Posted on 09/15/2009 8:09:13 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The fossil record reveals a history of life characterized by the abrupt appearance of new species followed by no change and eventual extinction in most cases. Needless to say, abrupt appearances and no change is not exactly what evolution expected. Much of this was known in Darwin’s time and he figured that the fossil record was incomplete. Today such speculation doesn’t work anymore. The evidence reveals even more clearly this pattern of abrupt appearances followed by stasis.
--Snip--
As in Darwin's day, the fossil record does not match evolutionary expectations and evolutionists have been trying to solve the riddle. How can the empirical scientific data be explained by evolution? One new idea is to have the recently discovered microRNAs do the heavy lifting...
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
I am not addressing others. I addressed one in particular in post 19. I haven't gotten a coherent answer. My replies are my way of passing time, rather like plinking, until the answer is given. I understand that it may not be given, but unlike what you imply as chasing a tail, my fingers will not "run out of breath".
Cool, so there was context to your childish posting. There is context to my postings also but you didn’t attempt to address the context of my discussion with Buck. Do you have an opinion? Do you agree with Buck that creationists/IDer’s claim that life is too complex to investigate? Do you believe that irreducible complexity means that since we can’t figure out how it got here, so we’ll just say that that’s the way it was designed? Anything?
“IT’S GROUNDHOG DAY!”
Yes, I agree. However, whe one is called a liar (me), one responds.
Irreducible complexity makes no mention of design.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><
Irreducible complexity is the cornerstone of Michael Behe’s concept of intelligent design.
The notion of irreducible complexity provides the basis for the argument that the eye, for example, has components that could not have evolved independently. Hence, its irreducible complexity.
So while you may be correct the concept of irreducible complexity can be seen as philosophical and completely independent of the concept of intelligent design, for Behe, at least, intelligent design is wholly dependent on irrreducible complexity.
Do you notice the irony? You are saying intelligent design is irreducibly complex if you agree with what you say is Behe's premise.
One did not respond. One danced around one’s false premise. The post in question is clearly a false representation and you knew it when you posted it. How would you define a lie?
Did you misunderstand what you posted? You claim not to have misunderstood. If you had simply misstated, you had plenty of time to correct the misstatement. You did not. Instead, you compounded it with a false definition.
I’m missing the irony. Since I don’t agree with Behe’s conclusion (irreducible complexity is his conclusion, not his premise), I am not guilty of saying that intelligent design is irreducibly complex. Intelligent design is a concept. Irreducible complexity is said to be an attribute of biological organisms, not concepts. At least in the context of biological evolution.
Do you quarrel with my exegesis of Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity? And how it relates to intelligent design?
Thank you for waiting until today to resume posting, as I directed. No, you are incorrect. There was no lie.
Have yet another nice day!
More cowardice.
Then you don't understand my point.
Since I don’t agree with Behe’s conclusion (irreducible complexity is his conclusion, not his premise),
Well, this is what you stated and you will note that it is not a proof so therefore it is a premise to some sort of logical argument.(or nothing at all)
for Behe, at least, intelligent design is wholly dependent on irrreducible complexity.
Again that is not a proof, that is your assertion of what looks like a premise for Behe. --- "intelligent design is wholly dependent on irrreducible complexity". And that assertion is "irreducibly complex" since it is plainly stated that intelligent design cannot exist apart from irreducible complexity.
Do you quarrel with my exegesis of Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity? And how it relates to intelligent design?
Show me his actual statement and I might discuss it further. At the moment all I see is an assertion of what you say Behe thinks. As I previously stated, the "notion" of Behe about irreducible complexity makes no mention of intelligent design. You can his view of irreducible complexity on talkorigins.org
Show me his actual statement and I might discuss it further.
_______
Chuckling. Sorry, I thought I was discussing the issue with someone with knowledge of Behe. I don’t really see where it is my place to educate you on the topic of intelligent design as seen by Behe. You apparently want first hand sources, so why not pick up the book, read it, and then we’ll discuss at your leisure.
I don’t need to go to talkorigins to see what Behe thinks about ID. I have his book.
You're not going to get away with that. Put your money where your mouth is. Show me exactly what he stated if you want to discuss what he stated. Otherwise you can keep your fantasies to yourself. It is pretty simple, show me the citation. I heard the same thing from someone claiming that the Wedge Document was marked "Top Secret". I said show me, because the only reproduction I had seen of it was sans marking. Needless to say, the asserted document has not been produced. And I this point I would seriously suspect any image presented as the purported document to be "photoshopped".
I don’t need to go to talkorigins to see what Behe thinks about ID. I have his book.
Well, then it should be a walk in the park for you to cite paragraph and page of the Behe quote which makes the assertion you mentioned, "for Behe, at least, intelligent design is wholly dependent on irrreducible complexity. "
I made a statement about Behe’s notion of intelligent design/irreducible complexity that is easily verified (or not) by one so inclined.
As in the very easy to find article (copyrighted even), http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_philosophicalobjectionsresponse.htm, penned by Michael Behe in 2000.
In it, Behe writes “In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design.”
You good, now?
No, I must terminate this discussion and all others for the immediate future, due to personal problems.
GGG, metmom, and editor-surveyor I need your prayers. My mother is gravely ill. I will not be participating for a while.
God bless you all, Andy
Certainly.
Prayers going up!
My thoughts and prayers go out to you, your dear mother, and your family. Would you mind if I pinged the list and asked them to keep you and your family in their prayers?
God bless you and yours—GGG
I’m not sure if I will hear back from AndrewC any time soon, so I am taking the liberty of informing the list. Please see #115, and please keep dear AndrewC and family in your prayers.
God bless—GGG
I join in earnest prayer for your mother and for you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.