some combination is going to be dealt.

Human narcism has a very big problem with that.
How could we NOT be the point of the universe? Aren't we special....