the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

And phylogenetic trees are a real thing and have real-world application (esp. when it comes to genomics). You'll deny this of course, but it's just the continual trend of creationist reality denial.

It never changes.

They have zero application to the origins issues. If all you want to do is link a parent with a child or something, fine.

 

[dad]

An omnipotent watch can do anything, so yes it can create time.

Never met a watch that could do that.

That's not the question. Which parts actually rule out a watch? I note that you have been unable to come up with a specific example ruling out a watch.

How about where it says God is love? Or God walked in the garden? Or He died for our sins? Never seen a watch do that.

The watch is the creator of the universe. The son of the watch sent down to earth might have been a second hand or something.

I see. So maybe Moses was actually a bulrush, and John the Baptist a bee?

Well, naturally. We're talking about an omniscient omnipotent creator of everything. How could that make any sense. I'm pleased that you've come to realise this. Don't you see that if it makes no sense for the watch and the spatula, then it makes no sense for God and the Holy Spirit too?

No. I do not see that any more than I see that a tea cup contained the sun moon and stars. I know a tea cup is bigger than your hot soup that popped out the universe was at one time, but I digress.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Never met a watch that could do that.

But, this is an omnipotent watch. It can do anything.

How about where it says God is love? Or God walked in the garden? Or He died for our sins? Never seen a watch do that.

It's an omnipotent watch. It can do anything. I'm surprised that you don't know what 'omnipotent' means.

I see. So maybe Moses was actually a bulrush, and John the Baptist a bee?

Interesting theories. Why do you think that Moses was a bullrush and John the Baptist a bee?

No. I do not see that any more than I see that a tea cup contained the sun moon and stars. I know a tea cup is bigger than your hot soup that popped out the universe was at one time, but I digress.

Interesting. Could you please explain to me why you think that a tea cup contained the moon and stars?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

so its not.

No, it is the same tree every time.
No study is going to put humans outside the group of primates, or mammals or whatever.

I considered it a given that as we approach "modern" times, lines between species become blurry. But indeed, I forgot on which site we are posting here.

 

[xianghua]

You might want to read it again yourself, since this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Which for the record is the creation of blatant chimeric organisms; such as these glow-in-the-dark rabbits.

Show me a world filled with blatant chimeric organisms and we can talk about a designer.

so your prediction is that we will not find a gene that is shared between two far species but isnt shared between several species between them? say something like this:

 

[xianghua]

Based on my testing, I found this claim not to be true as it entirely depends on which cars and which trucks you are comparing. There is a lot of overlap between different characteristics of trucks and cars.

Unless you are going to proved otherwise, repeating a claim that has already been demonstrated not to be true is just dishonest.

i think we can look at external taits and see if in general a truck is more similar to other truck than to a car. do you agree its an objective look?

 

[DogmaHunter]

i think we can look at external taits and see if in general a truck is more similar to other truck than to a car. do you agree its an objective look?

Trucks and cars are mechanical devices, not living biological entities.
Meaning that it is invalid to compare the two, when trying to make a point about biological processes.

You are not even comparing apples with oranges. It's rather organic apples with plastic oranges.

 

[xianghua]

So try to build an evolutionary tree that accounts for all these. You cannot. You could not even do a unique, well defined tree for bicycles, mopeds, surreys, and cars.

who said we cant? first: do you agree that we already seen its possible with about 8 types of vehicles?

if you see any problem here say what and we will see if we can solve it or not under the design scenario.

 

[xianghua]

No, it is the same tree every time.

its not. by one gene you get a tree and by another gene you get another tree. actually: in a specific region chimp is closer to chiken than to human.

 

[xianghua]

So what? Between your supposed ancestors in the fossil record are many things you have no idea existed, or how they came to exist.

actually many fossils dont fit with the evolutionery hierarchy. i already gave here few examples so here it again by copy- paste:

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)

"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"

so lets ignore a fossil that doesnt fit with evolution.

or:

Protoavis - Wikipedia

" Though it existed far earlier than Archaeopteryx, its skeletal structure is allegedly more bird-like."

doesnt fit with evolution? fine. lets call it "convergent evolution" or "anomaly"

 

[xianghua]

It isn't up to him.

actually i said that if god is eternal he dont need a designer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

who said we cant? first: do you agree that we already seen its possible with about 8 types of vehicles?

View attachment 223568
if you see any problem here say what and we will see if we cant solve it or not under the design scenario.

You just pulled that diagram out of your..... pocket.
It is not the objective result of taking big datasets which describes those vehicles in ridiculous detail after which it was mapped onto a graph by simply counting matches.

In other words, you drew this tree based not on what the data actually is, but based on the outcome that you WANTED to obtain.

 

[pitabread]

so your prediction is that we will not find a gene that is shared between two far species but isnt shared between several species between them? say something like this:

View attachment 223565

I didn't say that at all. In fact, I'm well aware there are cases of convergent molecular evolution (generally not identical though), horizontal gene transfer, hybridization and other oddities in nature that don't paint a completely perfect picture of strictly linear hereditary descent.

What I've always said is that if individual species were artificially designed, I would expect the patterns we observe in nature to be consistent with genetic engineering and not constrained by biological evolution. In other words, the patterns from genetics to developmental biology to biogeography to fossils should bear a completely different pattern than what we generally observe today.

Show me a completely different pattern in nature everywhere and then we'll talk.

 

[pitabread]

i think we can look at external taits and see if in general a truck is more similar to other truck than to a car. do you agree its an objective look?

That's not objective at all.

How trucks and cars are categorized tends to be based on a limited subset of physical characteristics (curb weight, etc), plus a certain degree of subjectivity.

Your argument was that if we took an independent look at the characteristics that made up these vehicles and ran a tree based on them, they should sort themselves into trucks and cars. Yet based on the trees I ran, there was no statistical convergence between them.

I think if you were to cherry-pick a limited set of criteria with the intention of achieving the sorting you are looking for, sure you could probably do that. But at which point all you've done is force the categorization of vehicles in the first place, which defeats the entire purpose of this exercise.

 

[dad]

But, this is an omnipotent watch. It can do anything.

No it can't, a watch is for keeping time, not creating time.

It's an omnipotent watch. It can do anything. I'm surprised that you don't know what 'omnipotent' means.

You do know what watch means?

Interesting. Could you please explain to me why you think that a tea cup contained the moon and stars?

I don't. Now can you tell us why science thinks the whole universe was inside something that was at one time supposedly smaller than a teacup? I consider their stories to be less valid than those of the mad hatter.

 

[dad]

In other words, you drew this tree based not on what the data actually is, but based on the outcome that you WANTED to obtain.

Precisely what science does. They gorge themselves on hopelessly partial data, and weave the results to fit their religion.

 

[dad]

actually i said that if god is eternal he dont need a designer.

Not like I expected antagonist posters to properly truthfully represent your position.

 

[dad]

actually many fossils dont fit with the evolutionery hierarchy. i already gave here few examples so here it again by copy- paste:

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/01/24/rsbl.2011.1216.full Right, and again, that goes toward the point that they work in a biased way, desperately trying to make a huge intricate puzzle with four or five pieces. They must use imagination as the main ingredient.

Protoavis - Wikipedia

" Though it existed far earlier than Archaeopteryx, its skeletal structure is allegedly more bird-like."

doesnt fit with evolution? fine. lets call it "convergent evolution" or "anomaly"

Any kindergarten kid could guess and imagine and speculate. I can do that also. If I see a bird fossil (though it may be somewhat evolved from an original kind of bird) I ask if maybe it was rapidly evolving into a dino in that former nature. After all birds we KNOW were here even before beasts.
It seems strange to me that so called science actually expects people to take their wild eyed religious guesses seriously. I sure don't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Precisely what science does.

No. It's what dishonest creationists do.

They gorge themselves on hopelessly partial data, and weave the results to fit their religion.

And I bet that the rest of the data was removed from existance last thursday?

 

[Brightmoon]

Any kindergarten kid could guess and imagine and speculate. I can do that also. If I see a bird fossil (though it may be somewhat evolved from an original kind of bird) I ask if maybe it was rapidly evolving into a dino in that former nature. After all birds we KNOW were here even before beasts.
.

There is some recent evidence that more than one lineage of theropod dinosaurs were becoming birds . The birds that are alive now are only from the only lineage that survived that bolide.