the self replicating watch argument

[VirOptimus]

creation model simply mean that nature was designed. so we should find evidence for design that cant be explain by a natural process. you may falsify it by showing how a creature can evolve naturally or you can prove it by positive evidence. means its testable.

Sorry, thats just nonsense.

Try again, explain its explanatory power, and specifics on how it can be falsified.

 

[doubtingmerle]

creation model simply mean that nature was designed. so we should find evidence for design that cant be explain by a natural process. you may falsify it by showing how a creature can evolve naturally or you can prove it by positive evidence. means its testable.

What method does the creation model say the creator used to create new animals? Did he evolve them from previous species? Did he drop a giant watermelon from the sky that exploded into a mess that included new animals? Did previous species have a bowel movement that sprang into life and out came the next species? Or does the creation model specify that the creator used a different method? If so, what is that method that he used?

 

[xianghua]

Dividing things into groups is not the same thing as building a unique nested hierarchy.

are you calling this a nested hierarchy or not?:

(image from Circulatory System)

 

[xianghua]

Sorry, thats just nonsense.

Try again, explain its explanatory power, and specifics on how it can be falsified.

creation predict evidence for design. clear and simple.

 

[xianghua]

Logically speaking,

The universe doesn't care about time nor is it concerned about measuring it. It simply is time and the only creature created that cares about measuring time is humans. Why? I don't know. However, a self replicating watch is in my expert opinion, outlandish, absurd and ridiculous.

Logically speaking,

If a self-replicating watch was a thing that was a natural creation then it would have already been here thus we would never have had a need for a regular watch to begin with. Of all the discoveries we've made and inventions we've created, in 2018 we haven't found a " self-replicating watch " yet? It's because such a thing would indeed need to be created and molded to the understanding of a human's brain. You would have to consider if this technology is indeed a natural creation then you will undoubtedly have to consider the fact that animals are using this " time piece " as well to navigate. They too are a part of nature yet there are no studies or discoveries about animals of any kind, including insects, functioning off the awareness of some sort of self replicating watch.

its actually analogy. we do find a self replicating spinning motor like the flagellum in the first post of this discussion.

 

[SheldonCooper]

its actually analogy. we do find a self replicating spinning motor like the flagellum in the first post of this discussion.

I only gave my 2 cents out of respect for your inbox invitation to this thread. In all honesty, this topic doesn't interest me.

 

[VirOptimus]

creation predict evidence for design. clear and simple.

Thats an non answer. You clearly doesnt understand any science.

 

[doubtingmerle]

are you calling this a nested hierarchy or not?:

(image from Circulatory System)

That is a nested hierarchy. For evolution we don't usually show 3 way splits as shown. One of the three branches would need to break off first. But basically this is a nested hierarchy.

 

[Speedwell]

creation predict evidence for design. clear and simple.

You haven't shown us any. You show us complexity and functionality, neither one of which is evidence of design. You construct fantastic analogies with non-living objects, imaginary wooden watches, robot penguins, but never any evidence of design.

 

[dad]

Then you probably shouldn't run to it at every opportunity.

Still waiting for you to show light moving, dad.

You think nothing moves? The light from the sun takes about 8 seconds to move here.

 

[dad]

Uh no, astronomy is an amazingly consistent science with all sorts of data about space objects that are often measured to be millions of light years away.

No time was ever measured out of the solar system area actually. Nothing could be consistent with that.

The issue is that everything from background radiation to black holes to starlight is consistent with the view that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, and light has been traveling for million of years.

Nothing takes millions of years of time unless there is time as we know it here. Science cannot say the universe has that, so your beliefs have no merit...even though you thought they were sciency.

Again the question is why all of this arrives looking exactly as one would expect for light that had been traveling from stars with the same physics as we have.

Stars look nothing like that. Time is not physics by the way. They don't even know what time is, let alone what it is out in the great unknown. All your great time claims depend on time existing the same out there as here.

Without time existing no distances can be known. So a star you claim was 14 billion light years could be 6 light days away! You just do not know what time is like out there. Only here. No way round that. Ckeckmate.

If the light instead had come from a universe with completely different physics,

We need not talk about the laws of physics. Anything coming into the fishbowl has to obey fishbowl laws! Tell us how would it matter what laws existed where a star was unless time also existed there?

 

[dad]

And do you know about the laws of the universe on highway 80 last Tuesday? Were you there? If you can divide the universe into segments with different places having different physics, why cannot others do that with their own spots in spacetime? Why do you and only you get to declare spots in time and space to have different laws of physics?

Forget spacetime existing in the far universe. That equals fishbowl time and space. Try to stick to what you know.

Some distances to stars are known by simple triangulation. Are you saying that space not only has different physics, but different trigonometry?

Drawing lines on a paper is one thing, drawing a line that involves time to the stars is quite another. That is slate of hand, not trig.

So far you have offered no proof that the earth had different physics.

So far you have offered no proof that the earth had the same physics. Make no claims based on a belief that earth did have the same physics.

You have offered only an ancient story that defies the laws of nature

Any true story about the future or far past would NEED to defy the temporary physics of the present on earth.

, so you hypothesized that the laws of nature were different back then. But the other option is that your story is fiction.

so you hypothesized that the laws of nature were the same back then. But the other option is that your story is fiction and God's record is true.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Drawing lines on a paper is one thing, drawing a line that involves time to the stars is quite another. That is slate of hand, not trig.
So far you have offered no proof that the earth had the same physics. Make no claims based on a belief that earth did have the same physics.

Any true story about the future or far past would NEED to defy the temporary physics of the present on earth.

so you hypothesized that the laws of nature were the same back then. But the other option is that your story is fiction and God's record is true.

Are you saying the an entire branch of mathematics doesn't work because it is over long distances (trigonometry)?
I'm sorry, but are you saying the laws of science were different in the past? How?
What I get is:
That momentum was conserved in the past.
Forces do not produce accerleration
F(net) is not equal to ma
Seriously?

 

[xianghua]

Thats an non answer. You clearly doesnt understand any science.

are you saying that creationism doesnt predict evidence for creation?

 

[VirOptimus]

are you saying that creationism doesnt predict evidence for creation?

I say that you are in over your head, you dont understand the basics and cannot therefore answer incredibly basic questions that has to be answered if its science.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You think nothing moves? The light from the sun takes about 8 seconds to move here.

You see it move? You're conceding that motion (and therefore time) exists outside this planet?

Careful dad, you're refuting yourself.

 

[dad]

You see it move? You're conceding that motion (and therefore time) exists outside this planet?

Careful dad, you're refuting yourself.

Not in any way would time need to exist the same as here for something to move. You see time is only observed at one point in the universe...here. We do know time exists here, and how much time is involved in moving here. One example is it seems to have taken days for you to almost make a point.

 

[dad]

Are you saying the an entire branch of mathematics doesn't work because it is over long distances (trigonometry)?

I am saying that in math lines and letters and numbers stand for something. In getting a base line for a trigonometric measure we must always use the space/spacetime/time in the solar system. Any slice of this solar system comes with time. We probably could use the numbers and math if we knew what time was like at all points to the star! It may not be one big line though, as cosmology has tried to use, representing homogeneous time all the way to the star out in unknown space and time!

I'm sorry, but are you saying the laws of science were different in the past? How?

Science not only does not know how or why or when, but they do not even know whether the laws were the same. The record of creation and ancient times from the bible, and even history shows things were different. Things like the lifespans and plant growth rates, weather patterns. etc etc.

What I get is:
That momentum was conserved in the past.

Where? On earth? In the solar system area? In all of God's created universe..??

Forces do not produce accerleration
F(net) is not equal to ma

In deep space we need to know what time is like, and even matter. There could be some spiritual component as well as physical in deep space. Science has no way to see that, so they have simply admitted they see only 5% of what is out there.

Then there is the issue of time. If time were different out there than it is here, then whatever moved/accelerated would do so in that different time. Light moving would move in that time..there. Here, in our earth/solar system area (I often refer to as the fishbowl) light moves in OUR time. We only know light speed here.

 

[dad]

Sorry, thats just nonsense.

Try again, explain its explanatory power, and specifics on how it can be falsified.

Since creation involved more than the natural, it cannot be falsified only by the natural!

 

[xianghua]

That is a nested hierarchy. For evolution we don't usually show 3 way splits as shown. One of the three branches would need to break off first. But basically this is a nested hierarchy.

great. so what is the difference between this and that?:

vs: