Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: 5StarOracle

The bible is not a source which can be trusted as an unbiased account. It states your God is omnipotent, Omnipresent, and omniscient. Yet there is no proof (even in your Book) of this being the case.

Sorry, using your logic, something Created your deity. That is the simplest answer.

OR

You must acquiesce that evoltion, the Big Band, and other faiths are a legitimate possibility.

Which is it? Hypocrisy on your part, or honesty?

a reply to: Phantom423

Willful ignorance. I still feel that creationist feel dirty that humanity is not their Gods special little creation. It offends them our screw ups are our own. Not the Devils. None of them would last a class in a critical thinking or logic course.

a reply to: Noinden

That's what scientists say is the only possibility for a creator of the universe...
I only mentioned the bible because it said it first...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

You find honesty confusing?
Somehow I'm not surprised...

Honesty? About what? It's simply a matter of academics. Origins and Creationism are two separate fields of study. What's so difficult to understand about that? I suppose you want to change the entire academic world as well.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

That's what scientists say is the only possibility for a creator of the universe...
I only mentioned the bible because it said it first...

Science says nothing about a creator. If you can come up with evidence for a creator, then fine. Maybe you're into the simulation idea proposed by some physicists.

The door is always open for evidence. When you have some, let us know.

a reply to: Noinden

You have no critical thinking ability or you would admit the need for creation and just how any and all evolution is therefore creations creation... It owns evolution in fact without it wouldn't even be a miscontrived notion...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

No what science does not say that. You interpret it as such, there is a difference. Science says nothing about "what came before the Big Bang". It does however say that the Big Band is one possibility not THE ONLY possibility. It just happens to have the most evidence supporting it. You understand that right? Evidence.

Evidence is what makes science eídein (intellectual knowledge) and your and my faiths gnosis (spiritual knowledge). One (eídein) has evidence, the other is taken on pure faith

You also don't know the difference between Scientists and Science. One is the person who does the job, and the other is a frame work.

a reply to: Noinden

Oh you mean like evolution huh?
lol

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

There is no paper explaining how the first bacteria was formed from inorganic matter magically possessing all the information it need to function silly...

Of course not. Even in the Abiogenesis hypothesis, it isn't postulated that any type of life arose from inorganic matter. Before claiming an hypothesis isn't possible, it is generally a good idea to actually understand what that hypothesis is premised upon, don't you think? All of the components necessary for life, whether it be via Abiogenesis, Panspermia or another method of your choosing are all organic molecules. So again, your argument is wholly based on a strawman by claiming that life can not start from inorganic matter because no chemist has ever made that claim and it isn't a part of either of the 2 major hypothesis for how life began.

Earth isn't special. The same types of organic molecules are found to be in the Oort clouds of older star systems and within the protoplanetary discs of newly formed systems. A complex organic molecule called methyl isocyanate has been found around a young, triple-star system called IRAS 16293-2422 is located approximately 400 light-years from Earth in the constellation of Ophiuchus. Previously, a simple sugar, called glycolaldehyde, which is linked to the formation of RNA, you may have heard of that before as it's one of the essential building blocks of life.

www.space.com...
Niels Ligterink and Audrey Coutens, researchers at the Leiden Observatory in the Netherlands and University College London, respectively, said in the statement...

"This family of organic molecules is involved in the synthesis of peptides and amino acids, which, in the form of proteins, are the biological basis for life as we know it."

That's just a story...
That was rather easy...
Would you care to discuss Lucy or the piltdown man?

Please... discuss away. Though I'm not sure why you choose to beat a dead horse as we have discussed both several times. Piltdown is a well known hoax perpetuated a century ago, was immediately called into question by other Anthropologists and proven to be a fraud, again, by Anthropologists when they were able to finally examine the alleged remains. One person perpetuating a fraud and proven to be a fraud by his peers does not falsify the MES. You're making the majority of your arguments from the point of incredulity and that's exactly what irreducible complexity is, an argument from incredulity. But by all means, I'm happy to discuss what you feel is wrong about Lucy.



ETA

Charles Carter and Richard Wolfenden, both of the University of North Carolina, have uncovered new evidence of abiogenesis, the process by which life arises from non-living chemical matter. Their study, published Thursday in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, suggests that a single ancient gene may have used each of its opposite DNA strands to code for different chemical catalysts. Those separate catalysts would have both activated amino acids, which then formed proteins – essential to the production of living cells.

For further info, please read the article-
www.csmonitor.com...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

You have no critical thinking ability or you would admit the need for creation and just how any and all evolution is therefore creations creation... It owns evolution in fact without it wouldn't even be a miscontrived notion...

Well why don't you describe exactly what in biological evolution you don't agree with. What's your reason for rejecting the science?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Neighbour, you are engaging in circular arguments here.

I have told you a creation myth from my faith. You don't have to like it, but the Indo-European Speaking peoples are a large group in the history of Humanity. That faith is one version of the one told by all of the IE folks. It is still a gnosis. Pure faith.

Critical thinking says, that a scientific theory may only discuss what it deals with, based on the evidence. Thus evolution (and we mean biological evolution here, not chemical, planetary, or genolgical to name several others, least you still be confused) only may deal with how life chaged. QED (thus it may be shown). Not how life started. Not Gravitation. Not Kinetics, the thermodyanamics of a chemical reaction, or indeed the mechanism of a chemical reaction, in an aprotic solvent.

Thus, I've told you my stance. I've been honest. Try it some time.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Sorry neighbour, evolution qualifies as eídein, in that there is supporting evidence. Like I said. Get an education in the relevant sciences, and talk to us. Till then, go annotate your little book.

a reply to: peter vlar

You are right the entire universe is so similar in fact that based on the odds alone suggest the same designer for the entirety of it...
Thanks sport...
This also fully explains the remarkable similarities of all life on earth....
Such great similarity is to be expected because everthings made up of the same stuff...
It's that easy....

a reply to: peter vlar

The problem here is our crew of YEC thralls, don't understand the words organic, and inorganic, when applied to chemicals. They think anything living is the only place organic may be applied and anything not living is inorganic.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

This also fully explains the remarkable similarities of all life on earth.... Such great similarity is to be expected because everthings made up of the same stuff...

You're getting closer. Keep going and you might surprise yourself.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

But everything isn't made up of the same stuff. There are different sets of organic molecules in different star systems that could lead to life. And if your special god created everything, why is he/she/it taking so long to do it? Why didn't it create all life at the same time all across the universe? You don't actually read any data, you just run with whatever pops into your head first. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Gish would be so proud of you.

And what is your issue with Lucy? Still waiting for your thesis on falsification of Australopithecus Afarensis.

a reply to: Phantom423

Are you listening at all?
Start from the beginning...
That's how you find answers...
You can work your way backwards to find beginning if you must but until you do you will never have all the answers...

originally posted by: cooperton

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"

This explains so much.your flawed logic is the reason science confuses you. Comparing chemistry to a dryer is severely warped. You need to take some chemistry classes and learn about say covalent bonds.

a reply to: peter vlar

Why did human feet need to be attached to her?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

And I forgot this part... you keep claiming that life arose from inorganic matter, I've just demonstrated that you were completely incorrect yet you don't seem to grasp that part. If you don't understand the most basic aspects of the science, what makes you think you can grasp the more xcomplicated parts?