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... > Behe's response

Pages: (7) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] >

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:06    Quote (bystander @ Nov. 15 2007,20:09) ps. I can't wait until this thread moves to page 7. I find the photo at the top disturbing for some reason You mean, this picture? EDITTED for the little babies with sensitive tum-tums. -------------- 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!)

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:14    I hate you. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:16    Waiting for the page to roll over has been killing you, hasn't it Carlson Jokstrap?  I'm betting you've been planning that for some time. Lou P.S. I also hate you. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:27    Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 16 2007,15:16) Waiting for the page to roll over has been killing you, hasn't it Carlson Jokstrap?  I'm betting you've been planning that for some time. Lou P.S. I also hate you. Yeah, me too, but I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type. ID Predicts that if you can get that through the Thought Police at UD, you win the prestigious Poster of The Century Award. Getting it autographed by Behe, Lindsy Lohan and Abbie Smith - ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS, and we would all have to bow down and worship you.  Except me, cuz fortunately I am an atheist. -------------- 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: Nov. 16 2007,15:28    Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 16 2007,15:16) Waiting for the page to roll over has been killing you, hasn't it Carlson Jokstrap?  I'm betting you've been planning that for some time. Who, little old me?  Would I do something like that?  It was just an innocent question.  But, to show what a swell gent I am, I editted the post to keep from offending your senstivities, oh moderator! Quote P.S. I also hate you. You know, there was an absolutely perfect lolcat you could have used in this case.  Just so ya know...... Oh, by the way.  Any guy who wore a red dress with that much junk in his trunk shouldn't be hating on Behe! -------------- 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!)

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:35    Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 16 2007,16:28) Oh, by the way.  Any guy who wore a red dress with that much junk in his trunk shouldn't be hating on Behe! Hey, I made that dress look good. Plus, I did it by request of my dead Aunt.  Favorite Aunts get a certain amount of consideration when they go to California. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 10 2008,15:44    We don't seem to have a general Mike Behe thread per se, so I'm putting this here. I was reading the new Panda's Thumb story about Behe's ridiculous immune system claims, and it makes me idly wonder, has any idea ever been eviscerated as thoroughly as Irreducible Complexity?

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 10 2008,17:33    I have no idea.  I was just thinking that to me Behe probably looks marginally better than the Lamprey, although the Lamprey probably talks better science.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,11:57    Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2008,13:44) We don't seem to have a general Mike Behe thread per se, so I'm putting this here. I was reading the new Panda's Thumb story about Behe's ridiculous immune system claims, and it makes me idly wonder, has any idea ever been eviscerated as thoroughly as Irreducible Complexity? Well, phlogiston, lead-into-gold, and geocentrism come to mind.  But if we restrict it to recent hypotheses, proposed when the evidence was already running against them, and maintained by their proponents as evidence continued to mount, the only parallel I can think of is steady-state cosmology.  Of course, steady-state was always a scientific theory, not religious apologetics, so I'm not sure it's that good a parallel. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Venus Mousetrap Posts: 201 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,12:26    Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2008,15:44) We don't seem to have a general Mike Behe thread per se, so I'm putting this here. I was reading the new Panda's Thumb story about Behe's ridiculous immune system claims, and it makes me idly wonder, has any idea ever been eviscerated as thoroughly as Irreducible Complexity? I was arguing IC on Uncommon Descent a week ago here, where I told them they should stop clinging to the flawed notion, but they still believe it's credible, and I rather failed at showing them otherwise. Apparently they are aware that nothing in evolution prohibits IC, but still insist that it be shown in practice else ID wins by default. I know a goalpost has been moved somewhere there but my argument-fu is weak. In any case they're asking for evidence which is unreasonably difficult to obtain in practice, but easy to show in principle. Personally I believe that emphasising the power of gene duplication is the key, since that, as far as I know, is the method for adding information (by their definition) - the mechanism they claim doesn't exist. how exactly do they deny that one? we know genes duplicate, we know that it doesn't always harm the animal, we know that they can mutate in different ways to the original gene, we know that this can be selected for, and we have evidence of genes which look like copies of others.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,12:48    Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 12 2008,12:26) Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2008,15:44) We don't seem to have a general Mike Behe thread per se, so I'm putting this here. I was reading the new Panda's Thumb story about Behe's ridiculous immune system claims, and it makes me idly wonder, has any idea ever been eviscerated as thoroughly as Irreducible Complexity? I was arguing IC on Uncommon Descent a week ago here, where I told them they should stop clinging to the flawed notion, but they still believe it's credible, and I rather failed at showing them otherwise. Apparently they are aware that nothing in evolution prohibits IC, but still insist that it be shown in practice else ID wins by default. I know a goalpost has been moved somewhere there but my argument-fu is weak. In any case they're asking for evidence which is unreasonably difficult to obtain in practice, but easy to show in principle. Personally I believe that emphasising the power of gene duplication is the key, since that, as far as I know, is the method for adding information (by their definition) - the mechanism they claim doesn't exist. how exactly do they deny that one? we know genes duplicate, we know that it doesn't always harm the animal, we know that they can mutate in different ways to the original gene, we know that this can be selected for, and we have evidence of genes which look like copies of others. Ah so!  You must remember Little Grasshopper, that no man can convert a True Believer™.  True Believer must convert himself. -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,14:05    Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 12 2008,13:26) Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2008,15:44) We don't seem to have a general Mike Behe thread per se, so I'm putting this here. I was reading the new Panda's Thumb story about Behe's ridiculous immune system claims, and it makes me idly wonder, has any idea ever been eviscerated as thoroughly as Irreducible Complexity? I was arguing IC on Uncommon Descent a week ago here, where I told them they should stop clinging to the flawed notion, but they still believe it's credible, and I rather failed at showing them otherwise. Apparently they are aware that nothing in evolution prohibits IC, but still insist that it be shown in practice else ID wins by default. I know a goalpost has been moved somewhere there but my argument-fu is weak. In any case they're asking for evidence which is unreasonably difficult to obtain in practice, but easy to show in principle. Personally I believe that emphasising the power of gene duplication is the key, since that, as far as I know, is the method for adding information (by their definition) - the mechanism they claim doesn't exist. how exactly do they deny that one? we know genes duplicate, we know that it doesn't always harm the animal, we know that they can mutate in different ways to the original gene, we know that this can be selected for, and we have evidence of genes which look like copies of others. You should have pity for them. Believing in IC at this point is a kind of IQ test.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,14:28    Plus PaV or DHL or some other nugget was arguing that redundancy in biological structure is evidence of design last week. To recap: Take a piece out. If it still works: Design! If it doesn't work: Design! -------------- "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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,14:46    besides since there are no theory independent observations, and theories are clearly designed, all observations thus yield design. you pathetic darwinist materialists chance worshippers cannot possibly understand how infantile your objections to Design are in the eyes of the almighty GOD DESIGNER. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

BopDiddy Posts: 71 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2011,00:39    Exhuming an old Behe thread to post this: The Humanist Interview with Leo Behe "The son of intelligent design heavyweight Michael Behe discusses his journey to atheism" A snippet:   Quote The Humanist: How long was this transformation, and why didn’t your father’s ideas (or others) about intelligent design demonstrate proof of a “designer” or creator? Behe: The journey from very devout Catholic to outspoken atheist took about six months total. Once my trust in the Bible was shaken, I still believed strongly in a theistic god, but I realized that I hadn’t sufficiently examined my beliefs. Over the next several months, my certainty of a sentient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity faded steadily. I believe that the loss of a specific creed was the tipping point for me. After I lost the element of trust—be it trust in the Bible, trust in a church, or trust in the Pope—I had no choice but to vindicate my own beliefs through research, literature, and countless hours of deep thought. It was then that my belief in any sort of God faded away gradually, and to this day I continue to find more and more convincing evidence against any sort of design or supernatural interference in the universe. As for the arguments from design, such as irreducible complexity or the so-called fine-tuning of the six cosmological constants, I have many reasons for dismissing them each in particular, but one overarching reason would be the common refutation of William Paley’s classic watchmaker argument—the only reason that complex objects appear to be designed is because we as humans create complex objects, and we then assume that complexity is indisputably indicative of a designer. This is an association we make only as a result of what our “common sense” tells us.

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2011,00:46    Quote (BopDiddy @ Sep. 01 2011,00:39) Exhuming an old Behe thread to post this: The Humanist Interview with Leo Behe "The son of intelligent design heavyweight Michael Behe discusses his journey to atheism" A snippet:     Quote The Humanist: How long was this transformation, and why didn’t your father’s ideas (or others) about intelligent design demonstrate proof of a “designer” or creator? Behe: The journey from very devout Catholic to outspoken atheist took about six months total. Once my trust in the Bible was shaken, I still believed strongly in a theistic god, but I realized that I hadn’t sufficiently examined my beliefs. Over the next several months, my certainty of a sentient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity faded steadily. I believe that the loss of a specific creed was the tipping point for me. After I lost the element of trust—be it trust in the Bible, trust in a church, or trust in the Pope—I had no choice but to vindicate my own beliefs through research, literature, and countless hours of deep thought. It was then that my belief in any sort of God faded away gradually, and to this day I continue to find more and more convincing evidence against any sort of design or supernatural interference in the universe. As for the arguments from design, such as irreducible complexity or the so-called fine-tuning of the six cosmological constants, I have many reasons for dismissing them each in particular, but one overarching reason would be the common refutation of William Paley’s classic watchmaker argument—the only reason that complex objects appear to be designed is because we as humans create complex objects, and we then assume that complexity is indisputably indicative of a designer. This is an association we make only as a result of what our “common sense” tells us. Turnabout is fair play.  O'Hair's son became a Christian, didn't he? -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2011,02:29    Hang on: for a proper 'conversion-to-atheism' story, doesn't he have to have an account of how happy, purpose-driven and Good he was before turning away from Jeebus? I suspect an infiltrator.... -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

Pages: (7) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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