God's warriors
- Started
- Last post
- 703 Responses
- Mimio0
Why peer review non-science and opinion? He actually be held accountable for the ridiculous arguments he's making. He's basically saying that 70+ years of genetic proofs by thousands of scientist are incorrect.
- flagellum0
Brookoioi: Here is the peer-review:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
In the Edge of Evolution, the calculations are already established. The data is simply being coherently presented. You should know this, if you've read it. It is all mainstream data that has been available for quite some time.
The trouble with peer-review is the people on the review boards are the Coynes, Millers, etc... who a priori reject Intelligent Design. So you see, the system is corrupt from the very upper echelon.
- Brookoioioi0
thats basically my point Mimo, ridiculous isn't it? But when people like Discipler insist it's some kind of cutting edge science one feels obliged to ask...
- Brookoioioi0
peer reviewed by the discovery institute. Laugh laugh laugh....
So it is the lizard men again....
- flagellum0
Ah Mimio, yet another person commenting on a book they haven't read. How honest.
Behe demonstrates, with hard experimental data, that darwinian mechanisms are limited to trivial adaptive changes which ultimately break things in the organism. They can do nothing more. The experiments show this.
- flagellum0
oh how dishonest you are, brookoioi (of course I don't expect any better of you). It is easy to see the peer reviewed publications in the list there which have no relationship to the Discovery institute.
When in a panic any tactic will do, though, right?
- gramme0
Gramme: i have read your posts and that is your best argument so far.
Brookoioioi
(Aug 27 07, 08:02)Well, I suppose we are all entitled to opinions. I do have one question for you: IF, hypothetically, creationism could be honestly proven to be the only correct answer to where we and everything else comes from, would you buy it?
If Darwinism could be proven to be the correct answer, I would buy it. However I don't think that's possible in a world that requires evidence and sound logic.
I will admit that creationism, while in my opinion the most sensible of the two prevalent answers to causality, cannot be absolutely proven outside of the realm of philosophy, since nobody was there to watch it happen. The same can be said of Darwinism. There are too many holes in the fossil record and too many philosophical retardations in that theory for it to be worth a damn. I think, in general, that rationalists who refuse to buy creationism and all that it implies will follow any notion that seems to have a halfway-decent explanation to the origin of matter and life. Anything to provide another explanation.
- Brookoioioi0
But no peer review of the mathematical data in his latest book? Just some odd references to second rate publications.
The lizard men in the upper echelons must be suppressing this breakthrough for there scaly purposes.
- flagellum0
Mutations break things. However, on occasion, with huge probabilistic resources, a broken thing can promote survival in a specific environment (e.g., bacterial antibiotic resistance).
But broken things represent a downhill process, informationally, and cannot account for an uphill, information-creating process, not to mention the machinery required to process that information.
Understanding this is not difficult, unless one has a nearly pathological commitment to the notion that design in the universe and living systems cannot possibly exist.
- Mimio0
I didn't say I read it, I'm just familiar with his ideas. You do the same with Dawkins et al,.
- Brookoioioi0
Yes and Double yes.
It would be so easy for God to prove his own existence, it'd only have to do it once and 'poof' this argument would disappear.
- gramme0
^ and thus they become hypocrites in the temple of rationalism (continuing my last post)
- flagellum0
i'm sorry Brookoioi, but you are now speaking out of your anus more than usual. Had you read the book (and i'm not glad you are admitting that you have not) you would know that Behe cites confirmed, established mathematics (most of which is elementary and quite easily confirmed) to show the clear limitations of Darwinism.
Again, this is why the responses to the book amount to ad hominem and outright lies. What else can dishonest people do when confronted with the facts?
- Mimio0
Or maybe some evidence of the "intelligent designer" existence. Talking about faulty mechanisms and absent evidence.
- Mimio0
It's basically ID's answer to "gentic drift" and "gene flow". Both of which are very sound concepts and mechanisms. For those playing along at home look into it.
- flagellum0
Mimio: You would have to have your head in the sand to not see the evidence for design which screams from every direction. From the dizzying machinery in the cell, to the specified programming code in the cell, to novel body plans, to human consciousness... yes, nature is replete with evidence. You just have a pre-commitment to a universe without design.
- flagellum0
I'm afraid genetic drift fails miserably as it is not a sufficient mechanism for the generation of novel information. This is the basic No Free Lunch argument. Such novelty has never been experimentally shown to purchased information, sans intelligent input. And you've got a loooong way to go with generating information before genetic drift can even occur. You've put the cart before the horse.
- flagellum0
but I suspect you are using terms you don't quite understand.
- gramme0
flagellum, I see your point, however I don't think telling Brookoioioi that she(?) is speaking out of her ass is exactly helping our cause. Just my 2¢.
Brook, God came to earth in the flesh, told people who he was, and most people didn't believe him. Unfortunately he decided for a laundry list of reasons not to stick around in the flesh for more than 33 years.
Even if he was here still, in the flesh and not just in spirit, I seriously doubt it would be a cut and dried as you imagine. Most people would still find reasons for disbelief. It's what we do best. Unfortunately we must all put our faith in something, it's impossible for us to not worship. Nothing will be proven to the logical, empirical mind until the end comes and all truth is laid bare. Thus we all believe in som things and don't believe in others. A lack of faith in one direction automatically means faith in the positive skewing towards another direction.
- CALLES0
200