Irreducible complexity

[WinterBorn]

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Why don't you simply tell us how man parts you would require to build any powered vehicle of your choice. You cannot deny the simple fact that it would require a minimum number of parts. You cannot deny the fact that you will eventually, in the simplification process, reach a point where you can not remove any more parts and still have work. Do you deny this?

The original transportation was feet. Required no parts.


Why do you embarrass yourself trying so hard and demanding that we accept your point of view that there must be a creator? You talk about what atheists want, namely to remove god (which is hilarious). And yet you, spend hours arguing against evolution, often without understanding the theory.

Why all the attacks on atheists? For the most part, atheists are fine with you believing what you believe. We take issue when you want to make laws based on it, but other than that and the screaming fundies demanding we follow what you believe, most atheists are fine with a Live & Let Live way of going about life.

 

[WinterBorn]

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Why don't you simply tell us how man parts you would require to build any powered vehicle of your choice. You cannot deny the simple fact that it would require a minimum number of parts. You cannot deny the fact that you will eventually, in the simplification process, reach a point where you can not remove any more parts and still have work. Do you deny this?

It doesn't matter. Your original point was laughable. And your comparing fully built cars with living cells is insane.

 

[Magnificat]

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Righties never think things through.

Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Faun]

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Righties never think things through.

Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

LOL

You already proved me right when you altered the parameters of your own failed analogy.

 

[WinterBorn]

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Righties never think things through.

Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

I'm still waiting for the answer to what is neither matter nor energy. And that was 2 or 3 days ago.

 

[Magnificat]

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Righties never think things through.

Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

LOL

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Righties never think things through.

Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

LOL

You already proved me right when you altered the parameters of your own failed analogy.

I changed nothing. I simplified and clarified what I meant until someone of even your limited intellect could understand it. Sucks to be you.

 

[WinterBorn]

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Righties never think things through.

Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

LOL

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Righties never think things through.

Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

LOL

You already proved me right when you altered the parameters of your own failed analogy.

I changed nothing. I simplified and clarified what I meant until someone of even your limited intellect could understand it. Sucks to be you.

Horseshit.

You listed 8 very specific parts that you said could not be removed. You know, like a battery, spark plugs, radiator ect. Except all of those could be removed, since there are examples of car without them. Then you went with the "electric cars don't count" and some other dodges.

 

[Faun]

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Righties never think things through.

Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

LOL

You already proved me right when you altered the parameters of your own failed analogy.

You proved me right by being the intellectually dis

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Righties never think things through.

Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

LOL

You already proved me right when you altered the parameters of your own failed analogy.

I changed nothing. I simplified and clarified what I meant until someone of even your limited intellect could understand it. Sucks to be you.

"You proved me right by being the intellectually dis"

LOL

Whassamatter, Spunky? You have a brain fart in the middle of posting?

"I changed nothing. I simplified and clarified what I meant until someone of even your limited intellect could understand it. Sucks to be you.

LOLOL

No you didn't. It didn't even occur to you that there are alternative ways of starting a car other than a battery as evidenced by your questioning how else could one possibly start a car without a battery. Only after someone had to feed you that bit of information did you feel compelled to alter your failed analogy rather than simply accept the reality that it, like you, is an abysmal failure. That's because, just as I said, you didn't think this through.

And here's another abysmal failure from which you can't escape.... people can make cars.... they can't make people. As someone else most eloquently posted...

Your original point was laughable. And your comparing fully built cars with living cells is insane.

 

[Wuwei]

This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And THAT is exactly what atheists want, more than anything else. A world without God. They'll get their wish, someday. In hell. Fools!

How about you muster some respect - even for those with whom you disagree? Wouldn't that be a good idea? After all, in case them atheists "repent," we were taught there will be more joy over them than over you, the perennially righteous.

Next, a "world without God" isn't what "atheists want"; rather it is the reality atheists accept as a given, absent evidence to the contrary.

And finally, how can you assume to know about Her final judgment? Isn't that a tad impertinent towards Her?

I was referring to atheists as a group. My comment was not directed at any individual. There is no such thing as an atheist. The Bible specifically states that they will be without excuse. And I was not being disrespectful to anyone. I was simply telling the truth.

Group or individual, it makes no difference, your statement remains factually wrong.

 

[james bond]

This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"

.

If you can prove it was a minimalist car, then Darwin was wrong. The idiot admitted so himself.

 

[Magnificat]

This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"

.

If you can prove it was a minimalist car, then Darwin was wrong. The idiot admitted so himself.

Its amazing how many believe in evolution. Especially since nothing it claims can be verified by the scientific method. Real scientific throries can be falsified. Evolution cannot. It is not a theory. Its a philosophy that requires faith to believe in.

 

[Wuwei]

Its amazing how many believe in evolution. Especially since nothing it claims can be verified by the scientific method. Real scientific throries can be falsified. Evolution cannot. It is not a theory. Its a philosophy that requires faith to believe in.

Other than God did it in seven days, do you have a better idea than evolution?

.

 

[alang1216]

This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"

.

If you can prove it was a minimalist car, then Darwin was wrong. The idiot admitted so himself.

Its amazing how many believe in evolution. Especially since nothing it claims can be verified by the scientific method. Real scientific throries can be falsified. Evolution cannot. It is not a theory. Its a philosophy that requires faith to believe in.

Quite untrue, evolution can easily be falsified. The theory predicts that we'll find fossils in a particular sequence. If a fossil is ever found that contradicts the theory, the theory must be false. We've found trillions of fossils and every single one supports the ToE.

If someone found a proven falsifier, say a horse with a dinosaur, that person would be an instantly famous celebrity.

 

[Magnificat]

This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"

.

If you can prove it was a minimalist car, then Darwin was wrong. The idiot admitted so himself.

Its amazing how many believe in evolution. Especially since nothing it claims can be verified by the scientific method. Real scientific throries can be falsified. Evolution cannot. It is not a theory. Its a philosophy that requires faith to believe in.

Quite untrue, evolution can easily be falsified. The theory predicts that we'll find fossils in a particular sequence. If a fossil is ever found that contradicts the theory, the theory must be false. We've found trillions of fossils and every single one supports the ToE.

If someone found a proven falsifier, say a horse with a dinosaur, that person would be an instantly famous celebrity.

Guess what? They have already discovered fossils that are out of sequence. Thousands of them. So much for that theory. Lol!

 

[alang1216]

This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"

.

If you can prove it was a minimalist car, then Darwin was wrong. The idiot admitted so himself.

Its amazing how many believe in evolution. Especially since nothing it claims can be verified by the scientific method. Real scientific throries can be falsified. Evolution cannot. It is not a theory. Its a philosophy that requires faith to believe in.

Quite untrue, evolution can easily be falsified. The theory predicts that we'll find fossils in a particular sequence. If a fossil is ever found that contradicts the theory, the theory must be false. We've found trillions of fossils and every single one supports the ToE.

If someone found a proven falsifier, say a horse with a dinosaur, that person would be an instantly famous celebrity.

Guess what? They have already discovered fossils that are out of sequence. Thousands of them. So much for that theory. Lol!

Link?

Rock layers may be flipped but that does not mean they are out of sequence. Fossils may burrow into older sediments and get buried there but that does not mean they are out of sequence. Both cases are easily recognized by scientists.

 

[WinterBorn]

This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"

.

If you can prove it was a minimalist car, then Darwin was wrong. The idiot admitted so himself.

Its amazing how many believe in evolution. Especially since nothing it claims can be verified by the scientific method. Real scientific throries can be falsified. Evolution cannot. It is not a theory. Its a philosophy that requires faith to believe in.

Quite untrue, evolution can easily be falsified. The theory predicts that we'll find fossils in a particular sequence. If a fossil is ever found that contradicts the theory, the theory must be false. We've found trillions of fossils and every single one supports the ToE.

If someone found a proven falsifier, say a horse with a dinosaur, that person would be an instantly famous celebrity.

Guess what? They have already discovered fossils that are out of sequence. Thousands of them. So much for that theory. Lol!

No, they have not. That is an outright lie. Unless you want to count the one that the guy claims to have found with human footprints and dinosaur footprints together. But he won't produce said fossils.

 

[Magnificat]

This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"

.

If you can prove it was a minimalist car, then Darwin was wrong. The idiot admitted so himself.

Its amazing how many believe in evolution. Especially since nothing it claims can be verified by the scientific method. Real scientific throries can be falsified. Evolution cannot. It is not a theory. Its a philosophy that requires faith to believe in.

Quite untrue, evolution can easily be falsified. The theory predicts that we'll find fossils in a particular sequence. If a fossil is ever found that contradicts the theory, the theory must be false. We've found trillions of fossils and every single one supports the ToE.

If someone found a proven falsifier, say a horse with a dinosaur, that person would be an instantly famous celebrity.

Guess what? They have already discovered fossils that are out of sequence. Thousands of them. So much for that theory. Lol!

Link?

Rock layers may be flipped but that does not mean they are out of sequence. Fossils may burrow into older sediments and get buried there but that does not mean they are out of sequence. Both cases are easily recognized by scientists.

The whole idea of a geologic column is simply ridiculous. Here. Educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.
Geological Column and Inherent Problems - Creation Studies Institute

 

[OldLady]

So, the car parts just randomly throw themselves against each other and make new and better cars. Interesting

It's odd how this thread morphed. The idea of the OP was to attempt an analogy to show irreducible complexity is an argument against evolution (and cars).

To continue the analogy by saying cars don't just randomly throw parts together is actually an analogy that life didn't just throw organ parts together either. For the non-creationist, that's an argument for evolution; not against it.

.

The point of the OP was that something as simple as a car was designed yet you want us to believe that something trillions and trillions and trillions of times more complex: a functioning cell, was just throw together outback by proteins slamming into each other

Don't those complex organisms evolve one feature at a time? No one is positing that a full grown human was accidentally created by random crashing cells.

 

[OldLady]

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.

Then that is what you should have said. Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1? Is there any requirement as far as the power source? And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open? Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.

Righties never think things through.

Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

Now THAT is a nonproductive attitude.