• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

the self replicating watch argument

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
As far as physical evidence for God, see my previous post regarding archaeology and history as branches of science.
Unfortunately, I read a previous post ignorant about science.
There is no physical evidence of common ancestry back to a single pair of human beings.
Our most recent common ancestors are members of populations not individuals. The genetic "Eve" and "Adam" did not exist 6000 years ago and thus debunk YEC. The genetic "Eve" and "Adam" change with time. The genetic "Eve" and "Adam" are highly unlikely to have lived at the same time or place.

Deep ignorance that universal common ancestry has no credible evidence when the evidence is easy to find (read the Wikipedia article). Also see: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

There is archaeological evidence for many places and events mentions in the Bible. For example Jericho certainly existed but there is no archaeological evidence for the Bole story about Jericho.
However, there is no or little archaeological evidence for many major events or people in the Bible. No archaeological evidence of cultures being destroyed in a world-wide flood. No evidence of a large Jewish population in Egypt. No evidence of a Pharaoh and army drowning in the Red Sea. A few mentions of the House of David but no King David. No archaeological evidence of Solomon's Temple.

Ignorance about evolution which is not just "random methods" or a "random process".

Abysmal ignorance about "Darwinism". Modern evolution is more than Darwin. Modern evolution is supported by a massive body of evidence.

A fairy story of "information technology" in cells.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
77
England
✟256,526.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed

This thread is not about history, archaeology or Biblical criticism, so I don't want to discuss these subjects, even if I was qualified to do so. You might get a different view of the historical reliability of the Bible if you were to read The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (published 2001), and The Unauthorized Version by Robin Lane Fox (published 1991).


I am an astronomer, not a biologist; what little I know about biology is what I have read in books. In my opinion, only people who have at least a Ph.D. in a biological subject and several years of post-doctoral experience are qualified to express an opinion on evolution. If you want answers to these questions you will have to ask biologists with these qualifications.

Are you familiar with the terms "genetic erosion" and "genetic entropy"? A sufficient study of these things should shake Darwinian beliefs (i.e. UCA) to the core.

I looked up these terms. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_erosion , genetic erosion is only important in endangered species with small populations, so I don't see what relevance it has to evolution. Most of the links for 'genetic entropy' are creationist sites. However, I found informative reviews - https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/ - of Michael Behe's book Edge of Evolution and John Sanford's book Genetic Entropy; perhaps you should read these reviews as well.


As I have already said, this is out of my field. If you dispute the evidence for evolution and if you really want answers to these questions, I can only suggest that you read as many books and scientific papers on the subject as you can find, and take at least a first degree in biology.
 
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

WisdomSpy

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
98
5
✟23,853.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private

I wonder... what do you object to in, oh, let's say, Matthew chapter 5, as one example? And what do you worship? If you extrapolated whatever that might be to the entire world, would it really be a better place? Have you seriously thought about what would be required to achieve world peace? Could it ever be done without justice being enforced?
 
Upvote 0

WisdomSpy

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
98
5
✟23,853.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private

I am well aware of the criticisms of Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity". I would suggest that you set this aside temporarily at least, since a lot of other relevant information exists in his books--data which cannot be denied. He documents the actual history of millions of mutations, acted upon by natural selection... and the extent of "evolution" that resulted. When you recognize the stark limitations of mutations + natural selection, Darwinian ideas of origins loose all credibility. Yes, evolution is true, in a limited sense. Evolutionary origins, however (meaning the idea that all forms of life originated by natural processes only), is nothing but a hypothesis or theory which is far from being supported by data which is indisputable.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
So what's your theory?
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
I am well aware of the criticisms of Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity".
That is not in the post you replied to. However you may not know a major criticism of Behe's irreducible complexity - it is an idea that is ignorant about evolution. Evolution is not just structures with a given functionality changing. Evolution is also structures changing their function. This makes the idea invalid. The fact that all of his examples are wrong (they have evolutionary explanations) is almost incidental!

Parroting what looks like Behe's ignorance and/or lies about "stark limitations" is bad. Evolution has not been Darwinism for many decades. Darwinism today describes those who emphasize mutations + natural selection over the other mechanisms of evolution
  • Natural selection
  • Biased mutation
  • Genetic drift
  • Genetic hitchhiking
  • Gene flow
In general biologists researching animals emphasize natural selection, biologists researching at the molecular level emphasize the genetic mechanisms.

There are no limits on evolution that stop "evolutionary origins".

It is a lie that "evolutionary origins" is unsupported by data. We have dozens of observations of speciation through natural processes.
Sounds like: Claim CB901: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
 
Upvote 0

WisdomSpy

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
98
5
✟23,853.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
So what's your theory?

Very simply, I am searching for the theory which best correlates with the existing genomic data. Much of the data which is used by evolutionists to argue for “common descent” can be used just as well to argue for a “common designer”. For example; all automobiles have numerous things in common (i.e. wheels and rims and bearings, etc.). It would be ridiculous to assert that this commonality says anything about origins.

Too many people have been making too many assumptions and jumping to too many conclusions. Of course, the next argument that atheists usually pose is the “bad design” arguments (pointing out numerous apparent flaws in nature, such as the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve). However, as I said before, if you have never built something yourself, you will obviously be unaware of certain operational restrictions or pragmatic necessities which may exist in various processes of implementation. The other mistake is assuming that all “mistakes” can be attributed to the original designer(s). Da Vinci might have created “perfect” paintings initially… but they are certainly not perfect now.

The Creation paradigm should never be oversimplified by doubters and scoffers. “Sin” entered the world, with natural consequences and some imposed consequences. Not surprising that evidence can be found in nature and in genomics. For example; I don’t think pseudo genes were likely part of the original creation.

Hence, if we were to recover and sequence the entire genome of the “ancient” Taimyr Wolf (from Siberia) and compare it carefully to a modern wolf genome, we should be able to discern which paradigm “fits” the actual data. I believe it is going to fit the Creation paradigm. I am still waiting for the tabulation and publication of the gene and pseudogene data. What is your prediction of what it will show? Remember that Darwin’s general idea of origins is of naturalistic simple-to-complex progression. Apply that to genes and pseudogenes.

Hint: single-celled organisms apparently need a minimum of about 1500-2000 genes to function (and relatively few, if any epigenetic regulatory elements). Of course, they lack the genes and epigenetics to produce arms, legs, eyes, ears, brains, skin, livers, etc. If you believe in Darwinism (for lack of a better word) then you must demonstrate the existence of a competent and extremely prolific natural mechanism for generating the complex specific information to build all these things. This is what is completely missing from all the literature produced by Darwin and subsequent Evolution Theorists. Only wild speculation is offered.

Now, face the real facts: Craig Venter (see “the first artificial cell”) unwittingly demonstrated that Intelligent Design/Creation actually works. However, we have no actual scientific data to support a presumption that random undirected purposeless natural processes can do what Venter did. In fact, just the opposite is true—plenty of evidence suggests strongly that it cannot be done. This is exactly why some have jumped to the conclusion of “ancient aliens”. Why not instead accept the idea that is supported by history and archaeology?
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Only in your imagination of self-replicating cars, watches and robots.
tell this to prof dawkins who use this analogy too. so i guess that according to you dawkins doesnt understand biology either
 
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
All that and still not even the hint of a theory. You appear to have nothing to say but "evolution can't work so it must have been designed," grotesquely misrepresenting evolution as you go. For instance, you denounce evolution as a "random undirected purposeless natural process." How do you know it is purposeless?
 
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
so the statue of liberty by itself isnt a good evidence of design?
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
16 July 2018 xianghua: Ignorance about cars and/or evolution - we do not add parts to cars at random, evolution s not only mutations.
but you can choose any step in the process. like natural selection.
 
Upvote 0

WisdomSpy

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
98
5
✟23,853.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private

Speciation is NOT evidence for an uphill genetic process. Speciation (defined by the loss of ability to breed with ancestors) occurs by genetic erosion, among other things. Natural selection reduces alleles and gene forms, it doesn’t build them. Genetic drift doesn’t build genes. Behe’s undeniable data regarding the millions of generations of the AIDS virus, the malaria parasite, Lenski’s E. coli and other examples shows that all of the speculative wizardly things that you have mentioned (and others which you did not) “did not do much of anything” to these genomes ( a quote from the book). No newly-formed completely unique genes sprang up by any natural process. No upward progression, no advancement of complex specific information occurred, such as would move in the direction of adding arms, legs, eyes, etc. Hence, genomically downhill “evolution” is certainly true, and amazingly, it produces wide variety (such as all the types of dogs). But dogs have much shorter life spans and they have more diseases that their ancestor (the Gray Wolf or very similar creature). Did you know that even today, a Wolf in captivity lives an average of 20.4 years old? What dog lives that long? And why not? The answer is “the loss of genetic diversity”—in other words, although dogs show an amazing variety of traits that the wolf does not, these traits were apparently present in the ancestor’s genome and only became expressed when a downhill process of genomic change occurred over time (i.e. downhill “evolution”). Where did the wolf’s genes come from initially? How can natural selection or any other process touch, manipulate or influence genes and genetic traits that are NOT expressed? Please tell me.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Where in the world are you getting this pseudoscientific gibberish? I understand that it is important to you for some reason (which you haven't told us) that evolution is false, but really, that screed borders on the hysterical.
 
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
but you can choose any step in the process. like natural selection.
17 July 2018 xianghua: A lie that natural selection is a process where steps are chosen
Natural selection is environments (perhaps changing through natural processes) and populations being selected to fit the environments by natural processes.
Car modification are designed by human beings for the purposes of human beings. That is one of the things that makes an example of the human design of cars so inane.

16 July 2018 xianghua: A dumb question about an elephant sand sculpture.

16 July 2018 xianghua: Ignorance about cars and/or evolution - we do not add parts to cars at random, evolution s not only mutations.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Speciation is NOT evidence for an uphill genetic process. ...
A post full of inane ignorance that needs to be recorded.
19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: A "uphill genetic process" ignorant statement when evolution has no direction.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: A bit of ignorance about the definition of species.
It is not the loss of ability to breed. For example, zebra and horses can breed: Zebroid

Generally a species is a population that does not breed with surrounding populations or produces infertile descendants when they do. The population is "reproductively isolated".
Study of Darwin’s finches reveals that new species can develop in as little as two generations is a new species of finches that have formed as a population of distinctive finches on an island full of other finches.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Natural selection reduces alleles and gene forms" statement .
Natural selection does not eliminate alleles or "gene forms" from populations. As an example you have been naturally selected to depend on a diet containing vitamin C but you still have the broken genes for producing vitamin C. Neutral gene mutations such as a deactivated gene are not selected for or against.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Genetic drift doesn’t build genes" statement
No one expects genetic drift to build genes from scratch, it is a drift within existing gene mutations.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Parrots a Behe lie that the AIDS virus, malaria parasite, Lenski’s E. coli, etc. invalidate evolution.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Real ignorance that that dog breeding is evolution.
When we breed dogs for specific purposes there are problems caused by that breeding. When dogs live in environments such as kennels, they will catch more diseases.

19 July 2018 WisdomSpy: An ignorant "Where did the wolf’s genes come from initially" question.
Ultimately all animals have genes that came from the last universal common ancestor.
Initially: Evolution of the wolf
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
77
England
✟256,526.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed

On further consideration, I now think that the following sentence in my post 3388 is wrong and I withdraw it; I allowed my enthusiasm to run away with me, and I forgot that most Christians accept the reality of evolution and abiogenesis.
The same problem arises with gods or other supernatural beings, who also 'possess higher intelligence and/or experience than Venter'; where did they come from, and how did they acquire their intelligence and experience?

However, I think that my argument against 'ancient aliens' who supposedly 'seeded' the Earth with life is still valid. For the rest, I am not convinced by your argument in the second paragraph of post 3390. As for the possibility of abiogenesis, I must leave that to scientists who are qualified to discuss it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WisdomSpy

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
98
5
✟23,853.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private

Interesting that you mentioned Jericho since it is one of my favorite examples of history and archaeology proving the Bible true. You appear to be unaware of fairly recent archaeological finds. In the following video, note carefully the jars of grain that were found--to me this is one of several facts that can only be reconciled via the Biblical narrative. Grain was like gold--very valuable. Why go off and leave it? Secularist conquerors or even passersby would never do that. It took a powerful influence to motivate the Israelite people to do that.

 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.