Quote:

---

Chespirito said:

Hell yea brotha

Edit: Ha we've been swindled!  He deleted that post. 
Edit 2:  Oh wait Im ignoring him! 

---

  Now we cant even see the thread supporting "Expelled" 

Quote:

---

mushroomhunter10 said:
What do you mean?

Expelled brings up some valid points though, maybe not about evolution but definitely about Abiogenesis.

---

He can't see your posts.

Quote:

---

deCypher said:

Quote:

---

Mr. Mushrooms said: So, do I think it's possible for a motor to occur naturally?  I think it's as likely as the Pope being an atheist.

---

IYO, what then created the motor?  If it's another material being, then they had to come from somewhere, or they in turn were designed.  Following this line of logic, we must either conclude that at some point a material being evolved purely from natural selection and mutation, or that a supernatural, immaterial being created them.

Let's explore these two options:

In the first case, we are claiming that a material being capable of designing other beings came from natural selection and mutation.  Wouldn't an ontologically simpler theory be that instead of us being designed by species X, which was in turn designed by species Y, which in turn came from natural selection and mutation, that it was our species which came from natural selection and mutation?  I see no reason to invent additional steps in the chain of creation when Occam's Razor suffices and when we have no tangible evidence of these other species.

In the second case, we are claiming that a supernatural being capable of designing other beings exists, or at least existed at some point.  Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up?

---

What created the motor?  It's, pardon the expression, immaterial to the argument.  I was reading today that Richard Dawkins was speculating about aliens.  Are you sure there are only two options?  Because refusing to acknowledge other options not only limits our view, but it claims to know what we do not know.  That is exactly what makes atheists the fools they are.

Remember, biologists once thought cells were little blobs of protoplasm.  Now we know they are filled with little machines.

It's a good question, but entirely irrelevant to the argument.  Needless to say, however, I enjoy your interest in the discussion and your thought-provoking questions. 

Quote:

---

supernovasky said:


Since you didn't read the link last time, I'm just going to copy and paste an article with about 100 peer reviewed journal sources on how the flagellum could have easily evolved in a stepwise fashion:

---

Quote:

---

supernovasky said:




But of course, it HAD to have been designed, right?

---

Quote:

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:
What created the motor?  It's, pardon the expression, immaterial to the argument.

---

If you claim that the motor was designed, it'd be nice to have an explanation for who or what designed it.  If none of these explanations are credible then it is likely that the alternative explanation (that it wasn't designed) is correct. 

Quote:

---

Mr. Mushrooms said: Are you sure there are only two options?

---

Quote:

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:
What created the motor?  It's, pardon the expression, immaterial to the argument.

---

Quote:

---

That sort of logic is not acceptable anywhere else, so why should it be accepted here?

---

Um, because it has been repeated ad nauseum in several threads without directly addessing the core issues?

Never underestimate the power of redundancy power.

Quote:

---

mushroomhunter10 said:
Ignorance is bliss.

---

Quote:

---

Ben Stein is a smart mafaka too, so for somebody so intelligent and well respected in the science community to question the establishment is a breath of fresh air to me.

---