Cells are irreducibly complex - meaning that ALL parts must be present at the ‘same time’ for the cell to ‘operate’. The cell is either ‘complete and alive’, or it is not.
If you honestly believe that ALL of the quintillions x quintillions of parts and processes of the cell just fell together one day, making the cell alive - then you are an ‘evolutionary cult member’ with a very high degree of ‘FAITH’ in your religion/cult.
It is sad to see you have chosen a heartless and hollow, scientific messiah. You live without hope. Sadder still to see you being deceived, by the very heroes you have chosen to worship.
Perhaps you could explain, in a scientific fashion, how genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia, albinism, cretinism etc. can exist. Obviously, the cells are defective genetically, yet the individual continues to exist (the basic principles were developed by no less than a priest some years ago, so they must be unassailable). :-)
Your point is clearly false. How do you rationalize putting it in front of folks? I know the answer, salvation. Your motives are pure, but the flawed method takes away from the purpose. Have you ever thought of taking a more logical path for the redeeming the unsaved? As I said, your goal is wonderful, but you just make yourself look silly with these tortuously false arguments. I am trying to be kind, but statements like yours make it difficult to maintain christian compassion (but I'm still working on this).
“Cells are irreducibly complex”
Thank God you don’t teach science. But please, please continue to post here.
Even GGG’s favorite recourse Creation Ministries International advises against using this type of argument:
“Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is ‘the truth’ (John 14:6)!
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
Continuing to trot out the same old refuted argument does not help your cause, or enhanced your creditability
· Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”
· “ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.”
· “Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.
· “Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.”
Now it is time for you to respond with some type of straw man, misdirection, out right avoidance, or the favorite tatic of riducle. However it would be a refeshing change if you could actually provide some evidence to show that any of those statements are in fact incorrect.
That’s our argument in a nutshell, CottShop. Beautifully stated! Thanks, Bob