Darwin's Illusion

[shunyadragon]

That is a straw man, I didn’t say that 1 mutation is (or should be) enough to get a flagellum or an eye.

I said that each individual step has to be 1 mutation (steps and mutations are synomimous in this context)

All you did was change the definition of “step” to mean something different from what I meant originally.

The same problem, each step does not require just one mutation. steps and mutation are NOT synonymous in this process.

It remains you have failed to watch the video or read the references and nothing you have said relates to the material provided

 

[YoursTrue]

NO NO NO,

My claim is the Behe has not been refuted

My claim is not that IC excist........ but rather that we dont know and that the proposed examples have not been refuted.

to make an analogy, I would put IC in the same status I woudl put the "multiverse hypothesis" nobody has proven the existance of other universes, but they have not been refuted ether.......... it´s a valid hypothesis but we dont know (yet) if it is true or not


You are the one (it seems to me) that is claiming that Behe has been refuted (shown to be wrong)


I am making this clear because I don’t want future accusations of “moving the goal post”


I apologize for wrongly accusing you for making a strawman btw

I agree with you (--I think, unless I missed something you are saying) but so many do not want to admit what you are saying is t.r.u.e. I guess it would hurt their thinking. Again, and it makes sense to me-- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1. The discussion here about irreducible complexities brings out more about the logic that nothing comes from nothing. Period. It's ridiculous that some would argue over it. However God did it, it is beyond figuring in the detailed sense. If some want to argue it, it isn't because their argument makes sense. But that's my viewpoint now after having seen comments here and otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I woudl disagree with that (in red) …… I am assuming that this is a point of disagreement between you and I

Then you do not understand Behe's original argument.

If you show that you were not lying (the same way you showed that you were not making a strawman) you will get the apology

You actually need to demonstrate that someone was lying for your post to be true. He has no burden of proof on that mater.

I agree, but the author of the article doesn’t seem to agree with you, ……… and neither does @It Aint Necessarily So otherwise he would have not quoted the article.

This is a classical example of

1 hey Leroy this article refutes the argument

2 Leroy then refutes the article

3 ohhh but that article is not relevant

I have never seen you refute an article so this appears to be a strawman argument on your part.

 

[John53]

I agree with you (--I think, unless I missed something you are saying) but so many do not want to admit what you are saying is t.r.u.e. I guess it would hurt their thinking. Again, and it makes sense to me-- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1. The discussion here about irreducible complexities brings out more about the logic that nothing comes from nothing. Period. It's ridiculous that some would argue over it. However God did it, it is beyond figuring in the detailed sense. If some want to argue it, it isn't because their argument makes sense. But that's my viewpoint now after having seen comments here and otherwise.

Show us your proof.

 

[shunyadragon]

I woudl disagree with that (in red) …… I am assuming that this is a point of disagreement between you and I

It is not simply a point of disagreement, because you lack entirely the basics of organic chemistry, genetics, and evolution. You are making an assertion with no background in science.

If you show that you were not lying (the same way you showed that you were not making a strawman) you will get the apology

The mechanical mouse trap foolishness has absolutely nothing to do with the complexity of life, organic chemistry, and genetics. An actual hypothesis based on the sciences involved with the complexity of life is necessary with references concerning basic organic chemistry, genetics,

This is how science works, It remains obvious you not only lack the basic science, not read the references or watched the video but you make ridiculous non-science statements such as each step must require only one mutation, which is so ridiculous you might as well be on the cow jumping over the moon.

 

[leroy]

You made no references to the article to refute it. Please cite the references specifically where you refuted them.
Your statements do not reflect the references.

It is obvious you did not read or watch the video.

the article that I adresses is this one (shared by @It Aint Necessarily So )

Darwin's Illusion

you didnt read my post, did you? I did when it was written. You are splitting hairs because you know that you are wrong again.

www.religiousforums.com

the articles that you shared dont disagree with any of my cliams

no I havent seen the video

 

[leroy]

The same problem, each step does not require just one mutation. steps and mutation are NOT synonymous in this process.

It remains you have failed to watch the video or read the references and nothing you have said relates to the material provided

Again if by step and mutation you mean different things then the only problem is that we are using different definitions.

Apart from irrelevant semantics, none of the articles that you quoted in that post contradict anything that I said

 

[leroy]

I have never seen you refute an article so this appears to be a strawman argument on your part.

• post #8,415

in that post I adressed and refuted an article-


https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/darwins-illusion.256530/post-8239244

 

[YoursTrue]

Show us your proof.

Proof that the big bang came from nothing? Is that what you mean??

 

[John53]

Proof that the big bang came from nothing? Is that what you mean??

Proof of the claims you made in your post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Proof of the claims you made in your post.

That is the point, you evidently missed it. Either matter and the universe came from nothing, or it did not. I leave the rest up to you.

 

[John53]

That is the point, you evidently missed it. Either matter and the universe came from nothing, or it did not. I leave the rest up to you.

You claimed God created heaven and earth. Show me the proof.

You have said you don't believe the science explanations because there is no proof so surely you must have proof of your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

• post #8,415

in that post I adressed and refuted an article-


Darwin's Illusion

No, you didn't. You merely denied it. Perhaps you did not understand Behe's original claim, in which case that would have made your argument a strawman argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again if by step and mutation you mean different things then the only problem is that we are using different definitions.

I go by science which is the basis of my view and my references

Apart from irrelevant semantics, none of the articles that you quoted in that post contradict anything that I said

You have not read the references. watched the video or presented anything coherent that refutes the natural causes of complexity based on objectively verifiable evidence.

Your statement that one step involves one mutation is not found in any scientific literature..It is your own imagination here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well that is my point………. We can´t know if something is IC unless we have a clear and detail understanding on the genetic steps necessary to go from a simple organ to a complex organ

This is just nonsense. We cannot know if a structure is irreducible, because we cannot survey all possible iterations of the structure. Claiming a structure or pathway is irreducible has failed every time.

There isn't anything else to discuss. The claim of IC was devastated a long time ago and it seems only those that either don't want to understand or simply don't understand are the only people bringing it back up.

 

[shunyadragon]

• post #8,415

in that post I adressed and refuted an article-


Darwin's Illusion

Silly mechanical mouse traps can only refute whether they can trap mice or not. Absolutely nothing to do with the falsification of hypothesis by the sciences of life and evolution concerning the natural evolution of complexity.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

That is the point, you evidently missed it. Either matter and the universe came from nothing, or it did not. I leave the rest up to you.

Our universe did not come from nothing, it came from a singularity or possibly cyclic.

There is no evidence that absolute nothing ever existed.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is just nonsense. We cannot know if a structure is irreducible, because we cannot survey all possible iterations of the structure. Claiming a structure or pathway is irreducible has failed every time.

There isn't anything else to discuss. The claim of IC was devastated a long time ago and it seems only those that either don't want to understand or simply don't understand are the only people bringing it back up.

Claims by some scientists have been made that "something" came from nothing. You know, like the substance in the 'Big Bang." Do they know how the material really began or was formed? So complex or not, you think they know? Or rather do they imagine it based on theories? Going by scientific guessing? How simple or complex is it from the beginning? Want to take a try?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is just nonsense. We cannot know if a structure is irreducible, because we cannot survey all possible iterations of the structure. Claiming a structure or pathway is irreducible has failed every time.

There isn't anything else to discuss. The claim of IC was devastated a long time ago and it seems only those that either don't want to understand or simply don't understand are the only people bringing it back up.

Either there was "nothing" at the beginning of the universe or there was not nothing. How difficult (or complex) is that? Very difficult?

 

[YoursTrue]

You claimed God created heaven and earth. Show me the proof.

You have said you don't believe the science explanations because there is no proof so surely you must have proof of your claim.

What science explanations? We're talking about the concept of irreducible complexities. How reducible do you think these complexities can be?