It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 35
15
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You've never made nucleic acids before have you? They are very simple. Not complex. Their self assembly is simply a chemical function.

Irreducible Complexity is pseudoscience, because it should (to be honest) require a creator to have a creator. He can't "just have happened". Oh wait, hypocrisy is ok is it?




posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
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?

You are making yourself look foolish.
By your reasoning above you are stating that all classes were CREATED at the same moment.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Well that settles it. Your baseless claims and assertions are the end of the discussion. Never mind that modern medicine is mostly based on evolutionary theory, the science of genetics wouldn't be true if evolution were false, and we have proven it in a lab several times.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You've never made nucleic acids before have you? They are very simple. Not complex. Their self assembly is simply a chemical function.

Irreducible Complexity is pseudoscience, because it should (to be honest) require a creator to have a creator. He can't "just have happened". Oh wait, hypocrisy is ok is it?
Again, by that reasoning you are also stating that evolution had to have a Creator.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

No, because evolution does not deal with creation.

It could have creators, a creator, or not. It is of no importance. Evolution is the changing of life. NOT the start there of.

SO your reasoning is faulty.

Nucleic acids do what they do, because of a physical property. That does not imply your God in any way shape of form. IF it did, he should have done a better job with RNA (which is unstable) and DNA (which is still not that stable).



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It would be a crying shame if they had to rely on modern medicine right? WIth this attitude it is clear they only use Homeric "heroic medicine" and balance their humours



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

You don't read very well. OR you are trolling .I say the later, as no one is that niave.

Evolution is the change in life.

In no place have I said what you said. That would be the creationists point of view.

So again

Evolution is the change in life. Not how it started. What don't you understand?



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

You and I both know they would go to a hospital without a second thought trusting that the medicine, surgery, or procedure they are they for will work for them. Even if it origins rest in evolutionary theory. We all know that most Creationists' beliefs aren't thorough enough for them to actually act on them in reality. It's just easier to obfuscate the issue while healthy then seek the medicine developed with the theory they are discounting when they need it.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Of course they would. But if evolution is such an issue for them, the honest approach is to pray to God and hope. Christian "scientists" are more honest a group of zealots.
edit on 9-11-2017 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Noinden
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?

You are making yourself look foolish.
By your reasoning above you are stating that all classes were CREATED at the same moment.

I apologize for this post. I was in a hurry and skimmed over your comment. I am home now and read your reply and realize I made I mistake.
edit on 9-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
However, I would like you to comment on something I have asked several times.
Evolutionist say that macro and micro evolution are one in the same because of speciation. Micro being evolution at species level while macro is above species level.
Speciation is the process of one species evolving into another.
You claimed that no evolutionist would ever claim that "a fish could evolve into a wolf" yet evolution does just that. It claims all land animals came from the sea 700 million years ago.
Where/when have we ever observed speciation above the species level?

edit on 9-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

edit on 9-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: On my phone and I HATE this tiny key board!



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Noinden

You and I both know they would go to a hospital without a second thought trusting that the medicine, surgery, or procedure they are they for will work for them.


Medical procedures are based on clinical trials that can be repeated to demonstrate their validity. As much as its proponents like to hang it on the coat-tails, Evolution is a theory that has no involvement in medical science


It's just easier to obfuscate the issue while healthy then seek the medicine developed with the theory they are discounting when they need it.


Not one medical treatment is reliant on the validity of evolution.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

No Evolution does not say that.

No where does it show or say an fish transitioning into a mammal. YOU are misrepresenting this yet again. Lastly I linked a Scientific American Article (which linked to scientific papers) that detailed speciation being observed but hey I've linked another.

As for above the species level? Come on, now you are being picky. You know that this is not an instant change. We've been observing with knowledge of evolution for little over century, and able to sequence genomes in a timely manner for little over a decade. If you are not going to engage in an honnest manner, I'm not going to take you seriously.

Tell you what. Post proof of how Irreducible complexity is the only answer.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You really do not understand modern medical science if you believe "Not one medical treatment is reliant on the validity of evolution." One of the banes of medical science is antibiotic resistance, which is bacterium having evolved to resist antibiotics.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

No, because evolution does not deal with creation.

Evolution does not deal with creation yet evolutionist use creation to explain evolution. Kind of a circular argument you have there. "You've never made nucleic acids before have you? They are very simple."


It could have creators, a creator, or not. It is of no importance. Evolution is the changing of life. NOT the start there of.

SO your reasoning is faulty.
ditto



Nucleic acids do what they do, because of a physical property. That does not imply your God in any way shape of form. IF it did, he should have done a better job with RNA (which is unstable) and DNA (which is still not that stable).

They are anything but simple,as you claimed.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You really do not understand modern medical science if you believe "Not one medical treatment is reliant on the validity of evolution." One of the banes of medical science is antibiotic resistance, which is bacterium having evolved to resist antibiotics.


They do not evolve the resistance. The resistance was there to begin with otherwise the antibiotic would be 100% effective initially. The gene resistance is already present in the gene pool and this bottleneck effect renders the entire population to be antibiotic resistant. To mistake this adaptation mechanism for the idea that all life randomly mutated into existence is a rash extrapolation.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

WAIT! We (or they) have a dilemma. We forgot about the RATE project (how could we!!!??).

This very important discovery says that Creationists should NEVER allow their doctors to prescribe any procedure which involves radioactive isotopes because the results are UNRELIABLE! Can you believe it? We've been tricked! And to think there are over 200 radioisotopes being used every minute of the day around the world on unsuspecting patients who think the medical community knows what it's doing! Sounds like a multi-billion dollar lawsuit to me.
I suggest that someone call Ken Ham at: +1 (859) 727-2222. He needs to know that he's missing out on a tremendous opportunity to reap billions from big pharma. BTW, he could use the money - I understand the tax authorities are cleaning house down there in Kentucky. What's going to happen to all those 50,000 year old dinosaurs? Auction perhaps??

answersingenesis.org...


Summary The basic conclusion of this research is that conventional radioisotopic dating methods are unreliable. The chief reason is that uniformitarianism is not a legitimate model of earth history. Observational evidence supports the recent occurrence of a global catastrophic Flood. Because the earth has suffered a major tectonic catastrophe corresponding to the Genesis Flood, the uniformitarian assumptions that are applied to obtain age estimates from radioisotopic data are simply not true. Intermediate results from RATE support a young-earth, catastrophic, creationist model.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

(a) There is no such thing as "evolutionists" in the sense you and other creationists use the term. Either you acknowledge a scientific theory is valid (based on the data, and that is how they are called theories.... based on data) or you actively research to see if there is a valid alternative. Evolution is a theory. Just like thermodynamics, Kinetics, the SN1 and SN2 mechanisms, and gravity (which we know very little of how that happens).

(b) Only creationists insist that evolution must cover how life started. IT always comes down too "because it should" with out a valid scientific reason why a theory needs to go beyond what it proposes to cover (The change of life).

(c) Nucleic acids are simpler than amino acids (there are over twenty progenitor ones) or carbohydrates. As someone who has made use of them in pharmaceuticals. They are simple molecules. Want complex? Try a peptide. OR modern pharmaceuticals that require many synthetic steps. Nucleic acids have been shown to be able to be made in very simple reactions, as could have occurred on early earth.

When you understand chemistry and biochemistry get back to me



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You just described evolution. Congratulations. You are trying to (like your creationist buddies) argue what evolution is or is not, to suit your own needs.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join