Irreducible Complexity - Creationist Claims Debunked
Budikka666
At www.pandasthumb.org Ian Musgrave (biomedical researcher and
University lecturer) offers an education and a challenge to
creationists regarding so-called irreducible complexity:
"I would like to invite Dr. Behe, or any other ID advocate, to predict
which coagulation factors are present in Amphioxus, search the
Amphioxus genome database and report on whether the genes found match
their predictions. The database is free, you can do it at home, and
the only cost is your time."
IlBe...@gmail.com
> http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
> Atwww.pandasthumb.orgIan Musgrave (biomedical researcher and
REPLY: How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist ? Your
atheist colleague, Dr. Francis Crick...coDiscoverer of the DNA
structure personally calculates the chance of a brain or an eye
developing on its own, to be 10 to the 40,000 th power. Now, that sort
of FAITH is beyond me, and you also. Lets cut to the chase
here ,,,.... WHY wouldnt you be willing to bow your knee to the
Creator of the Universe if he was shown to exist and love you ?
Please answer THIS specific question so we can determine your level of
pride and desire to live as you like. Thanks.
Richard Anacker
IlBe...@gmail.com schrieb:
> How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist
How come you want one to exist? How come you don't want easter-bunny to
exist and how come you want ghosts to exist?
Nobody here cares about your wet dreams, if your "creator" exists, he can
phone me anytime, he should know my number.
I didn't believe that you can turn cheaper as you were the last time I
shitfiled you, now I know better *replonk*
--
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two
James Beck
@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, IlBe...@gmail.com says...
Dave in LakeVilla you need to just stick to a single name.
Your robot like responses and canned BS give you away every time.
From wikipedia :
**********************************************************************
Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in
private but should not be taught to young children."
In his book Of Molecules and Men, Crick expressed his views on the
relationship between science and religion.[43] After suggesting that it
would become possible for people to wonder if a computer might be
programmed so as to have a soul, he wondered: at what point during
biological evolution did the first organism have a soul? At what moment
does a baby get a soul? Crick stated his view that the idea of a non-
material soul that could enter a body and then persist after death is
just that, an imagined idea. For Crick, the mind is a product of
physical brain activity and the brain had evolved by natural means over
millions of years. Crick felt that it was important that evolution by
natural selection be taught in public schools and that it was
regrettable that English schools had compulsory religious instruction.
Crick felt that a new scientific world view was rapidly being
established, and predicted that once the detailed workings of the brain
were eventually revealed, erroneous Christian concepts about the nature
of man and the world would no longer be tenable; traditional conceptions
of the "soul" would be replaced by a new understanding of the physical
basis of mind. He was skeptical of organized religion, referring to
himself as a skeptic and an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards
atheism".
************************************************************************
Doesn't sound like he has a problem with natural selection and
evolution. Give me the source of your numbers there Dave.
Jim
James Beck
@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, IlBe...@gmail.com says...
>
YOUR want to have a bogeyman in the sky looking over your every move,
does not make it so.
Ken
>
> REPLY: How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist ?
Because there's isn't one U ASSHOLE
Your
> atheist colleague, Dr. Francis Crick...coDiscoverer of the DNA
> structure personally calculates the chance of a brain or an eye
> developing on its own, to be 10 to the 40,000 th power.
Let's see the source of these figures?
You've COMPLETELY ignored several requests so far
And PLEASE don't pull down your pants and show us your butthole
Lets cut to the chase here ,,,....
There's no chase here, unless you're acting like a dog and chasing
your own tail, U ASSHOLE
panam...@hotmail.com
> On May 14, 4:52 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
> > University lecturer) offers an education and a challenge to
> > creationists regarding so-called irreducible complexity:
> > "I would like to invite Dr. Behe, or any other ID advocate, to predict
> > which coagulation factors are present in Amphioxus, search the
> > Amphioxus genome database and report on whether the genes found match
> > their predictions. The database is free, you can do it at home, and
> > the only cost is your time."
>
> REPLY: How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist ?
How come you *do*? Have you ever wondered why your life is so
incomplete that you need such a thing? Personally, I couldn't wait to
get out from under Dad's house and live on my own. And it's been
great! Why the fuck don't you morons want to be adults?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Ken
> On May 14, 9:04 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 4:52 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
> > > University lecturer) offers an education and a challenge to
> > > creationists regarding so-called irreducible complexity:
> > > "I would like to invite Dr. Behe, or any other ID advocate, to predict
> > > which coagulation factors are present in Amphioxus, search the
> > > Amphioxus genome database and report on whether the genes found match
> > > their predictions. The database is free, you can do it at home, and
> > > the only cost is your time."
>
> > REPLY: How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist ?
>
> How come you *do*? Have you ever wondered why your life is so
> incomplete that you need such a thing? Personally, I couldn't wait to
> get out from under Dad's house and live on my own. And it's been
> great! Why the fuck don't you morons want to be adults?
>
> -Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
> aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Dimwit Dave (aka ilbeback) had no morals, no sense of right and wrong,
wasn't
able to control his homosexual urges, drank too much, did whatever
drugs he could get his hands on, then found that he desperately
needed some imaginary sky fairy
and it's accompanying punishment for "sinful behavior" to save
himself from himself,
Now he imagines that all others must be suffering from the
same deficiencies that he experienced
Today we find that Dimwit somehow can't fathom that we're normal and
he's the fuckin' psycho-nutsack!
Kelsey Bjarnason
> On May 14, 4:52 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
>> Atwww.pandasthumb.orgIan Musgrave (biomedical researcher and University
>> lecturer) offers an education and a challenge to creationists regarding
>> so-called irreducible complexity: "I would like to invite Dr. Behe, or
>> any other ID advocate, to predict which coagulation factors are present
>> in Amphioxus, search the Amphioxus genome database and report on
>> whether the genes found match their predictions. The database is free,
>> you can do it at home, and the only cost is your time."
>
> REPLY: How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist ? Your
> atheist colleague, Dr. Francis Crick...coDiscoverer of the DNA structure
> personally calculates the chance of a brain or an eye developing on its
> own, to be 10 to the 40,000 th power.
First, it was Hoyle, not Crick, who came up with the 10^40000 figure.
Second, it wasn't "the brain" he was discussing, it was the spontaneous
generation of a cell, based on the cell having 2000 proteins, each
consisting of 200 amino acids. Third, it wasn't "forming by itself", it
was, most specifically, forming by _chance_.
Of course, the fact that nobody but the creationists actually says this
happens by chance makes the whole argument kind of silly, as it means the
creationists are, in effect, calling themselves clueless and deluded for
claiming such things occur by chance in the first place.
Hey, if your side wants to treat its own members like idiots, that's not
going to bother us any, we'll just sit back and watch the show. One
might wonder why your side doesn't get its collective act together over
even something as simple as this, but then we don't really expect much in
the way of coherency from the creationist camp.
Devil's Advocaat
> On May 14, 4:52 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
> > University lecturer) offers an education and a challenge to
> > creationists regarding so-called irreducible complexity:
> > "I would like to invite Dr. Behe, or any other ID advocate, to predict
> > which coagulation factors are present in Amphioxus, search the
> > Amphioxus genome database and report on whether the genes found match
> > their predictions. The database is free, you can do it at home, and
> > the only cost is your time."
>
> REPLY: How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist ? Your
> atheist colleague, Dr. Francis Crick...coDiscoverer of the DNA
> structure personally calculates the chance of a brain or an eye
> developing on its own, to be 10 to the 40,000 th power. Now, that sort
> of FAITH is beyond me, and you also. Lets cut to the chase
> here ,,,.... WHY wouldnt you be willing to bow your knee to the
> Creator of the Universe if he was shown to exist and love you ?
> Please answer THIS specific question so we can determine your level of
> pride and desire to live as you like. Thanks.
Let’s see now, in the thread entitled “The Feeble Minded” on 12 May
23:15 (UK Time) a poster by the name of IlBeBauck said:
“According to atheist Dr. Francis Crick, the faith thats required for
macro evolution to be true is 10x40,000 th power ; now, thats
incredible faith !”
And on 13 May 08:00 (UK Time) I posted this response:
“Can you provide a citation of this alleged statement by Dr Francis
Crick?”
IlBeBauck has yet to respond to that request.
And now on 14 May 15:04 (UK Time) IlBeBauck posts this:
“Dr. Francis Crick...coDiscoverer of the DNA structure personally
calculates the chance of a brain or an eye
developing on its own, to be 10 to the 40,000 th power.”
I think we would all like to see the source that IlBeBauck used to
obtain these quotes.
So come on, what is your source for these alleged statements?
ken
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 07:04:33 -0700, IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On May 14, 4:52 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
But Dimwit Dave can't be bothered with facts.
Besides, chemical's don't react just on random chance. They have
geometric influenced ionic or covalent sites where they bond together,
and Dimwit's imaginary sky fairy has nothing to do with it
buck2thrice
"want" has nothing to do with it.
I don't have a problem with a personal creator were one to
exist... but that's the whole problem!! It's not a case
of wanting or not wanting. In fact, I would very much
like the easter bunny to exist - but until I see ANY reason
to believe he exists I'll have to follow logic and state
that the easter bunny doesn't exist (as much as I want him
to).
It's the same thing with god - I can't just decide that he
exists, I have to believe it! There is NOTHING I have experienced
that points in that direction. Nothing, whether I wanted it or
not.
Budikka666
> > University lecturer) offers an education and a challenge to
> > creationists regarding so-called irreducible complexity:
> > "I would like to invite Dr. Behe, or any other ID advocate, to predict
> > which coagulation factors are present in Amphioxus, search the
> > Amphioxus genome database and report on whether the genes found match
> > their predictions. The database is free, you can do it at home, and
> > the only cost is your time."
>
> REPLY: How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist ?
Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.
But since we're asking questions, let me ask this of you: How come
you're such a pathetic, LYING, vacuous, hypocritical, piece-of-shit of
a coward?
Budikka
Kelsey Bjarnason
He's a fundy.
Oh, wait, you said that... you just used the long form.
Ralph
<IlBe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a719bc8-eaee-428e...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Just as soon as you show verifiable evidence that he exists.
johac
<9a719bc8-eaee-428e...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <IlBe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 4:52 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
> > Atwww.pandasthumb.orgIan Musgrave (biomedical researcher and
> > University lecturer) offers an education and a challenge to
> > creationists regarding so-called irreducible complexity:
> > "I would like to invite Dr. Behe, or any other ID advocate, to predict
> > which coagulation factors are present in Amphioxus, search the
> > Amphioxus genome database and report on whether the genes found match
> > their predictions. The database is free, you can do it at home, and
> > the only cost is your time."
>
> REPLY: How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist ?
It's not a question of want. It's lack of evidence for your creator,
that's all.
--
John #1782
Devil's Advocaat
> On 14 May, 15:04, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:52 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
Gee I wonder why IlBeBauck is so silent on this issue?
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Smith
> http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
> Atwww.pandasthumb.orgIan Musgrave (biomedical researcher and
> University lecturer) offers an education and a challenge to
> creationists regarding so-called irreducible complexity:
> "I would like to invite Dr. Behe, or any other ID advocate, to predict
> which coagulation factors are present in Amphioxus, search the
> Amphioxus genome database and report on whether the genes found match
> their predictions. The database is free, you can do it at home, and
> the only cost is your time."
REPLY: How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist ? Your
atheist colleague, Dr. Francis Crick...coDiscoverer of the DNA
structure personally calculates the chance of a brain or an eye
developing on its own, to be 10 to the 40,000 th power.
**There is no evidence that Crick ever said or made these calculations.
**Such calculations, as a whole, are MEANINGLESS because NO ONE knows enough
details of HOW it happened (or could happen) to use as a basis or
**calculating ANY odds.
10 to ANY power - DOES NOT mean impossible!
**This is all nothing more than another fraudulent, lying creationist pile
of B.S..
Now, that sort
of FAITH is beyond me, and you also. Lets cut to the chase
here ,,,.... WHY wouldnt you be willing to bow your knee to the
Creator of the Universe if he was shown to exist and love you ?
**Show the evidence - then we'll talk!
**Why would ANYONE "believe" in a god UNLESS there is valid evidence?
Please answer THIS specific question so we can determine your level of
pride and desire to live as you like. Thanks.
**Please answer this last question so we can determine your level of
stupidity.
Devil's Advocaat
> On 14 May, 17:40, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 May, 15:04, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 14, 4:52 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
of these alleged statements by Dr Francis Crick?
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Goren
> John Smith wrote:
>
>> **Why would ANYONE "believe" in a god UNLESS there is valid
>> evidence?
>
> Is that a rhetorical question?
>
> The answer--mine anyway--is simple. If I believe in God, and He
> assures me of everlasting life, then I needn't confront my
> finitude. (Belonging to the most intelligent species on this
> earth, I couldn't help but notice that we're all gonna die)
>
> Then, too, I needn't figure out how to behave amoung my fellow
> creatures--morality is predefined for me.
>
> Nor do I need to find meaning in this short span of life I
> have--that's predefined, too.
Never mind, of course, that, without evidence, that's nothing more
than wishful thinking. Might as well believe in clapping your
hands to save Tinkerbell.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Smiler
"Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1210885413_2397@isp.n...
> John W. Wells wrote:
>
> > John Smith wrote:
> >
> >> **Why would ANYONE "believe" in a god UNLESS there is valid
> >> evidence?
> >
> > Is that a rhetorical question?
> >
> > The answer--mine anyway--is simple. If I believe in God, and He
> > assures me of everlasting life, then I needn't confront my
> > finitude. (Belonging to the most intelligent species on this
> > earth, I couldn't help but notice that we're all gonna die)
> >
> > Then, too, I needn't figure out how to behave amoung my fellow
> > creatures--morality is predefined for me.
> >
> > Nor do I need to find meaning in this short span of life I
> > have--that's predefined, too.
>
> Never mind, of course, that, without evidence, that's nothing more
> than wishful thinking. Might as well believe in clapping your
> hands to save Tinkerbell.
>
<Fundie>
Of course that works.
Have you ever seen a production of Peter Pan where, after clapping,
Tinkerbell is NOT saved?
</Fundie>
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
Sockie The Apostate
> http://tinyurl.com/63jrqn
> Atwww.pandasthumb.orgIan Musgrave (biomedical researcher and
> University lecturer) offers an education and a challenge to
> creationists regarding so-called irreducible complexity:
> "I would like to invite Dr. Behe, or any other ID advocate, to predict
> which coagulation factors are present in Amphioxus, search the
> Amphioxus genome database and report on whether the genes found match
> their predictions. The database is free, you can do it at home, and
> the only cost is your time."
REPLY: How come you dont want a personal Creator to exist ?
Atheists and agnostics don't care if a magical "creator" exists. It
doesn't matter one way or the other.
Your
atheist colleague, Dr. Francis Crick...coDiscoverer of the DNA
structure personally calculates the chance of a brain or an eye
developing on its own, to be 10 to the 40,000 th power.
Sounds like something taken out of context again.
Now, that sort
of FAITH is beyond me, and you also. Lets cut to the chase
here ,,,.... WHY wouldnt you be willing to bow your knee to the
Creator of the Universe if he was shown to exist and love you ?
Why bow a knee to a mass murdering serial killer? Read the OT for the
gruesome details.
Please answer THIS specific question so we can determine your level of
pride and desire to live as you like. Thanks.
How do you know how she/he lives?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
John Smith
"John W. Wells" <dj...@7Tsimmery.axe> wrote in message
news:rj7p2490t8vf0c03l...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:58:59 GMT, "John Smith"
> <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>**Why would ANYONE "believe" in a god UNLESS there is valid evidence?
>
Of course not.
>
> The answer--mine anyway--is simple. If I believe in God, and He
> assures me of everlasting life, then I needn't confront my finitude.
Then why not believe in Peter Pan - who offers a world of constant
childhood?
If you beluieve in god - AND HAVE NO VALID EVIDENCE that this god even
exists - you're wasting your time.
"Believing", in something that isn't (or may not) be there, is useless.
> (Belonging to the most intelligent species on this earth, I couldn't
> help but notice that we're all gonna die)
Which means absolutely nothing.
>
> Then, too, I needn't figure out how to behave amoung my fellow
> creatures--morality is predefined for me.
?????
You still need to figure it out:
Your "manual" is confusing and contradictory,
YOU still have to read an interpret the manual,
Millions of people have already shown a corrupted and socially dangerous
interpretation of THE SAME MANUAL,
There is no reason to accept morality from a book that condones incest,
murder, genocide and human sactrifice.
>
> Nor do I need to find meaning in this short span of life I
> have--that's predefined, too.
That "meaning", in its simplest case, repeats as - "don't think - just kiss
my (godly) ass".
I'd rather use my WORKING brain.
John Smith
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in message
news:TL5Xj.2118$EH5....@newsfe30.ams2...
"I believe in faeries ...... I saw them on stage in the seedier sections of
New York".
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> John W. Wells wrote:
>>> John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> **Why would ANYONE "believe" in a god UNLESS there is valid
>>>> evidence?
>>>
>>> Is that a rhetorical question?
>>>
>>> The answer--mine anyway--is simple. If I believe in God, and
>>> He assures me of everlasting life, then I needn't confront my
>>> finitude. (Belonging to the most intelligent species on this
>>> earth, I couldn't help but notice that we're all gonna die)
>>>
>>> Then, too, I needn't figure out how to behave amoung my fellow
>>> creatures--morality is predefined for me.
>>>
>>> Nor do I need to find meaning in this short span of life I
>>> have--that's predefined, too.
>>
>> Never mind, of course, that, without evidence, that's nothing
>> more than wishful thinking. Might as well believe in clapping
>> your hands to save Tinkerbell.
>
> Wishful thinking, practiced long enough, might as well be called
> self-hypnosis.
Yes, but it's much more akin to Orwell's Doublethink.
> And it's impervious to "evidence."
Quite intentionally so. That's the whole /point/ of ``faith.''
> So I think it's a waste of time and energy to try to talk
> believers out of their beliefs, no matter how absurd they may
> seem to you and me.
Not necessarily. One can intensify the pain of cognitive
dissonance, which is the only thing that can induce a desire to
resolve the conflict.
> (What to do about their actions is another matter, though.)
It's their actions that truly terrify....
> Did you ever watch Richard Dawkins try to convince via reason a
> believer--it's painful to see his frustration rise as the
> believer smiles sweetly and benignly at him! His science and
> logic are for naught!
Even amongst the vocally religious, there are believers and
non-believers.
The non-believers are shysters out for a buck, have bought into
Pascal's Wager, ``believe in belief,'' or are continuing on sheer
momentum. Some, such as Mother Theresa, have a bit of everything
going on. Reason and logic are useless with them because they've
already acknowledged (to themselves) the fraudulent nature of
their position and persist in spite of it. I'm convinced that the
overwhelming majority of religious ``professionals'' fall into
this category.
The ``true believers'' either have never critically examined the
questions or have had a ``personal revelatory experience'' that
trumps all else. I consider the latter -- and there're a fair
number of them, to be sure -- to be the only truly honest
religionists.
The former, with time and patience, will be persuaded by Dawkins
and the rest of us, for the most part. The only hope for the
latter is if they recognize that there's nothing supernatural
about deeply emotional feelings, and that they're a common part of
the human experience that religions have hijacked for their own
nefarious purposes. The ``God Helmet'' might help.