20+ Questions for Theists

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#311 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the paper and you are wrong.
They use the term "irreducibly complex" EXACTLY AS BEHE USES IT.
Hiding: "They mean that the cell would cease to function if any of those systems weren't there, not that cells did not evolve."
Behe does not use the term to say the cells did not evolve. Behe says they DID EVOLVE.
You don't know what the hell ID is. That's the problem.
Hey, you're the voice of ID here. Feel free to explain it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#312 Jul 8, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You can shout that over and over again, but no, they are not. They used the words "irreducible organizational complexity" to mean minimal "self referential information system." They say this in the article repeatedly. They certainly aren't arguing that the DNA molecule is the product of some designer.
Your Dr. Snokes is a biased source, so I'll just ignore his comments until the authors concur with him. His work w/Behe has been widely criticized and isn't considered serious. He does good work in physics, though. No denying that.
Snokes and Minnich are better sources than you, and they state the situation correctly - that the authors are using irreducible complexity exactly as Behe and they do.

The subject is directly in Scott Minnich's research field.

The paper tends toward validation of ID as enunciated by Behe, Minnich, and Snoke.

You have no way around that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#313 Jul 8, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah. Design ideas are ideas. And inferences, sure.
No, usually I dismiss what you write pretty quickly. It's b/c of your overly simplistic explanations and bullying.
Anyways, demonstrate my argument wrong. Produce a design hypothesis for a biological system that is testable and disprovable.
You have no argument.

You don't even know the points of contention.

Your latest attempt asserts that Behe thinks various cells did not evolve. Behe thinks all cells evolved.

You are not educated well enough on the controversy to argue with someone who understands it as I do.

So I waste my time just knocking down your erroneous contentions.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#314 Jul 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Snokes and Minnich are better sources than you, and they state the situation correctly - that the authors are using irreducible complexity exactly as Behe and they do.
The subject is directly in Scott Minnich's research field.
The paper tends toward validation of ID as enunciated by Behe, Minnich, and Snoke.
You have no way around that.
Snokes and Minnich are ID believers - so, no, they're opinion is just as biased as the claims you make above. Why should we trust the ID people when they're so very desperate to cling to any peer reviewed study?

The original authors are the ones we should be asking. I think I'll write them an email.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#315 Jul 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no argument.
The above is not an argument.
You don't even know the points of contention.
The above is not an argument.
Your latest attempt asserts that Behe thinks various cells did not evolve. Behe thinks all cells evolved.
That's not what I wrote.
You are not educated well enough on the controversy to argue with someone who understands it as I do.
Despite all your claims, you've yet to describe the "theory."

There is no controversy. Science has thoroughly and utterly rejected ID. It's not science.
So I waste my time just knocking down your erroneous contentions.
The above is not an argument, but cowardice.

I've tried to engage you on this before. I asked you to work with me on coming up with testable, disprovable hypotheses for ID - and we were getting along then. You refused, stating that you were only interested in the basic ideas.

So why are you so cowardly here? I've asked you no less than 7 times to write the ID theory down. Poly asked you a bunch, same with DS. Each time you just replied "I already wrote it." Well...not for any of us!

I asked you above to produce a testable, disprovable ID hypothesis. You failed to do so.

So, Buck, why are you so cowardly and defensive here?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#316 Jul 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
The subject is directly in Scott Minnich's research field.
Minnich's University of Idaho site lists 5 publications - the last in 2004.

That's about the worst publishing record I've seen from a microbiologist.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#317 Jul 8, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Snokes and Minnich are ID believers - so, no, they're opinion is just as biased as the claims you make above. Why should we trust the ID people when they're so very desperate to cling to any peer reviewed study?
The original authors are the ones we should be asking. I think I'll write them an email.
The findings of the authors are objectively consistent with the findings of Snokes, Behe, and Minnich.

The only bias illustrated is yours.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#318 Jul 8, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
The above is not an argument.
<quoted text>
The above is not an argument.
<quoted text>
That's not what I wrote.
<quoted text>
Despite all your claims, you've yet to describe the "theory."
There is no controversy. Science has thoroughly and utterly rejected ID. It's not science.
<quoted text>
The above is not an argument, but cowardice.
I've tried to engage you on this before. I asked you to work with me on coming up with testable, disprovable hypotheses for ID - and we were getting along then. You refused, stating that you were only interested in the basic ideas.
So why are you so cowardly here? I've asked you no less than 7 times to write the ID theory down. Poly asked you a bunch, same with DS. Each time you just replied "I already wrote it." Well...not for any of us!
I asked you above to produce a testable, disprovable ID hypothesis. You failed to do so.
So, Buck, why are you so cowardly and defensive here?
"Science" has not rejected ID. Some people who work in science have. Some accept it.

Despite your religious belief system around science, "Science" does not have a mind and free will to accept or reject things. It is operated by people.

I posted the ID hypothesis and explained it at length - multiple times. Each time, It was followed a day or two later with atheist posters saying there is no hypothesis, and none has been offered.

It's a futile exercise to propose a hypothesis to someone who rejects it without knowing what it is.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#319 Jul 8, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Minnich's University of Idaho site lists 5 publications - the last in 2004.
That's about the worst publishing record I've seen from a microbiologist.
Really? Nice work, professor.



Neutrophils Are Resistant to Yersinia YopJ/P-Induced Apoptosis and Are Protected from ROS-Mediated Cell Death by the Type III Secretion System (Citations: 2)
Justin L. Spinner, Keun Seok Seo, Jason L. O'Loughlin, Jennifer A. Cundiff, Scott A. Minnich, Gregory A. Bohach, Scott D. Kobayashi
Journal: PLOS One , vol. 5, no. 2, 2010
Neutrophils Are Resistant to Yersinia YopJ/P-Induced Apoptosis and Are Protected from ROS-Mediated Cell Death by the Type III Secretion System
Justin L. Spinner, Keun Seok Seo, Jason L. O'Loughlin, Jennifer A. Cundiff, Scott A. Minnich, Gregory A. Bohach, Scott D. Kobayashi, David M. Ojcius
Journal: PLOS One , vol. 5, no. 2, 2010
Characterization of an Escherichia coli O157:H7 O-Antigen Deletion Mutant and Effect of the Deletion on Bacterial Persistence in the Mouse Intestine and Colonization at the Bovine Terminal Rectal Mucosa (Citations: 8)
Haiqing Sheng, Ji Youn Lim, Maryann K. Watkins, Scott A. Minnich, Carolyn J. Hovde
Journal: Applied and Environmental Microbiology - AEM , vol. 74, no. 16, pp. 5015-5022, 2008
Lipid A mimetics are potent adjuvants for an intranasal pneumonic plague vaccine (Citations: 5)
Christina L. Airhart, Harold N. Rohde, Carolyn J. Hovde, Gregory A. Bohach, Claudia F. Deobald, Stephen S. Lee, Scott A. Minnich
Journal: Vaccine , vol. 26, no. 44, pp. 5554-5561, 2008

Minnich was cited 346 times in 246 publications.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#320 Jul 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The findings of the authors are objectively consistent with the findings of Snokes, Behe, and Minnich.
The only bias illustrated is yours.
Once again, show don't tell.

You can make that claim all you want, but I've already presented an argument which demonstrates you are wrong here.

You did nothing to counter it, except state the above over and over.

You're kind of embarrassing yourself here.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#321 Jul 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Science" has not rejected ID. Some people who work in science have. Some accept it.
Despite your religious belief system around science, "Science" does not have a mind and free will to accept or reject things. It is operated by people.
I posted the ID hypothesis and explained it at length - multiple times. Each time, It was followed a day or two later with atheist posters saying there is no hypothesis, and none has been offered.
It's a futile exercise to propose a hypothesis to someone who rejects it without knowing what it is.
The consensus of contemporary scientists, and law in the US, is that ID is not science.

Almost no one accepts ID as science - and, despite that some handful do, their belief has not changed science, nor the framework theory of biological sciences, one bit.

You have claimed to have posted the ID "theory" on multiple occasions - and even defended that it existed well after I posted a link to the Biologic homepage that declares they don't actually have a theory.

Anyways, what's your problem? Just post it. If one exists you could do that faster than you could cut and past a quote mined and stitched together, out of context Dawkins' phrase.

Or maybe you can't because their isn't one. That would explain your cowardice here.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#322 Jul 8, 2014
By "law" in the post above I mean "as ruled by the courts". Clearly there isn't a law about ID. Oops.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#323 Jul 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Nice work, professor.
Neutrophils Are Resistant to Yersinia YopJ/P-Induced Apoptosis and Are Protected from ROS-Mediated Cell Death by the Type III Secretion System (Citations: 2)
Justin L. Spinner, Keun Seok Seo, Jason L. O'Loughlin, Jennifer A. Cundiff, Scott A. Minnich, Gregory A. Bohach, Scott D. Kobayashi
Journal: PLOS One , vol. 5, no. 2, 2010
Neutrophils Are Resistant to Yersinia YopJ/P-Induced Apoptosis and Are Protected from ROS-Mediated Cell Death by the Type III Secretion System
Justin L. Spinner, Keun Seok Seo, Jason L. O'Loughlin, Jennifer A. Cundiff, Scott A. Minnich, Gregory A. Bohach, Scott D. Kobayashi, David M. Ojcius
Journal: PLOS One , vol. 5, no. 2, 2010
Characterization of an Escherichia coli O157:H7 O-Antigen Deletion Mutant and Effect of the Deletion on Bacterial Persistence in the Mouse Intestine and Colonization at the Bovine Terminal Rectal Mucosa (Citations: 8)
Haiqing Sheng, Ji Youn Lim, Maryann K. Watkins, Scott A. Minnich, Carolyn J. Hovde
Journal: Applied and Environmental Microbiology - AEM , vol. 74, no. 16, pp. 5015-5022, 2008
Lipid A mimetics are potent adjuvants for an intranasal pneumonic plague vaccine (Citations: 5)
Christina L. Airhart, Harold N. Rohde, Carolyn J. Hovde, Gregory A. Bohach, Claudia F. Deobald, Stephen S. Lee, Scott A. Minnich
Journal: Vaccine , vol. 26, no. 44, pp. 5554-5561, 2008
Minnich was cited 346 times in 246 publications.
Is the above his full publishing record? Is that...4 articles? And he was cited in 246 articles, mostly by other ID people or people criticizing ID?

Yes, Buck, that's about the worst publication record I've ever seen for a microbiologist.

Every single prof in his department whom I clicked upon had more publications.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#324 Jul 8, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, show don't tell.
You can make that claim all you want, but I've already presented an argument which demonstrates you are wrong here.
You did nothing to counter it, except state the above over and over.
You're kind of embarrassing yourself here.
You didn't present an argument.

You presented superfluous objections, and they turned out to be factually wrong. You objected with your opinion that the authors did not use irreducible complexity in the same sense as Behe, based on your thought that Behe doesn't believe the cells evolved. You were wrong.

No argument is necessary to show how the authors use the term. It is in the reading of it.

As you do every time you argue with me, you are making a fool of yourself.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#325 Jul 8, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
By "law" in the post above I mean "as ruled by the courts". Clearly there isn't a law about ID. Oops.
There is no such law or ruling "by the courts".

You don't know what you're talking about.

The ruling you refer to applies nowhere but the middle district of Pennsylvania, as stated by the judge in the case.

It has no force of law outside that district.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#326 Jul 8, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the above his full publishing record? Is that...4 articles? And he was cited in 246 articles, mostly by other ID people or people criticizing ID?
Yes, Buck, that's about the worst publication record I've ever seen for a microbiologist.
Every single prof in his department whom I clicked upon had more publications.
No, that's not the full record.

It's simply enough to prove you wrong.

And you are lying about that being the worst record for a microbiologist.

This is typical of you. You lose the argument on the subject at hand, so you start trying to demean the scientists you disagree with.

Your approach is not scientific. It is petulant and lame. But that's you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#327 Jul 8, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
The consensus of contemporary scientists, and law in the US, is that ID is not science.
Almost no one accepts ID as science - and, despite that some handful do, their belief has not changed science, nor the framework theory of biological sciences, one bit.
You have claimed to have posted the ID "theory" on multiple occasions - and even defended that it existed well after I posted a link to the Biologic homepage that declares they don't actually have a theory.
Anyways, what's your problem? Just post it. If one exists you could do that faster than you could cut and past a quote mined and stitched together, out of context Dawkins' phrase.
Or maybe you can't because their isn't one. That would explain your cowardice here.
I forgot which contention you are trotting now. Is there no hypothesis, or is the hypothesis not testable?

You need to better delineate your flip-flops.
Andre

Johannesburg, South Africa

#328 Jul 8, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Is your position that the Exodus story must be true if it cannot be "proven" false or that if it cannot be supported by solid evidence that archeologists and other scientists would expect to find if it were true, that the story's accuracy remains highly unlikely? Which approach do you consider to be consistent with solid logic? What evidence can you present that Egypt held a sizable Hebrew population during the epoch in question, that they were', in fact' the ancestors of the world's Jewish population? To what "hard facts" do you refer?
Simply stating that evidence exists is not sufficient. You have to first present it and then validate it with documentation that holds up to skeptical review. In a community of skeptics, the answers to questions like this all rely on solid evidence, not speculation, and not assertions to be proven false or stand as true, which is the reverse of any logical process. If you are not willing to do this, don't expect to change even a single mind.
Hi Nightserf.Let me just make my point clear and leave it at that, otherwise we will be going around in circles.
1) New evidence corroborates rather than destroys the Biblical account (see i.e. Moses could not have written the Pentateuch)
2) It is accepted that apparently a large majority of people , including some Biblical scholars. do not accept the Exodus as a true event.
3) There are circumstantial as well as archaeological evidence that seem to corroborate the Biblical account (David, R The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh’s Workforce, p. 191, Guild Publishing, London, UK, 1986) "It is evident that the completion of the king’s pyramid was not the reason why Kahun’s inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses …The quantity, range, and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated.) It is also true that the mummy of Neferhotep I has never been found and Neferhotep’s son never succeeded him (see death of firstborn). There are other items as well, and although they do not conclusively prove the exodus, it ties in with what has been discovered (e.g infrared technology indicating a massive number of people from the Nile delta)
Thus to state the exodus is a myth is not only premature but will eventually be proven accurate - no doubt. Watch the news.
Patrick

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

#329 Jul 8, 2014
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Nightserf.Let me just make my point clear and leave it at that, otherwise we will be going around in circles.
1) New evidence corroborates rather than destroys the Biblical account (see i.e. Moses could not have written the Pentateuch)
2) It is accepted that apparently a large majority of people , including some Biblical scholars. do not accept the Exodus as a true event.
3) There are circumstantial as well as archaeological evidence that seem to corroborate the Biblical account (David, R The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh’s Workforce, p. 191, Guild Publishing, London, UK, 1986) "It is evident that the completion of the king’s pyramid was not the reason why Kahun’s inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses …The quantity, range, and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated.) It is also true that the mummy of Neferhotep I has never been found and Neferhotep’s son never succeeded him (see death of firstborn). There are other items as well, and although they do not conclusively prove the exodus, it ties in with what has been discovered (e.g infrared technology indicating a massive number of people from the Nile delta)
Thus to state the exodus is a myth is not only premature but will eventually be proven accurate - no doubt. Watch the news.
Difficult to prove events that happened two hundred years ago.
Proving events from 2000 or 3000 years ago may be impossible?
Religion is often based on faith.
Peace
buzzkill

Knoxville, TN

#330 Jul 8, 2014
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Nightserf.Let me just make my point clear and leave it at that, otherwise we will be going around in circles.
1) New evidence corroborates rather than destroys the Biblical account (see i.e. Moses could not have written the Pentateuch)
2) It is accepted that apparently a large majority of people , including some Biblical scholars. do not accept the Exodus as a true event.
3) There are circumstantial as well as archaeological evidence that seem to corroborate the Biblical account (David, R The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh’s Workforce, p. 191, Guild Publishing, London, UK, 1986) "It is evident that the completion of the king’s pyramid was not the reason why Kahun’s inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses …The quantity, range, and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated.) It is also true that the mummy of Neferhotep I has never been found and Neferhotep’s son never succeeded him (see death of firstborn). There are other items as well, and although they do not conclusively prove the exodus, it ties in with what has been discovered (e.g infrared technology indicating a massive number of people from the Nile delta)
Thus to state the exodus is a myth is not only premature but will eventually be proven accurate - no doubt. Watch the news.
The level of evidence required to confirm the faith of those who already believe that the Exodus story actually happened is far less that that which is required to convince skeptics that it did. The above meets the one but not the other.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 2 min yehoshooah adam 4,304
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 4 hr John 712
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr John 32,165
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 hr SoE 76,871
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 14 hr Aerobatty 258,475
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 22 hr Ben Avraham 11
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
More from around the web