Why evolution isn't scientific

[xianghua]

I'ld have to study a self-replicating robot penguin before I'ld be able to answer that question.

so you cant tell if a self replicating robot is evidence for design or not?

 

[bhsmte]

a penguin is a biological self replicating robot.

Prove it.

 

[xianghua]

Prove it.

fine. do you think that a robot remains as robot even if it made from organic components?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so you cant tell if a self replicating robot is evidence for design or not?

I can't tell anything about objects that only exist in your imagination.
The point. You're missing it.

You are asking me about what imaginary objects can't or can't do and/or what attributes/properties they would have?


How the heck should I know, what the objects that only exist in your imagination look like??????????

 

[tas8831]

so you cant tell if a self replicating robot is evidence for design or not?

Show us this self-replicating robot.

 

[tas8831]

fine. do you think that a robot remains as robot even if it made from organic components?

Is a deity still a deity if it only is real to those that believe it is real?

 

[bhsmte]

fine. do you think that a robot remains as robot even if it made from organic components?

Irrelevant to my question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Irrelevant to my question.

You weren't expecting a relevant reply, let alone an actual answer to the question, were you?

;-)

 

[Speedwell]

so you cant tell if a self replicating robot is evidence for design or not?

Not unless it can be examined for evidence of intentional manufacture. Penguin-ness or robot-ness are not, themselves evidence of design.

 

[xianghua]

Irrelevant to my question.

this is the first step to answer your question. do you think that a robot is still a robot if it made from organic components?

 

[bhsmte]

this is the first step to answer your question. do you think that a robot is still a robot if it made from organic components?

Show me one, then we can talk.

If you want to only deal in make believe, that is your problem.

 

[bhsmte]

You weren't expecting a relevant reply, let alone an actual answer to the question, were you?

;-)

No, but reading the reponse is always entertaining.

 

[Speedwell]

this is the first step to answer your question. do you think that a robot is still a robot if it made from organic components?

Similarity of function to a manufactured automaton is not evidence of design.

 

[Larniavc]

so you cant tell if a self replicating robot is evidence for design or not?

Say, aren’t you the guy who believes in magical animal cars?

 

[dad]

Part 1 reply

Care to explain why you don't see this as valid? After all, in the present state, body mass and limb dimensions share a very clear and definite relationship. If animals from an alleged different past state have bodies that exactly fit this relationship, it shows that gravity was not different.

You have done an analysis on all creatures in the fossil record and their legs? You have data to claim that gravity could not have been different in any way to any degree? If so, I could look at that, not like it matters either way though. But you don't have any such data or knowledge it seems apparent. You have belief.

By asking yourself, "If gravity HAD changed, what would we expect to see?" And one of the answers is, "We would expect to see animals with limbs much thicker than we would expect to see, which would be an indication that gravity was stronger, or we would expect to see animals with limbs much thinner than we would expect to see, which would be an indication that gravity was weaker."

In fact some consideration of possible weaker gravity in the past has been done, because the large dinos have some mystery surrounding them as to how they could get around in today's gravity!
.. The concept that a reduced gravity in the past may have increased the relative scale of ancient life has been less well researched but has been considered by Kort (1949), Hurrell (1994, 2011), Mardfar (2000, 2011), Erickson (2001), Scalera (2002, 2004) and Strutinski (2011).

https://www.dinox.org/publications/Hurrell2012.pdf

Then there is the issue of the different atmosphere mix of oxygen etc.

Rather than dram up scenarios where giant dinos had to be in water to feed and get around, and giant flying creatures needed to jump off a hill or something, I prefer the simpler view that things were different. So don't try and make it sound like your half baked ideas of what science and the past are all about are the only beliefs around.

end part 1 reply to looong post.

 

[pitabread]

are you still claiming that they arent?

Really? Are we doing this again?

 

[Kylie]

a penguin is a biological self replicating robot.

Define "robot".

 

[Kylie]

You have done an analysis on all creatures in the fossil record and their legs? You have data to claim that gravity could not have been different in any way to any degree? If so, I could look at that, not like it matters either way though. But you don't have any such data or knowledge it seems apparent. You have belief.

Once again you resort to the flawed logic, "If you can't prove that I'm completely wrong, then I must be right."

Every single example we have shows animals that fit the current state idea perfectly. You have no evidence, just unsupported claims.

In fact some consideration of possible weaker gravity in the past has been done, because the large dinos have some mystery surrounding them as to how they could get around in today's gravity!
.. The concept that a reduced gravity in the past may have increased the relative scale of ancient life has been less well researched but has been considered by Kort (1949), Hurrell (1994, 2011), Mardfar (2000, 2011), Erickson (2001), Scalera (2002, 2004) and Strutinski (2011).

https://www.dinox.org/publications/Hurrell2012.pdf

That's hilarious.

Yes, take a mechanical engineer who has worked in the UK’s Electricity Research Centre. Yes, CLEARLY he is supremely qualified to talk about how gravity has been significantly different in the past!

Tell me, what education has he had on the mechanisms of how gravity works? What mechanism does he propose for how gravity changed?

(By the way, I direct your attention to Figure 4 and Table 1 in the source you linked to, which shows the clear relationship of leg bone size to total body size of the animal. This is what is required under the present state laws. Similar sized mammals from before the KT boundary display exactly the same relationships - which would not happen if the laws of nature were different.)

That whole thing is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. He sees the fossils, assumes they couldn't exist under current gravity and then comes up with values for gravity that he thinks works better. Then uses this as evidence that gravity has changed. Where are his other lines of evidence? Where are the stress fractures in rocks from these ages that show more fracturing or less fracturing due to the massive piles of rock on top of them?

And if the size of the earth changed over time as he says, where did that extra material come from?

Then there is the issue of the different atmosphere mix of oxygen etc.

Rather than dram up scenarios where giant dinos had to be in water to feed and get around,

It's been quite a long time since I've seen any reputable scientist propose that idea. Do you actually know what you're talking about, or are you just going to resort to strawmen?

and giant flying creatures needed to jump off a hill or something,

Wait, why do you think that such a method of taking flight is unfeasible?

I prefer the simpler view that things were different. So don't try and make it sound like your half baked ideas of what science and the past are all about are the only beliefs around.

Half baked? lol. I'm not the one who is incapable of supporting claims with evidence.

end part 1 reply to looong post.

And once again, not a single shred of evidence for any of your claims. The ninth such post.

 

[bhsmte]

Really? Are we doing this again?

What else has he got?

 

[dad]

Once again, this bird lived 25 million years ago - well into the present state.

The issue is when was it born? ince the real time difference between 25 imaginary million years and 70 million imaginary years may be decades or centuries, that moots your point which is again based on your religiously derived so called millions of years.

That area could bear some study though as I wonder about the timing also. If the eime of Babel (presumably when the nature change occurred) was say, about 4350 years ago or whatever, and that corresponds with about 60 or 65 million years in so called science dream time, well...you do the math! A creature born about 4355 years ago, and that dies, say 4200 years ago could be dated by you to be 25 million years ago! You see, all you do is impose your beliefs upon isotope ratios. That jig is up. Over. Done.

And funnily enough, the body plans for these creatures, ratios of wing length to body size, etc, are all EXACTLY what we'd expect to see if they were flying in a sky that operated according to our current laws of nature.

God created birds if you recall. Not sure why we would expect some strange disproportions? The issue is what was nature like when say that monster gull was unable to simply get out of the water if they landed!?

Did you even bother to read the article? It answers many of your questions. Of course, you like to quote mine, and take the fact that there are a few people who disagree and pretend that means that science has no idea at all. That's not very honest, is it?

Look, same nature past speculations and straw grasping maybes are NOT answers!

Wow, it seems like you are being deliberately deceptive here. Your source says, "...that 10–11 m wingspans and masses of 200–250 kg are the most reliable upper estimates of known pterosaur size."

UPPER ESTIMATES.

That means that they could have been lower. But here you are claiming that all the animals weighed about 250.

Yet the link I referred to both in my last post and in the post you quote cites NEW estimates that are exactly what I said.

It's called plate tectonics, I thought everyone knew about that. We literally have lots of evidence to explain why there were reptiles there - different atmosphere had created a greenhouse effect, raising temperatures.

The issue is not whether continents separated, but when and how fast. In my sig pic you can see that I have them all together along with the real times.

Because they are well adapted to the niche they inhabit and the selective pressures that would drive them to evolve and change have not changed much for a very long time. If there are no changes in selective pressures, then once an organism is well adapted, it isn't going to change much.

In your religion that may be the case. Total belief.

And that's the problem right there, isn't it? You've just admitted that you don't care about what the evidence shows, you are just going to deny everything that disagrees with your preconceived ideas. That is the literal definition of "closed-minded".

Do not abuse the word evidence and try to sluff off your preposterous baseless religious claims for evidence!

If the animals were changing so much, why are you making such a big deal about how flatworms have not changed at all?

The deal is that if man came from some similar creature to a flatworm (ancestor) then why are flatworms still the same?

1. Flatworms haven't evolved at all, so evolution is bunk!
2. Animals could evolve much more rapidly than they do today!

Created kinds could adapt as needed, that was part of how God enabled and equipped us to spread out over the earth. Yet when I see someone claim man descended from sort of a flatworm, and we still see flatworms are the same, one wonders exactly how all the supposed changes from worm to man happened. After all the flatworms are the the same.


Different how? Be specific.

Right, so the birds we have today did NOT evolve from the modern looking birds that fossilized.

But they just coincidentally evolved to look just like they had evolved from the fossilized birds.

The fossil birds were adapted from the created kind birds, or kinds themselves. Why would we NOT expect modern birds to have some similarity??? The issue with the fossil birds is that presumably very very few types of birds/animals COULD even leaven fossil remains. Therefore similarities do not mean we evolved from the few fossil kinds we see!