Isn't it ironic that Irreducible Complexity (IC) should serve as the last NAIL in the coffin of Creationist .?

Question

.... arguments?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU&feature=related

.

Answer 1

Nice video!

It won't really solve anything. Most theists have reconciled religion with evolution by believing that evolution is the mechanism of creation, and that the stories of the Bible (or whatever holy book you prefer) are allegorical. Some however are entrenched in the belief that these stories are literal in every sense and, as they have adopted an extreme polarized position, no form of physical evidence will convince them otherwise. Any evidence that cannot be refuted by intelligent design is categorized as either being a fabrication by man or the work of the devil.

That's the nice thing about science. As evidence accumulates it's perfectly natural to change your position. Unfortunately for creationists there's not a lot of evidence that supports the literal story of Genesis.  

Answer 2

There is a video from "answers in genesis", its called "Evidence for creation from molecular Biology". You can't find it on google or anything but it's pretty cheap to buy form www.answersingenesis.com

In that video you will actually get to go into a little more detail on this subject and the creb cycle and ATP synthase.  What was on this video and what you guys learn from your textbooks is always an oversimplification of the facts.

For the comment

(So, we're supposed to believe that some invisible guy who lives in the sky created two people who then populated the earth? Wouldn't that then mean that we are all related and committing incest by sleeping with our brothers and sisters?)

No God is outside the creation. The creator isn't inside the creation. Thats like if you made a computer but you were stuck inside it. He's not in the sky.

As far as believing that Jesus created 2 people and we are desended from the original human kind, thats is more believable than we all came from a rock. That dinosaurs turned into hummingbirds. You guys must take a step back, with an open mind and realize that you are under a multitrillion dollar marxist system that wants nothing more than to make all the kids godless animals with no inalienable rights. This evolution was established in the 1800's and everything in science must fall under it's moral laws.

It is easier to believe in a creator for this wonderfully complex creation then to believe in a totally falsified theory like evolution, which is not part of science.

1. Life does not spontaneously generate. (I don't want to hear about how it could have or might have, all scientific evidence shows that it doesn't happen. If you hear differently your getting lies and propaganda)

2. The fossil record doesn't show change. (All you find are bones in the ground. You don't know those bones had any kids. You don't know they had different kids. And why would you think bones you found in the dirt have abilities to do things animals today can't do, like have different kids. If you want to line up dead bone fragments and try to show how a dinosaur turned into a hummingbird thats fine, but thats not science)

3. Animals today don't change from one kind to another. All we observe is a dog making a dog. Corn making corn. It's been that way since the begining of recorded history. We do see variation, the first mongrol dog was rich in genetic ability to variate, from it came the hound and the poodle. But the information is not in it to make bioluminescence or wings. And it never will accidently make itself in there.)

4. Random changes cannot make a complex informational system. You either see life or you see rocks and dirt. We have never see a system come up with even the slightest informational code from natural causes. NEVER, Its not mathematically possible. That should be a Law of science, if it's mathematically provable and 100% observable. If you want to believe that DNA was an accident and a cell that is more complicated than a space shuttle just happened, thats your religion. Thats not science.

Answer 3

So, we're supposed to believe that some invisible guy who lives in the sky created two people  who then populated the earth? Wouldn't that then mean that we are all related and committing incest by sleeping with our brothers and sisters? There is a lot more evidence for evolution that their is for that theory.

Answer 4

Dude!

Here's the true reality of your observation...

Physics could get as close as possible to almost every question we have about the Universe, and our existence in it...

But science does (at the present time) provide very little "meaning" for people in their day-to-day morality struggles, and overall "good feeling desires" to spread love throughout the world...

So for now...religion...being the only one major organization that at least "claims" its' mission is to spread the "good news of a higher power that actually "loves us," we will always be on the defensive when it comes to the question of "What's The Point?"

And if there is no "Point" built-in, and we must create a "point" for ourselves, what would be the "Point of THAT?"

There are always questions...yet so few little answers, that we must love those and get along with the ones who are uneducated and rather spooky in their assessment of "true reality..."

"Gong!"

Answer 5

Ah, the folly of the God of the Gaps argument.  Besides being intellectually void, the second we learn more we fill in those gaps and God starts to run out of places to live.

Of course this point will always work on those that are ignorant of what we know.

Answer 6

Response to Jim's ignorance:

"As far as believing that Jesus created 2 people and we are desended from the original human kind, thats is more believable than we all came from a rock."

--  YOU (the creationist) are the one who believes we came from dirt:

Genesis 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Or did you not read that part?

"1. Life does not spontaneously generate. (I don't want to hear about how it could have or might have, all scientific evidence shows that it doesn't happen. If you hear differently your getting lies and propaganda)"

--  Observed, proven example of life being generated from non-life - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

"2. The fossil record doesn't show change. (All you find are bones in the ground. You don't know those bones had any kids. You don't know they had different kids. And why would you think bones you found in the dirt have abilities to do things animals today can't do, like have different kids. If you want to line up dead bone fragments and try to show how a dinosaur turned into a hummingbird thats fine, but thats not science)"

--  You're mostly just talking nonsense and doublespeak here, it's hard to even tell what point you're trying to make.  If you want to assert that fossils don't show structures that are either useless or a hinderance to the creature but hints toward an evolutionary past, then why don't you explain why pythons and whales have hip bones?

"3. Animals today don't change from one kind to another. All we observe is a dog making a dog. Corn making corn. It's been that way since the begining of recorded history. We do see variation, the first mongrol dog was rich in genetic ability to variate, from it came the hound and the poodle. But the information is not in it to make bioluminescence or wings. And it never will accidently make itself in there.)"

--  Observed, proven instances of speciation - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-spec...

Including the recent example with the Italian Wall Lizard - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

"4. Random changes cannot make a complex informational system. You either see life or you see rocks and dirt. We have never see a system come up with even the slightest informational code from natural causes. NEVER, Its not mathematically possible. That should be a Law of science, if it's mathematically provable and 100% observable. If you want to believe that DNA was an accident and a cell that is more complicated than a space shuttle just happened, thats your religion. Thats not science."

--  Richard Lenski's long term evolution experiment should serve well here, as it's a recent example of random mutations leading to a complex, beneficial new adaptation.  Again, observed and proven. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...

Now, quit spreading your creationist propaganda and either leave the science area or actually learn something about science.

Answer 7

You cannot argue intelligently with creationists.  There is no nail for there coffin because they refuse to get into it.  Their stupidity may be immortal, or at least nearly impossible to kill.