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.
I've gone as deep into the weeds on this subject as I'm gonna go on this particular site. It's all out there in Bing and Google, and most of it is even out there in public libraries - which is where I had to go for this stuff back in the 70's through 90's.How about simply supporting your claim for starters.
Well, you can't accuse me of that, since I already believe in God. I reject ID because it is bad science, not because it "leads into the realm of a designer." And since atheists appear to reject ID for the same reasons I do, it is hard for me to believe that they are only rejecting it because they are afraid it might be true.But that's the problem with this science. Since ID leads into the realm of of a designer therefore only evolution can be true. ID cannot be looked at because of where it leads. It's a blind eye. The refusal to look at any other option is the epitome of closed mindedness. The evolutionist closes their mind because a designer cannot be falsified therefore it cannot be considered which leaves no option.
That right there is the conundrum the evolution theory proponents find themselves in. It's one thing to say, "We don't have the tools to test that, therefore we don't know if it is true or not." It's quite another to say, "Science can't be used to test that therefore it is not true."But that's the problem with this science. Since ID leads into the realm of of a designer therefore only evolution can be true. ID cannot be looked at because of where it leads. It's a blind eye. The refusal to look at any other option is the epitome of closed mindedness. The evolutionist closes their mind because a designer cannot be falsified therefore it cannot be considered which leaves no option.
No. You haven’t established that flagella are irreducibly complex.
And again, it seems silly to place arbitrary limits on a fictional scenario such as a self-replicating camera. If cameras self-replicate, pigs fly.
the same to you. i already falsified the claim about non-hierarchy in nature. so why are you still use it as valid argument?It has been explained to you why you are wrong ad nauseam yet you continue to parrot your incredibly ignorant comparisons and analogies. You can't really blame him for not wasting any more of his time explaining things to you.
It wasn't "evolutionists" who brought up the mousetrap example--that was Michael Behe's failed attempt to demonstrate irreducible complexityInteresting how evolutionists balk at using a car as an example against evolution -- since a car isn't biological -- but won't think twice about equating a flagellum with a mouse trap in a discussion on Irreducible Complexity.
i never said that.
so what? the question here is about ic systems. since both camera\car and biological systems has such systems we can conclude that both cant evolve stepwise.
think about a self replicating (simple) camera. do you think in this case it will evolve into a video camera?
No problem. Just throw some monkeys and typewriters at it.Why would anyone think about a self-replicating HUMAN-MADE DEVICE?
This picture demonstrates the way evidence is percieved in the evolution/id debate. One side sees evidence that PROVES this is two faces, but the other sees evidence that proves it is a vase. It isn't until you get past the picture to full knowledge do you really know which it is.
Personally, I see both, but I know which view has the most evidence supporting it.
It demonstrates how one's bias causes them to see evidence for their position, even though that same evidence can be used to disprove their position.Is that picture an accurate description of the abundance of objective evidence to support the theory of evolution? Those defense mechanisms must be working overtime.
Cars can’t evolve because they can’t reproduce. I don’t need to resort to an argument from ic to prove that.if so i can say the same for the car. you never proved that a car cant evolve stepwise
I mean here.It wasn't "evolutionists" who brought up the mousetrap example--that was Michael Behe's failed attempt to demonstrate irreducible complexity
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?