|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report") | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
And the flaw you see is very common in creationists - because science does not support creation. And if it is equally common in the other side it is hard to tell because the science does support evolution. Paulk I got another one of those stupid questions. If evolution does not begin until after life is on the planet earth what is it doing in the same sentence with creation which equals beginning? Science does not support the singularity yet. Science does support the Genesis 1:1 creation with the same exact observations made that you guys claim supports the big bang theory. Enjoy "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
If god is as or more complex than humans, then it is not true that god does not need a designer since if humans are too complex to arise without a designer, then god being more so is even stronger evidence of an uber-designer that created god. Why does God have to have a designer? When all Evo debaters have to say is singularity is. It did not have to come from an absence of anything nor did it have to come from somewhere or something it is just a point in spacetime. GR does not make sense at this point so to ask where it came from is like asking what is north of the north pole. How about we explain God the same way. LOL You believe that, and want us to explain God to you.
Exod 3:14 (KJV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. God said: "I AM THAT I AM" that is everything that has been, is, or ever will be.
Colo 1:17 (KJV) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. This says He was before all things. It also says by (word translated by could have been translated in, by, or through) Him all things consist. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...Definition of consist= archaic a : EXIST, BE b : to be capable of existing. So this says everything exists in God The Son. That brings me to the most interesting piece of Design that I can think of.
THE UNIVERSE The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
The trouble with the Hot Big Bang model is the trouble with all cosmology without a theory of initial conditions: it has no predictive power. Because general relativity would break down at a singularity, anything could come out of the Big Bang. So why is the universe so homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale yet with local irregularities like galaxies and stars. And why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely. In order to be as close as we are now the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less by one part in 10^10, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10^10, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find some physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is. Dr. Hawking said: quote: If the rate of expansion had been off by 1/100 billionth of a second the universe would have lasted a few million years but not enought time for life.
Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely. I take it from this statement we are just that 1/100 billionth of a second from one of these fates. That is amazing when you look at the precision everything is moving with. And especially when you think of all the different speeds everything in the universe is traveling at. But I am not sure all this was designed. I know that God The Son made it and in Him it has its existence so He holds everything where it is supposed to be. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Percy,
I was just asking a question. Then I thought I gave an answer to Rrhain but he did not understand it. Then I compared God to singularity. He did not understand that. It appears I did not articulate what I was trying to say very well. As far as me arguing ID I am not sure I even entertain the idea of ID. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Rrhain,
Thanks for answering my question.
Now, answer the question I put forward: Sorry that you did not understand my answer to your question.
quote: ICANT writes: God said:Exod 3:14 (KJV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
"I AM THAT I AM" that is everything that has been, is, or ever will be.
Colo 1:17 (KJV) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
So this says everything exists in God The Son. If everything that has ever been, is or ever will be exists in God The Son I would dare say that God is about as far above man as man is above a grain of sand. Upon further review while proof reading a question poped into my mind. If God is all matter, all energy, all knowledge, all everything, would God be complex? With my finite mind I would have to say yes. But if I had an infinite mind my answer would be no. But I have never argued for ID. In fact I gave an example of what I would consider design. The universe in which we live. Then said I was not sure that was design as God The Son holds everything in place.
So why are you trying to use relativity, which says nothing about cosmogenesis, to answer a question regarding cosmogenesis? Sorry that you took this:When all Evo debaters have to say is singularity is. It did not have to come from an absence of anything nor did it have to come from somewhere or something it is just a point in spacetime. GR does not make sense at this point so to ask where it came from is like asking what is north of the north pole. to be using GR to answer a question regarding cosmogenesis. That statement is things I am told by Evos about singularity when I ask where it came from. I was comparing singularity to God. For Singularity to produce the universe it had to come from something somewhere. Where did that something come from So now we have an infinite regression of singularities. My question was and is,why can we not apply the same to God? "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Percy, I have a question about this statement:
he knows that only a tiny proportion of scientists accept ID, yet he falsely argues there is a controversy within science How many scientists would it take to make it a controversy. An illustration.Percy lets say I pastor a church with 50 voting members. In business meeting I propose we do something, the vote is 48 for and 2 against. We do the project but these 2 members keep bringing up the project as they are still opposed to it, they just will not shut up. These 2 members make it a controversy even though they are only 4% of the voting membership. It would still be a controversy if there was a thousand voting members. But you would pay less attention to it. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
One loudmouth may make a controversy of sorts - So are you saying one loudmouth, Behe could make a controversy in science. However small it might be. Considering the attention this thread is getting I think he creates quite a controversy. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
You must modify your illustration if it is to be consistent with reality. OK so all I have to do is exclude them from my membership and then they are not voting members and I can say there is no controversy in the Church. But Percy you said and this is what I was getting at:
yet he falsely argues there is a controversy within science Yet him and everyone that holds any notion of ID have been ostracized from the congregation. Now before I say another word let me say I know a lot more what you believe than I do about what Behe believes. I do know enough about Behe to think I would disagree with at least 60% of what he believes, and that is just from skimming.
But let's just assume for the sake or argument that I'm wrong to deny that there's a controversy within science. Let's say there's actually a tremendous controversy, My point is if there is a controversy however small it might be he is not putting forth false information. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Behe makes a controversy of sorts. But it isn't really within science, since science has decisively rejected his arguments. His views are not worth teaching in science classes for that reason. So there is a controversy of sorts. Not an absence of controversy of sorts. So you say his findings are not fact and should not be taught in a science class. I agree if they are not fact they should not be taught. By the same token I don't think anything that is not fact should be taught in a science classroom. Question: Is singularity a scientific fact? Is abiogenesis a scientific fact? "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Let me clarify.
ICANT writes:
So you say his findings are not fact and should not be taught in a science class.
That is not what I said. I said that they are not SCIENCE and should not be taught in a science class. So Behe's findings are not scientific fact therefore should not be taught in a science class. My question was is abiogenesis a scientific fact?
Paulk writes: Since there is life now and all the evidence indicates that there was a time when there was no life I suppose some form of abiogenesis must have happened. Does life existing make abiogenesis a scientific fact? I asked, Is singularity a scientific fact?
Paulk writes: It is a fact that if you use General Relativity to "rewind" the history of the Universe then you will get to a singularity. The Big Bang itself is solid scientific fact. If, therefore, you want to use the word "singularity" to refer to the earliest state of the universe (which is a loose usage but seems to be often done) it makes sense. I did not ask about TBB. I was refering to the point that GR breaks down and can not tell us anything. Is there anything that is a scientific fact beyond GR breakdown? I am trying to be very specific because of the next question I want to ask after these 2 questions are answered. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Please don't try to fish for the answers you want. I did not think asking point blank questions was fishing for answers. I am sure not getting any. The 2 proposed questions as I see it has four possible answers. Yes, No, I don't know, or I don't care. Seems your answer was the last one. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
ICANT writes:
So you say his findings are not fact and should not be taught in a science class.
Paulk writes: That is not what I said. I said that they are not SCIENCE and should not be taught in a science class. ICANT writes: So Behe's findings are not scientific fact therefore should not be taught in a science class. Those are your words, not mine. Explain what they (findings) are not science means if it does not mean that the facts he presented are not scientific. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
He has arguments, and not very good ones. Not findings. Whatever his findings or arguments are for whatever he believes they can be no worse that the arguments I have heard for and about singularity and abiogenesis. There are arguments for both but neither has been proven and probably never will be. Those 2 are no more a fact of science than whatever it is Behe is pushing if it is false. Why do they get to make the science classroom when they are not fact? But what Behe is pushing is not allowed because it is not fact. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Because they, in fact, are fact, Only in your mind. Do you care to furnish the information to back up that assertion. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi AdminNosey,
Can we take the big bang and abiogenesis to another thread. TBB was not a question. Singularity and abiogenesis was. My reason for asking the questions was that they are taught in a science classroom. They are not a fact of science. They are notions, and beliefs. Behe's clotting, flagella Is notions and beliefs. My contention is that if Behe's notions and beliefs do not belong in a science classroom then singularity and abiogenesis do not belong in a science classroom. Then they all would belong in a philosophy class. I do know that singularity and abiogenesis is being taught as fact by some teachers that do not know better, or either do and don't care since it is their belief they teach it as fact anyway. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Archer,
First we're told a 'controversy' exists among scientists. When it's established that none does, If we stick our heads in the sand and say there is no controversy then there is no controversy. Paulk Message 71One loudmouth may make a controversy of sorts -
Percy [msg74]But let's just assume for the sake or argument that I'm wrong to deny that there's a controversy within science. Let's say there's actually a tremendous controversy, and that scientists have actually come to blows over the issue at scientific meetings and conferences. It is still less than 1% of scientists who accept ID, and most of these are not practicing biologists. Maybe 1% would not make a controversy. But if there is that much controversy I don't see how you could say there is NO controversy. I thought no controversy would mean everybody is in 100% agreement.
we're told a 'monopoly' exists. You did not deny that a monopoly exists. But lets face the truth, either you are in the brotherhood or you are on the outside. To be in the brotherhood you are not allowed to speak against what the brotherhood believes to be the truth.
The cure for both? Teaching religion in science classes, of course. Lets get one thing straight this pastor does not think religion should be taught in a science classroom. I have never advocated or even suggested so. If Behe's notions and beliefs is religion it does not belong in the science classroom. Neither does a lot of the notions and beliefs of a lot of other scientist (which becomes their religion) that are being taught in the science classroom as a fact of science. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024