the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

Ha? Just because there were some sort of giants in a certain land in a certain time before the flood...does not mean all men were giants.

Why are you making definitive statements about something that happened in "a different nature"? Perhaps in that nature logic was not yet valid, pi equaled 12.873, fleas had many camels on their backs, people had horns, and all people had to be giants? How would you know? Your claim is that nature was completely different.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Who cares what current nature does?

I do.

If we study the rocks with the assumption that they were made with the current laws of nature, it is tremendously beneficial in helping us find oil, predict areas prone to earthquakes, and many other things. We lose all that, if we assume there were no known laws making what is down there.

Wouldn't you rather have a view that supplies useful knowledge about the world?

All nature really is, is the way God set things up at any given time to work. His living creations are in a nested pattern.

But rocks and planets and mountains and streams are not in a nested pattern.

Things that evolved with time, like manuscripts and languages show nested patterns. The question is why God chose nested patterns for life but for nothing else, when he surely must have known that nested patterns makes it look like evolution.

Why would anything else man makes be that way, since man is so small and dumb compared to the Almighty??

Interesting. So all Xianghuas arguments about cars being in a nested pattern are wrong. You agree that cars don't fit in a nested pattern as Xianghua claims?

 

[xianghua]

How many man-made genomes are there?

few. so?

 

[xianghua]

If you need to deny evolution in order to maintian your faith... then so be it.

since there i no real evidence for evolution i dont need to deny it. unless you can prove evolution is real. and by evolution i mean a comon descent for banana and hu,man for instance and not just variation of the same creature (bacteria, variations of dogs etc). can you give an example?

In other words faith is the evidence of invisible things such as God, angels, demons, etc. Faitih is also the evidence of things that we could not witness due to our not being there.

so if we never seen someone who created a pc we cant conclude that a pc is the result of design?

 

[Speedwell]

few. so?

So, I said,

"Because no one has ever seen a car or a watch which was not man made."

You responded,

"again: its also true for genomes."

In other words, you claimed that no one ever saw a genome which was not man made. Now you say there are only a few of them? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[xianghua]

Maybe this is the language barrier issue, but I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here...

you said that since an electric motor is different from a flagellum motor then we cant compare between them. so by this logic: since a car and an airplane are also different we cant compare between them too.

 

[xianghua]

Vast majority of scientists in the past also believe in a young aerth (and by "young" i mean about 50-100 my). so scientific consensus mean nothing.

 

[pitabread]

you said that since an electric motor is different from a flagellum motor then we cant compare between them. so by this logic: since a car and an airplane are also different we cant compare between them too.

No, that's not what I was saying. We can certainly compare different objects. But rather just because two objects have something similar or identical in common, that doesn't mean the two objects are completely similar or identical in all respects.

It's the latter assumption that is the False Equivalence fallacy. It's like assuming my neighbor's car is red just because my own car is red. Both our cars may have four wheels, four doors, tinted windows and 6 cylinder engines. But that doesn't mean the two cars are the same color.

Just like a flagellum and an electric motor can create spin, it doesn't mean they are both the result of artificial design and manufacture.

 

[pitabread]

Vast majority of scientists in the past also believe in a young aerth (and by "young" i mean about 50-100 my). so scientific consensus mean nothing.

It helps to understand the context of such consensus, namely that it was based on the observations, measurements and knowledge at a particular time. And that in general, as knowledge acquisition increases over time, we can form a continually more accurate understanding of our planet and universe.

 

[xianghua]

So, I said,

"Because no one has ever seen a car or a watch which was not man made."

You responded,

"again: its also true for genomes."

In other words, you claimed that no one ever saw a genome which was not man made. Now you say there are only a few of them? It doesn't make any sense.

true. i need to change it to "no one ever saw a genome which was not made by design".

Just like a flagellum and an electric motor can create spin, it doesn't mean they are both the result of artificial design and manufacture.

so why you detect design in a car but not in a flagellum?

 

[theQuincunx5]

Easy. All kinds DID show up. They just never showed up as fossils. Not all types of creatures apparently could fossilize in that different natured past.

The past sounds so alarmingly different that even regular things didn't happen. I wonder if the words of the Bible explaining the past had the same meaning then as they do now? I mean, you could be completely wrong because the words describing the early days of the earth were different too!

Just one, with some changes along the way actually.

"changes"? Why do some changes seem "OK" but others are lies by the Devil?

It's like claiming I can't walk to the store but I can walk half-way there, and since half-way there is NOT all the way to the store it supports my claim I can't walk all the way to the store.

Now, got any tough questions?

I think you need to work on the deets on the simple ones first.

 

[xianghua]

it doesn't mean they are both the result of artificial design and manufacture.

true. but will conclude that both are the product of design. right?

 

[dad]

I was refering to extant DNA.
That flood you mentioned.... never happened. As shown by genetic evidence alone (no universal bottlenecks)

Yes we know you refer to present nature DNA. You assume and believe that was the same in the far past, so try to read it accordingly. You would be better off reading tea leaves if the nature was not the same.

 

[pitabread]

true. but will conclude that both are the product of design. right?

No, why would I?

I evaluate objects based on their own merits and I have no reason to think a flagellum or any other naturally occurring life is the product of deliberate design. (And yes, I've heard all the arguments before.)

From everything I have seen and studied, natural life on Earth bears the appearance of biological evolution.

 

[dad]

The past sounds so alarmingly different that even regular things didn't happen. I wonder if the words of the Bible explaining the past had the same meaning then as they do now? I mean, you could be completely wrong because the words describing the early days of the earth were different too!

Yes a day was still a day, and a woman was still a woman and tree was still a tree. Etc.

You can't toss it all out just because your claimed same nature in the past did not happen to exist.

"changes"? Why do some changes seem "OK" but others are lies by the Devil?

We see changes take place today even in this nature. Looking at the fossil record we see a lot of changes also happened in the past. Since we know the time involved and within which these changes had to take place, we can rule out a present nature having also existed in the far past.

It's like claiming I can't walk to the store but I can walk half-way there, and since half-way there is NOT all the way to the store it supports my claim I can't walk all the way to the store.

You have not walked to a store in Eden. Nor to a store near the ark of Noah. Nor to a store near the dinos. Etc.

 

[dad]

Sure. Why is Cambrian life different from Devonian life which is different from Silurian life? Were there hundreds of different natures, with each nature selecting only its own fossils?

To re frame the question in simple and proper terms we can ask -

'Why was life before the flood different, and therefore saw the rapidly evolving created kinds look a certain way at that time? Why were the created kinds that evolved after the flood on the new earth here also different looking? Why did most mammals and man only appear when this new nature started to exist?

Naturally the rapid evolving in the former nature that happened after Eden, and in the pree flood world and in the post flood world, and then later in the present nature world would show distinct differences!! The evidence mounts!

If humans walked with dinosaurs, why did nature select dino footprints but not human footprints in the Jurassic?

Well, if you saw human ones you might say they were from human ancestor/apes or something! Or maybe we don't really have a good sampling of footprints from life on earth of all ages? Or maybe the dinos hung around areas that were wet or swampy or something, that tended to leave prints? Or maybe ...etc etc. Why harp on the unknown?

Why are there no axeheads in the Cambrian?

Well, since they made metal and iron right out of Eden's gates, maybe they did not last? Who knows? Or maybe man did not eat meat, so those weapons were rare? or...etc?

Why do mammal like reptile fossil show the jaw and earbones transitioning to be more like mammals as one progresses up the fossil record?

Maybe that was handy for them in the different nature of the past? Maybe a lot of creatures that could not fossilize at that time also had similar features, but you just do not have the info/fossils?

Ha

 

[doubtingmerle]

. and by evolution i mean a comon descent for banana and hu,man for instance and not just variation of the same creature (bacteria, variations of dogs etc). can you give an example?

Sure.

Humans and bananas.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Naturally the rapid evolving in the former nature that happened after Eden, and in the pree flood world and in the post flood world, and then later in the present nature world would show distinct differences!! The evidence mounts!

Got it. Fossils in the Cambrian, the Devonian, and the Silurian differ because things were evolving. Yes, I agree.

Yes, the evidence mounts-- for evolution.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Yes a day was still a day, and a woman was still a woman and tree was still a tree. Etc.

Hmmm, not if I use your metric that we can't really know what things were like in the past.

(Well at least you can't claim those things).

You can't toss it all out just because your claimed same nature in the past did not happen to exist.

I didn't toss anything out. You did. Hence you have destroyed your own argument. (Sorry!)

You have not walked to a store in Eden. Nor to a store near the ark of Noah. Nor to a store near the dinos. Etc.

Neither have you.

 

[Speedwell]

true. but will conclude that both are the product of design. right?

You can only conclude design in an object if there is evidence that it is man-made.