ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Aug. 01 2006,20:42) | Eric... | Quote | | Let me ask you a question, Dave: have you ever seen a watch split in half into two new watches, which might differ in microscopic ways from the original watch? Or two watches mating, and then a few, oh I don't know, minutes/hours/days/months later, a new litter of watches appearing? No? Didn't think so. |
No, I haven't. Pretty ridiculous scenario isn't it? |
Yes, Dave, it is a pretty ridiculous scenario for a watch to self-assemble out of substances that are not now, nor ever have been, available naturally, such as stainless steel, refined metals of any sort, or painted surfaces. If that's what you're talking about, yeah, it sure is a ridiculous scenario.
But so what? Your "watch" scenario, as I pointed out, has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution, and as an analogy fails on every conceivable level. Which is why it's a bad argument, Dave. And it's why it failed as an argument over a century ago, when way less was known about the way organisms evolve. But you, a hundred years later, are still taken in by it! Imagine my astonishment that you could know so little about any branch of science that you wouldn't see the gaping holes in it.
By contrast, everything that living organisms are made out of—amino acids, simple carbohydrates, fatty acids, are readily available, and there's no reason to think they weren't readily available 4 billion years ago. As you yourself know, amino acids have been detected in meteorites.
So did you have a point, Dave? No? Didn't think so.
| Quote | | Now my turn. Have you ever seen a bacteria evolve into a jellyfish? And the jellyfish evolve into a squid? Squid to fish? Fish to amphibian? Huh? Have you now? No? Didn't think so. |
No, Dave, but I've seen two people have children, all of whom differ subtly from their parents. I've also seen dogs give birth to puppies, all of which differ in small ways from their parents. Is it ridiculous to suppose that, if we waited a few million years, the great-to-the-nth-power descendants of those dogs would look quite a bit different from what dogs look like today? Of course not; it would be entirely predictable.
Let's imagine, just for the sake of argument, that it only took a thousand years (or even a hundred years) for a jellyfish to evolve into a bumblebee. Would you ever expect to see such a thing, Dave? After all, you claim that the original ape "kind" has radiated into all the currently existing species of apes in a little less than five thousand years. Have you ever seen an ape "kind" evolve into a chimp? Have you now? No? Didn't think so. So are you claiming that, since you've never seen anything evolve into anything, that all the tens of millions of species of organisms alive today must all have existed at the time of your "flood" and consequently must have been on Noah's ark? Well, you must think so, since evidently your expectation is that you'd be able to see them evolve from their original "kind" to what they are today.
Or is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?
| Quote | | Just as ridiculous. Hence the poem. Hence the attempt to "turn the light on" for millions of Evolution-darkened young minds! |
Only someone as pathetically ignorant as yourself, Dave, would find organisms evolving over time to be ridiculous. Only someone as absurdly dishonest as yourself would analogize between a non-reproducing watch and avidly-reproducing living organisms. Only someone as willfully blind, deliberately ignorant, and recklessly in disregard of reality as you would fail to understand the distinction. Only someone as dishonest as you are would even make such a stupid argument.
Once again, Dave's "arguments" (not that they're original to him or anything) get obliterated on contact with reality. The thing that's so astonishing is that Dave is dumb enough to even make an argument like this, evidently in anticipation of us sitting in front of our computers with little thought-bubbles over our heads, saying "Gosh, we never though of that before!"
One an entirely related note, I'm pleased to see you've given up on your "flood geology" as the intellectually-bankrupt exercise in stupidity it is. Although, since I brought it up, I'm sure you'll come right back with how you "won" that argument and "destroyed" all the objections to it.
You're as predictable as the day is long, Dave.
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
Alleged???