Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: cooperton

For someone who claims to be educated in the sciences, you really are acting as if you are a total n00b to it.

You throw in a bunch of non sequitur arguments, thinking that they prove your point, then miss the point over readiometric dating techniques

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi

'You have multi-component parts, all of which are neccesary for function, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system'.

That's false as well.

My dog for example. He's a dog. He goes woof, plays fetch, barks at dogs, eats dog food and is, well, a dog.




Now, he had an accident as a pup. He severely damaged his tail. His tail was removed apart from a couple of inches. Guess what? He's still a dog.

Same goes for your woodpecker example. You take its ability to be a woodpecker and guess what? It's still a bird.

Your point is invalid. Now, if you only had the tail and claimed it was still a dog then it would be valid. Yet you can not have a tail that is a dog but you can have a dog without a tail............i think

a reply to: Quadrivium

You need to explain why it is "invalid" not say so. That is how this works neighbour.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

You need to explain why it is "invalid" not say so. That is how this works neighbour.

Err....oh geez......welll ah you know, I never really posted much in this forum.....
Muhuhahahaha!
It is invalid and it is certainly obvious that he has no clue as to what he is stating.
To prove irreducible complexity wrong you would have to show it possible to have the dogs tail before there was a dog.
The dog having it's tail docked proves nothing. It is still a dog. Nothing irreducible complex about that.
Now showing how you could get the tail before there was a dog?............... irreducible complexity at it's finest.

a reply to: Quadrivium

There yah go was that hard. I know you've posted here. I looked.

Several of us have posted why irreducible complexity is wrong.

Lets start with the fact, for the idea to be true. Something had to create the creator. OR it is metaphysical nonsense Thus who created God?

a reply to: Noinden

Woa there buckaroo, it was no harder the second time I wrote as it was the first. I will try and go a little slower.
I don't even remember mentioning a creator.......you think it's the dog don't you?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Irreducible complexity requires that a supreme being started it out. QED IF one supports this vs Evolution, one is a Creationist.

Did I go too fast for you? I replied to your second post wrt your God. Now as a Polytheist, I understand deities quite well. But I still say evolution is what has happened, not some Man in the Sky.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Irreducible complexity requires that a supreme being started it out. QED IF one supports this vs Evolution, one is a Creationist.

Did I go too fast for you? I replied to your second post wrt your God. Now as a Polytheist, I understand deities quite well. But I still say evolution is what has happened, not some Man in the Sky.

And exactly how does any of that change the fact that his argument was invalid. You do bounce around.
My beliefs have nothing to do with this discussion as I can not prove them. I truly wish most evolutionists felt the same. Imagine the conversations we could have!

a reply to: Quadrivium

I moved on.

I said, you need to say why it is invalid. You did. I brought this back to the topic of "irreducible complexity". Thus it seems you are fixated on the Dogs tail

I will say this, however:
In my opinion evolution is a belief system. It has staunch supporters just like any religion.
Where many creationist get put down for saying "God did it" without any proof. Evolutionists say time did it without any proof. They replace "the Man in the sky" with time and chance.

I have limited time tonight (work in a few hours) but I do believe I would enjoy a conversation on this subject with you. The thread is open so if I don't respond quickly know I will try my best to get back.
Now where do we start?
Dog tails?

a reply to: Quadrivium

You are entitled to that opinion (you at least called it that, rather than stating it was a fact).

As a deeply religious Irish Polytheist, who is also a Scientist (who has some training in the sciences involved in studying evolution). It is apparent (to me, and many others) that the data supports evolution as the most likely reason there is many species on the planet.

Where those who wish to deny evolution fall down is (and I am not sure you mean to do that).

Evolution is not a statement about how life began, it is a statement on how life changes.

Thus "God did it" could well be how life started (or for me, some Gods did it (actually that is not my paths belief but lets not muddy the waters)). As could the idea of abiogenesis, or some of the other hypotheses.

So evolution has nothing to do with how life began. Creationists seem to want to shoe horn that in there some how. They would be wrong

Anyway enjoyable interaction. Mainly because my dog still has all her tail

a reply to: Quadrivium

PM me if you do not wish to chat here (or some mod thinks it is off topic)

Also its not night down here in the antipodes yet, but time is valuable to all.

a reply to: Noinden

I think here will be fine. We will be on and off topic but I don't think the mods will mind.
*key dramatic music* SO IT BEGINS:

Evolution is not a statement about how life began, it is a statement on how life changes. 

Ah But many use it as a tool to belittle those who believe in a Creator.
You confided some of your beliefs and I will do the same (even though I have a rule not to bring belief into a science oriented thread where I am posting).
I believe the evidence for evolution is lacking. The theory is full of "might bes, could bes, should bes and wanna bes" more so than actual fact in many cases.
I can see the case for macro evolution (adaptation), life will survive and it changes as needed to fit it's environment.
Let's take the woodpecker from the first page for example (we have about beat the poor dog to death):
An evolutionist will look at the bird and might say "a few hundred thousand years ago this bird looked like a sparrow. The climate/environment changed and those with longer beaks, able to peck the larvae out of trees, survived and passed the trait on to their offspring. Only the offspring with the longer beak trait were able to survive until we have the common woodpecker we see today".
I see things a little differently. Life was given the ability to survive and it will adapt as needed to do so. The greater the need the faster the adaptation.
What we see when we look at evolution is actually the proof and signs of adaptation.

a reply to: Quadrivium

There are zealots everywhere. Militant Athiests are like ultra conservative Christians, Jews, or Muslims. They will prosecute their ideas, as if it is a war. Its not, but Zealots don't get it. To be fair Zealots are my natural prey to be honest.

I've studied bioinformatics, the evidence, combined with the physical (bones, fossils etc) is pretty apparent to me.

Species change via mutations.

the idea about micro vs macro evolution is a false one. It is the difference between a granular or fine view down the microsope (or up the telescope). It is all perspective.

a reply to: Noinden

Ah......but when did science become perceptive rather than observed? There is no evidence for the micro.
Fossils? Nope
Observation? Nope
But add all powerful TIME and they are the same, no proof needed, it is just the way it is (like saying God did it).

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Irreducible complexity requires that a supreme being started it out. QED IF one supports this vs Evolution, one is a Creationist.

Did I go too fast for you? I replied to your second post wrt your God. Now as a Polytheist, I understand deities quite well. But I still say evolution is what has happened, not some Man in the Sky.

Here we see a perfect example of an evolutionist suggesting evolution is responsible for creation...

For a real laugh read what this evolutionist says a couple of posts later...

This is the intellect of evolutionists being showcased at its finest... Only true arrogance can portray such idiocy...

"Evolution has nothing to do with creation"

And yet he believes evolution did it...

What?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Your not making sense. You claim evolution doesnt exist. Then you claim you beieve it is adaptation of a sspecies to its surroundings. That is a major paart of evolution its called natural selection. A species better adapted to its environment lives on,those that dont end like wooley mamoths.

a reply to: dragonridr

Wooley Mamoths became extinct because of humans hunting them but mostly because of a lack of fresh water...
Don't be lying like an evolutionist...
Or would you like to try and convince us that due to a lack of fresh water Wooley Mamoths took to the ocean and became...oh I don't know.... walrus let's say?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Irreducible complexity requires that a supreme being started it out. QED IF one supports this vs Evolution, one is a Creationist.

Did I go too fast for you? I replied to your second post wrt your God. Now as a Polytheist, I understand deities quite well. But I still say evolution is what has happened, not some Man in the Sky.

Here we see a perfect example of an evolutionist suggesting evolution is responsible for creation...

For a real laugh read what this evolutionist says a couple of posts later...

This is the intellect of evolutionists being showcased at its finest... Only true arrogance can portray such idiocy...

"Evolution has nothing to do with creation"

And yet he believes evolution did it...

What?

Please show me where he said evolution created life? What he said was irreducible complexity by its very nature requires a supreme being. Evolution has never and will never explain the genisis of life. It only explains why we have somany different species on the planet.