Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[Rob Osborn]

I dont believe he is wrong and neither does a lot of scientists. Darwinian evolutionists obviously dislike the man and his theories he promotes. Of course you people are gonna trash him- he threates your precious fairytales.

[thesometimesaint]

I dont believe he is wrong and neither does a lot of scientists. Darwinian evolutionists obviously dislike the man and his theories he promotes. Of course you people are gonna trash him- he threates your precious fairytales.

 

No a lot of scientists don't agree with Behe. I guess your trying to posit that Darwinian evolutionists are somehow different than non Darwinian evolutionists. Darwin is the founder of the idea of organism change through natural selection. I have no emotions either way concerning Mr. Behe, as a person. I'm sure he is quite nice an individual. Mr. Behe is an Darwinian evolutionist, he fully accepts evolution based on natural selection. The sticking point is that to him there is an Irreducible Complex organism, or part of an organism, that requires an Intelligent Designer. The so called Intelligent Design Theory has been repeated shown to be false. It is a religio-political movement designed to put the Conservative Christian sect of Christianity into the science classroom of public schools.

 

The fairytale you are positing is that somehow science precludes scientists from believing in God. Darwin and some 40% of all current US scientists believe in and pray to a personal God. I've even given you faithful LDS scientists whom are Darwinian evolutionists.

[The Nehor]

I dont believe he is wrong and neither does a lot of scientists. Darwinian evolutionists obviously dislike the man and his theories he promotes. Of course you people are gonna trash him- he threates your precious fairytales.

 

       

[Bikeemikey]

I dont believe he is wrong and neither does a lot of scientists. Darwinian evolutionists obviously dislike the man and his theories he promotes. Of course you people are gonna trash him- he threates your precious fairytales.

Hey I say what i see, end of story.

[Rob Osborn]

No a lot of scientists don't agree with Behe. I guess your trying to posit that Darwinian evolutionists are somehow different than non Darwinian evolutionists. Darwin is the founder of the idea of organism change through natural selection. I have no emotions either way concerning Mr. Behe, as a person. I'm sure he is quite nice an individual. Mr. Behe is an Darwinian evolutionist, he fully accepts evolution based on natural selection. The sticking point is that to him there is an Irreducible Complex organism, or part of an organism, that requires an Intelligent Designer. The so called Intelligent Design Theory has been repeated shown to be false. It is a religio-political movement designed to put the Conservative Christian sect of Christianity into the science classroom of public schools.

 

The fairytale you are positing is that somehow science precludes scientists from believing in God. Darwin and some 40% of all current US scientists believe in and pray to a personal God. I've even given you faithful LDS scientists whom are Darwinian evolutionists.

Behe is not a Darwinian evolutionist. A Darwinian evolutionist is one who believees that the mechanics of how life evolved and got more complex was through random mutations/copy errors that were then naturally selected. Have you even read any of Behe's books? If you have you would obviously know that this is exactly what Behe disagrees with- its the very thing of his work. And what is his work? To refute the mechanics of Darwinian evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Behe is not a Darwinian evolutionist. A Darwinian evolutionist is one who believees that the mechanics of how life evolved and got more complex was through random mutations/copy errors that were then naturally selected. Have you even read any of Behe's books? If you have you would obviously know that this is exactly what Behe disagrees with- its the very thing of his work. And what is his work? To refute the mechanics of Darwinian evolution.

 

Yes he is. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-review-of-darwins-black-box-the-biochemical-challenge-to-evolution-by-michael-j-behe

By the author's(Mr. Behe's) own admission, the Darwinian argument appears to suffice in accounting for design at visible levels of organization—bird flight or the hydrodynamic design of aquatic organisms.

 

Not random mutations/copying errors alone. There are also additions/subtractions/insertions/the turning on and off of genes/closely tied traits/ and a host of other factors in evolution whether by natural selection or artificial(man caused).

SEE

 

Yes I have read them, and have read the counterarguments. I've even linked you to some.

 

Mr. Behe's cause celebre is Irreducible Complexity. The idea that some organisms and/or parts of an organism are so fundamentally complex that only a designer could have done it.

 

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39 of Darwin's Black Box)

 

EVERY example given by Behe, et al have been proven to be just another example of the "Watchmakers Fallacy".

[Rob Osborn]

Yes he is. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-review-of-darwins-black-box-the-biochemical-challenge-to-evolution-by-michael-j-behe

By the author's(Mr. Behe's) own admission, the Darwinian argument appears to suffice in accounting for design at visible levels of organization—bird flight or the hydrodynamic design of aquatic organisms.

 

Not random mutations/copying errors alone. There are also additions/subtractions/insertions/the turning on and off of genes/closely tied traits/ and a host of other factors in evolution whether by natural selection or artificial(man caused).

SEE

 

Yes I have read them, and have read the counterarguments. I've even linked you to some.

 

Mr. Behe's cause celebre is Irreducible Complexity. The idea that some organisms and/or parts of an organism are so fundamentally complex that only a designer could have done it.

 

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39 of Darwin's Black Box)

 

EVERY example given by Behe, et al have been proven to be just another example of the "Watchmakers Fallacy".

Look, I am not going to keep debating this silly crap. Behe, by your own post is not a Darwinian evolutionists. Let me quote your words-

 

"An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution"

 

So, you say he is a Darwinian evolutionist but then later say that something irreducibly complex, if there were such a thing would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Guess what? Behe is the main proponent and pusher of irreducible complexity. By your own admission, the theory of irreducibly complexity is a counter theory to challenge Darwinian evolution.

 

So, you are wrong, Behe is NOT a Darwinian evolutionist.

[thesometimesaint]

Look, I am not going to keep debating this silly crap. Behe, by your own post is not a Darwinian evolutionists. Let me quote your words-

 

"An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution"

 

So, you say he is a Darwinian evolutionist but then later say that something irreducibly complex, if there were such a thing would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Guess what? Behe is the main proponent and pusher of irreducible complexity. By your own admission, the theory of irreducibly complexity is a counter theory to challenge Darwinian evolution.

 

So, you are wrong, Behe is NOT a Darwinian evolutionist.

 

You are deliberate in leaving out part of my post. Here is the relevant part again.

By the author's(Mr. Behe's) own admission, the Darwinian argument appears to suffice in accounting for design at visible levels of organization—bird flight or the hydrodynamic design of aquatic organisms

 

If such a thing could be established it would overturn evolution. Also If it could be established that Helios pulled the sun across the sky with his chariot that would a powerful challenge modern astronomy. Are you saying that Behe has replaced Helios with our modern concepts of gravity and a heliocentric solar system? Apparently Mr. Behe also believes that astrology is a scientific theory.

 

From Kitzmiller v Dover trial

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?  Behe: Yes, that's correct. (p.38)

Edited March 6, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

 

You are deliberate leaving out part of my post. Here is the relevant part again.

By the author's(Mr. Behe's) own admission, the Darwinian argument appears to suffice in accounting for design at visible levels of organization—bird flight or the hydrodynamic design of aquatic organisms

 

If such a thing could be established it would overturn evolution. Also If it could be established that Helios pulled the sun across the sky with his chariot that would a powerful challenge modern astronomy. Are you saying that Behe has replaced Helios with our modern concepts of gravity and a heliocentric solar system? Apparently Mr. Behe also believes that astrology is a scientific theory.

 

From Kitzmiller v Dover trial

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?  Behe: Yes, that's correct. (p.38)

 

Atgain, Behe is not a Darwinian evolutionist. Lest get this straight- a Darwinian evolutionist is an evolutionist that believs that evolutionary complexity in species is due to slow and gradual change from mutations and copy errors that are then naturally selected upon in nature. It is thus through this process that complexity in nature has arisen. This defines what a Darwinian evolutionist is. Behe fits no such profile but actually argues against this Darwinian theory.

 

End of story!

[thesometimesaint]

Atgain, Behe is not a Darwinian evolutionist. Lest get this straight- a Darwinian evolutionist is an evolutionist that believs that evolutionary complexity in species is due to slow and gradual change from mutations and copy errors that are then naturally selected upon in nature. It is thus through this process that complexity in nature has arisen. This defines what a Darwinian evolutionist is. Behe fits no such profile but actually argues against this Darwinian theory.

 

End of story!

 

By the author's(Mr. Behe's) own admission, the Darwinian argument appears to suffice in accounting for design at visible levels of organization—bird flight or the hydrodynamic design of aquatic organisms.

 

Evolution is not limited to just slow and gradual change from mutations and copy errors.

SEE

 

I guess you've never heard of punctuated equilibrium.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml

Edited March 6, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Yes it..no it isnt...yes it is...no it isnt....

This is childish!

Behe is not an advocate of Darwinian evolution. His work primarily is in place to refute the mechanism of Darwinian evolution.

[Calm]

Yes it..no it isnt...yes it is...no it isnt....This is childish!.

Then stop being part of it.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes it..no it isnt...yes it is...no it isnt....

This is childish!

Behe is not an advocate of Darwinian evolution. His work primarily is in place to refute the mechanism of Darwinian evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

delete

Edited March 7, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

It is childish for you, and Mr. Behe, to keep claiming your own special definitions of words.

 

According to Mr. Behe's own special definition the word science, Astrology is a science.

 

Mr. Behe's contention is that the bacterial flagella is an example of Irreducible Complexity(Intelligent Design) has been demonstrated wrong. along with EVERY OTHER proposed example. Science only works when examples are shown to accurately describe/define the example. So called Intelligent Design doesn't do either.

Evolutionists will never see the truth. They are too blinded by their pet theory that is made up to ne unfalsifiable

[thesometimesaint]

Evolutionists will never see the truth. They are too blinded by their pet theory that is made up to ne unfalsifiable

 

What "truth" is that? That evolution is the best scientific explanation for how life changed on this planet?

 

That EVERY EXAMPLE thus far presented by Mr. Behe, et all, of Intelligent Design has been debunked.

 

That God is not falsifiable. It is impossible to test or falsify a God hypothesis in isolation for two reasons. One, the hypothesis relies on a number of supporting assumptions.

 

Creationism(Intelligent Design) is not falsifiable as its proponents base the theory on a human text (the Bible) which provides accounts of creation and other events that cannot be tested by observation or experiment but are instead accepted as infallible truth. This is one of the primary characteristics of pseudoscience. No matter what evidence is presented, there is no way that creationism can be contradicted. Even when evolution in action is observed, creationism always allows for an after-the-fact justification of the inconsistent observation with an argument to authority. Put differently, for any possible observation you can imagine Creationism can explain away both that observation and its opposite. Only an observation proving that God does not exist would undermine the theory, and obviously that is impossible. Since no observation is allowed to contradict creationism and it has no predictive value, it is not science.

 

That Evolution is accepted by Atheistic and Theistic scientists?

 

Or is that you are using your own special definitions again?

[Rob Osborn]

And how does one test to see if humans came from a lower species?

[thesometimesaint]

And how does one test to see if humans came from a lower species?

 

A good place to start is with the ancient bones.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

 

Another is genetics.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

 

Another is morphology.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570994/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100225/

[Rob Osborn]

A good place to start is with the ancient bones.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

 

Another is genetics.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

 

Another is morphology.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570994/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100225/

Thats nice conjecture but how does one actually test?

[Calm]

And how does one test to see if humans came from a lower species?

Check out posts on message boards.

[The Nehor]

Check out posts on message boards.

YouTube comments are much more instructive in this area.

Evolutionists will never see the truth. They are too blinded by their pet theory that is made up to ne unfalsifiable

If I was to say the same thing to you for denying astrology how would you respond?

[Tiki]

YouTube comments are much more instructive in this area.

If I was to say the same thing to you for denying astrology how would you respond?

Astrology? Which newspaper has the best free horoscope? The New York Times or the Salt Lake Tribune?

Or would it be a Chinese Fortune cookie?

[The Nehor]

Astrology? Which newspaper has the best free horoscope? The New York Times or the Salt Lake Tribune?

Or would it be a Chinese Fortune cookie?

 

The Onion:

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/your-horoscopes-week-of-march-4-2014,35433/

 

My horoscope for this week:

 

Just when you thought it couldn't possibly get any worse, the stars confirm that you are correct and it is pretty much as bad as possible.

[bcuzbcuz]

Thats nice conjecture but how does one actually test?

You really are a Thomas, unbeliever. You accept nothing you cannot observe with your own eyes. Of course, I have no idea what your eyes have experienced but you display a ready willingness to discount any and everything espoused in the name of science.

I learned long ago to trust in the information of others, as long as that information didn't stretch credulity. I missed the birth of my oldest daughter ( my boss, the stinker, wouldn't give me time off).. When I got to the maternity ward, my wife was sitting up in bed, holding a baby girl (that she claimed was my new daughter). I didn't see the birth with my two very own eyes. My wife had displayed signs for close to nine months that simulated pregnancy. She said she spent time with the doctor for pre-natal checks. But without ordering a DNA test I had no way of knowing that this baby was mine ...or even if my wife was indeed, the mother..

But guess what? I just got out my camera, blubbered like an idiot with tears of joy and shot two rolls of basically the same picture, over and over, to proudly display to relatives or complete strangers who couldn't escape my grasp.

Had Behe been in that same delivery ward, he might have come with an alternate theory as to whose child my wife held in her hands, but I went with the majority opinion.

[thesometimesaint]

You really are a Thomas, unbeliever. You accept nothing you cannot observe with your own eyes. Of course, I have no idea what your eyes have experienced but you display a ready willingness to discount any and everything espoused in the name of science.

I learned long ago to trust in the information of others, as long as that information didn't stretch credulity. I missed the birth of my oldest daughter ( my boss, the stinker, wouldn't give me time off).. When I got to the maternity ward, my wife was sitting up in bed, holding a baby girl (that she claimed was my new daughter). I didn't see the birth with my two very own eyes. My wife had displayed signs for close to nine months that simulated pregnancy. She said she spent time with the doctor for pre-natal checks. But without ordering a DNA test I had no way of knowing that this baby was mine ...or even if my wife was indeed, the mother..

But guess what? I just got out my camera, blubbered like an idiot with tears of joy and shot two rolls of basically the same picture, over and over, to proudly display to relatives or complete strangers who couldn't escape my grasp.

Had Behe been in that same delivery ward, he might have come with an alternate theory as to whose child my wife held in her hands, but I went with the majority opinion.

 

Since Rob hasn't seen with his own two eyes an electron. ALL us little electron blips on his computer screen are just figments of his imagination that he is only imagining he is responding to.