Originally posted by PBE6let me find the section in the transcript and if i can you may evaluate it for yourself, i was reading it earlier, but its late and my mind is fried, it may have to wait till tomorrow.
What does Behe include in the "etc etc etc" exactly? This is not a trivial question.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell if you know they are separate issues why are you harping on evolutionists as if they were trying to create something out of nothing?
sigh, yes i realise they are different issue, get a grip! soup is soup, vegetable, scotch broth, primordial, the answer my friend is blowing in the soup, the answer is blowing in the primordial soup!
The Ants were blowing in the wind, I guess🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"no i do not agree with him"
no i do not agree with him, there is no basis for this assertion that i am aware of, yes with God all things are possible, but in this instance there is neither supporting Biblical evidence, nor supporting scientific evidence. the only reference in the entire Bible that can possibly be construed as being dinosaurs is in the book of Genesis,
And ...[text shortened]... ile they were interesting, i did not really , at least not in my own mind, find them conclusive.
So you think this fundamentalist creationist in particular are wrong and deluded?
"why do creationists insist that these co existed and were present in the days of Noah, i cannot tell? does anyone know?"
Because someone wants them to be deluded and ignorant from the real sientific truths. Like the Genesis Museum, who fake pictures of prehistoric man riding on dinosaurs, pictures of cavemen drawing dinosaurs in cave walls, and such. And why do anyone want them to be and remain ignorant? Because they want to build a teocracy out of USA. I cannot find another reasonable other solution...
The Young Earth Creationists propagandists are using superstiotion in the disguise of religion...
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo problem, I'd much rather have a discussion than a fight. It would be interesting to hear what Behe has to say first hand, anyway.
let me find the section in the transcript and if i can you may evaluate it for yourself, i was reading it earlier, but its late and my mind is fried, it may have to wait till tomorrow.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnastheir problem stems from their misunderstanding of the genesis account, for as soon as you put a limitation, on the length of these creative days, (i have no idea how a young earth creationist comes to this understanding that the length of a creative day is a twenty four hour period) for Paul clearly states that thousands of years later god was still 'resting' on the seventh creative 'day', thus Fabian what you are witnessing, is a fundamental misunderstanding of a simple theological principle and as a direct consequence all other assertions made on this basis are erroneous.
"no i do not agree with him"
So you think this fundamentalist creationist in particular are wrong and deluded?
"why do creationists insist that these co existed and were present in the days of Noah, i cannot tell? does anyone know?"
Because someone wants them to be deluded and ignorant from the real sientific truths. Like the Genesis Museum, who fak ...[text shortened]... oung Earth Creationists propagandists are using superstiotion in the disguise of religion...
now what happens when one does this, he is forced, by logic based on the chronology, to assume, that the great reptiles co inhabited the earth with man, you are forced to call into question the legitimacy of radio carbon dating, you are forced in effect, to question all sorts of well established scientific processes, in order to establish your theology. Thus what you have is a belief, and a belief founded on an incorrect evaluation, masquerading as science, and like all castles made of sand, it will fall into the sea, eventually.
actually i have not read any of their literature, how they propose to establish their theories, this is just my guess, that by attributing a literal twenty four hour period to the creative days, they are in trouble.
is our friend KellyJay a young earth creationist? will he not talk? it is a great pity, for from what i can gather, he has provided you guys with much amusement and entertainment.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs carbon dating really under any dispute by science?
their problem stems from their misunderstanding of the genesis account, for as soon as you put a limitation, on the length of these creative days, (i have no idea how a young earth creationist comes to this understanding that the length of a creative day is a twenty four hour period) for Paul clearly states that thousands of years later god was still for from what i can gather, he has provided you guys with much amusement and entertainment.
Further, is really C14 method used when dealing with 65 million of years old fossils?
And still further, is there only one method used to establis the time-frame fo the estinction of the dinosaurs?
Now, this is the kind of questions that should be asked by every fundamentalist claiming that he knows about science.
Even if we are a bit lose in interpretating the days of the genesis. The steps of the creating is not even in the right order as the genesis myth.
But we do agree that some fundamentalists know far less than other fundamentalists about science.
How about you: Do you believe god created evolution or not?
Originally posted by sonhouseand why not, even though they are treated as different fields, abiogenesis and evolution, they amount to the same thing in reality, a purely materialistic approach to the explanation of the diversity of life! 😀
Well if you know they are separate issues why are you harping on evolutionists as if they were trying to create something out of nothing?
The Ants were blowing in the wind, I guess🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…abiogenesis and evolution, they amount to the SAME thing in reality, a purely MATERIALISTIC approach to the explanation of the DIVERSITY of life!
and why not, even though they are treated as different fields, abiogenesis and evolution, they amount to the same thing in reality, a purely materialistic approach to the explanation of the diversity of life! 😀
… (my emphasis)
1, abiogenesis is not a study of the “DIVERSITY” of life thus they don’t even have that in common: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
If it wasn’t for evolution, life may have got started but there may have been no diversity of life whatsoever (unless it got independently restarted many times).
2, I suppose you could say that the scientific research into ALL fields of sciences uses a “MATERIALISTIC approach” -I mean, how can it not be a “MATERIALISTIC approach” when it is evidenced-based i.e. observable through your PHYSICAL eyes and PHYSICAL ears?
So using your logic here, ALL sciences are the “SAME” because they ALL use a “MATERIALISTIC approach” -so the study of ants is the “SAME” as the study of stars? and these two things “amount to the SAME thing in reality”?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo can you explain why you still don’t understand what evolution is?
yes, i have the origin of the species before me right now, wordsworth edition, general editor tom Griffth, and i have read up to page 204, hybridism, and i will try to make a correct evaluation for myself. 🙂 i will say this for Darwin, he is refreshingly more objective than many of his devotees.
-you still think abiogenesis equates with evolution.
I fail to see how you could read so much and understand so little of what you read.
Did Darwin ever write “….evolution (i.e. abiogenesis)….”?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI guess that means you champion him because he is a professor in a relevant field who says what you want to hear.
because my dear friend, this is exactly my point, each one must make his own evaluation of the respective interpretations and findings of the eminent scientists, to exclude one at the behest of the others, is hardly objective is it? Look at Fabians for example, he knows nothing of Behe yet he claims exclusive rights to decry that all in opposition a ...[text shortened]... self, once i finish the Edge of Evolution, i will be better placed to make my own evaluation. 🙂
But if you focus on his academic credibilty, you can't just shrug off the fact that peer-reviewed articles proved him wrong and the unscientific nature of his own hypothesis. And when a certain scholar goes against the bulk of the scientific community, that usually means he's wrong. At least it's a case of remarkable claims needing remarkable evidence, which Behe doesn't seem to provide.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonsigh and yawn, scratches his bum, thankyou Andrew, now if you do not mind, i prefer to discuss things rather than having to deal with an incoming all the time, either lighten up or assimilate someone else, yes resistance is futile, i realise that, but i am still forming my views and as yet, like Behe (peace be upon him), have not yet limited my view to unintelligent causes. 😉
[b]…abiogenesis and evolution, they amount to the SAME thing in reality, a purely MATERIALISTIC approach to the explanation of the DIVERSITY of life!
… (my emphasis)
1, abiogenesis is not a study of the “DIVERSITY” of life thus they don’t even have that in common: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
If it wasn’t for evolution, ...[text shortened]... is the “SAME” as the study of stars? and these two things “amount to the SAME thing in reality”?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by DdVwhat Behe 'believes', and yes, lets be quite honest here, thats what it amounts to 'a belief', is that in view of the 'lack of evidence', at present, for a purely natural or materialistic explanation to the origin and/or the diversity of life, he is then, form what he can discern, almost 'forced to adopt', that an intelligence was involved, and he tries to substantiate this through the mechanisms of irreducible complexity.
I guess that means you champion him because he is a professor in a relevant field who says what you want to hear.
But if you focus on his academic credibilty, you can't just shrug off the fact that peer-reviewed articles proved him wrong and the unscientific nature of his own hypothesis. And when a certain scholar goes against the bulk of the scientific commu a case of remarkable claims needing remarkable evidence, which Behe doesn't seem to provide.
he does not rule out, and this is worth noting, for it is in the court case transcript, that as time progresses, evidence may be found which conclusively shows that life its origin and diversity were the result of purely materialistic causes, but at the present time, he cannot state with any certainty, that it is entirely the result of materialistic causes (due to lack of evidence, mainly from what i have read of the courts transcript, the fossil record was mentioned) and thus, he is forced to conclude that it suggests that intelligence was involved.
hopefully this is clear, and yes, i do not deny that Behe says things that i like to hear, i am a theologian for goodness sake, what do you expect?
Originally posted by FabianFnasI have yet seen no evidence, either biblically nor scientifically which shows conclusively, that God used the evolutionary process. have you?
Is carbon dating really under any dispute by science?
Further, is really C14 method used when dealing with 65 million of years old fossils?
And still further, is there only one method used to establis the time-frame fo the estinction of the dinosaurs?
Now, this is the kind of questions that should be asked by every fundamentalist claiming that he knows ...[text shortened]... er fundamentalists about science.
How about you: Do you believe god created evolution or not?
Originally posted by PBE6here is the link to professor Behes cross examination, its really really interesting, i was reading it on the edge of my seat, as if i was watching some nineteen fifties thriller set in some dark Lagoon. i did not reproduce it here due to its length - regards Robbie.
No problem, I'd much rather have a discussion than a fight. It would be interesting to hear what Behe has to say first hand, anyway.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm132
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAt least we can agree that Behe's position is one of faith and not of science. To augment the point, I have a few quotes:
what Behe 'believes', and yes, lets be quite honest here, thats what it amounts to 'a belief', is that in view of the 'lack of evidence', at present, for a purely natural or materialistic explanation to the origin and/or the diversity of life, he is then, form what he can discern, almost 'forced to adopt', that an intelligence was involved, and he t ...[text shortened]... ys things that i like to hear, i am a theologian for goodness sake, what do you expect?
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. 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."
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
"Behe said he had come up with his own "broader" definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. "The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it," he says.
Rothschild suggested that Behe's definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178