Jump to content


Photo

Man's Organs Create An Unsurmountable Problem For Accidentalists


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 23 May 2017 - 06:42 PM

Man has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL Organs and support systems. FACT

 

Man NEEDS all 10 of his VITAL Organs or he dies. FACT

 

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT

 

If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

 

For "Evolution" to be even considered to qualify as a hypothetical hypothesis There MUST BE

a PLAUSIBLE or FEASABLE Explanation as to the evolutionary order that would be possible.

 

For Example.. What comes First? Man is Irreducibly Complex (BY DEFINITION)

 

Stomach? Skin? Heart? Lungs? Brain? Upper Intestine? Liver? Lower Intestine? Pancreas? Kidneys?

 

Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution..

 

So which one do we start with..? Here, let me help you out.. 1 Skin? 2 Stomach? 3 Brain? 4 Heart?

 

You see... Whatever way you start you cause more problems for the myth.. :think:

 

Becasue ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

 

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case.

 

IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can

show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR...

 

Anyone like to take a stab at it? :dono:



#2 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:28 AM

Man has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL Organs and support systems. FACT

 

Man NEEDS all 10 of his VITAL Organs or he dies. FACT

Sure

 

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT

 

If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

Not really facts, the first is a false dichotomy. For instance they could have evolved simultaneously.

The second is a play on the word "separately". Separately can simply mean "independent of each other", or "one after the other". For one interpretation your assessment is correct, for the other its not.

 

For "Evolution" to be even considered to qualify as a hypothetical hypothesis There MUST BE

a PLAUSIBLE or FEASABLE Explanation as to the evolutionary order that would be possible.

 

For Example.. What comes First? Man is Irreducibly Complex (BY DEFINITION)

 

Stomach? Skin? Heart? Lungs? Brain? Upper Intestine? Liver? Lower Intestine? Pancreas? Kidneys?

 

Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution..

 

So which one do we start with..? Here, let me help you out.. 1 Skin? 2 Stomach? 3 Brain? 4 Heart?

 

You see... Whatever way you start you cause more problems for the myth.. 

 

Becasue ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

 

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case.

 

IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can

show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR...

 

Anyone like to take a stab at it?

The whole "irreducibly complexity" argument is an argument from incredulity. No need to go deeper into it unless the argument gets better substantiated.



#3 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 May 2017 - 09:09 AM

good questions blitz.
apparently, science has no answers for these questions
from koonin:
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped* with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

* koonins original phrase was "ready made".

the above makes it plain, science does not know how animal phyla evolved.
also, the above makes it plain that there are no transitionals between animal phyla.

here is something else for you to chew on:
Forty years ago it was thought that the amount of DNA in a genome correlated with the complexity of an organism.
. . .
Many of us have been teaching this basic fact for twenty years. The bottom line is ....
Anyone who states or implies that there is a significant correlation between total haploid genome size and species complexity is either ignorant or lying.
- sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/genome-size-complexity-and-c-value.html

#4 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 May 2017 - 11:58 AM

 

Man has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL Organs and support systems. FACT

 

Man NEEDS all 10 of his VITAL Organs or he dies. FACT

Sure

 

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT

 

If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

Not really facts, the first is a false dichotomy. For instance they could have evolved simultaneously.

The second is a play on the word "separately". Separately can simply mean "independent of each other", or "one after the other". For one interpretation your assessment is correct, for the other its not.

 

For "Evolution" to be even considered to qualify as a hypothetical hypothesis There MUST BE

a PLAUSIBLE or FEASABLE Explanation as to the evolutionary order that would be possible.

 

For Example.. What comes First? Man is Irreducibly Complex (BY DEFINITION)

 

Stomach? Skin? Heart? Lungs? Brain? Upper Intestine? Liver? Lower Intestine? Pancreas? Kidneys?

 

Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution..

 

So which one do we start with..? Here, let me help you out.. 1 Skin? 2 Stomach? 3 Brain? 4 Heart?

 

You see... Whatever way you start you cause more problems for the myth.. 

 

Becasue ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

 

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case.

 

IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can

show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR...

 

Anyone like to take a stab at it?

The whole "irreducibly complexity" argument is an argument from incredulity. No need to go deeper into it unless the argument gets better substantiated.

 

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT

 

"Not really facts, the first is a false dichotomy. For instance they could have evolved simultaneously." :think:

 

" ALL AT ONCE"  is the same as SIMULTANEOUSLY.. I am a little suprised at your answer to be honest.. :burp:



#5 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 695 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 24 May 2017 - 07:59 PM

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT
 
If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

Not in the sense you seem to mean of 0 to human skin, and then 0 to human stomach, etc. What people mean when they keep telling you they evolved together is that you’d have rudimentary versions of those systems like an undifferentiated gut tube instead of the digestive tract that evolved additional functionality over time, including dependence on the function of other organs.
 
 

Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution..

Which means nothing with respect to irreducible complexity and evolution. The question isn’t whether an organ could be totally removed from a modern man. The question is whether an organism could survive with a slightly less functional organ than a modern man’s. That is whether an ancestor of modern humans could have survived before the modern level of functionality evolved.
 
 

Becasue ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case.

Any organism without all 10 organs functioning as they do in humans falsifies the claim that all 10 need to be there at the same time.
 

IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can
show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR…

No, they’re not. You need to show that there is no feasible pathway to prove your claim.

#6 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 May 2017 - 08:28 PM

Not in the sense you seem to mean of 0 to human skin, and then 0 to human stomach, etc. What people mean when they keep telling you they evolved together is that you’d have rudimentary versions of those systems like an undifferentiated gut tube instead of the digestive tract that evolved additional functionality over time, including dependence on the function of other organs.

not according to what koonin says in post 3.
science does not know what pathway evolution took with the sudden arrival of animal phyla, simply because it didn't leave any traces to its predecessors.

the rest of your post is simply erroneous because you are assuming a progressive small accumulation paradigm, and this IS NOT the way evolution proceeds.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Blitzking