Answer me this atheists.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

There is no answer, only guesses.

Like the bacterial flagellum, an atheist doesn't know how it works the way it works, they just guess. They think that guessing is somehow superior to belief or faith. Kind of ironic.

Theokhoth

I can find Christians that know how the bacterial flagellum works. >_>

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]If there is, science can't find it.

foxhound_fox

No, that's the definition of science. Science does not deal with philosophical meaning or purpose or morality. Science tells us how things are, philosophy tells us how things should be. That is an unbreakable distinction that science apologists arrogantly believe doesn't exist and they in turn make science into its own religion.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

There is no answer, only guesses.

Like the bacterial flagellum, an atheist doesn't know how it works the way it works, they just guess. They think that guessing is somehow superior to belief or faith. Kind of ironic.

Mind_Mover

I can find Christians that know how the bacterial flagellum works. >_>

My point is, your thing about the bacterial flagellum is way off.

No, that's the definition of science. Science does not deal with philosophical meaning or purpose or morality. Science tells us how things are, philosophy tells us how things should be. That is an unbreakable distinction that science apologists arrogantly believe doesn't exist and they in turn make science into its own religion.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]No, that's the definition of science. Science does not deal with philosophical meaning or purpose or morality. Science tells us how things are, philosophy tells us how things should be. That is an unbreakable distinction that science apologists arrogantly believe doesn't exist and they in turn make science into its own religion.foxhound_fox

Yes. Ever hear of scientism?

Just because philosophy describes our morality, doesn't mean religion is required for morality to exist.

Goody, but I never made such a point.

Philosophy and religion are two separate things.

No, religion is a part of philosophy.

Religion generally makes supernatural assumptions for naturally occurring things.

Yes, and derives meaning and morals from these things. Ergo, philosophy.

We can analyze and define the mind without religion.

Goody, but you can't define the word "mind" without philosophy.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]If there is, science can't find it.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]If there is, science can't find it.

-Sun_Tzu-

There's also the deal with eliminating the concept of God; that's no more possible than eliminating the concept of a desk.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I can find Christians that know how the bacterial flagellum works. >_>

Theokhoth

My point is, your thing about the bacterial flagellum is way off.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I can find Christians that know how the bacterial flagellum works. >_>

Theokhoth

My point is, your thing about the bacterial flagellum is way off.

this is my point.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]No one said anything about christians :|

Mind_Mover

My point is, your thing about the bacterial flagellum is way off.

The bacterial flagellum evolved into what it is. . . .

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]No one said anything about christians :|

Mind_Mover

My point is, your thing about the bacterial flagellum is way off.

this is my point.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

And this is mine.

Like the bacterial flagellum, an atheist doesn't know how it works the way it worksMind_Mover

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

My point is, your thing about the bacterial flagellum is way off.

Theokhoth

this is my point.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

And this is mine.

"A second reaction, which I have heard directly after describing the relationship between the secretory apparatus and the flagellum, is the objection that the TTSS does not tell us how either it or the flagellum evolved. This is certainly true, although Aizawa has suggested that the TTSS may indeed be an evolutionary precursor of the flagellum (Aizawa 2001). Nonetheless, until we have produced a step-by-step account for the evolutionary derivation of the flagellum, one may indeed invoke the argument from ignorance for this and every other complex biochemical machine"

can this article even get to the point?

what am i reading?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NQTMfG4FB4&feature=related

this is my point.

Mind_Mover

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

And this is mine.

"A second reaction, which I have heard directly after describing the relationship between the secretory apparatus and the flagellum, is the objection that the TTSS does not tell us how either it or the flagellum evolved. This is certainly true, although Aizawa has suggested that the TTSS may indeed be an evolutionary precursor of the flagellum (Aizawa 2001). Nonetheless, until we have produced a step-by-step account for the evolutionary derivation of the flagellum, one may indeed invoke the argument from ignorance for this and every other complex biochemical machine"

can this article even get to the point?

what am i reading?

An explanation on how the flagellum works and how it evolved. A very long, in-depth explanation that has long-since blown irreducible complexity out of the water.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

And this is mine.

Theokhoth

"A second reaction, which I have heard directly after describing the relationship between the secretory apparatus and the flagellum, is the objection that the TTSS does not tell us how either it or the flagellum evolved. This is certainly true, although Aizawa has suggested that the TTSS may indeed be an evolutionary precursor of the flagellum (Aizawa 2001). Nonetheless, until we have produced a step-by-step account for the evolutionary derivation of the flagellum, one may indeed invoke the argument from ignorance for this and every other complex biochemical machine"

can this article even get to the point?

what am i reading?

An explanation on how the flagellum works and how it evolved. A very long, in-depth explanation that has long-since blown irreducible complexity out of the water.

"When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak"

So in the end, both sides are just guessing which was my point.

How can it say that design is a possiblitiy, how is something a design without a designer?

what am i reading?

Mind_Mover

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]"The flagellum is still irreducibly complex - but so is the TTSS. But now there are two systems for evolutionists to explain instead of just one"

"A second reaction, which I have heard directly after describing the relationship between the secretory apparatus and the flagellum, is the objection that the TTSS does not tell us how either it or the flagellum evolved. This is certainly true, although Aizawa has suggested that the TTSS may indeed be an evolutionary precursor of the flagellum (Aizawa 2001). Nonetheless, until we have produced a step-by-step account for the evolutionary derivation of the flagellum, one may indeed invoke the argument from ignorance for this and every other complex biochemical machine"

can this article even get to the point?

what am i reading?

Mind_Mover

An explanation on how the flagellum works and how it evolved. A very long, in-depth explanation that has long-since blown irreducible complexity out of the water.

"When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak"

So in the end, both sides are just guessing which was my point.

How can it say that design is a possiblitiy, how is something a design without a designer?

Um, out of context quote mining is out of context. The author of that article is religious. . .meaning that he does believe in intelligent design. Just not the "irreducible complexity" part. Which is what he just debunked.

He obviously believes evolution is a part of the designer's mechanism.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

An explanation on how the flagellum works and how it evolved. A very long, in-depth explanation that has long-since blown irreducible complexity out of the water.

Theokhoth

"When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak"

So in the end, both sides are just guessing which was my point.

How can it say that design is a possiblitiy, how is something a design without a designer?

Um, out of context quote mining is out of context. The author of that article is religious. . .meaning that he does believe in intelligent design. Just not the "irreducible complexity" part. Which is what he just debunked.

He obviously believes evolution is a part of the designer's mechanism.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]The article doesn't make any sense, especially if you scroll down and read.

"When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak"

So in the end, both sides are just guessing which was my point.

How can it say that design is a possiblitiy, how is something a design without a designer?

Mind_Mover

Um, out of context quote mining is out of context. The author of that article is religious. . .meaning that he does believe in intelligent design. Just not the "irreducible complexity" part. Which is what he just debunked.

He obviously believes evolution is a part of the designer's mechanism.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]The article doesn't make any sense, especially if you scroll down and read.

"When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak"

So in the end, both sides are just guessing which was my point.

How can it say that design is a possiblitiy, how is something a design without a designer?

Mind_Mover

Um, out of context quote mining is out of context. The author of that article is religious. . .meaning that he does believe in intelligent design. Just not the "irreducible complexity" part. Which is what he just debunked.

He obviously believes evolution is a part of the designer's mechanism.

Atheists give the exact same answer. . .minus the "intelligent design is possible" part. :|

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]The article doesn't make any sense, especially if you scroll down and read.

"When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak"

So in the end, both sides are just guessing which was my point.

How can it say that design is a possiblitiy, how is something a design without a designer?

Mind_Mover

Um, out of context quote mining is out of context. The author of that article is religious. . .meaning that he does believe in intelligent design. Just not the "irreducible complexity" part. Which is what he just debunked.

He obviously believes evolution is a part of the designer's mechanism.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Um, out of context quote mining is out of context. The author of that article is religious. . .meaning that he does believe in intelligent design. Just not the "irreducible complexity" part. Which is what he just debunked.

He obviously believes evolution is a part of the designer's mechanism.

Theokhoth

Atheists give the exact same answer. . .minus the "intelligent design is possible" part. :|

Yeah, evolution is disguised magic.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Well thanks for clearing that up, but...my question was to atheists :|

Mind_Mover

Atheists give the exact same answer. . .minus the "intelligent design is possible" part. :|

Yeah, evolution is disguised magic.

Yeah, you're not listening to a damn word being said.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Well thanks for clearing that up, but...my question was to atheists :|

Mind_Mover

Atheists give the exact same answer. . .minus the "intelligent design is possible" part. :|

*img*

Yeah, evolution is disguised magic.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Atheists give the exact same answer. . .minus the "intelligent design is possible" part. :|

Theokhoth

Yeah, evolution is disguised magic.

Yeah, you're not listening to a damn word being said.

And your trying to dodge my main point, that atheists use faith, just as much as religious people doMind_Mover

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Atheists give the exact same answer. . .minus the "intelligent design is possible" part. :|

MindFreeze

*img*

Yeah, evolution is disguised magic.

And your trying to dodge my main point, that atheists use faith, just as much as religious people do.

Mind_Mover

No, the difference is that a scientist (not just saying atheist, since plenty of religious folk are engaged in the pursuit of knowledge too) will acknowledge the gap in the facts and will search for an answer, rather than just explaining everything they don't know with "God did it."

What is that? to start.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

And your trying to dodge my main point, that atheists use faith, just as much as religious people do.

metroidfood

No, the difference is that a scientist (not just saying atheist, since plenty of religious folk are engaged in the pursuit of knowledge too) will acknowledge the gap in the facts and will search for an answer, rather than just explaining everything they don't know with "God did it."

Atheists believe that everything that exists now, came from nothing, is that not faith?Mind_Mover

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

And your trying to dodge my main point, that atheists use faith, just as much as religious people do.

Mind_Mover

No, the difference is that a scientist (not just saying atheist, since plenty of religious folk are engaged in the pursuit of knowledge too) will acknowledge the gap in the facts and will search for an answer, rather than just explaining everything they don't know with "God did it."

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

And your trying to dodge my main point, that atheists use faith, just as much as religious people do.

Mind_Mover

No, the difference is that a scientist (not just saying atheist, since plenty of religious folk are engaged in the pursuit of knowledge too) will acknowledge the gap in the facts and will search for an answer, rather than just explaining everything they don't know with "God did it."

They believe that there is no God. I'm not sure where you're getting the rest of your ideas.

Atheists believe that everything that exists now, came from nothingMind_Mover

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Well thanks for clearing that up, but...my question was to atheists :|

Mind_Mover

Atheists give the exact same answer. . .minus the "intelligent design is possible" part. :|

Yeah, evolution is disguised magic.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Well thanks for clearing that up, but...my question was to atheists :|

Mind_Mover

Atheists give the exact same answer. . .minus the "intelligent design is possible" part. :|

Yeah, evolution is disguised magic.

You should realise that the flagellum is an example of an existing system that has changed its role, not one that has been built from the ground up.

Also, please explain penicillinase.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Franco-J"]

Exactly. Its called science. Humans are so primitive, and yet they think they know everything. The things they dont know, they pin to a mythical being. Gods were created by primitive people a long time ago for a variety of reasons, before their understanding of science and the ways things work. As humans get more advanced we will continue tolearn the reasons for things, as scientists do everyday...

Rocky32189

Science cannot find a "reason" for anything, ever.

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Science cannot find a "reason" for anything, ever.

illegalimigrant

Cogito ergo sum ?

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Science cannot find a "reason" for anything, ever.

illegalimigrant

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Atheists believe that everything that exists now, came from nothing, is that not faith?Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="Rocky32189"] Why must there be a "reason" for anything? There is no proof at all that our existence has any "reason" beyond pure coincidence. It may make some people feel better to think the opposite is true, and we are special and created by an all powerful being. But none of that is founded on truth or evidence, just speculation.ImmoDuck

Cogito ergo sum ?

[QUOTE="munu9"] Maybe (I'm saying this in a very simplified form) it is easier for the universe to exist than for it to not exist. So it would fall into the state of existingDigitalExile

Unless that's not what you meant.

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Science cannot find a "reason" for anything, ever.

illegalimigrant