Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
Did you miss this important part ?
In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. On the Origin of the Species, page 171
Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,.....
This is slowly evolving ?
Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist.
Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.
Creationists are self-deniers. They know that science is right, but don't want to admit that the bible is wrong.
Actually, creationist supply nothing in terms of any actual argument.What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.
Try proof reading your own post. You're unable to defend creationist argument. The entirety of your post, and the creationist agenda, is to vilify science.
Creationist really don't understand how inept, vacant and hopeless they have made their narrative. Their silly anti- science, anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge agenda has reduced the Christian creationist to something of a caricature of the Flat Earth believing bufoon clutching one of the bibles in one hand and a glass of Kool-aid in the other.
It's a girl.
And you're appealing to emotion in the place of logic.
I know that evolution happened.
I do not know what started the Universe itself, God, not God, whatever - so I am an agnostic.
But I do not deny solid science. Being an agnostic is admitting one does not know, and keeping an open mind.
Anyone doing the opposite is doing so out of their ego, whether pulled by emotion or tautologies written by men as a means to control people into behaving.
You deny the sprituality of man. You believe in ADDING to solid science. Evolution is a theory and not observable. Variety is truth, but variety never crosses over into new species which have never been demonstrated nor proven. That little girl is a spiritual being and not just material. Emotion mirrors our soul. Pure logic has led many to have an abortion. One needs to consider both...
This is all hot air.
And evolution *is* observable, and "theory" means something different in science, if you never knew.
Pure logic is something I'm glad to have as a sentient species.
Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
Did you miss this important part ?
In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. On the Origin of the Species, page 171
Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It absolutely breakdown when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems! (Geisler and Turek, I Dont Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.
This is slowly evolving ?
Have you had your morning coffee ?
Creationist have a habit of dodging and side-stepping those comments that address their inability to defend creationist propaganda.
You said creationist provide no arguments who is dodging here and trying to change the subject ?
you know why slapdick. to source the articles, copy write laws.sorry should have neg reped you for this post not the last oneMichael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.
ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.
Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
more bullshit...he is "attacked" because his science is as bad as yours Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWhy you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
Did you miss this important part ?
In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. On the Origin of the Species, page 171
Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It absolutely breakdown when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems! (Geisler and Turek, I Dont Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.
This is slowly evolving ?
bible length 1,281 pages
this thread 1002 pages
278 pages to go.
Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist.
Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.
Creationism does present an intellegent reason why man exists.
Creationism does offer a very logical reason as to why we do not share this planet with equally intellegent life forms.
Creationism does explain why man is thoughtfully interested in knowing things.
There is tons of scientific evidence for creationim, but you choose to misrepresent it.
you know why slapdick. to source the articles, copy write laws.sorry should have neg reped you for this post not the last one
Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
you must be afraid that we'll find you quote mining out of context.
just like you've done here.
Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting "Copy and Paste" material, please use small sections and link to the content. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, Publisher, regardless of how you originally came across the material.
Link Each Copy And Paste To It's Source.
Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
Did you miss this important part ?
In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. On the Origin of the Species, page 171
Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,.....
This is slowly evolving ?
Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".
I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.
Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin
Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.
This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.
Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.
CB301: Eye complexity
Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb
