The creator did it.

[He has Risen!]

All of it. Do you know what he claimed?

Of course. I have read his books and realized one thing, a system cannot function without the right parts in the right place and having those parts to be the right size. Behe's point of the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellar rotary motor has no precursor as Darwinian evolution demands and it needs all the parts to be there in order to function. Looks to me as if Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, explains to us that molecular machines should not exist if Darwinian evolution is to be believed.

 

[He has Risen!]

Time is a factor. Even if it took only thousands of years that means the whole process cannot be repeated in the laboratory. Scientists break problems like abiogenesis into key parts and they have been able to reproduce some of those results.

There is evidence for abiogenesis. I have yet to see any reliable evidence for creation. Why believe in something without valid evidence?

Occam's Razor is a great starting point. The simplest explanation should be preferred to the more complex. So let us begin with the universe, according to our modern scientific understanding we have come to understand that it had a beginning. In science we have known that everything that begins to exist has a cause. It had to be a cause that preexisted before the universe and that had the power to bring it into existence as the Kalam cosmological argument states. The Christian God claims to be such a being, and proved it when He raised His Son from the dead nearly 2019 years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course. I have read his books and realized one thing, a system cannot function without the right parts in the right place and having those parts to be the right size. Behe's point of the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellar rotary motor has no precursor as Darwinian evolution demands and it needs all the parts to be there in order to function. Looks to me as if Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, explains to us that molecular machines should not exist if Darwinian evolution is to be believed.

What makes you think that there was no precursor? That is a rather bold assumption. The problem is that Behe said that the flagellum would not work unless all parts were in place. That is not true. It also has a built in false assumption. The assumption is that those parts are only for a flagellum when the structure works just fine doing other things besides rotating. In other words it evolved out of existing parts with only minor changes needed. No multimutation jumps were needed at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Occam's Razor is a great starting point. The simplest explanation should be preferred to the more complex. So let us begin with the universe, according to our modern scientific understanding we have come to understand that it had a beginning. In science we have known that everything that begins to exist has a cause. It had to be a cause that preexisted before the universe and that had the power to bring it into existence as the Kalam cosmological argument states. The Christian God claims to be such a being, and proved it when He raised His Son from the dead nearly 2019 years ago.

You are misapplying it. A God is far more complex than any natural process.

 

[He has Risen!]

What makes you think that there was no precursor? That is a rather bold assumption. The problem is that Behe said that the flagellum would not work unless all parts were in place. That is not true. It also has a built in false assumption. The assumption is that those parts are only for a flagellum when the structure works just fine doing other things besides rotating. In other words it evolved out of existing parts with only minor changes needed. No multimutation jumps were needed at all.

Maybe you should read his books more carefully, you then might start to realize the gravity of his assertion.

 

[He has Risen!]

You are misapplying it. A God is far more complex than any natural process.

The explanation that is the simplest may draw on a subcategory that is understood enough to be incorporated in the explanation but may not be fully understood as to it's power or nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you should read his books more carefully, you then might start to realize the gravity of his assertion.

There is no "gravity" to them. His argument was refuted with a simple mousetrap. You do not understand Behe's strategy. What he did was to pick a few problems that were at the time at the cutting edge of the science. His argument was an argument from ignorance. No one was impressed. Meanwhile science moves on. Now the flagellum is well understood. I could post a simple video on it. That video is based upon a paper that goes into much greater depth. And that paper is based upon the work of well over 200 peer reviewed papers which were linked. Behe was shown to be a fraud in the Dover Trial and it has only gone downhill for him since.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The explanation that is the simplest may draw on a subcategory that is understood enough to be incorporated in the explanation but may not be fully understood as to it's power or nature.

God is never simple which is why you are misusing it. "Magic" is never an explanation.

 

[Firemorphic]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

The problem is the connotation with the word "create" (which I do not use myself) and "creator" (which I also do not use myself) taken in the sense that someone may create a table by assembling bits of wood and nails. That way of thinking about these words are both exactly not what they mean in the theistic sense and they are one of the things (when taken in that way) which makes people think that they're "Atheists"

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is the connotation with the word "create" (which I do not use myself) and "creator" (which I also do not use myself) taken in the sense that someone may create a table by assembling bits of wood and nails. That way of thinking about these words are both exactly not what they mean in the theistic sense and they are one of the things (when taken in that way) which makes people think that they're "Atheists"

You are no more in a position to judge who and who is not an atheist than I am in a position to judge who is and who is not a Muslim.

Your strawman only fools other Kool Aid drinkers. Try to find another argument.

 

[Firemorphic]

You are no more in a position to judge who and who is not an atheist than I am in a position to judge who is and who is not a Muslim.

Your strawman only fools other Kool Aid drinkers. Try to find another argument.

These words are irrelevant to the topic discussed, you just highlighted and affirmed my statement (not argument) which was exactly that: These words are irrelevant to the topic discussed.

"Created", "Creator", "Theist", "Atheist". Throw out those words and discuss the actual semantics.

p.s. that was far from a strawman

 

[He has Risen!]

There is no "gravity" to them. His argument was refuted with a simple mousetrap. You do not understand Behe's strategy. What he did was to pick a few problems that were at the time at the cutting edge of the science. His argument was an argument from ignorance. No one was impressed. Meanwhile science moves on. Now the flagellum is well understood. I could post a simple video on it. That video is based upon a paper that goes into much greater depth. And that paper is based upon the work of well over 200 peer reviewed papers which were linked. Behe was shown to be a fraud in the Dover Trial and it has only gone downhill for him since.

Once again I think you need to read his books because in his first book "Darwin's Black Box" it is the simple mouse trap with its basic components that support Behe's claim, not the other way around. Have you seen the video on you tube "Inner Life Of A Cell"? It shows the amazing handy work of an engineer beyond our own capabilities. Everything in the cell knows what to do and where to go like a well oiled automated factory. It is simply amazing to those of us who are both logical and rational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These words are irrelevant to the topic discussed, you just highlighted and affirmed my statement (not argument) which was exactly that: These words are irrelevant to the topic discussed.

"Created", "Creator", "Theist", "Atheist". Throw out those words and discuss the actual semantics.

p.s. that was far from a strawman

Drop your strawman and we might have a conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again I think you need to read his books because in his first book "Darwin's Black Box" it is the simple mouse trap with its basic components that support Behe claim, not the other way around. Have you seen the video on you tube "Inner Life Of A Cell"? It shows the amazing handy work of an engineer beyond our own capabilities. Everything in the cell knows what to do and where to go like a well oiled automated factory. It is simply amazing to those of us who are both logical and rational.

His books were thoroughly refuted. They were based upon poor arguments. His irreducible complexity was merely an argument from ignorance and when the various problems he cited were solved he had less than nothing.

 

[Firemorphic]

Drop your strawman and we might have a conversation.

Stop trolling and use your mind.

 

[Firemorphic]

Drop your strawman and we might have a conversation.

Also, you are called to outline eloquently were and what the strawman is rather than using it to dodge proper conversation. It's too easy for you, I know

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop trolling and use your mind.

How am I trolling when I point out the obvious flaw in your debating technique? Please don't make false accusations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also, you are called to outline eloquently were and what the strawman is rather than using it to dodge proper conversation. It's too easy for you, I know

I would be more than happy to have a proper conversation. But what you posted was a strawman. If you did not understand you should have asked..

 

[Firemorphic]

Please don't make false accusations.

That's all you are doing and you are simply trolling and falsely accusing me of fallacies without proving them. You're a joke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's all you are doing and you are simply trolling and falsely accusing me of fallacies without proving them. You're a joke.

No, you are only rudely describing yourself. Your make believe version of god is very nebulous and you think that makes it superior to the make believe version of god that others believe in. Meanwhile you openly lie about the beliefs of atheists. That is not only wrong it is rude. I have been more than polite with you, merely pointing out your errors and offering discussion. Honestly is hard to come by in theists defending their beliefs. Perhaps you could surprise me.