1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI have read "The Blind Watchmaker".
Scott,
I had a chance to speak to Professor Michael Behe, the author of [b]"Darwin's Black Box" ( the book that evolutionists say is no good but most have never read).
When he came to a local university I went to specifically ask him a question at the end of his lecture. I asked him what would he say to those critics who say that Behe has ju ed from more than one angle.
Have you read "The Blind Watchmaker"?[/b]
Did you know that Behe's own colleagues in his own university department do not agree with his stance on ID?
Behe's entire thesis basically comes down to this, "I don't believe it could have evolved, therefore it didn't". Doesn't that seem ludicrous to you?
Originally posted by jaywillNothing to do with my dislike (which is acute, however). It's simply to do with the lack of objective evidence.
Scott,
You are suppose to be the dispassionate and objective seeker of the truth.
How come all of your responses concerning the possibility of design in creation sound like "I don't like this God of yours"?
You are not allowing for the possibility that the designer may indeed be someone not likeable. Does your not liking the designer make intelligent design not possible?
Originally posted by jaywillWell, Behe makes a mistake that many creationists make. They assume that conditions now are as they always must have been. This is not true. Predators and prey co-evolve, indeed competition within the species leads to evolution.
Let me guess. You haven't read the book for yourself. You were told that every page has been refuted.
So you jump on the band wagon and go with the party line "Behe's trash has been refuted"
I looked up some of these specific "refutations" and found some of them weak indeed. For instance the refutation about the irreducible complex nature of a mou ...[text shortened]... an evolution might arrive at such a process in stages?
Where's the refutation?
Originally posted by XanthosNZThis is the funny part for me, if they agree with you they are
Behe's trash has been refuted by proper scientists doing proper science.
"proper scientists" and they do proper work, if they do not agree the
work they do is "trash". So if you want to be a proper scientist the way
to do that is only agree with the doctrine of faith of the fellow scientist.
No wonder there are no proper scientist who accept who disagree with
you, as soon as they do they are not proper in your estimation.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZI don't know why you feel the need to respond to my last and say this
No actually that's just what you think Evolution is. Evolution is a well-defined process that everything undergoes. Life from non-life is abiogenesis as has been explained to you many many times before.
care to explain what it was I said that didn't agree with what you just
said? You spend more time reading things into what I wrote instead of
actually looking at what I say. I know evolution is a process, where
I'm in disagreement with you and others is that abiogenesis was at
the beginning of the process and it all started after life from non-life
without any plan direction or design in any part of it, I don't think you
can get here from that starting point of non-life to life without God, I
do believe there are changes within life but those changes started
after creation when we had fully developed starting points in other
words the original kinds. It is much easier for me to accept that there
are changes within kinds through time than from dead dirt to the
variety we see today. I believe it much easier to accept small changes
within kinds that can account for variations on a theme so to speak,
but only in already established themes to begin with.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzFunny that jay is now using a source that believes that the earth is old and that evolution is responsible for speciation after the basic organisms designed by Go . . . uh, the "intelligent designer."
Well, Behe makes a mistake that many creationists make. They assume that conditions now are as they always must have been. This is not true. Predators and prey co-evolve, indeed competition within the species leads to evolution.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy don't you read the court transcripts of Behe being cross examined in the Dover trial? Then you'd see what a sucker he really is. Behe had already killed his academic career. After Dover, his career marketing books to the religious took a big hit too.
This is the funny part for me, if they agree with you they are
"proper scientists" and they do proper work, if they do not agree the
work they do is "trash". So if you want to be a proper scientist the way
to do that is only agree with the doctrine of faith of the fellow scientist.
No wonder there are no proper scientist who accept who disagree with
you, as soon as they do they are not proper in your estimation.
Kelly
It's just too bad Dembski pulled out at the last minute (once he saw that the judge might rule on the scientific status of ID). For anyone with a bit of a math background, that guys work is emperor's clothes.
Originally posted by telerionYou have a link for that? I will read it.
Why don't you read the court transcripts of Behe being cross examined in the Dover trial? Then you'd see what a sucker he really is. Behe had already killed his academic career. After Dover, his career marketing books to the religious took a big hit too.
It's just too bad Dembski pulled out at the last minute (once he saw that the judge might rule on ...[text shortened]... us of ID). For anyone with a bit of a math background, that guys work is emperor's clothes.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzScott,
I have read "The Blind Watchmaker".
Did you know that Behe's own colleagues in his own university department do not agree with his stance on ID?
Behe's entire thesis basically comes down to this, "I don't believe it could have evolved, therefore it didn't". Doesn't that seem ludicrous to you?
What am I suppose to do? Am I suppose to drop my jaw because Behe's own colleagues don't agree with him ?
So you only read books where all the writer's colleagues agree with the author?
2 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou have had a pretty long time now. Where is the refutation to the section of Darwin's Black Box on the blood clotting cascade?
Behe's trash has been refuted by proper scientists doing proper science.
All the trash has been so easily refuted. Right? You should have it at your fingertips.
I want to read the specific rebuttal to Behe's discussion on blood clotting. Where is the best refutation of it that you have studied and can recommend?
XANTHOSNZ, this is specifically for YOU.
Originally posted by KellyJayhttp://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm
You have a link for that? I will read it.
Kelly
I'd start on day 11 pm session, on page 32. The cross up to that point is just a quibble over whether Behe really is a co-author of the new version of "Of Pandas and People."
By page 39 he makes his first big mistake when he admits that his formal redefinition of "scientific theory," which he finds necessary to promote ID to that distinction, also makes astrology a scientific theory.
Originally posted by telerionThank you, I'll start on it now.
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm
I'd start on day 11 pm session, on page 32. The cross up to that point is just a quibble over whether Behe really is a co-author of the new version of "Of Pandas and People."
By page 39 he makes his first big mistake when he admits that his formal redefinition o ...[text shortened]... inds necessary to promote ID to that distinction, also makes astrology a scientific theory.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionIt will take some time to get through it, I have started it but don't
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm
I'd start on day 11 pm session, on page 32. The cross up to that point is just a quibble over whether Behe really is a co-author of the new version of "Of Pandas and People."
By page 39 he makes his first big mistake when he admits that his formal redefinition o ...[text shortened]... inds necessary to promote ID to that distinction, also makes astrology a scientific theory.
want to spend the full morning reading it. Thanks again for the link.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI understand. There are a lot of pages and two other sessions to boot! Fortunately the format allows you to read a page in under a minute so it's not as bad as say reading a 200 page book.
It will take some time to get through it, I have started it but don't
want to spend the full morning reading it. Thanks again for the link.
Kelly