Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You may believe this, but I doubt if you have any evidence for it.I am fully for the evolution of the species, and that it is an intelligent evolution.
Regards Tony
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You may believe this, but I doubt if you have any evidence for it.I am fully for the evolution of the species, and that it is an intelligent evolution.
Regards Tony
Of course, nothing will ever be too complicated for a naturalistic explanation, eh?
You asked me once:
Because I’ve never read any literature explaining the definite mechanisms or pathways evolution took, or how it could create the first, say, bacterial flagellum, or any other novel organelles without a “probably,”“could have been” or “likely” thrown in . That’s philosophy, not science.
A gradual development of the BF *at one time* was explained by saying a simpler T3SS was a precursor, but then what happened? It was discovered that the BF came first, apparently.
So what were the pathways? What was the first protein selected, then what mechanisms utilized the other 29 proteins (or more?) to self-assemble and arrange themselves into a functional, purposeful unit?
I listened to about half. His argument is that if the DNA has instructions, it must be intelligently designed. It's basically the same incredulity and special pleading arguments we are accustomed to: The genome seems too complex to have arisen naturalistically, therefore it didn't, therefore God, who, despite being orders of magnitude more complex than the genetic material and itself undesigned and uncreated, is offered as a solution as to how so complex a thing as a genome could exist.
To me, proof is that which convinces, which changes a mind from undecided to decided, meaning that nothing is a proof if nobody is convinced by it, just as one can't simply declare a joke that nobody laughs at funny. Notice that proof as defined here is not dependent on the correctness of the assertion, but on its ability to persuade, even if it persuades one of a false conclusion through specious argumentation as the one in the video might. For me, this is proof of nothing more than that apologists are still trying to convince critical thinkers who will not believe by faith that there is a rational, evidence-based basis for believing.
"scientific proof"?
Debate the science, please.
I’m not interested in religion.
Rhetorical?No, there are endless things that are complex that do not require intelligence. Your claim is not just unsubstantiated it has been refuted.
And if you watched the video another sign that the maker is either dishonest or woefully uninformed is his use of the word "luck". So what was it? Is he a liar or an ignorant creationist that needs to go back to school?
Even then it is not a proof. Science does not deal in proof.Is this scientific proof?
A 'scientific proof' is established by publishing a paper in a reputable magazine; this paper is then peer reviewed, criticised, pulled apart. It may then be resubmitted and goes round the loop again.
Eventually it may be accepted.
Sticking a video on YouTube isn't science.
Is this scientific proof?
(By the way, I don't waste my time watching Youtube videos, unless the person posting them summarises their content sufficiently first to whet my appetite. In this case, the subject alone tells me it's bilge.)
OK thanks. But I won't bother. It's already obvious it's just more "tornado-in-a-junkyard" ID crap.There's a transcript in the YouTube description (click 'show more'), at least I assume it's a full transcript, it matched the starting few sentences.
True. Simple algorithms or formulæ can generate infinite complexity.
Does this mean that you did not watch the video interview I posted of Kent Hovind's ex-wife?"scientific proof"?
I'm 100% with @Subduction Zone. In my view, anyone who speaks of "scientific proof" stands exposed as an ignoramus. It's the sort of silly, unscientific, notion creationists like to ballock on about.Oh, wait................
(By the way, I don't waste my time watching Youtube videos, unless the person posting them summarises their content sufficiently first to whet my appetite. In this case, the subject alone tells me it's bilge.)
How did you guess?Does this mean that you did not watch the video interview I posted of Kent Hovind's ex-wife?
Seriously, I do not expect anyone that is not already disgusted with the man to watch it.
God, who, despite being orders of magnitude more complex than the genetic material and itself undesigned and uncreated, is offered as a solution as to how so complex a thing as a genome could exist.
You think this is an adequate rebuttal? I mean, don’t you think that humans are the same? To you and others, Humankind is “itself undesigned and uncreated”, and “orders of magnitude more complex” than the simpler things it has made, like a bicycle. A mousetrap. A campfire ring. Etc. Yet we make them.... The argument is that complexity requires intelligence.
I’ve never read any literature explaining the definite mechanisms or pathways evolution took, or how it could create the first, say, bacterial flagellum, or any other novel organelles without a “probably,”“could have been” or “likely” thrown in .
There is no evidence that complexity requires intelligence?
To be fair for those familiar with the man it does round out our understanding of him. And it shows that nine years in prison was not enough time for him. Sadly the evidence is amassing that he is a psychopath that can get violent at times. Couple that with a following that treat him as the next coming and there could be a real problem one of these days. Currently he only body slams women and young children. But he could escalate beyond that.How did you guess?
So what were the pathways? What was the first protein selected, then what mechanisms utilized the other 29 proteins (or more?) to self-assemble and arrange themselves into a functional, purposeful unit?
Oh grief. The flagellum. The BF. You know that’s what I was talking about.Pathways to what? What are we talking about here?
He is using a strawman argument. Did you check to see if he wrote papers on this or if he merely objected to the evolution of the flagellum. He did not refute the argument of how the flagellum evolved.Oh grief. The flagellum. The BF. You know that’s what I was talking about.
And I’m pretty sure, when I said the T3SS, you knew that too . Easy enough to Google.….
More obsolete Dawkinsian evidence for evolution
But the 'irreducible complexity of the flagellum' argument has been thoroughly debunked, for decades and by multiple sources -- if you'd care to Google....Oh grief. The flagellum. The BF. You know that’s what I was talking about.
And I’m pretty sure, when I said the T3SS, you knew that too . Easy enough to Google.….
More obsolete Dawkinsian evidence for evolution
Really, the argument isn’t about ‘reducing’ it… it’s the inadequacies of evolutionary mechanisms to build it.But the 'irreducible complexity of the flagellum' argument has been thoroughly debunked, for decades and by multiple sources -- if you'd care to Google....