the self replicating watch argument

Status
Not open for further replies.

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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?

We have explained this many times before. Why do you ignore our answers?

Grouping similar things in categories is not the same thing as building a nested hierarchy.

Grouping similar things in categories is not the same thing as building a nested hierarchy.

Grouping similar things in categories is not the same thing as building a nested hierarchy.

Grouping similar things in categories is not the same thing as building a nested hierarchy.

And so on ad infinitum way out into the sunset. How many more times would you like us to repeat it?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
The main factor in dna is the forces and laws of nature acting on cells and atoms and molecules, etc. You have no Dino era dna do you?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
-_- 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.
If the flood was around the KT layer, then neanderthals are long long long after the flood.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Describe the physiology necessary to accomplish that, and yet have dinosaurs still fossilize.
Perhaps finds were not original kinds? Perhaps something about being quite evolved from the original kind was conducive to the ability to leave remains? Perhaps some creatures were not created to live forever, so they had some difference in life processes from man and maybe other creatures? Who knows?



-_- the long lifespans in the bible have no evidence supporting that they ever occurred.
Or not.

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?
Models are made in the present state. Unless the state was the same, we would not use it to model!

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.
Models are based on nature and laws in place.



-_- why would said decomposers be able to efficiently digest a human and not a dinosaur?
Because they had specific jobs and some type of instinct to know what to do.

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)?
How would we know reactions in a different nature?
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.?
I do not recall suggesting any radiation existed in the former nature. Vampire myth seems spiritual, so who knows what demons inspired that, or what grains of ancient truth might be involved?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟123,826.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
No it can't, a watch is for keeping time, not creating time.

The whole omniscient omnipotent watch argument is predicated on the watch being omniscient and omnipotent. Hence, the watch is capable of doing anything, and of course knows everything.

You do know what watch means?

Yes. I also know what omniscient and omnipotent means. This is the omniscient and omnipotent watch argument.

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.

mad_hatter_large.png

That's utterly ridiculous. The universe cannot be 'inside' something. It's the universe. What on early are you thinking?

Falling out of the parody for a second, it's interesting that you say that the Big Bang is 'ridiculous'. As that shows how science has gone beyond the limitations of what humans find 'sensible'. But, we still have plenty of evidence that the big bang happened. And that shows how science is a far superior way of finding out what is true than relying on humans deciding what is sensible.

Quantum physics seems 'ridiculous'. But, we know if is a far better description of the world than the 'sensible and logical' laws of Newton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
we are talking about phylogeny here.

You mean the ridiculous "vehicle phylogeny" you invented to suit your argument.
Not the one you actually obtained through an objective and well tested method of comparative study. Because that one doesn't exist, off course.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
When the nesting is a feature of created life, naturally creation groups will be nested. Because of things being created and in kinds, and also because of the subsequent evolving, there are connections between animals we can nest. However, since we do not know where the evolving started or stopped, or applies, and what was first created, we cannot make a proper tree of life. The tree you make will be hopelessly incomplete, and the reasons you think the animals are connected and why and when will be wrong.
Uh no, not all created objects are nested. There is no valid nesting for rocks, planets, streams, chemical elements, lakes, etc. But there is for life. And there is for other things that copy with changes, such as languages and ancient manuscripts. Life appears to be one of those things that copies with changes.





You are limited, yes, in that you can only deal with the few cards of the deck you do have.
And yet the fossils we find are consistent with evolution.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
this isnt what we see here:


274294_c5191a4aa50fc99afe4033d6b06904be.png


vs:

6158431.png

The difference is that the first one is pulled out of your....pocket and designed deliberatly to suit your (nonsense) argument.

The second is the output of a well-tested method and detailed comparative study of gigantic datasets which describe the objects (organisms, in this case) in ridiculous detail.


In other words: the first is a dishonest diagram created specifically to support a dishonest argument.

The second is the result of hard and honest scientific work.
 
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
I already answered in detail. See

the self replicating watch argument

And

the self replicating watch argument

You just ignore my responses and hope to impress the rubes by pretending I never answered.

Pathetic tactic, that.
from your response:

"dividing things into four groups is not the same things as building a unique, consistent, well-defined nested hierarch"

but this is actually what we find in a phylogenetic tree too:

6158431.png


you also mention convergent design and i deal with that on the same base of convergent evolution. see how easy it is?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
from your response:

"dividing things into four groups is not the same things as building a unique, consistent, well-defined nested hierarch"

but this is actually what we find in a phylogenetic tree too:

6158431.png


you also mention convergent design and i deal with that on the same base of convergent evolution. see how easy it is?

Biological Phylogenies are the output of a well tested method of comparative study of gigantic datasets of completely sequenced genomes.

Your vehicle diagrams on the other hand, are the result of dishonest classifications invented out of thin air and done so specifically to suit a dishonest argument.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jjmcubbin
Upvote 0

Chris V++

Associate Member
Supporter
Mar 16, 2018
1,624
1,431
Dela Where?
Visit site
✟667,901.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I was invited to participate in this thread. Sadly a lot of this is over my head so I don't have anything meaningful to add, and it would take me weeks to read the 95 pages of posts. The only useful thing I can think to add to the Christian side is that even Richard Dawkins wasn't opposed to the idea of intelligent design. I apologize if this was previously posted. Dawkins it seems is willing to believe perhaps a race of aliens designed and planted us humans. He's apparently ok with design, just not with a supreme Designer.

Here's a link to a debate with Ben Stein. About 3 minutes in Dawkins entertains ID. He even gets specific about it.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
from your response:

"dividing things into four groups is not the same things as building a unique, consistent, well-defined nested hierarch"

but this is actually what we find in a phylogenetic tree too:

6158431.png


you also mention convergent design and i deal with that on the same base of convergent evolution. see how easy it is?

Uh no, it is not simply dividing into four groups. First they are divided into 17 groups. Then the complex nesting arrangement of the taxa is shown. Finally, diagrams like this are consistently shown to have high statistical significance.

There are a million billion possible unrooted trees with 17 groups. In spite of so many possibilities, multiple factors confirm this is the correct one.

There are 3 ways to make an unrooted tree with 4 groups. Even with the limited options, your tree probably is not significant because there are hundreds of characteristics that could go either way in multiple "taxa".

No you did not deal with your convergence in the same way science does. Science shows that the number of convergences are small compared to the data that fit perfectly. When analysis is done on your data, it show the convergence are significant.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
IThe only useful thing I can think to add to the Christian side is that even Richard Dawkins wasn't opposed to the idea of intelligent design.
I thought of another point you could add from the Christian side: You could mention that a large percentage of Christians correctly see evolution as likely true, and see 6000 year creationism as clearly wrong. You might want to give them credit for getting it right. :oldthumbsup:
 
Last edited:
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

Chris V++

Associate Member
Supporter
Mar 16, 2018
1,624
1,431
Dela Where?
Visit site
✟667,901.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I thought of another point you could add from the Christian side: You could mention that a large percentage of Christians correctly see evolution as likely true, and see 6000 year creationism as clearly wrong. You might want to give them credit for getting it right. :oldthumbsup:

hey if intelligent design is good enough for Richard Dawkins, it's good enough for me. :oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The whole omniscient omnipotent watch argument is predicated on the watch being omniscient and omnipotent. Hence, the watch is capable of doing anything, and of course knows everything.

The idea of a watch is keeping time, not creating time. Hence, it is not a valid comparison to God.

That's utterly ridiculous. The universe cannot be 'inside' something. It's the universe. What on early are you thinking?

You can use any term you like to describe where the whole universe was when the magic BB singularity did this.


"
According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity."





According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?


Hahahaha


Falling out of the parody for a second, it's interesting that you say that the Big Bang is 'ridiculous'. As that shows how science has gone beyond the limitations of what humans find 'sensible'. But, we still have plenty of evidence that the big bang happened. And that shows how science is a far superior way of finding out what is true than relying on humans deciding what is sensible.
Zero evidence. You have only a religion with beliefs superimposed onto things in the universe you do not comprehend.
Quantum physics seems 'ridiculous'. But, we know if is a far better description of the world than the 'sensible and logical' laws of Newton.

Great...so?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Uh no, not all created objects are nested. There is no valid nesting for rocks, planets, streams, chemical elements, lakes, etc. But there is for life. ]
God's creation of life was an ordered thing. The reason for the nest pattern is creation and subsequent evolution, which was part of creation. Sorry if you thought only gosless runaway evolving was the cause of nesting. No.

And there is for other things that copy with changes, such as languages and ancient manuscripts. Life appears to be one of those things that copies with changes.
That is how we were created.
And yet the fossils we find are consistent with evolution.
And also creation with subsequent evolving. Your beliefs have no monopoly on the evidences.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I was invited to participate in this thread. Sadly a lot of this is over my head so I don't have anything meaningful to add, and it would take me weeks to read the 95 pages of posts. The only useful thing I can think to add to the Christian side is that even Richard Dawkins wasn't opposed to the idea of intelligent design. I apologize if this was previously posted. Dawkins it seems is willing to believe perhaps a race of aliens designed and planted us humans. He's apparently ok with design, just not with a supreme Designer.

Here's a link to a debate with Ben Stein. About 3 minutes in Dawkins entertains ID. He even gets specific about it.

I always love it when people post that clip. It's an exceptional example of creationist dishonesty and misconduct.

Here's the true story behind that clip.

First, Dawkins was lied to about the purpose of the video. He was told it concerned a serious science documentary for educational purposes, while it really concerned an anti-science creationist propaganda video. So this wasn't a "debate", as you call it. This was an interview and the producers lied about their intent and motivations. If they would have been honest about it, then Dawkins would have never agreed to participate.

Second, Dawkins was asked to bend over backwards and assume that life was created. He was asked to pretend as if that could be demonstrated. And given that as a hypothetical fact, how that could be explained. Dawkins replied that it would have to have been an alien species that seeded / bio-engineered first primitive life after which it evolved over billions of years into the species we know today. And that that aliens species itself, would also have to have come about by some darwinian process on some other planet.

Then, this clip was edited and cut to make it look as if Dawkins actually really considers this a valid option.

It is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

The title of that piece of garbage, "no intelligence allowed", is kind of ironic when put in that context.
 
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

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
God's creation of life was an ordered thing. The reason for the nest pattern is creation and subsequent evolution, which was part of creation. Sorry if you thought only gosless runaway evolving was the cause of nesting. No.
Ah, now you change to saying that the nested pattern is indeed because of evolution. Yes, I agree, the nested pattern we see in cats is because cats evolved. The nested pattern in the horse tree is because the horse family evolved. On that we agree.

But the nested pattern in nature goes far beyond the family level. You accept evolution at approximately the level of the family. If what we saw in nature was distinct family-kinds, with no obvious nesting of the families, then your view might have merit. But that is not what we see. Even if we take families as the taxa, and seek to find how the families interrelate, we find a nested hierarchy leading up to these families. So if a nested pattern within a family is evidence for evolution, why is not a nested pattern leading up to families also evidence for evolution?

You are correct that fossils within a family are evidence for evolution within a family, and not necessarily for what led up to the families. For that we need to turn to the fossils that led up to the families. And there again we find many transitional fossils, such as the whole tree of mammal like reptiles that led to all of the mammal families. If transitional horses are evidence of horse evolution, why are not transitional mammals evidence of mammal evolution?

And for the record, when I refer to evolution, I have not been insisting that it has to be "Gosless". The evidence is for evolution, regardless of whether "Gos" was involved.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.