Secrets of the Cell: Dr. Michael Behe

The real question is this: what justification do we have for reading this particular book? Clearly, those who wish to see the ToE undermined will grab anything that helps them do this; I can loosely assume this is your justification for reading / advocating it (though to be clear, I assume your justification is more complex than this).

I have tons of justification for not reading this book.

Convince me it wouldn't be a waste of my time.
Why should I waste my time trying to convince you of anything? You obviously consider yourself an expert in ToE
Okay, fair point. This is how I ended my second post:

Perhaps, Arkycharlie, you can present Behe's new argument in your own words? I mean, I am guessing you cannot, but maybe you will surprise us.

Can you do that? What is this supposedly "New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution"? Can you tell us? I watched the first half of the video, and I saw nothing new there, little about DNA and nothing that challenges evolution.

Someone around here apparently described Behe as a huckster. Telling me I need to fork out $18 to see his claims before I can discern whether they have any value is making me think that that is right.

Are you here to discuss the claims? Or are you just hawking his book?
I am "hawking" nothing. If people watch the video and have no interest in the book, that's their choice. It makes no difference to me.
 
Yet another ID/Creationist who thinks that science is superior to evolution. When you want to disparage evolution you try to make it look like a religion: "faith" instead of science. That shows that you place science above religion.

I find that a very strange attitude for someone who is, presumably, not an atheist.
Are you another wanna be atheist? Pardon my asking, I’m not acquainted with everyone here.

I don’t necessarily try to make evolution look like a religion. Believers in evolution behave similarly to deeply religious folk. Touch their indisputable sacred creeds and you’re anathema. But, perhaps the faithful worshipers of evolution do so inadvertently.
I just try to help them by calling attention to that likelihood
 
Every time a Christian disparages religious faith, atheists win another debate.
MikeT, then why are you so diminished and distraught every time I come around⁉️ You should be buying me a drink every time I post. Where’s it at⁉️😂😂🤣
But anyway, thanks for weighing in‼️‼️😇
 
I am Buddhist, just look at my avatar picture. There are tens of thousands of gods in my scriptures. Numerically, you are a lot closer to atheism that I am.
A Buddhist !! That reminds me, I need to start looking at the Buddhist forum
Just curious. Did you get the “Christian atheism” theme from ancient Rome or Buddha?
In addition, I’d be curious to learn why you chose Buddhism over belief in the true God who made not only the heavens and the earth but Buddha too—-that is, if you care to expound
 
Why should I waste my time trying to convince you of anything? You obviously consider yourself an expert in ToE
It's not obvious in the least. I haven't portrayed myself as an expert at all; you're just bristling at having been asked (politely) why non-creationists should read the book.

Surely you have some reason for thinking it's worth our time; a reason that doesn't involve insults.
 
It's not obvious in the least. I haven't portrayed myself as an expert at all; you're just bristling at having been asked (politely) why non-creationists should read the book.

Surely you have some reason for thinking it's worth our time; a reason that doesn't involve insults.
I don’t believe non-creations should read creationists books at all—period for their own safety.
Creationist books are intellectually and absolutely lethal to false notions and fairytale myths like evolution. (Ie Frog turns into a prince after millions of years) 😂😂😂🤣🤣
If you think you’s a prince and yo daddie is a frog, then those non-creationist books will just burst yo bubble into a million prices‼️ AND all the kings horses and all the kings men won’t be able put your stuff back together again.
 
Pixie, just keep you hands tightly held against your ears. That’ll help keep you from hearing proofs and evidences that contradict your faith in evolution
Why do I need to close my ears? No one seems able to present these supposed proofs and evidences that contradict evolution.

I have noticed you, in particular, have been very vocal about this over the last couple of days, and I have still to find anything of substance in any of your posts. Come on, DaGeo, step up to the plate and show us what you have. To paraphrase your own words:

Here’s what you can do for yourself.​
Look up “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”, online—if you must. Then tell me what they are​
There’s no clock ticking, so you have plenty of time to complete your assignment.​
Good luck 😊
🙏

I mean, I am sure you will not even try, but...
 
I am "hawking" nothing. If people watch the video and have no interest in the book, that's their choice. It makes no difference to me.
What ARE you doing then, Arky? I have posted my comments on the content of the video, and you just ignored them. It is clear you have no interest in that. So why did you start this thread?

Hmm, if I had to guess, I would say you were just hoping the video was good, without actually watching it - blind faith, in other words. Now it has been thoroughly trashed, you realise you cannot saying anything of value about its contents.
 
Seems as if the evos claim all the changes to genetics are due to a form of vertical evolutionism. Keeping in mind this has never been witnessed...where genetic change due to the loss of already established genetics have been witnessed.
So we cannot say either way. Thanks for admitting.
 
A Buddhist !! That reminds me, I need to start looking at the Buddhist forum
Much less activity there than here I'm afraid.

Just curious. Did you get the “Christian atheism” theme from ancient Rome or Buddha?
Neither. I got it from mathematics. An atheist has 0 gods. A monotheist has 1 god. A polytheist has 2 or more gods. Mathematically, 1 is closer to 0 than 2 is.

In addition, I’d be curious to learn why you chose Buddhism over belief in the true God who made not only the heavens and the earth but Buddha too—-that is, if you care to expound
If you go to the Buddhism forum I answer that question in post #2 of the Why do you believe in Buddhism? thread.

There are lots of "true" gods. I can go to my local Synagogue to get one, or to my local Mosque for a different one. Is the one on offer at a Catholic Church the true god? Some Protestants will say yes while others will say no. There are a great many different, and incompatible, versions of the Abrahamic God on offer. Perhaps the LDS version is the correct one?
 
Much less activity there than here I'm afraid.


Neither. I got it from mathematics. An atheist has 0 gods. A monotheist has 1 god. A polytheist has 2 or more gods. Mathematically, 1 is closer to 0 than 2 is.


If you go to the Buddhism forum I answer that question in post #2 of the Why do you believe in Buddhism? thread.

There are lots of "true" gods. I can go to my local Synagogue to get one, or to my local Mosque for a different one. Is the one on offer at a Catholic Church the true god? Some Protestants will say yes while others will say no. There are a great many different, and incompatible, versions of the Abrahamic God on offer. Perhaps the LDS version is the correct one?
The One True God is always the one that the person you are talking to believes in.
 
Why do I need to close my ears? No one seems able to present these supposed proofs and evidences that contradict evolution.

I have noticed you, in particular, have been very vocal about this over the last couple of days, and I have still to find anything of substance in any of your posts. Come on, DaGeo, step up to the plate and show us what you have. To paraphrase your own words:

Here’s what you can do for yourself.​
Look up “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”, online—if you must. Then tell me what they are​
There’s no clock ticking, so you have plenty of time to complete your assignment.​
Good luck 😊
🙏

I mean, I am sure you will not even try, but...
I’ve left a number of clues that clearly suggest why I’m here. You, along with your fellow evolution devotees, who’ve invaded the forums, apparently require yet more helpful hints.
Yes, I realize your evolution mode of thought doesn’t require much logic, so this is kinda stuff might be a bit off the grid for ya

Let’s see if this helps.

No wait, lets not make this too easy, that might be kinda like patronizing—don’t cha know

Here, try this. Let’s see if you or any of your fellow travelers can identify the elements of an effective argument.
Don't look at me like that‼️‼️🤣🤣😂😂

There ya go, yet another clue for ya‼️‼️
 
I’ve left a number of clues that clearly suggest why I’m here. You, along with your fellow evolution devotees, who’ve invaded the forums, apparently require yet more helpful hints.
...
As predicted, you failed to find any “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”.

Why is? All you have is bluster and hot air.
 
As predicted, you failed to find any “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”.

Why is? All you have is bluster and hot air.
Didn’t you deny “proofs” earlier in another post today when you finally confessed to your presuppositional approach?
 
Didn’t you deny “proofs” earlier in another post today when you finally confessed to your presuppositional approach?
I said there are no proofs in science. That is my position. However, you claimed there are “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”. Now, of course, when called to support your argument, you are looking for an excuse not to. Exactly as predicted. Once again all you have is bluster.

My approach is no more presuppositional than anyone else, and probably considerably less. We all have presuppositions. I, however, am willing to back mine up, because they are based on good evidence and good science. We can compare that to your claim of “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”, which turned out to be uninformed opinion you were unable to substantiate.
 
I said there are no proofs in science.
Ok, you say no proofs?? Would you explain.
Further down you mention “evidence”.
That is my position. However, you claimed there are “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”. Now, of course, when called to support your argument, you are looking for an excuse not to. Exactly as predicted. Once again all you have is bluster.
What’s your rush, I’m not on your time table and I could care even less about your insinuations and your behaviors.
My approach is no more presuppositional than anyone else, and probably considerably less. We all have presuppositions. I, however, am willing to back mine up, because they are based on good evidence and good science.
Curiously, at this juncture, you claim your propositions “...are based on good evidence and good science.”
So you do have proofs or do you not? If “science has no proofs” then why do you? Perhaps your “evidence” doesn’t count as proof??
Where have your proofs or evidence come from if not from science?

Before I open the floodgates of proofs and evidence for creation, let’s come to an agreement on the use of terminology.
What exactly do you intend to convey when you use the terms “evidence” and “proof”?
We can compare that to your claim of “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”, which turned out to be uninformed opinion you were unable to substantiate.
Oh you’re in such a hurry to gush forth with your own uninformed opinions. Maybe that explains your mad rush to believe in the molecules to man myth of evolution.

Pixie, some things just can’t be rushed, you come across as one desperate to belief anything in order to avoid the possibility of acknowledging God’s existence—that’s just my observation

Furthermore, I’m sure you’re acquainted with the evidence I’m about to share and you will once again attempt to suppress it by drawing from your circle of opinions, pictures and conjecture consistent with yours.
 
Back
Top