Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
So he wasn't a librarian?
Are you still suggesting that displays of strength and agressiveness play no role in human mating success?
I’m still waiting for the Gov’t to recognize the “Temple of Darwin” and the “religion of evolution” so we can get the same tax breaks!
Don’t forget...
the same Michael Behe who admitted under oath that ID was on equal “scientific” footing with astrology?
Whatta hero.
==I’m still waiting for the Gov’t to recognize the “Temple of Darwin” and the “religion of evolution” so we can get the same tax breaks!
The Temple of Darwin should get the same tax exemptions as all other religions. However, they should not get any government funding, and their religion should not be taught under the guise of “science” in our public schools.
Behe has contributed to the opposition in both his recent court appearances. Not a good sign considering he is the only “untainted” advocate for ID who can appear in court.
But I am more interested in what folks are saying about his latest book, The Edge of Evolution. Apparently there are people who havent’t heard how his argument turned out when subjected to the laboratory.
Behe: “Teach Darwin’s elegant theory. ...If I were teaching a high school biology course, I certainly would want my students to understand Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which explains antibiotic resistance and a lot of other things. I would want them to know the many similarities among organisms that are interpreted in terms of common descent, as well as to understand the laboratory experiments that show organisms changing in response to selective pressure.”
That, I think, displays Behe’s objectivity when he mathematically dissects evolution. And I agree that Darwin’s Theory was brilliant considering what little technology he had access to.
What makes me ‘paranoid’ [your word] is that the same college which produced the Kelo Court also produces evolution zealots. Colleges do not teach our ‘leaders’ enough to lead wisely. Nor is college able to create an education Utopia. From kindergarten to college, our education system is broken and anti-Christian.
Are you ever going to tell us what you think Behe's best argument is?
Then just lay out the problem, being specific about times, angles and the frame of reference : ) Specifically which time you are talking about, i.e. the time the light is reflected from Pluto or the time your eyes actually see the reflected light, and what your earth based angular references are.
Were not talking about Jupiter's moons. Were talking about the sun and its alleged 2.1 degrees, and Pluto along with its 102 degrees.
If you would read the Feynman reference, you would see that they are all basically the same problem : ) The Feynman reference is a little more complicated of course.
The Sun does appear to rise in the East and set in the West, and its gravitational pull is synchronized within 21 arcseconds of its apparent position.
What is your frame of reference for the 21 arc second discrepancy? I am guessing that you are referring to the earths orbital speed of 30 km/sec to get your 21 arc seconds. If that is the case you are correct, but it should be added the angular component that we are talking about.
does the 2.1 degrees come from the Sun's motion through the galaxy?
Does it come from the rotation of the earth? (would it still be present of the Sun was completely stationary?)
It is from the earths rotation of course. We are using the Earth as our frame of reference. If the Earth wasn't rotating the Sun would be stationary, very much like the Earth is stationary to an observer whose frame of reference is the moon. If you were standing on the Moon you would see a stationary, spinning Earth.
If it is true that the apparent position of the sun and its actual position are separated by 2.1 degrees, Wikipedia, Nasa, etc, should list it as a common fact.
Because we are talking about 'APPARENT' position which is irrelevant to the actual position. At any given time I think I could find two observers on the Earth one of whom could truthfully tell me that the Sun is due East at 90º and the other who could tell me that the Sun is due West at 180º It is a fact, but it is irrelevant to astronomers or anyone else for that matter : ) That is why you don't see it in Wikipedia.
The very first thing Astronomers try to do is factor out the Earths rotation and orbital speed and position. Only then do they try to figure out where things are : )
LeGrande, Your an atheist.
That's "you're" and thank you : )
All you have put forward is slight of hand logic that does not hold up to scrutiny.
Slight of hand logic? All you have to do is go outside and pound a stake into the ground pointed at the Sun so that it doesn't have a shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later pound another stake into the ground (with the same origin point) so that it doesn't have a shadow and measure the angle between the two stakes. If you do it accurately enough the two stakes will be a little over two degrees apart. Which is the difference between the apparent position and actual position of the Sun from your perspective on the Earth.
“Look, I haven’t said anything negative to you or about you, nor have I said anything about Behe.”
Please don’t take my crack personally. I would just be embarassed to be on the same side as the author who wrote the headline of this thread.
As for simultaneous mutations— for them all to just happen to work in concert that creates a sophisticated organ, the odds are astronomically low, even when you factor in millions of years. I had not realized that when my science/biology teachers taught me evolution in schools. I walked out being pro-abortion, thinking of myself as an animal, and lacking morals. I still pay a heavy price for having been an evolutionist who did not look at myself the way I should.
I was an ‘animal for God’ who feared the ‘fragile planet’ more than I loved my fellow man.
Can you cite a claim made by biologists that includes "simultaneous mutations working in concert to create a complex organ"?
I've been in these debates for five years or more and have never seen any such claim.
Behe produced various “irreducibly complex” mechanisms, of which there are thousands— complex cellular structures, blood-clotting mechanisms, and the eye, among others. A bacterial motor, called a flagellum, depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The absence of almost any one of the parts would render the flagellum useless. An animal cell's whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap, with far fewer necessary components than a cilium or flagellum. Though there are only a few parts to a mousetrap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve any function whatsoever.[snip] [page 204]
Well, for a start, Coulter is simply factually wrong. There are subsets of the flagellum in living bacteria that do useful things. There are also many gradations of eyes and blood clotting systems.
The claim is simply not true.
What a bizarre rant. How can you say that “evos” demand Scripture be taken literally? Obviously, the evolutionary model doesn’t describe a world in which there is a man and cattle but no woman. Evolution demands a different (some would say deeper) understanding of Scripture than that it’s a simple narrative of events.
But we’re told time and again here that evolution can’t be true because it conflicts with that simple narrative. The people saying that have to go through all kinds of contortions to make the narrative consistent—oh, this verb must be in the pluperfect even though Hebrew doesn’t have a pluperfect, and you have to believe the six days part but ignore that part about the world being a circle, and on and on. But they do, because they demand that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. Meanwhile, plenty of “evos” explain how they take the Bible to be the “literal Truth” without being literally true.
And then you come along and claim exactly the opposite. Very bizarre.
You must have missed the dozens upon dozens of rants about the earth being 6000-10000 years old!
Matt Damon comes to mind when discussing Sarah Palin: “I need to know if she believes the earth is 6000 years old, because she’ll have access to nukes”.
Absolutely incredible!
Where in the constitution does it give churches tax breaks?
Wasn’t it you that said you weren’t going to bring this up?
Oh well!
First of all church goers DO PAY taxes, just like everyone else! Most churches collect money and then turn around and help people with it. (Of course there are FALSE churches that collect money and then their leadership buys limos and million dollar homes...but that’s a different ball of wax)
SO what purpose does it serve to pay taxes on charity that will ultimately go all too often to govt waste ANYWAY?
And let me get this straight, it’s not bad enough Christians pay for failed gubmint SCHOOL taxes AND are responsible for sending their kids to Christian schools or homeschool on top of it, but you think they should pay taxes TWICE on their payrolls and then all over again in church also?
Backwards liberal thinking. The question shouldn’t be why the government doesn’t tax churches but why the government taxes income. Last I heard it was illegal for the government to collect income tax.
But try to fight it and find out what happens.
I'm gonna tweak you a bit - :)
I think the 16th amendment was ratified in 1909... how old are you?
No.
There are other evolutionists who conceded that Behe had a point. Nor is Behe the only one. More another day. The problem isn’t with evolution. The problem is the ‘must be fact’ crowd who are forever obgligated to justify their insistence on how a child must be educated.
— FRegards ....
All right LeGrande, mrjessse asked a simple question.
“does that mean then that if I look up through my telescope and see pluto overhead it actually won’t even be in the night sky at that time, but rather 102 degrees away from where I see it?” —mrjesse
Answer the question, yes or no.
Enough beating around the bush.
A better question about Pluto is why is it no longer considered a planet?
And since some astronomers disagree with the powers that be majority, is it or is it not a planet? Who deides? After all, I keep hearing the minority are protected from the majority by our Constitution!
And how do they teach in school one day pluto is a planet, but the next day that it is not, when Pluto didn’t change at all?
Who gets to decide these things?
Is science concensus?
What happens when exactly half agree and half disagree with Pluto’s newfound demotion?
What happens when someone decides Pluto should lose it’s name all together since it’s no longer worthy?
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.