Check for Evolutionists.

[KerrMetric]

I'm not speaking of math, am I? For instance, if the exam was on paleontology, and you simply do not believe that such and such was millions of years old, you WILL NOT PASS. therefore, you are graded on a system that basically states that something is proven fact, when it is not.

Sorry but you are wrong and wrong answers, even in these laissez faire days, are FAILED.

Your "belief" has NO PLACE in the science curriculum just as your belief that 8 is a prime number would have no place in a number theory class.

 

[Danhalen]

I'm not speaking of math, am I? For instance, if the exam was on paleontology, and you simply do not believe that such and such was millions of years old, you WILL NOT PASS. therefore, you are graded on a system that basically states that something is proven fact, when it is not.

In the field of science it is scientifically factual. If you refuse to believe in scientific facts then yes, you will fail at science. Go get straight A's in seminary.

 

[Uphill Battle]

[/color][/size][/font]
Behe is not peer reveiwed?: Behe, M. J. and D. W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science 13: 2651-2664.

who is what you called "frauds and liars" ?

touche.

 

[Danhalen]

[/color][/size][/font]
Behe is not peer reveiwed?: Behe, M. J. and D. W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science 13: 2651-2664.

who is what you called "frauds and liars" ?

KerrMetric clearly stated they have not been peer reviewed when writing about ID. You are not listening.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Darwins black box is peer reveiwed : Discovery Institute. 2005. Peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting the theory of intelligent design (annotated). http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC

 

[KerrMetric]

[/color][/size][/font]
Behe is not peer reveiwed?: Behe, M. J. and D. W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science 13: 2651-2664.

who is what you called "frauds and liars" ?

Read what I said and get back to me when you understand. That work is NOT peer reviewed Creation science or ID.

I accept Behe is a peer reviewed biochemist as you show. I do not accept that his garbage in the Black Box book has been peer reviewed.

Geez, this is hard work.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Sorry but you are wrong and wrong answers, even in these laissez faire days, are FAILED.

Your "belief" has NO PLACE in the science curriculum just as your belief that 8 is a prime number would have no place in a number theory class.

right. At one point, an exam could point at Java man, and say It was a transitional... i you answered to the negative, you fail.

now, it would seem, you would be right. (or, it wouldn't be on the exam in the first place.)

Funny how "science doesn't do proof" except when it is convenient for those who call it scientific fact.

 

[Angel4Truth]

KerrMetric clearly stated they have not been peer reviewed when writing about ID. You are not listening.

I called behe a peer reviwed scientist , HE wasnt listening .

 

[KerrMetric]

Darwins black box is peer reveiwed : Discovery Institute. 2005. Peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting the theory of intelligent design (annotated). http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC

That is NOT peer review, period. That is rubber stamping by a non-accredited group of ID pushers with no academic standing.

I cannot believe you have the gall to suggest that is peer review.

 

[Uphill Battle]

That is NOT peer review, period. That is rubber stamping by a non-accredited group of ID pushers with no academic standing.

I cannot believe you have the gall to suggest that is peer review.

in other words, it wasn't approved by the evolution back patting society. what a shock.

 

[KerrMetric]

right. At one point, an exam could point at Java man, and say It was a transitional... i you answered to the negative, you fail.

now, it would seem, you would be right. (or, it wouldn't be on the exam in the first place.)

Funny how "science doesn't do proof" except when it is convenient for those who call it scientific fact.

Nonsense. And we sure as heck know you are no scientist.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Intelligent design in biology has been supported by several peer-reviewed journals and books. As of December 2005, intelligent design supporters offer, in support of this claim, the following articles:

• Axe, D. D., 2000. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595.
• Behe, M. J. and D. W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science 13: 2651-2664.
• Chiu, D. K. Y. and T. H. Lui. 2002. Integrated use of multiple interdependent patterns for biomolecular sequence analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 4(3): 766-775.
• Denton, M. J. and J. C. Marshall. 2001. The laws of form revisited. Nature 410: 417.
• Denton, M. J., J. C. Marshall and M. Legge. 2002. The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. Journal of Theoretical Biology 219: 325-342.
• Lönnig, W.-E. 2004. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity. In: V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo and F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds. Dynamical Genetics, 101-119. Research Signpost.
• Lönnig, W.-E. and H. Saedler. 2002. Chromosome rearrangements and transposable elements. Annual Review of Genetics 36: 389-410.
• Meyer, Stephen. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117: 213-239.
• Wells, Jonathan. 2005. Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98: 37-62.

and books (Discovery Institute 2005):

• Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press.
• Campbell, John Angus and Stephen C. Meyer. 2003. Darwinism, Design, and Public Education. Michigan State University Press.
• Denton, Michael. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler and Adler.
• Dembski, W. A. 1998. The Design Inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dembski, William. 2002. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
• Gonzalez, Guillermo and Jay W. Richards. 2004. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Regnery Publishing.
• Minnich, Scott and Stephen C. Meyer. 2004. Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design and Nature, Rhodes, Greece, ed. M. W. Collins and C. A. Brebbia, WIT Press.
• Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. 1984. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. Philosophical Library. (4th ed., Lewis and Stanley, 1992).

The journal Progress in Information, Complexity and Design (PCID) is also peer-reviewed. Source:

Discovery Institute. 2005. Peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting the theory of intelligent design (annotated). http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC

Discovery Institute Top Questions. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

Dembski, William A., 2003. Three frequently asked questions about intelligent design. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.ID_FAQ.pdf

 

[Uphill Battle]

Nonsense. And we sure as heck know you are no scientist.

no, I'm not. and saying "nonsense" does not make it so. Just like saying something is PRATT doesn't make the refutation correct either. It's pretty simple really.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I'm not speaking of math, am I? For instance, if the exam was on paleontology, and you simply do not believe that such and such was millions of years old, you WILL NOT PASS. therefore, you are graded on a system that basically states that something is proven fact, when it is not.

"For instance, if the exam was on astrophysics, and you simply do not believe that such and such was billions of lightyears removed from ourselves, you WILL NOT PASS."

"For instance, if the exam was on astronomy, and you simply do not believe that the earth revolves around the sun, you WILL NOT PASS."

The funny part is that all of these objections to scientific findings that have been well established and backed up by evidence a long time ago are based on RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS, not scientific ones.

"Let's try to interpret the facts in a manner that supports our religiously motivated conclusion" is not exactly a scientific approach. It's scholasticism.

 

[KerrMetric]

Angel - you don't understand what is in the list you posted. There is no point discussing that list. The papers may have been authored by Behe and the like BUT THEY ARE NOT CRATION/ID PAPERS.

Do you understand this?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I cannot believe you have the gall to suggest that is peer review.

I cannot believe you cannot READ . You need to slow down and read what is given to you , i didnt say they were the peer reveiwers it says its a LIST of peer reviewed publications articles and books THERE .

READ

 

[Danhalen]

in other words, it wasn't approved by the evolution back patting society. what a shock.

What makes you think evolutionary scientists are a "back patting society?"

 

[KerrMetric]

in other words, it wasn't approved by the evolution back patting society. what a shock.

You know, conspiracy theorists are usually labeled as foolish. And you are basically claiming the entire worldwide science community is in on a conspiracy. Several million people of ALL FAITHS are somehow in on this.

GET REAL!!!!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

in other words, it wasn't approved by the evolution back patting society. what a shock.

Yeah, just like those evil conspirators who faked the moon landing. Anybody who doesn'T see right through their lies must be part of the conspiracy.

Not to mention the atheist plotter Galileo and his henchmen! They were the ones who started to assault the unchanging TRUTH of the Bible.

 

[KerrMetric]

I cannot believe you cannot READ .[/color][/size][/font] You need to slow down and read what is given to you , i didnt say they were the peer reveiwers it says its a LIST of peer reviewed publications articles and books THERE .

READ

You don't know what you posted. Those papers were not ID papers. They are peer reviwed papers by some ID people on other material.

I don't think you are in a position to understand the difference.