Irreduceable Complexity

Some creationists out there might want to force mainstreamers to accept ID for use in schools etc. Instead, I am quite happy to present ID/creation/flood and have you guys tear it to shreds if you want to.If you can't see the folly of trying to argue that there isn't design evident in nature that strongly argues for God then that's just fine and dandy with me. It just saddens me, that's all.

I don't have a problem finding things I am sure God created. Pick any family of animals and I will say categorically God created it.But I'm not going to be so silly as to say I can pick every created kind - I can't deconvolute the effects of hybridisaiton, microeveoltuion and creation for very organisms on earth! Give me the genomes and I'll give you an opinon though. My first paragraph stands.Just becasue God created a world where things can adapt you want to say there is no evidence for design.

JohnIt argues for the one true God.OK but I understand your point. There are a host of options including some personal religion. My experince and belief is that that God is that of the Bible but I wont try and pretend I can prove that. Of course I think intellectually that Christianity is the best option. The flood is quite important to this religion and can potentially account for the geological column. But I have faith that God will do the revealing personally for everyone. Acts 17.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-25-2002]

SchrafI don't really think the evidence for ID has grown smaller. Mol Biol has shown us that the cell is made up of thousands of differnet nano-machines. It's not just fairy floss. For every anti-design revelation of modern science there is pretty much a pro-design example.I understand your frustration but try this one - some of your fustration could also be becasue you (like me) have become so 'sciencefied' that you can hardly see design staring you in the face! that is of course what Scripture tells us. If God is real do you think Rom 1:20 only applies pre-science?I wont go so far as the ID guys to say that IC is proof etc. It's just obvious to most of us. If you don't buy it - it saddens me, I think you are kidding yourself, but it's your life. So don't drag me too deep into this one becasue I'm not making a claim beyond that.

I don't think IC is an arguement from incredulity. Of course, from a scientific POV, I allow for a .000000001% chance that it all evolved by some all encompassing Kaufmann-like principle of order from chaos - but I put design way ahead of that.Also:The sledge hammer cannot be incrementally changed to a mousetrap with a spring. As Behe puts it you have come up with an analogy not an homology. Also, it will only work at all (in a selection sense) after a certain efficiency - killing/stopping the mouse.

Mark et alIC suggests non-natural, hence design.

When we see systems which require a minimum number of components that is IC and that is evidence of design.It's not proof, there is a miniscule possibility a future explanation ala Kaufmann or bird wings from prey catching will explain it but in the balance IC suggests design.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-29-2002]

^
I'm quite happy to say that the data doens't take us much further unless my arguemtns of the trinity in light (red/green/blue), life (DNA/RNA/proteins), the solar system (sun,moon,stars) and high energy physics (three generations of leptons/quarks) appeals to you.

^ At the moelcular level it is harder to make up such fairy stories. That is why Behe et al think the case is so strong - not even the fairy stories exist there - let alone the evidence for non-IC or alternative use!

Of course they can but the stories sound so ridiculous that the've hardly been recorded yet. You show me the paper that tells us step by step how anyparticular biochemical system could have evolved. These papers do not exist. No-one is even trying.

PeterMy trinity analogies go further than you think:Sun, moon and stars are what we all can observe in the heavens. The sun (Father) as source, the moon (Son) as a reflection (daily) & perfect cover (eclipse) and stars as a multiplication (HS).DNA (Father) as source, RNA (Son) as messenger and proteins (HS) as multiplication/manifestation.Light is 3 in 1: green (emerald throne of Father in Revelations), red (blood of Christ) and blue (water of HS) and white all together.

To allIC is not a binary result - 'it is a degree of ICness'. It is not a QED.IMO Behe is saying that if evoltuion were true the tell-tale signs of where biochemical systems came from would be evident. They are not. Go read Behe and he will take you through a half dozen examples of well known biochemical systems which have parts that 'have come out of thin air'.It is the same as the hundreds of small molecule metabolic patheways of Ecoli. Regardless of reuse of proteins within genomes the proteins within the pathways are mostly unrelated to each other - they come out of thin air. Very little reuse of proteins was found within a pathway when substrate binding properties would have got a dupliated protein in the right place straight away. And there are still hundreds of proteins with no paralogs in the genome. The sorts of things that even a creationist can imagine working for evoltuion hasn't actually occurred.What has occurred is called 'mosaic evoltuion' in the literature. I translate that as 'out of thin air creation'.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-31-2002]

Tell me about it John.

I don't go for over nuttiness on scriptual numerology but I do actually believe the triples I spoke of are signatures of the Biblical God. The use of numbers in the Bile is also clearly used consistently thoughout (12 = authority, 40 = testing etc).

SchrafRed, green, blue are the primary colors of light (as opposed to paint for example). Go look at your picture tube - white is made from three pixels of red/blue/green.