- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonshipi dont get it....you will have to help me out here. this appears to be a purely scientific argument.
I gleaned that recent experiments concerning chemical resistence in digestive processes vindicated explanations previously written by Dr. Behe. That is explanations which were strenuously criticized by some vocal opponents to ID.
A new paper came out from the National Academy of Sciences which confirmed Dr. Behe's previous assertions highlighting the l ...[text shortened]... et the essence of the two speakers' conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyK7FyNnx0w
in what way does it support i.d???
Originally posted by stellspalfieI don't get you?
i dont get it....you will have to help me out here. this appears to be a purely scientific argument.
in what way does it support i.d???
What does it being a purely scientific argument have to do with it not being in confirmation of Intelligent Design ?
This seems a false dichotomy.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipi mean there is no inference of intelligent design in the discussion. where does the 'design' bit come in??? he may mention design in his interview a few times....but where does it come in, in the science??? it doesnt, can you point to the bit in behe's scientific research that provides evidence of design????
I don't get you?
What does it being a purely scientific argument have to do with it not being in confirmation of Intelligent Design ?
This seems a false dichotomy.
Originally posted by stellspalfieDo you think that those that don't believe in ID have some inference to
i mean there is no inference of intelligent design in the discussion. where does the 'design' bit come in??? he may mention design in his interview a few times....but where does it come in, in the science??? it doesnt, can you point to the bit in behe's scientific research that provides evidence of design????
their point of view on the topic?
Originally posted by sonshipIt's ridiculous, of course. To falsify the modern form of evolution, one needs to show that any of the following is not the case:
What would you say about his comment on the difficulties of falsifying NeoDarwinian Evolution ?
He turns the tables. I suppose you were skeptical of this also ?
[b] Falsifying Intelligent Design - Dr. Michael Behe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf26zlgZ0es[/b]
- DNA exists.
- DNA influences the phenotype.
- DNA can mutate.
- DNA reproduces.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt is more ridiculous to insist on evolution over creation since it has already been determined that DNA is intelligently programmed to reproduce all the cells of that particular live creation of God. Where else could that programming come from but a super intelligent being like the God of the Holy Bible?
It's ridiculous, of course. To falsify the modern form of evolution, one needs to show that any of the following is not the case:
- DNA exists.
- DNA influences the phenotype.
- DNA can mutate.
- DNA reproduces.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by KellyJayits difficult to point out people on the 'other side'. there is zero scientific evidence for intelligent design, making impossible to distinguish the scientists who have a hidden agenda.
Can you name one on either side that doesn't show it?
to find out who scientists with an agenda are we would need some evidence first that contradicts their beliefs.
its easy in the case of behe because he has produced a scientific paper which has zero evidence for intelligent design. the paper itself doesnt mention intelligent design......yet after its been published he claims it as evidence.
Originally posted by stellspalfieLOL, really zero scientific evidence, no bias here!
its difficult to point out people on the 'other side'. there is zero scientific evidence for intelligent design, making impossible to distinguish the scientists who have a hidden agenda.
to find out who scientists with an agenda are we would need some evidence first that contradicts their beliefs.
its easy in the case of behe because he has prod ...[text shortened]... lf doesnt mention intelligent design......yet after its been published he claims it as evidence.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by KellyJayyou can LOL all day kelly, it doesnt alter the fact that its true.
LOL, really zero scientific evidence, no bias here!
nows your chance to become rich and famous kelly. are you about to become the first man ever to provide scientific evidence for a creator...something even the top christian scientists have not been able to do. the spot lights on you, the stage is all yours....
ladies and gentlemen...straight out of left-field...kellyjay will now take the stage and provide for us some game changing...nay....world changing scientific evidence!!!!
over to you.
Originally posted by stellspalfieActually there is a lot of evidence for design and it has kept building up over the years. Richard Dawkins long ago admitted that biology is the study of living things that appear to be designed. He just did not want to admit the designer was the God of the Holy Bible. When things look designed then that is evidence for design.
you can LOL all day kelly, it doesnt alter the fact that its true.
nows your chance to become rich and famous kelly. are you about to become the first man ever to provide scientific evidence for a creator...something even the top christian scientists have not been able to do. the spot lights on you, the stage is all yours....
ladies and gentlemen ...[text shortened]... rovide for us some game changing...nay....world changing scientific evidence!!!!
over to you.
