# Irreducible complexity



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.

Battery
So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.

Axle
Another important part of any car. How are you going to keep the fun rolling without these?

Brakes
Having trusty brakes is essential to driving a safe car. When you start to hear those things squeak at red lights, it might be time to head into the shop and get some new ones.

Pistons
These are best when they're pumping smoothly and quickly. Built to handle all those gasoline explosions, these are where your car gets its horses.

Fuel Injector
The successor to the carburetor, this little thing gets the gas from the fuel tank into the engine.

Radiator
The radiator is part of the system that keeps your car's engine from overheating. Here, the engine coolant has time to give off heat into the air before it goes back into the engine to pick up...more heat.

Transmission
Here's where the power turns into movement. The transmission takes the energy generated in the engine and transmits it to the connected wheels.

Spark Plug
The spark plug is what you use to get the car started. It uses an electric spark to ignite fuel in the engine's ignition chamber.

Now, can anyone tell me which part you can remove and still have a car that you would trust your life in? Take your time. I'll wait.


----------



## BlackFlag (Jun 2, 2019)




----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

BlackFlag said:


>


Hey, dipshitzky. Can you tell us which part you can remove and still have a car? Apparently not. Proof of irreducible complexity. You lose. Thanks for playing


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2019)

BlackFlag said:


>


So now God created the automobile is there anything he doesn't take credit for?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2019)

I can run my auto without a battery I have a standard transmission.....Next....


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...


Obviously the first on the list is unnecessary.

/thread


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> ...


And just how would you start a car without a battery?


----------



## The Professor (Jun 2, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> I can run my auto without a battery I have a standard transmission.....Next....



I've done that but only briefly.  A long time ago, my battery died and my friend had no jumper cables. He took the battery out of his car and put it in mine. After I started my car, he removed the battery and put it back in his own car. I was then able to drive somewhere to get a new battery.  It did feel funny knowing that I was driving a car with no battery.  

This was about 50-60 years ago and I don't know if that trick would work on newer cars.


----------



## Crepitus (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...


Lol, take the battery off and put on a hand crank like Henry Ford did.

Even funnier for your silly little failed analogy is the fact that battery powered starters are part of the evolution of the modern automobile.


Oops.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Push start.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...



You have a romantic attraction to your mechanic, right?


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> ...


Regardless of which one you use, it is required to start the car. OOPS!


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2019)

I am guessing the OP is a female....


----------



## Crepitus (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Huh?

Don't know much about cars do you.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


OK  genius. How would you start a car without a crank or a battery?


----------



## Crepitus (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Thats already been explained to you.  Find a hill and put it in neutral.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...


It’s not ‘atheists,’ it’s logic and reason that renders this an invalid argument.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...


It's so far beyond that! There are 2,000 proteins in any simple cell, the odds of them randomly banging together to create a FUNCTIONAL CELL is a number 5,700 zeros to 1.

Life didn't happen by accident!


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> ...


Who planned it all and where did they come from?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 2, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



What difference does that make?


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Gee. That would be great if your car was at the top of a hill. And just how would you get back up that hill? Quit being a troll. You need a way to start the car, no matter what it is. And I'll bet you can't name another part that could be removed without causing more than a monumental inconvenience.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

Only God can make a car


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Push start and pop the clutch


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Now, can anyone tell me which part you can remove and still have a car that you would trust your life in?



The ash tray ... or, maybe, the 8-Track.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...


My VW Beetle did not have a radiator


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...



You do get that, for the most part, cars aren't biological creatures, right?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

A Rotary Engine does not have pistons


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> ...


Doesn't matter. Does it?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Only God can make a car


And it turned out to be a Chrysler.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Now, can anyone tell me which part you can remove and still have a car that you would trust your life in?
> ...


My car has neither. So you may be correct.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

Everyone knows that cars evolved

They started out as simple creatures and evolved into sophisticated machines


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



It matters a lot ... evolution is a biological process. Non-biological things cannot evolve.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Only God can make a car
> ...



I'm  the anti-Chrysler.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Irrelevant. I have proven that something can be irreducibly complex.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> A Rotary Engine does not have pistons



The rotor performs the function of the pistons.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


And I am your Ford and savior.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Apples and light bulbs ... you haven't proven anything.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > A Rotary Engine does not have pistons
> ...


Not a piston

How about a Turbine engine?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2019)

So can we restart the thread now?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



You’re hoping to steal the fraud perpetrated by Behe.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

And on the seventh day......Henry Ford rested


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Nevertheless  a car requires a minimum number of parts in order to function. You can't refute that. Why would it be any different for life?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> So can we restart the thread now?


Dont have to

She will keep repeating the same nonsense


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I wish I had a turbine engine car ... that would be radical.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Life does require a minimum number of parts to function.  It must have the ability to metabolize and the ability to pass on encoded material to its progeny.

Literally everything else an organism might possess is a factory option.  

Once life begins, evolution is inevitable.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Even if this is true, you must have life before it can evolve. However, centuries of observation have proven that life comes only from life. It cannot evolve from lifeless chemicals.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


I remember the Indy 500 when they had a turbine car
That thing dominated


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



You've been misinformed.  The famous Miller-Urey experiment (which as been repeated countless times) has proven without a doubt that organic molecules, including dozens of different amino acids, can spontaneously assemble in conditions similar to those of the early earth.

Some of these crude organic molecules are even capable of making copies of themselves.

As it turns out, the jump from inorganic to organic chemistry is easier than anyone could have imagined.


----------



## Crepitus (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


You don't necessarily need a transmission.  Early steam cars didn't have one.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Transmissions evolved


----------



## Crepitus (Jun 2, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Indeed.


----------



## Crepitus (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


My Dakota just took an instant dislike to you.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...


Electric cars do not have pistons, fuel injectors, radiators or spark plugs

You lose


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Indeed they did ... the biology in this case was external.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Talking points. Is that all you've got? Let's refute what you said, although it's already been done countless times. First of all, that experiment did not create ALL of the amino acids required for life. Second, it produced equal amounts of left and right-handed amino acids. DNA and proteins must have either left-handed or right-handed amino acids. If they have even one of the wrong handedness it doesn't function. Then there is the problem of information. All life is the result of information. DNA is copied, and proteins are created by a self-replicating assembler. Something which requires programming in order to carry out it's tasks. Nature plus random chance, even if they could construct such a device, could never program it. Educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me greatly.


----------



## Crepitus (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


That's just an odometer.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Apply motive force to the counter wheel and it's a drive train.


----------



## Crepitus (Jun 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


I suppose, but where would you mount the horse?


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 2, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...



All of the above:






Well, except for the axles, maybe brakes.

The "irreducibly complex" argument suffers from a fatal flaw, as it halts evolution, and thus disingenuously asserts that what existed before has by necessity the same qualities as that which came after.  That's all a trick with words, resting on the fact that how life evolved - yes, probably through a variety of stages of different complexity, for which evidence is not to be had a billion years later - remains a puzzle.  Our ignorance as to mother nature's capabilities does not a creator prove.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Tinier horse would need to evolve.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



In fact, variations of the MU experiment have produced 30 of the 42 known amino acids.  Many of those known to be involved in assembling organic molecule chains.

RNA molecules have been synthesized under artificial conditions  that can self-replicate without the assistance of any proteins or cellular components.

The earliest replication could have begun just this way ...  hit and miss ... like a rat in a maze ... where the prize for choosing the correct combination of alternatives is survival of offspring versus a piece of cheese.

MU experimentation has been only going on for a few decades, in small laboratory contained low-volume flasks.  Nature was conducting hundreds of Trillions of MU experiments on a planetary scale with Trillions of permutations for hundreds of Millions of years before coming up with a single-celled organism.

It's safe to say that nature has been at this a whole lot longer than we have.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...



My f250 diesel had no spark plugs.  In fact a huge number of the world's cars are diesel, this no spark plugs.  Almost every single trucker doesn't have spark plugs.  

My buddy has a Tesla. One of the safest cars ever built and it is missing about half that list.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



With a crank you started a car, until the EVOLUTION of the battery starter.  And now with EVs we can lose the spark plugs, ignition, fuel injector, and radiator from your list.

Is your list a way to prove that through evolution we've come to the modern car?


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you did prove that.

So what is your point?


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 3, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you did prove that.
> 
> So what is your point?



If something is irreducibly complex (i.e. allegedly: life), it cannot have evolved from earlier, simpler, less complex forms.  Hence, for something as complex as life to exist, there has to be a creator.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 3, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you did prove that.
> ...



But life isn't irreducibly complex.  

It's already been proven that the most elemental building blocks of life can indeed be created by the environment of the early earth.  One self-replicating life exists, evolution is inevitable.

That doesn't remove the possibility of a creator.  It merely pushes back the notion of where the creator stopped creating and let his creation build itself.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



,Send a donation to a TV preacher and pray for it to start ?


----------



## fncceo (Jun 3, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Cheaper to join the auto club.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



It only matters if you try to relate it to that goofy OP.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



You've proven you don't know much about cars.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 3, 2019)

fncceo said:


> But life isn't irreducibly complex.
> 
> It's already been proven that the most elemental building blocks of life can indeed be created by the environment of the early earth.  One self-replicating life exists, evolution is inevitable.
> 
> That doesn't remove the possibility of a creator.  It merely pushes back the notion of where the creator stopped creating and let his creation build itself.



Gawd.

If it isn't, then I got lucky I didn't assert it is "irreducibly complex".

The most "elemental building blocks of life" isn't the same as life, and we don't yet know how to get from the former to the latter.  And evolution is inevitable only insofar as self-replication is prone to error.

There is no way to remove the possibility of a creator.  But, if all we see can be explained to have evolved, it removes the necessity of a creator to explain it.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 3, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> and we don't yet know how to get from the former to the latter



We have a theory that explains it ... one that has at least partially been supported by evidence and experiment.

So, you're reduced to two (equally unproven) theories ... one that life on earth evolved by natural selection  ... and another that says that all life on earth was put here in a single act of creation.

I've list a small sampling of the evidence and experiment that supports the evolution theory.  Please show the evidence and experiment that supports the creation theory.



> There is no way to remove the possibility of a creator



There absolutely is.  Come up with a competing theory with more evidentiary proof than the creation theory.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 3, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > and we don't yet know how to get from the former to the latter
> ...



No, we have a theory that says life can have emerged from simpler, non-life forms in a toxic soup, and another that says, life is irreducibly complex and had to be created.  Hence the need for a creator.

I say, the latter theory is faulty, and without basis in fact.  So, if you think about it, you may realize how ludicrous it is for you to demand I provide "evidentiary proof" for it.  Or maybe not.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 3, 2019)

We don't know how life started, and the existence of a creator is still a possibility, but we have no reason to believe it is a fact.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



Your “....because I say so”, claim that a theory is faulty and without basis in fact is, how shall we say, “faulty and without basis in fact.”


----------



## fncceo (Jun 3, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> No, we have a theory that says life can have emerged from simpler, non-life forms in a toxic soup



Which has been demonstrated to be not only possible, but relatively easy to replicate.  Toxicity is different for different organisms.  Bacteria can, and do, thrive in an environment that would kill most higher forms of life.

So, the idea that life cannot have arisen that way is demonstrably false.

If you have evidence to support an alternative theory, I'd be glad to hear it.  For the record, stating you don't believe in something has no bearing or offers no verification of a theory in which you do believe.  It simply means you don't accept the evidence with which you've been presented.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 3, 2019)

fncceo said:


> So, the idea that life cannot have arisen that way



So, I got lucky, again, having not asserted same.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 3, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > So, the idea that life cannot have arisen that way
> ...



Does that mean you won't be offering any evidence in support of alternative theories?


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 3, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



That means, I got lucky, again, having not asserted same.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 3, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you did prove that.
> ...


Not all life is complex


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 3, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



First, life is incredibly complex - compared to everything else we observe on earth, even the simplest life forms.

Second, is it really that hard to understand that I was merely trying to explain what Magnificat's point was, and that I don't believe this argument is compelling?

Third, is it really absolutely necessary that you routinely omit the closing period, and give yourself the appearance of an illiterate, special-ed dunce?  You are, of course, free to do so, but...


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 3, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


Closing period?

Are you fucking nuts????


----------



## OldLady (Jun 3, 2019)

_ Never been awake
 Never seen a day break
 Leaning on my pillow in the morning
 Lazy day in bed
 Music in my head
 Crazy music playing in the morning light...

Ho, ho, ho It's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so
It's magic, you know
Never believe, it's not so ..._

Magic (D. Paton / A. Parsons / EMI)


----------



## Crepitus (Jun 3, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Lol, you win.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...



so god isn't "an all powerful god who can do anything"....?.....he's really just a tinkerer who needs science to get things done?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...



Sure!

There was a time when there was a hand crank on the front of cars to start them.   *
No Battery

*
Not that long ago, VW had a whole line of air cooled cars.  Some of them did very well.  In fact, the old Beetles you see on the road are all at least 40 years old.
*No Radiator
*
The Tesla is a modern electric car.  The systems in the Teslas are quite different.
*No Pistons, No Fuel Injectors, and No Spark Plugs*


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Comparing a car to the incredible diversity of living things is ridiculous.

But yes, on various different cars you can remove the battery, the fuel injection, the radiator, the spark plugs and the pistons.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



You only asked how it could be started without a battery.   The hand crank is a viable option.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> Battery
> Axle
> Brakes
> ...


If your attempt is to discredit evolution you picked a poor example. Each device you outlined came through long evolutionary changes starting with the invention of the wheel. Your example illustrates evolution in technology which is contrary to your attempt to discredit evolution.

.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > But life isn't irreducibly complex.
> ...


And THAT is exactly what atheists want, more than anything else. A world without God. They'll get their wish, someday. In hell. Fools!


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> ...


Idiot. You just shot yourself in the foot. Cars do not evolve. They are designed and built by intelligent people. Lolol


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



Oh please.   An atheist does not believe in god.   Why would he want a world without something he does not believe in?    Ridiculous.

And I do not care at all that you believe.   In fact, I will fight to defend your right to worship.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Why do you only look at cars?   Why not look at the entire line of transportation?    Start with riding animals, move to using carts and wagons, and end up with the most modern and technologically advanced modes of transportation.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> ...


God created science. Then he created a universe that obeys the laws of science. Pretty incredible. Isn't it?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



If that is what you believe.     If you want to believe the Genesis version of creation, that is fine.   If you want to believe that god created life via evolution, that is fine too.

I simply argue when you make ridiculous statements concerning other people's views.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Cars evolved from horse drawn carriages


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Then he stepped aside


----------



## Crepitus (Jun 3, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Yeah, them rascally goalposts have been jumping all over the place in this thread.


----------



## Third Party (Jun 3, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Yes, since he created man and woman, he still doesn't get the bi, gay, transgender, hermaphrodite.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



What's incredible is your presumption that anyone should blindly accept such an unsupported, baseless claim.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



I won't try and convince you that the bi, gay, and transgenders are born that way.   But a hermaphrodite is someone who has the genitalia of both sexes.    If he created that, why wouldn't he get it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



He stated that the car benefited from Intelligent Design, no?


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 3, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> ...


Both these arguments fail because the underlying assumption is flawed.  While a car and a cell may be complex, transportation and life both had simpler beginnings.  Cave men didn't build cars but they did invent the wheel which evolved over time into cars.  The same thing is true of life.  Economics and warfare were forces that drove the evolution of the car and natural selection drove the evolution of life.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


That was my point. Cars did not evolve.


----------



## Third Party (Jun 3, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Apparently he didn't-which is the point.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Your point was that cars are complex and you could not have one without the list of items you posted.    And that was shown to be absolutely untrue.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Third Party said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...



He didn't?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



From the Ford Pinto to the Fusion, yes, they did evolve.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Idiot. You just shot yourself in the foot. Cars do not evolve. They are designed and built by intelligent people. Lolol


I didn't say the car evolved; I said the technology evolves. One endpoint of current technology is the car.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 3, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> Why do you only look at cars? Why not look at the entire line of transportation? Start with riding animals, move to using carts and wagons, and end up with the most modern and technologically advanced modes of transportation.


I agree, but the OP was specifically about the car.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 3, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Cars evolved from horse drawn carriages


In fact they were first called _horseless carriages_.

.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...




I'd ask your ALL POWERFUL GOD but according to you he has limited powers and needs science and mechanics to actually get anything done.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot. You just shot yourself in the foot. Cars do not evolve. They are designed and built by intelligent people. Lolol
> ...



Does the technology evolve by Intelligent Design or by car parts randomly throwing themselves against each other?


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot. You just shot yourself in the foot. Cars do not evolve. They are designed and built by intelligent people. Lolol
> ...


Which was the result of intelligent design.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



That's right. Man's intelligent design; not God's.
Man's ability to evolve more complex tools and other devices came with his evolving intelligence and understanding of science. Man and his use of tools evolved together.

.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> And THAT is exactly what atheists want, more than anything else. A world without God. They'll get their wish, someday. In hell. Fools!



How about you muster some respect - even for those with whom you disagree?  Wouldn't that be a good idea?  After all, in case them atheists "repent," we were taught there will be more joy over them than over you, the perennially righteous.

Next, a "world without God" isn't what "atheists want"; rather it is the reality atheists accept as a given, absent evidence to the contrary.

And finally, how can you assume to know about Her final judgment?  Isn't that a tad impertinent towards Her?


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > And THAT is exactly what atheists want, more than anything else. A world without God. They'll get their wish, someday. In hell. Fools!
> ...


I was referring to atheists as a group. My comment was not directed at any individual. There is no such thing as an atheist. The Bible specifically states that they will be without excuse. And I was not being disrespectful to anyone. I was simply telling the truth.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



No such thing as an atheist?    lol    You are quite wrong about that.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...


You can remove the spark plugs and fuel injectors and still have a perfectly working vehicle


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> ...



Funny how he stopped talking about the irreducible-complexity of the automobile, isn't it?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...



Simple..................replace the gas engine with a diesel and you can get rid of the spark plugs.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



The reason the first experiments failed was that they never introduced electricity to the solutions.  When electricity was introduced to the solutions, various amino acids formed.

And yes people, electricity is a naturally occurring thing.  Ever heard of lightning?  (That was for everyone else, not you Fncceo.)


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> ...


You would still require a way to start the car. Whether it's spark plugs or something else.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Diesel engines don't use spark plugs, they use compression of the fuel and air to achieve ignition.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


You just confirmed what I said. It requires a source of ignition.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Like the previously mentioned handcrank?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Electric cars do not.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2019)

So, the car parts just randomly throw themselves against each other and make new and better cars.  Interesting


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So, the car parts just randomly throw themselves against each other and make new and better cars.  Interesting



Of course not.   But then, automobiles are not living and do not compete for food/energy, space and reproduction.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



I'd be willing to say that the technology evolves by Intelligent Design of a Creator.  Namely, tech evolves because of humans and their desire to develop newer and better things. 

But then again, it says in the Bible that God wanted to create mankind in His own image.  That would mean that we also have the ability to create and "evolve" things.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 3, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So, the car parts just randomly throw themselves against each other and make new and better cars. Interesting


It's odd how this thread morphed. The idea of the OP was to attempt an analogy to show irreducible complexity is an argument against evolution (and cars).

To continue the analogy by saying cars don't just randomly throw parts together is actually an analogy that life didn't just throw organ parts together either. For the non-creationist, that's an argument for evolution; not against it.

.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

You know, I finally figured out the problem I had with this thread, and it's the title "irreducible complexity", meaning that the OP thinks that a car is so complex, that it cannot be reduced anymore, which is what "irreducible" means.

Only problem is, the thing the OP posited in their first post is wrong.  Many of the things that they said was "irreducible" could be simplified quite a bit simply by switching to an electric car.

Here.................................for those that don't want to look up those words, I give you the definitions.........................

*irreducible*
[ ir-i-doo-suh-buh l, -dyoo- ]
|
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR irreducible ON THESAURUS.COM
*adjective*
1.  not reducible; incapable of being reduced or of being diminished or simplified further: the irreducible minimum.
2.  incapable of being brought into a different condition or form.
3.  Mathematics.

of or relating to a polynomial that cannot be factored.
of or relating to a group that cannot be written as the direct product of two of its subgroups.

*complexity*
[ kuh m-plek-si-tee ]
|
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR complexity ON THESAURUS.COM
*noun, plural com·plex·i·ties for 2.*
1.  the state or quality of being complex; intricacy: the complexity of urban life.
2.  something complex: the complexities of foreign policy.



I know...................it sucks when people bring logic and reason into a thread.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, I finally figured out the problem I had with this thread, and it's the title "irreducible complexity", meaning that the OP thinks that a car is so complex, that it cannot be reduced anymore, which is what "irreducible" means.
> 
> Only problem is, the thing the OP posited in their first post is wrong.  Many of the things that they said was "irreducible" could be simplified quite a bit simply by switching to an electric car.
> 
> ...


Apples and oranges. Gas powered cars and electric cars are two different things. Try again.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> I'd be willing to say that the technology evolves by Intelligent Design of a Creator. Namely, tech evolves because of humans and their desire to develop newer and better things.
> 
> But then again, it says in the Bible that God wanted to create mankind in His own image. That would mean that we also have the ability to create and "evolve" things.



I would say that understanding the nature of the universe comes first out of intense curiosity of scientists. Think of the Large Hadron Collider which has no other practical purpose right now. Technology comes after that.

We understood atoms first, then developed transistors, lasers, GPS systems second. In my mind the study of science is a higher form of "liturgy" than can be provided by any church.

.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Worked with Frankenstein


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I finally figured out the problem I had with this thread, and it's the title "irreducible complexity", meaning that the OP thinks that a car is so complex, that it cannot be reduced anymore, which is what "irreducible" means.
> ...


Kind of blows away your OP


----------



## forkup (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...


The History of Brakes
Here you see mechanical evolution at work in your example of a car. It's why irreducibly complexity is a strawman. Not a single scientist claims that life came fully formed. It was a series of very small steps.... just like your brakes.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I finally figured out the problem I had with this thread, and it's the title "irreducible complexity", meaning that the OP thinks that a car is so complex, that it cannot be reduced anymore, which is what "irreducible" means.
> ...



No, they are both automobiles and yuor analogy should work on both, if it works.   It doesn't.   Your supposition fails.

In the OP you said the battery could not be replaced.   The hand crank absolutely replaces the battery.   Your supposition fails.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I finally figured out the problem I had with this thread, and it's the title "irreducible complexity", meaning that the OP thinks that a car is so complex, that it cannot be reduced anymore, which is what "irreducible" means.
> ...



Doesn't matter, others have shown on here where VW had been using air cooled, gas powered engines in their cars that didn't require a radiator.  There are always ways to make something complex a bit more simple.  You've yet to demonstrate "irreducible complexity".


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I finally figured out the problem I had with this thread, and it's the title "irreducible complexity", meaning that the OP thinks that a car is so complex, that it cannot be reduced anymore, which is what "irreducible" means.
> ...




LMAO!!!     You compare living cells to an automobile, and then you have the audacity to claim that a combustion engine car and an electric car is comparing apples and oranges?

You started this thread comparing apples and coffee tables.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

forkup said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> ...



Interestingly enough, the piston caliper brakes that cars now come with are a bit simpler than the original drum and shoe brakes (less moving parts), as well as work a lot better. 

Velocity is one of my favorite channels.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Tell you what, ass wipe. Remove the wheels from your car and tell us how that works out for you.


----------



## forkup (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Lol. Point taken. But I think it doesn't really disprove mine. Nice bit of trivia though.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



You started with 8 things you claimed a car could not do without.     How many are left?     You start out with certain criteria, and then continually move the goalposts to try and salvage a weak and useless argument.


----------



## forkup (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


History of the Wheel
Guess what. Seems the weel on a car is also a product of evolution.... Who could have known?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Not a problem.  Saw a couple of episodes on the Velocity channel where they took an off road vehicle and replaced the wheels with tank tracks.  I also saw them do it to a full sized truck as well.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

forkup said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



Wasn't trying to disprove your point, sorry if you thought that.  I was using brake evolution as a way to possibly point to "irreducible complexity".  Drum brakes when they first came out had a lot of parts and wear, so they came up with a way to "reduce the complexity", meaning they came up with calipers, which are much simpler mechanically as well as work a hell of a lot better. 

The OP would have done well to point to something like that and use that as a possible "irreducible complexity", but apparently, they don't know much about cars and how they are built. 

Matter of fact, the OP would do well to remember that VW isn't the only company that had air cooled engines.  Porsche and Harley Davidson both did as well.


----------



## forkup (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Not much of a gearhead? The entire OP is just riddled full of holes. Him not knowing much about cars seems the least of his worries. I know very little about cars myself if I'm being honest. But I do love my trivia.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Ok. Remove the tank treads too. What do you have? Your arguments are pretty shallow. I've proven that a car requires a minimum number of parts in order to function. It doesn't matter whether you use wheels or tank treads. BTW. Tank treads are way more complicated than tires. So you aren't helping your argument at all. Your arguments are specious. A car requires seating for passengers. It requires a motive force. It requires something between it and the road that negates friction. These three things make it irreducibly complex. Now shut your Yap. You're only Embarrassing yourself.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Moving the goalposts I see.  If you wanted to say they have to have a way to provide forward momentum from the vehicle to the ground, you would have covered tank tracks as well, but you didn't, you used wheels.

But, if you really need to see something reduced to it's bare bones and still be viable transportation, here's one example of an electric unicycle scooter that has only 1 wheel.......................

single wheel scooter - Google Search


----------



## OldLady (Jun 3, 2019)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So, the car parts just randomly throw themselves against each other and make new and better cars. Interesting
> ...



The point of the OP was that something as simple as a car was designed yet you want us to believe that something trillions and trillions and trillions of times more complex: a functioning cell, was just throw together outback by proteins slamming into each other


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread.


That's the point? I thought the point was that atheists think irreducible complexity is not a valid argument against evolution. Now its about how to build the most reduced car.

.


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


LOLOLOL 

Your analogy was just a battery. Now you've been forced to add a hand crank since your analogy was an abysmal failure.  

But bringing this back to your OP, your car analogy is more akin to religion than to G-d. It's like you just spawned off Episcopalian from Catholic.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.



Then that is what you should have said.  Now, is there a number requirement for wheels, or can you used just 1?  Is there any requirement as far as the power source?  And, is an enclosed passenger area required, or can it be open?  Those are all questions you should answer before trying again, otherwise, every time you change something, you are simply moving the goalposts.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2019)

I wonder how many times you have to throw a tire and 5 lug nuts against the car until you got 1 tire perfectly affixed?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.



The car is a machine, not a living thing.


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.
> ...


Righties never think things through.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > OK. Let's try this. How many parts would it take you to build a car? You can't do it with one part. You can't do it with two, three, or even a dozen. No matter how few parts you use, you will reach a point where you cannot remove anything and have it function. That is the point of this thread. Prove me wrong.
> ...


Why don't you simply tell us how many parts you would require to build any powered vehicle of your choice. You cannot deny the simple fact that it would require a minimum number of parts. You cannot deny the fact that you will eventually, in the simplification process, reach a point where you can not remove any more parts and still have it work. Do you deny this?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



The original transportation was feet.    Required no parts.


Why do you embarrass yourself trying so hard and demanding that we accept your point of view that there must be a creator?   You talk about what atheists want, namely to remove god (which is hilarious).    And yet you, spend hours arguing against evolution, often without understanding the theory.

Why all the attacks on atheists?    For the most part, atheists are fine with you believing what you believe.   We take issue when you want to make laws based on it, but other than that and the screaming fundies demanding we follow what you believe, most atheists are fine with a Live & Let Live way of going about life.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



It doesn't matter.    Your original point was laughable.    And your comparing fully built cars with living cells is insane.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

Faun said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Nope. Lefties are simply wilfully ignorant, not to mention deceitful and intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


LOL 

You already proved me right when you altered the parameters of your own failed analogy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I'm still waiting for the answer to what is neither matter nor energy.  And that was 2 or 3 days ago.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 3, 2019)

Faun said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I changed nothing. I simplified and clarified what I meant until someone of even your limited intellect could understand it. Sucks to be you.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Horseshit.

You listed 8 very specific parts that you said could not be removed.    You know, like a battery, spark plugs, radiator ect.     Except all of those could be removed, since there are examples of car without them.    Then you went with the "electric cars don't count" and some other dodges.


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


_*"You proved me right by being the intellectually dis"*_

LOL 

Whassamatter, Spunky? You have a brain fart in the middle of posting? 

_*"I changed nothing. I simplified and clarified what I meant until someone of even your limited intellect could understand it. Sucks to be you.*_

LOLOL

No you didn't. It didn't even occur to you that there are alternative ways of starting a car other than a battery as evidenced by your questioning how else could one possibly start a car without a battery. Only after someone had to feed you that bit of information did you feel compelled to alter your failed analogy rather than simply accept the reality that it, like you, is an abysmal failure. That's because, just as I said, you didn't think this through.

And here's another abysmal failure from which you can't escape.... people can make cars.... they can't make people. As someone else most eloquently posted...


WinterBorn said:


> Your original point was laughable.    And your comparing fully built cars with living cells is insane.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 4, 2019)

This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"

.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Group or individual, it makes no difference, your statement remains factually wrong.


----------



## james bond (Jun 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"
> 
> .



If you can prove it was a minimalist car, then Darwin was wrong.  The idiot admitted so himself.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > This thread should be moved to the hobby section with the title, "How to build a minimalist car"
> ...


Its amazing how many believe in evolution. Especially since nothing it claims can be verified by the scientific method. Real scientific throries can be falsified. Evolution cannot. It is not a theory. Its a philosophy that requires faith to believe in.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Its amazing how many believe in evolution. Especially since nothing it claims can be verified by the scientific method. Real scientific throries can be falsified. Evolution cannot. It is not a theory. Its a philosophy that requires faith to believe in.


Other than God did it in seven days, do you have a better idea than evolution?

.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Quite untrue, evolution can easily be falsified.  The theory predicts that we'll find fossils in a particular sequence.  If a fossil is ever found that contradicts the theory, the theory must be false.  We've found *trillions *of fossils and every single one supports the ToE.

If someone found a proven falsifier, say a horse with a dinosaur, that person would be an instantly famous celebrity.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Guess what? They have already discovered fossils that are out of sequence. Thousands of them. So much for that theory. Lol!


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Link?

Rock layers may be flipped but that does not mean they are out of sequence.  Fossils may burrow into older sediments and get buried there but that does not mean they are out of sequence.  Both cases are easily recognized by scientists.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



No, they have not.  That is an outright lie.   Unless you want to count the one that the guy claims to have found with human footprints and dinosaur footprints together.  But he won't produce said fossils.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


The whole idea of a geologic column is simply ridiculous. Here. Educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.
Geological Column and Inherent Problems  - Creation Studies Institute


----------



## OldLady (Jun 4, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Don't those complex organisms evolve one feature at a time?  No one is positing that a full grown human was accidentally created by random crashing cells.


----------



## OldLady (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Now THAT is a nonproductive attitude.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

OldLady said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Listening to lefties is also nonproductive .


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


You read the website of an anti-science group and you think you know more than trained scientists?  That offends me.

You site is replete with errors and straw men.  Here's just one example: 

_*The Geological Column concept also relies on the presupposition that long periods of time elapsed between each stratum.*_​That is absurd.  Certainly some formations take a long time (e.g., chalk cliffs of Dover are the remains of diatoms that settled to the sea floor over an enormous time period) but some are almost instantaneous (e.g., flood deposits and volcanic eruptions).  Both these cases are well documented by science.

It is education and knowledge, not ignorance, that offends you.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



The geological column works.   But the Earth is not stagnant.   The crust shifts, mountains rise, and the columns get moved.  But not out of sequence.

Post a link showing that fossils are found out of sequence.  Your own ignorance is showing here.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



I do not consider myself a "leftie".   But I do consider people who lie to further their agenda to be nonproductive.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat has shown they know zero about mechanics, cars, or spirituality.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

OldLady said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...





ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat has shown they know zero about mechanics, cars, or spirituality.


That is nothing but your opinion.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yeah, it is my opinion.  One that I formed from reading this thread and the kind of crap you try to defend. 

But, you may know more about religion than I may have originally figured.  Why do I say that?  Because you and religion both like to move the goalposts and change the rules of the game when you are shown that your analogy isn't the greatest.  Religion defends their dogma and view of God against all other positions of view, and when proven wrong, they simply change the narrative like you have done.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Simple answer?    They don't.   They also use parts of the layer itself to date the fossils.

Still waiting for you to post a link to support your claim that they have found fossils out of sequence.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


CSI has many scientists on staff. So how can you say they are anti science? Evolution is not science. Its a philosophy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



And apparently, it is just your opinion that they have found fossils out of sequence.    At least his opinion has a basis in facts presented in this thread.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 4, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



I just did a Google search for "fossils out of sequence", and found some websites that said that, but interestingly enough, they were all in support of creation theories.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



The "scientists" there are working to prove the assumptions they already have.


Once again, post a link showing fossils have been found out of sequence.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?


If a geologist already knows the age range of a fossil and he finds that fossil in a rock layer, it is likely that that rock layer was formed within the age range of the fossil.  Likewise, if you know the age of a rock layer, it is likely that the fossils in it are of that same age.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Once again, that is nothing but your opinion. My goal was to prove that something can be irreducibly complex. And I have done so.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Imagine that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



No, you have not.   Most of the examples you used were debunked.   And comparing a machine to living cells is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 4, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Yep, ya gotta wonder about that link Manificat posted, because any site that claims to be scientific, yet is in support of creation science is suspect at best, to me.


----------



## forkup (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Archeologists use fossils like they use other methods to date layers. In science, more data points are always desirable. They also find that using multiple methods is a way to falsify. It's why you can use science to make certain predictions. For instance, they have used known ages of certain rock layers to find a specific type of fossil in a region they suspected to have them. Intelligent design or other pseudoscience doesn't provide any such predictions.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



No you haven't.  One of the reasons is that you said all cars with gas engines require radiators.  Volkswagon, Porsche, and Harley Davidson (just to name a few) are gas powered engines that are air cooled, meaning they don't have radiators.  One of the "irreducible complexities" that you had stated cars have was a radiator.  

You'd be better off coming up with a different example than cars if you want to be able to somehow prove your point.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Well DUH. Atheist scientists are not gonna publish anything that contradicts their pet "theory". Now, the question is can you refute them? I think not. But feel free to try. BTW. Turn that around. You only find anti creation articals on atheist websites. See how that works?


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Lets clear something up here. Are you claiming that it is impossible for something to be irreducibly complex? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > It is not absurd. Why else do evolutionists use the fossils to date the layer they are found in?
> ...


I guess you didn't know that you cant date sedimentary rock layers. that's why they use fossils to date them.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 4, 2019)

No Magnificent Scat, I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about because of the example you used.  If you wish to continue with this, come up with a better example, preferably something you know more about than cars and mechanics.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Funny that you want others to answer your questions.   But you refuse to answer anyone's questions.

You claimed that fossils have been found out of sequence.   Post a link to support that.

3 or 4 days ago, you claimed that there are things that are neither energy nor matter.   I have repeatedly asked for examples and you have steadfastly ignored me.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Not true.   They can date them, but are limited.  They can only go back to around 50,000 years.    Not useful for dinosaurs.  But also debunks your claim that they cannot date sedimentary rock layers.   

They use layer above and below to date the sedimentary layers older than 50,000 years.   And, the fossils themselves can dated on their own.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> No Magnificent Scat, I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about because of the example you used.  If you wish to continue with this, come up with a better example, preferably something you know more about than cars and mechanics.


After you answer my question. Are you claiming that something cannot be irreducibly complex? Yes or no.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Actually, they use isotopes other than carbon to date the rock layers, because carbon isotopes are only good for dating things 50,000 years old or younger.  If they want to date things older than that, they use other isotopes that last longer, and because those isotopes don't exist in dinosaur fossils, they use the ASH LAYERS at the top, and at the bottom of where they found the bones because ash does contain the isotopes required.

You got it exactly backwards Magnificent Scat.  In the cases of bones that are too old for carbon 14 dating, they use the surrounding rock layers to date the bones, not that they use the bones to date the rock layers.

Like I said, go back to things you know a bit more about.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

*The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.


Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.*


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > No Magnificent Scat, I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about because of the example you used.  If you wish to continue with this, come up with a better example, preferably something you know more about than cars and mechanics.
> ...



After you answer my question from 3 or 4 days ago.    What is there that is neither energy nor matter?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > No Magnificent Scat, I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about because of the example you used.  If you wish to continue with this, come up with a better example, preferably something you know more about than cars and mechanics.
> ...



Depends on what you are talking about.  Is the thing living or inorganic?  Are you limiting it to multiple celled organisms, or are you going to include single cell organisms as well?  The question you asked cannot be answered as you have asked it because there are too many variables that can show up.

As far as what is the simplest living thing that cannot be reduced any more?  Look to sea sponges.  All they really have is a system for circulating water via pores and canals.  No lungs, no eyes, no legs, no skin.  Is that simple enough for you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...



All the mutations that resulted in a car without one of these parts died out.
Can't make any baby cars with no fuel injector, wink-wink, nudge-nudge. 
Say no more, say no more.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


That might sound plausible, except for one thing. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



You didn't read the posted information, did you?  Radiometric dating is done using the half life of certain isotopes.  Carbon 14 is only good for around 50,000 years or less, which is why they use other isotopes like uranium 238 and 235 and potassium 40.  Those half lifes are fairly accurate for dating, which is why when they find fossil bones that are older than 50,000 years, they test the layers of rock AROUND the fossils, because the bones themselves don't contain the required isotopes.

Like I said Magnificent Scat, stick to things you know about.

Btw........................the reason I call you Magnificent Scat is because you are probably one of the bigger turds I've seen on these boards.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Your ignorance is appaling. Allow me to educate you. This confirms what I said.
Assumptions of Radiometric Dating


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



No, it is not.   Decades (sometimes more) of observations of the decay rate of radioactive isotopes has shown and absolute consistency.   It has been consistent all over the world, at every elevation, temperature, and condition.    If your argument depends on radioactive isotopes suddenly decaying at a faster or slower rate, you have no argument.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


And you ate an obnoxious troll. Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



And in all the years of radiometric dating, there has been no evidence of the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes varying at all.   Not one tiny bit.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Really?  Your "proof" is some kind of online college course?  I bet you also thought Trump was teaching people to make money in real estate with his online college as well.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



Convenient to ignore those who contradict you and have evidence to back it up.     You are grasping at straw.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Atheists will try to tell us that this is not a valid argument. Let's apply this argument to something modern and concrete. The automobile. In its simplest form, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> Battery
> So you want to turn your car on? Obviously, this is the big boy you're going to need to get everything going.
> ...


Irreducible complexity argument = debunked nonsense. Will get you laughed right out of a college science course.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Radiometric dating is based on assumptions.


False. Its based on very precise measurements. Haha, you are regurgitating long debunked YEC canards. This garbage doesnt play in the real world, sorry.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Your ignorance is appaling. Allow me to educate you. This confirms what I said.
> Assumptions of Radiometric Dating



There are a number of radiometric dating methods that are all quite different. You would have to find fault with all of them. Here are three that involve the weak nuclear force:

Electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years

Beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years

Decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, which has a half-life of about 80,000 years.

The decay rates of those isotopes involve the weak nuclear force and the "fine structure constant", alpha. The constant was measured by examining the spectral lines of distant stars and found to be no different than it is today. So the half life is stable. 

The other objections from your reference are related to a closed system.

If you are trying to argue that countless thousands of radiometric dating are wrong due to contamination to the extent that no dating is over 10,000 years old (or whatever creationists believe) then you have to understand that you are being outlandish to put it mildly.

.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


How many peer-reviewed articles have they ever published?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 4, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Exactly zero. And he is a liar, anyway...they have no scientists on staff, nor anyone performing science. Which are the same thing.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


What you mean is that they can't be dated radiometrically.  There are many other methods.


----------



## james bond (Jun 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Other than God did it in seven days, do you have a better idea than evolution?



Well, you lost your moving the minimalist car argument, so you may as well lose your evolution ideas.  The chicken came before the egg.


----------



## james bond (Jun 4, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> If a fossil is ever found that contradicts the theory, the theory must be false.



Haha.  it's false then.  You were right that it can be falsified tho.  There was a horse dragon or horse dinosaur found, so they just added him to the sequence of whatever lol.  You also have living fossils to explain or all the other fossils whose age do not fall in the ranges you determine..


----------



## james bond (Jun 4, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> The geological column works. But the Earth is not stagnant. The crust shifts, mountains rise, and the columns get moved. But not out of sequence.
> 
> Post a link showing that fossils are found out of sequence. Your own ignorance is showing here.




Creation scientists think it's evolutionist dogma about the fossil record.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for ID.  IOW, it's "faith-based" science.  What we find is that the fossil records shows catastrophes which you admitted.  However, these catastrophes cause the layers to occur in rapid fashion.  Not eons of long-time as you believe.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The geological column works. But the Earth is not stagnant. The crust shifts, mountains rise, and the columns get moved. But not out of sequence.
> ...


Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? There are several areas where several sedimentary layers are bent? I saw one that was bent 90 degrees! Those layers, which scientists claim took millions of years to form are bent. Rock does not bend. That means ALL of those layers were deposited at the same time. There can be no other explanation. That means that all the fossil bearing layers of the Grand Canyon cannot be millions of years old, and were deposited in a single catastrophic event.


----------



## james bond (Jun 4, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> I do not consider myself a "leftie". But I do consider people who lie to further their agenda to be nonproductive.



You seem like a balanced person.  All I can say is from studying evolution and creation science that only one can be right.  I'm NOT arguing ID like Magnificat.  Irreducible complexity has been falsified.  I can't convince you that the fossil record is a trick based on your "faith-based" beliefs in evolution.  It may be due to this is what you were taught.  In my case, I'm older so I had to learn it myself and believed in it until I started questioning it around 2007 - 2011 time frame.  A lot came out to challenge evolution then.  For example, evos think the fossil record shows plants and animals lived together at the same time.  This isn't necessarily true if catastrophism prevailed.  Then plants and animals were buried in layers in fast time and it just shows they were buried together.  So, the debate continues.  I don't think we'll be able to reach an agreement on what happened based on fossil layers since we can't agree on the age of the Earth and universe.  What I can show is how these layers happened rapidly like with Mt. St. Helens.  You'll see the same sedimentary layers.


----------



## Magnificat (Jun 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I do not consider myself a "leftie". But I do consider people who lie to further their agenda to be nonproductive.
> ...


Its also interesting to note that the geologic column is a single, unbroken expanse of sedimentary rock that spans a large portion of the globe. It actually covers several continents. It is obvious that this layer was deposited during a single catastrophic event. What could have caused it?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Rock does not bend?   Who told you that?  Layers of rock, subjected to enormous pressures, can certainly bend.  And no, it was not deposited in a single catastrophic event.   That would not make all those layers.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The geological column works. But the Earth is not stagnant. The crust shifts, mountains rise, and the columns get moved. But not out of sequence.
> ...



The ID’iot creation ministries could submit their youtube videos to any of the peer reviewed science journals for critique. But of course they won’t. 

There’s a reason why the ID’iot creation ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Other than God did it in seven days, do you have a better idea than evolution?
> ...



Moving this thread to the hobby forum was a joke. You took my sarcasm seriously?

If you want to say the earth is 6,000 years old you will have to dump over 100 years of modern physics including quantum mechanics and refute countless experimental observations with accuracies of 1 part per billion. 

.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I do not consider myself a "leftie". But I do consider people who lie to further their agenda to be nonproductive.
> ...



What debate is there? Religo’s don’t debate anything. 

Why not show us your “_Theory of Supernatural Design_” and provide others with the data that ID’iot creationists have to support the theory of supernaturalism?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 4, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



What could have caused it?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 4, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



I'd rather see how he thinks this single layer of sedimentary rock covers a large portion of the globe.


----------



## james bond (Jun 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Moving this thread to the hobby forum was a joke. You took my sarcasm seriously?
> 
> If you want to say the earth is 6,000 years old you will have to dump over 100 years of modern physics including quantum mechanics and refute countless experimental observations with accuracies of 1 part per billion.



Haha.  Don't backtrack now.  You did not use *green font* for sarcasm nor understand what the minimalist car represented -- destruction of evolution by the IDers.  That said, it's not creation science, Christianity, nor my argument.  I was just trying to clarify.

Yes, you and I have our differences between fast time and catastrophism and long time and uniformitarianism, but who knows what happens in hundreds of millions or billions of years?  I have a good idea, but you won't believe our Earth and universe won't be around anymore.  That said, why don't you explain how I will "have to dump over 100 years of modern physics including quantum mechanics and refute countless experimental observations with accuracies of 1 part per billion."  WTF are you talking about lol?


----------



## james bond (Jun 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> I'd rather see how he thinks this single layer of sedimentary rock covers a large portion of the globe.



The simple answer is Noah's Flood.

The Bible theory Scripture specifies that the time elapsed for all of creation and earth history has not been very long.  Our geology confirms it.

And no green font.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather see how he thinks this single layer of sedimentary rock covers a large portion of the globe.
> ...



Noah's Flood?   

First of all, that a sedimentary layer is covering most of the globe (oceans included) has not been shown.

Second of all, if it exists and depending on where the layer is in the strata, it would offer as much proof of a long wet period in geological time.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather see how he thinks this single layer of sedimentary rock covers a large portion of the globe.
> ...



You can’t define “Bible theory”, yet you refer to it as though anyone but an ID’iot creationist should accept it. 

Geology confirms a very old planet. The relevant sciences documents that. The reason why ID’ers do no research or publish in peer reviewed papers is because they simply cannot support their young earth claims. 

Why do _you_ make claim that are unsupportable?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



I never expect anything beyond a link to Answers in Genesis.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > If a fossil is ever found that contradicts the theory, the theory must be false.
> ...


I've never heard about a horse dragon or horse dinosaur.  Got a link?

ToE says *most *species have gone extinct but *not all *so living fossils need no other explanation.  What other fossils whose age do not fall in the ranges are you talking about?  Link?


----------



## james bond (Jun 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The global flood is historical.

"The Flood of Noah’s day (2348 BC) was a year-long global catastrophe that destroyed the pre-Flood world, reshaped the continents, buried billions of creatures, and laid down the rock layers. It was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness and only eight righteous people, and representatives of every kind of land animal, were spared aboard the Ark."

The Flood

Would that not change the geology of the Earth and in rapid fashion?

That said, why was it covered up with a story that it was all myths?  However, we find that these myths are found throughout the world.  No local flood, even a large regional one, would do that.

One can only lead a horse to water, but not make them drink.  I suppose they can run him around the track until he's thirsty, but you can't do that with humans.  The big lie covers up the truth.  Not vice versa.  Shrug.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 5, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Actually rock does bend, it just takes an enormous amount of time, heat, and pressure.

If the rocks of the Grand Canyon were deposited in a single catastrophic event, how do you explain the fact that some of them are marine sediments and some are dessert sediments?


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Geologists say that continents move slowly, about the speed your nails grow.  Did they rush about much faster due to the flood?  If so was it miraculous or did it follow the physics we see today?


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 5, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Its also interesting to note that the geologic column is a single, unbroken expanse of sedimentary rock that spans a large portion of the globe. It actually covers several continents. It is obvious that this layer was deposited during a single catastrophic event. What could have caused it?


There is no such unbroken expanse of sedimentary rock that spans a large portion of the globe.  I don't know where you got that but it is absolutely not true.


----------



## james bond (Jun 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Actually rock does bend, it just takes an enormous amount of time, heat, and pressure.
> 
> If the rocks of the Grand Canyon were deposited in a single catastrophic event, how do you explain the fact that some of them are marine sediments and some are dessert sediments?









More lies to cover the truth.  Rock, thousands of feet thick, have been bent and folded without fracturing.  This can only happen if it happens rapidly.  Not through enormous amount of time, heat, and pressure.

Go ahead and explain what facts you are referring to in the GC with the marine and desert sediments.


----------



## james bond (Jun 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Geologists say that continents move slowly, about the speed your nails grow. Did they rush about much faster due to the flood? If so was it miraculous or did it follow the physics we see today?



Secular geologists believe the slow, long-time theories.  It's based on uniformitarianism and evolution from the 1850s.  Prior to that geologists believed the Earth formed rapidly.  We find that plate tectonics cover our Earth and this would cause the supercontinent Pangea to break into what we have today with the catastrophism theories.

As for the future,  catastrophism tells us that our planet will be engulfed in flames, a global fire which no one will escape.  How can this happen?  For the believers, we discovered that on the first day.

The secular scientists believe in catastrophism, too, although the creation scientists do not believe in the lies of uniformitarianism.  Many people today are led to think a large asteroid will hit the Earth and global warming will finish the planet once and for all.  I suppose there are those who think a supervolcano will happen along with a tsunami aftermath.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> More lies to cover the truth.  Rock, thousands of feet thick, have been bent and folded without fracturing.  This can only happen if it happens rapidly.  Not through enormous amount of time, heat, and pressure.


You must be joking!  Take a slab of slate from a blackboard and see if you can bend or fold it rapidly.  You can't, it just factures.  Now take a slab and heat it until it glows, now try to bend it.  You can.  Given enough time, heat, and pressure, rock will flow like molasses.


james bond said:


> Go ahead and explain what facts you are referring to in the GC with the marine and desert sediments.


The fact is there is no single catastrophic event that can deposit both marine and desert sediments.  Or can you come up with an event that could?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> Yes, you and I have our differences between fast time and catastrophism and long time and uniformitarianism, but who knows what happens in hundreds of millions or billions of years? I have a good idea, but you won't believe our Earth and universe won't be around anymore. That said, why don't you explain how I will "have to dump over 100 years of modern physics including quantum mechanics and refute countless experimental observations with accuracies of 1 part per billion."



I'm not concerned with catastrophism or geology. You can believe what you want.

BUT, in justifying your beliefs you cannot bandy about the basic laws of physics and change the basic underlying physical constants. These constants (including the speed of light, Planck constant, elementary charge, the fine structure constant, etc.) were measured with accuracies of parts per million to parts per trillion. They are tightly interconnected in the laws of physics. 

If you try to change, the "uniformitarianism" of decay rate of isotopes, the physical laws and constants that need to be changed to support your belief will screw up everything else in 100 years of modern physics. I'm sure no Creationist nor physicist would be able to reinvent an alternate self-consistent physics to support the beliefs of the non-uniformitarianism of Creationism. 

.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> We find that plate tectonics cover our Earth and this would cause the supercontinent Pangea to break into what we have today with the catastrophism theories.


So Pangea broke apart and the continents moved to their current locations in a single year?   A continent like North America traveling 1/3 of a mile every hour!  Spectacular if true.  What could have powered such motion on so massive a scale?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 5, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Rock does not


Yes it does.

Oops, another stupid YEC lie out the window....


----------



## james bond (Jun 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> You must be joking! Take a slab of slate from a blackboard and see if you can bend or fold it rapidly. You can't, it just factures. Now take a slab and heat it until it glows, now try to bend it. You can. Given enough time, heat, and pressure, rock will flow like molasses.




Again, with the millions of years BS.  You have no experiment to make rock flow like molasses if it takes millions of years.  More fake science on your part.   However, I have Guy Berthault's work and experiments with stratification.


----------



## james bond (Jun 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > We find that plate tectonics cover our Earth and this would cause the supercontinent Pangea to break into what we have today with the catastrophism theories.
> ...



Noah's Flood.  What have I been talking about?


----------



## james bond (Jun 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I'm not concerned with catastrophism or geology. You can believe what you want.



It goes to show you're not scientific and ignorant.  Otherwise, you would have explained your complaint about how I was explaining catastrophism and geology.  Not everyone believes in millions of years geology which can't be observed.



Wuwei said:


> BUT, in justifying your beliefs you cannot bandy about the basic laws of physics and change the basic underlying physical constants. These constants (including the speed of light, Planck constant, elementary charge, the fine structure constant, etc.) were measured with accuracies of parts per million to parts per trillion. They are tightly interconnected in the laws of physics.



It's not my beliefs, but the Bible theory and what happened during the global flood.  Do you need to see more evidence?  What basic laws of physics and constants are you talking about?



Wuwei said:


> If you try to change, the "uniformitarianism" of decay rate of isotopes, the physical laws and constants that need to be changed to support your belief will screw up everything else in 100 years of modern physics. I'm sure no Creationist nor physicist would be able to reinvent an alternate self-consistent physics to support the beliefs of the non-uniformitarianism of Creationism.




Now, you're onto uniformitarianism and decay rate.  Why are you claiming my beliefs is religion and does not match up to your fake science.  Your science beliefs are based on "faith-based" worldview.  You are very confused and come across so in your post.


----------



## james bond (Jun 5, 2019)

What's really wrong and stupid is rock, once it becomes rock, can end up flowing like molasses again.  I suppose my opposition is saying it liquifies.

We can use Portland cement which contains the compounds belite (Ca2SiO4) and alite (Ca3O·SiO4).  When they are mixed with water they form crystals that grow like tiny rock-hard fingers wrapping around the sand and gravel creating concrete.  This means that concrete hardens underwater.  Concrete doesn’t harden because it dries out.  It hardens because it hydrates.  Adding more water to concrete will not reverse the chemical reaction.which is liquid rock when it is mixed with water.  I don't know any way to turn it back into soft rock once it hardens.  It's a one-way process.

Thus, fake science or BS science on my opponents part?

ETA:  It's the lie that with millions of years anything is possible including breaking the laws of science, chemistry, and physics.  Well, my opponents can continue to believe that fake lying bull, but the nice thing about observational science is that it's true no matter what idiocy one believes.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> Otherwise, you would have explained your complaint about how I was explaining catastrophism and geology. Not everyone believes in millions of years geology which can't be observed.



What I was saying is that you are ignorant of basic physics, and you want to change the science to fit your preordained young world creationism. That doesn't work. Billions of years of the existence of earth, the solar system, and galaxies are consistent with physics. A few thousand years are not.



james bond said:


> It's not my beliefs, but the Bible theory and what happened during the global flood. Do you need to see more evidence? What basic laws of physics and constants are you talking about?


I already told you in previous posts how creationist ideas are violating science.



james bond said:


> Now, you're onto uniformitarianism and decay rate. Why are you claiming my beliefs is religion and does not match up to your fake science. Your science beliefs are based on "faith-based" worldview. You are very confused and come across so in your post.


Since you think science is fake, why did you ask what laws and constants are involved? You are confused when you think science is faith based. You got it backwards. Since you don't believe science why do you troll in the science and technology forum? There is a religious forum for you.

.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually rock does bend, it just takes an enormous amount of time, heat, and pressure.
> ...



Actually, if it happened rapidly it would fracture.    The more slowly it happens the more likely to bend without breaking.

Also, the layer may not have been able to break, if it were totally buried.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Geologists say that continents move slowly, about the speed your nails grow. Did they rush about much faster due to the flood? If so was it miraculous or did it follow the physics we see today?
> ...



The continents are still moving.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > You must be joking! Take a slab of slate from a blackboard and see if you can bend or fold it rapidly. You can't, it just factures. Now take a slab and heat it until it glows, now try to bend it. You can. Given enough time, heat, and pressure, rock will flow like molasses.
> ...



Another charlatan pimping for creation.com. 

Why don’t these loons publish their YouTube videos at the the science journal _Nature_, for example and see how their nonsense stands to peer review?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> What's really wrong and stupid is rock, once it becomes rock, can end up flowing like molasses again.  I suppose my opposition is saying it liquifies.
> 
> We can use Portland cement which contains the compounds belite (Ca2SiO4) and alite (Ca3O·SiO4).  When they are mixed with water they form crystals that grow like tiny rock-hard fingers wrapping around the sand and gravel creating concrete.  This means that concrete hardens underwater.  Concrete doesn’t harden because it dries out.  It hardens because it hydrates.  Adding more water to concrete will not reverse the chemical reaction.which is liquid rock when it is mixed with water.  I don't know any way to turn it back into soft rock once it hardens.  It's a one-way process.
> 
> ...



It’s common practice to attribute the source of your cutting and pasting.

What secret would have allowed the ancient Egyptians to create hydraulic cement (like Portland cement)? | Rebuilding Civilization


----------



## james bond (Jun 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> What I was saying is that you are ignorant of basic physics, and you want to change the science to fit your preordained young world creationism. That doesn't work. Billions of years of the existence of earth, the solar system, and galaxies are consistent with physics. A few thousand years are not.



What basic physics am I ignorant of?  I didn't make up any science to explain the young earth.  Old earth cannot be demonstrated.  Long time cannot be demonstrated.  Isn't that part of "faith-based" science?  One cannot go back in time or else that violates the laws of physics.  

However, I can demonstrate how one can go forward in time.  It's observable science.



Wuwei said:


> I already told you in previous posts how creationist ideas are violating science.



I suppose you mean this.

>>BUT, in justifying your beliefs you cannot bandy about the basic laws of physics and change the basic underlying physical constants. These constants (including the speed of light, Planck constant, elementary charge, the fine structure constant, etc.) were measured with accuracies of parts per million to parts per trillion. They are tightly interconnected in the laws of physics.

If you try to change, the "uniformitarianism" of decay rate of isotopes, the physical laws and constants that need to be changed to support your belief will screw up everything else in 100 years of modern physics. I'm sure no Creationist nor physicist would be able to reinvent an alternate self-consistent physics to support the beliefs of the non-uniformitarianism of Creationism.<<


Regarding the physical constants, it fits the fine tuning theory.  These are the constants found by secular scientists while gathering evidence for the big bang theory.  However, these constants helped their opposition, the creation scientists, because they show that life is rare.  It means no aliens.  Oops.

The findings screwed up these secular/atheist scientists so bad that they started believing in multiverses, another "faith-based" science belief.

What is interesting to me is NASA now wants to go to Mars as priority to find evidence of life or past life.  This is their #1 goal now.  I thought previously the top goal was to find other planets for colonization, i.e. become multi-planetary.

I'm not trying to change the decay rate of isotopes.  That is constant and part of life.  What I said was that the parent-daughter assumptions were wrong and you know it b/c you asked me about it haha.

Uniformitarianism was made up by James Hutton and his pupil Charles Lyell to combat catastrophism.  Charles Darwin became a pupil of Lyell.  Remember, before the 1850s, catastrophism ruled the day in science.  They just didn't want to believe in God because they believed there was no God.  They were atheists.  This is why today geology isn't in great shape.  Neither is biology and zoology.  The present is the key to the past doesn't hold up well in observable science.

Finally, it's not observable science that you are referring to, but fake science.  Fake science believes in long times that cannot possible be observed.  Thus, it uses historical or forensic science, i.e. circumstantial evidence, to make their case.  The results such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs are not valid.



Wuwei said:


> Since you think science is fake, why did you ask what laws and constants are involved? You are confused when you think science is faith based. You got it backwards. Since you don't believe science why do you troll in the science and technology forum? There is a religious forum for you.




I turned the tables on you with fine tuning.  What about Louis Pasteur showing us that only life begets life.


----------



## james bond (Jun 6, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> Actually, if it happened rapidly it would fracture. The more slowly it happens the more likely to bend without breaking.
> 
> Also, the layer may not have been able to break, if it were totally buried.



No, rock would become brittle, crack, and break into small pieces over time.  Look at concrete driveways.

If it is rapid, then it gets molded by the water and bends and curves before it hardens.  It's a chemical reaction that causes it to become hard and not drying.


----------



## james bond (Jun 6, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> The continents are still moving.



I suppose you mean continents are drifting slowly over time now.  However, the present isn't the key to the past.  The past had the catastrophism of the great flood.  See how our worldviews makes us reach vastly different conclusions? 

To me, this is what science is about.  We get different arguments and the one with the best theory comes out on top.  However, today the secular/atheist scientists changed the rules of science and eliminated their main opposition.  The creation scientists cannot not do peer-reviews anymore.  What happens is fake science, wrong theories, and intelligent people who question evolution such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  Museums become homages to bullshit.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The continents are still moving.
> ...



If you measure something over and over for many years, and get the same measurements, why would you assume they were different in the past.

What I have seen is ID taking the conclusion and trying to make the facts fit.    Scientists are constantly altering their theories when new information comes to light.   The way the people and animals migrated in the americas is a prime example.    For years the thought was that they came over on the Bering Straight land mass and migrated south.   But substantial evidence came to light that S. America had a diverse animal population before it was connected to the N. American continent.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The continents are still moving.
> ...



There are problems with the Flood geology.  

There are fossilized trees that are upright.   Flood geologists claim that this is because of the weight of the root ball and the dirt at the base.  But trees caught in floods now always seem to on their sides.

There is not enough water on the planet to cover it, as it is now formed.   And if, as flood geologists claim, the lands were lower and more even, the water would have covered it without a flood.    Which brings us to the idea that there were huge reserves of water underground.   There is no evidence of this.  It simply provides a convenient answer to a problem.   In order for worldwide underground reservoirs to have existed, there would have had to be no fissures or cracks in the entire surface of the Earth.

Noah's Ark would not have been nearly big enough.   It would be a huge stretch to claim it contained all the known animals of the time.  But when you add in all the species on other continents, there is no way they could be contained within a boat that is 510 feet long.

And there are desert fossils that are impossible to explain using the flood geology.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What I was saying is that you are ignorant of basic physics, and you want to change the science to fit your preordained young world creationism. That doesn't work. Billions of years of the existence of earth, the solar system, and galaxies are consistent with physics. A few thousand years are not.
> ...



The reason ID'iot creationists publish YouTube videos is because the creation ministries do no resesrch and have predefined conclusions   toward supernaturalism. 

Regarding your Pasteur claim, that is another falsification of the creation ministries. 

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently_spontaneously_ arise in _complex_ form from nonlife in nature; he did *not* demonstrate the _impossibility_ of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.



It's just a shame that ID'creationists must rely on lies and misrepresentation to further their agenda.


----------



## james bond (Jun 7, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...






 

Your example, continental drift, shows that it was different in the past.  This is geology and it shows James Hutton and Charles Lyell were wrong about uniformitarianism.  Atheists are usually wrong.


----------



## captkaos (Jun 7, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


The head rest ! I win!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



All of that happened just a few thousand years ago?

ID'iot creationists are funny.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> What basic physics am I ignorant of? I didn't make up any science to explain the young earth. Old earth cannot be demonstrated. Long time cannot be demonstrated.


No, you didn't make up new science. You simply follow the young earth religion that is totally incompatible with current well established science.



james bond said:


> Regarding the physical constants, it fits the fine tuning theory.


Yes, the "fine tuning" is a remarkable concept. If you want to say God did it, I really don't care. But that has nothing to do with proof of a young earth.



james bond said:


> The findings screwed up these secular/atheist scientists so bad that they started believing in multiverses


Multiverses is a hypothesis that some cosmologists are toying but is not widely taken seriously. It did not screw up scientists.



james bond said:


> I'm not trying to change the decay rate of isotopes. That is constant and part of life. What I said was that the parent-daughter assumptions were wrong and you know it b/c you asked me about it haha.


You are claiming the parent-daughter assumptions are wrong for countless thousands of radiographic dating, and they all point to a young earth. That is absurd.



james bond said:


> Finally, it's not observable science that you are referring to, but fake science. Fake science believes in long times that cannot possible be observed. Thus, it uses historical or forensic science, i.e. circumstantial evidence, to make their case. The results such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs are not valid.


Young earth science is fake science that is incompatible with the billions of years the universe, stars, and planets have been in existence. 

.


----------



## james bond (Jun 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> No, you didn't make up new science. You simply follow the young earth religion that is totally incompatible with current well established science.



You claimed that I was ignorant of basic physics and then could not explain what it was.  That makes you wrong.  As for "young earth religion," it's actually old science from before the 1850s.  It was the evos with uniformitarianism and evolution who made up the new so-called "established science" which is really fake science.



Wuwei said:


> Yes, the "fine tuning" is a remarkable concept. If you want to say God did it, I really don't care. But that has nothing to do with proof of a young earth.



Fine tuning means aliens don't exist.  There goes you evolution happens in outer space and other planets.  There goes panspermia.



Wuwei said:


> Multiverses is a hypothesis that some cosmologists are toying but is not widely taken seriously. It did not screw up scientists.



This is more wrongness.  It is taken very seriously now.  Your best physicists advocate it when there isn't any evidence for it.



Wuwei said:


> You are claiming the parent-daughter assumptions are wrong for countless thousands of radiographic dating, and they all point to a young earth. That is absurd.



If the initial assumptions are wrong, then all of it is wrong.  It's just absurd to you because people think RD is real science just because it was established by secular/atheist scientists.  It's fake science and the Earth and universe are not billions of years old.



Wuwei said:


> Young earth science is fake science that is incompatible with the billions of years the universe, stars, and planets have been in existence.



We know it is real science because it follows the scientific method.  The scientific method was created by creation scientist, Sir Francis Bacon.  What you claim is not observable science and does not follow the scientific method.  For example, you can't observe long-time or how anything can come into existence from nothing.  You can't show monkeys that have become bipedal.  Even bears do a better job of that.  That's what makes evolution and evolutionary thinking fake.  The only thing I use is for now is to argue against GMO foods and methods haha.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> You claimed that I was ignorant of basic physics and then could not explain what it was. That makes you wrong. As for "young earth religion," it's actually old science from before the 1850s. It was the evos with uniformitarianism and evolution who made up the new so-called "established science" which is really fake science.


You said decay rates could change over the ages. I proved you wrong according to modern physics. But you seem to relish classical physics before 1850. And you also reject the countless experiments that support modern physics. If you think physics is fake why do you come to the science and technology forum to troll.



james bond said:


> Fine tuning means aliens don't exist. There goes you evolution happens in outer space and other planets. There goes panspermia.


That has nothing to do with the young earth argument.



james bond said:


> This is more wrongness. It is taken very seriously now.


Multiverses are certainly an unproven hypotheses. Not all scientists take it seriously. So what.



james bond said:


> If the initial assumptions are wrong, then all of it is wrong. It's just absurd to you because people think RD is real science just because it was established by secular/atheist scientists. It's fake science and the Earth and universe are not billions of years old.


You are thinking the vast majority of radiographic datings from the vast majority of daughter isotope measurements are contaminated all in the same way to yield a 6,000 year old earth. There are several different isotope methods, and you think all of them were contaminated. That's still absurd.



james bond said:


> We know it is real science because it follows the scientific method. The scientific method was created by creation scientist, Sir Francis Bacon. What you claim is not observable science and does not follow the scientific method. For example, you can't observe long-time or how anything can come into existence from nothing. You can't show monkeys that have become bipedal. Even bears do a better job of that. That's what makes evolution and evolutionary thinking fake. The only thing I use is for now is to argue against GMO foods and methods haha.


If you want to insist all the galaxies, stars and planets in the universe are less than 6,000 years old you are truly naive.


.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 7, 2019)

One of the things I noticed was the condemnation of the use of radioactive isotopes for dating materials.    This was said because they cannot be used for dating anything beyond 50,000 years.

Oddly, the same people who claim the earth is only 6,000 to 8,000 years old, think a method of dating anything under 50,000 years is meaningless.   It certainly disproves the young earth theories.


----------

