Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It "flows naturally"? Wow. I´m impressed and almost convinced.
(Need to keep that one in mind in case I find myself in desperate need of bridging a logical gap.)
No, I was pointing out that a statement of the form "evolution could not possibly have produced the flagellum" nullifies the flagellum itself as evidence. What is necessary to support that statement is evidence that evolution could not possibly have produced the flagellum. The existence of the flagellum itself is not evidence of the "could not possibly" part.You said that evolution could not have produced it. That's why I ask.
New traits have been observed to develop. Nylon-eating bacteria is a great example.
Mutations make random changes to the genome, there is a chance that any given change creates a increased statistical likelihood of survival. That and reproductive isolation is all evolution needs.
I've never seen a useful and measurable definition of the creationist version of "Information", but I'd be very interested if you have one.
but what is the besy possibility: that a motor is the product of design or natural process? think about finding a self repliciating ufo on another planet. do you think it will not be evidence for aliens?It might have been designed, but there are also possible evolutionary pathways based on random variation and selection which would work.
Depends on the motor. Witrh regard to the flagellum rotor, there is a plausible evolution pathway to it, and no evidence it was designed.but what is the besy possibility: that a motor is the product of design or natural process?
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE ABSENCE OF DESIGN. Go stand in the corner and repeat that to yourself 100 times.think about finding a self repliciating ufo on another planet. do you think it will not be evidence for aliens?
This is just plain wrong. Things move from simple to complex and back again all the time - it's characteristic of the transition from low to high entropy in systems.... Things do not move from simple to complex. They move from complex to simple. That is what we observe...
The definition of motor doesn't include the particular criterion you are introducing.
I have a lot of experience talking to creationists about these things.
And yes, by calling such things "motors", that is exactly what they mean by it.
The second an "evolutionists" agrees to call it a motor, that's when those creationists jump up in arms screaming "motors are designed!!!!!".
It's a silly dishonest trap.
It is implicit in your statement.
If there was no time extrinsic of the universe then there is not one known thing which could have caused the universe. Nothingdidit
That is called ad hoc exception and would also point out you are using cause and effect to deny cause and effect. If you wish to deny cause and effect, then don't use cause and effect and good luck with that.
There is no reason to dismiss an extrinsic cause for the start of the universe based on cause and effect since the alternative leads to absurdities or appeals to ignorance.
You have not made a case it is invalid. Nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actually, many reasons not to.No reason not to.
And nothingdidit or appeals to ignorance has exactly what explanatory power?
Yawn, like dungeons and dragons has a huge body of knowledge and has explain power.
The belief of scientists do not equate to fact and the so-called science is far from exact. Its not like anyone is out there claiming the laws of physics is just as valid as the origin of life theories or naturalistic evolution.
They are inferior counter explanations riddled with assumptions and problems, including math.
If we find the starship Enterprise on the moon, it is designed, not natural and intrinsic of the moon.
lolMy preconceived beliefs do not have anything to do with Theism.
You can't have the one without the other.
Besides, it is all taught in the same biology textbooks. They have chapters on the origin of life.
It is a distinction without much of a difference.
Obsessions with classifications. Dogmatism.
Quibbling. You know what i meant.
Yeah like a dead body with multiple stab sounds and a knife sticking out of her chest is the only evidence of a dead body. If you know what you are looking at then it is evidence of murder. Assuming we are reasoning from effect to cause. An ash layer in only evidence of an ash layer if you don't know what you are looking at. If you do know what you are lookiing at then an ash layer is evidence of a volcano eruption in the past.The bacteria/cell is by itself just evidence of the existence thereof.
Garbage. If they wish to equate bacteria (simplest life) with the complexity of a jumbo jet then it is reasonable to ask why assume a jumbo jet self-assembles? It is their metaphors. Any assumption absents an intelligent cause is blind faith, not science. That does not even address the encyclopedic amounts of complex specified information or the fact they can duplicate.By themselves, they are not evidence of any particular point of origin.
so the flagellum is a spinning motor. even according to scientists. great. why we should believe that a motor can evolve without a designer?
but what is the besy possibility: that a motor is the product of design or natural process? think about finding a self repliciating ufo on another planet. do you think it will not be evidence for aliens?
"specified complexity" is exactly the inevitable end-result of the evolutionary process.That is complexity not specified complexity. A snowflake is highly complex but low to no specification (complexity allowing functional specified role). That is the coffee cup cream / entropy you describe.
What we see in cellular life is vastly different. Highly complex and highly specified. Nature's laws have not and cannot account for it describe this.
Then don't agree to call it a motor.
Yeah like a dead body with multiple stab sounds and a knife sticking out of her chest is the only evidence of a dead body. If you know what you are looking at then it is evidence of murder.
so a ufo isnt evidence for aliens. i think that most scientists will disagree with this.Depends on the motor. Witrh regard to the flagellum rotor, there is a plausible evolution pathway to it, and no evidence it was designed.IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE ABSENCE OF DESIGN. Go stand in the corner and repeat that to yourself 100 times.
We live in a reasonable world and yours is not reasonable even if it is possible. It is also possible the stabber of the dead corpse was martians. If your scenario is possible, why is my addition impossible? If you find a dead body with multiple stab wounds and a knife sticking out of her chest then the most reasonable is a murder. Not some unknown stabbiing a dead corpse. Besides either scenario refutes your original assertion.Nope. Not from these facts alone.
The person could have died from a heart attack and stabbed a couple of hours later.
You need additional investigation to infer the actual cause of death.
The bacteria is an effect and we are looking for the cause.The bacteria/cell is by itself just evidence of the existence thereof.
Well really what can you say since you all would have us believe an organism as complicated as a jumbo jet can self assemble under magical circumstances along with imaginary precursors. It is blind faith.ps: the additional investigation of the genomes of species, show that they align in a hierarchical tree. A family tree.
Skipping the rest of your nonsense as you are just building on top of false premises.
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?