I thought you might like to know that, in all innocence and sincerity, you are buying into one of the major, well, lies, of evoltuion. This is the lie that creation of a new species equals evolution. Speciation was observed and studied long before Darwin who, in truth, never showed any origin of any species ever in his misnamed book.I Believe in Evolution and God! Now don't get me wrong; I never said I believe in The Big Bang. Evolution has nothing to do with The Big Bang Theory other than the fact that Evolution is the Basis of The Big Bang Theory. Evolution and The Big Bang Theory are two completely different things, although they coincide in some aspects. You see, evolution influences the form and behavior of organisms to better suit their habit. Evolution happens when there is a change in the environment and the species or race has to adapt to it--thus can evolve into a distinctly new species. Many people have the wrong idea of Evolution; immediately thinking of The Big Bang Theory. I suggest you do more research.
And no, I don't believe we evolved from apes.
I have to admit that there are times when it is very tempting to believe that humanity isn't even specially created.
Ever had one of those days when you find yourself or someone else making an incredibly stupid mistake? Then you find yourself saying unconsciously "wow we're useless junk!"?
Of course scientist will discuss when these changes might have taken place and look for evidence in the genomes of other related bacteria for similar genes to the ones that make up the flagellum and the much simpler Type III Secretion System. But just because you dont like the millions of years, or the way they discuss possible evolutionary pathways, it doesnt change the fact that there is a Type III Secretion System made up of some of the parts of the flagellum which us shows the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.I understand Behe's argument quite well. As I have already said, all you have to do is take out one part of the flagellum. It it still does it's jobs, it's not irreducibly complex. Now that would be using real science, real data, to get real evidence. But, alas! Evolutinoists prefer to dwell in the land of millioins of unseen, unobservable & unverifiable years ago where they paint fanciful picture about what, in their humble opinions, is "possible."
I have no problem recognising the difference between speculation (hypothesis) and speculations that have been backed up by the evidence, or indeed ones that have been contradicted by evidence and dropped. The thing is, science is confirmed or contradicted by the evidence we can discover. From your argument, it sounds like the only evidence you are prepared to accept is evidence that is beyond our reach. Science is based on the evidence we do have, not what we don't.Like the fellow above you feel words like "no possible way..." and "plausbile pathway..." are something other than purely conjecturall. However, they are based on no data, only on, uh...faaaaaith....therefore they are not part of real science. Don't tell me there is a "possible" way. Describe it. Give evidence it ever did happen. But, alas, there is no such evidence which is typical of evolution, 100% typical. If you want to believe, "Well, it all happened so long ago, that gosh, we just don't have any real evidence," keep your faith but don't call it science.
You just need to find one combination like the Type III Secretion System to show the flagellum isn't irreducibly complex. It effectively demonstrates the failing of the whole irreducibly complex argument too, it shows that just because you cannot imagine a functioning system with fewer parts, it doesn't mean there aren't and that trying to disprove evolution through irreducible complexity fails.I challenge you also, as I did the poster above, to answer the Qs about how the bacterial flagellum's whip and motor could have evolved separately and have been any use whatsoever to the "bug" until both parts were complete, connected, and fully functioing as the irreducibly complex unit that they are.
Finding the Type III Secretion System isn't conjecture it is evidence supporting the conjecture, so is find very similar genes to the ones used for the flagellum and T3SS that have different functions in other bacteria.Do you remembe 5th grade science? There you learned that an hypothesis-only ain't science. Have an hypothesis,say "It's possible...it's plausible...it's even probable...." but if you have no data to support it, and if you call the hypothesis, your conjecture, your dataless speculation "evidence", what you have is not science, but pseudo science, or you could call it...evolutionaory b.s.
Behe's argument doesn't need those questions answered to fail, it only takes the T3SS to show the flagellum isn't irreducibly complex. You seem to understand irreducible complexity, but refuse to accept his argument has failed even when you know about a reduced complexity form. Instead of accepting that the evidence has destroyed his argument, you hide behind a demand for evidence that is beyond our reach.Notice you have evaded addressing the Qs I already left, before.. If you understand Behe's arguments so well, enlighten me. Show me you can answer those Qs and use real science - what is observable & testable - and logic to answer those and the ones in this post.. But you won't answer the Qs because evolution doesn't have any answers because...it's based on faith presented as science.
We have shown you the facts, they don't seem to make any difference for you.I see your faith. Show me your facts.
I've shown you that what we do know disproved Behe's irreducible complexity, why do you keep asking other questions that don't deal with this? Or are you just avoiding the problem? I suspect the answer to most of those questions is that we simply do not know the answer, some of them we will never know the answer too because they are lost in the mists of time. But I've already said this to you. I have also told you it is the things we do know that science is built on, and it is what we know of a simpler structure that can be build from a few of the parts of a flagellum that show the flagellum isn't irreducibly complex.ASSYRIAN - You haven't answered the Qs and you never will. You still seem to feel that speculative words like "when these changes might have taken place....possible evolutionary pathways....evidence [-admittedly] beyond our reach..." quality as actual scientific data.
Answer the Qs. Quit evading them. You know so much, enlighten me already. If the flagellum isn't irreiducibly complex, tell me how & why evolution could produce that whip & its motor and hold them in limbo while they are useless for aeons as they "evolve". But you will never answer those Qs.
Here's another one. Where is there a study showing that one of Behe's flagellums' secretroy system components has been removed while leaving the bug still able to do all its jobs? I did ask something like that before. But you did evade that Q along with all the others.
You keep theorizing abou the secretory system. Give me some hard core data that it's absence ot lack of completion will not cause it to fail to do the job for Behe'e flagellum - not some flagellum that is doing some completely other job, not some theoretical flagellum that no one can ever observe or study "milliions of years ago", but the flagellum that Behe says is irredicubly complex.
If you aren't going to answer my Qs I'll just put you on ignore. I'm sorry but you are acting like you are this big science expert. But when I ask legitimate, science based, on topic Qs, you evade, evade, evade. You don't seem to see there is something wrong with that picture. It's not even polilte, either, to ignore the other posters Qs!
If you keep evading, and you likely will, I will just quit "debating" with you.
Sure you can debate them. It takes patience and you may not be able to get them to admit they are wrong. The thing is to let everyone else see they can't answer you and that they have to keep changing the subject and avoid the issue.You can't "debate" with someone who refuses to address pertinent Qs and frankly, it is also hard to respect anything said under those conditions.
I've shown you that what we do know disproved Behe's irreducible complexity, why do you keep asking other questions that don't deal with this? Or are you just avoiding the problem? I suspect the answer to most of those questions is that we simply do not know the answer, some of them we will never know the answer too because they are lost in the mists of time. But I've already said this to you. I have also told you it is the things we do know that science is built on, and it is what we know of a simpler structure that can be build from a few of the parts of a flagellum that show the flagellum isn't irreducibly complex.
Sure you can debate them. It takes patience and you may not be able to get them to admit they are wrong. The thing is to let everyone else see they can't answer you and that they have to keep changing the subject and avoid the issue.
A nice, long EVASIVE, bunch of verbiage that doesn't answer a single one of those Qs. "We don't have to answer...." But..but...you said you DID answer! So which is it? I'll tell you. You DIDN"T>
That's too bad Hendrick cause I do have answers. I have something observable, testable & repeatable, that whip & that flagellum. I have real data, real scientiiic information. I know from empirical observations and an understanding of basic statistics that random processes of nature cannot separately build up 2 codependent and interdependent parts to a machine in nature or elsewhere. You have "Plausible...we don't have to show proof."
"We only have to show that part of the flagellum is useful." What nonsense! So usefulness prove evolution? Sorry, but even the evolutionists aren't saying that!
My phone is useful, my car is useful. Gee, did they evolve too? No, I think they are products of intelligent design. I hope you are just the victim of sloppy thinking and not an out and out disinformationist - for your sake.
I have nothing more to say to you. Your responses have not been honest and I find that extremely distasteful.
A nice, long EVASIVE, bunch of verbiage that doesn't answer a single one of those Qs. "We don't have to answer...." But..but...you said you DID answer! So which is it? I'll tell you. You DIDN"T>
That's too bad Hendrick cause I do have answers. I have something observable, testable & repeatable, that whip & that flagellum. I have real data, real scientiiic information. I know from empirical observations and an understanding of basic statistics that random processes of nature cannot separately build up 2 codependent and interdependent parts to a machine in nature or elsewhere. You have "Plausible...we don't have to show proof."
"We only have to show that part of the flagellum is useful." What nonsense! So usefulness prove evolution? Sorry, but even the evolutionists aren't saying that!
My phone is useful, my car is useful. Gee, did they evolve too? No, I think they are products of intelligent design. I hope you are just the victim of sloppy thinking and not an out and out disinformationist - for your sake.
I have nothing more to say to you. Your responses have not been honest and I find that extremely distasteful.
People are compromising with evolution & Christianity because they think that believing in evolution is more "intelligent" & "scientific". In my view, the 2 absolutely cannot co-exist. If you discard Genesis, you may as well discard any other book that doesn't seem accurate. Original sin has to come from the 1st 2 sinful human beings, not 2 ape-people just learning to say words. Jesus & His apostles believed in creation & Jesus was divinity personified. He would know what went on in the past.
Many people think that what mainstream science says must be correct because scientists must know most everything. Just like when mainstream science said most of our DNA was junk & now we know that's not the case. I had my doubt too but now I realize it's absurd to believe in evolution from a single cell. Louis Pasteur already showed that spontaneous generation or chemical evolution is impossible. The probability is 1 in 10^40,000. 1 in a number with 40,000 zeros after it! Crick was so desperate for an alternative idea for the origin of life that he believed in panspermia ... which doesn't really solve the problemI'm surprised that God took 6 days to create, considering he probably could have done it in a second. Evolution is an ideology based on no proof. The only thing that is heralded as evidence is genetic similarities & fossils. There's no hard empirical data. I read the book "In Six Days". It was an interesting read.
People are compromising with evolution & Christianity because they think that believing in evolution is more "intelligent" & "scientific". In my view, the 2 absolutely cannot co-exist. If you discard Genesis, you may as well discard any other book that doesn't seem accurate. Original sin has to come from the 1st 2 sinful human beings, not 2 ape-people just learning to say words. Jesus & His apostles believed in creation & Jesus was divinity personified. He would know what went on in the past.
Many people think that what mainstream science says must be correct because scientists must know most everything. Just like when mainstream science said most of our DNA was junk & now we know that's not the case. I had my doubt too but now I realize it's absurd to believe in evolution from a single cell. Louis Pasteur already showed that spontaneous generation or chemical evolution is impossible. The probability is 1 in 10^40,000. 1 in a number with 40,000 zeros after it! Crick was so desperate for an alternative idea for the origin of life that he believed in panspermia ... which doesn't really solve the problemI'm surprised that God took 6 days to create, considering he probably could have done it in a second. Evolution is an ideology based on no proof. The only thing that is heralded as evidence is genetic similarities & fossils. There's no hard empirical data. I read the book "In Six Days". It was an interesting read.
Are you purposefully trying not to understand what these posters are saying? My goodness...
So an intelligent, proactive Diety just lets things happen by accident and this is what you call "directing" things? That is cognitive disonance, friend. There is no part in the theory of evolution that leaves any room whatsoever for anything other than random, random, processes of nature. You should know that. It is amazing how people try to defend evoltuion and they don't even really understand what it is saying.Christians who believe in evolution just believe that intelligent design, meaning God in my case, directed the evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?