the self replicating watch argument

[Mr Darcy]

I don't think you have proven a creator, but suppose you had. How would that prove that the creator did not use evolution as his tool?

If not evolution, how did God do it? Were there millions of creation events where--poof--suddenly an animal appeared out of nothing? What is you evidence that God used that method instead of evolution?

I think evolution exists, but I see it more as de-evolution. "Evolution" has not been witnessed. What has been witnessed in mutation. Evolution is just an interpretation of it.

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution taken to mean the origin of life is not creation.

Did He not design the creation?

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Good news. But why then did you ignore that position in your earlier posts? Asserting that the complexity of creation is too great to be explained by evolution is a statement infringing on the field of science. Stay with your faith by all means. I have no quibble with that, but please cease remarks about science when you are clearly not sufficiently informed to make them.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Good news. But why then did you ignore that position in your earlier posts? Asserting that the complexity of creation is too great to be explained by evolution is a statement infringing on the field of science. Stay with your faith by all means. I have no quibble with that, but please cease remarks about science when you are clearly not sufficiently informed to make them.

You are free to believe what you believe, as I am to believe what I believe. My comments are to the lurkers, at their level.

I've found that the best way for a gunfighter to avoid being called out is to avoid wearing his guns. This is a Christian site. I will get "into the weeds" on Christian issues. I'll not do the same with science issues - even when goaded.

 

[dad]

Can you translate this into English, please?

Sure. That was in relation to the bible. The creation of man and woman and of all things could not have been through evolution. So, if someone claims that the creation was really just evolution, and by evolution, rather than how the bible says, they are off center.

 

[dad]

Did He not design the creation?

Not by evolution. That was after creation. It was not creation itself.

 

[xianghua]

False equivalence - Wikipedia

I know you don't ever want to acknowledge this, but I'm going to keep bringing it up since this fallacy underpins your entire argument for design. And it is why your argument fails.

can you show why they arent equivalent?

 

[xianghua]

It is not similar to a bicycle.

you still conclude design or not?

 

[xianghua]

Really? If there are a trillion trillion trillion possible trees

first: how do you get to trillion trillion trillion possible trees?

 

[Speedwell]

you still conclude design or not?

Not enough information. It's just marks in the sand which might be construed as bearing a fanciful resemblance to stylized picture of a bicycle. Closer examination would be requred to see if it could be determined how the marks were made.

 

[xianghua]

,

And as we have seen already, "it looks like x" is not a criteria by which we differentiate artificial things from natural things.

so what is your criteria to detect design?

 

[Speedwell]

so what is your criteria to detect design?

The presence of evidence of human manufacture.

how many times are we going to have to tell you this? Do you think if you keep asking the same question over and over you will someday get a differencen answer, one that you like better?

 

[pitabread]

can you show why they arent equivalent?

I'd rather start by explaining what the false equivalence fallacy is. Let's try this example:

1) I own a car. My car is red.
2) My neighbor owns a car. Therefore, my neighbor's car is also red.

Can you spot the logical flaw in the second statement?

 

[pitabread]

first: how do you get to trillion trillion trillion possible trees?

Math. Specifically, these formulas:

Number of unrooted trees for n taxa Nu=(2n-5)*(2n-7)*...*3*1=(2n-5)!/[2^(n-3)*(n-3)!]

Number of rooted trees for n taxa Nr=(2n-3)*(2n-5)*(2n-7)*...*3*1=(2n-3)!/[2^(n-2)*(n-2)!]
​

Rooted vs Unrooted Trees

The more taxa you add to the mix, the number of possible trees grows exponentially.

 

[pitabread]

The more we know about life, the more complex we know it is, and the more hurdles "evolution" must jump through to be taken seriously as a factor in the origin of species. i.e. the more we know, the more we know we don't know.

I don't think I'd agree with that. If anything, the more we know, the more firm an understanding we have on the import of evolutionary processes as an explanation for modern species.

Heck, even your ardent Young-Earth creationists require evolutionary processes to explain current biodiversity.

 

[Mr Darcy]

I don't think I'd agree with that. If anything, the more we know, the more firm an understanding we have on the import of evolutionary processes as an explanation for modern species.

I believe that is due to necessitating it leading in that direction. We only have two options. Either a thinking personality designed it or it happened by accident. The latter we call "evolution". If you have a vested interest in not believing the former, all "evidence" leads to the latter.

And vice versa.

 

[Speedwell]

I believe that is due to necessitating it leading in that direction. We only have two options. Either a thinking personality designed it or it happened by accident. The latter we call "evolution". If you have a vested interest in not believing the former, all "evidence" leads to the latter.

And vice versa.

No. Evolution is a process of variation and selection which produces biological diversity. Period. The question of whether a "thinking personality" was responsible for it does not come up. It's no good trying to make this into a theist vs. atheist debate.

 

[Mr Darcy]

It's no good trying to make this into a theist vs. atheist debate.

I agree. One's a hammer and the other is a window. They serve different purposes.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree. One's a hammer and the other is a window. They serve different purposes.

Both
The purpose of science is to provide a window to observe how the material universe functions. Both theists and atheists may see through it with equal clarity. What is the purpose of the hammer?

 

[Mr Darcy]

Both
The purpose of science is to provide a window to observe how the material universe functions. Both theists and atheists may see through it with equal clarity. What is the purpose of the hammer?

I was pointing out that they are completely different things.

Science is the pursuit of how the world works and how creation works. Theism is about getting to the reason for its existence, and for one's own existence. Why are we here?

If one believes there is no creator, they accept that there is no "why" at all, since "why" directly requires intelligence to be behind our existence in the first place. And if an intelligent person holds to that viewpoint, they can clearly see that what follows is that since life has no "why", it has no purpose or value other than what that life tries to give itself. If enough intelligent members of a society rooted in that belief are able to follow that concept through, the culture becomes extremely hostile to human - or any other kind of life. Narcissism will rule the day.