the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

Ask them how they know that the evolution started anywhere but from the created kinds, and we descend into a faith based frenzy of fearful fables and fantasies.

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey! Easy on the F-words, buddy,

I wouldn't want to descend into a fearful frenzy of fables, but how far can I go in believing in common descent without your condemnation?

You have said that many of the created kinds diverged into multiple species. When I asked for an example, you said bears. But where does the common descent of bears stop? If I believe polar bears and brown bears evolved from a common ancestor, have I reached a frenzy of fables? Suppose I add in the black bear? The sloth bear? The giant panda? The red panda? The walrus? The dog? The cat? The hippo? The crocodile? The pine tree? How far back can one go and still be fine, in your view? Where is the dividing point where one has gone so far that they have descended into a frenzy of fearful faith and fables?

The same type of evidence that says polar bears are related to brown bears can be used to show polar bears are distant relative of dogs.

See charts at Bear - Wikipedia .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey! Easy on the F-words, buddy,

I wouldn't want to descend into a fearful frenzy of fables, but how far can I go in believing in common descent without your condemnation?

You have said that many of the created kinds diverged into multiple species. When I asked for an example, you said bears. But where does the common descent of bears stop? If I believe polar bears and brown bears evolved from a common ancestor, have I reached a frenzy of fables? Suppose I add in the black bear? The sloth bear? The giant panda? The red panda? The walrus? The dog? The cat? The hippo? The crocodile? The pine tree? How far back can one go and still be fine, in your view? Where is the dividing point where one has gone so far that they have descended into a frenzy of fearful faith and fables?

The same type of evidence that says polar bears are related to brown bears can be used to show polar bears are distant relative of dogs.

See charts at Bear - Wikipedia .

But notice all the mythical missing common ancestors never found that are needed to make that connection. That's were we descend into a frenzy of fearful faith and fables When you have to add non-existent common ancestors to fill the gaps just to make that connection????

 

[xianghua]

The car tree is full of inconsistencies throughout.

no its not since most parts fit well with the car phylogeny.

 

[xianghua]

You made the claim, you support your claim.



"it looks like...to me" is not an argument.

so if its look like a watch its not evidence for design?

 

[dad]

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey! Easy on the F-words, buddy,

I wouldn't want to descend into a fearful frenzy of fables, but how far can I go in believing in common descent without your condemnation?

Long as you want to believe...do so.

You have said that many of the created kinds diverged into multiple species. When I asked for an example, you said bears. But where does the common descent of bears stop? If I believe polar bears and brown bears evolved from a common ancestor, have I reached a frenzy of fables?

Yes. Unless you know what came from what, why make it all up? Who are we kidding?

Suppose I add in the black bear? The sloth bear? The giant panda? The red panda? The walrus? The dog? The cat? The hippo? The crocodile? The pine tree? How far back can one go and still be fine, in your view? Where is the dividing point where one has gone so far that they have descended into a frenzy of fearful faith and fables?

You don't know how many bear kinds there were. I could allow a whole lot of evolving, probably even freaking out the folks who are all hung up on the macro thing. However, since science doesn't know, and I don't much care...why would I bother with your elaborate pin the evo tail on the evo donkey guessing games???

The same type of evidence that says polar bears are related to brown bears can be used to show polar bears are distant relative of dogs.

Which is NO evidence. You slap together some fossils that represent maybe 5% OF LIFE ON EARTH AT THE TIME EACH LIVED, AND TRY TO CONNECT these to form the model of what life existed and came from what. Or you look at present nature DNA, and try to reconstruct ancient life...etc etc. That is not evidence, that is abuse of intellect. That is religion. What that is not. is any sort of real science or knowledge.

 

[Mr Darcy]

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.

I've seen this argument. It is just one of many arguments that make a solid case for design. DNA is another example. And the more we know about DNA, not only the more complex we learn its function is, but the stronger the case it makes for design.

I don't even get into the "design vs evolution" fight any more. I invoke Matthew 7:6.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Glad to find dad so open to evolution.

Me:

Suppose I add in the black bear? [as sharing an ancestor of the polar bear]. The sloth bear? The giant panda? The red panda? The walrus? The dog? The cat? The hippo? The crocodile? The pine tree? How far back can one go and still be fine, in your view? Where is the dividing point where one has gone so far that they have descended into a frenzy of fearful faith and fables?​

Dad:

I could allow a whole lot of evolving, probably even freaking out the folks who are all hung up on the macro thing. However, since science doesn't know, and I don't much care...why would I bother with your elaborate pin the evo tail on the evo donkey guessing games???

So that is where it stands. I have presented the evidence for evolution. When I ask dad if he thinks the polar bear shares a common ancestor with the pine tree, he says he does not much care.

I win.

 

[Ophiolite]

I've seen this argument. It is just one of many arguments that make a solid case for design. DNA is another example. And the more we know about DNA, not only the more complex we learn its function is, but the stronger the case it makes for design.

I don't even get into the "design vs evolution" fight any more. I invoke Matthew 7:6.

Feel free to invoke every verse, chapter and book in both the Old and New Testaments, not to mention the Apocrypha. I have no issue with anyone choosing faith over fact. But please do not make fatuous assertions regarding support for design in those facts. You embarrass yourself and do your faith and your Faith a disservice.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if its look like a watch its not evidence for design?

Watches bear the marks of human manufacturing.

"it looks like..." is not the reason why we can conclude artificial design of a watch.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Which is NO evidence. You slap together some fossils that represent maybe 5% OF LIFE ON EARTH AT THE TIME EACH LIVED, AND TRY TO CONNECT these to form the model of what life existed and came from what.

Yes, only a fraction of all animals that ever lived have left fossils that have been found, but so what? The fossils we have found make a strong case for the history of life on earth. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

How can you explain the sequence of the fossil record? At first you appealed to a different nature that somehow fossilized only extinct animals in the past. But it was pointed out to you that horse family members, for instance, are found in a sequence from eohippus to mesohippus to miohippus etc. on up through the fossil record. If you were going to appeal to a different nature, you would need many different natures to explain the sorting. So you basically abandoned that, and switched to dumb luck as the cause of the sequence. But if all ancient horses lived throughout the cenozoic, then what are the odds that many eohippus would be found, with all in a narrow window of the fossil record? If you appeal to dumb luck to explain that this happened against the odds, even xianghua could explain where you are wrong.

Or you look at present nature DNA, and try to reconstruct ancient life...etc etc.

Ah, so when we look at DNA and find the family tree, and then speculate what the common ancestor looked like, we should label it as speculation? That is exactly what we do! The relationships are known, but where there is no fossil record of the common ancestor, we readily call speculation about the exact nature of the ancestor "speculation". Why are you asking us to do what we already do?

This is why we ask people to read about evolution before they critique it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't even get into the "design vs evolution" fight any more. I invoke Matthew 7:6.

Ah you just call us swine and walk away.

We are not swine.

 

[xianghua]

Watches bear the marks of human manufacturing.

the flagellum too.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Feel free to invoke every verse, chapter and book in both the Old and New Testaments, not to mention the Apocrypha. I have no issue with anyone choosing faith over fact. But please do not make fatuous assertions regarding support for design in those facts. You embarrass yourself and do your faith and your Faith a disservice.

Like I said, I don't get into this debate any more. I don't crack my bible to understand how creation works at the mechanical level and I don't crack my college textbooks to understand why it was created. They are both in perfect harmony if you use the right tool for the right job.

There is no place for faith in science, and there is no place for science in growing a relationship with your creator. This is a Christian site. I discuss "science" on sites devoted to that pursuit.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

the flagellum too.

So humans created the flagellum? Woah!

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't crack my bible to understand how creation works at the mechanical level and I don't crack my college textbooks to understand why it was created. They are both in perfect harmony if you use the right tool for the right job.

Ok, so the bible is not the expert source on the mechanics of creation? For that we should turn to the scientific studies that are at the root of all good science textbooks?

Goods idea. Hence, it seems the mechanics of "creation" must be evolution.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So humans created the flagellum? Woah!

Probably done by some mad scientist in an evil plan to establish the new world order, or something like that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the flagellum too.

It does not.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Ok, so the bible is not the expert source on the mechanics of creation? For that we should turn to the scientific studies that are at the root of all good science textbooks?

The scientific method. Duh.

Goods idea. Hence, it seems the mechanics of "creation" must be evolution.

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is death."

There is evidence that supports evolution. But the complexity of creation shoots down all of the evidence we have so far. Evolution is what one grasps if one simply refuses to even entertain the possibility that it was designed. It is the only two choices we have.

 

[Speedwell]

There is evidence that supports evolution. But the complexity of creation shoots down all of the evidence we have so far. Evolution is what one grasps if one simply refuses to even entertain the possibility that it was designed. It is the only two choices we have.

Not necessarily. What about the possibility that God designed evolution?

 

[xianghua]

It does not.

but its look similar to a motor that made by humans.