1. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    01 Nov '14 11:021 edit
    I spent ten minutes watching and responding to creationist propaganda at the indirect request of josephw, so I only think it's fair that you creationists watch and respond to this video, that exposes creationism for the falsehood it is, and demonstrates how it forces its defenders to lie and deceive. Without further ado, I give you AronRa's "How could creationism not be dishonest?":

    http://tinyurl.com/n7fk7vj
  2. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    01 Nov '14 14:52
    Yo! Creationists, where are you?
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52612
    01 Nov '14 18:45
    Originally posted by C Hess
    I spent ten minutes watching and responding to creationist propaganda at the indirect request of josephw, so I only think it's fair that you creationists watch and respond to this video, that exposes creationism for the falsehood it is, and demonstrates how it forces its defenders to lie and deceive. Without further ado, I give you AronRa's "How could creationism not be dishonest?":

    http://tinyurl.com/n7fk7vj
    Who is that guy, great talk btw. Was he involved in the court case?
  4. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Nov '14 19:07
    Originally posted by C Hess
    I spent ten minutes watching and responding to creationist propaganda at the indirect request of josephw, so I only think it's fair that you creationists watch and respond to this video, that exposes creationism for the falsehood it is, and demonstrates how it forces its defenders to lie and deceive. Without further ado, I give you AronRa's "How could creationism not be dishonest?":

    http://tinyurl.com/n7fk7vj
    I spent 10:59 minutes watching the video and fail to see the exposition you claim.

    Although the speaker maintains an even tone and vocabulary which suggests professionalism and academic rigor, at the core, he is doing exactly what he accuses his opponents of doing: erecting strawmen and then demolishing them.

    The several minutes he devotes to Behe is painful, he is so off the mark.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Nov '14 19:09
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The several minutes he devotes to Behe is painful, he is so off the mark.
    Feel free to try and tell us what the mark actually is.
  6. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Nov '14 19:38
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Feel free to try and tell us what the mark actually is.
    Are there two people at your keyboard?
    Or are you presuming to speak for some unnamed crowd?

    Either way, what the attorney was presenting in supposed rebuttal to Behe's claim of irreducible complexity was no rebuttal at all, but rather an adjacent topic.

    One wonders whether the attorney challenging Behe's reading of the books and 50+ articles read them himself... or if he took it in faith from one of his sources how these writings could be trusted to refute the claim.
  7. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    01 Nov '14 20:021 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Are there two people at your keyboard?
    Or are you presuming to speak for some unnamed crowd?

    Either way, what the attorney was presenting in supposed rebuttal to Behe's claim of irreducible complexity was no rebuttal at all, but rather an adjacent topic.

    One wonders whether the attorney challenging Behe's reading of the books and 50+ articles read t ...[text shortened]... ook it in faith from one of his sources how these writings could be trusted to refute the claim.
    Discrediting an expert witness is a legitimate legal tactic.

    quote:

    Many of Behe's critics have pointed to these exchanges as examples they believe further undermine Behe's statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. John E. Jones III, the judge in the case, would ultimately rule that intelligent design is not scientific in his 139-page decision, citing Behe's testimony extensively as the basis for his findings:

    "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."[47]
    "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."[47]
    "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."[48]
    "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."[49]
    "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."[50]
    "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."[51]
    "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."[52]
    "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."[53]
    "In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."[54]
    "With ID, 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. ... 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."[55]

    Jones would later say that Eric Rothschild's cross examination of Behe was "as good a cross-examination of an expert witness as I have ever seen. It was textbook."[56][57]

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
  8. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    01 Nov '14 20:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Who is that guy, great talk btw. Was he involved in the court case?
    No, he wasn't involved in the case. I just recently found out about him through rationalwiki:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/AronRa
  9. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    01 Nov '14 20:26
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    ...what the attorney was presenting in supposed rebuttal to Behe's claim of irreducible complexity was no rebuttal at all, but rather an adjacent topic.
    The books and articles that Behe refused to acknowledge was all about how the complexity Behe calls irreducable could arise naturally. How is that irrelevant?
  10. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    01 Nov '14 20:30
    Originally posted by JS357

    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.
    😵
  11. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93309
    01 Nov '14 21:09
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Are there two people at your keyboard?
    Or are you presuming to speak for some unnamed crowd?

    Either way, what the attorney was presenting in supposed rebuttal to Behe's claim of irreducible complexity was no rebuttal at all, but rather an adjacent topic.

    One wonders whether the attorney challenging Behe's reading of the books and 50+ articles read t ...[text shortened]... ook it in faith from one of his sources how these writings could be trusted to refute the claim.
    what was the adjacent topic?
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    01 Nov '14 22:421 edit
    Originally posted by C Hess
    I spent ten minutes watching and responding to creationist propaganda at the indirect request of josephw, so I only think it's fair that you creationists watch and respond to this video, that exposes creationism for the falsehood it is, and demonstrates how it forces its defenders to lie and deceive. Without further ado, I give you AronRa's "How could creationism not be dishonest?":

    http://tinyurl.com/n7fk7vj
    This AronRa starts off immediately with a lie by saying it is impossible to defend creationism honestly. Then he said the following rather fast:
    There has still never been a single acceptable argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation or biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science.

    I had to play it back several times since he sounds like he is talking with chewing tobacco in his mouth. I believe I quoted him right. Maybe someone can correct me if I heard him wrong. It sounds stupid to me.

    I quickly determined that AronRA was one of those stupid people that believes explanations are good as long as magic evolutionary words are used.

    Since this concerned his response to someone that had criticized him, I figured I had listen to enough after 4 minutes and there was no need to listen to the rest of his ranting, since I could hardly understand him anyway with his mouth full of chewing tobacco or whatever. I would have to keep playing back every few words and would probably be all day trying to figure out what nonsense he was saying. Not worth my intelligent effort.

    Miraculous creation of the camel

    YouTube
  13. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    01 Nov '14 23:09
    Originally posted by C Hess
    I spent ten minutes watching and responding to creationist propaganda at the indirect request of josephw, so I only think it's fair that you creationists watch and respond to this video, that exposes creationism for the falsehood it is, and demonstrates how it forces its defenders to lie and deceive. Without further ado, I give you AronRa's "How could creationism not be dishonest?":

    http://tinyurl.com/n7fk7vj
    Why do you think there is only one creation story..................given to us all by Christianity?

    There is the false creation story and there is the true creation story.

    The Vedas are presenting the true.

    If you haven't figured out yet that Christianity is full of falsehoods then you are not sincere.
  14. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Nov '14 23:09
    Originally posted by JS357
    Discrediting an expert witness is a legitimate legal tactic.

    quote:

    Many of Behe's critics have pointed to these exchanges as examples they believe further undermine Behe's statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. John E. Jones III, the judge in the case, would ultimately rule that intelligent design is not scientific in his 139-p ...[text shortened]... ert witness as I have ever seen. It was textbook."[56][57]

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
    Your wall of text notwithstanding, here's a few musings which were not copied and pasted--- excepting, of course, quoting and dissecting your annotated work.

    ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."
    Is observation the main criterion for science?
    Can something be both religious and scientific?

    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."
    Is there a problem here yet?

    ...admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."
    Please--- by all means--- define "scientific community," once and for all.

    "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."
    It still remains to be demonstrated.

    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.
    Hope much?

    Jones would later say that Eric Rothschild's cross examination of Behe was "as good a cross-examination of an expert witness as I have ever seen. It was textbook."
    I wonder how the torch-waving crowd would feel about Jones' views on same-sex marriage.
    Oh, wait: the same folks that are rooting for Jones in this ruling are supporting his stance therein.
    That's a big surprise!

    The fact is, I support Jones' ruling on this one.
    The creationists (or better: the literalists) have gotten it wrong for all the right reasons.
    They're still wrong, but that doesn't make their opposition right.
  15. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    01 Nov '14 23:11
    Originally posted by JS357
    Discrediting an expert witness is a legitimate legal tactic.

    quote:

    Many of Behe's critics have pointed to these exchanges as examples they believe further undermine Behe's statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. John E. Jones III, the judge in the case, would ultimately rule that intelligent design is not scientific in his 139-p ...[text shortened]... ert witness as I have ever seen. It was textbook."[56][57]

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
    A child can hold a leaf in its hand and perceive intelligent design in the leaf and the hand.

    Case closed
Back to Top