Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Barcs

I think even Jesus is over his nonsense No where does Jesus tell his followers to be blind followers of stupidity.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Barcs

I think even Jesus is over his nonsense

No where does Jesus tell his followers to be blind followers of stupidity.

It’s the 11th commandment.

“Thou shalt be a muppet”

a reply to: TerryDon79

But which muppet? I am thinking Elmo? Seriously I wish JC had actually written it down, not relied on his followers to sell the story. He should at least have left a will, so Saul and Peter did not argue over who was his favourite

a reply to: Noinden

Miss Piggy.
A moaning woman who sulks when she doesn’t get her own way.

Or the Cookie Monster.
Instead of going “cooooookies!”, they go “god diiiiiiiiiiiiid it!”

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Noinden

True .

If there is a supernatural creator who built the universe, defined the physical laws of the universe, and then set that universe with those laws into motion 13.5 Billion years ago, then evolution could still be valid. That evolution would simply follow the physical laws of the universe as defined by that creator.

Of course, this idea is unknowable and unprovable -- unprovable as being true as well as unprovable as being false.

A sober suggestion. Thank you. It gets old hearing the wolves say such depraved comments as seen so far on this page.

Although I don't totally agree with your assertion, I think it is on the right track because you are thinking for your self.

All matter exists only by the persistent nature of invisible forces. Gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interactions, and the strong interactions are what keep planets in their orbit, molecules together, and your body intact. For these reasons I find it illogical to believe that the supposed random workings of matter (evolution) would be able to culminate self-aware bipedal self-repairing replicable super encephalized human beings.

"If the body came into existence because of the spirit, it is a marvel. But if the spirit (came into existence) because of the body, it is a marvel of marvels."

^if it makes it easier to digest, replace "spirit" with 'intellegently directed physical laws'

a reply to: cooperton

And thus again, you show your supposed training in science is questionable.

Those invisible forces can be measured. They can be explained. How goes measurements of your God?

You have set about making your assumptions non falsifiable, thus its not scientific, and is relegated to theology. Hence your Irreducible complexity is non scientific, and can be ignored as an explanation.

a reply to: cooperton

All matter exists only by the persistent nature of invisible forces.

Sheer ignorance. What do you think spectroscopic instruments do? What do telescopes do? What do microscopes do? They SEE things. Anything that we know exists is detectable otherwise we wouldn't know about it. Logic.

On the other hand, your invisible god-creature is undetectable, unknowable, irresponsible and out of touch with reality. That's why it doesn't exist. It's illogical. The god-creature you describe has no morality. It is amoral. If it's anything, it's a machine. This universe as a simulation is a possibility. The god-creature is not possible.

You are also assuming that humans are the highest level of intellect in this universe. You don't know that. No one does.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: whereislogic
From ancient micro organisms to the more advanced forms, all consistent with the geological layers. Instead of harping on about creatures that aren't well represented in the fossil record, can you supply something that refutes this?

Before anyone supplies anything that refutes this, can you supply anything that supports this? Since you believe evolution is fact, it should be no problem to find mounds of evidence that unequivocally demonstrates these evolutionary transitions.

You come in with no new data and typical ad hominems about how dumb everyone is that doesn't believe as you do.

Show us this definitive proof. Unless, "There is no other supportable explanation..." is your best explanation?

Coming in with no data!!! You're the poster child for the no-data crowd. And you want definitive proof? You have zero ability to analyze data so how would you even recognize the proof?

You have never posted citations. You have never provided experimental data or proof of your position. You can't even discuss a single paper that was posted last week. And you want proof???

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
To include "nothing" in a scientific explanation, it's characteristics must be defined. You are confusing it with the philosophical version.

There's only one version, the english version. "Nothing" is one of the most simple english words to understand the meaning of. It's not "something". And everyone who talks about it as if it is, is lying. Dawkins is lying, Krauss is lying, Hawking is lying, none of these people don't know that "nothing" doesn't mean "something" and that it's not OK to say "not nothing" but "literally nothing" when talking about the same subject in the same sentence. And anyone who can't see the reason in that point has some serious issues with propaganda having affected them by those who continue to use these contradictions in their storytelling and bookselling ventures.

What would you call the absence of space, time, matter and energy? Nothing? Unless it threatens your belief in Jehova in some way, then it's obviously something lol. Same as evolution. It can't be an obvious fact because that would threaten the hero of your religious cult.

The mental and literary contortions you go through in an effort to keep Jehova relevant is up to you. It's unlikely that others will welcome it though, because you start with a conclusion and look for any half arsed nonsense that,in your mind, supports your conclusion. It isn't convincing. Your efforts here largely amount to a celebration of ignorance. Of having a good old sook about science because it conflicts with your beliefs.

I find it amazing that some Christians will just not give up...

even after being completely trampled with mountains of Data

One blatantly admitted defeat... Another just rambles using only his religion's information as hard facts

And coop... the scientifically educated

Well, you guys certainly have made this thread fun... the only thread on the boards i regularly check to see if theres anything more to laugh about

originally posted by: Phantom423

Sheer ignorance. What do you think spectroscopic instruments do? What do telescopes do? What do microscopes do? They SEE things. Anything that we know exists is detectable otherwise we wouldn't know about it.

There is a difference between visible and detectable. You cannot see electromagnetic forces or gravity with your bare eye. We could have a productive conversation if your conviction wasn't to try to nit-pick semantics. I'm not out to get you.


People will blindly argue against anyone who suggests their cherished belief of mutant ape heritage may not be true. I've been there, so I can empathize. Just keep searching and stay humble through the process.

a reply to: whereislogic

Actually neighbour you are confused.

"Nothing" is something philosophical, not scientific. You need to define it, to measure it (or its absence), otherwise it is not science. Clearly science is not in your world view.

a reply to: cooperton

Once again, you are certainly no chemist. The instruments which we build to detect magnetic fields are operated by how our eye perceives the readings. Be it a compass guiding a traveler or the Physicist measuring magnetic fields, or when I check to see if the NMR has quenched using my keys, my eye picks up the measurement, and my brain translates it. I thus reiterate. How does one measure your God? For any scientific discussion (and you lot seem to thing irreducible complexity is scientific) one has to be able to quantify the parameters. You insist in your God, thus, define his parameters. OH and don't say "everything" that is also not scientific.

a reply to: cooperton

People will blindly argue against anyone who suggests their cherished belief of mutant ape heritage may not be true. I've been there, so I can empathize. Just keep searching and stay humble through the process.

Thank you for being so condescending. The point is you never post a citation. You never post evidence. This is supposed to be a scientific discussion (at least from my point of view), not an exercise in superstition. Evolution has evidence. You don't. It couldn't be more clear.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

That was an attempt at profiling? I thought it was an attempted troll, that failed. though it does expose the posters flaws

I am really shocked the Mods let that sort of thing stand to be fair.

a reply to: 5StarOracle
What might happen if one is educated and trained (or conditioned) by these types or those who associate with them because of being part of the same religion that won't speak out against this behaviour (coming back to the topic of silent agreement):

There's something really wrong with that behaviour as well that it's still taking place in the 21st century in a modern 'civilized' nation as the US. What's with the child protection organizations in the US? Shouldn't they be lifting a finger at least to stop this? And no, I'm not talking about the Herpes. I'm talking about something I can't even get across my lips, "sucking on baby ..cks" (what's so joyous and holy about that? using the reporter's words; what a warped view of this behaviour. And why do parents just stand by idly and allow this to be done to their babies?). That's healthy association for your mind. Totally won't open up your mind to certain influences and spirits (let's just interpret that last word to refer to mental attitudes for now). Oh, and I thought Youtube had rules against certain types of videos with those under a certain age, I guess that flies out the window as well when it's a religious ritual and you can't actually see the details (luckily). Also notice the phrase "you can do it if you want" from the person complaining just about the Herpes, WHAT?!!!! You can do it if you want? No, the law forbids this, there's a whole bunch of public figures such as actors, politcians and film producers getting in trouble over something like it right now, at least they start with 15-year olds (the youngest age I've heard in the media which prefers to spend time on that subject rather than the subject above, which is still going on).

1 Timothy 4:1,2

4 However, the inspired word* [Lit., “the spirit.”] clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements* [Lit., “misleading spirits.”] and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.

2 different types of beings described there. No surprise that most of them have no issues with evolutionary philosophies either. Fits the pattern:

Caveat: Hitler never rejected Catholicism, another group where its most influential, wealthy or powerful members demonstrate similar behaviour both regarding evolutionary philosophies and the subject of this comment. Evolutionary philosophers like Darwin, Huxley and Rothschild (+Ernst Mayr, who was funded by a Rotschild) have never been very high on the scale of 'regard for human life':

Jewish views on evolution - Wikipedia (between brackets is mine):

When scientists [philosophers] first developed [repopularized] the theory [philosophy] of evolution [in the 19th century], this idea was seized upon by Rabbis such as Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, known as the Netziv, who saw Kabbalah [demonic teachings] as a way to resolve the differences between traditional readings of the Bible and modern day scientific findings [demonic teachings and contradictory philosophies that caused a way of thinking about human life that gave rise to eugenics, social Darwinism, the nazis and the holocaust]. He proposed that the ancient fossils of dinosaurs were the remains of beings that perished in the previous "worlds" described in midrash[18] and in some Kabbalistic texts. This was the view held by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (1934–1983) [someone who had no issue with the ritual at the start of this comment; just like Gerald Schroeder, the one with his fancy storyline regarding the age of the universe that some people on this forum are so fond of cause it tickles their ears, plays on their pride and nurtures their intellectual superiority complex, or in other words, makes them feel clever for listening to him and repeating his arguments or taking them seriously].

originally posted by: Phantom423

Thank you for being so condescending.

You literally believe your ancestors were mutant apes. I am not being condescending, I am being matter of fact. If you are ashamed of this belief look for more significant answers, that don't render you a meaningless blip in a meaningless world. It is a toxic belief

a reply to: cooperton

You seem to think there is something shameful, about sharing ancestry with other primates? If it helps you sleep at night, you also share ancestry with the Banana.