Human Devolution?

[Believer]

How did these irreducible systems come into being, was it a creation event or did an intelligent designer guide its development through time?

Same thing . Creation IS from an intelligent designer, and one who says there isn't a divine designer has issues as you can't conjure up a system that allows for no designer, it wouldn't make sense how E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G came into existence. If some skeptic here actually knows of a way that E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G can come from NOTHING, please prove it.

[Blob]

one who says there isn't a divine designer has issues.

There isn't a divine designer.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

How did these irreducible systems come into being, was it a creation event or did an intelligent designer guide its development through time?

Same thing . Creation IS from an intelligent designer, and one who says there isn't a divine designer has issues as you can't conjure up a system that allows for no designer, it wouldn't make sense how E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G came into existence. If some skeptic here actually knows of a way that E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G can come from NOTHING, please prove it.

I am sure we discussed this earlier, science does not have an answer to explain everything. It is an evolving collaborative effort to try to describe the natural world. It can only be from faith in something or someone for anyone to claim to know all the answers as there is not enough physical evidence to proove either way.

[Blob]

If some skeptic here actually knows of a way that E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G can come from NOTHING, please prove it.

I don't know and I can't prove it. But I did air some ideas to which I was disappointed to see you didn't respond to in this post amongst others...

I wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the universe, there was nothing, a blank slate, so how do these "particles" exist?

I totally agree that quantum vacuum fluctuations do not necessarily say anything about how the known universe came into existence. The reason for this is simple high school set theory, which states that the properties of a set are not necessarily the properties of members of that set. If the universe is considered as a set of quantum events (amongst other members) then it does not follow that it necessarily shares the properties of those quantum events.

However, neither are quantum vacuum fluctuations necessarily not what 'banged' in the big bang. Indeed, some physicists are playing with an idea, called cosmic inflation, that the universe is in some sense a kind of big quantum fluctuation.

To answer your question "how do these 'particles' exist" I would be happy to provide some reading material but it would be useful to know your level of mathematics so I can select appropriately.

Even before nothing there still was nothing, it would continue for infinity.

How can nothing continue for infinity? Time is a property of the known universe, not of nothing. If there is nothing there is no time and if there is no time there is no "continuing for infinity".


Hope that's interesting. I have to say I rather get the impression you feel annoyed with people who do not share your opinion of how we came to be here on planet Earth; and as such you wish to pigeon hole such people and put words in their mouths in order to discredit them. I hope I am mistaken and forgive me for saying that if I am.

Discussions like this can get rather heated and unpleasant if we are not civil and do not genuinely listen to one another. I have made an effort to find common points and agree with you where I can. Please return the favour. Of course, where I disagree I have said so and expect you will do the same.

I look forward to your response.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Believer]

one who says there isn't a divine designer has issues.

There isn't a divine designer.

Have you researched ALL the evidence of any kind for the existence of God?

This is because I am not sure - maybe I am wrong and there is a god.

ORIGINAL STATEMENT

Then you are agnostic, not atheist, but it clearly looks like you are an atheist from the first quote, even though you preferred to call yourself an atheist in the first place. Why make an agnostic statement if you are atheist?

As such am interested in "researching" what christians are like.

ORIGINAL STATEMENT

What is the reason you are "interested in "researching" what christians are like"? If you are an atheist and you firmly have stated that you wish to not become religious, then why do you want to know what Christians are like? What good is it going to give you?

[Blob]

one who says there isn't a divine designer has issues.

There isn't a divine designer.

Have you researched ALL the evidence of any kind for the existence of God?

It was a joke. I even put a wink emoticon.

This is because I am not sure - maybe I am wrong and there is a god.

ORIGINAL STATEMENT

Then you are agnostic, not atheist, but it clearly looks like you are an atheist from the first quote, even though you preferred to call yourself an atheist in the first place. Why make an agnostic statement if you are atheist?

I said you are welcome to call me an agnostic. I don't, but you can, that's cool with me.

To me an atheist is someone who answers yes to this question: "Are you an atheist?" It's not a perfect definition and it's open to subjective interpretation. Tear it to shreds if you so wish. As we all know the definitions of atheist and agnostic are not set in stone and are open to debate. If such a debate would interest you then please feel free to start a thread on the subject and I would be delighted to share perspectives with you.

As such am interested in "researching" what christians are like.

ORIGINAL STATEMENT

What is the reason you are "interested in "researching" what christians are like"? If you are an atheist and you firmly have stated that you wish to not become religious, then why do you want to know what Christians are like? What good is it going to give you?

As I explained in my intro post I am increasingly surrounded by religious people. I have already mentioned in the intro thread that my mother converted not too many years ago. And that is not all. I would open up and tell you more but your hostile, impatient tone does not make me feel like doing so here and now. I fear you may just throw it back in my face rather than be genuinely interested in my story.

[Believer]

As I explained in my intro post I am increasingly surrounded by religious people. I have already mentioned in the intro thread that my mother converted not too many years ago. And that is not all. I would open up and tell you more but your hostile, impatient tone does not make me feel like doing so here and now. I fear you may just throw it back in my face rather than be genuinely interested in my story.

By all means, please present your story. My "hostile, impatient tone" is the result of atheists being exposed for who they are, leaving in defeat, therefore I find the SAME arguments and debates that come up every day incredibly asinine, as the answers have probably already been provided in some other thread under a certain topic. I just get a little heated when an atheist comes forth and claims to have the mind of god and know everything and they know for a FACT that they are right.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Oh ok. You seem to know your stuff. Over to you BGood!

Thank you Blob!
=)
However, noone has shown any system to be irreducibly complex yet. Once someone does I will refute. Bringing up examples does not show understanding of the material at hand, and I refuse to discuss matters of complex chemestry with someone who does not understand it.

As nobody has brought up an example, let us continue the argument on the basics of irreducible complexity. How did these irreducible systems come into being, was it a creation event or did an intelligent designer guide its development through time?

Uh...point dexter, yes we did bring up examples...and you quoted bizzt and said he's wrong, with no authority except your own

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Oh ok. You seem to know your stuff. Over to you BGood!

Thank you Blob!
=)
However, noone has shown any system to be irreducibly complex yet. Once someone does I will refute. Bringing up examples does not show understanding of the material at hand, and I refuse to discuss matters of complex chemestry with someone who does not understand it.

As nobody has brought up an example, let us continue the argument on the basics of irreducible complexity. How did these irreducible systems come into being, was it a creation event or did an intelligent designer guide its development through time?

Uh...point dexter, yes we did bring up examples...and you quoted bizzt and said he's wrong, with no authority except your own

I never said bzzt was wrong!
I told him that the flagellum is an excellent example, and I asked someone to clarify in detail what about the flagellum is irreducily complex. And only then could I begin refuting. You see the burden of evidence is on the person claiming irreducible complexity.

[bizzt]

Could you please give a specific example of a a biological system - let's say an organ rather than an organism for clear focus - that you consider irreducibly complex so that we can take this enlightening discussion forward in a productive manner?

How about a Flagellum (sp?)

Ah you picked a good one!
Fist you explain to me how the flagellum is irreducibly complex because it is a complex chemical system, and this discussion will require advanced understanding of chemistry.

And not only will I show you how it isn't irreducibly complex but also that there is even a precursory molecular process!

Oh ok. You seem to know your stuff. Over to you BGood!

Thank you Blob!
=)
However, noone has shown any system to be irreducibly complex yet. Once someone does I will refute. Bringing up examples does not show understanding of the material at hand, and I refuse to discuss matters of complex chemistry with someone who does not understand it.

Sorry been away from this Thread for a while. I do not have an Advanced Understanding of Chemistry. I have a basic Understanding and of course rely on others to show me where that would be Wrong. So I am sorry can you tell me why it is not an Irreducible System? Maybe I can understand it better

[BGoodForGoodSake]

You can't take a system which is complex and remove a component thus destroying it and claim it irreducible. If it took much trial and error to add components then it goes that it would take much trial and error to remove one. Take modern oil distribution for example. Remove the tankers and oil will never get to the United States. Using Irreducible Complexity you have to say that oil tankers and cars had to have appeared at the same time because without Tankers enough oil would never get to the United States.

Some would counter with, well oil was collected in the United states so there was another source at first.

Very well then lets keep this in mind.

A multicellular organism is like a colony of single celled organisms which has found a way to communicate and cooperate to maintain a self contained environment. Now everyone has heard of Hox genes but does anyone really know what they encode for? Well of course proteins, but these proteins bind to DNA itself. And when it does so it causes those genes to be expressed which in turn build new proteins. Its a chaotic three dimentional domino effect.

Its in a way a very complex chemical reaction which is going on here.

Now a claim to be irreducible tries to implie that the system had to be designed. But how does being irreducible prove something has been designed?

Lets now take a look at the Flagellum. Now the system is said to be irreducibly complex because for the flagellum to work thirty different proteins need to work together in concert. Now to make this system Irreducible most if not all of thoses proteins need to have no other functions at all, because of course if they did then they could have been just slight modifications of existing proteins. Also these proteins need all be essential.

But wait, there are many different examples of flagellum, all of which work using different protein combinations.

Now someone might point our what exactly is causing the flagellum to move? Well it seems suspiciously like a another system found in bacteria which is used to excrete waste material.

Its quite possible that the flagellum cound have originated as a faulty version of this system.

Those familiar with chemistry know that some chemical reactions occur no matter what.

In a system where there are a few underlying principals, random occurences tend to sort themselves out.

Take for example the game of tennis. Its a simple game with a few rules. But this allows players to adopt a number of different techniques and use a variety of different ever evolving technologies in order to compete. Now the players in this game include the equipment as well as the individuals. And as one would note there is room for the ultra-expensive pro level equipment as well as inexpensive beginner equipment. As long as people are willing to purchase the equipment it will continue to be produced. If there is a flaw in the design or if a new design comes along which effects all areas of the sport they will be discontinued.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I have come to the beleif that this is not the right forum to disprove irreducible complexity, however I will remain on this forum to help clarify any confusions or misunderstanding of science and its applications.

=)

[Believer]

I have come to the beleif that this is not the right forum to disprove irreducible complexity, however I will remain on this forum to help clarify any confusions or misunderstanding of science and its applications.

So you say Michael Behe's book - Darwin's Black Box - is incredible false material, when EXTREME HARDCORE atheists such as yourself know that other atheists haven't been able to disprove it?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Lets now take a look at the Flagellum. Now the system is said to be irreducibly complex because for the flagellum to work thirty different proteins need to work together in concert. Now to make this system Irreducible most if not all of thoses proteins need to have no other functions at all, because of course if they did then they could have been just slight modifications of existing proteins. Also these proteins need all be essential.

BGood, you can't refute irreducible complexity...because you aren't TALKING about irreducible complexity. Behe has already said that Miller, among other rabid atheists, has distorted his argument and put up strawmen-one of them being what I quoted you as saying.

But wait, there are many different examples of flagellum, all of which work using different protein combinations.

What does this have to do with anything? This is like saying that because there are different kinds of sports cars, they evolved naturally.

Its quite possible that the flagellum cound have originated as a faulty version of this system.

You're assuming that another unamed irreducibly complex system is in place, and then try to refute the idea...

Bgood, I suggest you read Behe's book, or go to discovery.org and search using Behe or irreducible complexity-he refutes everything you've said...none of your statements had anything to do with irreducible complexity.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

And I'm guessing one of the laws you're thinking of is natural selection...and here's the kicker-natural selection 1) cannot help make irreducibly complex machines because they must be working to working first, and 2) it would in fact hinder the evolution of irreducibly complex machines...because until the thing is working, the cell is wasting energy making stuff that does nothing.