Feeding Frenzy

[Guest 2smart4u]

"It's too complex to have evolved" is not a scientific claim; it's a personal opinion. There's no basis in science for such a conclusion, just your "hunch" that there's gotta be, MUST be, some sort of designer behind it.

If that were a scientific claim, it would be testable and falsifiable. Is it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your high school chemistry class gives you the requisite knowledge and experience to dispute his statement ?? I'm impressed.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Nonsense. I'd like you to find me any mainstream scientific community that believes this.

Fallacy of incredulity in so many words. Go watch Ken Miller's talk on creationism on youtube (

) and pay close attention to where he addresses these claims--not only are cell structures not irreducibly complex, but no credible scientist in the world would ever do something so fallacious as assume any level of complexity in anything would serve as any sort of proof for ID.

Here's my two cents: you're lying. Evolution is not a theory in crisis--it's stronger now than it's ever been. There is also no sort of 'widespread move' by scientists to support for intelligent design.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Not only that, but it's ridiculous and contradictory to accept microevolution but not macroevolution--they're the SAME process. The only difference is the time scale you look at.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm glad you told us !!! I better call Lehigh University and tell them they're all wrong. A weed-smoking high school drop-out just said so.

[Guest Guest]

Do tell, "Guest."

How do you intend to support your claim about my argument?

lol

That was pathetic.

Let's use your criterion of violating a person's humanity as the limit of legal religious practice.

Let's create for the sake of argument religion A, for which all its tenets respect a person's humanity (however you wish to define it.

Let us create for the sake of argument religion B, for which all of its tenets violate a person's humanity.

Let's put both religions into practice in community C, which practices the line of demarcation you have recommended (religious practice must not violate human dignity as you define it).

1)  How can it be said that religion A and religion B are treated identically in that society (without special pleading)?

2)  How is it that my argument supposedly collapses on itself in such a scenario?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because a civilized society has to be based on respect for everyone. That is the basic premise behind equal justice for all. What's pathetic is your attempt to justify your sophistry.

[Strife767]

Your high school chemistry class gives you the requisite knowledge and experience to dispute his statement ??  I'm impressed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm more impressed that you believe Behe over the other 99+% of the biochemists who disagree with him. What's your argument then? Are they also lacking "the requisite knowledge and experience to dispute his statement?"

Who do you think you're kidding?

[Strife767]

I'm glad you told us !!!  I better call Lehigh University and tell them they're all wrong.  A weed-smoking high school drop-out just said so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, you can't refute anything I say, so back to the bottomless recesses of ad hominem evasion you go. Tsk, tsk.

[Bryan]

Because a civilized society has to be based on respect for everyone.

The hypothetical society administers justice in accord with religion A.

It finds religion B unjust in its entirety and prosecutes it accordingly.

How is that equal treatment for both religions?

Your answer seems to beg the question. Respect for religion B seems to be absent in the example--yet you completely ignore this fact for some unknown reason.

That is the basic premise behind equal justice for all.

The term "justice for all" presumes some moral/ethical framework. In the case of the example, "justice" is what religion A thinks is right and nothing that religion B thinks is right.

You really think that's equal treatment? By that measure you could produce a law declaring that being a Scientologist warrants the death penalty and claim equal treatment for all religions.

Of course it's equal treatment. If a Roman Catholic, Hindu, or even a Jehovah's Witness practices Scientology we put any of them to death.

What's pathetic is your attempt to justify your sophistry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, what's pathetic is you submitting this ridiculous argument--which doesn't even begin to address the issue--and then declaring that I'm engaged in sophistry.

[Guest Graduate Student]

I'm glad you told us !!!  I better call Lehigh University and tell them they're all wrong.  A weed-smoking high school drop-out just said so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not going to participate in an ongoing debate on Intelligent Design with a bunch of high school kids. So I'll leave you with this; anyone that's interested in the subject should read the following; "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson, "A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton and "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

As I've stated before, evolution within species is valid and is well documented. However, research within the last 20 years has led us away from a macro evolutionary theory. PhD mathematicians have tried to calculate the odds of macro evolution in light of the latest discoveries. The conclusions are that the odds are so incredibly astronomical as to render the concept virtually impossible. Is that enough to satisfy the "Darwiniacs" ? Probably not, but who cares.

[Strife767]

I'm not going to participate in an ongoing debate on Intelligent Design with a bunch of  high school kids.

Aww, how condescending. Well, why don't you bring your claims to the scientific community, then? You know, the established experts in their fields. Forget us "high school kids" (I am all but certain that not a single person posting in this thread is that young); I'm sure your claims would be news to all of them. Let us know when you get something published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal on this subject, won't you? I wouldn't want to miss such a breakthrough.

So I'll leave you with this;  anyone that's interested in the subject should read the following;  "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson,  "A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton and "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

All three books thoroughly debunked by now (also, not one of these books is less than 10 years old, so the ideas in these books aren't the brand-new "breakthrough discoveries" many ID proponents would have people believe they are):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

If you truly, deep-down believe the claims in these books, then at the very least...you've been had. Have you ever even wondered why no major scientific community in the whole world accepts these books' conclusions? Do you think it's all a conspiracy or something? No--they're rejected because they tell blatant lies, make false assumptions, use logical fallacies, use weak research methods, and so on.

As I've stated before, evolution within species is valid and is well documented.

And as I've stated before, macroevolution is the exact same process, just over a longer period of time. Doesn't it make sense to imagine that microevolution (small changes) happening continually throughout time, all those small changes building up, will eventually be a big change?

However, research within the last 20 years has led us away from a macro evolutionary theory.

No, it hasn't. The Theory of Evolution is stronger, both in terms of evidence and in terms of being supported by scientists, than it's ever been. I'm still waiting for proof of this extraordinary claim--stating the claim itself again doesn't count as proof, you know. I wouldn't doubt some teacher at your school told you this and you just took it as truth without verifying it. Well, you might be that gullible, but I'm not. If you can't prove this assertion, stop making it, unless you like being pointed out a liar. Last chance.

PhD mathematicians have tried to calculate the odds of macro evolution in light of the latest discoveries. The conclusions are that the odds are so incredibly astronomical as to render the concept virtually impossible.   Is that enough to satisfy the "Darwiniacs" ?  Probably not, but who cares.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering that the premise is completely false to being with, obviously not. Because evolution is not a function of pure chance (they really did brainwash you, huh?), nor has it ever been claimed to be, any calculation of 'odds of evolution' is completely worthless. Yes, you've successfully dismantled the STRAW MAN you built, but not the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution. For more info on just how absurd this argument is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

[Guest A Christian]

I'm not going to participate in an ongoing debate on Intelligent Design with a bunch of  high school kids.  So I'll leave you with this;  anyone that's interested in the subject should read the following;  "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson,  "A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton and "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

  As I've stated before, evolution within species is valid and is well documented. However, research within the last 20 years has led us away from a macro evolutionary theory. PhD mathematicians have tried to calculate the odds of macro evolution in light of the latest discoveries. The conclusions are that the odds are so incredibly astronomical as to render the concept virtually impossible.  Is that enough to satisfy the "Darwiniacs" ?  Probably not, but who cares.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to Calybos, I guess this guy is a crackpot too.

[Strife767]

According to Calybos, I guess this guy is a crackpot too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure Calybos would agree that at the very least, "this guy"'s statements are nonsense.

Honestly, I lean more towards a guy who's been deceived by crackpots--not a full-fledged crackpot himself. But who knows, maybe the brainwashing has taken full effect already.

[Calybos]

According to Calybos, I guess this guy is a crackpot too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not necessarily, but he's certainly not grasping the essentials of the scientific method OR the current status of the evidence on evolution.

As already discussed, Behe's book has a truckload of serious errors in both facts and logic. Johnson's, however, is beneath contempt; it's full of outright lies, misquotes, distortions, and blatantly false assertions backed by unsupported claims and conclusions. Behe could simply be misguided; Johnson is actively deceitful.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I'm sure Calybos would agree that at the very least, "this guy"'s statements are nonsense.

Honestly, I lean more towards a guy who's been deceived by crackpots--not a full-fledged crackpot himself. But who knows, maybe the brainwashing has taken full effect already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When an uneducated slug calls a molecular biologist and PhD candidate a

crackpot, then you can only assume the slug is either short on gray matter or

burnt out on drugs or both. Whatever the reason is not important, he's still only

a slug.

[Bryan]

Not necessarily, but he's certainly not grasping the essentials of the scientific method OR the current status of the evidence on evolution.

As already discussed, Behe's book has a truckload of serious errors in both facts and logic. Johnson's, however, is beneath contempt; it's full of outright lies, misquotes, distortions, and blatantly false assertions backed by unsupported claims and conclusions. Behe could simply be misguided; Johnson is actively deceitful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... and speaking of unsupported claims and assertions ...

[Guest DingoDave]

Dear 'Graduate Student',

If Behe's ideas are so well received amongst the scientific community, then why did Lehigh University make him put a disclaimer on his personal page which reads,

"My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."

See for yourself. It's right here. http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html

So much for your assertion that "...I, along with all of my colleagues have come to realize that natural selection simply is not valid on the macro level."

Or that, "...all but the most fanatical of the "evolutional" biologists are recognizing the fallacy of an all-encompassing natural selection argument."

By the way, I've heard of 'evolutionary biologists', but what exactly is an "evolutional" biologist?

I find it difficult to believe that a science graduate student in any discipline would describe biologists in these terms.

Methinks that perhaps you're bullshitting to us about being a science graduate student at Lehigh Unversity, or maybe you've just spent too much time in Behe's back pocket and it's started to rot your brain.

[Guest bewildered]

I'm not going to participate in an ongoing debate on Intelligent Design with a bunch of  high school kids.  So I'll leave you with this;  anyone that's interested in the subject should read the following;  "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson,  "A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton and "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

  As I've stated before, evolution within species is valid and is well documented. However, research within the last 20 years has led us away from a macro evolutionary theory. PhD mathematicians have tried to calculate the odds of macro evolution in light of the latest discoveries. The conclusions are that the odds are so incredibly astronomical as to render the concept virtually impossible.  Is that enough to satisfy the "Darwiniacs" ?  Probably not, but who cares.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Twenty years of research? Can you give examples? And who has been led away from macro evolution? Besides a handful of whacky creationists and I.D. proponents, there hasn't been any movement from macro evolution.

[Strife767]

When an uneducated slug calls a molecular biologist and PhD candidate a

    crackpot, then you can only assume the slug is either short on gray matter or 

    burnt out on drugs or both.  Whatever the reason is not important, he's still only

    a slug.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about when hundreds of thousands of other molecular biologists with the same PhD call Behe a crackpot? Still waiting for your answer on that, hotshot.

[God Save Us From Christians]

Twenty years of research?  Can you give examples?  And who has been led away from macro evolution?  Besides a handful of whacky creationists and I.D. proponents, there hasn't been any movement from macro evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hey, just think of all the progress smart people have made convincing Christians that micro-evolution is possible. That's a HUGE step in the right direction, considering the blinders Christians wear.

Give Christianity another 500 years or so and they'll begin to accept macro-evolution too. (If their Jesus doesn't return before then).

[Guest 2smart4u]

Twenty years of research?  Can you give examples?  And who has been led away from macro evolution?  Besides a handful of whacky creationists and I.D. proponents, there hasn't been any movement from macro evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At last !! A Darwiniac with an appropriate handle. LOL.

[Guest A Christian]

When an uneducated slug calls a molecular biologist and PhD candidate a

    crackpot, then you can only assume the slug is either short on gray matter or 

    burnt out on drugs or both.  Whatever the reason is not important, he's still only

    a slug.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That pretty much nails it.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I've been following this thread for the last month or so with interest because I'm a grad student at Lehigh, preparing for my PhD in molecular biology. I wanted to jump in here with my two cents.  Some of the things you've said are accurate, others are not. Research and discoveries over the last ten years have pointed away from natural selection and more toward intelligent design.  The latest equipment allows us to see structures at the molecular level (something Darwin couldn't have even imagined). I could write for hours on this, but suffice to say that the molecular make up at the cell level is so amazingly complex that I, along with all of my colleagues have come to realize that natural selection simply is not valid on the macro level.  This is not to say that evolution is not valid within species on a micro level, there is much evidence to support it. However, all but the most fanatical of the "evolutional" biologists are recognizing the fallacy of an all-encompassing natural selection argument. There, that's my two cents. Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I really appreciate your response here. But it's wasted on the high school chemisty class kids (strife and calybos). I'm done here, I'm going to read a good book on Intelligent Design.

[Strife767]

That pretty much nails it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=43452

[Strife767]

I really appreciate your response here. But it's wasted on the high school chemisty class kids (strife and calybos). I'm done here, I'm going to read a good book on Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=42949

Put up or shut up.

[Guest bewildered]

At last !!  A Darwiniac with an appropriate handle.  LOL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I asked three questions in my last post: Where is the research? Who are the scientists making these ridiculous conclusions? and Who are the scientists who are flocking to I.D.

What bewilders me is the fact that there are people out there like you who are blind to all the proof of evolution.

[Guest bik49yik]

What about when hundreds of thousands of other molecular biologists with the same PhD call Behe a crackpot? Still waiting for your answer on that, hotshot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess working in the town all maked Strife767 the expert on everything. Since he is the "hotshot" on every subject know to man. Definitely someone who likes to hear himself talk even if its to his lonely typewriter. I guess since your life consist of working in the town hall, that automatically makes you the expert on molecule biology.

[Guest Keith-Marshall.Mo]

I really appreciate your response here. But it's wasted on the high school chemisty class kids (strife and calybos). I'm done here, I'm going to read a good book on Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When are you going to grace us with your credentials? Just what is it about you that makes you 2 smart 4 others? I fail to see any proof in your posts unless you count sophmoric insults as part of your resume.