for atheists

VirOptimus · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
Neither does Darwinism demonstrate evolution is reality.

First, its the theory of evolution, not ”Darwinism”.

Secondly, evolution=observed phenomena, just like gravity=observed phenomena. The theory of evolution explains how evolution works just as the theory of gravity explains how gravity works.

Thirdly, its every scientists wet dream to overturn a scientific theory. If someone overturned the theory of evolution that person would be set for life and certain to go down in history as one of the greats.

Fourth, the ToE explains all of the data, all of it, in a falsifiable way. Magic (god(s)) are not falsifiable and can therefore explain everything and therefore nothing. Using magic in a science debate is an auto-loss.

Fifth, if you want to try to critique a scientific theory, write an article for peer-review. If you cant, well, then your ”views” dont matter.

Paulos23 · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
Neither does Darwinism demonstrate evolution is reality.

The theory of evolution is based on multiple observations on reality. It is trying to describe reality.

The IbanezerScrooge · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
Neither does Darwinism demonstrate evolution is reality.

Correct. "Darwinism", the idea, is not evidence for evolution.

But all of the published direct observations of speciation, fossils, experiments in ecology and biodiversity, DNA and inheritance over the last 160 years supported by the same from multiple other scientific disciplines such as paleontology, geology and chemistry are evidence that evolution has and is happening.

renniks · Apr 23, 2020

Larnievc said:
What does an outboard motor have to do with biology? You do know that a mechanical device is not alive, don't you?

And yet you believe a cell much more complex than any motor created itself.

renniks · Apr 23, 2020

Paulos23 said:
The theory of evolution is based on multiple observations on reality. It is trying to describe reality.

And failing badly.
In contrast, ID theorists contend that living organisms appear designed because they are designed. And unlike the design thinkers whom Darwin deposed, they’ve developed rigorous new concepts to test their idea.

renniks · Apr 23, 2020

pitabread said:
That is what always amazes me about these arguments. The moment you get into the how these things that are claimed to be designed by intelligence are made, the argument falls apart.

To see how this applies to biology, consider the outboard motor that bacteria such as E. coli use to navigate their environment. This water-cooled contraption, called a flagellum, comes equipped with a reversible engine, drive shaft, U-joint and a long whip-like propeller. It hums along at a cool 17,000 rpm.
Decades of research indicate that its complexity is enormous. It takes about 50 genes to create a working flagellum. Each of those genes is as complex as a sentence with hundreds of letters.

Moreover, the pattern–a working flagellum–is highly specified. Deviate from that pattern, knock out a single gene, and our bug is dead in the water (or whatever).

Such highly specified complexity, which demands the presence of every part, indicates an intelligent origin. It’s also defies any explanation, such as contemporary Darwinism, that relies on the stepwise accumulation of random genetic change.

Larniavc · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
And yet you believe a cell much more complex than any motor created itself.

Cells don't create themselves, they typically divide. Why would you think cells create themselves?

It's almost as if you haven't the paper I linked you to. Have you read it yet?

Paulos23 · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
And failing badly.
In contrast, ID theorists contend that living organisms appear designed because they are designed. And unlike the design thinkers whom Darwin deposed, they’ve developed rigorous new concepts to test their idea.

How is it failing? We use the theory for biology, pharmaceuticals, farming, and livestock.

I don't see ID being used for any of that. All ID does is say, it looks like it was made. They stop and don't keep looking. It is a science stopper, not a science.

pitabread · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
Moreover, the pattern–a working flagellum–is highly specified. Deviate from that pattern, knock out a single gene, and our bug is dead in the water (or whatever).

Not necessarily, and there are other methods of bacterial propulsion besides flagella. Not all bacteria have them.

Such highly specified complexity, which demands the presence of every part, indicates an intelligent origin.

Not really. In fact, evolution can indeed produce irreducibly complex structures as described in this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/

It’s also defies any explanation, such as contemporary Darwinism, that relies on the stepwise accumulation of random genetic change.

The flagellum's evolution has been studied and there are proposed evolutionary pathways for it. So no, it doesn't actually defy evolution.

The flipside of the argument though is what is the mechanism by which the flagellum was designed? This is something that IDists are completely silent on. And without even having a mechanism for how it was designed, how can you even claim it was designed in the first place? Complexity alone isn't good enough.

edited: Also, if you're going to blatantly copy-paste, you should at least cite your source. Plagiarism is against the forum rules.

Larniavc · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
And failing badly.
In contrast, ID theorists contend that living organisms appear designed because they are designed. And unlike the design thinkers whom Darwin deposed, they’ve developed rigorous new concepts to test their idea.

What is the test for design?

Larniavc · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
Moreover, the pattern–a working flagellum–is highly specified. Deviate from that pattern, knock out a single gene, and our bug is dead in the water (or whatever).

Entirely untrue.

"However, many proteins can be deleted or mutated and the flagellum still works, though sometimes at reduced efficiency"

Flagellum - Wikipedia

You really don't have the first clue about this subject. All the information to answer your questions is at your fingertips but you refuse to even read it when it is delivered to you on a plate.

smh

Larniavc · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
Such highly specified complexity

What units are you using for measuring complexity?

The IbanezerScrooge · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
To see how this applies to biology, consider the outboard motor that bacteria such as E. coli use to navigate their environment. This water-cooled contraption, called a flagellum, comes equipped with a reversible engine, drive shaft, U-joint and a long whip-like propeller. It hums along at a cool 17,000 rpm.
Decades of research indicate that its complexity is enormous. It takes about 50 genes to create a working flagellum. Each of those genes is as complex as a sentence with hundreds of letters.

Moreover, the pattern–a working flagellum–is highly specified. Deviate from that pattern, knock out a single gene, and our bug is dead in the water (or whatever).

Such highly specified complexity, which demands the presence of every part, indicates an intelligent origin. It’s also defies any explanation, such as contemporary Darwinism, that relies on the stepwise accumulation of random genetic change.

oh, look. Unattributed copypasta from the Discotute. :-/

You don't have the relevant knowledge to even discuss your own beliefs about all this do you? You just go find something on one of your creationist websites and copy/paste in. Dude, like... why are you here?

Larniavc · Apr 23, 2020

The IbanezerScrooge said:
oh, look. Unattributed copypasta from the Discotute. :-/

I like the way he didn't credit the author....

smh

pitabread · Apr 23, 2020

The IbanezerScrooge said:
oh, look. Unattributed copypasta from the Discotute. :-/

Too bad "thou shalt not plagiarize" wasn't one of God's commandments.

Subduction Zone · Apr 23, 2020

renniks said:
To see how this applies to biology, consider the outboard motor that bacteria such as E. coli use to navigate their environment. This water-cooled contraption, called a flagellum, comes equipped with a reversible engine, drive shaft, U-joint and a long whip-like propeller. It hums along at a cool 17,000 rpm.
Decades of research indicate that its complexity is enormous. It takes about 50 genes to create a working flagellum. Each of those genes is as complex as a sentence with hundreds of letters.

Moreover, the pattern–a working flagellum–is highly specified. Deviate from that pattern, knock out a single gene, and our bug is dead in the water (or whatever).

Such highly specified complexity, which demands the presence of every part, indicates an intelligent origin. It’s also defies any explanation, such as contemporary Darwinism, that relies on the stepwise accumulation of random genetic change.

How many times has this been refuted this month alone?

The error of the writer of that was to assume that the flagellum was a goal. It always worked all the way trough its evolution.

pitabread · Apr 23, 2020

The IbanezerScrooge said:
You don't have the relevant knowledge to even discuss your own beliefs about all this do you? You just go find something on one of your creationist websites and copy/paste in. Dude, like... why are you here?

IMHO this just reinforces that creationists know about as little of their own beliefs as they do about science.

renniks · Apr 23, 2020

Larnievc said:
Cells don't create themselves, they typically divide. Why would you think cells create themselves?

It's almost as if you haven't the paper I linked you to. Have you read it yet?

Can't have a cell to divide if it doesn't somehow come into existence initially. Besides, which, you believe random process creates incredibly complex machinery. Quit sidestepping the obvious.

renniks · Apr 23, 2020

Paulos23 said:
How is it failing? We use the theory for biology, pharmaceuticals, farming, and livestock.

I don't see ID being used for any of that. All ID does is say, it looks like it was made. They stop and don't keep looking. It is a science stopper, not a science.

Again, off topic. It's failing to explain what exists.

renniks · Apr 23, 2020

The IbanezerScrooge said:
oh, look. Unattributed copypasta from the Discotute. :-/

You don't have the relevant knowledge to even discuss your own beliefs about all this do you? You just go find something on one of your creationist websites and copy/paste in. Dude, like... why are you here?

Says the non believer on a Christian forum...
Perhaps you should answer your own question.

for atheists

A nihilist who cares.

Never tell me the odds!

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Never tell me the odds!

Well-Known Member

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency