Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Clotting system with reduced components were found. Molecular motors with reduced components were found. All Behe had to do was look to nature and he would not have been stuck in a court case having to admit that he cannot test for IR.
This is a statement of belief. You are giving your subjective opinion. It is not a scientific conclusion that is defensible based on careful analysis.
Except that it was shown that for each of the claimed examples of IR, reduced systems already existed.
No I just give evidence for the support of evolution while ID gives worthless objections without support. Give the example - any example that is without doubt evidence that ID is the explanation. As for evolution there is the phylogenetic progression of gene complexity. The evidence that mutations in genes that control genetic expression have profound influence on expression and can occur without an intelligent designer. Progressive fossil evidence with respective geological strata confirmed with dating analysis. And lets not forget that the so called ID would have to be constantly adjusting the genetic code which would be evidence as clear changed in the genetic code unexplainable by natural factors which there is no evidence for. So before you make desperate claims using words like crap you better have something to back them up with.
No. It is a statement of fact. You cannot demonstrate your belief. You could have 100 people review the same thing that you are claiming is evidence and potentially have 100 different subjective opinions about what it means. That is not science. That is belief.
The evidence for evolution is in out world supported with evidence which you ignore because of your wish for there to be intelligent design to justify your existence. The evidence however supports evolution instead and you cannot give any evidence to support ID. You can believe whatever you want but it is not based one what is real in our world but only real in what you want to believe.
My favorite example refuting irreducible complexity was Kenneth Miller's destruction of the mouse trap example by removing parts and using the reduced form as a functional tie clip.
What evidence. You have not give us any evidence only your opinion.
If it were based on evidence, then it would not be a belief. Intelligent design is not a view based on evidence. Your denial is not a substitute for a valid argument.
Yes they do. We have current evidence for this and it has already been presented. The genetic code has the capacity to create variation and those variations that give advantage are selected. Simple yet effective. Our very ecological environments show the complex relationships that give the pressure for natural selection and thus alter the genetic sequences towards the phenotypic presentations that survive better. This by itself has lead to increasing complexity that favors survival. No need for an intelligent designer when ecological demands are sufficient to explain what has happened. No need to introduce something impossible to prove when all that is needed is already here.
He and I are so much alike, I would not be doing him justice to misspell his name.
You have not given anything that cannot be explained by natural forces. What is your very best evidence that is undeniably intelligent design. We already know that the genetic code is changed and influenced by natural factors so you have to do better than just say DNA. Research has already shown how the pyrimidine base pairs developed in the prolife earth and there is evidence how they would polymerize to form sequences. So what is you very vest evidence?
Once the first living things with the capability to reproduce and pass on heritable variation existed, radiation into what must have been numerous niches is easily understandable.