Prove it or remove it challenge

[Paterfamilia]

Is this the same Michael Behe who was embarrassed on the witness stand in the Dover case when his irreducible complexity argument was shown to be in error?

The Dover court case has been pretty thoroughly deconstructed, with both sides crowing. I am sympathetic to Behe because I experienced the exact same deconversion from Darwinism that he did. And I share the same offense at the continuous stream of lies from the Darwinists.

To give an analogy of the judges decision:

Judge Jones - "So Dr Behe, you would agree then that a tsunami could have picked up and carried a floating bathtub that contained an original copy of Lao Tsu's Tao Te Ching, and flung it to the top of Pikes Peak, where it was found after a bolt of lightning struck the road, excavating an arrow shaped trench, which a child followed thinking it led to a bathroom. You would agree that that is possible?"

Dr Behe - "Yes, that's logically possible."

Judge Jones - "Let the record show that Dr Behe agrees with Darwin. Will the plaintiff attorneys please draw up my ruling as soon as possible."

Dr Behe - "That kid must have been really confused...did he want to take a bath?"

 

[bhsmte]

The Dover court case has been pretty thoroughly deconstructed, with both sides crowing. I am sympathetic to Behe because I experienced the exact same deconversion from Darwinism that he did. And I share the same offense at the continuous stream of lies from the Darwinists.

To give an analogy of the judges decision:

Judge Jones - "So Dr Behe, you would agree then that a tsunami could have picked up and carried a floating bathtub that contained an original copy of Lao Tsu's Tao Te Ching, and flung it to the top of Pikes Peak, where it was found after a bolt of lightning struck the road, excavating an arrow shaped trench, which a child followed thinking it led to a bathroom. You would agree that that is possible?"

Dr Behe - "Yes, that's logically possible."

Judge Jones - "Let the record show that Dr Behe agrees with Darwin. Will the plaintiff attorneys please draw up my ruling as soon as possible."

Dr Behe - "That kid must have been really confused...did he want to take a bath?"

Behe's testimony in the case is available online and is very, very interesting for anyone who has an interest in the facts.

In reality, cross examination can be a painful experience, for anyone who can't support their position and boy oh boy was Behe exposed. I liked the part, where Behe had to admit, if ID is to be considered science, than astrology would also be considered real science.

At the end of the day, ID was exposed, Behe was exposed and a conservative Christian judge made his ruling.

 

[Paterfamilia]

His side lost that court case badly didn't they?



Are you referring to his comments about the eye? That seems to be a favorite part of his book creationists quote mine. If I remember correctly, he expressed if it could be shown that natural selection shaped the different types of eyes we see among species, it wouldn't harm his theory. And it has been explained. Just as the bacteria flagellum has been explained.



It's not a claimed mechanism, it's an observable fact.



What does this example have to do with anything?

Do you need a demonstration of natural selection? Sign up for a biology lab at your local university.



Actually it can. I'll let cell biologist Kenneth Miller explain that to you:

Your video won't play.

I think I understand the theory pretty well. I doubt that you do, or that you are aware of the relevant recent findings of research.

Have you ever watched any of his debates? Try the one with Miller and Krauss debating Stephen Meyer. It's pretty good and covers the issues okay when they can get that 7th grader Krauss to shut his mouth for two seconds.

I do like his purple converse sneakers though.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Behe's testimony in the case is available online and is very, very interesting for anyone who has an interest in the facts.

In reality, cross examination can be a painful experience, for anyone who can't support their position and boy oh boy was Behe exposed. I liked the part, where Behe had to admit, if ID is to be considered science, than astrology would also be considered real science.

At the end of the day, ID was exposed, Behe was exposed and a conservative Christian judge made his ruling.

Behe was exposed as a man of courage and conviction and a scientist of the highest caliber. A forward thinker who will go down in history as a game-changer.

In spite of the fact that you haven't asked, I will offer my opinion though it be of little value.

My opinion is that ID theory should not be taught in science class yet. While I agree that the study is "real science", it really needs some time to ferment, face falsification, and get some verification history.

Even then it probably is better suited for religion or philosophy class, unless there is additional physical evidence discovered.

Would anyone please tell us what they think ID theory is?

 

[bhsmte]

Behe was exposed as a man of courage and conviction and a scientist of the highest caliber. A forward thinker who will go down in history as a game-changer.

In spite of the fact that you haven't asked, I will offer my opinion though it be of little value.

My opinion is that ID theory should not be taught in science class yet. While I agree that the study is "real science", it really needs some time to ferment, face falsification, and get some verification history.

Even then it probably is better suited for religion or philosophy class, unless there is additional physical evidence discovered.

Would anyone please tell us what they think ID theory is?

Disagree on your first paragraph.

Let's leave it at this, when you have a scientific definition for ID and falsifiable test to determine when ID is present, you will win the Nobel prize and would have accomplished something, Behe and his buddies continue to fall short on.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I do have a scientific definition for ID theory and there is an easy test of falsifiability.

Where do I pick up my money?

 

[bhsmte]

I do have a scientific definition for ID theory and there is an easy test of falsifiability.

Where do I pick up my money?

I would contact Behe and his crew immediately and let them know. Be sure though, they don't try to take the credit, for what you have claimed to have above, because they have failed in the same.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Ha ha ha you sir, don't know what you are talking about. Would you mind sharing your understanding of the theory?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I am sympathetic to Behe because I experienced the exact same deconversion from Darwinism that he did.

I don't feel any sympathy for someone who can't support their claims under cross examination. As bhsmte explained, Behe was exposed on the stand. You can read the entire transcripts here: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts

Another good example is when he tried to claim that evolution doesn't explain the immune system only to be shown that he was in error when he was presented with several peer reviewed research articles and books on the very subject he claimed didn't exist.

And I share the same offense at the continuous stream of lies from the Darwinists.

What lies would those be?

Sorry, but his side lost the trial and his arguments were shown to be wrong. Repeating those arguments after they are shown to be in error is intellectually dishonest.

I think I understand the theory pretty well. I doubt that you do, or that you are aware of the relevant recent findings of research.

When you pull out PRATT arguments such as irreducible complexity, you demonstrate you don't understand the theory that well. You should cite this research you think is in support of your position.

Ken Miller is an ideologue huckster.

So instead of addressing his arguments, you resort to ad-hominem. You got the thread closed for review last time you went this route.

Of course that doesn't mean that an occasional stray factual statement doesn't issue from his head.

Ad hominem followed by a back handed compliment. Impressive. How about you address his arguments instead?

Have you ever watched any of his debates? .

I have one of his biology textbooks from a highschool biology course. I don't have a desire to watch a creation vs evolution debate as there is no debate and creationists are notorious for misrepresentation and lies.

It's pretty good and covers the issues okay when they can get that 7th grader Krauss to shut his mouth for two seconds.

You have this bad habit of attacking someones character.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I don't feel any sympathy for someone who can't support their claims under cross examination. As bhsmte explained, Behe was exposed on the stand. You can read the entire transcripts here: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts

Another good example is when he tried to claim that evolution doesn't explain the immune system only to be shown that he was in error when he was presented with several peer reviewed research articles and books on the very subject he claimed didn't exist.



What lies would those be?

Sorry, but his side lost the trial and his arguments were shown to be wrong. Repeating those arguments after they are shown to be in error is intellectually dishonest.



When you pull out PRATT arguments such as irreducible complexity, you demonstrate you don't understand the theory that well. You should cite this research you think is in support of your position.



So instead of addressing his arguments, you resort to ad-hominem. You got the thread closed for review last time you went this route.



Ad hominem followed by a back handed compliment. Impressive. How about you address his arguments instead?



I have one of his biology textbooks from a highschool biology course. I don't have a desire to watch a creation vs evolution debate as there is no debate and creationists are notorious for misrepresentation and lies.



You have this bad habit of attacking someones character.

Does his textbook contain the Ernst Haeckel scam?

I am seriously asking. Eugenie Scott said that it continues to be included in textbooks even after proven to be a scam because it "still has some value."

What value would that be? Using lies to teach a questionable theory?

 

[VirOptimus]

ID isnt a scientific theory, it isnt even an hypothesis. Its just religion and should be handled as such, just as it is. ID has already lost the battle, look at the science, the textbooks, academia.

 

[Paterfamilia]

ID isnt a scientific theory, it isnt even an hypothesis. Its just religion and should be handled as such, just as it is. ID has already lost the battle, look at the science, the textbooks, academia.

Dang. Got me there...

 

[-57]

His side lost that court case badly didn't they?



Are you referring to his comments about the eye? That seems to be a favorite part of his book creationists quote mine. If I remember correctly, he expressed if it could be shown that natural selection shaped the different types of eyes we see among species, it wouldn't harm his theory. And it has been explained. Just as the bacteria flagellum has been explained.



It's not a claimed mechanism, it's an observable fact.



What does this example have to do with anything?

Do you need a demonstration of natural selection? Sign up for a biology lab at your local university.



Actually it can. I'll let cell biologist Kenneth Miller explain that to you:

Watched the video...wasn't really impressed. It would be like saying..here's a brick wall...and if I take it apart I have a brick! That brick can be used for other functions!!!! Isn't evolutionism wonderful?
So, what do we have? The type 3 secretory system....Remove it and the flagellum..won't work.

 

[Paterfamilia]

You have this bad habit of attacking someones character.

No I am not attacking his character. I am observing his manners, which suck.

 

[Paterfamilia]

ID theory?

Anyone?

You guys confidently assert that it's been debunked. Please tell us what it was that got debunked.

It's honestly not a trick question.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Does his textbook contain the Ernst Haeckel scam?

Do you ever get tired of dragging out these old PRATT arguments?
Do you know who exposed Haeckel? Other scientists. You see, science is self correcting. It's one of it's greatest strengths. It corrects its mistakes. You do not. You've been shown to be in error when it comes to irreducible complexity, yet you hold onto that argument. I consider that to be intellectually dishonest.

"Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids".
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html

Again, you are shown to be in error here. The question is, will you correct yourself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your entire argument is from ignorance. You acknowledge that in your post #687, but more on that in a moment.

Michael Behe is a true stud. Talk about a guy who can stand up and take a punch. His observations on the bacteria flagellum are not busted, but rather alive and doing well. And yes, the list of irreducible structures and processes grows daily.

Wrong again Pater, it appears that you do not know what an argument from ignorance fallacy is. Behe could not picture how the flagellum might have evolved so he claimed it was impossible to evolve. He came up with an answer based upon what he did not know. You also show your incredible ignorance about how he was refuted. He was refuted at the Dover Trial when Kenneth Miller showed a mousetrap tie clip. But that is probably beyond your ability to understand. He showed that though the mousetrap did not work as a mousetrap if you took out various components it still had a function. And that is what we see with the rotator flagellum of bacteria. The precursor to the flagellum did not rotate, but it still had a function. The function changed as the organism evolved. I have a cartoon for you to watch:

It is quite educational, though the music is terrible. This idea is too big for one peer reviewed paper. But this video was based upon this paper here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

That paper will take you quite a while to read and digest. You might want to watch the video. At any rate that paper is based upon over 200 peer reviewed articles in well respected scientific journals. Most of them are hyperlinked in the paper. Please excuse me for not linking them for you.

I told you that the evolution of the flagellum is well understood. You should have listened to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ID theory?

Anyone?

You guys confidently assert that it's been debunked. Please tell us what it was that got debunked.

It's honestly not a trick question.

There is no such animal.

Here is an honest question: What reasonable test would falsify "ID theory"?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Watched the video...wasn't really impressed. It would be like saying.

Doesn't matter if you were impressed or not. You're still shown to be in error. Are you smarter than a geneticist with 42 years of research experience?

 

[lasthero]

Yeah, which doesn't make him "not a physicist" or "not respected".

You would agree that a physicist who works as a software engineer knows a bit about information?

How do you know he's a physicist?