Evidence for God from Science

...

(making it inoperative as a flagellum BUT performing another function If you do show simpler systems these simpler (or I would call "different") systems still have a function of some sort, another function as you say. What needs to be laid out is all the intermediate forms going up to the...

Evolution has many different meanings, you have merely one, that is fine since when I discuss evolution with Darwinists I am discussing their view of evolution. When you say "evolution involves neither" you are making evolution to be absolute, as in the context of chance and randomness, th...

The flagellum is not necessary for life. I don't understand how you came to this conclusion given your own words, you say: *the bacteria is unable to propel itself You mean that it is indeed IC? *must rely on other mechanisms for active propulsion Since it relies on external mechanisms to perform t...

Since this is a dedicated thread to discussion of IC, I thought I'd copy my response from the other thread here: Most of the "irreducibly complex" structures have been shown to be not so irreducible after all. True, no one has shown that a bacterial flagellum actually did actually develop ...

Hi waynepi, please continue about IC on GMAN's new thread from this point on...thanks!

If the middle members of a ring species die out, the ends might very well be taken as different species. Of course, if the middle does die out, would the ends be recognized as the remaining members of a ring? Quite possibly not. If the end species cannot reproduce (this means not that they choose n...

David Blacklock wrote:What failed Darwinian logic?

DB

A sign of great confidence? Take note that you have not even shown a single example that demonstrated any new species spawning due to RM, NS, genetic drift etc... And you believe your logic is sound? It is built around that premise, my hardcore Darwinian friend.

David Blacklock wrote:>>doing a measley job of attacking Darwin<<

Attacking the opponent is one of the Socrates fallacies of logic. So I guess that's a disguised compliment to the creationists and IDers.

DB

Attacking failed Darwinian logic is the logical thing to do.

Finally, don't you think creationism and ID deserve a few pokes and jabs?

DB

Not really. Although, they have been doing a measly job attacking Darwinian evolution, IMHO, they could be doing much much more...If they deserve a few pokes and jabs, its for not trying hard enough.

I have read this article twice just in case I was missing something substantial. I was right the first time around that it is laughable the way the so called evidence is presented, all jumbled and gobbled around, compiled with speculations, assumptions, taking some obvious jabs and pokes at creation...

Gman wrote:If God made the dinosaurs for oil then he probably would be guilty of creating our high CO2 emissions as well.... Not good in my opinion.

But if God anticipated for CO2 emissions its possible that CO2 emissions aren't that bad at all

So the only thing we're left with is a sipritual rather than a physical image. I think this is significant, but I still don't think TE can be reconciled with the spiritual. As much as the chance worshipers believe we physically evolved they also believe we spiritually evolved via random causes. Con...

no problem

CliffsofBurton wrote:No. It is a History textbook.

Right, and the historicity of it in general seems to be valid according to many findings in archeology. Some things are not so clear.