the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

so what? so the evidence doesnt fit well with evolution. also: what about the analogy i talked about? this analogy prove that we cant prove the evolution of whale by order in their fossils. and i have many other evidence against it.

Does the evidence fit well with your view of origins?

Oh, that is right. You refuse to tell us your view. You have nothing to stand for. Nothing. How and when do you think animals were made? You refuse to tell us. Do you have one bit of evidence that it happened your way? Of course not! Because after a year of arguing, you have not even told us what you stand for.

It used to look like you believed all animals were created 600 million years ago. Now you finally admit that Trilobites existed millions of years before mammals. So what is your view? Are you a progressive creationist? Do you believe that God created Cambrian life out of nothing? And then did God wipe it out and create Ordovician life? And then did he wipe it out and create Silurian life?

Did God create Eohippus out of thin air, then millions of years later create Merychippus out of thin air, then millions of years later create Equus out of thin air? You refuse to tell us. You have no opinion of your own to state.

Nothing.

How do you think animals came into existence and when?

Please get an opinion of your own. Then come back and tell us how you think it happened.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so how do you know what hand you will move before its happen?

-_- I don't even understand why you would ask this question. It's not like a deterministic universe means one is forced to act as they do. Rather, it means that they have no chances of making a different decision. If I choose to eat lunch today, and I live in a deterministic universe, that's the choice I definitely was going to make, there's no chance I would choose not to eat lunch. Basically, I'd be following a predetermined path without realizing it. From my perspective, that was my choice. The only way to defy a determined path in and deterministic universe is to know what that predetermined path is already... which no one does.

another question: if there is no will then when someone create a car its the result of a natural event (because there is no such a thing as will in this case)?

No, it just means that the creation of the car in an artificial way by humans was an inevitability.

 

[xianghua]

It is completely irrelevant to evolution. As I already stated, evolution has NO GOAL. What is more adaptive procreates more. That's it.

if so even a human fossil with a dino one isnt a problem for evolution.

The evolution of whales is one of the best documented in the fossil record. If you can't see the progression of transitional forms, I don't know what to tell ya.

and yet it doesnt prove any evolution. we can say the same for this progression:

as you put it : If you can't see the progression of transitional forms, I don't know what to tell ya.

 

[doubtingmerle]

as you put it : If you can't see the progression of transitional forms, I don't know what to tell ya.

Cars changed with time, yes.

But they did not change through biological evolution. They changed because engineers changed the drawings.

The horse family, by contrast, changed, not by engineers changing drawings, but through evolution.

 

[xianghua]

And there is your second mistake - you assume that the different parts evolve in isolation. They do not.

so they evolved together at once?

 

[xianghua]

Indeed, I don't know. I'm unfamiliar with such an object with such traits.
Show me one, and I'll happily answer your question.



I don't know. THAT object is not a living thing. THAT object, is a human manufactured device.

Show me a "living reproducing watch" and I'll tell you what I think of it.

so you cant know if this object was designed if it had living traits?

 

[xianghua]

Does the evidence fit well with your view of origins?

Oh, that is right. You refuse to tell us your view. You have nothing to stand for. Nothing. How and when do you think animals were made? You refuse to tell us. Do you have one bit of evidence that it happened your way? Of course not! Because after a year of arguing, you have not even told us what you stand for.

It used to look like you believed all animals were created 600 million years ago. Now you finally admit that Trilobites existed millions of years before mammals. So what is your view? Are you a progressive creationist? Do you believe that God created Cambrian life out of nothing? And then did God wipe it out and create Ordovician life? And then did he wipe it out and create Silurian life?

Did God create Eohippus out of thin air, then millions of years later create Merychippus out of thin air, then millions of years later create Equus out of thin air? You refuse to tell us. You have no opinion of your own to state.

Nothing.

How do you think animals came into existence and when?

Please get an opinion of your own. Then come back and tell us how you think it happened.

i already said several times that i have no problem with several creation events or millions of years. just without evolution. what do you need more?

 

[xianghua]

No, it just means that the creation of the car in an artificial way by humans was an inevitability.

and directed by a natural process.

 

[xianghua]

Cars changed with time, yes.

But they did not change through biological evolution. They changed because engineers changed the drawings.

The horse family, by contrast, changed, not by engineers changing drawings, but through evolution.

but i said that those cars were self replicating cars with variations over time like a living thing. so in this case you will say that they evolved from each other?

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Astrophile]

i already said several times that i have no problem with several creation events or millions of years. just without evolution. what do you need more?

To borrow doubtingmerle's example (see quotation below), do you accept that modern horses of the genus Equus are descended, by the familiar process of reproduction, from animals that lived at the same time as Merychippus, and that the animals that are now preserved as the fossil Merychippus were descended from animals that lived at the same time as Eohippus?

Did God create Eohippus out of thin air, then millions of years later create Merychippus out of thin air, then millions of years later create Equus out of thin air? You refuse to tell us. You have no opinion of your own to state.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so you cant know if this object was designed if it had living traits?

...And you don't know if it is human if it has freewill?

 

[doubtingmerle]

but i said that those cars were self replicating cars with variations over time like a living thing. so in this case you will say that they evolved from each other?

...And I say that they all have free will. Are you saying these cars are human?

 

[doubtingmerle]

i already said several times that i have no problem with several creation events or millions of years. just without evolution. what do you need more?

What was it like when the first zebra was created? If you were sitting there watching, what would you have seen?

Did 1) a giant watermelon fall from the sky, smash into a million pieces and then bounce together to form a zebra?

Did 2) a giant transformer drive up, do some contortions, and run away as a zebra?

Did 3) the first zebra suddenly pop out of thin air?

Or did 4) an earlier equus give birth to a line of animals that got progressively closer to zebras?

I vote for number 4. That has the best evidence. Which do you vote for?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so you cant know if this object was designed if it had living traits?

What living traits does it have?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you cant know if this object was designed if it had living traits?

That object does not have living traits.
You'ld have to show me one that does, before I can make any kind of assessment about it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but i said that those cars were self replicating cars with variations over time like a living thing. so in this case you will say that they evolved from each other?

I don't know. We'ld have to investigate such a car first.
So when you find one, show it to us.

 

[jedi__knight]

When it comes to the origin of nanotechnology in a living cell, I suppose it's interesting to hear what one of the wold's leading chemists says about it. Dr. James Tour is an expert in synthetic organic chemistry and nanotechnology and he is one of the top 10 cited chemists in the world. He is one of the few people in the world who deals with the synthesis of molecular machines from scratch. He invented a nano-car (a molecular machine with wheels which moves similar to cars in the macro world). This is his open letter on the origin of life:
http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues
Here he talks live on that subject:
part1:

part2:

In this short video, he talks about the situation in the scientific community and the open challenge that he has given:

Those are sources to hear the opinion of one of the most competent people in the world when it comes to the origin of life and nanotechnology in a living cell. It's not my goal to get into the debate. I wanted to offer you new informations, and everyone has the freedom to accept those informations as he/she wants.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What living traits does it have?

It has a ticker.

 

[Kylie]

so they evolved together at once?

Traits can evolve together simultaneously.