Jump to content

Physicists can't avoid a creation event


afungusamongus
 Share

Recommended Posts

No, No, No.

 

Per Wiki " Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.

 

Nothing was said about his rejection by the Scientific Community, What was said is that generally the Scientific Community dismissed some of his blood complexity works. But gave no conclusionary ruling on it since it was a separation of Religion and State Case not a Scientific Critique.

Nonsense.

 

Very much was said in the trial about Behe's rejection by the scientific community. Behe embarrassed himself at that trial. The creationist / cdesign propentist / ID movement was given yet resounding rejection by this case.

 

The defense argued that intelligent design was science, not religion, and thus should be taught as science, with irreducible complexity forming the central point of their argument. The proponents argued that irreducible complexity is nonscientific claptrap, that intelligent design is religion, not science, and this should not be taught in public schools. The defendants failed completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense.

 

Very much was said in the trial about Behe's rejection by the scientific community. Behe embarrassed himself at that trial. The creationist / cdesign propentist / ID movement was given yet resounding rejection by this case.

 

The defense argued that intelligent design was science, not religion, and thus should be taught as science, with irreducible complexity forming the central point of their argument. The proponents argued that irreducible complexity is nonscientific claptrap, that intelligent design is religion, not science, and this should not be taught in public schools. The defendants failed completely.

 

Ridiculous! You are not reading what I said apparently??

 

1. But gave no conclusionary ruling on it since it was a separation of Religion and State Case not a Scientific resolution. This as in WIKI, ruled that it was religious and contrary to Church and State as I have said.

 

2. He wasn't condemned, his tests on some blood stuff was. To argue that the Scientific Community somehow rejected his testimony would necessitate a listing of the community and their credentials, which wasn't done because this was a Church and State Case. His problem with the judge was that he was ill prepared and wouldn't furnish experts to back up his experiments for some reasons.

 

3. For sure It wasn't a "The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2] as moo put it. The Courts findings are as an interpreter of the Constitutional officer as to the Church and State Case. Science nor personalities were not addressed, Weather ID was religious. To condemn Behe would require a complete listing of the stated Scientific Community for him to counter and condemn their credentials and scientific work..

 

4. In any case, you seem to avoid the instant case for complexity that put forth in Post #85 which argues from an MD> outside the Court and the Court's inherent Political twists.:

 

# 85 Thanx, schr:

 

This is a Religion Thread.

 

The assertions as you seem to say cover many grounds and may never fit in your faith mold. I present fact that many others here do that offers a solution to questions stymied by other disciplines. The proof is in the observable reality, the complexity and everything comeing from nothing, which are precepts of the Big Bang and other assertions of the Pseudo sciences. The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could.

 

http://www.detecting...m/humaneye.html

 

eye-evolution.jpg

 

 

 

Others have made similar posts which is an indication that it is true and relevant. They as you have a high purpose to present their facts and faith, do they not?

 

All is relevant to the Forum as it is to the illumination of the Cosmos. Wouldn't you agree??? Sciences and atheist's don't have many of the answers as of yet, but they are low on the learning curves.

 

5. Your post statment "Behe and his claptrap have been dismissed by the scientific community over and over and over again, and he most certainly was dismissed by the court. " Isn't inline with either moo or I . It also denegertes his ref which is in my view acceptable to forum rules. ...so thus you are totally rejected.

Edited by zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous! You are not reading what I said apparently??

I agree. It is ridiculous that some people still cling to medieval notions such as creationism in this, the 21st century.

 

I strongly suggest you read the transcript of the trial. The primary argument made by the plaintiffs was that intelligent design was yet another version of creationism, something which the Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional. The primary argument made by the defense team was that intelligent design was science, not religion.

 

 

But gave no conclusionary ruling on it since it was a separation of Religion and State Case not a Scientific resolution.

Read the transcript and read the judge's conclusion. The judge rejected the defense claim.

 

 

 

He wasn't condemned, his tests on some blood stuff was.

I think you mean rejected, not condemned.

 

Behe testified primarily on three separate items: flagellum in bacteria, blood clotting, and the immune system. He apparently thought that these newer examples of irreducible complexity might not be so easily refuted as his prior examples. He was wrong. These examples were also easily refuted, and the plaintiffs did just that.

 

 

 

To argue that the Scientific Community somehow rejected his testimony would necessitate a listing of the community and their credentials, which wasn't done because this was a Church and State Case.

FFS, what exactly do you think the defense argument was? Read the transcript.

 

 

His problem with the judge was that he was ill prepared and wouldn't furnish experts to back up his experiments for some reasons.

Now that is rich. Behe had several months to prepare.

 

 

The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could.

Baloney. Behe had tried to use the human eye as an example of irreducible complexity long before Kitzmiller. He did not bring this claptrap up in the trial because it had been shot down long before Kitzmiller.

 

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. It is creationist nonsense.

 

 

Your post statment "Behe and his claptrap have been dismissed by the scientific community over and over and over again, and he most certainly was dismissed by the court. " Isn't inline with either moo or I . It also denegertes his ref which is in my view acceptable to forum rules. ...so thus you are totally rejected.

OK. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

This thread started out discussing creation, and has degraded into rehashing the tired old creationism/Intelligent Design garbage that has been refuted a hundred times here at SFN, and thousands of times by the scientific community as a whole.

Our religion section is for discussing religion, not for trying to disprove accepted science (we have all those science sections and Speculations for that). It's been attempted and failed too many times for it to be interesting anymore. It's abundantly clear that creationists and creationism can only exist in a state of ignorance and denial. I urge everyone to study a thing before criticizing a thing.

This thread is closed. Any further threads on creationism (which is completely different from creation) or Intelligent Design will be closed. Proponents don't listen and I'm sure the rest of us are tired of wondering when they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.