Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Molecular biologist Michael Behe described a system made of several interacting parts, whereby the removal of one part would disrupt the functioning of the whole, as being irreducibly complex. Both creation scientists and intelligent design proponents highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies, because they argue against evolutionary hypotheses. 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.
A team of evolutionary molecular biologists thinks it may have refuted this concept of irreducible complexity. In a recent study, the researchers focused on a specific cellular machine involved in protein transport and claimed that it was indeed reducible to its component parts. But did they use real science to demonstrate this, or just scientific-sounding phrases?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I will ask you the same question I asked another poster.
What, if you don't mind saying, is your concept of ID?
I am not doing this so that I can fire back and try to tell you that you are wrong.
I am curious and want to learn what other people think.
It doesn't bother me if you are really interested in an answer. But I find it strange to comment on something that is "useless".
I guess I didn’t phrase that very well.
Given that example I listed in the previous post, what does the answer prove?
Are you referring to ID, or 2.3485425827738332278894805967893e+228. ?
It doesn't prove anything, but it indicates a disingenuousness of the example given sarcastically to post #6. I suppose if you accept the monkey argument, then finding a threaded metal bolt on Mars would not be surprising and not defy common sense.
I do find it strange commenting.
OH.
Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology.
Is “under oath” supposed to mean something here? Perhaps that he isn’t lying about what his opinion really is?
If we went to Mars and found a threaded metal bolt, it could be explained as a random natural phenomenon through the application of statistical possibilities, however slight.
(Monkey + Typewriter) X Time = Shakespeare
However, common sense says it can’t happen.
I agree. There was a lot of that going on throughout the whole thread. (and on many of the threads that GGG starts)
Well, now you've got no argument from me. So if I go into a room in which the only occupant was J Fred Muggs and find a manuscript for a novel neatly typed beside a typewriter, I would not be amiss to assume the actual author is not Mr. Muggs.
[[I agree. There was a lot of that going on throughout the whole thread. (and on many of the threads that GGG starts)]]
And where would you say the disingeniousness stems from? Which side? Because All I see fro mthe Evo side is nothign more substantial in ‘defense’ of Macroeovlution, than “Behe Beleives in Common descent, therefore Every ID scientist must therefore beleive the same hting” and “If someoen cites Behe- they must therefore endorse everythign that Behe does, and therefore, anyone that cites Behe can’t beleive that God is the intelligence behind ID”
I’d call that some pretty blatant disingeniousness, not to mention citing the lottry or monkeys typing and accidently getting a sentace right as evidence life could have ‘gotten it right’ trillions of times in nice neat little successive self-arranging orderliness.
I also find it disingenious when peopel cite the dover trial, point to the book ‘pandas’ (or whatever the full title is) and claim somethign that isn’t true- Discovery explained what actually happened
“PBS wrongly asserts that intelligent design is creationism because of the contents of early drafts of the Of Pandas and People textbook.
PBS claims that the usage of creationist terminology in early drafts of Pandas indicates that ID is just creationism after theEdwards v. Aguillard ruling. As stated in our http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1372”Montana Law Review article: “By unequivocally affirming that the empirical evidence of science ‘cannot tell us if the intellect behind [the information in life] is natural or supernatural’ it is evident that these pre-publication drafts of Pandas meant something very different by ‘creation’ than did the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, in which the Court defined creationism as religion because it postulated a ‘supernatural creator.’” PBS fails to mention that Charles Thaxton testified in his Kitzmiller deposition that he adopted intelligent design terminology out of a desire to limit statements to scientific claims that can be made based upon the empirical data: “I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html
and I also find it disingenious when peopel accuse Discovery.org of ‘tryign to sneak religion into the classroom under the guise of ID which ‘is nothign more than Creationism dressed up
when Discovery.org has said many times that is NOT their intent, and even stated that they fully endorse teachign Darwinian evolution BUT also teachign hte problems with the hypothesis, and teachign the FACTS of the NEED for intelligent design behind the complexity witnessed in nature.
On the site listed above- you will find a number of common disingenious accusatiopns against ID refuted by discovery.org- yet peopel STILL insist on attackign the messengers with these blatant disingenious accusations- So yep- it woudl seem that a nuymber of folks supporting evolution indeed have been, and continue being, disingenious
Whenever I think of what is believable, I always think of something that happened when I was a kid playing baseball. We had a wire outfield fence about 12’ high held up by wooden posts, about 6” in diameter.
One afternoon a ball was hit which hit the top of a post, bounced 10’ in the air, came back down on the post, and after several smaller bounces came to rest sitting on top of that post. It staid right there for days.
Some people who were not there would not believe the story, others could. Now I knew for a fact that it was possible, yet, if I showed up the next day and there was a ball on every post, I would bet every dime I have that someone placed them there.
I think a skeptic questions the hastiness of decisions, whether they are too quick to reject such an explanation or whether they are too quick to accept the same. I think we all have our own number of balls on the fence limit, where we throw the BS flag. That's my only point here.
When he types out the Gettysburg Address without any mistakes, get back to me. In the mean time, be careful, monkeys throw poo.
Seriously, are you really this dumb?
I know you think you’re smart but you this is really idiotic.
I hope you are saying this for the sake of of winning an argument on the internet and do not operate like this in real life.
I hope in real life if somebody plays cards with you and draws 10 straight royal flushes and cleans your clock, that you get a little suspicious about how you just lost your shirt. And not say to yourself the mumbo jumbo you just wrote. “Oh, it’s not that unreasonable. In fact it’s not actually any less likely than any other combination of hands he would have drawn. So he must be on the up and up. I have no reason whatsoever to even suspect that there might be a fix going on and I just got taken for a ride.”
Actually it is statistically. The proof for you would be in natural occurrence. Although all of the forces required to create a threaded bolt exist in nature, not one has ever been found, nor even anything partially resembling one. Thus it can be concluded that it is statistically far more unique (or complex) than a hurricane. And although a hurricane can exist in an infinite number of ways, so can a threaded bolt. Additionally, random application of the laws of physics easily explains a hurricane as a common occurance. No such random application could explain a threaded bolt.
I am capable of accepting that the natural occurrence of a threaded bolt cannot be mathematically excluded, while simultaneously stating with 100% certainty that every single threaded bolt is man-made. To limit oneself otherwise would be to make daily life impossible to navigate, as no causal effect could be eliminated.
Of course, we all have our own threshold concerning the acceptance of something as "just a coincidence".
Do you honestly believe an innocent man has never been convicted and executed, even after exhausting all appeals?
If so, you are quite foolish.
[[I am capable of accepting that the natural occurrence of a threaded bolt cannot be mathematically excluded,]]
Even IF mutaitons could create NEW non species specific information (which it can not, but even if it could, the species would not have the species specific metainformaiton to make use of the new informaiton because it owuld lie outside the species specific information parameters- somethign we know exists because many experiemnts have tried to push or introduce non species specific informaiton into species, and have failed to add NEW informaiton in such a way as to become integrated with the species ifnormation in a menainful manner), the odds agaisnt mutations moving hte species beyond it’s own kind are quite impossible- People arguing that macroevolution ‘could happen, because people hit hte lottery al lthe time, and hte odds of that happening are large’ are being disingenious, simply because we’re not talkign about hittign hte lottery one time, twice, or even a few times (which incidently, the odds of doign so are mugh much better than macroevolution’s chances) but we’re talkign about a species having to hit hte lottery every single day, or even hour, for a few billions years to move beyond it’s own kind- this is simpyl an unreasonable argument to make.
While a monkey or team of monkeys might possibly produce a typed out play by hitting random numbers- in order for this to even be concidered a relevent argument i ndefense of macroeovlution’s chances, these same monkeys would have to produce legible plays every single day for a few billions years in order to even begin to represent the statistical chances of macroevolution occuring.
So yes, We might find a naturally occurign threaded bolt (even htough hte odds are very very small), but we’re certainly NOT goign to find billions of threaded bolts, and quite frankly, bolts are much simpler construction that biological life, and they certainly don’t need the degree of metainformation that biological life MUST have in order to remain fit and viable- so arguments about examples of statistical odds making macroevolution ‘possible’, simply because somethign spectacular ‘might happen’ once, twice, or even a few times, are really quite unreasonable- looking at biological life, it’s pretty clear that them ost reasonable and probable explanation is that an intelligence was needed to construct, assemble, and configure in such a way as to keep the incredible complexity all functioning smoothly enough to keep species fit
but, what do we know? We’re just ‘psuedoscientists’ who ‘don’t understand how science really work’ apparently- all ya need is a wing and a prayer and anythign is possible i nthe world of naturalism I guess- those who doubt are apparently ‘science haters’ looking to ‘inject religion’ into classrooms lol
You should likely assume you are the butt of a prank.
However, considering some of the 'scripts' of the latest TV shows, movies, books by Obama, Clinton, etc., I cannot be sure that monkeys didn't do it.
Why should I? Going into a room containing only an animal of some sort and finding a produced document is not something that would make me suspect that the animal had written the document, so why would it be a prank? However seeing a human in the room might make me suppose that the human had produced the document. Even the janitor could be a candidate, but not his pet dog.
What would be a "prank" is if I actually witnessed a cat plinking on a piano playing a Brahm's piano concerto.
I will have to accept your script scenario, however.
First, I believe I have seen it put forth by both 'sides'.
Having said that, I'll answer your question about dis-ingeniousness.
The use of this tactic stems from swimming in the same muddy pool as everyone else, yet claiming your 'side' of the pool is crystal clear.
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.