Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2018, 03:15:58 AM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... 180 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Evolution is a hoax  (Read 79991 times)
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 06:36:55 PM
 #241


My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.

Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.

Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them.

Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He?

Cool

Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution.  All evidence confirms the same conclusion.

With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove.  Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe.

What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books?

C'mon, you cannot be that stupid.


Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution.

There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God.

Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed.

And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are?

Cool

No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work.

Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt.

Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.

The point is that programmed (by all-pervading cause and effect) evolution does not fit the current descriptions of evolution.

Cause and effect is science law, is upheld by Newton's 3rd law, is in evidence for everyone in his daily life, and cannot be refuted.

Evolution is theory, not law. All evolution evidences can be assigned as being evidence of something else - natural protection agencies at work, programming through cause and effect, etc.

Because of these things - which scientists have all realized - evolution cannot exist as it known, and therefore, is a hoax being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace of the world.

Cool

Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

Scientific laws are not considered absolute truths. In fact, the core philosophy of the scientific method is that no scientific fact is to be considered an absolute truth.

Scientific laws and facts are either (1) derived directly from empirical results (eg: Ohm's law) or (2) theoretical constructions which help explain empirical facts (eg: Maxwell's electromagnetic theory). In either case, the validity of the fact/law is not absolute. Every such fact/law will have conditions in which it is valid, outside which the validity of the law is either unverified or disproved by empirical evidence. For example, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is valid for macroscopic scales, but fails when applied to subatomic scales. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a theory which is valid both in macroscopic as well as subatomic scales, and Maxwell's theory is a special case of QED. The validity of QED when applied to very high temperatures and pressures as in the Big Bang is limited, where a more general theory is required.

In the same light, Ohm's law is not valid for all materials. For example, it does not work for semiconductors.

In general, the scientific community attaches a confidence level to each scientific law/fact based on empirical evidence, experience and its consistency with the rest of the knowledge.

Some theories are accepted to near-absolute status. Eg: "The earth is near-spherical", "The earth revolves around the sun"

Some are accepted to such a degree that all other facts must be consistent with them. Eg: Theory of evolution, Atomic theory, Chromosome theory

So everything you wrote has been debunked easily. Good luck with your next try

"So everything you wrote has been debunked easily."

If you really want to go this chaotic route, this covers not only the things that I wrote, but all the things that everyone wrote. Especially it covers your writing of it, itself.

So, we are back to where we were before you wrote it.

Of course, if you would rather stick with this idea that you wrote, you might as well admit evolution is a hoax, or at least, science fiction.

Cool
1537499758
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537499758

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537499758
Reply with quote  #2

1537499758
Report to moderator
1537499758
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537499758

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537499758
Reply with quote  #2

1537499758
Report to moderator
Einax Airdrops and Bounties made easy! List your ERC-20 token
FREE
ETH markets launching soon!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537499758
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537499758

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537499758
Reply with quote  #2

1537499758
Report to moderator
1537499758
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537499758

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537499758
Reply with quote  #2

1537499758
Report to moderator
1537499758
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537499758

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537499758
Reply with quote  #2

1537499758
Report to moderator
popcorn1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1027


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 07:15:03 PM
 #242

It's not Grin
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 854
Merit: 563


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 07:59:36 PM
 #243


My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.

Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.

Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them.

Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He?

Cool

Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution.  All evidence confirms the same conclusion.

With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove.  Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe.

What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books?

C'mon, you cannot be that stupid.


Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution.

There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God.

Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed.

And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are?

Cool

No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work.

Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt.

Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.

The point is that programmed (by all-pervading cause and effect) evolution does not fit the current descriptions of evolution.

Cause and effect is science law, is upheld by Newton's 3rd law, is in evidence for everyone in his daily life, and cannot be refuted.

Evolution is theory, not law. All evolution evidences can be assigned as being evidence of something else - natural protection agencies at work, programming through cause and effect, etc.

Because of these things - which scientists have all realized - evolution cannot exist as it known, and therefore, is a hoax being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace of the world.

Cool

Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

Scientific laws are not considered absolute truths. In fact, the core philosophy of the scientific method is that no scientific fact is to be considered an absolute truth.

Scientific laws and facts are either (1) derived directly from empirical results (eg: Ohm's law) or (2) theoretical constructions which help explain empirical facts (eg: Maxwell's electromagnetic theory). In either case, the validity of the fact/law is not absolute. Every such fact/law will have conditions in which it is valid, outside which the validity of the law is either unverified or disproved by empirical evidence. For example, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is valid for macroscopic scales, but fails when applied to subatomic scales. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a theory which is valid both in macroscopic as well as subatomic scales, and Maxwell's theory is a special case of QED. The validity of QED when applied to very high temperatures and pressures as in the Big Bang is limited, where a more general theory is required.

In the same light, Ohm's law is not valid for all materials. For example, it does not work for semiconductors.

In general, the scientific community attaches a confidence level to each scientific law/fact based on empirical evidence, experience and its consistency with the rest of the knowledge.

Some theories are accepted to near-absolute status. Eg: "The earth is near-spherical", "The earth revolves around the sun"

Some are accepted to such a degree that all other facts must be consistent with them. Eg: Theory of evolution, Atomic theory, Chromosome theory

So everything you wrote has been debunked easily. Good luck with your next try

"So everything you wrote has been debunked easily."

If you really want to go this chaotic route, this covers not only the things that I wrote, but all the things that everyone wrote. Especially it covers your writing of it, itself.

So, we are back to where we were before you wrote it.

Of course, if you would rather stick with this idea that you wrote, you might as well admit evolution is a hoax, or at least, science fiction.

Cool

You said that scientific laws can't be refuted and scientific theories are not laws therefore are bad and can be changed. I showed you that neither scientific laws or scientific theories are absolute. Science and scientists agree that nothing can really be proved 100% but we can definitely get close to it and as long as it works it's accepted. That's the most we can do. Evolution as I said previously has been used in many applications, maybe our understanding of evolution is not 100% accurate but it definitely works and can be applied to different areas, just like gravity, we can calculate gravity and apply it on different areas, maybe our understanding of it its not 100% accurate either but it works. Creationism does NOT, not a single application for it.



.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
May 31, 2017, 12:44:34 AM
 #244

You said that scientific laws can't be refuted and scientific theories are not laws therefore are bad and can be changed. I showed you that neither scientific laws or scientific theories are absolute. Science and scientists agree that nothing can really be proved 100% but we can definitely get close to it and as long as it works it's accepted. That's the most we can do. Evolution as I said previously has been used in many applications, maybe our understanding of evolution is not 100% accurate but it definitely works and can be applied to different areas, just like gravity, we can calculate gravity and apply it on different areas, maybe our understanding of it its not 100% accurate either but it works. Creationism does NOT, not a single application for it.

In the forum, and in life, we assume some basic standards. If we are going to be talking from the standpoint that nothing is absolute, our whole base of the way we talk about things has to change. If we are going to change to that kind of a base, it is something that we have to agree on in order to converse clearly.

With regard to evolution, cause and effect show that it is a impossible, the way that science suggests it. There are many other things that show that it is impossible, such as probability math. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.

Depending on the definition of evolution that you are using, you can say anything about evolution that you want, and it might be true... depending on the definition. But that holds for anything.

The standard definition of evolution that includes change that goes from inanimate material to life that we see today, and especially human life, is scientifically impossible. Some of the scientific principles that scientists say apply to evolution, are absolutely true. Not all evolution principles hold true for this (^^^) definition of evolution. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.

Gravity works. Gravity theory is not known to properly fit or match working gravity, even though aspects of gravity theory might work with real gravity very well. Gravity theory might be the way that gravity works. We just don't know. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.

Cause and effect, universal entropy, complex universe: are scientific laws and principles that, when combined, not only prove that God exists, but also prove that everything came into existence by Him... by the process of elimination... because that is the only way something like God (or even big bang) can be proven. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.

Evolution is a hoax. At best, it is a religion among those who want to make fiction be stronger than reality. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.

Cool
ridery99
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 02, 2017, 07:00:03 PM
 #245

The Real Secrets of Alien Covenant Leaked - The Globalists don't even believe in evolution themselves. They are just using it to deceive the masses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsdyahvKN3g
gollygosh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 159
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 02, 2017, 08:06:19 PM
 #246

Evolution is obvious - nature has so many variations, even in dog breeds, you can see evolution at work.

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
June 02, 2017, 10:31:47 PM
 #247

Evolution is obvious - nature has so many variations, even in dog breeds, you can see evolution at work.

Cause and effect is science law that proves that the universe has been programmed.

Cool
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 854
Merit: 563


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
June 02, 2017, 10:46:37 PM
 #248

Evolution is obvious - nature has so many variations, even in dog breeds, you can see evolution at work.

Cause and effect is science law that proves that the universe has been programmed.

Cool

No it doesn't and we already discussed this in the other topic, stop spreading your bullshit, you can't even defend yourself anymore in the other thread. It's pathetic. Newton's 3rd law is not that anyways, I don't know where you got that definition from. ''The third law states that all forces between two objects exist in equal magnitude and opposite direction: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB.[24] The third law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies,[25][26] or different regions within one body, and thus that there is no such thing as a force that is not accompanied by an equal and opposite force. In some situations, the magnitude and direction of the forces are determined entirely by one of the two bodies, say Body A; the force exerted by Body A on Body B is called the "action", and the force exerted by Body B on Body A is called the "reaction". This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with FA called the "action" and FB the "reaction". In other situations the magnitude and directions of the forces are determined jointly by both bodies and it isn't necessary to identify one force as the "action" and the other as the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous, and it does not matter which is called the action and which is called reaction; both forces are part of a single interaction, and neither force exists without the other.[24]''

Nowhere it says anything about everything having a cause and definitely it doesn't say that the cause for everything is God.



.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
June 02, 2017, 10:54:00 PM
 #249

Evolution is obvious - nature has so many variations, even in dog breeds, you can see evolution at work.

Cause and effect is science law that proves that the universe has been programmed.

Cool

No it doesn't and we already discussed this in the other topic, stop spreading your bullshit, you can't even defend yourself anymore in the other thread. It's pathetic. Newton's 3rd law is not that anyways, I don't know where you got that definition from. ''The third law states that all forces between two objects exist in equal magnitude and opposite direction: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB.[24] The third law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies,[25][26] or different regions within one body, and thus that there is no such thing as a force that is not accompanied by an equal and opposite force. In some situations, the magnitude and direction of the forces are determined entirely by one of the two bodies, say Body A; the force exerted by Body A on Body B is called the "action", and the force exerted by Body B on Body A is called the "reaction". This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with FA called the "action" and FB the "reaction". In other situations the magnitude and directions of the forces are determined jointly by both bodies and it isn't necessary to identify one force as the "action" and the other as the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous, and it does not matter which is called the action and which is called reaction; both forces are part of a single interaction, and neither force exists without the other.[24]''

Nowhere it says anything about everything having a cause and definitely it doesn't say that the cause for everything is God.

Are you trying to say that an equal and opposite reaction is not an effect? Go back to school.

Cool
protokol
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1188
Merit: 1011



View Profile
June 02, 2017, 11:07:09 PM
 #250

BADecker, if you want to have a proper discussion about these sort of topics then you need to:

A. Stop moving the goalposts around. You can't try and use scientific evidence to prove one of your points, and then turn around and say something like "ah but in the distant past we're not sure that time and space were running at the same speed they are today... so anything could be possible...". That kind of logic renders any discussion meaningless.

B. Listen to people when they tell you simple facts about semantics. For example, the definition of a scientific theory. Arguing about these things just muddy the waters.

And did you read my questions a few pages upthread? I don't believe you replied to them...

[edit]

Quote
1. You say that all change, including evolution, is "programmed" into the universe through cause and effect. Now this is a valid philosophical position, which I believe means you view the universe as "deterministic". However, if all change is programmed, then this means that we have no free will, because everything we do is a result of cause and effect, and not our own decisions. Didn't god gift us with free will? If so, how do you resolve this problem?

2. Put all ideas of faith in deities or science aside for a moment. Don't you think it's strange that although you say evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible, the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you? Are they lying, or do you know more about science and maths than them? Or do you have another explanation?

Guess I'll make that my sig, all the cool kids have one...
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
June 02, 2017, 11:26:14 PM
 #251

BADecker, if you want to have a proper discussion about these sort of topics then you need to:

A. Stop moving the goalposts around. You can't try and use scientific evidence to prove one of your points, and then turn around and say something like "ah but in the distant past we're not sure that time and space were running at the same speed they are today... so anything could be possible...". That kind of logic renders any discussion meaningless.

B. Listen to people when they tell you simple facts about semantics. For example, the definition of a scientific theory. Arguing about these things just muddy the waters.

And did you read my questions a few pages upthread? I don't believe you replied to them...

[edit]

Quote
1. You say that all change, including evolution, is "programmed" into the universe through cause and effect. Now this is a valid philosophical position, which I believe means you view the universe as "deterministic". However, if all change is programmed, then this means that we have no free will, because everything we do is a result of cause and effect, and not our own decisions. Didn't god gift us with free will? If so, how do you resolve this problem?

2. Put all ideas of faith in deities or science aside for a moment. Don't you think it's strange that although you say evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible, the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you? Are they lying, or do you know more about science and maths than them? Or do you have another explanation?

Now think about what you just said. And think about what I have been saying.

Both, science law and science theory are based on the idea that things have been working somewhat like they presently are throughout the past. The difference is that science theory is known to be based on probability, while science law is based on fact. Evolution is science theory that has been debunked by science fact.

Now, let's go the next step. Let's consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past. Some of these changes nullify science law. But science theory is essentially nullified already, by the fact that it is based on probability. What is left?

The religious writings, and the traditions regarding each... plus a certain amount of archaeology. In these, the Bible reigns supreme among records from the past. There are some very good reasons why, not the least of them being the strength of Bible followers of today.

Any way you look at it, evolution isn't even in the running science-wise. The fact that it is still around proves it is a hoax.

Cool
protokol
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1188
Merit: 1011



View Profile
June 02, 2017, 11:55:15 PM
 #252

BADecker, if you want to have a proper discussion about these sort of topics then you need to:

A. Stop moving the goalposts around. You can't try and use scientific evidence to prove one of your points, and then turn around and say something like "ah but in the distant past we're not sure that time and space were running at the same speed they are today... so anything could be possible...". That kind of logic renders any discussion meaningless.

B. Listen to people when they tell you simple facts about semantics. For example, the definition of a scientific theory. Arguing about these things just muddy the waters.

And did you read my questions a few pages upthread? I don't believe you replied to them...

[edit]

Quote
1. You say that all change, including evolution, is "programmed" into the universe through cause and effect. Now this is a valid philosophical position, which I believe means you view the universe as "deterministic". However, if all change is programmed, then this means that we have no free will, because everything we do is a result of cause and effect, and not our own decisions. Didn't god gift us with free will? If so, how do you resolve this problem?

2. Put all ideas of faith in deities or science aside for a moment. Don't you think it's strange that although you say evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible, the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you? Are they lying, or do you know more about science and maths than them? Or do you have another explanation?

Now think about what you just said. And think about what I have been saying.

Both, science law and science theory are based on the idea that things have been working somewhat like they presently are throughout the past. The difference is that science theory is known to be based on probability, while science law is based on fact. Evolution is science theory that has been debunked by science fact.

No, you still don't understand the difference. A scientific law is a description of a phenonemon - it tells us what happens within certain parameters. A scientific theory aims to tell us why it happens. They are two different things, and a theory doesn't just turn into a law if it's been proven enough times. Apples and oranges.
Quote

Now, let's go the next step. Let's consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past. Some of these changes nullify science law. But science theory is essentially nullified already, by the fact that it is based on probability. What is left?

The religious writings, and the traditions regarding each... plus a certain amount of archaeology. In these, the Bible reigns supreme among records from the past. There are some very good reasons why, not the least of them being the strength of Bible followers of today.

If we consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past, then anything anyone says about the past can conveniently be nullified. That includes any and all of your "scientific evidence" for evolution being false. So we're back to square one. Your argument is a ridiculous catch 22.

And then you say that the Bible somehow rises above all this pseudo-philosophical claptrap, and is somehow more credible. Not only that, but one of the reasons you give is that Bible followers are strong in numbers...

By that logic, the Backstreet Boys are one of the most musically talented groups that has ever been, and the Fast and Furious films are some of the finest pieces of cinema in the history of mankind.
Quote

Any way you look at it, evolution isn't even in the running science-wise. The fact that it is still around proves it is a hoax.

Cool
Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is?

Guess I'll make that my sig, all the cool kids have one...
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 12:14:29 AM
 #253

Now think about what you just said. And think about what I have been saying.

Both, science law and science theory are based on the idea that things have been working somewhat like they presently are throughout the past. The difference is that science theory is known to be based on probability, while science law is based on fact. Evolution is science theory that has been debunked by science fact.

No, you still don't understand the difference. A scientific law is a description of a phenonemon - it tells us what happens within certain parameters. A scientific theory aims to tell us why it happens. They are two different things, and a theory doesn't just turn into a law if it's been proven enough times. Apples and oranges.

Gravity is science law. Everybody uses it every day. It is in existence all over the place that we know of, and has been as far back as any historical writings and carvings tell us.

Gravity theory is simply explanations about why gravity works the way it does. Gravity theory is not known to be true.

Evolution is not law. Why not? Because everything that we see that might be attributed to it, can be attributed to something else that we see, as well. Regarding evolution, cause and effect, which is law, alone eliminates evolution, because nobody can even envision what a universe would be like with its opposite, pure random, which would have to be there for unprogrammed mutation.

Evolution theory is simply a story being used to try to explain something that doesn't exist.

Cool
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 12:24:10 AM
 #254

Quote

Now, let's go the next step. Let's consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past. Some of these changes nullify science law. But science theory is essentially nullified already, by the fact that it is based on probability. What is left?

The religious writings, and the traditions regarding each... plus a certain amount of archaeology. In these, the Bible reigns supreme among records from the past. There are some very good reasons why, not the least of them being the strength of Bible followers of today.

If we consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past, then anything anyone says about the past can conveniently be nullified. That includes any and all of your "scientific evidence" for evolution being false. So we're back to square one. Your argument is a ridiculous catch 22.

And then you say that the Bible somehow rises above all this pseudo-philosophical claptrap, and is somehow more credible. Not only that, but one of the reasons you give is that Bible followers are strong in numbers...

By that logic, the Backstreet Boys are one of the most musically talented groups that has ever been, and the Fast and Furious films are some of the finest pieces of cinema in the history of mankind.


Any great changes of the past were not so great as to keep past peoples from recording what they saw and did, and what happened. The best of these records is the Bible.

When you compare the scientific history of how the Bible came into being, the strength of the 25,000 hand-copied copies that we have, and lots of other things about the Bible, including the numbers of people that receive God's blessing through reading it daily... compare these to any other writing that we have, you can eliminate the potentially flawed past of potentially flawed physics.

Potentially flawed physics is like science theory. It might have worked that way in the past. But nobody knows.

The Bible is a record that has strength.

Potentially flawed physics is just another point that nullifies the evolution idea.

Cool
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 12:26:55 AM
 #255

Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is?


Is that an accurate statistic? Even if it is, scientists make mistakes all the time. The reason that they create theories is to attempt to correct their mistakes. Why not be mistaken about evolution?

Cool
protokol
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1188
Merit: 1011



View Profile
June 03, 2017, 01:31:44 AM
 #256

Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is?


Is that an accurate statistic? Even if it is, scientists make mistakes all the time. The reason that they create theories is to attempt to correct their mistakes. Why not be mistaken about evolution?

Cool

Because there is a huge amount of evidence supporting it, and barely any disproving it. That's why all credible scientists believe it. So your answer to why basically all scientists believe in this supposedly flawed theory is "they might be mistaken". OK, what are your thoughts on my other question about free will?

I read your last few posts, and although you use scientific language you don't actually explain what you mean in a coherent manner, so it's impossible to debate your points. I explained why the theory of evolution cannot logically become a law, yet you make up your own rambling explanation about "cause and effect" etc.

Like I said earlier, I've grown disinterested in convincing you of certain scientific facts, but I'm eager to know your thoughts on the free will problem in a deterministic universe, if everything is programmed.

Bonus question: What are your thoughts on the randomness of radioactive decay?

Guess I'll make that my sig, all the cool kids have one...
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 08:49:21 AM
 #257

Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is?


Is that an accurate statistic? Even if it is, scientists make mistakes all the time. The reason that they create theories is to attempt to correct their mistakes. Why not be mistaken about evolution?

Cool

Because there is a huge amount of evidence supporting it, and barely any disproving it. That's why all credible scientists believe it. So your answer to why basically all scientists believe in this supposedly flawed theory is "they might be mistaken".
Wrong. Almost all of the evidence in favor of evolution can be applied to other things, as well, and does not have to support evolution.

Cause and effect (science law), probability math, and Irreducible Complexity are 3 major pieces of science that utterly contradict evolution, thereby disproving it.


OK, what are your thoughts on my other question about free will?
What is your question about free will?



I read your last few posts, and although you use scientific language you don't actually explain what you mean in a coherent manner, so it's impossible to debate your points. I explained why the theory of evolution cannot logically become a law, yet you make up your own rambling explanation about "cause and effect" etc.
Like others, I am not here to formulate some monstrous writing that will cover encyclopedias of pages. We all make up our own "ramblings" in the forum. I have presented enough basics that if a person is interested, he can go out and research it... using my "ramblings" as a start or a direction for his research.



Like I said earlier, I've grown disinterested in convincing you of certain scientific facts, but I'm eager to know your thoughts on the free will problem in a deterministic universe, if everything is programmed.
Thank you for explaining your question. Please ignore my question of your question, above.

1. Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity combine to prove that God exists - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16961242#msg16961242. They don't express much about God. They only point to the fact that He exists.
2. God is extremely more powerful and complex than this universe, as can be seen by the way cause and effect works in everything.
3. God has left open a tiny part of the soul/spirit/mind of people to believe in Him in any varying degree.
4. God examines this tiny free will part, and goes back to the beginning of creation, and jiggles/juggles all of the beginning causes to match our tiny free will, and to accomplish His goals according to this matching. This means that there have existed countless timelines throughout the universe and history, God regulating where we all exist within them.
5. Some starting questions. >>> Is this cause-and-effect-changing-process automatic with God? How far greater is God's Spirit (not mind) than ours? We recognize about 32 dimensions; are there an infinity of dimensions that God regulates entirely?



Bonus question: What are your thoughts on the randomness of radioactive decay?

"Randomness" is a term we apply to things that we can't understand by analyzing them directly. Rather, we "plot points" that we can see, and use probability to "guess at" the rest. There is no random.


The info in this post covers a lot of thinking and formulation. It will probably not be understood without a reasonable amount of thinking. The start of it is to understand that science proves that God exists, even though many scientists ignore this proof.

Cool
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 854
Merit: 563


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 02:23:53 PM
 #258

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.



.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 09:16:07 PM
 #259

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.

What do you even mean, "Irreducible complexity can evolve?"

The simple words, "Irreducible complexity" means that there is nothing useful from which an irreducible complexity component can evolve from. Evolution has to have some thing that is useful in mind for it to evolve that way. Nature doesn't simply evolve a clump of useless cells, that sit there for millions of years, continually evolving from less complex useless cells to more complex useless cells, with the idea that someday there will be an eye that will be useful to the then-evolved creature. To suggest this is to suggest great inteligence and planning in nature. This doesn't fit any theory of evolution.

For example. Let's say that you have a human eye. There is simply nothing that would flow in stages from something rather simple to something as complex as the human eye. According to evolution theory, there has to be some use for every little thing that evolves. There is no evolution explantation for a jump from a clump of useless cells to an eye. But that's what they would be... useless cells. Because there is no use for them prior to becoming an eye.

However, all that talk is playing with the idea of evolution. Cause and effect show that things are programmed. Not only life things, but everything. So, whatever you want to call evolution, it was programmed through cause and effect by something that is extremely greater than the whole universe, both in ability and intelligence.

There is no evidence of random chance changes without cause and effect. Such a thing does not even fit our thinking. All science is built on cause and effect. The greater the scientist, the more he uses cause and effect. All the scietists you quoted CAUSED the happenings that they observed. None of them watched these things happen in nature without manipulation of nature in some way.

Cool
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 854
Merit: 563


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 09:27:04 PM
 #260

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.

What do you even mean, "Irreducible complexity can evolve?"

The simple words, "Irreducible complexity" means that there is nothing useful from which an irreducible complexity component can evolve from. Evolution has to have some thing that is useful in mind for it to evolve that way. Nature doesn't simply evolve a clump of useless cells, that sit there for millions of years, continually evolving from less complex useless cells to more complex useless cells, with the idea that someday there will be an eye that will be useful to the then-evolved creature. To suggest this is to suggest great inteligence and planning in nature. This doesn't fit any theory of evolution.

For example. Let's say that you have a human eye. There is simply nothing that would flow in stages from something rather simple to something as complex as the human eye. According to evolution theory, there has to be some use for every little thing that evolves. There is no evolution explantation for a jump from a clump of useless cells to an eye. But that's what they would be... useless cells. Because there is no use for them prior to becoming an eye.

However, all that talk is playing with the idea of evolution. Cause and effect show that things are programmed. Not only life things, but everything. So, whatever you want to call evolution, it was programmed through cause and effect by something that is extremely greater than the whole universe, both in ability and intelligence.

There is no evidence of random chance changes without cause and effect. Such a thing does not even fit our thinking. All science is built on cause and effect. The greater the scientist, the more he uses cause and effect. All the scietists you quoted CAUSED the happenings that they observed. None of them watched these things happen in nature without manipulation of nature in some way.

Cool

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Methods_by_which_irreducible_complexity_may_evolve

As I said, it's debunked. It's pseudoscience without any grounds.

Radioactive decay is so far true randomness

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177872/true-randomness-via-radioactive-decay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

Your pseudoscience cannot refute the facts, sorry. Evolution is a fact and you can't accept it because your religion has infected your brain. I'm truly sorry for you.

Regarding the eye argument which is used by many creationists:

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.


http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/eye-too-complex-have-evolved-naturally

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_eye_is_too_complex_to_have_evolved




.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... 180 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!