the self replicating watch argument

[VirOptimus]

How would you know? What we do know is that using physics in origins is not applicable unless physics as we know it existed from the getgo.

WE can't use metaphysics, because we do not know how that works, or what rules and laws and forces the creator used.

I know because I have educated myself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Imagine that dude in court claiming that he had identical DNA to Adam.

He'ld be send of to some psychiatric institution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Quite a case you have there.

It's the exact same case as you have, in terms of merrit, evidential support, usefullness, verifiability,....

That is not correct.

Except that it is.

To be strong evidence, for one thing, it would need to represent most life on earth of the various ages.

No. To be strong evidence, the fossils we find just needs to fit the evolutionary narrative. It just needs to make sense in light of evolution.
Eg, we should be finding mammals pre-cambrian layers.

We do not know it does. I suspect it represents closer to 5% of life than 100%.

5% is FAR to much.
I suspect it's closer to 0.001%

So you grasp at the straws in such a hopelessly incomplete record to try to put together a complete picture of life on earth and origins!

Nope. I just understand the subject matter and am able to put the fossil record in the correct perspective. Unlike you.

No wonder you need to have some dingodoglion in a tree as the ancestor of flipper! Then you grab some swamp animals or something, that maybe have some similar features such as a long snout or something, and try to say that was the dingodoglion evolving toward a dolphin!! Comically inept.

lol....
See, it's stuff like that shows how little you understand of the actual topic.

Well, get to it then. I can see why one would distance themselves from the fossil record as origins evidence of evolution.

Is this a deliberate lie?
Where have I distanced myself from the fossil record?

What should tell me that?

Let's break it down to simple points. Hopefully you'll be able to compute that.

1. the fossil record is strong evidence of evolution
2. of all independend lines of evidence in support of evolution, the fossil record is among the weakest. We can rephrase this point as "all other independend lines of evidence are even stronger"
3. The genetic evidence is the strongest of all

Get it now?

Your abandoning the fossil record as a chief source of evidence?

I never abandoned anything, nore have I ever called fossils the "chief source of evidence".
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit it seems...

Why would we assume that Noah had genes such as we do?I don't live 1000 years. Or is this purely a matter of religion for you? Why assume modern genetics existed?

Why assume that the universe wasn't created 5 seconds ago?

 

[dad]

I know because I have educated myself.

What do you know? The issue is not how much we stuff our head, but what we stuff our head with.

1Co 8:2 - And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

 

[dad]

He'ld be send of to some psychiatric institution.

Great. So how about the guy that claimed early man had genes the same as modern ones?

 

[dad]

It's the exact same case as you have, in terms of merrit, evidential support, usefullness, verifiability,....

I do not consider God's word to be such.

No. To be strong evidence, the fossils we find just needs to fit the evolutionary narrative. It just needs to make sense in light of evolution.

Circular. You make it fit in whatever way your beliefs deem.

There is no actual reason to assume some animal in a tree became the king of the sea. That may fit your religious narrative. My suggestion is science should stop narrating and listen.

They can grab some swamp critters that look a bit like the dingoliondog fossil, or a dolphin, and try to say they are all the same creature more or less evolved...but that is blind religion. How many hundreds of animals did not leave fossils that may have also looked similar?

5% is FAR to much.
I suspect it's closer to 0.001%

Remember we are talking about kinds of animals, not total numbers.

lol....
See, it's stuff like that shows how little you understand of the actual topic.

Explain what you think I messed?

Is this a deliberate lie?
Where have I distanced myself from the fossil record?

"
DogmaHunter said: ↑
The fact is that fossils make up for some of the weakest evidence for evolution theory.
Still strong, but among the weakest overall.
The fossil record is very strong evidence.
It's just that in the totality of evidence in support of evolution, it is by far not the strongest kind."

Then you allude to genetics, when we have no genes from early life on earth!

Let's break it down to simple points. Hopefully you'll be able to compute that.

1. the fossil record is strong evidence of evolution

Vacilate all you like. The only way it could even be representative of the vast array of life would be if nature were the same in the past. That you do not know.
Since the bible tells us man and all kinds were here at the same time, I have no reason to believe your unsupported half baked pseudoscience claims.

2. of all independend lines of evidence in support of evolution, the fossil record is among the weakest. We can rephrase this point as "all other independend lines of evidence are even stronger"

So what evidence exactly? When we search dolphin evolution guess what comes up...the few fossils from the record you belittle here!

3. The genetic evidence is the strongest of all

Such as..?

Get it now?

Yes, you have nothing at all.

I never abandoned anything, nore have I ever called fossils the "chief source of evidence".
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit it seems...

They are a chief source for evidence though, we don't need you to call them that.

Why assume that the universe wasn't created 5 seconds ago?

I prefer a sound mind, thanks.

 

[VirOptimus]

What do you know? The issue is not how much we stuff our head, but what we stuff our head with.

1Co 8:2 - And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

As I deny the existance of god(s) quoting scripture is pretty useless. Scripture also has no place in science.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How would you know? What we do know is that using physics in origins is not applicable unless physics as we know it existed from the getgo.

We can't use metaphysics, because we do not know how that works, or what rules and laws and forces the creator used.

...so therefore Dad gets to make up his own physics, and that's the way it was.

Any questions?

 

[doubtingmerle]

1Co 8:2 - And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Interesting. And do you think you know anything?

 

[bhsmte]

...so therefore Dad gets to make up his own physics, and that's the way it was.

Any questions?

You know how it goes; if well evidenced reality doesn't work for you, manufacture your own reality.

 

[Larniavc]

You know...honestly.... I die a little inside when I read such things.
I actually really literally feel physical discomfort.

It is really unsettling to see a human mind so far gone that it is capable of saying such things and actually be serious about it.

Sometimes I honestly wonder if CF is not another Landoverbaptist.

Isn’t this the site in which POE became a thing?

 

[bhsmte]

Sometimes I honestly wonder if CF is not another Landoverbaptist.

Isn’t this the site in which POE became a thing?

You bet!

 

[Larniavc]

they also said that: "It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings".

​

so how many cases we need to find to conclude its false?




again incorrect. as i showed with trucks compare vs cars. trucks share many traits with other trucks but not with cars. so if we will make vehicles tree, trucks in general will group with other trucks rather then with cars. i realy see no problem with designer who made a groups of creatures: mammals, reptiles etc.

Say, why don’t you pop over to the magical animal-car thread?

It could use your input.

Can magical animal-cars reproduce?

 

[Larniavc]

You bet!

Awesome. Pop culture overload!

Squeee!

 

[dad]

As I deny the existance of god(s) quoting scripture is pretty useless. Scripture also has no place in science.

Doesn't matter what you deny. What matters is that you do not know, despite pretending to.

 

[dad]

...so therefore Dad gets to make up his own physics, and that's the way it was.

Any questions?

Trying to use today's nature in the past is making up physics.

I did not make up the bible. Science does make up origins fables.

 

[dad]

Interesting. And do you think you know anything?

I know Jesus is not a liar. I know science is.

 

[dad]

You know how it goes; if well evidenced reality doesn't work for you, manufacture your own reality.

No, it doesn't work that way. Reality works for Christians. Made up religious stories of so called origins science do not work, they are made up.

 

[pitabread]

Trying to use today's nature in the past is making up physics.

Wut? Just when I think I've stopped seeing creationists post new things that make no sense, you guys continue to surprise me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I know Jesus is not a liar. I know science is.

Ah, so you think you know something. And your own quote says that if you think you know something you are wrong.

I conclude you are wrong