(May 15, 2018 at 6:47 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 11:59 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Scientists are not finding that in these molecular machines.  They are finding that they are irreducibly complex or can serve as different machine types under different variants.  See post above.

The whole point is that irreducibly complex systems cannot have evolved by natural means because any system containing fewer parts would not function, and failing to function, the organism would not survive to be able to reproduce itself to eventually evolve the irreducibly complex function.  If you admit that the organism could survive with a degraded irreducibly complex system, and thereby offer a path by which the irreducibly complex function could have evolved.  By admitting that an irreducibly complex system had a functional precursor, even though the functions are different, you've essentially gutted the concept of irreducible complexity.


You're so bad at this that you don't even understand your own talking points.  All that comes out of you is a river of nonsense.

---

(May 15, 2018 at 12:43 am)CDF47 Wrote: LOL...I was wrong about the flagellum and the pump being irreducibly complex but the system below it is irreducibly complex.  Not sure of any other errors.

It has been well demonstrated that even in the case where any reduction to an organ prevents it from fulfilling what seem to be its observer to be its only function, the organ in fact has served or can still serve other functions that might be mistakenly judged secondary.   Example of this includes the bird like wings in therapod dinosaurs, and the carapace eye on certain deep sea crustaceans.   So to prove something to be irreducible complex, not only must one demonstrate the organ can not serve its present function if reduced from its present form, one must also demonstrate it could not serve any other conceivable functions at all in any of its possible evolutionary paths.

Since it is essentially impossible to deduce without evidence all possible evolutionary paths leading up the present organ, Demonstrating some feature to be irreducible complex in the biological sense is a logically impossible task.   The basis of irreducible complex is the assumption that if one is not clever enough to conceive of a feasible evolutionary development path, then none could exist.   In other words It presuppose where the observer is ignorant, there is no knowledge to be had.

So irreducible complexity is not wrong.  It is not EVEN wrong.   It is not a proposition sufficiently formed to be even theoretically capable of being assigned the status of right or wrong.   It is a pure useless bullshiting piece of smoke screen for creationists.

Which is perfectly fitting, as the creed of creationism assumes ignorance is king.

The god of Christian is nothing but ignorance wrapped in a golden cloak, assigned personalities that are projection of the most flaccid and the most unmentionably disgraceful aspects of common psychology, and stood up as a figurehead and scarecrow in the way of any discovery that might discomfort the small, needy and conceited minds.

(May 14, 2018 at 5:24 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 5:22 pm)Wololo Wrote: No I'm laughing at you because it is pointless expecting an intelligent conversation with you.  I'm having my bit of fun, winding down and relaxing after a hard day's work ploughing through child welfare reports the district's guards have to write up.

Ah, you are laughing at someone.  I hope you are not over the age of 16.  It would really make you look bad.

Why would laughing at somebody richly deserving ridicule reflect badly on me? Either you're a true believer in your bullshit or you're a troll. Both instances are worthy of ridicule.

CDF47 Wrote:It is too sophisticated to come from the dumb environment.  It comes from advanced intelligence.  Design is detectable.

Those are all unsupported assertions. You have to explain WHY sophisticated information can't come from the 'dumb environment'. How sophisticated does something have to be before it can't come from the 'dumb environment'? It would be helpful if there were units of sophistication that could be used to measure whether something was too sophisticated to come from the 'dumb environment'. Then, MAYBE, you could start to be able to justify your claims about advanced intelligence and detectability.

Hint: What you're calling 'detectability' is inference, and the basis for the inference is intuition. Intuition can lead to interesting avenues of investigation, but it's not evidence or proof.

---

CDF47 Wrote:They are about molecular machines.  They are short videos that show how some molecular machines operate.  There are a number of good videos on this.

And what's with all the videos? They're hardly ever germane to the topic at hand. No one said that molecular machines aren't wonderful or don't exist. We said that they are not irreducibly complex, and videos that aren't making a case for irreducible complexity are irrelevant and just waste our time. We can find cool videos on our own without your help if we want to.

---

CDF47 Wrote:Provide a post number where I lied.

#2059

---

CDF47 Wrote:I believe you are spiritually blinded.

And I believe that severe confirmation bias causes you to think you're right even though you can't support your assertions, or even explain why your conclusions follow from your premises.

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Mathilda Wrote:What does this mean? Please describe the process by which one can be spiritually blinded.

There are a number of causes for spiritual blindness; such as pride, ignorance, following blind leaders, caring what other people think rather than the truth, rebellion against God,...  When you are spiritually blind you are separated from God and you continue to lie to yourself.  

The spiritually blind must cry out to God for help but often their pride stops them.  Many remain willfully ignorant.  They must lose their pride, humble themselves, and seek the light, which is Jesus Christ for salvation.

Thanks for that explanation. According to that, my assessment of your problem is that you are 'spiritually blind' due to pride and ignorance.

Spiritual blindness?

Heeheeheeheehee! Just a feeble excuse used by butt-hurt believers to "explain" (mostly to their own egos) why other people don't believe the same things as they do.

What a presumptuous, arrogant and bogus diagnosis.

I'm going to throw out a bit of info.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that makes an argument invalid. The conclusion can still be correct, but it does not follow. All fallacies are essentially forms of 'non sequitur'. For example, I am a male human, male humans are Mister Agenda, therefore I am Mister Agenda. My conclusion is correct, but the argument I used to reach it is flawed due to the fallacy it contains. Fallacies can be formal or informal. An informal fallacy is one in which the flaw in reasoning isn't due to the form of the argument, that is, the argument may be valid in symbolic form, but flawed when it comes to specific cases.

An argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy in which an appeal is made to lack of contrary evidence to assert something is true. Thousands of people go missing every year and we never find out what happens to them. Since we don't know what happened to them, it must be aliens.

The argument from incredulity, aka 'the divine fallacy', is an informal fallacy where you make your inability to comprehend something your argument. I can't understand it, so it must not be true. I don't understand how it could not be true, so it must be true. I don't understand where lightning comes from, and Thor makes more sense to me, so it must be Thor. In my opinion this is a type of argument from ignorance.

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy in which sufficiency is confused with necessity. If A, then B. B, therefore A. If God, then the universe. The universe, therefore God. If a designer, then DNA, DNA, therefore a designer. If you own a ton of gold, you are rich. You are rich, therefore you own a ton of gold.

If you use fallacies, it doesn't make your conclusion wrong, but it does mean that what you have provided to support your conclusion does not actually support it.

Quote:There is a review process for edits and some are changed back on topics like this.  Here is a non-wiki source (https://www.nature.com/subjects/molecula...and-motors).  There are many others. Below is a video of the flagellum motor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFq_MGf3sbk

These don't  support your case .And considering nature is anti creationist .....

(May 14, 2018 at 3:03 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

---

(May 14, 2018 at 2:58 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: What does "will" mean in this context?

God's plan for humanity.  His will.

How does this "god" implement the "plan"?
What is the technique?
What things does it use?

(May 15, 2018 at 7:28 am)CDF47 Wrote: What do atheists think, that the DNA code wrote itself.  That is something most software engineers would laugh at.

That’s why software engineers are not scientists.

Being an engineer means one could recite some of what science has discovered that has immediate application to a task.   It is somewhat like a Christian could recite the Bible, the Muslim could recite the Koran, the Buddhist can chant a mantra or you can chant the nonsense about irreducible complexity, they were told what is true and how to apply it, and have no real ability to replicate, validate or extend the process of original discovery.  

But being an engineer does not even begin to bridge the gap to actually doing science, which is a process of active discovery and validatiom of models that can demonstrably provide predictive analogues to the going’s on in the real world, and is thus quite unlike a Christian reciting the Bible, the Muslim reciting the Koran, the Buddhist chanting a mantra or you chanting irreducible complexity.

Exactly. I believed a load of woo (new age mysticism) in my first degree when I was learning computer science and learning how to be a software engineer. It was only during my masters in evolutionary & adaptive systems that I properly learnt the scientific method and realised quite how flawed my thinking had been. It was an extremely painful experience.

Can we spot a pattern?

DNA contains specified and complex god-information.  That's how we know it;s designed, because its different than random and simple shannon information....which was also designed.

There are molecular machines that are irreducibly complex.  This shows us that they are designed.  Except when they aren;t irreducibly complex and can serve many functions in many configurations.......which is also shows us they were designed.

A demonstrates b, unless Not A, in which case Not A -also- demonstrates b.  

I bet if he;d elaborated on kinds we'd end up hearing that a kind is a kind except when it isn;t a kind and thats how we know its a kind.