Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

[DBowling]

If we can wade through the insults and rhetorical chaff, I don't think Audie ended up disagreeing with the following claims that I actually made...

It's much easier to prove that a theory (like YEC, Gap, and Darwinistic Evolution) contradicts Scripture and/or Science than it is to find a theory that is consistent with all the known facts.

Behe and Meyer have done an excellent job documenting how the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record... especially the Cambrian Explosion which Darwin himself admitted was a problem for his theory.
And random mutation and natural selection alone are also incapable of explaining the complexity, structure, and diversity of information that we find in the DNA of Life today.

Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

Audie ended up acknowledging

I've no intetest in trying to refute or discuss news of the long- and-well known, that certain ideas Darwin had are not valid.

However, there was significant disagreement between Audie and myself regarding untrue ad hominem attacks made against Michael Behe.

Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.

To the extent that he is an "ID" advocate,
he is being a crackpot.

This is a classic example of ad hominem circular reasoning
- Since Behe is an ID advocate
==> Behe is a crackpot
- Since Behe is a crackpot
==> Behe's work on ID is non-credible pseudoscience

This ad hominem circular reasoning flies in the face of Michael Behe's actual professional scientific credentials.

He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry.

[Philip]

Stu: Typical responses from an atheist/evolutionist. Would rather fling mud than have a decent discussion when put in a corner or faced with a tough debate.

Philip: That is because a non-theist MUST have some mechanism that refutes the necessity for God as a cause of all things.

Audie: And Phil...? What are you doing Phil? This is as baloney as what "stu" makes up, if it is about me.

Audie, in my statement above, I wasn't addressing any specifics in Stu's comments. Nor was I addressing you personally or specifically - as I was addressing ALL non-theists. I was only stating that the requirements for a first cause are entirely necessary to explain what exists - nothing new there from me. I sure wasn't piling on what you apparently perceived as a gang attack. It's unfortunate that this thread's battle got very personal - and it didn't have to, as even extremely opposite views can be aggressively debated without making it personal.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
So RD you claim I made an error. You've not shown I
made any other than to be here.

How have I shown, implied, or suggested that you made an error by being here?

Seriously Audie,

It seems like you want to argue for the sake of arguing.

The error you made, was interpreting what DBowling said, instead of just taking what he actually said.

He certainly didn't mention the Theory of Evolution in the quote you tried to argue about. He specifically said "Darwinistic Evolution", and explained which part was easy to disprove. The same part that you agreed was wrong and outdated.

So, you're going off in a hissy about something DBowling never claimed, was your mistake.

[Audie]

Stu: Typical responses from an atheist/evolutionist. Would rather fling mud than have a decent discussion when put in a corner or faced with a tough debate.

Philip: That is because a non-theist MUST have some mechanism that refutes the necessity for God as a cause of all things.

Audie: And Phil...? What are you doing Phil? This is as baloney as what "stu" makes up, if it is about me.

Audie, in my statement above, I wasn't addressing any specifics in Stu's comments. Nor was I addressing you personally or specifically - as I was addressing ALL non-theists. I was only stating that the requirements for a first cause are entirely necessary to explain what exists - nothing new there from me. I sure wasn't piling on what you apparently perceived as a gang attack. It's unfortunate that this thread's battle got very personal - and it didn't have to, as even extremely opposite views can be aggressively debated without making it personal.

Uh Phil..you cant say "all women" and not include me. It
automatically makes it personal.

The thing about "MUST have some mechanism that refutes the necessity for God as a cause of all things."

Why did you say that? Because you know it,or because you decided on it, in what seemed a logical way?

Perthaps you did not think long about it because it exactly means
"non theists are by their nature intellectually dishonest"

See that "MUST"?

It is exactly the same as "a literalist MUST have his flood,
no matter what"

It goes beyond that, when you say "refutes".

Trying to "refute" god is for serious idiots.

I am fine with there maybe being some sort of god.

Not one who throws lighting bolts or who tweaks molecules
to get life to do as it likes.

I dont think you-unlike that "stu", mean any harm. But
loose lips sink ship, ya know? You pop up in a tense situation and
say something ill considered, it is no help, at all.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
So RD you claim I made an error. You've not shown I
made any other than to be here.

How have I shown, implied, or suggested that you made an error by being here?

Seriously Audie,

It seems like you want to argue for the sake of arguing.

The error you made, was interpreting what DBowling said, instead of just taking what he actually said.

He certainly didn't mention the Theory of Evolution in the quote you tried to argue about. He specifically said "Darwinistic Evolution", and explained which part was easy to disprove. The same part that you agreed was wrong and outdated.

So, you're going off in a hissy about something DBowling never claimed, was your mistake.

Audie wrote
Easy to disprove evolution? Prease do so right away.
The Noble people are awaiting.

DBowling wrote
I don't have to... Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer have already done all the heavy lifting.

THAT is what he actually said. "I dont have to" in reference
to disproving evolution.

Audie wrote:
I thought you meant ToE was easily disproved.

y DBowling
I meant exactly what I said...

Audie »
But it is all good. You meant what you
said, about "Darwinian evolution", it is
defunct. No need to mention it, or trot out
woo artists trying to take credit like an
Iraqi kid hitting a fallen Hussein statue
with his shoe.

And I meant what I said: ToE has in no
way been disproved.

The hissy fit was al from DB, when I said-

Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.

That is when the personal insultDB
And your baseless statements about Behe reveal more about your knowledge and credibility.......s against me started.
And continued. Where did I evert once insult him?

So, you're going off in a hissy about something DBowling never claimed,

False false false, he semi-clarified his statement about disproving,
and I said-

But it is all good. You meant what you
said, about "Darwinian evolution", it is
defunct

As is so plainly the case, your statement about "my error"

So, you're (sic) going off in a hissy about something DBowling never claimed, was your mistake.

Is simply not true. What is true is that you've taken sides
without bothering to look at what was actually said.

It is true, of course, that DB did not take well to my calling
Behe a crackpot, and leveled all manner of calumny at me for
saying it. There was a hissy fit all right, and it was all from DB
chanpioning pseudoscience from Behe.

Did you miss that, or what?


The temptation to say something appropriately insulting / true
to you for your partisan behaviour, and insult to me, but,
I didnt insult DB, and I wont you.

Oh, and I did not remotely claim you said I made an error in
being here- speaking of "interpreting". As in "for the sake of"


Well I mentioned to Phil, this forum and I are like throwing
acid and ammonia together. It was a mistake for me to
show up again.

[Audie]

If we can wade through the insults and rhetorical chaff, I don't think Audie ended up disagreeing with the following claims that I actually made...

It's much easier to prove that a theory (like YEC, Gap, and Darwinistic Evolution) contradicts Scripture and/or Science than it is to find a theory that is consistent with all the known facts.

Behe and Meyer have done an excellent job documenting how the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record... especially the Cambrian Explosion which Darwin himself admitted was a problem for his theory.
And random mutation and natural selection alone are also incapable of explaining the complexity, structure, and diversity of information that we find in the DNA of Life today.

Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

Audie ended up acknowledging

I've no intetest in trying to refute or discuss news of the long- and-well known, that certain ideas Darwin had are not valid.

However, there was significant disagreement between Audie and myself regarding untrue ad hominem attacks made against Michael Behe.

Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.

To the extent that he is an "ID" advocate,
he is being a crackpot.

This is a classic example of ad hominem circular reasoning
- Since Behe is an ID advocate
==> Behe is a crackpot
- Since Behe is a crackpot
==> Behe's work on ID is non-credible pseudoscience

This ad hominem circular reasoning flies in the face of Michael Behe's actual professional scientific credentials.

He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry.

Well, that is a remarkable concoction, the circular reasoning ad hom.

Even concocted the "circular reasoning" to go with it.

Since Behe is an ID advocate
==> Behe is a crackpot
- Since Behe is a crackpot
==> Behe's work on ID is non-credible pseudoscience

That is not it at all. The guy simply is a crackpot, regards ID.
Even he admits it is no more a theory than astrology is.
Im sure he does good work elsewhere. ID, tho?

Behold- (how many do you need?)

ID and Hehe do of course, get praise from like "
Discovery Institute".


ID is pseudoscience
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/050927 ... udoscience

The conclusion stated that ‘based on ID’s clear failure to satisfy the necessary criteria of testability and empirical adequacy, ID as a discipline cannot be considered to fall within the realm of science’.

https://philosophicalapologist.com/2016 ... t-science/

Behe's own dept at the U wont have anything to do with
his "research""

I could add more citations from, say, Berkeley.

Level your silly chart about ad hom and circular reasoning
at Berkeley and UCLA. Tell 'em like you did me- "It is all
baseless name calling".

All your insults and false charges against me wont help you then.

Since you brought up "ad" something, here is a real one-
"ad verecundiam" You even obligingly provided a cut n paste
of his resume to illustrate how it works. A little stop and think
for you and RD would certainly be in order.

Oh and BTW, you lead off your post there with a falsehood
(after the insults.)

"Audie ended up acknowledging"

Garbage. It is not "ended up." You just had to try to put that in, like it was a reluctant admission? I never said otherwise, and it was there from the first.

Or no, second post, the one after I said there's a Nobel in disproving
ToE, and the subject had not even come up yet.

Kinda too bad I made a side mention of Behe as crackpot.
Too bad you got so-whatever-and got personal about it.

I am sure you remember-And your baseless statements about Behe reveal more about your knowledge and credibility than it does about Behe's professional credentials.

Have you even read Behe's books?
Or are you just repeating ignorant nonsense from Behe's detractors?

Another time you might try something like, "oh, why do you say that?"

Not with me, of course.

[DBowling]

If we can wade through the insults and rhetorical chaff, I don't think Audie ended up disagreeing with the following claims that I actually made...

It's much easier to prove that a theory (like YEC, Gap, and Darwinistic Evolution) contradicts Scripture and/or Science than it is to find a theory that is consistent with all the known facts.

Behe and Meyer have done an excellent job documenting how the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record... especially the Cambrian Explosion which Darwin himself admitted was a problem for his theory.
And random mutation and natural selection alone are also incapable of explaining the complexity, structure, and diversity of information that we find in the DNA of Life today.

Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

Audie ended up acknowledging

I've no intetest in trying to refute or discuss news of the long- and-well known, that certain ideas Darwin had are not valid.

However, there was significant disagreement between Audie and myself regarding untrue ad hominem attacks made against Michael Behe.

Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.

To the extent that he is an "ID" advocate,
he is being a crackpot.

This is a classic example of ad hominem circular reasoning
- Since Behe is an ID advocate
==> Behe is a crackpot
- Since Behe is a crackpot
==> Behe's work on ID is non-credible pseudoscience

This ad hominem circular reasoning flies in the face of Michael Behe's actual professional scientific credentials.

He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry.

Oh and BTW, you lead off your post there with a falsehood
(after the insults.)

"Audie ended up acknowledging"

Garbage. It is not "ended up." You just had to try to put that in, like it was a reluctant admission? I never said otherwise, and it was there from the first.

This is an example of a problem that has reoccurred during this discussion.
I never said anything about 'reluctant admission'. That is yet another misrepresentation of what I said.
My point was very simple...
When all was said and done, I think you were actually in agreement with the claims that I made regarding Darwinistic Evolution.

Kinda too bad I made a side mention of Behe as crackpot.
Too bad you got so-whatever-and got personal about it.

Yes, I did respond to untrue attacks on Behe...
Very few of the people who personally attack Behe, identify a specific basis for those attacks. Often attacks on Behe have their root in attacks on strawmen or in some instances outright fabrications. Then Behe detractors just perpetuate those untrue personal attacks without without even bothering to validate the factual accuracy of those attacks. And as a result ignorant and non-credible personal attacks on Behe are perpetuated by his detractors.

If Behe has made an assertion that you disagree with, I have no problem if you identify a particular assertion by Behe (or Meyer or myself) that you think is factually incorrect. Then I would either agree or disagree with your position.

But saying that Behe is a crackpot because advocates ID is untrue nonsense.
You have stated that portions of Darwin's theory have been invalidated. Do you think that makes Darwin a crackpot or that Darwin was advocating 'pseudoscience'?

Another time you might try something like, "oh, why do you say that?"

That is a legitimate observation, and good advice.

[Audie]

If we can wade through the insults and rhetorical chaff, I don't think Audie ended up disagreeing with the following claims that I actually made...

It's much easier to prove that a theory (like YEC, Gap, and Darwinistic Evolution) contradicts Scripture and/or Science than it is to find a theory that is consistent with all the known facts.

Behe and Meyer have done an excellent job documenting how the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record... especially the Cambrian Explosion which Darwin himself admitted was a problem for his theory.
And random mutation and natural selection alone are also incapable of explaining the complexity, structure, and diversity of information that we find in the DNA of Life today.

Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

Audie ended up acknowledging

I've no intetest in trying to refute or discuss news of the long- and-well known, that certain ideas Darwin had are not valid.

However, there was significant disagreement between Audie and myself regarding untrue ad hominem attacks made against Michael Behe.

Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.

To the extent that he is an "ID" advocate,
he is being a crackpot.

This is a classic example of ad hominem circular reasoning
- Since Behe is an ID advocate
==> Behe is a crackpot
- Since Behe is a crackpot
==> Behe's work on ID is non-credible pseudoscience

This ad hominem circular reasoning flies in the face of Michael Behe's actual professional scientific credentials.

He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry.

Oh and BTW, you lead off your post there with a falsehood
(after the insults.)

"Audie ended up acknowledging"

Garbage. It is not "ended up." You just had to try to put that in, like it was a reluctant admission? I never said otherwise, and it was there from the first.

This is an example of a problem that has reoccurred during this discussion.
I never said anything about 'reluctant admission'. That is yet another misrepresentation of what I said.
My point was very simple...
When all was said and done, I think you were actually in agreement with the claims that I made regarding Darwinistic Evolution.

Kinda too bad I made a side mention of Behe as crackpot.
Too bad you got so-whatever-and got personal about it.

Yes, I did respond to untrue attacks on Behe...
Very few of the people who personally attack Behe, identify a specific basis for those attacks. Often attacks on Behe have their root in attacks on strawmen or in some instances outright fabrications. Then Behe detractors just perpetuate those untrue personal attacks without without even bothering to validate the factual accuracy of those attacks. And as a result ignorant and non-credible personal attacks on Behe are perpetuated by his detractors.

If Behe has made an assertion that you disagree with, I have no problem if you identify a particular assertion by Behe (or Meyer or myself) that you think is factually incorrect. Then I would either agree or disagree with your position.

But saying that Behe is a crackpot because advocates ID is untrue nonsense.
You have stated that portions of Darwin's theory have been invalidated. Do you think that makes Darwin a crackpot or that Darwin was advocating 'pseudoscience'?

Another time you might try something like, "oh, why do you say that?"

That is a legitimate observation, and good advice.

I cant believe I am still doing this.

To say that I "finally" is to suggest reluctance, or being slow about it.

And you are at it again, so it does appear you meant it.

When all was said and done, I think you were actually in agreement with the claims that I made regarding Darwinistic Evolution.

I said so right from the first!!! Not "when all was said and done". Of COURSE "Darwinistic evoluiton" is out of date!!! So is
Newtonian physics!

I did respond to untrue attacks on Behe...

You did respond, all right, with personal attacks on me.

It may be an emotional issue with you. I am not the
people you describe doing scurrilous attacks on Behe
I've no interest in Behe. His ID work is crackpot. Simple

I like to see good research. If anyone ever does any in ID,
I will be most interested.

Regardless of the exact term, "crackpot" (ie eccentric)
or some other, his ID work is not science.

Regardless of your feelings about "ID" or about Behe, the good folks at
UCLA, Berkeley and any other institution of more repute
than "Discovery Institute" see his work as being non--science.
Surely you know that.

Your characterization of this as being all ignorant, fabrication etc
is really not sensible. It is the work itself that is at fault.

You'd do well to take note of that. And maybe even acknowledge
that your thing about "circular ad hom" was ill considered, at best.


Well, enough, more than.

I hope you got something out of this. And thanks for the
.

Here are two for you.

Bye, now, really.

Min.

[Philip]

Audie: Uh Phil..you cant say "all women" and not include me. It automatically makes it personal.

OK, a non-theist can believe whatever they want to - but if they believe in or care about causes of first things, the universe, etc., then, as they insist there are no gods or a God, then that would seem to require an alternative explanation, some kind of mechanisms that could produce what exists. Is that not logical, as one seeks explanatory causes? Or mysticism: No cause necessary?

Audie: Why did you say that? Because you know it,or because you decided on it, in what seemed a logical way?

Because all we have ever observed is a derivative or caused by something else - there is a chain between all known things. Now, one can claim that the universe's chain doesn't have a first link - that the universe is simply eternal. And yes, SOMETHING had to be eternal. But as we look to the Big Bang, that something had other necessary attributes as well - immense, unfathomable power, the ability to create the physical from the non-physical, the ability to impose upon those first physical things adherence to precisely tuned laws that we know of through long observation, the ability to instantly create precisely designed mechanisms and building blocks of great sophistication - and to design them so as they could perfectly interact within a controlled harmony, the possession of great power applied, on a massive scale, to marvelous things that can only be the result of a vast intelligence. In the first THREE MINUTES of the Big Bang, quarks, anti-quarks and electrons all formed, along with the remaining quarks that would eventually make up all of the matter that exists in the universe. Then, the final two unified forces split from each other, with electromagnetism separating from the weak nuclear force. Then quarks combined to form protons and neutrons - the very building blocks of atomic nuclei of future atoms. These things all reveal to us great intelligence, power, and specificity of purpose. And so, no matter how many first or WHATEVER eternal mechanisms a non-theist might speculate upon as the potential first or ongoing / eternal cause, whatever the correct one, it had to be eternal and it had to have the right attributes to be able to create and cause the universe's first things - ones that instantly came into existence - not over some vast billions of years, but within mere MINUTES!!! Yes, this must be explained - but it can ONLY logically be some eternal thing with the necessary attributes to produce what came into existence at the Big Bang's beginning moments.

What I don't get is ANYONE becoming offended at being pressed upon their contentions and how they support them - and especially why anyone would become so offended at what is, at least initially, is largely an intellectual debate.

[DBowling]

One of the questions that has been brought up in this thread is
Is Intelligent Design Science?

Stephen Meyer discusses that question in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xRGtJHC1E

Meyer rightly points out that a definition of Science that by definition excludes Intelligent Design also has the unintended consequence of also excluding the competing theory of Naturalistic Evolution and other theories that are recognized as legitimate 'Science'.

[Stu]

One of the questions that has been brought up in this thread is
Is Intelligent Design Science?

Stephen Meyer discusses that question in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xRGtJHC1E

Meyer rightly points out that a definition of Science that by definition excludes Intelligent Design also has the unintended consequence of also excluding the competing theory of Naturalistic Evolution and other theories that are recognized as legitimate 'Science'.

It's quite ridiculous really to say that ID is not science when many fields use it!

Audie conveniently ignored my post, when I stated:

SETI uses ID to search for "intelligent" signals in space.
Even Dawkins says the human race might have been seeded here by Aliens, in which case we could then find evidence of design in say DNA, or the origins of life.
Archaeologists use ID to determine if something is man-made or natural.

[Philip]

Stu: SETI uses ID to search for "intelligent" signals in space.
Even Dawkins says the human race might have been seeded here by Aliens, in which case we could then find evidence of design in say DNA, or the origins of life.
Archaeologists use ID to determine if something is man-made or natural.

Good point, Stu! There are markers and repetitive patterns that reveal design that we see throughout the world and universe - things happenstance nor immense amounts of time cannot account for. We see many complex mechanisms with precise functionalities that our best scientists scarcely understand, but that they recognize the brilliance of. If our best minds are observing and testing things that they only very slowly are unwrapping the functions of - what does that tell us about whether or not there is an intelligence behind the universe?

[Philip]

And while we are on the subject of design, let's not forget the forum's entire page dedicated to the issue:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html