Saturday, April 6, 2013

       Last night I was debating some atheists in a PalTalk chat room. When I entered, one of them was on the microphone telling the room how evolution is a scientific fact and providing a few scanty details of why this is so. I got into the debate, and asked how their claim was evidence of evolution. When it was their turn to use the microphone in the chat room, they were unwilling to explain how it was evidence of evolution, but instead put forth a 2 minute diatribe of how ignorant and non-scientific creationists are because they deny the obvious fact of evolution. A few others in the chat room did exactly the same thing - make a claim, such as that changes to allele frequency over time is evolution, then when asked how it is evidence or a mechanism for evolution, they provide no explanation and instead provide a 2 minute long diatribe of how evolution is true and creationists are ignorant. After 30 minutes of this repeated failure of the evolutionists to support their claims, they got tired of being cornered for their inability to do so, and asked me for evidence of my "invisible magic man" having created life. So, I explained to them a single example of Irreducible Complexity of the many which could be provided - the fact that the machinery that decodes the genetic information in the DNA to produce proteins is itself encoded in the DNA.

       The fact that the machinery which translates the genetic information to produce proteins is itself comprised of proteins is a game-ender for evolution theory. Since the machinery is a product of it's own translation, the DNA, the codes for proteins, and the environment of the cell which includes all of the rest of the features of the cell, must exist in order for the translation of protein codes to take
place. The components must already exist, fully-formed and fully functional, for any of them to exist. This is interdependency which cannot be broken, and therefore Irreducible Complexity. The components could not have evolved piecemeal. Let's imagine that the DNA is like a book coded in a specific digital language (DNA code is digital by the way). Encoded in that book is the machinery which is able to decode the book. In order to decode the book, you must retrieve the information which allows you to produce the decoder machine. The problem is, that since this information is encoded in the book, you cannot translate the code to produce this machinery unless the decoding machinery already exists outside of the source of information which produces the decoder!
       What this means in short is that not only did the components exist together in the beginning, but the entire cell did as well because these components require the cell to exist. Since the cell exists all together and fully functioning, and since the cell contains the genome for the entire organism, it follows that the entire organism existed, fully-formed and fully functional in the beginning with no transition or intermediary steps involved whatsoever. One might as well say that the cow came into existence at once, eating grass, swishing it's tail, completely unaware of the fact that it did not exist a nanosecond ago. This is Special Creation, and science has provided empirical evidence of it.

Having provided this single example of Irreducible Complexity which also evidences Special Creation, the evolutionists in the chat room were unable to even address the issue, and simply got on the microphone, one after another, and claimed I had not provided evidence of creation, and insisted that I do so. They would not even discuss my example. I suppose their only defence was to outright dismiss my example, claim I had provided nothing, and demand that I did. I suspect this is because they were both unable to discuss the subject for lack of knowledge about it biologically, and also because they were dumbfounded that such evidence actually exists. The humorous aspect the the failure of every atheist in the room to actually debate evidences is that they actually go to chat rooms, bring up evolution, claim it is a science fact, and mock you for believing in creation.

       Apparently, Sky Daddy must have something going, if someone like myself, who has no formal education in biology, is capable of acquiring enough knowledge of it on my own that prevents atheists, even genuine biologists, from being able to debunk what He has created with their pseudo scientific fantasy.


  1. It was not clear what the "atheists" were talking about so I can not comment on that.
    Either way, irreducible complexity is not proof for God's existence.

    1. Irreducable Complexity means what what is irreducably complex existed as is from the beginning. This requires Special Creation. Otherwise, it poped into existance by natural processes, fully formed, functioning, and interdependant with whatever it is part of.

  2. I assume "poped" is a mistyping and has nothing to do with the RCC. What you have to do now is give us an example of IC and how it was pooped out by your version of god.

  3. We creationists do that all the time. Try finding out about it. Find me in a debate room to learn more.

  4. Debunkings of irreducible complexity litter the internet.
    Interesting that the Creationists have lost so much ground at all other levels that they now have to go down to the molecular level, about which the layman knows very little, to make their case.
    You're going to have to do better than "DNA is irreducibly complex, therefore cows were poofed into existence".
    Also, even if that were true, it would not indicate the existence of a deity, which is what you were challenged to provide. What if this irreducibly complex DNA was created by aliens, like Galactus in the Marvel comics? The most you can arrive at is creation, or creation by an intelligence. You can't get to creation by a deity, and you're still far, far away from the Christian/Jewish God as described in the Bible.

    1. Here's what I hear you saying:

      1. a complaint that there could be a designer but it can't be the god of Christianity

      2. a claim that irreducible complexity is not irreducible

      It's quite clear that atheists reject both the scientific evidence and historical evidence for emotional reasons, not intellectual ones. This is like an admission.

      You said, "What if this irreducibly complex DNA was created by aliens, like Galactus in the Marvel comics?"

      So the intellect here is that you imply that you would be more willing to accept that a comic book character were our designer before the historical person of Jesus Christ and all of the evidence that supports him, including the many fulfilled prophecies, scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, astonishing wisdom and authority with which he taught concepts that cause scholars to spend a lifetime studying someone who has changed the world and has no equal in it.

      Well done. Well done.