Irreducible complexity and Evolution

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

That argument is nonsensical because if what you said is true than it was still intelligent design which allowed for evolution...
That I have no problem with...

clearly you do have a problem with it.... One of your opponents is a polythiest

and has admitted many times that he has no issue with the idea of a creator... just not on the Christian time line, or God for that matter

again, evolution does not deal with Creation...

a reply to: Akragon

Once more I'll repeat myself...
Why then does evolution claim all life stems from a single ancestor born from inorganic matter?
This is a direct claim for "creation"
Figure it out...
Now this leads back to my statements from pages ago...
Back when I was talking about cells and their complexity... About their programming...
Do you believe that original cell formed proteins after programming itself?
Cells are not globs of carbon like Darwin originally claimed at all... In reality they are irreducably complex...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

On the time line they give... why would it not stem from a single cell organism?

at one point in this planet's past the earth was just a molten ball of rock... Once it cooled and water was eventually introduced... sure why not?

its obvious life started in water... all life needs it

Then it progressed to land close to water... over millions of years it makes perfect sense

Poof... God did it, makes no sense at all

a reply to: Akragon

So a life form that would have had gills came out of the water and poof formed lungs...
If you want to claim it had both well it would have drowned before it made land...

That makes no sense at all...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

So a life form that would have had gills came out of the water and poof formed lungs...

That makes no sense at all...

You're right...

but that life form tested the land...and so did its offspring.. and eventually over hundreds of thousands of generations evolved primitive lungs... and legs instead of fins

a reply to: Akragon

Never happened...
You believe That?
Do you believe mutations add new information?
Irreducable complexity says it doesn't...
There is no known process that causes information to be created...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Never happened...

Well... apparently it did

See science kinda has the upper hand... evidence

a reply to: Akragon

You mean faith...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

You mean faith...

nah... this is basic science

and theres evidence of it all over the place... hell we have things in our body that have no rational purpose

IF we are the product of intelligent design... the creator was a moron

Funny though, that is also part of my beliefs

a reply to: Akragon

Basically wrong...
The Cambrian explosion alone shows a diversity directly contradictory to the premise of gradual change...
And things that are not understood does not equate to no logical purpose...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

says you...

which isn't saying much honestly

a reply to: 5StarOracle

The Cambrian explosion alone shows a diversity directly contradictory to the premise of gradual change...

we can see and do observe gradual change in species that exist in suburban areas... im sure you'll call it adaption though... science seems to call them subspecies which are different from others in the same species

And things that are not understood does not equate to no logical purpose...

actually those things are quite well "understood"... products of evolution... or in other words, things we don't use anymore

a reply to: Akragon

Honestly you have not said much...
Why do you suppose evolutionists have resorted to purposeful fraud so many times?
Why has so much evidence been dismissed?
Evolution is dying a slow painful death...

a reply to: Akragon

Things not used anymore or to be used again if needed do not equate to no logical purpose either now does it?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Honestly you have not said much...
Why do you suppose evolutionists have resorted to purposeful fraud so many times?
Why has so much evidence been dismissed?
Evolution is dying a slow painful death...

i would say religion is dying a slow painful death

And im sure the "evolutionists" can easily answer your question

Things not used anymore or to be used again if needed do not equate to no logical purpose either now does it?

actually they do...

There is no logical purpose to many things in the human body...

a reply to: Akragon

Do you think the appendix is one of those?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Do you think the appendix is one of those?

i did... but it has been found that it does have a purpose more or less

Funny that it contains substances that are poisonous to the body though... ironic?

a reply to: Akragon

So just like the appendix other things are misunderstood or not yet understood...
Not without logical purpose...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

well no, because every one of those illogical parts can be explained at a point in our species's evolutionary past when there was a need for said parts

a reply to: Akragon

You can believe that until proven otherwise just like with the appendix if you wish...