The Miracle of Water.

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, wrong assumption.
That leads to wrong conclusions.

Many JW's do believe that. Perhaps you should be clear about your own beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You must’ve not read my previous posts, lol.

I’m constantly pointing out “valid flaws”!

Well, I must have missed that. What is so valid about what you consider a flaw in what I posted that you have to turn this thread into one about me? Look at it from my perspective and that of the other scientists on this forum. We are educated, trained in and practice science for a living. We read your posts and recognize that what you conclude is not based on the evidence. You ignore evidence. You use logical fallacies or poor reasoning to come some conclusion that is so obviously forced that even those that are not scientists see it.

Irreducible complexity (which has not been debunked, sorry)...

Sorry. It is. You have been given valid evidence to show that it has not been demonstrated, nor can it be. How can all the possible iterations of a structure be tested to ensure that one is irreducible? How would you know if all had been tested? How do you know if something is immortal?

The evidence found in the Cambrian Explosion (still waiting to find those precursors)...

Many Pre-Cambrian fossils are known. You must have missed that. Even if they were not, what does that mean? It is not evidence that they all just miraculously were created. There is nothing among that fauna that resembles anything in Genesis.

Are you suggesting that your religion exists in a gap in our knowledge? Do gaps mean that everything is wrong. There are gaps in all knowledge.

The sheer diversity of species (billions), explained as originating through natural selection of random mutations? Funny stuff!...

See what I mean. You are not making a valid argument. You are just scoffing it off without any reason, except that is what your church tells you to do.

The E. coli LTEE (even after 65,000+ generations under lab-controlled conditions, no macroevolution observed)....

Etc.

Evolution was observed. Do you have a well-supported definition of macro-evolution that is recognized by science? Speciation falls under macro-evolution. What are the number of genetic changes that are required to occur in order for it to be macro-evolution? Can you provide the scientific definition of kind? What animals have all the traits of mammals, but are not mammals? How is sex the cause of disease? If so, why is anyone that engages in sex not at risk from sexually transmitted diseases? After all, I have it on poor authority that sex is the cause of disease.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Kudos for him in that. I just had a run-in with a creationist when he was shown to be in error he went into a massive personal attack series. Unlike those in the sciences that often relish being shown to be wrong if one shows some creationists to be wrong they will attack you.

EDIT: Oops, I may have spoke to soon. One flaw of @Hockeycowboy is that he abuses the rating system. He just incorrectly used an "optimistic" rating on one of my posts. Ironically he cannot understand that can only mean that I am optimistic when I hope that he can face reality. Oh the self defeating irony of creationism.

Like a lot of people, it gets personal for them, but I don't see anything mean spirited as I see in some. @Hockeycowboy strikes me as a likable person if I knew him in real life, unlike some.

I have noticed that it is common among the JW's when you have irked them and they have nothing valid to come back with in response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The sheer diversity of species (billions), explained as originating through natural selection of random mutations? Funny stuff!...

I see that you have to ignore other aspects of evolution. You are forgetting natural selection. That means that evolution is no "random". If you watched and understood the video of Richard Dawkins on eye evolution you would have understood this. In a species random variation mans that there will be a wide range of traits. Some will do better in one environment than another. Natural selection advances those individuals that are best adapted to the current environment. Change the environment and one changes the species.

The E. coli LTEE (even after 65,000+ generations under lab-controlled conditions, no macroevolution observed)....

Etc.

Are you sure of that? I am betting that you do not even know what macro-evolution is and that it has been observed many times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope, wrong assumption.
That leads to wrong conclusions.

This is the story I am getting from reading posts by JW's on this forum. Perhaps you should help them to understand if they are posting something in error.

I know we get into heated debates, but I have nothing against you personally. I actually like you, even if we do not agree. I just do not understand why you cannot just say that most of your rejection of evolution is based on your beliefs.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

First off irreducible complexity has been debunked.

Lol. The T3SS is no counter argument, since it apparently came after. And the tie clasp from the mouse trap...again, working backwards. Besides, no 6-part machine can match the complexity of a 40-part machine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe its *you* making these posts about *you*

.....and emotional blackmail to boot....

You can attack the religious position of others but when someone steps on your religious toes, you whine like a little girl

.....what is with that?

It is hilarious. Look at you on the attack, but not one word about how I am wrong on the evidence or reasoning.

I will pray for you to find understanding and the strength to overcome your petty behavior. I choose not to continue this any further.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol. The T3SS is no counter argument, since it apparently came after. And the tie clasp from the mouse trap...again, working backwards. Besides, no 6-part machine can match the complexity of a 40-part machine.

Not to pick nits, but one of your brethren went to great lengths to disavow the use of words like "apparently" in discussions of science.

The claim of irreducible complexity is dead even to Michael Behe. Have you seen any work he has done on it being published other than what he wrote in his book, lo these many years ago?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol. The T3SS is no counter argument, since it apparently came after. And the tie clasp from the mouse trap...again, working backwards. Besides, no 6-part machine can match the complexity of a 40-part machine.

You do understand that a previous, reduced structure does not have to have the same function as an existing structure. If it does, it does not have to have equivalent efficiency. Showing that a reduced structure can exist pretty much rules out the more complex one from being irreducible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol. The T3SS is no counter argument, since it apparently came after. And the tie clasp from the mouse trap...again, working backwards. Besides, no 6-part machine can match the complexity of a 40-part machine.

You should be aware that the rotator flagellum argument was destroyed over ten years ago. And the mousetrap tie clasp explanation turned out to be spot on. Even though it is simpler the same principles held in the refutation. The following video more than refutes Behe, there are more modern ones, but I like the old ones sometimes:

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do understand that a previous, reduced structure does not have to have the same function as an existing structure. If it does, it does not have to have equivalent efficiency. Showing that a reduced structure can exist pretty much rules out the more complex one from being irreducible.

In fact that was Behe's original claim. That the rotator flagellum did not work with a piece missing. It turns out that it works just fine. It merely does another job. Just like the mousetrap tie clasp.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In fact that was Behe's original claim. That the rotator flagellum did not work with a piece missing. It turns out that it works just fine. It merely does another job. Just like the mousetrap tie clasp.

Exactly. The reduced structure has a function. Thus not irreducibly complex. I do not understand how arriving at that would change the conclusion or keep the more complex structure irreducibly when it has been reduced. Do you think it is something that is just misunderstood or a grasping at straws?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. The reduced structure has a function. Thus not irreducibly complex. I do not understand how arriving at that would change the conclusion or keep the more complex structure irreducibly when it has been reduced. Do you think it is something that is just misunderstood or a grasping at straws?

Creationists have so few straws to clasp at. As a result they will defend almost any bad idea that sounds sciency enough.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Creationists have so few straws to clasp at. As a result they will defend almost any bad idea that sounds sciency enough.

Very true. I keep forgetting that, since there is so much evidence to support the theory of evolution.

 

[tas8831]

Furthermore, I don’t “reject most or all of science.”
That’s an untrue and goofy statement!

Right - you just reject actual science that counters your deity-magic beliefs.

And you prop it up with serial plagiarism since you cannot make your own scientific arguments.

Pro tip - stop doing that. You've been exposed and people are going to be more suspicious of your posts from now on.

 

[Jose Fly]

Irreducible complexity (which has not been debunked, sorry)...

Which version of IC do you believe hasn't been debunked?

The evidence found in the Cambrian Explosion (still waiting to find those precursors)...

You've been provided examples.

The sheer diversity of species (billions), explained as originating through natural selection of random mutations? Funny stuff!...

That's your rebuttal? "Funny stuff"? Come on guy, you know better than that.

The E. coli LTEE (even after 65,000+ generations under lab-controlled conditions, no macroevolution observed)....

Not sure what your point is, since macroevolution (speciation) has been repeatedly observed and documented.

Again I have to wonder....why can't you just say you reject any sort of evolution that contradicts your religious beliefs and leave it at that?

 

[tas8831]

I’m constantly pointing out “valid flaws”!

The sheer diversity of species (billions), explained as originating through natural selection of random mutations? Funny stuff!...

Your explanation is "hyper-super-duper fast evolution 'within kinds' after the flood 4500 years ago, with nobody noticing and with no known mechanism by which all of the required genetic diversity was either created or held at bay prior to the flood.'

And you want to 'lol' at us?

The E. coli LTEE (even after 65,000+ generations under lab-controlled conditions, no macroevolution observed)....

Etc.

Why do you think macroevolution must always occur? I thought that you were hoping that via your plagiarized posts you understood evolution?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you watched and understood the video of Richard Dawkins on eye evolution you would have understood this.

I did watch it. And I laughed, because early in multicellular life, trilobites emerged with highly developed eyes!

[QUOTE="Jose Fly, post: 6326042, member: 13992"]Which version of IC do you believe hasn't been debunked?[/QUOTE]


Why do you many times deflect by asking questions? Your tactic won’t work with me anymore.

You've been provided examples.

Nope, read the literature...they haven’t found any obvious precursors. You want (need?) to believe they have, I guess.

That's your rebuttal? "Funny stuff"? Come on guy, you know better than that.

My rebuttal was the sheer diversity of living things....didn’t you get that? Or is this another attempt at deflecting?

Not sure what your point is, since macroevolution (speciation) has been repeatedly observed and documented.

To the point where an eye (or other anatomical feature) is forming? Show me the observed transitional pathways.
Evolution of the eye is simple, according to Dawkins. You’ve got an organism that’s developing photo receptors, or some early stages of eye evolution? Any perceived novel anatomical evolution arising? Please, let’s see it.

I do believe that macro occurs among lower taxa, maybe up to the Family level...but no new Families are developing.

Again I have to wonder....why can't you just say you reject any sort of evolution that contradicts your religious beliefs and leave it at that?

Because this thread isn’t about that. Is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did watch it. And I laughed, because early in multicellular life, trilobites emerged with highly developed eyes!

Then at best you did not understand it. Trilobites already would have had the basic eyes before they first appeared and you also demonstrated that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Early trilobites had much simpler eyes than later ones:

https://foreninger.uio.no/ngf/FOS/pdfs/F&S_04_p007.pdf

Or if you prefer a simpler approach:

Trilobite - Wikipedia

That article also mentions some of the Precambrian trilobites. The so called Cambrian Explosion keeps getting longer and fuzzier as more information comes in. Geologically sudden does not mean sudden in our terms at all. It was a period tens of millions of years long. But that is still just a small fraction of the time of Earth's history.

 

[Bear Wild]

I thought a bunch of mindless creatures following some leader off a cliff was church doctrine.

You are right. It is called blind faith - intentionally ignoring reality and making myth real. .