| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2005 04:25:02 PM |
| Object: |
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that there are serious
objections to Darwinism... and privately they will admit to the
objections. However, they have become reluctant to discuss them in
public (and in a public forum like the Internet they will deny them
altogether) because they fear that they will aid their critics and
unwittingly discredit their own profession. In some cases, they feel it
is better to be discreet, pretend that there is nothing wrong, or even
tell a "little white lie" in the interests of the greater good of
science. (p. 269) ...Darwinism has never had much appeal for science
outside of the English-speaking world... its ascendancy in science, in
both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its
grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology;
embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to
have doubts. (p. 277)
There is a strong streak of intellectual arrogance and intellectual
authoritarianism running through the history of Darwinism... It is seen
in the outrage and indignation with which they greet any reasoned
attempt to expose the theory to debate and to the light of real
evidence. (p. 277)
SEQUENTIAL FOSSILS. The case for Darwinism would be made convincingly
if someone were to produce a sequence of fossils from a sequence of
adjacent strata (such as ammonite species or sea urchins) showing
indisputable signs of gradual progressive change on the same basic
stock, but above the species level (as opposed to subspecific
variation). Ideally this should be demonstrated in a long sequence, ten
or twenty or fifty successive fossil species, showing major generic
evolution -- but a short sequence would be enough. But this simple
relationship is not what is shown in the sequence of the rocks. Nowhere
in the world has anyone met this simple evidential criterion... even
the world's foremost paleontologists have failed to do so with the
whole Earth to choose from and the resources of the world's greatest
universities at their disposal. (p. 110)
HUMAN EVOLUTION. ...the evidence for humankind's own evolution is
actually nonexistent. (p. 195)
INTELLIGENCE. In the baffling new world of modern physics, scientists
find themselves observing and examining a cosmos that has become less
and less like a clockwork machine and more like an intelligence. ...it
would surely be absurd to bestow intelligent characteristics upon the
behavior of nuclear particles yet fail to accord such characteristics
to living structures. (p. 234)
NATURAL SELECTION. Natural selection is not a mechanism: it is a
rationalization after the fact. (p. 130)
MUTATIONS AND EVOLUTION. I believe that Darwinists should muster the
courage to come clean... reserving the term mutation for any change in
genetic coding... and use some other term -- perhaps "novation"
(novelty-producing mutation) -- to describe the kind of mutation they
say is potentially useful. ...Can we estimate the rate of "novation" as
opposed to the rate of mutation? Yes, we can. The rate of novation is a
number that is vanishingly small (if not actually zero). It is a number
so small that in order to account for synthetic evolution by random
mutation, one has to have an almost religious faith... (p. 158-159)
I am seriously concerned, on purely rational grounds, that generations
of school and university teachers have been led to accept speculation
as scientific theory and faulty data as scientific fact... (p. 4)
To most students, teachers, and even some scientists it will come as a
surprise to learn that recent research into the age of the Earth has
produced evidence that our planet could be much younger than had
previously been thought:
existing methods of geochronometry such as uranium-lead decay and
radiocarbon assay have been found to be deeply flawed and unreliable
the extent of genetic change by selection has been found experimentally
to be limited
bacteria can be induced in the laboratory to mutate in a direction that
is beneficial to them -- without generations of natural selection
only a catastrophist model of development can account for important
Earth structures and processes such as continental drift and most
fossil-bearing rock formations -- most of the Earth's surface in fact.
(p. 6)
RATE OF DEPOSITION. Curiously, too, no geologist seems to have checked
out the geological column dates with an electronic calculator on a
commonsense basis. ...For instance the Cretaceous period is said to
have lasted 65 million years and is 15,000 meters thick -- an average
annual rate of deposition of 0.2 millimeters. Now look at the Siluarian
period: this, too, yields an average rate of deposition of about 0.2
millimeters per year -- as does the Ordovician, the Devonian, the
Carboniferous and the rest. ...about the thickness of a human hair in a
year ...such a slow rate would be quite incapable of burying and
fossilizing entire forests, dinosaurs, or even a medium-sized tadpole.
(p. 23)
RADIOACTIVE DATING. ...radioactive dating techniques are far less
reliable than was previously thought; the Earth could be much younger
than has been supposed by Darwinists; and nothing like the billions of
years required by evolution theory have elapsed since the Earth's
formation. (p. 30)
GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES. Most non-geologists (and perhaps even some
geologists) will be surprised to learn that observations of modern
geological processes show, however, that nowhere today are there rocks
being formed anything like those in the geological column. (p. 72)
SEDIMENTARY ROCK LAYERS. According to Berthault, "These experiments
contradict the idea of the slow build up of one layer followed by
another. The time scale is reduced from hundreds of millions of years
to one or more cataclysms producing almost instantaneous laminae."
These innocent-sounding words are the death knell of the idea that the
existence of meters of sediments is by itself evidence for a great age
for the Earth. (p. 78)
NO FOSSILS. There is one final observation that can be made about all
the sediments of the geological column in relation to present-day
processes, and it is the greatest anomaly of all. Today there are no
known fossiliferous rocks forming anywhere in the world. (p. 78)
EVAPORITES. ...perhaps the most striking example of present processes
failing to explain the past, the case of so-called "evaporites."
Extensive beds of common salt, gypsum, and anhydrite occur on most
continents... no modern sea or lake is presently forming evaporite beds
in any way comparable to these geological deposits, which are of
immense thickness and great chemical purity. ...contain no organic
remains -- no fossils... The purity of these deposits and the absence
of material derived from surrounding land point to them having come
about not through evaporation... but through precipitation from
chemically saturated waters... again it implies a catastrophic origin
and singular or rare events. ...Perhaps instead of "evaporites" we
should ...adopt the name "catastrophites"! (p. 75-76
EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. The problems that have bedeviled horse
paleontology also beset every other branch of the science. Indeed, the
gaps in the fossil record are reflected in the living world where many
major animal and plant groups are high and dry with no discernible
predecessors. The development of the entire order of mammals is missing
from the fossil record, from its supposed shrewlike ancestor of the
late Cretaceous until modern times. ...In fact, more than 100 years of
further intense collecting by well-funded professional expeditions has
not yet yielded any of the remains that Darwin envisaged... (p. 104,
109)
NATURAL VARIATION. The natural limit on the amount of variation that
can be induced in a species is merely the expression of the fact that
nowhere in the animal or plant kingdom is there a species that is
capable of the infinite biological plasticity demanded by evolution
theory, capable of unlimited adaptation to different environments and
different modes of life. Living organisms are systems with limited
potential for change in which variation of one characteristic reacts on
other characters, usually with unfavorable results. This finding is of
central importance because it is one that Darwinists will usually
accept, having considered the evidence, but will later on simply forget
all about when they are speaking of the Darwinian concept of variation
and natural selection. It seems to bring out the Jekyll and Hyde in
evolutionists from Darwin down to the present. (p. 137-138)
All of the above quotes are from Richard Milton's Shattering the Myths
of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1997), pp. 308.
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 09:02:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:42:33 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:sq0qk150tsbeg3atv1kdq6iepn9juu8k77@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<N%63f.11253$wf6.2584054@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
Neither Hoyle nor anyone else has ever produced any
support for that
claim. Hoyle was an astronomer with no experience in
biological
sciences. He opposed claims of natural abiogenesis because
his
astronomy claims, not supported by the scientific
community and not
supported by the evidence, said that the Universe had no
beginning. He
thought that aliens brought life to Earth. Is that what we
should
teach in the schools?
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, who had
a bit of experience with biology, suggested a similar
view that life had been deposited on the Earth,
via some natural vehicle such as cosmic dust. He
was very much the snarky atheist, but he didn't
like the odds that life could have formed here
on its own on the given time frame -- it was
too complex. So he postulated a cosmic transfer
from another venue.
The only reason atheists get snarky is at the continual
misrepresentation, stupidity and outright personal falsehood from
braindead in-your-face idiots like you.
Hoyle, who named the "Big Bang" in objection to
it, held what was a standard view of the universe
before the Big Bang was accepted. A confirmed
atheist, he was prejudiced against the Big Bang
because it looked like a creation event.
No. He came down on the side of a steady state universe with no reason
to do so.
And there is no such thing as a "confirmed atheist" outside the
delusions of stupid theists who imagine their particular doctrine fout
of all the hundreds of different religions, overrides reality.
And as an astrophysicist, Hoyle certainly had
a sense for realistic probability, wrong though
he was about the Big Bang. Hence his windstorm/
Boeing 727 characterization.
Hardly.
It was stupid, and neither you nor he have shown how he reached that
"conclusion". It was silly rhetoric that showed his ignorance, that
lying creationists like you have siezed on.
For starters, he was talking about abiogenesis not evolution.
And what part of IT DIDN'T HAPPEN OU OF THE BLUE ALL AT ONCE BUT BUILT
ON WAT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED are you pretending you don't understrand?
And why do you morons imagine this is anything to do with atheism?
Clue: It isn't. It is just science explaining reality, which even
Christians realise and accept outside the USA and its 3rd world
education system.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 09:28:39 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:42:33 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <Zw73f.11459$wf6.2586549@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:sq0qk150tsbeg3atv1kdq6iepn9juu8k77@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<N%63f.11253$wf6.2584054@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
Neither Hoyle nor anyone else has ever produced any
support for that
claim. Hoyle was an astronomer with no experience in
biological
sciences. He opposed claims of natural abiogenesis because
his
astronomy claims, not supported by the scientific
community and not
supported by the evidence, said that the Universe had no
beginning. He
thought that aliens brought life to Earth. Is that what we
should
teach in the schools?
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, who had
a bit of experience with biology, suggested a similar
view that life had been deposited on the Earth,
via some natural vehicle such as cosmic dust. He
was very much the snarky atheist, but he didn't
like the odds that life could have formed here
on its own on the given time frame -- it was
too complex. So he postulated a cosmic transfer
from another venue.
Actually, Crick explored the idea. He made it very clear he had
engaged in exploration of non-standard ideas. And he was way more
specific than any of the ID proponents at, say, the Discovery
Institute and was only dealing with the origin of life, not with
evolution.
Hoyle, who named the "Big Bang" in objection to
it,
Hoyle, whose objections to the Big Bang put him on the fringe of
astronomy and prevented him from doing any additional useful astronomy
held what was a standard view of the universe
before the Big Bang was accepted. A confirmed
atheist, he was prejudiced against the Big Bang
because it looked like a creation event.
His reasoning are irrelevant, the evidence was against him.
And as an astrophysicist, Hoyle certainly had
a sense for realistic probability, wrong though
he was about the Big Bang. Hence his windstorm/
Boeing 727 characterization.
And his non-calculation makes sense for someone with a true vacuum
(Hoyle joke) where subject knowledge should be. That an astrophysicist
thought abiogenesis was unlikely is rather irrelevant. I am ready to
discuss Kauffman's abstract chemistries or clay as a replicator
template or the relevance of photo energy levels to black smokers as
the location for the origin of life. Are you prepared to discuss any
of the relevant biological science?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 09:46:30 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:4f6qk1dcf3il923hpbqb1c11cq535rboi9@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:42:33 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Zw73f.11459$wf6.2586549@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:sq0qk150tsbeg3atv1kdq6iepn9juu8k77@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<N%63f.11253$wf6.2584054@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To
date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
Neither Hoyle nor anyone else has ever produced any
support for that
claim. Hoyle was an astronomer with no experience in
biological
sciences. He opposed claims of natural abiogenesis
because
his
astronomy claims, not supported by the scientific
community and not
supported by the evidence, said that the Universe had no
beginning. He
thought that aliens brought life to Earth. Is that what
we
should
teach in the schools?
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, who had
a bit of experience with biology, suggested a similar
view that life had been deposited on the Earth,
via some natural vehicle such as cosmic dust. He
was very much the snarky atheist, but he didn't
like the odds that life could have formed here
on its own on the given time frame -- it was
too complex. So he postulated a cosmic transfer
from another venue.
Actually, Crick explored the idea. He made it very clear
he had
engaged in exploration of non-standard ideas. And he was
way more
specific than any of the ID proponents at, say, the
Discovery
Institute and was only dealing with the origin of life,
not with
evolution.
In other words, Crick and Hoyle had similar
insights into the improbability of complex
biological systems vis a vis the natural
world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 09:59:12 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:46:30 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:4f6qk1dcf3il923hpbqb1c11cq535rboi9@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:42:33 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Zw73f.11459$wf6.2586549@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:sq0qk150tsbeg3atv1kdq6iepn9juu8k77@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<N%63f.11253$wf6.2584054@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To
date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
Neither Hoyle nor anyone else has ever produced any
support for that
claim. Hoyle was an astronomer with no experience in
biological
sciences. He opposed claims of natural abiogenesis
because
his
astronomy claims, not supported by the scientific
community and not
supported by the evidence, said that the Universe had no
beginning. He
thought that aliens brought life to Earth. Is that what
we
should
teach in the schools?
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, who had
a bit of experience with biology, suggested a similar
view that life had been deposited on the Earth,
via some natural vehicle such as cosmic dust. He
was very much the snarky atheist, but he didn't
like the odds that life could have formed here
on its own on the given time frame -- it was
too complex. So he postulated a cosmic transfer
from another venue.
Actually, Crick explored the idea. He made it very clear
he had
engaged in exploration of non-standard ideas. And he was
way more
specific than any of the ID proponents at, say, the
Discovery
Institute and was only dealing with the origin of life,
not with
evolution.
In other words, Crick and Hoyle had similar
insights into the improbability of complex
biological systems vis a vis the natural
world.
Does "insight" mean "Wrong" on your planet?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:26:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:46:30 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <al93f.12163$wf6.2594916@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:4f6qk1dcf3il923hpbqb1c11cq535rboi9@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:42:33 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Zw73f.11459$wf6.2586549@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:sq0qk150tsbeg3atv1kdq6iepn9juu8k77@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<N%63f.11253$wf6.2584054@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To
date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
Neither Hoyle nor anyone else has ever produced any
support for that
claim. Hoyle was an astronomer with no experience in
biological
sciences. He opposed claims of natural abiogenesis
because
his
astronomy claims, not supported by the scientific
community and not
supported by the evidence, said that the Universe had no
beginning. He
thought that aliens brought life to Earth. Is that what
we
should
teach in the schools?
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, who had
a bit of experience with biology, suggested a similar
view that life had been deposited on the Earth,
via some natural vehicle such as cosmic dust. He
was very much the snarky atheist, but he didn't
like the odds that life could have formed here
on its own on the given time frame -- it was
too complex. So he postulated a cosmic transfer
from another venue.
Actually, Crick explored the idea. He made it very clear
he had
engaged in exploration of non-standard ideas. And he was
way more
specific than any of the ID proponents at, say, the
Discovery
Institute and was only dealing with the origin of life,
not with
evolution.
In other words, Crick and Hoyle had similar
insights into the improbability of complex
biological systems vis a vis the natural
world.
Nope. Crick did valid, even interesting, exploration of ideas based on
evidence. Hoyle waved his hands and closed his eyes. Crick supported
Common Descent and evolution, he just wanted to look at some unlikely
possibilities for the origin of life.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:26:13 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:9nhqk1hmrau897bpvho42henj993e2gitv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:46:30 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<al93f.12163$wf6.2594916@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:4f6qk1dcf3il923hpbqb1c11cq535rboi9@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:42:33 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Zw73f.11459$wf6.2586549@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
news:sq0qk150tsbeg3atv1kdq6iepn9juu8k77@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<N%63f.11253$wf6.2584054@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity
of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To
date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite
probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's
estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
Neither Hoyle nor anyone else has ever produced any
support for that
claim. Hoyle was an astronomer with no experience in
biological
sciences. He opposed claims of natural abiogenesis
because
his
astronomy claims, not supported by the scientific
community and not
supported by the evidence, said that the Universe had
no
beginning. He
thought that aliens brought life to Earth. Is that
what
we
should
teach in the schools?
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, who had
a bit of experience with biology, suggested a similar
view that life had been deposited on the Earth,
via some natural vehicle such as cosmic dust. He
was very much the snarky atheist, but he didn't
like the odds that life could have formed here
on its own on the given time frame -- it was
too complex. So he postulated a cosmic transfer
from another venue.
Actually, Crick explored the idea. He made it very clear
he had
engaged in exploration of non-standard ideas. And he was
way more
specific than any of the ID proponents at, say, the
Discovery
Institute and was only dealing with the origin of life,
not with
evolution.
In other words, Crick and Hoyle had similar
insights into the improbability of complex
biological systems vis a vis the natural
world.
Nope. Crick did valid, even interesting, exploration of
ideas based on
evidence.
Just like Behe.
Hoyle waved his hands and closed his eyes.
Oh, come now, Hoyle was better than Dawkins
and Gould.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:48:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:26:13 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Nope. Crick did valid, even interesting, exploration of
ideas based on
evidence.
Just like Behe.
Where did he do that, liar?
Hoyle waved his hands and closed his eyes.
Oh, come now, Hoyle was better than Dawkins
and Gould.
Only in the deluded fantasies f religious extremists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:55:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:38:52 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:07:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <N%63f.11253$wf6.2584054@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434C8A1E.75C419AC@Hovnanian.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
[snip]
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
One needs to quantify that complexity and show the
probability of a
given rate of mutation/selection producing it. To date,
evolution has
been shown to be quite probable.
Really? Evolution has been shown to be "quite probable."
You mean as probably as the late Fred Hoyle's estimation
that evolution was the belief that a windstorm could
blow together a Boeing 727?
Neither Hoyle nor anyone else has ever produced any support for that
claim. Hoyle was an astronomer with no experience in biological
sciences. He opposed claims of natural abiogenesis because his
astronomy claims, not supported by the scientific community and not
supported by the evidence, said that the Universe had no beginning. He
thought that aliens brought life to Earth. Is that what we should
teach in the schools?
Hoyle and Wickramasinge had observed organic chemicals in interstellar
clouds using spectroscopy. Not being biologists, biochemists or
anything remotely related to life and its origins, or even any kind of
chemist they has assumed (incorrecltly) that the formation of the
building blocks of lifewas so improbable that it could only have
happened once - where they had observed it.
Not being a chemist he assumed that it took like to produce organic
chemicals.
So they came up with this theory of panspermia, that life on Earth was
seeded from ouuter space. And that afterwards it evolved as anybody
else with an education knows.
They had no problem with evolution.
The bogus probability "argument" that the idiot "cites" was for
abiogenesis, not evolution.
Abiogenesis research has shown that given a wide variety of conditions
the building blocks of life occur naturally.
A useful link is
http://www.theharbinger.org/xv/970527/
He betrays remarkable ignorance of the fact that it simply built on
what had already happened. Which at that point in time has a priority
of 1.
He was arguing a strawman, because nobody pretends it happened all at
once, apart from dishonest creationists putting words in other
people's mouths.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
11 Oct 2005 10:18:12 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:0pkok1pododlnvi0vbnki9if5n8o8q0dpa@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:14:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<5HX2f.13832$Fc4.10332@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434C4631.1B2BB162@Hovnanian.com...
[snip]
Here's another thought: When asked to sign the statement
declaring their
skepticism about the evidence supporting Darwinism, I
wonder how many of
these people are actually willing to make the leap to
support
intelligent design?
How many of these people would be willing to sign a
statement requesting
examination of the evidence in support of ID?
That's not what you asked for, so your change
of subject and moving the goalposts is noted.
But 85 scientists have joined in an amica brief
in the Dover case supporting just that:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2907&callingPage=discoMainPage
Let's get those goal posts moving again.
What a bizarre brief:
"Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the
Kitzmiller
v. Dover trial asking the Judge to "affirm the freedom of
scientists
to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead" and
not limit
research into the scientific theory of intelligent design.
Not all the
signers are proponents of intelligent design, but they do
agree "that
protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for
intelligent
design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.""
There is absolutely *nothing* in that case that would
restrict
scientists from research regarding anything. There is
nothing that the
judge could do that would restrict or not restrict
scientific
research. I happen to agree that scientists should explore
any
scientific evidence, even if it pointed to design. So, I
ask you, what
evidence is there that could point to design? Not Behe's
claim that
something could exist that could point to something. Not
Dembski's
math waving that is evidence free. But scientific evidence
for design.
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 07:21:12 AM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is: remove an essential biochemical
step from the biochemistry of vision and you can't
see, or, to put it in a larger framework, take
out your liver and you can't live.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:45:13 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:21:12 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is:
Of course it isn't. Behe has been refuted.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:39:43 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:oq4qk1t7ruvpl9o7nk55mt8qknbbmkv0c2@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:21:12 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is:
Of course it isn't. Behe has been refuted.
No he hasn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:46:50 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:39:43 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:oq4qk1t7ruvpl9o7nk55mt8qknbbmkv0c2@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:21:12 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is:
Of course it isn't. Behe has been refuted.
No he hasn't.
Yeah, he has.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:43:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:39:43 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <zm83f.11788$wf6.2589323@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:oq4qk1t7ruvpl9o7nk55mt8qknbbmkv0c2@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:21:12 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is:
Of course it isn't. Behe has been refuted.
No he hasn't.
Have you read his works?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:41:02 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:e9fqk1db4g70p13oj4a66sqf8j64cs3i6r@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:39:43 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<zm83f.11788$wf6.2589323@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:oq4qk1t7ruvpl9o7nk55mt8qknbbmkv0c2@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:21:12 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is:
Of course it isn't. Behe has been refuted.
No he hasn't.
Have you read his works?
Yes, I have, including Darwin's Black Box, many
of his articles, and his answers to his critics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:11:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:41:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <y0b3f.12823$wf6.2602890@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:e9fqk1db4g70p13oj4a66sqf8j64cs3i6r@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:39:43 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<zm83f.11788$wf6.2589323@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:oq4qk1t7ruvpl9o7nk55mt8qknbbmkv0c2@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:21:12 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is:
Of course it isn't. Behe has been refuted.
No he hasn't.
Have you read his works?
Yes, I have, including Darwin's Black Box, many
of his articles, and his answers to his critics.
And, yet, you get the definition of irreducible complexity wrong.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:07:11 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ltgqk1h3nuafdpjstite8dq5fn2qc3alhp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:41:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<y0b3f.12823$wf6.2602890@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:e9fqk1db4g70p13oj4a66sqf8j64cs3i6r@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:39:43 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<zm83f.11788$wf6.2589323@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:oq4qk1t7ruvpl9o7nk55mt8qknbbmkv0c2@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:21:12 GMT,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity
of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is:
Of course it isn't. Behe has been refuted.
No he hasn't.
Have you read his works?
Yes, I have, including Darwin's Black Box, many
of his articles, and his answers to his critics.
And, yet, you get the definition of irreducible complexity
wrong.
Ah, no, I didn't get the definition of
irreducible complexity wrong. Behe's concept
of irreducible complexity is that certain
biological systems are complex to the point
where removing one of their parts means that
they will not work, and thus they could not have
evolved gradually, one component at a time.
Ergo, they could not have been the result of
the natural selection of random mutations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:27:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:07:11 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ltgqk1h3nuafdpjstite8dq5fn2qc3alhp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:41:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<y0b3f.12823$wf6.2602890@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:e9fqk1db4g70p13oj4a66sqf8j64cs3i6r@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:39:43 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<zm83f.11788$wf6.2589323@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:oq4qk1t7ruvpl9o7nk55mt8qknbbmkv0c2@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:21:12 GMT,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity
of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is:
Of course it isn't. Behe has been refuted.
No he hasn't.
Have you read his works?
Yes, I have, including Darwin's Black Box, many
of his articles, and his answers to his critics.
And, yet, you get the definition of irreducible complexity
wrong.
Ah, no, I didn't get the definition of
irreducible complexity wrong. Behe's concept
of irreducible complexity is that certain
biological systems are complex to the point
where removing one of their parts means that
they will not work, and thus they could not have
evolved gradually, one component at a time.
Ergo, they could not have been the result of
the natural selection of random mutations.
Translation: he is ignorant therefore something out of Christian
mythology did it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 10:42:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:07:11 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <3pb3f.12891$wf6.2603286@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:ltgqk1h3nuafdpjstite8dq5fn2qc3alhp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:41:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<y0b3f.12823$wf6.2602890@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:e9fqk1db4g70p13oj4a66sqf8j64cs3i6r@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:39:43 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<zm83f.11788$wf6.2589323@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:oq4qk1t7ruvpl9o7nk55mt8qknbbmkv0c2@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:21:12 GMT,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity
of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is:
Of course it isn't. Behe has been refuted.
No he hasn't.
Have you read his works?
Yes, I have, including Darwin's Black Box, many
of his articles, and his answers to his critics.
And, yet, you get the definition of irreducible complexity
wrong.
Ah, no, I didn't get the definition of
irreducible complexity wrong. Behe's concept
of irreducible complexity is that certain
biological systems are complex to the point
where removing one of their parts means that
they will not work, and thus they could not have
evolved gradually, one component at a time.
Ergo, they could not have been the result of
the natural selection of random mutations.
Removing *any* of the parts, not just that there is a part that can't
be removed without causing system failure. Of course, it is still
wrong. Systems can become IC because once redundant parts are
subsequently lost. Or something else in the organism changes. Or
something in the environment outside the organism changes. Or a part
gets more specialized over time and becomes essential. Or the function
of the system changes over time. Behe argues against a very restricted
concept of evolution, actual evolution works differently.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:25:52 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is: remove an essential biochemical
step from the biochemistry of vision and you can't
see, or, to put it in a larger framework, take
out your liver and you can't live.
Do you think that the 40+ different visual systems in living organisms occurred
in a single step?
Do you think that liver, as an organ, evolved in a single step?
Your thinking is (literally) backward.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 08:35:44 AM |
|
|
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:3r4h71Fhgm3aU1@individual.net...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is: remove an essential biochemical
step from the biochemistry of vision and you can't
see, or, to put it in a larger framework, take
out your liver and you can't live.
Do you think that the 40+ different visual systems in
living organisms occurred in a single step?
Do you think that the biochemistry of human
vision occurred one selected mutation at a time?
Do you think that liver, as an organ, evolved in a single
step?
Do you think that your liver can be removed
and you would still live? (I'm not discussing
it as an "evolved" organ, but rather your
biological self as an irreducibly complex
system.)
Your thinking is (literally) backward.
I'm sure it's not what you mean, but all
scientific thinking is literally backward,
especially in biology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 09:51:24 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:3r4h71Fhgm3aU1@individual.net...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is: remove an essential biochemical
step from the biochemistry of vision and you can't
see, or, to put it in a larger framework, take
out your liver and you can't live.
Do you think that the 40+ different visual systems in
living organisms occurred in a single step?
Do you think that the biochemistry of human
vision occurred one selected mutation at a time?
Provide evidence to the contrary.
Do you think that liver, as an organ, evolved in a single
step?
Do you think that your liver can be removed
and you would still live? (I'm not discussing
it as an "evolved" organ, but rather your
biological self as an irreducibly complex
system.)
Of course not. *You're* the one whose arguments require it to have developed on
a single step.
Your thinking is (literally) backward.
I'm sure it's not what you mean,
You can bet your ***** I mean it 100%.
but all
scientific thinking is literally backward,
especially in biology.
LOL! The next time you need a vaccination, get one from the televangelists :)
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 09:54:34 AM |
|
|
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:3r4m7dFht7o5U1@individual.net...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:3r4h71Fhgm3aU1@individual.net...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is: remove an essential biochemical
step from the biochemistry of vision and you can't
see, or, to put it in a larger framework, take
out your liver and you can't live.
Do you think that the 40+ different visual systems in
living organisms occurred in a single step?
Do you think that the biochemistry of human
vision occurred one selected mutation at a time?
Provide evidence to the contrary.
It's your theory; it's up to you to prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 10:41:06 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:3r4m7dFht7o5U1@individual.net...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:3r4h71Fhgm3aU1@individual.net...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is: remove an essential biochemical
step from the biochemistry of vision and you can't
see, or, to put it in a larger framework, take
out your liver and you can't live.
Do you think that the 40+ different visual systems in
living organisms occurred in a single step?
Do you think that the biochemistry of human
vision occurred one selected mutation at a time?
Provide evidence to the contrary.
It's your theory; it's up to you to prove it.
<http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/insight_into_ey.html>
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:43:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <Qi83f.11763$wf6.2588980@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:3r4h71Fhgm3aU1@individual.net...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is: remove an essential biochemical
step from the biochemistry of vision and you can't
see, or, to put it in a larger framework, take
out your liver and you can't live.
Do you think that the 40+ different visual systems in
living organisms occurred in a single step?
Do you think that the biochemistry of human
vision occurred one selected mutation at a time?
I think it occurred on mutation at a time, some of which were
selected. Why do you think that the biochemistry of human vision is so
similar to that of chimps? And almost as similar to that of capuchins?
And almost as similar to lemurs? Why is all of our biochemistry
similar to those animals and why in the same pattern?
Do you think that liver, as an organ, evolved in a single
step?
Do you think that your liver can be removed
and you would still live? (I'm not discussing
it as an "evolved" organ, but rather your
biological self as an irreducibly complex
system.)
Sorry, but that is not what irreducible complexity means. Pretty much
any system will fail if you remove enough parts. Behe made a better
claim than you do, though still wrong. At the very least read what
irreducible complexity means before you write about it.
Your thinking is (literally) backward.
I'm sure it's not what you mean, but all
scientific thinking is literally backward,
especially in biology.
Literally backwards? As in going from evidence to theory, not the
other way around?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 11:39:56 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:u2fqk1du5h5r6ptj8n2g96h926b0e72se2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Qi83f.11763$wf6.2588980@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:3r4h71Fhgm3aU1@individual.net...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is: remove an essential biochemical
step from the biochemistry of vision and you can't
see, or, to put it in a larger framework, take
out your liver and you can't live.
Do you think that the 40+ different visual systems in
living organisms occurred in a single step?
Do you think that the biochemistry of human
vision occurred one selected mutation at a time?
I think it occurred on mutation at a time, some of which
were
selected.
Then you believe in magic.
....
Do you think that liver, as an organ, evolved in a
single
step?
Do you think that your liver can be removed
and you would still live? (I'm not discussing
it as an "evolved" organ, but rather your
biological self as an irreducibly complex
system.)
Sorry, but that is not what irreducible complexity means.
That's what it means in terms of a human
body. Not in the sense that Behe uses it.
....
Your thinking is (literally) backward.
I'm sure it's not what you mean, but all
scientific thinking is literally backward,
especially in biology.
Literally backwards? As in going from evidence to theory,
not the
other way around?
No, in the sense that science is the reverse
engineering of the phenomena it concerns itself
with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:24:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:39:56 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <w%a3f.12816$wf6.2602831@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:u2fqk1du5h5r6ptj8n2g96h926b0e72se2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Qi83f.11763$wf6.2588980@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:3r4h71Fhgm3aU1@individual.net...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is: remove an essential biochemical
step from the biochemistry of vision and you can't
see, or, to put it in a larger framework, take
out your liver and you can't live.
Do you think that the 40+ different visual systems in
living organisms occurred in a single step?
Do you think that the biochemistry of human
vision occurred one selected mutation at a time?
I think it occurred on mutation at a time, some of which
were
selected.
Then you believe in magic.
No, evidence.
...
Evidence you just snipped out. Closing your eyes does not make it go
away.
Why do you think that the biochemistry of human vision is so
similar to that of chimps? And almost as similar to that of capuchins?
And almost as similar to lemurs? Why is all of our biochemistry
similar to those animals and why in the same pattern?
Do you think that liver, as an organ, evolved in a
single
step?
Do you think that your liver can be removed
and you would still live? (I'm not discussing
it as an "evolved" organ, but rather your
biological self as an irreducibly complex
system.)
Sorry, but that is not what irreducible complexity means.
That's what it means in terms of a human
body. Not in the sense that Behe uses it.
No, it is not.
"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of
several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and
where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to
effectively cease functioning."
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
The human body does not fit that definition. While removing the liver
would kill, removing a kidney or a finger, for example, would not.
....
Your thinking is (literally) backward.
I'm sure it's not what you mean, but all
scientific thinking is literally backward,
especially in biology.
Literally backwards? As in going from evidence to theory,
not the
other way around?
No, in the sense that science is the reverse
engineering of the phenomena it concerns itself
with.
Going from evidence to cause. That is how biology works and not how ID
works.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:25:12 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:nqgqk19tcsf260k43t05rj1h0qrqq291vn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:39:56 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<w%a3f.12816$wf6.2602831@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:u2fqk1du5h5r6ptj8n2g96h926b0e72se2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:35:44 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<Qi83f.11763$wf6.2588980@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in
message
news:3r4h71Fhgm3aU1@individual.net...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uf%2f.2211$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Prima facie, the specified irreducible complexity of
biological systems. It's right in front of you. If
you're so totally biased toward naturalism that you
can't see it, that's a philosophical barrier, not
a scientific one.
Again, is irreducible complexity prima facie?
Of course it is: remove an essential biochemical
step from the biochemistry of vision and you can't
see, or, to put it in a larger framework, take
out your liver and you can't live.
Do you think that the 40+ different visual systems in
living organisms occurred in a single step?
Do you think that the biochemistry of human
vision occurred one selected mutation at a time?
I think it occurred on mutation at a time, some of which
were
selected.
Then you believe in magic.
No, evidence.
That's my point; you have no evidence for the
magic of natural selection producing the
precise biochemistry of vision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism |
12 Oct 2005 12:47:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:25:12 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Then you believe in magic.
No, evidence.
That's my point; you have no evidence for the
magic of natural selection producing the
precise biochemistry of vision.
Why are so many fundamentalists such liars?
.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
