• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I've got a live one here! Intelligent Design.

hammegk said:
Live one?

Here, let me hold his crutches while you pummel him a bit more.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he'd appreciate your assessment of his ability to argue his own case.
 
Latest:

My key point is---let's discuss and debate these different viewpoints. Let's not censor one viewpioint becuase it offends the (secular humanist, atheist) worldview of one side. Discuss and critique bMost science teachers haven't the foggiest notion of Behe's critique. One ltr writer said in his Newsday ltr ---he did not know of a single scientist who disagrees with the random selection Darwinian viewpoint. This writer identified himself as an Elwood school science teacher. I think he is fairly typical.
Regards,
FR
Click to expand...

Back to the censorship thing... whaddya reckon that's all about? Who's censoring whom?

And what point do you think he's trying to make regarding the letter from the science teacher?
 
hammegk said:
Live one?

Here, let me hold his crutches while you pummel him a bit more.
Click to expand...

:D

I apologize... I really thought he'd prove to be be a little more 'sporty'.

"He fell apart faster 'n a Chinese motorcycle." as my Grandpops used to say.
 
Psiload said:

Back to the censorship thing... whaddya reckon that's all about? Who's censoring whom?
Click to expand...


Those pesky secular/humanists/atheists and their commie allies in the ACLU, that's who. How dare they try to maintain church-state seperation! ;)

Ask him is it's "censorship" if European history classes don't teach "both sides" by allowing the claims of Holocaust deniers to be taught?

And what point do you think he's trying to make regarding the letter from the science teacher?
Click to expand...

That a certain "science teacher" needs to have their tenure yanked and sent to the unemployment lines where they belong?
 
Mercutio said:
I'm sure he'd appreciate your assessment of his ability to argue his own case.
Click to expand...
Behe can't argue his own case, so no, I doubt this fellow will successfully do so.

Behe's ideas may contain germs of truth, but as yet facts do not support him imo.
 
hammegk said:
Behe can't argue his own case, so no, I doubt this fellow will successfully do so.

Behe's ideas may contain germs of truth, but as yet facts do not support him imo.
Click to expand...
I would say, unless you have information that I do not, that it is not the individual arguing, but the case itself, that is lame. I don't think the best debater in the world (even a master...nevermind) would be able to make this puppy fly.

Again, because it is the case, and not the presenter, in my opinion, I sincerely invite you to make a better case for it. You know that I do not dismiss what you say out of hand...
 
Here's a snippet from the latest:

Evolution could theoretically be proven. But it has not been. Darwin himself said that his entire hypothesis depended upon finding in the fossil record transitional forms showing one species changing into another. He was fairly sure this evidence would soon be found. But in the past 150 years, however, it has not been found.
Click to expand...

That's it. I'm done.

He's exhuming the corpses of arguments that even the Creationists laid to rest long, long ago.

There really is no point in continuing with this folly. I pointed him in the right direction, that's my good deed for the week. I'm washing my hands of him, and tonight I'll sleep the sleep of the righteous.
 
Mercutio said:
I would say, unless you have information that I do not, that it is not the individual arguing, but the case itself, that is lame.
Click to expand...
Hmm. We basically agree that the Behe/Dembski position is not currently verifiable by science. Behe has mentioned things that would prove his position false. IIRC, force evolve a non-flagelleum critter to evolve one via mutation & selection.

I add the question of how one cares to differentiate "knowledge" from "information".

As an idealist I have no particular dog in the hunt, other than my denial-by-assumption that non-sentient matter has by random chance become sentient life. I've mentioned -- and I believe we agree -- that the scientific method is never going to fully answer this question.

Can you provide any possible-in-reality falsifiable claim of neo-evolution?
 
Hammegk said:
We basically agree that the Behe/Dembski position is not currently verifiable by science.
Click to expand...
Would this be the position that the flagellum could not have come into existence as a discrete combinatorial object? No one thinks it did, so no one is bothering to verify or refute the position.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Would this be the position that the flagellum could not have come into existence as a discrete combinatorial object?
~~ Paul
Click to expand...
Nope. Of course it could have. Wouldn't you like to see it actually happen?

Unfortunately, I suspect we would then have a bacteria with a flagellum, and one that doesn't. I'm not sure after thinking about it if that would that prove macro-ev any better than available evidence. (And yes, I know, as-is convinces you -- and a number of others. What would we guess; 85% of mankind still to convince?)
 
Hammegk said:
Nope. Of course it could have. Wouldn't you like to see it actually happen?
Click to expand...
So you're talking about some other position of theirs. Which one?

A flagellum could not have come into existence as a discrete combinatorial object, because Dembski has shown it to be stunningly improbable. The trouble is, as I said, no biologist thinks it came into existence that way, so Dembski's calculation is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, I suspect we would then have a bacteria with a flagellum, and one that doesn't. I'm not sure after thinking about it if that would that prove macro-ev any better than available evidence. (And yes, I know, as-is convinces you -- and a number of others. What would we guess; 85% of mankind still to convince?)
Click to expand...
Huh?

~~ Paul
 
Some kind of muscle-like contraction capability could come about in a cell wall, as could a goopy extrusion. Both have their uses. Put one near the other, and the rest is evolution, not revolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom