Irreducible Complexity: another Nail in Evolution's Coffin

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Sunni Man, Oct 13, 2010.

  1. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    44,352
    Thanks Received:
    6,325
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +21,325
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE[/ame]
     
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    89,088
    Thanks Received:
    16,281
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +48,687
    We were all black in Africa, then in the blink of an eye, as soon as we migrated north of Sicily humans all turned white! the when we migrated to Asia, we turned yellow! and the red in America (Does this make sense to anyone?)
     
  3. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    44,352
    Thanks Received:
    6,325
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +21,325
    Adaptation to the environment is not evolution. :doubt:
     
  4. eagleseven
    Offline

    eagleseven Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,517
    Thanks Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    OH
    Ratings:
    +1,259
    God made us different colors so that we would kill and enslave eachother based upon skin pigment for thousands of years.

    [​IMG]

    What a clever God.

    Ever hear of Vitamin D?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2010
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    54,438
    Thanks Received:
    6,483
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +15,331
    With a time period of 4 billion years in which to evolve, incredible complexity is a given.
     
  6. KissMy
    Offline

    KissMy Free Breast Exam

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    12,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,258
    Old Rocks used to worship this chart. It is nothing more than just a cartoon.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. antagon
    Offline

    antagon The Man

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,572
    Thanks Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +286
    irreducible. :rolleyes:
     
  8. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    24,227
    Thanks Received:
    2,858
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +6,830
    They said the same thing about the eye, but that's been shown to be false. I'm sure that this process is not irreducible and, if it is, it only proves that God created bacteria, while evolution provided the means to further complexity. None of this happened "suddenly" despite what some may say.
     
  9. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,472
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,474
    Don't expect to change anyone's mind. faith in evolution is just as much a religious belief as faith in intelligent creation.
     
  10. rdean
    Online

    rdean Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told

    Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

    Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology.

    Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told - science-in-society - 19 October 2005 - New Scientist

    Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. "I can't point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated," he said.

    Behe said he had come up with his own "broader" definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. "The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it," he says.


    WHAT'S YOUR SIGN????

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2010

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

human evolution chart national geographic