the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

Ah, so the polar bear might share an ancestor with the black bear but not the grasshopper. Might it share an ancestor with a red panda?

Is there a way to tell?

 

[dad]

What does that even mean? Did the polar bear and walrus come from the same created kind? You refuse--refuse!-- to answer.

Bear and walrus? Ha. You claim they came from one anther?

 

[dad]

Wow, what do you expect to accomplish with such word salad?

Do you realize that I wrote to you in paragraphs? The paragraphs, when taken as a whole, express a concept. But you dive in and break everything into tweet size chunks, and then use each chunk as a chance to sound off on something you have said many times before and we have always acknowledged that you said it. So what do you want people to do? Repeat the entire concept of your position in every sentence? If I utter a sentence that does not echo back every thing you ever said, then will you respond by just repeating things you said before? How does that move anything forward?

The trick is not long paragraphs, but having some meaning in them.

But that is how things go in The Self Replicating Argument Watch thread. We just keep watching the same arguments replicate over and over again.

Get better ones?

If there is anybody following this, please notice that there was a point in the paragraphs I wrote, a point that was totally lost when Dad broke things into tiny bites.

We were looking at the series of horse fossils with time, from eohippus to mesohippus to miohippus, etc., and I was asking you why you think they consistently appear in that order. And it seemed to be you were saying that it was just luck that all the eohippus went in one layer, all the mesohippus in another, etc. But now you are back to nature somehow selecting only eohippus fossils when the layer that dates to 55 million years was layed down, and nature somehow selecting only mesohippus fossil in a later layer, and nature somehow selecting only a different kind of fossil in the next layer. So you seem to be back to nature constantly changing which fossils it selects. That makes no sense.

​

You totally ignored the question. Again, there are fossils that date from 65 million years ago to 1 million years ago, but the eohippus all appear at about 55 million years ago. Why is that? Your answer makes no attempt to address the question.

Which part of 'your dates are totally wrong, and religious twaddle' do you have a hard time getting?

And please don't repeat that you think it was quicker than that--we already know you think that. My question is about the order.

No problem with order. The order was within centuries. Not millions of years.

The order was laid as follows...those few critters that COULD leave remains in the former nature...did so in order.

Wait, now you suggest that maybe eohippus evolved into something like mesohippus which evolved into something like miohippus? That was my point all along. Now you are saying that I might be right?

No. I am suggesting you are grasping at straws. You are grasping at the fossils we have that only represent a tiny teeny fraction of life at the time. They represent a small portion of the creatures that could fossilize in that former nature. One cannot look at THEM as representing life, or as coming from one another.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Is there a way to tell?

Is there a way to tell if you think the polar bear and red panda might be the same kind? Unfortunately no, because you refuse to answer the question.

Once again, do you or do you not think that the polar bear and red panda might be the same kind?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Bear and walrus? Ha. You claim they came from one anther?

No, the bear and walrus came from the same ancestor, not from each other.

The walrus is closely related to the red panda. So I eagerly await your answer as to whether you think the red panda might be the same kind as the polar bear.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Get better ones?

Yes, Yes, yes!

Instead of coming here and repeating the same arguments, get better ones.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The trick is not long paragraphs, but having some meaning in them.

I am curious how you would know if my paragraphs have any meaning or not? You break my paragraphs into little bits, and then complain that each particular bit does not contain the entirety of the paragraph. Of course not! That is not how paragraphs work.

Let me guess. You won't even read that as a paragraph. You will break it into bits, make irrelevant comments about each bit, and never catch the overall intent, yes?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Which part of 'your dates are totally wrong, and religious twaddle' do you have a hard time getting?

I don't get the part that, although I have shouted from the rooftops that we differ on the length of the Cenozoic, and that I am addressing something else here, you still keep repeating that we differ on the length of the Cenozoic as though I have not yet acknowledged it. I acknowledge what you say.

There is strong evidence that this period was indeed 65 million years long, and I am well aware that it would be nearly impossible to convince you of that. So I am choosing to concentrate on the order, not the number of years.

Worldwide we see rocks that date to 40 million years old above rocks that date to 50 million years old, which are above rocks that date to 60 million years old. We see distinctly different fossils in the layers. Do you agree that the rocks above were layed down after the rocks below? Do you agree that the measured dates of the rocks show as being more recent as we ascend through the rocks? Do you agree that the fossils found in each layer are different?

Let me guess. You will once again ignore that these questions have nothing to do with the length of the Cenozoic, and state yet again that we differ on the length of the Cenozoic, yes?

 

[xianghua]

I don't have to prove anything about the flagellum's evolution to show the logical error. Heck, even if the flagellum were the product of design, the logical error is still the same.

how exactly? if all motors are the product of design then a flagellum need a designer too. so where is the logical error here? unless you can prove that a motor (flagellum) can evolve naturally. in this case it will be indeed a logical error.

 

[VirOptimus]

how exactly? if all motors are the product of design then a flagellum need a designer too. so where is the logical error here? unless you can prove that a motor (flagellum) can evolve naturally. in this case it will be indeed a logical error.

First, show that all motors are designed.

 

[xianghua]

First, show that all motors are designed.

its like asking me to show that all cars are designed.

 

[VirOptimus]

its like asking me to show that all cars are designed.

No it isnt.

In other words, you cant.

 

[doubtingmerle]

how exactly? if all motors are the product of design then a flagellum need a designer too. so where is the logical error here? unless you can prove that a motor (flagellum) can evolve naturally. in this case it will be indeed a logical error.

if all Indians I have seen are walking single file, then all Indians need to walk single file too. so where is the logical error here? Can you find it?

 

[PsychoSarah]

how exactly? if all motors are the product of design then a flagellum need a designer too.

-_- no, because flagella are not motors. Any resemblance some people might see between a flagella and a motor like in a car is extremely superficial and neglects accounting for the extremely different chemistry of the two.

so where is the logical error here? unless you can prove that a motor (flagellum) can evolve naturally. in this case it will be indeed a logical error.

Your logical error is acting as if flagella and motors like those in cars are the same thing, when they have more differences than similarities. It's the same as saying that since tortillas are created by humans that means parrots are also created by humans; it's a nonsense statement of claiming that since one thing is created, another entirely unrelated thing must also be created.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The existence of the flagellum.

But I just proved that, logically, the flagellum is man made.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But I just proved that, logically, the flagellum is man made.

...in a factory out of metal.

 

[Skreeper]

how exactly? if all motors are the product of design then a flagellum need a designer too. so where is the logical error here? unless you can prove that a motor (flagellum) can evolve naturally. in this case it will be indeed a logical error.

All known motors are man made therefore the flagellum is man made.

You see see why your argument does not work?

 

[xianghua]

No it isnt.

In other words, you cant.

so you believe that a motor can evolve naturally but a car cant?

 

[xianghua]

if all Indians I have seen are walking single file, then all Indians need to walk single file too. so where is the logical error here? Can you find it?

since an indian in any way he want this is a logical er ror. so you believe that a motor can evolve naturally then?

 

[VirOptimus]

so you believe that a motor can evolve naturally but a car cant?

No, I know a motor can come to be by the means of evolution because I accept and understand physical reality, ie science.

Belief is for religion, not science.