the self replicating watch argument

Status
Not open for further replies.

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You still don't and never will if most animals and man could not even fossilize in that former different nature.
And yet, you can't even propose a physiological model that would result in humans that are unable to fossilize. Why claim what you cannot defend?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

daleksteve

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2015
627
160
45
✟16,732.00
Faith
Salvation Army
Wrong. Neanderthals are recent man. Post flood man. Present nature man. DNA similar to ours is expected. You have no DNA from the time of Adam, and the first 1600 years.

Wrong. Utter creationist nonsense.

Neanderthals were extinct long before modern man and before the flood.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

daleksteve

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2015
627
160
45
✟16,732.00
Faith
Salvation Army
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.

They were hominid Modern Humans, homo sapiens are hominids. There were thousand of Human sub spieces around but we are the only spieces of human left on the earth.

Our DNA shows that we are decended from some of these sub spieces.

That means Adam and Eve were not homo sapiens if we are all decended from them.
 
Upvote 0

daleksteve

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2015
627
160
45
✟16,732.00
Faith
Salvation Army
Well then, riddle me this..God planted a garden. On day six man ate from that very garden from trees.

I am not sure how many mornings you think there are in six days? The bible lists one every day.
So plants from day three had no sun for millions of years?
Nice.

The sun existed on Day three. It is about 3 millions years older than the earth.
 
Upvote 0

daleksteve

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2015
627
160
45
✟16,732.00
Faith
Salvation Army
Well then, riddle me this..God planted a garden. On day six man ate from that very garden from trees.

Riddle me this. God brought all the animals and creatures before Adam on day six and he named them. How he Did he managed do this in 24 hours?

He would have had to name something like 20,000 animals a second.

The total events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours.
 
Upvote 0

daleksteve

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2015
627
160
45
✟16,732.00
Faith
Salvation Army
Wrong. Neanderthals are recent man. Post flood man. Present nature man. DNA similar to ours is expected. You have no DNA from the time of Adam, and the first 1600 years.

Humans pre and post flood will all have the same DNA as they are decended from Adam and Eve and if your latest bit of nosnsense is right from whats we currently know about DNA that would make Adam and Eve Neanderthals.

Are we all decended from Adam and Eve. Answer no. Cain and Able had wives so that means that would have to have married and had sexual relations with their sisters, that would give there offspring a very high chance of being born with birth defects.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You still don't and never will if most animals and man could not even fossilize in that former different nature.

The only thing you needed for fossils is an environment that protected an organism from decomposing too rapidly by being anoxigenic and which allowed it to mineralize rapidly .

There are about 20 species of protohumans that are not chimp ancestors and we even have fossils of bacteria and their biochemical byproducts . When are creationists going to stop lying about what scientists know
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And yet, you can't even propose a physiological model that would result in humans that are unable to fossilize. Why claim what you cannot defend?
In the from dust to dust idea, the former nature was such as that man (and most animals) would return to dust too fast to leave remains.

There are several known features of the former world nature that stand out in stark contrast to today. The long lifespans for example. We need not know what caused man to live longer. I do not need a model, which basically means looking at the present nature and trying to use that to explain things.

Not even sure why I should feel a need to speculate. The only thing that matters is science doesn't know.

However since you seem to think guessing is some sort or requirement, I guess anyone could do that. Perhaps one big reason could have been that in that fast reproducing world of yesterday, many types of bacteria, and mold, and insects, and small animals and etc etc would have then specialized in certain kinds of animal disposal. Even today, we see the snotworm specialize in certain whale remains, if I recall.

Possibly add to that chemical reactions that would have occurred at death. We do not even know what sort of genetics man had at the time. We do not know if there could have been something in our bodies that no longer exists? We do not know what would be the exact reactions chemically in that former nature...etc.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Riddle me this. God brought all the animals and creatures before Adam on day six and he named them. How he Did he managed do this in 24 hours?

Easily. What if only 2 of each basic kind existed in the garden? The multiply thingie would maybe be after they migrated outward from Eden! Now, any tough questions? This is too easy.

The total events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours.
Nope. Not at all. Besides, Adam was smart and fast, unlike devolved man of today.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
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.
we are talking about phylogeny here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
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.
ok. but we agree that a bicylce is more similar to another bicylce than to a car. right? and the same is true for airplane and a car. right?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Wrong. Utter creationist nonsense.

Neanderthals were extinct long before modern man and before the flood.
-_- no, Neanderthals not only lived at the same time as our species, but thanks to being able to sequence the Neanderthal genome, we know that some crossbreeding occurred between our species and Neanderthals.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Show me a completely different pattern in nature everywhere and then we'll talk.

what kind of pattern you are looking for? you alrleady mention the rabbit gene. so if creation were true what we should see about this gene distribution?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The sun existed on Day three. It is about 3 millions years older than the earth.
You need to check your math. The sun is estimated to be about 4.603 billion years old, and the Earth is estimated to be about 4.543 billion years old. The difference between those numbers is 60 million, not 3 million.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
In the from dust to dust idea, the former nature was such as that man (and most animals) would return to dust too fast to leave remains.
Describe the physiology necessary to accomplish that, and yet have dinosaurs still fossilize.

There are several known features of the former world nature that stand out in stark contrast to today. The long lifespans for example.
-_- the long lifespans in the bible have no evidence supporting that they ever occurred.

We need not know what caused man to live longer. I do not need a model, which basically means looking at the present nature and trying to use that to explain things.
You do need a model if you are even trying to make a hypothesis for this. How can you stand to spout concepts you can't even fathom the function of and expect other people to treat you seriously?

Not even sure why I should feel a need to speculate. The only thing that matters is science doesn't know.
When all evidence contradicts your position, it hardly makes it a valid position to hold just by virtue of the fact that the nature of science demands that no theory can 100% be certain to be true. I could have a duck in my arms, a degree in Ornithology, and even genetically sequence the duck and have the genes match known duck sequences, and still couldn't consider myself 100% certain that the organism I was holding was a duck. -_- that doesn't make it reasonable to conclude that holding any other position is logical in the slightest.

However since you seem to think guessing is some sort or requirement, I guess anyone could do that.
That's kinda how testable hypotheses are developed. You observe a phenomenon and then propose a possible, testable mechanism of how it works based on the information you have. Hypotheses aren't shots in the dark, though.

Perhaps one big reason could have been that in that fast reproducing world of yesterday, many types of bacteria, and mold, and insects, and small animals and etc etc would have then specialized in certain kinds of animal disposal. Even today, we see the snotworm specialize in certain whale remains, if I recall.
-_- why would said decomposers be able to efficiently digest a human and not a dinosaur? What physiological differences could make the dinosaur more resistant to rot? Why is it that every single modern organism you think lived alongside dinosaurs had the same rotting problem?

Your basic concept makes so little sense that it demands further explanation; if you can't provide any, then no one should ever address your point ever again because it is a crime to even validate you with a response.

Possibly add to that chemical reactions that would have occurred at death. We do not even know what sort of genetics man had at the time. We do not know if there could have been something in our bodies that no longer exists? We do not know what would be the exact reactions chemically in that former nature...etc.
Name a biological chemical that would cause bodies to rot so fast that not even a tar pit could maintain them and mud couldn't retain an imprint. Because in case you haven't noticed, not all fossils need the organism to refrain from rotting. Heck, footprint fossils don't even need the organism to be dead, so how do you explain the lack of human footprints in the same layers as dinosaur footprints (all claimed examples of such are confirmed fakes)?

Ever notice that the traits you attribute to "previous state humans" are weirdly similar to classical vampire traits? Like disintegrating upon death, extremely long lifespans, and extreme sensitivity to radiation from the sun (one you've suggested in previous conversations), etc.?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.