The tip of the ice berg

[AV1611VET]

Why?

They can dismantle a mousetrap and use it various parts to refute irreducible complexity, but can't seem to do anything with a giant machine.

Or don't want to.

They got what they wanted$

SETI is another good example.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They can dismantle a mousetrap and use it various parts to refute irreducible complexity, but can't seem to do anything with a giant machine.

Or don't want to.

They got what they wanted$

SETI is another good example.

You really have no idea, do you?

Do you think apples and pears are the same fruits?

 

[AV1611VET]

Whoosh!

Whomever used that mousetrap as an example-- and I'm guessing cdesign proponentsists did -- they used the wrong example.

And got rightfully pwned for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You really have no idea, do you?

Do you think apples and pears are the same fruits?

Who was that poster here that helped build CERN in whatever country it was built in?

 

[BPPLEE]

Huh? I gave you link that addresses irreducible complexity, then you asked for a link explaining flagella - which I provided. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why the flagella explanation doesn't address irreducible complexity. Try this - if the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, any explanation of the flagellum doesn't need to address irreducible complexity.

I found the information I was looking for at Biologos but it isn't convincing.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I found the information I was looking for at Biologos but it isn't convincing.

If you're saying IC isn't convincing, I agree. If you're saying a rebuttal isn't convincing I'd ask "why not?"

 

[BPPLEE]

If you're saying IC isn't convincing, I agree. If you're saying a rebuttal isn't convincing I'd ask "why not?"

In their own argument they say the self assembly of such a complex machine almost defies the imagination. Their argument could be summed up as looks are deceiving

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In their own argument they say the self assembly of such a complex machine almost defies the imagination. Their argument could be summed up as looks are deceiving

OK, I can see how that would not be convincing. Poor choice of words from them.

 

[BPPLEE]

OK, I can see how that would not be convincing. Poor choice of words from them.

I'm still looking for other sources

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm still looking for other sources

...other sources can be found at BioLogos.org.

Maybe give that a shot!

 

[BPPLEE]

...other sources can be found at BioLogos.org.

Maybe give that a shot!

That's where the article I was quoting was posted at. This seems to be an argument that varies depending on your source. You can find articles both endorsing and dismissing irreducible complexity

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's where the article I was quoting was posted at. This seems to be an argument that varies depending on your source. You can find articles both endorsing and dismissing irreducible complexity

Sure. It's a live, ongoing discussion, even between Christians who practice science.

Personally, I don't even think there's a need to agree with either the Discover Institute or BioLogos or the Institute for Creation Research.

Being a Christian doesn't require that we also define ourselves as "Creationists." We can just be inquirers who are willing to look at various theories and evidences in science, and do so without pandering.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Was there a scientific rebuttal of irreducible complexity? I'm not trying to make a point I'm just curious.

Irreducible complexity was never a scientific idea, so it never needed a scientific refutation.

But to answer your question, yes -- IC was only supported by specific examples (the eye, for instance) to claim that only one possible cause (God) could exist... that such mechanisms could not have developed gradually.

Alas, aside from the fallacy of trying to prove a negative, for each example they provided, Evolutionists were able to show counter-examples that showed that gradual development could indeed happen.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But putting them on the lawns brings out the mission fields.

Can you think of any better bait?

"Bait" -- the key component in any trap.

Your language reveals your intentions.

 

[BPPLEE]

for the sake of argument, I use Ussher's dates and say the earth was created 23 October 4004 BC.

Well recorded history only goes back 5,000 years so there is that

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well recorded history only goes back 5,000 years so there is that

While the oldest written history may only be about 6,000 years old, there is a lot of older painting, symbols and signs of communication going back a lot further.

 

[BPPLEE]

While the oldest written history may only be about 6,000 years old, there is a lot of older painting, symbols and signs of communication going back a lot further.

But how far? Within 10,000 years?

 

[AV1611VET]

"Bait" --

Bait.

 

[BPPLEE]

Sure. It's a live, ongoing discussion, even between Christians who practice science.

Personally, I don't even think there's a need to agree with either the Discover Institute or BioLogos or the Institute for Creation Research.

Being a Christian doesn't require that we also define ourselves as "Creationists." We can just be inquirers who are willing to look at various theories and evidences in science, and do so without pandering.

I don't like being labeled a Creationist because that seems to imply YEC. People don't like being called Evolutionists because they say it is not a religious belief. Of course what you believe about creation has nothing to do with salvation and people are free to believe what they want. But if I don't believe everything about evolution people can't seem to accept that.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But how far? Within 10,000 years?

Closer to 64,000 years