Author
|
Topic: Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 77 of 83 (12847)
07-05-2002 2:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 76 by Joe Meert 07-05-2002 1:47 PM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Well, you know that many creationists now 'stretch' the flood to much more than a year (all extra-bilical of course!).
Well, if you stretch the flood long enough-- say three or four billion years-- couldn't you come up with the mainstream geological model? I mean, pretty much the whole world has been underwater at some point or other, just not all at the same time. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
This message is a reply to: | | Message 76 by Joe Meert, posted 07-05-2002 1:47 PM | | Joe Meert has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote: Originally posted by Tranquility Base: You simply can't image a catastrophic flood. The global flood occurred in stages. It was global by the end of it. We use the same data you use to show that there were surges!
Oh I don't know. I can imagine an awful lot. I just don't get carried away with it. However, I am surely impressed that you can tell what my capabilities are. As to the surges. Why are you having surges in the Pennsylvanian only and only in eastern North America? Exactly when did the flood reach its peak? How were there any more forests to be found to form the Cretaceous coal beds if they were all denuded in the Pennsylvanian? Why do we find dinosaur footprints in the coal beds if they consisted of floating debris brought in by the surge and then buried by sand? Please start answering these questions with some kind of data or I cannot possibly take you seriously.
quote: The sea-level curves are due primarily to tectonics (not that anyone has a deterministic model as far as I have found). The data actually looks like it was due to plate slipping events.
More vague generalizations! Please give us some data.
quote: Either way you and I explain the water coming and going the same way - it's just that in our scheme we have much more heat and lower viscosities to drive rapid tectonics.
Where is the evidence for these high heat flows and lower viscosities? Have you seen Joe's website that deals with these issues? We have been over this several times, TB. Why do you simply ignore the data and repeat your assertions as though they are accepted by actual scientists.
|
halcyonwaters
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 79 of 83 (15580)
08-17-2002 7:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by John 07-05-2002 11:01 AM
|
|
quote: I am familiar with some of Behe's work, but please post an example which interests you.-John
How familiar? I just finished Darwin's Black Box. I'm assuming you know his main thrust is that within living organisms, there exist irreducibly complex machines. Machines that there is no easy gradual production of. Machines that have parts, that would serve no purpose, or in fact be detrimental unless it was in it's completed form. Flagella/Cilium, the Immune System, Messaging, Blood Clotting, and eye-sight. Pick the one you are the most familiar with, and I'll try to outline his argument for you. David
This message is a reply to: | | Message 73 by John, posted 07-05-2002 11:01 AM | | John has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 80 by Joe Meert, posted 08-17-2002 8:40 PM | | halcyonwaters has replied | | Message 82 by John, posted 08-17-2002 11:23 PM | | halcyonwaters has not replied |
|
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: 03-02-2002
|
quote: Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
quote: I am familiar with some of Behe's work, but please post an example which interests you.-John
How familiar? I just finished Darwin's Black Box. I'm assuming you know his main thrust is that within living organisms, there exist irreducibly complex machines. Machines that there is no easy gradual production of. Machines that have parts, that would serve no purpose, or in fact be detrimental unless it was in it's completed form. Flagella/Cilium, the Immune System, Messaging, Blood Clotting, and eye-sight. Pick the one you are the most familiar with, and I'll try to outline his argument for you. David
JM: I read Behe's book and found his arguments completely lacking in both substance and fact. I especially liked the part where he likens himself to pasteur and Einstein. From reading the book, you understand that Behe accepts macroevolution and an old earth chronology don't you? He merely says god meddles in evolution from time to time? See Intelligent design Cheers Joe Meert
|
halcyonwaters
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 81 of 83 (15589)
08-17-2002 10:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by Joe Meert 08-17-2002 8:40 PM
|
|
quote: JM: I read Behe's book and found his arguments completely lacking in both substance and fact. I especially liked the part where he likens himself to pasteur and Einstein. From reading the book, you understand that Behe accepts macroevolution and an old earth chronology don't you? He merely says god meddles in evolution from time to time? See Intelligent design Cheers Joe Meert
Yes, he was very confusing on where his stance was. My guess is he tried to capture both the creationist and evolutionist market. Is there a certain system mentioned in his book you would want to discuss? I mean, is your general rebuttal of his argument that "Just because we don't know how something worked, doesn't mean it didn't happen?" If so, I agree completely. I just don't happen to think there is an answer to how systems could have come about naturally. If on the other hand, your response is "No, a way has already been found for these systems to have evolved gradually." I'm not a biochemist, but I'll probably learn a thing or two trying to defend his arguments. David
This message is a reply to: | | Message 80 by Joe Meert, posted 08-17-2002 8:40 PM | | Joe Meert has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 83 by Peter, posted 08-20-2002 7:34 AM | | halcyonwaters has not replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by halcyonwaters: How familiar?
Better than beginner, but not much.
quote: Pick the one you are the most familiar with, and I'll try to outline his argument for you.
Lets just start at the flagella. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
Peter
Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: 02-05-2002
|
quote: Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Is there a certain system mentioned in his book you would want to discuss? I mean, is your general rebuttal of his argument that "Just because we don't know how something worked, doesn't mean it didn't happen?" If so, I agree completely. I just don't happen to think there is an answer to how systems could have come about naturally. If on the other hand, your response is "No, a way has already been found for these systems to have evolved gradually." I'm not a biochemist, but I'll probably learn a thing or two trying to defend his arguments. David
But that's the whole problem with IC ... it's an argument from incredulity (I think that anyhow that's why I opened an IC discussion in the Intelligent design thread).
|