Anyone ever notice that design deniers go all quiet when it comes to animations of molecular machinery like this?DaveScot
February 6, 2009
February
02
Feb
6
06
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
San Diego State:
“Debunking the ‘Posterchild’ of Intelligent Design: The Bacterial Flagellum”
February 16
Dr. Kelly Hughes, University of Utah Department of Biology
Man, I'd be nice if Scott Minnich could show up at this lecture and provide some perspective.YEC
February 6, 2009
February
02
Feb
6
06
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
The irony in this video is remarkable. What comes to mind is the analogy of a marble coffee table, used by Roy Abraham Varghese in Appendix A of Antony Flew’s There is a God. Can you imagine – a marble coffee table coming to life to be something different and to animate itself over time? Ridiculous.
It also reminds me of a college manufacturing engineering class film. Imagine the professor then stating that there will be no need for drawings, power requirements, or tooling to produce this machine. It simply happens for no apparent reason.
Who isn’t incredulous at that last 60 seconds? Materialism is an a priori requirement. And faith has no part in the scientific process?
Please.toc
February 5, 2009
February
02
Feb
5
05
2009
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Skeptic.com fails at life. Anybody can be a skeptic. It takes guts to have an opinion (unless of course your opinion is that you can't know nothing). :PDomoman
February 5, 2009
February
02
Feb
5
05
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
My wife's car threw a timing belt last weekend. I knew those mechanics were cheating me. All I had to do was buy some scrap steel and rubber, put it in a crate with the busted car, and shake it vigorously. For a long long long long long...
...long long long long time.angryoldfatman
February 5, 2009
February
02
Feb
5
05
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Wow, it is amazing what dice throws will do.William Wallace
February 4, 2009
February
02
Feb
4
04
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
With scientists like Mark "The Communists Stole My Publications" Perakh it's no wonder the Soviet Union lost the cold war. The thing of it is though is Mark should recognize sloppy looking Rube Goldberg designs as at least semi-intelligent in origin as it's just like the stuff his comrades produce.DaveScot
February 4, 2009
February
02
Feb
4
04
2009
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
I didn't notice it was sarcasm, but that caused me to read it in the first place. Thanks for the link!critiacrof
February 4, 2009
February
02
Feb
4
04
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
@ #7
Exactly.
As if IC ever depended on the visual similarity or the symmetry of the BF.
In case it was missed, my comment at #4 was pure sarcasm - employed to alert others of the ridiculous arguments that people are still using.Charlie
February 4, 2009
February
02
Feb
4
04
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
@charlie 4:
It looks like he reduces the argument of IC to: it looks like it's designed and therefor it is designed. Or: it is pretty and therefor designed. He uses images to make the symbol of ID look dumb and compares it with the drawings of Haeckel. There is a huge difference: Haeckels drawings were presented as accurate to show the details. The symbol of ID is clearly a simplified drawing to illustrate a point, but is not used for study. In fact the detailed pics and vids don't make it less complicated, they still show complexity.
IMHO the flagellum was never a myth. The evolutionists still need a mechanism that can create such a thing, we only need to show them they don't have one to make our point.
BTW the assembly of those proteins reminded me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spool_knitting .critiacrof
February 4, 2009
February
02
Feb
4
04
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
This just proves my point that ID is not about whether it studies science or not but how one makes conclusions from the data. If one has a naturalistic philosophy then one is limited in what one can conclude. If one does not bound by that philosophy then one can conclude other things and bring to bear other techniques of analysis.
The science is the same, the analysis and conclusions can be different. There would be no commitment to a mechanism for construction.jerry
February 4, 2009
February
02
Feb
4
04
2009
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Link to the Google video please...Gods iPod
February 4, 2009
February
02
Feb
4
04
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Too bad they didn't know that Mark Perakh recently debunked the flagellar myth. His case? It doesn't exactly look like the representations.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-08-20.htmlCharlie
February 4, 2009
February
02
Feb
4
04
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Darwinists: Close your eyes, click your heels together three times, and repeat it's all just an accident.DaveScot
February 4, 2009
February
02
Feb
4
04
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Man I was sitting there just blown away by the integrated complexity of it all and was thinking these guys have not mentioned evolution once, Then bam out of the blue with no reason whatsoever they say it evolved. Otherwise a excellent video Davebornagain77
February 4, 2009
February
02
Feb
4
04
2009
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Great vid! Too bad for the "conclusion": "[...]that evolved over some 4 billion years."critiacrof