Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but we wont talk about that, hes a Catholic, hes bound to have some weird ideas.

Yeah, we'll just brush that crucial point under the carpet.

Rob, your hilarious. But alas, not in the way you'd hope to be.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Yeah, we'll just brush that crucial point under the carpet.

Rob, your hilarious. But alas, not in the way you'd hope to be.

Lol, ragged clown my friend, what you expect, never the less, he is constantly reassessing his opinion, what he professes now may be gone tomorrow. I am quite sure as scientific knowledge progresses he shall bring his point of view more into harmony with revealed biblical truth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its twoo its twoo 🙂

lol

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, ragged clown my friend, what you expect, never the less, he is constantly reassessing his opinion, what he professes now may be gone tomorrow. I am quite sure as scientific knowledge progresses he shall bring his point of view more into harmony with revealed biblical truth.

I am quite sure as scientific knowledge progresses he shall bring his point of view more into harmony with revealed biblical truth.

That goes into my 'Rob's Comedy Gold' top 5 without hesitation.

I'm afraid Prof Behe won't be bringing anything into line with your revealed biblical truth, mainly because what you have deluded yourself into believing as revealed biblical truth is nothing more than an ancient fairytale.

Secondly Prof Behe is, as you like to continually point out, a biochemist and he knows better than most people the evidence for evolution, and that's why he doesn't dispute it.

Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world.

Darwin's Black Box, pp 5-6.

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2.

I always find it strange how you wheel this guy every now and again out as evidence for something, yet his views directly contradict yours. Bizarre.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I am quite sure as scientific knowledge progresses he shall bring his point of view more into harmony with revealed biblical truth.

That goes into my 'Rob's Comedy Gold' top 5 without hesitation.

I'm afraid Prof Behe won't be bringing anything into line with your revealed biblical truth, mainly because what you have deluded yourself i ...[text shortened]... again out as evidence for something, yet his views directly contradict yours. Bizarre.[/b]

what Behe has contributed is an informed opinion which draws inferences from observing the natural world and consistent with that observation is the idea that inherent in creation is evidence of intelligence, this is of course diametrically opposite to the view that life is purely materialistic in essence, for this we salute him!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually yes i have, not all of it though, but in part, it was not very interesting, he basically looks out of his window, sees everything eating everything else and forms a theory. i have a copy in my home library i bought.

Your view that "he basically looks out of his window" shows that you haven't read Darwin. And if you've read him, you haven't really understand him. His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle shows that he certainly wasn't a mere window looker.

No, I don't think you have read the book. Having a book in a library isn't enough.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Your view that "he basically looks out of his window" shows that you haven't read Darwin. And if you've read him, you haven't really understand him. His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle shows that he certainly wasn't a mere window looker.

No, I don't think you have read the book. Having a book in a library isn't enough.

As I stated i have read the book in parts, are you saying that i haven't? as for the 'looking out of his window', its a mere turn of phrase, you may want to try to base your argument on something a little more substantial or give it up entirely for your original statement was based on a complete assumption,

1. that i do not have the book, which was false
2. that i had not read the book, again totally false for i have read it in parts

you see Fabian when one starts to assume a certain position without having recourse to any type of knowledge, and then proceeds to base an argument upon it, its like a castle made of sand, and it will fall into the sea, eventually.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Robbie, have you read Darwins book "On the Origin of Species"? No, I didn't think so. (Neither have I.) Yet it is written in your mother tongue. Would you care to read it? No, I didn't think so either. I understand your reluctance. Do you understand mine?

I have read "On the Origin of Species" which is interesting for a certain perspective. However, we have had 150 years of discovery since then, so I doubt you will find anything very useful in it. Much better to read more modern books on evolution.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Its interesting when you post something like that in this forum, because you immediately get all the dishonest persons coming to attack it...its so funny how a grown adult can speak out against intelligent desighn, its just so dishonest.

Keep it up because i enjoy the read, but Ive always enjoyed truth.

Also the article has nothing to do with the ma ...[text shortened]... could sighn his name to, and the University is run by atheists, so their comments are worthless.

🙄

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Question to Behe: WHY IN YOUR OPINION DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS REGARDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

Interesting read. But the fact remains, as already pointed out, that his claims about the complexity of cellular structures have been mostly rejected by the scientific community, and his own University department has disavowed his views and his conjecture about intelligent design. I have had the chance to have a look at some of the scientific rebuttal that Behe has faced and I tend to favour the scientific community's take on his claims.

Originally posted by John W Booth
Interesting read. But the fact remains, as already pointed out, that his claims about the complexity of cellular structures have been mostly rejected by the scientific community, and his own University department has disavowed his views and his conjecture about intelligent design. I have had the chance to have a look at some of the scientific rebuttal that Behe has faced and I tend to favour the scientific community's take on his claims.

thanks i am glad you enjoyed it J W Booth, i myself have tried to understand some of the arguments but the sad part was much of the arguments were for the initiated only, in fact one paper on blood coagulation looked like it was one of my moms knitting patterns. Behe has his own blog in which he personally addresses some of the points that have been raised by his peers. I Like his style for he explains very complex systems in a way that is easy to grasp.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thanks i am glad you enjoyed it J W Booth, i myself have tried to understand some of the arguments but the sad part was much of the arguments were for the initiated only, in fact one paper on blood coagulation looked like it was one of my moms knitting patterns. Behe has his own blog in which he personally addresses some of the points that have been ...[text shortened]... is peers. I Like his style for he explains very complex systems in a way that is easy to grasp.

The charge levelled at Behe by many in the scientific community is that he has never submitted anything to be peer reviewed. If, as he claims, he has incontrovertible evidence of irreducible complexity and the earth shattering evidence of design why doesn't he submit his findings to be peer reviewed? Change the world!! He's a scientist, that's the process he should follow. Instead he submits his 'evidence' to the general public, where he'll make a large amount of money no less, and the general public don't really understand these things. Another reason he skips the peer review process and goes direct to the general public is because people like you Rob go -

'Wow, a biochemist supports ID, it must be true'

Do you know how many papers on ID have been submitted for peer review? None. Actually, one, but it was quickly withdrawn by the author.

I Like his style for he explains very complex systems in a way that is easy to grasp.

Like every good science writer, from Dawkins, to Coyne, to Dennett etc etc. Rob you need to broaden your horizons here.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The charge levelled at Behe by many in the scientific community is that he has never submitted anything to be peer reviewed. If, as he claims, he has incontrovertible evidence of irreducible complexity and the earth shattering evidence of design why doesn't he submit his findings to be peer reviewed? Change the world!! He's a scientist, that's the proces from Dawkins, to Coyne, to Dennett etc etc. Rob you need to broaden your horizons here.

like Dawkins, muhaha, even some evolutionists have termed him a hack! Sooner he gets a Bible study the better! indeed if you know how to contact him i would even study with him myself! As for Behe, he lives despite the fact that he was taken to court for his views. You see deer Noobster intelligent design in an inference, it cannot be refuted for it is a way of saying the evidence points to a certain conclusion that there is inherent in creation, intelligence, how can you refute that? that is correct, it cannot be done. The thing that ails many, as Behe pointed out, is that it portends to the supernatural which many find objectionable and on what grounds?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
like Dawkins, muhaha, even some evolutionists have termed him a hack! Sooner he gets a Bible study the better! indeed if you know how to contact him i would even study with him myself! As for Behe, he lives!

Are you suggesting Dawkins is not one of the greatest science writers of our generation? And you know this because you've his science literatutre? Or are you just talking out of your bottom as per normal?

contact@richarddawkins.net

I'm sure he'd love to here from you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
like Dawkins, muhaha, even some evolutionists have termed him a hack!

I thought you said you like science writing if it has a style that explains very complex systems in a way that is easy to grasp?