The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-08-2015, 11:57 AM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2015 12:17 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 01:57 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  This will be the third time I've asked this question and yet to get a response - WHAT SPECIFIC GOD ARE YOU ARGUING FOR?

As far as I can tell, this god concept would be no different than nature. Nature=god, you have posted walls of text that ultimately say nothing useful.

A cumulative case for the God of the bible


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...for-theism

http://www.christianforums.com

by Breckmin

Even if you prove that this world comes into existence due to intelligence or higher power, you still have not "proved" the God of the Bible or the God of Abraham. That must be done through accumulative case argument...and even then... it is an argument via providing evidence....it is NOT the same thing as empirical proof.

The first problem we have is that "proof" requires honesty on the part of the person examining the proof or examining the evidence.

If the person being presented with the evidence does not allow the evidence by definition of a particular field of study, then you have a whole system which denies certain evidence.

In contemporary evidential apologetics (rather than presuppositional apologetics) we build cumulative case arguments starting with scientific
evidence. First we need to show that science can allow for identifying the work of intelligence, even if you don't prove what the Intelligence is.
Then we proceed to show evidence that biological systems are the result of intelligence, once such evidence is allowed. After this, we move from identifying that something is the result of intelligence to allowing for theistic implications in science. This is to propose various "candidates" for such intelligence which is evidenced in biological systems. Then through other arguments such as the fine tuning of the universe, we argue for agnostic theism. Agnostic theism is a step in the progression of the cumulative case argument for the God of Abraham...but you must first
reach agnostic theism before you can proceed to "candidate creators" for
such theism. Then we proceed to argue for self-existence (Aseity) and other arguments which substantiate an eternal Creator... from there we argue for infinite Creator...and then from Infinite Creator to monotheism
and then from monotheism to historical orthodox monotheism being the
God of Abraham. It must be taken in steps, but it requires honesty on
the part of the person examining the cumulative case...and often involves
removing the blinders of naturalism/materialism in science.

Islam, Christianity and Orthodox Judaism all share this cumulative
case argument for the God of Abraham.... how we proceed in the
cumulative case for Christianity is a much more detailed step.

Ultimately we are not talking about "proof" like in repeated experimentation...

but rather a preponderance of the evidence.

There's no empirical proof for the Resurrection or the Virgin
birth. These too are based on faith and the cumulative case
made for Christianity.

Ultimately it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit to believe
in the miracles of Jesus and His Lordship/Deity.

http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com.br/20...anity.html

The Cumulative Case for Christianity

Have you ever seen a TV show in which a criminal is being brought to trial, and the cops or prosecutors are lamenting over the fact that their case is entirely "circumstantial"? Or maybe the defense attorney is confident in a victory because of that fact? These (fictional) scenarios portray "circumstantial" evidence in a very negative light. However, the fact of the matter is, if you have enough circumstantial evidence, then your case becomes nearly air-tight.

The evidential case for Christianity is a very strong case because it is based a panoply of circumstantial evidence. Each piece adds more weight to the Cumulative Case for Christianity. Denial of any one piece of evidence is like trying to remove a single stone from a mighty fortress: you may think you have done something until you realize the fortress is built on a massive foundation. Yet to deny enough of the evidence to try to shake the foundation requires such extreme (and unfounded) skepticism that such a position does not hold up well to criticism.

It is really impossible to list all of the evidences in favor of Christianity, and also those in opposition to naturalism, which I consider to be the zeitgeist and current "en vogue" challenger to Christianity, but here are a few important ones:

The origin of the universe (sometimes called the Cosmological Argument: if the universe had a beginning, who is its Beginner?)
The fine tuning of the universe (sometimes call the Design Argument, or the Teleological Argument)
The origin of life (a scientifically intractable problem)
The Argument from Reason (how can we reason if Reason did not produce us?)
The Moral Argument (we all recognize a moral law; who then is the moral Lawgiver?)
Fulfilled prophecy in the bible
The resurrection of Jesus Christ
The occurrence of miracles


Each one of these, of course, has its counterarguments, but for each one the strength of the counterargument is that most would prefer a natural explanation to a supernatural one...even if the natural explanation is unsatisfactory, unsupported, and improbable (compared to the supernatural one). But there are only so many times you can plausibly deny pieces of the Cumulative Case before you have gone off the deep end into a hyper-skepticism that you would never apply to any rational decision you would make in any other area of life.

The Cumulative Case for Christianity is incredibly strong, is only getting stronger, and is here to stay. So hold on as we explore the depths of this Cumulative Case. Or, as Morpheus (quoting Carrol) said, "I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Can Science Identify the Intelligent Designer?

http://www.reasons.org/articles/can-scie...t-designer

The Evidence for Christianity

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...ristianity

Oh shit, did I miss this party? How come no one sent me an invite? Angry

I give you a B- in google skills, now, what do you actually know about the theology of which you are referring? The historicity of jesus? The fabrication of the triune concept? the creation of the abrahamic-faith based mythical god? lets take a peek at some of your clueless pasting of other's work:

"The origin of the universe (sometimes called the Cosmological Argument: if the universe had a beginning, who is its Beginner?)"

Child level and long refuted weak sauce argument. You cannot state with any degree of validity that the first causal theory doesn't apply to the mythical egocentric abrahamic god because you have the unique opinion he is the "eternal god", thus wasn't "caused". How did you arrive at that thought? How did you ascertain your version of "god" is eternal? Which god by the way? There are so many, yet each fan club thinks their god is the only god, the true god and the only true religion. The irony of that kills me.

The major premise of the argument, ""everything had a cause," is contradicted by the conclusion that "god did not have a cause." You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have had a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe.

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that god is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove. If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe. The word "cause" is a transitive verb. Causality requires temporality. If god exists outside of time, he cannot cause anything.

The latest spin on this position by christian philosophers like William Lane Craig is that:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This may be seductive to those who already believe in a god. To me, it seems awfully suspicious. The clause "Everything that begins to exist" sounds artificial. It is not a phrase we hear outside the context of theistic philosophy. It appears to be an Ad Hoc construction designed to smooth over earlier apologetic efforts.

Nice try though.

"The fine tuning of the universe (sometimes call the Design Argument, or the Teleological Argument)"

William Paley's watchmaker argument (design implies a designer). Also bleeds into the complexity theory. Think of a tornado, does a mystical super being push a theoretical button and create a tornado? I would like to think not, the complexity can emerge as a natural result of a system and not as designed or orchestrated by an entity.

- David Hume argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes.

As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine—as in Paley's watchmaker argument—when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

- Richard Dawkins argues that the watch analogy conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) and the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in a watch). The comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.

Dawkins described Paley's argument as being "as mistaken as it is elegant". In both contexts he saw Paley as having made an incorrect proposal as to a certain problem's solution, but did not disrespect him for this. In his essay The big bang, Steven Pinker discussed Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Biologists today do not disagree with Paley's laying out of the problem. They disagree only with his solution."

In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life was the result of complex biological processes. Dawkins makes the argument that the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because proponents of evolution do not consider evolution "lucky"; rather than luck, the evolution of human life is the result of billions of years of natural selection. He therefore concludes that evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.

- this argument suffers from a number of critical flaws, the biggest flaw being a failure to understand why no amount of empirical evidence will support Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy. This stems from a failure to understand how analogies work: analogies are not arguments. Analogies illustrate arguments, and insofar as one only makes an analogy (but fails to sketch out the meat of the argument), then one is failing to make an argument.

But I’m willing to be a little flexible on this point: insofar as a good argument is one that is clear and unambiguous, and insofar as an analogy is less clear than a list of premises followed by a conclusion, then an analogy is a bad argument. Sure, good rhetoric has implicit/hidden premises, but good arguments don’t.

The Watchmaker Analogy will never demonstrate that design is true, or that belief in design is justified, no matter the evidence. Allow me to provide an analogy to illustrate my point. Imagine, if you will, that we have a painting by a particular artist. The artist has admitted to creating the painting, and people witnessed the creation. The artist has a distinctive style and technique, prefers to use certain unique materials (which are generally not used by other artists). In short, there are a set of characteristics that are associated with this particular artist.

Now suppose that we find a second piece of art. The artist is silent as to whether or not they created this new piece. We start to investigate all the materials and techniques that went into creating this picture, and every characteristic we identify in the second picture, matches a characteristic in the ‘set of characteristics’ mentioned above. Are we justified in concluding that the same artist also created this picture? If not, if we keep accumulating more and more ‘characteristics’, will our conclusion eventually be justified?

Absolutely not.

Because I’m not a theologian, I’ll attempt to make the argument clear:

1) There exists a painting (P1) known to have been painted by an Artist (A1)

2) The construction of P1 consisted of certain steps (S1) known to be associated with A1.

3) If a painting (P2) is constructed according to S1, then P2 was created by A1.

4) P2 was constructed according to S1.

5) P2 was created by A1.

The flaw in this argument lies in Premise 3. Premise 3 fails to account for any alternative hypotheses, such as the existence of another artist (A2, A3, … An) who also utilises S1. Changing Premise 3 to the more weak “If a painting (P2) is constructed according to S1, then P2 was probably created by A1” doesn’t resolve this issue. Once we arrive at the conclusion that it’s possible the painting was created by either A1 or A2, we now need to compare A1 and A2 (themselves) to see how likely it is that they created the painting.

Paley’s argument is that a designer (A1) is known to have created a watch (P1), and the marks of design (S1) can be found in the watch. By analogy, Paley claims that life (P2) also exhibits these marks (S1), ergo a designer (A1) is responsible for the creation of life. This argument fails because it fails to take into account an alternative explanation, namely that the processes of Evolution (A2) also exhibit S1.

You can make S1 consist of 10 points of similarity, 1000 points, or 1,000,000 points of similarity: so long as those other points are likewise explained by evolution, one is not justified in simply declaring “alright so, they were designed”. Merely shoveling in more data into S1 is irrelevant.

At this point, anyone acting in accordance with intellectual integrity will move their investigation up a notch, to discuss whether or not A1 (god) or A2 (evolution) exists. As there are only self-contradictory definitions of god, and as there is no evidence for god, and as there are no non-question-begging arguments for god, one cannot assert that god (A1) is a viable explanatory mechanism.

As the arguments for god collapses, the argument for theistic design collapses. The argument is fatally flawed not because of a lack of empirical data, but due to the insufficiency of the arguments for god.

"The origin of life (a scientifically intractable problem)"

great question, here is the answer....no one knows yet. We have some hypothesis in regards to that, but no definitive solid falsifiable answer yet. Anyone who claims to know the causal of life is lying. you make THINK you know, you may have FAITH you know, you may HOPE or even WISH you know, but you don't. It is very possible we may never know....but there is no reason to make up shit to fill in that gap of knowledge in the meantime like.....god.

"The Argument from Reason (how can we reason if Reason did not produce us?)"

This BS theory made popular by CS Lewis sounds powerful, and you gotta give him an A for creativity and salesmanship. Upon closer examination its primary weakness is the irrefutable fact that it is not a proof of God’s existence because it requires the basic assumption that human minds can assess the truth or falsehood of a claim, and it requires that human minds can be convinced by argumentation. But in order to reject the assumption that human minds can assess the truth or falsehood of a claim, a human mind must assume that this claim is true or false, which immediately proves that human minds can assess the truth or falsehood of a claim. But none of this has anything to do with God’s existence.


"The Moral Argument (we all recognize a moral law; who then is the moral Lawgiver?)"


Well, we know from Anthropology 101 where human customs come from, and in general why they arise. One of the fallacies religionists claim is that without their deity, morality would not exist. The fact is that EVERY SINGLE commandment, injunction and law in the Bible existed already in ancient Near Eastern culture and was imported into the Bible. Religion took their laws from existing culture, not vice versa.

Religious people and popular culture likes to draw a correlation between morality and religion, but upon close inspection, one has nothing to do with the other. One is not needed for the other.

Lets go back to hunter-gatherer time....it didn't take long to figure out that ones odds for survival were greatly increased if we stick together in groups, hunt in packs, protect each other....it also doesn't take a genius to figure out that as we started to build bigger tribes, groups, villages, towns, etc...that the basis of self-preservation and safety is a tier one concern. It would be frowned upon to put it lightly, if you stole my food, raped my wife or children, or killed one of my family....these type of actions would be considered against everyone's self-preservation and safety...thus banned...thus SOCIETY dictates what is acceptable behavior, and this evolves with time. No made up god/s needed at all. No BS "ten commandments" which are so obviously written by a group of empowered, ignorant patriarchal men.....thou shalt not rape? ....nope, not on there, thou shalt not enslave other humans? ...nope, not on there, and surely the all knowing god knew that would be a problem...but no...the MEN that created the ten commandments were more concerned with pressing matters like thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.

Religion’s basis is their holy books, and their holy books are filled with horrific threats and deeds. Hardly the go-to reference for how to conduct oneself. The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted," suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. This perspective is absurd as all one has to do is look at Denmark or Sweden to see that these largely atheist areas enjoy being at the top tier of civilization. This is broken down in great detail in a book by Phil Zuckerman, "Society without God".

Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, in his article, "Is Faith Good For Us" states the following: "A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries (those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics) are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute."

A study by Gregory S. Paul, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was done and the study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).

So it seems that a plethora of evidence exists to show that not only do we not need religion in our lives to be good humans but that having it in our lives can be counter-productive and unhealthy. Our world IS corrupt and broken, but only parts of it. Guess what correlation exists in those broken areas? High levels of religious belief. Even within the US, there are a plethora of studies and statistics that show the Bible belt has the lowest average IQ, highest poverty levels, lowest average education levels, poor health, and….you guessed it…high levels of religious beliefs. The areas of the world that have a zealous belief in religion are usually the most violent, and enjoy being at the bottom tier of civilization ranking for quality of life.

Creationists have long been of the opinion that atheists are evil and corrupt. Well, lets take a peek at US prison statistics. US population of Christians is about 70%...and that number is reflected with entrance statistics for US prisons IAW the FBI database for religiosity and prison population. About 70% of US prisoners are of some flavor of Christian delusion. Guess what percentage are non-religious? .07%.....Contemplate on that for a moment.

One would surmise to make the world unbroken and less corrupt, a step in the right direction would be to remove religion from it. The only thing wrong with the human condition is the embracement of religion. People like to say, "why take away faith if it helps people get through the day"...I've never really understood how removing a bad way to reason will make it difficult to get through the day. If anything, it would seem that correcting someone's reasoning would significantly increase their chances of getting through their day.

With reliable forms of reasoning comes the capability of crafting conditions that enable people to navigate life's obstacles. By using a more reliable form of reasoning, people are more capable of bringing about conditions that enable them to flourish.

To argue that people need faith is to abandon hope, and to condescend and accuse the faithful of being incapable of understanding the importance of reason and rationality. There are better and worse ways to come to terms with death, to find strength during times of personal crisis, to make meaning and purpose in our lives, to interpret our sense of awe and wonder, and to contribute to human well-being...and the faithful are completely capable of understanding and achieving this..if they would only try.

Asking “If there is no god, what is the purpose of life?” is like asking, “If there is no master, whose slave will I be?”

Reference:

Zuckerman, Phil. Society without god: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York: New York University Press, 2008. Print.

"Fulfilled prophecy in the bible"

sigh....You know I could sit here and say...."within my lifetime we will find a more efficient source of energy!"...and if that comes true...WOW I must be a prophet and have divine level knowledge!....no not actually.

The list of prophesies never realized is long...the handful that appear to have come true is just chance and circumstance, not proof of god.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

Lets look at jesus's prophesy...you know....the inconvenient EPIC level prophesy that single-handedly disproves christianity:

The Bible claims that Jesus made the following comment:

Matthew 16:28

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus also advised against going to court over someone who steals something and also told people not to store up stocks or reserves for the future. Clearly, he thought the end was very near.

Likewise, Paul advised followers not to marry and that the end time was near. In this scripture he obviously believes that some of the people he is talking to will still be alive at the second coming.

I Thessalonians 4: 16-18

“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.”

The obvious fact is that the second coming was not forthcoming at that time, or even close to being near. The 2000-year delay is a strong piece of evidence that Christianity is a failed religion.

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. Remember that Jesus was a Jew who had no intention to deviate from the Hebrew scriptures:

“Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)”

Jesus’ immediate followers, mostly his 12 disciples, probably did not immediately identify this failure, because after Jesus’ body was likely stolen and concealed, a rumor spread that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. A sense of optimism overcame their grief about his execution and renewed some hope that he was a true messiah. If they had known then that there was to be no return in the near or long-term future, they likely would have abandoned any further activity. Despite this resurgence in their faith, they never agreed with Paul’s concept of Jesus as being divine. Anything written in the Bible to suggest that they did is probably a result of later editing by some of Paul’s followers. Such a belief would have been an exceptional departure from the Jewish faith.

"The resurrection of Jesus Christ"

Give me one piece of proof for this...just one. An empty tomb does not a Resurrection make. No one who ever wrote of jesus knew him or even met the "earthly jesus", not even Paul. Paul asserted that jesus appeared before 500 witnesses, the disciples, James and then himself after his resurrection...now the only written record we have of this is Paul....and since the messiah was unceremoniously nailed to a piece of wood, and died, their whole growing son of god cult idea took a major face punch....so using knowledge of human behaviorisms and pysche....who would have the motive to lie....Paul.....so his "post mortem appearance" is suspect to say the least. Not one corroboration by any of these other witnesses. He had motive to lie, and there is zero corroboration, thus suspect, take that off the table what else yo got ot prove the resurrection.....first hand witness wise....anything, anything at all?


"The occurrence of miracles"


Give me one, just one.....be awesome if you could provide the citation of say....one amputee whose arm grew back.

All,

I apologize for the TL : DR but these are huge assertions he/she is positing, and require a large boot to squash the BS.

Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
15-08-2015, 12:10 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
While he wants the Christian god to be true, he can't escape from the weakness of biblical claims, here are the claims that the bible makes that science has dis-proven:

The creation myth

The worldwide flood myth

The Tower of Babel myth

All of these myth's are tied together because they were written by the same author, the "J" source.

The "P" source gives their version of the creation and flood myth, both very different and contradictory.

Your book of mythology falls apart if any one of these myths are dis-proven, all three are dis-proven.

Your position is weak, your arguments are stale and have long been refuted, you have nothing.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
15-08-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
I have said before and I'll say it again, here, I will not respond to cut-paste machinegun tactic Creationist website bullshit.

However, I will say that no, no one who is a serious, working biochemist thinks that those systems are irreducibly complex (IC) and thus in need of "god-magic" to operate; indeed, they operate as they *must* operate, based on their chemical nature. Even Behe, the guy who first proposed IC systems, has repeatedly been shown that the IC systems he pointed out were not, in fact, IC. To suggest that the codons (how it works) are evidence of a designer is like pointing to Uranium's ability to undergo fission when struck with neutrons and saying that that particular element was designed so we could have nuclear power. It's simply a characteristic of how the atoms interact. The same is true for the chemicals that make up DNA. When you point to current systems of DNA operation, like the ribosome (etc), and say that it is IC, you're ignoring four billion years of evolution, over 3 billion of which occurred in bacteria and other single-celled systems that operated on chemistry alone (without the more-advanced systems involved in multicellular creatures) and could share their RNA/DNA fragments easily between them, as we see still occurring in bacteria today.

The reason I don't respond to ID/IC arguments very well is because of the fundamental dishonesty of so many ID/IC proponents: even when one particular IC system is proved to be "reducible" after all, you just go on to the next one, like another bullet out of a machinegun, barely even (if at all) acknowledging that you were dead-wrong about the first one.

Want about two dozen examples of Behe's ideas being shown to be a joke? Read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-08-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
I have said it before: stop posting walls of text from other websites.

(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  The origin of the universe (sometimes called the Cosmological Argument: if the universe had a beginning, who is its Beginner?)

There is no reason to believe that there is a need for one.

(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  The fine tuning of the universe (sometimes call the Design Argument, or the Teleological Argument)

The universe is not fine-tuned.

(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  The origin of life (a scientifically intractable problem)

It is so far from tractable that it has, in fact, already been tracted.

(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  The Argument from Reason (how can we reason if Reason did not produce us?)

This is nonsensical.

(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  The Moral Argument (we all recognize a moral law; who then is the moral Lawgiver?)

This is simply wrong. There is no universal moral law. We see this everywhere we look.

(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Fulfilled prophecy in the bible
The resurrection of Jesus Christ
The occurrence of miracles

None of these happened.

(15-08-2015 10:48 AM)Godexists Wrote:  What must be explained, is the arrangement of the codons in the standard codon table which is highly non-random

It is explained. It's chemistry.

Chemistry, in case you have forgotten, is nonrandom.

(15-08-2015 10:48 AM)Godexists Wrote:  In the cell, Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase recognise the triplet anticodon of the tRNA, and attach the equivalent amino acid to the tRNA. How could random chemical reactions produced this recognition ?

Because certain chemicals induce certain reactions in other chemicals. Throw enough of them together under the right conditions, and you would actually be surprised if this didn't happen.

This is not a difficult concept.

(15-08-2015 10:48 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Some theories try to explain the mechanism, but they all remain unsatisfactory. Obviously.

No. No, they actually don't.

There is a difference between being unsatisfactory on the whole and being an answer that you don't like.

(15-08-2015 10:48 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Does that not constitute a interdependent, and irreducible complex system ?

A hundred thousand actual experts say "no".

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
15-08-2015, 06:15 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Do you know what this irreducible complexity argument really is? It’s a snipe hunt, you see this god won’t heal an amputee, raise anyone from the dead or part the Red Sea, this god hides.

It takes the “brilliance” of people like Behe, etc. to point and say “Look! That’s where god is hiding! He’s behind the irreducibly complex bush!” So we’ll go look behind his imagined irreducibly complex arguments and find natural explanations for them, then they’ll say “look! God wasn’t there, he’s behind that other irreducibly complex bush of “protein transport”!

So we repeat this silly snipe hunt ad nauseum, never being able to find this grand designer, the master molecule manipulator. The only thing we find are chemical reactions behind every one of these conceptual snipe hunts.

At the same time, we will note that your god continues to shrink in the face of scientific knowledge. Your god used to turn the Nile to blood to demonstrate his power, send fire from the sky when requested. Now your god invisibly pushes molecules around oh so impressively and imperceptibly identical to a mere chemical reaction.

Congratulations apologists, you continue to shrink your invisible god, I’m confident we will never again see the grandiose displays that the bible alleges in its pages of god’s power. We’re only to see the face of god in the realm of the microscopic, dependent entirely upon teleological interpretations of the faithful.
Your arguments convince no one, they only create suspicion as another devious tactic posited by those that like lying for Jesus.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
15-08-2015, 06:26 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 01:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  However, I will say that no, no one who is a serious, working biochemist thinks that those systems are irreducibly complex (IC) and thus in need of "god-magic" to operate;

Are you seriously saying you are unable to look for yourself into the evidence, and make up your mind ? Most Biochemists do not bring a designer into the picture for several reasons. One is, that most are indoctrinated into evolutionary biology. Others are afraid to lose funding for research, and recognition from their colleagues.

My last post does not leave any doubt that the cell and its organelles are ic. Btw. i am collecting what mainstream scientific papers say about the enzymes, organelles etc. in the cell, that are indispensable, that is, they cannot be reduced. So far, the list is not long, but it will grow longer and longer the more i do my research.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...=essential
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 06:32 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 06:26 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 01:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  However, I will say that no, no one who is a serious, working biochemist thinks that those systems are irreducibly complex (IC) and thus in need of "god-magic" to operate;

Are you seriously saying you are unable to look for yourself into the evidence, and make up your mind ? Most Biochemists do not bring a designer into the picture for several reasons. One is, that most are indoctrinated into evolutionary biology. Others are afraid to lose funding for research, and recognition from their colleagues.

My last post does not leave any doubt that the cell and its organelles are ic. Btw. i am collecting what mainstream scientific papers say about the enzymes, organelles etc. in the cell, that are indispensable, that is, they cannot be reduced. So far, the list is not long, but it will grow longer and longer the more i do my research.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...=essential

Nobody gets "indoctrinated" into evolutionary biology. People get indoctrinated into belief systems. Evolutionary biology is a science.

Open an actual science book.

Belief systems like Xianity do NOT change. Science is updated constantly.

What do you think was used to invent the internet you are currently using???

Science works in the real world. Religion is dormant. And only used to push long outdated moral concepts.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
15-08-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 06:26 PM)Godexists Wrote:  My last post does not leave any doubt that the cell and its organelles are ic.

No proper scientist would ever make that claim. Drinking Beverage

You got some scientific credentials to back you up?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
15-08-2015, 06:47 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 10:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 01:57 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  This will be the third time I've asked this question and yet to get a response - WHAT SPECIFIC GOD ARE YOU ARGUING FOR?

As far as I can tell, this god concept would be no different than nature. Nature=god, you have posted walls of text that ultimately say nothing useful.

A cumulative case for the God of the bible


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...for-theism

http://www.christianforums.com

by Breckmin

Even if you prove that this world comes into existence due to intelligence or higher power, you still have not "proved" the God of the Bible or the God of Abraham. That must be done through accumulative case argument...and even then... it is an argument via providing evidence....it is NOT the same thing as empirical proof.

The first problem we have is that "proof" requires honesty on the part of the person examining the proof or examining the evidence.

If the person being presented with the evidence does not allow the evidence by definition of a particular field of study, then you have a whole system which denies certain evidence.

In contemporary evidential apologetics (rather than presuppositional apologetics) we build cumulative case arguments starting with scientific
evidence. First we need to show that science can allow for identifying the work of intelligence, even if you don't prove what the Intelligence is.
Then we proceed to show evidence that biological systems are the result of intelligence, once such evidence is allowed. After this, we move from identifying that something is the result of intelligence to allowing for theistic implications in science. This is to propose various "candidates" for such intelligence which is evidenced in biological systems. Then through other arguments such as the fine tuning of the universe, we argue for agnostic theism. Agnostic theism is a step in the progression of the cumulative case argument for the God of Abraham...but you must first
reach agnostic theism before you can proceed to "candidate creators" for
such theism. Then we proceed to argue for self-existence (Aseity) and other arguments which substantiate an eternal Creator... from there we argue for infinite Creator...and then from Infinite Creator to monotheism
and then from monotheism to historical orthodox monotheism being the
God of Abraham. It must be taken in steps, but it requires honesty on
the part of the person examining the cumulative case...and often involves
removing the blinders of naturalism/materialism in science.

Islam, Christianity and Orthodox Judaism all share this cumulative
case argument for the God of Abraham.... how we proceed in the
cumulative case for Christianity is a much more detailed step.

Ultimately we are not talking about "proof" like in repeated experimentation...

but rather a preponderance of the evidence.

There's no empirical proof for the Resurrection or the Virgin
birth. These too are based on faith and the cumulative case
made for Christianity.

Ultimately it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit to believe
in the miracles of Jesus and His Lordship/Deity.

http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com.br/20...anity.html

The Cumulative Case for Christianity

Have you ever seen a TV show in which a criminal is being brought to trial, and the cops or prosecutors are lamenting over the fact that their case is entirely "circumstantial"? Or maybe the defense attorney is confident in a victory because of that fact? These (fictional) scenarios portray "circumstantial" evidence in a very negative light. However, the fact of the matter is, if you have enough circumstantial evidence, then your case becomes nearly air-tight.

The evidential case for Christianity is a very strong case because it is based a panoply of circumstantial evidence. Each piece adds more weight to the Cumulative Case for Christianity. Denial of any one piece of evidence is like trying to remove a single stone from a mighty fortress: you may think you have done something until you realize the fortress is built on a massive foundation. Yet to deny enough of the evidence to try to shake the foundation requires such extreme (and unfounded) skepticism that such a position does not hold up well to criticism.

It is really impossible to list all of the evidences in favor of Christianity, and also those in opposition to naturalism, which I consider to be the zeitgeist and current "en vogue" challenger to Christianity, but here are a few important ones:

The origin of the universe (sometimes called the Cosmological Argument: if the universe had a beginning, who is its Beginner?)
The fine tuning of the universe (sometimes call the Design Argument, or the Teleological Argument)
The origin of life (a scientifically intractable problem)
The Argument from Reason (how can we reason if Reason did not produce us?)
The Moral Argument (we all recognize a moral law; who then is the moral Lawgiver?)
Fulfilled prophecy in the bible
The resurrection of Jesus Christ
The occurrence of miracles


Each one of these, of course, has its counterarguments, but for each one the strength of the counterargument is that most would prefer a natural explanation to a supernatural one...even if the natural explanation is unsatisfactory, unsupported, and improbable (compared to the supernatural one). But there are only so many times you can plausibly deny pieces of the Cumulative Case before you have gone off the deep end into a hyper-skepticism that you would never apply to any rational decision you would make in any other area of life.

The Cumulative Case for Christianity is incredibly strong, is only getting stronger, and is here to stay. So hold on as we explore the depths of this Cumulative Case. Or, as Morpheus (quoting Carrol) said, "I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Can Science Identify the Intelligent Designer?

http://www.reasons.org/articles/can-scie...t-designer

The Evidence for Christianity

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...ristianity

Well. You did get one (and only one) thing right.
Following your line of bullshit does lead down a rabbit hole.

(Thanks for more copy-pasta assertions without a shred of real evidence to support any of them. Also thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance of Christian Theology. There are no "proofs" for what is "believed". According to the Christian cult, faith is a "gift" of the gods. "No one shall come to me, unless the Father draw him". You really should take a class in your cult, godexists.)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 06:57 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 06:26 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Are you seriously saying you are unable to look for yourself into the evidence, and make up your mind ?

Are you so unfathomably ignorant that you think that your opinion as an uninformed layman is worth more than that of the experts who have spent decades studying the subject?

(15-08-2015 06:26 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Btw. i am collecting what mainstream scientific papers say about the enzymes, organelles etc. in the cell, that are indispensable, that is, they cannot be reduced.

That is not what those words mean.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: