Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- Mimio0
They need to get their theory/model straight. That's a really fundamental disagreement.
- flagellum0
The core of the flagellum is Irreducibly Complex meaning it could not have been produced by Gradualism. In fact, NS would have prevented it because it doesn't see into the future to build a molecular machine, it would erradicate the components it didn't need. And with IC machines all parts are required simultaneously for it to function. All at once, or nothing at all. Pointing to homology of components as in the Type III transport system, only demonstrates design economy, it doesn't provide a Darwinian pathway of how the machine is built.
Don't get your "science" from the decidedly anti-ID, Wikipedia. ;)
- flagellum0
Show me where Behe disagrees, mimio? And what specific aspect of ID science does he say is unfalsifiable?
- mrdobolina0
answer the question.
- flagellum0
more on the flagellum and co-option canards...
- flagellum0
I've been born again for a very long time, mrdobs. I've only been familiar with ID for a couple of years.
- Mimio0
He said in his recent testimony that an intelligent designer is not falisifiable.
- mrdobolina0
how old are you?
- mrdobolina0
I am 33, by the way.
- flagellum0
I'd like to read his exact words, mimio. And there is a difference between saying the designer can be falsified and intelligent design and specificity can be falsified.
- flagellum0
35.
So respect your elder.
- ********0
33 here!
Larry Bird
- mrdobolina0
What line of work are you in, flagellum?
I am a web designer for a few newspapers and magazines. Trade publications mostly. Boring stuff.
- flagellum0
graphic design.
apologetics.
- mrdobolina0
The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines?
- DrHuxtable0
In short, NeoDarwinism is empty philosophy masquerading as science and it contains holes big enough to drive an intelligently designed truck through.
flagellum
(Jan 6 06, 08:39)Its funny how believers in ID act as if they are on to some "new" science. I find it especially cute when Darwin's Theory of Evolution is labeled as "steamboat era" science. I'm sure its been said before about ID, but I will state it again: a pig with lipstick is still a pig. You are just calling creationism something else and claming science is supporting it.
Crafty. Discipler, couple months ago I asked you to point me in the direction of some scientific papers supporting ID, and you tried. I read about 4 or 5 of them, and all I can conclude is that followers of ID are reinterpreting other peoples work. For example, someone publishes work which does not fit the evolution theory perfectly, the result is taken and twisted into meaning that there must have been a designer. Kind of shady if you ask me.
Where are the papers where people are attempting to prove the existence of a designer. Maybe I was not specific enough with my initial request. The links you provide do not show that. They simply steal others work, and claim it means something other than the author's stated meaning.
Scientific theories are just that, theories. No one takes these things as being absolute, and I don't beileve I was ever taught they were. Obviously there are large holes in evolution, but take away a designer and you have nothing to support your theory. Stating something is so complex that there has to be a designer is insulting really and waters science down. Science will not progress if this is going to be the thought process we adopt.
If ID is just so obvious, why is there a need to have to pass legislature to have it taught? The people who came up with the Big-Bang Theory certainly did not have to do this. They went to the lab and did there work ... until believers of ID start doing their own work, and not reinterpreting everyone else's, it is a joke.
- flagellum0
DrHuxtable... what?
You misunderstand what ID is. It can only point to specified complexity in biological systems and make the logical inference to a designing intelligence. Period. It can't say who or what the designer is. Learn more here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
For peer reviewed papers, go here:
- pavlovs_dog0
lol at a fucking flagellum...
ya why wonder the id whackos choose something wonder why only something so mocroscpoic?
fewer fossils to condernd with!
they used a similar argument for whales...
unitl paleontologists started diggins up fossils showing their clear dissention from land mamals...
after the flagella is argument is worn out, they'll move on to something else...
- mrdobolina0
apologetics: The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines?
- ********0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apo…
Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position
hahha ;)
ohh man you guys crack me up