Creationism education bills

[Frank M 181]

No. Sorry. Science has not tested such a claim; science cannot reproduce a flagellum employing the means which it claims took place to create such things. This is the product of your wishful thinking, and that places you - ironically - right where you disparage me for being.

 

And this is where your pathetic misunderstanding of science is so apparent. In order to prove that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, they don't have to reproduce a flagellum. All they have to do is prove that it functions with certain elements missing or with certain elements replaced with others, and they most certainly have done that. Any scientist will laugh in your face if you tell them that the only way you'll believe the human immune system or the flagellum or the blood clotting cascade or the eyeball is not irreducibly complex is to create such things in the lab.

 

You have absolutely no clue about what you're saying. Not one.

 

And you haven't posted one word from a single paper, because there are no words which support this incredibly heady claim you're making. You're far over-reaching the limits of Science in attempting to link it to an abiogenetic root. You will continue to sit here and claim otherwise, but there is no science which establishes anything more than migratory mutation (read: adaptation) of any component of the immune system, and the flagellum. I've already established that I believe that Evolution works insofar as adapting organisms in a changing environment. I've also gone so far as to say that I've always believed that these adaptations aren't random or accidental, but in fact programmed cellular functions. Shapiro and McClintock have been immense help in providing scientific foundation for these beliefs of mine, and they are beliefs which stand in stark contrast to the story that Darwinists have been peddling for well over 100 years.

 

Again, refusal to accept direct evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. I quoted directly from a paper that showed that the flagellum does in fact function with certain elements removed and/or replaced.

 

Keep covering your eyes, though.

 

I have no problem with their scientific prowess being questioned: what I have a problem with is people like you claiming you've proved them wrong, when you absolutely have focking not.

 

And you will not be allowed to get away with the claim.

 

I didn't have to prove them wrong. Their own colleagues and the lawyers in the Dover case did an admirable job of doing that.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I'm also coming to the conclusion that Mensa doesn't actually read any of our posts or links. He just skims through them and applies what he assumes what we or they say. It's starting to make sense as the reason why little of what he says makes any sense. Like the flagellum is IC for instance.

 

Ah! So you can post from one of Frank's many links where science can prove otherwise with something that goes beyond someone merely speculating that Behe or Dembski are wrong? I'd love to see that, considering that any and all language to that effect is merely speculative, and doesn't have the weight of testability that you claim ID requires to be legitimate.

 

You've painted yourself into a corner. You are now attempting to make an affirmative claim: you're now saying that Science can disprove one of the core ideologies of ID. That is not the case; I'm waiting.

 

I'll poke you in the eye further: you will deflect and run away from this direct challenge to you because this claim of yours IS NOT SUPPORTABLE.

[Frank M 181]

You think this actually disqualifies an attempt - you are redefining what is legitimate research. ID, and the theories within ID, are two different concepts. You're mixing concepts because it suits your rather base needs right now. It doesn't matter that a theory hasn't been established to the level of peer-review to this point. That a science requires time to mature doesn't disqualify it as science.

 

This is just a political move to attempt to shut down a threat.

 

I don't have to redefine it, it's already well defined. Peer review is an absolute must. Legitimate research has to go through the rigors of thorough peer review. Ask any scientist. Your guys publish books because it's easier. And that's their words, not mine.

 

Science requires time to mature? What kind of mindless gobbledygook is that?

[IMMensaMind 462]

And this is where your pathetic misunderstanding of science is so apparent. In order to prove that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, they don't have to reproduce a flagellum. All they have to do is prove that it functions with certain elements missing or with certain elements replaced with others, and they most certainly have done that. Any scientist will laugh in your face if you tell them that the only way you'll believe the human immune system or the flagellum or the blood clotting cascade or the eyeball is not irreducibly complex is to create such things in the lab.

 

You have absolutely no clue about what you're saying. Not one.

 

I'm not even asking for recreation. I'm asking for an airtight case which refutes the claim of IC for any of the specific systems mentioned as IC. You still haven't posted a god-damned thing, because the "science" behind it has more holes than the "science" employed by AGW fanatics.

 

You simply cannot disprove the core tenet of ID - and (funnily) it was said that it wasn't Science's job to do so.

 

Again, refusal to accept direct evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. I quoted directly from a paper that showed that the flagellum does in fact function with certain elements removed and/or replaced.

 

Keep covering your eyes, though.

 

 

 

I didn't have to prove them wrong. Their own colleagues and the lawyers in the Dover case did an admirable job of doing that.

 

I'm familiar with every word in that trial now. You can try to point out where they did so, but they didn't. They merely said that books contain information on the genetic progeny of the immune (and other) systems. But they did not cite any paragraph, phrase or research that disproves the concept of IC, and you're simply playing pufferfish to weakly attempt to make your claim bigger than it is.

 

As Behe and Dembski have said: you would end ID as a viable pursuit if you could actually do that. If you could actually do that, you would inexorably link the Science of Evolution with the Science of Abiogenesis and you - YOU, Frank! - you be the winner of the Nobel Prize.

 

But you cannot.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I don't have to redefine it, it's already well defined. Peer review is an absolute must. Legitimate research has to go through the rigors of thorough peer review. Ask any scientist. Your guys publish books because it's easier. And that's their words, not mine.

 

Science requires time to mature? What kind of mindless gobbledygook is that?

 

It's like certain hypotheses in quantum physics and M-Theory. It takes a while for it to gain momentum - or it goes away. It's like Hawking's Imaginary Universe theory: it'll either be substantiated, or it will go away (I bet the latter in that particular case; I think the postulate is flat out fabricated).

 

Don't worry: it's happening. There is lots of screaming and squealing to take place before such things, and you're helping!

[Frank M 181]

Again you make claims that aren't true. I've used the phrase "bridging the gap" because I believe it fits what Shapiro's research actually means. Anytime you refute a core ideology of Darwinism - the one which puts it at odds with Creationism - but you do it without impugning the concept of Evolution still as a viable process, you've bridged the gap between the two ideologies.

 

This is extremely plain; it's laughable that you continue to try to contest that merely because Shapiro himself didn't use the words. It doesn't matter to me what Shapiro chooses to say beyond his Scientific stricture. I'm not even sure it's worth attempting to prove that I'm right about the ramifications of this research, but I'll at least take a wave at it with you:

 

What gap exists between Creationism and Darwinism as you understand them?

 

So when you said

 

I believe I'm correct, but I continually attempt to post why using Shapiro's own words: he's the one who said that "we can now begin to bridge the gap between Christian and Darwinist".

 

...you lied. You admit you are a liar, yet you chastise everyone for intellectual dishonesty.

 

You are a hypocrite and a liar.

[penultimatestraw 473]

For, if we simply cease to exist sometime in the near future, then how can our actions have any meaning or purpose? Once we die, did it really matter whether or not we lived at all? We won’t have memories of our life, and our brief existence will be of no use to us at all. So how could it have been meaningful? We might as well have never been born.

 

So if you helped someone, invented something, had a child, changed the world through your work in some way, etc. while living, those things are meaningless after you die?

 

For, under the atheistic view, all of the universe will soon die out. 1 Once all life is gone and a dead universe is all that remains- what then can we say about our supposed meaning? Well, quite unfortunately, it dies out along with life. If the universe eventually dies out, then no action we make can possibly affect the end result of complete and total death.

I don't think atheists say anything about the entire universe dying out. And what is wrong with enjoying your life while ALIVE?

 

. Once we cease to exist, we will have no recollection of our lives. It will be like it never happened, just like the forgotten dream. But if the universe eventually ends as does our own life, then so too is all of life collectively a forgotten dream of no significance.

 

This is the same argument; the absence of an afterlife does not preclude a meaningful life or changing the world in a positive way which can persist after one's death.

 

A close analysis reveals that this type of argument cannot possibly overturn the problem of eventual (complete) death. Perhaps a person can create goals, strive to acheive them, and gain contentment both in the striving and in acheiving them. However, this does not overturn the problem of death. This person will still die and not remember his life, and the human race will still die and not remember this life nor remember his impact on society.

 

This is so egocentric and an extension of the last statement. Why does death obviate the process of living a happy, productive life?

 

Theism is in a good position to provide a meaning to life because it does not imply a lifeless universe in the distant future. Thus, our actions, thoughts, and beliefs can have an effect on the universe. Furthermore, many forms of theism (including Christian theism) maintain that our actions in this world directly or indirectly affect our afterlife. Thus, our lives are infused with tremendous meaning- because every choice we make could effect how we spend eternity. Furthermore, our choices could affect, for good or for worse, how other people spend eternity.

 

Christ, I am beginning to understand your repetitive, circular logic. This is the same argument with the same flaws. Life can have meaning without being eternal, both for the individual and those around him. It is only meaningless if your values are centered about the afterlife.

 

Why would one choose atheism when there is a chance that theism is correct?

 

This is a classic argument for religion, you can also use it for climate change: Pascal's wager

 

The reason I choose atheism is I cannot force beliefs that I think are false. You would think an omniscient being could detect "faking it" to attain the pearly gates. Yet I live a moral life by most religion's standards. I cannot believe a Creator would be so petty and self-serving that it would force me into eternal damnation because I did not believe in its existence - why would it matter if I lead a "good" life?

[Frank M 181]

I'm not even asking for recreation. I'm asking for an airtight case which refutes the claim of IC for any of the specific systems mentioned as IC. You still haven't posted a god-damned thing, because the "science" behind it has more holes than the "science" employed by AGW fanatics.

 

You simply cannot disprove the core tenet of ID - and (funnily) it was said that it wasn't Science's job to do so.

 

So when you said

 

No. Sorry. Science has not tested such a claim; science cannot reproduce a flagellum employing the means which it claims took place to create such things.

 

..you didn't actually mean that?

 

I mean, really, this post is like ten posts ago. You can't even figure out what you want from page to page?

 

I'm familiar with every word in that trial now. You can try to point out where they did so, but they didn't. They merely said that books contain information on the genetic progeny of the immune (and other) systems. But they did not cite any paragraph, phrase or research that disproves the concept of IC, and you're simply playing pufferfish to weakly attempt to make your claim bigger than it is.

 

As Behe and Dembski have said: you would end ID as a viable pursuit if you could actually do that. If you could actually do that, you would inexorably link the Science of Evolution with the Science of Abiogenesis and you - YOU, Frank! - you be the winner of the Nobel Prize.

 

But you cannot.

 

Then you are an idiot, because anyone who reads the transcript (and I have) can see that he was so far out of his league as to be laughable.

 

And again, I don't have to do any research into any aspect of this. It's been done, it's been cited, it's been used to discredit ID, and the judge in the Dover case and school boards all over the country realize this.

[Strike 6,023]

:lol: :lol:

[Frank M 181]

What gap exists between Creationism and Darwinism as you understand them?

 

It's stupid to argue with an admitted liar, but what the hell, I'm bored.

 

Creationism is religion, Darwinism is science.

 

There is no gap, they are two different things.

 

HTH, liar.

[penultimatestraw 473]

What does him being Christian - or whatever he claims to be - have to do with my response?

 

Meanwhile, some light reading explaining why theism is so much more meaningful than atheism.

 

I guess this was a non-sequitur?

[The Next Generation 11]

The reason I choose atheism is I cannot force beliefs that I think are false. You would think an omniscient being could detect "faking it" to attain the pearly gates. Yet I live a moral life by most religion's standards. I cannot believe a Creator would be so petty and self-serving that it would force me into eternal damnation because I did not believe in its existence - why would it matter if I lead a "good" life?

 

 

I'm an atheist, too. But, if there ever were proved to be a God I'd be OK with that. Just as it stands now, like you said, "I cannot force beliefs that I think are false." Also, as I have said previously, why would some Creator who is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc., or even just smart enough to create Man, Earth, the heavens whatever, demand that we pray to him and worship him? Makes absolutely no sense to me. To me, he would jsut be another being who is smarter/more talented than me. Hell, that's most people in this thread, apparently, and I damned sure ain't prayin' or worshipin' any of you!

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

I'm an atheist, too. But, if there ever were proved to be a God I'd be OK with that. Just as it stands now, like you said, "I cannot force beliefs that I think are false." Also, as I have said previously, why would some Creator who is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc., or even just smart enough to create Man, Earth, the heavens whatever, demand that we pray to him and worship him? Makes absolutely no sense to me. To me, he would jsut be another being who is smarter/more talented than me. Hell, that's most people in this thread, apparently, and I damned sure ain't prayin' or worshipin' any of you!

 

Yup, it really speaks to the human element in the creation of religion - we imagine gods with our own silly faults. I think an omnipotent being might think of us as we do an ant, meaning not much at all. We may step on one accidentally, kill one intentionally on occasion, but most of the time they don't even cross our minds. How insecure must the creator be to need us to worship?

 

I'd be OK if God exists, too. But why must he/she/it be so coy?

[OldMaid 2,135]

Wouldn't that fall under agnostic?

[Gepetto 1,454]

Yup, it really speaks to the human element in the creation of religion - we imagine gods with our own silly faults. I think an omnipotent being might think of us as we do an ant, meaning not much at all. We may step on one accidentally, kill one intentionally on occasion, but most of the time they don't even cross our minds. How insecure must the creator be to need us to worship?

 

I'd be OK if God exists, too. But why must he/she/it be so coy?

 

That's not a very good anaology. First off, you didn't create the ants. Second, it states in the Bible (God's Word) that God created man in his own image). So, if you could live forever, create anything, be all powerful, and created the entire universe, stars, galaxies, earth, wind, fire, water, plants, animals and people and you created the "people" in your own glorious penultimatestraw image and loved them, you probably would want them to care for you back and wouldn't just go around stepping on them because you actually do care.

[penultimatestraw 473]

That's not a very good anaology. First off, you didn't create the ants. Second, it states in the Bible (God's Word) that God created man in his own image). So, if you could live forever, create anything, be all powerful, and created the entire universe, stars, galaxies, earth, wind, fire, water, plants, animals and people and you created the "people" in your own glorious penultimatestraw image and loved them, you probably would want them to care for you back and wouldn't just go around stepping on them because you actually do care.

Fair enough. Then why does God make believers suffer? I know, Book of Job...

 

And no, I don't think an omnipotent creator would care what the created think or do. Or that he/she/it would be so vain to create things in his/her/its own image. Those qualities reflect insecurity and/or pride, neither of which are necessary if you know and can do it all. Which is why MMIAFN is not a god.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Wouldn't that fall under agnostic?

 

I am a "weak" atheist in that I do not believe in God. I have not entirely excluded the possibility that a higher being can exist, though I think the chances are exceedingly slim. A "strong" atheist asserts that God does not or can not exist. An agnostic doesn't know or thinks man does not have the ability to understand the nature of God.

[OldMaid 2,135]

I am a "weak" atheist in that I do not believe in God. I have not entirely excluded the possibility that a higher being can exist, though I think the chances are exceedingly slim. A "strong" atheist asserts that God does not or can not exist. An agnostic doesn't know or thinks man does not have the ability to understand the nature of God.

But wouldn't by you saying that you'd be ok if God did exist put you more into the category of not knowing, and therefore Agnostic? The reason I ask, is I find myself fitting more and more into this category and never quite sure which one to choose.

 

 

 

Also, could someone please call IMMentalMind a liar again? His reactions are priceless!

[IMMensaMind 462]

So when you said

 

 

 

...you lied. You admit you are a liar, yet you chastise everyone for intellectual dishonesty.

 

You are a hypocrite and a liar.

 

No, actually Frank: I'll grant you the leeway of assuming that you didn't see my explanation and apology to FeelingMN: I said I paraphrased what I read as Shapiro's meaning, and I used "" marks instead of '' marks. I did read the "bridge the gap" comment - probably from Perry Marshall's site - but it is immaterial, because what Shapiro's research does is bridge the gap.

 

That's why I asked you to define what you saw as the gap between Christian and Darwinist, to close the debate on whether Shapiro's work does exactly that (and I believe it clearly does).

 

I expect you to read and accept what I said about the phrase. I also expect you to be intellectually honest in establishing how you can logically disagree that Shapiro's work bridges said gap.

[Frank M 181]

No, actually Frank: I'll grant you the leeway of assuming that you didn't see my explanation and apologize to FeelingMN: I said I paraphrased what I read as Shapiro's meaning, and I used "" marks instead of '' marks. I did read the "bridge the gap" comment - probably from Perry Marshall's site - but it is immaterial, because what Shapiro's research does is bridge the gap.

 

That's why I asked you to define what you saw as the gap between Christian and Darwinist, to close the debate on whether Shapiro's work does exactly that (and I believe it clearly does).

 

I expect you to read and accept what I said about the phrase. I also expect you to be intellectually honest in establishing how you can logically disagree that Shapiro's work bridges said gap.

 

Unlike you, I'll use his own words:

 

I am a scientist and deal only in natural causes. So supernatural explanations of the type proposed by many ID proponents are excluded. However, there is a lot of information processing and decision making going on in living cells and organisms. And I have no problem with theories about how they may fit into the process of evolution so long as they can be tested experimentally.

 

 

Nobody believes it bridges any gap except you and your ilk. He's not saying that. In fact, he's saying the only things he considers are things that can be tested experimentally, not interpretations of his work, which is all you have because your "theory" ( ) cannot be tested experimentally.

 

What experiments have been done? Not interpretations of others' work, what experiments have IDers done to try to prove the concept of ID? What journals have these experiments been published in?

[IMMensaMind 462]

So when you said

 

 

 

..you didn't actually mean that?

 

I mean, really, this post is like ten posts ago. You can't even figure out what you want from page to page?

 

I keep forgetting. I'm dealing with a godless liberal, which means your mind doesn't work nearly as well as those who aren't. I can mean more than one thing at a time, Frank. I can simultaneously mean that which you highlight, and also say that Science cannot prove it through an airtight thesis either - only speculation.

 

Science can do neither. Meanwhile, you're jousting the only windmills that you can, because you cannot provide the proof that you claim exists.

 

It doesn't exist. Your whole argument here is run-on picking of nits because you cannot back your primary claim.

 

 

 

Then you are an idiot, because anyone who reads the transcript (and I have) can see that he was so far out of his league as to be laughable.

 

 

What's laughable is the incredible incapacity of the liberal godless brain of yours. I ain't working. Any reasonable person sees a lawyer with a bias cross-examining a witness. Lawyers who cross-examine try to make their witness look bad. It isn't hard at all to see that Behe answered the questions quite well. I am amused that you are so faith-based, Frank, while claiming you're not.

 

You actually believe on faith that Science has this answer to refute what Behe has said, and you continue to claim that you don't need to do the research!

 

And again, I don't have to do any research into any aspect of this. It's been done, it's been cited, it's been used to discredit ID, and the judge in the Dover case and school boards all over the country realize this.

 

Courts are infallible? Roe v. Wade was a court ruling, and it is now widely considered bad law. You're hanging your hat on a very shaky premise.

 

Behe is a biochemist @ Lehigh (IIRC): are we to believe that if Behe's claims were scientifically refuted, that Lehigh wouldn't have canned his ass?

 

 

You keep on keepin' on, Frank!

[IMMensaMind 462]

Unlike you, I'll use his own words:

 

 

 

Nobody believes it bridges any gap except you and your ilk. He's not saying that. In fact, he's saying the only things he considers are things that can be tested experimentally, not interpretations of his work, which is all you have because your "theory" ( ) cannot be tested experimentally.

 

Shapiro must believe it bridges gaps as well, as he mentioned the problem that exists with the duality of Creationism and Darwinism. You're just far too dense to discern what is being said. There is no other reason for Shapiro to bring up Creationism unless something in his research speaks to that ideology.

 

That is a very simple inference to draw.

 

Behe has already posited tests. I as well have linked a very basic test which establishes the mathematical probabilities of intentional design vs. accidental. That is a sound scientific basic upon which to draw inferences. It is done all the time, as has already been explained.

 

What experiments have been done? Not interpretations of others' work, what experiments have IDers done to try to prove the concept of ID? What journals have these experiments been published in?

 

Just because you don't like; don't know or dismiss the tests does not mean that they do not exist or are not legitimate. Something as simple as something which displays programming must have been programmed eludes your mind due to the ramifications, even though there isn't a single thing in all existence which disproves that.

 

You're big on Science only relying upon that which it can observe, even though examples of Science going well beyond the observable to create hypotheses are legion. Yet - here - we have a basic observation: everything that has been designed displays specified complexity. Everything that has been programmed has a programmer.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I guess this was a non-sequitur?

 

1) Do you think a Christian cannot enjoy/gain from such a reading?

 

2) Do you think such a link is only read by the person to whom the response is written?

[Franknbeans 46]

What examples from nature can you say can't be explained biblically?

the platypus

[IMMensaMind 462]

Fair enough. Then why does God make believers suffer? I know, Book of Job...

 

And no, I don't think an omnipotent creator would care what the created think or do. Or that he/she/it would be so vain to create things in his/her/its own image. Those qualities reflect insecurity and/or pride, neither of which are necessary if you know and can do it all. Which is why MMIAFN is not a god.

 

I wonder if you're so closed-minded as to be unable to see that the display of pride is actually one not being willing to accept the Nature of a God that he not only knows nothing about, but rejects the very existence of regardless, calling the chances "very slim".

 

Your God...is you.

 

Don't ever call anyone prideful again unless you lose that perspective.

[nikki2200 4]

I can't even figure out what point IMMinisculeMind is trying to make anymore. I don't even know how to respond. He's wandering and flailing all over the place.

 

First it was that ID was legitimate science as proven by the scientific discoveries of the world-renowned molecular biologist Perry Marshall, *cough* computer programmer *cough who apparently also likes to lie and distort the truth to make his point seem valid. Then it was all the ID research that Jim Shapiro was doing, which he wasn't actually doing and doesn't like it when people steal his work and use it to prove something he doesn't agree with. Then it was the irreducibly complex flagellum, which has been proven to be reducible. Then it was Behe and Drobeski, who have been outed as plagiarists and hacks. Then it was back to the reducibly complex flagellum. Then it was the un-evolvable immune system, which years of scientific studies have shown to be evolvable. Then it was that Christianity should be taught in school, because the Constitution doesn't say it can't be. Then it was atheists are bad, responding to a well-known board Christian (that one gave me a huge belly laugh). Then it was back to the reducibly complex flagellum.

 

He's reminding me of Alice in Wonderland.

 

"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.

"I don’t much care where--" said Alice.

"Then it doesn’t matter which way you go," said the Cat.

"--so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation.

"Oh, you’re sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

[IMMensaMind 462]

It's stupid to argue with an admitted liar, but what the hell, I'm bored.

 

Creationism is religion, Darwinism is science.

 

There is no gap, they are two different things.

 

HTH, liar.

 

It's so plainly obvious that you're answering this way in order to insulate your position from reproach - so I'll force-feed you:

 

Both Christians and Darwinists have beliefs wrt Evolution: Shapiro commented upon Creationists being unwilling to grant acknowledgement to Science for its gains and leaps in knowledge; he criticized Darwinists for their likewise rigid refusal to abandon the doctrine of catalytic random mutation (as this is the metaphysical core of the belief atheists hold - whether they know and acknowledge it or not).

 

Shapiro:

 

It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than

ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the

Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species

displaying exquisite adaptations...

 

Any pig-headed twat understands that he's wading into the waters that ID skulls: ID claims to be able to address scientifically those questions which were previously only ideological. That is why I hold the position that I do; that is why you cannot stop posting.

 

You're afraid. You've said more times than is necessary in more ways than are appropriate that I'm wrong, even though nothing I've said can be proven wrong Scientifically, and - instead - can be induced logically (which is a Scientific exercise).

 

Now you can claim here that Shapiro's work has nothing to do with any CENTRAL ISSUE which is HOTLY CONTESTED between Creationism and Darwinism, but I'll call it like it is: you're FOS if you're in denial of this.

[OldMaid 2,135]

I think he's off his lithium...

[IMMensaMind 462]

I can't even figure out what point IMMinisculeMind is trying to make anymore. I don't even know how to respond. He's wandering and flailing all over the place.

 

First it was that ID was legitimate science as proven by the scientific discoveries of the world-renowned molecular biologist Perry Marshall, *cough* computer programmer *cough who apparently also likes to lie and distort the truth to make his point seem valid. Then it was all the ID research that Jim Shapiro was doing, which he wasn't actually doing and doesn't like it when people steal his work and use it to prove something he doesn't agree with. Then it was the irreducibly complex flagellum, which has been proven to be reducible. Then it was Behe and Drobeski, who have been outed as plagiarists and hacks. Then it was back to the reducibly complex flagellum. Then it was the un-evolvable immune system, which years of scientific studies have shown to be evolvable. Then it was that Christianity should be taught in school, because the Constitution doesn't say it can't be. Then it was atheists are bad, responding to a well-known board Christian (that one gave me a huge belly laugh). Then it was back to the reducibly complex flagellum.

 

He's reminding me of Alice in Wonderland.

 

"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.

"I don’t much care where--" said Alice.

"Then it doesn’t matter which way you go," said the Cat.

"--so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation.

"Oh, you’re sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

 

Hey trout-smelling skank: Perry Marshall didn't prove sh!t, you idiot: Perry Marshall linked to James Shapiro and Barbara McClintock. They have provided the evidence. Marshall simply provided an analogy to dumb it down for the likes of you - and he clearly didn't dumb it down enough.

 

You cannot even focking hook up a basic TV.

[nikki2200 4]

You're afraid.

 

 

Why do you keep saying everyone is afraid? I'm assuming you mean we are all afraid that the existence of god could be real. Afraid of what? That there may be a God/creator/designer/aliens? Why would anyone be afraid of that? Isn't that a good thing? Do they tell you in church the reason people don't believe in god is because they are afraid? I don't even understand the logic in that. Isn't it a little bit scarier to go through life not believing there is a higher purpose, and you are solely responsible for your outcome, and there's no happily ever after in eternity, and when your loved ones die, they are just gone? Are these things not scarier than believing the opposite? Is this not why people cling to religion in the first place, because they would be scared living the way I just described?

 

Explain what you think everyone in here is afraid of.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Shapiro:

 

 

But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

 

Are you a Darwin advocate, Frank?

[nikki2200 4]

Hey trout-smelling skank: Perry Marshall didn't prove sh!t, you idiot: Perry Marshall linked to James Shapiro and Barbara McClintock. They have provided the evidence. Marshall simply provided an analogy to dumb it down for the likes of you - and he clearly didn't dumb it down enough.

 

You cannot even focking hook up a basic TV.

 

 

Oh it was dumb alright. I understood it. I just thought his leap from cells behaving intelligently to the obvious conclusion that there must be a designer ludicrous and indicative of the fact that he has absolutely no understanding of science. And his use of MS-DOS to prove it had me giggling for at least a few days every time you brought up that stupid ass blog. I think McClintock is dead or I would e-mail her too, but Shapiro does not even see his own work as providing evidence for intelligent design. Will you stop focking misquoting him and putting thoughts in his head and words in his mouth?

 

If I remember correctly.... you couldn't figure out the "basic" TV either you window licking caveman. A real man came over and helped me with it. You're really grasping now. These meltdowns make it so much worth it to keep on trucking.

[OldMaid 2,135]

I think you've got it backwards, Mental... Fear is what religion revolves around-fear of what will happen to you and your soul if you DON'T believe.

[nikki2200 4]

The Flagellum Unspun

The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity

 

The link is in page 18.

 

The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms allow biological systems to increase in information content (Schneider 2000; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).

 

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

 

 

The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex IMMushforBrains. It is a scientific fact. STOP SAYING IT IS.

 

[nikki2200 4]

I think you've got it backwards, Mental... Fear is what religion revolves around-fear of what will happen to you and your soul if you DON'T believe.

 

 

Miss me?

[Frank M 181]

I keep forgetting. I'm dealing with a godless liberal, which means your mind doesn't work nearly as well as those who aren't. I can mean more than one thing at a time, Frank. I can simultaneously mean that which you highlight, and also say that Science cannot prove it through an airtight thesis either - only speculation.

 

Science can do neither. Meanwhile, you're jousting the only windmills that you can, because you cannot provide the proof that you claim exists.

 

It doesn't exist. Your whole argument here is run-on picking of nits because you cannot back your primary claim.

 

WTF?

 

Again, you make no sense.

 

 

 

 

What's laughable is the incredible incapacity of the liberal godless brain of yours. I ain't working. Any reasonable person sees a lawyer with a bias cross-examining a witness. Lawyers who cross-examine try to make their witness look bad. It isn't hard at all to see that Behe answered the questions quite well. I am amused that you are so faith-based, Frank, while claiming you're not.

 

You actually believe on faith that Science has this answer to refute what Behe has said, and you continue to claim that you don't need to do the research!

 

He looked like a first year grad student taking Immunology 101. A lawyer, whose expertise one might expect to be the law, tears apart a scientist, whose expertise one might expect to be, oh, I don't know, SCIENCE, on his supposed area of expertise? The carnage was laughable.

 

I continue to claim that the research to refute what he says has been done, I linked to said research, and all you can say is it doesn't exist.

 

So, the only way you'll consider the validity of this research (which has already been done, as I have claimed and linked to) is if I do the research and report back to you?

 

 

Courts are infallible? Roe v. Wade was a court ruling, and it is now widely considered bad law. You're hanging your hat on a very shaky premise.

 

Behe is a biochemist @ Lehigh (IIRC): are we to believe that if Behe's claims were scientifically refuted, that Lehigh wouldn't have canned his ass?

 

 

You keep on keepin' on, Frank!

 

You do understand the concept of tenure, do you not?

 

Here is Lehigh University's statement on the matter:

 

 

 

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

 

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

 

 

 

Suck it, fool!

[OldMaid 2,135]

Miss me?

Of course, but that trout smell is another thing entirely!

[Frank M 181]

Shapiro:

 

 

 

 

Are you a Darwin advocate, Frank?

 

Of course. Any rational person is.

 

And I have repeatedly said that if there is true, peer reviewed research proving the concept of ID to be valid, I would consider it.

 

There isn't any, and there doesn't seem to be any coming down the pike. But again, as I said, I wait anxiously to read whatever paper comes out of research of this type.

[nikki2200 4]

 

 

Suck it, fool!

 

Meh.... They're just afraid. It is their fear speaking. Please disregard what they said.

[Frank M 181]

Meh.... They're just afraid. It is their fear speaking. Please disregard what they said.

 

 

Apparently we all are.

 

Actually, the one thing I'm afraid of is that Mensa might eat a bullet after this 20 + page flogging. He even had to pull out the godless liberal card because nothing else was working. Even KSB deserted him.