Hitchens: IC is an infinitely expanding tautology
Posted By: admin | 2009.11.18
singularity=miracle wtf?), Hitchens argues that the argument from irreducible complexity (IC) -stating that because DNA is so complex or beautiful it must be created- is an “infinitely expanding tautology”. Relevant: en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org … Christopher Hitchens David Hume Turek god VCU debate atheism Humanism meaning life tautology theism Christianity IC irreducible complexity creationism intelligent design christian fundamentalism Dawkins …
25 Comments:
bhigr / August 18, 2009 9:41 am
We do not know the reason for the big bang. Therefore, the big bang is a miracle? We do not know how the DNA originally came into being? We do not know… There are many things we do not know!. Therefore, it is a miracle? An improbable event is not a miriacle. It’s a miracle if you want it to be a miracle. The miracle is faiths dearest child! It’s not vice versa!
DevJL / August 28, 2009 8:03 am
Hitchens is Great
TheWholeYearInn / September 2, 2009 12:06 am
He really is. He’s never off-balance or surprised, and always has a clear line of sight into the foggiest of territories regardless of the issue.
sulijoo / September 4, 2009 10:19 pm
Aren’t fractal patterns an example of “irreducible complexity”? Just asking.
sulijoo / September 4, 2009 10:30 pm
Incidentally, I’ve heard more refined theories about the Big Bang suggesting that actually time existed BEFORE the Big Bang. You could go insane thinking about all this. It’s best not to.
sulijoo / September 4, 2009 10:45 pm
One last thing: the true story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, portrayed in the film ‘The Diving Bell and the Butterfly’ proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Man is far more than the sum of his parts, and that rationalism, empiricism are not enough.
LordTyrannus / September 6, 2009 1:29 am
Makes me wonder why Hitchens agrees to debate these clowns.
pornswordtobacco / September 6, 2009 6:10 am
I did not know that Mr.Hitchens debates random college football coaches as well.I guess they need to be set straight to.
cornflakeclusters / September 9, 2009 1:44 pm
I agree with you mastershake99, it´s just that we now know quite a lot about the flagellum, it is the product of exaptation, which means its components were already used for something else. The proteins at the base of the flagellum are made up of the type 3 secretion system – a molecular syringe that injects toxins into other cells.
arpakyna / September 12, 2009 7:10 pm
Actually evolutionary biologists now believe (with evidence supporting them of course) that lungs evolved into gas bladders. I don’t know if it ever happened the other way around, but that’s how gas bladder came into being originally anyways.
gerbs96 / September 12, 2009 7:33 pm
Apologists are a joke.
Doversreturn / September 15, 2009 6:38 pm
talk about throwing a christian to a lion.
crabbit101 / September 25, 2009 12:31 am
I still don’t know why anyone in their right mind would dare debate Hitchens on religion. I have never seen him lose a debate.
mesafalcon88 / October 1, 2009 9:45 am
The only way Hitchens can really lose a debate (or anyone else who debates Gods existance) is if God shows up. Until then, the answer is no, so far, no God.
crazyboyxx / October 9, 2009 2:41 am
Hitchens is undoubtably a great debater, but the reason he doesn’t ever lose is because HE IS RIGHT. This is still a controversial issue in some parts of the world but among educated circles this kind of debate is like putting a a modern scientist against a 15th century flat-earthist. One side of the debate has already won before it has even started. Any atheist with a rudimentary knowledge of science and philosophy could defeat any theist in the world, every single time.
felandath / October 9, 2009 3:56 pm
Fantastic comment mate! I have noticed that there is no new argument from the theists. Nothing new ever! Not one decent argument that cannot be refuted!
felandath / October 9, 2009 4:03 pm
Superb comment by Hitchens at the end. He makes his point by not even having to make it. I would have shot myself to escape the humiliation if I were Turek.
theozzman91 / October 11, 2009 1:51 pm
2.48 – 2.52
The greatest pwnage in a debate ever
zapopaul / October 21, 2009 8:41 am
i beg to differ. please look at the hitchens vs. boteach debate…. it’s most enjoyable to see hitch’s merciless and systematic pawnage of the rabbi.
theozzman91 / October 21, 2009 2:27 pm
ah touche, that was something of an annilation. boteach pressed self-destruct however at the end when he accused hitchens of downplaying the holocuast which he clearly didnt lol
tanfouk / October 22, 2009 8:38 pm
Irreducible complexity of DNA???? Obviously the questioner doesn’t know anything about DNA or chemistry.
jrsample0425 / October 25, 2009 10:26 pm
hitchens threw what is termed a “pimp slap” on this other poor soul. yes, what did happen to Lazarus? the gaves in Jerusalem opening up?
even saint peter supposedly raised someone from the dead. come on…
Skindoggiedog / October 28, 2009 2:35 pm
“Lazarus was raised … never said a word about it”
haha Classic
kevrs2 / October 31, 2009 7:37 pm
that religious guy who keeps raising his voice is a cheeky ,fucker
thecrashingfalcon / November 1, 2009 8:59 pm
Amen!!!!