Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
PING!
OOOO! This will convince everyone! (</mega-sarcasm off>)
2 really good articles there!
Very interesting - will read later. After this complex and obviously indepth analysis, I respond to the first sentence - I think most people are unswayed by the concept of irreducible complexity because they’re not exposed to it and/or have no idea what it means - and because they’ve been conditioned to respond with derision to anyone who dares to question Darwinism.
Bookmarked for later.
Wouldn’t you know it. The mods moved my Creation/ID/Evolution thread to Gen/Chat—AGAIN!
Whatever...all the appropriate FReepers have been pinged. Let the games begin :o)
Thanks for posting.
Question: Is this presented as an argument that evolution is impossible, or that abiogenesis is impossible?
That both abiogenesis and materialistic evolution (proto-cell to man) is impossible.
My pleasure. Hope to see you in the thread! All the best—GGG
Where is the proof that life was created?
Then I don't follow the reasoning.
That seems to imply that not only is creation of self-replicating molecules by naturalistic means impossible, but so is the actual replication process once they do exist.
Actually, that was a bit simplistic. It’s not just about what’s impossible. This thread is also about which theory (ID or Materialist Evolution) best fits the evidence. Here’s the affirmative again:
(A) All aspects of life (not just bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades) lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations, and (B) only intelligent design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.
Currently, or forever?
and (B) only intelligent design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.
What are the criteria for "acceptable historical inference"?
Think of it in terms of A) non-Life creating life = impossible B) even if you start with the first self-replicating proto-cell, materialist evolution still = impossible.
Irreducible design is hardly new to human thinking as we design many things ourselves with just that feature as a result of the design.
An internal combustion engine is an example. It has several systems that must function at a minimal level of performance for the engine to function as a whole. Remove or reduce any one of these systems and the engine will not function as a engine.
Not only must the systems be present and functioning they must do so in a coordinated way with all other systems.
An internal combustion engine even with all systems in perfect condition won’t function. It requires a starter, not the motor that spins the engine, but some agent to overcome the inertia of the engine and start all the systems functioning.
The experiments of Miller and others as noted on FR do not change that simple fact of cause and effect.
A scientist mixes chemicals that came from a supply house in beakers made by a glass blower and shocks it with electricity delivered by a grid, all intelligently designed as is the very experiment it’s self.
So what role is being played by this scientist if not that of an intelligent designer? What kind of complexity does his experiment demonstrate?
==Currently, or forever?
As Alex Williams points out in his paper, all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations. As such, the answer is forever.
"Irreducible complexity" looks like it only addresses (A). (B) makes assumtions about what the limitations of capabilities of that first self-replicitating proto-cell had to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.