Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
The bacterial flagellum for one. You can see an explanation of it here: Bacterial Flagellum.
The method of proof is by showing that the different parts of the structure are so specific and so interconnected that they would be useless for anything except working with the other parts. The idea for intelligent design came about from the discussions pro and against evolution in the 19th century. Specifically from Darwin's quote below:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. "
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", Chapter 6.
That was mine, my first deletion ever!!! In response to another poster's frustration with a certain participant in this thread, I compared said participant to a poorly programmed chatterbot with no learning function.
'Twas indeed ad hominem, but openly and intentionally so.
Ah, but my dear friend, if you'd gone on to read the next sentence (and obviously you didn't): "But I can find out no such case". And no such case has been found, darling.
See my post, just above this one to Virginia.
You are putting the cart before the horse. It is evolution which has been claiming for some 150 years that it is true, that it is science. Yet it cannot show the truth of its statements that species evolved gradually all the way from insignificant bacteria to humans. Where is the proof of evolution?
Perfect example of evolutionist arrogance, nothing can be said except what they say. I talked about intelligence. I said that the evolutionists give selection the qualities of intelligence, memory and thinking. No natural "force" can have those qualities, yet nothing without those qualities can design anything. So you and your fellow evolutionists may not be saying the above because it is totally absurd, but you are certainly trying to imply it. Selection cannot create anything. Selection is a purely destructive force. It can only cull what already exists, it cannot create anything new. Evolutionists have never been able to prove therefore how anything new has arisen that would justify their claim that selection achieved the turning of a miserable amoeba into a human being.
No it is not working on the 10th toss and that is the great lie of evolution - that it just takes a little mutation to achieve great things. I have already explained how because of genetics even after such a great change is accomplished it would be very hard to spread it through a large population. In order for evolution to have been responsible for the descent of man from an amoeba thousands of new genes, thousands of new proteins, thousands of new characteristics had to have arisen. These things could only have arisen by the creation of new genes and to make a gene that works takes a large amount of random tries and each one up to the last is the first try. The reason is simple - selection does not know what it is looking for, selection cannot act on a gene that is not working yet. Selection can only act when the gene is complete and in working order. So you cannot create a gene through selection, it can created by random chance and that is an almost total impossibility.
From a God's eye perspective, you haven't proved anything. It's not the kind of proof required in mathematics. The events can't be re-run in a laboratory. But people are executed based on this kind of reasoning.
Okay, since you say that evolution can provide at least the same kind of proof as given in court, let's see the proof of macro-evolution from the above perspective which you claim already exists.
No they do not, genetics teaches us it is very hard to spread a new gene. In fact, it is because of the difficulty in spreading new genes that Gould broke from the Darwinians and started punk-eek and why Kirmura broke from them also and developed the theory of genetic drift.
First of all, read my post#193 where I explain why it does contradict evolution. For a full explanation on the theory and how it works go here:
There's a difference between non-theistic and atheistic. Evolution is atheistic. It is also not science. Note how the evolutionists never give any proof for their theory but just try violently to deny that any proof of any scientific theory is impossible.
No, it's called "logic". Who said anything about evolution having intelligence?"
Perfect example of evolutionist arrogance, nothing can be said except what they say. I talked about intelligence.
You were responding to me and you were criticizing what I had written. Your comments about intelligence didn't make any sense in the context. Now you make up silly insults. Just deal with the question.
I said that the evolutionists give selection the qualities of intelligence, memory and thinking.
An utterly false statement, but I understand that it is one you probably believe. That would be your own short-sightedness at work. You can't imagine a process that doesn't involve intelligence so you believe others think as you do. You are wrong.
No natural "force" can have those qualities, yet nothing without those qualities can design anything.
No problem, life isn't designed.
So you and your fellow evolutionists may not be saying the above because it is totally absurd, but you are certainly trying to imply it.
No, we're not saying it.
Selection cannot create anything. Selection is a purely destructive force. It can only cull what already exists, it cannot create anything new.
Selection is only part of the process.
Evolutionists have never been able to prove therefore how anything new has arisen that would justify their claim that selection achieved the turning of a miserable amoeba into a human being.
See above.
Now deal with what we were actually talking about. Your suggested falsification is not a falsification. Does your silence imply that you finally acknowledge this?
I was not referring to me, I was referring to the great scientists who you malign with your statements about science. If science had proven nothing, if science had not advance knowledge, if science had not given us useful applications from their theories, we would still be living in caves. It is an insult to both these scientists and to the intelligence of the readers of this thread to say that science proves nothing.
Don't you evolutionists see what ridiculous nonsense you are spouting in order to defend your theory? Are you telling us that the earth does not revolve around the sun are or you just indulging in time-wasting semantics and sophistry?
See above.
You tell me where the proof is above. I see none except double-talk. Where is the scientific proof that man descended from a simple amoeba? Where? And no the magical word "selection" proves nothing.
Really? Where's the proof of the gradual evolution of the bacterial flagellum? Or of the gradual evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes? Or of the bat's sonar system?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.