Behe closes the lid on evolution.
All-seeing-I
papers and his writing skills.
Inpaticular the one entitled:
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
and:
The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
http://www.discovery.org/a/9611
http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
--
Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
The All Seeing I
Boikat
> Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> papers and his writing skills.
>
> Inpaticular the one entitled:
> Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>
> and:
> The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/9611http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
Behe accepts biological evolution (Speciation, common ancestry, an
ancient Earth with ancient life), and bases his "irreducible
comlexity" argument on personal incredulity. Also, his IC claims have
been demonstrated to be false.
>
> --
> Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
Finally figured out how much your "ancient texts" are worth?
>
> The Null Thinking I(diot)
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> papers and his writing skills.
>
> Inpaticular the one entitled:
> Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>
> and:
> The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>
>
> --
> Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
>
> The All Seeing I
Were you impressed by his concession that ID is not a scientific
theory?
Were you impressed by his admission that in declaring that there is no
scientific explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum,
he had specifically excluded scientific explanations from
consideration?
Are you impressed by his claim that his books are "peer-reviewed" when
he has conceded that they are not?
Evidently, as a creationist, you find such dishonesty acceptable.
As a scientist, I don't.
RF
Mike Dworetsky
> Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> papers and his writing skills.
Which is why he had his ass handed to him at the Dover trial, I suppose.
>
> Inpaticular the one entitled:
> Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>
> and:
> The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/9611
> http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
>
> --
> Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
>
> The All Seeing I
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
All-seeing-I
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 9:06 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> > papers and his writing skills.
>
> > Inpaticular the one entitled:
> > Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>
> > and:
> > The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>
> >http://www.discovery.org/a/9611http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
>
> > --
> > Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
>
> > The All Seeing I
>
> Were you impressed by his concession that ID is not a scientific
> theory?
Why should it be scientific? ID is describing a supernatural
occurrence. Science should stick to the natural explanations because
science inherently has limits.
> Were you impressed by his admission that in declaring that there is no
> scientific explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum,
> he had specifically excluded scientific explanations from
> consideration?
If the scientific explanation is trying to explain a supernatural
occurrence then the explanation will be invalid and therefore useless.
So why mention it much less make the claim that it should be a
contender for an accurate explaination of the phenomenon?
In fact, that has been one of my main point to most of you in many of
my posts.
It is impossible for science to fully explain supernatural events
without speculations and inferences being made. Which is exactly what
we see with theories such as big bang and evolution.
A major problem with finding the origins of the universe, the origins
of species and the origins of life is science presupposes it can
indeed explain everything with natural science.
But in order to make such a presupposition science then categorically
states the supernatural does not exist when it does not know that for
sure. Science then gives the reason for the supernatural not existing
is because it cannot test for it. That is circular logic if you ask me
an quite dishonest.
How can anyone make the claim that something does not exist first
while knowing full well that they cannot test for it?
I gave clear examples in previous posts that sounds and frequencies
existed but, at one time man could NOT test for them. Therefore
mankind thought the frequencies did not exist. But man was wrong. They
did exist.
(Look. Science has it's uses. But when it comes to the origins of
species, life and the universe, science has it's limits. The only way
around those limits is to claim the supernatural does not exist. Which
is an outrageous claim to make in the light of so much human knowledge
that has been recorded in the past regarding supernatural events.)
Now latter tests were latter developed to help man hear the
frequencies that he could not hear. Why? Because someone noticed
something odd WRT animals. So they latter discovered it was sounds the
animals were making. Well, people have also noticed other odd things
occurring in the past. So they wrote them down. But science will never
discover why because science denies they exist. Instead, science takes
what it is able to discover and then fills in the blanks with
inferences and exotic stories.
THEN science takes those exotic stories and has the audacity to call
it truth in the media and in the text books. But science had to
presuppose something did not exist first in order to do that. So it
threw out an entire body of anecdotal and recorded evidence on the
supernatural so it can support it IDEAS of the origins of species.
But none of you see how utterly dishonest and untruthful that is, do
you?
I simply cannot fathom this much dishonesty steming from so few books
that is believed by so many people. But every day, all I have to do
is come to Talk Origins and see it for myself.
So the REAL question is Why. Why should so many seemingly intelligent
people believe the theory of evolution as if it were a gospel truth on
one hand and then deny such a large body of work regarding
supernatural occurences on the other?
It does not make sense unless they are operating under an agenda.
> Are you impressed by his claim that his books are "peer-reviewed" when
> he has conceded that they are not?
That is a stiff accusation. Where is your evidence?
> Evidently, as a creationist, you find such dishonesty acceptable.
> As a scientist, I don't.
As a scientist you should be intrested in where the evidence takes
you. There is suggestive evidence that says the supernatural exist in
much the same way there was suggestive evidence that sounds existed
that man could not hear.
Why do you deny that. Is it because it is actually you that finds
dishonesty acceptable?
Think about it objectivly.
All-seeing-I
If you had two brain cells they would not be large enough to rub
together and start a fire.
Boikat
What was it you said in another thread about "school yard taunts"?
Something about meaning not being able to refute an argument?
The fact remains, Behe's arguments are arguments of incredulity and
ignorance. His arguments are based upon logical fallacies. That's
all there is to it. If you don't like that simple fact, that's your
problem.
Boikat
Ron O
> papers and his writing skills.
>
> Inpaticular the one entitled:
> Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>
> and:
> The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>
>
> --
> Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
>
> The All Seeing I
The Discovery Institute is the scam outfit that is currently running
the bait and switch scam on anyone stupid enough to still support the
ID claptrap. Just try it and find out. Get your local school board
to teach the science of intelligent design and sit back and find out
how much science you get to teach. They have run the bait and switch
on ever rube legislator and school board that has believed the ID
claptrap and wanted to teach it. The only ones that didn't take the
switch scam or drop the issue has been the Dover school board and look
up what happened there.
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover
You have to be ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest to continue to
support the ID scam. There are no other ID scam supporters left.
Think twice before you light that burn pile because you have poured
gasoline all over yourself and you are standing in the middle of it.
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
> Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> papers and his writing skills.
>
Does that mean you agree with Behe that all life is related by common
descent, and that in particular humans are descended from a common
ancestor with chimpanzees about 5 million years ago?
Kid_Ego
> Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> papers and his writing skills.
>
> Inpaticular the one entitled:
> Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>
> and:
> The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>
>
> --
> Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
>
> The All Seeing I
Is that why he got his ass handed to him at Dover?
Just wondering
Frank J
> Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> papers and his writing skills.
>
Leaving aside whether or not Behe "closes the lid on evolution," he
clearly *does* close the lid on YEC and any version of OEC that denies
common descent.
The best you can hope for from Behe is a "virtual evolution" with an
occasional "hiccup of nature". But there's virtually no hope of that
either because he is not only refusing to investigate where or when
those "hiccups" occurred, he is backpedaling from the one opportunity
he suggested long ago - that the first ancestral cell had all the
necessary "information" for subsequent life.
Oh well, maybe you can help him. Or "close the lid" on him and give
YECs or OECs what they really want.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 22, 3:47�am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
><richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 9:06�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
>> > papers and his writing skills.
>>
>> > Inpaticular the one entitled:
>> > Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>>
>> > and:
>> > The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>>
>> >http://www.discovery.org/a/9611http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
>>
>> > --
>> > Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
>>
>> > The All Seeing I
>>
>> Were you impressed by his concession that ID is not a scientific
>> theory?
>
>Why should it be scientific? ID is describing a supernatural
>occurrence.
ID ignores the scientific explanation and the evidence and asserts that
it was a supernatural occurance.
>Science should stick to the natural explanations because
>science inherently has limits.
Science has discovered the natural explanations, but the ID Creationists
keep closing their ears and screaming "I can't hear you". ID is a lie,
not an explanation.
>> Were you impressed by his admission that in declaring that there is no
>> scientific explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum,
>> he had specifically excluded scientific explanations from
>> consideration?
>
>If the scientific explanation is trying to explain a supernatural
>occurrence then the explanation will be invalid and therefore useless.
There is a natural explanation. ID Creationists have failed miserably in
trying to show that there is not.
>So why mention it much less make the claim that it should be a
>contender for an accurate explaination of the phenomenon?
Because you are now defending epistemological nihilism. Your argument is
that anyone can make up any old fraudulent explanation and call it
'supernatural' and that no one else can criticize that explanation, even
though the explanation is inconsistent with an explanation that was
discovered and tested scientifically.
>In fact, that has been one of my main point to most of you in many of
>my posts.
Then you have nothing worth saying.
>It is impossible for science to fully explain supernatural events
>without speculations and inferences being made. Which is exactly what
>we see with theories such as big bang and evolution.
Science does not explain supernatural events. It explains natural
events. There is no evidence that any of the history of life or of the
universe is supernatural. The ID Creationists made up stories.
>A major problem with finding the origins of the universe, the origins
>of species and the origins of life is science presupposes it can
>indeed explain everything with natural science.
I doubt that scientists would say it quite that way, but they do have a
method for testing knowledge. It works so far. Your problem is that it
has shown that what you claim to be true has been shown by evidence to
be false.
>But in order to make such a presupposition science then categorically
>states the supernatural does not exist when it does not know that for
>sure. Science then gives the reason for the supernatural not existing
>is because it cannot test for it. That is circular logic if you ask me
>an quite dishonest.
You are back to getting it wrong. Science does not say anything about
the supernatural, but if it does provide a natural explanation, you have
a problem because your assertions about the supernatural have been blown
out of the water.
>How can anyone make the claim that something does not exist first
>while knowing full well that they cannot test for it?
Scientists tend to assume that every explanation is false and then test
to see if it is false. When it does not get proven false, they keep
testing. Your explanations were shown to be false centuries ago.
>I gave clear examples in previous posts that sounds and frequencies
>existed but, at one time man could NOT test for them. Therefore
>mankind thought the frequencies did not exist. But man was wrong. They
>did exist.
People knew that frequencies existed ages ago. If they didn't they
wouldn't have ever been able to temper a keyboard instrument and Bach
would not have been able to write the Well-Tempered Clavichord. You
don't have a clue.
>(Look. Science has it's uses. But when it comes to the origins of
>species, life and the universe, science has it's limits. The only way
>around those limits is to claim the supernatural does not exist. Which
>is an outrageous claim to make in the light of so much human knowledge
>that has been recorded in the past regarding supernatural events.)
Science knows its limits better than you do and it acknowledges what it
does not know. You, on the other hand, make up just-so stories, even
when scientists have discovered actual explanations that show that your
just-so stories are wrong.
>Now latter tests were latter developed to help man hear the
>frequencies that he could not hear. Why? Because someone noticed
>something odd WRT animals. So they latter discovered it was sounds the
>animals were making. Well, people have also noticed other odd things
>occurring in the past. So they wrote them down. But science will never
>discover why because science denies they exist. Instead, science takes
>what it is able to discover and then fills in the blanks with
>inferences and exotic stories.
You make up the silliest stories.
>THEN science takes those exotic stories and has the audacity to call
>it truth in the media and in the text books. But science had to
>presuppose something did not exist first in order to do that. So it
>threw out an entire body of anecdotal and recorded evidence on the
>supernatural so it can support it IDEAS of the origins of species.
There is no evidence for the supernatural. You know that. You hate that
fact. You will lie to anyone anywhere to persuade people that reality is
wrong.
>But none of you see how utterly dishonest and untruthful that is, do
>you?
We see you lie about this. We see your dishonesty, your war on truth.
>I simply cannot fathom this much dishonesty steming from so few books
>that is believed by so many people. But every day, all I have to do
>is come to Talk Origins and see it for myself.
You really are ignornant of the amount of work scientists have done.
>So the REAL question is Why. Why should so many seemingly intelligent
>people believe the theory of evolution as if it were a gospel truth on
>one hand and then deny such a large body of work regarding
>supernatural occurences on the other?
Show us evidence. Stop making excuses.
Oh, that's right, you know you have no evidence. All you have is
excuses.
>It does not make sense unless they are operating under an agenda.
The agenda is knowledge and learning. I realize that both offend you.
>> Are you impressed by his claim that his books are "peer-reviewed" when
>> he has conceded that they are not?
>
>That is a stiff accusation. Where is your evidence?
You hate evidence. You despise evidence. You mock evidence. Why would
you ask for it here?
>> Evidently, as a creationist, you find such dishonesty acceptable.
>> As a scientist, I don't.
>
>As a scientist you should be intrested in where the evidence takes
>you. There is suggestive evidence that says the supernatural exist in
>much the same way there was suggestive evidence that sounds existed
>that man could not hear.
You keep asserting that such evidence exists, but are totally unable to
provide any. Until you can provide evidence, stop claiming that it
exists or show yourself to be a pathetic liar.
>Why do you deny that. Is it because it is actually you that finds
>dishonesty acceptable?
You are the dishonest one here. You make the unsupportable claims. You
refuse to learn any science.
>Think about it objectivly.
I have. You are dishonest and a fool. You are proud of your ignorance of
science and refuse to do anything to rectify that ignorance.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> papers and his writing skills.
Ah, yeah. He also insists evolution happened and happens, and that
all life on Earth shares common ancestors.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Free Lunch
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:06:17 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
>> papers and his writing skills.
>
>Ah, yeah. He also insists evolution happened and happens, and that
>all life on Earth shares common ancestors.
But then he gets the vapors about the beginning of life on earth and
throws in the towel.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 22, 3:47 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
>
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 9:06 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> > > papers and his writing skills.
>
> > > Inpaticular the one entitled:
> > > Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>
> > > and:
> > > The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>
> > >http://www.discovery.org/a/9611http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
>
> > > --
> > > Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
>
> > > The All Seeing I
>
> > Were you impressed by his concession that ID is not a scientific
> > theory?
>
> Why should it be scientific?
Because unless it is scientific it has no place in science classes -
which is why the "theory" was devised.
> ID is describing a supernatural
> occurrence.
So why do you think many people claim that ID is science, and should
be taught as an "alternative" to evolutionary theory in science
classes?
> Science should stick to the natural explanations because
> science inherently has limits.
Science sticks to naturalistic explanations. That's why ID has no
place in science classes.
>
> > Were you impressed by his admission that in declaring that there is no
> > scientific explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum,
> > he had specifically excluded scientific explanations from
> > consideration?
>
> If the scientific explanation is trying to explain a supernatural
> occurrence then the explanation will be invalid and therefore useless.
So why do you think he *specifically* excluded the scientific
explanations in declaring that there is no *scientific* explanation
for the bacterial flagellum?
> So why mention it much less make the claim that it should be a
> contender for an accurate explaination of the phenomenon?
Because ID proponents claim that ID is a *scientific* theory which
should be taught as science in science classes.
>
> In fact, that has been one of my main point to most of you in many of
> my posts.
Your posts are so confused, and so riddled with internal
inconsistencies that it is virtually impossible to understand what
"point" you think you are making. Perhaps "think" is somewhat of an
exaggeration, mind you.
>
> It is impossible for science to fully explain supernatural events
> without speculations and inferences being made.
...which is why ID is not science, of course...
>Which is exactly what
> we see with theories such as big bang and evolution.
So what part of evolutionary theory invokes the supernatural? Or Big
Bang theory for that matter?
It is rather revealing of creationist dishonesty that you come up with
such blatant falsehoods to support your argument, by the way.
>
> A major problem with finding the origins of the universe, the origins
> of species and the origins of life is science presupposes it can
> indeed explain everything with natural science.
No, science can only investigate phenomena which can be observed and
measured, and can only do so under the assumption of naturalism.
Scientists are aware of this limitation, as has been explained to you
over and over again. The fact that science has proved itself to be
extraordinarily successful shows that it's a pretty good assumption.
>
> But in order to make such a presupposition science then categorically
> states the supernatural does not exist when it does not know that for
> sure.
Science makes no such categorical statement. This has been explained
to you previously.
Why do you insist on misrepresenting science even after it has been
explained to you? Is it that you are incapable of reading for
comprehension, or simply dishonest?
> Science then gives the reason for the supernatural not existing
> is because it cannot test for it.
Science cannot investigate anything which cannot be observed and
measured. It doesn't claim that such phenomena do not exists, it
simply can't investigate them.
Why do you insist on misrepresenting science even after it has been
explained to you? Is it that you are incapable of reading for
comprehension, or simply dishonest?
> That is circular logic if you ask me
> an quite dishonest.
As this is something you have invented, I suggest that it isn't
"science" which is dishonest.
>
> How can anyone make the claim that something does not exist first
> while knowing full well that they cannot test for it?
Quite so.
On the other hand, how can someone claim that something exists when
there is no evidence for its existence, yet demand that its existence
be taught as science in science classes?
>
> I gave clear examples in previous posts that sounds and frequencies
> existed but, at one time man could NOT test for them. Therefore
> mankind thought the frequencies did not exist. But man was wrong. They
> did exist.
Quite so. Your point?
>
> (Look. Science has it's uses. But when it comes to the origins of
> species, life and the universe, science has it's limits.
As we have observed speciation events in nature on numerous occasions,
and this has been explained to you numerous times, why do you insist
on repeating the falsehood that it has not been observed? Is it that
you are incapable of reading for comprehension, or simply dishonest?
As for the rest, at which point in an investigation of abiogenesis or
the origin of the universe do you think we should abandon science in
favour of the unfruitful "explanation" that "God did it"?
> The only way
> around those limits is to claim the supernatural does not exist.
Excuse me? In what way does that get around any limit?
> Which
> is an outrageous claim to make in the light of so much human knowledge
> that has been recorded in the past regarding supernatural events.)
Do you understand what is meant by a "straw man" argument?
>
> Now latter tests were latter developed to help man hear the
> frequencies that he could not hear. Why? Because someone noticed
> something odd WRT animals. So they latter discovered it was sounds the
> animals were making.
Yes, it's because sound is a phenomenon which can be observed and
measured.
> Well, people have also noticed other odd things
> occurring in the past. So they wrote them down. But science will never
> discover why because science denies they exist.
No, science says that as there is no evidence that they exist outside
the various "ancient text" you claim as authoritative, and there are
numerous other equally ancient texts which give completely different
accounts, and no reputable scholar of those "ancient texts" supports
your claim that they are historically reliable, and the people
peddling the fantastic claims they make about those "ancient texts"
are clearly not good scholars (or even honest), it requires rather
more than your unadorned assertion to convince science.
> Instead, science takes
> what it is able to discover and then fills in the blanks with
> inferences and exotic stories.
Actually, science forms hypotheses which it tests by the acquisition
of further evidence. Why do you insist on misrepresenting science even
after it has been explained to you? Is it that you are incapable of
reading for comprehension, or simply dishonest?
>
> THEN science takes those exotic stories and has the audacity to call
> it truth in the media and in the text books.
As has been explained to you on numerous occasions, science does not
claim to have the truth. It offers provisional and testable
explanations for phenomena which can be observed and measured.
Why do you insist on misrepresenting science even after it has been
explained to you? Is it that you are incapable of reading for
comprehension, or simply dishonest?
> But science had to
> presuppose something did not exist first in order to do that.
No, science never had to consider the existence of something which
could not be observed and measured.
Why do you insist on misrepresenting science even after it has been
explained to you? Is it that you are incapable of reading for
comprehension, or simply dishonest?
> So it
> threw out an entire body of anecdotal and recorded evidence on the
> supernatural so it can support it IDEAS of the origins of species.
It threw out "entire body of anecdotal and recorded evidence on the
supernatural" because such "evidence" is internally inconsistent, and
when tested using the tools of science was found to be unreliable.
By the way, we have *observed* speciation events.
>
> But none of you see how utterly dishonest and untruthful that is, do
> you?
I suggest that it's pretty clear where the dishonesty lies here.
>
> I simply cannot fathom this much dishonesty steming from so few books
> that is believed by so many people. But every day, all I have to do
> is come to Talk Origins and see it for myself.
...but evidently never read the responses to your posts, and ignore
any evidence which shows that you are wrong.
Do you regard this as honest behaviour?
>
> So the REAL question is Why. Why should so many seemingly intelligent
> people believe the theory of evolution as if it were a gospel truth on
> one hand and then deny such a large body of work regarding
> supernatural occurences on the other?
How about because evolutionary theory is one of the most solidly
supported theories in any branch of any science, and supernatural
explanation have proved to be extremely unreliable?
>
> It does not make sense unless they are operating under an agenda.
>
Or it could simply be because evolutionary theory is one of the most
solidly supported theories in any branch of any science, and
supernatural explanation have proved to be extremely unreliable?
> > Are you impressed by his claim that his books are "peer-reviewed" when
> > he has conceded that they are not?
>
> That is a stiff accusation. Where is your evidence?
>
It's in the transcripts of the Dover trial. Unlike some of the other
creationist defendants, he didn't lie under oath.
> > Evidently, as a creationist, you find such dishonesty acceptable.
> > As a scientist, I don't.
>
> As a scientist you should be intrested in where the evidence takes
> you. There is suggestive evidence that says the supernatural exist in
> much the same way there was suggestive evidence that sounds existed
> that man could not hear.
Sound can be measured.
How does one measure the supernatural?
>
> Why do you deny that. Is it because it is actually you that finds
> dishonesty acceptable?
>
> Think about it objectivly.
I do.
RF
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
>papers and his writing skills.
So you agree with him that evolution is an observed fact, and that all
life on Earth shares a common ancestor?
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
>papers and his writing skills.
>
Dover!
You lose.
What else ya got, moron?
Eric Root
Why don't you have any answer to the fact that Behe accepts evolution
and common descent? The only comfort he gives creationists is his
idea (which he falils to conclusively support) that there are a few
scattered "choke-points" where intelligent intervention was necessary.
Eric Root
Steven L.
Let me repeat:
Behe accepts that species evolved. He believes that an Intelligent
Designer had to intervene to create new genera. But he certainly does
NOT believe that Man just popped into existence from nothing.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Ron O
He couldn't even come up with any evolutionary choke points that had
occurred within the last couple hundred years. His most recent were
the immune system and blood clotting. His answer to this is that the
designer might be dead.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
I meant couple of hundred million years.
The flagellum that he harps about evolved around 2 billion years ago.
Ron Okimoto
VoiceOfReason
> Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> papers and his writing skills.
Behe's ability to con the gullible is impressive, in a way.
Ye Old One
If only you could aspire to have any brain cells.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 22, 3:47 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
><richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 9:06 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
>> > papers and his writing skills.
>>
>> > Inpaticular the one entitled:
>> > Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>>
>> > and:
>> > The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>>
>> >http://www.discovery.org/a/9611http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
>>
>> > --
>> > Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
>>
>> > The All Seeing I
>>
>> Were you impressed by his concession that ID is not a scientific
>> theory?
>
>Why should it be scientific? ID is describing a supernatural
>occurrence. Science should stick to the natural explanations because
>science inherently has limits.
No, it doesn't.
>
>> Were you impressed by his admission that in declaring that there is no
>> scientific explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum,
>> he had specifically excluded scientific explanations from
>> consideration?
>
>If the scientific explanation is trying to explain a supernatural
>occurrence then the explanation will be invalid and therefore useless.
Oh? Like the way science explained disease, lightning, how the Sun
works, why we see a rainbow and a million other things.
>So why mention it much less make the claim that it should be a
>contender for an accurate explaination of the phenomenon?
If there is a phenomenon then science will do its best to explain it.
Your problem is that you accept things that do not exist - fantasies.
>
>In fact, that has been one of my main point to most of you in many of
>my posts.
>
>It is impossible for science to fully explain supernatural events
>without speculations and inferences being made. Which is exactly what
>we see with theories such as big bang and evolution.
The Big Bang and Evolution are facts.
>
>A major problem with finding the origins of the universe, the origins
>of species and the origins of life is science presupposes it can
>indeed explain everything with natural science.
It is the only way to understand it all.
>
>But in order to make such a presupposition science then categorically
>states the supernatural does not exist
So far nothing has been found to indicate it does - and you would
think by know that your lot would have found something.
> when it does not know that for
>sure. Science then gives the reason for the supernatural not existing
>is because it cannot test for it.
Not quite. You find a phenomenon that you claim is supernatural and
science will look at it. But you see, ever phenomenon so far examined
by science has turned out to have a perfectly natural explanation.
>That is circular logic if you ask me
>an quite dishonest.
>
>How can anyone make the claim that something does not exist first
>while knowing full well that they cannot test for it?
Until you produce the phenomenon for examination...
>
>I gave clear examples in previous posts that sounds and frequencies
>existed but, at one time man could NOT test for them.
Do you claim that those were supernatural?
>Therefore
>mankind thought the frequencies did not exist.
Please explain why you believe that is so.
> But man was wrong. They
>did exist.
>
>(Look. Science has it's uses. But when it comes to the origins of
>species, life and the universe, science has it's limits.
Oh? What are they?
>The only way
>around those limits is to claim the supernatural does not exist. Which
>is an outrageous claim to make in the light of so much human knowledge
>that has been recorded in the past regarding supernatural events.)
Ah! So the millions of pages written about alien life forms must prove
aliens exist. Oh! Wait! That is all science fiction.
You see Mudbrain, fiction can't be used to back up your case.
>
>Now latter tests were latter developed to help man hear the
>frequencies that he could not hear. Why? Because someone noticed
>something odd WRT animals. So they latter discovered it was sounds the
>animals were making. Well, people have also noticed other odd things
>occurring in the past.
Yes, people in the past did notice odd things they could not explain.
> So they wrote them down.
Yes, they did write down a lot of thing that, because they had no
other explanation, they attributed to the "supernatural".
>But science will never
>discover why because science denies they exist.
Nope. Science went on to explain them.
> Instead, science takes
>what it is able to discover and then fills in the blanks with
>inferences and exotic stories.
Oh! Like what?
>
>THEN science takes those exotic stories and has the audacity to call
>it truth in the media and in the text books. But science had to
>presuppose something did not exist first in order to do that. So it
>threw out an entire body of anecdotal and recorded evidence on the
>supernatural so it can support it IDEAS of the origins of species.
Again. If you have evidence of the supernatural then please provide
it.
>
>But none of you see how utterly dishonest and untruthful that is, do
>you?
What I see is you constantly being dishonest. Why is that?
>
>I simply cannot fathom this much dishonesty steming from so few books
>that is believed by so many people. But every day, all I have to do
>is come to Talk Origins and see it for myself.
>
>So the REAL question is Why. Why should so many seemingly intelligent
>people believe the theory of evolution as if it were a gospel truth on
>one hand and then deny such a large body of work regarding
>supernatural occurences on the other?
Because there is evidence supporting the ToE but none supporting you.
>
>It does not make sense unless they are operating under an agenda.
>
>
>> Are you impressed by his claim that his books are "peer-reviewed" when
>> he has conceded that they are not?
>
>That is a stiff accusation. Where is your evidence?
No peer review citations.
>
>> Evidently, as a creationist, you find such dishonesty acceptable.
>> As a scientist, I don't.
>
>As a scientist you should be intrested in where the evidence takes
>you. There is suggestive evidence that says the supernatural exist in
>much the same way there was suggestive evidence that sounds existed
>that man could not hear.
Not even remotely similar.
>
>Why do you deny that. Is it because it is actually you that finds
>dishonesty acceptable?
No, I don't, that is why I expose your lies all the time.
>
>Think about it objectivly.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Desertphile
The trial transcripts are still packed full of humor, and great
fun to read. Er, unless one's a Creationist.....
Desertphile
I saw on an NBC video clip from YouTube that a worshiper of Sarah
Palin was wearing a shirt objecting to the $700,000,000,000 "bail-
out" of the wealthy in the USA; the shirt wearer said that Palin
did not support or agree with the "bail-out," so the reporter read
a quote from Palin wherein Palin called the "bail-out" a good
thing that should be supported and defended. The reporter then
asked the shirt wearer if that fact had changed her mind about
Palin: the shirt wearer said "No."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXKuDYvM6Wk
The news video clip even made the news. :-)
And here we see Shit-For-Brains trotting out Behe because he
thought Behe rejected science, and then Shit-For-Brains fell
silent when he discovered Behe accepts the fact of evolution.
Gods, some people are nuts.
Desertphile
Notice how Shit-For-Brains fell silent on the subject? LOL!
Boikat
I'm not the one who thought Behe "shut the lid" on evolution, Mr.
Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite..
Boikat
R. Baldwin
news:134c0edb-bce6-4d59...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 22, 3:47�am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 9:06�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
>> > papers and his writing skills.
>>
>> > Inpaticular the one entitled:
>> > Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>>
>> > and:
>> > The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>>
>> >http://www.discovery.org/a/9611http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
>>
>> > --
>> > Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
>>
>> > The All Seeing I
>>
>> Were you impressed by his concession that ID is not a scientific
>> theory?
>
> Why should it be scientific? ID is describing a supernatural
> occurrence. Science should stick to the natural explanations because
> science inherently has limits.
Absolutely right.
>
>> Were you impressed by his admission that in declaring that there is
>> no scientific explanation for the evolution of the bacterial
>> flagellum, he had specifically excluded scientific explanations from
>> consideration?
>
> If the scientific explanation is trying to explain a supernatural
> occurrence then the explanation will be invalid and therefore useless.
> So why mention it much less make the claim that it should be a
> contender for an accurate explaination of the phenomenon?
Implicit in any scientific explanation is "if this phenomenon has a
natural explanation, then...". Scientific explanations always begin with
this assumption. Methodological naturalism is a necessity for science to
work. Science can only explain natural phenomena.
>
> In fact, that has been one of my main point to most of you in many of
> my posts.
If you put this point more clearly, you would probably find a great many
of posters here agree with it. Your point of view differs from many
Creationists, who argue that science can and should be used to confirm
the miraculous.
>
> It is impossible for science to fully explain supernatural events
> without speculations and inferences being made.
Here you begin to err. It is impossible for science to fully explain
supernatual events period, whether or not speculations and inferences
are involved. Science does not try to explain supernatural events
because it cannot explain them.
> Which is exactly what
> we see with theories such as big bang and evolution.
This is incorrect. Theories of Cosmology and Biological Evolution
provide natural explanations, consistent with observed evidence, based
on the implicit assumptions inherent in methodological naturalism. Since
they are very well validated by the evidence, they are well-established
theories.
Your personal belief that the origin of the Universe and the diversity
of life have superanatural causes does not make it necessarily so. It
may or it may not. There is no test we can devise to tell the
difference. You accept or reject that belief on faith alone.
In the meantime, since the origin of the Universe and the diversity of
life may have a natural explanation, and since there is evidence to
investigate, Science proceeds to develop explanations - and so far the
explanations fit remarkably well with the known facts.
You could be right. There might be a supernatural cause involved. Go
ahead and believe it if you like. Science cannot, will not, and does not
seek to refute you. It might propose natural explanations that pose
uncomfortable difficulties for particular supernatural stories, but
ultimately, the supernatural is consistent with any possible fact
pattern.
>
> A major problem with finding the origins of the universe, the origins
> of species and the origins of life is science presupposes it can
> indeed explain everything with natural science.
That is mistaken. Science does not propose to explain the supernatural
at all. It provides natural explanations for natural phenomena, and that
is all it does.
>
> But in order to make such a presupposition science then categorically
> states the supernatural does not exist when it does not know that for
> sure. Science then gives the reason for the supernatural not existing
> is because it cannot test for it. That is circular logic if you ask me
> an quite dishonest.
Science never states the supernatural does not exist. That would be a
metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. Science cannot tell whether
or not the supernatural exists. It has no method for dealing with the
supernatural, and so ignores it. Science is agnostic, not atheistic.
For example, suppose a person claims to be an oracle. This "oracle"
makes predictions about the future, and claims they are divinely
inspired.
Science can compare the predictions to the actual unfolding events, and
determine whether the "oracle"'s accuracy is better than random
guessing. That is all it can tell. Science cannot tell whether the
"oracle" ever received divine inspiration.
>
> How can anyone make the claim that something does not exist first
> while knowing full well that they cannot test for it?
Again, that would be a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one.
>
> I gave clear examples in previous posts that sounds and frequencies
> existed but, at one time man could NOT test for them. Therefore
> mankind thought the frequencies did not exist. But man was wrong. They
> did exist.
>
> (Look. Science has it's uses. But when it comes to the origins of
> species, life and the universe, science has it's limits. The only way
> around those limits is to claim the supernatural does not exist. Which
> is an outrageous claim to make in the light of so much human knowledge
> that has been recorded in the past regarding supernatural events.)
Science is not operating outside its limits in investigating the origins
of species, life, or universe. These events have left empirical evidence
that can be investigated, and is investigated. Science therefore
constructs theories that explain the evidence assuming a natural cause.
It is knowledge that ancient humans recorded events they thought were
supernatural. It is opinion that they were supernatural events. The
opinion cannot be verified. It is a belief founded on faith alone.
One must bear in mind that many supernatural beliefs of ancient humans
have not been borne out over time. Many diseases, for example, were once
thought to be caused by the supernatural.
>
> Now latter tests were latter developed to help man hear the
> frequencies that he could not hear. Why? Because someone noticed
> something odd WRT animals. So they latter discovered it was sounds the
> animals were making. Well, people have also noticed other odd things
> occurring in the past. So they wrote them down. But science will never
> discover why because science denies they exist. Instead, science takes
> what it is able to discover and then fills in the blanks with
> inferences and exotic stories.
I can't help but noticing that whether you approve of a natural
explanation seems circumstantial. Why not a supernatural explanation for
animal hearing?
>
> THEN science takes those exotic stories and has the audacity to call
> it truth in the media and in the text books. But science had to
> presuppose something did not exist first in order to do that. So it
> threw out an entire body of anecdotal and recorded evidence on the
> supernatural so it can support it IDEAS of the origins of species.
"Truth" is not a scientific concept. Science tries to find the best
possible explanation for natural phenomena consistent with known facts.
There are always unknown facts, so any scientific theory can be modified
or overturned by future discoveries.
>
> But none of you see how utterly dishonest and untruthful that is, do
> you?
No, actually. Your argument seems to hinge on confusing methodological
naturalism (finding a natural explanation given the assumption a
phenomenon is natural) with philosophical naturalism (asserting that all
phenomena are natural). Since this is mistaken, so is your argument.
>
> I simply cannot fathom this much dishonesty steming from so few books
> that is believed by so many people. But every day, all I have to do
> is come to Talk Origins and see it for myself.
>
> So the REAL question is Why. Why should so many seemingly intelligent
> people believe the theory of evolution as if it were a gospel truth on
> one hand and then deny such a large body of work regarding
> supernatural occurences on the other?
Skepticism toward supernatural explanations is reasonable, even for
those with religious beliefs. If supernatural events were frequent,
predictions based on the regularity of nature would be impossible and
Science would not work. Yet we know that Science has a very good track
record for explaining phenomena. We can infer that the supernatural, if
it exists, rarely affects our material world. Because of that, it is
wise to seek natural explanations first.
>
> It does not make sense unless they are operating under an agenda.
>
There is an agenda. It is finding the best natural explanations for
natural phenomena. That's it. Nothing particularly devious about it.
>
>> Are you impressed by his claim that his books are "peer-reviewed"
>> when he has conceded that they are not?
>
> That is a stiff accusation. Where is your evidence?
Behe made that concession under oath in court. Here is a link to the
transcript page in question:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html
>
>> Evidently, as a creationist, you find such dishonesty acceptable.
>> As a scientist, I don't.
>
> As a scientist you should be intrested in where the evidence takes
> you. There is suggestive evidence that says the supernatural exist in
> much the same way there was suggestive evidence that sounds existed
> that man could not hear.
>
> Why do you deny that. Is it because it is actually you that finds
> dishonesty acceptable?
>
> Think about it objectivly.
>
Science cannot follow suggestive evidence for the supernatural and still
be Science. It would be dishonest to try. Some scientists hold
supernatural beliefs. Some don't. Whether they do or not has no bearing
on Science.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
>papers and his writing skills.
i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept. i've met behe and talked to
him
you haven't
my opinion is less gullible than yours. he's an idiot who's quite
paranoid
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Why should it be scientific? ID is describing a supernatural
>occurrence. Science should stick to the natural explanations because
>science inherently has limits.
correct. it can't explain god. it explains nature
and the origin of species is in nature. not the supernatural
creationists think nature is magical
>
>In fact, that has been one of my main point to most of you in many of
>my posts.
>
>It is impossible for science to fully explain supernatural events
>without speculations and inferences being made. Which is exactly what
>we see with theories such as big bang and evolution.
?? uh...why does the big bang explain what creationism cant?
it explains the microwave background. creationism cant
it explains the origin of H and He. creationism cant
it explains the origin of the universe back to a split second after it
happened.
creatonism can't.
>
>A major problem with finding the origins of the universe, the origins
>of species and the origins of life is science presupposes it can
>indeed explain everything with natural science.
?? uh...no. it just so happens that our methods of science CAN
explain the origins of many things.
creationism? not so much. you guys thought ghosts were responsible for
earthquakes. how'd that work out for you?
>
>But in order to make such a presupposition science then categorically
>states the supernatural does not exist when it does not know that for
>sure
well you guys had a 2000 year head start on science. if you guys DID
have an explanation for the origin of the unvierse, you think you'd
have found it by now
but you didn't. you invoke demons...ghosts...magical powers.
useless
.. Science then gives the reason for the supernatural not existing
>is because it cannot test for it. That is circular logic if you ask me
>an quite dishonest.
fine. prove science wrong. tell us how the supernatural works to
explain nature.
start with your computer. science tells us the same physics used to
explain the big bang is used to make your computer
now...if you PRAY to get your posts on the internet, then you're right
and supernaturalism works
HOWEVER..if you use a COMPUTER...then you're WRONG and science
explains nature.
so...telll us creationist...do you pray to get your posts here?
>
>How can anyone make the claim that something does not exist first
>while knowing full well that they cannot test for it?
circular. how do you test for santa claus? the easter bunny?
>
>I gave clear examples in previous posts that sounds and frequencies
>existed but, at one time man could NOT test for them. Therefore
>mankind thought the frequencies did not exist. But man was wrong. They
>did exist.
nonsense. if we didn't think they existed we wouldn't have built
instruments to hear them. we built these tools PRECISELY BECAUSE
science predicted these frequencies existed
creationsits thought that animals responded to demons and ghosts
>
>(Look. Science has it's uses. But when it comes to the origins of
>species, life and the universe, science has it's limits. The only way
>around those limits is to claim the supernatural does not exist. Which
>is an outrageous claim to make in the light of so much human knowledge
>that has been recorded in the past regarding supernatural events.)
then why can't the supernatural tell us about frequencies that animals
hear that we cant? your own example disproves creationism
>
>Now latter tests were latter developed to help man hear the
>frequencies that he could not hear. Why? Because someone noticed
>something odd WRT animals. So they latter discovered it was sounds the
>animals were making
creationists thought these were due to ghosts and demons. for 2000
years that was the excuse. and it went nowhere
scientists built instruments that COULD hear these frequencies.
your own example destroys your argument
.. Well, people have also noticed other odd things
>occurring in the past. So they wrote them down. But science will never
>discover why because science denies they exist. Instead, science takes
>what it is able to discover and then fills in the blanks with
>inferences and exotic stories.
'other things'...yes....and creationism is as useful in telling us
anything about THOSE as it is at telling us about animals and their
hearing
>
>THEN science takes those exotic stories and has the audacity to call
>it truth in the media and in the text books. But science had to
>presuppose something did not exist first in order to do that. So it
>threw out an entire body of anecdotal and recorded evidence on the
>supernatural so it can support it IDEAS of the origins of species.
it didn't have to do anything.
all it had to do was notice something: sacrificing goats to appease
angry gods does nothing to tell us how nature works.
so tell us, creationist: why has creationism NEVER been a success? why
are you guys still using a ghost based view of reality?
>
>I simply cannot fathom this much dishonesty steming from so few books
>that is believed by so many people. But every day, all I have to do
>is come to Talk Origins and see it for myself.
and how many religious books have been written explaining why ghosts
and demons explain the weather? earthquakes? disease?
for thousands of years you guys tried this wizard based view of the
world
and it NEVER worked. not once. ever.
>
>So the REAL question is Why. Why should so many seemingly intelligent
>people believe the theory of evolution as if it were a gospel truth on
>one hand and then deny such a large body of work regarding
>supernatural occurences on the other?
>
>It does not make sense unless they are operating under an agenda.
fine. you find that agenda, m'kay?
>
>
>> Are you impressed by his claim that his books are "peer-reviewed" when
>> he has conceded that they are not?
>
>That is a stiff accusation. Where is your evidence?
books are not peer reviewed. journal papers are peer reviewed
you are SO unfamiliar with science that you don't even know this but
you're here to tell scienitsts that wizards and ghosts explain more
about nature than science does.
g...@risky-biz.com
Guys never close the lid.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 22, 3:20 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> > > papers and his writing skills.
Then you'll probably LOVE P.T. Barnum.
Ron O
> Ridiculous.
>
> Guys never close the lid.
Actually Behe never puts the lid up. He just does his business and
expects others to clean up the mess. What is more of a peeve? Never
putting the lid up, or not putting it back down.? I doubt that anyone
prefers Behe's solution.
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:54:15 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >Why should it be scientific? ID is describing a supernatural
> >occurrence. Science should stick to the natural explanations because
> >science inherently has limits.
> No, it doesn't.
I would love to hear about what limits science has. I've never
heard of any such thing.
Dan Listermann
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:ruclg5dbrocsk19v9...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:37:17 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:54:15 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> >Why should it be scientific? ID is describing a supernatural
>> >occurrence. Science should stick to the natural explanations because
>> >science inherently has limits.
>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
> I would love to hear about what limits science has. I've never
> heard of any such thing.
>
.
slothrop
> "Desertphile" <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
Who said, "Science does have all the answers, you just don't know what
the questions are yet."?
slothrop
Dan Listermann
"slothrop" <slothr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:182d9396-cbf0-4b96...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
42
.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Why should it be scientific? ID is describing a supernatural
>occurrence. Science should stick to the natural explanations because
>science inherently has limits.
and supernaturalism has no limits at all so can be used to explain
anything at all. it can explain flat tires. so it's useless
>
>> Were you impressed by his admission that in declaring that there is no
>> scientific explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum,
>> he had specifically excluded scientific explanations from
>> consideration?
>
>If the scientific explanation is trying to explain a supernatural
>occurrence then the explanation will be invalid and therefore useless.
>So why mention it much less make the claim that it should be a
>contender for an accurate explaination of the phenomenon?
because we can test the scientific theory. the wizard theory that you
believe is useless.
>
>In fact, that has been one of my main point to most of you in many of
>my posts.
>
>It is impossible for science to fully explain supernatural events
>without speculations and inferences being made. Which is exactly what
>we see with theories such as big bang and evolution.
tell me why supernaturalism is useful. it's not. and it failed. you
just don't know the history of your own idea
supernaturalism was used to explain:
-earthquakes
-disease
-volcanoes
-disease
-floods
-weather
at one time or another. do you deny that?
and we found NATURAL causes for ALL these events. so supernaturalism
is wrong AND useless
>
>A major problem with finding the origins of the universe, the origins
>of species and the origins of life is science presupposes it can
>indeed explain everything with natural science.
it certainly has a helluva track record compared with supernaturalism.
when has supernaturalism EVER explained anything?
you keep telling us that supernaturalism is an answer
my question is WHERE?? where has it been useful? it's ALWAYS failed.
always. you guys drag it out like a liferaft on a sinking boat.
and yet you've ALWAYS been wrong. always. without exception
>
>But in order to make such a presupposition science then categorically
>states the supernatural does not exist when it does not know that for
>sure. Science then gives the reason for the supernatural not existing
>is because it cannot test for it. That is circular logic if you ask me
>an quite dishonest.
since supernaturalism has ALWAYS been used to explain nature and has
ALWAYS BEEN WRONG...why is it right this time?
>
>How can anyone make the claim that something does not exist first
>while knowing full well that they cannot test for it?
because YOU believe in supernaturalism so it's YOUR JOB to tell us how
to use it.
you have failed. you assert the supernatural exists. fine. tell us how
to use it
because every single time it's been used...and we have found an
explanation for a natural event
SUPERNATURALISM HAS BEEN WRONG
>
>I gave clear examples in previous posts that sounds and frequencies
>existed but, at one time man could NOT test for them. Therefore
>mankind thought the frequencies did not exist. But man was wrong. They
>did exist.
?? if it was thought they didn't exist then why did scientists build
instruments to hear them?
science did so because it had an explanation for how frequencies work
supernaturalism did not...so your own example shows why
supernaturalism is WRONG
>
>(Look. Science has it's uses. But when it comes to the origins of
>species, life and the universe, science has it's limits. The only way
>around those limits is to claim the supernatural does not exist. Which
>is an outrageous claim to make in the light of so much human knowledge
>that has been recorded in the past regarding supernatural events.)
supernaturalism was claimed to exist and to cause earthquakes. that
was wrong
it was the same story for disease, planetary motion, floods, the
weather, etc
and yet in NONE of those cases was supernaturalism right. you ignore
that.
supernaturalism NEVER EXPLAINED ANYTHING.
it has been TRIED. but it's ALWAYS been wrong. 100% of the time.
always wrong.
>
>Now latter tests were latter developed to help man hear the
>frequencies that he could not hear. Why? Because someone noticed
>something odd WRT animals. So they latter discovered it was sounds the
>animals were making. Well, people have also noticed other odd things
>occurring in the past. So they wrote them down. But science will never
>discover why because science denies they exist. Instead, science takes
>what it is able to discover and then fills in the blanks with
>inferences and exotic stories.
exotic stories? like ghosts, demons and wizards? you can't tell us
ANYTHING about the supernatural. and you had THOUSANDS of YEARS to do
so. but you've ALWAYS been wrong.
>
>THEN science takes those exotic stories and has the audacity to call
>it truth in the media and in the text books. But science had to
>presuppose something did not exist first in order to do that. So it
>threw out an entire body of anecdotal and recorded evidence on the
>supernatural so it can support it IDEAS of the origins of species.
that's correct. the supernatural has been thrown out because it's
WRONG
it has been used. it has been tested. it's wrong.
>
>But none of you see how utterly dishonest and untruthful that is, do
>you?
so tell us a TRUTH, OK?? give us SOMETHING to go on! where has there
been a SINGLE SUCCESS in supernaturalism? even ONE case would be
helpful
>
>So the REAL question is Why. Why should so many seemingly intelligent
>people believe the theory of evolution as if it were a gospel truth on
>one hand and then deny such a large body of work regarding
>supernatural occurences on the other?
because the supernatural has been tested
it's ALWAYS been wrong. without exception. always
>
>It does not make sense unless they are operating under an agenda.
>
>
>> Are you impressed by his claim that his books are "peer-reviewed" when
>> he has conceded that they are not?
>
>That is a stiff accusation. Where is your evidence?
>
>> Evidently, as a creationist, you find such dishonesty acceptable.
>> As a scientist, I don't.>
>I simply cannot fathom this much dishonesty steming from so few books
>that is believed by so many people. But every day, all I have to do
>is come to Talk Origins and see it for myself.>>As a scientist you should be intrested in where the evidence takes
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Why should it be scientific? ID is describing a supernatural
>occurrence. Science should stick to the natural explanations because
>science inherently has limits.
that's correct. and supernaturalism does not. that's why it's a
failure. it can be used to explain anything. so it explains nothing
>
>> Were you impressed by his admission that in declaring that there is no
>> scientific explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum,
>> he had specifically excluded scientific explanations from
>> consideration?
>
>If the scientific explanation is trying to explain a supernatural
>occurrence then the explanation will be invalid and therefore useless.
>So why mention it much less make the claim that it should be a
>contender for an accurate explaination of the phenomenon?
where can we see a SUCCESSFUL application of supernaturalism? it HAS
been tried. in fact it's the oldest explanation man had for natural
processes
problem is, it's ALWAYS been wrong. it WAS used to explain:
-weather
-disease
-floods
-volcanoes
-planetary motion
and it was wrong, wrong, wrong wrong and wrong
so why use a wrong idea?
>
>In fact, that has been one of my main point to most of you in many of
>my posts.
>
>It is impossible for science to fully explain supernatural events
>without speculations and inferences being made. Which is exactly what
>we see with theories such as big bang and evolution.
the big bang and evolution are testable and have evidence.
supernaturalism does not.
>
>A major problem with finding the origins of the universe, the origins
>of species and the origins of life is science presupposes it can
>indeed explain everything with natural science.
and that's what the evidence shows.
>
>But in order to make such a presupposition science then categorically
>states the supernatural does not exist when it does not know that for
>sure. Science then gives the reason for the supernatural not existing
>is because it cannot test for it. That is circular logic if you ask me
>an quite dishonest.
science works. we found the causes of earthquakes. science. disease?
science found that. weather? science. planetary motion? science
ALL of those had been explained by the supernatural. and
supernaturalism was WRONG.
>
>How can anyone make the claim that something does not exist first
>while knowing full well that they cannot test for it?
YOU believe the supernatural exists so it's YOUR job to prove it. it's
not up to me to disprove it.
>
>I gave clear examples in previous posts that sounds and frequencies
>existed but, at one time man could NOT test for them. Therefore
>mankind thought the frequencies did not exist. But man was wrong. They
>did exist.
and here we find ANOTHER failure of supernaturalism...your OWN EXAMPLE
tells why
scientist theorized these frequencies existed...that's WHY they built
instruments to look for them
supernaturalists AGAIN tried to explain this by the use of ghosts,
demons, etc. and that was WRONG.
how many times do you get to be wrong before you FINALLY admit what
everyone knows: the supernatural can not be used to explain nature
>
>(Look. Science has it's uses. But when it comes to the origins of
>species, life and the universe, science has it's limits. The only way
>around those limits is to claim the supernatural does not exist. Which
>is an outrageous claim to make in the light of so much human knowledge
>that has been recorded in the past regarding supernatural events.)
funny that we don't see supernatural events today, do we? it's almost
as if humans invented supernatural explanations and, when faced with
the fact that supernaturalism is WRONG...we gave it up...
>
>THEN science takes those exotic stories and has the audacity to call
>it truth in the media and in the text books. But science had to
>presuppose something did not exist first in order to do that. So it
>threw out an entire body of anecdotal and recorded evidence on the
>supernatural so it can support it IDEAS of the origins of species.
>
uh...no. it just took the evidence..the EVIDENCE...that
supernaturalism is WRONG...and went with it
it sure would be nice if you could point out a SINGLE success where
supernaturalism explained something.
>
>So the REAL question is Why. Why should so many seemingly intelligent
>people believe the theory of evolution as if it were a gospel truth on
>one hand and then deny such a large body of work regarding
>supernatural occurences on the other?
because the supernatural was not denied. it was tested. it was wrong.
always wrong. for thousands of years. wrong. always. without exception
it's hard to be more blunt than that. your view is wrong.
>
>As a scientist you should be intrested in where the evidence takes
>you. There is suggestive evidence that says the supernatural exist in
>much the same way there was suggestive evidence that sounds existed
>that man could not hear.
and scientists built instruments to hear those frequencies.
in 2000 years of supernaturalism, you guys have never found anything.
yet you beg for mercy. you plead and grovel that YOUR view of nature
is right even though it's WRONG
>
>Why do you deny that. Is it because it is actually you that finds
>dishonesty acceptable?
>
>Think about it objectivly.
fine. i will
where's your evidence? because in every single case supernaturalism
has been wrong
think about the evidence. you're wrong
Boikat
> On Nov 22, 3:47 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> > > papers and his writing skills.
>
> > > Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
>
> > > and:
> > > The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
>
> > >http://www.discovery.org/a/9611http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
>
> > > --
> > > Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
>
> > > The All Seeing I
>
> > Were you impressed by his concession that ID is not a scientific
> > theory?
>
Because ID pioponants are *pretending* to be scientific.
> ID is describing a supernatural
> occurrence.
No, they are attempting to fool the scientifically ignorant that there
is a scientific basis for the a-priori possition of biblical
creationism. The problem is that the "argumetn from ignorance' is a
logical fallacy, adn not a basis for a scientific claim. But since
your ability to perceive logical fallacies is non-existant, it's no
surprise that you can't see that.
> Science should stick to the natural explanations because
> science inherently has limits.
Especially when those limits are rooted in reality, as opposed to the
"anything goes" fantasies of creationism.
>
> > Were you impressed by his admission that in declaring that there is no
> > scientific explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum,
> > he had specifically excluded scientific explanations from
> > consideration?
>
> If the scientific explanation is trying to explain a supernatural
> occurrence then the explanation will be invalid and therefore useless.
Once upon time (you should be familiar with that opening line),
"Lightining" was a supernatural occurance.
> So why mention it much less make the claim that it should be a
> contender for an accurate explaination of the phenomenon?
Because they are idiots, and closet religious fanatics, who wish to
sneak creationism into mainstream science, so they can claim some sort
of "legitimate" basis for forcing their religious views on everyone.
>
> In fact, that has been one of my main point to most of you in many of
> my posts.
And that fallacy of that point has been pointed out to you every
time. But you lack the cognitive abilities to understand that.
>
> It is impossible for science to fully explain supernatural events
> without speculations and inferences being made. Which is exactly what
> we see with theories such as big bang and evolution.
Except that the "inferences" and speculations" are based upon actual
evidence. None of the "speculations" or "inferences" of creationism
or IDiotry have any such basis.
>
> A major problem with finding the origins of the universe, the origins
> of species and the origins of life is science presupposes it can
> indeed explain everything with natural science.
No, science presupposes it can study the evidence and derive a theory
to to attempt to explain the observations based upon the evidence
available.
>
> But in order to make such a presupposition science then categorically
> states the supernatural does not exist
Wrng. Science simply cannot incorporate anything into it's process
without justifying the incorporation.
> when it does not know that for
> sure.
Then why incorporate it into the scientific process?
> Science then gives the reason for the supernatural not existing
> is because it cannot test for it.
Science does not actyally deny the existence of the supernatural, it
simply cannot address anything for which there is no supporting
evidence.
> That is circular logic
No, It's simply *logic*.
> if you ask me
Nobody did.
> an quite dishonest.
Actually, it would be dishonest to incorporate a factor into any
scientific theory which did not have a logical, rational and
consistant basis for support. That pretty much rules out the
supernatural since it has none of those qualities.
>
> How can anyone make the claim that something does not exist first
> while knowing full well that they cannot test for it?
How can someone claim something *does* exists if the *cannot* test for
it?
Here are two claims.
1) There is a dead oak tree in my back yard.
I can support that claim. Want pictures?
2) There is an invisible, magical, fire breathing dragon living in my
back yard.
I have no evidence to support that claim, since I cannot take pictures
of invisible magical fire breathing dragons. Even the fire is
invisible, and gives off no heat, because it's magical dragon fire.
Since I cannot detect the existence of the dragon, since it's
invisible and magical, using your "logic", claim 2 is just as valid as
claim 1, right?
Do you see the folly of your possition yet? I doubt it.
>
> I gave clear examples in previous posts that sounds and frequencies
> existed but, at one time man could NOT test for them. Therefore
> mankind thought the frequencies did not exist. But man was wrong. They
> did exist.
So what? Man never *denied* those higher or lower frequencies
existed.
>
> (Look. Science has it's uses. But when it comes to the origins of
> species, life and the universe, science has it's limits. The only way
> around those limits is to claim the supernatural does not exist.
That didn't make much sense, now did it?
> Which
> is an outrageous claim to make in the light of so much human knowledge
> that has been recorded in the past regarding supernatural events.)
>
Fantasies and mistaken intrpretations of natural events does nothing
to support your possition. To repeat: Lightining used to be
considered an act of a "god" of one sort or another.
> Now latter tests were latter developed to help man hear the
> frequencies that he could not hear. Why? Because someone noticed
> something odd WRT animals. So they latter discovered it was sounds the
> animals were making. Well, people have also noticed other odd things
> occurring in the past. So they wrote them down. But science will never
> discover why because science denies they exist.
Science devised methods for testing a hypothesis WRT HF sounds. How
do you propose to test "supernatural occurances"?
> Instead, science takes
> what it is able to discover and then fills in the blanks with
> inferences and exotic stories.
Which are consistant with the evidence and always subject to
verification. Please explain how to do that with a supposed
"supernatural occurance".
>
> THEN science takes those exotic stories and has the audacity to call
> it truth in the media and in the text books.
It's a "true' as the evidence.
> But science had to
> presuppose something did not exist first in order to do that.
Wrong.
> So it
> threw out an entire body of anecdotal and recorded evidence on the
> supernatural so it can support it IDEAS of the origins of species.
Wrong. The ToE is based upon observations. The supernatural was not
"thrown out", it was not incorporated because there were no
observations to warrant it's inclusion. And so far, there still is
not evidence to support it anyway, so it's existance, or non-
existance, is moot, until evidence justifies it's inclusion.
>
> But none of you see how utterly dishonest and untruthful that is, do
> you?
There is no "dishonesty" in the possition of science with regards to
the supernatural.
>
> I simply cannot fathom this much dishonesty steming from so few books
> that is believed by so many people. But every day, all I have to do
> is come to Talk Origins and see it for myself.
What dishonesty? You keep making that accusation, but ehn you try to
justify it, you only manage to demonstrate your ignorance, and that
you apparently do not know what the word "dishonest" means.
>
> So the REAL question is Why. Why should so many seemingly intelligent
> people believe the theory of evolution as if it were a gospel truth
Not "gospel truth", *fact*, since it's an observed phenomenon, and the
*Theory* of evolution is he best explaination for that phenomenon.
> on
> one hand and then deny such a large body of work regarding
> supernatural occurences on the other?
Probably ue to lack of ecidence and inability to verify (test) the
vast majority of those claims. However, those few claims that were
subject to testing, like claims of a year long world wide flood *has*
been tested, and found to be false.
>
> It does not make sense unless they are operating under an agenda.
Your ignorance is breeding intellectual papanoia now. The only
"agenda" of scientific study is to uncover explainations for observed
phenomena.
>
> > Are you impressed by his claim that his books are "peer-reviewed" when
> > he has conceded that they are not?
>
> That is a stiff accusation. Where is your evidence?
>
> > Evidently, as a creationist, you find such dishonesty acceptable.
> > As a scientist, I don't.
>
> As a scientist you should be intrested in where the evidence takes
> you. There is suggestive evidence that says the supernatural exist in
> much the same way there was suggestive evidence that sounds existed
> that man could not hear.
So, how do you test for the validity of the "suggestion"? What test
would you have scientists perform?
>
> Why do you deny that. Is it because it is actually you that finds
> dishonesty acceptable?
What dishonesty? But, I forget, you apparently do not understand the
meaning of the word "dishonesty" Not that you are honest to the poit
of not being able to concieve of a dishonest claim or statement, but
rather that you are simply ignorant.
>
> Think about it objectivly.
I'm sure he has. The question is: Do you know what the word
"objectively" means? From your spewage above, it doesn't look like
you do.
Boikat
Frank J
No one *prefers* it, but millions of YECs and OECs settle for it, in
the absence of something more "Comforting". They just close their
eyes, hold their noses and swallow.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Earle Jones
Greetings!
As I recall, one of the first "irreducibly complex" processes that
proved the existence of an intelligent designer was the human eye,
which, according to IDists could not possibly have evolved.
When a few dozen examples of possible evolutionary pathways were
described, the next candidate was the blood-clotting cascade.
After that came the bacterial flagella, which obviously, owing to its
irreducible complexity, could not have evolved.
After that hypothesis was shot down, what is the latest life process
that is claimed to be so complex that it could not possible have evolved?
Have the ID proponents given up? Have they run out of candidates? It
should not be so difficult to dream up new possibilities. After all, it
requires no research, no expenditure of any energy, intellectual or
otherwise. Just think up a complex biological process and toss it out
as irreducibly complex.
I offer the ID crowd a suggestion: In the northern elephant seal
(Mirounga angustirostris) following copulation, the fertilized egg does
not implant to the uterine wall. It floats around in the uterine fluid
(absorbing nutrients) for about three months, which gives the pregnant
female time to build up her weight and strength. Then, the egg implants
in the uterine wall and fetal growth begins. After about seven or eight
months, birth occurs.
Obviously, this complex action could not possibly have evolved. It must
have been designed by an intelligent being.
Delayed implantation is obviously irreducibly complex and therefore
could not have evolved.
earle
*
Earle Jones
<134c0edb-bce6-4d59...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 3:47�am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 9:06�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Quite an intelligent person this Behe is. I am impresed with his
> > > papers and his writing skills.
> >
> > > Inpaticular the one entitled:
> > > Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
> >
> > > and:
> > > The Origin of Biomolecular Machines
> >
> > >http://www.discovery.org/a/9611http://www.discovery.org/a/2187
> >
> > > --
> > > Time to light the burn pile of history folks...
> >
> > > The All Seeing I
> >
> > Were you impressed by his concession that ID is not a scientific
> > theory?
>
> Why should it be scientific? ID is describing a supernatural
> occurrence. Science should stick to the natural explanations because
> science inherently has limits...
*
Translation from All-Seeing-Eye to English:
Science should stay out of our domain, which is the supernatural where
no evidence is required for any explanation we choose to offer. Science
is restricted to natural explanations that are backed by evidence. We
are in the domain "above" science where no rational explanations are
required. We "know" that our "knowledge" is true. Science is limited
by its demand for evidence. We do not have that limitation.
earle
*