Boston Marathon explosions......

[One Brow]

I just love when Darwiniacs use general claims about "numerous scientists" after I specify a scientist. Here is some specific scientists who admit Cultists don't have a scientific refutation for Behe.
...
Irreducible complexity ain't about speculation. It is Darwin's own test to disprove his theory. If you don't have such a test or refuse to acknowledge such a test has failed then you stop being science based and become religion based.

Behe's claim is that a a certain construct is impossible to develop. The only needed refutation is a demonstration of a possible chain. That many exist, and we don't know how to choose among them, is just gravy on that. Your quotes that we don't have probable steps or complete understanding are irrelevant. We have multiple possibilities.

Evolutionary theory has moved beyond Darwin. Just because Darwin thought a test was valuable doesn't mean he was right. You're the one stuck on Darwin, not us.

 

[PearlWatson]

And to add to this:

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify

Sorry PW, not sure how you can believe in it if Behe admitted himself that it is just a theory with no scientific background.

"Behe" is a trigger word for culties. They freak out and denounce ID theory even though I wasn't talking about it in context to Behe.

What you are saying about "peer reviewed articles" is like asking a Muslim to get himself published in the Mormon Ensign to show his fitness as a prophet follower.

Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Francis Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Stokes, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Pauli wouldn't be allowed a "peer reviewed" article either since they were God-believers not accident believers.

 

[MVP]

I realize that the Darwin cult has denied that Darwin's theory was disproved. That is why I call them Darwiniacs: people who cling to a non-disprovable pseudoscience.

I just love when Darwiniacs use general claims about "numerous scientists" after I specify a scientist. Here is some specific scientists who admit Cultists don't have a scientific refutation for Behe.

.

Do you really need names? List may be to long to display here.

Behe dos not do science. Sorry but science progresses, learns new things, and discards the old when it is found to be false. Of course, if Behe did this with his material, he would have nothing left. So he is stuck with "theory about evolution" to support religious claims.

 

[PearlWatson]

With regard to the flagellum, Matzke laid out one possible path by which it could have been constructed.

https://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

This has happened with every example Behe has proposed. Within a couple of years, someone points out that it's not at all impossible.

Every little bit some Cultist proposes a different miracle...or "only" 1 major miracle and 4 minor miracles...to explain a "possible" path:

Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events.

The use of "invoked" and "cooption event" is all the more amusing because the culties consider Darwinian accidents the very essence of science.

 

[MVP]

PW - just admitt that Behe is not a scientist.
A real scientist looks at all the evidence and then forms a conclusion, and leaves the supernatural out of it. Science is the study of the natural world, and has nothing to do with supernatural nonsense.

There's also the little fact that he embarrassed the hell out of himself in court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case. He got spanked, was shown to be "lying for Jesus" on several occasions, and the court ruled "ID" is religion and not science. Behe has lost all credibility.
Why would anybody in the world would still believe this guy?

 

[PearlWatson]

PW - just admitt that Behe is not a scientist.
A real scientist looks at all the evidence and then forms a conclusion, and leaves the supernatural out of it. Science is the study of the natural world, and has nothing to do with supernatural nonsense.

There's also the little fact that he embarrassed the hell out of himself in court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case. He got spanked, was shown to be "lying for Jesus" on several occasions, and the court ruled "ID" is religion and not science. Behe has lost all credibility.
Why would anybody in the world would still believe this guy?

A Biochemist ain't a scientist? Okay.

I laugh at your claim he was "spanked" because he admitted that he published his scientific findings in a book rather than a "Darwin Cultist reviewed" article.

But Behe's ID theories have no baring on his disproving Darwin's theory, but I do giggle over your statement that the "court ruled ID is not science."

The actual ruling retardedly claimed the following statement was considered "establishing a religion" and prevented the teachers from reading it:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.​

But really the Judge Jones ruling is as meaningful to what constitutes science as the O.J. Simpson Jury's verdict is to his innocence.

If our goal is to keep religion out of government school classrooms Darwinism is what has to go.

 

[One Brow]

Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Francis Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Stokes, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Pauli wouldn't be allowed a "peer reviewed" article either since they were God-believers not accident believers.

The majority of scientists that publish in peer-reviewed journals, and scientists generally, are God believers.

 

[One Brow]

Every little bit some Cultist proposes a different miracle...or "only" 1 major miracle and 4 minor miracles...to explain a "possible" path:

All of the sugested changes are quite ordinary. No miracles.

The use of "invoked" and "cooption event" is all the more amusing because the culties consider Darwinian accidents the very essence of science.

The changes are accidents. The cooption is selection, and therefore not an accident. I have no idea why you think "invoked" is relevant.

 

[One Brow]

PW - just admitt that Behe is not a scientist.

Behe was a very good biochemist for a couple of decades.

 

[MVP]

So what biochemist is doing trying to pretend to be a biologist/evolutionist? He may be a decent at teaching chemistry but his idea about ID is ridiculous and has no scientific background.

 

[MVP]

The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

ah... the infamous book which is a laughing stock for anybody who has any education in biology/evolution/paleontology. I knew it was going to surface in this discussion sooner or later.
Are you claiming it has any scientific value?
Even in your own country it was dismissed as a joke. Country which is most religious from all western countries.

On December 20, 2005, the US District Court ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature and the board's requirement endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes unconstitutional on the grounds that its inclusion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[MVP]

I laugh at your claim he was "spanked" because he admitted that he published his scientific findings in a book rather than a "Darwin Cultist reviewed" article.

Ok, so our understanding of science is different I guess. I do not want to repeat again what science is, but Behe did no science with his ID speculation.
Evidence leading to conclusion is science. Not knowing how it works and saying it is to complicated and putting it on supernatural is religion.