the self replicating watch argument

[MaudDib]

And you have agents that push the planets around, stir up volcanoes, and create lightning?

We have found that thunder and meteors and dolphin fins, for example, are caused by the actions of nature, not by gods that manipulate the elements.

You see, you are thinking of a 'God of the gaps' type being,'I can't explain it, therefore a god did it'.

The difference between those mythological gods and the God of the bible is that the former have theogonies ( a genesis of the gods, they came from material) and the latter has a cosmogony (created the matter and the universe). You don't come to believe in Zeus as an adult, you come to believe in the biblical God. Christianity is testable and falsifiable.

Confusing the two types of gods doesn't get you out of the tight spot of the previous post.

 

[MaudDib]

Ah, so you are an "evolutionist"?

Just curious, in your view, when did the seventh day end? 4004 BC?

I can digest the thesis of descent with modification, but not the thesis of random mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for the descent with modification for ALL of biological complexity seen today.

4004 BC? No it ended long ago. Science confirms that. We have to assume the speed of light is the same speed now as it was in the past etc... to do good science, and i am a scientist remember. The earth is around 4.5 bn years old!

By the way though, both young earth's and old earth's believe in the 'fact' of creation, they just don't agree with the 'timing' of creation. As such it isn't a test for orthodoxy, merely an in-house debate. God isn't going to say, 'How old did you think the earth was again Merle?'.

 

[MaudDib]

I have an explanation for horses like Justify. He is the result of a long line of evolution from ancient animals like eohippus. How does your view better explain the marvel of the modern horse? Do you agree with the scientific case for horse evolution?

I absolutely agree with the scientific case for horse evolution.

Speciation needn't be something that creationists deny. There's no reason to think that fixity of the species is true, that there can't be descent with modification between species. The doctrine of common ancestry involves an enormous extrapolation, from observed limited cases of evolutionary adaptation to the whole of life, and very often in science these kinds of extrapolations fail.

To extrapolate from limited evolutionary change to a wholesale thesis of common ancestry is an extrapolation of just breath-taking proportions for which we really don't have any evidence. Even if you could show, for example, that birds and reptiles are evolved from a common ancestor, do you realize all of that still takes place within the Chordata, that is to say within the vertebrates, which is just a tiny segment of the diversity of life. Even having evolutionary change of that sort is almost a triviality compared to saying that a bird and sponge evolved from a common ancestor, not to mention bacteria and the Archaea and other sorts of primitive life forms.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The difference between those mythological gods and the God of the bible is that the former have theogonies ( a genesis of the gods, they came from material) and the latter has a cosmogony ....

There are religions other than Christianity have a "cosmogony" (cosmogony is a a scientific term, not theology) with god(s) that do not come from material. Creator deity

Popularity doe not means testability or falsifiability. However many religions are as "testable and falsifiable" as Christianity according to your criteria. They have followers who do not come to believe in Zeus as an adult but come to believe in god(s) as a adult. Major religious groups

 

[Kylie]

That's what evolutionists do. The DNA code is credible evidence enough of divine intervention. To me it's the idea that life was the likely outcome of stochastic processes which is incredible.

No it isn't.

 

[RealityCheck01]

To extrapolate from limited evolutionary change to a wholesale thesis of common ancestry is an extrapolation of just breath-taking proportions for which we really don't have any evidence.

13 June 2018 MaudDib: A "we really don't have any evidence" lie for common descent.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Origin of birds

The scientific question of within which larger group of animals birds evolved, has traditionally been called the origin of birds. The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era.[1]

 

[VirOptimus]

ID postulates agency, something that exists on our planet. Look in the mirror. By definition your worldview(scientific method alone) doesn't allow you to postulate anything but nature.
But that is self defeating. You would have to step outside nature to know that nature is the only way to truth. But then you would have arrived at truth through the use of metaphysics as opposed to physics.

Henry Ford is an explicator at the level of an agent regarding a motor car, just as internal combustion is an explicator at the level of a mechanism regarding a motor car. TWO explicators. Agency AND mechanism.

Where is agency in your postulations? What about Panspermia?

Your blathering about agency and other irrelevent imagined points does not change the fact that ID is religion, not science.

Also, invoking magic in a science debate is an auto-loss.

 

[MaudDib]

13 June 2018 MaudDib: A "we really don't have any evidence" lie for common descent.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Origin of birds

You are quick off the mark. Read my post SLOWLY. there is no evidence for macroevolution at the scale the theory of evolution assumes to extrapolate to. period. if you think its good science to extrapolate to all of biological complexity, you go for it!
I wonder if you even know that the ToE is based on Inference as to the Best Explanation? i.e.. NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, BUT PHILOSOPHY.

No, you don't know. great world view!

 

[MaudDib]

Your blathering about agency and other irrelevent imagined points does not change the fact that ID is religion, not science.

Also, invoking magic in a science debate is an auto-loss.

oh yes, you are definitely confined to doing unobjective science. Good luck!

 

[VirOptimus]

oh yes, you are definitely confined to doing unobjective science. Good luck!

If you cant stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

 

[Kylie]

there is no evidence for macroevolution at the scale the theory of evolution assumes to extrapolate to. period.

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

From reputable scientists please. (You can take this to mean a scientist who is well versed in the field on which he is commenting.)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

there is no evidence for macroevolution at the scale the theory of evolution assumes to extrapolate to.

Can't really argue against this assertion until you tell us what scale you think the theory works at. So, what scale do you assert it works at?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I absolutely agree with the scientific case for horse evolution.

Speciation needn't be something that creationists deny. There's no reason to think that fixity of the species is true, that there can't be descent with modification between species.

I asked you if you agreed that modern horses evolved from something like eohippus. You said you agreed, and then say there is no evolution between species.

Eohippus is not the same species as the modern horse. She is not even the same genera.

Let me repeat my question. Do you or do you not believe modern horses descended from something like eohippus?

Edit. Sorry. It looks like I misunderstood the double negative. It now looks like you are saying there is evolution between species.

 

[doubtingmerle]

4004 BC? No it ended long ago. Science confirms that. We have to assume the speed of light is the same speed now as it was in the past etc... to do good science, and i am a scientist remember. The earth is around 4.5 bn years old!

i remind you that you said, "God stopped creating on the 7th day and what do you suppose has been happening since? Evolution of course."

so you are claiming that there was a specific time when creation stopped and evolution started . Now I would like to know when you think that was. Was it closer to 6000 years ago, 600,000 years ago, 60 million years ago, or 4.5 billion years ago? When do you think creation stopped and evolution began?

By the way though, both young earth's and old earth's believe in the 'fact' of creation, they just don't agree with the 'timing' of creation. As such it isn't a test for orthodoxy, merely an in-house debate. God isn't going to say, 'How old did you think the earth was again Merle?'.

What are you? Are you an old earth creationist?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You see, you are thinking of a 'God of the gaps' type being,'I can't explain it, therefore a god did it'.

The difference between those mythological gods and the God of the bible is that the former have theogonies ( a genesis of the gods, they came from material) and the latter has a cosmogony (created the matter and the universe). You don't come to believe in Zeus as an adult, you come to believe in the biblical God. Christianity is testable and falsifiable.

Confusing the two types of gods doesn't get you out of the tight spot of the previous post.

Huh?

I did not say anything about agents having theogenies or cosmogonies. So where do you come up with the idea that I was demanding theogonies?!?!

Huh?

!!!!!

Once again, you have declared that there needs to be an agent for life. Do you also believe there needs to be an agent for thunder and the movement of planets?

 

[doubtingmerle]

---

 

[doubtingmerle]

that sort is almost a triviality compared to saying that a bird and sponge evolved from a common ancestor, not to mention bacteria and the Archaea and other sorts of primitive life forms.

What you show is a nested hierarchy, which is a sure sign of descent with change. See Nested Hierarchy: Evidence for Evolution

 

[xianghua]

Right. It's a dead tree.

so a watch that can do any of these thing (living traits) isnt a watch but a living thing. but it make no sense.

 

[Speedwell]

so a watch that can do any of these thing (living traits) isnt a watch but a living thing. but it make no sense.

None of your arguments make any sense. They all boil down to the delusion that if a natural object functions like a designed object it must also be designed.

 

[xianghua]

Sure. And here it is: Evolution of the bacterial flagellum



I'm not sure where you are getting this 100 amino acids thing from? Did you look at the link? Here it is one more time: Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

as i said: its not a detailed explanation since they dont give any real calculation.