TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Here, here..I second that!

Are there more than one thing (two) that are necessary for a cell to reproduce and continue to exist? If so, how can you remove one of them, and still have a cell?Would those two things not have to have developed simultaneously? Wouldn't that be impossible?Of course I think you already realize there are many more than two necessary for a cells existence.

But doesn't that require you to then hypothesize the use of thousands of functioning parts of the cell, BEFORE they came into being a part of their final systematic use?Isn't that just sherking the responsibility of explanation?

I think that is sort of like how people try to write off the irreducible complexity argument for the bacterial flagellum, by suggesting that everyone of the many complicated moving parts, which must act in complete concert to produce a workable effect COULD have had some other use previously, without the obligation of somehow explaining what all those other uses were, and how they came to change to their final use.

No absolutely not. I think you are arguing a fallacy.What the ID argument says is that you don't know. And as long as you don't know, your theory is not robust, and does not deserve the status of being the only theory taught in schools-and at the very least, the strengths and weaknesses of the theory need to be taught in schools. And yet your side fights every time their is a challenge to have that taught. That is how your entire side deals with all the things which you don't know. You just make things up.You make up that there could have been other uses for all the thousands of parts that are involved in every one of the millions upon millions of systems and bodily functions on earth. But you have absolutely no way of telling us what those supposed other purposes for each small unit was.If your side was truly an honest scientific endeavor, it would INSIST that everyone of the weaknesses of your argument be taught in every school in the country. But that is not what happens. What happens is you claim it is a done deal, and you just have to take care of a few details. Nonsense.

Sorry but your posts are getting more desperate and silly. I don't owe you anything, because you really aren't saying anything stimulating or interesting.If you want to find out about studies of paranormal activity, feel free to go study it, read some books. I don't really care. If someone is going to take the stance that all things are impossible that they don't believe in, then ok, live with your own narrow mind, that is not my problem.The ID movement if you want to cal it that, makes some pretty simple demands. Allow the discussion of all aspects of the ToE in schools, including the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. But your side continually fights that, like they have with the Academic Freedom bills in Florida schools. They are AGAINST teaching both the strengths AND weaknesses of the theory-even though polls show that 3/4 of all Americans are for this.So if any side can be said to be stifling science, it appears to be yours, because of your own fear of open discussion.

So what are you saying, that the strengths and weaknesses of the theory shouldn't be taught because you feel it is a strategy?So children should not be taught accurately because your side wants to win a strategy war?That is about the level of intellectual honesty your side has fallen to.

Hahaha...until you can start providing evidence for the mechanisms of your theory, and for demonstrating that natural selection is capable of building complex body systems, don't waste your breath grandstanding about evidence that you say doesn't even exist, and even if it did, it would be worthless.This thread is entitled "The ToE, reasons for doubt." Here is one reason for doubt, you have no evidence!!!! Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.