canasia.org

And finally, remember this when some people get upset because I mention something about open and closed minds. You hardly qualify as an open mind. You are obsessed with IC/Design/etc. Barwood

 We have reached the point were pseudoscience aspires to greatness (as Behe outlines in his book on pg. 230-231!). What do you know about pseudoscience?  Where did you even get the page references?  Did you crib them from another post, or have you belatedly started reading Behe's book? Why no, Nyikos, I copied them from one of your lectures! I've read the book, dimbulb. Now I understand why it appeals to you. Barwood

 We have reached the point were pseudoscience aspires to greatness (as Behe outlines in his book on pg. 230-231!). What do you know about pseudoscience?  Where did you even get the page references?  Did you crib them from another post, or have you belatedly started reading Behe's book? Why no, Nyikos, I copied them from one of your lectures! I've read the book, dimbulb. Now I understand why it appeals to you. Barwood

| | In article < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Matt Silberstein) writes: | | In fact, as far as we can tell, intelligent intervention is a | | biological process and a chemical one and a physical one. Not that I | | think you are denying this. | | No, I think Julie is explicitly denying that life is explainable in | terms of physics and chemistry. Whether it's vitalims or some other | kind of dualistic approach remains obscure, but the denial that | biology can be reduced to physics and chemistry is unmistakable. | | Come on, Jonathan don't give Julie this crap. Julie is the one who's baldly asserting the impossibliity of reducing biology to chemistry and physics.  With no evidence.  That makes her argument circular.  If you support that, you're handing out crap too. |Of course physics and | chemistry cannot make music, they can only make it audible. There are two glaring problem with this analogy:   1) physics and chemistry are fields of study.  Fields of study     don't ``make music''.       They *can* tell us everything we want to know about music.      (With the possible and partial exception of describing the human      sensations which go along with perceiving music.      No, I'm not going to go down the philosophical rat-hole of      gedankenexperiments on Mary the blind colour scientist).   2) Music is, by definition, something *made* by humans.      Living organisms are not the same as music. Implicit in that comparison is a `design act' by whoever wrote the music in the first instance.  The whole point here is the *lack* of evidence (and testability) of any similar designer of living organisms.   Comparing living organisms to music is begging the question. I hope it wasn't intentional.

How about we start using squink here, too, to describe the same behaviour by some of our more frequent posters? I like it.  I'll just mention one poster, whose last name begins with N. Ken (And it ends with yikos. )

|   | I'm sorry, but I'm finding Jonathan to be getting much too nasty for my | taste.  However, Jonathan did say one thing that I find to be very | important in defining these issues for us. | | There are no civilized discussions on the net. There are only | antagonists. If you want civility, invite Nyikos and Behe over for tea. | | Thus... Jonathan et al. argue that I have no evidence for intelligent | intervention, remember that this means I have no evidence of crashed | spacecrafts or labels in the genetic code. Those were _examples_ of real, hard, evidence that would convince a skeptic. If you really had them, youw ould get published. I said at the time and I repeat now: these are only examples. They're sufficient but not necessary.  *SOME* evidence is Necessary. You, on the other hand, have NONE.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; you offer no proof at all, aside from an inept attack on the conventional theory. | You have consistently missed the point. Extraordinary claims require | extraordinary proof. Your (and Nyikos' and Behe's) arguments have been | from incredulity about mechanisms, not incontrovertible (or even | arguable) proof that design exists. Exactly. Incredulity about mechanisms is not scientific proof.  It is certainly not proof for fairies or Intelligent Interferers or Nyikos' AIDs(tm) aliens.   Even if you *had* disproved the conventional theory, that would *STILL* not prove your own pet idea, (or theory in the everyday meaning of the word: an idea with no supporting evidence).   And arguments from incredulity (which is all IC is, when stripped of the fancy rhetoric) just doesn't cut it even at disproving the conventional theory. | Furthermore, if Jonathan et al. are representive of the scienitific | community (as they claim), then this means the only way to publish a | view involving reference to intelligent intervention in the scientific | literature is to publish about a crashed spacecraft, a Made on Planet | Ork label in the DNA (akin to numerology), or something equally | good.  Remember that when people complain that Behe didn't publish | his views in the scientific literature.   | | This is pure baloney! You come up with something resembling evidence and | it will be published. So far you have not. Exactly. Behe's book is not publishable as science because it's not science.  If Behe had even a shred of real scientific evidence, journal editors would be falling over themselves to get it printed.