Irreducible Complexity

This is a very good, very short explanation of the philosophy of science. There is also an internal link to an essay on "scientific Creationism" and why it isn't scientific. http://skepdic.com/science.htmlThere is also a very good book called "The Game of Science" by Mcain and Segal which covers the "nuts and bolts" of the methodology of science as well as the philosophy. It is, sadly, out of print, but was one of my textbooks in a college course I took called "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by God is Love:
[B]Here's my whole view on this:God created the Earth...reason? simply that if the big bang really happened, somebody/thing had to create the atoms in the first place...i mean, the atoms the created the whole big bang thing didn't just appear by nothing.[/QUOTE]So, what created the creator?

quote:

---

The whole evolving thing is crud. If we did evolve, why aren't we evolving now?

---

We are evolving, although the selection pressures on us are not very great because our environment is relatively stable, and we do things like cure disease.We observe evolution all the time. Ever hear of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pesticide-resistant insects? We observe the emregence of new species also, particularly in plants and insects and other organisms with rapid rates of reproduction.

quote:

---

we've been on this earth for millions, billions of years, yet we really haven't change. we haven't grown tails, we havn't grown wings or anything like that.

---

Um, some people ARE born with tails, actually. Why would that ever happen if the genetic coding for having a tail wasn't there in the first place? When you add to that the extremely similar DNA coding that we share with other primates, it shows close relation.

quote:

---

sure, some people are born deformed but that means nothing. it just means that the mom used drugs, smoked or something happened between the becoming pregnant to concieving, but thats beyond the point.

---

So, are you saying that there is no such thing as genetic disease?? Is hemophelia, which has for centuries been traced through Russian Czarist family lineages, due to the mothers smoking crack? LOL!What about cystic fibrosis? They have found the gene responsible for the condition.

quote:

---

the point here is that the earth and universe was CREATED. nothing as complex as the human body could have been suddenly formed merely by chance.

---

Science doesn't claim that the human body was "suddenly formed by chance". Perhaps, before arguing against what you think science claims, you should find out what science actually DOES claim.

quote:

---

and if you go by the whole "it had to click eventually" thing, thats wrong. if that was true, there'd be a lot more planets out there that can sustain life: even the most simple forms.

---

I really don't have any idea what you mean by this.

quote:

---

THERES NO WAY THAT THE BIG BANG/EVOLUTION COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T FIT.

---

The use of all-caps does not make your argument any more credible.You have not discussed any specific facts, and you have already misrepresented what the big Bang and the ToE claims. Your position is bombastic, but contentless, and therefore weak.

quote:

---

WE DID NOT EVOLVE.

---

Shouting it does not make it so. There is a great deal of evidence that we did evolve.

quote:

---

I WOULD BE ASHAMED TO THINK THAT I WAS FORMED BY FIRST EVOLVING FROM AN AMEOBA (pardon my spelling) I AM MUCH MORE PLEASED THE THINK THAT I WAS CREATED BY A LOVING, CARING, MERCIFULL GOD.

---

Now, here we have come to the real crux of the matter. Because you are uncomfortable with the idea of evolution, you declare that it couldn't have happened. You do not care a whit for the evidence, only your feelings.It is fine for you to believe what you want to, of course. Just don't think that you are in any way being the least bit scientific.

quote:

---

THERE IS PROOF AS WELL THAT THE SAYINGS IN THE BIBLE ARE TRUE.

---

Please provide this proof, please.

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-20-2001]

quote:

---

If no evolutionary pathway can be envisioned this should be a point for creationism. Sure, evolutionists may come up with a plausible scenario -- they're good at that -- but as it stands this is a decent argument against and should be tallied for the creationists.

---

No, it shouldn't.You are making the common mistake of thinking that a deficiency, perceived or real, in a scientific theory is the same thing as support for a different theory.This is incorrect. All of modern Biology, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Genetics, etc. could collapse tomorrow, but this wouldn't make Creationism correct.Creationism has to stand on it's own evidence. Unfortunately, there isn't any.

quote:

---

That was not the point. The point was that irreducible complexity argues against evolution. Nobody said there's an inability to formulate a scientific explanation here, but only that you do not have a case. You beg the question by assuming you will someday have one. Meanwhile give that point to the creationists.

---

No, you have apparently missed the point.

quote:

---

Also, just because "the divine" has been used to explain the unexplained doesn't mean that once you have a scientific explanation for how something works that God is expendable. In fact the more lawful the universe turns out to be, the more God can be seen behind it.

---

This, however, is not what Behe, and the ID camp says.Behe says that God is evident in the things we dont' understand.

quote:

---

There is no necessary either/or here, nor is it implied by Shannon's statement. All she said was that irredicible complexity argues against evolution, and that is a fact.

---

It is also a fact that the ID/IC argument is a philosophical one and has no positive evidence.An argument based on a lack of evidence is not an argument at all.{Note: Moved topic from "Great Debate" forum to "Intelligent Design" forum, 12/19/02 - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Um, some people ARE born with tails, actually. Why would that ever happen if the genetic coding for having a tail wasn't there in the first place? "
--I would hardly call it a tail.. Humans born with 'tails' are no more an anomaly as someone born with a longer than usual big toe.

​

---

Except that it is normal for people to have big toes on the ends of their feet in the first place.It is not normal for people to have several inches of tissue and bone extending from the end of their spine at the top of their backsides.Didn't somebody post pictures here of human infants with tails once?AHA! Found one!http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020111/ct3.jpg[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-06-2003]