Posted: Jan 21, 2011 2:40 am
by Царь Славян
Trolling fail.
Asking someone to elaborate his position is not trolling.

Language and reading comprehension fail.
Behe lost. You're backing a loser.

Trying to weasel out of it by whining about the semantic difference between a summary "not good enough" and a pedantic "don't address his points" is not getting you a win.

For those interested in the truth instead of Tsar's quibbling distortion, here's the relevant portion of the trial transcript. Behe's answers are the "A" sentences (in response to lawyers "Q").
Thanks for posting the whole transcription so that everyone can see I was right. Behe NEVER said that the articles were not good enough. He said precisely what I said that he said. Let me quote him.

Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?

A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that.

Q. So these are not good enough?

A. They're wonderful articles. They're very interesting. They simply just don't address the question that I pose.

As we can clearly see, the first two things Behe said outright refute your calims that he said that the articles were not good enough. He said tha the articles were fine. But they do not addres his points. His points are about darwinian mechanism being able to go through a certain path and develop a certain structure. What the articles present is a possible pathway. Big difference. His point is that just because the pathway exists, that doesn't mean evolution actually took it. And even if it did, that doesn't mean that it was a darwinian mechanism that brought it through the pathway.

Evidence fail.

What you assert as legitimate without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
Pro-ID papers have been published in PR scientific journals. Therefore, it's legit.

Oh, you really do want a career in comedy, do you ? You're so cute when you try to be funny.

Do I look angry to you ?
No, but people like Dawkins do.

Trolling fail.
Asking for an explanation is not trolling.

Thank dog you've finally come to your senses and admitted the truth for once.

Yes, just because it can be described as designed doesn't mean it is designed. Yes, you finally comprehend. You've got it.

I think we're done here.
Actually that was my point from the start. If the universe can be described as an engineerd mechanism, then that means that design is a good scientific working hypothesis for certain features of teh universe. Thereofre ID is science.

Oops, I spoke too soon. No it's not a good starting position for a scientific inquiry because your IDiot heroes at the Dis-Institute have defined "design" in a way that makes it totally unfalsifiable and therefore totally unscientific.

Not that I expect you to understand.
There are two way to falsify design. Either show that a certain object can be accounted for by natural laws, or that it's probable enough to come about by chance. And teh design hypothesis for that object is falsified.

Trolling fail.
Asking questions is not trolling.

Just a friendly usage tip, Tsar. In normal English, quotes are both identical on top left and right, like "so". Your usage with the odd "bottom" quote mark - „machine“ - is a mistake in English. Surely you can learn to fix that bad habit without turning on the forbidden spell checker.
Yeah, but I can't be bothered...

What, wade through pages of your vomitous posts in the hope that you're not lying about the answer you claim to have put forth ?

You're joking, right ?

Please link or copy-paste your post where you provide the mathematic metric that demonstrates Mt. Rushmore is designed. No other math will do - not any of your vomit about how improbable the universe is, or any other garbage from you. Just exactly where you've provided a specific metric for design which shows that Mt. Rushmore is designed.

Or you could, you know, admit that you're lying about having done so before. And admit that you can't do it now.
I didn't say that I calculated anything for Mount Rushmore. I said that I have many times presented a method to infer design in general.