Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Quadrivium

Make the list. Don't link to an article. Make the list. You have already misrepresented evolution, so this should be fun

You also seem to think the philosophy of science is just Kuhm Its clear you don't know what you are talking about. You seem to just like attacking scientists.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Make the list. Don't link to an article. Make the list. You have already misrepresented evolution, so this should be fun

You also seem to think the philosophy of science is just Kuhm

Its clear you don't know what you are talking about. You seem to just like attacking scientists.

No list needed. Simply put, most people (including wanna be scientist) have morphed evolution into a world view. It does not matter that parts of the theory are nontestable, nonfalsifablr and can't be observed. It is their worldview and their belief, sciene and the philosophy there of be damned.
They are making the science fit the theory. Instead of answering the hard questions they divert and belittle.
This is why I said they have left the philosophy of science behind.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Learn about bioinformatics and get back to me. Anyone who's done the experiments would not be a creationist .

The brain's processing power has been estimated to have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 calculations per second. The heart is the greatest pump known to humankind and can last for hundreds of years without skipping a beat. The kidneys for their size far surpass any man-made filtration system and can also last for hundreds of years without failure. You have two thin slits in your windpipe which you can seemlessly control to allow speech. You digest food, filter toxins, distribute nutrients, and much much more without any necessary conscious input. The human body is the greatest super computer ever made, and could not be the result of the random interactions of matter.

a reply to: cooperton

Again.
None of that proves anything.
Prove your supposition. Not your admiration for the human body. Also technically the brain is not a computer. What you used is a flawed analogy. Much like "DNA is a coding language" or "cars don't self assemble"

a reply to: Quadrivium

You can not actually make the list. that was clear the moment you tried to be sneaky (and failed).

Produce the list or recant.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

You can not actually make the list. that was clear the moment you tried to be sneaky (and failed).

Produce the list or recant.

Ok. So this your attempt at dodging the fact that there is no evidence for macro evolution? Silly.
I made a comment that scientist have left the philosophy of science behind. I make several remarks to this fact in my comments to you since that statement and then I actually outline those remarks in one post, just to appease you and you are still harping on it.
Just admit that there are holes in the theory and be done already.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I've already posted evidence for specialization. We have seen it. Try again.

Post your list. Clearly you can not.

All you have done is posted the same old tired creationist tactics. Nothing new here.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Again.
None of that proves anything.

What would you consider proof? The world around us involves meticulous machinery so tightly knit that it seldom fails its duty... we as rational thinking humans have yet to be able to replicate the intelligence involved with creating such complexity.

Much like "DNA is a coding language"

Are you saying the genetic code is not code? You are purposefully making things ambiguous to avoid the obvious answer.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

I've already posted evidence for specialization. We have seen it. Try again.

Post your list. Clearly you can not.

All you have done is posted the same old tired creationist tactics. Nothing new here.

what creationist has stated anything about the philosophy of science?
Yes you have showed evidence of adaptation, so?
How about crossing over classes, phylum and kingdoms? Evolution above the species level (macro)?
Don't know where you got this "list" diversion from but I am done dancing to your flute. I have backed up my statement several times. Now do you want to join the discussion or keep diverting?

a reply to: cooperton

Nothing will be enough proof. He is just as closed minded as he believes creationist to be. Time and chance are his God and through them all things are possible in his mind.

a reply to: cooperton

Come now, you have claimed to be trained in the sciences (two). You know what proof is.

DNA is not code. Code does not self assemble. DNA is more like an App than a document which is read (the code).

a reply to: Quadrivium

I've shown evidence of speciation neighbour.

You claimed you had a list of things wrong with evolution. Yet all you seem to have is logical fallacies.
Ta ta

a reply to: Quadrivium

You really are being obtuse. I'm a polytheist, I have many deities. I even believe but do not worship yours. Science is my day job. I am open to a great many things. I'e studied mysticism, occultism, and science. Yet evolution makes sense. IF you'd done the leg work you would understand.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

I've shown evidence of speciation neighbour.

You claimed you had a list of things wrong with evolution. Yet all you seem to have is logical fallacies.
Ta ta

I said I had a list? When?
I did say that there are parts that have no basis in science. The main being "macro evolution" if you think speciation (adaptation) can lead to evolution above the species level then show me where and how.
There was also the little question of "beneficial mitations" you avoided (here www.abovetopsecret.com...)

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

You really are being obtuse. I'm a polytheist, I have many deities. I even believe but do not worship yours. Science is my day job. I am open to a great many things. I'e studied mysticism, occultism, and science. Yet evolution makes sense. IF you'd done the leg work you would understand.

You may believe in many gods but to you time and chance were your creator.

Haha take it easy on the evolutionist...

He has been told what to believe by other smug self informed scientists who believe their own delusionial flights of fancy...
Common sense will not permeate his noggin for he is in fact a "believer" his FAITH is strong in his god named evolution...
This is the very same fellow who is very religious remember?
He worships many gods.... And even believes in my God the God of creation the God who has an actual definition which states he is the creator of the universe....
Except he doesn't believe his many gods nor mine or ours has anything to do with creation...

For that he gives the credit to evolution....

What a wackadoo.... I'm telling you...
I know you have noticed it for yourself... But he's not right in the head...If that's the average mind of an evolutionary scientist... Well that explains a whole hell of alot I reckon...
His ramblings are nonsensical gibberish...

Heh and your evidence for creation had better not come from a creationist site it don't matter if an actual scientist has his views posted there...

Hahahaha

And oh yeah don't forget genetic code and dna are not a code even though the code for dna is constantly being checked for errors and being rewritten... He wouldn't want you using that information to back irreducable complexity...

Here's a fact the universe was created bottom line...

Any and all evolution which is very limited because of irrreducable complexity never actually creates instead only altars creation yet even such alterations are bound by irreducable complexity...

Let's see the evolutionists show how apes break through the checks put into place by genetic code to refute irreducable complexity...

And oh yeah no using evolutionist sites either...

lol

When Mankind evolves we will become eternal...
Not some new form of life... Just perfected human beings...
Now that's evolution...
And just think about it...
You have God to thank for it!
The one who wrote the book on irreducable complexity and everything else for that matter...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton
DNA is not code.

The genetic code is genetic code.

Code does not self assemble.

Which is exactly the point we are conveying - the human genetic code is immensely complex and can even self-regulate depending on environmental or behavioral cues. Since code does not self-assemble, it must have been assembled by a Creator.

DNA is more like an App than a document which is read (the code).

DNA is the code that is read by polymerase to create an mRNA strand that is translated by ribosomes into a protein.
DNA---polymerase--->mRNA----ribosomes--->protein

This is irreducible complexity: if DNA requires proteins (polymerase, etc) for it to be read, how could DNA mutations have ever created the proteins necessary for replication or translation if it didn't have anything to read it in the first place? You need everything in play for the system to work, it cannot be added in a piece-by-piece manner as proposed by evolution

a reply to: Quadrivium

Parts imply a list. Go for it, list the parts. Or are you actually not sure which bits? Did you "read it somewhere"?

a reply to: Quadrivium

You don't understand Indo-European cosmology very well do you? You are stuck in the deserts of the middle east

Again. Slowly

Evolution has nothing to do with how life started?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Neighbour, I've actually been in the lab, and done experiments regarding this subject. Have you?

Not even my faith "tells me what to beleive" let alone my day job. Science evaluates the data. ANd as for my faith, buann an fhirinne (truth prevails)