Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900
I'm only critical of your religious posts b/c they are comical. If you don't like what I post then don't read it. I encourage everyone to respond to my topics, EVEN someone like you. If you can dish it out then you SHOULD be able to take it.
You have yet to answer a question I posed to you last year. It's not verbatim but close enough: if you and every Christian zealot deem science as inaccurate, why do you reap the rewards of it everyday? I know it's an elementary question, but it serves my purpose. I'm willing to bet that if a family member were to become ill you wouldn't call your priest first. Im pretty sure you'd be headed to the ER. Why not just pray about it? Pray and hope that your loved one will pull through and forget about all the advances in medicine. Oddly enough, religious nuts only seem to call the clergy when the patient is near death's door. People like you take comfort in the bosom of science when you need it most, but when it doesn't conform to your propaganda it's the red headed stepchild. Now, the statement is not just meant for Jaime, but for every Christian nut that assumes science is inherently evil.
WOW! You can really disprove evolution through probability/statistics? I'll alert the media, because this is breaking news. Creation scientists will not even make that claim. So your decades in evolutionary biology helped you come to this conclusion? We should just dismiss the last 150 years of research, b/c you know that irreducible complexity lends itself to the fact that evolution is SOOO complex that the probability of evolution having occurred is almost zero? Absolutely amazing! Where did you do your research? I hope you're not of one those guys that reads creationist websites and pretends to know something about science. Im pretty sure you've taken basic science courses and understand common biological terminology?
Now, you mentioned Darwin's Black Box. Michael Behe wrote this book about 10 years ago, he's Roman Catholic, and has NEVER had a peer reviewed article published. So he is not biased at all and claims his ideology does not force him to believe in a Designer? He's been ripped apart for the last 10 years since his book was pusblished. Remember the Dover trial in 2005? Read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District
Just some comments by the judge on Behe's testimony:
The judge in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense, citing:
-"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.
-'As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.
-"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.
-"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.
-"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.
-"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.
-"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.
-"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
-"...proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
It was easy to debunk Behe b/c the science community and his university do not openly accept his views.
We will discuss the use of probability theory tomorrow.
David, most people truly interested in evolution and/or creationism do not post topics that are several years old. They have moved on to more recent issues and do not take to time to rehash the same old topics. This is how I know you just stumbled upon this issue. If you really want to get down and dirty join up at http://www.scienceforums.net/ or http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/index.php. You want a "rational" debate? Well come on down! I still find it funny that you're brave enough to claim that you can disprove evolution.
Reply With Quote
. 
