Evidence for God from Science

Thanks BGood, that was an interesting post.

BGood makes no sense and you congratulate him?

Well I learnt something about flagellum even if no one else did.

But BGood was setting up a strawman, by saying that the flagellum would ONLY be irreducibly complex IF none of the parts had NO OTHER possible function-which is not what irreducible complexity says! LOL

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But BGood was setting up a strawman, by saying that the flagellum would ONLY be irreducibly complex IF none of the parts had NO OTHER possible function-which is not what irreducible complexity says! LOL

Well then lets take something like a hammer.
It appears to be designed.

But actually it has evolved over many iterations, to make it what it is today. Small tiny improvements and even asthetic changes have taken place over a long period of time.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But BGood was setting up a strawman, by saying that the flagellum would ONLY be irreducibly complex IF none of the parts had NO OTHER possible function-which is not what irreducible complexity says! LOL

Well then lets take something like a hammer.
It appears to be designed.

But actually it has evolved over many iterations, to make it what it is today. Small tiny improvements and even asthetic changes have taken place over a long period of time.

How about a Mouse Trap then. If you take one piece away does it still work?

bizzt wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But BGood was setting up a strawman, by saying that the flagellum would ONLY be irreducibly complex IF none of the parts had NO OTHER possible function-which is not what irreducible complexity says! LOL

Well then lets take something like a hammer.
It appears to be designed.

But actually it has evolved over many iterations, to make it what it is today. Small tiny improvements and even asthetic changes have taken place over a long period of time.

How about a Mouse Trap then. If you take one piece away does it still work?

No but the mouse Trap was developed within the framework of human technology. It could not have been created unless the spring and the metal used in its construction had not first been developed. Also the initial mousetrap I can assure you is not the same as the ones you can now purchase in a store. There have been many slight modifications to the design which have changed over time.

Also important to note the mouse trap would never have been developed to its current state unless mice were a problem in peoples homes. There was a pressure to develop and improve the trap. Be they predators or women standing on chairs screaming the pressure is real.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But BGood was setting up a strawman, by saying that the flagellum would ONLY be irreducibly complex IF none of the parts had NO OTHER possible function-which is not what irreducible complexity says! LOL

Well then lets take something like a hammer.
It appears to be designed.

But actually it has evolved over many iterations, to make it what it is today. Small tiny improvements and even asthetic changes have taken place over a long period of time.

A hammer isn't IR...it's basically a thick stick with a hard piece of metal at the top, and then two prongs to remove nails. A hammer is fully functioning as it "evolves" in your tool box. It is just improved. Your analogies do not work.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

bizzt wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But BGood was setting up a strawman, by saying that the flagellum would ONLY be irreducibly complex IF none of the parts had NO OTHER possible function-which is not what irreducible complexity says! LOL

Well then lets take something like a hammer.
It appears to be designed.

But actually it has evolved over many iterations, to make it what it is today. Small tiny improvements and even asthetic changes have taken place over a long period of time.

How about a Mouse Trap then. If you take one piece away does it still work?

No but the mouse Trap was developed within the framework of human technology. It could not have been created unless the spring and the metal used in its construction had not first been developed. Also the initial mousetrap I can assure you is not the same as the ones you can now purchase in a store. There have been many slight modifications to the design which have changed over time.

Also important to note the mouse trap would never have been developed to its current state unless mice were a problem in peoples homes. There was a pressure to develop and improve the trap. Be they predators or women standing on chairs screaming the pressure is real.

NOPE... It does not matter if the Mouse Trap is within the Framework of Human Technology or not. It was Designed for a Purpose and can only work being Fully Designed the way it is. Just the Same for a Flagellum. It was designed for a Purpose and Darwinian Evolution could not have Designed it.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But BGood was setting up a strawman, by saying that the flagellum would ONLY be irreducibly complex IF none of the parts had NO OTHER possible function-which is not what irreducible complexity says! LOL

Well then lets take something like a hammer.
It appears to be designed.

But actually it has evolved over many iterations, to make it what it is today. Small tiny improvements and even asthetic changes have taken place over a long period of time.

A hammer isn't IR...it's basically a thick stick with a hard piece of metal at the top, and then two prongs to remove nails. A hammer is fully functioning as it "evolves" in your tool box. It is just improved. Your analogies do not work.

Well at first it was just a rock used for pounding and perhaps it was also thrown as weapon. It may have been also used for scraping and polishing and sanding. In anycase eventually a stick was added to increase ease of use and striking power. Later nails were invented and the hammer took on a different purpose. Someone decided to add the prongs to remove the nails. The head has changed from copper to iron to cast iron to steel. The handle has changed from wood to carved wood to plastic.

You can say that the rock is the precursor of hammers, warhammers, pounder, mallet, polisher, guns, sledge, etc...

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But BGood was setting up a strawman, by saying that the flagellum would ONLY be irreducibly complex IF none of the parts had NO OTHER possible function-which is not what irreducible complexity says! LOL

Well then lets take something like a hammer.
It appears to be designed.

But actually it has evolved over many iterations, to make it what it is today. Small tiny improvements and even asthetic changes have taken place over a long period of time.

A hammer isn't IR...it's basically a thick stick with a hard piece of metal at the top, and then two prongs to remove nails. A hammer is fully functioning as it "evolves" in your tool box. It is just improved. Your analogies do not work.

Well at first it was just a rock used for pounding and perhaps it was also thrown as weapon. It may have been also used for scraping and polishing and sanding. In anycase eventually a stick was added to increase ease of use and striking power. Later nails were invented and the hammer took on a different purpose. Someone decided to add the prongs to remove the nails. The head has changed from copper to iron to cast iron to steel. The handle has changed from wood to carved wood to plastic.

You can say that the rock is the precursor of hammers, warhammers, pounder, mallet, polisher, guns, sledge, etc...

IT IS NOT IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX, NON SEQUITOR. And, give me a break, a hammer is not a physical precursor to a gun-it is a conceptual precurson, in that both are weapons meant to injure others, but not a physical precursor-and conceptual precursors mean jack to a cell-you need a physical precursor to an irreducibly complex biological machine. Conceptual precursors require intelligence, creativity, and, above all else, A MIND.