the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

I also have no idea what is real in the magical land of Oz. Point?

Try to stick to what you do have some idea about.

 

[dad]

Sounds like a lot of speculation and beliefs to me.

Uh, no speak for yourself.

Any look at the far past is belief based. It depends on what nature existed. You must know that first. You don't. So you look at today and model as if all the future and past can be based on this nature. That is religion.

 

[pitabread]

Try to stick to what you do have some idea about.

Likewise, I'm sure

 

[dad]

Likewise, I'm sure

I do stick to what I know when I say science does not know what nature existed, nor do you. So do not pretend genetics as we know them today existed in the flood era days. Don't pretend lifespans were the same. Don't pretend the fossil record represents most life on earth. Don't claim evolving started anywhere else than the created kinds. Don't pretend your evo trees have any value or reality at all.

Believe what you like, it is not known or evidenced, or any sort of real science.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I do stick to what I know when I say science does not know what nature existed, nor do you. So do not pretend genetics as we know them today existed in the flood era days. Don't pretend lifespans were the same. Don't pretend the fossil record represents most life on earth. Don't claim evolving started anywhere else than the created kinds. Don't pretend your evo trees have any value or reality at all.

...and don't pretend Dad's post has anything to do with reality.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Any look at the far past is belief based. It depends on what nature existed. You must know that first. You don't. So you look at today and model as if all the future and past can be based on this nature. That is religion.

Except we can actually see into the past. Last night starlight arrived at your house, having traveled for millions of years to get there. And when we examine the light that arrives, we find that when the stars created that light many years ago, physics was the same as it is today.

 

[doubtingmerle]

God designed it, no worries.
It had windows.

On the lower floor? The lower floor of the ark would have surely been mostly below water, and you would just open the Windows to let the air out? I don't think so.

If it rained 40 days and 40 nights, that meant the humidity outside was 100% all the time, and it would have been extremely humid inside. Add in all the heat and animal waste that would have been accumulating, and the conditions inside would have been life threatening.

 

[doubtingmerle]

They had metal since Eden you know. The ark could have been reinforced. If I say I have a yacht made of oak, does that mean that is all it is made of?

The ancients could make small things out of bronze and brass. But we have no evidence they could have made metal bracing strong enough to keep a 450 foot long wooden ship together in a global flood.

The longest wooden ships we have built in modern times were about 300 ft long. They required heavy metal bracing to stay together, and constant steam powered pumps to keep the water out. See Noah's Ark: Sea Trials

 

[doubtingmerle]

I also have no idea what is real in the magical land of Oz. Point?

Perhaps there penguins are robots, and watches have babies.

 

[pitabread]

Believe what you like, it is not known or evidenced, or any sort of real science.

For real science to be meaningful means adopting a certain philosophical baseline: namely that the universe is not inherently deceptive.

If you've opted to throw that philosophical baseline away, then of course to you science will not be meaningful. But at the same time, you've adopted a philosophy that makes it impossible to distinguish between competing ideas because you don't have a baseline on which others can measure your ideas. You might as well be arguing we are brains hooked up to a computer simulation or that Last Thursdayism is the truth.

So you've welcome to believe whatever you want to believe about our reality. It doesn't have anything to do with scientific inquiry, however.

 

[dad]

...and don't pretend Dad's post has anything to do with reality.

Reality of the pre flood world is not something you know about. So when you get some evidence that God was lying about how it was, get back to us. Reality is not something that is limited to this week.

 

[dad]

Except we can actually see into the past. Last night starlight arrived at your house, having traveled for millions of years to get there.

Nice story. Yes, we see stars. No, the time you allot to travel beyond the area of the solar system is not real. You have only assumed time also existed out there and existed the same as here. Unless it did, none of your time estimates have the least value.

And when we examine the light that arrives, we find that when the stars created that light many years ago, physics was the same as it is today.

Actually, the physics would have to be the same since they are only seen when HERE. Besides, since you do not know how small or big or far away any star in the sky is, that won't help your belief system. Finally, it doesn't matter anyhow, since it is the past nature on the planet earth that is the issue.

 

[dad]

The ancients could make small things out of bronze and brass. But we have no evidence they could have made metal bracing strong enough to keep a 450 foot long wooden ship together in a global flood.

Your so called ancients are post flood. Getting off the boat, and maybe not having any metal working specialists or factories, or, for that matter a whole lot of time means we would not expect great metal works post flood.

The longest wooden ships we have built in modern times were about 300 ft long. They required heavy metal bracing to stay together, and constant steam powered pumps to keep the water out. See Noah's Ark: Sea Trials

They don't make that former state pitch like they used to eh?

 

[xianghua]

I will know for sure that you are a liar, or completely ignorant about what you are posting.

so you dont care about the truth?

 

[dad]

For real science to be meaningful means adopting a certain philosophical baseline: namely that the universe is not inherently deceptive.

In other word science looks at the universe as if there was no creator, and as if the earth nature baseline was the measure of all eternity and creation.

If you've opted to throw that philosophical baseline away, then of course to you science will not be meaningful.

Without your beliefs pasted onto everything, in other words, science has no clue about origins.

But at the same time, you've adopted a philosophy that makes it impossible to distinguish between competing ideas because you don't have a baseline on which others can measure your ideas.

Impossible for the religion of science, yes. Easy peasy for me, I just read all about it.

You might as well be arguing we are brains hooked up to a computer simulation or that Last Thursdayism is the truth.

Likewise for the little circular belief system that is modern origin sciences today. With the bible, we do not need to flounder around like that though. We know kingdoms come and go like little lap dogs begging for a biscuit on cue. We know the power of God in life and history. Last week, today, and forever.

So you've welcome to believe whatever you want to believe about our reality. It doesn't have anything to do with scientific inquiry, however.

Really. It is only falsely called science.

 

[pitabread]

In other word science looks at the universe as if there was no creator, and as if the earth nature baseline was the measure of all eternity and creation.

Science simply assumes the universe exists and is not inherently deceptive.

You've opted to believe the universe is inherently deceptive.

So naturally, there is going to be a gap there which you appear unable to bridge. Again, you're welcome to your own beliefs about the nature of the universe but it's not particularly useful or relevant in a discussion related to scientific inquiry.

 

[xianghua]

Well, if all the millions of species of animals we have had since Noah's day were all on the ark, you think there is room? There had to have been a lot of adapting/evolving from the created kinds that were on the ark since then. Do you thin there were 30 species of tigers on there for example?

again: speciation isnt evolution of a new creature. its just variation of exist family. like we see in human. but they all still humans so its not realy evolution of a new kind of creature.

 

[Speedwell]

so you dont care about the truth?

The "truth" I see is that you have made a slanderous accusation you can't back up.

 

[Speedwell]

again: speciation isnt evolution of a new creature. its just variation of exist family. like we see in human. but they all still humans so its not realy evolution of a new kind of creature.

Are you going to run away and hide from defining "new kind of creature" like you ran away and hid from the same question when I asked it over on the Physical and Life Sciences board?

 

[xianghua]

So are you saying you think that all that speciating resulting in the millions of species we have today happened in 4500 years normally in this present world nature?

im not sure about that (although i may make some interesting points about this). but i dont have a problem with old earth so even if it doesnt fit i dont realy care.