http://powerflv.com/play2?cat=Docum...gent+Design+-+Unlocking+The+Mysteries+Of+Life The micro biologists in the world gather at the round table and discuss darwinian evolution against intelligent design. These are hardcore scientists here . Awesome video folks.
See... I always knew God exists. He is just somehow busy creating another Universe, maybe repenting on the "ego, greed and lust for power" side-effects in humans. This time, He is going to refine his ingredients to make sure these corruptible side-effects do not occur. And this time, there will be no competition from a new Satan in the new Universe...
They are no-mark scientists trying to get famous by being controversial. Their entire premise is an argument from design and behe's "irreducible complexity" nonsense has been kicked to death so many times it would be unfair to do it again... When behe was at the dover trial he stated that no evolutionary biologist has ever been able to explain how the bacterial flagellum motor could have arisen through natural selection as it requires all of it's parts to be present to function, And used this to conclude that it must have been designed. He then had a stack of books and papers piled up on the desk in front of him which done exactly that, They explained how the bacterial flagellum could, and did, arise via natural selection. When he was asked if he had read any of these papers he said no.
Links please. Kicked to death doesnt prove anything. What your stating is akin to things happening by magic or random chance. It makes no common sense. If your going to accuse someone of something can you at at least provide links to where it states this please. These guys are stating their scientific opinions .We need quotes of them saying something to teh contrary and we need dates of these quotes because obviously all or most of these scientists believed in the validity of darwinian evolution at one point in their scientific careers but at some point started to realize that darwinian evolution wasnt even realistic in some points. Now you can just go along with believing that the laws of this universe and life itself can arise by chance but obviously these scientists are starting to believe otherwise. Better yet, why dont you send an email to him and see what his reponse is if you believe passionately in your opinions? Unfortunately for you these scientists are starting to wake up to common sense, that life doesnt magically come about by magic
Resorting to misrepresenting evolution already? Certainly didn't take you long this time. Science isn't about "opinions" it's about supported conclusions, evidence and testable models. that's their problem. All they have is their "opinion", Their worthless unsupported "opinion". Did you even watch the video? Do you know who these people are and what they claim? I have personally explained the evolution of the bacterium flagellum motor to you on numerous occasions. Do some basic research on a subject if you are going to attempt to enter into dialogue about it.
stOx, are you capable of arguing a topic, without becoming offensive, aggressive and making personal attacks? If your argument has merit, make it. Save the sideshow antics and flame wars for a less mature crowd.
Stoc your kidding arent you. You are what we call a flip-flopper. hehehehe How many times did you post here saying you wont waste your time watching this video? Would you like me to find the post??????? Then ur asking me if i watched the video? This is called deception. Like i said provide links to your statement about the scientist you are claiming that flip-flopped on his position please? Or maybe you dont have any links just as you didnt really watch the video, or maybe u decided to actually watch the video this time? Which is it lol
Since it was found, In a court of law, That "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism". It invokes a magic sky daddy, It's religion re-branded. It's a dishonest attempt to get religious mythology taught in schools under the guise of science.
This is a brief summary of findings about the persons named in the video. Phillip E. Johnson is a prof of LAW. No background on biology. He also say that “there is no scientific evidence that HIV actually causes AIDS†and urges hiv positives not to follow proven treatments. Paul A Nelson is a YOUNG EARTH creationist since BEFORE he graduated as philosopher. He recognised that there is no scientific theory supporting ID Dean H Kenyon: graduated in physics (1961) and biophysics (1965) he published only 8 papers over 10 years (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=kenyon+dh), and perhaps 2 or 3 of those are ‘research papers’, the rest are ‘opinions’ or reviews. Any mediocre scientist in the biosciences publishes way more than that. He obviously wasn’t interested in research. From the wiki entry I gather he is also a young Earth creationist. Stephen C Meyer. Graduated in Geology and worked in the oil industry. Later studied philosophy and history of science in 1991. He then taught in a college linked to a Presbyterian church and a christian university, and finally got a staffer at the creationist Discovery institute. Not really a leading (even average for the case) scientist. Michael Behe is the only in the list that can be considered as an actual research scientist. He is a biochemist and bases all his claims for ID on the concept of ‘irreducible complexity’. This concept is based on the ‘common sense’ that some biological structures are ‘too complex’ to have been evolved. Behe’s ideas have been criticised and debunked over and over using concrete examples and scientifically solid evidence, including some of his preferred examples (eye, flagellum, blood clotting factors). Links for this are too many, but the wiki page is a good start. This is a good read about how unsupported the ID claims are: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
I said i wouldn't watch the video as an alternative to you writing your own refutation to points i had made. This is a different thread, A thread where you wanted opinions on the video. I asked if you had watched the video because you don't seem to have the first clue about anything they discuss in it. Are you even aware of what irreducible complexity is? Behe states many times (practically the only thing he does state) that irreducible complex systems require a designer. He cites the bacterial flagellum as an irreducible complex system that requires all of it's components to be intact and functioning for natural selection to have anything to select. Here is a link of him saying that. On numerous occasions papers and articles have been published explaining how, Via natural selection, Evolution can produce something that appears irreducibly complex. Remember the mousetrap example i gave you before? As long as at each stage of the construction the parts benefit the organism to some degree, Even if they don't yet perform the function of the final organ, natural selection will retain it. So even if the final construction requires all of the parts to function as long as some benefit if found to having each of the parts along the way natural selection will retain them. Here is a link to an article explaining it, if you don;t like words here is a nice little video explaining it.
looooooooooooooooool, so now you will watch the video. Nice twisting of words man . here is a little tidbit to study for your atheistic random appearance mind http://www.discovery.org/a/1831 im sure u will be soon welcomed into the intelligent design camp bro. Darwin’s Black Box, page 39. The system can have its own function, different from any of the parts. Any individual function of a part does not explain the separate function of the system. Miller applies his crackerjack reasoning not only to the mousetrap, but also to the bacterial flagellum--the extremely sophisticated, ultra complex biological outboard motor that bacteria use to swim, which I had discussed in Darwin’s Black Box and which has becoming something of a poster child for intelligent design. No wonder, since anyone looking at a drawing of the flagellum immediately apprehends the design. Since the flagellum is such an embarrassment to the Darwinian project, Miller tries to distract attention from its manifest design by pointing out that parts of the structure can have functions other than propulsion. In particular, some parts of the flagellum act as a protein pump, allowing the flagellum to aid in its own construction--a level of complexity that was unsuspected until relatively recently. Miller’s argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That’s it! He doesn’t show how natural selection could do so; he doesn’t cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible; he doesn’t give a theoretical model. He just points to the greater-than-expected complexity of the flagellum (which Darwinists did not predict or expect) and declares that Darwinian processes could produce it. This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely. In fact, the function of a pump has essentially nothing to do with the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion device, anymore than the ability of parts of a mousetrap to act as paperweights has to do with the trap function. And the existence of the ability to pump proteins tells us nil about how the rotary propulsion function might come to be in a Darwinian fashion. For example, suppose that the same parts of the flagellum that were unexpectedly discovered to act as a protein pump were instead unexpectedly discovered to be, say, a chemical factory for synthesizing membrane lipids. Would that alternative discovery affect Kenneth Miller’s reasoning at all? Not in the least. His reasoning would still be simply that a part of the flagellum had a separate function. But how would a lipid-making factory explain rotary propulsion? In the same way that protein pumping explains it--it doesn’t explain it at all. The irreducible complexity of the flagellum remains unaltered and unexplained by any unintelligent process, despite Darwinian smoke-blowing and obscurantism. I have pointed all this out to Ken Miller on several occasions, most recently at a debate in 2002 at the American Museum of Natural History. But he has not modified his story at all. As much as some Darwinists might wish, there is no quick fix solution to the problem of irreducible complexity. If they want to show their theory can account for it (good luck!), then they’ll have to do so by relevant experiments and detailed model building--not by wordplay and sleight-of-hand.
I would, Could (and probably should) refute that plagiarized copy and paste job. but seriously, Whats the point if you can't even debate using your own words. This is the trouble. Not only do you not understand what you are refuting, But you don't even understand your own counter-arguments.
Another words you cant, and its only ur opinion . It doesnt matter if it is copy and pasted, it says what iw as thinking anyways. I sure am glad i wont blink into nothingness one day god bless you stox Just the fact that you believe that order can arise from chaos tells me something about your common sense
I can and did refute it. I refuted it before you even posted it. Look at post 13. I explained, In my own words, How apparently irreducible complex organs can arise via natural selection and you chose to reply by copying and pasting an article in which behe has a little cry because ken miller exposed him as a fraudster and liar. Irreducible complexity isn't new. Darwin refuted it when he had to explain how the eye arose via natural selection. But as Dawkins said, "maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is...maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."
I put this link in one of my posts, but went unnoticed apparently. It tells (with real science citations) why the preferred Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity are not quite Irreducibly Complex.
Look at my posts just in case you didnt because i explained how silly that mouse trap example was that you gave me and still darwinian evolutionists couldnt prove how natural selection could create it either. You have been debunked god bless
so explain, in your own words, what is flawed about the mousetrap example of how a complex organ can arise and appear to be irreducibly complex by each stage of its development being beneficial to the organism.