DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

CFD47, why did your designer incorporate defects?

I believe in the fall of man.  I believe in the Christian God of the Bible.  We are designed to grow old and die and be flawed.

[brewer]

CFD47, why did your designer incorporate defects?

I believe in the fall of man.  I believe in the Christian God of the Bible.  We are designed to grow old and die and be flawed.

Ah.......... so a punishing designer based on the flaws in his design. Fantastic!

[CDF47]

And redundancies such as men having nipples.

It doesn't hurt anything and it is because men and women have the same body plan up until a certain point in the womb.

[Amarok]

It doesn't hurt anything and it is because men and women have the same body plan up until a certain point in the womb.

Redundant does not mean harmful and it is harmful as it makes men susceptible to things like breast cancer . And their is no reason an intelligent designer would not simple have them be absorbed or removed in some fashion. This makes no sense if life is designed . But it makes perfect sense in evolution.

Remember IDiots can always make up imaginary reasons something is there. It make it up as you go pure and simple .

[CDF47]

Please don't refer to people as tards which is a derogatory term for retards who have mental health problems.

Please stop saying 'retards'. I don't even think you're trying to be funny or ironic, which just makes it more cringe-worthy.

---

Back to molecular machines.  They are irreducibly complex, meaning if one part fails the entire system is degraded or fails to operate.  We haven't really touched on irreducible complexity much.  We discussed CSI (Complex Specific Information) and molecular machines but not irreducibly complex machines.

In addition, in order to be irreducibly complex in the ID sense, there has to be no series of natural changes that could have led to the 'irreducibly complex' structure. Thus far, not a single proposed 'irreducibly complex' structure has passed that basic requirement. We understand how structures like that can form. Are you mystified when you see a stone arch?

There's a good reason not to touch irreducible complexity. Behe is a laughing stock because all of his examples of 'irreducible complexity' have been debunked, which was to be expected since the whole idea is just another argument from incredulity: I can't imagine how this natural thing could have been formed by natural processes, so it must not have been.

---

Bacterial flagellum motor is irreducibly complex as well as other molecular machines.

Oh my. That was rebutted decades ago. We now have an excellent idea of how the 'flagellum motor' evolved, now. I appreciate Behe for drawing attention to that area for research, though, even if it was only by pointing at it and going 'I don't see how evolution could do THAT!'

You've got to understand something, CDF. To us you sound like someone trying to convince us that Santa Clause MUST be real because there's not other possible way kids could be getting al those presents. Sure, MOST of them come from parents and other relatives, but ALL of them? You must be determined to be blind not to see that only a miraculous being can account for ALL of them.

---

No, you use ridicule as a debate tactic like your leader Richard Dawkins has instructed you.

It's not a debate tactic. It's an expression of frustration at your repetitive assertions and genuine amusement at some of the silly stuff you try to peddle. You've failed to earn much respect here, and staying the course isn't going to help with that. Note that we have theists that we DO respect in our community. You don't have to agree with us to earn our respect. But your basic go-to tactic of 'does TOO prove a designer' just doesn't cut it.

---

It is irreducibly complex but a reduced version of it can serve as a pump.  It's brilliant.

Another way to phrase that would be 'it's irreducibly complex, except it's reducible'.

---

I understand irreducible complexity.  If a component is removed the system fails or is degraded.  It is a simple concept.

Not as simple as you make it out to be. To work against evolution, it has to refute one of the central claims of evolution: that a plausible variation in an organism could have led to a highly functional current system by a series of tiny improvements being conserved. A degraded system is still more useful than one that has no useful function, so it will be conserved until it is no longer useful or a variation occurs that makes it useful. It was Behe's claim that 'irreducible complexity' meant that there was no possible natural evolutionary path to the irreducibly complex system. For every example of irreducible complexity proposed, a plausible evolutionary path has been found. That's all it takes to refute the 'irreducible complexity' argument, which, as I said, was just an argument from incredulity in the first place.

---

I understand irreducible complexity.  If a component is removed the system fails or is degraded.  It is a simple concept.

Not as simple as you make it out to be. To work against evolution, it has to refute one of the central claims of evolution: that a plausible variation in an organism could have led to a highly functional current system by a series of tiny improvements being conserved. A degraded system is still more useful than one that has no useful function, so it will be conserved until it is no longer useful or a variation occurs that makes it useful. It was Behe's claim that 'irreducible complexity' meant that there was no possible natural evolutionary path to the irreducibly complex system. For every example of irreducible complexity proposed, a plausible evolutionary path has been found. That's all it takes to refute the 'irreducible complexity' argument, which, as I said, was just an argument from incredulity in the first place.

---

The machine under the pump is irreducibly complex so it is no longer just an assertion.

It's just an assertion if you don't explain what makes it irreducibly complex. You're saying that there's no possible way that piece of molecular machinery could have evolved naturally. Support that, and it will no longer be just an assertion.

---

The only way for something to be irreducibly complex is for the removal of a single item in the system to cause that system to fail.

To pick a nit, you could remove a single piece and disable the whole system without it being irreducibly complex. It's possible for certain structures that enabled the evolution of the system to no longer be necessary and therefor have been lost due to natural selection. Like scaffolding for a stone arch. As long as an evolutionary path where each variation was useful to the organism's reproductive success can be plausibly constructed, the claim of irreducible complexity is refuted; because it must be irreducible in principle.

---

Romans 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."  Information in DNA, molecular machines, the fine-tuned universe, the Big Bang theory, living system body plans, consciousness,....  His attributes are perceived in the things He made.

All of that is 'just assertions'.

---

The entire case was BS from what I read.  I read in one case the judge just copy and pasted the scientists notes and made minor tweaks.

You JUST said it should be the scientists making the determination not the judges.

And Behe admitted under oath that by the same logic he was using, they'd be obliged to teach astrology in astronomy classes.

No, you guise stop saying that.

Behe's arguments for irreducible complexity are solid and stand to this day.

It was never debunked.

It is too bad I haven't earned your respect but I would rather spread the truth.  If stating facts is unpopular, so be it.

No, it is called co-option.  They are each irreducibly complex machines.

Scientists have found no intermediary steps for irreducibly complex machines.

The machine is complex and specific and comes from a highly sophisticated and functional code.

No response.

No response.

No response.

[Amarok]

I believe in the fall of man.

Rubbish make believe life has always had defects because life is not directed.  

I believe in the Christian God of the Bible.  

Make believe 

We are designed to grow old and die and be flawed.

Ad Hoc make believe . Their is no reason a god would do this . It makes perfect sense only in a naturalistic universe .

---

No, you guise stop saying that.

No 

Behe's arguments for irreducible complexity are solid and stand to this day.

No it has not it's been debunked six ways from sunday by real science .

It was never debunked.

Yes it was over and over and over and over . Behe is a fraud and as liar . 

It is too bad I haven't earned your respect but I would rather spread the truth.  If stating facts is unpopular, so be it.

To bad you have not stated any 

No, it is called co-option.  They are each irreducibly complex machines.

Nope 

Scientists have found no intermediary steps for irreducibly complex machines.

False but also irrelevant and fallcious  

The machine is complex and specific and comes from a highly sophisticated and functional code.

Nope 

No response.

Bollocks 

No response.

Bollocks 

No response.

Bollocks

[CDF47]

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.

---

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.

The article below provides better information on irreducible complexity:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...php/id/840

---

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.

Grow up and stop being a keyboard tough guy.

[Amarok]

The article below provides better information on irreducible complexity:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...php/id/840

[url=http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840][/url]propaganda site full of ID rubbish .

Grow up and stop being a keyboard tough guy.

Right after you stop confusing fairy tales for science

[Anomalocaris]

Behe's arguments for irreducible complexity are solid and stand to this day.

It was never debunked.

It is too bad I haven't earned your respect but I would rather spread the truth.  If stating facts is unpopular, so be it.

No, it is called co-option.  They are each irreducibly complex machines.

Scientists have found no intermediary steps for irreducibly complex machines.

The machine is complex and specific and comes from a highly sophisticated and functional code.

No response.

No response.

No response.

Irreducible complexity does not even rise to the level of bunk.  To qualify as bunk it must make unique testable prediction.   It predicts nothing, and it solely expresses the opinion that it’s advocates are so stupid they can not even imagine how others can ever be not quite as stupid as they are.

[Amarok]

Behe's arguments for irreducible complexity are solid and stand to this day.

It was never debunked.

It is too bad I haven't earned your respect but I would rather spread the truth.  If stating facts is unpopular, so be it.

No, it is called co-option.  They are each irreducibly complex machines.

Scientists have found no intermediary steps for irreducibly complex machines.

The machine is complex and specific and comes from a highly sophisticated and functional code.

No response.

No response.

No response.

Irreducible complexity does not even rise to the level of bunk.  To qualify as bunk it must make unique testable prediction.   It predicts nothing, and it solely expresses the opinion that it’s advocates are so stupid they can even imagine how others can ever be not quite as stupid as they are.

He will claim behe's lame ass prediction . That never actually came true and was easily refuted or he will go back his fallacy of "you have not found i precursor i will accept therefore there isn't one". Pure fallacy .