A question for evolutionist

I started reading his book yesterday and I'm already half way through. He makes some very compelling and convincing arguments against the Darwinism hypothesis.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I started reading his book yesterday and I'm already half way through. He makes some very compelling and convincing arguments against the Darwinism hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Name one.

No, hang on, "Darwinism hypothesis"? What's that? I thought we were talking about evolution...
 
Last edited:
Dustin Kesselberg said:
No, I'm tired of wasting my time responding to you. It leads nowhere. This is just a courtesy response letting you know.
Click to expand...
It leads you nowhere, because you never provide meaningful responses.

It is however useful to others, who can see that you do not even understand your own arguments.

So, Dustin, what is this "Darwinism hypothesis" you speak of? How is it different to the extensively substantiated Theory of Evolution? What is it that Behe has said that you find convincing, and why? What is it that you understand the Theory of Evolution actually says?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I started reading his book yesterday and I'm already half way through. He makes some very compelling and convincing arguments against the Darwinism hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Actually, he doesn't. He demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the evolutionary data and uses very precise, deceptive wording to make it look like he knows what he is talking about.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I started reading his book yesterday and I'm already half way through. He makes some very compelling and convincing arguments against the Darwinism hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Right. :rolleyes:

Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[27] During this testimony Behe conceded that definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[28] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modeling of evolution with [David] Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[29]

Source
Click to expand...
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
No, I'm tired of wasting my time responding to you. It leads nowhere. This is just a courtesy response letting you know.
Click to expand...

I just put this into Babbelfish under 'Dustinian' and it translates into the following:

I can't come up with a reasonable argument against that because I really don't have a good comprehension concerning what I'm discussing. Please leave me alone and stop asking difficult questions.

Amazing.

Athon
 
athon said:
I just put this into Babbelfish under 'Dustinian' and it translates into the following:

I can't come up with a reasonable argument against that because I really don't have a good comprehension concerning what I'm discussing. Please leave me alone and stop asking difficult questions.

Amazing.

Athon
Click to expand...


She makes baseless claims concerning my posts and when I ask for details about her assertions she simply says gives me a vague and general answer that doesn't explain anything. For instance she will claim my "arguments have been refuted already by others" and when I ask for the specific posts where this has occurred she simply will reply "The whole thread" and despite the number of times I ask for an example that's all I will get in return. This is why I see no point in wasting my time with her.

And Yes, I provided examples of my assertions:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2683176&postcount=152
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2683355&postcount=179
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
People will say anything when being pressured by an attorney on the stand and they are nervous and anxious.
Click to expand...

You do realize that you just failed to sell any of us on Behe's credibility with that statement?

Here are some more pesky little facts from the Dover verdict:

The judge in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense, citing:
  • "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[5]
  • 'As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[5]
  • "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[6]
  • "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[7]
  • "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[8]
  • "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[30]
  • "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[31]
  • "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."[32]
  • "...proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."[33]
Source
Click to expand...
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
This is a very fascinating question and gets to the heart of the problem with Darwinism. There are so many aspects and features of the human body that are required for living and if they didn't exist, humans could not live. For instance how did humans get along before their teeth evolved? How did they eat before their teeth evolved allowing them to chew? They would have starved to death a long time ago.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true! How did humans get along before their heart evolved? Their blood would be oxygenated, but unable to transport the oxygen around their body.

Therefore, God exists.

Hey, this proof of God thing is easy, isn't it.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
People will say anything when being pressured by an attorney on the stand and they are nervous and anxious.
Click to expand...

Oh I just have to pose a few follow up question to this.

1. Do you think Behe was answering truthfully to the question on whether astrology is a science? (yes or no will do)

If you answered 'no' to question 1 procede to question 2. If you answered yes, I have no further questions

2. IF Behe didn't believe that astrology is a science, was then his answer (that I presume was given under oath) a lie?

If you answer yes to to question 2. Procede to question 3. If you answer no. I have no further questions

3. How does one spell perjury?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom