Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
What would it take?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jerry Smith" data-source="post: 162531" data-attributes="member: 2568"><p>Louis, I'm sorry. I haven't been clear enough. When I said this:</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>I was referring to the part that is pure speculation... My explanation followed. That was a rephrasing of the speculative objection you made to evolution when you asked how such systems could have come to be. I will rephrase it again, to be clear:</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>You are saying that because a system must have all parts in place in order to function, all of its parts must have developed at the same time. That is not true, as the scaffolding effect explains... </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Again, the real explanation is this:</strong></p><p><strong>A system developed that worked fine without some certain parts. Later, those parts were added. Later, the system lost the ability to work without them. Now (in the present), the system cannot function without those parts, but that is only because it lost the ability to perform certain functions without them after they were added on.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Does that help clear things up? I'm sorry for not being clear enough in my first explanation.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Thanks!</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jerry Smith, post: 162531, member: 2568"] Louis, I'm sorry. I haven't been clear enough. When I said this: [B] I was referring to the part that is pure speculation... My explanation followed. That was a rephrasing of the speculative objection you made to evolution when you asked how such systems could have come to be. I will rephrase it again, to be clear: You are saying that because a system must have all parts in place in order to function, all of its parts must have developed at the same time. That is not true, as the scaffolding effect explains... Again, the real explanation is this: A system developed that worked fine without some certain parts. Later, those parts were added. Later, the system lost the ability to work without them. Now (in the present), the system cannot function without those parts, but that is only because it lost the ability to perform certain functions without them after they were added on. Does that help clear things up? I'm sorry for not being clear enough in my first explanation. Thanks![/b] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
What would it take?
Top
Bottom