Jump to content


Photo

Man's Organs Create An Unsurmountable Problem For Accidentalists


  • Please log in to reply
277 replies to this topic

#261 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 18 July 2017 - 08:29 PM

the tornado/747 scenario is not valid for envisioning how atoms can form complex molecules.it also is worthless in regards to probabilities because it completely lacks self assembly.a 747 will never self assemble in a tornado because it can NEVER self assemble.

what if, So we agree then. The probability is essentially zero. So the analogy works because it makes the obvious point, it isn't going to happen. The analogy was never about atoms forming molecules,or even if some molecules will become more complex and become organic molecules. It is about ALL the millions of SPECIFIC kinds of molecules such as all the right kinds of proteins and DNA or RNA, which need to come together in the same place and in the right sequence in order to be functional. That is LIFE.
ok.let's put this in correct form shall we?instead of the 747, we start with very small particles that have magnetic properties that mimic the valence bonds of atoms.now when we run our "simulation", the outlook is very different isn't it.we now see that atoms can indeed form very complex molecules.we also see that abiogenesis isn't exactly impossible.this is similar to the gradually fading color charts used by evolutionists to show how evolution works, but it's a misapplication of the analogy.
"We also see that abiogenesis isn't exactly impossible.

LOL...

Maybe, but you need to overcome a WHOLE LOT of zeros that happen to be aligned against it..

But why worry about numbers with cuadrillions of zeros after them..
Like the hopeless gambler said.. Hey its 50/50.. Either I win or I dont...

I believe that Professor Santiago Caray summed it up most accurately with this insightful observation..

https://www.google.c...8jtvfnGP_UlkifA



"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact."

(Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

#262 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 18 July 2017 - 09:48 PM

 

 

So what analogy do you suggest? The video already debunks the magnetic parts argument. 

i gave you my suggestion, the magnetic particle scenario.
granted, it doesn't follow chemical laws exactly, but i believe it's a lot closer than the 747 bit.

 

Fair enough, we agree on several things. But I think you are trying to read too much into the 747 analogy. It just highlights the improbability of abiogenesis. It never was intended to be some kind of model. 



#263 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:21 AM

 


There is no law in the United States that requires the teaching of evolution. 
 
On the other hand, at least four states.... Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Mississippi ... have banned the teaching of evolution by law and a fifth (Louisiana) has required the teaching of creationism if evolution is taught.

I wasnt aware of this..If it is true, it is certainly good news!
Lets hope that more states follow their lead and the dangerous scourge of Satan's lie of Evolution is eventually eliminated from our Nation..

It's true and it is certainly good news.  But not for the reasons you think ......

 

The laws in Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Mississippi were passed in the 1920's.  Oklahoma repealed its law after a couple years.

 

The Tennessee law became famous for the Scopes trial.  (Which was decided by narrow grounds that Scope had taught evolution.)

 

The Arkansas law eventually went to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in 1968.  It seems Epperson was caught in a "Catch-22."  She was required by state law to teach the material in the textbook provided by the district where she worked.  The book had a chapter on evolution.  State law banned the teaching of evolution.  The Assistant Attorney General for Arkansas told the SCOTUS that the mere mention there was a theory of evolution was enough to trigger the anti-evolution law.  The penalty to the teacher would be a fine and revocation of certificate.... a professional death sentence.  IOW, Epperson could be fired for not teaching textbook material or she could be fired for teaching the textbook material.

 

The Supreme Court ruled  that: "The sole reason for the Arkansas law is that a particular religious group considers the evolution theory to conflict with the account of the origin of man set forth in the Book of Genesis."   The laws were struck down because they were unconstitutional.

 

Arkansas tried again with it's "Balanced Treatment Act" mandating the teaching of creationism if evolution was taught.  That was promptly struck down by the courts for the same reason the old law was.

 

Louisiana also passed a "Balanced Treatment" law.  That law reached the Supreme Court in 1987 as "Edwards v. Aguillard."  Again, the law mandating the teaching of creationism was struck down as being unconstitutional.

 

It's unlikely any government agencies are going to enact new creationist laws.  The legal liability for Dover school board in the last creationist drubbing (Kitzmiller v. Dover) ran over $1 million.  Schools simply don't have millions of taxpayer dollars to waste on losing legal fights.

 

That said, the hypocritical one is the one complaining about laws that don't exist while his side has passed (unconstitutional) laws mandating the teaching of their religious belief as science.



#264 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:49 AM

Surely you have noticed the OP on this very thread shows your myth to be the impossible fairytale that it is, Right? 

Yeah, I noticed your strawman argument based on a concept that has been repudiated in principal for 25 years..... since Behe's "mousetrap" .... Irreducible Complexity.

 

1)  No evolutionist claims the organs mentioned first evolved in man. 

2)  Then need not have all evolved simultaneously.

3)  We don't know in what order they evolved nor do we know to any level of detail how they evolved .... and probably never will.  (This is because the evidence necessary to make such determinations has long since been destroyed.)



#265 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 19 July 2017 - 10:20 AM

the fact remains, one celled life has what it needs to carry out its metabolism.
this implies not only the "organs" but the method also.
epigenetics and transposons can easily explain how these "organs" could improve, and do so in a very short period of time.

if we find that transposons are tagged, then this could easily account for the "mysterious" arrival of animal phyla.

i haven't heard much on transposon and molecular codes.

#266 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 19 July 2017 - 06:31 PM

 

Surely you have noticed the OP on this very thread shows your myth to be the impossible fairytale that it is, Right?

Yeah, I noticed your strawman argument based on a concept that has been repudiated in principal for 25 years..... since Behe's "mousetrap" .... Irreducible Complexity.
 
1)  No evolutionist claims the organs mentioned first evolved in man. 
2)  Then need not have all evolved simultaneously.
3)  We don't know in what order they evolved nor do we know to any level of detail how they evolved .... and probably never will.  (This is because the evidence necessary to make such determinations has long since been destroyed.)


"Yeah, I noticed your strawman argument based on a concept that has been repudiated in principal for 25 years..... since Behe's "mousetrap" .... Irreducible Complexity."
REPUDIATED? I THINK NOT..

So are you saying YOU are not "Irreducibly Complex"?
So you DONT need all 10 of your Vital interlocked Interdependent
VITAL organs to stay alive? Which Organs can you live WITHOUT?

Do you even know what Irreducible Complexity means?

 

 

"1)  No evolutionist claims the organs mentioned first evolved in man."   :burp: 

 

Surely your reading skills are much better then that.. So I will just

have to assume you missed what I wrote here.. Notice the part

where I wrote..OUR "ANCESTOR (S)" would, at some point

Hopefully that clears up your apparent confusion..  :consoling: 

 

 

HERE ..READ WHAT I WROTE PLEASE! 

"If UCA for all flora and fauna were to somehow be true, and If we slowly go back in time, Our "Ancestor(s)" would, at some point, have 9 Interdependent vital organs, then 8, then 7, then 6 5 4 3 2...  THAT MATH IS NOT HARD HERE!.. Allow me to give you a BIG head start.. I will allow you to start out with Abiogenesis (Quite generous don't you think?) AND a bag of skin.... Now you have 1 billion years to turn it into a Man... What are the next "Steps" in the Evolutionary ladder?" 

 

 

"2)  Then need not have all evolved simultaneously."

 

That is your religious belief, and that is EXACTLY why I wrote the OP to begin with, to point out the lunacy of your myth..

Because, If Creationism is False, like you claim, those 10 Interdependent, Interlocked Vital Organs COULD NOT HAVE

"Evolved Simultaneously" Are you starting to get the idea? And that is the reason I simply asked for a PLAUSIBLE or

FEASABLE "EVOLUTIONARY" ORDER of Man's or Man's "Ancestor (s) OR even the 200 MYO Crocodile if you prefer..

 

You seem to have a religious belief that what we OBSERVE (Empirical Science) to be Interdependent Interlocked VITAL Organs working together

in tandem (Empirical Science) Were NOT Interlocked Interdependent VITAL Organs working together in tandem "Long ago and Far away" (Fairytale)

 

And that is why the OP in this thread plunges a silver dagger straight into the heart of the Dragon of Darwinism and slays it right here and now for all to see..

 

 

"3)  We don't know in what order they evolved nor do we know to any level of detail how they evolved .... and probably never will."

 

AGAIN.. I am not asking for anyone to "Know" in what order they evolved.. :gilligan:   I AM MERELY ASKING FOR A PLAUSIBLE OR FEASIBLE ORDER!!!

Preferably one that passes the gut wrenching laugh test OR a cartoon contest......  The one below exposes the fairytale very well... 

 

 

"(This is because the evidence necessary to make such determinations has long since been destroyed.)"

 

NO, This is because the IS NO EVIDENCE that could of been "Destroyed" because your Fairytale NEVER HAPPENED!!

nz041.jpg

 

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism

into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."

(Dr. David Berlinski)



#267 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 19 July 2017 - 07:20 PM

the fact remains, one celled life has what it needs to carry out its metabolism.
this implies not only the "organs" but the method also.
epigenetics and transposons can easily explain how these "organs" could improve, and do so in a very short period of time.

if we find that transposons are tagged, then this could easily account for the "mysterious" arrival of animal phyla.

i haven't heard much on transposon and molecular codes.

 

"epigenetics and transposons can easily explain how these "organs" could improve, and do so in a very short period of time."

 

Which "Organs"?

 

"If UCA for all flora and fauna were to somehow be true, and If we slowly go back in time, Our "Ancestor(s)" would, at some point, have 9 Interdependent vital organs, then 8, then 7, then 6 5 4 3 2... 

 

THAT MATH IS NOT HARD HERE!..

 

Allow me to give you a BIG head start.. I will allow you to start out with Abiogenesis (Quite generous don't you think?) AND a bag of skin.... Now you have 1 billion years to turn it into a Man...

What are the next "Steps" in the Evolutionary ladder?" 

 

0f238c132732c5d31bb427e83a943dc5--theory



#268 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 July 2017 - 04:21 AM

And then there is the 1,000,000 fiber optic nerve (two of them). Which nerve and eye evolved first--the left or the right? While most cells have nuclei, the cells that make up our eye's lens don't, for obvious reasons.

Isn't it amazing how the skull just magically designed itself with a socket, muscles and nerves to allow us to contrtol the eye's tracking of an object.

Our vision processing center software does complicated trigonometry. Evos have no mechanism to to explain how the incredibly sophisticated software that runs the human body evolved? Wonder how our vision software wrote itself? Lets see two times two is... 100,000 times 3,430 is. Our software does the math--with no mistakes!

If some new and novel feature evolved there would have to be software updates to control that new function. Evos have no answer for this. Silence.

The rods and the cones in our eyes are capable of detecting over 20,000,000 colors. Our computer monitor can only display 16.5 million colors. There are groups of three cones to respond to the light focusing on the retina. One cone for each of the primary colors. So, from the the varying intensity of the three primary colors (red, green, and blue) in the subject being viewed our software recreates the over 20,000,000 colors our eyes can detect.

Reaction time to a pixel of light is 3 femtoseconds (three quadrionth of a second). This quick reaction time was chosen by God so we could perceive perspective.

Obiously since light travels at 186,000 miles per second at a close distance the time of arrival of reflected light at the eye from the top of a building vs the base of said building would indeed be small. With such quick reacting vision chemicals, our software (written by God) can generate perspective (distance). Then, for close proximity our software caculates and creates 3d vision.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#269 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 July 2017 - 04:46 AM

Hmmm...How can I prove I am or am not irreduceably complex?  I know, cut my heart out. Then, if I survive, I am not irreceducably complex!  LOL



#270 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 20 July 2017 - 10:31 AM

Hmmm...How can I prove I am or am not irreduceably complex?  I know, cut my heart out. Then, if I survive, I am not irreceducably complex!  LOL



If only all of the people who scream that "Irreducible Complexity for the human body is a Myth"! Would put their money where their mouth is and prove it to us by leading by example... Besides it will help the planet as well.. Atheist / Secular Humanist / Darwinian Gurus assure us that we need to get the word population down to 500 million people..

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

(Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)

"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by mans attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than the woman. Whether deep thought, reason, or imagination or merely the use of the senses and hands.....We may also infer.....The average mental power in man must be above that of woman."

(Charles Darwin, "The descent of Man, pg. 566")

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites."

(Thomas Huxley, Darwins "Bulldog")

#271 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 20 July 2017 - 12:15 PM

HERE ..READ WHAT I WROTE PLEASE! 
"If UCA for all flora and fauna were to somehow be true, and If we slowly go back in time, . . .

okay, here is where you are making your mistake.
you will eventually run into abiogenesis.
at this point science is simply clueless.

#272 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 20 July 2017 - 01:40 PM

...
mikey is for you, my lad! You're doing a good job, and I pray for your parent and you. Bless your sir, for your intelligence and your knowledge and your participation!

.
I just read the above. I thank you, and my Mother thanks you! I will tell her that a guy from the other side of the pond in praying for her. She will become all alarmed because it's on the internet! LOL.

Thanks again.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#273 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 July 2017 - 05:19 PM

What if said:
 

okay, here is where you are making your mistake.
you will eventually run into abiogenesis.
at this point science is simply clueless.

This is a fine example of a  subtle  negative spinoff from perosnyfying science (glorifying our reasoning process). Science is not an entity. It is not a free moral agent. "It" can hold no opinions or positions. It's neither clued or cluless! It's not the off switch for our brain. All the above characteristics are functions of our mental state not our shared reasoning process (science).

I haven't noticed that my reasoning process shuts down when I think on any subject. The thing is "you" have decided that you don't want to think in some area! Speak for yourself! Not the rest of us!

Own up! Science is clueless actually means you have decided you don't know something (or don't want to know something). Stop trying to turn science (our reasoning process) into a god.


  • Blitzking likes this

#274 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 20 July 2017 - 09:01 PM

HERE ..READ WHAT I WROTE PLEASE! "If UCA for all flora and fauna were to somehow be true, and If we slowly go back in time, . . .

okay, here is where you are making your mistake.you will eventually run into abiogenesis.at this point science is simply clueless.
What on Earth are you talking about?? What "Mistake"??? I am demontrating that if we reverse the "Evolutionary process" then at some point Man / His Ancestor(s) Would have LESS than 10 Vital organs, then Less than 9 then less than 8 then less than 7 Are you starting to see the math here?

Now, UNLESS you believe that a creature popped out of the "Primordial ooze" with 5 Vital Organs Intact and working together, you have some "splainin" to do....

THEREFORE

It is painfully apparent for all to see.. It is YOU who is making a mistake here with this... I hope that clears up your confusion..

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

(Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

#275 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 21 July 2017 - 08:52 AM

So are you saying YOU are not "Irreducibly Complex"?

irreducibly complex, what is that?
if you want to get all technical about it, almost everything is irreducibly complex.
ballistic curves are irreducibly complex.
your car tires are irreducibly complex.
let's not forget we gotta define EXACTLY what we are talking about too.

when it comes to the cell, yes i believe there is an irreducible complexity.
it's the problem itself that is preventing a solution, not something like a missing catalyst.
science simply has no idea how life got here.

as for the "organs" (metabolism), maybe the cell "eats" hydrogen nuceii (protons).
that certainly explains the early arrival of ATP synthase and its various incarnations.

you know, you can't hardly argue this stuff and NOT think there is an intelligence involved.
don't ask me to explain that, because i can't.

#276 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 21 July 2017 - 04:21 PM

So are you saying YOU are not "Irreducibly Complex"?

irreducibly complex, what is that?if you want to get all technical about it, almost everything is irreducibly complex.ballistic curves are irreducibly complex.your car tires are irreducibly complex.let's not forget we gotta define EXACTLY what we are talking about too.when it comes to the cell, yes i believe there is an irreducible complexity.it's the problem itself that is preventing a solution, not something like a missing catalyst.science simply has no idea how life got here.as for the "organs" (metabolism), maybe the cell "eats" hydrogen nuceii (protons).that certainly explains the early arrival of ATP synthase and its various incarnations.you know, you can't hardly argue this stuff and NOT think there is an intelligence involved.don't ask me to explain that, because i can't.



"irreducibly complex, what is that?"


Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is non-functional. Evolution, which supposedly works in a stepwise fashion over long periods of time, can’t form these complex machines. Evolution is not goal-oriented; it cannot work towards a specific outcome. If a part of the machine would happen to form by random chance mutation (which itself is not plausible, but the other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time, then the organism containing that individual part (by itself non-functional) would not have a particular survival advantage and would not be selected for. Since the part offers no advantage to the organism, it would likely be lost from the population, and evolution would be back to square one in forming the parts for the machine. There is essentially no way to collect the parts over time because the individual parts do not have a function (without the other parts) and do not give the organism a survival advantage. Remember, all the necessary parts must be present for the machine to be functional and convey a survival advantage that could be selected for.
  • Mike Summers likes this

#277 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 21 July 2017 - 05:48 PM

So are you saying YOU are not "Irreducibly Complex"?

irreducibly complex, what is that?if you want to get all technical about it, almost everything is irreducibly complex.ballistic curves are irreducibly complex.your car tires are irreducibly complex.let's not forget we gotta define EXACTLY what we are talking about too.when it comes to the cell, yes i believe there is an irreducible complexity.it's the problem itself that is preventing a solution, not something like a missing catalyst.science simply has no idea how life got here.as for the "organs" (metabolism), maybe the cell "eats" hydrogen nuceii (protons).that certainly explains the early arrival of ATP synthase and its various incarnations.you know, you can't hardly argue this stuff and NOT think there is an intelligence involved.don't ask me to explain that, because i can't.




"irreducibly complex, what is that?"


Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is non-functional. Evolution, which supposedly works in a stepwise fashion over long periods of time, can’t form these complex machines. Evolution is not goal-oriented; it cannot work towards a specific outcome. If a part of the machine would happen to form by random chance mutation (which itself is not plausible, but the other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time, then the organism containing that individual part (by itself non-functional) would not have a particular survival advantage and would not be selected for. Since the part offers no advantage to the organism, it would likely be lost from the population, and evolution would be back to square one in forming the parts for the machine. There is essentially no way to collect the parts over time because the individual parts do not have a function (without the other parts) and do not give the organism a survival advantage. Remember, all the necessary parts must be present for the machine to be functional and convey a survival advantage that could be selected for.

this is true for abiogenesis, but not for evolution.
i would say all of the information for evolution was present from the very first living cell.

if we use "the acquisition of information" as the criteria for defining evolution, then it's a safe bet that very little, if any, evolution has happened from the first life.

#278 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 21 July 2017 - 11:28 PM

 

 

 

So are you saying YOU are not "Irreducibly Complex"?

irreducibly complex, what is that?if you want to get all technical about it, almost everything is irreducibly complex.ballistic curves are irreducibly complex.your car tires are irreducibly complex.let's not forget we gotta define EXACTLY what we are talking about too.when it comes to the cell, yes i believe there is an irreducible complexity.it's the problem itself that is preventing a solution, not something like a missing catalyst.science simply has no idea how life got here.as for the "organs" (metabolism), maybe the cell "eats" hydrogen nuceii (protons).that certainly explains the early arrival of ATP synthase and its various incarnations.you know, you can't hardly argue this stuff and NOT think there is an intelligence involved.don't ask me to explain that, because i can't.

 




"irreducibly complex, what is that?"


Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is non-functional. Evolution, which supposedly works in a stepwise fashion over long periods of time, can’t form these complex machines. Evolution is not goal-oriented; it cannot work towards a specific outcome. If a part of the machine would happen to form by random chance mutation (which itself is not plausible, but the other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time, then the organism containing that individual part (by itself non-functional) would not have a particular survival advantage and would not be selected for. Since the part offers no advantage to the organism, it would likely be lost from the population, and evolution would be back to square one in forming the parts for the machine. There is essentially no way to collect the parts over time because the individual parts do not have a function (without the other parts) and do not give the organism a survival advantage. Remember, all the necessary parts must be present for the machine to be functional and convey a survival advantage that could be selected for.

 

this is true for abiogenesis, but not for evolution.
i would say all of the information for evolution was present from the very first living cell.

if we use "the acquisition of information" as the criteria for defining evolution, then it's a safe bet that very little, if any, evolution has happened from the first life.

 

 

This is true for abiogenesis, but not for evolution.    :burp:

 

Of COURSE it is true for "Evolution" as well.. And the OP in THIS THREAD, which NOBODY CAN ANSWER ,proves it..

 

PLEASE LISTEN....

 

All you have to do is answer the question with a PLAUSIBLE or FEASIBLE order and then

you will be correct, that there is no such thing as "Irreducible complexity" for "Evolution"

But until YOU. or ANYONE ELSE is able to do so. Irreducible complexity is a proven fact that destroys

"Evolution" Completely, and this thread you are reading confirms that to be so...Here it is again.. Please

try not to Dodge / Ignore / Disappear this time OK?

 

 

I have a REASONABLE question that I would like answered if you wish me to take Evolution seriously.. 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..
 
Because 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...

 

THEREFORE

 

If UCA for all flora and fauna were to somehow be true, and If we slowly go back in time, Our "Ancestor(s)" would, at some point, have 9 Interdependent vital organs, then 8, then 7, then 6 5 4 3 2...

 

 THE MATH IS NOT HARD HERE!..

 

Allow me to give you a BIG head start.. I will allow you to start out with Abiogenesis (Quite generous don't you think?) AND a bag of skin.... Now you have 1 billion years to turn it into a Man... What are the next "Steps" in the Evolutionary ladder? We need to figure out which Vital Organs come next..Otherwise you are abandoning scientific enquiry all together...

 

Come on.. Just give me something!!! Let us analyze it together using logic and critical thinking.... You guys are starting to make me think this really isn't about "Science" Anymore, Rather a Religious belief in godless Metaphysical Naturalism,..

 

 

 

I cant believe nobody can even try to make up some hypothesis to defend against my simple observation that puts Abiodarwinism (TOE) into the Trash Bin of history once and for all..

 

NOBODY has the courage to post it on the Atheist web sites and put me in my place for daring to show that "Evolution" is a Fairytale that cant even be supported with a comic book drawing!! :muscular:

 

Are all of you defenders of Naturalism going to sit there and concede defeat?  Come on!!   Put it up on the Talk Origins website.. Surely SOMEONE can present a rebuttal to my argument!!

 

 

 

BY THE WAY... DOES ANYONE SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT "EXPLANATION"??

 

image.jpg

 

 

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence." (Dr. Johnathan Wells, author of the book, "Icons of Evolution")






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users