the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

A creator must have a beginning though..

Not if He made time.

 

[dad]

There never was a global flood.

Got it. You are just going to chant your religious beliefs that have no basis here.

You have appealed to a different nature with different rates of radioactive decay and evolution to argue for the flood.

False. Who says there was any decay at all? Don't get sore that I point out science doesn't know, but has merely assumed there was.

All this requires a different physics. But we know the laws of physics have been constant in time and space.

False. You have believed time exists the same in far space and by that belief invoked great time.


You see if the stars are, say, light days or weeks away, rather than millions of light years away, they do not offer evidence nature on the earth was the same 4500 years ago!

We have seen it for ourselves in the light that comes from distant stars, which we can tell was made in a place with the same physics long ago.

If that star was only a short TIME away, it tells NOTHING about thousands of real time years away on earth.

The stars are trillions of miles away. This has been confirmed multiple ways by science. You don't understand why scientists say this, you apparently have no interest in understanding this, and you apparently disagree without ever understanding. The evidence is there if you wish to look.

You do NOT know any distances to any star! Nor would it matter if they were even further in distance than toy think! You see, what matters is time. You require time to exist there for your anti bile millions of years beliefs to be supported.

Light has never traveled faster than the speed of light.

Speed is only how fast something moves in time and space. If the space in deep space has no time or less time or different time or whatever...then you do not know what time light takes to move. ONLY in the fishbowl of the solar system area do we know how much time light takes to move.

But we can tell how far the stars were when the light left them, and know the speed of the light, and thus we can tell when the light left the stars. Its a simple calculation.

Wrong. It all depends on the nature of time out where the stars are...not just here. You have authority to tell us how long light takes to get to earth from the sun. You do not have the knowledge or authority to tell us what time is like in deep space.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is not over their head in what you state, but not in line supporting their pathway of Evolution on Earth.

What you present is very clear.

What he presents is nonsense and an invalid analogy, which is even based on a misrepresentation of the actual theory.

His comments on the subject couldn't be more irrelevant if he tried.

 

[DogmaHunter]

He interpreted correctly.

He did not and I already explained ad nauseum how he did not.

For starters: cars aren't living organisms that reproduce with variation and which compete with peers over limited resources.

That alone already bars them from being a proper analogy.
As has been explained to him an inumerable amount of times.

But he just keeps repeating his invalid, dishonest falsehoods.

What does it say about his case, if he must insist on strawmen with some "invalid analogy"-sauce on top?

Having only biochemicals have a pathway to increase in complexity is your Faith.

No, it's biology.
Evolution is driven by processes of LIFE. Cars aren't life.

It's not even comparing apples with oranges.... it's comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.

It's like saying that "eating fruit isn't healthy" and then pointing at plastic oranges as "evidence" of that statement.

It's beyond ridiculous. Beyond dishonest.

Where do other chemicals and materials do such

Living organisms are subject to the laws and processes of life.
Biological evolution is a process that LIVING things are subject to.
Non-living things are not capable of evolving, because they do not reproduce with variation while competing with peers over limited resources.

The process of evolution in a nutshell is this:
- Reproduce
- mutate
- survive
- repeat

Cars, do not reproduce. They do not mutate. They are not in a strungle for survival.


When is this ridiculously dishonest nonsense going to stop?
It's been going on for months now. How many times does it need to be explained?

AGAIN: what does it say about your case, if you need to insist on being this dishonest in order to defend it?

Look at what you present, another time.

Look at what evolution theory REALLY is about, before continuing this charade.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, if you are calling 'here' in reference to what time is like anything else than the defined area, you are talking nonsense asking how we know time exists here.

Still doesn't answer why your definition of "here" includes the entire solar system. Have you been all over the solar system and can personally conclude that time is the same all over it?

 

[xianghua]

No, that's not what I've claimed.

Rather what I found was that depending on the individual tree, certain trucks will have more in common with other cars than each other.

actually even talkorigin admit that its also true for creatures:

"Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees."

so there is no real difference here.

In order words vehicles aren't sorting themselves into the perfect categories you think they should.

as i already asked you: do you realy think that a bicycle is more similar to a car than to other bicycle?

Besides, when phylogenetic trees are constructed on biological organisms they often aren't created via the "entire object". They can be created with as little as a single gene for example.

true. and this is why we get so many different trees base on a single gene phylogeny. as talkorigin admit too.

 

[xianghua]

"This" is not a unique, consistent, well-supported tree. "That" is.

Again, here is a quote from the file I keep linking to

The difference between classifying cars and classifying languages lies in the fact that, with cars, certain characters (for example, color or manufacturer) must be considered more important than other characters in order for the classification to work.​

simply false, since if we will check most traits we will get an objective tree. so talkorigin is wrong about that.

Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies.

see above. its simply false.
​

 

[xianghua]

... you seriously saying that the ToE isnt scientific?

you already agree that a fossil in the wrong place will falsify evolution. right? so define what do you mean by "fossil in the wrong place" and we will check if such fossils exist. if evolution is science you should be able to answer such a simple question easily.

 

[Larniavc]

If physics was completely different millions of years ago, why is it that the starlight, which left the stars millions of years ago, arrives looking like it was generated with the same physics as light generated today?

Because Jesus, silly!

 

[Larniavc]

So there IS someone we can blame for all the terrible weather. Good to know.

Say, wouldn’t that mean those angels sent Kratrina?

They must be some angry angels. Do angels have freewill or can they only do what God tells them?

 

[dad]

Still doesn't answer why your definition of "here" includes the entire solar system. Have you been all over the solar system and can personally conclude that time is the same all over it?

I can accept that it is, since man has sent probes to the edges of our system. I have no reason t assume all creation is the same in regards to how time exists.

Send a probe to the stars, and check how much time it takes to get a message from it. Or maybe provide some reason why you think we do not know that time is the same in the solar system if that is what you are alluding to.

I prefer to deal with the reality of what is actually known within reason.

 

[dad]

No, it's biology.
Evolution is driven by processes of LIFE. Cars aren't life.

It's not even comparing apples with oranges.... it's comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.

It's like saying that "eating fruit isn't healthy" and then pointing at plastic oranges as "evidence" of that statement.

It's beyond ridiculous. Beyond dishonest.

Not if the point is that both are created and can be grouped. Since one is God's creation, and the other is man's creation, we would not expect the same rules of classification.

I mean we could classify tools used by Neanderthals on a tree. Then we could classify high technology items of the modern era. In one group we might have AI, self charging power, lasers, invisible waves, etc etc. In the other group we might have stones, bones, antlers and etc.

Living organisms are subject to the laws and processes of life.
Biological evolution is a process that LIVING things are subject to.
Non-living things are not capable of evolving, because they do not reproduce with variation while competing with peers over limited resources.

The process of evolution in a nutshell is this:
- Reproduce
- mutate
- survive
- repeat

Cars, do not reproduce. They do not mutate. They are not in a strungle for survival.

God's stuff is superior. Both are able to be grouped, and both are obviously created.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not if the point is that both are created and can be grouped.

No. That's the point I was addressing. You can't group them, because they are completely different things. As different as organic apples and plastic oranges.

Since one is God's creation, and the other is man's creation, we would not expect the same rules of classification.

Assumed conclusion.

I mean we could classify tools used by Neanderthals on a tree.
Then we could classify high technology items of the modern era. In one group we might have AI, self charging power, lasers, invisible waves, etc etc. In the other group we might have stones, bones, antlers and etc.

And it wouldn't make any point concerning BIOLOGY.

God's stuff is superior.

Again assumed conclusion.

Both are able to be grouped, and both are obviously created.

Organic apples and plastic oranges, again.

 

[VirOptimus]

you already agree that a fossil in the wrong place will falsify evolution. right? so define what do you mean by "fossil in the wrong place" and we will check if such fossils exist. if evolution is science you should be able to answer such a simple question easily.

I'm not responsible for your education and is not intersted in playing games with you.

There is no such fossils found.

 

[hecd2]

Got it. You are just going to parse our posts into chunks and just repeat the same nonsense, hoping that the rubes are impressed that you keep getting the last word in. I don't have time for that so I am just going to just tell you how it is.

Yes, that's the conclusion I reached after three lengthy posts. No matter what evidence we come up with, no matter that all the evidence is consistent with the laws of physics being uniform across the universe, dad will stick his head in the sand and repeat the meaningless mantra that we don't what time is "like" outside the solar system. (It's like a water melon in the solar system and like a very small and extremely sharp stilletto outside, you know.) His script is just a means to argue for a different nature in the past, so that anything he wants to be true is possible and anything that he doesn't want to be true is denied. It's a worthless position, no better than invoking magic, and not worth engaging with.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

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!



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.


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


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.

All of this is nonsense, plain and simple. Still, a single line as a reply wouldn't look good, would it. So...

So you are saying that mathematics doesn't work over long distances. In order to correct it, I would have to meet you in person or in voice chat because typing it can't really explain 12 years of school mathematics. Though, in short: time is unrelated. With time, distances change, but when we are talking of light years, a few hundred thousand kilometers don't matter.

When has science ever made a law that is not followed throughout history (Bible is not history). As far as I know, there is no law about plant growth.

Read up on it. In any system. You can choose any system, in absence of a force, momentum is/was/will be conserved. If you claim otherwise, please provide evidence.

For the rest, burden of proof because again, would have to meet in person/voice chat.

 

[dad]

No. That's the point I was addressing. You can't group them, because they are completely different things. As different as organic apples and plastic oranges.

I suggest that evo grouping trees are not intelligently designed.

 

[dad]

.. to argue for a different nature in the past, so that anything he wants to be true is possible and anything that he doesn't want to be true is denied. .

Anything God said happened is possible. Science doesn't know and is no longer the judge of what happened. Science of origins has been relegated to a religion in a lab coat.

 

[dad]

So you are saying that mathematics doesn't work over long distances. In order to correct it, I would have to meet you in person or in voice chat because typing it can't really explain 12 years of school mathematics. Though, in short: time is unrelated. With time, distances change, but when we are talking of light years, a few hundred thousand kilometers don't matter.

No. There is no person typing on the far side of the universe. You have only one observer and one point of observation in the big universe. In this case, it is an insignificant blue speck.

When has science ever made a law that is not followed throughout history (Bible is not history). As far as I know, there is no law about plant growth.

The laws of nature exist as we speak. Plants cannot pop up in a few minutes with our laws. It is not science that makes the laws. It is science that is able to read some of them.

Read up on it. In any system. You can choose any system, in absence of a force, momentum is/was/will be conserved. If you claim otherwise, please provide evidence.

That has what to do with either far space or time there??

Any force out there making something move must operate in the time of that area. We cannot look at our fishbowl and how fast things move here as the way to see how much time is involved there.

 

[dad]

And it wouldn't make any point concerning BIOLOGY..

Biology is just how life works. You seem to be getting confused with God's machines that are alive, and man's poor little machines that are not.