Give one reason or argument that God doesnt exist

[austin12345]

Try and give one reason philosophically or scientifically that God doesnt exist, but not one emotionally.

[Nickman]

As a lover of science I am greatly saddened that matters of science are now decided by the courts.

The court case wasn't about science per se. It was about whether or not Creationism should be taught alongside Evolutionary theory in the classroom. One argument Dr. Behe proposed was the flagellum. His argument was that this organism is irreducibly complex and because of this evolution is just and idea and Creationism is a worthy idea that should be taught in school. It was a tactic to undermine scientific understanding and set up a god hypothesis in the classrooms. The courts decided that creationism didn't have a leg to stand on and should not be taught in schools because it is not based in science.

Which page of the article that Goat referenced tells us "why the flagellum can be"?

ref:Give one reason or argument that God doesnt exist

[olavisjo]

Which one of the following parts can be removed (as you said) and still have some function?

Are you asking which parts has a different function than it has on the picture or are you asking which parts can be removed without the flagellum ceasing to function?

You said...

• "Experiments have shown that many proteins can be deleted from the flagellar
  apparatus without destroying its function,[74][75] even though its activity may be
  reduced in some of these cases."

If you remove one of the spark plugs or head gasket from a car engine and found that it still runs; would you conclude that the engine evolved?

Everybody understand that car engines evolve... there are many sites explaining how car engines evolved such as http://inventors.about.com/library/week ... rsgasa.htm you don't think a man suddenly decided to put together a Ferrari V12 Engine from atoms do you? Then he would be a god...

Then we agree that biological evolution and the evolution of car engines are both the product of intelligence.

[olavisjo]

As a lover of science I am greatly saddened that matters of science are now decided by the courts.

The 'matters of science' were decided in a lab. Whether or not one can teach said junk science in a public classroom, was decided in court.

Yes, a sad day indeed.

...from the link (my emphasis);
"If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum."

Yes, like a car engine is not irreducibly complex because you can remove all the parts except one and they still function as lug nuts.

[olavisjo]

As a lover of science I am greatly saddened that matters of science are now decided by the courts.

The court case wasn't about science per se. It was about whether or not Creationism should be taught alongside Evolutionary theory in the classroom. One argument Dr. Behe proposed was the flagellum. His argument was that this organism is irreducibly complex and because of this evolution is just and idea and Creationism is a worthy idea that should be taught in school. It was a tactic to undermine scientific understanding and set up a god hypothesis in the classrooms. The courts decided that creationism didn't have a leg to stand on and should not be taught in schools because it is not based in science.

Yes, a sad day indeed.

Which page of the article that Goat referenced tells us "why the flagellum can be"?

ref:Give one reason or argument that God doesnt exist

Okay, so where is the part about "why the flagellum can be"?

[PhiloKGB]

The 'matters of science' were decided in a lab. Whether or not one can teach said junk science in a public classroom, was decided in court.

Yes, a sad day indeed.

Indeed. Sad that ID proponents thought they could bypass the doing of science altogether and simply present their fantasies to public school students.

Yes, like a car engine is not irreducibly complex because you can remove all the parts except one and they still function as lug nuts.

Somehow I always find myself having to point out the simply colossal flaw in this type of analogy: Car engines do not self-replicate and do not have a built-in source of random variation.

[Artie]

Then we agree that biological evolution and the evolution of car engines are both the product of intelligence.

Not exactly... let's try another approach sentence by sentence. A cell can make a copy of itself without any involvement from gods or humans, while a car engine can't. Do you understand the difference?

[southern cross]

Then we agree that biological evolution and the evolution of car engines are both the product of intelligence.

Not exactly... let's try another approach sentence by sentence. A cell can make a copy of itself without any involvement from gods or humans, while a car engine can't. Do you understand the difference?

I know for a fact that if you leave a Karmann Ghia and a London Taxi in a darkened room over night, six months later a baby Beetle will be born and grow up to be Herbie.
Thus the evolution of motor cars has been proved and the religionistiques point of view is validated.

[Artie]

The court case wasn't about science per se. It was about whether or not Creationism should be taught alongside Evolutionary theory in the classroom. One argument Dr. Behe proposed was the flagellum. His argument was that this organism is irreducibly complex and because of this evolution is just and idea and Creationism is a worthy idea that should be taught in school. It was a tactic to undermine scientific understanding and set up a god hypothesis in the classrooms. The courts decided that creationism didn't have a leg to stand on and should not be taught in schools because it is not based in science.

Yes, a sad day indeed.

There are quite a few creationisms:

4.1 Young-Earth creationism
4.2 Old Earth creationism
4.2.1 Gap creationism
4.2.2 Day-Age creationism
4.2.3 Progressive creationism
4.3 Neo-Creationism
4.4 Intelligent design
4.5 Creation science
4.6 Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation)
4.7 Obscure and largely discounted beliefs
4.8 Omphalos hypothesis

Wikipedia

I would have loved to see creationists arguing about which Creationism should be taught to whom in which schools or whether they should teach a mishmash of them all...

[olavisjo]

Yes, like a car engine is not irreducibly complex because you can remove all the parts except one and they still function as lug nuts.

Somehow I always find myself having to point out the simply colossal flaw in this type of analogy: Car engines do not self-replicate and do not have a built-in source of random variation.

It is a good rebuttal; the only problem is you scored a touchdown while everyone else is playing baseball.

Irreducible complexity is an idea based on what Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species...

• If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
  possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
  theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

The bacterial flagellum is one of those complex organs where the parts can't evolve gradually because they would not have any function until they are complete.
Biologists have discovered a type III secretory system that is made up of 1/4 the parts of the flagellum. They have argued that the flagellum has "co-opted" parts from the secretory system and used them in entirely novel ways.
One problem with this idea is that the need for mobility would have evolved long before the need for the secretory system so the secretory system would have evolved from the flagellum; not the other way around.
The other problem is that even if the flagellum had evolved from the secretory system it would need far too many intermediate steps to become a flagellum. And there is no evidence for even one of those steps.

[olavisjo]

Then we agree that biological evolution and the evolution of car engines are both the product of intelligence.

Not exactly... let's try another approach sentence by sentence. A cell can make a copy of itself without any involvement from gods or humans, while a car engine can't. Do you understand the difference?

I do understand the difference. A car engine that reproduces itself would require far more intelligence than a simple factory made engine. More intelligence than humans have at this time.