There’s too much to catch up on right now, but one quick comment…

Rather than repeatedly restating the respective starting positions, Behe’s hypothesis has been refuted. Until such time as that refutation itself has been refuted, there is nothing new to talk about.

So, how does Behe defend his use of argumentum ad ignorantum? How does he answer to the criticism of the “out” he’s giving himself?

My impression of his ID hypothesis is that as it stands, it’s based on logical fallacies at best and a stroke book for creationists at worst. Where it falls inside of this spectrum depends on how sincere Behe himself is.

Elwedriddsche, Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system. It’s done now, and I’ll return the discussion.

Behe, like any wise Christian, must leave himself an out. In Job, God reminds Job that he was not present when God created the universe, and should not be giving God advice on how to run it. I don’t wish to be in that boat either. So I can’t fault a Christian author for leaving a loophole for themselves by saying “Hey, this is what I think, but if God would like to reveal my weakness, then I’ll subject myself to his authority.” A believer knows God uses others, sometimes non-believers, to reveal Himself. So, it’d be wise to remain open to new discoveries. In fact, don’t you find it rather funny how many scientists have made uncompromising statements one day, only to be eating crow the next? BeHe knows he’s going to be held under a microscope by evolutionists, if the only failure they find is pride, they’d knock him on that, and the way I get slapped around on this site is all the proof I need of that.

Irreducible complexity is apparent at other levels. Consider the nursing mother. Six different groups of hormones are moved to just the right level by various glands just in order to maintain lactation (in humans), let alone start it at the right time. But somehow, the mammary glands, the hormones required (and the various glands that produce them) plus an actual live birth is all required to make this relatively simple system work. All of the items are required just to make any ONE of them useful. If there is no baby, no milk is needed, if there are no hormones, the mammary will not produce, and the baby does not survive (evolutionarily useless), without the mammary gland, all those hormones will not produce any milk on their own and the same result. If no baby needed milk at birth, why would mammary glands come to exist? And why would they come to exist at all if the hormones that cause them to produce milk could did not exist? But why would we produce a complex and varied amount of hormones that cause milk production if there was no live birth. Each of the events is interdependent, none of them have a use without the other two. So why would any of these happen at all?

I suppose you could have a live birth animal where survival was enhanced among those that had milk, and eventually we evolved to where it was a necessity. But where is the evidence that there ever was such an animal? All the glands that must work in conjunction to produce milk, why would evolution create them independently, one at a time? Where is the animal that can nurse without an active endocrine system? This function is, as far as I can tell, irreducible, the parts depend on each other, and don’t work independently to any useful end. And this is a simple example.

But still you have not shown the experiment where it’s been shown that DNA became more complex via mutation. Nunyabiz may have a dislike for the author I quoted, and may even have found an argument against, but that does not mean it’s possible to do what is needed to fit your claims of evolution. You are making the positive claim, you should have an example.

Nor have you answered why grass is green instead of black. From an Evolutionary standpoint, black would be more efficient. More energy could be captured and more growth for longer periods during the year could be achieved. With all the minute refinements of all the organisms, this obvious advantage was never brought forth? What explains that?

And of course, there’s that niggling problem with chaos. What driving force has caused order, when the nature of the universe is towards chaos?

David, I’m pressed for time today and I can’t answer everything I’d like to in a timely manner.

Maybe black grass would be too much of a good thing?  I once saw somebody drink water from a black hose lying around in the sunshine…

While you wait for more, what’s your take on the problem of evil?

Too much of a good thing? Why would grass care how hot it got for you, it only lives to make more grass, it’s only drive to reproduce.

What problem of evil? Or are we about to go back down the free will road?

nunyabiz said: - To me just being gullible though is more like you would fall for a pyramid scam, or telemarketer tricks to hoodwink you out your life savings, or maybe a shell game.

What is Christianity really, but the ultimate pyramid scheme? The only difference I see is that while participants are encouraged to put as much effort as they can into it’s furtherance and growth, for all they know, when reward time (heaven) comes, whoever wins admission to heaven gets no more reward then anyone else who’s admitted.

So the disproportional reward is here on earth, where one can convert more souls, earn more respect from other members, and maybe even be elected President or Pope or another type of venerated one.

David said: - I do not decide, I merely hold them up to their professed standard (the Bible).

No, you hold them up to YOUR professed standard based on your interpretation of the Bible. You decide whether they have grokked it correctly, and you dispense judgment accordingly. Sure, it’s just your opinion and I know that, but ill-formed opinions such as you may have, when implemented, have caused lack of deserved freedoms, depression and even death.

Finally! Please expand on how you come to this conclusion. Cause off the top of my head, I can only think of 5 or 10 reasons why this is a ludicrous concept. Let’s say I empathize with the Nazis and just want to be congenial with them. That’ll make me good, right?

What definitions of congeniality and empathy do you go by?

Congenial: Of a pleasant disposition; friendly and sociable.

Empathy: 1) Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives.

2) Understanding and entering into another’s feelings.

In what ways did the Nazi’s enter into friendly and sociable relations with the Jews? How did they show understanding and identification of another’s (the Jews) feelings?

If you say “well they gave them a place to live rent free”, I’ll suspect that you’re continuing to look at a small part of the picture or applying narrow definitions of the words.

Applying empathy and congeniality all-inclusively, makes one a good person. At the very least it goes further toward making them a good person than accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior would. Saying you are good and “saved” doesn’t necessarily make you either one. Being saved by God doesn’t protect you from misapplication of empathy or congeniality. You don’t get a “get out of jail free” card just because you say He says you do. That’s in my humble opinion of course.

Oh! I get it, you mean empathetic and congenial with ALL people! Hmmm, sounds like “Love your neighbor as yourself”. I’ve heard about that somewhere. Oh yeah, it was the second part of the answer Jesus gave to the question “What is the most important commandment?”. So then, if I became a follower of Jesus, I’d pretty much have to accept this as a rather important teaching, wouldn’t I? Since it is half the basis for “All the law” according to Jesus himself.

Did you get the impression somewhere that Christians hope to gain something by proselytizing? Because, I didn’t. And you calling my opinion ill informed is pretty funny. I mean, it’s like you telling elwedriddsche that he has an ill-informed opinion on what it is to be German. He may not have the perfect definition, but it’s sure to be far more accurate than yours.

Just to be clear, nothing any Christian does could ever hope to bring them anything. We deserve nothing from God. He deserves our obedience (check the first part of the answer to the question above). I earn nothing, I am given salvation FREELY. And respect from other members? Ha! Now that’s rich. Truly. For what? Christ did the work, the holy spirit softens hearts, I just witness. If I DID boast, it would achieve the opposite of that desire. I’ve got absolutely nothing to gain by telling you about Christ.

You guys need to make it about something gained. Because if you can’t prove a motive, then it’s hard to hang any guilt. The thing is, there is a motive, but you just don’t get it. It’s all about love, right from the first paragraph. I love you, so I want you to have everything that I have that is of value. And the one thing I value above everything, is my relationship with Christ.

But that can’t be. Someone claiming to have Christian love for you told you that homosexuality is wrong. And homosexuality is how you define your self, Brock. And that’s why I’ve said to you before, “It’s not that your’ re homosexual, it’s that that is all you are.” If you can see yourself as more than just your sexual preference (us straight folk just call that being mature) then you might be able to see how I could care enough about you to worry more about your soul than about your body. More about your SELF than your sexual preference. Man, if all I am is the sum total of my sins, then I’m one miserable bastard.

David said: - And you calling my opinion ill informed is pretty funny.

I said…“but ill-formed opinions such as you may have”! MAY was carefully placed, but you seem to read into things only what you expect to see.

Someone claiming to have Christian love for you told you that homosexuality is wrong.

I believe you were the one claiming to have Christian love for me who told me homosexuality is wrong.

And homosexuality is how you define your self, Brock. And that’s why I’ve said to you before, “It’s not that your’ re homosexual, it’s that that is all you are.” If you can see yourself as more than just your sexual preference (us straight folk just call that being mature) then you might be able to see how I could care enough about you to worry more about your soul than about your body. More about your SELF than your sexual preference. Man, if all I am is the sum total of my sins, then I’m one miserable bastard.

Dude, the moment I become “all about my sexuality” I’ll be useless as a conscious person. That you would make that assumption, based on the little you know of me shows how intolerant you can be.

Excuse me though, if I can never reach the level of maturity you seem to have reached. I guess being gay means I should never be allowed to present my unique views of the world based on my experiences. It would mean I haven’t reached a sufficient level of maturity. Speaking from the position I’m in means that’s “all I’m about”. Funny, I was here 6 months before I ever said anything about my personal sexuality, and I only began to because of the topics on gay marriage and other similar subjects.

David, you couldn’t give a flying heterosexual fuck about my soul! But it sounds admirable when you say you do, doesn’t it?

Oh, that “carefully” placed “may” covered you, don’t worry. I must be all wrong about what you implied. All your unswerving fairness in regards to my opinions and I repay you like this… how will I be able to sleep tonight?

Every reply of yours, on ever topic I’ve ever read, is filled with your sexual preference. I can only think of a handfull where there was not a direct reference. But again, I must be all wrong about that.

Again, you’re so right, I only worry about what a group of atheists think about me. I need you all to think the most about me, and admire me. I’m so caught up in your opinions that I can barely find time to think about about my family, friends, church, school, pets, home, finances or any of that trivial .

I have only one question, O wise brock, what kind of drugs did you take before writing that post?

Did David take too many “hate pills” today? Anybody know someone who knows him, to ask?

David, I invite you to put your shit where your mouth is and look back a few months for posts I’ve made. There are plenty and they don’t involve discussing or revealing my sexuality.

What’s your excuse for the one note you seem to be stuck on?

Damn, I can hardly get a dissertation in here, edgewise, what with all the sniping.

But here goes, anyway.

Point One:
Evolution, as a theory, provides some pretty workable results. It allows us to predict certain things, and those predictions have frequently turned out to be true.

Note: These predictions are pretty specific— these aren’t “great terror will descend from the sky in smoke and flames in the (illegible smudge) year of our lord.”

Here’s a list of just a few of those predictions.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

Point Two:
Is an eye “irreducibly complex?” Of course not, because people have actually examined and traced a possible evolutionary pathway for the eye. So the eye is, well, pretty fucking complex, but not “irreducibly” complex.

But the breast, ah, the mammary gland, the sweet origin of mother’s milk, also “designed” to feel oh so excellent when snugged into the palm of your hand. . .

well, we haven’t traced any evolutionary pathway for it, so it must be God’s creation—

believe it or not, this is the most compelling argument that I’ve heard yet (not because it’s logical, but because it appeals to the side of me that’s, you know, very fond of breasts— I mean, if there’s going to be evidence of God, that’s where I’d expect to find it!)

As for the molecular evolution of DNA:

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/12.Molecular.Evolution.HTML

It is interesting that the writers note that some incredibly simple organisms can have larger amounts of DNA than organisms that are far more “complex.” (I am making the -assumption- that complexity refers to morphological characteristics. That’s right, isn’t it? ‘complexity’ is always a reference to structural- complexity, like the eye, or the breast— systems that are comprised of multiple related mini-systems? It seems paradoxical that Behe can see that IC on the macro-level is no threat to evolutionary theory, but insists that the micro-level is somehow a special case)

Still, what the authors say is that they “don’t know” why simple organisms can have so much more “junk” DNA than comparatively more complex organisms.

I don’t think that leads us inevitably to the “well God did it” conclusion, anymore than “we don’t know what lightning is” leads to the “Thor made it” conclusion.

And this one’s a serious pain in the ass to read, but I think it’s more than a little relevant. I would especially draw the reader’s attention to the section on whether or not the complement pathway is irreducibly complex. Behe asserted that it was.

These guys make a pretty compelling case that it is NOT irreducibly complex. In fact, the presence of a similar, functioning cascade, in urochordates, (a similar cascade, but one that is -lacking- one of the components that is -essential- in the vertebrate version of the cascade) seems to indicate not only reducibility, but, I believe, it would also suggest that vertebrates and urochordates share common ancestry? But I could be misreading that part.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html

Point 3

Behe isn’t the first one to grapple with irreducible complexity. Nor has irreducible complexity ever been seen, before, as a threat to Darwinism. In fact, IC was seen as additional proof of the Darwinian model of evolution:

Muller’s work, IC, and gene duplication:

http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html

As the author points out, Behe’s mistakes don’t ‘prove’ that he’s wrong about intelligent design. But his argument that IC can’t be accounted for through Darwinian mechanisms IS flat out wrong.

So nothing has really changed. Behe can’t be “proven” wrong about Intelligent Design, but neither does his work “prove” that evolutionary processes cannot account for IC.

All that work, and I still don’t see how this has really changed anything.

Oh, and quick point in response to the “why don’t we have an example of the transitional mammal” re: lactation. 1. Are there any mammals that don’t lactate? I really don’t know the answer to this question, but I suspect that the answer is NO (although I would also assert that there are no mammals that lay eggs, and I’d be wrong about that one). 2. Would a fossil of a such a transitional mammal even be identifiable? What parts of an ‘originary’ lactating mammal would be discernible in fossil form? Does soft tissue ever survive fossilization? If not, how would we even be able to identify such a transitional mammal?

Note:

I think ALL of my Point Two discussion is irrelevant to a discussion of “black box”, as is David’s example of the breast.  Additional reading has made me aware that Behe (in what I consider a rather arbitrary manner) doesn’t contest the evolution of irreducibly complex systems on the macro-level (IE: the heart, the lungs, the eye, etc. etc.).  He only asserts IC as evidence of design at the cellular level. 

Final:  Why would black grass be more efficient.  Two:  Evolution does not always result in the most efficient form.  Evidence of such efficiency would -actually- be one of the most telling arguments for design.  The fact that the human eye (cum “blind watchmaker”) is -not- as efficient as it could be is actually evidence in -support- of evolutionary “sloppiness.“

OK, and now I -really- have to abandon this and get back to my life.

If I can make the time, I’ll post something about green grass, generic algorithms, and punctuated equilibriums.

I found the following comment by David…

Also, I don’t think I could do this again, yet you keep spouting the same drivel over and over, and expect that this time you’ll get a different result.

Pretty fucking amusing seeing as that’s pretty much all he does himself. He’s still using bad examples as well…

Irreducible complexity is apparent at other levels. Consider the nursing mother. Six different groups of hormones are moved to just the right level by various glands just in order to maintain lactation (in humans), let alone start it at the right time. But somehow, the mammary glands, the hormones required (and the various glands that produce them) plus an actual live birth is all required to make this relatively simple system work.

Bzzzt! Sorry David, but try again. Lactation is a demand driven process. As long as you continue to empty them breasts, they’ll continue to produce milk and a live birth is not necessary to start the process. The practice of breastfeeding an adopted newborn has been undertaken by countless women who have never been pregnant themselves. Need to check up on them facts there, David!

If there is no baby, no milk is needed, if there are no hormones, the mammary will not produce, and the baby does not survive (evolutionarily useless), without the mammary gland, all those hormones will not produce any milk on their own and the same result. If no baby needed milk at birth, why would mammary glands come to exist? And why would they come to exist at all if the hormones that cause them to produce milk could did not exist? But why would we produce a complex and varied amount of hormones that cause milk production if there was no live birth. Each of the events is interdependent, none of them have a use without the other two. So why would any of these happen at all?

Why shouldn’t they? If live births and breastfeeding were the only methods that all of life used to reproduce itself then I might see where you would have an argument, but last I checked life manages to reproduce itself in a number of different ways which is what you’d expect in a system that has developed through the process of evolution.

Where is the animal that can nurse without an active endocrine system?

Nurse? Hell, I’d love to have you show me a living animal without an active endocrine system. That system is involved in more than just trigging lactation you know.

Nor have you answered why grass is green instead of black. From an Evolutionary standpoint, black would be more efficient. More energy could be captured and more growth for longer periods during the year could be achieved. With all the minute refinements of all the organisms, this obvious advantage was never brought forth? What explains that?

Your haughty assertion that black grass would obviously be more efficient from an Evolutionary standpoint sounds logical on the surface, but like a lot of your claims it just shows how little you understand how reality works. The simple explanation? Grass doesn’t need to be any more efficient at absorbing energy in order to survive.

At the Infrared end of the spectrum there’s not enough energy to make photosynthesis possible so there’s not much point in absorbing light in that range, which a black grass would do. At the Ultraviolet end of the spectrum there’s too much energy and that would result in free radicals which would destroy chemical bonds in the grass and end up killing it, which a black grass would also do. In fact grass has pigments in it that protect it from UV light. As a result grass uses good old fashioned visible spectrum light in photosynthesis. Chlorophyll A absorbs light with wavelengths of 430nm and 662nm while Chlorophyll B absorbs light of 453nm and 642nm. There are also various Carotenoids pigments that show up in plants and can absorb light between 460nm and 550nm. Put all of that together and you get green grass because that’s all the energy grass needs to prosper without forcing it to work itself to death getting rid of energy it doesn’t need.

Allow me to put it into simpler terms you can relate to: Ever notice how when it’s really hot out for several days you have to water your lawn more or the grass turns brown? Why do you think that is? Could it be because the grass is using the extra water to rid itself of the extra energy it’s suddenly taking in from the unusually abundant sun? (Hint: Yes) Now imagine if the grass were black. How much more watering do you think you’d have to do to keep your grass healthy?  (Hint: a lot more watering) Not quite such an obvious advantage to black grass anymore, eh? For those interested a more thorough introduction to photosynthesis and why plants are the colors they are can be found here.

You guys need to make it about something gained. Because if you can’t prove a motive, then it’s hard to hang any guilt. The thing is, there is a motive, but you just don’t get it. It’s all about love, right from the first paragraph. I love you, so I want you to have everything that I have that is of value. And the one thing I value above everything, is my relationship with Christ.

Dude, I think I can safely speak for a lot of people when I say that we’d really appreciate it if you didn’t love us or try to share your most valuable possession with us. In some states that shit’ll get you arrested.

Then in addressing Brock he makes the following assertion:

Every reply of yours, on ever topic I’ve ever read, is filled with your sexual preference. I can only think of a handfull where there was not a direct reference. But again, I must be all wrong about that.

All of Brock’s comments are still logged here on SEB. You’re making a claim so you have the burden of proof. I suggest you start making use of the search function to start counting the number of comments Brock has ever left here and how many make references to his sexuality and then get back to us with the percentage ratio to back your claim up. This should be trivial in comparison to proving macro-evolution so you should have it done in a week or two, yes? Otherwise the rest of us will reserve the right to assume you “must be all wrong about that.“ The proof is simple so back it up, chump.

Again, you’re so right, I only worry about what a group of atheists think about me. I need you all to think the most about me, and admire me. I’m so caught up in your opinions that I can barely find time to think about about my family, friends, church, school, pets, home, finances or any of that trivial .

For someone who doesn’t care so much about what a group of atheists think about you, you certainly spend a lot of time complaining about it. Spend an awful lot of time hanging with people who’s opinions you don’t care about too. Oh, that’s right, it’s cause you love us so much! It must hurt to love that much.

Three times I’ve asked you for an example of an actual contradiction, 3 times you’ve failed to do it,

Could have sworn iv given you a few, but since iv done this exact same argument with countless Christians that ALL refuse to except reality maybe I was thinking of the other 100s of times iv done so the past few decades, outcome is always the same so excuse me if i show little to no interest.
I’ll give you several hundred to deny completely if that will make you feel better.

Im not going to bother listing any separately just go to the sites so you can deny them all in one fell swoop, saves you time and Les Bandwidth.

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tcont.htm

http://ffrf.org/lfif/?t=contra.txt

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#good_to_all

this is a pretty good one here.

http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/bible-a.htm

http://www.krysstal.com/contradi.html

Here is a fairly accurate description of religious belief and why it exist in the first place.

http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/saldanha-religiousbelief.shtml

Here’s a good one for you that should keep you busy denying for hours, 18 pages full of one contradiction after another after another, just keep hitting “next” at bottom of page after you have successfully denied it all.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/2347/f1.html

Now that you have successfully denied about 1000 obvious contradictions you should feel all warm & fuzzy inside, so here are some total absurdities in the Bible for you to refute and fully agree with.
Glad I could be of service to help bolster your faith of the insane David.
Your Cognitive Dissonance is showing.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.shtml

Iv listed this before but thought I would again as it so clearly shows David’s entire thought process.
David the Apologist.

you fit this profile perfectly.

http://www.thamus.org/eac/bible-apologist.html

I have to admit that the How to be a Bible Apologist Nunya listed is pretty funny and a pretty accurate description of how David likes to argue. Especially his tendency to redefine the meanings of words on the fly and his insistence that any apparent contradictions in the Bible are simply things “taken out of context.“ Too funny.

Hehe thought you might like that.

I thought i would list it again as sort of a pre-argument if any if David would choose to make a fool of himself denying any or all of the above 100s of contradictions and absurdities.
As in order to do so he will have to use just about all of the steps in that site with the skills he has honed so well being a Bible Apologist.
He has clearly accepted his insanity.

Thanks Les. I knew that you, of all people here, have probably read all my posts and could offer a slice of reality to counter David’s ridiculous claim.

Actually I don’t know what makes me madder: that he said my sexuality (read; wrong sexuality) is all I’m about, or that he suggests, through inference, that I’m not as mature as straight people. I guess when he gets a hankering to flame, I’m the easiest and most deserving recipient - due to my immature, incorrect sexuality.

I could go back and point how many times he’s mentioned that he’s married to a woman, identifying himself as heterosexual, and tell him that his heterosexuality is all he’s about. But I’m pretty sure he’s done that no more than I’ve brought my sexuality into the conversation.

Still, I’m tempted to go back over my past posts to get a count for him - He never will! He’ll just make a baseless accusation then move on to present more of his superior understandings and right-mindedness.

I only talk about three things on here, mostly, and those three things are sex, religion and politics. Sex, though listed first, is the one subject I’ve discussed the least, by far. I think it’s fair and appropriate, that when the subject of sexuality comes up, I speak about it from my perspective.

Oh, and I may have spoken of pet monkeys once or twice - I was in a silly mood at the time.

Maybe it would help to draw up a FSD (frequently seen debates) section to SEB.

I would use a tree structure (or a directed acyclical graph at worst). The topic goes on top, the arguments for and against are immediate branches, refutations follow the arguments, refutations of refutations come next…

If such a tree gets flattened into a nested bullet point format (hey, Powerpoint!), it should be fairly easy to keep track of the overarching state of the argument. If side A cannot refute a refutation or argument of B without entering a cycle, score one for B…

It might be amusing to trawl SEB for all references to evolution and try to build such a graph.

Brock, not a problem. As I recall you were an active participant for quite awhile before it even came up and it surprised me a bit to learn that you were gay. Do you mention it often? More so now than in the past, but given some of the topics we’ve covered that doesn’t seem unusual to me.

I mention my atheism often simply because, much as your sexual orientation is to you, my atheism is a part of my life and how I view the world. I’ve certainly been told in the past that I’m “all about being an atheist” as though I were single mindedly obsessive about it, but anyone who knows me in real life knows that’s not true. If we’re going to start making assumptions about what people are “all about being” based on comments on SEB then David has to be one of the most single-mindedly obsessive believers and apologists I’ve ever corresponded with. How the man finds time to sleep and eat in between thinking about God all the time is beyond me.

I’m just tired of David’s habit of complaining about how he’s treated on here to only turn around and engage in the very treatment he’s bitching about.

Elwedriddsche, SEB is run on a mySQL database. I know jack and shit about constructing SQL queries, but I can certainly provide some detail on database structure and run any queries you or anyone else might come up with.

If someone complains about your being “too” something-or-other, it’s a clear sign that they can’t stand your being it at all.  If David thinks that Brock is “all about being gay,“ it’s obvious that that’s simply all David can see because it bugs him so much.

Lactation is a demand driven process. As long as you continue to empty them breasts, they’ll continue to produce milk and a live birth is not necessary to start the process. The practice of breastfeeding an adopted newborn has been undertaken by countless women who have never been pregnant themselves.

And they undergo a series of hormonal injects to get it started, and it is maintained by 6 different groups of hormones that get started running by the presence (or lack) of those original hormones and the milk itself. So yes, for those of us who understand a little biology, it’s an interdependent system, but for you Les, it’s the push-the-button-and-it-goes-drive theory of space travel, applied to life.

Why shouldn’t they? If live births and breastfeeding were the only methods that all of life used to reproduce itself then I might see where you would have an argument, but last I checked life manages to reproduce itself in a number of different ways which is what you’d expect in a system that has developed through the process of evolution.

Maybe you missed the part where I was trying to point to a macro interdependent system. Just to clear a few things up: 1) I didn’t bring up Behe, someone else did, after I brought up irreducibly complex systems. 2) I never said this about all life, just pointing out a weakness of the evolutionary theory. And 3) I never stated that evolution is not correct, just that it requires belief in unproven ideas. It is a theory, not a fact, and it does not account for all the known facts. 4) According to the way you just described the Theory, not all mammals are descended of a mammal, some have come from other kingdoms, and mammals produce the occasional reptile (or some such). This is not what any other evolutionist I’ve ever read states.

[Quote] Nurse? Hell, I’d love to have you show me a living animal without an active endocrine system. That system is involved in more than just trigging lactation you know.

There are many animals with no defined organs at all. But the point was not that the endocrine system existed, but that it produced the appropriate hormones to make the process work. They still teach biology in public schools, don’t they?

Your haughty assertion that black grass would obviously be more efficient from an Evolutionary standpoint sounds logical on the surface, but like a lot of your claims it just shows how little you understand how reality works. The simple explanation? Grass doesn’t need to be any more efficient at absorbing energy in order to survive.

The issue is not survival. Evolution insists that each trait that could improve the chance of survival become the norm. If some trait makes an organism more fecund, more viable, more prevalent, then that trait will win out, and all other organisms that do not have that trait will be pushed out.  Otherwise, no “progress” would be made because the trait would just disappear back into the pool.

Your explanation of green grass is all well and good, IF we were interested in how it CURRENTLY works. Grass that could make use of a wider spectrum of energy and get more energy out of the available spectrum would be superior to grass that could not. Again, you want the simplified answer, because in this case it suits you well. But I’m telling you that I’ve posed this questions to several PhD level biologists, and they don’t think the answer is as simple as you do. And these are folks that are pure evolutionists. Try it another way: what biological restraint is there for chlorophyll to not be able to use longer or shorter wavelengths?

Nunyabiz, I’m not going to go disagree with a bunch of sites I already know I disagree with. If you’ve got a contradiction that you think you can back up, then lay it out. Otherwise, once again, you are letting someone else do your thinking for you. I’m talking to you, and I’m pretty sure this is for the last time. If you can’t defend a point of one of your arguments personally (something I’ve yet to see you do, but have tried many times to get you to do) then I’m really not interested in reading anything else you have to write..Oh and try this one on, since you like links so much: http://www2.uwsuper.edu/rseelke/crsnotes/truth.txt
There’s a difference between science and nonsense. I’ve got no problem with Pastuer, and he didn’t believe in creation, but he did science.

Brock, the reason I have written the things I have to you is in response to the never ending personal attacks you have made on me. It has nothing to do with your sexual preference. If you will remember our first encounter was over the gay “marriage” topic. You were abusive, obnoxious, and clearly asserting your sexual preference. Since then, you have seldom posted a civil response to anything I’ve written.  But I see that once again, you all are allowed to have opinions about other people, but if I have one, I have to PROVE I FEEL that way.

Look, I’ve never complained about the attacks (as I’ve been accused of doing) but I’ve pointed it out on occasion to show reason for my responses. But here you are, actually whining about me giving you relatively minor rebukes after what you’ve written about me. If you can’t take it, stop dishing it out. If you know anything about Christians at all, you know that if you ask, I’m literally bound to forgive you.

Geekmom: Once again, I’m humbled by your incredible insight, this time into psychology. That’s it, I can’t stand it: I can’t stand it that someone I’ve never met (and am not even sure what sex it truly is) and will likely never meet is having homosexual relationships with other people I don’t know and will never meet. But I’ve friends, right here, that I see on a regular basis that I know are gay, and it hardly bothers me at all.  It all makes so much sense now.

Nowiser: (to get back on topic)

Point One: Every astrologer and psychic n the world has a list of the predictions they’ve made that have come true. Or to put it another way: Even a blind pig finds a truffle every now and then.  Or you could look here:
http://www.foresight.org/News/negativeComments.html#loc008

Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H., “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search…. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.“ The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46[/qoute]

You see, although they have found millions of fossil species, all were from perfectly formed, complex and fully functioning organisms. No missing links, no imperfect intermediate forms at all. Even the much vaunted supposed ancestry of the horse has now been shown to be completely asinine, I’m afraid.

I’d say that produces a few problems for ol Chuck.

Point 2:

well, we haven’t traced any evolutionary pathway for it, so it must be God’s creation—

believe it or not, this is the most compelling argument that I’ve heard yet (not because it’s logical, but because it appeals to the side of me that’s, you know, very fond of breasts— I mean, if there’s going to be evidence of God, that’s where I’d expect to find it!)

I found this amusing, thank you. But let’s say for a moment that evolution is wrong, that direct 7 day creation is right (a position I do NOT take). What would you expect to find? I would expect that there’d be systems we could explain the development of (within species) and those we could not. This makes the position difficult to prove, indeed, which might explain why I’m not willing to take that stand.

Point 3: I never brought up Behe, I brought up irreducible complexity as being a hurdle to faith in evolution.  I’m not at all stuck on micro or macro. If ANY biological system is irreducibly complex, evolution is false. Admittedly, this leaves me with a wonderful out, but I can’t help it if the evolutionist has a lot of ground to cover. They are making some pretty wild claims.

Personally, it’s the fossil evidence (or lack of it) that makes me truly question Darwin. But I know your answer will be “Give it time”. Which is what Darwin said over a hundred years ago. And tons of fossils have been exhumed since and NONE of them show the links between species. This is why it is still a theory, and not science.

tons of fossils have been exhumed since and NONE of them show the links between species

I’m a tad busy, so I’m not going to dive into the rest of the post, just yet, but let’s just address this -one-.

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that paleontologists have discovered -no- transitional forms?

Even a blind pig finds a truffle every now and then

I would hazard a guess and say that Blind pigs actually find MORE truffles since their blindness might heighten there other senses and its their sense of “Smell” that leads them to truffles.

Personally, it’s the fossil evidence (or lack of it) that makes me truly question Darwin. But I know your answer will be “Give it time”. Which is what Darwin said over a hundred years ago. And tons of fossils have been exhumed since and NONE of them show the links between species. This is why it is still a theory, and not science.

This statement here clearly shows you have no idea what you’re talking about and obviously completely deny ALL the empirical evidence which is no surprise.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

http://www.humanquestion.com/excerpt3.htm#excerpt3

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Media/answering_the_creationists.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

Here is a true statement not taken out of context explaining your BS about Niles Eldridge which you obviously don’t understand OR are just deliberately misquoting using your “Apologetics method”

“WHY DO MAJOR NEW GROUPS OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS HAVE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.“

It’s amazing how often this is stated in the creationist literature. It’s amazing because it simply isn’t true. There are plenty of transitional forms. There are gaps, of course, for reasons I have stated - not all animals fossilize. But what is significant is that not a single fossil has turned up in the wrong place. Fossils are all in the right order. Creationists know that fossils all appear in the right order and it is quite an embarrassment for them. The best explanation they have come up with so far is based on Noah’s flood. They say that when the great flood came the animals all rushed for the hills. The clever ones all got to the top of the hill while the stupid ones were stuck at the bottom and that’s why the fossils are all neatly laid out in just the right order!

Part of the error about transitional forms may come from a misreading of a theory by my colleagues Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould. Their theory is called ‘punctuated equilibrium’. It is really about rapid gradualism or, to say it another way, gradual change that occurs rapidly separated by periods of stasis when nothing changes at all. Eldredge and Gould are rightly annoyed about the misuse of their idea by creationists, who in my terminology, think punctuated equilibrium is about huge Boeing 747 type mutations. I quote Stephen Gould, “We proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends; it is infuriating to be quoted again and again, whether through design or stupidity I do not know, as admitting ‘the fossil record includes no transition forms’. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but they are abundant between larger group forms.“ Dr. Gould goes on, “I am both angry at and amused by the creationists and mostly I am deeply sad.“

Finally, there is a semantic point about transitional forms. Zoologists, when they classify, are forced by the rules of the game to put each specimen in one species or another. In the classification business we are not allowed to say, “Well this is half-way between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus”. People who dig up human fossils will always be forced to choose between one or the other. Is it Homo erectus or archaic Homo sapiens? It is forced to be one or the other. Given this definition, it is almost a legalistic point that fossils have got to be classified as one or the other. The analogy I’d offer is this. When you reach the age of majority - legal age - of 18 in Alabama you can vote. So, at the stroke of midnight on your eighteenth birthday you become an adult. Suppose somebody were to say, “Isn’t it remarkable, there are no intermediates between children and adults?“ That would be ridiculous.

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.shtml

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5.html#5.1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq%252Dtransitional.html

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rhmiller/chordates2/Chordates2.htm

there is such an enormous body of evidence that so very clearly shows that Evolution is valid and so far that ALL predictions have come to light that you would literally have to be insane to believe otherwise.

Evolution insists that each trait that could improve the chance of survival become the norm

Schmoo?  Clearly, then, anything which is not -perfect- in it’s structure and function is evidence that evolution is a farce.  Because evolution leads to perfection.  No perfection, no evolution.  Voila!  Thus, I prove that 1. There is a God, and 2. God revels in the mediocre!

So get off that exercise bike and snag yerself some Cheez-Whiz!