Dr. GS Hurd
Member
You reminded me of an old joke, "Why has God given men nipples?
So they had something to do with their 'other' hand.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
You reminded me of an old joke, "Why has God given men nipples?
So they had something to do with their 'other' hand.
Dr. GS Hurd
Member
The clearest statement by Behe was;
“Professor Bottaro, perhaps sensing that the paper he cites won’t be persuasive to people who are skeptical of Darwinian claims, laments that “Behe and other ID advocates will retreat further and further into impossible demands, such as asking for mutation-by-mutation accounts of specific evolutionary pathways...” Well, yes, of course that’s exactly what I ask of Darwinian claims — a mutation-by-mutation account of critical steps (which will likely be very, very many), at the amino acid level.” And Behe then demands, “…not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more.”
But under oath he admits that nothing he ever published could provide real evidence for ID Creationism. But, it works in SiFi;
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, PM: Michael Behe (continued)
“Professor Bottaro, perhaps sensing that the paper he cites won’t be persuasive to people who are skeptical of Darwinian claims, laments that “Behe and other ID advocates will retreat further and further into impossible demands, such as asking for mutation-by-mutation accounts of specific evolutionary pathways...” Well, yes, of course that’s exactly what I ask of Darwinian claims — a mutation-by-mutation account of critical steps (which will likely be very, very many), at the amino acid level.” And Behe then demands, “…not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more.”
But under oath he admits that nothing he ever published could provide real evidence for ID Creationism. But, it works in SiFi;
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, PM: Michael Behe (continued)
Yes. That's what free will allows us to do. (Do you follow Jehovah God's direction? No? Neither did Adam , he wasn't programmed to. Perfection doesn't mean automaton.)
But right away, Jehovah had a contingency plan. -- Genesis 3:15
RE: human tail genes....they're not exactly 'silenced'.
"Through gene regulation, we use these genes at different places and different times during development than those organisms that normally have tails at birth."
So whaddya know? It's not junk DNA!
Atavism: Embryology, Development and Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable
I wouldn't criticize the design, until it's fully understood.
I like this! Behe is right on!
It should be stressed again:
“Professor Bottaro, perhaps sensing that the paper he cites won’t be persuasive to people who are skeptical of Darwinian claims, laments that “Behe and other ID advocates will retreat further and further into impossible demands, such as asking for mutation-by-mutation accounts of specific evolutionary pathways...” Well, yes, of course that’s exactly what I ask of Darwinian claims — a mutation-by-mutation account of critical steps (which will likely be very, very many), at the amino acid level.” And Behe then demands, “…not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more.”
How about not even a detailed account, just an account w/ some substance, explaining these issues and including how an evolving species did overcome the difficulties it did experience during it's intermediate phases? Like Pacicetus to whales?
ecco
Veteran Member
Nevertheless, your Omniscient God knew that Adam & Eve would disobey Him. The morals that your Omnipotent God instilled in them guaranteed it.
To compound things, your Omnibenevolent God blamed Adam & Eve for their "failure". To compound things even further, your Omnibenevolent God extended to blame to all people, forever.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Can you imagine a jury full of ID creationists?
If we had a set of footprints, except where the person crossed a sidewalk, the ID creationist would throw it all out.
If we had a set of fingerprints, except a couple of the fingers, the ID creationist would throw it all out.
If we could only say the crime took place sometime between 12:00 and 2:00, the ID creationist would have to acquit.
If we couldn't say whether the crime was committed with the suspect's right or left hand, the ID creationist would have to acquit.
Just like yesterday, it's fascinating to see how fundamentalists exhibit black/white thinking so regularly.
Last edited:
Dr. GS Hurd
Member
The ID creationist falsely claim they use "methods" similar to archaeology, and forensic science.
My 2004 book chapter, “The Explanatory Filter, Archaeology, and Forensics” in Why Intelligent Design Fails: The scientific critique of the new creationism (Matt Young, Taner Edis (ed.s) Rutgers University Press)exposed this fraud.
Mike Behe was confronted with this publication as a "test" of his expertise in the 2005 Dover "Pandas Trial." He failed badly;
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, PM: Michael Behe (continued).
Hook & line, meet sinker.
For one thing, you can’t get molecules from fossils. It can’t be “provided.” So molecular evolution of ambulocetus, etc., is nothing but supposition.
Behe brought up valid points. You just want to ignore them.
Lol.
John 3:16.
When you understand that (as did Newton, etc), we can have a reasonable discussion.
Do you want to call Newton & Boyle an idiot, or would you rather understand what they understood?
IOW, why didn’t Newton, with his in-depth study of Scripture, never come up with this? I mean, he threw away the Church’s teachings. Why did he not do that w/ the Bible? Maybe because he understood the Bible’s words better than you and the other skeptics on here?
I’d go with that.
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Wow, so you're just going to go right back to your "Newton was a smart guy, surely you don't disagree with such a smart guy" talking point despite the fact that you've been shown how irrelevant that is on multiple occasions? Maybe Newton misunderstood the Bible's words and others have it right. Given the thousands of Christian denominations in existence, it becomes apparent how unclear or ambiguous the Bible can be. Who the hell knows whose got it right, it's not like there's any way to verify something like that. Whether or not Newton or Boyle were idiots or geniuses in the area of Biblical interpretation doesn't have much bearing on anything.
Instead of wasting time deferring to Newton, why not address the points made in the post?
ecco
Veteran Member
No one ignored Behe's points. All his points were thoroughly investigated and found to be nonsense. Therefore we know that Behe did not bring up valid points. Therefore we can now ignore them.
ecco
Veteran Member
So, instead of addressing my comments yourself, you tell me to understand the mindset of someone long dead and gone. That's really weak.
And to @ecco :
Have you spent time doing an in-depth study of the Scriptures? Did you come to realize that Hellfire is not Biblical? Have you, on your own, found the Comma Johannum to have not been in the O.M. (Original Manuscripts)?
I’ve addressed those assumptions many times on here. They are invalid. The Book of Jonah alone debunks them.
If you’re smart, you can reason on Psalm 78:41 (NASB)...”Again and again they tempted God, And pained the Holy One of Israel.”
(If God knew this would happen...what is He, a sadomasochist? )
Gen. 18:20,21....”Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is immense, and their sin is extremely serious. 21 I will go down† to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to me. If not, I will find out.”
Genesis 18 Christian Standard Bible
Surely, you can figure that out.
ecco
Veteran Member
Nah. I'll just take your word for it.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Strange statement. You can't get molecules from fossils? Of course you can. Molecules are groups of atoms bonded together. Maybe you mean specifically biological or organic molecules or something, like a subset, but rocks, sand, everything we see that's not single atoms are molecules by definition. Generally, we can find molecules in the air, table, computer, water, ...
Yes, of course. You can’t determine genes from petrified matter.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Right. So to be clear, you meant organic molecules, since they're replaced by non-organic molecules.
Did you read the conversation I was having?
The other party was referring to evidence of molecular evolution, determined in the fossil record. There is no such thing.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I believe molecular evolution refers to more than just the biological/organic part of chemistry. For instance, I just looked up molecular evolution and fossil record, and there's this research regarding molecular clock, and I assume it refers to the molecular change that's happening with organic material over time, how it fossilize and such. I'm no expert in this, but molecular evolution does sound to me being a study in materials that goes beyond organics.
Also, what does these articles refer to?
Fossil DNA Reveals New Twists in Modern Human Origins | Quanta Magazine
Fossil DNA has clues to surviving rapid climate change
And other similar articles. They refer to "fossils" that are not completely petrified but still have some viable DNA.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
As a hypothetical, let's say we could get DNA from fossils. What do you think we would look for in that genetic material to determine an organism's relatedness to other organisms?