Originally posted by ablissfulman
I prefer to believe I am the product of a divine creator (the force that set all the laws of the universe in place and without which none of us could
take our next breath). It's why I have the innate ability to Love my neighbor as myself, wish no harm to anyone, do unto others what I want them to
do to me, forgive, and live a generally happier life than those who express dissent upon my beliefs.
I'm sorry, but it really doesn't matter one bit what you "prefer" to believe. What you desire has no impact on what is actually true. The bottom
line is that, by its nature, the idea of a god or creator is unfalsifiable and untestable. Therefore, there can't be any conclusive evidence
supporting the existence of such a being.
The evidence you reference, especially the idea of "irreducible complexity" has been debunked time and time again in the scientific community and
even on this forum. I will refer you to a paper written by cell biologist Ken Miller, in which "irreducibly complexity" is totally dismantled.
By the way, the biologist that wrote this paper is, himself, a Christian.
Instantaneous complexity—Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not
done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.
Do you know how embryos form? Two haploid gametes join to form a diploid zygote, which begins dividing and forms into an embryo over a period of weeks
or months. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that upon conception, organisms form instantaneously in their adult form in the
Mathematically impossible—Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled
by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.
First of all, though abiogenesis may have been largely random, evolution is not. Not a single person who is actually educated about the theory of
evolution by natural selection will tell you it is random.
Furthermore, the idea that mathematicians would say any low-likelihood event is "impossible" is ridiculous. If nothing else, they would merely say
that it's highly unlikely.
Also, care to link me to the "mathematicians" you're talking about? If you're referring to Dembski, his arguments have also been demolished. I
suggest you read "Logic and Math Turn to Smoke and Mirrors: William Dembski's 'Design Inference'" by Dr. Wesley R. Elsberry.
Complicated interrelated functions of separate systems—All of the various structures and organs in every living thing are marvelously
interrelated. In order to maintain its existence, each part depends on many others.
You realize this says nothing about the possibility of them having evolved, correct? Organs can be evolved for one function but adapted for another,
etc. etc. If you knew the first thing about evolutionary theory, you wouldn't make a fool of yourself by putting forth arguments that showcase your
Extremely involved production sequence—The various processes by which things are made in living organisms are complicated in the extreme.
Very lengthy production sequences are generally required. Each step in the procedure must follow other correctly taken steps.
Please explain why complex cellular processes show that evolution did not occur.
Coded instructions which are referred to and obeyed—Not only are coded instructions provided for everything done in the cell, but proteins
and enzymes read and obey these instructions—as though they had the brains to do this!
Again showing how tremendously small in scope your knowledge of biochemistry and cell biology is. Proteins and enzymes don't do those things because
of any kind of intelligent agent- they do it because the chemicals that comprise them are constantly reacting with the other surrounding carbon
Ideal location of structures—Every component on or within each organism is consistently located in the best place, in relation to other
components, space limitations, and maximum efficiency in operation.
Are you kidding? We have organs in our bodies that are vestigial- they don't even have any current functional purpose any longer. Did you know that
the reason humans often have back problems in older age is that the skeletal structure we have, common (in basic form) to all vertebrate mammals, was
not adapted for bipedalism (that's walking on two legs, for you). Our basic skeletal structure is more evolved for walking on four limbs than two,
which actually causes severe health problems in humans.
We are not "designed" for maximum efficiency, au contraire, many things about the human body and those of other organisms are distinctly
Narrowed limits everywhere—Wherever we turn in the natural world (here on earth and in the sky above us) we find that, what is called, the
"anthropic principle" is involved. An extremely narrow range of conditions exists where life can exist, stars can form, and planets can revolve and
orbit around the sun. This narrowed range is found repeatedly by researchers, and is too compressed to have been caused by accidents or
Reversely, you could say that the anthropic principle means nothing because if those conditions didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to speculate about
their low probability.
[edit on 20-2-2009 by SamuraiDrifter]