Michael J. Behe flawed hypothesis on “irreducible complexity” as been repeatedly debunked and disproved by simple logical flawless arguments and evidence by scientists around the globe.
I challenge anyone to find a single “irreducible complexity” argument that hasn't already been disproved!
Also, regarding abiogenesis (and please don't confuse that with evolution), one of the flawed and baseless assumptions Behe uses is that, if abiogenesis is correct, the first living cell must have had the same complexity as the simplest living cell that exists today. There is obviously no reason why the first cell could not have been vastly simpler (just a microsphere enclosing a fragment of RNA -that is all! ) and then evolution THEN slowly evolved all that complexity into the cells later on by one mutation at a time.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie no thanks i choose life! 🙂
Well then please remember your own words for the future -
when one starts to assume a certain position without having recourse to any type of knowledge, and then proceeds to base an argument upon it, its like a castle made of sand, and it will fall into the sea, eventually.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie i am not getting anywhere near defensive yet, i merely copied and pasted a published article, i did not author it, the words in it were not of my originality.
You seem to be panicking. It shows.
Answer the questions, one at the time, and keep your mind cool.
If you would like to retract something you've said earlier that you cannot stand behind anymore - just say so. Everyone can be wrong on ocations. Nothing to e ashamed over.
But do not spin a web of paradoxes. We will notice that. And do not get paranoid. Noone want to get at you. Just answer the questions, one at the time, and make it sound like you stand behind your answers, everyone of them.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie no i have done nothing of the sort, i chastised Fabian for basing his argument on pure assumption, not for reiterating what a third party had written, please retract your statement and do not make a habit of misrepresentation.
I am misrepresenting this? You chided Fabian Fnas for reporting that most scientists dismiss Michael J. Behe's claims, and then you reported that some posters on this board dismiss Richard Dawkin's claims. And you ask me to retract pointing this out? Dude, you've got some cheek.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton Just for the record:
Michael J. Behe flawed hypothesis on “irreducible complexity” as been repeatedly debunked and disproved by simple logical flawless arguments and evidence by scientists around the globe.
I challenge anyone to find a single “irreducible complexity” argument that hasn't already been disproved!
Also, regarding abiogenesis (an ...[text shortened]... ion THEN slowly evolved all that complexity into the cells later on by one mutation at a time.
It is demonstrated mathematically that is not posibble for systems of lower levels of organization to spontaneously tansform themselves to states of higher organization, without the introduction of additional specific information.
Cells cannot animate themslves to mutate or divide or change without intelligence, and science rejects intelligence saying this happens spontaneuously or miraculously.
Theres no such thing as "the unseen hand of natural selection" its been dihonestly invented to support atheism.
Originally posted by vishvahetu It is demonstrated mathematically that is not posibble for systems of lower levels of organization to spontaneously tansform themselves to states of higher organization, without the introduction of additional specific information.
Cells cannot animate themslves to mutate or divide or change without intelligence, and science rejects intelligence saying ...[text shortened]... ing as "the unseen hand of natural selection" its been dihonestly invented to support atheism.
This is why crystals never form on their own in the natural world. They are only able to be created in labs. Right?
Originally posted by vishvahetu Theres no such thing as "the unseen hand of natural selection" its been dihonestly invented to support atheism.
It's just a part of you diagnosis to see conspirations everywhere. It's called paranoia. Have a long good talk about this to your doctor. Perhaps he can adjust the dosage for you.
(This is not an insult, it's facts and therefore by Vishvas own definition not an insult.)
Originally posted by vishvahetu It is demonstrated mathematically that is not posibble for systems of lower levels of organization to spontaneously tansform themselves to states of higher organization, without the introduction of additional specific information.
That is obviously false. If bbarr's counter example was too complicated for you, consider what happens when you throw a handful of gravel in the air. All the stones end up on the ground. Clearly stones on the ground are in a state of higher organization than stones flying through the air.
My favorite example is a what happens if you shake a jar of muddy water then leave it to settle. It will spontaneously transform and after an hour or too you will see interesting layers of different sand and other sediments at the bottom and water at the top and some flotsam on top of the water. Clearly a state of higher organisation than previously.
I suspect your claim is based on a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
Originally posted by twhitehead That is obviously false. If bbarr's counter example was too complicated for you, consider what happens when you throw a handful of gravel in the air. All the stones end up on the ground. Clearly stones on the ground are in a state of higher organization than stones flying through the air.
My favorite example is a what happens if you shake a jar of muddy ...[text shortened]... ly.
I suspect your claim is based on a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
I think your diagnosis is correct. He says 'information', but should use 'energy'. Entropy increases globally in a closed system over time, but Earth isn't closed. And anyway, global increases in entropy are consistent with local increases in order (however 'order' is defined).
Originally posted by twhitehead That is obviously false. If bbarr's counter example was too complicated for you, consider what happens when you throw a handful of gravel in the air. All the stones end up on the ground. Clearly stones on the ground are in a state of higher organization than stones flying through the air.
My favorite example is a what happens if you shake a jar of muddy ...[text shortened]... ly.
I suspect your claim is based on a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
Mathematics demonstrates that it is not possible for systems of lower levels of organization to spontaneously transform themselves to states of higher organization, without the introduction of additional specific information, you should know this.
Cells cannot divide, mutate, expand,choose, live or grow without intelligence driving them, and this intelligence is there in the form of the Supreme Spiritual Creative Potency of God.
Originally posted by vishvahetu Mathematics demonstrates that it is not possible for systems of lower levels of organization to spontaneously transform themselves to states of higher organization, without the introduction of additional specific information, you should know this.
As already pointed out, it is not only possible, but actually very common. If you claim that mathematics disagrees with me, then present the mathematical proof or some reference to it. If not, then I will have to take it that you are just making one of your unfounded claims.
Originally posted by twhitehead As already pointed out, it is not only possible, but actually very common. If you claim that mathematics disagrees with me, then present the mathematical proof or some reference to it. If not, then I will have to take it that you are just making one of your unfounded claims.
The onus of proof is on you because you are making the false claims....and I have already given my proof but you reject it and I cant force you to accept it.
Originally posted by vishvahetu The onus of proof is on you because you are making the false claims....
No, you are making false claims. But I don't understand where you get the idea that the onus of proof is with the person making false claims. Surely it is impossible to prove false claims?
and I have already given my proof but you reject it and I cant force you to accept it. You have not given a mathematical proof. You don't even know what a mathematical proof is.
Interview With a Biochemist
03 Nov '10 16:03
Back to Top