RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register


Question: FtK's "Where Does ID Belong?" Poll :: Total Votes:71
Poll choices Votes Statistics
In Science Classes 1  [1.41%]
In Philosophy of Science Classes 21  [29.58%]
In Religion Classes 18  [25.35%]
As a separate study (via groups like the IDEA clubs) 3  [4.23%]
Ooutside of the school setting in churches, synagogues, etc. 1  [1.41%]
It should be wiped off the face of the earth. 14  [19.72%]
Other (Please Specify) 13  [18.31%]
Guests cannot vote
Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: FtK's "Where Does ID Belong?" Poll< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,12:57   

These choices are crude, but I'm working with what she gave us.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,12:59   

Intelligent Design already exists in Philosophy of Science courses, by the way.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,13:12   

It's a good example of demarcation.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,13:27   

We touched briefly in Phil 160 at the UW (Washington). Although the course structure tends to differ depending the professor, ID was brought up during my class in the context of epistemology.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,13:33   

From what I see of ID, which to me is basic creationism dressed with sciency terms, it think it shouldn't be taught anywhere.
ID is a political strategy which has nothing to do with science (philosophy included). So it definitely doesn't belong to the science classroom.
Even in church, ID would remain nothing else than an attempt to deceive and to spread falsehoods about real science and our origins. This would be very bad religion.

So yes, I voted it should be wiped off the surface of the Earth. Not by killing its proponents of course, but by educating people.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,13:38   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 29 2007,14:33)
From what I see of ID, which to me is basic creationism dressed with sciency terms, it think it shouldn't be taught anywhere.
ID is a political strategy which has nothing to do with science (philosophy included). So it definitely doesn't belong to the science classroom.
Even in church, ID would remain nothing else than an attempt to deceive and to spread falsehoods about real science and our origins. This would be very bad religion.

So yes, I voted it should be wiped off the surface of the Earth. Not by killing its proponents of course, but by educating people.

I felt it could serve as an instructive illustration of a pseudo-science attempting to pass for science; familiarity with its rhetorical strategy would enable students to make similar future discriminations.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,14:20   

Other--ID belongs in either pseudoscience or abnormal psychology courses.

  
Jasper



Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,14:42   

I voted "other."

ID is bad science, incoherent philosophy, and risky theology.  It clearly does not belong in a classroom.  I also would not like it to be used to deceive religious people about real science.

I guess it could be used as an example of a pseudoscience.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,14:59   

I'm with Jean on this one.  It's not just bad science, but it seeks to destroy science.  It is a counter-productive POS that should be wiped out through better education.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,15:22   

I voted for "outside of the school setting in churches, synagogues".

Quote
It should be wiped off the face of the earth.


Within a week some ID dingbat will quote this as proof that 'Darwinists' want to murder IDers. Mark my words.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,15:35   

Those of you who didn't vote for "Philosophy of Science" courses: have you had any such courses?

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,16:07   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2007,15:35)
Those of you who didn't vote for "Philosophy of Science" courses: have you had any such courses?

HeII no.
Do they teach IC and how to use the nixplanatory filter in those courses?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,16:10   

I don't remember any Dembski in mine, but Behe and Ruse came up.

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 29 2007,17:10

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,16:30   

Where does ID belong?

Maybe in a political science course describing strategies used in political movements, especially those trying for support from people who aren't knowledgable about the subject matter.

After all, if "ID" were science, it would have been given a label that says something about the underlying science. Consider the names given to actual science theories - relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution - each of those labels actually says something about the underlying subject matter.

If there were evidence of life or some part of it being deliberately engineered by some agency, the theory describing that would be labelled in a way that explicitly refers to deliberate engineering, or to the type of engineering involved. In contrast to that, the label "intelligent design" was picked because it sounds good to the target audience.

Henry

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,16:36   

I wish my Philosophy of Science courses had been post-Dover. I'd like to know what the philosopher who taught the class thinks of Jones's decision. He thought Ruse's demarcation in McLean vs Arkansas was absolute junk, btw.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,17:12   

Quote
stevestory: I wish my Philosophy of Science courses had been post-Dover. I'd like to know what the philosopher who taught the class thinks of Jones's decision. He thought Ruse's demarcation in McLean vs Arkansas was absolute junk, btw.


Write him/her a letter and ask.

Henry

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,18:07   

I voted for 'other' because I feel it should be used as a case study in psychology classes, but I could not find out how to specify what I meant.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 365
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,18:41   

I voted other, and agree with Henry J: as a current event in political science in regards to the larger "worldview war" being promulgated by many in the fundamentalist right.

  
RF Brady



Posts: 30
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,19:26   

ID should not be in either science or philosophy of science classes as it is not science. It should also not be in a religion class. A better place for it would be in a social sciences class that analyses the various social movements of the 20th (and now the 21st) centuries. It could take it's place alongside things like the KKK, Segregation (Jim Crow Laws), and other bizarre movements of our present and recent past.

It should, however be included in a post secondary curriculum, not because of any fear that ID might creep into High School curricula, but because the subject is really quite limited and specific and does not lend itself to high school curricula which is almost always broadly  a "survey" curriculum.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,20:25   

Quote (RF Brady @ Sep. 29 2007,20:26)
ID should not be in either science or philosophy of science classes as it is not science.

Would I be correct in assuming you've never had a Philosophy of Science class?

   
RF Brady



Posts: 30
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,21:35   

You are correct sir. And the last post secondary science class I had was Freshman Zoology back during the Age of Aquarius.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:07   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 29 2007,18:41)
I voted other, and agree with Henry J: as a current event in political science in regards to the larger "worldview war" being promulgated by many in the fundamentalist right.

Jack, why is the "fundamentalist right" responsible for the "worldview war"?????

What about anti-ID atheist activists like PZ, Harris, Weinburg, Dawkins, Hitchens, Scott, Forrest, et. al.   Are they not equally responsible for this "worldview war"?  They are all scientists who have written books or articles which are often best sellers that promote science as a sword against religious belief.  (I realize that Scott & Forrest refrain from outwardly stating that religion is a hinderence to society, but they base their atheism on science as well).

That's the biggest gripe I had with Miller's speech the other day.  He lamblasted the "fundamentalists" for trying to use science to support their religious beliefs, yet not ONE mention of the antics from the "New Atheists" or whatever they want to be called.  

They USE science as their basis for atheism (which is a faith belief regardless of what any of you will admit).  Many of them have actually use terms like "war on religion", "The God Delusion", etc.  

That certainly comes across in the classroom regardless of whether the professor says one word about his atheist leanings.  PZ stated once that he tells his students at the beginning of his class that no one will be graded any differently regardless of their beliefs in regard to evolution or their belief or disbelief in God.  

But he also mentioned that he will work darn hard at getting through to them how ridiculous their faith in God is considering what we know about science.

The "worldview war" cannot by any means be attributed to the "fundamentalist right", and we must remember that the fundamentalist left have complete control of our classrooms at present.

The rights of religious people have all but been completely striped from the schools, yet atheists would like to see even more taken away.  Even the cross necklaces being worn by the teachers are at risk of being ripped off and trashed (I've seen this complaint mentioned several times at PZ's palace).  

Do you think this behavior is helping the culture war?   Do you think this is helping science?  It's turning it into a three ring circus!

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:12   

FtK's in rare form tonight. I'm getting PM's about it.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:18   

Hey, man, what can I say...I've been trying to put together the post on MN, but it's getting too long and I was getting bored with trying to cut it back.  So I figured I'd come in here and shake things up a bit. ;)

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2007,22:12)
FtK's in rare form tonight. I'm getting PM's about it.

PM's or P.M.S?

Hey FtK, how about getting a sister poll started on UD?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:56   

I voted other ....."American Pulp Fiction"

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,06:30   

I voted "off the face of the earth".

Jeannot expressed it neatly.

ID as an idea was always a fraud and will whither away since it was judged as such at Harrisburg.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,06:39   

I voted "other".  ID itself should not be taught (unless you're working to destroy a culture), but I have no problems with students being taught about ID, e.g. as an example of a movement in sociology or politics.

I guess it could also be taught in rhetoric classes.  *fart*.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,07:31   

I'd put it in the Religion Class...only so long as they touch upon all other religions origins or creation beliefs.

This goes to another point about the disingenuous tactics of the IDiots or Creationist.  They keep talking about "alternation" views, when in fact, the only alternative view they want taught along side TOC is their Biblical view.  Not a Hindu, Muslim, Scientology...blah..blah...blah....Just theirs.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,14:11   

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 30 2007,07:31)
I'd put it in the Religion Class...only so long as they touch upon all other religions origins or creation beliefs.

This goes to another point about the disingenuous tactics of the IDiots or Creationist.  They keep talking about "alternation" views, when in fact, the only alternative view they want taught along side TOC is their Biblical view.  Not a Hindu, Muslim, Scientology...blah..blah...blah....Just theirs.

Well, yeah. A crucial point in the rhetoric of IDCers and the Christian Right in general, which FTK is often guilty of herself, is to assume a bogus dichotomy between Good Conservative Protestants on the one hand versus Godless Liberals on the other, with nothing down the middle. It's crucial to their rhetoric to create an all-or-nothing scenario where you either check off ALL the religious right's boxes or none. So they pretend there aren't Liberal Christians, or Christians who support evolution, or Christians who support gay rights, or Conservative atheists. Then they pretend that all religious people are Fundamentalist Protestants or at the very least conservative Christians -- if you ain't Christian, you're an **atheist***. So this explains why their 'alternatives to Darwinism' or 'alternatives to materialism' somehow *always* consist of American Fundamentalist Protestantism, as tho that's the only way in the world not to be an atheist.

Then they pretend that conservative Fundamentalist Protestants are a majority of the country. When they deign to acknowledge Christians who don't agree with them, they imply that such people aren't real Christians, yet they count every last Christian in the country when declaring that we're a 'Christian Nation'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,14:22   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,22:07)
That's the biggest gripe I had with Miller's speech the other day.  He lamblasted the "fundamentalists" for trying to use science to support their religious beliefs, yet not ONE mention of the antics from the "New Atheists" or whatever they want to be called.  

FtK

Think about this for at least a nanosecond.

Fundamentalist Christians are trying to subvert science by inserting a tenet of their faith into science education. Scientists will naturally, regardless of their religious views, fight back.

So IF fundamentalist Christians were not trying to subvert science, do you really think that scientists would care what fundamentalists do in the privacy of their church basements?

I'll answer that for you, as a scientist.

NO.

So if the fundamentalists would keep their noses out of my business, I could afford to ignore them, and vice versa. If they insist on trying to insert their idiosyncratic magical beliefs into a fact-based enterprise such as science, they become dangerous and need to be confronted.
   
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,22:07)
They USE science as their basis for atheism (which is a faith belief regardless of what any of you will admit).


You just can't stay away from this one, can you? One more time. Science is NOT a basis for atheism; science is NOT atheism. Scientists can follow any religious faith that they desire, and still do science quite well.

Methodological naturalism is NOT philosophical naturalism, not matter how fervently you and others wish to believe that.

As for that other load of crap about "The rights of religious people have all but been completely striped (sic) from the schools", that is not true. Religious beliefs have no place in schools, and you would be the first to agree if your kids had to be educated in a public school in Saudi Arabia. Teaching science as methodological naturalism is NOT teaching religion, it is teaching science. Why can't you see that?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,14:34   

Quote
As for that other load of crap about "The rights of religious people have all but been completely striped (sic) from the schools", that is not true. Religious beliefs have no place in schools, and you would be the first to agree if your kids had to be educated in a public school in Saudi Arabia.


Well, when FTK says that religious people have been "striped of their rights", she only means people of the same religious views as herself. The religious right takes it as a given that they would be the sole beneficiaries of their proposed 'bigger role for religion in American life'. Recall how the religious right flipped out when a Muslim got elected to Congress, or when a Hindu did the prayers in Congress. It ain't about defending religion, it's about advancing their religion.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,16:46   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 30 2007,15:34)
Quote
As for that other load of crap about "The rights of religious people have all but been completely striped (sic) from the schools", that is not true. Religious beliefs have no place in schools, and you would be the first to agree if your kids had to be educated in a public school in Saudi Arabia.


Well, when FTK says that religious people have been "striped of their rights", she only means people of the same religious views as herself. The religious right takes it as a given that they would be the sole beneficiaries of their proposed 'bigger role for religion in American life'. Recall how the religious right flipped out when a Muslim got elected to Congress, or when a Hindu did the prayers in Congress. It ain't about defending religion, it's about advancing their religion.

Yup, if you don't allow them to indoctrinate everyone else in the school with their religion and teach that all other religions are false, then you are denying them their rights.  Wacko.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,18:28   

I choose Philosophy of Science class but to be more appropriate I would prefer a straight philosophy class.  My 2 cents.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,19:10   

Quote
So IF fundamentalist Christians were not trying to subvert science, do you really think that scientists would care what fundamentalists do in the privacy of their church basements?


Just WOW!  This is pretty much exactly what I'm getting at.  As long as those of you who loathe Christianity (and that's becoming more apparent from you, Dave, as the days go by) see that we keep our beliefs hidden in the basement rather than considering it as a method in which we seek knowledge (or truth), then you'll allow it (though only if it's confined to our basements).  But, as  soon as we contemplate what we know about history, archeology, science and other method of knowledge which support our beliefs, then you're on the war path.

Christians are not trying to "subvert" science.  In fact you can keep your freaking science class free from open inquiry and consideration of the vast complexity of nature for all I care anymore.  

It's funny that only *1* person suggested that ID be taught at IDEA clubs...that would be because it's probably the only place that it would be taught honestly.  Personally, I'm beginning to think that IDEA clubs are probably the best place for discussions on the topic.

And, I have no idea how you can blame Christians for "subverting" science....they have played a major role in the surge toward the advancement of science throughout history.

Absolutely NO ONE is inserting magical beliefs into the classroom.  You are being so dishonest in this respect.  ID considers the increasing complexity that we are finding in nature... it does not teach religious concepts.

Even Francis Collins, who is no friend to ID states:

Quote
In any event, lots of basic biological beliefs are going out the window these days as new discoveries come so rapid-fire that the effect is almost more disorienting than illuminating.

The discoveries have one common theme: Cellular processes long assumed to be "genetic" appear quite often to be the result of highly complex interactions occurring in regions of DNA void of genes. This is roughly akin to Wall Street waking to the realization that money doesn't make the world go 'round, after all.

"It's a radical concept, one that a lot of scientists aren't very happy with," said Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. "But the scientific community is going to have to rethink what genes are, what they do and don't do, and how the genome's functional elements have evolved.

"I think we're all pretty awed by what we're seeing," Collins said. "It amounts to a scientific revolution."


The closer we are to realizing that life is not merely an accident or a chance/random event or the cause of "mystical metaphysical forces that have always been in existence but will always remain entirely undetectable" (which I considered sophisticated atheism or scientism in *some* cases), the harder you all fight.

For many reasons, not the least of all being the idea that there is a higher source of intelligent that has created us to live in a certain way which is in harmony with the universe he created, is repulsive to you.  

What you are all doing it causing needless clashes between science and religion.  ID presents no harm to science, in fact it's pushed science to new heights.  

And, the fact that none of you even consider for one second the harm that the PZ's of the world are contributing to this problem says a lot about your real reasons for being in this debate.  He has also "subvert[ed] science by inserting a tenet of [his] faith into science education", and the only way we are going to one day stop this increasingly volatile culture war is to acknowledge that there are those on each side who are using science to ward off either atheism or religious beliefs.  It's got to stop, and we've got to allow academic freedom to prevail regardless of philosophical or religious beliefs.

Seriously, there has to be a meeting of the minds here.  Things are never going to change otherwise, and if any of you actually believe that materialism or theism will one day prevail against the other, then you're living in a fantasy world. Both will always exist, and we've got to deal with it by working together to find middle ground.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,19:20   

Quote
So if the fundamentalists would keep their noses out of my business, I could afford to ignore them, and vice versa.


How exactly will ID be a detriment to "your business"?  You teach biology.  Giving an honest description of ID in a section of your course is not going to cause any problems to science whatsoever.  It only ticks you off that you might have to teach something that is in opposition to your philosophy about life.

Get over it....

Teachers who believe there is an ultimate designer teach concepts about science and evolution that they may not agree with on a daily basis.

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

  
Zarquon



Posts: 71
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,19:28   

Teaching about ID wastes the class's time, and there's not enough of that anyway.
If you discuss ID in a philosophy of science class, that's a waste of time too. It's better to teach the history of science, at least people were arguing about phlogiston in good faith. There's nothing honest about ID, it's a deliberate attempt to deceive.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,19:29   

Quote

working together to find middle ground.


I find it difficult to take that seriously.

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

    
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,19:30   

Quote
ID presents no harm to science, in fact it's pushed science to new heights.  



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA\

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

ID has pushed science to new heights? Thats a good one.

Which parts, the science of lying? The science of quote mining? The science of marketing?

What science have they even done, FTK? Can you name any?

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,19:49   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2007,19:29)
Quote

working together to find middle ground.


I find it difficult to take that seriously.

And, coming from you, I don't doubt that for even one second.  You're all about us & them.  You, sir, are a detriment to science, this debate, and world peace.

Carry on....I realize there is no stopping you.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,20:00   

I'm already in the middle ground with Miller, Miller, and Collins.

Pretty funny line there, FtK. Have you done anything like this?





Didn't think so.

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

    
RF Brady



Posts: 30
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,20:27   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2007,20:00)
I'm already in the middle ground with Miller, Miller, and Collins.

Pretty funny line there, FtK. Have you done anything like this?





Didn't think so.

Let me answer for her, Wes. "No, - but I did stay at a Holyroller Inn Express last night". :p  :O

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,20:31   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,19:10)
Just WOW!  This is pretty much exactly what I'm getting at.  As long as those of you who loathe Christianity (and that's becoming more apparent from you, Dave, as the days go by) see that we keep our beliefs hidden in the basement rather than considering it as a method in which we seek knowledge (or truth), then you'll allow it (though only if it's confined to our basements).  But, as  soon as we contemplate what we know about history, archeology, science and other method of knowledge which support our beliefs, then you're on the war path.

Christians are not trying to "subvert" science.  In fact you can keep your freaking science class free from open inquiry and consideration of the vast complexity of nature for all I care anymore.

More words being put in my mouth, FtK.

Here's the facts. Write them down.

I loathe liars. Science cannot advance if deliberate deception is passed off as science. Lies certainly do subvert science. If you can't figure that out, it is only because you are clueless about how science works, as you have demonstrated innumerable times before.

If Christians are liars, I loathe them. If atheists are liars, I loathe them. What's the common thread here? I think you can figure it out.

ID is being promoted by liars. That can be proven, if you care to hear about the evidence. But I suspect that you don't care, because you believe the lies.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,21:18   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,20:10)
Seriously, there has to be a meeting of the minds here.  Things are never going to change otherwise, and if any of you actually believe that materialism or theism will one day prevail against the other, then you're living in a fantasy world. Both will always exist, and we've got to deal with it by working together to find middle ground.

It always brings a smile to my face when a fundy advocates relativism.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,21:33   

Quote
ID is being promoted by liars.


No one would work so hard at supporting something that they know to be patently false, and that is what you are saying here.  It is almost impossible to believe that you can honestly think that ID supporters are "liars", but that does explain your inability to consider some of these issues for what they really are.  

Now, I will say that I do not believe that even the most militant atheist scientists who are in this debate, such as Dawkins and PZ, are "liars".  They certainly believe what they say to be true, as I believe everyone in this debate does.  But, you refuse to take into serious consideration the different views and the depth of these issues from the viewpoint of your opposition.  For you, it's all about religion "trying to subvert science", and you simply cannot wrap you head around any other explanation here.  

You are so convinced that there is no way of detecting whether our universe is the result of an ultimate designer, that you have decided to fight the idea with ever fiber of your being and hopefully ban religious thought to the "basement" of churches.

If you *really* believe that Behe, Dembski, and people like myself who promote ID are liars, then I don't really see any point in discussing these issue with you further.  We'll have to find some other topics to explore.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,22:31   

There are circumstances that permit a secure inference of lying: when a person claims expertise in a topic, and then advances false information about that topic, we can be certain that they are lying about one or the other claim they make.

For most of the IDC advocates, they really have no expertise concerning evolutionary biology, and their output in that regard falls neatly into the "angry nonsense" bin. Many of these folks are quite sincere, but also quite deluded.

One delusion is that IDC is all science and doesn't rely upon religious underpinnings. It is the wrong way to look at it. What has mattered in the past and will continue to matter in the future is what the content is. That content has demonstrably been old, tired, bogus antievolution arguments, without exception having precursors in religiously motivated antievolution. We even have a body of evidence showing the progressive subsetting of these arguments, where arguments have been incrementally excluded based upon what the relevant legal decisions have found objectionable. There may finally be a use for a Dembskian "design inference" in court, and it will all be about "what are the odds that just these particular arguments were dropped post-Epperson, and just these arguments were dropped post-Edwards, and just these arguments were dropped post-Kitzmiller, but all the rest come straight from the same religious antievolution playbook?"

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

    
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,22:34   

Quote
No one would work so hard at supporting something that they know to be patently false


They will when money is involved.

"Fleecing the flock" is a longstanding tradition. No matter how silly your claims, how badly or how often you get caught lying, how obviously wrong you are, people will throw money at you if you do it in the name of religion. Behe and Dembski know this well. They've got book sales to consider.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,23:00   

Quote
One delusion is that IDC is all science and doesn't rely upon religious underpinnings. It is the wrong way to look at it. What has mattered in the past and will continue to matter in the future is what the content is. That content has demonstrably been old, tired, bogus antievolution arguments, without exception having precursors in religiously motivated antievolution.


I believe you might be the only one suffering from delusion here.  Quotes like that either show your extreme bias or your ignorance in regard to the advancement of science.  

Obviously, you're not ignorant, so your bias is really heavily displayed here.  Science has advanced to such a point that in the past, ID was merely a philosophical notion about watches and watch makers.  

Within the last decade such astounding advances to science have been made that the design that was contemplated in the past can be seen with our own eyes.  Molecular machines are a small part of the picture of design.  The intricate complexity we are discovering in nature is simply mind boggling.  Hopefully, Paley's ghost is around to enjoy the fulfillment of his belief that a watch maker does exist when we consider these new discoveries in the field of science.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,23:25   

What do we find in FtK's latest fusillade?

Projection. Lots and lots of projection.

That, and begging of questions.

Actual substance? Zip, zero, zilch, nada.

Scientific knowledge has advanced. However, Muller's "interlocking complexity" (as in his 1918 paper) is fully sufficient as a descriptor for what biochemistry reveals in intracellular organization; certainly Behe's 1996 stuff isn't up to snuff (see "Why Intelligent Design Fails" for critiques of Behe's ideas).

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,23:31   

For most of IDC, referring to the reliance upon "God of the gaps" argumentation is quite accurate.

But for Michael Behe, something more specific is needed. As Behe was kind enough to point out, there is no further regress beyond biochemistry, and once we have explored things in those terms, we have reached bottom. Thus, Behe-style argumentation is not just "God of the gaps", since "gaps" doesn't convey that notion of limited further depth. Behe's argumentation should be discussed in terms of his use of "God of the crevices" arguments.

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

    
dochocson



Posts: 62
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,23:36   

Okay, I know that arguing with Ftk really won't change a thing, but here goes.

The basic, and really only issue here is the scientific method. Those who claim ID is science either do not understand the scientific method or willfully ignore it. If it is the latter, then they are lying.

ID advocates do very little if any actual science. Why? Because ID cannot generate a testable hypothesis. When confronted with this uncomfortable truth, ID supporters move the goalposts. They quote mine real scientists, bitch and moan about being suppressed or resort to publishing books in the popular press to avoid the rigors of peer review.

They are biology's equivalent of the cranks that claim they've proven Einstein wrong. IF ID could, in fact supplant ToE, it would be huge. NOBEL PRIZE HUGE.

For an example, look at Robin Warren and Barry Marshall. They're the ones that proposed H. pylori as a cause of gastric ulcers. The idea was roundly dismissed at first glance. So did they whine about being suppressed and censored? No. They did more research, research that could be duplicated and confirmed. No hand waving, no quote mining, no deception. When their hypothesis was confirmed, the "establishment" had not choice but to accept the idea.

Is this really so hard to understand?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,23:45   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,22:33)
Quote
ID is being promoted by liars.


No one would work so hard at supporting something that they know to be patently false,

People work hard at lying all the time. Why? Lots of reasons. Money. Fame. Bob Park wrote a whole book about how people start out believing some nonsense idea, generating a following, and continuing long after they realized the idea is wrong, because they are now profiting from it. Didn't you put some money in Behe's pocket recently?

Know how much forensic 'experts' can get to say misleading things in court? Know how much Behe got a few weeks ago for saying that Bob Jones University textbooks were real scientific? $20,000. Do you think real science organizations would fly Paul Nelson's worthless carcass to Rome? Know how much Dembski got for Kitzmiller? $200 an hour. Not bad for a guy who couldn't get a job in a real university.

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,04:05   

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,04:56   

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

Excellent point OT. FTK, any response?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,05:33   

I voted for religious studies class, and I will make the self same caveat that someone else made: as long as the class is a comparative religious education class.

IDC is religious apologetics and its proper study is therefore as religious apologetics.

IDC is not science, nor philosophy, nor is it philosophy of science (except at the very basic Paley end of the thing). Mentioning it in a philosophy of science class is only valuable as part of the development 19th century scientific thought and as part of one of the key (and commonest) errors made in developing hypotheses.

Louis

P.S. And from the Department of Pig Shit Thick Ignorant Fundamentalists Say the Darndest Things we have the great claim that Wesley "I'm a slavering terroristicalised baby murderer and I loves Osama, me" Elseberry is a threat to world peace. The reaction from our correspondant:

Wesley, you are a danger to world peace. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

{breathes}

AHA AHA AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I suppose we have to call you Mr Evil from now on. Ooops that should be DR Evil, you didn't go to Evil Medical School Graduate School for nothing you know. ;-)

Sorry but that is sig worthy (if I were minded to change my sig, which I'm not). "Wesley Elsberry: Threat to World Peace".

Love it.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,06:14   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,21:33)
If you *really* believe that Behe, Dembski, and people like myself who promote ID are liars, then I don't really see any point in discussing these issue with you further.  We'll have to find some other topics to explore.

Get over the basement thing; it was a figure of speech.

And yes, I think that the evidence is very clear that Behe, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, et al. are lying about lots of things. In Behe's case, that was PROVEN in court at Dover. I don't care when they lie about their theology (e.g. Wells' notions about Moonieism): I do care about it when they lie about science. And when they lie about how science can be done (e.g. telling us that we can detect the supernatural but conveniently forgetting to tell us how to do that), I care a lot more. As someone pointed out, if it is so simple, why don't they just do it and go collect their Nobels?

I think that you find it "impossible to believe" that all of us consider them to be liars not just because you believe the lies, but because you WANT to believe the lies. Open-minded, indeed.

Open your eyes.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,06:23   

I find that, the more I read FTK*, my sig is becoming more and more applicable to the loon in question.

Louis

* Or should I say "Nu-FTK: now with added question answering and intellectual honesty". Disclaimer: FTK's added question answering and intellectual honestynot supplied, and may in fact not exist.

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

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,07:59   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,19:49)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2007,19:29)
Quote

working together to find middle ground.


I find it difficult to take that seriously.

And, coming from you, I don't doubt that for even one second.  You're all about us & them.  You, sir, are a detriment to science, this debate, and world peace.

Carry on....I realize there is no stopping you.

I'm in the middle ground, too.  Could you also call me a detriment to world peace?  Please?  That would be so cool.

But seriously, how can you hold onto your Evil Materialist Conspiracy Theory when confronted by theistic evolutionists?

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,08:04   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 01 2007,06:14)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,21:33)
If you *really* believe that Behe, Dembski, and people like myself who promote ID are liars, then I don't really see any point in discussing these issue with you further.  We'll have to find some other topics to explore.

Get over the basement thing; it was a figure of speech.

And yes, I think that the evidence is very clear that Behe, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, et al. are lying about lots of things. In Behe's case, that was PROVEN in court at Dover. I don't care when they lie about their theology (e.g. Wells' notions about Moonieism): I do care about it when they lie about science. And when they lie about how science can be done (e.g. telling us that we can detect the supernatural but conveniently forgetting to tell us how to do that), I care a lot more. As someone pointed out, if it is so simple, why don't they just do it and go collect their Nobels?

I think that you find it "impossible to believe" that all of us consider them to be liars not just because you believe the lies, but because you WANT to believe the lies. Open-minded, indeed.

Open your eyes.

The only thing that was "PROVEN" in the Denver court is that Darwinists & their media spin a fine story.  Their interpretation is biased beyond belief.  

The astrology canard and the "stack of books" alone shows the length to which the Darwinists will go to spin a good story for the outcome they'd prefer.  Could this spinning be considered lying?  Nah, I think they're so caught up in their little world that they actually believe their interpretation of Behe's words to be true.   Bizzare and sad actually.

I'm guessing a lot of this type of behavior will become more clear to the general public this coming February sometime around Darwin's birthday. ;)

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,08:07   

A= Behe. Q = The "darwinists"

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 The whole positive argument for intelligent design as you ve described it, Professor Behe, is look at this system, look at these parts, they appear designed, correct?

A Well, I think I filled that out a little bit more. I said that intelligent design is perceived as the purposeful arrangement of parts, yes. So when we not only see different parts, but we also see that they are ordered to perform some function, yes, that is how we perceived design.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

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

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

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

Open your eyes.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
fusilier



Posts: 239
Joined: Feb. 2003

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

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

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

fusilier
James 2:24

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

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

Ftk:

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

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

Does anyone lie for a paycheck?

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

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

Do you think about what you type?  Ever?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
dochocson



Posts: 62
Joined: May 2006

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

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

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

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

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

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

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

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

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

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

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

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

Open your eyes.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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


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

Read my sig.

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

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

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

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

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

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

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

FtK

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

If we just stick to the discussion of the immune system, here is an excellent summary of what happened there, from Judge Jones' decision (my bolding)      
Quote
The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwin's Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe's claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe)).

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

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


--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

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

Sorry, I forgot to address this egregious statement.

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

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

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,08:19   

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

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

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

Nothing whatsoever.

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

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

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

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


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

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


Finally something we agree on.

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

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

Nothing whatsoever.


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

Where are the ID science labs FTK?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

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

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

Goodbye.

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

You seem to think you know.

Yet I can guarantee you don't.

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

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

Just tell me how goddidit.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

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

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

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

Goodbye.

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

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

{Reads}

Nope clearly she hasn't.

Louis

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

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

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

Excellent point OT. FTK, any response?

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

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

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

Hey Ftk,

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

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

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

Just to introduce a question you might actually address:

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

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:32   

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

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

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

Nothing whatsoever.

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

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

FtK

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

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

No?  I thought not.

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

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

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

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:00   

?????????????? It's like trying to talk to someone who doesn't speak your own language!

Dave, can you not see from our conversation that what you are accusing Behe of is not what he was talking about at the trial?

Please, *please* re-read our *entire* conversation again.  I'm not sure how I can be any clearer.  I do not see where Behe has lied, so you'll have to specifically point it out to me.  

If you can point to the information from that "stack of books" that provides empirical evidence that has been tested and found conclusive in regard to the evolutionary pathways that are responsible for the evolution of the immune system, please do so.  

That was his point!  We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.  Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.

There was absolutely no need to "lie", the evidence is not there, and that is exactly what he said.

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

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

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

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

And, suddenly, she was enlightened.

Quote

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

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

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

New topic, "Where does FtK belong"

(Pats lap suggestively)

Dont be mean, I'm just teasing.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:25   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,10:00)
That was his point!  We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.  Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.

There was absolutely no need to "lie", the evidence is not there, and that is exactly what he said.

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

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


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

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

Quote
Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.


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

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

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

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

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

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

FtK:

Quote

LOL...I rest my case.


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

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

I'm sure Court TV would pick it up.

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

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

 
Quote

LOL...I rest my case.


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

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

I'm sure Court TV would pick it up.

Sal, Davescot, FtK.

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



Heddle? Heddle? Heddle?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:46   

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

Dave, can you not see from our conversation that what you are accusing Behe of is not what he was talking about at the trial?

Please, *please* re-read our *entire* conversation again.  I'm not sure how I can be any clearer.  I do not see where Behe has lied, so you'll have to specifically point it out to me.  

If you can point to the information from that "stack of books" that provides empirical evidence that has been tested and found conclusive in regard to the evolutionary pathways that are responsible for the evolution of the immune system, please do so.  

That was his point!  We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.  Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.

There was absolutely no need to "lie", the evidence is not there, and that is exactly what he said.

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

Or, to put it another way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:48   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,10:00)
That was his point!  We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.  Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.

There was absolutely no need to "lie", the evidence is not there, and that is exactly what he said.

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

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


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

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

 
Quote
Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:52   

Looking at the poll:

How long before a breathless, Casey Luskin writes:

"Over half of evilutionist sciencey types think ID should be taught!" ?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:54   

Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents.

It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand?

If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:07   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54)
Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents.

It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand?

If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make.

What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly?

THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?  

Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:09   

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

Dave, can you not see from our conversation that what you are accusing Behe of is not what he was talking about at the trial?

Please, *please* re-read our *entire* conversation again.  I'm not sure how I can be any clearer.  I do not see where Behe has lied, so you'll have to specifically point it out to me.  

If you can point to the information from that "stack of books" that provides empirical evidence that has been tested and found conclusive in regard to the evolutionary pathways that are responsible for the evolution of the immune system, please do so.  

That was his point!  We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.  Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.

There was absolutely no need to "lie", the evidence is not there, and that is exactly what he said.

FtK

I did read it. I do understand that Behe has a quibble about being misquoted re what he said at the trial. But, as I said before (did you read that?), that is a red herring. Do you seriously believe that Behe thinks that the evidence supporting our current hypotheses about the evolution of the immune system is adequate?  Or do you think he would say something like "No, that's not enough".  If the latter, does his quibbling about the exact sentences he uttered at Dover matter to anyone except those who wish to be distracted from the real issues?

So let's review. In Behe's words (not your paraphrasing), what did he say in DBB? From the previously quoted decision in the case, with citations (I don't have DBB here at work, so I hope that this is sufficient).      
Quote
Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller))

Note that this is NOT the same thing as saying that he desired "empirical evidence that has been tested and found conclusive" (your words).

So those are the goalposts.  Behe wrote something in 1996, and reiterated it on the stand in 2005, to wit, "There are no natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system; it is irreducibly complex."

That is demonstrably wrong. Without going into the thousands (not just 58) of peer-reviewed papers that document that, you are just going to have to take my word for it, and the word of the authors of those papers, and the word of the rest of the scientific community, and the word of Judge Jones. There are natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system. They are, like all scientific explanations, tentative (not conclusive). To demand otherwise, as you seem to be doing, is not scientific. And it is hypocritical, since ID/creationism cannot prove their case with any level of detail, or with even one testable hypothesis.

So how did Behe lie? He was on the stand as an expert witness. He wrote two books about evolution. By his very presence there he was claiming to be an expert on evolution. Yet he claimed that there was "no natural explanation" in a pile of papers that he admitted he had not read. One of those things is false. Either he is not an expert, or he is deliberately misleading people when he says that there is "no natural explanation". Since he is still saying it to this day, one would have to assume he still believes it (at least for the purpose of selling books).

So if you think that the "evidence is not there", you are incorrect, as is Behe. If you think that the evidence needs to be conclusive, you are not being scientific. When Behe does it, he is lying about science; he should know better. And to demand a higher level of proof for one theory, while engaging in hand-waving about the lack of mechanistic details in your own pet theory, is hypocrisy.

hope this helps.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:12   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54)
Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents.

It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand?

If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make.

What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly?

THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?  

Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind.

Please tell us about the papers that Behe didn't read, and your methods of evaluation.  How many did you read before arriving at your conclusions? Do you think that the best way to approach the literature, and form opinions, is to ignore it?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:15   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54)
Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents.

It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand?

If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make.

What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly?

THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?  

Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind.

How did he know that if he did not read them?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:16   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?

Then the obvious question becomes, why isn't Behe one of them?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:16   

FTK simple question.

What is worth more?

A)  SPECULATIVE INFORMATION

B) Nothing at all

Presumably you'd rather have nothing at all because your god sure does love a gap.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:17   

Q:  How do you tell Behe's lying
A:  His lips are moving

FTK - Yeah, it's an old joke, but since you like old books so much, I thought it would be appropriate.

Seriously - Unlike some ID proponents, Behe does have both the education and background necessary to understand fully that the position he is backing requires him to speak untruths... aka lying.  He  lies through omission when he "fails to read" current literature, and he lies through comissin when he pretends he doesn't realize that he only defends his ID postion becasue of his faith... and a little bit of money.

HTH

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:17   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 02 2007,11:12)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind.

Please tell us about the papers that Behe didn't read, and your methods of evaluation.  How many did you read before arriving at your conclusions? Do you think that the best way to approach the literature, and form opinions, is to ignore it?

I believe this falls into the category of "God Behe said it, I believe it, that settles it."

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:20   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly?

Ah, down to insults are we? Ran out of gaps?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:32   

FTK – Forget about Behe, Demsbki and ID for now.   I think would be helpful for you return to square one.  Throw off your initial programming.

Ask yourself why you believe the way you do.  Ask why some people are Muslims.  Why did the Romans believe in Jupiter?  Why would any one belief be more “right” than any other?

Why is it that the educated segment of our culture is the least likely to believe in sky fairies?

If you answer these questions honestly, then, I think you may be able to carry discussion on this and other boards to another more meaningful level.

And you might be able to finally, actually, have some meaningful dialogues with The Kids.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:50   

FTK,

Three simple things.

1) If Behe hadn't read those papers etc how would he know whether or not they contained the "speculation" you claim they do? The point is that Behe made a claim about some things about which he was ignorant (there are more points there, but focus on that one). He claimed to know that the data was inadequate without knowing anything about the data in question. That's not precisely honest now is it?

As a corrollary to this: have YOU read those papers (for example)? How do you know they contain the "speculation" you claim they do?

My guess is not only haven't you read them, but as a poorly educated, scientifically illiterate house-frau you are ill-equipped to evaluate them, the research therein, or the motivations/character/etc of the people doing the research reported in them. As usual For The Kluelessness, your whole case rests on your rather insulting (and false) claim that the entirety of the scientific community is comprised of biased individuals hell bent on suppressing the "truth". As usual with your specific sort of ignoramus, i.e. pontificating bigotted kooks who have not done a day's science or research in their lives and who are demonstrably clueless about its methods and modes, your last resort is to cry "persecution" or "conspiracy" when the facts don't support you.

2) You seem to be denying historical and forensic evidence in your quest to claim that evolutionary biology is repleat with "speculation". Strange that you seem curiously reluctant to put yourself in the way of learning anything about it. That is, unless it is direct from your preacher or someone whom your preacher would agree with.

3) This isn't about teams or sides or religion bashing or hiding the truth or any such drivel. The fact that you STILL don't get this and the fact that you STILL try to promote this crap as fact is what renders you a kook, loon and general all round laughing stock.

It's about the evidence FTK. The complete sum of  scientific evidence supports the current series of scientific models and theories we have from the components of particle physics to differing modes of evolution. Sure there are things we don't know. Sure there are things we are working out, and sure there are things we now think are right but will be shown to be wrong or at least need modification in the future. This simple acknowledgement does not in any way demonstrate that we know nothing or that some utterly undemonstrated series of claims (like IDC) are a suitable alternative.

What you simply don't understand is that IF the evidence supported IDC (which it doesn't, it's an old idea, or set of ideas, long since refuted, it's only the deceitful like Dembski/Behe or the decieved like you that buy it) then I and everyone on this board and across the scientific community would be IDCers. The reason we are not is because the evidence doesn't support IDC and it simply won't given any past or present incarnation of IDC. If there comes some genuinely new and exciting data that support teleology in nature then evolutionary biology will have to change to incorporate it. What you equally don't get is that scientists know pretty well what this sort of data would have to look like and they know very well that we haven't seen it yet.

That data MUST come forward, it MUST be found for the claims made for IDC to be true. No amount of politicking on your part or lobbying or trying to insert your drivel into schools will change the facts. Personally, given the track record of the ideas and claims contained in the latest creationist incarnation (IDC), I think it's highly unlikely that such data exists. However,I am happy to be demonstrated to be wrong, but you'll (plural) have to do better than you have thus far.

Louis

P.S. Oh and before anyone whines at me for being mean think on this: on this board there are a number of professional scientists. I'm one of them. I've spent the last 15 years of my life (hey, I'm young!) working (on occasion!) extremely hard to both learn the workings and discoveries of my subject and to some extent the wider scientific environment. To be told by someone who hasn't even stepped foot in a relevant building that I am somehow a willing part of some global conspiracy to cover up the data when this insult is not only contrary to the evidence but designed explicitly to undermine my work and derived from nothing more than someone's wishful thinking and prejudice is more than a little annoying. So if some sensitive flower gets bent out of shape by my severe lack of tolerance for this oft repeated insult: Tough shit.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:56   

Behe said the bowling ball didn't knock over the pins.

He was shown the ball coming to rest just past the pins.
He was shown people all around him throwing bowling balls at pins and knocking them down.
Behe said that wasn't what necessarily happened in his lane.
Behe said a gust of wind blew his pins down.

Do you understand the analogy yet?

Which part of this analogy do you disagree with?  Please be specific.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:56   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,11:15)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54)
Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents.

It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand?

If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make.

What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly?

THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?  

Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind.

How did he know that if he did not read them?

ROTFLMAO....Okay, I'm thoroughly convinced...you are a Tard, and you need to don the hat of glory.

Rich....give up the hat, OMITSDDI is officially the AtBC tard of all time.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:59   

Nope.  That's a pretty good question.  In fact, it cuts right to the point of this discussion.

HOW DID BEHE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID IN A SET OF BOOKS AND PAPERS WHICH HE DID NOT READ?

Please continue to ignore this very simple question.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:01   

No one gets the hat, although they are available from the shoppe:

http://www.cafepress.com/aus_ed.166208132

And FtK, remember its *you* that follow *my* wardrobe requests...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:32   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:56)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,11:15)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54)
Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents.

It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand?

If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make.

What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly?

THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?  

Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind.

How did he know that if he did not read them?

ROTFLMAO....Okay, I'm thoroughly convinced...you are a Tard, and you need to don the hat of glory.

Rich....give up the hat, OMITSDDI is officially the AtBC tard of all time.

I have a feeling that very soon FtK is going to be very busy planning a dinner party, and will get back to us.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:47   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:56)
ROTFLMAO....Okay, I'm thoroughly convinced...you are a Tard, and you need to don the hat of glory.

Rich....give up the hat, OMITSDDI is officially the AtBC tard of all time.

FTK, from you I take that as a compliment of the highest order.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:49   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,12:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:56)
ROTFLMAO....Okay, I'm thoroughly convinced...you are a Tard, and you need to don the hat of glory.

Rich....give up the hat, OMITSDDI is officially the AtBC tard of all time.

FTK, from you I take that as a compliment of the highest order.

*grumbles to self*

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:50   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:56)
ROTFLMAO

That won't take long.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:10   

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,11:59)
Nope.  That's a pretty good question.  In fact, it cuts right to the point of this discussion.

HOW DID BEHE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID IN A SET OF BOOKS AND PAPERS WHICH HE DID NOT READ?

Please continue to ignore this very simple question.

blipes...it's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary.

I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles.

Also, blipe, you might consider what the general public thinks when they hear about this silly "stack of books" antic.  Obviously, this was staged as court room theatre in an attempt to run with it to the media.  The books were there and ready to be rolled out.  Now, everyone knows that Behe would not have read every single ancient document in regard to the speculation as to how the immune system evolved.  But, obviously, he has read more than just the most current papers on the topic.  He's been discussing the issue for years.

No doubt he had read several of the articles found in that stack, but like everyone else in that courtroom and probably every scientist in the country, he would not have read all of it, and it *certainly* wouldn't be necessary to support his case.  

The whole episode was very sophomoric...

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:21   

Quote
Only by reverse-engineering a system to test for function at each transitional stage can one determine if a system has 'reducible complexity' or 'irreducible complexity.'


How could Behe test for function at each stage if he never bothered to research all of the possible stages?  That was the point of throwing those papers in his face.

(Bonus points for anyone who guesses who I'm quoting.  And no fair using Google!)

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:22   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:10)
blipes...it's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary.

But How would you know they already solved it without reading the articles? They tend to make their claims *in* journals. By your logic Behe could never know because he doesn't review the works in which progress is made...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:26   

I might have missed it, but where in that giant pile of pig shit was the answer to my question?  Hold on, I'll take a second look.

Remember, the question was:

Quote
HOW DID BEHE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID IN A SET OF BOOKS AND PAPERS WHICH HE DID NOT READ?


Ftk's first paragraph:  
Quote
blipes...it's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary.


No mention of the direct object "Behe" anywhere.

Ftk's second paragraph:  
Quote
I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles.


Still no Behe in there.  Now we no longer even have discussion of the indirect object of the literature.  We DO have a little geometry, however--makes it look sciency.

Ftk's third paragraph:  
Quote
Also, blipe, you might consider what the general public thinks when they hear about this silly "stack of books" antic.  Obviously, this was staged as court room theatre in an attempt to run with it to the media.  The books were there and ready to be rolled out.  Now, everyone knows that Behe would not have read every single ancient document in regard to the speculation as to how the immune system evolved.  But, obviously, he has read more than just the most current papers on the topic.  He's been discussing the issue for years.


Now we have a mention of the literature and Behe makes an appearance in the same paragraph.  This looks promising.  OH!  Noes!  Behe is not connected with the literature in question.  No banana for you.

Ftk's fourth paragraph:  
Quote
No doubt he had read several of the articles found in that stack, but like everyone else in that courtroom and probably every scientist in the country, he would not have read all of it, and it *certainly* wouldn't be necessary to support his case.  


Still no mention of the method Behe uses to understand things he has never read.  Which ones did he read?  How do you know?  Given that he read 4 of them, how does he know what's in the others--WHICH HE HASN'T READ? (40 GOTO "top")

and lastly:  
Quote
The whole episode was very sophomoric...


No.  Most sophomores I know can answer a direct question.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:27   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:10)
articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary.


Very simplistic view you have huh?

I half went to some trouble and picked a few images out to illustrate a point about learning a language and picking up the hardest textbook first. But that half hearted analogy would be too easy for you to distort and dismiss.

Instead I'll just say that if he had read all of them perhaps the conjunction of all that information in his particular brain might have inspired a new idea and he'd have provided the proof of evolution of the immune system himself.

Or proved ID unambiguously.
But we'll never know will we?

I think one of the many reasons the majority of people would reject intelligent design because it makes them feel as if they are in a zoo, being poked at (viri tweaked?) for somebody's amusement. And people got sick of that idea a long time ago already.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:29   

FTK,

"I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles. "

So anything you do not understand is BS.  Well, that's what you just said.  Or translated, anything that you do not understand, is not worth your learning about.

I've got it know.  I hope you children will have the ability to see the world with better eyes.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:30   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:10)
   
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,11:59)
Nope.  That's a pretty good question.  In fact, it cuts right to the point of this discussion.

HOW DID BEHE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID IN A SET OF BOOKS AND PAPERS WHICH HE DID NOT READ?

Please continue to ignore this very simple question.

blipes...it's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary.

I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles.

Also, blipe, you might consider what the general public thinks when they hear about this silly "stack of books" antic.  Obviously, this was staged as court room theatre in an attempt to run with it to the media.  The books were there and ready to be rolled out.  Now, everyone knows that Behe would not have read every single ancient document in regard to the speculation as to how the immune system evolved.  But, obviously, he has read more than just the most current papers on the topic.  He's been discussing the issue for years.

No doubt he had read several of the articles found in that stack, but like everyone else in that courtroom and probably every scientist in the country, he would not have read all of it, and it *certainly* wouldn't be necessary to support his case.  

The whole episode was very sophomoric...

Aargh.

Let's try again.

Goalpost 1 - Behe saying that there are NO NATURAL EXPLANATIONS for the evolution of the immune system is a case of lying about science.

Goalpost 2 (to be ignored) - FtK saying that scientists don't have a conclusive explanation for the evolution of the immune system, and that is what Behe really meant. This goalpost resettling ignores the fact that ALL science is tentative, that Behe alleges that he is a scientist, and that if he really was saying that, he would be just as guilty of lying about science as he was if we concentrate solely on goalpost 1.

Now, if the assertion is that Behe lied when he made the assertion found above in goalpost 1, what is the evidence?

1) a large pile of books and reprints, representing a small fraction of the available peer-reviewed evidence, and containing natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system, that he ignored.

2) the consensus of the scientific community that there are indeed natural (albeit tentative) explanations for the evolution of the immune system.

3) a court finding, by a judge who is not a scientist but who can at least weigh the evidence on both sides, that there are indeed natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system.

In the absence of further evidence, and so far, FtK, you have presented none, this case is pretty solid. Either Behe lied about being an expert when he hadn't read a lot of the relevant papers, or he misled (lied to) the public and the judge when he maintained that those papers did not contain natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system.

And if you want to go to goalpost 2, he lied about the nature of scientific conclusions, which is inexcusable for anyone who calls themselves a scientist.

Note that none of this depends on Behe being a Christian, an atheist, or a Zoroastrian. None of it is ad hominem; it is based on facts that are readily available to anyone who wishes to examine them.

Note that concentrating on the "sophomoric" or "court room theatre" aspects of the case does not change the facts of the case, nor does it provide evidence that goes counter to the conclusions above.

Where is the evidence, FtK? Have you read those papers? if not, take a look at the list and I'd be happy to send some reprints your way, just in case they are not available at your public library.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:34   

Wouldn't she first need to at least read the textbook you sent her?  How's that coming, btw, Ftk?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:35   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:30)
Goalpost 1 - Behe saying that there are NO NATURAL EXPLANATIONS for the evolution of the immune system is a case of lying about science.

Not to be pedantic, but he goes a step further and says that there are no POSSIBLE natural explanations.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:39   

FTK, it's the equivilent of Professor Dawkins criticising the bible without even having read it.

Behe don't read the papers, Behe not know what Behe missing.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:46   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,13:39)
FTK, it's the equivilent of Professor Dawkins criticising the bible without even having read it.

Behe don't read the papers, Behe not know what Behe missing.

JHC, that don't make no sense, oldman!  Anyone can see through your pathetic attempt at making sense.  Anyone who's name is FTK, that is.

What exactly do find objectionable or factually incorrect with oldman's very brief statement, Ftk?

Thanks for ignoring this one as well.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:48   

Dave you quoted Miller refering to what Behe said:

 
Quote

Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller))


I've come to the point where I no longer take at face value everything that Miller writes or says.  I have caught him relaying so many inaccurate statements that it's very hard to take him seriously without doing indepth research to be sure he is quoting or relaying information accurately.  

Are those page numbers from one of Behe's books where he makes this statement, or are those the page numbers from Miller's book where he makes this statement about Behe?  

It is difficult to believe that Behe would say "...natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin".   I'm thinking there is more to this paraphrasing from Miller that is vital to the conversation.

 
Quote
So those are the goalposts.  Behe wrote something in 1996, and reiterated it on the stand in 2005, to wit, "There are no natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system; it is irreducibly complex."


That would be a honest statement.  There are no known natural "explanations" for the evolution of the immune system, there is *speculation*, *assumption*, *inference*, yada, yada, yada.

I'd also like to know where you pulled this particular quote from as well because I can't imagine that Behe would say "it IS" IC.  He's usually pretty careful about stating his speculation that something is IC rather than implying absolutes.  But, it could very well be that he made a slip somewhere...courtrooms are stressful places.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:50   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:48)
Dave you quoted Miller refering to what Behe said:

Quote

Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller))


I've come to the point where I no longer take at face value everything that Miller writes or says.  I have caught him relaying so many inaccurate statements that it's very hard to take him seriously without doing indepth research to be sure he is quoting or relaying information accurately.  

Are those page numbers from one of Behe's books where he makes this statement, or are those the page numbers from Miller's book where he makes this statement about Behe?  

It is difficult to believe that Behe would say "...natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin".   I'm thinking there is more to this paraphrasing from Miller that is vital to the conversation.

Quote
So those are the goalposts.  Behe wrote something in 1996, and reiterated it on the stand in 2005, to wit, "There are no natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system; it is irreducibly complex."


That would be a honest statement.  There are no known natural "explanations" for the evolution of the immune system, there is *speculation*, *assumption*, *inference*, yada, yada, yada.

I'd also like to know where you pulled this particular quote from as well because I can't imagine that Behe would say "it IS" IC.  He's usually pretty carefuly about stating his speculation that something is IC rather than implying absolutes.  But, it could very well be that him made a slip somewhere...courtrooms are stressful places.

Why not crack open your copy of Darwin's black box and have a look?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:52   

Quote
I've come to the point where I no longer take at face value everything that Miller writes or says


What about Walt Brown?  Or Dembski?  Or DaveScot?  Do you apply the same critical thinking to their statements as well?  Could you please provide one link to anything you've ever said that questions even one piece of what they call science?

If you're really equal opportunity, you will have done this--it'll be easy to post the evidence.

On that note, are you going to post equal numbers of articles critical of YEC at Young Cosmos--being that you're all for critical analysis and all?

Pathetic.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:57   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 02 2007,13:22)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:10)
blipes...it's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary.

But How would you know they already solved it without reading the articles? They tend to make their claims *in* journals. By your logic Behe could never know because he doesn't review the works in which progress is made...

???

I never said he doesn't keep updated on the articles about the immune system.  Are you actually trying to argue that Behe has *only* read the most current article on the topic?  As I said, he's been discussing this topic for years....quite obviously he's been reading plenty from peer reviewed journals about the subject.

But, the point *again* is that if the current articles are still trying to find answers then the articles from the past have certainly not provided the answers either.

Okay, you guys simply *cannot* be this dense...are you just fucking with me?

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:00   

Quote
quite obviously he's been reading plenty from peer reviewed journals about the subject.


This is a statement.  STATEMENT.  A STATEMENT!  Would you care to back it up?  Do you PERSONALLY know what Behe reads?  Are you sure he reads about the immune system a lot?  Why?  How?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:01   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:57)
I never said he doesn't keep updated on the articles about the immune system.  

You didn'thave too. He showed us he doesn't on the stand.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:01   

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:00)
Quote
quite obviously he's been reading plenty from peer reviewed journals about the subject.


This is a statement.  STATEMENT.  A STATEMENT!  Would you care to back it up?  Do you PERSONALLY know what Behe reads?  Are you sure he reads about the immune system a lot?  Why?  How?

FtK is at odds with Behe on the bench.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:01   

I'll rephrase it, since you're stupid.

Is it possible for any human being to know what a book contains without reading it?

Thanks.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:48)
Dave you quoted Miller refering to what Behe said:

   
Quote

Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller))


I've come to the point where I no longer take at face value everything that Miller writes or says.  I have caught him relaying so many inaccurate statements that it's very hard to take him seriously without doing indepth research to be sure he is quoting or relaying information accurately.

I don't have a copy of DBB here; I loaned it to my sister. But here is some information that may be relevant. From page 139 of Darwin's Black Box, as quoted by Walczak during the direct examination of Miller in the Dover trial.    
Quote
As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.

I am unable to find anywhere in that transcript where Behe denies saying that, so I assume it is an accurate quote. Seems pretty straightforward to me. If you, or somebody else reading this, has a copy of DBB, maybe we can learn more.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:04   

Quote
I never said he doesn't keep updated on the articles about the immune system.

Logically he must not be up to date otherwise he'd have read at least one in that big ole pile.

Quote
Are you actually trying to argue that Behe has *only* read the most current article on the topic?

I thought you were the one arguing that he only needed to read the latest one?
Quote
As I said, he's been discussing this topic for years....

Discussing it and getting paid. Shame no lab work from the great scientist.
Quote
quite obviously he's been reading plenty from peer reviewed journals about the subject.

And you know this how? Why would he, he "knows it's impossible" remember? Why would he bother?
Quote
But, the point *again* is that if the current articles are still trying to find answers then the articles from the past have certainly not provided the answers either.

"Science" is too big for one person's brain to cope with. Many times a scribble from years ago in the margin of a notebook becomes a whole new field of science, one the right things are in place. Until that time it's just an equation, waiting. Or a casual conversation links two different fields together and creates a new aspect to both.

Anybody who's read even a little history of science knows what I mean.

And yet you say what you say and here we are.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:07   

Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:07   

Okay, let me see if I'm understanding your assumption correctly.  You're telling me that, though Behe has been considering the IC of the immune system for near a decade, he has only read one paper on the topic....one paper from 2005?

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

Sigh.... :(

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

You're quite right. I was sort of focusing on the verb "dooms".

Masters of the weasel words, they are. That is exactly why they need to be put under oath whenever possible.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:10   

Dave those two quotes are entirely different.  One is written as an absolute, the other is not.

I don't have Behe's book at the moment...my sister has it in hopes to read it when she finds the time.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:11   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Okay, let me see if I'm understanding your assumption correctly.  You're telling me that, though Behe has been considering the IC of the immune system for near a decade, he has only read one paper on the topic....one paper from 2005?

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

Sigh.... :(

Yes.  Insane people do things like avoiding simple questions because they can't process them.

Speaking of which:

Quote
Is it possible for any human being to know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Thanks.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:09)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

You're quite right. I was sort of focusing on the verb "dooms".

Masters of the weasel words, they are. That is exactly why they need to be put under oath whenever possible.

Or perhaps they are just honest, and you cannot bear to come to that realization.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:15   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:14)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:09)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

You're quite right. I was sort of focusing on the verb "dooms".

Masters of the weasel words, they are. That is exactly why they need to be put under oath whenever possible.

Or perhaps they are just honest, and you cannot bear to come to that realization.

Well, then.  In your own words, what do you think that quote means?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:16   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,20:10)
Dave those two quotes are entirely different.  One is written as an absolute, the other is not.

I don't have Behe's book at the moment...my sister has it in hopes to read it when she finds the time.

So both you and Albatrossity have loaned your DBBs to your respective sisters?

Coincidence? I think not. I reckon this is another data point that everyone on the net except me is actually the same person. Damn you Bubba!

Louis

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:17   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:48)
It is difficult to believe that Behe would say "...natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin".   I'm thinking there is more to this paraphrasing from Miller that is vital to the conversation.

So, as far as you know, Behe thinks that it's possible for irreducibly complex systems to have natural explanations?  Yes?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:18   

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

could you also pontificate on:

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


Thanks.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:18   

Just posted from Josh Rosenau at SciBlogs

"Is it a lie if you ought to know better, but don't?"

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/10/making_light_lying_in_the_name.php

Personally, I still say Behe's a lying sack of shite.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:20   

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


Thanks.

Blipey - NOT counting the bible?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:20   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:14)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:09)
   
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

You're quite right. I was sort of focusing on the verb "dooms".

Masters of the weasel words, they are. That is exactly why they need to be put under oath whenever possible.

Or perhaps they are just honest, and you cannot bear to come to that realization.

Maybe.

Where's the evidence?

And why do they always lose when they are dragged into court?

Food for thought, at least...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:22   

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


Thanks.

Blipey - NOT counting the bible?

No, no, no.  Especially counting the Bible.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:32   

Quote

As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.



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

[high pitched whine]

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

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

[/whining ceases and moanful sobbing begins]

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:33   

A bit more research (thank ebola for that Dover transcript on line!) turned up this.

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

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

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

--edit--
Note that he even used the words "could have", implying that there is not even any evidence to support "speculations", which is how Ftk characterized those papers she also hasn't read.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:35   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:32)
Applying a dose of AtBC vulgarity, that quote translated by the voice of a true Darwinist © would be as follows...

[high pitched whine]

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

I am simply frustrated beyond belief that I cannot figure it out so that I can put a muzzle on these damn ID theorists Yes, those theorists without a theory once and for all."

[/whining ceases and moanful sobbing begins]

My bits are in bold - oooh errr!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:32)
Quote

As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.



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

[high pitched whine]

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

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

[/whining ceases and moanful sobbing begins]

Except who's whining that they can't figure it out except Behe? Everybody else is hunkering down and writing the textbooks and papers that Behe does not deign to notice.

How do you link "being unable to figure something out" (or, more specifically, prove a given thing absolutely to FTK's satisfaction by asking for the impossible) to muzzling ID theorists.

FTK, who is muzzling Dembski? It appears he is sufficiently unmuzzled to have his own website where he can post the home addresses and phone numbers of people who've likely never even heard of him.

Who's being muzzled?

The cracks are beginning to show FTK.

I thought you were leaving anyhow? Shouldn't you be over blogging at YoungCosmos (readership = zero)?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:37   

I asked:

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


Ftk responded:

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

[high pitched whine]

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

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

[/whining ceases and moanful sobbing begins]


I had no idea you were a Darwinist.

How about telling us in your own words

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


--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

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

You have proven your inability to differentiate between the two.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:43   

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

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


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

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What part of that is still unclear to you?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:13   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you guys can work on that...

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

FTK,

You are avoiding the issue and blathering again.

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

Here is the relevant page.

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

Still doesn't change the key issue.

Louis

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

Under Oath.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

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

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

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

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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

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

That's the inescapable conlusion from examining the evidence.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

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

Hi Ftk,

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

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


Thanks.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On further reflection ...

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

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

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

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

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


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

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you guys can work on that...

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

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

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

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

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

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

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

Maybe you guys can work on that...

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

Are the cracks beginning to show?

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

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

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

Maybe you guys can work on that...

FTK,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louis

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

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

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

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


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

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

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

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

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

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

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


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

Henry

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

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

Whatever it is it will involve selling more books.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

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

The outhouse seems a good place.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

Evangelical TV?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

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

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


Thanks.

Blipey - NOT counting the bible?

No, no, no.  Especially counting the Bible.

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

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

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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