(December 31, 2018 at 4:59 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 31, 2018 at 1:59 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: DNA is nothing like machine code. That you continue to repeat this lie simply demonstrates that you are a liar.

Watch the video in my signature.

Why? I already know you are lying.

(December 31, 2018 at 1:34 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 31, 2018 at 1:18 pm)sdelsolray Wrote: Says the one who stated earlier in this thread that he has not even read Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell.

No, but I have done enough reading and video watching on the web.  More than a single book could contain.

Not only does CDF47 recycle/repeat infantile apologetics for his lack of understanding of science and his patterned religious beliefs, he invents apologetics for his own behavior.

(December 31, 2018 at 12:49 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

---

(December 31, 2018 at 8:57 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Be..._testimony

He never admitted to lying as was claimed in this thread.

---

Wrong! To wit:

"Behe was forced to concede that '...there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred...'[46] and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify.[47] Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that '...the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond...' and that '...it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billion years.'"[46][48][49]

"Complexity" remains undefined.
No one has ever defined *exactly* what is "too complex" (in terms of either chemistry or function) to arise naturally, and thus require a designer.
No one can say exactly what the boundary is.
No one can say or provide examples of "not complex enough" - thus needs no designer, or what the exact boundary is for "too complex, needs a designer".
"Complexity" is a fake undefined category.

(December 31, 2018 at 10:23 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: "Complexity" remains undefined.
No one has ever defined *exactly* what is "too complex" (in terms of either chemistry or function) to arise naturally, and thus require a designer.
No one can say exactly what the boundary is.
No one can say or provide examples of "not complex enough" - thus needs no designer, or what the exact boundary is for "too complex, needs a designer".
"Complexity" is a fake undefined category.

Complexity in Molecular Recognition

It's not that anybody has trouble defining complexity, it's that pseudo Internet scientists claim it's "fake."  But then again, anybody intelligent enough to Google "complexity" could figure out it's usage.

(December 31, 2018 at 10:51 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Complexity in Molecular Recognition

It's not that anybody has trouble defining complexity, it's that pseudo Internet scientists claim it's "fake." 

Lie. "specified complexity" is fake.

(December 31, 2018 at 10:51 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: But then again, anybody intelligent enough to Google "complexity" could figure out it's usage.

Sure. But that is not the claim made. Strawman.

Quote:

(December 31, 2018 at 10:23 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: "Complexity" remains undefined.
No one has ever defined *exactly* what is "too complex" (in terms of either chemistry or function) to arise naturally, and thus require a designer.
No one can say exactly what the boundary is.
No one can say or provide examples of "not complex enough" - thus needs no designer, or what the exact boundary is for "too complex, needs a designer".
"Complexity" is a fake undefined category.

Complexity in Molecular Recognition

It's not that anybody has trouble defining complexity, it's that pseudo Internet scientists claim it's "fake."  But then again, anybody intelligent enough to Google "complexity" could figure out it's usage.

You are SO frightfully uneducated, you cannot even understand what you are reading. 
That article supports MY position. 
And still no boundary is proposed. 

"Though molecular recognition seems to be a complex and emergent property, a rationale for the diastereoselectivity of carbohydrate receptors was obtained by a combination of experimental data, free energy simulations and ab initio calculations."

(December 31, 2018 at 11:11 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(December 31, 2018 at 10:51 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Complexity in Molecular Recognition

It's not that anybody has trouble defining complexity, it's that pseudo Internet scientists claim it's "fake." 

Lie. "specified complexity" is fake.

(December 31, 2018 at 10:51 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: But then again, anybody intelligent enough to Google "complexity" could figure out it's usage.

Sure. But that is not the claim made. Strawman.

Did he say "specified complexity" in his post?  Nope, I believe he didn't.  If your excuse for him wasn't so obvious it might've worked.

---

(December 31, 2018 at 11:33 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:Complexity in Molecular Recognition

It's not that anybody has trouble defining complexity, it's that pseudo Internet scientists claim it's "fake."  But then again, anybody intelligent enough to Google "complexity" could figure out it's usage.

You are SO frightfully uneducated, you cannot even understand what you are reading. 
That article supports MY position. 
And still no boundary is proposed. 

"Though molecular recognition seems to be a complex and emergent property, a rationale for the diastereoselectivity of carbohydrate receptors was obtained by a combination of experimental data, free energy simulations and ab initio calculations."

Nope.  Nice try though.

If you understood what scientific study does and does not attempt to do, you would realize why it's hard to take you seriously.  As soon as you start digging at the "supernatural" and making negative assertions, you're starting to go in the other direction.  What you're obviously doing is taking the conclusions of others, who are actual scientists, and applying it to your belief that there is no God or even a need.

Quote:Where did you see that Dr. Behe left?

The fact he left

Quote:Nope.  Nice try though.

If you understood what scientific study does and does not attempt to do, you would realize why it's hard to take you seriously.  As soon as you start digging at the "supernatural" and making negative assertions, you're starting to go in the other direction.  What you're obviously doing is taking the conclusions of others, who are actual scientists, and applying it to your belief that there is no God or even a need.

Bla bla bla. 

LOL. pathetic liar. No one said anything about the "supernatural". Nothing. 

Neither did I make any negative assertion, or go in "another" direction. 
All that garbage is nothing but a bunch of meaningless drivel to deflect from the fact that you misinterpreted the very article you ignorantly posted. 
You are nothing but an ignorant troll and a total fraud. 

Still no defined god. Still no defined "complexity". Still no established boundaries. Still absolutely nothing.  
Time you found another hobby which you have some skill at. You're really bad at this one. 

Get back to your prayers and talking to your imaginary friends, Bozo.