10 Jun 09
Originally posted by sonhouseLol, who else?
You mean his stance on 'Irreducible Complexity'? Why is it the biology department at Lehigh has taken a firm stand against his argument? "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific".
In the case of Kitzmiller V Dover Area School Board, the jud ...[text shortened]... y and still concluded intelligent design is essentially religious in nature.
THAT Behe?
10 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobwhat Michael Behe was forced to state publicly and what he admits privately are obviously entirely two different things.
Of course you can, but take heed of this quote from the man himself given under oath in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District.
"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.
Feel free to post.
10 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes that's obviously correct, professor of biochemistry, how thick can you get ????
Nice quote from Dicky Dawkins on Behe.
"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the e have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."
10 Jun 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobi am unfamiliar with the case myself illustrious noobster, but the whole thing reeks of a McCarthy style witch hunt, done for purely political purposes, my goodness that someone with such excellent credentials should stand up and say to the scientific community, wait a minute, something is not quite right here, was to upset each and everyone of their cherished beliefs, for without the evolutionary hypothesis nothing to you guys makes sense, now that would not do, would it! I mean its like me coming into the science forum and stating irreducible complexity is perfectly logical and i can demonstrate it, go out and take the fuel injection system from your car and see if it will still drive, its gonna "set the cat among the pigeons" and there shall be hell to pay, i shall be dragged up before Fabian and made to make a public recantation and i shall be made to skulk away with the tail between my legs like some wounded hound, whimpering that it was only a theory.....
He wasn't 'forced' to state anything. He just had to tell the truth.
i bet if ol tricky dicky hawkins had said it we would be worshipping his words right now! 😛
10 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe simple point of this that you are failing to understand, or deliberatley choosing not to understand, is that he is simply wrong and has been proven to be wrong by scientists.
i am unfamiliar with the case myself illustrious noobster, but the whole thing reeks of a McCarthy style witch hunt, done for purely political purposes, my goodness that someone with such excellent credentials should stand up and say to the scientific community, wait a minute, something is not quite right here, was to upset each and everyone of their ...[text shortened]...
i bet if ol tricky dicky hawkins had said it we would be worshipping his words right now! 😛
Behe thought that he had found some systems to be irreducible complex ie, blood clotting, the immune system and flagellum, and as a result believed there must be an intelligent designer. But since then he has been proven wrong, and his examples are not irreducibly complex, therfore he has no basis for a designer.
It's not a witch hunt, he's just been proven wrong.
10 Jun 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobi suggest you take the carburettor from your car then noobster, and drive to work tomorrow, or if you cycle, take a link from your chain and ride to work.
The simple point of this that you are failing to understand, or deliberatley choosing not to understand, is that he is simply wrong and has been proven to be wrong by scientists.
Behe thought that he had found some systems to be irreducible complex ie, blood clotting, the immune system and flagellum, and as a result believed there must be an intellige ...[text shortened]... herfore he has no basis for a designer.
It's not a witch hunt, he's just been proven wrong.
and please there is no need for a lack of civility my good man!
10 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere we go again, another Christian Fundamentalist in the science forum sweeping away hundreds of years worth of painstaking science progress just because it doesn't fit in with what you believe.
i suggest you take the carburettor from your car then noobster, and drive to work tomorrow, or if you cycle, take a link from your chain and ride to work.
and please there is no need for a lack of civility my good man!
What's you point?
I always remain civil, it's you who throws the insults around.
10 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…i suggest you take the carburettor from your car then noobster, and drive to work tomorrow, or if you cycle, take a link from your chain and ride to work.
i suggest you take the carburettor from your car then noobster, and drive to work tomorrow, or if you cycle, take a link from your chain and ride to work.
and please there is no need for a lack of civility my good man!
…
You analogies are totally incorrect to represent evolution because each chain of links for the evolution of each complex organ consists of links that have full functionality.
The evolution of the human eye is a particularly good example of this because all the links in the evolution of the human eye are represented in animals that are alive today thus PROVING that each link can (and does) have full functionality.
10 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobok first you call Behe thick and now you are saying i am sweeping away hundreds of years of painstaking scientific research, which is not true, i merely produced an analogy, not a very good one i hasten to add, and now accuse me of insulting you, well now noobster, if i insulted you then it was unintentional, so let us please be civil.
Here we go again, another Christian Fundamentalist in the science forum sweeping away hundreds of years worth of painstaking science progress just because it doesn't fit in with what you believe.
What's you point?
I always remain civil, it's you who throws the insults around.
and please do not refer to me as a fundamentalist Christian, i have not acquired enough knowledge whether to determine if i actually fit into that category or not, 🙂
10 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonfull functionality? so lets get this, the flagellum and its (25?) components each had full functionality?, one can only wonder what they were doing independently functioning of their own accord, just waiting to be put together.
[b]…i suggest you take the carburettor from your car then noobster, and drive to work tomorrow, or if you cycle, take a link from your chain and ride to work.
…
You analogies are totally incorrect to represent evolution because each chain of links for the evolution of each complex organ consists of links that have full functionality.
The ...[text shortened]... animals that are alive today thus PROVING that each link can (and does) have full functionality.[/b]
10 Jun 09
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…so lets get this, the flagellum and its (25?) components each had full functionality?,
full functionality? so lets get this, the flagellum and its (25?) components each had full functionality?, one can only wonder what they were doing independently functioning of their own accord, just waiting to be put together.
..…
Correct (I note you instantly replaced my “human eye” example with the “flagellum” example; -is this because you cannot see fault in the “human eye” example?) -each component would have either once had a function on its own (which would have been a different function from a complete flagellum. For example, the tail of a flagellum appears to be made of microtubules which are functional INSIDE the cell with a very DIFFERENT function to that of the flagellum tail there!) or once had a function in combination with one of more of the other components sometime after those other components evolved (and that combination of components not necessarily having the same function as flagellum).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
Now, do you have a problem with that?
…. one can only wonder what they were doing independently functioning of their own accord, just WAITING to be put together.
… (my emphasis)
You mean you think that the theory of evolution says things “WAIT” to be put together? 😛