New just in: Birds not evolved from dinosaurs:

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…each one must make his own EVALUATION of the respective interpretations and findings of the eminent scientists, … (my emphasis)

Yes -ideally according to the evidence/reason.

…to exclude one at the BEHEST of the others, is hardly objective is it?
..…

Which other scientist demanded that you should not perform your OWN EVALUAT ...[text shortened]... ’t necessarily mean that makes you any good at the other. He should have stuck to his own field.[/b]

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you sure you know what M.J.Behe professes, for you may be attributing to him an erroneous view, as have others, for the professor has his own mind and his own evaluation of these things, what is it about this noobster that you do not understand?

Originally posted by PBE6
Here's a good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Irreducible_complexity_in_the_Dover_trial

"We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even i ...[text shortened]... r Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller))." (Pages 79–80)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have you read any of his books, let me answer that for you no, not a single one, not a measly insignificant preface to a volume, i on the other hand have taken the time to purchase and read what he has written, you have not and therefore can state nothing with any certainty, for you have not made a correct evaluation of his work with your own mind, ...[text shortened]... per highly triple concentrated double helpings of cods wallop, and a cherry of twaddle on top 🙂

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…have you read any of his books,
…

No but others have and some of them scientists -the same scientists no doubt that debunked his central claims. Do you need to read all his books just to get a short summary of his most basic central claims? Answer, no. I also haven’t read all of Darwin’s work and yet I have a perfectly clear understandin ...[text shortened]... our own logic here, you shouldn’t if you MERELY haven’t read completely read one of his books 😛[/b]

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no this is quite sadly extremely lacking and reflective of the type of non information that one must filter from ones mind on a daily basis, kind of like an annoying advertisement, for it purports to tell you everything, while in fact telling you very little, for it contains not one of the eminent professors views, [b]correctly stated and in context ...[text shortened]... evolution v creationism

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html 🙂[/b]

Originally posted by PBE6
You missed the point. The summary is as follows:

"We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not supp ...[text shortened]... s it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller))."

For additional clarity, here are some quotes from the decision of that trial:

John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:

* "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[5]
* "As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[5]
* "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[6]
* "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[7]
* "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[8]
* "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[46]
* "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[47]
* "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."[48]
* "In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."[49]
* "...proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Here are the sources:

5. # ^ a b c s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 28 of 139
6. # ^ a b s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 68 of 139
7. # ^ a b s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 70 of 139
8. # ^ a b s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 79 of 139
46. # ^ s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 71 of 139
47. # ^ s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 74 of 139
48. # ^ s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 76 of 139
49. # ^ s:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_81_of_139

Originally posted by PBE6
For additional clarity, here are some quotes from the decision of that trial:

John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:

* "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argu ...[text shortened]... v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_81_of_139

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Behe himself states, that, in view of the lack of supporting evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis (invertebrates appearing in the fossil record fully functioning etc etc etc), intelligent design, appeared to him, after analysis, to be the most logical assertion, and you will also notice, that he states, that it does not rule out, that in some future time, when evidence may suggest otherwise, that natural causes may be vindicated.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually this is the sort of second hand jingoism that one should avoid, for if one really wants to know what Behe thoughts are, why do they not read what he has written? or read the transcripts of the case?

Originally posted by PBE6
Wut? I even included the references for you. These are quotes from the 139 page decision handed down by Judge Jones.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i would rather read the transcript of the case for myself if you do not mind, after all, i have my own mind and my own evaluations to make, they are not me and i am not them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why would i believe that there were dinosaurs in the Ark? the Genesis account is silent and the scientific evidence suggests that they died well before this, therefore its fairly straight forward, so these are two areas or lines of thought that this 'creationist', does not advocate. actually the Genesis account can be perfectly reconciled to scienti er, if you are interested, not that i hope to convince you, but to show that it is possible.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Another famous fundamentalist here at RHP thinks so, rather firmly, he actually put his honour in stake to provide the evidence of it. The only thing he found was a report of some deep sea carcass, half rotten, that he said was a dinosaur. The report however didn't say so. Another link showing fake cave drawings and fake stone drawings was presented, but doesn't answer any of my questions anymore, presumably because he now knows that I'm right.