Remove this ad
avatar

anthropal

Valued Member

Posts: 1,846

#21 [url]

Jun 18 13 3:52 PM


I have addressed this elsewhere on this thread.  If my comments do not resolve your concerns, please inform me accordingly. 

-greylorn

Yes, I noticed. It appears you were both sharing notes at the time of preparing your book.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

anthropal

Valued Member

Posts: 1,846

#22 [url]

Jun 18 13 4:10 PM

Another concern I have is how both Paul and yourself appear to rely heavily on Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity".

As with my discussion a few months ago with some equine scentists on the "irreducible complexity" of the hoof; yes, in a simple way it is correct that if you take away one component then the hoof is useless. My explanation though was that millions of years ago horses had three or four toes, and got along quite well, but today they have lost much of those components and still get along quite well.

The reason is quite simple and refutes "irreducable complexity" quite well. One of them then hit me with the moustrap analogy, asking what have you left if you take away the latch. You have quite a good paper clip, I replied, and a doorstop if you use the base as a wedge. Even the latch can be made into a hook and the spring mechanism has many other uses. The point is that a moustrap without those components is useless as a mousetrap, but it is not useless in other ways. So it was with ancient horses, three toes were advantageous in a forested environment, and taking away two toes would make survival difficult in that environment; but not in a plains environment where speed was advantageous.

As can be seen with just those simple explanations, Behe's "irreducible complexity" has serious flaws and ignores the known mechanisms of evolution, which explains why this work is not published in the scientific literature. This goes also for Dawkins and his anti-deity books.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

LeforaGuest

Probationary Member

Posts: 0

#23 [url]

Jun 18 13 6:06 PM


You have done no such thing, and your performance here to date has been execrable. The next time you make a claim like this without showing that you have done so will be your last appearance here. And no, I will not read your book. If you can't do it in your own words, in summary fashion, then you have proven yourself to be a fraud.

You still speak Creationese - "Darwinism"? Really? You either tackle what Darwin said directly, and show how it is wrong, or you tackle modern evolutionary biology, and show how it is wrong. But I will not permit you to waffle back and forth, ducking and weaving, avoiding all that Anthro and I say.
Your time is short. Better make the best use of it.

-richw9090

I'm doing what I can.   Perhaps if you can offer a strategy for playing basketball one against two, where the two opponents are also the referees, one of whom ignores any balls of mine that make it to the net and instead boots them into the sidelines and then introduces a new ball of his own, I might do better on this skewed court.  As is, the best I can do is survive until the head official declares that I've lost the game he refused to play according to his own rules. 

Do you ever wonder why, after several years, your blog has fewer than 200 members, none of them with minds capable of addressing threads such as this?  If so, consider the effects of threatening and bullying upon human thought. 

While you are about it, kindly offer me a strategy for dealing with a game in which the rules are changed at the outset by my opponents,  For example, this thread, in which you changed my OP to suit your own agenda.  That is just plain wrong. 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

anthropal

Valued Member

Posts: 1,846

#24 [url]

Jun 18 13 6:49 PM

Greylorn, I may have a solution to your dilemma here. This forum is a stickler for scientific rigour, which makes it difficult for those presenting new ideas.

You will note on the right hand sidebar that we also have a Sister Site called Nature or God. I inherited the site after the founder became ill and had to retire to a location with limited internet access. I have set the forum up with different categories for spirituality, science, politics and general discussions, etcetera. You may find it a more amenable site in that there are boards for many different viewpoints, including the General Board which is a lot more lenient as to rules, as long as there is a general politeness with not too much aggression.

I have left the door open so all you have to do is apply and you are in, which also goes for Paul if he wishes. There are members there who are atheist, agnostic, religious and spiritual, from different walks of life including the sciences. At times it can get rough, but that is just the way of these forums.


Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help