Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > FtK's "Where Does ID Belong?" Poll

Question: FtK's "Where Does ID Belong?" Poll :: Total Votes:71 Poll choices Votes Statistics In Science Classes 1  [1.41%] In Philosophy of Science Classes 21  [29.58%] In Religion Classes 18  [25.35%] As a separate study (via groups like the IDEA clubs) 3  [4.23%] Ooutside of the school setting in churches, synagogues, etc. 1  [1.41%] It should be wiped off the face of the earth. 14  [19.72%] Other (Please Specify) 13  [18.31%] Guests cannot vote

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 >

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:52    Looking at the poll: How long before a breathless, Casey Luskin writes: "Over half of evilutionist sciencey types think ID should be taught!" ? -------------- "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. 02 2007,10:54    Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents. It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand? If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make. -------------- 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:07    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54) Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents. It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand? If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make. What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly? THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?   Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:09    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,10:00) ?????????????? It's like trying to talk to someone who doesn't speak your own language! Dave, can you not see from our conversation that what you are accusing Behe of is not what he was talking about at the trial? Please, *please* re-read our *entire* conversation again.  I'm not sure how I can be any clearer.  I do not see where Behe has lied, so you'll have to specifically point it out to me.   If you can point to the information from that "stack of books" that provides empirical evidence that has been tested and found conclusive in regard to the evolutionary pathways that are responsible for the evolution of the immune system, please do so.   That was his point!  We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.  Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data. There was absolutely no need to "lie", the evidence is not there, and that is exactly what he said. FtK I did read it. I do understand that Behe has a quibble about being misquoted re what he said at the trial. But, as I said before (did you read that?), that is a red herring. Do you seriously believe that Behe thinks that the evidence supporting our current hypotheses about the evolution of the immune system is adequate?  Or do you think he would say something like "No, that's not enough".  If the latter, does his quibbling about the exact sentences he uttered at Dover matter to anyone except those who wish to be distracted from the real issues? So let's review. In Behe's words (not your paraphrasing), what did he say in DBB? From the previously quoted decision in the case, with citations (I don't have DBB here at work, so I hope that this is sufficient).       Quote Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)) Note that this is NOT the same thing as saying that he desired "empirical evidence that has been tested and found conclusive" (your words). So those are the goalposts.  Behe wrote something in 1996, and reiterated it on the stand in 2005, to wit, "There are no natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system; it is irreducibly complex." That is demonstrably wrong. Without going into the thousands (not just 58) of peer-reviewed papers that document that, you are just going to have to take my word for it, and the word of the authors of those papers, and the word of the rest of the scientific community, and the word of Judge Jones. There are natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system. They are, like all scientific explanations, tentative (not conclusive). To demand otherwise, as you seem to be doing, is not scientific. And it is hypocritical, since ID/creationism cannot prove their case with any level of detail, or with even one testable hypothesis. So how did Behe lie? He was on the stand as an expert witness. He wrote two books about evolution. By his very presence there he was claiming to be an expert on evolution. Yet he claimed that there was "no natural explanation" in a pile of papers that he admitted he had not read. One of those things is false. Either he is not an expert, or he is deliberately misleading people when he says that there is "no natural explanation". Since he is still saying it to this day, one would have to assume he still believes it (at least for the purpose of selling books). So if you think that the "evidence is not there", you are incorrect, as is Behe. If you think that the evidence needs to be conclusive, you are not being scientific. When Behe does it, he is lying about science; he should know better. And to demand a higher level of proof for one theory, while engaging in hand-waving about the lack of mechanistic details in your own pet theory, is hypocrisy. hope this helps. -------------- 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

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:12    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54) Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents. It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand? If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make. What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly? THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?   Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind. Please tell us about the papers that Behe didn't read, and your methods of evaluation.  How many did you read before arriving at your conclusions? Do you think that the best way to approach the literature, and form opinions, is to ignore it? -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:15    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54) Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents. It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand? If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make. What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly? THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?   Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind. How did he know that if he did not read them? -------------- 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:16    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07) SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED? Then the obvious question becomes, why isn't Behe one of them? -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:16    FTK simple question. What is worth more? A)  SPECULATIVE INFORMATION B) Nothing at all Presumably you'd rather have nothing at all because your god sure does love a gap. -------------- 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:17    Q:  How do you tell Behe's lying A:  His lips are moving FTK - Yeah, it's an old joke, but since you like old books so much, I thought it would be appropriate. Seriously - Unlike some ID proponents, Behe does have both the education and background necessary to understand fully that the position he is backing requires him to speak untruths... aka lying.  He  lies through omission when he "fails to read" current literature, and he lies through comissin when he pretends he doesn't realize that he only defends his ID postion becasue of his faith... and a little bit of money. HTH -------------- 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

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:17    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 02 2007,11:12)   Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07) Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind. Please tell us about the papers that Behe didn't read, and your methods of evaluation.  How many did you read before arriving at your conclusions? Do you think that the best way to approach the literature, and form opinions, is to ignore it? I believe this falls into the category of "God Behe said it, I believe it, that settles it." -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:20    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07) What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly? Ah, down to insults are we? Ran out of gaps? -------------- 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:32    FTK – Forget about Behe, Demsbki and ID for now.   I think would be helpful for you return to square one.  Throw off your initial programming. Ask yourself why you believe the way you do.  Ask why some people are Muslims.  Why did the Romans believe in Jupiter?  Why would any one belief be more “right” than any other? Why is it that the educated segment of our culture is the least likely to believe in sky fairies? If you answer these questions honestly, then, I think you may be able to carry discussion on this and other boards to another more meaningful level. And you might be able to finally, actually, have some meaningful dialogues with The Kids. -------------- 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

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:50    FTK, Three simple things. 1) If Behe hadn't read those papers etc how would he know whether or not they contained the "speculation" you claim they do? The point is that Behe made a claim about some things about which he was ignorant (there are more points there, but focus on that one). He claimed to know that the data was inadequate without knowing anything about the data in question. That's not precisely honest now is it? As a corrollary to this: have YOU read those papers (for example)? How do you know they contain the "speculation" you claim they do? My guess is not only haven't you read them, but as a poorly educated, scientifically illiterate house-frau you are ill-equipped to evaluate them, the research therein, or the motivations/character/etc of the people doing the research reported in them. As usual For The Kluelessness, your whole case rests on your rather insulting (and false) claim that the entirety of the scientific community is comprised of biased individuals hell bent on suppressing the "truth". As usual with your specific sort of ignoramus, i.e. pontificating bigotted kooks who have not done a day's science or research in their lives and who are demonstrably clueless about its methods and modes, your last resort is to cry "persecution" or "conspiracy" when the facts don't support you. 2) You seem to be denying historical and forensic evidence in your quest to claim that evolutionary biology is repleat with "speculation". Strange that you seem curiously reluctant to put yourself in the way of learning anything about it. That is, unless it is direct from your preacher or someone whom your preacher would agree with. 3) This isn't about teams or sides or religion bashing or hiding the truth or any such drivel. The fact that you STILL don't get this and the fact that you STILL try to promote this crap as fact is what renders you a kook, loon and general all round laughing stock. It's about the evidence FTK. The complete sum of  scientific evidence supports the current series of scientific models and theories we have from the components of particle physics to differing modes of evolution. Sure there are things we don't know. Sure there are things we are working out, and sure there are things we now think are right but will be shown to be wrong or at least need modification in the future. This simple acknowledgement does not in any way demonstrate that we know nothing or that some utterly undemonstrated series of claims (like IDC) are a suitable alternative. What you simply don't understand is that IF the evidence supported IDC (which it doesn't, it's an old idea, or set of ideas, long since refuted, it's only the deceitful like Dembski/Behe or the decieved like you that buy it) then I and everyone on this board and across the scientific community would be IDCers. The reason we are not is because the evidence doesn't support IDC and it simply won't given any past or present incarnation of IDC. If there comes some genuinely new and exciting data that support teleology in nature then evolutionary biology will have to change to incorporate it. What you equally don't get is that scientists know pretty well what this sort of data would have to look like and they know very well that we haven't seen it yet. That data MUST come forward, it MUST be found for the claims made for IDC to be true. No amount of politicking on your part or lobbying or trying to insert your drivel into schools will change the facts. Personally, given the track record of the ideas and claims contained in the latest creationist incarnation (IDC), I think it's highly unlikely that such data exists. However,I am happy to be demonstrated to be wrong, but you'll (plural) have to do better than you have thus far. Louis P.S. Oh and before anyone whines at me for being mean think on this: on this board there are a number of professional scientists. I'm one of them. I've spent the last 15 years of my life (hey, I'm young!) working (on occasion!) extremely hard to both learn the workings and discoveries of my subject and to some extent the wider scientific environment. To be told by someone who hasn't even stepped foot in a relevant building that I am somehow a willing part of some global conspiracy to cover up the data when this insult is not only contrary to the evidence but designed explicitly to undermine my work and derived from nothing more than someone's wishful thinking and prejudice is more than a little annoying. So if some sensitive flower gets bent out of shape by my severe lack of tolerance for this oft repeated insult: Tough shit. -------------- Bye.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:56    Behe said the bowling ball didn't knock over the pins. He was shown the ball coming to rest just past the pins. He was shown people all around him throwing bowling balls at pins and knocking them down. Behe said that wasn't what necessarily happened in his lane. Behe said a gust of wind blew his pins down. Do you understand the analogy yet? Which part of this analogy do you disagree with?  Please be specific. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:56    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,11:15) Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54) Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents. It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand? If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make. What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly? THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?   Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind. How did he know that if he did not read them? ROTFLMAO....Okay, I'm thoroughly convinced...you are a Tard, and you need to don the hat of glory. Rich....give up the hat, OMITSDDI is officially the AtBC tard of all time. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:59    Nope.  That's a pretty good question.  In fact, it cuts right to the point of this discussion. HOW DID BEHE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID IN A SET OF BOOKS AND PAPERS WHICH HE DID NOT READ? Please continue to ignore this very simple question. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:01    No one gets the hat, although they are available from the shoppe: http://www.cafepress.com/aus_ed.166208132 And FtK, remember its *you* that follow *my* wardrobe requests... -------------- "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

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:32    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:56) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,11:15) Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54) Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents. It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand? If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make. What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly? THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?   Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind. How did he know that if he did not read them? ROTFLMAO....Okay, I'm thoroughly convinced...you are a Tard, and you need to don the hat of glory. Rich....give up the hat, OMITSDDI is officially the AtBC tard of all time. I have a feeling that very soon FtK is going to be very busy planning a dinner party, and will get back to us. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:47    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:56) ROTFLMAO....Okay, I'm thoroughly convinced...you are a Tard, and you need to don the hat of glory. Rich....give up the hat, OMITSDDI is officially the AtBC tard of all time. FTK, from you I take that as a compliment of the highest order. -------------- 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:49    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,12:47) Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:56) ROTFLMAO....Okay, I'm thoroughly convinced...you are a Tard, and you need to don the hat of glory. Rich....give up the hat, OMITSDDI is officially the AtBC tard of all time. FTK, from you I take that as a compliment of the highest order. *grumbles to self* -------------- "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. 02 2007,12:50    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:56) ROTFLMAO That won't take long. -------------- 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:10    Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,11:59) Nope.  That's a pretty good question.  In fact, it cuts right to the point of this discussion. HOW DID BEHE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID IN A SET OF BOOKS AND PAPERS WHICH HE DID NOT READ? Please continue to ignore this very simple question. blipes...it's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary. I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles. Also, blipe, you might consider what the general public thinks when they hear about this silly "stack of books" antic.  Obviously, this was staged as court room theatre in an attempt to run with it to the media.  The books were there and ready to be rolled out.  Now, everyone knows that Behe would not have read every single ancient document in regard to the speculation as to how the immune system evolved.  But, obviously, he has read more than just the most current papers on the topic.  He's been discussing the issue for years. No doubt he had read several of the articles found in that stack, but like everyone else in that courtroom and probably every scientist in the country, he would not have read all of it, and it *certainly* wouldn't be necessary to support his case.   The whole episode was very sophomoric... -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:21    Quote Only by reverse-engineering a system to test for function at each transitional stage can one determine if a system has 'reducible complexity' or 'irreducible complexity.' How could Behe test for function at each stage if he never bothered to research all of the possible stages?  That was the point of throwing those papers in his face. (Bonus points for anyone who guesses who I'm quoting.  And no fair using Google!) -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:22    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:10) blipes...it's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary. But How would you know they already solved it without reading the articles? They tend to make their claims *in* journals. By your logic Behe could never know because he doesn't review the works in which progress is made... -------------- "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

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:26    I might have missed it, but where in that giant pile of pig shit was the answer to my question?  Hold on, I'll take a second look. Remember, the question was: Quote HOW DID BEHE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID IN A SET OF BOOKS AND PAPERS WHICH HE DID NOT READ? Ftk's first paragraph:   Quote blipes...it's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary. No mention of the direct object "Behe" anywhere. Ftk's second paragraph:   Quote I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles. Still no Behe in there.  Now we no longer even have discussion of the indirect object of the literature.  We DO have a little geometry, however--makes it look sciency. Ftk's third paragraph:   Quote Also, blipe, you might consider what the general public thinks when they hear about this silly "stack of books" antic.  Obviously, this was staged as court room theatre in an attempt to run with it to the media.  The books were there and ready to be rolled out.  Now, everyone knows that Behe would not have read every single ancient document in regard to the speculation as to how the immune system evolved.  But, obviously, he has read more than just the most current papers on the topic.  He's been discussing the issue for years. Now we have a mention of the literature and Behe makes an appearance in the same paragraph.  This looks promising.  OH!  Noes!  Behe is not connected with the literature in question.  No banana for you. Ftk's fourth paragraph:   Quote No doubt he had read several of the articles found in that stack, but like everyone else in that courtroom and probably every scientist in the country, he would not have read all of it, and it *certainly* wouldn't be necessary to support his case.   Still no mention of the method Behe uses to understand things he has never read.  Which ones did he read?  How do you know?  Given that he read 4 of them, how does he know what's in the others--WHICH HE HASN'T READ? (40 GOTO "top") and lastly:   Quote The whole episode was very sophomoric... No.  Most sophomores I know can answer a direct question. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:27    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:10) articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary. Very simplistic view you have huh? I half went to some trouble and picked a few images out to illustrate a point about learning a language and picking up the hardest textbook first. But that half hearted analogy would be too easy for you to distort and dismiss. Instead I'll just say that if he had read all of them perhaps the conjunction of all that information in his particular brain might have inspired a new idea and he'd have provided the proof of evolution of the immune system himself. Or proved ID unambiguously. But we'll never know will we? I think one of the many reasons the majority of people would reject intelligent design because it makes them feel as if they are in a zoo, being poked at (viri tweaked?) for somebody's amusement. And people got sick of that idea a long time ago already. -------------- 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:29    FTK, "I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles. " So anything you do not understand is BS.  Well, that's what you just said.  Or translated, anything that you do not understand, is not worth your learning about. I've got it know.  I hope you children will have the ability to see the world with better eyes. -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:30    Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:10)     Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,11:59) Nope.  That's a pretty good question.  In fact, it cuts right to the point of this discussion. HOW DID BEHE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID IN A SET OF BOOKS AND PAPERS WHICH HE DID NOT READ? Please continue to ignore this very simple question. blipes...it's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary. I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles. Also, blipe, you might consider what the general public thinks when they hear about this silly "stack of books" antic.  Obviously, this was staged as court room theatre in an attempt to run with it to the media.  The books were there and ready to be rolled out.  Now, everyone knows that Behe would not have read every single ancient document in regard to the speculation as to how the immune system evolved.  But, obviously, he has read more than just the most current papers on the topic.  He's been discussing the issue for years. No doubt he had read several of the articles found in that stack, but like everyone else in that courtroom and probably every scientist in the country, he would not have read all of it, and it *certainly* wouldn't be necessary to support his case.   The whole episode was very sophomoric... Aargh. Let's try again. Goalpost 1 - Behe saying that there are NO NATURAL EXPLANATIONS for the evolution of the immune system is a case of lying about science. Goalpost 2 (to be ignored) - FtK saying that scientists don't have a conclusive explanation for the evolution of the immune system, and that is what Behe really meant. This goalpost resettling ignores the fact that ALL science is tentative, that Behe alleges that he is a scientist, and that if he really was saying that, he would be just as guilty of lying about science as he was if we concentrate solely on goalpost 1. Now, if the assertion is that Behe lied when he made the assertion found above in goalpost 1, what is the evidence? 1) a large pile of books and reprints, representing a small fraction of the available peer-reviewed evidence, and containing natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system, that he ignored. 2) the consensus of the scientific community that there are indeed natural (albeit tentative) explanations for the evolution of the immune system. 3) a court finding, by a judge who is not a scientist but who can at least weigh the evidence on both sides, that there are indeed natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system. In the absence of further evidence, and so far, FtK, you have presented none, this case is pretty solid. Either Behe lied about being an expert when he hadn't read a lot of the relevant papers, or he misled (lied to) the public and the judge when he maintained that those papers did not contain natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system. And if you want to go to goalpost 2, he lied about the nature of scientific conclusions, which is inexcusable for anyone who calls themselves a scientist. Note that none of this depends on Behe being a Christian, an atheist, or a Zoroastrian. None of it is ad hominem; it is based on facts that are readily available to anyone who wishes to examine them. Note that concentrating on the "sophomoric" or "court room theatre" aspects of the case does not change the facts of the case, nor does it provide evidence that goes counter to the conclusions above. Where is the evidence, FtK? Have you read those papers? if not, take a look at the list and I'd be happy to send some reprints your way, just in case they are not available at your public library. -------------- 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

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:34    Wouldn't she first need to at least read the textbook you sent her?  How's that coming, btw, Ftk? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:35    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:30) Goalpost 1 - Behe saying that there are NO NATURAL EXPLANATIONS for the evolution of the immune system is a case of lying about science. Not to be pedantic, but he goes a step further and says that there are no POSSIBLE natural explanations. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard