the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

It isn't a claim. The work that is being done is evidence. You're unwillingness to be aware of the evidence doesn't make it any less real. If I was unaware of evidence that there's a genetic link predisposing a person toward alcoholism, for example, and the evidence was real, my ignorance doesn't make the evidence any less real. If you're unaware of the evidence of Christ's resurrection, because you are ignorant of it, that doesn't make the evidence less real. It just means that you are ignorant of it.

I have reviewed the evidence and reached a conclusion. See Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

 

[truefiction1]

I have reviewed the evidence and reached a conclusion. See Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

You haven't "reviewed the evidence", because the real evidence eludes you, as it eludes all who are not willing to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Christ:

"Although Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still did not believe in Him.This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

'Lord, who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?'

For this reason they were unable to believe. For again, Isaiah says:

'He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so that they cannot see with their eyes,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn,
and I would heal them.'

Isaiah said these things because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about Him." (John 12:37-41)

So, whatever conclusion you've come to has no more truth to it than if a person who has always been blind were to say that they have come to the conclusion that their are no such things as stars in the night sky, because they have never seen any stars in the night sky.

Christ is still performing many signs in our presence, but you can't see them, and won't see them until you are darned good and ready to.

 

[Skreeper]

You haven't "reviewed the evidence", because the real evidence eludes you, as it eludes all who are not willing to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Christ:

"Although Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still did not believe in Him.This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

'Lord, who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?'

For this reason they were unable to believe. For again, Isaiah says:

'He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so that they cannot see with their eyes,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn,
and I would heal them.'

Isaiah said these things because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about Him." (John 12:37-41)

So, whatever conclusion you've come to has no more truth to it than if a person who has always been blind were to say that they have come to the conclusion that their are no such things as stars in the night sky, because they have never seen any stars in the night sky.

Christ is still performing many signs in our presence, but you can't see them, and won't see them until you are darned good and ready to.

You're basically saying that I have to believe in Jesus before I can see or recieve the evidence. Can't you see how incredibly circular and illogical that is?

Usually you start with the evidence before starting to accept or believe something.

 

[xianghua]

Changes in what?

in a self replicating object.

 

[xianghua]

If cars could evolve naturally then why don't cars evolve naturally?

since a car is only one possibility out of many it will be very rare to find such a case (car) if nature indeed evolved naturally.

 

[pitabread]

in a self replicating object.

That doesn't answer the question. What specifically would be changing?

 

[xianghua]

I will let truefiction answer this:



Bazinga!

thanks sheldon.

 

[xianghua]

Making a small car is not the same as having a baby car.

what is the difference?

 

[xianghua]

BECAUSE CARS CAN'T REPRODUCE!

but it can reproduce in this case since it has a self replicating system. so this claim is wrong.

 

[xianghua]

That doesn't answer the question. What specifically would be changing?

the object by natural selection+changes over time.

 

[pitabread]

the object by natural selection+changes over time.

Still too vague. Just saying the "object" changes doesn't tell me anything. What specifically about the object is changing? What is the mechanism which carries the changes from generation to generation??

For example, when populations of living organisms evolve, where do the underlying changes occur?

 

[xianghua]

Still too vague. What specifically is changing?

For example, when populations of living organisms evolve, where does the underlying changes occur?

on the creature.

 

[pitabread]

on the creature.

Okay, you're clearly not understanding.

When biological organisms evolve, the changes occur in their DNA. It's the variation that occurs during DNA copying during reproduction which provides the variation to an organism's phenotype (i.e. the organism's physical structure) on which natural selection can act.

So if you want to suggest that non biological things can evolve in the same manner, then what is their DNA equivalent? Where are these evolutionary changes occurring?

 

[Jon Osterman]

So if you want to suggest that non biological things can evolve in the same manner, then what is their DNA equivalent? Where are these evolutionary changes occurring?

That's quite straighforward. In order to make new copies, there needs to be a plan of some kind - a procedure for making them. That plan can be corrupted just like DNA can.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Christ is still performing many signs in our presence, but you can't see them, and won't see them until you are darned good and ready to.

Got any arguments besides ad hominems?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Making a small car is not the same as having a baby car.

what is the difference?

See if this helps. The men in the picture below are either a) making toy trucks or b) making babies. Are you able to tell which?

 

[pitabread]

See if this helps. The men in the picture below are either a) making toy trucks or b) making babies. Are you able to tell which?

If it's the latter, does this count as porn?

 

[Kylie]

It isn't a claim. The work that is being done is evidence. You're unwillingness to be aware of the evidence doesn't make it any less real. If I was unaware of evidence that there's a genetic link predisposing a person toward alcoholism, for example, and the evidence was real, my ignorance doesn't make the evidence any less real. If you're unaware of the evidence of Christ's resurrection, because you are ignorant of it, that doesn't make the evidence less real. It just means that you are ignorant of it.

No, it isn't evidence. People do lots of things in the name of something they believe to be true but isn't. The fact that your religion has inspired people to do some nice things does not mean your religion is true.

And when it comes to the example you used about the genetic link to alcoholism, then that is TESTABLE. it is possible to go and examine the raw data, even gather new raw data yourself, and conduct the tests again and again.

But what you are asking me to do is to take the beliefs and actions of a certain group of people, and assume that there's no way they can have those beliefs or do those actions UNLESS what they believed was true. That simply isn't the case. Unless you can prove that God being real is the only reason the Church could be able to do these things, then it is NOT evidence.

 

[Kylie]

but it can reproduce in this case since it has a self replicating system. so this claim is wrong.

If it has a self replicating system then it isn't a car.

 

[Jon Osterman]

If it has a self replicating system then it isn't a car.

Why not? If it has the properties of a car otherwise, why would it become not-a-car if you give it an extra property?