- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by Suzianneif its not too personal could you go into more detail?
Because I have conversed with angels. (Yeah, I know, I know. Laugh it up.)
This has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is real. I realize that this proof is for me alone. That is why I do not talk about it. It was only made possible because of my faith. (Well, actually the timeline is a little off, but I still believe that is why this ...[text shortened]... God may 'move in mysterious ways', God still *knows* everyone's heart. He cannot 'be fooled'.)
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonshipnot this again!!!!!
The Falsifiability if ID - Yes or No AND -
[b]"Can ID be Falsified ?" Jay Richards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvWJj7rg-o4
But how do we falsify that Natural Selection produced the Bacterial Flagellum ?
Mike Behe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A[/b]
mike behe's flagellum claims were debunked in a court of law. the dover school i.d. court case.
can we please stop putting up links for this clown.
Originally posted by stellspalfiedebunked? have you read the court transcripts? i have, in what sense was it debunked? clown? he's a professor of microbiology.
not this again!!!!!
mike behe's flagellum claims were debunked in a court of law. the dover school i.d. court case.
can we please stop putting up links for this clown.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by stellspalfie
not this again!!!!!
mike behe's flagellum claims were debunked in a court of law. the dover school i.d. court case.
can we please stop putting up links for this clown.
can we please stop putting up links for this clown.
Don't you think I get bored reading your junk ?
By the way, Behe earned a Doctorate in Biology.
Since he's a clown, tell us where you got your Phd. from and when ?
"Uh Uh Uh Uh ...."
ZZZZZZZZ !
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonshiphey, you post reams and reams of biblical quotations and your rambling musings on them, much of which i take the time to read. i make one criticism about a behe post and you have a hissy fit. behe bugs me because hes been proven to be wrong, yet his flagellum still gets posted as proof af i.d. even though a court ruled it as non-scientific.can we please stop putting up links for this clown.
Don't you think I get bored reading your junk ?
By the way, Behe earned a Doctorate in Biology.
Since he's a clown, tell us where you got your Phd. from and when ?
"Uh Uh Uh Uh ...."
ZZZZZZZZ !
yes behe is highly educated. the fact he believes in i.d. and makes his science fit his beliefs despite his education makes it worse. it makes him a bigger clown than the average uneducated country hick i.d. clown. he even claimed in a court case that astrology was scientific......and you tell me he's not a clown.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by stellspalfieGive me a break. Just because some biased judged had the opinion he did did not conclusively put Dr. Behe in error on everything.
hey, you post reams and reams of biblical quotations and your rambling musings on them, much of which i take the time to read. i make one criticism about a behe post and you have a hissy fit. behe bugs me because hes been proven to be wrong, yet his flagellum still gets posted as proof af i.d. even though a court ruled it as non-scientific.
yes behe ...[text shortened]... ven claimed in a court case that astrology was scientific......and you tell me he's not a clown.
That's just the party line you're feeding me. " Oh Mike Behe was debunked SOOOO long ago."
I expect that party line reaction. Have you to his quite calm rebuttals of criticisms laid against him ? Probably you just joined the skeptic cheer leading mantra that Michael Behe has been dispensed with, a thing of the past.
I want to get his latest book - The Edge of Evolution. That's in your own mind, that Mike Behe has been dispensed with, wrapped up, and discarded.
Now the flagellum - not PROOF of ID. Evidence which can be reasonably interpreted as the result of ID.
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI have talked to people on this forum who have seen flying saucers, and back home in Zambia, I have talked to people who have seen various forms of witchcraft.
Because I have conversed with angels. (Yeah, I know, I know. Laugh it up.)
I do not doubt that you or they are telling the truth about what you think you experienced. I personally think there are better explanations for your experience than the actual existence of angels. But I don't laugh at you for believing your explanation.
What I usually object to is when theists believe something because of a personal experience they had, but, because they cannot show me that personal experience they instead go to extraordinary lengths to try and justify their beliefs with logical arguments or evidence, but are forced to use bad logic or outright lies to get the conclusion they want.
I also object to people who claim that I have consciously chosen to reject God, when in reality I simply have not experienced what you have and so have no reason to believe God or angels exist.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
yes behe is highly educated. the fact he believes in i.d. and makes his science fit his beliefs despite his education makes it worse. it makes him a bigger clown than the average uneducated country hick i.d. clown. he even claimed in a court case that astrology was scientific......and you tell me he's not a clown.
Lawyers are PAID big bucks for cleverly cornering people into SAYING things. They are masters, lawyers, at getting WORDS into people's mouths.
Without reviewing transcripts right now, I would say that there is good science and bad science. And at one time astrology was science as much as alchemy was science.
So I take with a real big grain of salt what you say there.
At one time scientists of the day thought things were scientific which are now almost laughable - (almost). Was it science that Pluto was a planet once ? Yes.
Is it science that Pluto is no longer a planet now? Yes.
So weasel wording manuevors of some professional attorney are not that impressive in this case.
Once upon a time the ACLU had a lawyer who was quite successful at stopping some activity of Revered Jerry Falwell. So Falwell said to himself "I can fix that one." He simply offered the lawyer more money and hired him to represent him instead of oppose him !
There is a difference of opinion on the flagellum. You may think it has been demonstrated that such a mechanism could have arrived by non-intellgent Darwinian means. I see it still as improbable, if plausible.
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonshipAstrology has never been science.
And at one time astrology was science as much as alchemy was science.
At one time scientists of the day thought things were scientific which are now almost laughable - (almost). Was it science that Pluto was a planet once ? Yes.
Is it science that Pluto is no longer a planet now? Yes.
You find pluto being a planet to be almost laughable? I have discussed pluto on this forum before - was it perhaps with you?
The pluto change was merely a definition change and not a change in science at all. It involved no new findings, no new theories, no new conclusions, it was merely a change in category name, nothing more, nothing less.
The word 'planet' in your two questions has a different meaning in the two questions hence the different answers.
So science is a planet by the old definition, and science was never a planet by the new definition.
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt involved no new findings
Astrology has never been science.
[b]At one time scientists of the day thought things were scientific which are now almost laughable - (almost). Was it science that Pluto was a planet once ? Yes.
Is it science that Pluto is no longer a planet now? Yes.
You find pluto being a planet to be almost laughable? I have discussed pluto on this forum ...[text shortened]... science is a planet by the old definition, and science was never a planet by the new definition.[/b]
Well, not entirely correct. If I remember correctly so many new rocks roughly the size of Pluto had been identified that either we would have had a tremendous amount of new planets or Pluto was no longer a planet. They went for the second option. Pluto is classified as a...... planetoid or something?
Doesn't change your point of course.