The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

JC,
Sorry that I'm pushing you, but this is important.

So your saying that if the suspect had a genetic trait which only affect 1 in 100,000,000 the person is guilty with a test of 99% accuracy??

Suspect has applied for an appeal (it's his last chance),
Do you want to change your verdict?
Innocent or Guilty?

Is the suspect likely to be innocent or guilty?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the problem in explaining life using materialistic processes is INFOMATION ... which is Specified Complexity.

No it's not because information as you mean it and specified complexity are both made up terms designed to confuse and make it look like what you're saying has some substance when it doesn't. It fails for two reasons:

1. You are placing value on one arbitrary outcome. The chances of "uujsakaadn vsijdfwffb bdiowcocfn vvknsfksannafnknf abfav zvlsawne" coming out are exactly the same as the chances of "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours" coming out. It's like how if the numbers 123456 came out on the lotto many people would be amazed even though that particular combination is just as likely as any other
2. You are still ignoring the fact that these cells did not start out with all the "information" they currently have. They started out much simpler and gradually added more and more "information" through mutations and natural selection. A cell today might not be able to survive if certain "information" was removed but the cells millions of years ago were of a different, simpler form that did not require that "information" to self-replicate. Mutations produced that "information" and the cell gradually changed to use it and eventually to rely on it

This idea of specified complexity relies on a misunderstanding of probability and ignoring natural selection, which guides the production of the "information" thereby dropping the odds considerably

Galvasean

Malty_T wrote: »

#5

If you're time constrained, try and watch #4's and #5.
And maybe visit the guy's website.:)

Only watched #5 and I must say it was a very good video. Nice to hear from a Christian evolutionist (makes it harder for them to cry 'atheist conspiracy!').

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

Only watched #5 and I must say it was a very good video. Nice to hear from a Christian evolutionist (makes it harder for them to cry 'atheist conspiracy!').

Don't you know Christians who believe in evolution are really atheists/aren't true Christians?

Sam Vimes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Don't you know Christians who believe in evolution are really atheists/aren't true Christians?

when everyone laughs at you, sometimes it's because there's a worldwide conspiracy against you but more often than not it's because what you're saying is laughable.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...the problem in explaining life using materialistic processes is INFOMATION ... which is Specified Complexity.

Let us say that I need to urgently tell someone to "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours"...which is akin to a specific message being required to be transmitted in order for a specific function to be performed in a living cell ... only the cell requires thousands of such highly specific messages being transmitted in a specific sequence every second!!!!
The odds against producing the above functional specific sentence is 10^88 (assuming 26 letters plus a space character as a possibility at each character point in the sentence). This is a number greater than all of the electrons in the known Universe ... and therefore producing such a simple sentence would take an effective infinity of time using non-intelligently directed processes...and you ALSO need a human brain and an agreed language system to translate it into a menaingful message at the receiving end!!!
Of course, if any old combination will do (like your coin tossing example) then you can claim that "uujsakaadn vsijdfwffb bdiowcocfn vvknsfksannafnknf abfav zvlsawne" is UNIQUE with a post hoc probability of 1 ... but there is no functional information in the sentence ... we are therefore NOT going to go to the concert together ... due to a breakdown in communication between us!!!

...ditto with living processes and their vast need for functional information!!!

you have been corrected on this before.

Natural selection of genetic mutations would account for the development of such sequences.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Malty_T
Quick Question for you.
It's a court case.
Blood with a rare genetic trait has being found on the murder weapon
This particular trait occurs in 1 out of every 10,000 people per the general population. The suspect's blood test also showed this genetic trait, this test is 99% accurate.

Is it likely that the suspect is guilty?


Originally Posted by J C
...no ... unless there is more evidence LINKING him/her to the crime...

....BUT if DNA evidence, with odds in excess of a hundred million to one, were found at the scene...then the suspect would become a defendant!!!!!
....and if it was 10^130 to one the suspect would become a convict!!!!


Malty_T
So your saying that if the suspect had a genetic trait which only affect 1 in 100,000,000 the person is guilty with a test of 99% accuracy??

Suspect has applied for an appeal (it's his last chance),
Do you want to change your verdict?
Innocent or Guilty?

...I didn't say that the person would be guilty beyond reprieve on this test.
What I have said, is that a test with an accuracy of 1:99,000,000 that proves 'positive' is sufficient grounds to bring a suspect to court as a defendant before a jury of his/her peers ... who will 'weigh' all of the evidence, including this pretty damning test result!!!
...and a test with an accuracy of 10^130 which proves 'positive' ... should result in an automatic conviction.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

JC,
Sorry that I'm pushing you, but this is important.


Is the suspect likely to be innocent or guilty?

...Evolutionists these days ... so demanding!!!!:):D:eek:

Turtwig

a test with an accuracy of 10^130 which proves 'positive' ... should result in an automatic conviction.

Congratulations JC, if the trait was 1 in 10^130, the "suspect" would in all probability be innocent.
(So too if it were 1 in 100,000,000.)

I don't think you should be assigning probabilities to the origin of life.
Or at the very least you should see why we're seconding guessing you.

Perhaps you could explain to me why "the suspect" is most likely innocent?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it's not because information as you mean it and specified complexity are both made up terms designed to confuse and make it look like what you're saying has some substance when it doesn't. It fails for two reasons:


1. You are placing value on one arbitrary outcome. The chances of "uujsakaadn vsijdfwffb bdiowcocfn vvknsfksannafnknf abfav zvlsawne" coming out are exactly the same as the chances of "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours" coming out. It's like how if the numbers 123456 came out on the lotto many people would be amazed even though that particular combination is just as likely as any other.

..can I point out that if I needed to communicate the message to urgently tell someone to "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours"...
...then producing something like "uujsakaadn vsijdfwffb bdiowcocfn vvknsfksannafnknf abfav zvlsawne" by non-intelligently directed processes would be completely USELESS ... and because there is no functional information in the sentence ... we are therefore NOT going to go to the concert together ... due to a breakdown in communication between us!!!

....there are 10^88 combinations (MOSTLY meaningless gobbledygook) and only ONE combination that will give the phrase "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours"...and perhaps a few hundred degraded versions that just might transmit the message in a garbled format that you just might be able to decipher (equivalent to mutational degredation)!!!!!

Therefore, what you or I can do with CERTAINTY EVERY TIME (i.e. produce a perfect, meaningful and unamiguous message) by the appliance of intelligence ... non-intelligently directed processes would require all of the matter in the universe 'banging away' for an effective infinity of time to do so!!!
...and this is the problem faced by non-intelligently directed processes in 'coming up with' the millions of specific biochemicals to perform specific tasks at specific points in time and space within living organisms.

The quality and density of Genetic Information has literally destroyed Materialistic Evolution ... and this is resulting in the Atheists becoming intellectually unfulfilled !!!:D
..and that is why they have made such a fuss (and have gone into denial) on this thread!!!:D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

2. You are still ignoring the fact that these cells did not start out with all the "information" they currently have. They started out much simpler and gradually added more and more "information" through mutations and natural selection. A cell today might not be able to survive if certain "information" was removed but the cells millions of years ago were of a different, simpler form that did not require that "information" to self-replicate. Mutations produced that "information" and the cell gradually changed to use it and eventually to rely on it

...the problem still remains that the 'combinatorial space' is effectively infinite for EVERY functional biomolecule ... as it also is for EVERY meaningful sentence in English ... and the only to way to reduce this 'combinatorial space' down to a size where we can reasonably expect to produce functional information is by the appliance of intelligence.

The idea that I can produce the sentence "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours"...by gradual 'trial and error' means is obvious nonesense .... because 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time I will end up with gobbledygook .... and tiny minority of times that I will end with anything meaningful ... it is just as likely to end up saying 'Evolution is a load of baloney and Creation Science rocks!!!'...which doesn't get us very far IF meeting you at the concert is a 'life and death matter' ... just like having fully functional bichemical processes IS!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This idea of specified complexity relies on a misunderstanding of probability and ignoring natural selection, which guides the production of the "information" thereby dropping the odds considerably

...specified complexity is a REAL phenomenon ...
The problem for Natural Selection is that it needs something FUNCTIONAL to select ... and the 'combinatorial space' is so VAST that the chances of producing the SPECIFIC sequence for a SPECIFIC functional biochemical in a SPECIFIC time and space using non-intelligently directed processes is effectively ZERO ... while the applance of intelligent can produce such functional biochemicals 100% of the time!!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Congratulations JC, if the trait was 1 in 10^130, the "suspect" would in all probability be innocent.
(So too if it were 1 in 100,000,000.)

I don't think you should be assigning probabilities to the origin of life.
Or at the very least you should see why we're seconding guessing you.

Perhaps you could explain to me why "the suspect" is most likely innocent?

...a trait with 10^130 is effectively UNIQUE to the individual concerned ... so if it is the suspects DNA that we are talking about ... it can be concluded with 100% certainty that the suspect handled the murder weapon!!!
...now, whether he 'innocently' or 'inadvertently' handled it ... or weilded it to commit the crime is something that would also need to be established beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction!!

...where is this leading anyway???

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...a trait with 10^130 is effectively UNIQUE to the individual concerned ... so if it is the suspects DNA that we are talking about ... it can be concluded with 100% certainty that the suspect handled the murder weapon!!!
...now, whether he 'innocently' or 'inadvertently' handled it ... or weilded it to commit the crime is something that would also need to be established beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction!!

...where is this leading anyway???

JC the test is only 99% accurate.
Doesn't this mean something to you?

C'mon tell us why he's innocent!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Congratulations JC, if the trait was 1 in 10^130, the "suspect" would in all probability be innocent.
(So too if it were 1 in 100,000,000.)

I don't think you should be assigning probabilities to the origin of life.
Or at the very least you should see why we're seconding guessing you.

...so are you saying that the evidential 'weight' given to a test result shouldn't take its accuracy (i.e. the probability that it is wrong) into account?

...which 'other-dimensional' world do you occupy!!!!!:D

Turtwig

Or maybe one should weigh things up accurately?;)

Think about it.
Here's a big hint:
The test in 99% accurate.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

JC the test is only 99% accurate.
Doesn't this mean something to you?

C'mon tell us why he's innocent!

...it all depends on what you mean by "99% accurate"...if it is 99% accurate in measurement then the odds are only reduced from 100,000,000 to 99,000,000 to one ...
...which is insignificant in reaching a conclusion.

...however, if you mean that the test is only accurately performed 99% of the time and the other 1% of the time the result is FALSE then such a test could not be relied upon at all in a court of law!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Or maybe one should weigh things up accurately?;)

Think about it.
Here's a big hint:
The test in 99% accurate.

...Touché!!!:eek:

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

when everyone laughs at you, sometimes it's because there's a worldwide conspiracy against you but more often than not it's because what you're saying is laughable.

....and sometimes it is because you are an Evolutionist ... 'spouting' nonesense!!!:D:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...it all depends on what you mean by "99% accurate"...if it is 99% accurate in measurement then the odds are only reduced from 100,000,000 to 99,000,000 to one ...
...which is insignificant in reaching a conclusion.

...however, if you mean that the test is only accurately performed 99% of the time and the other 1% of the time the result is FALSE then such a test could not be relied upon at all in a court of law!!!

Em JC,

Still haven't explained why the "suspects" innocent.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Em JC,

Still haven't explained why the "suspects" innocent.

....I think s/he is 'guilty as hell'!!!!:eek::D
...you're the one with the problem in proving his/her innocence ... if we have a 'positive' test result and the 'false positive' rate is 1:10^130!!!!:)
...or even 1:99,000,000 where there is ANY other evidence linking them to the crime!!!!

...see you in court!!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

..can I point out that if I needed to communicate the message to urgently tell someone to "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours"...
...then producing something like "uujsakaadn vsijdfwffb bdiowcocfn vvknsfksannafnknf abfav zvlsawne" by non-intelligently directed processes would be completely USELESS ... and because there is no functional information in the sentence ... we are therefore NOT going to go to the concert together ... due to a breakdown in communication between us!!!

....there are 10^88 combinations (MOSTLY meaningless gobbledygook) and only ONE combination that will give the phrase "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours"...and perhaps a few hundred degraded versions that just might transmit the message in a garbled format that you just might be able to decipher (equivalent to mutational degredation)!!!!!

Therefore, what you or I can do with CERTAINTY EVERY TIME (i.e. produce a perfect, meaningful and unamiguous message) by the appliance of intelligence ... non-intelligently directed processes would require all of the matter in the universe 'banging away' for an effective infinity of time to do so!!!
...and this is the problem faced by non-intelligently directed processes in 'coming up with' the millions of specific biochemicals to perform specific tasks at specific points in time and space within living organisms.

The quality and density of Genetic Information has literally destroyed Materialistic Evolution ... and this is resulting in the Atheists becoming intellectually unfulfilled !!!:D
..and that is why they have made such a fuss (and have gone into denial) on this thread!!!:D



...the problem still remains that the 'combinatorial space' is effectively infinite for EVERY functional biomolecule ... as it also is for EVERY meaningful sentence in English ... and the only to way to reduce this 'combinatorial space' down to a size where we can reasonably expect to produce functional information is by the appliance of intelligence.

The idea that I can produce the sentence "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours"...by gradual 'trial and error' means is obvious nonesense .... because 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time I will end up with gobbledygook .... and tiny minority of times that I will end with anything meaningful ... it is just as likely to end up saying 'Evolution is a load of baloney and Creation Science rocks!!!'...which doesn't get us very far IF meeting you at the concert is a 'life and death matter' ... just like having fully functional bichemical processes IS!!!


...specified complexity is a REAL phenomenon ...
The problem for Natural Selection is that it needs something FUNCTIONAL to select ... and the 'combinatorial space' is so VAST that the chances of producing the SPECIFIC sequence for a SPECIFIC functional biochemical in a SPECIFIC time and space using non-intelligently directed processes is effectively ZERO ... while the applance of intelligent can produce such functional biochemicals 100% of the time!!!!

It's truly amazing J C, it's as if you think that if you say the same thing a million times it will somehow become true

Forming the sentence "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours" by random processes is extremely unlikely but natural selection is not a random process.

If you could form the word "please" randomly and have that word effectively locked into place so that it doesn't change, you could then move onto randomly generating the word "join" and lock that into place. Then move onto the word "me" and so on and so on until the sentence is formed. Forming the entire sentence in one go is almost impossible but forming it in small increments and locking in each word or letter as you go makes it just a matter of time.

The probability argument you bring up with depressing frequency is blown out of the water by natural selection. The creationist response to this is the irreducible complexity argument but as we have shown time and time again on this thread, it's nonsense

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....I think s/he is 'guilty as hell'!!!!:eek::D
...you're the one with the problem in proving his/her innocence ... if we have a 'positive' test result and the 'false positive' rate is 1:10^130!!!!:)
...or even 1:99,000,000 where there is ANY other evidence linking them to the crime!!!!

...see you in court!!!!:D

If the test is only 99% accurate then 1% of the 10^130 will be falsely diagnosed with having the trait.
1% of 10^130 = 10^128.

So,
1 person out 10^130 will actually have the trait, but out of that same group, 10^128 will have been inaccurately diagnosed as having the trait.
Still think he's guilty?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's truly amazing J C, it's as if you think that if you say the same thing a million times it will somehow become true

Forming the sentence "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours" by random processes is extremely unlikely but natural selection is not a random process.

If you could form the word "please" randomly and have that word effectively locked into place so that it doesn't change, you could then move onto randomly generating the word "join" and lock that into place. Then move onto the word "me" and so on and so on until the sentence is formed. Forming the entire sentence in one go is almost impossible but forming it in small increments and locking in each word or letter as you go makes it just a matter of time.

... if pigs had wings they could fl!!!!

...the problem is that the word 'Please' wouldn't be locked in UNLESS there was some intelligent oversight ... that KNEW what the sentence would ultimately mean and that the word 'Please' was needed (as the first word in the sentence) AS WELL AS having the ability to identify the word 'Please' and protect and hold onto it - while the other other words were also being formed!!!!

..whether the sentence is formed in one go or incrementally ... both scenarios REQUIRE an intelligent input if the sentence is ever to be formed.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The probability argument you bring up with depressing frequency is blown out of the water by natural selection. The creationist response to this is the irreducible complexity argument but as we have shown time and time again on this thread, it's nonsense

...OK please demonstrate how natural selection could form this sentence...and you are not allowed to have an Intelligent Overview to either select specific words when they form or to 'lock in' particular words ... because mutagenesis is just as likely to 'scramble' a word that is already formed as it is to form some other word.
...please also bear in mind that the word exercise is a virtual one ... just imagine the physical waste generated to produce even one small protein by 'trial and error' ... I can tell you that it would be greater than all of the matter in the entire Universe!!!:D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

If the test is only 99% accurate then 1% of the 10^130 will be falsely diagnosed with having the trait.
1% of 10^130 = 10^128.

So,
1 person out 10^130 will actually have the trait, but out of that same group, 10^128 will have been inaccurately diagnosed as having the trait.
Still think he's guilty?

...yes, like I have already said, if the test ...it all depends on what you mean by "99% accurate"... if you mean that the test is only accurately performed 99% of the time and the other 1% of the time the result is FALSE (like you are saying above) then such a test could not be relied upon at all in a court of law ... because it has a 'false positive' rate of 1:100!!!

....however if the test is 99% accurate in measurement then the odds are only reduced from 1.3x10^130 to 1.255x10^130 to one ...
...which certainly will allow a conclusion to be drawn.

...Evolutionists should avoid confusing themselves with big numbers!!!!

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...OK please demonstrate how natural selection could form this sentence...and you are not allowed to have an Intelligent Overview to either select specific words when they form or to 'lock in' particular words ... because mutagenesis is just as likely to 'scramble' a word that is already formed as it is to form some other word.
...please also bear in mind that the word exercise is a virtual one ... just imagine the physical waste generated to produce even one small protein by 'trial and error' ... I can tell you that it would be greater than all of the matter in the entire Universe!!!:D

You've been corrected on this before.

Sentences would be naturally selected if their phenotypes contributed to their survival, and if their reproduced in a manner similar to life. See any elementary textbook on evolution for details.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... if pigs had wings they could fl!!!!

...the problem is that the word 'Please' wouldn't be locked in UNLESS there was some intelligent oversight ... that KNEW what the sentence would ultimately mean and that the word 'Please' was needed (as the first word in the sentence) AS WELL AS having the ability to identify the word 'Please' and protect and hold onto it - while the other other words were also being formed!!!!

..whether the sentence is formed in one go or incrementally ... both scenarios REQUIRE an intelligent input if the sentence is ever to be formed.

...OK please demonstrate how natural selection could form this sentence...and you are not allowed to have an Intelligent Overview to either select specific words when they form or to 'lock in' particular words ... because mutagenesis is just as likely to 'scramble' a word that is already formed as it is to form some other word.

It actually boggles my mind that this has to be explained to you so many times. Lets give it a go for the 1,056,506,385,684,385th time just because I have nothing better to do.

What we're trying to do here is form that sentence in gradual steps in such a way so that at each point it conveys meaning. Firstly I would point out that it doesn't have to convey the same meaning as the entire sentence does at all points. The sentence "please join me", while not meaning the same thing, still means something, it performs a function that can be selected by natural pressure and it's only later on that this sentence fragment gets stuck to the other half and starts to take the meaning we see today.

But I'm not even going to make it that easy. I'm going to assume that this sentence is being sent in a text message and make it convey the same meaning as I break it further and further down:

Original:
Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours

The letters for the time can be numbers:
Please join me at the concert tomorrow at 15:00

The : makes little difference
Please join me at the concert tomorrow at 1500

We don't have to be polite and say please, the word is not needed as you suggested, the meaning is the same:
join me at the concert tomorrow at 1500

The original sentence just says "the concert" so the recipient already knows it's a concert they're going to. No need to mention it:
join me tomorrow at 1500

He probably already knows it's tomorrow and just needs to know the time
Join me at 1500

If he gets a text with just a time in it he can deduce that it's the time his friend wants to meet for the concert tomorrow:
1500


At each stage the sentence conveys meaning but as it becomes simpler and simpler, the meaning becomes degraded and more difficult to interpret. But however degraded the message may be, at each point a message is conveyed, each sentence performs a function. And if we bring the analogy back to living beings, if there is one animal that has a gene that performs a function, however degraded that function may be from what we see today, and it is surrounded by its brethren who do not have the gene to perform this function, it will survive better, it will reproduce more and at later stages it can build on this degraded message until after thousands of generations it finally mutates into what we see today.

Nature doesn't have to "know" that the sentence will eventually mutate into "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours", all that's necessary is that the sentence "1500" conveys a meaning of some kind and natural selection can do its work

So there ya go

edit: J C, the problem is that you see the world as it is today as the "goal" and insist that nature must have been trying to get to this point all along. But it wasn't, this is just where it happened to end up. The proteins that you point to as apparently irreducibly complex could just as easily not existed and different proteins performing different functions would exist in their place

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What we're trying to do here is form that sentence in gradual steps in such a way so that at each point it conveys meaning. Firstly I would point out that it doesn't have to convey the same meaning as the entire sentence does at all points. The sentence "please join me", while not meaning the same thing, still means something, it performs a function that can be selected by natural pressure and it's only later on that this sentence fragment gets stuck to the other half and starts to take the meaning we see today.

..but if it is a 'life or death matter' that we attend the concert together ... then such verbal meanderings will NEVER get to the point of conveying the message beteen me and you and they are therefore USELESS!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

..but if it is a 'life or death matter' that we attend the concert together ... then verbal meanderings NEVER get to the point of conveying the message are USELESS!!!

Well it's a good thing that with evolution having the information is not a life or death situation. Just because an organism may rely on a characteristic today doesn't mean that all of its ancestors must also have relied on the same characteristic existing in exactly the same way

With evolution, each stage of each characteristic evolves in an organism and its only when this characteristic is firmly established that the organism adapts to depend on it and possibly go on to further develop on it. There has never been an organism whose life depended on the equivalent of "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hour" being encoded in its DNA that came to depend on it before it was available

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well it's a good thing that with evolution having the information is not a life or death situation. Just because an organism may rely on a characteristic today doesn't mean that all of its ancestors must also have relied on the same characteristic existing in exactly the same way

With evolution, each stage of each characteristic evolves in an organism and its only when this characteristic is firmly established that the organism adapts to depend on it and possibly go on to further develop on it. There has never been an organism whose life depended on the equivalent of "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hour" being encoded in its DNA that came to depend on it before it was available

...what we are talking about here is is irreducible complexity .... which you deny exists ...
...so HOW did any ESSENTIAL biochemical cascade supposedly work before now with less than its full current compliment of chemistry and steps ... when it is observed that removing any one step will bring the whole cascade to a halt ... with the death of the organism or its severe disablement???

...this is irreducible complexity ... and it is found throughout all living systems ... and it rules out any gradual stepped process of development such as Materialistic Evolution.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...what we are talking about here is is irreducible complexity .... which you deny exists ...
...so HOW did any ESSENTIAL biochemical cascade supposedly work before now with less than its full current compliment of chemistry and steps ... when it is observed that removing any one step will bring the whole cascade to a halt ... with the death of the organism or its severe disablement???

...this is irreducible complexity ... and it is found throughout all living systems ... and it rules out any gradual stepped process of development such as Materialistic Evolution.

Well, I don't think that's true, but in any case, no-one (except you) is saying that the original part existed and simply had bits added on.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Well, I don't think that's true, but in any case, no-one (except you) is saying that the original part existed and simply had bits added on.

...so how did irreducibly complex biochemical cascades come about...if not by Direct Creation?