- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Sorry, but I stopped watching at 0:43 when they introduced an interview with Michael Behe. When it comes to his creationism, I don't rate him as a 'scientist'.
I think 'promoter of wedge document' would be a more appropriate title.
Stuart
Ha ha. Your loss.
Putting your head in the sand strategy.
BTW, this video wasn't put here just for you Stu. Sorry but you are not the centre of the universe. It was put here for all anyone who wishes to watch it.
Quote (t8 @ April 28 2009,10:05) Ha ha. Your loss. Putting your head in the sand strategy.
BTW, this video wasn't put here just for you Stu. Sorry but you are not the centre of the universe. It was put here for all anyone who wishes to watch it.
OK. I'm quite happy to stand to one side and read the commentaries of the thousands of others who watched it.Stuart
Can't form your own opinions, so you go with the flow. Problem is that the mainstream flow has been wrong too many times to count. The earth was flat once.
Quote (t8 @ April 28 2009,20:37) Can't form your own opinions, so you go with the flow. Problem is that the mainstream flow has been wrong too many times to count. The earth was flat once.
Were you talking to me?Stuart
Can you hear and see when you bury your head in the sands of bias?
This explains why you cannot hear wisdom and why you cannot see the light.Although there might be some hope for you coz you appear to have heard something by reason of your response.
Quote (t8 @ May 05 2009,17:04) Can you hear and see when you bury your head in the sands of bias?
This explains why you cannot hear wisdom and why you cannot see the light.Although there might be some hope for you coz you appear to have heard something by reason of your response.
Were those comments meant for me, or for anyone who watched the video?Stuart
Seriously stu, in trying to understand Darwins theories, I am confused about how the first organism
having irriducible complexity came to be.
I admit to not having a brilliant scientific mind, but I try to understand logical explanations.
Is there a plausible explanation in the theory of evolution to address this phenomenon?By the way, I enjoyed the video.
Tim
Quote (Stu @ May 06 2009,03:25) Quote (t8 @ May 05 2009,17:04) Can you hear and see when you bury your head in the sands of bias?
This explains why you cannot hear wisdom and why you cannot see the light.Although there might be some hope for you coz you appear to have heard something by reason of your response.
Were those comments meant for me, or for anyone who watched the video?Stuart
It is meant for anyone who buries his head in the sands of doubt, regarding the existence of God.Quote (t8 @ May 06 2009,13:46) Quote (Stu @ May 06 2009,03:25) Quote (t8 @ May 05 2009,17:04) Can you hear and see when you bury your head in the sands of bias?
This explains why you cannot hear wisdom and why you cannot see the light.Although there might be some hope for you coz you appear to have heard something by reason of your response.
Were those comments meant for me, or for anyone who watched the video?Stuart
It is meant for anyone who buries his head in the sands of doubt, regarding the existence of God.
OK, so it was for someone else then.Stuart
Quote (TimothyVI @ May 06 2009,10:37) Seriously stu, in trying to understand Darwins theories, I am confused about how the first organism
having irriducible complexity came to be.
I admit to not having a brilliant scientific mind, but I try to understand logical explanations.
Is there a plausible explanation in the theory of evolution to address this phenomenon?By the way, I enjoyed the video.
Tim
Two things to bear in mind Tim,1. Despite a lot of hot air rushing from a few mouths, there has never been produced an example of irreducible complexity in biology. Every example tried has been shown to have come from adaptation of a simpler structure that hd a similar but distinct function. You would think if irreducible complexity were such a central tenet of biology there would be countless obvious example, but there are none. The pin-up example of the ID creationists is the bacterial flagellum, the little motors and propellers that allow the bacteria in your dishcloth to move around, was claimed to be something that would have no function if any one piece wa removed. As it turns out, if you remove the propeller part you have a protein excretory pump as is found in other bacteria.
2. Darwin's theory says nothing about origins. It picks up the story after there is some living, reproducing organism already in existence. The origins of the first ife on earth may never be explained by a scientific theory, but there is much very plausible speculation that uses very straightforward chemistry to explain how a first cell might have formed spontaneously. It may be that the same chemistry is going on all the time, but now there is so much microbial life everywhere any such accidental cell would instantly become lunch for something already living.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 06 2009,22:41) Two things to bear in mind Tim, 1. Despite a lot of hot air rushing from a few mouths, there has never been produced an example of irreducible complexity in biology. Every example tried has been shown to have come from adaptation of a simpler structure that hd a similar but distinct function. You would think if irreducible complexity were such a central tenet of biology there would be countless obvious example, but there are none. The pin-up example of the ID creationists is the bacterial flagellum, the little motors and propellers that allow the bacteria in your dishcloth to move around, was claimed to be something that would have no function if any one piece wa removed. As it turns out, if you remove the propeller part you have a protein excretory pump as is found in other bacteria.
Stuart
Thanks Stu,
so in fact their example of irriducible complexity can be further reduced and still function.Tim
Stu it is a no brainer that just about any organ and body part is complex, never mind the billion or trillion cells that make them up. You also have to consider how they are used with other body parts and the environment too.
The human eye is relatively complex and man hasn't been able to reproduce all its functions to that quality of operation. And you argue that no designer/intelligence can do a better job. I think you must be blind to not see that.
Anyway, I would love to see a succession of human eye models that became more advanced till the eye we see today.
Eye model 1 a mutated growth
Eye model 2 who knows
Eye model 3 anyones guess
Eye model 1000000000 can receive light for the brain to make some sense out of.Yeah right. Imagine the first one. It isn't even a eye, nor is the next one. Suddenly one day an eye was able to see, and then they were able to locate better members of the opposite sex to mate more regularly and pass on their fantastic mutation. Ha ha. Sorry but that is some religion and fiction, but not reality.
Flagellum is the least of your problems. The human brain supercomputer is far more complex. Flagellum is simple in comparison. Then you have dead force or thing that creates life and it knows itself? That is even more fantastical. And it is not hard to see how many more gazillion examples there are that require imagination to explain.
Design needs a designer and life needs life. Code needs a coder. And energy is transferred.
Good luck with your non-God fable and all the magic it speaks of.
Quote (TimothyVI @ May 06 2009,23:35) Quote (Stu @ May 06 2009,22:41) Two things to bear in mind Tim, 1. Despite a lot of hot air rushing from a few mouths, there has never been produced an example of irreducible complexity in biology. Every example tried has been shown to have come from adaptation of a simpler structure that hd a similar but distinct function. You would think if irreducible complexity were such a central tenet of biology there would be countless obvious example, but there are none. The pin-up example of the ID creationists is the bacterial flagellum, the little motors and propellers that allow the bacteria in your dishcloth to move around, was claimed to be something that would have no function if any one piece wa removed. As it turns out, if you remove the propeller part you have a protein excretory pump as is found in other bacteria.
Stuart
Thanks Stu,
so in fact their example of irriducible complexity can be further reduced and still function.Tim
Yes, although the IDers are lying creationists with an conservative religious agenda (search for the Wedge Document if you have not seen it) there has been some interest value in the disproof of their claims. It seems that when you investigate the living world from the point of view of how these microscopic, complex structures came about, you see absolutely nothing but natural selection in action, just as Darwin described it.Stuart
Quote Stu it is a no brainer that just about any organ and body part is complex, never mind the billion or trillion cells that make them up. You also have to consider how they are used with other body parts and the environment too.
Yes, most people do not really appreciate just how fiendishly complicated the modern living cell is, let alone tissues and organs made from lots of cells in chemical communication.Quote The human eye is relatively complex and man hasn't been able to reproduce all its functions to that quality of operation.
My camera is pretty good. It doesn’t have a blind spot either.Quote And you argue that no designer/intelligence can do a better job. I think you must be blind to not see that.
What job did the designer/intelligence do? Honestly t8, first you say that human intelligence cannot do anything as complicated as the eye, and then you say that means it was created by an intelligence. That is logically absurd.Quote Anyway, I would love to see a succession of human eye models that became more advanced till the eye we see today.
Eye model 1 a mutated growth
Eye model 2 who knows
Eye model 3 anyones guess
Eye model 1000000000 can receive light for the brain to make some sense out of.
Yeah right. Imagine the first one. It isn't even a eye, nor is the next one. Suddenly one day an eye was able to see, and then they were able to locate better members of the opposite sex to mate more regularly and pass on their fantastic mutation. Ha ha. Sorry but that is some religion and fiction, but not reality.Indeed it is a religious fantasy, one designed to mislead people because you are scared to allow reality into the wordview that you went shopping for and for which you have paid too great a price. You should look on Wikipedia for the evolution of the eye. It is all explained, complete with evidence. I suppose being a follower of Paul you agree with that bigot’s appeal to live an ignorant, unquestioning life. Your choice, but don’t lie to people about what we DO know about. There is a lake of fire awaiting people who do that, someone told me.
Quote Flagellum is the least of your problems.
And the most of the IDer’s problems. It was their pin-up example and now it turns out to be just another adaptation in a very long chain of them.Quote The human brain supercomputer is far more complex. Flagellum is simple in comparison. Then you have dead force or thing that creates life and it knows itself? That is even more fantastical. And it is not hard to see how many more gazillion examples there are that require imagination to explain.
Are you arguing that complexity rules out natural processes? Darwin explained exactly how complexity arises. You will have to disprove him. All the writing you have done on the subject t8, and you do not have a scientific theory of divine creation, nor a disproof of evolution by natural selection. Could you be bluffing? Lying does seem like a cruel thing to call it, but you know you are so I don’t see how else it could be expressed.Quote Design needs a designer and life needs life.
True and true. So what?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 07 2009,20:23) What job did the designer/intelligence do? Honestly t8, first you say that human intelligence cannot do anything as complicated as the eye, and then you say that means it was created by an intelligence. That is logically absurd.
What is logically absurd is to believe that intelligence cannot compete on a technological level with the universe which has an IQ of exactly zero.That is very foolish.
Quote (Stu @ May 07 2009,20:23) And the most of the IDer’s problems. It was their pin-up example and now it turns out to be just another adaptation in a very long chain of them.
I got the impression that he used this example to show in a simple way to simple people how biological machines are cleverly constructed and cannot be pieced together in a gradual way. Sometimes simplicity is best because you have less ways to argue something away.If he used the human brain as an example, many atheists would have been completely lost.
If you think about it, more complex things like the human body which takes it's instructions from a supercomputer (brain) and the whole body not only works in unison, but is also composed of trillions of cells that include these micro-machines. But that might be too much for you to handle.
I though the simple cell was a great example that atheists might be able to get their head around.
But perhaps even that was too much. I don't know if you can be helped.
Might just be better to leave you to it and maybe one day, it will dawn on you?
Quote (t8 @ May 11 2009,22:07) Quote (Stu @ May 07 2009,20:23) What job did the designer/intelligence do? Honestly t8, first you say that human intelligence cannot do anything as complicated as the eye, and then you say that means it was created by an intelligence. That is logically absurd.
What is logically absurd is to believe that intelligence cannot compete on a technological level with the universe which has an IQ of exactly zero.That is very foolish.
We did discuss earlier that common sense may not be the best cognitive strategy for understanding the universe.Just because you cannot believe it does not disprove it.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
