the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

H neaderthalensis is a different species they aren’t Homo sapiens. Their bodies were different and so was their growth rates( they became fully adult at 15) They were closely related enough so that the either species formed viable fertile hybrids. Recent Human ancestry is more of a ring species than most people realize.

So? Pre flood man was a different species! Early post flood man was a different species. Homo sapiens is just an invented word describing modern man.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Here's the omniscient and omnipotent watch argument.

As we know, it is often argued that God can be a first cause, an uncaused cause. However, we know that all watches are made by people, and need a creator.

But, imagine that there was a watch that was omniscient and omnipotent, and was the creator of the universe. That watch would still need someone to build it, and therefore couldn't be a first cause.

Hence, how can we say that God does not need a creator, just because it's God and not a watch? This shows that it's not logical to call God a first cause.

 

[Brightmoon]

Since there’s no physical evidence of a Flood how do you claim that something is pre Flood? There are actually about 24 species of protohumans which we have hard physical evidence for and at least 2 that we have genetic evidence for . You need to have evidence of a Flood before scientists accept it as an explanation of anything

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re forgetting something even without those fossils Linnaeus put the non human apes in Hominidae Decades before Darwin . There weren’t any protohuman fossilsjust some of the other apes.

 

[dad]

Since there’s no physical evidence of a Flood how do you claim that something is pre Flood? There are actually about 24 species of protohumans which we have hard physical evidence for and at least 2 that we have genetic evidence for . You need to have evidence of a Flood before scientists accept it as an explanation of anything

No such thing as proto human. Since science can't say there was not, or was a flood, and has no evidence either way, there is no reason to ignore worldwide flood myths, and the bible.

But I do not think the flood had anything to do with the nature change. Since the issue is whether this present nature along with our DNA existed or not in the distant past, your point is moot.

 

[dad]

You’re forgetting something even without those fossils Linnaeus put the non human apes in Hominidae Decades before Darwin . There weren’t any protohuman fossilsjust some of the other apes.

Superficial resemblances are sufficient for shallow thinkers to group things.

 

[dad]

But, imagine that there was a watch that was omniscient and omnipotent, and was the creator of the universe. That watch would still need someone to build it, and therefore couldn't be a first cause..

No man has seen God and lived. No observers as to what He is like. So we cannot draw conclusions about Him being just another watch.

He not only created the heavens and life and earth, but time itself. A watch keeps time, not creates it. It is a false comparison to call Him a watch.

 

[pitabread]

Since science can't say there was not, or was a flood, and has no evidence either way, there is no reason to ignore worldwide flood myths, and the bible.

Of course the geological sciences can determine whether or not there was a flood (per creationist claims) given that such an event would have left behind evidence of its occurrence. Lack of evidence = lack of an event.

Now if you want to continue to argue that magical physics existed in the past that were completely different than now, you can. But you're not arguing about what science could or could not demonstrate at that point. You've left any philosophical basis for valid scientific inquiry and are now in the land of make believe.

 

[dad]

Of course the geological sciences can determine whether or not there was a flood (per creationist claims) given that such an event would have left behind evidence of its occurrence. Lack of evidence = lack of an event.

Let's test your claim.

If the flood was around the KT layer, can you determine there was or was not a flood?

Now if you want to continue to argue that magical physics existed in the past that were completely different than now, you can. But you're not arguing about what science could or could not demonstrate at that point. You've left any philosophical basis for valid scientific inquiry and are now in the land of make believe.

Assuming that anything other than the state and nature you believe (for no reason at all) did exist in the far past on earth, it is not scientific inquiry at all that tells us what it was like.

And, if you were correct, that nature was the same you would have been able to bring scientific inquiry to bear. You haven't. You cannot declare you land of make believe to be science.

 

[pitabread]

If the flood was around the KT layer, can you determine there was or was not a flood?

Yes, depending on the specifics of the claim. If we're taking the typical creationist claims of a worldwide flood that uprooted the very strata of the Earth, then there would most certainly be geological remnants of such an event.

Of course a Jurassic-era flood doesn't exactly fit in with the mythology of various cultures, but I suppose that's besides the point.

Assuming that anything other than the state and nature you believe (for no reason at all) did exist in the far past on earth, it is not scientific inquiry at all that tells us what it was like.

It's already been explained to you how such things can be tested.

Regardless this doesn't change the fact that your entire line of argument is basically a variant on non-objective reality and just a purely philosophical argument. You've already thrown out the philosophical baseline on which scientific results have meaning, so what science can or can't demonstrate is irrelevant.

 

[xianghua]

First you haven't clarified if "cars" means all cars or just a single sample caricature.

i think its include most cars.

Also you left out surreys, the four wheel bikes that I asked you to include.

again: no problem:

 

[xianghua]

Of course not. But that's not the point. The point is whether we can take a bunch of arbitrary designed objects and construct statistically significant phylogenetic trees based on underlying criteria.

since in general a bicylce is more similar to other bicylce than we do have here statistically significant.

That's not what they are "admitting" at all. You really need to go back and re-read that page because you haven't understood what they are saying.

actually even evolutionists admit it:

The universal ancestor

"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."

so its not so clear as you think.

 

[Brightmoon]

Proteins aren’t genes

Superficial resemblances are sufficient for shallow thinkers to group things.

We know that otherwise creationists wouldn’t dare to say anything about baramins

 

[xianghua]

Off course one needs to understand the processes involved and the variations that can occur concerning from which angle you approach it.

There are several aspects and factors that need to be kept in mind when doing such studies.
One needs to understand mutations and what they can do.

So there can be variation in the detailed nodes, yes.
But the overall tree will be the same.

Yes, homo sapiens might have lost gene X along the way. And if chimps and gorilla's didn't, then you have a match between the chimp and the gorilla and not the human.
But that doesn't put humans outside of the group of primates or whatever.


Also, first sentence of your link: "Gorillas are humans’ closest living relatives after chimpanzees"

but you said that "And it's the same tree every single time.".

so its not.

 

[xianghua]

Here's the omniscient and omnipotent watch argument.

As we know, it is often argued that God can be a first cause, an uncaused cause. However, we know that all watches are made by people, and need a creator.

But, imagine that there was a watch that was omniscient and omnipotent, and was the creator of the universe. That watch would still need someone to build it, and therefore couldn't be a first cause.

Hence, how can we say that God does not need a creator, just because it's God and not a watch? This shows that it's not logical to call God a first cause.

what about eternal designer? it will solve the problem of first cause.

 

[xianghua]

Proteins aren’t genes

phylogenetic trees also base on proteins and not just on genes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

i think its include most cars.



again: no problem:

View attachment 223424

Uh, there is a huge convergence problem. The surrey has a roof, 4 wheels, steering linkage, etc. And you have that design developing twice, once from motorcycles to cars, and once from bikes to surreys. That is a lot of convergence.

And your order is not unique. Someone else could easily switch your mopeds/motorcycles with surreys. Now vehicles split first on number of wheels, and then both paths independently split with a convergence on engines. So which split is first? The number of wheels or the presence of an engine? This one fact ruins the coherence of your tree.

You may argue that the same thing happens with animals, that if you look at bats, dogs, birds, and snakes, for instance, one needs to decide which split is first: a) mammals first split with reptiles, followed by another convergent split where some got wings in both clades or b) wings split from unwinged, followed by another split where some winged and some unwinged animals both converged on mammalness. But in this case the order is clear. Mammals and reptiles are so strongly different, it is obvious this is a more fundamental difference. Wings obviously came later, with bats and birds developing totally different wing structures, which is exactly what one might expect if two different animals converged on flight. Not so with bikes and surreys where multiple features would favor number of wheels as more fundamental, and multiple features favor the motor as the more fundamental split.

The problem gets much worse when you start trying to classify all the different kinds of cars and trucks out there. Lets list some of the ways where these vehicles differ:

1) Car or truck.
2) Ford or Chevy.
3) 2 Door or 4 Door.
4) Air conditioned or not
5) 4 wheel drive or 2 wheel drive.

Now we find all 32 combinations are possible. So suppose you have one vehicle of each possible combination. 32 vehicles. How would you form a tree for these?

You could start by putting cars and trucks in two different branches, and then next divide each branch into Fords and Chevys. But you have a convergence problem--Fords had to change into Chevys two different times, once in cars and once in trucks. Your next branch might be on the drive train. Now you have convergence occurring four times, with each of the four groups above converging on the design of 4 wheel drive. Your next branch might be on number of doors. Now you need to account for 8 convergencies, with two doors converging 8 times to four doors. Finally each branch splits in two based on AC. Now you have AC developing in 16 different convergencies. Add in anti-lock brakes, number of cylinders, type of fuel, grade of steel, etc., and the number of convergencies you need to deal with skyrockets.

Is your classification order correct? I might want to group first on car vs truck, then on drive train, then on number of doors, then on make, then on AC. I end up with a totally different tree, with equal validity in classifying those 32 vehicles. So we are not seeing a unique consistent nested hierarchy.

Not so with animals. Take categories like:

1) chordata or not
2) backbone or not
3) hair or not
4) mammary glands or not
5) rodent incisors or not

And suddenly you find that nature does not mix and match like human designers did. Animals without a backbone don't have the option of hair or mammary glands. Those things were only available to some vertebrates. Yes there are convergencies, but they are far less frequent then with human designs. This has been verified statistically.

I conclude that life yields a unique, consistent tree, because things evolved. Vehicles do not, because they did not evolve.

 

[pitabread]

And suddenly you find that nature does not mix and match like human designers did.

Exactly. This is the fundamental point that creationists gloss over when arguing for "design". A designer could mix 'n match and humans in fact do just with lifeforms that via genetic engineering. Yet the supposed designer is still apparently constrained by evolution.

 

[dad]

Yes, depending on the specifics of the claim. If we're taking the typical creationist claims of a worldwide flood that uprooted the very strata of the Earth, then there would most certainly be geological remnants of such an event.

Of course a Jurassic-era flood doesn't exactly fit in with the mythology of various cultures, but I suppose that's besides the point.

I think the reason many creation believers have attributed so much to the flood, is because that is the only thing they can think of that seems to explain it in some way, they think.

I do not think the flood was when the big continental movement, uplift, mountain building, volcanic activity, etc happened. I suspect it was 106 years after the flood.

So, that leaves just the flood that left remains at the KT. If iridium came with the water (space and under the earth) then we would see a layer of it. We do. So I am not sure what geological remains you are talking about.

It's already been explained to you how such things can be tested.

False. It can't be tested.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

what about eternal designer? it will solve the problem of first cause.

But, what if that eternal designer is a spatula. You would still need someone or something to form the spatula, and invent the heat-resistant nylon that it is made from, before the eternal designer spatula could create the omniscient and omnipotent watch.