Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Transcripts

Discussion in 'Science' started by UTEOTW, Oct 13, 2005.

  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    I found interesting the new information about the genetic instructions for making hemoglobin - and how three primate species - one of them us - share a common defect for that gene. We have other copies of the gene that work, so its no big deal. We get our hemoblogin. But - sharing defects - how did that happen? Evolution points to an answer, it originally occurred in a shared ancestor.

    Creationism has no answer. It would call for the same random mistake to occur in the same way in the same gene for all the species that have that defect. OR it would call for the designer to make the same mistake three times in a row.

    Neither answer is credible.

    Its another nail in the coffin of seperate creation theory, there are already lots of nails just like that one in its coffin.
     
  4. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.grisda.org/origins/21091u.htm
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.grisda.org/origins/21091u.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Well, this link seems to undermine itself completely.

    He claims that two assumptions are being made. The first is "that the pseudogene sequences actually have no function." Of this assumption he says that it is "consistent with most of the data" so no argument against said assumption. It is more or less accepted.

    He says that the second assumption is that "God would not create similar non-functional sequences in humans and chimps." Of this assumption he says that it is "theological and ... [t]heological arguments should not be relied on unless well supported by Scripture."

    This is where he attempts to shed the burden of proof and ask that his oppenents prove something that really is impossible to prove. In reality, the burden of proof is upon Gibson to show that creating nonfuctioning sequences in different species is actually consistent with what the Bible has to say about God.

    Assuming that such non-functioning sequences are an indication of common descent is really a scientific assumption that does not need to address theological implications because science does not address the theological.

    On the other hand, claiming that God might have deliberately put such sequences IS a theological argument and therefore it is Gibson's burden to show in Scripture support for such actions. There is none and so there is no basis for such a theological statement. He loses by his own criteria.

    He further states explicitly that "scriptures do state clearly that God does not deceive us." He is free to come back and continue his argument when he has the scriptural support for his assertions, since he is the one claiming they are needed, and when he has a reasonable explanation of why faking evidence for common descent would not constitute deception.
     
  6. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is interesting. Thanks for posting the link.

    One question:
    What does "Atillaed the hunt" mean?
     
  7. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is interesting. Thanks for posting the link.
    </font>[/QUOTE]In the star-studded trial and investigation into neo-Darwinist racial theories and the intelligent design of biological systems, Professor of Biochemistry, Michael Behe once again exposes the inherent facism in the soft under-belly of those who would account for human evolution with neo-Darwinist genetic practices. Latest transcript from the trial; Day 12, Part One:

    Q. I'd like to return to Darwin's Black Box. And that is where you're making your scientific argument, correct, Professor Behe?

    A. That's correct.

    Q. If you could turn to page 185 of that book. I'd actually like you to read -- we'll take turns here -- from the last paragraph on 185 beginning, molecular evolution, and go to the end of the chapter, which is one more paragraph.

    A. Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature, in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.

    There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that, like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year, the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.

    Publish or perish is a proverb that academicians take seriously. If you do not publish your work for the rest of the community to evaluate, then you have no business in academia. And if you don't already have tenure, you will be banished.

    But the saying can be applied to theories as well. If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon, but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished. Despite comparing sequences and mathematical modeling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.

    In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution, has not published, and so it should perish.

    Q. That was your view in 1996?

    A. Yes, that's correct.

    Q. That is still your view today?

    A. Yes, it is.
     
  8. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    No defense of your previous link? I can't blame you, it is indefensible.

    So now you want to go to Behe's testimony, eh. OK.

    So Behe takes something that is supposed to be IC and he claims, he himself is making this claim, that this IC system could evolve in a short period of time with none of the intermediate stages being useful and from a very small population and without most of the normal evolutionary mechanisms in play.

    Like your previous link, this one destroys itself.
     
  9. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    You might also be interested in Miller's testimony on IC since he destroys Behe.

     
  10. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure what the point of your long quote was or what you are trying to prove with it. What do you mean by IC, anyway - Intelligent Creation?
     
  11. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Miller just reveals himself to be another neo-Darwinist racist and facist demi-god when it it comes to molecular and genetic theories of human evolution from African monkey and ape ancestors. Witness his following remarks:

    "When we take this complex multi-part system, which is the bacterial flagellum, the prediction made by Dr. Behe from irreducible complexity is when we break the parts apart, we should have no useful functions. Anyone missing a part is, by definition, non-functional. We follow that up. We do break it apart. And lo and behold, we find -- actually, we find a variety of useful functions, one of which I have just pointed out, which is type III secretion."

    Type III secretions are as useless to a cell as bacterial flagellum are without type III secretions.

    Behe exposes and reduces Miller to a scientific charlatan and politically anti-religious academic imperialist.
     
  12. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I found interesting the new information about the genetic instructions for making hemoglobin - and how three primate species - one of them us - share a common defect for that gene. We have other copies of the gene that work, so its no big deal. We get our hemoblogin. But - sharing defects - how did that happen? Evolution points to an answer, it originally occurred in a shared ancestor."-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maybe we did not come from the monkeys, maybe they came form us.
     
  13. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe monkeys were created by God for the sole purpose of making monkeys and apes out of people like you and I, Bunyon.

    Knowing God, I wouldn't put it past Him, would you?
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I'm not sure what the point of your long quote was or what you are trying to prove with it. What do you mean by IC, anyway - Intelligent Creation?"

    You post on Behe but do not even know what IC is?

    That is classic. No wonder you don't get the point of the Behe cross examination quote. He shows himself to be wrong.
     
  15. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Miller just reveals himself to be another neo-Darwinist racist and facist demi-god when it it comes to molecular and genetic theories of human evolution from African monkey and ape ancestors. Witness his following remarks:

    "When we take this complex multi-part system, which is the bacterial flagellum, the prediction made by Dr. Behe from irreducible complexity is when we break the parts apart, we should have no useful functions. Anyone missing a part is, by definition, non-functional. We follow that up. We do break it apart. And lo and behold, we find -- actually, we find a variety of useful functions, one of which I have just pointed out, which is type III secretion."

    Type III secretions are as useless to a cell as bacterial flagellum are without type III secretions.

    Behe exposes and reduces Miller to a scientific charlatan and politically anti-religious academic imperialist.
    </font>[/QUOTE]You do not even understand the logic of the guy, Behe, that you quoted above, do you?

    Let's try to explain it. Behe says that certain systems must be fully assembled before they will work. He says that these systems will not work if all of the parts are not already there. He says that this means that any intermediate stages would not be useful and therefore would not be able to be acted upon by selective pressures to build said system. They must be made all at once to be useful and are therefore IC.

    The response is too show that said IC system can actually function with fewer parts. One way this has been done is to show that some flagellum use fewer parts than in Behe's example. So that means that his example is not really IC if it can still function with some parts missing.

    The second and more important flaw is to show that various combination of the parts can havea useful function without the others. This allows for selection to choose these parts even before they are all together to make the part he calls IC. In the case of the flagellum, the TTSS has many fewer parts but still is useful. This shows us that often times in evolution, selection acts upon other uses before finally putting together the parts for a new use.
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Maybe monkeys were created by God for the sole purpose of making monkeys and apes out of people like you and I, Bunyon.

    Knowing God, I wouldn't put it past Him, would you?
    "

    What god do you believe in that is the author of confusion?

    The God that most of us here believe in is not the author of confusion.
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    One last thing on Behe...

    What do you think of his opinion that he accepts common descent including that of humans and the other apes? You introduced him as your expert. Do you accept this opinion of his? If not, how do you pick and choose which of his opinions that you accept?
     
  18. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Irreducible complexity (IC) equals Intelligent creation (IC), no?
     
  19. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nonsense. You dare argue with Professor Michael Behe? What "peer-reviewed" articles and books have you published recently?
     
  20. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Darwin was an author of confusion. Who do you believe in anyway? God, Charles Darwin or yourself?
     

Share This Page

Loading...