A Pondering of the Peculiar (4)

[Atheos canadensis]

If you want, I will point to a time on your video, and show you how what you assumed is not correct. It may take quite a few posts to do... But? I am willing.

Heh, oh dear. I haven't watched the video and I don't know what you're going to say, but I'm pretty sure I know how your conversation will go...

Genez: X does not match the observable evidence

Dad: X does match the observable evidence, it just doesn't look that way because of the Former state

Genez: You have no evidence that there was a former state

Dad: You have no evidence that there wasn't and your belief that physics have always been the same is a fantasy! Victory!


Let's see how closely my prediction matches your conversation.

 

[GenemZ]

Now I'm confused. Do you accept evolution or not? You said "I accept the fact that evolution takes place", now you call it science fiction. Which is it?

Micro evolution... not macro. Macro is an invention used to explain away past creations. This creation did not descend from the dinosaur. Nor, was the dinosaur ever a part of this creation. Nor, were the mammals of the ice age ever a part of the Jurassic period. There were a series of prehistoric creations that God set up as progressing graduating class levels in the school God had set up for the previous ones who had dominion over the earth. Before God created man in his image to have dominion over the earth, previous agents had been angels.

Take it, or leave it. The Bible spoke of previous creations. No one long ago knew with certainty as to why. Then, one day scientific atheism supplied us with the reason why. The Bible always stated what man later discovered to be true. And, you claim it was only written by men.

 

[GenemZ]

Heh, oh dear. I haven't watched the video and I don't know what you're going to say, but I'm pretty sure I know how your conversation will go...

Genez: X does not match the observable evidence

Dad: X does match the observable evidence, it just doesn't look that way because of the Former state

Genez: You have no evidence that there was a former state

Dad: You have no evidence that there wasn't and your belief that physics have always been the same is a fantasy! Victory!


Let's see how closely my prediction matches your conversation.

And, you did not watch the video. And, you accuse me of not studying evolution. Good start.

 

[dad]

If you want, I will point to a time on your video, and show you how what you assumed is not correct. It may take quite a few posts to do... But? I am willing.

Off topic. You had a chance to make your one post include some specif, it may have been worthy of a sound thrashing and exposure in some other thread. You blew it. You had empty vague false accusations. End of story.

 

[GenemZ]

Off topic. You had a chance to make your one post include some specif, it may have been worthy of a sound thrashing and exposure in some other thread. You blew it. You had empty vague false accusations. End of story.

So be it. Science is not all wrong. Science confirms the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So be it. Science is not all wrong. Science confirms the Bible.

Hardly. Science says that man evolved. Science says that there was no global flood. Science says that 70,000 years ago our numbers were reduced to about 10,000, a very close call. The number were not that small before and have not been that small since.

What does the Bible say?

 

[dad]

So be it. Science is not all wrong. Science confirms the Bible.

Science does not cover Eden or creation or the future. So it is.

 

[USincognito]

That is my point. What is more impossible to appear out from raw materials with nothing directing its construction? Something dead like a car is impossible.

Since cars were never alive, they can't be dead. This is even more of an illogical claim than that cars are viable analogues to living beings.

Or, do you need to study about the complexity of single cell organisms? You should study them. You'll be surprised to find out what complex machines they are! More so than any automobile!

I'm the one that understood that speciation doesn't occur in a single individual who has to wait around for another single individual of the opposite sext to evolve. Trust me genez, I'm about as familiar with this subject as a layman can be.

And regardless of how complex individual cells or unicellular organisms or multicellular organisms are relative to a car, that in no way effects that fact that cars are not viable analogues to living beings.

 

[USincognito]

And yet a car is made from the same parts found in a human being.

So isn't a car and a newspaper. So what?

 

[USincognito]

Who created your designer?

Apologetics was closed a number of years ago. And such a question is off topic for Creationism and Evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Evolution does not construct anything. It only works on information already there. Unless evolution has suddenly become some sort of intelligent force.

Please show us the study demonstrating "information already there".

While you're at it, please give us a quantifiable metric by which we can measure genetic "information" and determine if there has been a "gain" or "loss".

 

[USincognito]

Problem is... Your theory begins with a LIVING car!

Actually, it begins with a living cell. Probably one not even as complex as a bacteria or archaea. Living cells and beings comprised of many living cells are not cars, nor are they analogous to cars.

You just don't get it?

Actually...

 

[dad]

Please show us the study demonstrating "information already there".

While you're at it, please give us a quantifiable metric by which we can measure genetic "information" and determine if there has been a "gain" or "loss".

And you can show us how current genetics always existed?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

YES!

Problem is... Your theory begins with a LIVING car! You just don't get it?

No, I don't get it - can you explain to me why, specifically, the theory is in trouble if it begins with a living car? What actually is the objection? Is it thermodynamic? Statistical? Theological?

Remember, just being a machine isn't enough to prove something cannot have arisen naturally.

 

[AV1611VET]

So isn't a car and a newspaper. So what?

We call that "ontological reduction."

It makes it look like B came from A, when in fact, A and B were made separately with the same parts rearranged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science does not cover Eden or creation or the future. So it is.

Sure it does.

We will be glad to help you with your misconceptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you can show us how current genetics always existed?

Why? We don't believe that so why should we?

Perhaps if you understood what you were arguing against you might have a chance. Of course you know what they creationists call Christians that understand evolution, don't you? They call them "evolutionists".

 

[Subduction Zone]

We call that "ontological reduction."

It makes it look like B came from A, when in fact, A and B were made separately with the same parts rearranged.

And that is a bankrupt idea that was dropped generations ago. So in other words you are saying that you have nothing.

Thanks AV, it is always so nice that you admit that you too have nothing.

Once you learn how to speak "AVese" it is amazing how honest he is. "... can take a hike" is simply his way of admitting that he has no logical or even illogical reply to a claim and that he knows he is wrong. In other cases he refers to old dropped concepts of philosophy that have no part in the discussion at hand. It seems that he is a secret "evolutionist" too.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that is a bankrupt idea that was dropped generations ago.

Meaning you Googled it and came up with nothing?

QV please -- here's your "bankrupt idea that was dropped generations ago":

Reductionism is a philosophical position which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanation, theories, and meanings.

SOURCE

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meaning you Googled it and came up with nothing?

QV please -- here's your "bankrupt idea that was dropped generations ago":


SOURCE

Wrong, I checked it out and even found your source. The fact that even you seem to think your idea is false is shown by your avoidance of the definition of your term in that articel:

"
Ontological reductionism is the belief that reality is composed of a minimum number of kinds of entities or substances. This claim is usually metaphysical, and is most commonly a form of monism, in effect claiming that all objects, properties and events are reducible to a single substance. "