Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

In his new book, Behe acknowledges that the theory or irreducible complexity no longer stands against current research. What he was showing was too simplistic and gave too much leeway. The real situation, based upon the latest research is far more complex and less possible than "Darwin's Black Box" indicated. He has updated the information in the new book. There is a new more precise way of determining the feasibility of a mutation based upon the work of three other scientists.

You need to keep up with the times! :D

---

For a review of Behe's new book, Edge of evolution, see Powell's Books - Review-a-Day - The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael J. Behe, reviewed by The New Republic Online. This book is no better than Darwin's Black Box. Also ID is Creationism wrapped in a new name, as the review will show, if you care or have the gumption to read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deist

For a review of Behe's new book, Edge of evolution, see Powell's Books - Review-a-Day - The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael J. Behe, reviewed by The New Republic Online. This book is no better than Darwin's Black Box. Also ID is Creationism wrapped in a new name, as the review will show, if you care or have the gumption to read it.

---

I took the time to actually read the book rather than just reading a couple of reviews of it.

I stand by my statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I took the time to actually read the book rather than just reading a couple of reviews of it.

I stand by my statements.

---

Of Behe's theories, in a 2005 ruling made against Behe, Judge John E. Jones, a churchgoing republican, ruled that Intelligent Design is not only unscientific, but a doctrine based firmly in religion. So much for Behe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deist

Of Behe's theories, in a 2005 ruling made against Behe, Judge John E. Jones, a churchgoing republican, ruled that Intelligent Design is not only unscientific, but a doctrine based firmly in religion. So much for Behe.

---

You are changing the subject. I already said that I disagree with some of his conclusions, and specifically with respect to what he says regarding Intelligent Design. However it is hard to discuss with you if you have only read reviews and don't know what he actually said.

The fact is that there are many scientists trying to sort out the answers, but the one thing that the evidence is showing is that macro-evolution is in deep trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

You are changing the subject. I already said that I disagree with some of his conclusions, and specifically with respect to what he says regarding Intelligent Design. however it is hard to discuss with you if you have only read reviews and don't know what he actually said.

The fact is that there are many scientists trying to sort out the answers, but the one thing that the evidence is showing is that macro-evolution is in deep trouble.

---

Could you give us an example please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuMegu

Could you give us an example please?

---

Due to time / space constraints, I am going to have decline on that at the moment, at least going through it in any detail, because the explanations get fairly involved into the DNA makeup and how the proteins interact with each other - and to be honest, I don't think that I could compress the explanations and do it justice.

Let's not use it for the basis of an argument just at the moment then :) I am always happy to comment on actual material, not just hearsay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuMegu

Let's not use it for the basis of an argument just at the moment then :) I am always happy to comment on actual material, not just hearsay.

---

Buy the book or go to a library. I'd scan it but that is illegal.

So many books, so little time!

I wish you well convincing people without a single example to refer to!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuMegu

So many books, so little time!

I wish you well convincing people without a single example to refer to!

---

Thank you... I don't know how much you have gotten into micro-biology, but if you have ever managed to cross paths with it, you would understand the conplexity.

On the other hand, we could turn this around quite easily and ask the cilia on a single celled animal evolved. That gives you an opportunity to provide an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel5

Hahaha...."ignorance in the name of science doesn't justify lack of evidence"
The mere fact that you keep on mentioning i have no clue about theories of evolution that exist suprises me. And again you say I claim God did this and that, while in all of my questions i have clearly stuck to scientific and "logical" statements.

And trust me, Its more logical to believe u were created by a being far superior than you than to believe you formed from a single celled algae via series of accidents coined up by the term "EVOLUTION"

This so called evolution, gave you a symmetrical body, a single skull , cavities, organs lined by membranes, a brain that has billions of neurons with specific functions. And above all the ability to reproduce. Yes, its easier to believe in evolution..................NOT! rofl

---

Based on the questions you have asked, it indicates you do not understand the fundamentals of science, the scientific method, or evolution. I do not have the time, nor the patience to explain it all to you, especially since it will make no difference. I could type until my fingers fall off, and there would be no change to your method of thinking. I'd rather not waste my time and instead continue with my initial assertion that you need to pick up a science book, not a "science" book. If you would like, you can put a tick mark in the "win" column for this one - I'm through.

About Behe... been there, done that, chased a fundie off the site because of it. If anyone would like to read the argument which ensued in regards to Behe, please see the link below. Start on about page 10.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...highlight=behe

You will learn all sorts of fun stuff, like how Behe admitted in open court that his findings were not peer reviewed, that you must believe in god to accept his claims, and most wonderfully, that he changed the definition of "theory" so it would fit his claims. To me, this makes anything and everything he says worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

You will learn all sorts of fun stuff, like how Behe admitted in open court that his findings were not peer reviewed, that you must believe in god to accept his claims, and most wonderfully, that he changed the definition of "theory" so it would fit his claims. To me, this makes anything and everything he says worthless.

---

I looked and saw nothing relating to this, but let's look at a quote from Behe regarding one of your claims:

"Now, I am keenly aware that in the past few years many people in the country have come to regard the phrase "intelligent design" as fighting words, because to them, the word "design" is synonymous with "creationism", and thus opens the door to treating the Bible as some sort of scientific textbook (which would be silly). That is an unfortunate misimpression." (Michael Behe, Pg.166, The Edge of Evolution)

Now I disagree with Behe on that point, but I post it because I see so many folk mis-representing what Behe said about ID - I do believe that science clearly shows that God is the creator, and I have a science background. In fact I used to believe in evolution and the evidence in science for creation was a surprise to me at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

did God do it?

---

From a scientific point of view? Who knows... if I said God did, would you prove to me scientifically that he didn't? LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I looked and saw nothing relating to this, but let's look at a quote from Behe regarding one of your claims:

"Now, I am keenly aware that in the past few years many people in the country have come to regard the phrase "intelligent design" as fighting words, because to them, the word "design" is synonymous with "creationism", and thus opens the door to treating the Bible as some sort of scientific textbook (which would be silly). That is an unfortunate misimpression." (Michael Behe, Pg.166, The Edge of Evolution)

Now I disagree with Behe on that point, but I post it because I see so many folk mis-representing what Behe said about ID - I do believe that science clearly shows that God is the creator, and I have a science background. In fact I used to believe in evolution and the evidence in science for creation was a surprise to me at the time.

---

Page 10, post #95 explains all of my claims. I should know, I wrote it. The claim that intelligent design and creationism aren't the same thing is ridiculous. I'm curious to know how you think they are different, actually...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Page 10, post #95 explains all of my claims. I should know, I wrote it. The claim that intelligent design and creationism aren't the same thing is ridiculous. I'm curious to know how you think they are different, actually....

---

I see you making claims, but that is all that I see. Anyone can make claims.

BTW, I agree with you that Intelligent Design means that God created - that is one area where I disagree with Behe, but the quote from Behe does not support your claim said that you must believe in god. Indeed, if you read the book, you will see that he refutes that idea in detail.

BTW, Behe also dealt with this point in "Darwin's Black Box" on page 196, so he has been consistent. Here he says:

"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Page 10, post #95 explains all of my claims. I should know, I wrote it. The claim that intelligent design and creationism aren't the same thing is ridiculous. I'm curious to know how you think they are different, actually....

---

Creationism and intelligent design are the same thing! Gosh! I can't believe your even arguing about this!

And the more you study microbiology the more you understand why intelligent design is the only logical explanation for why humans exist!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Based on the questions you have asked, it indicates you do not understand the fundamentals of science, the scientific method, or evolution. I do not have the time, nor the patience to explain it all to you, especially since it will make no difference. I could type until my fingers fall off, and there would be no change to your method of thinking. I'd rather not waste my time and instead continue with my initial assertion that you need to pick up a science book, not a "science" book. If you would like, you can put a tick mark in the "win" column for this one - I'm through.

About Behe... been there, done that, chased a fundie off the site because of it. If anyone would like to read the argument which ensued in regards to Behe, please see the link below. Start on about page 10.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...highlight=behe

You will learn all sorts of fun stuff, like how Behe admitted in open court that his findings were not peer reviewed, that you must believe in god to accept his claims, and most wonderfully, that he changed the definition of "theory" so it would fit his claims. To me, this makes anything and everything he says worthless.

---

Fundamentals of science? And what is this "science" book that you keep on bringing up? Hahaha... let me see, let me see!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I see you making claims, but that is all that I see. Anyone can make claims.

BTW, I agree with you that Intelligent Design means that God created - that is one area where I disagree with Behe, but the quote from Behe does not support your claim said that you must believe in god. Indeed, if you read the book, you will see that he refutes that idea in detail.

BTW, Behe also dealt with this point in "Darwin's Black Box" on page 196, so he has been consistent. Here he says:

"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer."

---

Am curious here... So what does intelligent mean? Nature's intelligence? Humour me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel5

Am curious here........So what does intelligent mean? Nature's intelligence? Humour me.

---

This is where I disagree with Behe. I believe that it must mean God and that it is illogical to conclude otherwise.

He concludes that the intelligence is un-identified and that it is not necessary to identify the source of the intelligence. To that degree he is correct, from a scientific point of view. But then he suggests that there could be another intelligence out there that set things rolling (i.e. a scientist larger and more powerful than us, performing a science experiment and set out our universe and triggered it to start).

The first and most obvious problem that he fails to address is where did that intelligent being come from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

There is a new book out which describes once again the scientific evidence against macro-evolution. It is "The Edge of Evolution" By Michael Behe, a leading scientist in the field. he is not, a creationist, but the book is of great value in demonstrating from scientific viewpoint, based upon the latest research findings, that macro-evolution is not possible.

---

Macro evolution is actually more believable than micro evolution. I wonder if darwin had any idea we passed down genetic information equaly during mitotic division? LOL