Really?
Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
True dat. Though I have to admit, even with the Masters, the industry does pretty right by you.
When people ask me what I do all day, half the time I have to tell them, "Paperwork."
Really?
Oh, and you can thank FR's crappy spell check for the weird bona fides incident.
Try thinking how one could falsify evolution without engaging in the logical fallacy of cherry-picking.
I have no problem reconciling them. Since, you know, creationism rejects neither microorganisms, nor their modification via genetic engineering.
Oh, and you can thank FR's crappy spell check for the weird bona fides incident.
So you originally spelled it correctly, and FR's spellchecker misspelled it for you?
(BTW, I'm just pulling your chain....)
But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of your beliefs.
I'm not sure what you're reading. I'm looking at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial transcript from day 11, PM session Part 1.
Dr. Behe admits he is not using the standard definition of the word "theory", and he agrees with counsel that he's using it in the sense of the word "hypothesis."
Dr. Behe also admits that doing this would include disciplines such as astrology. The fact that he believes that both of these "theories" are falsifiable through similar means doesn't change a word of my post.
Especially since Dr. Behe also admits that he doesn't believe intelligent design is a theory in the sense that the NSA defines the term.
Oh don't give me that. I wasn't home for the rain yesterday, but I'm pretty sure that's what caused the erosion in the dirt portion of my back yard. Do you have a better explanation for the erosion? Or should I just say "God caused that erosion magically appear."?
Manmade arches are supported during construction by other bracing, precisely because the parts won't stay in place until they are all in position.
That is our method of construction. It's quick and efficient with materials. We tend to build up.
Nature doesn't have to be quick. Take a bunch of rocks and dirt, or some solid rock, run a stream under the middle. Make the stream bigger, let it start dislodging some rocks, let it flood at times. Eventually there's a good chance you'll have formed an arch as the remaining rocks compress against each other as they try to fall down. It's not going to happen every time of course, but out of the many instances with these conditions you'll get a lot of arches. This is also known as a natural bridge. Arches also naturally occur on coastlines and in caves.
I used to let the waves create these natural arches on the beach when I was a kid. It's pretty easy.
What would you conclude upon seeing the equivalent of the Arch de Triumph on Mars
Ask me again when I actually see it.
The difference is even greater when the doctorate is from a diploma mill, accredited by an accreditation mill.
I used to hang around with a lot of you biological sciences types, even dated one for a while. I lived close to a major biological research center and near a university famed for its biological program. I ended up in the "crowd" because of a PhD I met at a party and became friends with, and because of the aforementioned girlfriend. The value of the work definitely isn't proportional to degree earned. My girlfriend was a hard-working Masters, and she'd complain about some lazy doctorates. But then I may have been biased towards her. :)
The scatological side of me laughed at that.
Here's what he actually said, "That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community."
"and he agrees with counsel that he's using it in the sense of the word "hypothesis.""
Here's what he actually said, "No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term."
"Dr. Behe also admits that doing this would include disciplines such as astrology. The fact that he believes that both of these "theories" are falsifiable through similar means doesn't change a word of my post."
Nothing can change a word of your post. It's already posted and is not editable. So, while that is technically a correct statement, that's not to say it doesn't soundly refute your claim that, "Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology." He did not testify so and to claim that he did is a gross misrepresentation of what Behe actually said.
"Especially since Dr. Behe also admits that he doesn't believe intelligent design is a theory in the sense that the NSA [sic] defines the term."
Here's what he actually said, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there's not -- I can't point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."
So the NAS (not NSA) definition of 'theory' includes the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion. Not very 'scientific' of them, now is it?
Not the God who wrote the bible.
Says you. Got proof?
The rain eroded a stone block arch in your back yard yesterday? That is amazing. I think you might want to put up a security cam.
Nature doesn't have to be quick. Take a bunch of rocks and dirt, or some solid rock, run a stream under the middle. Make the stream bigger, let it start dislodging some rocks, let it flood at times. Eventually there's a good chance you'll have formed an arch as the remaining rocks compress against each other as they try to fall down. It's not going to happen every time of course, but out of the many instances with these conditions you'll get a lot of arches. This is also known as a natural bridge. Arches also naturally occur on coastlines and in caves.
Apples, oranges and other senseless comparisons. Show me the natural arch that looks like the Arch de Triumph and not just a keyhole cut.
I used to let the waves create these natural arches on the beach when I was a kid. It's pretty easy.
Again, you might want to purchase a security cam, if you're getting stone block arches on the beach with wave action.
Ask me again when I actually see it.
Right, because a man is far less complicated than a stone block arch. I know what you would say, because those that refuse to answer in the hypothetical have already dedicated themselves to ignore or shrug off any evidence. 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.
Really. None of those are stone block arches that look like the Arch de Triumph. You might as well show me pictures of trees and claim that houses occur naturally.
See my other posts. You are making an apples and oranges comparison. The fact that soft material can erode and cause a keyhole doesn’t prove that mother nature can reproduce the Arch de Triumph.
The question is, if you were to find an arch such as the Arch de Triumph on Mars, would you explain it away as a natural occurance of hideously minute statistical probablity OR would you instantly conclude that intelligence was involved?
It seems clear to me that the former requires more faith than the latter.
I leave it to you to determine which is more complex, a stone arch or a man.
Um you overlooked this part:
Q And I asked you, “Is astrology a theory under that definition?” And you answered, “Is astrology? It could be, yes.” Right?
A That’s correct.
Q Not, it used to be, right?
A Well, that’s what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I’m not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Didn’t somebody say something about cherry picking?
I came up with something original. It apparently bothered you enough to make you sidestep the question.
The fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
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.