FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-15-2003, 09:49 AM   #1
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Snyder,Texas,USA
Posts: 4,411
Default For Kuglo

Hi, Kuglo, and welcome! I liked your exchange with Behe - you might want to go to Antievolution.org , introduce yourself, and post it there as well. I think you would be very welcome there.
Coragyps is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 11:08 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Thumbs down IDiots are reproducing...

The problem is, Kuglo, that you haven't said anything that Behe hasn't likely heard already. And to be honest, at the rate IDiot arguments are evolving, there are internet IDiots with more of a clue about what Behe means by "irreducible complexity" than Behe himself. What you are likely to get by screaming at a man that he is wrong, wrong, wrong, every other post, is a few short replies, and an excuse not to continue the dialogue. Wait. I think that's exactly what happened. :banghead:
Principia is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 11:20 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Default

LOL, Clay... going straight into the IDiot stronghold, already? Dude. Chill.
Principia is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 11:22 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Default

Well, we might as well keep a record of what was posted:
Quote:
I don't know why Dembski and others in his camp continue to press evolutionists for an "explanation" of how things like flagella arose. The worst case scenerio for an evolutionist is that every single codon to for the flagella alleles mutated randomly all at once. Evolution doesn't _have_ to be gradual. It's just a matter of how likely a given mutational step between a parent and offspring is. The probability of flagella genes mutating in one single macro-mutation event might be small, but they are obviously greater than zero. And there is no other known process besides normal non-intelligent mutative processes, that can even in _theory_ cause such a thing.
Dembski believes in intelligent design. The onus is on him to demonstrate any verifiable processes which are both intelligent and have a propensity to create things like flagella DNA. Until he and/or his constituents provide this there is no need of any explanation other than mutation/selection for any observed biological feature. The intelligent design argument is so ridiculously illogical its a wonder that prominent scientists feel the need to provide evolutionary explanations for them.
For a more elaborate exrpanation of the holes in the ID argument see my debate with Michael Behe at:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=47942
And count how long it lasts at ISCID.
Principia is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 07:17 PM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western U.S.A.
Posts: 293
Default

The burden of proof is getting passed around like a hot potato.
gcameron is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 05:23 AM   #6
KC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Narcisco, RRR
Posts: 527
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by gcameron
The burden of proof is getting passed around like a hot potato.
And certain people's hands haven't even gotten warm.

KC
KC is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 01:23 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lawrence, KS, USA
Posts: 11
Default Burden of Proof

Mutations are observed. Natural selection is also observed. We've satisfied our burden of evidence. Creationists haven't, period.
Kuglo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:00 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.