the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

You are of course wrong. We have a small sampling of any particular species but we have a huge sampling of fossils.

If all that is still a SMALL sample of life that was on earth, of course you are wrong.

All of which can only be explained by the theory of evolution.

Or a host of other fables.

Creationists have no explanation that has not been refuted a thousand times.

For what?

You are the one that only has religion and strangely enough thinks that having a religion is a bad thing.

Beliefs admitted to be beliefs are fine, it is the con job of presenting the beliefs as science or fact, that many of us abhor.
eir own beliefs by doing so, they are not following their own rules of behavior in those attacks.

There are countless Christians that can accept both science and the story of Jesus.

Science? Why bring that in to an evo tree discussion?

 

[dad]

"Same state past math."

ANY math that is based on 100% belief...

 

[dad]

Oh my. You claim that there were a limited number of animals on the ark, and that the few onboard evolved into different species. And yet you can't seem to name one set of animals that might have been represented by one common ancestor on the ark.

Crows. Lions. Horses. Bears. Doves. Wolves.....etc.

One of the most common illustrations is that a single hordonkey pair could have evolved into separate horse and donkey species. But you don't even accept that. So give me an example of an ancestor you think evolved into more than one species

Why speculate? Try to stick to what you know.


The eohippus, a multi-toed dog-sized browser is found in rocks about 55 million years ago, but then they disappear from the fossil record. Further up we find the larger Orohippus, with fossils from 52-45 million years ago, and then they disappear. Further up we find fossils of Mesohippus, 37 to 32 million years ago. And so on up through the rocks, the animals get more horse like and bigger as time goes on. Now how do you explain that?

I understand you will start by compressing every rock that dates from 65 million years ago to about 4000 years ago into a 500 year time span from 4500 to 4000 years ago. That is shear nonsense. For instance, there is about a mile deep of fossil bearing rocks in this geologic age range in North Dakota. How can rock be piling on that fast in that short of time? See The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota .

Compressing the fossil record does not solve the problem. How is it that the fossils form such a clear sequence? Are you going to claim there was an eohippus-fossilizing nature, followed by a Orohippus-fossilizing nature, followed by a whole sequence of different natures?[/QUOTE]

 

[dad]

Oh my. You claim that there were a limited number of animals on the ark, and that the few onboard evolved into different species. And yet you can't seem to name one set of animals that might have been represented by one common ancestor on the ark. One of the most common illustrations is that a single hordonkey pair could have evolved into separate horse and donkey species. But you don't even accept that. So give me an example of an ancestor you think evolved into more than one species.

Original kinds? I suspect wolves, bears, lions, crows, doves, horses were kinds. Etc etc.

The eohippus, a multi-toed dog-sized browser is found in rocks about 55 million years ago, but then they disappear from the fossil record

The actual time was thousands of years ago. So, if the flood was about 4500 years ago, and the nature change about 4390 years ago, then this so called period of 55 million imaginary years you cite was possibly somewhere between 4390-3500 actual years ago.

I see no reason that was not still in the former nature?

. Further up we find the larger Orohippus, with fossils from 52-45 million years ago, and then they disappear. Further up we find fossils of Mesohippus, 37 to 32 million years ago. And so on up through the rocks, the animals get more horse like and bigger as time goes on. Now how do you explain that?

This is all in the same time range. Some animals went extinct in the pot flood world. So?

I understand you will start by compressing every rock that dates from 65 million years ago to about 4000 years ago into a 500 year time span from 4500 to 4000 years ago. That is shear nonsense. For instance, there is about a mile deep of fossil bearing rocks in this geologic age range in North Dakota. How can rock be piling on that fast in that short of time? See The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota .

Easy! If we shove continents around in days or weeks, or hours, or years...some stuff gets piled up.

Compressing the fossil record does not solve the problem. How is it that the fossils form such a clear sequence?

Because animals lived and died in sequence.

Are you going to claim there was an eohippus-fossilizing nature, followed by a Orohippus-fossilizing nature, followed by a whole sequence of different natures?

At the time these creatures lived and died, and became fossilized, man also was alive. Lions, wolves and etc also.

The creatures you cite simply were able to leave remains while man and most other creatures were not in that nature. Magnetic reversals, drift, radioactive decay..etc. Your time estimates have ALL been based on this nature.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Not in any way. Evolution is part of creation, much the same way as reproduction is. Evolution gets NO credit at all. God set up the way things adapt and evolve and created the kinds where any and all adapting/evolving started.

OK, you credit the God who made the process of evolution. The fact still remains that you think a small set of animals were taken on the ark, and these evolved into the variety of animals today. Evolution did the work of creating all those varieties.

So if evolution can do all that work, why cannot evolution evolve a horse from a Mesohippus?

Yes, I have guessed. I look at the list of animals in the bible and take them as kinds. If I see there are horses in heaven, I assume a horse is a created kind. If I see a raven was sent from the ark, I assume that was a created kind.

If horses and donkeys are different kinds, why are there mules?

If zebras and horses are different kinds, why are there zebroids? ( Zebroid - Wikipedia )

The question is how does science tell? They can't!
So who really cares?

Sure they can tell evolution happened. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent .

If you have a cool glass of water and a hug from the wife or mom or your son, do you ask why they are needed at all?

No.

I answered your question, now you answer my question please. If evolution can do the work of creating new species, why do you need special creation?

 

[Brightmoon]

Yes, Why do you need special creation ?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It does you miss the point when you make creation into or your own thoughts your main focus or belief then it becomes to you or you become a god in your own thoughts. This is a sin, it is called idolatry. So it does apply becuse this is what the eviloutionist does, perhaps unaware.

It is a "sin" to understand and acknowledge how the world works?
You know, whenever someone spells "evolution" as "evilution", then you immediatly know that nothing productive or interesting will be said.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not the one claiming same states past, genius.

Indeed you are not. Instead, you are the one who's bringing a variation of Last Thursdayism.

 

[ScumYetServant]

It is a "sin" to understand and acknowledge how the world works?
You know, whenever someone spells "evolution" as "evilution", then you immediatly know that nothing productive or interesting will be said.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses, mine is spelling. It is a sin, however to reject christ.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Bears

Ok, fair enough, that is your example of a single ancestor that could have been taken on the ark and diversified from there. So from that you get eight living species as diverse as giant pandas, polar bears, sloth bears, and black bears, as well as many extinct species. But if you allow all that evolution, why not include the extinct Hemicyonidae, sometimes known as a dog bear? Is he included? And what about the red panda? If you include the giant panda, why not the red panda? And if you include the red panda, why not include seals, which are as close to bears as red pandas are?

The boundary is not clear. Other creationists will disagree with your dividing point. This is exactly what common descent predicts, a large sprawling tree, with no clear distinction of kinds. It is the opposite of what creationism predicts.

See Bear - Wikipedia.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We all have our strengths and weaknesses, mine is spelling. It is a sin, however to reject christ.

But if one's intellect sees that evolution must be true, is it then a sin to acknowledge evolution?

 

[ScumYetServant]

But if one's intellect sees that evolution must be true, is it then a sin to acknowledge evolution?

Ones intellect can be wrong poison tastes good, does that mean we should drink it? Intellect tell us that too.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We all have our strengths and weaknesses, mine is spelling.

I'm not buying it.
You typing "evilution" is not a typo.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt, but....
Nah, I'm not buying it.

It is a sin, however to reject christ.

I think it's a sin to believe fantastical claims without verifiable evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ones intellect can be wrong poison tastes good, does that mean we should drink it? Intellect tell us that too.

That's not an answer to the question that he actually asked.

I'll rephrase the question in more general terms:

If all the evidence suggests that X is the case, is it then a sin to acknowledge that X is likely true?

 

[ScumYetServant]

If you leave the world believing that it's TRUE, yes a sin unforgivable with consequences.

 

[ScumYetServant]

If your x is wrong in a math equashion you fail the test

 

[ScumYetServant]

If your x is wrong in a math equashion you fail the test

I also can show you the work of the equashion, however I can't awnser for you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you leave the world believing that it's TRUE, yes a sin unforgivable with consequences.

So, it's a sin to believe that you'll plummet to your death if you jump from the empire state building without a parachute?

Following the evidence, is an "unforgivable sin"?

Do you hear yourself when you say such things?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I also can show you the work of the equashion, however I can't awnser for you.

If all the evidence converges on a single answer, it is rational to accept that answer.

If the god you believe in considers holding rational beliefs a "sin" that must be punished, then your god is a cruel monster. And personally, I'm very happy that there is no reason to believe that such a monster exists. It would be horrible. Worse then living in North Korea.

 

[ScumYetServant]

So, it's a sin to believe that you'll plummet to your death if you jump from the empire state building without a parachute?

Following the evidence, is an "unforgivable sin"?

Do you hear yourself when you say such things?

Yes becuse if one belivers what you say to death that is what happens think of life as a test, we pass or fail by our awnser.