winsor 187
Maybe you don't have the burden of proving God does not exist but you do have the burden to prove that the universe did in fact come into existence ex nihilo by some other naturalistic means (if that is your atheistic stance).....or that it has always been, on its own (which you cannot prove scientifically). If you could prove such a thing, you would prove what you said you didn't have to in the first place, though. Good luck! Seems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.
winsor 187
QuoteMaybe you don't have the burden of proving God does not exist but you do have the burden to prove that the universe did in fact come into existence ex nihilo by some other naturalistic means (if that is your atheistic stance).....or that it has always been, on its own (which you cannot prove scientifically). If you could prove such a thing, you would prove what you said you didn't have to in the first place, though. Good luck! Seems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.
And the "intelligent mind" to which you refer requires orders of magnitude greater "irreducible complexity" than that which actually exists.
Try again.
jakee 1,271
QuoteSeems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.
Except for the 'irreducible complexity' of that intelligent mind, of course.
Yeah, so very reasonable.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteQuoteSeems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.
Except for the 'irreducible complexity' of that intelligent mind, of course.
Yeah, so very reasonable.
As opposed to?...
At least I have an unmoved mover. You're grasping at straws out of thin air. Reasonable?
maadmax 0
QuoteQuoteMaybe you don't have the burden of proving God does not exist but you do have the burden to prove that the universe did in fact come into existence ex nihilo by some other naturalistic means (if that is your atheistic stance).....or that it has always been, on its own (which you cannot prove scientifically). If you could prove such a thing, you would prove what you said you didn't have to in the first place, though. Good luck! Seems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.
And the "intelligent mind" to which you refer requires orders of magnitude greater "irreducible complexity" than that which actually exists.
Try again.
Interesting, William of Ockham, was a theist. I doubt he would agree with the way you are interpreting his philosophy.
...
Quote
Interesting, William of Ockham, was a theist. I doubt he would agree with the way you are interpreting his philosophy.
...
And what blows their mind even more is that our God is personal.
maadmax 0
And what blows their mind even more is that our God is personal.
+1
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteQuoteMaybe you don't have the burden of proving God does not exist but you do have the burden to prove that the universe did in fact come into existence ex nihilo by some other naturalistic means (if that is your atheistic stance).....or that it has always been, on its own (which you cannot prove scientifically). If you could prove ***such a thing, you would prove what you said you didn't have to in the first place, though. Good luck! Seems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.
And the "intelligent mind" to which you refer requires orders of magnitude greater "irreducible complexity" than that which actually exists.
Try again.
Interesting, William of Ockham, was a theist. I doubt he would agree with the way you are interpreting his philosophy.
...
The creator of the term "irreducible complexity"
being blown out of the water using his best example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY
winsor 187
QuoteQuoteQuoteMaybe you don't have the burden of proving God does not exist but you do have the burden to prove that the universe did in fact come into existence ex nihilo by some other naturalistic means (if that is your atheistic stance).....or that it has always been, on its own (which you cannot prove scientifically). If you could prove such a thing, you would prove what you said you didn't have to in the first place, though. Good luck! Seems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.
And the "intelligent mind" to which you refer requires orders of magnitude greater "irreducible complexity" than that which actually exists.
Try again.
Interesting, William of Ockham, was a theist. I doubt he would agree with the way you are interpreting his philosophy.
...
By your own characterization, what you opine is irrelevant.
winsor 187
QuoteQuote
Interesting, William of Ockham, was a theist. I doubt he would agree with the way you are interpreting his philosophy.
...
And what blows their mind even more is that our God is personal.
Every invisible friend is personal.
Try again.
QuoteThe creator of the term "irreducible complexity"
being blown out of the water using his best example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY
Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
‘Irreducible complexity’ is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap—a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole.
What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint, and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. [SA 84]
Indeed, it does (see diagram below).
Bacterial flagellum with rotary motor, with the following features:
Self assembly and repair
Water-cooled rotary engine
Proton motive force drive system
Forward and reverse gears
Operating speeds of up to 100,000 rpm
Direction reversing capability within 1/4 of a turn
Hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory
[from Bacterial Flagella: Paradigm for Design, video,
He makes similar points about the blood’s clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. [SA 84]
Miller is hardly the epitome of reliability. Behe has also responded to critics such as Miller.7
In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. [SA 84]
This actually comes from the National Center for Science Education’s misuses of the research of Dr Scott Minnich, a geneticist and associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho. He is a world-class expert on the flagellum who says that belief in design has given him many research insights. His research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C, and instead some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum, which Minnich says came first although it is more complex.8
The key is that the flagellum’s component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. [SA 84]
Actually, what Behe says he means by irreducible complexity is that the flagellum could not work without about 40 protein components all organized in the right way. Scientific American’s argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components.
The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. [SA 84]
Minnich points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines, so is in itself irreducibly complex.
Irreducible complexity
QuoteQuoteQuote
Interesting, William of Ockham, was a theist. I doubt he would agree with the way you are interpreting his philosophy.
...
And what blows their mind even more is that our God is personal.
Every invisible friend is personal.
Try again.
Do you ever have anything of substance to add to the conversation. I admit, your grammer is superb but it still amounts to a whole lot of nothing. Kind of like having a bucket of sand at the beach. You know... ......so what?
kallend 1,672
Given up on the eye, have you? Now that its evolution has been well documented.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe creator of the term "irreducible complexity"
being blown out of the water using his best example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY
Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
‘Irreducible complexity’ is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap—a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole.
What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint, and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. [SA 84]
Indeed, it does (see diagram below).
Bacterial flagellum with rotary motor, with the following features:
Self assembly and repair
Water-cooled rotary engine
Proton motive force drive system
Forward and reverse gears
Operating speeds of up to 100,000 rpm
Direction reversing capability within 1/4 of a turn
Hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory
[from Bacterial Flagella: Paradigm for Design, video,]
He makes similar points about the blood’s clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. [SA 84]
Miller is hardly the epitome of reliability. Behe has also responded to critics such as Miller.7
In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. [SA 84]
This actually comes from the National Center for Science Education’s misuses of the research of Dr Scott Minnich, a geneticist and associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho. He is a world-class expert on the flagellum who says that belief in design has given him many research insights. His research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C, and instead some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum, which Minnich says came first although it is more complex.8
The key is that the flagellum’s component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. [SA 84]
Actually, what Behe says he means by irreducible complexity is that the flagellum could not work without about 40 protein components all organized in the right way. Scientific American’s argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components.
The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. [SA 84]
Minnich points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines, so is in itself irreducibly complex.
Irreducible complexity
I guess you did not view my link. It refutes everything Behe claims.
Agreed, but the one thing I have noticed about Truth, in any area, is that it remains after all of the chaos surrounding it has subsided. We are engineered to want the Truth. If there wasn't Truth in the concept of God, He would have died out long ago.
Please go to whoever told you that and point out that they have burdened you with one of the most blindingly stupid arguments ever concieved.