This entire paragraph is a classic example of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity. It also exposes the extreme arrogance of creationists.

You clearly do not have a clue what abiogenesis or evolution are, yet you feel perfectly competent to denigrate both. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but you are not qualified. The scientific illiteracy which you so proudly display is a product of the very ideology that you promote.

By the way, the bacterial flagellum has been shown to be reducible and derived from evolutionary precursors, so get your facts straight.

By the way, the bacterial flagellum has been shown to be reducible and derived from evolutionary precursors, so get your facts straight.[/QUOTE]


What a surprise, show me something that evolutionists say is irriducible? Thats the very premise of your entire arguement. EVERYTHING is reducible to the evolutionist. So why would the flagellum motor be any different? Nice try.

1,300 posts in a recent thread covering this topic and you guys are still not satisfied..??? :eek:

Here you go sjf911 heres your classic arguement. http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/primordials.htm

I agree. It all depends on what your worldview is prior to examining the evidence. If you believe in evolution, you will interpret the evidence in a manner that reflects that view. If you believe in Intelligent design, you will interpret the same evidence viewed through that prism. The thread was supposed to be about how teachers are being expelled for questioning Darwinism and scientific evidence of Design, based on the new movie Expelled. If you go back to the first post , you will see that it quickly turned into an attack against I.D. which is really not what the thread was supposed to be about.

What a surprise, show me something that evolutionists say is irriducible? Thats the very premise of your entire arguement. EVERYTHING is reducible to the evolutionist. So why would the flagellum motor be any different? Nice try.[/QUOTE]

????? Is this just more ignorant babbling or are you trying to make a point?
You summarize evolution well, everything is reducible to the last common universal ancestor and beyond.
When we find a complex problem that is difficult to solve, we don't cop out by saying "god did it" and quit (aka creationism). We actually look for the answer.

????? Is this just more ignorant babbling or are you trying to make a point?
You summarize evolution well, everything is reducible to the last common universal ancestor and beyond.
When we find a complex problem that is difficult to solve, we don't cop out by saying "god did it" and quit (aka creationism). We actually look for the answer.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that proponents of I.D. quit looking for answers. They still try and learn as much about the system as possible (example Flagellum motor) but instead of clinging to a specific theory, they explore a given theory and keep open the possibility that design is an option. Your own top atheist Richard Dawkins admits that he believe intelligent Design probably initiated the entire process with evolution taking over. The difference is that your spokesman believes that aliens "seeded" the planet billions of years ago and they were the intelligent design.

This was debunked on page 2 of this thread.

my modification to that would be:

before anyone has a right to criticize evolution, they should go get an advanced degree in something related to life science so they would be working with something beyond a grade-school level understanding of what science is and isn't, and what evolution is and isn't.

So where'd you do your graduate work?

I take it you didn't see the movie. Whats there to debunk, the fact that Dawson said he believes that I.D. is a possibility? Your just having trouble accepting it, because this implies that evolution "CANNOT" account for the very beginnings of life. Now you'll try and say something in a factual manner that shows how you alone have the answer to what caused the first life. Hint, even the top scientists don't claim to know, so I doubt some guy on a pelican forum will be able to provide a suitable answer. In fact scientists are not even claiming to know, they are only claiming that even though they don't know for sure, it could not be I.D. But if you still feel that you have unraveled the mystery to how life began, I suggest that you don't waste your time posting it here, share it with the scientific community and get rich.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Evolution is a theory that takes a substantial amount of faith to fill in the gaps. see above post. That would be like me saying a person cannot discuss the Bible unless has a masters of divinity. (not that the Bible has anything to do with this, it just an example)


So where did you study theology?

This thread has every indication of someone trying to up his post count......................

What accounts for the beginning of the life of the intelligent designer?

You are thinking very one dimensional. What makes you think that an intelligent designer would be bound by time. An intelligent designer would have probably designed time as well and thus not be bound by its laws. But these are concepts that you will not accept, because you cannot test them. They are not able to be tested or observed in a scientific manner. So to scientists, there is absolutely no way this is possible.

I really like your way of thinking nostatic. If you want to criticize evolution than you need an advanced degree to do so, but if you agree with it than no degree is needed. In other words just accept its teachings by faith. I guess you just explained it!

That's quite a theory you've got going there.

Wasn't this a TV show in the 80s?

and are you a space alien ID guy or God is the IDer?

Intelligent designer

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/...VENTER_big.jpg

[QUOTE=Shaun 84 Targa;3897635]Wasn't this a TV show in the 80s?

It was - it was cancelled because it was below the 4th grade comprehension level standard (you know how TV hates to dumb things down).

and are you a space alien ID guy or God is the IDer?[/B]/QUOTE]
..

Makes perfect sense. You are attempting to argue against scientific theory. You can't argue against something when you have no grounding in the underlying subject matter. Well, I suppose you can, but it makes one look...umm...challenged.

For the record, my undergraduate degree was from a Catholic university, and I was required to take a number of religious studies courses as well as philosophy, formal logic, and other liberal arts classes.

So what's your scientific training again?