DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:53 am
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...
DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:19 pm
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.
DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:05 pm
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.
DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:43 pm
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
Audie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:36 pm
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.
Audie wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:51 pm
Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.
Audie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:38 am
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.
DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:29 am
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.