- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by frogstompJohn 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born
of the Spirit is spirit.
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou ...[text shortened]... th, and whither it goeth: so
is every one that is born of the Spirit.
try and understand
Try to understand. In order to believe you need faith.
Originally posted by yousersI see my post has been met with silence as was Behe's book. Does anyone have a reply, refutation, anything?
I see you are familiiar with Behe and Dembski and the Intelligent Design movement. Perhaps they have theistic beliefs or perhaps they are troubled by some problems within evolutionary theory. Your lumping of them into the category "creationist" and subsequent disregard for their argument is precisely my complaint about biologists today.
Let me elobora ...[text shortened]... on, then I cannot accept any of these notions as more true than any other postulated explanation
Originally posted by yousersIf you are interested in a rebuttal of Behe and Dembski, check out this week's New Yorker. There is an excellent response in there from a professor of biology. The article is titled "Devolution".
I see my post has been met with silence as was Behe's book. Does anyone have a reply, refutation, anything?
Originally posted by bbarrCan't find it online. Can you give me a website?
If you are interested in a rebuttal of Behe and Dembski, check out this week's New Yorker. There is an excellent response in there from a professor of biology. The article is titled "Devolution".
Originally posted by bbarrGreat article, thank you. A lot of theorizing has shown that construction of these things are possible. I would side with Behe, however in pushing that such a chance situation happening in multiple cases is highly, HIGHLY unlikely. So I could safely say that his findings are not proof of the falsity of evoltionary forces, but they are rather strong evidence.
Weird, the article has a different title in the online version than in the print version. Here is the URL:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
Originally posted by yousersMet with silence? Who sold you that crap? What a smug lie.
I see my post has been met with silence as was Behe's book. Does anyone have a reply, refutation, anything?
Here is a link to a bunch of responses. It has other information on Behe, and some criticisms of his other works.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html
Surely when you say silence, you don't mean to suggest that academic journal articles should have been written in response do you?
After all Behe chose to put his ID ideas into the popular press rather than in academic journals. He really shouldn't be so arrogant as to expect scientists to take time out of their important research to write and publish whole damn books just about his ideas?
That said, Robert Pennock, and other academics, have challenged him in the popular press.
Originally posted by telerionAhh, there's that anger I was talking about. How dare I bring evidence against this well-accept scientific fact!
Met with silence? Who sold you that crap? What a smug lie.
Here is a link to a bunch of responses. It has other information on Behe, and some criticisms of his other works.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html
Surely when you say silence, you don't mean to suggest that academic journal articles should have been ...[text shortened]...
That said, Robert Pennock, and other academics, have challenged him in the popular press.
I will stick to my reply above. Most attacks on Behe are attacks on Intelligent Design; they are convincing and I am not prepared to defend ID. But, when we really confront the problem that Behe has pointed out, there is no doubt that evolution has a difficulty explaining these complex systems. I see there has been much work done to make evolution of these things plausible. It remains, however that they are highly improbable - this constitutes for me empiricle evidence against evolution (not proof).
Ahh, there's that anger I was talking about.
Don't be so smug. I'm not angry at all. The forum makes it difficult to convey emotion. My attitude was more of a condescending laugh.
Your statement that Behe has not been answered appeared to me to me a grand bit of wishful thinking. I corrected you, as did others.
Yousers, it's not as if Behe and the gang are sitting on the some brilliant idea. It's been formalized since Paley's time (late 1700's). Before that it was implicitly assumed by creationists. Your sounding less and less like an inquisitive student and more like another sold out member of the Behe/Dembski fan club. Quit blowing smoke up the dude's butt and get back to discussion.
How dare I bring evidence against this well-accept scientific fact!
This martyr complex is so typical and so pathetic. Cut it out.
Most attacks on Behe are attacks on Intelligent Design; they are convincing and I am not prepared to defend ID. But, when we really confront the problem that Behe has pointed out, there is no doubt that evolution has a difficulty explaining these complex systems.
Now this is more like it. The extent to which his work points out new dilemmas for evolutionary theory to explain it is a very valuable endeavor. The degree to which he's trying to back door Jesus Christ into the classroom by erecting a facade of ambiguity, he is doing us all a great disservice.
I see there has been much work done to make evolution of these things plausible. It remains, however that they are highly improbable - this constitutes for me empiricle evidence against evolution (not proof).
Highly improbable in what sense? Are we discussing abiogenesis or evolution? Also when you talk about probabilities are you referring to unconditional probabilities or probabilities conditional on the occurence of other events?
Originally posted by telerionWhen I say improbable I am referring to the most common explanation for the formation of these "irreducibly complex" structures. It has been shown that some of the components of the bacterial flagella, blood clotting cascade, and other examples presented by Behe could have been or are present in other systems. So the basic idea is that the components of these things evolved within separate systems perhaps serving completely different purposes. I can buy that, we know at least some of them appear to have done so. But then, there is this jump in which we need all the components to assemble correctly (randomly mind you) in order to have a functional structure which is advantageous. I am a little wary of the chances of such an event occurring.
[b]Ahh, there's that anger I was talking about.
Don't be so smug. I'm not angry at all. The forum makes it difficult to convey emotion. My attitude was more of a condescending laugh.
Your statement that Behe has not been answered appeared to me to me a grand bit of wishful thinking. I corrected you, as did others.
Yousers, it's not as ...[text shortened]... unconditional probabilities or probabilities conditional on the occurence of other events?
[/b]
In time the question will be answered. Molecular evolution is really untestable at the moment. It is just going to take a lot more understanding of genetics, a few breakthroughs on current problems, and the technology in order to test it. But it isn't the case that scientists are hiding behind ideas that will never be tested. They will, probably within this century.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by PotatoErrorSo you are saying that "nothing" was able to do what man has failed to do in more than 100 years? i.e. create life from non-life?
In time the question will be answered. Molecular evolution is really untestable at the moment. It is just going to take a lot more understanding of genetics, a few breakthroughs on current problems, and the technology in order to test it. But it isn't the case that scientists are hiding behind ideas that will never be tested. They will, probably within this century.