Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[Ophiolite]

The definition of faith is 'great trust or confidence in something or someone' (FAITH | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary) and faith can be based on evidence or without evidence.

A definition of faith, not the definition of faith. Stop equivocating.

 

[Speedwell]

The definition of faith is 'complete trust or confidence in something' (FAITH | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary) and faith can be based on evidence or without evidence.

"Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not."

--Hebrews 11:1​

 

[Qwertyui0p]

It took a while to find this article. And you should know better. Without even seeing it you should have heard alarm bells ringing. I am betting that your creationist sources did not provide a link to the original article. That tells you that your sources probably lied through quote mining. You did not lie yourself, but you are a party to it since you passed it on.

https://www.nature.com/articles/352485a0.pdf

Though this was in Nature it is not a peer reviewed article. It is a book review of a creationist book that did not like the fact of evolution. The review points out the endless flaws in the book. The quote lifted from it is merely how the fact of evolution is extremely worrisome to some Christians that accept evolution. You appear to be trying to tell God how he had to get life to its current state. Does that not smack more than just a little of blasphemy on your part?

I am not telling God how hw had to get life to its current state, I am saying how he did. Genesis according to evolution - creation.com
In any case, the review didn't seem to provide an answer for the lack of transitional fossils, the origin of the genetic code and so forth.

 

[Kylie]

Okay.

Is that the extent of your reply? Do you have a reply to the claim Subduction Zone made in post 341? I shall repeat Subduction Zone's statement again for you:

"Actually [speciation is proof of evolution] since it is by definition "evolution"."​

Based on the definitions I provided, and which SZ has clarified he agrees with, do you still claim that speciation is evidence for creationism and not evolution as you claimed in post 335?

(BTW I disagree with the quote from Christopher Hitchens, which implies that faith necessarily doesn't have evidence. Faith is not necessarily unreasonable either. When you take a bus or plane you have faith that the driver/piolets won't crash, you can't prove they won't.)

True, but faith from past performance is a lot different in religious faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not telling God how hw had to get life to its current state, I am saying how he did. Genesis according to evolution - creation.com
In any case, the review didn't seem to provide an answer for the lack of transitional fossils, the origin of the genetic code and so forth.

Sorry, failed source. If you want to know how something happened one applies the scientific method. To work at creation.com one must swear not to use the scientific method.

There is a reason that I am always offering to go over the basics with the uneducated. Do to your lack of education you keep referring to lying sources. Which means that even though you may not be lying yourself you are still breaking the Ninth Commandment since you are bearing false witness against your neighbor.

And you should not use lying sources. There is no lack of transitional fossils. When Darwin formed his theory paleontology was in its infancy. Of course there were huge gaps. Guess what, most have been filled. That is what this thread is about, another gap that got filled. And you are moving the goal posts when you ask about the origin of the genetic code. That amounts to an admission that you are wrong. Abiogenesis is a separate but related topic. Evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis (though there is strong evidence for it and none for any other concepts). By shifting the topic to abiogenesis you admit that evolution is a fact.

 

[xianghua]

There are no self replicating watches. Your argument fails from the beginning.

but there are self replicating motors:

or gears:

 

[xianghua]

I only made two points in that post - which of them are you unsure about?

doesnt matter...its ok

 

[xianghua]

Yeah, they have identical meanings

not according to this article:

‘Snooze button’ on biological clocks improves cell adaptability

 

[Bungle_Bear]

but there are self replicating motors:

or gears:

No, there really aren't. It's been explained to you on numerous occasions how these are not "self replicating motors". At this stage you are knowingly telling lies. That's not a good debating tactic.

 

[pitabread]

but there are self replicating motors:

or gears:

Those are not the same as mechanical motors or gears. You're once again making an argument based on the fallacy of equivocation over the words "gears" and "motors", and false equivalence (since biological forms are not identical to mechanical forms).

If the only arguments you have are based on fallacies, you should try to find new arguments.

 

[Speedwell]

Those are not the same as mechanical motors or gears. You're once again making an argument based on the fallacy of equivocation over the words "gears" and "motors", and false equivalence (since biological forms are not identical to mechanical forms).

If the only arguments you have are based on fallacies, you should try to find new arguments.

I suppose that in order to understand Xianghua you have to understand that he is a devout Platonist. He believes in the real existence of abstract categories like "motorness" to which all self-powered spinning things belong, whether organic or manufactured; "gearness" to which all objects belong that transfer force by means of engaging serried projections, whether natural or man-made; perhaps even in the "penguiness" of robot penguins made of metal. For Xianghua, the notion of false equivalence is incomprehensble.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I suppose that in order to understand Xianghua you have to understand that he is a devout Platonist. He believes in the real existence of abstract categories like "motorness" to which all self-powered spinning things belong, whether organic or manufactured; "gearness" to which all objects belong that transfer force by means of engaging serried projections, whether natural or man-made; perhaps even in the "penguiness" of robot penguins made of metal. For Xianghua, the notion of false equivalence is incomprehensble.

But that doesn't mean that all things that share 'motorness' necessarily share other properties, like reproduction or evolution, or design.

 

[Speedwell]

But that doesn't mean that all things that share 'motorness' necessarily share other properties, like reproduction or evolution, or design.

It may, for IDists. I just came up with the notion and haven't thought it through, but it may be that Platonic Realism is fundamental to Intelligent Design. Certainly the radical Calvinists behind the Discovery Institute and ID follow the Presuppositionalist theology of people like Cornelius van Til which, as I understand it, is heavily dependent on Realism. Pehaps if membership in a platonic form can be achieved by design, then it can only be achieved by design and thus any object which exhibits "motorness" or "gearness' or "robot-penguiness" must be a designed object.

 

[Speedwell]

At any rate, so far it's the only reason I can think of that a sentient being would keep repeating the same failed analogies over and over as if they were cogent arguments.

 

[Hans Blaster]

but there are self replicating motors:

... But there aren't!

The flagellum didn't "self-replicate", the cell split in two and grew new flagella (and cell wall, etc.).

The insect example is even worse. No body part of an insect is self-replicated. It grows from the initial cell. This would be like saying your eye is self-replicated. It is not. It grew from cells in the "head" end of your embryo, ultimately from the single cell that came about from the joining of ovum and spermatozoa. Your eye didn't grow from your mother's eye or your father's eye but rather from that first cell using the genetic material from your parents to guide that development. The same is true of the insect parts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but there are self replicating motors:

or gears:

And their evolution is well understood. Thanks for admitting that your argument fails on more than one level.

 

[pitabread]

I suppose that in order to understand Xianghua you have to understand that he is a devout Platonist. He believes in the real existence of abstract categories like "motorness" to which all self-powered spinning things belong, whether organic or manufactured; "gearness" to which all objects belong that transfer force by means of engaging serried projections, whether natural or man-made; perhaps even in the "penguiness" of robot penguins made of metal. For Xianghua, the notion of false equivalence is incomprehensble.

I've had discussions with him in the past about the false equivalence fallacy. He seems to grasp it using other examples, but the blinders go on when it comes to his own arguments.

I'm wondering if it's a language issue. Since English isn't his first language, perhaps he's simply being overly literal with English words? Perhaps the concept of English words varying meaning in different contexts isn't something which is native to him?

I'd like to believe there is some other disconnect here other than just being too stubborn to give up on a terrible argument. (Although he does keep referring people to his self-replicating watch thread, so maybe he is just being stubborn.)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

At any rate, so far it's the only reason I can think of that a sentient being would keep repeating the same failed analogies over and over as if they were cogent arguments.

One obvious alternative is trolling.

 

[Kylie]

not according to this article:

‘Snooze button’ on biological clocks improves cell adaptability

Interesting. I did not know that.

However, this suggests that God used sub-standard codons when making life, if their performance can be improved by switching them out for a different version.

 

[pitabread]

One obvious alternative is trolling.

It would be some of the most dedicated trolling I've ever seen, if that were the case.