Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Presents a coherent argument" is an objective standard. What you quoted failed to meet that standard.Is a theory determined by some objective standard or whether random people on the internet understand it?
You reject it because it is a religion?
Is using known forces now in operation to explain past events an argument from ignorance?
The theory of evolution and intelligent design theory aren't mutually exclusive. That doesnt support your claim ID has been falsified and Behe said so. Still waiting to see where Behe said that.
So it can be shown from slight successive steps that those gears appeared on a planthoppers legs?
Read the transcript of the Dover case. It's easy to find with a quick google search.
In it Behe, under oath, admitted (among many other things) that if ID is a scientific idea, then so is astrology.
Take a hint.
Kitzmiller V Dover Day 11 said:5 Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your
6 testimony over the last two days, you used a looser
7 definition of "theory," correct?
8 A I think I used a broader definition, which is more
9 reflective of how the word is actually used in the
10 scientific community.
11 Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said
12 it s just based on your own experience; it s not a
13 dictionary definition, it s not one issued by a scientific
14 organization.
15 A It is based on my experience of how the word is
16 used in the scientific community.
17 Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader
18 than the NAS definition?
19 A That s right, intentionally broader to encompass
20 the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
21 Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
22 A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more
23 broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
24 Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is
25 synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
BEHE - CROSS
38
1 A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it
2 can also include the National Academy s definition. But in
3 fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in
4 many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other
5 times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition
6 reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses
7 it in other ways.
8 Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the
9 definition of hypothesis?
10 A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover
11 hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact
12 well substantiated and so on. So while it does include
13 ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also
14 includes stronger senses of that term.
15 Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a
16 scientific theory, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a
19 scientific theory under your definition, correct?
20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
22 observable data and logical inferences. There are many
23 things throughout the history of science which we now think
24 to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which
25 would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
BEHE - CROSS
39
1 and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and
2 many other -- many other theories as well.
And which article was that? I don't recall you linking to an article.
In any case, let me guess. The article was not written by a scientists, but by a journalist who only used the term "gears" as a shorthand way of providing a description which would be readily understandable by the average Joe Schmuck reading it.
Yes. It doesn't support your claim "falsified by Behe's own standard, which he has conceded to".Have you read his testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover?
What you said was basically you don't understand the terms which isn't a valid objection to a theory. Imagine the absurdity of someone saying I object to natural selection because how is 'nature' capable of 'selecting' something. Or that a gene can't actually 'drift'. Or that there's no logical connection between selection pressure and natural selection. Natural selection, selection pressure, and genetic drift are real. It's just a childish objection claiming the terms like 'specified' make no sense.I meant what I said. You stated a hypothesis and offered absolutely nothing in support of it. The hypothesis was, "if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI". You go on to propose ways of finding CSI, but offer no support for the actual hypothesis, which is that designed object always have high levels of CSI.
A starting point and Darwinblather doesn't show slight successive steps to accomplishing gears.I don't see why not. I suggested a couple of potential starting points earlier; it doesn't take much imagination to see how successive improvements could be made - but if I couldn't, or if nobody could, it wouldn't mean they could not evolve.
But claiming an inexplicable cause for which there is no evidence, such as magic, pixies, God, spirits, or energy beings from another dimension, is never justifiable.
I'm not interested in your semantic 'just so' story. I'm still waiting for a response to my question in post #89. Just calling something 'gears' does not make it a product of intelligence, any more than saying that burrs are plant versions of Velcrotm means they're made in a factory.We observe gears are the products of intelligence.
Hmm... so that would be the use of some imagination to apply a simple principle VS a fallacious inference that implies an inexplicable intelligence that raises more (unanswerable) questions that it answers. Tricky one...Which is more parsimonious, the explanation that requires imagination, or an inference based on direct observation?
I said nothing of the sort. If you are unable to respond to my post, just say so. Replacing what I actually said with something you wish I'd said does no good at all.What you said was basically you don't understand the terms which isn't a valid objection to a theory.
Again, why are you responding to statements I didn't make? I didn't say "specified" makes no sense as a term. I said there are no experimental tests for whether something is specified.It's just a childish objection claiming the terms like 'specified' make no sense.
So you claim, and yet you are unable to offer any support for your claim whatever. Why exactly am I supposed to be taking this argument seriously?Irreducible complexity and specified complexity remain reliable tests for design.
It was written by a scientist. They used the term gears.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6151/1254
My Goodness! I am completely overwhelmed. I almost have to admit that God is the incompetent tinkerer you envisage. But not quite. I believe I will stick for a while yet with my God, who created the universe in all its glory and who doesn't have to fuss periodically with various biological structures to make them work properly. I know you think I'm just fooling myself, but there it is.Yes. It doesn't support your claim "falsified by Behe's own standard, which he has conceded to".
He's been vindicated though:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-to-flagellum-evolutionary-narrative-refuted/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...more-embarrassing-facts-behes-dbb-vindicated/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe087901.html
Negatory.In the Dover trial, evidence found from the Discovery institute proved that ID was nothing more than Creationism in disguise.
AV, I know you did not watch the video but perhaps you can access the court transcripts and see for yourself the irrefutable evidence that shows how the Discovery institute merely supplanted the word creationism with ID in the book Of Pandas and People.Negatory.
Not Creationism ... Intelligent Design.
You post a 1 hour and 51 minute video and expect me to watch it.AV, I know you did not watch the video ...
Are these the same courts that got the Bible kicked out of school and the Ten Commandments removed from our courthouse lawns?mzungu said:... but perhaps you can access the court transcripts and see for yourself the irrefutable evidence that shows how the Discovery institute merely supplanted the word creationism with ID in the book Of Pandas and People.
Yes. The courts that got Fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study kicked out of the schools and a Ten Commandments monument put up by a judge who declared that all other kinds of Christianity were crap taken off his courthouse lawn. Well played, I'd say.I mean ... really?Are these the same courts that got the Bible kicked out of school and the Ten Commandments removed from our courthouse lawns?
The can do what they're programmed to do for all I care.Yes. The courts that got Fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study kicked out of the schools and a Ten Commandments monument put up by a judge who declared that all other kinds of Christianity were crap taken off his courthouse lawn. Well played, I'd say.
The presiding judge was one appointed by President Bush and this judge was a creationist.You post a 1 hour and 51 minute video and expect me to watch it.
I mean ... really?Are these the same courts that got the Bible kicked out of school and the Ten Commandments removed from our courthouse lawns?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?