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.
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.Why?
You really have no idea, do you?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.
Whomever used that mousetrap as an example-- and I'm guessing cdesign proponentsists did -- they used the wrong example.Whoosh!
Who was that poster here that helped build CERN in whatever country it was built in?You really have no idea, do you?
Do you think apples and pears are the same fruits?
I found the information I was looking for at Biologos but it isn't convincing.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.
If you're saying IC isn't convincing, I agree. If you're saying a rebuttal isn't convincing I'd ask "why not?"I found the information I was looking for at Biologos but it isn't convincing.
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 deceivingIf you're saying IC isn't convincing, I agree. If you're saying a rebuttal isn't convincing I'd ask "why not?"
OK, I can see how that would not be convincing. Poor choice of words from them.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
I'm still looking for other sources
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...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
Was there a scientific rebuttal of irreducible complexity? I'm not trying to make a point I'm just curious.
But putting them on the lawns brings out the mission fields.
Can you think of any better bait?
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.Well recorded history only goes back 5,000 years so there is that
But how far? Within 10,000 years?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.
Bait."Bait" --
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.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.
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?