RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 >   
  Topic: Behe's response, Keep comments unsupported by evidence< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,13:07   

Hi Tracy,

Thank you for your reply.

I'm not interested in trying to argue for or against the hypothesis in this thread.  I am more interested in what Fritz Schaefer would be telling his fellow fellows at DI and why they might not think it would be politicially correct.

Could you offer your opinion on whether Fritz Schaefer would likely agree with Patal that DNA uses quantum superposition in performing its function?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,14:46   

To Smokey (JAM?),

I think that was an excellence comment on Amazon.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,14:57   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 12 2007,11:51)
I'm convinced. Convinced Philip Cunningham is an IDiot anyway. His profile notes none of his reviews have had a positive vote!

Given his level of ineptness (posting the same comment three times), verbal diarrhea, and fixation on genetic entropy, I hypothesize that Philip Cunningham is the real name of our old pal, Bornagain77 (aka Bond, James Bond).

Interestingly, all of his comments on the Behe blog have now been masked; enough negative votes made the Amazon admins take notice of the verbose redundant off-topic stupidity that characterizes BA77.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,15:41   

Hi All,

I managed to get my comment up (bought Battlestar Promo for $0.00).

I would appreciated it if you guys didn't vote it down. †I suggest it wouldn't hurt to have a neutral comment mixed in among the negative ones. †It might help Amazon justify leaving all the comments up.

Thanks.

P.S. Ok Louis, here is your chance to encourage the woo fighting (or have you already voted it down?)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,03:17   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,21:41)
Hi All,

I managed to get my comment up (bought Battlestar Promo for $0.00).

I would appreciated it if you guys didn't vote it down. †I suggest it wouldn't hurt to have a neutral comment mixed in among the negative ones. †It might help Amazon justify leaving all the comments up.

Thanks.

P.S. Ok Louis, here is your chance to encourage the woo fighting (or have you already voted it down?)

I don't vote on these things. I like to see how they evolve without interference from me. It's usually funnier that way.

;-)

Cheers

Louis

P.S. Did you deal with the decoherence problem at all? I must confess to not having read closely, so if you have and I missed it it's entirely my fault.

--------------
Bye.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,04:14   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,15:41)
I would appreciated it if you guys didn't vote it down. †I suggest it wouldn't hurt to have a neutral comment mixed in among the negative ones. †It might help Amazon justify leaving all the comments up.

Thanks.

P.S. Ok Louis, here is your chance to encourage the woo fighting (or have you already voted it down?)

Wow. †TP is really desperate to get eyes on his woo.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,05:38   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 12 2007,14:57)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 12 2007,11:51)
I'm convinced. Convinced Philip Cunningham is an IDiot anyway. His profile notes none of his reviews have had a positive vote!

Given his level of ineptness (posting the same comment three times), verbal diarrhea, and fixation on genetic entropy, I hypothesize that Philip Cunningham is the real name of our old pal, Bornagain77 (aka Bond, James Bond).

Interestingly, all of his comments on the Behe blog have now been masked; enough negative votes made the Amazon admins take notice of the verbose redundant off-topic stupidity that characterizes BA77.

A google seems to confirm that. Marvelous.

All I need to do now is find his home address and phone number, and, er, hang on, no, sorry, that's the other blog :0)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,08:16   

Hi Keiths,

In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is my method for fighting the ID Movement.

Polarizing all issues plays into the hands of ID's PR strategists, IMO.

To Louis - I will restate my understanding of the status of bioquantum mechanics on another thread.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2007,09:50   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 13 2007,08:16)
In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is my method for fighting the ID Movement.

Polarizing all issues plays into the hands of ID's PR strategists, IMO.

Trying to argue against woo with by compounding it is not likely to have the results you think it will.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2007,18:30   

Behe is taking a pounding on the Amazon book site.  No response from him at all.

However, how can he respond since he's wrong in the first place?

No wonder he doesn't engage in scientific forums.  He wouldn't survive the first question.

Add to that Dembski's disembowelment at the hands of art students at OU and ID is not only on the ropes, it's KO'ed.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2007,20:04   

From the "Please sit down and keep quiet" department, a commenter at Amazon named A. Canfil Jr. (who is critical of Behe) asks,
Quote
Can you spell "ad hominen," Dr. Behe?


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,17:05   

News flash. Philip Cunningham (aka bornagain77) has bailed out of the discussion of Behe's latest opus on Amazon. It is a standard litany, dragging in the notions of persecution,  inability to see the evidence, and general thumbsucking.

Definitely worth a read.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,18:06   

Ugh had a killer test today, but I finally have a little time to work on my response to Behe.

Working Title: "Michael Behe: Liar, Lunatic, or LiLo?"

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4368
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,18:56   

Quote (ERV @ Oct. 15 2007,18:06)
Ugh had a killer test today, but I finally have a little time to work on my response to Behe.

Working Title: "Michael Behe: Liar, Lunatic, or LiLo?"

Uh... I vote for All Of The Above!  (Except he's the pre-rehab LiLo without the restraints).  Does that make Dembski Dina?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,19:06   

Quote (ERV @ Oct. 15 2007,18:06)
Ugh had a killer test today, but I finally have a little time to work on my response to Behe.

Working Title: "Michael Behe: Liar, Lunatic, or LiLo?"

???

I don't get it....but then what the hell do I know...I'm a blonde creationist...it can't get much worse than that.

Are you saying that Behe is, like, evolving into Lilo or what? †I'm thinking there is something sexist about this title....I'm offended!! †Nah, not really...there's not much that offends me. OBVIOUSLY.

Carry on Abbie....can't wait to see your response to Behe. †Don't worry though... in the end, if you get stuck, you can always pull the Dave switcharoo. †Just stomp your feet like a 2-year old and say, "Well...so what if you're right and Darwinism sucks...show me a prediction that ID can make...what is the mechanism for ID??! † I know you're wrong, but so am I!" †

[Down, Dave....just teasing, big guy.]

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,19:39   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,19:06)
Carry on Abbie....can't wait to see your response to Behe.  Don't worry though... in the end, if you get stuck, you can always pull the Dave switcharoo.  Just stomp your feet like a 2-year old and say, "Well...so what if you're right and Darwinism sucks...show me a prediction that ID can make...what is the mechanism for ID??!   I know you're wrong, but so am I!"  

[Down, Dave....just teasing, big guy.]

No problem. But I don't understand why you call it a "switcharoo"; I've been pretty consistent in asking those questions of every stubborn born-again creationist I've encountered (including you, dear). I'll just keep asking those questions until somebody answers them in a coherent fashion. Then we can have a real scientific discussion, which is what I (and a lot of folks here) really have been hoping for!

Does it bother you that nobody, not even Behe, has been able to answer those simple questions yet?

No, I suppose not.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
stevestory



Posts: 8956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,19:58   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 15 2007,20:39)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,19:06)
Carry on Abbie....can't wait to see your response to Behe.  Don't worry though... in the end, if you get stuck, you can always pull the Dave switcharoo.  Just stomp your feet like a 2-year old and say, "Well...so what if you're right and Darwinism sucks...show me a prediction that ID can make...what is the mechanism for ID??!   I know you're wrong, but so am I!"  

[Down, Dave....just teasing, big guy.]

No problem. But I don't understand why you call it a "switcharoo"; I've been pretty consistent in asking those questions of every stubborn born-again creationist I've encountered (including you, dear). I'll just keep asking those questions until somebody answers them in a coherent fashion. Then we can have a real scientific discussion, which is what I (and a lot of folks here) really have been hoping for!

Does it bother you that nobody, not even Behe, has been able to answer those simple questions yet?

No, I suppose not.

Even the exceedingly christian Dave Heddle tried to explain to her that ID doesn't make predictions and isn't science. She didn't listen to him, so there's little chance she'll listen to you.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,20:08   

Oh, hey Dave, when are you going to change your avatar again? †I don't like that one....it's a very militant looking bird, and it scares me....I had a nightmare about it last night. :(

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
stevestory



Posts: 8956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,20:08   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,20:06)
Carry on Abbie....can't wait to see your response to Behe.

I can't wait either, especially since Behe was a sexist jerk to her.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,20:46   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,20:08)
Oh, hey Dave, when are you going to change your avatar again?  I don't like that one....it's a very militant looking bird, and it scares me....I had a nightmare about it last night. :(

Well, I certainly don't want to be responsible for anybody's nightmares; that's DaveScot's job.

new avatar = Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,22:25   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 15 2007,20:46)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,20:08)
Oh, hey Dave, when are you going to change your avatar again? †I don't like that one....it's a very militant looking bird, and it scares me....I had a nightmare about it last night. :(

Well, I certainly don't want to be responsible for anybody's nightmares; that's DaveScot's job.

new avatar = Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

Whew....thanks! †I'll, no doubt, sleep much easier tonight. :)

Hey, but wait a second...doesn't the owl imply wisdom... the "wise old owl"?

Hmmm....how long are you going to keep this one? †I'm not sure I'm terribly thrilled with it either. ;)

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,00:47   

Not content with being trashed on a book website, Amazon, Behe wrote a letter to Science whining about the unfavorable review given "Edge" by Sean Carroll.

With breathtaking inanity Behe lays out his complaint which Carroll completely smashes. †Apparently, it's Behe's modus operandi to ignore the literature, a la Kitzmiller. †I guess there's not much biochemistry published in church bulletins.

Carroll concludes with this paragraph, bolding mine:

If, as Behe now seems to imply in his Letter, he is a greater proponent of cumulative selection than I gave him credit for, why would he, with so many available examples, characterize it as "rare"? It is because cumulative selection is fully capable of producing what he claims Darwinian evolution cannot do. The minimization of cumulative selection and the complete disregard of a massive literature surrounding protein interactions are crucial to Behe's entirely unfounded conclusion that "complex interactive machinery Ö can't be put together gradually" (p. 81) and must therefore be designed.

Science 12 October 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5848, p. 196

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,02:19   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,20:08)
Oh, hey Dave, when are you going to change your avatar again?  I don't like that one....it's a very militant looking bird, and it scares me....I had a nightmare about it last night. :(

Are you entering the "second youth" phase FTK? You sound like a 12 year old.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10244
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,15:55   

Oh Noes!!!!111111

Dippy Joe G is in on the act:

http://www.amazon.com/gp....JBKJ6AV

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,16:56   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 17 2007,15:55)
Oh Noes!!!!111111

Dippy Joe G is in on the act:

http://www.amazon.com/gp....JBKJ6AV

It must be fustrating for pool ole Joe.
Quote
 Joseph Gallien says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway.]


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,17:04   

Joe reaches way down the barrel and brings out the typo defense?
Quote
As for "Dna"/"RNA" in HIV seeing that is was clearly spelled out of page 15 perhaps page 139 was an over-looked typo.


wow.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2007,13:39   

Note, even though the Amazon site says comments are disabled, they aren't.  Here is my comment to Behe's reply to Korthof...

Korthof's opening sentence is...

"Readers interested in 'Intelligent Design Theory' will be disappointed."

Korthof explains...
"But, there is no design theory in this book. There are a bunch of observations and suggestive allusions to a theory. But not a coherent treatment of design theory. Even 'nonrandom mutation', which is an important part of Behe's design claims, occurs only 3 times in contrast to 'random mutation' which occurs 171 times. Is it really unfair or unreasonable to expect in this book a coherent description of design theory after more than 10 years since his Darwin's Black Box?"

Korthof sums up nicely why my expectations resulted in disappointment when I read through the Edge of Evolution.

Dr. Behe, many times you have suggested the key to understanding is at the microscopic level. Yet you refrain from exploring the obvious non-random mechanism available from quantum physics.

Why?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2007,14:15   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 18 2007,13:39)
Dr. Behe, many times you have suggested the key to understanding is at the microscopic level. Yet you refrain from exploring the obvious non-random mechanism available from quantum physics.

Why?

Behe has a hard enough time with biology and the chances are he knows next to nothing about physics, but I'll bet that he can recognize a crank when he sees one.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10244
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2007,16:37   

Cool:

http://cs.felk.cvut.cz/~xobitko/ga/

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10244
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2007,21:13   

Nortee Behe:

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007....ng.html

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
  196 replies since June 13 2007,07:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]