Originally posted by telerionWhat did you think of his points before he made mistakes in your
I 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.
opinion? It is possible that he could be right on a lot of things and
screw up in a few, I don't know to many people that could be
questioned and not say something that other people could harp on.
Making an error doesn't mean most of what he says is bogus.
I'm saying this having only read a few pages and not gotten to where
you said he blew it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayFrom what I've read of the transcripts, it sounds like he cherry-picked his sources to support his argument and ignores all the modern work on blood clotting and the bacterial flagellum.
What did you think of his points before he made mistakes in your
opinion? It is possible that he could be right on a lot of things and
screw up in a few, I don't know to many people that could be
questioned and not say something that other people could harp on.
Making an error doesn't mean most of what he says is bogus.
I'm saying this having only read a few pages and not gotten to where
you said he blew it.
Kelly
Now that is just terrible for a scientist to do when they are writing a textbook article on the subject or making sweeping pronouncements like that the blood clotting system is too complex to have arisen naturally.
In court during direct examination you are supposed to put your best foot forward of course. The bad part is where he can't stand up to the cross.
Originally posted by telerionI believe you are right everyone will cherry pick their sources when
From what I've read of the transcripts, it sounds like he cherry-picked his sources to support his argument and ignores all the modern work on blood clotting and the bacterial flagellum.
Now that is just terrible for a scientist to do when they are writing a textbook article on the subject or making sweeping pronouncements like that the blood clotting ...[text shortened]... o put your best foot forward of course. The bad part is where he can't stand up to the cross.
attempting to prove a point. I'll hold off on saying more till I get to
the cross on this.
Kellyh
Originally posted by jaywillhttp://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
You have had a pretty long time now. Where is the refutation to the section of [b]Darwin's Black Box on the blood clotting cascade?
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.[/b]
Originally posted by telerionAy karumba.
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.
Here's what is being said, in a nutshell. Behe is being crossed and asked whether astrology would fall under the classification of scientific theory. Honestly, Behe responds in the positive. Simply going by classical definitions, astrology does hit all of the requisites to be considered a scientific theory. Just because astrology is not taken seriously (by Behe or anyone, for that matter, save the simple-minded) does not change its orientation.
Apparently (buoyed in the confidence of our 20/20 hindsight), we are able to disingenuously act as though the positions previously held by REAL scientists of the past--- now discarded--- were never really seriously believed.
Originally posted by KellyJayJust a quick one-I seem to upset everyone when I post!
It isn't so much that you follow one or the other as much as you
belong to one or the other.
Kelly
I try to live my life by Christian principles as it was the religion I was raised with. However, I have an issue with God and Satan etc and given that there are so many religions in the world most of which preach peace yet all seem to try to kill each other (crusades, jihads and other holy wars etc) and I'm not sure I want to believe in any of the Gods in any of the holy texts be they good or evil. I try to be a good person and I will generally put myself out to help others but the Bible says this is not enough. If it came to revelation I would fight against Satan. Who do I belong to?
Originally posted by Chufty JonesSatan is already defeated.
Just a quick one-I seem to upset everyone when I post!
I try to live my life by Christian principles as it was the religion I was raised with. However, I have an issue with God and Satan etc and given that there are so many religions in the world most of which preach peace yet all seem to try to kill each other (crusades, jihads and other holy wars ...[text shortened]... this is not enough. If it came to revelation I would fight against Satan. Who do I belong to?
Jesus said no goes to the Father except through Him, have you ever
done that?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayRubbish. You entire argument here is dishonest. A scientists work is "trash" when he does not follow proper protocol, seeking always the most parsimonious argument. Behe fails this particular test, when he tries to attribute "design" to a designer, without proof one exists. It's that simple.
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
Originally posted by jaywillAnd you think YOU are open minded?!!! Ha ha, Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.
[b] "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
- Richard Dawkins from "Blind Watchmaker"
What's wrong with Evolution? Here's one thing, the total closed mindedness of some of its adherents.[/b]
If you read a bit further, you'll see he does back up his statements pretty well.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf you read a bit further, you'll see he does back up his statements pretty well.
And you think YOU are open minded?!!! Ha ha, Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.
If you read a bit further, you'll see he does back up his statements pretty well.
'Pretty well,' indeed... if you consider 'illusion of design' a good argument.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHActually the whole point was that astrology fits the bill under Behe's unique definition but not under the standard NAS definition.
Ay karumba.
Here's what is being said, in a nutshell. Behe is being crossed and asked whether astrology would fall under the classification of scientific theory. Honestly, Behe responds in the positive. Simply going by classical definitions, astrology does hit all of the requisites to be considered a scientific theory. Just because astrology is not ...[text shortened]... by REAL scientists of the past--- now discarded--- were never really seriously believed.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd he explains why it is an illusion, not a reality. Your constant sneering, and constant lack of substance is really starting to grate.
[b]If you read a bit further, you'll see he does back up his statements pretty well.
'Pretty well,' indeed... if you consider 'illusion of design' a good argument.[/b]