Lee Strobel FAIL - Biochemistry - Team Rebuttal

Subscribe to these awesome people:

RyuOni1989
http://www.youtube.com/user/RyuOni1989

chattiestspike2
http://www.youtube.com/user/chattiestspike2

and yours truly, Feredir28
http://www.youtube.com/user/Feredir28

to see why Behe is completely dishonest, see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpeHrkbx9LU

Evolution of the Moustrap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieKDLtrBXs0
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
One example of a mousetrap forming naturally is the Venus fly trap. It has a trigger (hairs), a hinge that closes quickly, and a cage to keep prey locked down--a system that wouldn't work if you took out one of the parts. But close inspection shows that it could have evolved from simpler models, like the sundews that use a flypaper-like trap. Another reducible machine. ID fails again.

Evolution of the Flagellum
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flagellum.cfm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Category:

Education

Tags:

• chattiestspike2
• feredir28
• ryuoni1989
• team
• refute
• evidence
• for
• creationism
• creationist
• science
• apologetic
• liar
• lee
• strobel
• Charles
• Darwin
• Michael
• Behe
• Discovery
• Institute
• irreducible
• complexity
• bacterial
• flagellum
• rebuttal
• prove
• proves
• God
• fail
• complete
• moron
• case
• creator
• atheism
• atheist
• debate
• bible

[studentofthegospel]

Seriously? Homeschooling is brainwashing, but public school is not?

[Feredir28]

@studentofthegospel Apparently public school at least makes an attempt to provide you with the uptodate accurate facts whereas homeschooling teaches you things like "Christians discovered the sciences" BS.

[Feredir28]

@ScholarVisual yes it can still work, your claims are baseles. Scientists already know and demonstrated that the removal of pieces can still operate, especially the flagellum, immune system, and likewise.

Have you taken a look at the Matzke model at all? His reports in 2003 show that the removal of the L-ring does not harm its function. Likewise, once the flagellum can be explained how it evolved, pseudoscience intelligent design scammers have nothing left to say but whine.

[ScholarVisual]

@Feredir28 If you take away a p-ring or L-ring the flagellum will not work.Even anti-intelligent design scientists agree that the flagellum will not propel the cell if missing one of these rings.Thats why Miller focused on the protein sequences inside the flagellum instead of saying nonsense like it can still propel a cell without a P or L ring.The Matzke model dosnt prove the flagellum is not I C. Its an attempt to prove I C can evolve. So the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex.

[Feredir28]

@ScholarVisual I just told you that we have taken several pieces away from the flagellum, and YET IT STILL OPERATES AS A FLAGELLUM. Re-read that whole sentence. Based on this, you and Behe's complexity argument are dead in the water. The debate ends there.

No, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, did you not hear me in the video mention the Matzke model???? Nothing Behe has provided is irreducible.

[Feredir28]

@ScholarVisual I am baffled by your ability to continuing to allow info fly over your head. And you dare accuse me of committing a straw man you are the one who brought up the car (a non-living organism incapable of passing down genetic variance).

I already stated clearly, if you take out the L-ring or the P-ring in the flagellum, it still operates, which just destroyed your statement "the flagellum dosn't work" (TYPO AGAIN). Yet, somehow, you seem incapable of processing this.

[ScholarVisual]

@Feredir28 The strawman miller is attacking is the statement that no functions work if you take one piece away. Behe said the flagellum dosnt work if you take one piece away. Not all functions. And hes right. That goes back to the car analogy. The radio inside of a car is not a car. If you take away the wheels the car no longer functions as a car. So the flagellum is irreducibly complex. So now are you saying irreducibly complex things can evolve?

[ScholarVisual]

@Feredir28 I keep going on with miller because everybody says hes the one to debunk irreducible complexity. Your actually using 2 fallacies. A strawman and equivocation. The equivaction is using the term works or working funcitions. I have cells in my body. But they are not human. The flagellum has protein sequences in its makeup, but they are not flagellum. If you take away one peice from a flagellum the flagellum dosnt work. The things inside flagellum that still work are not flagellum.

[Feredir28]

@ScholarVisual Why do you keep going on with bloody Miller? What part of the flagellum still operates with several pieces missing are you not getting?

I will say only this: natural selection does not have a goal, so motors for cells is not a "plan" just a biological development. If we can demonstrate a flagellum's evolution (which we can) then the debate is over.

Irreducibly complexity's core argument is if any 1 piece can be removed, and yet it still works, its not irreducible.

[ScholarVisual]

@Feredir28 Fine take away the wheels.Then youll say it can be used for a house. The point is that a car without wheels or an engine dosnt function as a car.And those protein sequences miller is talking about have nothing to do with the propulsion of a cell.Just like a car radio has nothing to do with the movement of the car.To say a car works because the radio works is fallacious. And Thats what miller is doing.Because there's functions within a flagellum that work dosnt mean the flagellum works