4 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobactually noobster my illustrious friend, your view merely reflects what old Jim Hawkins, err i mean Steve Hawkins stated, but its not that simple.
Behe is a creationist, he doesn't believe in evolution he believes that there is a designer.
His claims of irreducible complexity have been rebuffed, and by his own admission his methods cannot be called 'science'. They are his beliefs.
There is no evidence of a designer other than in scripture. What is there to debate??
Behe started out as a rank evolutionist, read Michael Dentons book, Evolution, a theory in crisis and it changed his perceptions, he then formed his theories, which as you are aware, have been rejected, although at present i am working my way through the reasoning (it will take some time for me to locate and read them all, even the ones that i have read, are not very convincing, for scientists, unlike creationists are limited to what is plausible by the very nature of the evolutionary hypothesis, we creationists, like the Sith, are able to deal in absolutes 😉, then, apparently his views have changed, for he accepts, in his latest work, the edge of evolution, of which critics have stated that he accepts almost all of the evolutionary hypothesis except for random mutations. i do not know if he accepts that it is theorised that we came from other primates etc, for the work itself suggests that there are limits to the hypothesis, all these things need time and reflection to evaluate properly, in the meantime bring old Steve over here to i slap his forehead!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm so tired about fundamentalists who want to discuss their beliefs when they feel they are up vith clever arguments, but give up completely when they have to admit that they don't know anything about they are trying to debate. You for one, KellyJay for another.
actually Fabian i have grown tired and really have no appetite to debate this with you.
Trying to discuss things with a help of science when it suit them, denying science when it suit them. Thats how fundamentalists.
Using scienctists having the right opinions (Behe) but deny scientists then they go against their opinions (Darwin).
It is impossible to usie science when talking creationism and intelligent designer. Because intelligent design is *not* science. (Tell me what a designer can be without using supernatural being. See?)
Okay, bail out. Just as KJ does. Go and hide in the skirts of your priest. Go and be a true fundamentalist. Becase you don't know much about what science really is, anyway.
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnaswhy would i hide in the skirts of a priest, your foaming at the mouth, and what I know and whether its up to you to tell me what i know, is probably the most arrogant thing i think i have heard for a while, you have never even heard of Micheal J Behe, until it was brought to your attention, did we cry, my goodness where has this man been hiding, what an ill informed ignorant buffoon he purports to be, did we, no we did not, because we realise that no one can know all there is to know, for interests are wide spread and differing.
I'm so tired about fundamentalists who want to discuss their beliefs when they feel they are up vith clever arguments, but give up completely when they have to admit that they don't know anything about they are trying to debate. You for one, KellyJay for another.
Trying to discuss things with a help of science when it suit them, denying science when it ...[text shortened]... nd be a true fundamentalist. Becase you don't know much about what science really is, anyway.
let me help you realise a little secret which may help you with your attitude, when you realise that everyone has their own evaluation of these things, you will then make room for that evaluation, even though it differs from yours, the consequences of which, are, that instead of pontificating to them from your thrown of infallible one world vision and handing out decrees, you will realise that there are differing levels of understanding, as in art, as in chess, and you just may, in the process, realise, that it is real, to them.
why you cannot simply share information in the same manner as PBE6, without getting hysterical, is as yet, a mystery!
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you believe we evolved from apes?
why would i hide in the skirts of a priest, your foaming at the mouth, and what I know and whether its up to you to tell me what i know, is probably the most arrogant thing i think i have heard for a while, you have never even heard of Micheal J Behe, until it was brought to your attention, did we cry, my goodness where has this man been hiding, what ...[text shortened]... share information in the same manner as PBE6, without getting hysterical, is as yet, a mystery!
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobwhat has my belief got to do with anything, its simply me evaluation, and is completely irrelevant to anyone but me, i think it would be better to try to be objective and examine the 'evidence', or lack of it, for even now, it is a matter of controversy, at least in my mind. that's all i can say at this point ol noobster my friend, for there have been, as you may or may not be aware, in the past attempts made to make up for the lack of data, or attempts made to construe the data to the hypothesis,
Do you believe we evolved from apes?
for example, the ill fated Ramapithecus, constructed from a lower Jawbone and a few teeth, an entire skeletal structure. its like finding a tyre and trying to construct the design of the entire model. thus the whole genre is littered with outlandish claims, outright deception and what is established today, is gone tomorrow. dont believe me?
Australopithecus,
The New York Times: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.”
Man, Time, and Fossils written by Ruth Moore said of Austrolepithecus: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.”
what happens is that after new evidence is uncovered, that which was made of sand, gets washed into the sea.
Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian, not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”
He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”
Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”
Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”
Homo erectus, human or simian?
Neanderthal man - human!
Cro-Magnon man - human
what is someone supposed to conclude from this noobster? other than apes are apes and humans are humans. i do not deny variety within a species, thus within the two realms there is variety, those ancient fossils unearthed seem to be simply varieties of humans, and those of apes apes, this is the evidence as i see it, and it just so happens to coincide with my religious beliefs also, who would have thought? 🙂
5 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseLol, Behe lives, peace be upon him for ever and ever amen! let us remove those tawdry effigies of Hawkins and replace them with the new genius of the universe, yes, come friends, we shall offer up incense to the living one, in honour of his illustrious name, M.J.Behe, professor of biochemistry!
With good reason🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut then your point (Behe's stance on evolution is credible because he is a scientist in a related field) is mute, because what Behe claims has been rejected in peer-reviewed literature.
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?
And since you don't seem to claim Behe's opinion on evolution and design is scientifically sound, my own point is mute too 🙂
Originally posted by DdVits really ironic, i went into the discussion, thinking that i agreed with Behe, and find, in the midst of the melee, that i don't really.
But then your point (Behe's stance on evolution is credible because he is a scientist in a related field) is mute, because what Behe claims has been rejected in peer-reviewed literature.
And since you don't seem to claim Behe's opinion on evolution and design is scientifically sound, my own point is mute too 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStill wants to discuss the matter with me? Or not? You cannot have it both ways.
why would i hide in the skirts of a priest, your foaming at the mouth, and what I know and whether its up to you to tell me what i know, is probably the most arrogant thing i think i have heard for a while, you have never even heard of Micheal J Behe, until it was brought to your attention, did we cry, my goodness where has this man been hiding, what ...[text shortened]... share information in the same manner as PBE6, without getting hysterical, is as yet, a mystery!
If you still want to be here and discuss the matter, then behave like a grown up, and not like a child suddenly being tired.
This Behe hero of yours, is he a fundamentalist? Does he have anything important to say? Or is he just one of thousands to think he nearer to god than anyone else? Does he deserve to be known by anyone? No, he's just another creationist, nothing more. Why is he so important?
Before you got tierd, I posed some questions to you, robbie, do you care to answer them, or are you stil tired?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnaswhy don't you buy one of his books and find out! or search the web, there is plenty of stuff there.
Still wants to discuss the matter with me? Or not? You cannot have it both ways.
If you still want to be here and discuss the matter, then behave like a grown up, and not like a child suddenly being tired.
This Behe hero of yours, is he a fundamentalist? Does he have anything important to say? Or is he just one of thousands to think he nearer to god t ierd, I posed some questions to you, robbie, do you care to answer them, or are you stil tired?
Look Fabian, can you not discern it, isn't it obvious, its just a ragged clown behind the words, i wouldn't pay it any mind, its just a shadow you see that hes chasing, furthermore its not aimed at anyone and is just escaping on the run.
If you want a serious debate, try the debates forum, or KellyJay, that other good for nothing fundamentalist that knows nothing, perhaps he will exhibit more patience, one wonders what may have transpired between you, did you humiliate him, why would you want to do that? no one likes to be left without any dignity, do they. is it your crusade to purge the science forum, of any contrary belief, any heretical concepts, just ask and i will leave, no problem.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not interested in Behe, he's a religious fundamentalists who use Science to get authority. If he really was a scientists then he would understand evolution enough not to disregard it. You are worshipping a wrong prophet.
why don't you buy one of his books and find out! or search the web, there is plenty of stuff there.
Look Fabian, can you not discern it, isn't it obvious, its just a ragged clown behind the words, i wouldn't pay it any mind, its just a shadow you see that hes chasing, furthermore its not aimed at anyone and is just escaping on the run.
If you ...[text shortened]... forum, of any contrary belief, any heretical concepts, just ask and i will leave, no problem.
You've heard the reason why Intelligent Design isn't science, and cannot be. So Intelligent Design shouldn't be discussed in Science Forum in the first place, but in Spiritual Forum, as it is a part of religion.
If you persist thinking that ID is Science, answer this question: Who is this great designer of yours? Is he within the laws of Physics (a normal man, therefore treatable as normal science)? Or is he outside the laws of Psysics (a God, therefore not science, therefore *no* treatable in normal science)? The answer of this question gives the answer where you can go preach ID, in the Science Forum or in the Spiritual Forum.
KellyJay doesn't want to answer any questions from me anymore. But he still loves to be in the Science Forum, showing his ignorance about science things. He also thinks that his religion is Science, yet not wanting to learn anything.
4 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasyou are not interested, well that fine, but i state it again, regardless, the man is a professor of biochemistry, you cannot deny that he must know something about evolution to have attained that position, can you?
I'm not interested in Behe, he's a religious fundamentalists who use Science to get authority. If he really was a scientists then he would understand evolution enough not to disregard it. You are worshipping a wrong prophet.
You've heard the reason why Intelligent Design isn't science, and cannot be. So Intelligent Design shouldn't be discussed in Scie ce things. He also thinks that his religion is Science, yet not wanting to learn anything.
and i would also like to point out, that all that has been mentioned to 'debunk', his theories is that they have been refuted in other peer reviewed publications, which Behe himself has shown is quite erroneous, due to misrepresentation, for at in least one instance, the argument that was used against him, was adopted by the very people who sought to discredit him in the case of his own hypothesis with regard to the flagellum. therefore either produce the goodies and make with the readies in the form of sound scientific refutation or shut up! the evidence is there, i have read it, but i am not going to produce it for your benefit.
i thought that it was universally acknowledged that God, not being a physical entity, cannot be subject to the same form of analysis, as one would examine a peach, or an apple.
and just for the record, i do not think that my religion is science. science is merely an expedient for providing support, although not essentially necessary, for that which is true scripturally, like archaeology or astronomy, it lends support but proves nothing, the sooner you realise this the better for everyone.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"... the man is a professor of biochemistry, you cannot deny that he must know something about evolution to have attained that position, can you?"
you are not interested, well that fine, but i state it again, regardless, the man is a professor of biochemistry, you cannot deny that he must know something about evolution to have attained that position, can you?
and i would also like to point out, that all that has been mentioned to 'debunk', his theories is that they have been refuted in othe ...[text shortened]... omy, it lends support but proves nothing, the sooner you realise this the better for everyone.
But he is a creationist, isn't he? Then he cannot be much of a scientist, can he? He cannot have it both ways. People try that from time to time and fail.
"i thought that it was universally acknowledged that God, not being a physical entity, cannot be subject to the same form of analysis, as one would examine a peach, or an apple."
I agree totally of this. Religion and science cannot ever mix. Creationism is religion, becase the existance of god, or a designer, is the basic core of it all. How would you prove such an existance scientifically? So if your axiom (a supernational designer exist) relies heavily of a religious belief, then everything after that be religious too, right?
Are you totally sure that this 'intelligent designer' of yours is the same as the christian god? Perhaps a Hindu god is a better choise? If not, how can you prove this? Scientifically or otherwise?
Let's agree that creationism isn't science. If you do that, we can have long and nice cosy discussion of the subject. But you constantly telling me that creationism is science is a big obstacle to that.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…you cannot deny that he must know something about evolution to have attained that position, can you?
you are not interested, well that fine, but i state it again, regardless, the man is a professor of biochemistry, you cannot deny that he must know something about evolution to have attained that position, can you?
and i would also like to point out, that all that has been mentioned to 'debunk', his theories is that they have been refuted in othe ...[text shortened]... omy, it lends support but proves nothing, the sooner you realise this the better for everyone.
…
Judging from the fact that evolutionary biologists have debunked his most central claims, he apparently doesn’t know nearly as much about evolution as they do.
So why trust his say-so over others that obviously know a lot more about evolution than he does?
…the evidence is there, i have read it, but i am not going to produce it for your benefit.
..…
Are you afraid that one of us would point out obvious logical flaws in his reasoning?
I challenge you to show this ‘evidence’ so that we have a chance to analyse it!
If it is truly valid (i.e. his conclusion logically follows from the evidence) then there wouldn’t be anything we can do to refute it! -so why don’t you go ahead and just show us this ‘evidence’ and just leave us all red-faced!
I have already debunked his argument against flagellum evolution (unless it was just your argument?) -just merely by pointing out virtually all the basic parts of the flagellum were already there prior to the formation of the first flagellum but, as can be still be seen in living cells that live TODAY, had different functions from that of the flagellum.
…. thought that it was universally acknowledged that God, not being a physical entity, cannot be subject to the SAME form of analysis, as one would examine a peach, or an apple.
…
Exactly!
Therefore, why would his “existence” (if “he exists&rdquo😉 be deducible from anything in the physical world just like the existence of other physical entities are deducible from other things in the physical world? -if that was true then that would mean that, in at least that sense, “he” should be subject to the SAME form of analysis as a physical entity! -but, if as you said, “he” cannot be subject to the SAME form of analysis as a physical entity, then there shouldn’t be any set of observations/known facts about the physical world that you can use to deduce that “he” exists by somehow rationally ‘deducing’, for example, that living things were designed by “him”.
…science is merely an expedient for providing support, although not essentially necessary, for that which is true scripturally, like archaeology or astronomy,
…
I am not sure what you mean by “true scripturally” in the context of archaeology and astronomy -can you clarify?
Archaeology and astronomy are SCIENCES and are only and CAN only be supported by scientific method else they wouldn’t be true “sciences”.
So I don’t know what you mean by “…science is merely an expedient for providing support, although NOT essentially necessary,…” -I mean, all true “sciences” are, by definition of “science”, necessarily supported by scientific method which is thus an essential component of all sciences -right? -I apologise in advance if I have misunderstood your meaning here -if I have misunderstood then what do you mean?