| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"fred" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2005 12:29:01 PM |
| Object: |
Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts. Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems. However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
.
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
03 Oct 2005 02:45:00 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128360541.779832.111800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts. Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems. However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
No, they are not. It is a made up concept to explain theological dogma, not
scientific observation.
The term itself is an oxymoron. By definition complex systems MUST be
reducible.
All you want to do is replace science with theology, turning the US into a
third world nation.
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
03 Oct 2005 01:00:45 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128360541.779832.111800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
What questions? What concepts?
Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems.
How so?
However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
So far, all I've really seen from IC are statements made up out of whole
cloth. Can you give me an example of verifiable irreducible complexity?.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
03 Oct 2005 07:00:36 PM |
|
|
ouroboros rex wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128360541.779832.111800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
What questions? What concepts?
Like this one from Charles Darwin himself.....
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."—Charles Darwin, The
Origin of Species (1909 Harvard Classics edition), p. 190.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
03 Oct 2005 02:01:00 PM |
|
|
ouroboros rex wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128360541.779832.111800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
What questions? What concepts?
You are ignoring the basic question which why is the molecular
complexity of biological organisms cannot be shown to be the
predictable final stage of a series of evolutionary changes to the
organism.
Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems.
How so?
Evolutionists should have been prepared to address questions relevant
to verifying evolution concepts at the molecular level of biological
organisms decades ago. The fact that evolutionists evidently haven't
done their homework with respect to verifing evolution at the molecular
level indicates that atheists essentially pirated evolution ideas to
have something to mudsling at creationists.
However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
So far, all I've really seen from IC are statements made up out of whole
cloth. Can you give me an example of verifiable irreducible complexity?.
I don't know about you but the fact that evolutionists have not been
able to prove their assertions that irreducible complexity is wrong is
good enough proof of irreducible complexity for me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
03 Oct 2005 02:48:00 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128366060.877429.305480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ouroboros rex wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128360541.779832.111800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
What questions? What concepts?
You are ignoring the basic question which why is the molecular
complexity of biological organisms cannot be shown to be the
predictable final stage of a series of evolutionary changes to the
organism.
Made up BS. Vague. Meaningless. A pagthetoc attempt to sound scientific when
pushing theological dogma. A clever attempt to hijack the argument,
demanding proof for that which does not exist.
Larry
Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems.
How so?
Evolutionists should have been prepared to address questions relevant
to verifying evolution concepts at the molecular level of biological
organisms decades ago. The fact that evolutionists evidently haven't
done their homework with respect to verifing evolution at the molecular
level indicates that atheists essentially pirated evolution ideas to
have something to mudsling at creationists.
However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
So far, all I've really seen from IC are statements made up out of
whole
cloth. Can you give me an example of verifiable irreducible
complexity?.
I don't know about you but the fact that evolutionists have not been
able to prove their assertions that irreducible complexity is wrong is
good enough proof of irreducible complexity for me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
08 Oct 2005 12:15:06 AM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128366060.877429.305480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ouroboros rex wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128360541.779832.111800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
What questions? What concepts?
You are ignoring the basic question which why is the molecular
complexity of biological organisms cannot be shown to be the
predictable final stage of a series of evolutionary changes to the
organism.
Made up BS. Vague. Meaningless. A pagthetoc attempt to sound scientific when
pushing theological dogma. A clever attempt to hijack the argument,
demanding proof for that which does not exist.
And your point?
Larry
Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems.
How so?
Evolutionists should have been prepared to address questions relevant
to verifying evolution concepts at the molecular level of biological
organisms decades ago. The fact that evolutionists evidently haven't
done their homework with respect to verifing evolution at the molecular
level indicates that atheists essentially pirated evolution ideas to
have something to mudsling at creationists.
However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
So far, all I've really seen from IC are statements made up out of
whole
cloth. Can you give me an example of verifiable irreducible
complexity?.
I don't know about you but the fact that evolutionists have not been
able to prove their assertions that irreducible complexity is wrong is
good enough proof of irreducible complexity for me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
03 Oct 2005 02:09:47 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128366060.877429.305480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ouroboros rex wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128360541.779832.111800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
What questions? What concepts?
You are ignoring the basic question which why is the molecular
complexity of biological organisms cannot be shown to be the
predictable final stage of a series of evolutionary changes to the
organism.
Who says that's the basic question? The answer is simple - we weren't
there.
Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems.
How so?
Evolutionists should have been prepared to address questions relevant
to verifying evolution concepts at the molecular level of biological
organisms decades ago. The fact that evolutionists evidently haven't
done their homework with respect to verifing evolution at the molecular
level indicates that atheists essentially pirated evolution ideas to
have something to mudsling at creationists.
Can you explain how that follows? How does a (nonexistent) gap in
research indicate atheists' actions? lol
Looks like someone hasn't been reading about the fragments of ancient
viruses found in the human genome.
However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
So far, all I've really seen from IC are statements made up out of
whole
cloth. Can you give me an example of verifiable irreducible complexity?.
I don't know about you but the fact that evolutionists have not been
able to prove their assertions that irreducible complexity is wrong is
good enough proof of irreducible complexity for me.
rofl Whatever you say, chief. I can of course make the same claim
regarding evolution. Still no example, though, eh?
Can you point me to one of these assertions that "irreducible complexity
is wrong" from an accredited biologist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
03 Oct 2005 05:36:26 PM |
|
|
ouroboros rex wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128366060.877429.305480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ouroboros rex wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128360541.779832.111800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
What questions? What concepts?
You are ignoring the basic question which why is the molecular
complexity of biological organisms cannot be shown to be the
predictable final stage of a series of evolutionary changes to the
organism.
Who says that's the basic question? The answer is simple - we weren't
there.
Evolution is mostly guesswork then. And evolutionists could be
guessing wrongly.
Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems.
How so?
Evolutionists should have been prepared to address questions relevant
to verifying evolution concepts at the molecular level of biological
organisms decades ago. The fact that evolutionists evidently haven't
done their homework with respect to verifing evolution at the molecular
level indicates that atheists essentially pirated evolution ideas to
have something to mudsling at creationists.
Can you explain how that follows? How does a (nonexistent) gap in
research indicate atheists' actions? lol
Atheists have exploited the unofficial aspect of evolution that
presumes that there is no God to mudsling creationists.
Looks like someone hasn't been reading about the fragments of ancient
viruses found in the human genome.
And thank you for your links to reliable sources which substantiate
your shallow assertion about these ancient viruses.
However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
So far, all I've really seen from IC are statements made up out of
whole
cloth. Can you give me an example of verifiable irreducible complexity?.
I don't know about you but the fact that evolutionists have not been
able to prove their assertions that irreducible complexity is wrong is
good enough proof of irreducible complexity for me.
rofl Whatever you say, chief. I can of course make the same claim
regarding evolution. Still no example, though, eh?
I give my vote of confidence to those who argue for irreducible
complexity simply because evolutionists, the self-proclaimed experts on
the issue, have fallen flat on their faces with respect to not being
able to prove their assertions that irreducible complexity is wrong.
Evolutionists have made claims about the physical universe that they
are evidently unable to substantiate with repeatable experiments based
on the scientific method. Again, evolution is guesswork which means
that it could be wrong guesswork.
Can you point me to one of these assertions that "irreducible complexity
is wrong" from an accredited biologist?
From an example link at talk.origins:
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
03 Oct 2005 02:17:15 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128366060.877429.305480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ouroboros rex wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128360541.779832.111800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
What questions? What concepts?
You are ignoring the basic question which why is the molecular
complexity of biological organisms cannot be shown to be the
predictable final stage of a series of evolutionary changes to the
organism.
There is NO final stage to anything!
Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems.
How so?
Evolutionists should have been prepared to address questions relevant
to verifying evolution concepts at the molecular level of biological
organisms decades ago. The fact that evolutionists evidently haven't
done their homework with respect to verifing evolution at the molecular
level indicates that atheists essentially pirated evolution ideas to
have something to mudsling at creationists.
In your rather dumb opinion. If you want to learn some objective evidence
get your head out
of your Bible and start learning some science.
Evolution is based on solid objective reproducible EVIDENCE. Creationism is
just an OPINION
unsupported by any objective verifiable evidence.
However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
So far, all I've really seen from IC are statements made up out of
whole
cloth. Can you give me an example of verifiable irreducible complexity?.
I don't know about you but the fact that evolutionists have not been
able to prove their assertions that irreducible complexity is wrong is
good enough proof of irreducible complexity for me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
03 Oct 2005 10:21:07 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems. However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
Just uninterested.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
07 Oct 2005 08:47:55 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
No it ain't. You ain't no Christian... you imposter.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
07 Oct 2005 10:12:57 PM |
|
|
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
Yes.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
12 Oct 2005 09:41:44 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
Yes.
lojbab
So you're trying to tell me that you're claiming to be a Christian,
and to be one who speaks as a Christian, while at the same time...
you can freely agree with Darwin that the whole of mankind and even
Jesus Christ himelf descended from apes?
Who are you trying to fool.... groids and blondes?
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
12 Oct 2005 10:19:25 PM |
|
|
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
So you're trying to tell me that you're claiming to be a Christian,
and to be one who speaks as a Christian, while at the same time...
you can freely agree with Darwin that the whole of mankind and even
Jesus Christ himelf descended from apes?
I can make no claim about the genetic ancestry of Jesus Christ.
Otherwise, yes.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
18 Oct 2005 09:26:26 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
So you're trying to tell me that you're claiming to be a Christian,
and to be one who speaks as a Christian, while at the same time...
you can freely agree with Darwin that the whole of mankind and even
Jesus Christ himelf descended from apes?
I can make no claim about the genetic ancestry of Jesus Christ.
That's only because you're pretending to not have read the ancestry of
Jesus as laid out in the bible.
Otherwise, yes.
lojbab
No. You're an anti-Christ fraud pretending to be a Chistian. And you
stick out just as an Islamic terrorists pretending to be Jewish would
stick out amongst Jews.
And you're a disgrace to the white race which you'd sell out for a box
of cornflakes if times got tough.
You make me wanna puke.... you coward slime of the earth. And you
also prove to me that I ain't a racist. White slime trash like you
and Cary are worse than the lowest corrupt groid slime in Africa ever
was.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
18 Oct 2005 11:27:31 PM |
|
|
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
I can make no claim about the genetic ancestry of Jesus Christ.
That's only because you're pretending to not have read the ancestry of
Jesus as laid out in the bible.
The Bible says nothing about genes.
No. You're an anti-Christ fraud pretending to be a Chistian.
Not likely.
And if I am not a Christian, then likely the majority of the country
is non-Christian.
And you're a disgrace to the white race
There is no such thing.
which you'd sell out for a box of cornflakes if times got tough.
By your standards, I'd OFFER the cornflakes for an opportunity to
"sell out".
You make me wanna puke.... you coward slime of the earth.
"Slime" is already taken as an insult; I've been using it for you
subhuman racists for months.
Go ahead and puke. It might make you smell better, though it will
hardly remove the vileness in your soul.
And you also prove to me that I ain't a racist. White slime trash like you
and Cary are worse than the lowest corrupt groid slime in Africa ever
was.
Your language proves that you are a racist, loser.
<[44] But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
< do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
< use you, and persecute you;
<[45] That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:
< for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
< sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
<[46] For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not
< even the publicans the same?
<[47] And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?
< do not even the publicans so?
<[48] Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven
< is perfect.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
12 Oct 2005 09:52:36 PM |
|
|
Jd wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on
respectable, scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
Yes.
lojbab
So you're trying to tell me that you're claiming to be a Christian,
and to be one who speaks as a Christian, while at the same time...
you can freely agree with Darwin that the whole of mankind and even
Jesus Christ himelf descended from apes?
Who are you trying to fool.... groids and blondes?
Jd
At last!
You've got it nearly right.
PS...Darwin never said that about mankind. You said it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
18 Oct 2005 09:26:25 PM |
|
|
Sid9 wrote:
Jd wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Jd <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on
respectable, scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
Yes.
lojbab
So you're trying to tell me that you're claiming to be a Christian,
and to be one who speaks as a Christian, while at the same time...
you can freely agree with Darwin that the whole of mankind and even
Jesus Christ himelf descended from apes?
Who are you trying to fool.... groids and blondes?
Jd
At last!
You've got it nearly right.
PS...Darwin never said that about mankind. You said it.
No. Darwin said it after he turned from Jesus.
You do know that at one time Darwin himself was a Bible believing
Christian like Cary Kittrel once was don't you?
And you do know that one of the first things x-Christians do is to
pretend that demons don't exist don't you?
So they hide behind science as their new god and say "prove it".
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
07 Oct 2005 08:52:39 PM |
|
|
Jd wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on
respectable, scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
No it ain't. You ain't no Christian... you imposter.
"irreducible complexity" proves that evolution is correct.
Watch carefully how it evolved:
Genisis>>>Creationism>>Intelligent Design>>Irreducible Complexity>>>????
We can only guess at what comes next..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
12 Oct 2005 09:41:43 PM |
|
|
Sid9 wrote:
Jd wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on
respectable, scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
No it ain't. You ain't no Christian... you imposter.
"irreducible complexity" proves that evolution is correct.
Watch carefully how it evolved:
Genisis>>>Creationism>>Intelligent Design>>Irreducible Complexity>>>????
We can only guess at what comes next..
An entire culture of 3 foot tall pigmy humans as deduced from a
scientific perspective of a half rotten jawbone of who knows what.
"The conventional view of human evolution is that several types of
primitive ape-like ancestors appeared and faded over a span of about
4.5 million years. Modern Homo sapiens developed about 100,000 years
ago, and quickly overtook other large-brained competitors like Homo
erectus and Neanderthals. Modern humans were thought to have roamed
the Earth without competition for at least the past 30,000 years.
Fully grown, Homo floresiensis would have stood about 3 feet tall,
with a brain about the size of a chimpanzee."
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=051012&cat=science&st=scienced8d65kdg0&src=ap
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
12 Oct 2005 09:50:49 PM |
|
|
Jd wrote:
Sid9 wrote:
Jd wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on
respectable, scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
No it ain't. You ain't no Christian... you imposter.
"irreducible complexity" proves that evolution is correct.
Watch carefully how it evolved:
Genisis>>>Creationism>>Intelligent Design>>Irreducible
Complexity>>>????
We can only guess at what comes next..
An entire culture of 3 foot tall pigmy humans as deduced from a
scientific perspective of a half rotten jawbone of who knows what.
"The conventional view of human evolution is that several types of
primitive ape-like ancestors appeared and faded over a span of about
4.5 million years. Modern Homo sapiens developed about 100,000 years
ago, and quickly overtook other large-brained competitors like Homo
erectus and Neanderthals. Modern humans were thought to have roamed
the Earth without competition for at least the past 30,000 years.
Fully grown, Homo floresiensis would have stood about 3 feet tall,
with a brain about the size of a chimpanzee."
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=051012&cat=science&st=scienced8d65kdg0&src=ap
Jd
Got some scientific evidence to disprove it?
Write it.
Publish it.
Get it peer reviewed.
If it's right the scientific community will accept your version and refute
the old version.
Can you refute anything your holy book?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
18 Oct 2005 09:26:25 PM |
|
|
Sid9 wrote:
Jd wrote:
Sid9 wrote:
Jd wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on
respectable, scientific inquiry about evolution concepts.
Your ignorant opinion is worthless.
Hmmm..... Is that a "Christian" response?
No it ain't. You ain't no Christian... you imposter.
"irreducible complexity" proves that evolution is correct.
Watch carefully how it evolved:
Genisis>>>Creationism>>Intelligent Design>>Irreducible
Complexity>>>????
We can only guess at what comes next..
An entire culture of 3 foot tall pigmy humans as deduced from a
scientific perspective of a half rotten jawbone of who knows what.
"The conventional view of human evolution is that several types of
primitive ape-like ancestors appeared and faded over a span of about
4.5 million years. Modern Homo sapiens developed about 100,000 years
ago, and quickly overtook other large-brained competitors like Homo
erectus and Neanderthals. Modern humans were thought to have roamed
the Earth without competition for at least the past 30,000 years.
Fully grown, Homo floresiensis would have stood about 3 feet tall,
with a brain about the size of a chimpanzee."
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=051012&cat=science&st=scienced8d65kdg0&src=ap
Jd
Got some scientific evidence to disprove it?
Write it.
Publish it.
Get it peer reviewed.
If it's right the scientific community will accept your version and refute
the old version.
Can you refute anything your holy book?
Yes. It's called Christianity 101.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now. I suppose you are pro-abortion on demand, anti war on terror, and
pro sodomy.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions concerning irreducible complexity... |
03 Oct 2005 02:11:29 PM |
|
|
Your generalizations are just plain nonsense and puerile. If you want the
facts and tons of evidence supporting Evolution go to your local Library and
check out some scientific journals on Evolution.
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128360541.779832.111800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific inquiry about evolution concepts. Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems. However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such questions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
