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.
Your logical argument was that of making an analogy and saying that was proof.Nope, that is not the logical argument I was referring to.
What you're calling "stupid" is evolution. Self-Replication with mutation and selection and time equals functionally complex mechanism. Taken out of the biological realm evolution is "stupid" to the evolutionist.No, its a stupid analogy.
The ToE is incredibly wellsuppported by evidence. Not accepting it is just ignorant.
Nope, you didn't.Your logical argument was that of making an analogy and saying that was proof.
I have demonstrated that arguments from analogy are invalid.
Case closed.
Childbirth, when taken out of the biological realm is stupid. Milling machines don't have babies.What you're calling "stupid" is evolution. Self-Replication with mutation and selection and time equals functionally complex mechanism. Taken out of the biological realm evolution is "stupid" to the evolutionist.
What you're calling "stupid" is evolution. Self-Replication with mutation and selection and time equals functionally complex mechanism. Taken out of the biological realm evolution is "stupid" to the evolutionist.
i claiming that the flagellum cant evolve stepwise. this isnt stepwise since we are talking about big steps.Again, you are changing your argument. The argument was that the flagellum can't evolve. The flagellum is not a protein-transport system.
If the flagellum can evolve based on a precursor system with a different function, then it demonstrates that the flagellum can evolve. Do you agree that the flagellum can evolve in this manner?
What do you mean specifically by that? You mean if it was made of wood or something? Or are you suggesting it is a living creature?
Thanks for writing. I've come up with a similiar argument. Suppose we discovered a planet on which there were factories which built robots and robots building factories which build robots.
i claiming that the flagellum cant evolve stepwise. this isnt stepwise since we are talking about big steps.
where do you put the limit between living thing and non- living thing?
Come now, certainly you know that capital-G God by definition if is necessarily existing.Just wondering: Would a designer have to come into being by a "naturall (sic!] process" or by "design"?
I agree that were we to find an organic, self-replicating watch it would be evidence for design. It just wouldn't be good evidence for design.
And it would be contradicted by the evidence from physiology, anatomy, genetics, palaeontology, biochemistry and the like. An organic, self-replicating watch would not just suddenly appear in the biosphere. It would have antecedents. These antecedents would reveal themselves through the aforementioned specialities. That view of the evidence would trump the speculative suggestion that it demonstrated design.
Now, if the watch were to appear without any evidence of the antecedents referenced above, then the design case would be strengthened. But that sudden, one might say miraculous, appearance has not occurred and is therefore irrelevant.
The flagellum motor, with all its independent parts, all tending toward one result, is exactly that, an example of irreducible complexity.
No. It appears you need to learn a little more about what the theory of evolution actually claims. There are no long term goals in evolution, nothing but the next step in increasing fitness.Sorry I must be missing something.
Do you know what analogical reasoning is? The flagellum motor, with all its independent parts, all tending toward one result, is exactly that, an example of irreducible complexity.
Wait, do you think a blind mindless unguided process foresaw these parts in perfect combination in order to fulfil a function aimed at survival? That it was goal directed?
There are countless refutations of the Watchmaker argument but I like this one in particular:
A beautiful snowflake. People have looked at this and marvelled at its symmetry. How can a water molecule in one arm know what is happening at the other side of the snowflake? What kind of long range information exchange is coordinating the freezing molecules to create such order? Again, it MUST have outside help, all part of a plan.
Our ignorance about complex natural processes led us to the conclusion that they must have been designed. But now we know that simply isn't true. The people in the past who though it was designed can be given a pass, but those people today who still think that, when the information is so readily available, cannot be excused for such blatant wilful ignorance.
We KNOW full well how amazing complexity and order can arise from simple local interactions (and no, sigh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not forbid it). It is not a mystery any more, it is a well-known fact. Paley didn't know that, but now we do.
Still false. Evolution foresees nothing but the very next step towards fitness.The difference between you and the rest of us is that you think a blind mindless unguided process foresaw these parts in perfect combination in order to fulfil a function aimed at survival, and we, reasonably, do not.
I'll say it again, the flagellum motor, with all its independent parts, all tending toward one result, is exactly that, an example of irreducible complexity (please read up on Michael Behe and his mousetrap to see this).
Oh yeah you shut down the entire enterprise of analogical reasoning? What you think the use of analogical reasoning to convey an idea does simething to undermine the underlying FACT of the flagellum motor: irreducible complexity?Your logical argument was that of making an analogy and saying that was proof.
I have demonstrated that arguments from analogy are invalid.
Case closed.
Yes that’s my point, I was being sarcastic! So you agree then that irreducible complexity is not a function of evolution, welcome to the club!Still false. Evolution foresees nothing but the very next step towards fitness.
No, what I said was that the evolutionary process does not engage long-term goals. Each step in the evolutionary process must increase the fitness of the creature in some manner, even if increasing it in some different way than the previous step.Yes that’s my point, I was being sarcastic! So you agree then that irreducible complexity is not a function of evolution, welcome to the club!
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?