Originally posted by telerionThe reader will take careful note that Behe in no way, shape, or form confirms astrology as a noteworthy theory; simply that it meets the formula, as do myriad other theories.
Actually the whole point was that astrology fits the bill under Behe's unique definition but not under the standard NAS definition.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt meets his definition of theory. The point is that in order to make ID a theory he has to make his definition of a theory so weak that absurd notions become science.
The reader will take careful note that Behe in no way, shape, or form confirms astrology as a noteworthy theory; simply that it meets the formula, as do myriad other theories.
Of course, he doesn't believe in astrology. He believes that Jesus Christ (AKA 'the intelligent designer'😉 made simple organisms which over many many many millions of years evolved into the diverse species we see around us.
Originally posted by telerionToday's accepted theories become tomorrow's absurdities.
It meets his definition of theory. The point is that in order to make ID a theory he has to make his definition of a theory so weak that absurd notions become science.
Of course, he doesn't believe in astrology. He believes that Jesus Christ (AKA 'the intelligent designer'😉 made simple organisms which over many many many millions of years evolved into the diverse species we see around us.
Originally posted by scottishinnzScott you're a smart guy and I agree with you 99% of the time. However here you are stretching a bit. With the creationist vultures circling just looking for any opening they can to get off the back foot we all need to be careful.
Such as? Please teacher, give us an example of a properly constructed scientific theory which has later been shown to be absurd.
I give Lord Kelvin's Age of the Earth based on heat as a scientific theory that was shown to be incorrect by Rutherford's discovery of an alterate heat source (radioactivity).
EDIT: Get lost Nosrac.
Originally posted by XanthosNZTrue, but Kelvin's calculation was not a theory, and was not complete. There are relatively few complete theories, which take account of all available data. Evolution is one, relativity another.
Scott you're a smart guy and I agree with you 99% of the time. However here you are stretching a bit. With the creationist vultures circling just looking for any opening they can to get off the back foot we all need to be careful.
I give Lord Kelvin's Age of the Earth based on heat as a scientific theory that was shown to be incorrect by Rutherford's discovery of an alterate heat source (radioactivity).
EDIT: Get lost Nosrac.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat about Newton's theory of motion and gravitation? It is clearly absurd in both extremes and yet it stood as the understood theory for a few hundred years.
True, but Kelvin's calculation was not a theory, and was not complete. There are relatively few complete theories, which take account of all available data. Evolution is one, relativity another.
In fact it is still taught in schools and acts as a bridge between relativity and quantum behaviour until the unified theory is found.
You have had a pretty long time now. Where is the refutation to the section of 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.
As well as Xanthosnz response, there's also the TalkOriginas page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html
and the various pages and studies it links to.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by jaywillHere's something relevant to look at.
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]
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
You have had a pretty long time now. Where is the refutation to the section of 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?
So you've now had 3 separate links to information refuting the irreducable complexity of the blood clotting system. Do you accept these and if not, why not?
Also, any response to my third email (I appreciate it's only been a couple of days since we moved on to it and you need time to gather your arguments but I thought, I'd just make sure you hadn't forgotten. I think I also need to respond to a message of yours from a couple of days back. I'll try to get round to it later.)
---- Penguin.
Originally posted by scottishinnzLook at the Earth centered Solar System as opposed to the Sun centered Solar System.
Such as? Please teacher, give us an example of a properly constructed scientific theory which has later been shown to be absurd.
I had a science teacher tell me that Ptolemy's Earth Centered Solar System was actually worked on with quite sophisticated mathematical ideas. He was very scientific about believing that all the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth.
Today people champion Copernicus of course. And well they should. But many do not realize that Ptolemy's science was very disciplined and his proofs were worked out mathematically.
There was a cartoon about some scientists standing around a black board filled with all kinds of complexed equations. And one of the scientists was saying sadly to the others:
"The most depressing thing is that one day everything we believe here will be proved wrong."
Now this was just a funny cartoon. But it does bring out the point how today's knowledge can very easily be refuted in coming future generations as more knowledge is accumulated.
That's the way science is very often. What we fervently believe today may be proved untrue in the future.
Originally posted by jaywillDid you read any of the links that you demanded that I dig out?
Look at the Earth centered Solar System as opposed to the Sun centered Solar System.
I had a science teacher tell me that Ptolemy's Earth Centered Solar System was actually worked on with quite sophisticated mathematical ideas. He was very scientific about believing that all the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth.
Today people champion Copernic ...[text shortened]... science is very often. What we fervently believe today may be proved untrue in the future.