Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
just direct me to that specific portion or portions of the actual record that you are referring to - PLEASE - if it's not too much to ask.)
I provided quotes and links to the complete testimony in my previous posts. If you need help learning how to search for phrases in a web page, let us know which browser you're using and we can help you.
But again, considering how you claim you're familiar with the testimony it's strange you'd need us to point you to it. Was your claim of reading it before not true?
Quote:
Again, you simply saying so doesn't automatically make it so. Where in the record does Behe supposedly make such a claim?
I provided quotes and links to the testimony in my previous posts.
Quote:
Are you saying here that Behe's book contains absolutely no information that is also contained in a peer reviewed journal?
No, I'm saying that despite his original claims, Behe later admitted his book was not peer reviewed. I provided quotes and links to his testimony in my previous posts.
Quote:
We haven't even established any of Behe's so called claims.
I provided quotes and links to the testimony in my previous posts.
I notice a theme in your response - ask questions then ignore the answer and ask again. What do you hope to accomplish with this process?
I'm guessing this isn't far from spiritual or metaphysical "evidence" - in other words, it uses the word evidence but has little to nothing to do with observations from the real world.
Quote:
Those lines of evidence operate by the same lines of reasoning that led Richard Dawkins (militant atheist and a very intelligent man) to concluded it is possible an intelligent designer, in the former of aliens, could have seeded life on earth with a life they designed.
So basically, speculation. There's not evidence for a god, just no conclusive reason to rule it out 100%. "But it isn't impossible in theory" is not evidence.
Quote:
At any rate... God would not be "nothing" in a sense, however, in terms of the chemicals on the periodic table I think we can rightly refer to God as "nothingness."
Observational evidence for this claim?
Quote:
And absent of chemicals... what does exist then?
Depends on what you mean by chemicals. For a decent bit of the early history of the universe, there weren't even atoms much less chemicals. But there certainly was something there.
I'm afraid this is just the limitation of human perception or 'Common sense' as Mystic phd so perceptively put it. Human common sense is one of the most perniciously misleading and unreliable methods there are for coming to conclusions about anything. Even if it is not based on ingrained prejudices, it is based on what we see, not on what is actually there. We think matter is solid. It almost all made up of empty space. We think a rainbow is 'there' but it is an illusion produced in our brains by wavelenths of light impinging on our retina. We don't think invisible rays are there. It took science to explain what radio, Gamma and X -rays were.
What you knows when you sees should be subjected to critical examination.
Indeed. Prejudicial subjectivity is not a basis for scientific testing. It was reminiscent of that famous quote for determining what is obscene. United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964).: "I shall not today attempt further to define [hardcore pornography] ...But I know it when I see it." This was ostensibly Oleg's test for ID.
Indeed. Prejudicial subjectivity is not a basis for scientific testing. It was reminiscent of that famous quote for determining what is obscene. United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964).: "I shall not today attempt further to define [hardcore pornography] ...But I know it when I see it." This was ostensibly Oleg's test for ID.
Ah. I see the point. While I may not agree with United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's views on pornography, he has been invested with legal power of judgement and I haven't. The point being that moral judgements such as pornography, or libel, or rape, or hate speech, where no helpful precedents have been set in law, are somewhat open to personal interpretation and since morality is relative, we have to try to arrive at a concensus.
ID, is quite different, as it purports to be a science -based theory and science is not open to concensus and no Justice in the world has competence (and few would even presume) to disagree with what scientific evidence had to say.
What this means is that, a human's view (even a Judge's) in what seems evidently intelligently designed order or sign of construction in the Universe, Life and Everything is invalid where it is not backed up by some scientific evidence.
This, ID undertook to do and this it has signally failed to deliver. Thus anyone who claims to know (by 'seeing it'- subjectively) ID in Bioforms or cosmic order or Physical laws is not only asserting without evidence, but asserting in spite of the evidence.
I provided quotes and links to the complete testimony in my previous posts. If you need help learning how to search for phrases in a web page, let us know which browser you're using and we can help you.
But again, considering how you claim you're familiar with the testimony it's strange you'd need us to point you to it. Was your claim of reading it before not true?
I guess the answer is no. I did say please while doing my best to be respectful....oh well...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
INo, I'm saying that despite his original claims, Behe later admitted his book was not peer reviewed. I provided quotes and links to his testimony in my previous posts.
...and I'm saying that this is a completely false representation of what Behe actually stated.
You say tomatoh and I say tomawtoh...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
I notice a theme in your response - ask questions then ignore the answer and ask again. What do you hope to accomplish with this process?
My "theme," if you will, is to try and discern whether or not there is any degree of truth in the various assertions and quote "quotes" of Behe's testimony that are being thrown about.
The obvious fact that it's taken so long so as to finally reach the point where the process can be accurately equated with pulling teeth speaks volumes.
I guess the answer is no. I did say please while doing my best to be respectful....oh well...
...and I'm saying that this is a completely false representation of what Behe actually stated.
You say tomatoh and I say tomawtoh...
My "theme," if you will, is to try and discern whether or not there is any degree of truth in the various assertions and quote "quotes" of Behe's testimony that are being thrown about.
The obvious fact that it's taken so long so as to finally reach the point where the process can be accurately equated with pulling teeth speaks volumes.
(...keep going, you're helping to make my point.)
So why don't you tell us how YOU interpret this excerpt from the transcript if not an admission by Behe's that his book was not peer reviewed.
Under cross examination Behe was obliged to admit that no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design's claims and that his own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed.
Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?
A I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally responsible for that section.
Q So you were reviewing your own work?
A That's -- yes, that's correct.
Q That's not typically how the term "critical review" is used; would you agree with that?
Looking forward to reading this.....
Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his PhD from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design.
'...Darwin knew that there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. During this event, the “Cambrian explosion,†many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock.'
Looking forward to reading this.....
Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his PhD from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design.
'...Darwin knew that there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. During this event, the “Cambrian explosion,” many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock.'
Horse hockey.....On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.
Regarding precambrian life.... There was lots of it, and by the way the cambrian period was no explosion and lasted around 40 million years.
Quote:
The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on Earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion," because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears. It was once thought that Cambrian rocks contained the first and oldest fossil animals, but these are now found in the earlier Ediacaran (Vendian) strata.
Horse hockey.....On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.
Regarding precambrian life.... There was lots of it, and by the way the cambrian period was no explosion and lasted around 40 million years.
As i've said Zelva, their information is outdated...And tben they make stuff up....
Tell me what it is that I have made up by pointing out how wrong Zelva is.....It is you folks that have out dated info...That is what little info you have. Read the article I linked to if you doubt me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
