Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Michael Behe Discusses 'Darwin Devolves' on Socrates In The City
26 views
Skip to first unread message
bob7d...@gmail.com
Sep 8, 2019, 5:00:42 AM9/8/19
to
Michael Behe Discusses 'Darwin Devolves' on 'Socrates In The City'
Eric Metaxas interviews biochemist Michael Behe on "the new science about DNA
that challenges evolution" as told in Behe's book, DARWIN DEVOLVES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNe-syuDJBg
Cloud Hobbit
Sep 8, 2019, 6:44:23 AM9/8/19
to
Michael Behe?
The dunce of Dover?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
The dunce of Dover?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Bob
Sep 8, 2019, 6:46:06 AM9/8/19
to
You truly are pathetic.
John Locke
Sep 8, 2019, 10:21:33 AM9/8/19
to
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 06:46:06 -0400, Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 9/8/2019 6:44 AM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> Michael Behe?
>>
>> The dunce of Dover?
>>
>> Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
>Immature, childish, jejune.
>
...heh, heh...you just described ID advocates to a tee !
>On 9/8/2019 6:44 AM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> Michael Behe?
>>
>> The dunce of Dover?
>>
>> Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
>Immature, childish, jejune.
>
>You truly are pathetic.
...no Dunkey...that's an honor bestowed upon you long ago by the
esteemed members of alt.atheism.
___________________________________________________________________
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by
the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful - Edward Gibbon
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike - Huang Po
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfullly as when they do it
from a religious conviction - Blaise Pascale
Cloud Hobbit
Sep 8, 2019, 5:32:29 PM9/8/19
to
"Bob" said:
>- hide quoted text -
Not nearly as much as you who refer to a guy whose definition of theory would include Astrolgy.
Even the imaginary "elect" probably laughed at that.
No matter how much ID propaganda you link to it can't erase all the benefits that have come to be because we now have (for 160+ years) a working theory that explains how something that had already been observed, actually works. It changed everything for the better in biology And many other disciplines. That's why only a tiny minority of fools disavow it. It works. It explains things and it provides clarity to biology.
Until such time as another, scientific explanation for the observation of evolution, Darwin's theory will stand.
Evolution happens whether you believe Darwin or not.
>- hide quoted text -
Even the imaginary "elect" probably laughed at that.
No matter how much ID propaganda you link to it can't erase all the benefits that have come to be because we now have (for 160+ years) a working theory that explains how something that had already been observed, actually works. It changed everything for the better in biology And many other disciplines. That's why only a tiny minority of fools disavow it. It works. It explains things and it provides clarity to biology.
Until such time as another, scientific explanation for the observation of evolution, Darwin's theory will stand.
Evolution happens whether you believe Darwin or not.
Bob
Sep 8, 2019, 6:07:21 PM9/8/19
to
On 9/8/2019 5:32 PM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
You truly are pathetic.
> "Bob" said:
>> Immature, childish, jejune.
>
>> You truly are pathetic.
>
> Not nearly as much as you who refer to a guy whose definition of
> theory would include Astrolgy.
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/12/ten-dover-myths-8/
>> Immature, childish, jejune.
>
>> You truly are pathetic.
>
> Not nearly as much as you who refer to a guy whose definition of
> theory would include Astrolgy.
You truly are pathetic.
John Locke
Sep 8, 2019, 6:17:21 PM9/8/19
to
establishing evolution theory as the foundation for biological
sciences just to appease your crack pot religious agenda ?
That's what I would classify as pathetic..and blatantly irresponsible
to boot !
Cloud Hobbit
Sep 8, 2019, 6:37:00 PM9/8/19
to
Behe gave his definition and then I believe it was the judge who remarked (correctly) that using Behe's definition astrology would be considered science.
I love it when you get caught lying.
<snicker>
Bob
Sep 8, 2019, 6:46:13 PM9/8/19
to
it's you who is actually lying right now.
Which doesn't surprise me at all.
You are a walking lie.
Cloud Hobbit
Sep 8, 2019, 7:34:02 PM9/8/19
to
Try this "Bob."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
It's the transcript part that deals with the astrology comment.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
It's the transcript part that deals with the astrology comment.
Cloud Hobbit
Sep 8, 2019, 8:11:11 PM9/8/19
to
From the talk.origins link above.
Q: In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?
A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.
Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.
A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.
Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?
A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?
A Yes.
Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."
That's the scientific theory of astrology?
A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.
Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.
And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.
Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?
A I'm sorry?
Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?
A It seems like that.
Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?
A Yes.
Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.
A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
Q Page 132, line 23.
A Yes.
Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?
A That's correct.
Q Not, it used to be, right?
A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.
Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.
A I'm sorry?
Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?
A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.
Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.
THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q Now, you gave examples of some theories that were discarded?
A Yes.
Q One was the ether theory?
A Yes.
Q And the other was the theory of geocentrism, right?
A That's correct.
Q And what you said yesterday was that there was some pretty compelling evidence for observers of that time that that was good theory, right?
A Yes, sure.
Q Look up in the sky, and it looked like the sun was going around us, correct?
A That's right.
Q And we know now that those appearances were deceiving, right?
A That's correct.
Q So what we thought we knew from just looking at the sky, that's not in fact what was happening, right?
A That's right.
Q So the theory was discarded?
A That's correct.
Q And intelligent design, also based on appearance, isn't it, Professor Behe?
A All sciences is based on appearances. That's -- what else can one go with except on appearances? Appearances can be interpreted from a number of different frameworks, and you have to worry that the one that you're interpreting it from is going to turn out to be correct. But in fact since science is based on observation, now that's just another word for appearance. So intelligent design is science, and so intelligent design is based on observation; that is appearance.
Big Bang theory is based on observation, based on appearance, so yes, it is.
Q: In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?
A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.
Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.
A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.
Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?
A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?
A Yes.
Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."
That's the scientific theory of astrology?
A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.
Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.
And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.
Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?
A I'm sorry?
Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?
A It seems like that.
Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?
A Yes.
Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.
A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
Q Page 132, line 23.
A Yes.
Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?
A That's correct.
Q Not, it used to be, right?
A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.
Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.
A I'm sorry?
Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?
A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.
Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.
THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q Now, you gave examples of some theories that were discarded?
A Yes.
Q One was the ether theory?
A Yes.
Q And the other was the theory of geocentrism, right?
A That's correct.
Q And what you said yesterday was that there was some pretty compelling evidence for observers of that time that that was good theory, right?
A Yes, sure.
Q Look up in the sky, and it looked like the sun was going around us, correct?
A That's right.
Q And we know now that those appearances were deceiving, right?
A That's correct.
Q So what we thought we knew from just looking at the sky, that's not in fact what was happening, right?
A That's right.
Q So the theory was discarded?
A That's correct.
Q And intelligent design, also based on appearance, isn't it, Professor Behe?
A All sciences is based on appearances. That's -- what else can one go with except on appearances? Appearances can be interpreted from a number of different frameworks, and you have to worry that the one that you're interpreting it from is going to turn out to be correct. But in fact since science is based on observation, now that's just another word for appearance. So intelligent design is science, and so intelligent design is based on observation; that is appearance.
Big Bang theory is based on observation, based on appearance, so yes, it is.
Mitchell Holman
Sep 8, 2019, 10:11:06 PM9/8/19
to
Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ql3u2k$186p$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
Your only response is a URL,
a "sign of weakness"?
"And you would do more than just post
a URL. That's a sign of weakness."
Robert Duncan aka "Bob",Aug 13, 2019
https://tinyurl.com/yymec62w
a "sign of weakness"?
"And you would do more than just post
a URL. That's a sign of weakness."
Robert Duncan aka "Bob",Aug 13, 2019
https://tinyurl.com/yymec62w
Cloud Hobbit
Sep 8, 2019, 11:45:51 PM9/8/19
to
Where exactly might one find the part where Behe didn't say astrology could be considered a theory according to his definition?
Bob
Sep 9, 2019, 12:02:12 AM9/9/19
to
On 9/8/2019 6:07 PM, Bob wrote:
> On 9/8/2019 5:32 PM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> "Bob" said:
>
>>> Immature, childish, jejune.
>>
>>> You truly are pathetic.
>>
>> Not nearly as much as you who refer to a guy whose definition of
>> theory would include Astrolgy.
>
>
-------------
> On 9/8/2019 5:32 PM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> "Bob" said:
>
>>> Immature, childish, jejune.
>>
>>> You truly are pathetic.
>>
>> Not nearly as much as you who refer to a guy whose definition of
>> theory would include Astrolgy.
>
>
From: https://evolutionnews.org/2015/12/ten-dover-myths-8/
In the Dover ruling, Judge Jones cited Behe’s definition of science,
claiming that it shows Behe’s “mission … to change the ground rules of
science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world.” So what
was Behe’s definition of science that was supposedly so extreme and
dangerous? Here it is:
Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation
which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.
you see anything about astrology or the supernatural there? I don’t.
It was the plaintiffs’ attorney, not Behe, who decided to bring
astrology into the conversation. When pressed about astrology by the
opposing attorney, Behe went on to explain:
There are many things throughout the history of science which we
fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether
theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories
as well.
Given what he says, Darwinian evolution fits just as well under Behe’s
definition of science, but that doesn’t mean it is like astrology (or
requires the supernatural) any more than it means that ID is like
astrology or requires the supernatural.
How, then, did the myth arise? Judge Jones and many ID critics have
employed a logical fallacy — the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
They claim that if ID and astrology both fit under Behe’s definition of
science, then ID must be some kind of a supernatural astrology-like
explanation.
Of course, it’s logically fallacious to claim that if two concepts (say,
ID and astrology, or evolution and astrology) both fit under Behe’s
broad definition of science, therefore they share the same flaws. By the
same logic, watch out because Darwinian evolution must be just like
astrology too.
Needless to say, Behe and all ID scientists reject astrology. What ID’s
critics fail to acknowledge is that five hundred years ago, the
scientific “consensus” would have claimed (erroneously) that astrology
meets the U.S. National Academy of Science’s definition of a scientific
theory: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural
world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses.” Indeed,
Galileo practiced and taught astrology — but the fact that he was wrong
about this doesn’t mean that every aspect of the rest of his science
should be rejected.
The problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS’s
definition of a scientific theory, or Michael Behe’s definition. The
problem with astrology is simple: It’s not supported by the evidence.
After all, an idea that is “science” or “scientific” can still be flatly
wrong.
-------------
>
> You truly are pathetic.
>
>
Bob
Sep 9, 2019, 12:14:23 AM9/9/19
to
On 9/8/2019 10:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> "And you would do more than just post
> a URL. That's a sign of weakness."
> Bob Duncan,Aug 13, 2019
>
> "And you would do more than just post
> a URL. That's a sign of weakness."
> https://tinyurl.com/yymec62w
>
False analogy fallacy.
Comparing apples and oranges, again.
Cloud Hobbit
Sep 9, 2019, 12:48:17 AM9/9/19
to
Bob said:
>the problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS’s
>the problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS’s
definition of a scientific theory, or Michael Behe’s definition. The
problem with astrology is simple: It’s not supported by the evidence.
After all, an idea that is “science” or “scientific” can still be flatly
wrong.
Just like ID, you dumb ass.
problem with astrology is simple: It’s not supported by the evidence.
After all, an idea that is “science” or “scientific” can still be flatly
wrong.
Cloud Hobbit
Sep 9, 2019, 12:52:41 AM9/9/19
to
Bob said:
>Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation
which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.
>Yes, that’s Michael Behe’s definition of science. In its entirety. Do
you see anything about astrology or the supernatural there? I don’t.
We know what he said about astrology, it's in the bit of transcript I posted.
>Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation
which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.
>Yes, that’s Michael Behe’s definition of science. In its entirety. Do
you see anything about astrology or the supernatural there? I don’t.
Under oath he said that under his definition astrology could be considered a scientific theory.
You lose again.
John Locke
Sep 9, 2019, 12:59:02 AM9/9/19
to
scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated
explanatory framework for a series of facts and observations that is
testable and can be used to predict future observations. ID can't be
tested and can't make any predictions. Intelligent Design IS NOT a
scientific theory nor even a hypothesis.. It's religiously oriented
conjecture. Nothing more.
bob7d...@gmail.com
Sep 9, 2019, 1:01:27 AM9/9/19
to
You're free to believe what you want to believe.
I believe what I read here, that proves your interpretation is wrong:
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/12/ten-dover-myths-8/
=====
In the Dover ruling, Judge Jones cited Behe’s definition of science,
claiming that it shows Behe’s “mission … to change the ground rules of
science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world.” So what
was Behe’s definition of science that was supposedly so extreme and
dangerous? Here it is:
claiming that it shows Behe’s “mission … to change the ground rules of
science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world.” So what
was Behe’s definition of science that was supposedly so extreme and
dangerous? Here it is:
Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation
which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.
Yes, that’s Michael Behe’s definition of science. In its entirety. Do
you see anything about astrology or the supernatural there? I don’t.
which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.
Yes, that’s Michael Behe’s definition of science. In its entirety. Do
you see anything about astrology or the supernatural there? I don’t.
--
It's all just a matter of time.
My great-great-grandchildren will probably grow to maturity never hearing
anything about Charles Darwin, or Darwinism, except for the one-line
mention in passing, found in World History textbooks, serving as a "bridge"
between the "Dark Days of Darwinism" and the "New Age of Unbiased Science."
We're seeing the early steps in that direction now.
It's just a matter of time.
John Locke
Sep 9, 2019, 1:06:13 AM9/9/19
to
scientific theories.
Mitchell Holman
Sep 9, 2019, 8:43:50 AM9/9/19
to
Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ql4jir$3er$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
You are such a hypocrite.
But you knew that, right?
But you knew that, right?
Bob
Sep 9, 2019, 9:02:36 AM9/9/19
to
And with having quite a few unsubstantiated opinions.
But they're your problems, not mine.
Have a nice day.
<smirk>
Don Martin
Sep 9, 2019, 11:16:51 AM9/9/19
to
--
Never mind "proof;" where's your evidence?
Mitchell Holman
Sep 9, 2019, 1:50:59 PM9/9/19
to
Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ql5ih6$ig3$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
> On 9/9/2019 8:43 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ql4jir$3er$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2019 10:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "And you would do more than just post
>>>> a URL. That's a sign of weakness."
>>>> Bob Duncan,Aug 13, 2019
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/yymec62w
>>>>
>>>
>>> False analogy fallacy.
>>>
>>> Comparing apples and oranges, again.
>>>
>>
>> You are such a hypocrite.
>
> You're the one who has a problem with logic.
No logic required.
You blast others for posting
URLs and yet you do the same thing.
Hypocrisy much?
> On 9/9/2019 8:43 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ql4jir$3er$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2019 10:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "And you would do more than just post
>>>> a URL. That's a sign of weakness."
>>>> Bob Duncan,Aug 13, 2019
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/yymec62w
>>>>
>>>
>>> False analogy fallacy.
>>>
>>> Comparing apples and oranges, again.
>>>
>>
>> You are such a hypocrite.
>
> You're the one who has a problem with logic.
You blast others for posting
URLs and yet you do the same thing.
Hypocrisy much?
Bob
Sep 9, 2019, 2:34:52 PM9/9/19
to
On 9/9/2019 1:50 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ql5ih6$ig3$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> On 9/9/2019 8:43 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ql4jir$3er$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 9/8/2019 10:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "And you would do more than just post
>>>>> a URL. That's a sign of weakness."
>>>>> Bob Duncan,Aug 13, 2019
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/yymec62w
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> False analogy fallacy.
>>>>
>>>> Comparing apples and oranges, again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are such a hypocrite.
>>
>> You're the one who has a problem with logic.
>
>
> No logic required.
False analogy == logical fallacy.
> Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ql5ih6$ig3$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> On 9/9/2019 8:43 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Bob <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ql4jir$3er$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 9/8/2019 10:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "And you would do more than just post
>>>>> a URL. That's a sign of weakness."
>>>>> Bob Duncan,Aug 13, 2019
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/yymec62w
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> False analogy fallacy.
>>>>
>>>> Comparing apples and oranges, again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are such a hypocrite.
>>
>> You're the one who has a problem with logic.
>
>
> No logic required.
Did you just hear a whooshing sound over your head?
> You blast others for posting URLs and yet you do the same thing.
False analogy, again.
Gronk
Sep 16, 2019, 12:35:30 AM9/16/19
to
bob7d...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Michael Behe Discusses 'Darwin Devolves' on 'Socrates In The City'
>
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-theory-courtroom-told/
>
>
> Michael Behe Discusses 'Darwin Devolves' on 'Socrates In The City'
>
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same
criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify
his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.
Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it,” he says.
Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s
definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a
hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
0 new messages