+ 
= 
?
Posted on 05/17/2004 10:46:51 AM PDT by yonif
+ = ?
I see a "No True Scotsman" type of reply coming your way...
Creation science is an even uglier business than I thought!
Actually your'e onto something here PH...its safe to say Mr. Jackson's nose was an act of "special" creation.
a Tomorrow AM bump. Thanks!
Anyone else hear bagpipes?
Are Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan going to be on the ticket again? I'll get my palm fan and jug of lemonade ready. Nothing's better than a good monkey show.
It is amazing how Americans extend our minds to the planets while our feet never leave parochial muck, isn't it?
Thanks for the ping!
Amen.
Thanks for the ping, Patrick.
Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" blood-clotting process is flawed because the biochemistry of blood-clotting is easily reached by adding several steps on top of a more primitive biochemical sequence, *and then REMOVING earlier portions which had become redundant* (1, 2).
The author of reference 1 had the intellectual honesty to provide a link to Behe's reply---which is more than can be said for the chest-thumper who composed the text you cut and pasted.
False; see post #33.
'Came to scoff, stayed to pray' placemarker.
;^)
Evolved from what? Why would the progenitors be less complex? How old does Behe think the galaxy is?
Nonliving matter, ultimately.
Why would the progenitors be less complex?
Their complexity wouldn't necessarily be less; it just wouldn't be irreducible.
How old does Behe think the galaxy is?
I'm sure he accepts the consensus figure, which if I recall correctly is 13 billion years---plenty of time for an intelligent race to have evolved elsewhere before there was any life on Earth.
And here I thought no one read posts from the Hobbit hole. ;)
...and I refered to his screwup concerning the mousetrap "purely for illustrative purposes" as well -- it illustrates that Behe is such a sloppy thinker even his attempt to present an elementary example of "IC" fails to actually *be* "IC".
If Behe can't even properly recognize whether a *simple* case is actually "IC" or not, how reliable is he likely to be on the *really* complex ones?
[Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" blood-clotting process is flawed because the biochemistry of blood-clotting is easily reached by adding several steps on top of a more primitive biochemical sequence, *and then REMOVING earlier portions which had become redundant* (1, 2).]
The author of reference 1 had the intellectual honesty to provide a link to Behe's reply---which is more than can be said for the chest-thumper who composed the text you cut and pasted.
ROFL!!! Man, I don't know where to even start on describing how off-base you are with this attempted "rebuttal". In no particular order:
1. I'm sorry, I had mistaken you for someone who would actually attempt an "intellectually honest" reply -- you know, one that might actually *address* the points that were raised concerning the flaws in Behe's arguments. My error, won't happen again.
2. The person who "composed the text I cut and pasted" would be *me*, actually, excerpted from my prior posts here and here. So if you were trying to denigrate the critique of Behe's errors on the grounds that I merely borrowed someone else's writing, you just fell on your face, since the analysis is all mine, baby.
3. Even if I had "cut and pasted" someone else's critique of Behe, that wouldn't justify your dodging the points that were raised about the flaws in his work. Grasping for excuses?
4. If Behe had ever actually replied to my posts, I'd certainly have the "intellectual honesty" to provide a link to it, but since he hasn't, my failure to provide a link to his non-existent reply is hardly a valid criticism, and you seem to have fallen on your face again.
5. How on earth is it "chest thumping" to deconstruct Behe's work? Are you sure you understand what the term means? And if that's the worst thing you can say about the critique -- that you didn't like its tone -- then it becomes obvious you couldn't find anything wrong with the actual *points* it made.
Please conclusively demonstrate that "we contain irreducibly complex biochemical systems". We'll wait.
The first link I checked showed that Behe had already done so, contrary to your implication. I have no time to "debate" with sneaks. Deal with it.
Ahem. First, if the "higher intelligence" could have evolved naturally, so could we. Second, no "irreducibly complex chemical processes" in humanity have been discovered. Some processes may seem irreducibly complex at first, but when they are looked into by folks who actually know what they are doing, it turns out they came about naturally after all.
Creation wins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.