RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register


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] >   
  Topic: FtK's "Where Does ID Belong?" Poll< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:36   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:33)
A bit more research (thank ebola for that Dover transcript on line!) turned up this.

Under oath, Behe said    
Quote
There is no experimental evidence to show that natural selection could have produced the immune system.

Link here.
And then he goes on to say lots of other things about evidence and frameworks and perspectives that got blown apart during the cross-x.

I think that the evidence is pretty clear that Behe said, and certainly believes, the characterization of him in my previously cited goalpost 1. If there is evidence to the contrary, it has yet to be divulged here.

Again, that quote is true, Dave.   If you can prove otherwise, please do so.  Speculation is one thing, facts are a completely different matter.

Edit:  You might also note that he is speaking of the present... he's making no claims about what may be discovered in the future.

--------------
"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 2007,14:37   

I asked:

Quote
And while you're telling us IN YOUR OWN WORDS what As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration. means,


Ftk responded:

Quote
Applying a dose of AtBC vulgarity, that quote translated by the voice of a true Darwinist would be as follows...

[high pitched whine]

"Crap... I really, really want to figure out how in the bloody hell my majestic and all powerful evolutionary mechanisms can account for the infinite complexity of the immune system (among many other highly complex systems and machines within the human body).  

I am simply frustrated beyond belief that I cannot figure it out so that I can put a muzzle on these damn ID theorists once and for all."

[/whining ceases and moanful sobbing begins]


I had no idea you were a Darwinist.

How about telling us in your own words

Quote
Is it possible for a human being to know what is contained in a book which he has not read?


--------------
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 2007,14:39   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:36)
Speculation is one thing, facts are a completely different matter.

You have proven your inability to differentiate between the two.

--------------
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: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:39   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:36)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:33)
A bit more research (thank ebola for that Dover transcript on line!) turned up this.

Under oath, Behe said    
Quote
There is no experimental evidence to show that natural selection could have produced the immune system.

Link here.
And then he goes on to say lots of other things about evidence and frameworks and perspectives that got blown apart during the cross-x.

I think that the evidence is pretty clear that Behe said, and certainly believes, the characterization of him in my previously cited goalpost 1. If there is evidence to the contrary, it has yet to be divulged here.

Again, that quote is true, Dave.   If you can prove otherwise, please do so.  Speculation is one thing, facts are a completely different matter.

Proving someone never said something is a bit like proving the designer isn't there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

--------------
"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 2007,14:43   

After several months of thinking about it, Ftk, have you decided why being able to discuss topics in your own words is something to be held in contempt?  Do you respect people who can discuss things in their own words?  If you find people who can't rephrase a topic into their own words, would you hire that person as a teacher?

While expounding on this, what do you think about:  
Quote
Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Notice that this is a yes / no question.  I won't even ask you to expound in your first comment.  Just a one-word answer will do.

--------------
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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:59   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:36)

Again, that quote is true, Dave.   If you can prove otherwise, please do so.  Speculation is one thing, facts are a completely different matter.

Edit:  You might also note that he is speaking of the present... he's making no claims about what may be discovered in the future.

Let me get this straight. You are asserting that Behe's statement  
Quote
There is no experimental evidence to show that natural selection could have produced the immune system.
is true.

Have you read that list of papers? Did you even look at Nick's bibliography? If so, did you see this other Behe quote - ""There is no publication in the scientific literature -- in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books -- that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred." (Darwin's Black Box, p. 185)"? (my bolding)

Do you want me to drag up one, or a dozen, of those papers and show how they all contain "experimental evidence" that shows how natural selection "could have" or 'even might have" produced the immune system? How about this one?    
Quote
Agrawal, A., Eastman, Q. M. and Schatz, D. G. (1998). "Transposition mediated by RAG1 and RAG2 and its implications for the evolution of the immune system." Nature 394(6695): 744-751.
This study reports a major research finding that supported the transposon hypothesis for the origin of adaptive immunity. The authors found that the rearrangment-activating genes, RAG1+RAG2, could still perform both the excision and the insertion reactions, just like a free-living transposon.

Figure 7 is a nice color graphic of the transposon hypothesis.

   "Our results are evidence in favour of the theory that a vital event in the evolution of the antigen-specific immune system was the insertion of a 'RAG transposon' into the germ line of a vertebrate ancestor14,41." (p. 750)

Do you recall, just a few posts ago, you wrote this, re those papers that Behe ignored"        
Quote
We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.

Do you want me to post some more evidence like that? Do you understand that Behe himself, in that statement UNDER OATH, said that even these "could have" speculations are unsupported by experimental evidence? When these papers are chock full of evidence and "could have" statements?

And finally, do you understand the ramification that, when  Behe repeatedly says something that is demonstrably false, he might be lying about that, or about his qualifications to discuss it?

What part of that is still unclear to you?

--------------
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. 02 2007,15:13   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 02 2007,14:39)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:36)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:33)
A bit more research (thank ebola for that Dover transcript on line!) turned up this.

Under oath, Behe said      
Quote
There is no experimental evidence to show that natural selection could have produced the immune system.

Link here.
And then he goes on to say lots of other things about evidence and frameworks and perspectives that got blown apart during the cross-x.

I think that the evidence is pretty clear that Behe said, and certainly believes, the characterization of him in my previously cited goalpost 1. If there is evidence to the contrary, it has yet to be divulged here.

Again, that quote is true, Dave.   If you can prove otherwise, please do so.  Speculation is one thing, facts are a completely different matter.

Proving someone never said something is a bit like proving the designer isn't there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Rich, I'm not asking him to prove a negative in regard to what Behe said.  

I'm asking him to show me evidence from the papers and books ("the stack") that provide the empirical evidence to support the supposed explanation that the immune system evolved through evolutionary mechanisms.  

If it's speculative, you can certainly not say that the system has been explained...it hasn't.  

Natural selection cannot explain the system (present not future tense)...we need much more data and research before anyone can come even close to making a statement like that.  

And, sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but these systems are extremely complex and as each day passes, due to the advancement of science and what we are learning about these systems, they are getting harder and harder to explain by evolutionary methodology than we ever imagined.  Evolution needs
more adequate mechanisms.

Maybe you guys can work on that...

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:16   

FTK,

You are avoiding the issue and blathering again.

Behe said he HAD NOT read the vast majority of those papers/books etc and was UNAWARE of them. He then said that what they contained was insufficient. Trying to assert that "no doubt" he had read some of them when his own testimony states he hadn't is ummmmm fucking moronic. I suggest you read the Dover transcript.

Here is the relevant page.

You might also note that, like you, Behe is moving goalposts, but that's a different issue. The point is that, regardless of specifically WHAT Behe is trying to say about the nature of the data in those tomes and papers he is claiming to know, he is claiming to be able to say it without having read those tome and papers. You'll also note he claims expertise in a full area without going back to the primary lit, based on a brief survey or a series of review articles. This by the way is a gross no no!

Still doesn't change the key issue.

Louis

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:17   

You keep side stepping the fact that Behe claimed to know the contents of papers without reading them.

Under Oath.

--------------
"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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2829
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:19   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:13)
And, sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but these systems are extremely complex and as each day passes, due to the advancement of science and what we are learning about these systems, they are getting harder and harder to explain by evolutionary methodology than we ever imagined.  Evolution needs
more adequate mechanisms.

You must have read a lot of the literature in order to reach this conclusion.  Could you give us a few citations?

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:20   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,15:13)
If it's speculative, you can certainly not say that the system has been explained...it hasn't.  

Natural selection cannot explain the system (present not future tense)...we need much more data and research before anyone can come even close to making a statement like that.

So, to be clear on where you are coming from, is there anything that you are happy to say "ok, explained"?

Or, more to the point, what do you consider to not be speculative?

What, FTK, to you is proven, assumable, immutable? Anything? What, as "evilution" obviously does not, so what does fit your critiera and is explained to your satisfaction?

Just curious if it's even possible to meet your standards!

--------------
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

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:33   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,15:07)
Okay, let me see if I'm understanding your assumption correctly.  You're telling me that, though Behe has been considering the IC of the immune system for near a decade, he has only read one paper on the topic....one paper from 2005?

I doubt he's read any papers. Certainly he doesn't know sh*t about the immune system and the research into its evolution. Same for the flagellum.

Quote
Holy buckets of monkey shite, you people really do think that IDists are insane.(

That's the inescapable conlusion from examining the evidence.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:40   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,15:36)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:33)
A bit more research (thank ebola for that Dover transcript on line!) turned up this.

Under oath, Behe said        
Quote
There is no experimental evidence to show that natural selection could have produced the immune system.

Link here.
And then he goes on to say lots of other things about evidence and frameworks and perspectives that got blown apart during the cross-x.

I think that the evidence is pretty clear that Behe said, and certainly believes, the characterization of him in my previously cited goalpost 1. If there is evidence to the contrary, it has yet to be divulged here.

Again, that quote is true, Dave.   If you can prove otherwise, please do so.  Speculation is one thing, facts are a completely different matter.

Edit:  You might also note that he is speaking of the present... he's making no claims about what may be discovered in the future.

There's a big difference between "could have" and "did, in some particular manner".  The former has been conclusively demonstrated, both experimentally and theoretically, in the papers neither you nor Behe have read.  The latter is still open to further investigation. Them's facts, not speculation.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:59   

Hi Ftk,

Here's a simple question for you.  You seem to have missed it the previous 8 quintillion times it's been asked.  So, as a service to you, just so you won't look like a moron who has no idea what they're talking about, or a piece of crap who doesn't now how to have a discussion, here it s again:

Quote
Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Thanks.

--------------
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

   
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,16:39   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,15:36)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:33)
A bit more research (thank ebola for that Dover transcript on line!) turned up this.

Under oath, Behe said        
Quote
There is no experimental evidence to show that natural selection could have produced the immune system.

Link here.
And then he goes on to say lots of other things about evidence and frameworks and perspectives that got blown apart during the cross-x.

I think that the evidence is pretty clear that Behe said, and certainly believes, the characterization of him in my previously cited goalpost 1. If there is evidence to the contrary, it has yet to be divulged here.

Again, that quote is true, Dave.   If you can prove otherwise, please do so.  Speculation is one thing, facts are a completely different matter.

Edit:  You might also note that he is speaking of the present... he's making no claims about what may be discovered in the future.

On further reflection ...

What FtK and the rest of the IDiots are missing or supressing is the fact that in some circumstances speculation is sufficient.  This is one of those circumstances. Speculation about evolutionary pathways, when the speculation is consistent with all the tremendous amount of evidence we have and is in accord with all the natural laws we know, is sufficient to prove (insofar as anything is ever proven in science) that natural selection could have produced the immune system.

So, scornful dismissal of "speculation" is not appropriate; unless FtK or Behe can show that the speculations are inconsistent with the evidence or inconsistent with known natural laws,  those speculations demonstrate that they have no basis for their claims about what natural selection could or could not have produced.

And they can't even try to demonstrate problems with the speculations until they read the literature and find out what the speculations are.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,16:42   

Quote
And they can't even try to demonstrate problems with the speculations until they read the literature and find out what the speculations are.


Hey, Ftk.  How that answer coming?  Do you agree with the above quote?

--------------
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

   
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,16:50   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,16:13)
I'm asking him to show me evidence from the papers and books ("the stack") that provide the empirical evidence to support the supposed explanation that the immune system evolved through evolutionary mechanisms.  

If it's speculative, you can certainly not say that the system has been explained...it hasn't.

Nobody claims that the system has been explained for sure (although many believe that it has).  We do claim that possible explanations have been offered, which is sufficient to disprove Behe's claim of impossibility.

Quote
Natural selection cannot explain the system (present not future tense)...we need much more data and research before anyone can come even close to making a statement like that.

Natural selection can explain the system, and has been used to explain the system.  We need much more data and research before we know if any of the explanations are what really happened (and we may never know that). But the subject is not what really happened, but is rather what could have happened. If you or Behe want to claim that natural selection cannot explain the system today, you need to familiarize yourself with the proffered explanations and then demonstrate where they are inconsistent with observations or violate established natural law. You haven't even taken the first step of familiarizing yourself with the explanations.

Quote
And, sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but these systems are extremely complex and as each day passes, due to the advancement of science and what we are learning about these systems, they are getting harder and harder to explain by evolutionary methodology than we ever imagined.  Evolution needs
more adequate mechanisms.

Maybe you guys can work on that...

First let's see some evidence there's something to work on.  Your unsupported assertiona ain't particularly convincing.  I thought you were the new FtK with support for you claims ... guess that went by the boards pretty quickly.

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,17:00   

I read the last few pages from work, where I cannot log in. I am not surprised by FTK's lack of understanding how science operates. I AM amazed at how she insists that she is correct, in spite of all of you telling her why. Part of this is because she is not a scientist, and Behe, who is and ought to know better, has mislead the general public.

Making claims in science without being up to date on the relevant literature, and making those claims in a forum where peer review before publication is not done is a huge no-no. Bad enough to cause you to lose your credibility. (Which Behe has) Only a scientist or someone familiar with the process can truly appreciate it.

Peer review can be brutal. Reviewers, experts in your field, go over your work in all its detail, looking for incorrect assumptions, faulty mathematics, or places where you show lack of knowledge in the work by others in the field. It is not for the faint-hearted, or the thin skinned. By publishing popular books (and having comments on those books disabled by Amazon) Behe has bypassed that process completely. Without it, his work has no merit in the scientific world. Don't like it? Too bad. That is how the game is played. In my part of the country, the saying goes: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch".

BTW-I teach science and have been only a co-author. My husband is a published researcher in primate behavior, so I have seen the process first-hand.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,03:01   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,15:13)
And, sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but these systems are extremely complex and as each day passes, due to the advancement of science and what we are learning about these systems, they are getting harder and harder to explain by evolutionary methodology than we ever imagined.  Evolution needs
more adequate mechanisms.

Maybe you guys can work on that...

Gone off to have a nice lie down have we FTK?

Are the cracks beginning to show?

You've been shown how dishonest Behe is. Will you be able to trust another word he says without double checking?

Will you get that copy of DBB and see what Behe wrote for yourself or continue to insist on the basis of *nothing* that you are right and everybody else is wrong, even though the evidence is there in black and white?

--------------
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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,04:24   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,21:13)
{SNIP}
And, sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but these systems are extremely complex and as each day passes, due to the advancement of science and what we are learning about these systems, they are getting harder and harder to explain by evolutionary methodology than we ever imagined.  Evolution needs
more adequate mechanisms.

Maybe you guys can work on that...

FTK,

Got any evidence to support this claim? Or is it just yet more poorly projected drivel and fantasy from a scientifically illiterate, ignorant, religious apologist? What makes you think you know the first thing about the relevant science when you demonstrably don't?

How about you tell us what evolutionary mechanisms there are? I ask this because I don't believe you know. I know you can cut and paste and google but I don't  believe you actually know yourself. Incidentally, this is why people keep asking you to do this. We know you can find stuff on the web to some basic degree, we don't know if you understand what you find.

Let's be frank, we know you are reciting creationist talking points garnered from your church and various sources friendly to your religious convictions. We also know that you have to maintain the projection that somehow anyone who opposes you is equally biased in an opposing direction (the idea of following the actual evidence seems to be something you are incapable of understanding). When you spout off something like the paragraph I quoted it's a really rather obvious signal that you are trying to wrap your silly delusions around yourself to protect you from encountering reality. Shout it as loud as you like FTK, nothing you can do will make it true. Whilst you ponder this, try to realise that not all people are like you in manner, ability, understanding, desire or prejudicial basis. But enough of that, back to the res.....

I don't believe for a second that you either know any relevant science or understand any relevant science. I also don't believe for a second you can in any way support the claims made in the quoted paragraph. SO I'm going to do an experiment. My new copy of Science has just landed on my desk so I have opened it to find an article that relates even tangentially to evolutionary biology.....aha....here's one that touches the topic:

Rapid Emergence of Baculovirus Resistance in Codling Moth Due to Dominant, Sex-Linked Inheritance

What I want you to do is read the paper (not just the abstract), which might involve you requesting it from a library or paying for a subscription or a one off article (I might be able to download the pdf and email it to you actually, let me see if I can do that a bit later). When you've read the paper I want you to pick out the evolutionary mechanisms it discusses. Think you can do that?

My bet is that you will ignore the question, just like you ignore myriad simple questions that expose your ignorance and intellectual vacuity and dishonesty.

Failing that you could just make the barest attempt to justify the claims made in the quote above.

Louis

P.S. Anyone else want to bet me that she WON'T run away from the question? Anyone? Anyone????

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:02   

Quote
P.S. Anyone else want to bet me that she WON'T run away from the question? Anyone? Anyone????


Egads, man.  Do you think I'm made of money?  Stop your taunting.

--------------
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

   
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:11   

Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 02 2007,17:00)
Peer review can be brutal. Reviewers, experts in your field, go over your work in all its detail, looking for incorrect assumptions, faulty mathematics, or places where you show lack of knowledge in the work by others in the field. It is not for the faint-hearted, or the thin skinned. By publishing popular books (and having comments on those books disabled by Amazon) Behe has bypassed that process completely. Without it, his work has no merit in the scientific world. Don't like it? Too bad. That is how the game is played. In my part of the country, the saying goes: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch".

This is a good, but partial explanation for Behe's lack of credibility in science.  I was also astounded that he testified at the Dover trial that he did not himself engage in ID research because he was already convinced.  If the most scientifically credentialed ID proponent can't be bothered to treat ID as real science, then why should anyone?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,13:54   

Quote
I was also astounded that he testified at the Dover trial that he did not himself engage in ID research because he was already convinced.


And do biologists stop researching because they're convinced that animals came from ancestors? Somehow I don't think so... :p

Henry

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:38   

I'm just curious: has anyone asked Behe what his "next step" is?  Now that he's supposedly identified IC systems, where does he go next?  What is his proposed research project based on his findings?  Or does he just want to find more IC systems?

--------------
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.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,15:28   

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 03 2007,14:38)
I'm just curious: has anyone asked Behe what his "next step" is?  Now that he's supposedly identified IC systems, where does he go next?  What is his proposed research project based on his findings?  Or does he just want to find more IC systems?

Whatever it is it will involve selling more books.

--------------
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. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,16:48   

The outhouse seems a good place.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,16:52   

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Oct. 03 2007,16:48)
The outhouse seems a good place.

Evangelical TV?

--------------
"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

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,17:58   

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,15:22)
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 02 2007,14:20)
 
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:18)
 
Quote
Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Thanks.

Blipey - NOT counting the bible?

No, no, no.  Especially counting the Bible.

I almost went there myself, but then I remembered that a large percentage of the fundies I meet don't have a frickin' clue what is in their own holy books.

Edit for clarification:  Almost said the Bible as J-Dog did = "almost went there myself."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10375
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,21:33   

The comments here are becoming general topics about FTK. In the interest of tidyness and simplicity we should keep general FtK business on the thread already established for that. So I'm closing this one and everyone please reply to such things at the other thread.

   
  178 replies since Sep. 29 2007,12:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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