Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Brian Shanahan]

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).


David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models," Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).


i have a whole lot more!!!

Bacterial Flagellum fallacy was pasted in a court of law. Behé's career is ruined because of the case. When your best arguement is a rehash of Rev. Paley's original watchmaker analogy, which Darwin destroyed himself, you have noting.

So in conclusion, rather than trying to find evidence to support your theory, you prefer to waste my time. Doesn't reflect well on you, does it?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I expect consistency from people who constantly tell us of the unerring accuracy of the Judaeo-Christian creation myth in Genesis.

Whilst I'm here though, here's my two other questions that fell on deaf ears:

How could you "prove" that the world merely looks 6,000 years old?

How does the Egyptian dating controversy even begin to prove the Young Earth theory?

To answer the Egypt question, I believe in an 8-12 thousand year old Earth, not six.

Secondly, you can't prove it. Where you say 4 billion years, we say flood. Either way is an assumption.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Give him a chance. I want to see this "more" he's talking about, with links this time.

 

[uppi]

if blind chance and random events does not guide evolution then what does.

Natural selection. You know, that was kinda the point of Darwin. Go and read his book, as you apparently don't know what's in there.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

To answer the Egypt question, I believe in an 8-12 thousand year old Earth, not six.

Secondly, you can't prove it. Where you say 4 billion years, we say flood. Either way is an assumption.

Why do you keep interjecting into the conversation when you only state what you believe, but provide no supporting evidence in a topic called "evidence" for creationism?

 

[Arakhor]

Domination, with all due respect, you completely failed to actually answer either question.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Oh yes and this is what Minnich admitted to when pressed on review in that same court of law:

"Q: And the paper that you published was only minimally peer reviewed, isn't that true?"
"A. For any conference proceeding, yeah. You don't go through the same rigor. I mentioned that yesterday. But it was reviewed by people in the Wessex Institute, and I don't know who they were."

Please note that he himself admits that it hasn't been subject to full rigour.

 

[Arakhor]

Is it just me or isn't "Dynamical" even a word?

 

[negZero]

@magicfan for gods start giving links, its not my job to find your sources.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119

Can't find anything on the author but Dynamical Genetics needs evolution for core sections to work.

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,"Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

Claimed to peer-reviewed but all of their findings were later debunked. Also in court of law Scott Minnichw that it was only minimally peer reviewed

David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models," Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

Again can't find anything on his work and odds are its already been debunked

i have a whole lot more!!!

Maybe next time you give real links so we can look at there work and also it can't be debunked to count as peer-reviewed paper.


Edit: Dom where is my miracle that can't be explained away with science?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Is it just me or isn't "Dynamical" even a word?

It's a perfectly cromulent word which embiggens our vocabularity.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dynamical

In all seriousness it is acceptable... it just sounds wrong.

 

[magicfan101]

Bacterial Flagellum fallacy was pasted in a court of law. Behé's career is ruined because of the case. When your best arguement is a rehash of Rev. Paley's original watchmaker analogy, which Darwin destroyed himself, you have noting.

So in conclusion, rather than trying to find evidence to support your theory, you prefer to waste my time. Doesn't reflect well on you, does it?

you mean by ken miller who i proved to use misleading tactics. please check the previous post

 

[useless]

Kitzmiller Vs Dover pretty much destroyed Behe's career and rightfully so

 

[negZero]

you mean by ken miller who i proved to use misleading tactics. please check the previous post

if blind chance and random events does not guide evolution then what does.

This doesn't disprove anything for it lacks evidence.

 

[useless]

Dude, even the Judge, a christian, agreed that the "evidence" by Behe was pretty much rubbish

 

[Brian Shanahan]

you mean by ken miller who i proved to use misleading tactics. please check the previous post

Look you seriously don't get it do you, it has been shown over and over again that all examples of "irreducible complexity" introduced into the arguement by Creationists have been false. It is increasingly unlikely that they will ever find an actual example. And for your education here is an actual example of a peer reviewed paper on Bacterial Flagella. Please note that this is the level of rigour I am wanting in relation to proof.

 

[useless]

PROTIP: Proof for creationism is NOT attacking the evolutionist side.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Dude, even the Judge, a christian, agreed that the "evidence" by Behe was pretty much rubbish

I think "even" ... "a christian" is misleading here.

This is primarily a fight between the religious and the wacky religious. The irreligious have already settled on the idea that God is not a factor in this equation.

The religious are fighting over "to what extent" God is a factor. The rational religious must defeat the irrational religious so they can say that their beliefs are still rational, science is not a threat to God, so members of the church don't become irreligious when they can't adhere to science and still have faith.

If the rational religious don't try to defend science, they will lose their faith entirely. Call it "natural selection by churchgoers".

 

[Arakhor]

I think that this page of links is a good enough start for any creationist. I'd be interested in hearing our resident creationists' views on these points.

 

[Ajidica]

Didn't St. Augustine believe all life was created in its germinal form and came to its current appearance through Gods will?

 

[magicfan101]

Oh yes and this is what Minnich admitted to when pressed on review in that same court of law:

"Q: And the paper that you published was only minimally peer reviewed, isn't that true?"
"A. For any conference proceeding, yeah. You don't go through the same rigor. I mentioned that yesterday. But it was reviewed by people in the Wessex Institute, and I don't know who they were."

Please note that he himself admits that it hasn't been subject to full rigour.

plz dont qoute mine form wiki. this shows how little you care about the nature of the objections rather than the truth.
here is a link from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day21am.html#day21am62