i just gave you one so why you dont want do discuss it? here one more paper that discuss this topic:
but again- any experiment support the ic argument. because any experiment show that those systems cant evolve step wise.
DCSC,
Your position here is designed for arguments against Atheist Evolutionists. BioLogos supporters are not especially skeptical that God is involved in the more difficult steps of the evolution of life.
If we donât agree that our exchange showed that your first reference is not relevant to proving irreducible complexity then there is still some fundamental misunderstanding here and there is no point in looking at any more references. I refuted the points you made thus far regarding the first paper so how else do you want to argue that it proves irreducible complexity?
ok nuno. lets go in your way. lets say that there is no scientific paper that show a real ic system. i still claim that this argument is a scientific because we can test it. do you agree with this claim? if not- why?
To scientifically test a concept we first need to precisely define what it means in mathematical terms - this is the precise definition of irreducible complexity that I have not yet found anywhere. Michael Behe has attempted to illustrate irreducible complexity using simple mathematical models but those were only illustrations, not definitions meant to hold up to scrutiny (and they didnât).
Now itâs important to understand that defining a test for irreducible complexity needs to meet a higher bar than just âwe donât know how it happenedâ - the testable predictions have to mathematically imply that the observations can only be the result of design by an external agent. I know of no such test or even a mathematical formalism in which one can write such a test but Iâd love to hear about it if you have one.
nuno. i think that ic system is any complex system that dont have engouh geologic time to evolve. so its something that we can test. we know for example that even one part oof a system need something like 10^10 mutations. so we can check how many mutations we need to produce a 2 or 3 part system.
Thatâs an interesting way to put it - do you then mean to imply that you would accept evolution if you could be convinced that Earth is over 4 billion years old?
not at all, because im talking about 4.5 bilion years case and not a 6000 one. so im actually assume in this case tha the earth is about 4.5 bilion years old. and even in this case there is no enough time.
But do you then see how evolution is a case of âwe donât fully know how it happenedâ rather than âwe are sure it didnât happen that wayâ? Do you really discard all of the overwhelming evidence that has been collected in support of evolution?
again not realy. because we know how many mutations need to produce a sistem. so its about what we do know.
one evidence at time. now we are talking about ic.
So⌠if you agree the earth is 4.5 billion years old⌠you must accept that T-Rex is dozens of millions of years old⌠yes?
George
âifâ its the key word george.
The Earth is 4.54 billions years old whether you accept that fact or not.
1 Like
we dont now what is the age of the earth. and this is the real fact.
We do. Earth, the solar system, and the sun over 4.543 billion years old. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions, the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the Solar System are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.
I will agree with you, as likely will most people on these forums, that evolutionary explanations for biological organisms are still incomplete. It is not difficult to find examples of biological organization whose mechanistic explanations do not exist or are incomplete. Now this is a very different statement from claiming that a) such mechanistic explanations will never be found (irreducible complexity) and that b) thus this is proof that an intelligent agent designed the biological organization (intelligent design). Both a) and b) take a huge leap from âweâre not sure how biological organization X came to beâ and thatâs what you will find people objecting to.
1 Like
I went to your Flagellum page and you said it was âSELF constructingâ. that it is self constructing means that God must have constructed IT or given it the Knowledge or direction to do so! things of complexity do NOT construct them selves. I know you believe different but i will disagree. I would need to see what Mr. Behe says about this!
true. is like a car factory. the car âconstructâ itself. but we know that the factory (and the car) need a designer.
what is the fact that support this suppose fact??
again- we sure that its need several parts to a functional system. its a fact, not an assuption.