|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The problem with creationism and god | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
you tell me how an irreducibly complex system comes into being. There's no such thing as an irreducibly complex system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Edmund352, welcome to EvC,
If you have read the bible you would see that God is a perfect God I have read the Bible and find this to be untrue. I found god to be vengful, petty, angry and a tyrant ... is my interpretation as valid as yours? If not, why not?
Well sorry mate but thats a well-known fact so you tell me how an irreducibly complex system comes into being. What Behe said about irreducibly complex structures in nature has been proven wrong. Behe never was able to prove to the scientific community that his hypothesis was correct. There are a few/many youtube videos that cover the trail he was in in Dover, PA. (USA) where he was allowed to defend his position on the matter, and failed. Here is a 2hr lecture about the trail, and Behe's argument. I recommend you watch it so you don't make the same mistake of thinking Behe's argument was a fact: In fact, "facts" are hard to establish in science, as you will soon find out on this site.
As for your time and circumstance, that doesn't help much. I'm saying it took some time before the 'first living creature was made' and after that everything ran smoothly? common face the facts, the probability of that happening is virtually zero The problem is, we have a fossil record that shows no life on this planet 4 Billion years ago (Bya), and fossils that show there was life 3.5 Bya - So, common sense would tell you that "something" happened, right? Now, you can either believe that for some reason, everything leading up to the solar systems, planets, stars, heavy elements, this earth, formed naturally (which many theories explain how) YET, life HAD TO BE formed supernaturally - OR - you can accept that life also formed naturally, like everything else, and investigate, scientifically, how that happened ... which do you feel is more probable? In any case, something happen between those 2 time frames, this we can all agree on - The question is, what happened? If everything leading up to the conditions for life was done naturally, and everything after occured naturally, what reason does anyone have to expect life to be supernatural? - Oni [ABE] Sorry Nosy, I saw your post after I posted my piece on IC. Either way, I think the video is still a great watch for Edmund. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I don't think we should be getting into IC systems here but if someone wants to start another thread that would be fine.
But (for both of you)There are irreducibly complex systems. We know how they can evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
There are irreducibly complex systems. No there are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
You're a hit, E352. I go off to make dinner and I come back and have jillions of posts to catch up on.
Teleautobiography: A ghost written autobiography. I had lots of smarty pants things to say but it looks like the OT kibosh has been sent down. It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say. Anon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
There are irreducibly complex systems. No there are not. I don't think you're generally supposed to reply to such admin messages, but...I think he meant that there are systems that are irreducibly complex in such a way that, if you were to start "shotgun debugging" or to metaphorically take a pickaxe and start removing pieces, they would fail to work. That's a different thing from saying there's no way it could be simplified - so as long as he meant the former and not the latter, then he's right
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4854 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
Bluescat48: "Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. " - W T Young, 2008
============= BarackZero: By what authority this figure of "~90% correct" for "Evolution" is derived and how, nobody has begun to state. Moreover, if in fact God did create the universe, "Creation" would be 100% correct. There is no degree of correctness. Either we have a Creator or we do not. But by far the biggest mistake of Darwinists is the pretense that *something* has to be The Theory. If Darwinism goes out the door, *something* has to take its place immediately. This is nonsense, but it is incessantly prattled by those who deem themselves *scientists.* It is inherently unscientific. One must reject what simply does not work, irrespective of whether or not a better explanation is extant at that time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4854 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
AdminNosy:
But (for both of you)There are irreducibly complex systems. We know how they can evolve. ========== BarackZero: Really? Please provide the evolutionary biochemical pathway for the development of the human blood clotting mechanism. Then show the evolutionary diagram from our nearest invertebrate ancestor to Homo sapiens, and label each and every branch by genus and species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2296 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
BarackZero writes:
But until a better explanation is available, the current one does work.
One must reject what simply does not work, irrespective of whether or not a better explanation is extant at that time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2296 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
BarackZero writes:
Yes.
Really? Please provide the evolutionary biochemical pathway for the development of the human blood clotting mechanism.
Here's an article on it. Then show the evolutionary diagram from our nearest invertebrate ancestor to Homo sapiens, and label each and every branch by genus and species.
Yeah, sure, let me show you millions of species. That's not how science works. Show me every second of every minute of every hour of your life from your conecption up until this point or I won't believe you exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Moreover, if in fact God did create the universe, "Creation" would be 100% correct. There is no degree of correctness. Either we have a Creator or we do not. Whether there is a creator or not tells us nothing about how the variety of life we see came into being. Speaking as a Christian, it is totally irrelevant to the question of evolution. Of course there are degrees of correctness, and Biblical Creationism is demonstrably wrong and in fact, simply forcing ignorance on our children. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
By what authority this figure of "~90% correct" for "Evolution" is derived and how, nobody has begun to state. Satire does not require numerical precision.
Moreover, if in fact God did create the universe, "Creation" would be 100% correct. There is no degree of correctness. Either we have a Creator or we do not. True. We don't. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
But by far the biggest mistake of Darwinists is the pretense that *something* has to be The Theory. If Darwinism goes out the door, *something* has to take its place immediately. This is nonsense, but it is incessantly prattled by those who deem themselves *scientists.* Incessantly, eh? Then perhaps you could quote one of them? Only it sounds to me like what you're actually describing is the Great Big False Dichotomy of creationists, whereby arguments against evolution are taken to be arguments for creationism. The converse is not the case. You never hear a real scientist explaining that since snakes can't talk Darwin must have been right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Then show the evolutionary diagram from our nearest invertebrate ancestor to Homo sapiens, and label each and every branch by genus and species. Show me your family tree from Adam, labeling each individual by name ... No? Ah well then, your fiction of having so-called "ancestors" is exploded. Obviously you were poofed out of thin air by magic. Creationists are funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4854 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
You may CLAIM that evolution "does work" until Darwin comes home.
That does not make it so. It "works" because millions of people have their lives and reputations heavily invested in it, and they continue to promote it at the tops of their lungs. Nobody says "Gravity is as firm a theory as evolution."Only the reverse pretense is parroted endlessly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4854 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
Darwinists are nauseatingly arrogant and condescending.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024