It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.
Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg. 65, note 13.
11 comments:
"Irreducible complexity" was debunked as a Creationist hoax in the 1990s, but Creationists are slow to realize things like that so they continue to use the same discredited arguments long after they are obsolete--the average religious fundamentalist doesn't know the difference anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS0hlXxHx78
Anonymous,
Sorry, but this guy demonstrates his total ignorance of true science. Which is the common problem with your ilk. Your bias for the impossible (evolutionism) fries your brains to the point where everything in fantasy land is acceptable to you.
It is not a "religious agenda" to demonstrate irreducible complexity; it is a scientific fact. You really need to study science instead of the faux "science" of evolutionism.
Hey, how did mammals reproduce before they somehow evolved into a male and female of the species-- was there some half-man/half woman having sex with itself?
Evolutionists are intentionally stupid.
I don't have a problem with believing in an eternal universe--matter cannot be created or destroyed.
So in your mind the universe just created itself? Matter certainly CAN be created - by the creator God! In you mind you are saying matter is the uncaused first cause and that is somehow scientific, yet to say God is the uncaused first cause is religious!
Typo--energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Who created god?
God is the uncreated first cause. DUH!
Again, God created energy. But your world view obviously has energy as the uncreated first cause.
Bugger off and read some science for yourself . If you're not prepared to face the reality of science, then I'm not going to educate you on YouTube, but just remember in the Kitzmiller V Dover court case, Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" was shown to be a worthless hypothesis. And by a Christian judge.
Look fool, I've studied the science for decades. It is YOU who refuse to face the reality of real science while you sit in praise of the god evolution, which has been proven to be a fraud. I couldn't care less about what some leftist judge says -- Judges are not scientists, and "irreducible complexity" is a fact of life.
Go cry a river, troll
"Hey, how did mammals reproduce before they somehow evolved into a male and female of the species-- was there some half-man/half woman having sex with itself?"
There is a process known as parthenogenesis. So there could have been a creature similar to that of what you speak of. It is a scientifically valid hypothesis.
"Evolutionists are intentionally stupid."
Yeah, says the one who uses circular reasoning. You said elsewhere in your blogs, "Evolution is impossible because it never happened in the first place."
You should really study science for yourself and quit following creationist ignorance.
Anonymous,
I have studied evolution for decades, and long before I ever heard of creation science. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
I love how you just make up a story to invent a way for male and female mammals to simultaneously exist. No evidence of such nonsense, but, hey, when you can't accept truth you have to make up something to deceive yourself.
The one with the circular reasoning is you and your ilk -- "Evolution happpened because it happened."
Try learning REAL science for a change.
Anonymous,
You are finished here, since I do not permit false teachings to persist.
Your propaganda does not come from real science nor science laboratories; there has never, ever been anything develop from nothing. The discussion was about MAMMALS, not micro-organisms or reptiles yet you want to make an analogy with them. Mammals could not evolve separate sexes; to say otherwise is to just make up a story out of whole cloth. And, no, you can't "explain away the soul by natural explanation."
Post a Comment