Posted on 01/15/2005 2:06:00 PM PST by Happy2BMe
1. Go to Yahoo Search
2. Type in "Chemical Evolution
3. Read
Now please, you're distracting me.
You don't know what evolution is and you don't know what a theory is.
http://www.ntskeptics.org/programs/2003/2003june/BehesBlackBox.pdf#search='Behe's%20black%20box'
Try it again! It's there! If I could copy and paste the info. I would but it won't let me.
Yeah, ok
All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system.b
b . Behe, pp. 77–97.
God never stepped aside. He is continuously guiding the process of evolution. What seem to us to be random mutations and changes in the environment are not radom from God's perspective.
What you seemed to choose to overlook is the fact there are many scientists and even evolutionists that not only disagree with you but disagree each other as well. This being the case, how do you choose which evolutionists to believe? Majority rules?
No. The scientific method rules. Those hypotheses that stand up to repeated empirical testing are those that get accepted.
And, BTW, the assertions in the book you quote are simply wrong.
Ok. At what point did God step aside to let evolution take over?
"God never stepped aside. He is continuously guiding the process of evolution. What seem to us to be random mutations and changes in the environment are not radom from God's perspective."
Is that example of the scientific method? Many evolutionist would dismiss your statement because it clearly isnn't!
"And, BTW, the assertions in the book you quote are simply wrong."
Now see that what scares me, that my kids might one day have a science teacher as close minded as yourself and who will blindly dismiss other scientists even other evolutionists because they don't fit your indoctrinated interpretation of the data!!
„Ï Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested. EVOLUTION IS RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE
- IMPACT No. 107 May 1982
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.228
A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, said that "belief in the theory of evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation", with evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature". 2 G.W. Harper calls it a "metaphysical belief". 3G.W. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolutiotism", School Scince Review (V. 51 Sep. 1979), p 16.
two leading evolutionary biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training". 1Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, Nature, Apr. 22, 1967, p. 352.
The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following conclusion.
In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. 8H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin (V. 31, n.d. 1980).
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". 10 In another address he called evolution "story-telling". 11Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". 10 In another address he called evolution "story-telling". 11
OUR KIDS HAVE A RIGHT TO THIS INFORMATION WITHOUT CENSORSHIP!!
You said:
Is that example of the scientific method? Many evolutionist would dismiss your statement because it clearly isnn't!
My reply:
No, the belief I describe above is not "an example of the scientific method.[sic]" It is a religious belief, that is impossible to prove or disprove using science. As such, no evolutionist has any basis upon which to dismiss it. In fact, many evolutionists hold it. The worst an evolutionist can say is that it is not scientific, which I fully aknolwedge. There is more to life than science. I hold the belief because I think the philosophical case for it is compelling, but I cannot prove it scientifically. If an evolutionary biologist wants to argue against it, that's fine, but he's stepping out of the realm of science and into the realm of metaphysics, which is not his area of expertise.
Regarding all your quotes, they're just assertions with no supporting evidence by people with dubious credentials. Frankly, I don't have time to carefully study what every crackpot has to say. Give me a real argument, and then I'll see what you have to say. And please, don't just cut and paste from a creationist website.
"Regarding all your quotes, they're just assertions with no supporting evidence by people with dubious credentials. Frankly, I don't have time to carefully study what every crackpot has to say. Give me a real argument, and then I'll see what you have to say. And please, don't just cut and paste from a creationist website."
Before I cut and paste some more, let me say this: Someone with dubious credentials might be someone like yourself. On what basis do you assert that the posted assertions are from scientists with dubious credentials or crackpots? How can you just make a blanket statement like that? Just stop and listen to yourself. There are an ever increasing number of scientists speaking out against evolution. The truth of the matter is that you don't know jack about their credentials!
DARWINS BLACK BOX: THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION
by Michael J. Behe
If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it, misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favor of the widespread suspicion that Darwinism today functions more as an ideology than as a scientific theory.
Peter van Inwagen
Professor of Philosophy, Notre Dame University
I am not a biologist. I have no credentials. That's why I don't expect anyone to accept my assertions based on authority. Thus I support my assertions with arguments, facts, and logic in the hopes that they will be convincing.
On what basis do you assert that the posted assertions are from scientists with dubious credentials or crackpots?
The quotes you supplied were merely assertions without any supporting arguments or fact. I don't accept anyone's unsupported assertions. I don't care what their credentials are.
Enough cutting and pasting. Enough quoting of assertion from supposed "authorities." I want arguments backed up with facts and logic, which you seem unable to supply.
"Enough cutting and pasting. Enough quoting of assertion from supposed "authorities." I want arguments backed up with facts and logic, which you seem unable to supply."
On what basis do you assert that the posted assertions are from scientists with dubious credentials or crackpots?
"The quotes you supplied were merely assertions without any supporting arguments or fact. I don't accept anyone's unsupported assertions. I don't care what their credentials are."
Your not caring what their credentials are has nothing to do with you stating with no basis that their credentials are dubious.
As far as arguments go, been there done that. If you want to go some more rounds on the same arguments or something new, let's hear it.
Cut and paste? You betcha! Saves time.
One was a physicist, the other a philosopher, and hence had dubious credentials. You cited the quotations of a couple biologists, whose credentials were not dubious, but given that they weren't even complete sentences, experience leads me to suggest they were taken out of context.
But more importantly, you weren't posting arguments. Only assertions, which carry zero weight.
Are you Canadian?
It is a THEORY because it can't be proved.
No. What led you to think so?
The Canadian flag.
Q.E.D.
"This is not to imply that we know everything that can and should be known about biology and about evolution. Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered. After all, biologic research shows no sign of approaching completion; quite the opposite is true. Disagreements and clashes of opinion are rife among biologists, as they should be in a living and growing science. Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution. Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975),
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
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.