Could cars reproduce?

[DogmaHunter]

and mutations + netural selection doesnt utrn a monkey into human either.

True.

Both monkeys and humans rather evolved from a common ancestor, not from eachother.

 

[Kenny'sID]

"A tested and well evidenced explanation for a natural phenomenon or group of phenomena."

But not actual proof...oh, but that's right, the definition of proof has been changed too...nifty.

Extremely logical, actually.
First, evolution doesn't really "start". Evolution, rather, "happens".

Again, yours is unsupported, and saying evolution had no start is hilarious. Care to back that one up, and I mean with something other than Poof Theory?

It's not like something special needs to happen before evolution sets in.

Of course it does. Are you even thinking before you speak...my sides are splitting from laughter. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Attributing things to undetectable, unsupportable entities, is never the simplest explanation.

With comments like the prior I quoted, it's no wonder you actually think your side is supported. I mean seriously, when you depend on ludicrous ideas like nothing special has to happen in order for evolution to get started, or evolution doesn't have a start, it goes to show you can create a scenario where Bozo created the universe with that kind of imagination.

It never ceases to amaze me that we spend most of our time here trying to set creationists right about what the theory of evolution actually says, rather than defending it against substantive arguments.

What does amaze me, is that I keep doing it.

You two do realize there is a very simple solution to that? And I doubt that solution would be a problem for those here who prefer to believe the bible's simple report of creation, over the worlds point of view...it's what some of us do here...believe the bible as it's written. Your arguing non biblical world views on a Christian site, and you are amazed at the outcome? Amazing..

 

[Speedwell]

But not actual proof...oh, but that's right, the definition of proof has been changed too...nifty.

No, it hasn't been changed, not for centuries. You're just one more creationist confused about specialized usage of a term.

Again, yours is unsupported, and saying evolution had no start is hilarious. Care to back that one up, and I mean with something other than Poof Theory?

What's wrong with that? Your explanation is 100% "poof theory."

With comments like the prior I quoted, it's no wonder you actually think your side is supported. I mean seriously, when you depend on ludicrous ideas like nothing special has to happen in order for evolution to get started, or evolution doesn't have a start, it goes to show you can create a scenario where Bozo created the universe with that kind of imagination.

Scientists don't know how life started, but they will wait until the evidence is in before creating scenarios.

You two do realize there is a very simple solution to that? And I doubt that solution would be a problem for those here who prefer to believe the bible's simple report of creation, over the worlds point of view...it's what some of us do here...believe the bible as it's written. Your arguing non biblical world views on a Christian site, and you are amazed at the outcome? Amazing..

You're here too, and one would have thought you would bring more knowledge about the "world view" you were arguing against.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it hasn't. You're just one more creationist confused about specialized usage of a term.

Oh, is that what they're calling it now? Like my swearing the moon is made of Green Cheese is not a lie, it's specialized usage of term?

What's wrong with that? Your explanation is 100% "poof theory."

My explanation is as my Bible tells me, God always was. But no matter, that's no excuse for you. I'll take that as a, you have no answer, only excuses.

Scientists don't know how life started, but they will wait until the evidence is in before creating scenarios.

It used to be a Poof Theory, as in your:

"A tested and well evidenced explanation for a natural phenomenon or group of phenomena."

So the natural Phenomenon here was "nothing" or a group of nothing that supported the Big bang theory, something so embarrassing, and open to well deserved ridicule, science moved to "We don't know". Good move.

You're here too, and one would have thought you would bring more knowledge about the "world view" you were arguing against.

I suppose if "one" were one who studies the world view, yes they might think that, I do not, it's not important to me like it is for some. The more I pick up in passing, the less I care to even learn. It would be like studying up on Flat Earth...ridiculous, useless knowledge. Easy to pick up enough to realize that.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh, is that what they're calling it now? Like my swearing the moon is made of Green Cheese is not a lie, it's specialized usage of term?

Now, like since the time of Euclid. Hardly a recent invention. Don't you remember proving theorems in your geometry class? Not the same thing at all as accumulating evidence to confirm a scientific theory.

My explanation is as my Bible tells me, God always was.

Sure, but what has that to do with whether God "poofed" living creatures into existence all at once, or formed them over time using natural laws of His own creation?

It used to be a Poof Theory, as in your:

"A tested and well evidenced explanation for a natural phenomenon or group of phenomena."

So the natural Phenomenon here was "nothing" or a group of nothing that supported the Big bang theory, something so embarrassing, and open to well deserved ridicule, science moved to "We don't know". Good move.

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Does it have anything to do with biology?

I suppose if "one" were one who studies the world view, yes they might think that, I do not, it's not important to me like it is for some. The more I pick up in passing, the less I care to even learn. It would be like studying up on Flat Earth...ridiculous, useless knowledge. Easy to pick up enough to realize that.

I feel the same way about your interpretation of scripture, but at least I am willing to spend some time studying it.

 

[pitabread]

Except that you ARE WRONG BECAUSE CARS AREN'T BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS SO THEY CAN'T REPRODUCE SO THEY CAN'T EVOLVE! HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?!

Either the language barrier is more substantial that we've been led to believe or we're dealing with someone with a legitimate learning disability. I'm not saying that to make fun, either. Given how many times the same basic concepts have been explained to @xianghua by pretty much everyone on the forum, I can't see a reason why none of this appears to have sunk in.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Now, like since the time of Euclid. Hardly a recent invention. Don't you remember proving theorems in your geometry class? Not the same thing at all as accumulating evidence to confirm a scientific theory.

What does that have to do with the special usage term again?

Sure, but what has that to do with whether God "poofed" living creatures into existence all at once, or formed them over time using natural laws of His own creation?

The bible says he spoke it into being. Do you believe that, or that it poofed for no reason? And while I'm at it, do you believe evolution had a beginning?

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Does it have anything to do with biology?

The point was very clear, but I think I'd try to avoid it too if I we're you.

I feel the same.way about your interpretation of scripture, but at least I am willing to spend some time studying it

Would you please tell me how you interpret the following and why you interpret it as you do?:

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

[Speedwell]

What does that have to do with the special usage term again?

"Proof" is for axiomatic formal systems like geometry, not the inductive logic of science.

The bible says he spoke it into being. Do you believe that, or that it poofed for no reason?

Do you really think a theist would believe it poofed for no reason, or are you just being snarky?

And while I'm at it, do you believe evolution had a beginning?

Of course. It began with the first self-replicating life form.

Would you please tell me how you interpret the following and why you interpret it as you do?:

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

That God created humans in his image. No method is specified; the exact meaning of "in His image" to be determined from other texts.

 

[gaara4158]

Is this question any different from “could pigs fly?” It seems to be pointless speculation as to the limits of biological evolution/automotive engineering inspired by xianghua’s inane self-replicating watch argument. I don’t see any reason why engineers couldn’t eventually design a car so sophisticated it was able to reproduce. I also don’t see any reason why environmental pressures couldn’t eventually cause modern pigs to develop the ability to fly. None of this means anything.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Is this question any different from “could pigs fly?” It seems to be pointless speculation as to the limits of biological evolution/automotive engineering inspired by xianghua’s inane self-replicating watch argument. I don’t see any reason why engineers couldn’t eventually design a car so sophisticated it was able to reproduce. I also don’t see any reason why environmental pressures couldn’t eventually cause modern pigs to develop the ability to fly. None of this means anything.

Reproduce how? By carrying robots and machine tools in the trunk that are able to mine materials, utilize some source of energy, make computer chips, machine engine blocks, and do both intricate and heavy assembly work? Or by carrying around an army of nanomachines that are able to rebuild copies of themselves and also do all the construction and maintenance of new cars? Or by having babies that grow up to be adult cars?

 

[gaara4158]

Reproduce how? By carrying robots and machine tools in the trunk that are able to mine materials, utilize some source of energy, make computer chips, machine engine blocks, and do both intricate and heavy assembly work? Or by carrying around an army of nanomachines that are able to rebuild copies of themselves and also do all the construction and maintenance of new cars? Or by having babies that grow up to be adult cars?

What does it matter? Are you trying to design one yourself?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What does it matter? Are you trying to design one yourself?

Some things are worth taking about, even if they don't directly affect me. Will we some day establish a colony on another planet? Will cold fusion ever power our networks? Could cars reproduce?

If this topic does not interest you, feel free to start your own thread.

 

[Larniavc]

the same with this car. it will change over time and will be different from the starting car.

Cars don’t give birth.

This thread is idiocy.

 

[gaara4158]

Some things are worth taking about, even if they don't directly affect me. Will we some day establish a colony on another planet? Will cold fusion ever power our networks? Could cars reproduce?

If this topic does not interest you, feel free to start your own thread.

If you’re not going to tie it into the creation vs evolution discussion I don’t see how it belongs here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But not actual proof...oh, but that's right, the definition of proof has been changed too...nifty.

The scientific meaning of those words haven't changed. At best, you learned here that the meaning of words can vary according to context.

Kind of strange that you didn't know that already, but there you go.
You're welcome.

Again, yours is unsupported

It is "unsupported" to say that life exists?
Seriously?

, and saying evolution had no start is hilarious.

It has no "start" in the sense that it is rather a consequence of the condition of living.
Evolution, is what inevitably happens when you have systems that reproduce with variation, pass traits on to off spring and compete over limited resources.

It has no "start" in the sense that is not so that first life exists and that then, for evolution to "start", something additional has to happen...

It's not like some computer batch program that only "starts" when you click to "go" button.
That's what I mean by that.

"Evolve", is what life does - purely as a result of how life works.
Not because something special happened that kickstarted it.

Look at it from the other side... If it is a process that has to "start", then logic dictates it could also "stop".
But you can't "stop" evolution. For evolution to "stop", life has to go extinct. And did evolution really "stop" at that point? No.... life stopped. Died, actually.

So, in summary..... You can't look at evolution as a process that is independend of the phenomena of "life". It's not like you have life on the one hand and evolution on the other and they exist seperatly. And maybe evolution will kick in and maby it won't. It just doesn't work like that.

That's just not the case.
So indeed, evolution just "happens" when life exists. To evolve, is what life does, as a direct result of how life works.

Care to back that one up, and I mean with something other than Poof Theory?

Just did. You are welcome.

btw: "poof theory", is what YOU are claiming

Of course it does

Nope. Life just needs to exist.
And life exists btw, in case you haven't noticed.

Are you even thinking before you speak...my sides are splitting from laughter

It doesn't seem to be my who isn't thinkin....

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe, just maybe, if you would actually bother to learn what evolution theory is really all about, instead of this strawman version you seem to have in your head, you would understand the sense behind it.

With comments like the prior I quoted, it's no wonder you actually think your side is supported.

You are free to point out which supposedly unsupported premise I hold to.

I mean seriously, when you depend on ludicrous ideas like nothing special has to happen in order for evolution to get started, or evolution doesn't have a start, it goes to show you can create a scenario where Bozo created the universe with that kind of imagination.

It seems you are projecting.

The only condition for evolution to "happen", is that there needs to be systems (living things) that reproduce with variation (check), pass traits on to off spring (check) and which compete for limited resources (check).

Such systems factually exist. We call it "life".
There's nothing imaginary here.

You two do realize there is a very simple solution to that? And I doubt that solution would be a problem for those here who prefer to believe the bible's simple report of creation, over the worlds point of view...it's what some of us do here...believe the bible as it's written.

Ow, I definatly agree that simply believing some story that's been spoonfeeded to you in unquestionable ways, is a lot easier then doing to actual hard work of learning about how reality really works.

Absolutely. Just like simply saying "god did it" is a lot easier then trying to wrap your head around quantum mechanics.

Your arguing non biblical world views on a Christian site, and you are amazed at the outcome?

Actually, most christians have no issue at all with evolution theory.
Within the christian world, you fundamentalist creationists are actually in the minority.

I don't think that that majority of christians would agree that they hold a "non biblical view".

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is "unsupported" to say that life exists?
Seriously?

Where did I say "It is "unsupported" to say that life exists"?, where did I even indicate such a thing? Nowhere, you are making things up. So you see, not much sense in even reading your posts when they reach the deceptive level like that, I mean what other of your defenses here are just made up? Why try to debate someone who has shown they will not tell the truth, and their defenses may be made up?

But that's ok, you can choose to show your desperation and try to make the opposing side look foolish any time you wish as far as I'm concerned, the action always speaks for itself. No real defense.

 

[Kenny'sID]

"Proof" is for axiomatic formal systems like geometry, not the inductive logic of science.

Nope, as I've shown before science does "prove" in the sense you should be able to prove evolution, in spite of the efforts to say it does not.

To say it is not possible to prove evolution, and then turn around and create the false reasoning that science proves nothing, when in fact it proves all the time, that's one of it's major uses, is ridiculous. To put that deceitful, at best, explanation, on the table for lack of proof, so one can hide behind something that isn't even close to a fact, tells a huge story...you got no proof whatsoever.

Another example, with experimentation science can create, and prove, a vaccine works. I feel silly even having to explain that, because that's what science does...it proves.

Is that geometry? Want more examples that aren't math/geometry?

More waste of time with untruthful defenses.

If one can't prove something, attack the term itself, and prove proof cannot be expected because prove can no longer prove, hence it cannot be proven.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Care to back that one up, and I mean with something other than Poof Theory?

Care to provide an alternate to The Theory of Evolution besides proof theory?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Care to provide an alternate to The Theory of Evolution besides proof theory?

Is that to say you cannot back it up?

 

[bhsmte]

Is that to say you cannot back it up?

No, I don't think that is what he means. I understand, you need to think that though.