-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Other Than "The Bible Tells Me So," Your Single Best Argument for Creationism
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
neologist
Member
Take the simple cell. The more we learn about it, the more we learn that it is far from simple. Do you want the long version?
You stated it as fact without proof.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
English.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
What was small of you were the implications that people who disagree with you are inferior in multiple ways.
J/K as in, you do have intention of insulting me? Or j/k as in you're not sorry?
What do YOU think? This is a debate forum. You can't debate by yourself. Your opponents referring to those you are arguing against.
Because you said that it would necessarily result in believing the word of the Bible:
THAT is what you said. It is insulting.
I already did. In the post i called you dishonest. The parts i quoted of you are the parts i specifically mean. But if you want more information, i base that on your empty rhetoric. Such as "There is no end to attempts to mislead people and turn them away from the reality that there IS A Creator."
THAT is dishonest.
You effectively called your opponents dishonest. You said they mislead. I'm saying your EMPTY RHETORIC ACCUSING OTHERS OF BEING MISLEADING IS DISHONEST.
YOU haven't shown your claims of OTHER PEOPLE to be true. You just claim.
You make empty unsubstantiated claims and treat them as fact in an argument. In fact, you form your argument based on your imaginary hypothesis. You are misleading. You are using your claims and accusations of OTHER PEOPLE to make up the bulk of your argument. RATHER than defending your own view.
I have a better idea. I'll just reply to them. Deal?
What you said earlier would make this statement hypocritical. You don't actually seek peace; You seek to promote your agenda.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I agree that the cell is not simple. It is very complex and impressive. But, that, in now way, contradicts evolution. My question is why is it irreducibly complex? What makes it so complex that evolution by natural selection could not be responsible for it?
I literally said "most likely", so your claim here is dishonest.
Somebody, perhaps you, introduced the existence of irreducible complexity as an argument for creationism.
The importance of that comment is that Behe is admitting that there is no science to support the claim that some or all biological systems are irreducibly complex.
And he used hyperbole doing it. What he has is the polar opposite of "rigorous accounts." He has no account whatsoever - no evidence for any irreducibly complex biological entity and no mechanism by which irreducible complexity might arise.
All that he and the rest of the intelligent design movement have to offer is a hypothesis not derived from any observation, but from faith that an intelligent designer exists.
What would we expect the history of the ID movement to have been if there is no intelligent designer? What would you expect them to be able to show us? Exactly what they have - nothing but failures. Their efforts are counterproductive. They're doing the most that be done to demonstrate that they are wrong.
Yes, it would be if you had any evidence that irreducible complexity is found anywhere in living things.
So what would be evidence of intelligent design in a living thing? Suppose it exists. How do you know when you have encountered it? If you think about that question for awhile, you'll probably conclude what I have - you can't.
Does anybody reading these words have a different opinion? Is there a test, measurement, algorithm, or other means of identifying biological irreducible complexity if present? The claim can often be falsified when not present as it has been many times, but it seems to be that it cannot be demonstrated if present. There's always the possibility that the evolutionary pathway that nature took hasn't been found yet, but might be tomorrow.
Here's a related concept:
"Undecidable problem. In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is known to be impossible to construct a single algorithm that always leads to a correct yes-or-no answer."
KBC1963
Active Member
You have shown no evidence that you know anything other than how to be a signpost for a an antique book that was never peer reviewed.
If I reject it then how are you quoting me for asserting it as true? you appear to have a hard time understanding the English I am posting with.
Then you have the science based empirical and reproducible evidence that NS is causal to the formation of complexity? By all means provide the reference to it.
"there are some phenomena that are only explainable in terms of the existence of God"
Varghese further argues that atheism is a result of a deliberate refusal to look at the evidence, which is readily available in our immediate experience (There is a God Antony Flew)
A real vicious circle is that the instructions to build decoding machinery are themselves encoded on the DNA. That life is governed by a complex code leads to the question: ‘Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages, systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words on the world of matter?’ (There is a God Antony Flew)
Intelligent design has been the only cause observed in the here and now that has formed the type of complexity we can see operating in the living form.
You have zero evidence that any other cause has that capability. I defy you to reference any scientific empirical evidence to show otherwise.
We wouldn't expect to know anything about life outside of our universe if it exists. We've got our hands full trying to find extraterrestrial life in this region of this universe.
I haven't heard anybody make that claim that way. What is generally said is that it is reasonable to expect that life formed elsewhere - possibly everywhere it can according to some recent ideas involving dissipative systems - and that there are likely many habitable moons and planets where life could form and evolve.
But just what it takes for technological societies capable of communication with us to form is only partially understood. We don't know enough to guess how frequently that should occur:
Drake Equation: Estimating the Odds of Finding E.T.
Speculation is a good thing.
Are you arguing that the absence of evidence for life other than on earth is evidence for creationism?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You keep saying this, but you've yet to show any biological system or structure that you've determined to be "designed" and described the methods you employed to make that determination.
IOW, all you've done is post an empty assertion.
stevevw
Member
It's all part of the scientific paradigm for life that has been set which has been created to help explain and deal with what is known about life and the universe. It hasn't stopped a lot of scientists making hypothesises and even theories about other worlds and life. It may be just as hard to find life in our universe as another as some say that it would be too far away ever know. But If it is about any life forms such as single-celled life I would have thought it was discovered by now even on Mars now or in the past as it has evidence of liquid oceans and so do other planets in our solar system.
I am just basing it on the same logic science uses for life on earth. We know that life can survive all the extremes on earth from deep ocean hot sulphur vents to There is vast amounts of reduced carbon throughout our solar system and beyond which can form complex compounds. In fact, according to NASA many of the compounds associated with terrestrial life are floating around the universe. Then you have the life on earth that survives in acid (ph 0), radiation, toxic environments, solvents, heavy metals, extremely hot temps, freezing cold temperatures etc. So I would imagine that life could survive in many conditions on other planets so there should be evidence somewhere. In fact, the earth was a hostile environment when scientists say life started so I would imagine that Mars and many other planets would have had a near similar environment at some stage even if they produce different forms of life in near similar conditions or even alien conditions. It seems the way some people talk it isn't too hard to produce life according to some people's ideas.
No that's a weak argument. I'm just surmising things.
neologist
Member
I said:
I believe you have answered your question with your question. But consider this: Take any part of that simple cell and note that even the simplest part is not simple. The cell cannot function without the sum of its parts and the parts cannot function without the cell.
I said:
Noted.you said:
Mea Culpa
If what has been observed is your standard for what is possible, then we have to conclude that only life on earth is capable of intelligent design.
Last edited:
What is the scientific paradigm for life? Do you mean the features of living things as we know them, or their expected origin and evolution, or something else?
Life may not exist on Mars any more if it ever did at all. Or it might, and our rovers haven't identified it yet.
I don't think that you can place much significance in the fact that we haven't found extraterrestrial life yet. We've barely begun looking.
Is that an irreducible complexity argument against naturalistic abiogenesis and evolution?
I think he's trying to imagine it to be. I don't see how it is. I don't see his argument for IC, being even an argument for IC.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
My question is why does the complexity contradict evolution.
Skwim
Veteran Member
And this is the question that forces creationists to respond with
"Why does complexity contradict evolution?
..Well, let me tell you.-------Hit it Maestro!"
......
..Well, let me tell you.-------Hit it Maestro!"
.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
You would need evidences for the existence of "Intelligent Designer", first before you can associate the "Design" to that "Designer".
You, Behe, and all who advocate for Intelligent Design, are merely asserting and projecting their belief that the Designer exist, but showing no direct evidences to support the existence of the Designer.
The problem with Irreducible Complexity (IC) and its association to Intelligent Design (ID) are that IC don't even meet the criterias or the standards of "scientific hypothesis".
This essential standard, criteria or requirement for any hypothesis to be "scientific" is that the explanation and prediction need to be falsifiable.
Falsification, in science, mean the hypothesis must be TESTABLE.
Being "falsifiable" doesn't mean the hypothesis is "true"; no, rusra02, it simply mean that anyone can test hypothesis. Being falsifiable, doesn't mean it is accepted as science...no, it mean that you can test it.
Falsification is used to determine if statements (explanation plus predictions) if it is possible to test them, and if it is refutable.
Another name for falsifiability is "refutability", which is the ability to test it, to question or challenge it, or in another word, the ability to refute it.
Being "falsifiable" or "testable" is only one of the first steps before any test or experiment begin.
Have you ever done a real life "project", rursa02?
Determining if the hypothesis is falsifiable or not, is like a project, carrying out feasibility study, to see if such a project can proceed further, for instance, to begin the Project Plan. The Project Plan is more in-depth studies or research, while a Feasibility Study is only preliminary research, to see if it can be done with suggested or predicted numbers of time, money and human resources. If the project is not feasible, then the Project is immediately discarded, and no Project Plan.
Only the results of tests or experiments themselves, determine if the true or false.
If you can't test it, then the claims made in the papers are "unfalsifiable", "untestable" and it is pseudoscience.
Irreducible Complexity is not falsifiable, because it cannot be tested or refuted.
The whole idea in science of science is not only to use logic in acquiring knowledge, but able to test it, to challenge it, and the ability to refute it, if the hypothesis is wrong. And the only way to test it, is through tests, experiments or finding evidences.
And your example of "house" and "house designer" is faulty one, because they are not the same as Intelligent Design (and Irreducible Complexity) and Intelligent Designer:
Unlike Intelligent Designer, a house designer, or more precisely, the architect is a real person, whom a client can meet with. Any client can meet the architect, tell the architect what he want and need, and the architect will design the client's house to the client's specifications.
And if the client accept his the architect's plan and design, the architect doesn't built the house himself. The architect will help the client find the contractors (builders) to build this house, such as putting a notice in the tenders, or meet with the contractors who will meet the client's budget and time of completion.
And the contractors/builders often hire subcontractors, who work for them, such as electricians, plumbers, tilers, painters, glazers, cupboard fitters, whatever they call the people who put carpets in, etc.
The architect is not some invisible "spirit" entity who is not of this world, rursa02. The house builder is not someone who can do magic or miracles.
The architect would be a real like his client, like the builders, contractors, subcontractors, and so on. If the architect doesn't work for himself, then he might work with a bunch of people, such as the owner of the business or company, fellow-architects, structural engineers, field surveyors, etc. The architect would have father and mother, possibly single or married, possibly has children of his own.
The architect is not some faceless spirits, all-powerful or all-knowing. If his design is flawed, like not meeting housing safety standard or architectural codes, then he is liable of being sued for malpractice.
The architect is nothing like Intelligent Designer, and Irreducible Complexity is nothing like a house, because there are no evidences for either Designer or IC...or both.
And it is the same with engineers and interior designers, they are not some faceless beings, because they too have to work with clients, and a whole lot of people, and their designs have to meet the client's requirements, and meet with any safety code.
I would know about the engineering side of business, because I was formerly a civil engineer. I had to work under management and under my owner, and I have to work in a team of other engineers, and with draftsmen, surveyors, project managers, etc. I do my part of the design, but I often work with others, including the clients.
IC is nothing more than bunch of unsubstantiated claims and faulty assumptions. IC is not testable, because they have no evidences for this Intelligent Designer. Behe is nothing more than a fraud, in regarding to his IC and his continuing association with people of Discovery Institute.
The question is, can you or anyone meet this Designer?
If not, then this Designer of yours is not real. And your example of "house designer" is seriously flawed and unrealistic.
Last edited:
Wow, you (and others here trying to belittle me) really are not aware of the Cambrian and Ediacaran data!
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/how_to_solve_th/
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/another_paper_w/
"Chapter 1: Darwin’s Nemesis
Darwin’s theory says that all life is related through universal common ancestry by a process of descent with modification. Descent with modification is brought about by random variations acted upon by natural selection. Change would necessarily be gradual. Natural selection would preserve all adaptive variations and reject harmful ones. Over geological deep time, the accumulation of these beneficial variations would eventually lead to new species and body plans. Hence Darwin envisioned the history of life as a tree with the first living thing at the base of the trunk of the tree.
Darwin was aware of the fossil record in the Cambrian (called the Silurian in his day) and admitted that it was a mystery not readily explained by his theory. Louis Agassiz, a contemporary of Darwin and a Harvard-trained paleontologist, said that the fossil record did not fit Darwin’s theory, especially the Cambrian. The Cambrian is full of well preserved fossils of many very complex and different animals such as brachiopods and trilobites.4
Darwin’s theory requires much time to bring about large changes. But the Cambrian records many disparate animals appearing suddenly without precursors over a relatively brief period of time, something Darwin’s theory could not readily explain. Agassiz thought the fossil record refuted Darwin’s theory. Other paleontologists pointed out that the general character of the fossil record—abrupt appearance, stasis, extinction—did not fit Darwin’s theory.
Darwin said future research would vindicate his theory, but Agassiz said that the record already contained fossils of soft-bodied animals without hard body parts. Agassiz said the missing intermediates and precursors Darwin’s theory predicted were not an artifact of the fossil record but were truly missing.
Nevertheless, many of Darwin’s other contemporaries embraced his theory and soon it was widely accepted. Science was shifting from “idealism,” which held that animals were the product of ideas and a mind, to methodological naturalism, which holds that everything must have a natural cause."
That last paragraph reveals evolutionary science to hinge on vacillating conjecture. That's why evolutionary scientists argue so much among themselves!