The Case For God [Spirituality & Religion]
They can say, there is no God all they like, but it wouldn't be the truth.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI]
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
A drawn-out, very tedious splurging of CGI, sophistry, and selective omissions.
How old is this nonsense? It seems to be centred around the Argument from Personal Astonishment ([i]i.e.[/i] I don't understand what I'm looking at, therefore magical entities exist).
It has Behe rabbiting on about bacterial flagella and trying to present that as an example of irreducible complexity! Oh, seriously? That has long been discredited, and the evolutionary development of the bacterial flagellum is well-understood.
This pap even makes the claim that Behe (and 'others'!) have identified examples of irreducible complexity... yes, states that lie without a shred of shame... [i]even though creationists have yet to present even a single example of irreducible complexity[/I]. (Behe now avoids the topic).
Don't you have anything from this century (or even from the later decades of the last century?)
How old is this nonsense? It seems to be centred around the Argument from Personal Astonishment ([i]i.e.[/i] I don't understand what I'm looking at, therefore magical entities exist).
It has Behe rabbiting on about bacterial flagella and trying to present that as an example of irreducible complexity! Oh, seriously? That has long been discredited, and the evolutionary development of the bacterial flagellum is well-understood.
This pap even makes the claim that Behe (and 'others'!) have identified examples of irreducible complexity... yes, states that lie without a shred of shame... [i]even though creationists have yet to present even a single example of irreducible complexity[/I]. (Behe now avoids the topic).
Don't you have anything from this century (or even from the later decades of the last century?)
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]That has long been discredited, and the evolutionary development of the bacterial flagellum is well-understood.[/quote]
When? By whom?
[quote]even though creationists have yet to present even a single example of irreducible complexity[/I]. (Behe now avoids the topic).[/quote]
Did you watch the whole video or did you just turn it off in the middle?
When? By whom?
[quote]even though creationists have yet to present even a single example of irreducible complexity[/I]. (Behe now avoids the topic).[/quote]
Did you watch the whole video or did you just turn it off in the middle?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Please stop relying on stuff that is several decades old... some of us have our heads in the 21st century. I'll give you a quick primer on bacterial flagella. If you'd like more detail, I'd be happy to provide that for you... but [i]only[/i] if you're going to actually read it.
Protruding from many bacteria are long spiral propellers attached to motors that drive their rotation, and these molecular structures are referred to as bacterial flagella.
They are made of around 40 different protein components, and creationists used to claim that a flagellum is useless without every single one of these components, so could not have emerged gradually via mutation and selection (they no longer make that claim).
The first thing to note is that the term [i]‘the’[/i] bacterial flagellum is misleading. There are thousands of different flagella in bacteria, and they vary considerably from one species to another.
The best studied flagellum, that of the [i]E. coli[/i] bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella. This means that [i]it is possible to make considerable changes to the molecules composing flagella without messing them up.[/i]
What’s more, of these 23 proteins, [i]just two are unique to flagella[/i]. The others are all proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum were [i]already present in bacteria before this structure appeared.[/i]
Additionally, some of the components that make up a typical flagellum (the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system) perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.
These two fact alone… that flagella vary greatly and that at least some of the components and proteins of which they are made can carry out other useful functions in the cells… show that they are not 'irreducibly complex'... which is why previous advocates of that claim (e.g. Michael Behe) now no longer make such a claim.
In fact, creationists have still to demonstrate even a single example of irreducible complexity.
Protruding from many bacteria are long spiral propellers attached to motors that drive their rotation, and these molecular structures are referred to as bacterial flagella.
They are made of around 40 different protein components, and creationists used to claim that a flagellum is useless without every single one of these components, so could not have emerged gradually via mutation and selection (they no longer make that claim).
The first thing to note is that the term [i]‘the’[/i] bacterial flagellum is misleading. There are thousands of different flagella in bacteria, and they vary considerably from one species to another.
The best studied flagellum, that of the [i]E. coli[/i] bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella. This means that [i]it is possible to make considerable changes to the molecules composing flagella without messing them up.[/i]
What’s more, of these 23 proteins, [i]just two are unique to flagella[/i]. The others are all proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum were [i]already present in bacteria before this structure appeared.[/i]
Additionally, some of the components that make up a typical flagellum (the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system) perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.
These two fact alone… that flagella vary greatly and that at least some of the components and proteins of which they are made can carry out other useful functions in the cells… show that they are not 'irreducibly complex'... which is why previous advocates of that claim (e.g. Michael Behe) now no longer make such a claim.
In fact, creationists have still to demonstrate even a single example of irreducible complexity.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@redredred No, He wouldn't need a creator because He's the one and only Creator that lives forever.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Please stop relying on stuff that is several decades old[/quote]
It is not several decades old. It's true today and it will be true tomorrow.
It is not several decades old. It's true today and it will be true tomorrow.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 do you understand that I've just demonstrated that your claim that bacterial flagella are irreducible complex is false?
This means that the claim was false when it was first made, is false today, and will still be false tomorrow.
This means that the claim was false when it was first made, is false today, and will still be false tomorrow.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 Some Christians seem to have difficulty in understanding anything other than their own religious beliefs.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Bushranger What appals me is that their indoctrinators continue to peddle stuff that they know is false, and through such wilful deception continue to make a handsome income by fleecing the gullible and the uninformed.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 Yep, and the punters keep falling for it. There's supposed to be a separation of Church and State, wouldn't it be wonderful if there was also a separation of Church and Science.
Now wait for the comments about my use of the words religious and Church lol.
Now wait for the comments about my use of the words religious and Church lol.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 All you've done is still prove there's a Creator.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@redredred [quote]If irreducible complexity were proof of the need for a creator, your god would need a creator and so on ad infinitum.[/quote]
Of course. They can't or refuse to understand that any claim they make in respect of their god could just as easily be applied to the universe itself, thus rendering their god redundant. It's nothing more than an unnecessary complication.
Of course. They can't or refuse to understand that any claim they make in respect of their god could just as easily be applied to the universe itself, thus rendering their god redundant. It's nothing more than an unnecessary complication.
CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F
@newjaninev2 @suzie1960 @GodSpeed63 @Bushranger The irreducible complexity argument is a proven fallacy. Any biological entity thought to be irreducible has, in fact, been reduced