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 >  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,08:18   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 01 2007,08:04)
 The only thing that was "PROVEN" in the Denver court is that Darwinists & their media spin a fine story.  Their interpretation is biased beyond belief.

I think it was also proven that when Behe asserted, as an expert on the subject, that the evolution of the human immune system was mysterious and not well-studied, he was wrong. When a pile of papers and books on that very subject was placed in front of him, and he admitted that he had not read them, he was PROVEN wrong about the human immune system.

As Wes noted, if you claim to be an expert, and then expound nonsense on that subject, you are obviously lying about one thing, or the other. Or both.

Open your eyes.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,09:11   

http://64.233.167.104/search?....1&gl=us

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

  
fusilier



Posts: 247
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,09:23   

Philosophy of Science - as "a perfect example of how NOT to do science."

I once took a criminology course, and ID creationism would fit in the section on scams and fraud, so it might go under "other."

fusilier
James 2:24

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,09:29   

Ftk:

Since you've not commented on the plethora of examples given as to why people spend time and resources promulgating lies, I am to understand that you agree that these are valid arguments.

Using that as a starting point, do you imagine that it might be possible (not even likely, but just possible) that ID supporters could (just maybe) be lying for a paycheck?

Does anyone lie for a paycheck?

Have you ever heard the term "fraud"?  What about "embezzlement"?  Could these two things be combined int something that people would spend a lot of energy lying about?

Would you like to retract your statement that people would never spend time and energy lying about something?

Do you think about what you type?  Ever?

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

   
dochocson



Posts: 62
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,10:33   

I would like to predict that if FtK chooses to reply on the topic of Behe she will:

1) Make claims about what Behe meant to say. Specifically she will seize upon his waffling about astrology 500+ years ago.

2) Ignore the fact that in his testimony, Behe essentially said that he can define what constitutes a scientific theory.

--------------
All bleeding stops...eventually.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2829
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:05   

I voted "In religion classes".  It seemed the best fit.

Science classes is obviously a non-starter.  Call me old-fashioned, but I think science classes are for the teaching of science.
I thought about philosophy of science, but I'm not sure ID teaches anything about this subject.  It's not so much a misguided attempt at science as a political/religious movement.  I wouldn't be averse to mentioning it in passing here, though.
As a separate study?  There's just not enough substance to justify this.
Outside of the school setting in churches, synagogues, etc.?  Well, we can hardly stop this happening, can we?
Wiped off the face of the earth?  Not rreally achievable.  Give it time and it will just fade away of it's own accord.  But given the number of long-discredited arguments still in use by the cretards, it will not go away entirely as long as there are creationists.

Which leaves religion classes.  ID is a fine example of political (mis)application of religious apologetics, and I think would have to be covered in any course about contemporary Christian fundamentalism.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,19:56   

Quote
I think it was also proven that when Behe asserted, as an expert on the subject, that the evolution of the human immune system was mysterious and not well-studied, he was wrong. When a pile of papers and books on that very subject was placed in front of him, and he admitted that he had not read them, he was PROVEN wrong about the human immune system.

As Wes noted, if you claim to be an expert, and then expound nonsense on that subject, you are obviously lying about one thing, or the other. Or both.

Open your eyes.




From here.
     
Quote
As far as the “stack of books and articles” presented at the trial, Behe took it as bad courtroom theatre. He said that the “stack of books” we always see in pictures was staged because pictures were not allowed to be taken in the courtroom. So, obviously, this was an antic to try to make Behe look foolish.

Behe said that current studies do not provide evidence that the immune system has been explained by evolutionary mechanisms, so he was certain that this older material piled up in front of him did not contain anything that would explain it either. In the trial, he referenced the most current 2005 standard view of the immune system and he discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial, but this information was not referenced in the Jones decision. He said the 2005 article on the immune system used words like “may have”, “appears to be”, “probably”, “might have”, etc. etc. It was speculative information, and if that were true in 2005, then obviously earlier papers wouldn’t have added anything more pertinent to the discussion. The papers in question do not address how random processes explain evolution of the immune system... they simply assume that they do.

Jones also made the statement in his decision that Behe said, “Those papers were not good enough”. In fact, Behe did not say this. Those are the words Eric Rothchild tried to put in his mouth while Behe was on the witness stand. Behe actually said that they were wonderful articles, that they were very interesting, but that they simply don’t address the question as he posed it. They address a different question.

Behe said that he seems to find himself following Ken Miller around correcting these issues that Ken keeps relaying to the public. Apparently, Richard Dawkins uses these same words (“those papers were not good enough”) in his latest book, The God Delusion. So, both Miller and Dawkins are relaying inaccurate information and the scientific community is eating it up and using it against him as well.

Another misperception came out in the Q&A session. Behe was asked if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science.

Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.

Behe made the comment that some of the things that came out of the Dover trial were “surreal distortions”, and he seemed to be frankly shocked at how much information was inaccurately relayed in Jones’ final decision.


Also, please read this link which provides further information and verbiage from transcripts in regard to the immune system and astrology canards.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,20:47   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,20:07)


They USE science as their basis for atheism (which is a faith belief regardless of what any of you will admit).

Read my sig.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1786
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,21:03   

LOL!  Kitzmiller vs. Dover has been over for almost 2 years now, but the IDiots are still bellyaching about it.

Question:  How much ID research was done in the 22 months since the ruling came out?

Answer:  The same amount that was done in the preceding 22 years.  :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 01 2007,19:56)
Also, please read this link which provides further information and verbiage from transcripts in regard to the immune system and astrology canards.

I posted a section from the trial on the previous page. FTK, there's no need to go to your blog to get it second hand.

And how's the youngcosmos gig going FTK? The forum is hardly jumping now is it? Nobody's interested, nobody but us even visits.

And FTK, as you are "open to both sides of the argument" will you be posting pro-old earth material at youngcosmos?

Or does your even-handedness only apply to one side of the debate, like so many good Christians before you?

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,05:35   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 01 2007,22:03)
LOL!  Kitzmiller vs. Dover has been over for almost 2 years now, but the IDiots are still bellyaching about it.

Question:  How much ID research was done in the 22 months since the ruling came out?

Answer:  The same amount that was done in the preceding 13.7 billion years.  :D  :D  :D  :D

I edited your comment (in bold) for higher accuracy.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,06:17   

[quote=Ftk,Oct. 01 2007,19:56]From here.
         
Quote
...Behe said that current studies do not provide evidence that the immune system has been explained by evolutionary mechanisms, so he was certain that this older material piled up in front of him did not contain anything that would explain it either. In the trial, he referenced the most current 2005 standard view of the immune system and he discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial, but this information was not referenced in the Jones decision. He said the 2005 article on the immune system used words like “may have”, “appears to be”, “probably”, “might have”, etc. etc. It was speculative information, and if that were true in 2005, then obviously earlier papers wouldn’t have added anything more pertinent to the discussion. The papers in question do not address how random processes explain evolution of the immune system... they simply assume that they do.

FtK

All this proves is that Behe is still not being truthful about ID, IC, or the Dover trial. You can read the transcript for yourself. Behe's quibbling about whether he used the words "not good enough", or if he just failed to disagree with Rothschild's question using the words, is a red herring. He clearly believes, and has written, that these papers, or even any future papers, are "not good enough."

If we just stick to the discussion of the immune system, here is an excellent summary of what happened there, from Judge Jones' decision (my bolding)      
Quote
The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwin's Black Box, 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)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe's claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe)).

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it. (P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)). Professor Behe conceded that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could, Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design. (22:107-10 (Behe); 2:15 (Miller); 38:82 (Minnich)).

We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)).


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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,07:48   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 01 2007,19:56)
The papers in question do not address how random processes explain evolution of the immune system... they simply assume that they do.

Sorry, I forgot to address this egregious statement.

What's wrong with this statement, FtK?  Do you recognize it as a strawman? Do any scientists assume that "random processes explain evolution of the immune system"? Do you still not understand the role of random processes in evolution?  

By making this statement, Behe is again demonstrating that he is either ignorant about the theory of evolution (a subject about which he has written two books), or he is misrepresenting it willfully. Unlike most dichotomies, this is not a false one. Which explanation do you prefer, FtK?

--------------
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 2007,08:19   

LOL...I rest my case.  Blind....twisting, spinning, and moving goalposts continuously.  If someone from my side is talking about one thing, your side will look right past that issue and conflate it with another.

I'm wasting time here....I can't believe there could possibly be even one inquisitive open minded lurker out there who has not been repulsed and turned away by the way you people twist, spin and carry on.

Dave, you need to be honest with yourself and try to separate your disgust with Christianity from your concerns about science.  If you can get past the former, you'll realize that science has nothing to fear from ID.  

Nothing whatsoever.

Oh, and before I leave, perhaps you could point out to the readers the peer reviewed papers that address specifically how random processes explain the evolution of the immune system...no speculation, no assumptions, no "might have", "we suspect", "it could be that", etc., etc., etc..  

Provide for us the exact evolutionary pathways in which the immune system evolved, and tell us why these conclusions are unquestionable and above reproach.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,08:24   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,08:19)

Quote
LOL...I rest my case.  Blind....twisting, spinning, and moving goalposts continuously.  If someone from my side is talking about one thing, your side will look right past that issue conflate it with another.


Do you care to substantiate any of that? Or do we just take your word for it? Do you have an example?
Quote

I'm wasting time here....I can't believe there could possibly be even one inquisitive open minded lurker out there who has not been repulsed and turned away by the way you people twist, spin and carry on.


Finally something we agree on.

Again, have you been to UncommonDescent recently? If you want to talk about spin, then lets talk about spin. How about how UD spin pro-evolution papers into being "unwitting" pro-ID papers?
Quote

Dave, you need to be honest with yourself and try to separate your disgust with Christianity from your concerns about science.  If you can get past the former, you'll realize that science has nothing to fear from ID.  

Nothing whatsoever.


Again, something we agree on! Science has nothing to fear from ID. Science is done in places (labs) that ID has no access to. Therefore "science" has nothing to fear from ID as they will never meet in the middle.

Where are the ID science labs FTK?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,08:35   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,08:19)
Oh, and before I leave, perhaps you could point out to the readers the peer reviewed papers that address specifically how random processes explain the evolution of the immune system...no speculation, no assumptions, no "might have", "we suspect", "it could be that", etc., etc., etc..  

Provide for us the exact evolutionary pathways in which the immune system evolved, and tell us why these conclusions are unquestionable and above reproach.

Goodbye.

Could you show us how "God Did It" please?

You seem to think you know.

Yet I can guarantee you don't.

Or it'd not be called "faith" now would it?

no speculation, no assumptions, no "might have", "we suspect", "it could be that", etc., etc., etc..  

Just tell me how goddidit.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,08:36   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,09:19)
Provide for us the exact evolutionary pathways in which the immune system evolved, and tell us why these conclusions are unquestionable and above reproach.

Are you really unable to recognize the glaring problem with your argument here?

Creationist: Creationism ID is true because evolution has no way of explaining x.
Biologist: Well, actually, here's one possible explanation of x...
Creationist: Ha!  You have no way of proving that's what really happened!  My theory still wins!
Biologist: ...

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,08:41   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,08:35)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,08:19)
Oh, and before I leave, perhaps you could point out to the readers the peer reviewed papers that address specifically how random processes explain the evolution of the immune system...no speculation, no assumptions, no "might have", "we suspect", "it could be that", etc., etc., etc..  

Provide for us the exact evolutionary pathways in which the immune system evolved, and tell us why these conclusions are unquestionable and above reproach.

Goodbye.

I have a few extra bucks in my pocket.  What is the over/under on when she'll be back?

--------------
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!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,08:57   

FTK's run away again? Colour me surprised. Surprised and shocked. Surprised, shocked and staggered. Etc.

Has she worked out it's not about "sides" yet?

{Reads}

Nope clearly she hasn't.

Louis

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:14   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 01 2007,05:56)
   
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 01 2007,04:05)
   
Quote
No one would work so hard at supporting something that they know to be patently false
It's funny.  I've seen you comment a lot at UD, so obviously you read the posts and comments.  I've never seen you respond with this same point the hundreds of times that "Darwinists" are accused of doing just that, i.e., covering up the supposedly massive evidence for ID in order to perpetuate the lie that all the species of the world are the result of evolution. In fact you yourself make those same accusations.  How does that not make you a rank hypocrite?

Excellent point OT. FTK, any response?

I'll take FTK's lack of response as acknowledgement that she is indeed a rank hypocrite and knows this.  I assume this just gets mentally filed under some subsection of the ever-acceptable Lying For Jesus exceptions to the moral/ethical behavior theists are so well known to claim exclusive basis for.  Anything is OK if it advances the Goddidit Hypothesis.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:29   

Hey Ftk,

Why are you always posting links with "verbiage from" the transcripts?

Can you not just read the actual transcripts for yourself?  Is your educational level not high enough to read the long words?  Oh, that's right, you don't believe that being able to discuss things in your own words is important at all.  I forgot.

Could you tell us what you think the transcripts tell us?  You know, yourself, with no quotes (other than of the actual transcript).

Just to introduce a question you might actually address:

What do you think of women in the priesthood?  You know, your own thoughts , in your own words, with no quotes.

--------------
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 2007,09:32   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,08:19)
LOL...I rest my case.  Blind....twisting, spinning, and moving goalposts continuously.  If someone from my side is talking about one thing, your side will look right past that issue and conflate it with another.

I'm wasting time here....I can't believe there could possibly be even one inquisitive open minded lurker out there who has not been repulsed and turned away by the way you people twist, spin and carry on.

Dave, you need to be honest with yourself and try to separate your disgust with Christianity from your concerns about science.  If you can get past the former, you'll realize that science has nothing to fear from ID.  

Nothing whatsoever.

Oh, and before I leave, perhaps you could point out to the readers the peer reviewed papers that address specifically how random processes explain the evolution of the immune system...no speculation, no assumptions, no "might have", "we suspect", "it could be that", etc., etc., etc..  

Provide for us the exact evolutionary pathways in which the immune system evolved, and tell us why these conclusions are unquestionable and above reproach.

FtK

In what way is this a response to anything I posted?

If Behe is NOT lying, then I would presume that you would be able to provide evidence that counters my arguments. Can you help me understand why Behe is not lying either about his expertise re evolutionary theory, or about his misrepresentation of such? Can you expand on your claim that a discussion about Behe lying about science is suddenly a case of goalpost moving when I pointed out a perfectly clear example of Behe lying about science?

No?  I thought not.

Responding with evidence is is not your strategy; you leave as you came in, with nothing on your agenda besides strawmen ("Oh, and before I leave, perhaps you could point out to the readers the peer reviewed papers that address specifically how random processes explain the evolution of the immune system") and irrelevant personal attacks on those who you feel are "disgusted with Christianity".

As noted before, my disgust is limited to those who lie about science. The fact that Behe is a Christian is as irrelevant as the fact that he is a white male, or a biochemist, or the fact that he is balding. I get along fine with lots of Christians, lots of white males, lots of biochemists, and lots of folks who are balding. Sometimes they are even all four at once.

Apparently I don't play well with those who lie about science. But I am certainly not about to apologize for it.

--------------
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 2007,10:00   

?????????????? 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.

[Carlsonjok, I hope you laid down some big cash on that bet, because your a winner!]

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:12   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,10:00)
?????????????? It's like trying to talk to someone who doesn't speak your own language!

And, suddenly, she was enlightened.

Quote

[Carlsonjok, I hope you laid down some big cash on that bet, because your a winner!]

Not a dime. Just as well. I was figuring you would resurface around Friday afternoon.  I would have lost big time.

--------------
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!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:20   

New topic, "Where does FtK belong"

(Pats lap suggestively)

Dont be mean, I'm just teasing.

--------------
"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 2007,10:25   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,10:00)
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.

[Carlsonjok, I hope you laid down some big cash on that bet, because your a winner!]

Quote
We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.


Yet you assume your religion is correct based on much much less. You will claim there is strong evidence for your belief. Stronger then the evidence for the evolution of the immune system? I doubt it.
Quote
Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  

Conclusive evidence? Even law courts use a "balance of probabilities". Do you need a DVD of the immune system evolving before you will believe?

Quote
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.


Have you ever wondered what "on the shoulders of giants" really means? I doubt there will ever be unquestionable empirical data regarding the evolution of the immune system. Unless we invent a time machine of course.

Evolution says we have a good idea of how something happens.

FTK says "that's not good enough. Until you can give me a DVD video of it evolving, I believe that "intelligent design".

FTK, is it your contention that your religious belief is more strongly supported by available empirical evidence then is the evolution of the immune system?

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4885
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:29   

FtK:

Quote

LOL...I rest my case.


Please, please, please let FtK and Joe G. tag-team the lawyering of the IDC side of the next court case.

We'll get Rothschild, Harvey, and the Pepper Hamilton crew again.

I'm sure Court TV would pick it up.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:40   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2007,10:29)
FtK:

 
Quote

LOL...I rest my case.


Please, please, please let FtK and Joe G. tag-team the lawyering of the IDC side of the next court case.

We'll get Rothschild, Harvey, and the Pepper Hamilton crew again.

I'm sure Court TV would pick it up.

Sal, Davescot, FtK.

I'm amazed that some of the more moderate IDers don't look around, have an epiphany and think, "OH MY GOD ITS FULL OF TARDS"



Heddle? Heddle? Heddle?

--------------
"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 2007,10:46   

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.

[Carlsonjok, I hope you laid down some big cash on that bet, because your a winner!]

Or, to put it another way:

Imagine you are at a bowling alley. There are a load of knocked down pins at one end with a bowling ball coming to rest.

You could say that any number of things might have caused this situation. However, given the available evidence and makeup of the scene what would you say is the most likely to have happened FTK?

I mean, we don't know the exact path that the ball took from one end to the other. Likewise we might never know the exact mutational pathway the immune system took.

But you can say, with a high degree of confidence, what was likely to have happened and in some cases exactly what happened.

FTK, following your rules you'd reject this reasonable rational explanation as "not good enough". Yet, on the basis of "nothing at all" you want to reject the reasonable pathway and bring in new factors (it requires an intelligent designer to knock over pins with a ball).

FTK, why do you want to bring in things there is no evidence for? Your god really is a god of the gaps and boy those gaps are getting smaller every day.

--------------
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 2007,10:48   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,10:00)
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.

[Carlsonjok, I hope you laid down some big cash on that bet, because your a winner!]

 
Quote
We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.


Yet you assume your religion is correct based on much much less. You will claim there is strong evidence for your belief. Stronger then the evidence for the evolution of the immune system? I doubt it.
 
Quote
Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  

Conclusive evidence? Even law courts use a "balance of probabilities". Do you need a DVD of the immune system evolving before you will believe?

 
Quote
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.


Have you ever wondered what "on the shoulders of giants" really means? I doubt there will ever be unquestionable empirical data regarding the evolution of the immune system. Unless we invent a time machine of course.

Evolution says we have a good idea of how something happens.

FTK says "that's not good enough. Until you can give me a DVD video of it evolving, I believe that "intelligent design".

FTK, is it your contention that your religious belief is more strongly supported by available empirical evidence then is the evolution of the immune system?

How does any of this relate to the accusation that Behe is a liar? Is there something substantial in your post that provides evidence of this?  

I really think there is something wrong with some of you that you honestly can't seem to understand what was going on in that trial.  Behe didn't lie, he was brutally honest about the subject of the immune system.  How you can't see that is simply troubling.

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

  
  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]