I'd stay away from "arches have keystones" argument if I were you. I see no keystone:
Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
As you yourself posted, he was answering the "It used to be." question and confirmed that he was talking about it in its historical sense. He clearly says so above.
What part of misrepresentation don't you understand?
I wasn’t trying to make an argument, Oh-Clueless-One. I was making fun of xcamel’s ad hominem attack against my source. As with so many other evo-atheists, you are very slow on the uptake.
PS Did you send a similar message to xcamel? Didn’t think so. As with so many other evo-atheists, you are a hypocrite as well. Keep up the good work...LOL!
What ifs not only make questions, they are the crux of most discovery and debate. A person who cannot honestly answer a what-if is a person not worth wasting time on.
I.e. "What-ifs" are a test of a person's intellectual honestly. Simple what-ifs like I have proposed are a test to whether the other party is even open to changing their mind if confronted with indisputable evidence. When people refuse to be pinned down to simply acknowledging the obvious, it is clear that they cannot be successfully engaged with logic.
Both creation scientists...
There is no such thing as a Creation scientist.
...highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies, because they argue against evolutionary hypotheses.
False conclusion right from the beginning, eh Brian Thomas *MS? They highlight a catch-phrase they've manufactured and CLAIM it argues against the THEORY of evolution.
The very structure of these systems—with their interdependent parts working all together or not at all—demands a non-Darwinian, non-chance, non-piecemeal origin.
False conclusion, Brian Thomas *MS.
But did they use real science to demonstrate this, or just scientific-sounding phrases?
Discrediting scientific research by asking a simple question. I doubt Brian Thomas *MS would know the difference either way. Careful of the projection, Brian. I'm waiting for the other catch phrases of "design" and "kind" to be mentioned.
What they do claim is that an imaginary, not-yet-complete machine has no function, and is thus invisible to natural selection and therefore “unevolvable.”
NOTHING that comes from transcribing and translating DNA is "unevolvable"........random mutations are a bitch.....one basepair change can alter the shape of a protein to give it new function or render it functionless......or it could do nothing more than get passed on to further generations where another mutation in the same codon could alter the protein expression.....so long as DNA is involved, there is no such thing as "unevolveable"...natural selection may not be involved, but natural selection is not the end-all be-all of "evolution."........dear Brian here doesn't seem to know that.
...but DO TELL, dear Brian with all that scientific knowledge you have. I see lots of bogus claims and assertions, but that's what Brian Thomas *MS is used to doing.
Wonder what Brian Thomas *MS thinks about hemoglobin.
So then we are supposed to read his mind and know what he was thinking during the deposition, which is also under oath. Or did he realize his blunder and tried to back peddle his way out of it?
Say’s the big man in the echo chamber with all his cheerleaders present.
Too bad you are too frightened to try your “debating” skills outside of your own controlled environment.
Just as I predicted all hat, and no horse
I hate to break this to ya, but God didn't write the Bible. Men did. Men also translated it.
I don't "reject Biblical creationism".
The problem comes in when you take Genesis as "literal" and start using Bishop Usher's timetable.
If you don't take Genesis literally, it's actually a pretty good description of the creation of the universe and the evolution of life on earth.
Wow....Obama's a strict Constitutionalist conservative????
He clearly communicated his position and you inadvertently included it in your post. Since that doesn't square with the misrepresentation you and your favorite hack evolutionist website wish to project, you quickly claim 'ulterior motives'.
More likely that you are the one who just realized their blunder and are furiously trying to back-peddle your way out.
==There is no such thing as a Creation scientist.
See what I mean?
No, this is the issue of "If you didn't see it happen, then there's no way to figure out how it happened."
Show me the natural arch that looks like the Arch de Triumph and not just a keyhole cut.
I don't have to. I gave an example of an ancient, common complex structure in nature that was only far later emulated by man. Complexity doesn't always imply design.
if you're getting stone block arches on the beach with wave action.
That example was to show that I saw on a smaller scale, in a shorter time, effectively the same action that creates one type of natural arch.
You must be very insecure to not even be able to acknowledge that you would find such a thing as the Arch de Triumph on Mars to be incapable of natural origin.
If you're saying that I wouldn't find the one example of a known man-made structure where man has never gone, I can concede that. But it's irrelevant.
I did not inadvertently post anything. That is why I included the link to show the entire questioning in context, unlike your post.
Since when is a trial transcript considered “hack evolutionist” projection?
Nice try but no cigar.
Well, that street obviously runs both ways.
"Just as I predicted all hat, and no horse"
You can't even get your idioms right. LOL!
Then you didn’t even understand what you posted, since Behe clearly refuted your claim in the very quote you posted.
And you want to pretend that you think the transcript itself is the ‘hack evolutionist’ site?
LOL!
I'd stay away from "arches have keystones" argument if I were you. I see no keystone:
Poor, poor Ira. Is there some argument that you and your fellow evo-atheists can only make on other sites and not on FR?
The original:
An arch is a beautiful thing, mechanically strong and efficient, and removing any one part of it causes it to collapse. If I were so inclined I would say it was designed upon seeing one, yet we see such arches created by natural processes. My conclusion is that complexity is often in the eye of the beholder.
HINT: "If I were so inclined I would say it was designed upon seeing one, yet we see such arches created by natural processes."
Running off on a keystone man-made argument is just...well....I'm sure GourmetDan will fill you in on which logical fallacy that is.
Spoken like someone who believes in evolution.
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.