Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Small correction... an alternative is that all which now exists spontaneously came into being from nothing and without a cause.
But there are others.
One is that the universe never "came into being" in the first place... it is eternal and uncreated.
Before the theists start declaring that impossible or absurd, they have already conceded the possibility of eternal and uncreated things. In their case they call it "God."
Doesn't work that way.
Assuming space exists (necessary for an eternal Universe) along with a place from which to observe time, and if the material Universe were eternal as you propose, the present moment would never arrive from eternity past since it would be forever in the infinite future.
For our linear time to exist with both future and past, it cannot be eternal.
Something independent of time had to have created time.
This argument in particular has been so thoroughly debunked as to make further arguments in support is simply an argument ad absurdum in that the argument for irreducible complexity is like arguing that a mouse trap cannot function without any of its parts removed. Well as a mouse trap that is true, but if you remove any of those irreducible parts, they can and do function as other mechanisms and things.
Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different — but still useful — functions.
I am freaking speechless!! The severely impaired mind that accepts this blathering of nonsense as meaningful, is beyond comprehension.
Let me give you an example of "irreducibly complex" .... let's just use the environmental system on the international space station as an example. One part breaks ... a critical part ... and the system will not function without it. Now it may be true that you could take that system apart, and make all sorts of cool crap out of the components ... maybe a radio ... maybe an easy bake oven ... or even the biggest, baddest Keg cooler in the universe. Fat lots of good that will do you .... YOU"RE DEAD.
And I'd like to point out a little piece from the link you provided:
The Logic of Irreducible Complexity
Living cells are filled, of course, with complex structures whose detailed evolutionary origins are not known. Therefore, in fashioning an argument against evolution one might pick nearly any cellular structure, the ribosome for example, and claim – correctly – that its origin has not been explained in detail by evolution.
Such arguments are easy to make, of course, but nature of scientific progress renders them far from compelling. The lack of a detailed current explanation for a structure, organ, or process does not mean that science will never come up with one.
Yes indeed ... one might pick any cellular structure who's origin cannot be accounted for by evolution ... but that's OK, don't ask the evolutionists to prove anything! Suffice it to say that their word is gospel ... have faith. Don't expect them to answer questions ...hey ... they may not have the answers now ... but give them time ... they'll come up with one, eventually .... likely, an answer will SLOWLY EVOLVE through natural selection.
Until then, we'll just take their word it ... the evolution theory without answers. Brilliant!!
So to be clear, you say that a universe that came into being from nothing, and without cause is inconceivable? Yet a Creator that came into being from nothing and without cause is?
You see, the biggest flaw (but by far not the only one) in evolution theory comes in at the very beginning! What mutated to form the first form of life?
The ToE does not concern itself with the origins of life. That's a creationist canard. Until you have self-replication, with the possibility of replication errors, and selection, evolution cannot kick in.
Quote:
Now that's funny ... most of these "evolutionary" mutations are lethal,
Incorrect. Most mutations are, in fact, neutral. And you're overlooking the effect of the environment/niche. An otherwise neutral mutation can show beneficial or detrimental effects generations after its introduction, if the environment changes.
Quote:
Yeah baby ... we're losing $5 on each one of these widgets we're selling ... but we'll make it up in volume sales? What you just described is a formula for EXTINCTION! (or a pretty apt description of playing the Slots in Vegas .... which I promise you ... if you do it long enough, you will EVOLVE into a homeless person)
That's a remarkably poor analogy. The slot machines in Vegas do not provide a selection mechanism to keep beneficial combinations around and ditch the losing ones. As luck would have it, nature does.
Quote:
I think I've been overly generous with my time on this tripe filled post.
Let me give you an example of "irreducibly complex" .... let's just use the environmental system on the international space station as an example.
Bishop Paley called, he'd like his analogy back. Things can look designed without being designed. Does the ISS come with the necessary equipment to make almost-perfect copies of itself? Can we see the physical traces of earlier generations of space stations? Does it contain a blueprint of itself throughout its structure?
No? Well, then it's a ****-poor analogy for a biological structure.
Quote:
Yes indeed ... one might pick any cellular structure who's origin cannot be accounted for by evolution ... but that's OK, don't ask the evolutionists to prove anything! Suffice it to say that their word is gospel ... have faith. Don't expect them to answer questions ...hey ... they may not have the answers now ... but give them time ... they'll come up with one, eventually .... likely, an answer will SLOWLY EVOLVE through natural selection.
Until then, we'll just take their word it ... the evolution theory without answers. Brilliant!!
Aren't those Gaps getting a bit narrow for God - beg pardon, The Designer - to fit in? We have a few billion years, a pretty sparse record of what came before the current living creatures, millions of mostly-lost generations of creatures. If you reserve the right to yell "The Designer Did This!" if you can't get a blow-by-blow of the development of the earlobe or whatever - sure, claim victory.
Self-explanatory, but well worth repeating. We're doomed.
Well, obviously you don't know what you are talking about, technically speaking. You just glom on to the convenient bits, and ignore the rest. I doubt it's even worth trying to correct you. Let's just briefly say: you seem to want to try on that sad ploy of denying that any speciation exists, or when it so obviously does, you just reduce it to "adaptation".
Permanent, DNA-recorded changes due to the mechanisms of mutation are evolutionary in outcome. They may even be lethal; most are, but when wwe try things out a multi-wuintgrillion times over, the occasional positive change will take hold if it benefits the survival of that organism. Simple, huh?
BTW, it's not anything like a tornado over a junkyard creating a 747; that's just dumb by definition. Why? Because there's no obvious advantage to chance organization within such chaos, while DNA mutations in that simple system will affect survivability, and are dutifully recorded for subsequent generations' on-site testing. Not so in a transient tornado; how would the chaos inside a tornado recognize that the metal in a main engine bearing needs to be more heat tolerant? That only comes through highly focused research that in and of itself is not logical but rather "driven" to a predicted and necessary endpoint. You can't see the difference?
If the mutations within the comparatively simple DNA system (only 4 molecular types within it, after all) result in a significantly differentiated organism, one that utilizes it's environmental niche differently, it's immediately effective as an improvement, no matter how incremental. BTW #2: Evolution does NOT inherently man big ol' obvious Cat-Turns -Into-Dog-Overnight type changes that anti-Evolutionists demand. Adaptations can be just to the length of guard hairs on the animal's back.
Ande this, through these accumulative micro-changes, we become a differentiated tribe, then a race, then a sub-species, and eventually, when it becomes reproductively isolated, a species. There's not a good gall-durned thing you can do to change that definition, much as you'd like to, for reasons of Convenience or Denial.
I'll briefly comment on two of the following poster's supposedly salient but in fact incorrect points:
Answers: their's no attempt to dress anything up. The OP's question is about the teaching of Creationism in the schools. As one of the mot aggressive atheists you might ever hope to meet, as well as one with more than enough scientific education to wrestle all your points to th ground in less than a match time, I'll just say I'm absolutely for teaching Creationism, but just not in Science class. Why? Because it's easily proved to not be science per se. Simple, huh? And not arguable.
But I'd really like to see a Comparative Religion class. Are you for or against that, or do you want only Christianity taught there?
BTW #3: I'd also want some of the Creationist's ideas of an Insta-PoofyGenesis to coincide to the section in biology on abiogenesis, and then the Creationists' account of Noah's Ark and the Fabulous Biblical Instant 6 day Creation Event of all the then-known species (according to the bible, there were only 1700 species on the entire planet at that time....3500 animals on that Ark, in pairs! ) to coincide with a cogent logical scientific presentation in science class on a brief summary of everything we now know about Evolution, including the latest irrefutable in-lab proofs of speciation. [Warning no changes in definitions allowed!]
That way, our logical & inquisitive student body could make timely comparisons and make their own minds up, and not just end up parroting the ideas of science or religion.. Objections? .
Quite right, HD. when cornered by proven speciation, the next tactic is to change the definition of "species". Apparently there is no speciation, we're the exact same species as a pond scum bacteria or a toad. We're just "temporarily micro-adapted!" Yah gotta luv transparently obtuse thinking.
Apparently. Amusing, eh? Fact is, they are terrified of logical clear-headed thinking getting a foothold, and thus of losing their influence on their once-innocent children to the Satanic idea of critical thinking.
Q: why do you need to have this question answered? There's no need.
So many mis-interpreted definitions and mis-information. It boggles the educated mind. sigh.
Whether one belives in Darwinism, Creationism, both or neither, much is still unknown about our origin, and some questions associated with either concept may never be answered. That Creationism is hard science without a tremendous deal of input from religion isn't a position I could easily defend, but the same applies to the Evolution of a protocell since the unaided leap to life requires as much faith as any religion. In fact, the only evidence of this event actually happening at all is that at some point life did in fact come into being, but that isn't science. It's a conclusion in advance of facts. It's an assumption based on a need for something to be true rather than evidence that it is in fact true. Since that explanation is the only one which is consistent with the state endorsed religion of Atheism, it is the only one allowed, and those who look for better answers are said to be substituting religion for science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) to coincide with a cogent logical scientific presentation in science class on a brief summary of everything we now know about Evolution, including the latest irrefutable in-lab proofs of speciation. [Warning no changes in definitions allowed!]