Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- balboa0
"a key to the survival of christianity has been it's ability to co-opt popular things and make them seem like they were all part of the plan to begin with."
...kind of like Advertising?
Oh, and ID and Punk Rock are totally kindred... because ideologically Anarchy and Benevolent Infallible Overlords are identical, right?
double bleh.
- flagellum0
nonsense, mimio. now you're just being silly. Hundreds of scientists embrace Irreducible Complexity. It's a tested biochemical fact. Just remove a component from the flagellum, or a cell, or the blood clotting mechanism and watch it break. People just need to be educated about it. They don't understand it... like yourself.
- flagellum0
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_…
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/motor…
Ask yourself... why are advanced mechanical engineers being hired by biochemists and cellular biologists, just to try and understand these machines?
- Mimio0
I understand that there are plenty of natural/gradual explainations that are missing from Behe's observations. Lots of things in world that break when you dismantle them, common sense really. Under that presupposition humans are irreducibly complex.
- flagellum0
Tell:
- Scott Minnich
- Stephen Meyer
- Bill Dembski
- Jonathan Wells
- The over 500 people who signed the dissent list
- The however many other ID proponents in the scientific realm...that only Behe embraces IC.
- Mimio0
They're not biochemists. They the founders of the Discovery Inst. Which is part of your problem...they're all biased.
- flagellum0
mmm, nope mimio. Show me the conclusive research. Detail for me a viable tested Darwinian pathway from (I'll even give to free of charge) base protiens to a functional flagellum. Hasn't been done... can't be done.
And no, pointing to homologous components in other machines and systems, isn't going to cut it.
- flagellum0
oh good gawsh, mimio. That's it. I agree to disagree. Just wasting my time now. If you can't see that NS which would eliminate the very components needed to build a flagellum because it would have no immediate need for them and if you won't read the research on IC... then poo on you. ;)
You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing.
- Mimio0
Sorry I can't evolve one for you.
- ********0
some things can't be measured and when they can, they make no sense.
- flagellum0
exactly. Not even Darwin can. ;)
- ********0
the undesigned designer?
- Mimio0
No xenicon, it's magic that lies behind "irreducibly complex" machine. You see, the designer is made out of "irreducibly complex" machines too.
- mrdobolina0
but that is not what ID is trying to say, mimio. ;)
the next logical step is what? define the designer...
- ********0
mandelbrot set as argument?
- Mimio0
// It's easy to buy into ID if you just don't apply the same scrutiny that would to evoltuion.
- ********0
what about extinction? Kind of suggests a perverse perfectibility.
Magic. yup. Now you seen em, now you don't.
- flagellum0
it's the fact that people are applying long overdue scrutiny to Darwinism that it's coming up short. That's what this whole issue is about. Quite the opposite, mimio. If one actually takes the time to study the claims of ID, rather than regurgitate political rhetoric based in emotion, one will inevitably question and doubt NeoDarwinism.
- ********0
many massive extinctions or a great extinction, really has nothing to do with this and in fact would suggest that Uniformitarianism isn't correct and Catastrophism ruled the planet, which in turn supports Creationist thought.
- ********0
extinction supports creationism?
oxymoron