the self replicating watch argument

[bhsmte]

First prove your side, seems childish that some, not all scientists forced this strawman theories on us. Your on the definst friend not me.

LOL,

The evidence to support the theory of evolution, have been discussed and presented on this site countless times. It is the cornerstone of biology and accepted by Phd level biologists, the world over and also happens to be a critical piece, in modern medicine.

So, tell us why you are correct and all these scientists and the theory, is all wrong.

 

[ScumYetServant]

LOL,

The evidence to support the theory of evolution, have been discussed and presented on this site countless times. It is the cornerstone of biology and accepted by Phd level biologists, the world over and also happens to be a critical piece, in modern medicine.

So, tell us why you are correct and all these scientists and the theory, is all wrong.

 

[ScumYetServant]

Yes pices in all their theories are wrong, they all use elements thought the entire galaxy. With out that material stuff you have no science at all. But there would still be God. Prove to me otherwise. Can you handle that challenge?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes pices in all their theories are wrong, they all use elements thought the entire galaxy. With out that material stuff you have no science at all. But there would still be God. Prove to me otherwise. Can you handle that challenge?

Can't be done. The existence of God is what as known in science as an unfalsifiable proposition. That means it can't be disproven by science. Nothing that science has discovered or potentially could discover in future can disprove the existence of God.

 

[doubtingmerle]

and basically the information we learn in our schools today much of it is false and forced on students though the curriculum. That does make a lie true. It makes it a forced lie, that's like rape if u ask me forcing something false on young minds.A theory is not proven and can very well be false.

That has got nothing to do with my question. I (as a former creationist) have made an exhaustive study of evolution and find it to be true. Knowing what I know, is it a sin for me to state that I find that evolution is true?

 

[ScumYetServant]

That has got nothing to do with my question. I (as a former creationist) have made an exhaustive study of evolution and find it to be true. Knowing what I know, is it a sin for me to state that I find that evolution is true?

Wow that's sad, exchanging truth for a lie. Just because some parts in science are true dosen't make every theory true with in it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes pices in all their theories are wrong, they all use elements thought the entire galaxy. With out that material stuff you have no science at all. But there would still be God. Prove to me otherwise. Can you handle that challenge?

Rofl, you handled the switch from evolution to the cause of the universe as fast as I ever seen it done. Can we get back on topic, evolution?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Wow that's sad, exchanging truth for a lie. Just because some parts in science are true dosen't make every theory true with in it.

No, I exchanged an ancient fable for the truth.

 

[doubtingmerle]

First prove your side, seems childish that some, not all scientists, forced these strawman theories on us. Your on the definse friend, not me.

Nobody forced evolution on me. I have an insatiable desire to learn and when I saw I was mistaken, I switched sides.

That is the best thing to do when we find we are mistaken, yes?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes pices in all their theories are wrong, they all use elements thought the entire galaxy. With out that material stuff you have no science at all. But there would still be God. Prove to me otherwise. Can you handle that challenge?

Whether a God exists, has zero to do with the abundance of evidence, for the theory of evolution.

 

[doubtingmerle]

fine. here is a case with about 33 characteristics which contradict the current phylogeny:

Gene Study Shows Turtles Are Next Of Kin To Crocodiles And Alligators

Turtles turned out to be not where they were supposed to be on the family tree whenever their genes were included in a research study," says Hedges"

and if conclude that 14 characteristics is enough to conclude that there is no statistical significance, then its also true for those creatures.

This has all been explained to you before.

Again, the reptile line divided into crocodiles, turtles and dinos/birds a long time ago. From a distance it looks almost like a three way split, but we know that one branch had to be first. Some evidence indicates turtles split first, some indicates crocodiles, and some indicates dinos. Regardless, all three branches went their separate ways, and the two splits were relatively close.

Nothing to see here, folks.

 

[dad]

Awww, I thought you were going to use the "time was different then" magic card...

That is up my sleeve to use when needed. Don't want to engage in overkill..

 

[doubtingmerle]

Dad, I asked you:

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?​

At the time these creatures lived and died, and became fossilized, man also was alive. Lions, wolves and etc also.

The creatures you cite simply were able to leave remains while man and most other creatures were not in that nature. Magnetic reversals, drift, radioactive decay..etc. Your time estimates have ALL been based on this nature.

This does not even attempt to answer my question. Care to back up and address the question? Why do we find these horse fossils sorted so each fossilized at a particular time?

 

[doubtingmerle]

That is up my sleeve to use when needed. Don't want to engage in overkill..

You insert "Then a miracle happened" when needed?

Real scientists don't get a mulligan.

 

[dad]

Ok, fair enough, that is your example of a single ancestor that could have been taken on the ark and diversified from there. So from that you get eight living species as diverse as giant pandas, polar bears, sloth bears, and black bears, as well as many extinct species. But if you allow all that evolution, why not include the extinct Hemicyonidae, sometimes known as a dog bear? Is he included? And what about the red panda? If you include the giant panda, why not the red panda? And if you include the red panda, why not include seals, which are as close to bears as red pandas are?

Not sure why you feel a compunction to engage in wild guesswork? Who says all these things had to come from a bear? How do we know there were not 2 kinds of bears?

The boundary is not clear. Other creationists will disagree with your dividing point.

How can they if we don't know?

This is exactly what common descent predicts, a large sprawling tree, with no clear distinction of kinds. It is the opposite of what creationism predicts.

Creationism predicts it was created. Since evolution was part of creation, it also predicts no clear boundaries.

 

[dad]

Dad, I asked you:

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?​

The former nature allowed some things to leave remains. This was at the same time as the nature did not allow other things to leave remains. All the same former nature.​

Why do we find these horse fossils sorted so each fossilized at a particular time?

Because they did fossilize in particular times.

 

[dad]

You insert "Then a miracle happened" when needed?

Real scientists don't get a mulligan.

No. He was talking about the nature in the past, and how I point out science does not know what it was. I can use that ace up the sleeve as needed in any origin related debate.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Not sure why you feel a compunction to engage in wild guesswork? Who says all these things had to come from a bear? How do we know there were not 2 kinds of bears?

because you were answering my question asking you for a group of modern species that descended from one common ancestor on the ark. Is "bears" an answer or isn't it?

If the members on the ark were distinctly different kinds, one would think you would be able to identify one particular ancestral kind. It appears you can't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No. He was talking about the nature in the past, and how I point out science does not know what it was. I can use that ace up the sleeve as needed in any origin related debate.

Scientists play the hand they were dealt.

They are not allowed to carry aces up their sleeve to convert their losing hand into a winner.


And yet they still win.

 

[mark kennedy]

That has got nothing to do with my question. I (as a former creationist) have made an exhaustive study of evolution and find it to be true. Knowing what I know, is it a sin for me to state that I find that evolution is true?

There is such a thing as an exhaustive study of evolution? Get thee to the Broad Institute because you can tell them why their research is no longer required. By the way, I'm a Creationist and never questioned that evolution is a natural phenomenon. Just that the cause and effect it details is an explanation for the origin of life. There is a difference between the phenomenon of evolution and the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.