Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya

[Ullopincrate]

Also, gravity is not a theory it's a law. I understand you have strong feelings we all do but you didn't even try there. Here's one link. There are a multitude to try if you don't like this one. http://www.jimloy.com/physics/gravity.htm

 

[waterPOLO]

Cambrian radiation

Irreducible complexity

If you chop a computer in half, it doesn't just work at 50% capacity - it doesn't work at all, just like a cell.

 

[Ullopincrate]

Cambrian radiation

Irreducible complexity

If you chop a computer in half, it doesn't just work at 50% capacity - it doesn't work at all, just like a cell.

A link that might explain Irreducible complexity. Not written by author but gives an overall idea. Give it a read. I listen to all of your ideas. I agree, life is too complex to have accidentally happened.



http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

 

[Cohazard]

I love this clip. Solid scientific evidence which disproves irreducible complexity:

[YT]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]


Wiki with plenty of possible explanations for an rapid evolution of early life (cambrian explosion/cambrian radiation), my favorite explanation (backed by evidence) is the evolution of the eye:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Evolution_of_eyes

 

[Ullopincrate]

He stated , "It's not evidence, that's just an argument" as stated by speaker on his own points against this topic.
The point isn't that one couldn't have evolved it's that they all couldn't have at the same time because the odds are bigger than there are stars in the sky to one.

But this isn't even my argument I was just helping out the guy before. I say we look at all of them. However this is obviously being given to an audience who already agrees with him and is staged to make someone look dumb. I would wager that the author this topic could make this man look just as dumb.

I didn't hear any solid scientific evidence though.

 

[Ullopincrate]

I'm going to try and get some sleep. Here's some more thought. Big bang/ primordial soup/ single cell evolution oversimplifies things. check this for a read. I'll check back tomorrow.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=45

Ultimately we all believe what we already believe----- me just now lol.

 

[Cohazard]

He stated , "It's not evidence, that's just an argument" as stated by speaker on his own points against this topic.
The point isn't that one couldn't have evolved it's that they all couldn't have at the same time because the odds are bigger than there are stars in the sky to one.

But this isn't even my argument I was just helping out the guy before. I say we look at all of them. However this is obviously being given to an audience who already agrees with him and is staged to make someone look dumb. I would wager that the author this topic could make this man look just as dumb.

I didn't hear any solid scientific evidence though.

My post was directed mainly at waterPOLO, but anyone interested in facts is welcome to read and watch the clip.

But since you attempted to discredit the post, I will elaborate specifically against your points.


You quoted Ken Miller out of context, which by itself, sounds as if his argument is weak. But when replaced into context, it becomes clear that what he was referring to was the established idea in evolution theory that a complex multi-part bio-chemical machine can be evolved from separate parts which each serve an individual function and when combined create the complex machine. That is what he was referring to as 'just an argument'.

Establishing two distinct ideas about what would happen if that said complex machine were to have parts removed (the bacterial flagellum in this case), he then proceeds to present the evidence which supports the argument, namely, that separate parts of the bacterial flagellum have independant functions and still work without all of the pieces.


Yes you are correct that his audience is already in agreement with him, but that has no effect on the validity of his argument or evidence (two separate pieces of the explanation: state your argument, present your evidence ). In the same manor, you approached the video already in disagreement, which is probably why you missed the point of the quote you took out of context.

All of the solid scientific evidence which disproves irreducible complexity can be found in the second half of the clip (about 3:15 onwards), which coincidentally, you made no reference to in your post.

Ultimately we all believe what we already believe

Well with due respect, you can speak for yourself but not for me. I thoroughly enjoy creationists taking a scientific approach at attempting to prove the idea of intelligent design, however, the evidence provided so far is just flat out not accurate, and reminds me of that sieve you mentioned earlier in this thread. I think you called it a pot, right?

 

[Ullopincrate]

He doesn't argue with all of IC theory just picks at one area he thinks he has a triumph in. The whole book would have to be read to really debate this one good but I digress. IC isn't really my bag. I see some value in it though.

I enjoy our banter. I did post one other link above your last one. Check it out and tell me what you think of it. It concerns the chemical aspect of the whole Big bang/primordial soup/ single cell issue. I like it. The other I just posted because the poster before didn't give much to go on. Gotta go, I'll check back tomorrow.

 

[Cohazard]

He doesn't argue with all of IC theory just picks at one area he thinks he has a triumph in. The whole book would have to be read to really debate this one good but I digress. IC isn't really my bag. I see some value in it though.

Are you referring to the clip of Ken Miller's presentation I posted, or the author of the book this thread started with?

If you're referring to Ken Miller, he completely disagrees with the IC idea.

I enjoy our banter. I did post one other link above your last one. Check it out and tell me what you think of it. It concerns the chemical aspect of the whole Big bang/primordial soup/ single cell issue. I like it.

I enjoy the banter aspects too, but mainly the hard scientific facts.

I look forward to researching more into that subject, and from what I've read so far, it's very interesting. One field of science I am strongly interested in is artificial biology.

The other I just posted because the poster before didn't give much to go on. Gotta go, I'll check back tomorrow.

Well, Irreducible Complexity sounds great until you realize there is scientific evidence which disproves it lol

G'nite, catch up with you tomorrow if I have time after homework, if not, I'll catch up thursday night.

 

[srikamaraja]

Laws only exist in physics.

In all other scientific disciplines, a Theory is as valid as you can get.

sorry about Mendel. it was late.