Discussion from "Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#881  Postby hotshoe » Jan 22, 2011 7:51 pm

Царь Славян wrote:By promoting theism you a promoting a certain vorldview. And you are certainly promoting another worldview by promoting atheism. Ideas have consequences. If you promote the idea that there is no God, then by definition you promote the idea that there are no objective moral values, thus you are promoting moral relativism. By negating one idea, a different one automatically follows. If it's not night, then it's either noon, evening, morining or day.

(color mine, of course, for clarity)

Aww, I feel sorry for your poor foot after you took such careful aim and shot it off yourself.

Note the inherent contradiction in your highlighted sentences. First you claim that there is a forced dichotomy, where negating the idea of god automatically promotes moral relativism -- then in the very next breath, you demonstrate that negating one idea can lead to a whole host of other possibilities.

You should get help mopping up your blood. I'm sure your god will be happy to help you.

In other words, your orgulous and vacuous assertion can be dismissed, as I requested a significant reference.
No, you can't dismiss it, becasue that's my definition.
:shock:

I'd like to introduce you to Humpty Dumpty:
When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.


You and he will get along just fabulously. :cheers:
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#882  Postby Scar » Jan 22, 2011 7:55 pm

This is especially hilarious given the fact that Dumbski himself has long since given up on pretending he wasn't arguing for religion.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 32
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#883  Postby Rumraket » Jan 22, 2011 8:11 pm

Scar wrote:This is especially hilarious given the fact that Dumbski himself has long since given up on pretending he wasn't arguing for religion.

Haha, yes I forgot : http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/are_we_at_all_surprised.php

"In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God's time) and chronos (the world's time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors. " - William A. Dembski
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13113
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#884  Postby hotshoe » Jan 22, 2011 8:18 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Scar wrote:This is especially hilarious given the fact that Dumbski himself has long since given up on pretending he wasn't arguing for religion.

Haha, yes I forgot : http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/are_we_at_all_surprised.php

"In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God's time) and chronos (the world's time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors. " - William A. Dembski


I think he had to admit it, out of venial cowardice. He might have lost his cushy job if he had fooled anyone that he didn't really believe in god and all that special creation nonsense, that the "designer" he argued for was not identical in all respects to their silly little Jehovah.

He works for a tough crowd. In other times, they would have sent him the Inquisition for misleading the faithful. He's lucky they can't torture anymore, so he got away with just clarifying his religious argument and keeping his job.

Of course, we atheists weren't fooled all along. But it looks like a certain friend of ours, one in particular whose name begins with T and ends with R, was really taken for a ride by Dumbski. Wonder how it feels to find out your number one hero is a lying deceiver who has admitted using "designer" as a smokescreen for "god of the inerrant bible".
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#885  Postby Darkchilde » Jan 22, 2011 8:21 pm

hotshoe wrote:
Oh my god. That has got to be the funniest thing so far this year. IF it weren't so funny, I'd say it was terminally stupid, but you get a pass for the sheer chutzpah of your comedy efforts.


I disagree. Look at my sig...
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#886  Postby hotshoe » Jan 22, 2011 8:23 pm

Skutter wrote:
The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.


My emphasis below.

As an icon of anti-evolution, the flagellum has fallen.

The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory.


http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html


Hi, Skutter, I don't see that anyone has thanked you for providing that link. So, thanks :thumbup:

It's especially nice to note that the author, Ken Miller, is a believer in god - just not a believer in IDiocy. It's significant that Dr. Miller is fervently religious, but understands the validity of natural evolution. He sets a great example:

In any discussion of the question of "intelligent design," it is absolutely essential to determine what is meant by the term itself. If, for example, the advocates of design wish to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with an overarching, possibly Divine intelligence, then their point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share, along with many scientists. As H. Allen Orr pointed out in a recent review:

Plenty of scientists have, after all, been attracted to the notion that natural laws reflect (in some way that's necessarily poorly articulated) an intelligence or aesthetic sensibility. This is the religion of Einstein, who spoke of "the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence" and of the scientist's "religious feeling [that] takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law." (Orr 2002).


This, however, is not what is meant by "intelligent design" in the parlance of the new anti-evolutionists. Their views demand not a universe in which the beauty and harmony of natural law has brought a world of vibrant and fruitful life into existence, but rather a universe in which the emergence and evolution of life is made expressly impossible by the very same rules. Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned ...


Now that's the man who should be Tsar's hero. Dr. Ken Miller :cheers:
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#887  Postby hotshoe » Jan 22, 2011 8:28 pm

Darkchilde wrote:
hotshoe wrote:
Oh my god. That has got to be the funniest thing so far this year. IF it weren't so funny, I'd say it was terminally stupid, but you get a pass for the sheer chutzpah of your comedy efforts.


I disagree. Look at my sig...

Tough choice, Darkchilde. Tsar's recent posts have just been overflowing with comedy gold.

Yeah, I love your sig:
Царь Славян wrote:
My interpretation of the double slit experiment is simple. The EM radiation is passing through the both slits and thus is causing disturbance in the aether.


Aether, hmm. I don't know, that's so outrageous, it's gotta win some kinda prize !
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#888  Postby hotshoe » Jan 22, 2011 8:38 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
Tsar, you are a willfully ignorant cunt, because any biologist would understand what the implications of GRN's in development and evolution. And any biologist would understand that ID is not science. Grow up, and don't splatter your stinking intellectual diarrhea here.
Michael Behe is a biologist
Fact, he is not a biologist. Never has been. Get your facts straight, at least.
he claims that ID is science
Yes the operative word is claims - I would bet that he understands ID is not science in his own mind. But he lies about it (claims it is) to con religious suckers into giving him the fame his mediocrity would otherwise not provide.
so that proves you wrong.
Sorry, you being taken in by a professional conman and liar for Jesus does NOT prove anyone else wrong.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#889  Postby hotshoe » Jan 22, 2011 8:48 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
Both can explain and predict various phenomena quite well.
My explanation is that an invisible pink unicorn created the universe 5 minutes ago in this very state including all our memories of past events. Can you name one observation that my explanation does not explain? No, you can't. But that explanation is not science, because it's unreasonable. unfalsifiable

Did anyone else notice how close Tsar came to the truth here, before he skittered away into "unreasonable"ness ?

Too bad Tsar doesn't notice that his own sentences conclusively refute any claim that ID is science. Let's take another look at what Tsar says:
Tsar, revised by me wrote:My explanation is that an intelligent designer designed the universe 5 minutes ago in this very state including all our memories of past events. Can you name one observation that my explanation does not explain? No, you can't. But that explanation is not science,


His paragraph means exactly the same, Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh) and Intelligent Designer alike. Exactly the same: unfalsifiable, not science. (And unreasonable to boot!)
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#890  Postby Scar » Jan 22, 2011 8:54 pm

hotshoe wrote:
Царь Славян wrote:
Both can explain and predict various phenomena quite well.
My explanation is that an invisible pink unicorn created the universe 5 minutes ago in this very state including all our memories of past events. Can you name one observation that my explanation does not explain? No, you can't. But that explanation is not science, because it's unreasonable. unfalsifiable

Did anyone else notice how close Tsar came to the truth here, before he skittered away into "unreasonable"ness ?

Too bad Tsar doesn't notice that his own sentences conclusively refute any claim that ID is science. Let's take another look at what Tsar says:
Tsar, revised by me wrote:My explanation is that an intelligent designer designed the universe 5 minutes ago in this very state including all our memories of past events. Can you name one observation that my explanation does not explain? No, you can't. But that explanation is not science,


His paragraph means exactly the same, Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh) and Intelligent Designer alike. Exactly the same: unfalsifiable, not science. (And unreasonable to boot!)


Okay, I did not read that (for I skip parts of his inane drivel), but to be honest. It makes him sound much like someone who... uhm... someone you should not feed. You know... like Edgar Allan...

Being able to actually say what I want to say here would be Fucking Utterly Appreciated!
Last edited by Scar on Jan 22, 2011 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 32
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#891  Postby hotshoe » Jan 22, 2011 9:00 pm

Yeah, I can't tell you how many times I want to type "Liar, liar, pants on fire'' :naughty:
But I restrain myself ... 8-)
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#892  Postby Skutter » Jan 23, 2011 5:54 am

hotshoe wrote:
Hi, Skutter, I don't see that anyone has thanked you for providing that link. So, thanks :thumbup:


It was my pleasure.
Skutter
 
Posts: 268

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#893  Postby Alan C » Jan 23, 2011 9:38 am

I was rather bemused to see the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle fuckup. Hell, I'm familiar with it as I would expect anyone with a rudimentary interest in science to be.
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 1828
Age: 42
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#894  Postby Darkchilde » Jan 23, 2011 10:08 am

Alan C wrote:I was rather bemused to see the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle fuckup. Hell, I'm familiar with it as I would expect anyone with a rudimentary interest in science to be.


It is a common misconception, because of the way it has been misrepresented in the media. However, if you read any popular science book on basic quantum mechanics, it will clear it up quite nicely. A long time ago, I too fell into the same misconception. However, when someone pointed out to me (or read it in a book), what the Heisenberg Principle actually says, then I listened and learned. There are a number of misconceptions I probably still have, either due to not having read a lot on the subject, or because it was not explained well. However, I am open to being corrected on such matters, and learn something new.
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#895  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 23, 2011 10:14 am

Darkchilde wrote:
Alan C wrote:I was rather bemused to see the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle fuckup. Hell, I'm familiar with it as I would expect anyone with a rudimentary interest in science to be.


It is a common misconception, because of the way it has been misrepresented in the media. However, if you read any popular science book on basic quantum mechanics, it will clear it up quite nicely. A long time ago, I too fell into the same misconception. However, when someone pointed out to me (or read it in a book), what the Heisenberg Principle actually says, then I listened and learned. There are a number of misconceptions I probably still have, either due to not having read a lot on the subject, or because it was not explained well. However, I am open to being corrected on such matters, and learn something new.


The last sentence is the difference between the utter drivel that our Cdesign Proponetsist has been posting and good, honest rational discourse, the amount of drivel that has been repeatedly put forth as part of argumentum ad nauseam ad bulshittum is almost pukeworthy, it is vile, dishonest and mendacious fuckwittery for ideology, backed up by quote mining of valid science and pulling stuff out of one's rectum, in other words, pernicious lying.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#896  Postby Alan C » Jan 23, 2011 10:20 am

Oh, I have no problem with that I could be wrong in my understanding of the principle but conflating it with this Copenhagen Interpretation [which I'm not familiar with]?
It just seemed obvious to me when I read that part. :scratch:

Edit: Just reread Darkchilde's response and that was as I understood it; the issue of accurately determining both the position and momentum of a particle.
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 1828
Age: 42
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#897  Postby Darkchilde » Jan 23, 2011 10:41 am

Alan C wrote:Oh, I have no problem with that I could be wrong in my understanding of the principle but conflating it with this Copenhagen Interpretation [which I'm not familiar with]?
It just seemed obvious to me when I read that part. :scratch:


The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is part of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. There are two major interpretations for QM, one being the Copenhagen one put forth by people like Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, etc. and it is the mainstream one, if I could call it that. It has been named the Copenhagen interpretation because of the location of its main proponents, like Niels Bohr between 1924 and 1927. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction describes the state of a quantum system. The solutions to the Schrodinger equation for a specific quantum system are all wavefunctions, and each describes one of the probable states of the quantum system. Each wavefunction has a probability associated with it; until we measure one of the observables (measurable properties of a quantum system), the system does not have any quantum state associated with it. When we take a measurement, the system “decides” its quantum state, and the solution of the Schrodinger equation collapses to the specific wavefunction associated with the measurement. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, only the measurement of observables has any meaning, and this measurement “decides” the state of the quantum system.

The second interpretation of QM is the Many-Worlds interpretation put forth by Everett and its main proponent now is David Deutsch. The many-worlds interpretation, on the other hand, holds the view that there is no separate quantum system, but that each quantum system is related to the rest of the Universe by its wavefunction. In this view, the Universe has its own branching wavefunction that evolves. This gives rise to parallel universes, where just one difference of a measurement can create a new branching wavefunction, and since each wavefunction is related to the rest of the Universe, a new parallel world.
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#898  Postby Viraldi » Jan 23, 2011 11:47 am

Царь Славян wrote:What?

Your illiterate understanding is flawed as conflating physical processes with chemical processes.

Царь Славян wrote:Or you could just use your braind ans swithc the order of words and say that atheism is true means : “It is true that God does not exist“.

A sublime display of projection I might add to your spasmodic and lisping diatribe. Perhaps, someplace in time, you won`t waste your neurons attempting to beget an incoherent parody of a response from simply denying (or employing red herring) your inaccurate understanding of atheism. FFS, it`s not just obvious or funny anymore, it`s bloody annoying.

Царь Славян wrote:By promoting theism you a promoting a certain vorldview [sic]. And you are certainly promoting another worldview by promoting atheism. Ideas have consequences. If you promote the idea that there is no God, then by definition you promote the idea that there are no objective moral values, thus you are promoting moral relativism. By negating one idea, a different one automatically follows. If it's not night, then it's either noon, evening, morining [sic] or day.

Oh, look, another half-assed red herring and possibly a shift in goal post having dealt with your diversion and misconception of “atheism” meaning “there is no gawd”. You cannot promote a lack of a particular view, but theism is a belief, thus can be promoted and reflected over your dribbling thoughts as the centre of your focus. Secondly, to negate one idea does not necessarily promote another for instance on atheism. Any linguistic analyst or people familiar with morphology, syntax, and grammar in general have developed an understanding what the “a” signifies in use, particularly when attached on “theism”. Secondly, how the fuck are objective or absolute moral values concerned with gawd?

Царь Славян wrote:No, you can't dismiss it, becasue [sic] that's my definition.

What`s that? It can`t be dismissed, because it`s your definition, and it`s an operable definition because you`re the reference, and you`re the reference, because it can`t be dismissed, and it can`t be dismissed, because it`s your definition?
AE wrote:“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.”
User avatar
Viraldi
 
Posts: 722
Age: 26

Country: USA
Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#899  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 23, 2011 1:44 pm

You are speaking out of your arse then, in cases of redundancy, if we were to delete genes, no re-evolution will happen.
Looks like you just handwaved everything away to have your little deposition of shit.
Well it can ba a SPECIAL case as I said. It doesn't even have to be a case of geentic redundancy. But what I do know is that it's not a case of pure RM+NS.

The gene was not deleted, in place of a region within a gene, a random sequence was introduced, firstly.
Secondly, Behe's paper doesn't say anything about genes being deleted, it states that if loss of genes provides a benefit, that loss will be part of adaptive selection, and a lot of the documented mutations within laboratory experiments fit this category, that is all, Care to show where Behe's paper states that "only when genes are deleted, they will reevolve, ergo redundancy"?
Right here.

The evolution of the ability of the bacteria
described above to metabolize novel
compounds depends on mutations in
known proteins of known metabolic pathways.
Several chapters in Microorganisms as
Model Systems for Studying Evolution (Mortlock
1984a), however, describe examples
where previously unsuspected, cryptic proteins
were recruited to take over the function
of a known protein whose gene had
been deliberately deleted.
In Chapter 9, Kemper (1984) describes
the ability of the product of a gene of Salmonella
typhimurium, which he called newD,
to replace a protein coded by the leuD gene
of the leucine biosynthesis pathway. NewD
ordinarily binds tightly to a larger protein
subunit that Kemper dubbed SupQ, just as
LeuD binds to a larger subunit, LeuC. In
order to allow NewD to restore leucine
biosynthetic function when leuD is deliberately
deleted, the gene for SupQ also has to
be deliberately knocked out.


Nowhere does he state "all genes can evolve only when deleted" , and since the paper doesn't say what you claim it does, your post will be reported for quote mining.


http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/ ... 3_46-08_00

Here is also an interview by Behe and he claims that gain of FCT has been noticed only when genes inteh bacteria have first been deleted, and then the bacteria re-evolved them.

Bzzzz, fail again, care to go back and read the very wikipedia article you thought constituted evidence for your drivel?
The problem with attempting to use redundancy to explain anything is this
What did that have to do with anything? The fact that wikipedia article assumes that such regions won't be found in the genome irrelevant to me. They exist, it's a fact.


This is the conclusion that Behe draws, all this means is that if losing function increases fitness, then that mutation will be fixed, nothing to do with your putrid little assertion of "Only when genes are deleted, they can evolve", also note that adaptive benefit is the key here, since in the Hayashi paper the replacement within the gene did result in a drastic loss of fitness, no amount of fucking redundancy or Behe's rules would apply here.
Wrong, it means both. Behe claims that loss of fuction can increase fitness. And gain of function can only happen when they were deleted first. That's his observation. Not that gain of FCT can't happen in any case ever. It could, but we haven't observed it yet.


[1] How does some adaptations = all adaptations? Since you have asserted what Behe himself does not state in his paper while ignoring a very important qualifier, that of adaptive benefit, you were ergo indulging in quote mining.
All adaptations that are termed gain of FCT.


[2] Most common =/= all , modification of function =/= deletion of gene either, so there are two more instances where you fucking lied and quote mined, funnily enough you quote mined one of your own.
That is just one of teh instances.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#900  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 23, 2011 1:45 pm

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but not nearly so dangerous as having none and thinking you know anything. This is among the most cretinous statements ever made by a reality-denier, and quite probably deserves a brand new category of award. Indeed, it's such a puddle of botty-water, it doesn't even merit the epithet 'not even wrong'. This is not even not even wrong. It's so horrendously wide of the mark, in fact, that it would be cruel to even tell you why it's wide of the mark, to the degree that it should probably have its own clause in the FUA.

What complete and total stupidity.
And this doesn't constitute an argument whatsoever.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest