Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: AndrewC
The fundamental assumption is precisely the formation of a discrete life form from piles of raw material. Your challenge is to produce one that has plausible raw materials and an environment which will lead to a living organism.

No, it isn't. If you want to claim irreducible complexity in in any sense proved, you must shut down all other possibilities. that's not a doable task by finite entities. As stated here, irreducible complexity's a transcendental claim of zero scientific merit. It cannot be verified because the potential experimental base is infinite.

Going on and on about "100 polymers" doesn't change this. Every aspect of life is equally highly improbable, if you persist in donning a filter that only lets you accept instantaneous, miraculous solutions. This is a baseless argument that pretends to rigor, because it pretends to know that life could only have occured via an artificially constrained, and entirely rigged, unlikely state-space and selection criteria, from which it pretends to be calculating long statistical odds.

585 posted on 12/16/2002 2:38:25 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies ]


To: donh
Er, regarding your discussion with AndrewC on irreducible complexity, I'd like to submit that randomness is a more likely target for falsification in evolution theory. My post at 103 includes some detail on the subject.
590 posted on 12/16/2002 2:58:18 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies ]

To: donh
No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm showing that a scenario is ludicrous. I leave it to you to try to create a credible one. As I stated before, many knowledgeable scientists are unable to do so. The numbers can be recalculated.

594 posted on 12/16/2002 3:16:55 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies ]

To: donh
As stated here, irreducible complexity's a transcendental claim of zero scientific merit.

No it is not. The laws of probability show quite well that something is practically impossible. When the scientific facts about something are sufficiently well known - such as with the bacterial flagellum, a claim that it could not have arisen by blind chance (which is what evolutionists say) is unscientific. In fact, science is not about blind chance, it is about causation, so all the claims of evolutionists are unscientific. Further, because of the numerous examples of intelligent design in living organisms, all those problems cannot be waved away with 'but it could have happened'. The succession of totally ridiculous probabilites being necessary for evolution to be true makes the theory itself totally ridiculous.

630 posted on 12/16/2002 10:02:39 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies ]

To: donh
Going on and on about "100 polymers" doesn't change this. Every aspect of life is equally highly improbable,

Seems to me that if life is a succession of highly improbable occurrences (to which you are admitting) then one must admit the existence of an intelligent designer since you can call one miracle a fortuitous occurrence, but a long series of highly improbable occurrences requires an intelligent agent.

639 posted on 12/16/2002 10:36:39 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson