the self replicating watch argument

[Bungle_Bear]

banana and human are also different. so is this disimilarity is evidence for non- common descent too?

Please just answer the question that was asked. Is disimilarity evidence of design?

 

[RealityCheck01]

12 July 2018 xianghua: An unsupported fantasy that that the human hand is designed.

 

[RealityCheck01]

its actually very simple. since human can change a car and add to it parts- its like a creature that can change by mutations. do you agree ot not?

16 July 2018 xianghua: Ignorance about cars and/or evolution - we do not add parts to cars at random, evolution s not only mutations.

 

[RealityCheck01]

so i cant conclude design just by looking at this?

16 July 2018 xianghua: A dumb question about an elephant sand sculpture.
We know this to be designed because we have watched sand sculptures being designed. So the answer is yes !

No one has watched animals being designed. Thus we cannot conclude that animals have been designed. We have a working evolutionary theory.

 

[doubtingmerle]

its actually very simple. since human can change a car and add to it parts- its like a creature that can change by mutations. do you agree ot not?

it's obvious what you are doing. This argument has been answered hundreds of times on this thread in every way imaginable. You just ignore the responses. Then you come back time and again self-replicating the same arguments to get the last word in. That way your signature line will point to a thread where you make a point in the OP and get in the last word. I seldom abandon a thread once it appears on my watched threads list, but this will probably be one of them. If anybody reads this thread and is impressed with your tactics, they probably aren't the kind of person that would ever listen to us.

 

[WisdomSpy]

16 July 2018 xianghua: A dumb question about an elephant sand sculpture.
We know this to be designed because we have watched sand sculptures being designed. So the answer is yes !

No one has watched animals being designed. Thus we cannot conclude that animals have been designed. We have a working evolutionary theory.

Actually, this is not true, if you expand your idea beyond "animals". Craig Venter and his group has claimed to have created "the first artificial cell". They did not sit back and let "natural forces" work. They applied their intelligence and their design ideas over and over again until they finally achieved success.

Several of the scientists who have studied chemistry and cell biology in depth have admitted that no rational and reasonably comprehensive explanation exists for abiogenesis, as well as for many presumed and necessary steps along the "tree of life", such as a prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. These folks have chosen to believe in the existence of "ancient aliens" who "seeded" life to Earth long ago, and perhaps during many visits. In other words, they believe in cosmic beings who possess higher intelligence and/or experience than Venter. But of course... belief in the "God" of the Bible is unacceptable! Go figure.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually, this is not true, if you expand your idea beyond "animals". Craig Venter and his group has claimed to have created "the first artificial cell". They did not sit back and let "natural forces" work. They applied their intelligence and their design ideas over and over again until they finally achieved success.

Correct. And now the next question will be "Can this happen in nature?" We will have to wait and see if they can answer it. But in the end, I have only an academic interest in the matter. Whatever is discovered cannot disprove the existence of God.

Several of the scientists who have studied chemistry and cell biology in depth have admitted that no rational and reasonably comprehensive explanation exists for abiogenesis, as well as for many presumed and necessary steps along the "tree of life", such as a prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. These folks have chosen to believe in the existence of "ancient aliens" who "seeded" life to Earth long ago, and perhaps during many visits. In other words, they believe in cosmic beings who possess higher intelligence and/or experience than Venter. But of course... belief in the "God" of the Bible is unacceptable! Go figure.

No, just highly unlikely. "The God of the Bible" has been off the table for a couple of centuries and most Christians do not miss it, having never believed in that God to begin with.

I hope you will enjoy your discussions here, but remember that this forum is not about the existence of God, not theism v. atheism. It is about a Protestant minority with a particular view of the Bible v. everybody else, theists and atheists alike.

 

[Astrophile]

Several of the scientists who have studied chemistry and cell biology in depth have admitted that no rational and reasonably comprehensive explanation exists for abiogenesis, as well as for many presumed and necessary steps along the "tree of life", such as a prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition.

Who are these scientists? Where have they published their work?

These folks have chosen to believe in the existence of "ancient aliens" who "seeded" life to Earth long ago, and perhaps during many visits. In other words, they believe in cosmic beings who possess higher intelligence and/or experience than Venter. But of course... belief in the "God" of the Bible is unacceptable! Go figure

The obvious difficulty with this hypothesis is that the 'ancient aliens' who 'seeded' life on Earth must themselves have come into existence by a process of abiogenesis and evolution, so the hypothesis doesn't answer the questions. The same problem arises with gods or other supernatural beings, who also 'possess higher intelligence and/or experience than Venter'; where did they come from, and how did they acquire their intelligence and experience? Ultimately, as Sherlock Holmes would have said, we have to eliminate 'ancient aliens' or gods as impossible, and therefore a natural process of abiogenesis, however improbable it appears, must be the truth.

 

[Astrophile]

Do you agree that stars are millions of light years away?

Strictly, most of the stars that we can see with the unaided eye or with a small telescope are hundreds or thousands of light-years away, not millions. The diameter of our Galaxy is about 100,000 light-years. The great galaxy in Andromeda is about 2.5 million light-years away, but one needs a large telescope to see individual stars in it.

 

[WisdomSpy]

Who are these scientists? Where have they published their work?



The obvious difficulty with this hypothesis is that the 'ancient aliens' who 'seeded' life on Earth must themselves have come into existence by a process of abiogenesis and evolution, so the hypothesis doesn't answer the questions. The same problem arises with gods or other supernatural beings, who also 'possess higher intelligence and/or experience than Venter'; where did they come from, and how did they acquire their intelligence and experience? Ultimately, as Sherlock Holmes would have said, we have to eliminate 'ancient aliens' or gods as impossible, and therefore a natural process of abiogenesis, however improbable it appears, must be the truth.

Your logic seems to rely upon several presumptions. The first one is that since you cannot explain where God came from or got His intelligence then He must not exist. I don’t follow that logic at all. You also seem to be assuming that God would be made out of the same stuff as life on earth is made of, hence He must have originated by evolution. That is circular and not rational. The third presumption of yours is that you have the ability to examine the entire universe, so as to assure yourself that everywhere else conforms to the same things that you find on earth.

Numerous texts of the Bible tell us that God is not made of the same stuff as we are and He is not bound by the same time constraints that we live under. I am sure you are aware that current physicists believe that the majority of the universe consists of “dark matter” and “dark energy” and that there are at least 11 dimensions to our universe. Knowing this, do you still have the audacity to deny even the possible existence of God?

 

[WisdomSpy]

Correct. And now the next question will be "Can this happen in nature?" We will have to wait and see if they can answer it. But in the end, I have only an academic interest in the matter. Whatever is discovered cannot disprove the existence of God.

No, just highly unlikely. "The God of the Bible" has been off the table for a couple of centuries and most Christians do not miss it, having never believed in that God to begin with.

I hope you will enjoy your discussions here, but remember that this forum is not about the existence of God, not theism v. atheism. It is about a Protestant minority with a particular view of the Bible v. everybody else, theists and atheists alike.

I trust you understood where I was speaking facetiously. Also, I trust you realize that Venter did not really do what he claimed to do--he did not start from scratch and build a cell. Instead, he sucked most of the DNA out of an existing cell (a yeast and a micoplasma cell) and then inserted a strand of DNA which he had assembled.

As far as waiting for evolutionists to see if nature can do what Venter did, I disagree. I would say that enough evidence is already apparent to make a reasonable judgment. Lenski followed a stain of bacteria through more than 50 thousand generations and he saw nothing close to what Venter created. Not one single newly-created gene was found, meaning a new start and stop codon with something useful in between (something that codes for a new protein or enzyme in the cell).

 

[WisdomSpy]

Who are these scientists? Where have they published their work?


One of the best places to start, in my opinion, is the book, The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe, PhD. I had to read it twice to fully understand. Once you realize the stark limitations of "evolution", meaning mutations and natural selection, then the wizard no longer appears so wizardly.

 

[Astrophile]

Your logic seems to rely upon several presumptions. The first one is that since you cannot explain where God came from or got His intelligence then He must not exist. I don’t follow that logic at all. You also seem to be assuming that God would be made out of the same stuff as life on earth is made of, hence He must have originated by evolution. That is circular and not rational. The third presumption of yours is that you have the ability to examine the entire universe, so as to assure yourself that everywhere else conforms to the same things that you find on earth.

You are shifting the burden of proof. You are saying that there is a God who is not made of the same stuff that we are and yet who created a material universe and who operates on the physical level, destroying cities with fire and brimstone, sending plagues of frogs, lice, hail etc., killing fig trees, striking a man blind, and so on. It is for you to provide evidence that this God exists, not for me to disprove His existence.

For your first point, you are simply postulating intelligence and creative power as characteristics of your God, rather than explaining their origin. This is exactly the same error that is made by the people who believe in 'ancient aliens' who 'seeded' life on Earth. For the second point, if some sort of non-physical or supernatural 'stuff' exists that cannot be detected by physical measurement, there can be no way in which we can know of its existence. For the third point, scientists have been exploring the universe, right out to the radius of the cosmic background radiation, and all of it appears to conform to the same physical laws that we find in our own Galaxy.

Numerous texts of the Bible tell us that God is not made of the same stuff as we are and He is not bound by the same time constraints that we live under. I am sure you are aware that current physicists believe that the majority of the universe consists of “dark matter” and “dark energy” and that there are at least 11 dimensions to our universe. Knowing this, do you still have the audacity to deny even the possible existence of God?

'Dark matter and 'dark energy' and the eleven dimensions of the universe are natural phenomena; they have no bearing on the possible existence of supernatural beings. Quoting the Bible is merely begging the question; how do you know that what the Bible says is true? However, I am not denying the possible existence of God; I am saying that, so far as I know, there is no compelling evidence for supernatural beings, and that even if a god exists it is very unlikely that he is the Christian God.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Actually, this is not true, if you expand your idea beyond "animals". Craig Venter and his group has claimed to have created "the first artificial cell". They did not sit back and let "natural forces" work. They applied their intelligence and their design ideas over and over again until they finally achieved success.

That is correct. However xianghua is not claiming that human beings have been designing life for billions of years ! These first baby steps show that any "intelligent designer" has to be natural (e.g. aliens) rather than supernatural.

That is basically the rather fanciful speculation from scientists who believe in panspermia by "ancient alien" seeding. The more reasonable but still speculative theory is panspermia by natural means.

A really bad analogy in your later posts. That dark matter exists is from physical evidence that that can be tested and has been over the years. That dark energy exists is from physical evidence that that can be tested and has been over the years. The 11 dimensions thing is a hypothesis from string theory. Where is the physical evidence for the existence of God and what tests can we do to show that God exists?
An answer could be that there is no physical evidence or tests and there should be none. Faith is belief in an entity regardless of the evidence for or against it.

 

[WisdomSpy]

You are shifting the burden of proof. You are saying that there is a God who is not made of the same stuff that we are and yet who created a material universe and who operates on the physical level, destroying cities with fire and brimstone, sending plagues of frogs, lice, hail etc., killing fig trees, striking a man blind, and so on. It is for you to provide evidence that this God exists, not for me to disprove His existence.

For your first point, you are simply postulating intelligence and creative power as characteristics of your God, rather than explaining their origin. This is exactly the same error that is made by the people who believe in 'ancient aliens' who 'seeded' life on Earth. For the second point, if some sort of non-physical or supernatural 'stuff' exists that cannot be detected by physical measurement, there can be no way in which we can know of its existence. For the third point, scientists have been exploring the universe, right out to the radius of the cosmic background radiation, and all of it appears to conform to the same physical laws that we find in our own Galaxy.



'Dark matter and 'dark energy' and the eleven dimensions of the universe are natural phenomena; they have no bearing on the possible existence of supernatural beings. Quoting the Bible is merely begging the question; how do you know that what the Bible says is true? However, I am not denying the possible existence of God; I am saying that, so far as I know, there is no compelling evidence for supernatural beings, and that even if a god exists it is very unlikely that he is the Christian God.

Thank-you for your clarification of beliefs and positions of logic. Now let me clarify: I don’t believe in God on the basis of Him being made of different stuff or even His powers. Those things are more like conclusions that “fit” the data, which is the inspired word. The most intelligent reason to believe in God, IMHO, is when we acknowledge that He has taken credit for doing things that no human can do or has done. For example, God essentially takes credit for “common ancestry” of humans back to a single pair. The same can be said for many “kinds” of plants and animals. Yet, this is VERY different from the idea of “universal common ancestry” (UCA) which lacks credible evidence. But the more impressive and ostensibly less-debatable fact is found in two branches of science called history and archaeology. These sciences have confirmed the veracity of much of the Bible’s stated historic events. Add to this the fact of multiple fulfilled prophecies that span very long lengths of time (from our perspective). The Dead Sea Scrolls were so important because they demolished the argument of some people that these prophecies were simply made up AFTER the events occurred.

BYW, if you are one who believes in UCA, I would suggest that you study cell biology and chemistry more, with a focus on genes. Where did they come from? Can you build one, using random methods? What problems occur frequently when you try to do this? What “natural processes” attest to the fragility of genes? Could a random process ever create a complex and specific gene “sentence” that goes on for thousands upon thousands of DNA molecules without the ubiquitous stop codons appearing? Yet, when this gene is mutated or changed in any way, disease occurs. Furthermore, many or most of these diseases are virtually untouchable by natural selection—they cannot be removed from the population genome because they largely fail to kill the individual until AFTER reproduction has occurred.

Are you familiar with the terms "genetic erosion" and "genetic entropy"? A sufficient study of these things should shake Darwinian beliefs (i.e. UCA) to the core. No credible naturalistic mechanism has been demonstrated which can assemble complex specific information into a chemical language that can be "read" by other molecules and systems. The blithe reply of most Darwinists is that "evolution did it". But the only proof they can supply is that "we are here". This represents atrocious logic. You must know the details of how to build a house before you can comment on or criticize the ostensible builder. The problem is that so many talking heads exist, like Dawkins, who have not built anything. They don't know the appropriate facts of chemistry and cell biology. "Evolution" is not a CAUSE, it's an EFFECT. It is merely an observed phenomenon of change over time. Saying that "evolution" caused anything represents circular reasoning and nothing more. Saying that natural selection caused anything is also circular--it is merely an observation. Real causation of biological life on earth must be grounded in knowledge of information technology within cells. Where does such I.T. come from? Every undisputed example we could cite says that it comes from intelligence.

 

[WisdomSpy]

That is correct. However xianghua is not claiming that human beings have been designing life for billions of years ! These first baby steps show that any "intelligent designer" has to be natural (e.g. aliens) rather than supernatural.

That is basically the rather fanciful speculation from scientists who believe in panspermia by "ancient alien" seeding. The more reasonable but still speculative theory is panspermia by natural means.

A really bad analogy in your later posts. That dark matter exists is from physical evidence that that can be tested and has been over the years. That dark energy exists is from physical evidence that that can be tested and has been over the years. The 11 dimensions thing is a hypothesis from string theory. Where is the physical evidence for the existence of God and what tests can we do to show that God exists?
An answer could be that there is no physical evidence or tests and there should be none. Faith is belief in an entity regardless of the evidence for or against it.

You have misunderstood the point of Dark Matter etc. The point is that these things testify to the inaccessibility of certain things to the human hand, eye and mind. Show me what Dark Matter looks like. You can’t. Explain to me the realities and limitations of the 9th dimension of the universe. You can’t. Explain to me your presumed knowledge of why a “worm hole” (or similar thing) in the universe could not connect different dimensions and different places. Explain to me the dimension of time and how certain things we previously assumed constant may not be constant at all. And when did time and matter begin? The “big bang”? Prior to the beginning, how would you describe an individual, and intelligence within or without the universe? Careful not to make inappropriate assumptions for which you have no evidence whatsoever.

As far as physical evidence for God, see my previous post regarding archaeology and history as branches of science. Then, you might read a couple chapters in the Bible. Luke chapter 16 contains a parable called “the rich man and Lazarus”. The “punch line” of this parable likely applies to many evolutionists and atheists. If you physically touched someone who was dead and then physically examined them after resurrection from the dead, the “science” that confronts your senses would likely not convince a willfully-unbelieving mind to believe.

The other chapter(s) that you might read are in I Kings 18-19, as I recall. After incredible drama on Mount Carmel, where fire came out of the heavens and consumed even rocks, what did this drama accomplish? Even God’s prophet Elijah ran down the mountain like a scared child when he heard that Jezebel wanted him dead. So, God had to teach his prophet a lesson, using more drama—and then saying essentially; “I’m not in the drama… listen to the still small voice”. In the New Testament, a verse assures us that IF we seek Him, we will find Him. The problem is that so many do not want to find Him, hence, they fail to seek Him.

 

[Skreeper]

The problem is that so many do not want to find Him, hence, they fail to seek Him.

I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. That includes the God claim.

You can convince me with evidence of his existence but that wouldn't automatically mean I would worship him.

If the Bible really is the accurate description of his character than I would feel compelled to fight him and his supporters with any means necessary.

 

[Jimmy D]

The most intelligent reason to believe in God, IMHO, is when we acknowledge that He has taken credit for doing things that no human can do or has done. For example, God essentially takes credit for “common ancestry” of humans back to a single pair. The same can be said for many “kinds” of plants and animals. Yet, this is VERY different from the idea of “universal common ancestry” (UCA) which lacks credible evidence.

Common ancestry "lacks credible evidence"?

You seem polite and earnest in your beliefs but c'mon.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so i cant conclude design just by looking at this?:

https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1128893

No

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/gu53f12358.gif

There are lots of natural formations that look man made. General shape alone is not how you determine that statue is man made. Not a single basic shape in that statue is entirely beyond natural formation, statistically unlikely as it may be for all those shapes to come together. Rather, the actual reason one would conclude that it must be man made is the fact that the image you provided was of a sand sculpture, and sand doesn't hold shapes like that. Were it made of rock, it would be traits we associate with tool usage and history of the object that inform us that it is man made, not its shape.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You have misunderstood the point of Dark Matter etc. ....

I understand that you seem ignorant about dark matter, etc. For example dark matter literally passes through the human hand all of the time ! We have physical evidence that dark matter exists and can test for the existence of dark matter. You are insisting on placing the existence of dark matter and God at the same level. So:
18 July 2018 WisdomSpy: Where is the physical evidence for the existence of God and what tests can we do to show that God exists?