Darwin's Illusion

[shunyadragon]

Well that is my point………. We can´t know if something is IC unless we have a clear and detail understanding on the genetic steps necessary to go from a simple organ to a complex organ

I have provided several references with a clear and detailed step by step description of the evolution of the eye, and you have failed to respond.

I also challenged you to come up with any complexity in nature Behe or you considered irreducible, and you have failed to respond.

Still waiting. . .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And will you support that claim?

I have seen many ridiculous refutations related to mouse traps……. But perhaps you have a good refutation……….. care to provide a source?

Or are you going to invent more excuses for not providing a source?

Or even better……… are you going to lie and say that “you already did”

Yes, Leroy, I will provide links, but you'll need to look at them yourself.

The mousetrap isn't specifically linked to Behe in this video (for that, try A reducibly complex mousetrap), although the Behe's claim that it is irreducibly complex was debunked there, and by another theist no less. You can start about 37 minutes into it if you want to skip much of the Dover school board antics that led up to the lawsuit and get to the trial, the testimony of ID people and the prosecution's experts, and the judge's ruling.

Get back to me after watching the video and we can discuss it, and not just Behe. I'm anxious to hear your views on cdesign proponentsists and astrology as a viable scientific theory:

 

[YoursTrue]

his mistake is that he included theological implications in his cliams............ many scientists have made similar cases, and they are easily accepted in peer reviewd literature

I don't have that much time, but I am enjoying his logic.

 

[leroy]

I have provided several references with a clear and detailed step by step description of the evolution of the eye, and you have failed to respond.

I also challenged you to come up with any complexity in nature Behe or you considered irreducible, and you have failed to respond.

Still waiting. . .

I missed the articles on the eye because you were quoting someone else…

But you failed, none of the articles even tries to explain which mutations and in which genes had to occur to go form what stage to another.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well that is my point………. We can´t know if something is IC unless we have a clear and detail understanding on the genetic steps necessary to go from a simple organ to a complex organ

So once again, just how irreducible is anything? I mean like in a movie...it goes poof and disappears?

 

[leroy]

Yes, Leroy, I will provide links, but you'll need to look at them yourself.

The mousetrap isn't specifically linked to Behe in this video (for that, try A reducibly complex mousetrap), although the Behe's claim that it is irreducibly complex was debunked there, and by another theist no less. You can start about 37 minutes into it if you want to skip much of the Dover school board antics that led up to the lawsuit and get to the trial, the testimony of ID people and the prosecution's experts, and the judge's ruling.

Get back to me after watching the video and we can discuss it, and not just Behe. I'm anxious to hear your views on cdesign proponentsists and astrology as a viable scientific theory:

the link is broken but ok I ll watch the video

hear your views on cdesign proponentsists and astrology as a viable scientific theory:

Why do you keep repeating that straw man, if I haven’t claimed that ID nor astrology is a scientific theory

And just to clear this up

1 does your video refutes Behe´s (IC) does it show that he is wrong?

2 does the video represents your view? Do you disagree with anything in that video?.............I ask this because I don’t what you to say “starwman” when I adrees the arguments in the video.

3 If I address the arguments in the video, would you take your time and address my arguments? Would you start your comments with “you are wrong in this claim because……”(no strawman, no red harrings and no lies)……………. Would you quote my actual words and explain why am I wrong?

4 do you understand that my view is NOT that behe is correct, nor that ID is a scientific theory, but rather that he was not refuted……… my view is that we dont know if the eye or the flagellum is IC or not................. does the video claim the opposite?

5 would you take your burden and show that your assertion is true? (That behe was refuted)………I will not accept arguments like “ohhhh but you are shifting the burden proof”?



… don’t worry I will watch and address the video regaldless of your answers, but please answer with clear and direct “yes” o “No”to each of this 5 points

 

[Subduction Zone]

You supported your claim with a wiki article that adresses all the objections and cases that different scientists have proposed.

I will not address everything in this forum…………. If you think there is a specific objection (or case) please quote it, and I will be happy to tell you why I disagree.

For the vast majority of your claims Wikipedia is more than adequate. It is not as if you are discussing cutting edge science that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So once again, just how irreducible is anything? I mean like in a movie...it goes poof and disappears?

You do not appear to understand what the term irreducible means in the context of the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And will you support that claim?

I have seen many ridiculous refutations related to mouse traps……. But perhaps you have a good refutation……….. care to provide a source?

Or are you going to invent more excuses for not providing a source?

Or even better……… are you going to lie and say that “you already did”

There is no need to. If your knowledge is so poor that you were unaware of this you had no business bringing up the topic in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

his mistake is that he included theological implications in his cliams............ many scientists have made similar cases, and they are easily accepted in peer reviewd literature

Of course that is a mistake. If I tried to write an article that had Little Mermaid implications I would need to be able to justify that. There is no special exception for God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

can you quote a strawman made by me?...................NO you stop making false accusations

It is too late. You already accepted those accusations as being accurate. The time to object is when your errors are pointed out to you. Not pages later. You have to quit playing the wayback game.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do you keep repeating that straw man, if I haven’t claimed that ID nor astrology is a scientific theory

I wrote, "I'm anxious to hear your views on cdesign proponentsists and astrology as a viable scientific theory." What straw man? A straw man is a type of argument. Can I assume from your response that even after watching the video, you won't mention either of those things? That would be fine, too, although it would lead me to believe that you either never watched it, couldn't understand it, forgot what it said before you got around to commenting on it, or, as a creationist, were embarrassed by its implications for the integrity of the creationists in the video. You should know by now that that is what I expect based on your past performance - your inability or unwillingness to adapt. Surprise me.

does your video refutes Behe´s (IC) does it show that he is wrong?

What claim is that? That irreducible complexity (IC) exists in biological systems? That doesn't need to be refuted. It's a bare claim. Make an argument for its existence, and that can be addressed. It can also be addressed why that even if a biological system were intelligently designed and irreducibly complex, there's no way to demonstrate that evolution couldn't have done the same thing naturalistically even if that isn't the case.

Or maybe you mean some specific claim of IC, as in a mousetrap. That one has been refuted, as have the same claims about biological systems like eyes, flagella, the clotting cascade, and the human immune system.

does the video represents your view?

The video doesn't represent any view. It's a historical account of the events leading up to the trial and how the trial proceeded. Do I believe that the journalism was of high quality and integrity? Yes. Do I believe that the prosecution made its case? Yes. Do I believe that the judge gave a fair and unbiased ruling? Yes.

If I address the arguments in the video, would you take your time and address my arguments?

Yes, but remember, just once each. Please address all salient points and answer all non-rhetorical questions at the time you see them, or make notes, because I don't intend to repeat myself.

Would you start your comments with “you are wrong in this claim because……”(no strawman, no red harrings and no lies)……………. Would you quote my actual words and explain why am I wrong?

Yes, although the rule is the same: once. Just once.

And you need to drop that lying stuff from your posting and start showing some more respect if you want anything from me. I've been pretty tolerant of it so far, but maybe that was a mistake. I owe you nothing including tolerating your insolence. Please remember that when you choose your words.

 

[leroy]

For the vast majority of your claims Wikipedia is more than adequate. It is not as if you are discussing cutting edge science that you do not understand.

Your problem is that you don’t read .

I am not saying that wikipedia is not a proper source.

I am saying that Wikipedia summaries all the objections that different scientist have proposed………….it is insane to ask me to address everything.

But feel free to pick a specific objection or case against behe

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wrote, "I'm anxious to hear your views on cdesign proponentsists and astrology as a viable scientific theory." What straw man? A straw man is a type of argument.

I am just using this quote as an example of how one deals with a claim of a strawman argument.

Did you read this @leroy ? This is how you deal with an accusation of a strawman argument that you disagree with. Do so immediately. Not pages after the fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your problem is that you don’t read .

I am not saying that wikipedia is not a proper source.

I am saying that Wikipedia summaries all the objections that different scientist have proposed………….it is insane to ask me to address everything.

But feel free to pick a specific objection or case against behe

No, Behe has been refuted endlessly. Wikipedia is more than enough. When you do not acknowledge your earlier losses you do not get to demand that we have to debate it again. You were lucky you got that.

 

[leroy]

I wrote, "I'm anxious to hear your views on cdesign proponentsists and astrology as a viable scientific theory." What straw man? A straw man is a type of argument. Can I assume from your response that even after watching the video, you won't mention either of those things? That would be fine, too, although it would lead me to believe that you either never watched it, couldn't understand it, forgot what it said before you got around to commenting on it, or, as a creationist, were embarrassed by its implications for the integrity of the creationists in the video. You should know by now that that is what I expect based on your past performance - your inability or unwillingness to adapt. Surprise me.

What claim is that? That irreducible complexity (IC) exists in biological systems? That doesn't need to be refuted. It's a bare claim. Make an argument for its existence, and that can be addressed. It can also be addressed why that even if a biological system were intelligently designed and irreducibly complex, there's no way to demonstrate that evolution couldn't have done the same thing naturalistically even if that isn't the case.

Or maybe you mean some specific claim of IC, as in a mousetrap. That one has been refuted, as have the same claims about biological systems like eyes, flagella, the clotting cascade, and the human immune system.

The video doesn't represent any view. It's a historical account of the events leading up to the trial and how the trial proceeded. Do I believe that the journalism was of high quality and integrity? Yes. Do I believe that the prosecution made its case? Yes. Do I believe that the judge gave a fair and unbiased ruling? Yes.

Yes, but remember, just once each. Please address all salient points and answer all non-rhetorical questions at the time you see them, or make notes, because I don't intend to repeat myself.

Yes, although the rule is the same: once. Just once.

And you need to drop that lying stuff from your posting and start showing some more respect if you want anything from me. I've been pretty tolerant of it so far, but maybe that was a mistake. I owe you nothing including tolerating your insolence. Please remember that when you choose your words.

What claim is that? That irreducible complexity (IC) exists in biological systems? That doesn't need to be refuted. It's a bare claim. Make an argument for its existence, and that can be addressed. I

NO NO NO,

My claim is the Behe has not been refuted

My claim is not that IC excist........ but rather that we dont know and that the proposed examples have not been refuted.

to make an analogy, I would put IC in the same status I woudl put the "multiverse hypothesis" nobody has proven the existance of other universes, but they have not been refuted ether.......... it´s a valid hypothesis but we dont know (yet) if it is true or not


You are the one (it seems to me) that is claiming that Behe has been refuted (shown to be wrong)


I am making this clear because I don’t want future accusations of “moving the goal post”


I apologize for wrongly accusing you for making a strawman btw

 

[leroy]

I am just using this quote as an example of how one deals with a claim of a strawman argument.

Did you read this @leroy ? This is how you deal with an accusation of a strawman argument that you disagree with. Do so immediately. Not pages after the fact.

Exaclty,

When you accuse someone for making a straw man, one quotes the actual words and then explains why is that a straw man…………you should try that some day...........rather than random accusations

 

[leroy]

No, Behe has been refuted endlessly. Wikipedia is more than enough. When you do not acknowledge your earlier losses you do not get to demand that we have to debate it again. You were lucky you got that.

you didnt read my post, did you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

NO NO NO,

My claim is the Behe has not been refuted

My claim is not that IC excist........ but rather that we dont know and that the proposed examples have not been refuted.

to make an analogy, I would put IC in the same status I woudl put the "multiverse hypothesis" nobody has proven the existance of other universes, but they have not been refuted ether.......... it´s a valid hypothesis but we dont know (yet) if it is true or not


You are the one (it seems to me) that is claiming that Behe has been refuted (shown to be wrong)


I am making this clear because I don’t want future accusations of “moving the goal post”


I apologize for wrongly accusing you for making a strawman btw

But he has been. Your inability to understand this is your problem. This has been shown to you many times.. I know that I have both linked a YouTube video and the paper that it was based upon more than onnce.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exaclty,

When you accuse someone for making a straw man, one quotes the actual words and then explains why is that a straw man…………you should try that some day...........rather than random accusations

No, you did not listen again.