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.

 

Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

page: 14
28
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
An intelligent being is far more likely to be the cause of our universe than random chaotic chance.


Prove it. First you must explain how it's possible for an all powerful super being to JUST EXIST. Please explain that to me. Something that is exponentially more complex than the universe just happens to be there out of random chance from nothing but energy, space-time or their predecessors can't? See when I talk about double standards, this is exactly it. You change all your logical standards when it comes to god. You say the universe can't just exist eternal, but god can. Funny because you accused me of fallacy in the other thread for agreeing with evolution, yet you agree with god based on nothing but conjecture and BS.
edit on 7 31 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

An intelligent being is far more likely to be the cause of our universe than random chaotic chance.


The problem with intelligent design is it has many flaws.

1. We get stuck in the chicken or the egg scenario. If we have a God then what made him? So on and so on.... A scenario of non-intelligences with infinite possibilities doesn't have this problem. Inside our universe we have limits and we have time. Outside our universe needs no limits or even time.

2. God is not needed, so I fail to see the more "likeliness".

3. Life is far from perfect which leads to randomness of evolution. In the past our eyes were used as an example of the intelligent design argument for a long time, and what makes that so funny is if a TV was made like an eye then it would have wires coming out front and then directly back into the tube. How would you like to watch TV with wires sticking in the tube...lol If you want something more perfect then look at the squid eye that acts more like a camera.

We can say then that evolution give just enough to make something work, not perfect or even good many times, but it works.

4. All these intelligent design arguments are done by looking at a created form of life and looking backwards of the current product and saying see it would be impossible without intelligence, but you need to look from the past forward with each turn a million different choices to get what we have today the comes to millions of different lifeforms all taking random paths for 100s of million years to get to the end produce of today. Take the skunk, it is here today because that was the end product of randomness, no purpose other than life going down a random paths and it ended up as a skunk.



edit on 31-7-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
evolutionary research has led to some great discoveries.


Like what? Show an actual example. Even antibiotic resistance is no longer accredited to evolutionary mechanisms.


Can you point me to any beneficial discoveries from creation research?


Self-realization. Connectedness to the Creator. Purpose. Peace of mind from knowing there is hope. Detecting mathematical patterns in nature that are the signature of the intelligent Creator. Understanding the fundamental forces that uphold the cosmos in order.

And lastly, proving to people that they are not the meaningless ancestors of mutant pond scum




I use genetic algorithms in my field, which are a direct outcome of evolutionary research, and they have saved the AECO (Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operations) industries billions of dollars over the last decade in efficiencies


You assume genetic algorithms are involved with evolution because you assume evolution to be true. Genetic algorithms are totally explainable without evolution. Genetic algorithms are how populations adapt, but those algorithms cannot go beyond certain boundaries, which is why we have never seen an organisms evolve into another organism, despite countless attempts in the lab to do so.

But yeah, evolution has brought the philosophy of survival of the fittest to the forefront of humankind, as if selfishness already wasn't prominent enough....



You don't realize how destructive of a philosophy evolutionary theory is.


originally posted by: Xtrozero

1. We get stuck in the chicken or the egg scenario. If we have a God then what made him? So on and so on...


Alpha-Omega. God was always existent. Not limited by time like we are. Evolution on the other hand actually has a persistent chicken or the egg... as with every example of irreducible complexity, you need to be able to explain how both could have came to be at once, despite the limitations of sequential piece-by-piece mutations.



2. God is not needed, so I fail to see the more "likeliness".


Due to the order and mathematical patterns exhibited all through biology, physics, cosmology, etc, it is most likely that these designs were made by a Designer.

edit on 31-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

And lastly, proving to people that they are not the meaningless ancestors of mutant pond scum





I find you view of life very depressing. So God created all life in their current state and we know that millions of species have come and gone, and so if there is no evolution, no new creations of life then this set number will slowly die out over time in their steady state. This is very depressing that sometime in the future there might only be some grass and a few bugs left of a billion lifeforms...



edit on 31-7-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
and we know that millions of species have come and gone


Source for this comment? Empirical evidence, no sci-fi blogs.


no new creations of life then this set number will slowly die out over time in their steady state.


Theology is a bit off topic but here goes... You can't perceive the Gift of God because you are still looking at things from a material-reductionist perspective. Once evolutionary theory is taken out of your psyche, you can begin to see the deeper fundamental layers of reality. It is very difficult to describe this Cross / Transition, so I figure I will try to show how evolution is invalid, and let people's search for the Truth take them to where it may. To be stubbornly attached to the theory of evolution is a dead-end along the Way.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Source for this comment? Empirical evidence, no sci-fi blogs.


Can you agree that within the last 100 year at least 500 species have gone extinct?



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Can you agree that within the last 100 year at least 500 species have gone extinct?


I'm not sure. Animals goings extinct doesn't prove evolution though. Did you find support for this claim:

"and we know that millions of species have come and gone" ?



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Can you agree that within the last 100 year at least 500 species have gone extinct?


I'm not sure. Animals goings extinct doesn't prove evolution though. Did you find support for this claim:

"and we know that millions of species have come and gone" ?


I'm asking you a question whether you believe that species can go extinct...



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 05:45 AM
link   
en.m.wikipedia.org...


More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to have died out. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

TIME is the reason this has happened

its complex and almost incredibly so complex that you or I cant fathom it from the top of our heads
and would require many years of study to understand it, and that is exactly what we have done .

Although some of the methods animals do things arent fully understood , such as how petradactyl offspring can fly from birth! ( a recent discovery)



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Do it again, accidentally deleted your pm.

Stupid mobile and fat fingers.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

TIME is the reason this has happened


So now instead of saying 'God did it', you say 'time did it'? God is above time, and has much more capabilities than randomness over time.


its complex and almost incredibly so complex that you or I cant fathom it from the top of our heads
and would require many years of study to understand it


Hmm but we have vast reservoirs of biological knowledge. The irreducibly complex components could not have come to be by random successive mutations, because they require a multitude of components to be in place to function. How long would it take for a car to appear by random chance? How long would it take for an airplane to appear by random chance? Given the current laws of physics, No amount of time could ever allow these things to be created by random chance, it requires intelligence. The same goes for human beings, biological organisms, and the biochemistry and physiology that supports them.


originally posted by: Xtrozero

I'm asking you a question whether you believe that species can go extinct...


Yes they can. But the species did not come to be through evolution. Extinction is not evidence for evolution.
edit on 1-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Wahhhh... Appeal to Complexity... WAHHH!!!

That is your only argument.... it's sad that you can't think outside that tiny box... irreducible complexity (Appeal to Complexity)... lol... (god of the gaps... LOL...LOL...LOL...)... so many irreducibly complex examples presented by creationists have been found to be not irreducibly complex with further research and understanding through the decades (ie. DNA and "cell machinery" being inseparable or irreducibly complex... lol WRONG)... your god of the gaps keeps narrowing... basically the genesis event is really it for you guys... must be scary to see your delusionally blinded ideology get slowly dismantled by facts. LOL

I guess believing in a delusion makes it impossible to see evidenced based reality for what it is... a set of inter-related processes (as far as we've seen yet).



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You missed my point entirely... not surprising as you have shown a propensity for interpreting comments how you would like to perceive them, rather than how they were intended... like a true creationist delusionist.

(Here's a couple of links for benefits of evolutionary research... it's all been posted before and you ignored it, so I'm not going to bother highlighting specific areas... if you're interested you can read and learn yourself: A Beginners Guide to Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithm, Editorial: Recent Discoveries in Evolutionary and Genomic Microbiology).

My point was that the inquiry into evolution has produced many beneficial outcomes for society, regardless of the validity of evolution as an overarching concept. Even your example of antibiotic resistance (even if not accredited to evolution, now), was a result of evolutionary research, and has brought countless value and benefits to society. The scientific inquiry is the important bit, not evolution specifically, and if we didn't pursue evolution as a concept, we wouldn't have all of this useful stuff... like a computer that can fit in your hand (thanks evolutionary algorithm)!

Nothing AT ALL, EVER beneficial from creationist research.

Your posts are so filled with dishonesty and inaccuracies it is impossible to argue with you... because analogically you say "2+2=5" then you applaud yourself for being smart and denigrate others for not seeing the self evidence of 2+2 equaling 5, regardless of evidence to the contrary. There is no arguing that type of logic... so people leave the discussion... and when they do, you feel like you've won. lol...

Then others jump on board and say "... oh, look, scientists can't argue with this Creationist Genius... he MUST be right! YAY... our god is real! Proved by science..."... in the most epic global circle jerk of all time! LOL!

Come on... throw another Appeal to Complexity at me!
edit on 1-8-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

Your posts are so filled with dishonesty and inaccuracies it is impossible to argue with you


Where, when discussing science, was I inaccurate? I want to know because I wish to be as objective as possible in these discussions. Please, when you find these perceived inaccuracies, explain in your own words why it is wrong according to empirical science.




posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
Here you go...

puzzlespere: "... evolutionary research has led to some great discoveries."

Cooperton: "Even antibiotic resistance is no longer accredited to evolutionary mechanisms".

INACCURATE: because "evolutionary research", not "evolution" itself has led to these discoveries, so your response is inaccurate.


puzzlespere: "... Can you point me to any beneficial discoveries from creation research?"

Cooperton: "Self-realization. Connectedness to the Creator. Purpose. Peace of mind from knowing there is hope. Detecting mathematical patterns in nature that are the signature of the intelligent Creator. Understanding the fundamental forces that uphold the cosmos in order.

And lastly, proving to people that they are not the meaningless ancestors of mutant pond scum"

DISHONEST: because nothing you said there is research related, every single point you made is philosophy or theology, then the kicker is you say "proving to people"... without any proof at all, in fact every concept you presented in that paragraph, by their very nature, are not fact based, so saying "proving" is absolutely dishonest!


You assume genetic algorithms are involved with evolution because you assume evolution to be true. Genetic algorithms are totally explainable without evolution. Genetic algorithms are how populations adapt, but those algorithms cannot go beyond certain boundaries, which is why we have never seen an organisms evolve into another organism, despite countless attempts in the lab to do so.

DISHONEST and INACCURATE: because I don't assume gen.algorithms are involved with evolution, rather I know that the algorithms were derived from evolutionary research, regardless of the validity of evolution as framework, and are not totally explained without evolution at all!!!... so both inaccurate because you assume, and dishonest in the conclusion that gen.alg would be possible without evolution or it's associated research... THEY ARE LITERALLY THE MATHEMATICAL APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION... LOL!!! So much cognitive dissonance! Then you suggest that scientists have conducted experiments to turn one organism into another, which is a complete misrepresentation of the experiments being conducted... so again both dishonest and inaccurate.

That's 3 examples from one post!.. and there are more!... but that's enough to show for the moment to prove the point.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

You have not dismantled anything nor have any of your cronies...
now that’s a fact...
The fact you believe you have, well that’s embarrassing for you...
But since you don’t even realize that, I guess there is no shame in that for you...
Not that you are aware of anyway...
lol

edit on 1-8-2019 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Lets be honest here neighbour. You would not know if your little cults ideas were dismantled or not. Y

You in particular resort to the ad hominem fallacy as a form of rebuttal. As oppose to talking to the points.

So lets reiterate, for you to ignore one more time.

(a) The idea of irreducible complexity was debunked decades ago. The idea does not take into account its own flaw. Who designed God? If it is to be taken seriously, it needs to account for your little desert war deity, and his itinerant carpenter son.

(b) You and your ilk ignore or misrepresent what is presented here. The evidence is freely available to be tested. Avaliable to all. You just choose not to test the data.

(c) Counter evidence supplied (when it actually is supplied) by you and your ilk, is never of a quality to be taken seriously. Rather it always falls to "god did it".



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 08:56 PM
link   
The "appeal to complexity" attack is a very weak argument in of itself, it's one of those talking points that seems to score points but really doesn't.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

INACCURATE: because "evolutionary research", not "evolution" itself has led to these discoveries, so your response is inaccurate.


Ok so you're saying the failed attempts to prove evolution have led to some discoveries? Yeah I can agree with that.



DISHONEST: because nothing you said there is research related, every single point you made is philosophy or theology


So because I am not talking about science, I must be lying? You gotta have more perspectives on life man. Be multi-faceted, not a one-trick pony. There's more ways to understanding than just empirical evidence.



DISHONEST and INACCURATE: because I don't assume gen.algorithms are involved with evolution, rather I know that the algorithms were derived from evolutionary research


But any algorithm derived from attempted research into evolution is not contingent on the validity of evolution. Which was my point... No observable evidence relies on the validity of evolution. It has mislead research tracks all over the world. They're trying to prove we are descended from mutant monkeys and spending lots of tax-payer money trying to do so... Yet there is still no example that an organism can change into another organism, which would prove the possibility of evolution as the origin of species.


THEY ARE LITERALLY THE MATHEMATICAL APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION


Allele drift perhaps. Evolution? Nope. Does computer code improve by random chance or get worse? I've taken multiple computer classes, and that stuff doesn't write itself. Neither does the genetic code. It requires intelligence.




top topics



 
28
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join