Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: cooperton

Much of science relies on extrapolations. If you were educated in the sciences you would know that. These extrapolations are based upon data. When you have sufficient points, you can "draw the line back or forward". In the case of evolution, especially since we have begun to sequence DNA, we have ample data, to see that these extrapolations are valid.

So again I ask, what sort of chemistry did you excel at? Because if you've taken a single Physical Chemistry paper, you'd understand extrapolations are valid, when based on good data, as evolution is.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Heh. Whales are AMAZING example of evolution since they evolved from being ocean dwelling creatures to land dwelling creatures with legs then back to being ocean dwelling creatures again (it's why their fins are orientated differently than fish and why they breath air unlike fish).

Here's a perfect example of "evolution did it". There is no known mechanism for how such an evolution could have happened, but since the adherents to evolution "know" that evolution is true, they conclude the whale must have evolved. They find other big sea animals and claim they must be the transitional fossils, because you know, evolution is true, therefore must have evolution done it.

This self-assuming logic is fueled by the never-wrong mentality of the chauvinists involved in this mental travesty.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You can call it meaningless if you want. It doesn't make a difference.

It's a wonder that meaningful humans try to prove they're meaningless.

a reply to: cooperton
Just because it isn't known by you doesn't mean it isn't known by others. Ignorance isn't evidence of your position.

This self-assuming logic is fueled by the never-wrong mentality of the chauvinists involved in this mental travesty.

Man. The irony!

a reply to: cooperton

I find it odd that you state that empirical evidence proves evolution false to you but instead of demonstrating what this empirical evidence is you instead quote philosophers. Philosophy isn't empiricism by any metric. Nor have you in any of the myriad of posts, demonstrated or described in any way, the empirical data you believe falsifies the MES. It would be a great starting point for a rational discussion of you can tell us what empirical evidence you believe falsifies evolution as a wholes because if you had that sort of evidence, you could win a Nobel for overturning the most widely evidenced theory in huge history of science. If you really want to have an honest and respectable dialogue about the topic then you would discuss what you feel was empirical evidence that in your mind, falsifies evolution.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You can call it meaningless if you want. It doesn't make a difference.

It's a wonder that meaningful humans try to prove they're meaningless.

Was that an original quote? What's meaningless to you turns out to be shear laziness. Challenges to accepted thinking happen all the time. Some are quite good and change things. Others go by the wayside. Nothing wrong with that.
What's blatantly wrong is that you use religion as a crutch. You think that invoking God will clear you of the sin of deception. It doesn't.

You use Jesus as a prop to hide behind. Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew. I know Jewish history. He never created or endorsed another religion. That was done a long time after the man died. If he ever did come back, the first thing he would do is sue the hell out of you folks for corrupting his good name. I'm afraid all he would get is a museum full of hysteria and nonsense and a leaky Noah's Ark.

Get over it. You're done. You can't argue the science so you argue the person. It's a poor strategy that never wins.

a reply to: cooperton

Your just so wrong if anything it shows just how special we are. Billions of years of cells trying to increase their survivability by working together to create more complicated organisms. This gives much more meaning to life then say somebody got bored and created life. Creationism turns us into my sons science project. ?evolution shows the struggle life took to create higher life forms.

And just because people believe in a religion is far from proof there is a god. There has been thousands of religions in history most of them you would willingly discredit even though they had people that believed just as much as you do.

a reply to: dragonridr

That video offers a really intriguing explanation...
Too bad it's not accurate...
Because the flagellum actually builds itself...

a reply to: Phantom423

I have not been discussing Jesus here but since you have I'll say you are wrong Jesus was indeed a Jew but he did endorse a new religion specifically when he called Peter the rock and that he would build his church upon him and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it...
Aside from that his teachings of the salvation of gentiles further proves this point and would have been directly opposed by Jewish tradition...
He went further to show this reality by resurrecting the child of a gentile...
He is the God of mankind not a specific religion...
None the less he will keep his promise to "his people"

a reply to: peter vlar

I find it odd, that these folks keep saying there is no empirical evidence despite the fact there is Come on guys, get your stories aligned.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

So what empirical evidence do you have that Jesus existed? Just curious. Not third hand accounts, actual first hand will do. The Bible does not count.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: dragonridr

That video offers a really intriguing explanation...
Too bad it's not accurate...
Because the flagellum actually builds itself...

I hate to tell you this, but if you are convinced that the flagellum actually builds itself, that's a simple way to say exactly what the video is describing. The flagellum evolves over time to build the necessary components for the final result.






Can I make the announcement now? (Drum roll) "WE HAVE A CONVERT!" 5StarOracle has finally admitted that evolution is fact.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: 5StarOracle

So what empirical evidence do you have that Jesus existed?

Our entire calendar is based off the year of his coming. The secularists are trying to destroy history with this CE nonsense.

11/27/2017 years AD

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Your just so wrong

You're* just so wrong

if anything it shows just how special we are. Billions of years of cells trying to increase their survivability by working together to create more complicated organisms. This gives much more meaning to life then say somebody got bored and created life. Creationism turns us into my sons science project. ?evolution shows the struggle life took to create higher life forms.

If we were created by randomness, as cool as a feat of improbability as that may be, it would never be able to create a meaning for its random creation. An Father-God creating children through this earthly matrix to teach them good and evil renders us at a meaningful life, where we are essentially going through school for our soul until the next steps are disclosed to us. To miss the point of life is sin.

a reply to: Noinden

When will evolution get it's story straight?
It is a story though I'll agree with that...
How do you a chemist purpose a chemical reaction formed the first bacteria from inorganic matter with not only the information to cause function for itself but have all the information to build all future life forms?
There is something much more to this...
Creation and evolution have to be intertwined somehow...If you are as smart as you claim to be the mysterious complexity should be further evident to you...
The only way it makes sense to me either way is that evolution is misrepresented at best and in no way shape or form explains creation... Although evolutionists state that evolution has nothing to do with creation they make claims that the first bacteria were created from inorganic matter... That sounds an awful lot like a claim to creation for all lifeforms to me...
In reality everything was created from absolute nothing to all that was need for everything with the creation of the Universe...
This fact which is the current belief of science can only agree that this action was unnatural or in other words supernatural... because only nothing can come from nothing...
So something unnatural or supernatural had to therefore exist in order to create all mass energy time space etc...
You can deny it all you want but you have no possible other explanation...
None at all...
But you can pretend you do...
That's intellectual dishonesty...
Be true to yourself...
It don't have to be my God if that makes it easier for you it could be your many gods... It could have been a child from another dimension... The bottom line is it was caused to be...
But until both modes of thought can find some form of unification there will be little to no progress in either direction...
In my opinion this is critical and key to further understanding...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Well I'll disagree on that. This isn't a religious board, but I can say that most scholars say that the translation if probably wrong.

In reference to the question of whether or not Jesus actually used the word synagogue rather than church, it is highly unlikely in my humble opinion for two reasons. First of all, my copy of Lamsa’s translation from the Aramaic of the Pe#ta says "church." Secondly, the word "ekklesia" is a combination of 2 words: meaning (literally) out of from inside of and called. Thus, if is a reference to the body of Christ which is made up of people who are called out of this world into Him. Thus, "church" is a reference to PEOPLE rather than a PLACE or a building, as is the case with "synagogue." Consequently,the Pe#ta and the Greek N.T. are in agreement both verbally and conceptually. Answer: One thing I can say for sure is that Jesus neither said "church" nor "ekklesia," as church is an English word and ekklesia is a Greek word and Jesus was speaking Aramaic. What you find in an English translation of the Pe#ta also does not tell you what Jesus said. It simply tells you how a particular translator happened to translate the Aramaic word used in the Pe#ta translation. Besides, we know that the Pe#ta is a translation from the Greek. Therefore, the only thing we have to go on is what the original in Matthew has for Matthew 16:18. My Greek interlinear has Jesus saying on this rock I will build my ekklesia. What does this tell us? It tells us that when Matthew made his own personal translation of what Jesus said in Aramaic, he felt that the best translation of what Jesus said in Aramaic was ekklesia. It is interesting but true that even though Jesus spoke in Aramaic, the Aramaic versions of the New Testament are less reliable at telling us what Jesus said than the Greek, because the Pe#ta is an Aramaic translation of a Greek translation from the Aramaic!!! Does that make sense to you? When you read Lamsa, you are re

evidenceforchristianity.org...

Jesus was furious at the temple rabbis and elders because they turned a holy synagogue into a bank so-to-speak.

Anyway, not a topic for this board. Sorry I mentioned it to begin with.

a reply to: Phantom423

That's not quite right I have always believed in limited evolution... My beliefs wouldnt fit within the beliefs of evolution or it's faith based claims...I see it impossible to bridge some boundaries...
And the flagellum does not need to evolve it already has the information to do it... Its a process that has nothing to do with evolution because its directed...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

It is a story though I'll agree with that...

If it's a story, pick out one of the thousands of research papers on evolutionary biology and tell us why it's wrong?

Just do it. Stop talking about it.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

And the flagellum does not need to evolve it already has the information to do it... Its a process that has nothing to do with evolution because its directed...

Thank you once again for endorsing evolution. Yes, of course the information is there in the RNA/DNA structure/function mechanism. That's why the MES is the most reasonable model for describing life on this planet.
Thanks again.

originally posted by: Phantom423
The flagellum evolves over time to build the necessary components for the final result.

AKA "Evolution did it".

If I throw a bunch of scrap metal in my drying machine will I get a car engine after 100million years? Similarly, with a soup of proteins and nucleotides how long would it take for them to assemble into the proper lineage of code that creates the peptide sequences that folds into the various components of the flagellar motor that is capable of embedding itself into the cell membrane to be able to move the entire bacterium?

"IDK, evolution is true, so evolution did it"

a reply to: Phantom423

Heh what that is saying is that Jesus wasnt saying church he was saying followers... Churches are filled with followers this is a nonsensical argument because they mean the same thing... Jesus had many followers both jew and gentile...
And your statement about Jesus being angry at the moneychangers at the temple is accurate and further evidence that although Jesus was a Jew and Jews are therefore his people he was not defined by them nor in agreement with them in entirety...
So what exactly is your point?