Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[Dan From Smithville]

AIG, Creation.org, Ray Comfort, Mike Seaver, anything in the ID movement, QAnon, etc., etc., etc. are not science sites, organizations or any sort of source for scientific information unless it is manipulated, distorted or taken out of context in promotion of the anti-science rhetoric that is the actual work product of those people and groups.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have seen no evidence and do not know of any evidence that people that accept scientific explanations have been deceived. Dubious claims from questionable sources is not evidence that anyone has been deceived or that valid scientific explanations are suddenly rendered to be nonsense.

It takes much more than zealous denial and an urge to establish un-evidenced, believed views as fact without any effort applied to supplant that which has evidence.

Declaring the Bible to be irrefutably proven would, in my opinion, be against the guidance of the Bible and is a false teaching. It would remove the value of faith and replace it with a flawed interpretation of scripture in my opinion. It seems like man's attempt to dictate to God as I see it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Then why do you always run away the posts that show you to be wrong?

I do not. You do,

Please document how any eye evolved, Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
The evolutionists made the claim and so you must prove it.
I will want the same for 100s of other irreducibly complex organs and functions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The existence of irreducible complexity is a creationist claim that has yet to be shown to exist or to be recognizable in any rational way if it does exist. So, it is the responsibility of creationists to provide the evidence, documentation, examples and where and when these irreducible structures or complexes first came to exist and that they have.

Keeping in mind that so far all attempts to do this have failed.

It would be a show of great intellectual honesty to see this carried out using evidence and reason without declarations of false victory, outright denial or just running away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not. You do,

Please document how any eye evolved, Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
The evolutionists made the claim and so you must prove it.
I will want the same for 100s of other irreducibly complex organs and functions.

You forgot the qualifications. One's questions need to be reasonable. Yours are not. One must be able to justify one's questions. You can not. Until you demonstrate a little more honesty here you are in no position to demand answers. I already laid out what you had to do in another post. You must have seen it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The eye, for instance has not been determined to be irreducibly complex in any way. Living things exist today with a varying array of light sensitive structures from patches of light sensitive cells to very complex and highly evolved eyes. This fact alone refutes claims of irreducible complexity for eyes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Irreducible complexity amounts an argument from ignorance and something that is logically impossible to demonstrate.

It is an argument from ignorance by claiming that what we do not know must mean that some structure or complex is irreducible. When Behe tried to sell examples of this ignorance he was defeated at every turn. Simplified versions with function for of every example he came up with were found and his claimed irreducible complexity was refuted.

It is not logically possible to find and test every potential iteration of a complex structure or its potential antecedents, so the irreducibility of a structure cannot be demonstrated or proven.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The eye, for instance has not been determined to be irreducibly complex in any way. Living things exist today with a varying array of light sensitive structures from patches of light sensitive cells to very complex and highly evolved eyes. This fact alone refutes claims of irreducible complexity for eyes.

Of course it is, Have you no understanding of how complex the eye and vision is?
Have you no understanding of how many proteins are involved?
Have you no understanding of the enzymes that are needed?
I could go on and on but obviously you no nothing just preach your false religion as if any of it is proven fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The eye, for instance has not been determined to be irreducibly complex in any way. Living things exist today with a varying array of light sensitive structures from patches of light sensitive cells to very complex and highly evolved eyes. This fact alone refutes claims of irreducible complexity for eyes.

It is up to those claiming that it is irreducibly complex to demonstrate that it is.

But as I have said, the fact that light detecting structures of varying complexity exist within extant living things refutes the claim of irreducible complexity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it is, Have you no understanding of how complex the eye and vision is?
Have you no understanding of how many proteins are involved?
Have you no understanding of the enzymes that are needed?
I could go on and on but obviously you no nothing just preach your false religion as if any of it is proven fact.

And the argument from large numbers is another logical fallacy. Just because you do not understand something does not meant that others do not understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fact that eyes of similar capacity of our own exist in other living things with differences and even with more useful structure derived developmentally from different cellular and tissue origins defeats the claim of irreducible complexity for eyes most soundly.

It is only rejected by those ignorant of these things with a desire to dictate how specific beliefs are practiced that reject these facts and repeat refuted claims as if they were some sort of universal truth when they are not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the argument from large numbers is another logical fallacy. Just because you do not understand something does not meant that others do not understand.

The idea that the existence of any sort of complexity must mean it is irreducible is completely irrational and not supported by any evidence. We see the evidence of increasing complexity evolving over time in many things and not the sudden appearance of high complexity out of no where.

The claim of irreducible complexity might as well be stated as the irrational belief that complex things create themselves.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The idea that the existence of any sort of complexity must mean it is irreducible is completely irrational and not supported by any evidence. We see the evidence of increasing complexity evolving over time in many things and not the sudden appearance of high complexity out of no where.

The claim of irreducible complexity might as well be stated as the irrational belief that complex things create themselves.

Your answer shows deep confusion. Of course irreducible complex functions and organs could not evolve from mutations which are just errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your answer shows deep confusion. Of course irreducible complex functions and organs could not evolve from mutations which are just errors.

Sorry, but you do not get to assume that irreducible complexity exists. Everyone that has tried to demonstrate it has failed.

So please support your claim properly. That means no creationist sources allowed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No one has shown that anyone that accepts the science is deeply confused about accepting the evidence and conclusions. This seems to be an attempt to insult and diminish those that do that have a personal agenda rather than anything substantial. They can believe as they choose or practice their belief as they choose, but they cannot find any means to refute the science other than attack those that disagree with them and can support that disagreement with more than declarations of unwarranted victory.

Again, I'm reminded of Matthew and the warnings against false teachers and teaching.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, but you do not get to assume that irreducible complexity exists. Everyone that has tried to demonstrate it has failed.

So please support your claim properly. That means no creationist sources allowed.

The response I've seen appears to be a petty attempt to attack others instead of supporting claims. You have to wonder why someone has to resort to that when victory and all knowledge has already been declared many times.

 

[John53]

The fact that eyes of similar capacity of our own exist in other living things with differences and even with more useful structure derived developmentally from different cellular and tissue origins defeats the claim of irreducible complexity for eyes most soundly.

It is only rejected by those ignorant of these things with a desire to dictate how specific beliefs are practiced that reject these facts and repeat refuted claims as if they were some sort of universal truth when they are not.

I want you to make me a roast leg of pork and get the crackling right. Along with roast potatoes, some steamed vegetables and gravy. I bet you can't because of your false religion of mayonnaise. You also have to do the dishes after.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The response I've seen appears to be a petty attempt to attack others instead of supporting claims. You have to wonder why someone has to resort to that when victory and all knowledge has already been declared many times.

When you have nothing there are few strategies that one can use. He emulates Donald Trump rather well, who not only lost by a landslide, but also lost 60 court cases where he alleged that cheating was going on. Often his claims were refuted by judges that he appointed. He does the same. Simply yells that he won when it is clear that he lost.

For his induction argument, which also relied upon irreducible complexity I pointed out that that was a rejected premise. Once one's premises are rejected one has to show that they are correct. But he just ran away.. All the while falsely claiming that he was not refuted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I want you to make me a roast leg of pork and get the crackling right. Along with roast potatoes, some steamed vegetables and gravy. I bet you can't because of your false religion of mayonnaise. You also have to do the dishes after.

I want to give this several frubes, but can't. I'm going to go with funny, but winner is also applicable.

I've done that. I would do it for an anti-mayonnaise heretic too. No problem.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm still waiting for irreducible complexity to be demonstrated. I've been waiting a long time already.

It is fortunate that I enjoy the sounds of crickets in the evening.