Irreducible complexity is a undeniable FACT.

Please answer why natural forces would produce proteins and enzymes, or their respective subunits, that by themself have no use, only, if duly embedded in the respective biological molecular machine, or subunits only, when all subunits are present and fully mounted to form a functional proteino or enzyme. No answer to that question ?? thought so……{but, butt, what about the nifty information you've been offered?}.
Why should nature not be able to make proteins and enzymes? They are just chemical compounds. Watch this to see how easy it is to create bio-molecules, or cells or strings, that's not the problem. The problem is to bring the right chemicals together under the right conditions. This is called the bottleneck. But according to Hazen creating life of some sort in the vast resources available to the Universe is about a 50/50 probability given sufficient time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A (the actual lecture starts at 13:20) I sincerely recommend this to anyone who has questions about the origins of life.
That would be: ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE Streamed live on Nov 12, 2015 Earth's 4.5 billion year history is a complex tale of deterministic physical and chemical processes, as well as "frozen accidents". Most models of life's origins also invoke chance and necessity. Recent research adds two important insights to this discussion. First, chance versus necessity is an inherently false dichotomy--a range of probabilities exists for many natural events. Second, given the astonishing combinatorial chemical richness of early Earth, events that are extremely rare may, nevertheless, be deterministic on time scales of a billion years. Robert Hazen, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution for Science
Or the nifty hollywoodized documentary version: PBS NOVA 2016 Lifes Rocky Start https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2xeB5OKVt0 Published on Feb 9, 2016

When irreducible complexity is applied to gods, I will listen.
Lois

When irreducible complexity is applied to gods, I will listen. Lois
But they are super simple and brainless!
If IC is a fact that needs to be explained, then the creator of that IC must itself be more complex and therefore needs explanation. So, who created the complex creator who created the IC? And if you say the complex creator of IC doesn't have a creator, then you're saying it's logical for something complex to NOT have a creator, which means IC doesn't need a creator.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entityWell there we have it. Case closed. God is a remarkably simple entity. It says so right there in the manual. :) Actually guys like Adonia aren't here to discuss, they're here to, in their minds, do battle with the heathens. As long as he does battle, regardless of how good or bad his arguments are, he's scoring points, again in his mind, with his god. It's all very selfish actually. Scoring points with God so that on judgment day he can point to his "scorecard" and say, Hey God, I get to go up not down because looky at my points.
Actually guys like Adonia aren't here to discuss, they're here to, in their minds, do battle with the heathens. As long as he does battle, regardless of how good or bad his arguments are, he's scoring points, again in his mind, with his god. It's all very selfish actually. Scoring points with God so that on judgment day he can point to his "scorecard" and say, Hey God, I get to go up not down because looky at my points.
Doh! All these years of arguing with theists and I never thought of that. It is incredibly obvious now that you point it out.
Actually guys like Adonia aren't here to discuss, they're here to, in their minds, do battle with the heathens. As long as he does battle, regardless of how good or bad his arguments are, he's scoring points, again in his mind, with his god. It's all very selfish actually. Scoring points with God so that on judgment day he can point to his "scorecard" and say, Hey God, I get to go up not down because looky at my points.
Doh! All these years of arguing with theists and I never thought of that. It is incredibly obvious now that you point it out. Proselytizing makes you part of the Divine Plan. Your reward will come when you die!
If IC is a fact that needs to be explained, then the creator of that IC must itself be more complex and therefore needs explanation. So, who created the complex creator who created the IC? And if you say the complex creator of IC doesn't have a creator, then you're saying it's logical for something complex to NOT have a creator, which means IC doesn't need a creator.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity Even at this "simple" level what we have here is a leap of faith. Self-consciousness, rationality, volition, and complex ideas are not things that come from a simple, disembodied mind. You are now appealing to the supernatural, something that has never been observed, and by definition is unfalsifiable (not even wrong). In essence, you are really just back to square one. The only difference with your argument compared to how god is described in the bible, is that you are trying to use a more modern, "scientific" way of explaining it. But at the core its the same old stuff. I found this quote from Adonai888: "I am a born again evangelical christian." So lets take a look at the god in the Protestant bible: Isaiah 55:8-9 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Philippians 2:5-7 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: The book of Job Abraham's pleading for Sodom (Gen. 18:16-33) Isa. 40:28 28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. Psa. 147:5 5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. Luke 12:7 Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, you are of more value than many sparrows. Jer. 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations. Jer. 17:10 I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve. This is only a sampling of verses. From this we can see that neither god nor god's mind is by any means simple by any definition. To be able to process and understand the thoughts of everyone on earth, to be able to know someone before they are even born, to have all the hairs on our head numbered (at all times) are not things that come from some "remarkably simple entity". It is intellectually bankrupt and dishonest to suggest otherwise. The only way around this is to redefine what a "mind" is and to assume that a mind can exist without a physical brain (or similar physical mechanism) which we can confidently say just does not happen. Like I said before, your argument just gets you back to square one- an unfalsifiable theistic god. By definition this is unscientific and science cannot confirm nor falsify such an entity. This whole thread belongs in the pseudoscience section.

never mind

If IC is a fact that needs to be explained, then the creator of that IC must itself be more complex and therefore needs explanation. So, who created the complex creator who created the IC? And if you say the complex creator of IC doesn't have a creator, then you're saying it's logical for something complex to NOT have a creator, which means IC doesn't need a creator.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity Even at this "simple" level what we have here is a leap of faith. Self-consciousness, rationality, volition, and complex ideas are not things that come from a simple, disembodied mind. You are now appealing to the supernatural, something that has never been observed, and by definition is unfalsifiable (not even wrong). In essence, you are really just back to square one. The only difference with your argument compared to how god is described in the bible, is that you are trying to use a more modern, "scientific" way of explaining it. But at the core its the same old stuff. I found this quote from Adonai888: "I am a born again evangelical christian." So lets take a look at the god in the Protestant bible: Isaiah 55:8-9 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Philippians 2:5-7 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: The book of Job Abraham's pleading for Sodom (Gen. 18:16-33) Isa. 40:28 28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. Psa. 147:5 5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. Luke 12:7 Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, you are of more value than many sparrows. Jer. 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations. Jer. 17:10 I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve. This is only a sampling of verses. From this we can see that neither god nor god's mind is by any means simple by any definition. To be able to process and understand the thoughts of everyone on earth, to be able to know someone before they are even born, to have all the hairs on our head numbered (at all times) are not things that come from some "remarkably simple entity". It is intellectually bankrupt and dishonest to suggest otherwise. The only way around this is to redefine what a "mind" is and to assume that a mind can exist without a physical brain (or similar physical mechanism) which we can confidently say just does not happen. Like I said before, your argument just gets you back to square one- an unfalsifiable theistic god. By definition this is unscientific and science cannot confirm nor falsify such an entity. This whole thread belongs in the pseudoscience section.Great stuff, but see my post above. None of this matters to guys like Adonai. BTW - Someone suggested Dan Barkers book Godless, describing his journey from hardcore Xtian to atheist. I'm midway through it and it's a very good read.
Great stuff, but see my post above. None of this matters to guys like Adonai. BTW - Someone suggested Dan Barkers book Godless, describing his journey from hardcore Xtian to atheist. I'm midway through it and it's a very good read.
Yea, I used to be one myself. That was one of the books I read shortly after I deconverted last year. Some of it really hit home with me and paralleled my own experience. Great read. Also check out his other book "God the Most Unpleasant Character in all Fiction."
Great stuff, but see my post above. None of this matters to guys like Adonai. BTW - Someone suggested Dan Barkers book Godless, describing his journey from hardcore Xtian to atheist. I'm midway through it and it's a very good read.
Yea, I used to be one myself. That was one of the books I read shortly after I deconverted last year. Some of it really hit home with me and paralleled my own experience. Great read. Also check out his other book "God the Most Unpleasant Character in all Fiction." Or catch the lecture:
God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction w/ Dan Barker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAQhu0_0r8A Published on Mar 8, 2016 Dan Barker is the current co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He is the co-host of Freethought Radio, a national weekly talk show. He is a contributing editor of Freethought Today and is involved with the Foundation’s state/church lawsuits. He regularly travels the country and the world giving lectures, performing concerts, and participating in debates with theists, many at college and university campuses.