Design and the intelligence hypothesis

The carbon atom is synthesized out of simpler components in the nuclear reactions in stars. This is well known physics. The carbon atom is not irreducibly complex. Your argument is based on a false premise.

There are several problems with your carbon argument:It is accepted science that carbon, and all of the heavier elements, are created in nuclear fusion reactions in stars, and ejected from those stars in supernovae. This might be mistaken, but since it is accepted science it would be up to you to make the case that this is mistaken.The origin of carbon is not any part of the theory of evolution. It belongs to nuclear physics and astronomy. So even if you can find a problem in this accepted science, it would not be a problem for the theory of evolution.In arguments and discussions related to ID, the term "irreducible complexity" has been used with respect to biological organisms, or features of those organisms, or the biochemical structure behind those features. Your use of IC for the carbon atom is, shall we say, somewhat exotic. Now perhaps it is okay to stretch the usage of a term in an exotic manner, but you ought to at least clearly state that you are doing this. Otherwise you will appear to be grossly misusing a term, and that is likely to be seen as a sign of either ignorance or deceit.

Nuclear physicists and astronomers have worked out how much of the various heavy elements should be present in space, as a result of synthesis is stars and ejection in supernovae. There calculation shows that it pretty much accounts for all of the carbon that we find.The idea is that the carbon was drifting around in space, and is part of the mass that accumulated to form the earth and other bodies.You are right, that what happens in the stars is not important as part of the carbon cycle, except as it affects carbon 14. The carbon cycle itself does depend on living organisms. But the carbon was mostly on earth before the first life form, so where the carbon comes from is not important when investigating the carbon cycle.It is correct that the nuclear production of carbon in stars is not of current importance in the carbon cycle. But then the source of carbon is not important either. We can just take the carbon for granted as always present on earth. That's why your IC argument over carbon seemed so out of place.You can, if you wish, marvel at carbon and its properties. You can marvel at water, and its peculiar behavior when freezing. These, and other facts, are important to life as we know it. But, in so marvelling, you would be approaching something more like the fine tuning argument than the ID argument. The fine tuning argument is not opposed to evolution, but it is opposed to atheism.

This is still wrong. The correct response to "carbon is irreducibly complex" is still that carbon is synthesized in the stars. You are entitled to say that, as an expressed opinion. The question of the origin of life is unsettled. All we have are speculative hypotheses. ID is one of those hypotheses, but there are others as I am sure you know. Most scientists will not adopt ID as a working hypothesis. For once you adopt ID, that shuts off any possibility of progress. It is better to adopt a different working hypothesis, where progress might be possible, even if the result of that progress is to prove the working hypothesis wrong. No, sir, you have not shown that evolution is falsified. You have not even come close. You have not laid a finger on it.

I don't know where you are getting that. It seems to me that you are ascribing views to me that I have never expressed and do not hold. This is seriously mistaken. Evolution does not, in any way, require that there be newly created carbon. Biological organisms get their carbon from the existing supplies. In most cases, they either get it from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or they get it from the other organisms they eat in their food chain.Incidently, carbon 14 is created in the atmosphere (from nitrogen and cosmic rays). Sorry. The only thing you have demonstrated, is that you do not understand the science that you attempt to criticize.

You appear to have reposted your earlier message 82 verbatim.Perhaps that was an accidental mistake. If so, then please edit it, so that you at least say something new.

I do keep up with the entire thread. You have taken it way off-topic, and have been making very dubious claims.Your posts in this topic are useless and vapid.. void of content. I shall not further respond, unless you come up with a better argument than you have already provided.

Apologies. And thanks for the reminder.