(Vindicated;55461)
Well I appreciate the youtube link. The main thing wrong with the attempted "debunk" on the bacterial flagellum by ken miller would be well.... the fact that the presupposition that evolution happens has to be drawn before looking at the actual evidence. He took 10 of the pieces that made something else and said whoo hoo look it works! I would like to see what kind of mental gymnastics this man has to pull when explaining how the other 40 parts "evolve" back together.
Not at all. Here, I will give you a little crash course on Bayes' theorem as it relates to the philosophy of science. Bayes' theorem is a methodological way of deciding how observed evidence supports or disconfirms a theory. It states
(
H/E) = (P(
E/H) * P(
H)) / P(
E)Where P(
H/E) is the
probability of the hypothesis in question given a set of evidence, P(
E/H) is the
probability of observing the evidence assuming the hypothesis in question, P(
H) is the
probability of the hypothesis prior to observing this evidence, and P
E is the
probability of the evidence.What this means, in layman's terms, is that the likelihood of our hypothesis will be
increased if we think that it is more likely that evidence would occur given that hypothesis, and the likelihood of our hypothesis will be
decreased if we think it is unlikely that the evidence would occur given the hypothesis. Note, however, that in science the likelihood of these hypotheses must always be evaluated with respect to alternate hypotheses. In this case it's quite clear-cut: The hypothesis is evolution; the alternate hypothesis is God.So let's look at this case.
E, the evidence, is the observation that the bacterial flagellum is composed of functional intermediates.
H1 is the evolutionary hypothesis.
H2 is the God hypothesis. The P(
E/H1) is 100%: if evolution is true, the flagellum
must be composed of functional intermediates. The P(
E/H2) is nowhere near 100%: if God created the bacterial flagellum fully formed, there would be no need to compose it of functional intermediates. He
might have formed it this way, but it seems superfluous. Therefore,
H1, the evolutionary hypothesis, has been incrementally confirmed.
H2, the God hypothesis, has been incrementally disconfirmed.(Vindicated)
I love that cute little statement about me not understanding the flagellum. Its rather ironic because if you understood it you would be asking yourself why your car doesn't contain a rotary motor that can spin at 100,000 RPM and run off of your body chemistry.
Well that's just the thing. If you are claiming you
do understand the flagellum, then what's your point? You tried to argue that all of science couldn't fathom even a basic structure like the flagellum. Now you're saying that you do understand it. Unless you are claiming that God beamed these insights on the flagellum directly into your head, no science required, then it's pretty clear that science
does understand the flagellum, because that's where you learned it from.(Vindicated)
Its laughable at best that you put evolution in the same realm as science in general.
If you say so, although evolutionary theory is accepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists. In fact, there are more scientists named Steve that accept evolution than there are scientists
total that accept creationism.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/But don't just take their word for it. Take mine, too.
(Vindicated)
When one leaves the world of reality and steps into the world of fantasy where logic such as "well given enough time anything can happen" the fallacy of such logic is more than apparent. Just think about all the sarcastic remarks that could be drawn from a statement like that.
If that was the whole of evolutionary theory then yes, it would be quite laughable. Fortunately for evolutionary theory, it is much more complex than that, and substantiated by a wealth of evidence.(Vindicated)
Its obvious that your really set on your beliefs of the evolutionary theory (sarcastic remark removed). On a personal note, until i was about 16 i was in that same boat. Your at this website because you want someone to prove Jesus to you. If you didn't you would not be here. No one of us can change your heart or mind, thats a decision you will need to make. Nothing but the love of Jesus will change your heart.
This is a discussion about evolution, not Jesus.(Vindicated)
If you want some proof, here's a few things you may have never seen before
Please don't patronize me. I've read the Bible before.(Vindicated)
Leviticus 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood,and I have given it to you upon the altarto make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.
Knowing that you require blood to live was not anything radical even for biblical times. Ancient philosophers and other early texts all exhibited their understanding of the importance of blood. This is because it is not a difficult thing to figure out - when someone loses a lot of blood, they die. I hope you did not need the bible to understand that.(Vindicated)
Job 26:7He stretches out the north over empty space;He hangs the earth on nothing.
The theory of a free-floating, spherical earth was widely circulated among ancient philosophers by the 7th century BC and almost universally accepted by the 4th.(Vindicated)
Ecclesiastes 1:7All the rivers run into the sea,Yet the sea is not full;To the place from which the rivers come,There they return again.
Again, the circulation of water is something that was well-understood by any ancient society that
lived near water. The philosopher Thales in particular articulates this.And also, all of those are much too vague to count as a divinely inspired scientific insight. Do you have any Bible passages that specifically mention something like gravity, electrons, DNA, chemical elements? Why are they all so primitive and cryptic? If they were meant to be evidence of God revealing scientific truth then why aren't they ever more specific?(Vindicated)
(P.S. I'm sorry if i came off pretty rude, I didn't mean to be a prick)
Apology accepted.
