Who's lying now?

[australopithecus]

But AronRa still fails to show how Behe intentionally intended to deceive in the Dover trial.

By claiming ID is not redressed creationism, and claiming ID has evidentiary support.

 

[Inferno]

But AronRa still fails to show how Behe intentionally intended to deceive in the Dover trial.

By claiming ID is not redressed creationism, and claiming ID has evidentiary support.

Not only that, but also by claiming that ToE can not account for things like the immune system (even though Behe admitted that he hadn't read the articles) and even that it could not, no matter what. (Which was easily proven wrong by the articles in question)

 

[DiscipleTube1]

But AronRa still fails to show how Behe intentionally intended to deceive in the Dover trial.

By claiming ID is not redressed creationism

Not the same, despite your assertion. Even if they were the same, how does AronRa prove that in his video? He doesn't, but he does address why he believes that Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same in another one of his videos. But I would like someone to actually address what MY video claims.

and claiming ID has evidentiary support.

It does has evidentiary support, but lets stay on topic; how does this fit AronRa's definition, that there is an intention to deceive? ...the irony is that in previous post AronRa says that creationist post comments on his videos without ever watching them. I can see why that can be frustrating.

Not only that, but also by claiming that ToE can not account for things like the immune system (even though Behe admitted that he hadn't read the articles)

heh... and I thought irony was supposedly a Christian trait.
Did you even watch the video?

and even that it could not, no matter what. (Which was easily proven wrong by the articles in question)

If Behe said that I would be very interested if you could show me where in the transcripts he said that.

 

[australopithecus]

:facepalm:

Go learn some evo biology then come back and tell us whether or not Behe is a dishonest tool.

 

[Squawk]

ID has precisely zero evidentiary support, since that would presuppose a metric for establishing designedness. Since no such metric exists (or are you going to provide one and win a nobel?) it is entirely baseless assertion.

 

[Laurens]

Indeed claiming that something is irreducibly complex when it demonstrably isn't, and denying all the evidence in favour of evolution does not constitute evidential support, it constitutes delusion.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

still no one will address the claims made in my video.

 

[Welshidiot]

still no one will address the claims made in my video.

Perhaps that's because you haven't acquainted yourself with the facts of the "Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District" case.

Here is just a small part of the judge's 139 page decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

Relevant paragraphs:

*For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

*A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.

*The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

*The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

*Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion.

*After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

If I carry on copy/pasting relevant sections from Judge Jones' decision I will literally be here all day.

So the actual judge in the Kitmiller vs. Dover Area School District case found the proponents of "Intelligent Design" to have been dishonest, not just in the class curriculum, but also in court at the trial in question. (All of the court documents are publicly available should you wish to check their veracity).

Now......I know for a fact that AronRa quotes Judge Jones' decision in his "Foundational Falsehoods....." series,.....the only question remaining is how you managed to miss it.

 

[borrofburi]

It does has evidentiary support, but lets stay on topic; how does this fit AronRa's definition, that there is an intention to deceive? ...the irony is that in previous post AronRa says that creationist post comments on his videos without ever watching them. I can see why that can be frustrating.

While AronRa may (or may not) have define lying as an intention to deceive, in practice that's not what he tends to mean. It's actually one of my greater criticisms of him: too low of an evidential barrier to being labelled a "liar" (or even "lying"). In practice, it seems like "liar", "lie", and "lying" tends to be something along the lines of "a person saying something incorrect when (s)he has been corrected or should otherwise know better", or "..." (the latter one was better, but I forgot it while typing the first one). It's always struck me as being far too vulnerable to considering something to be malice, when really it's just a result of the person being an incompetent fool.

Regardless, I fail to see how it matters. Behe was wrong. Whether he knew he was wrong while he was talking about it is, in my opinion, rather irrelevant.

 

[lrkun]

o.o do we need to address the issue of disciple something? I mean, if he/she really wants it addressed, maybe he/she ought to put it here in the forum for everyone to see, not only the youtube mind you, but the specific issues raised.

 

[australopithecus]

Behe asserted a claim as fact even though he was ignorant of the evidence. That is dishonest.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

It does has evidentiary support, but lets stay on topic; how does this fit AronRa's definition, that there is an intention to deceive? ...the irony is that in previous post AronRa says that creationist post comments on his videos without ever watching them. I can see why that can be frustrating.

While AronRa may (or may not) have define lying as an intention to deceive, in practice that's not what he tends to mean. It's actually one of my greater criticisms of him: too low of an evidential barrier to being labelled a "liar" (or even "lying"). In practice, it seems like "liar", "lie", and "lying" tends to be something along the lines of "a person saying something incorrect when (s)he has been corrected or should otherwise know better", or "..." (the latter one was better, but I forgot it while typing the first one). It's always struck me as being far too vulnerable to considering something to be malice, when really it's just a result of the person being an incompetent fool.

Regardless, I fail to see how it matters. Behe was wrong. Whether he knew he was wrong while he was talking about it is, in my opinion, rather irrelevant.

Thank You for actually addressing my claim. If, in practice, AronRa tends not to mean "intention to deceive" then why would he demand the same standard from creationist? See where the double standard comes in? My point is that if AronRa wants to say most creationist intend to deceive, then prove how they meet that standard. Just because he failed to show this does not mean Behe didn't lie. There are other reasons to believe Behe didn't lie. But what I point out in my video is AronRa's dishonest tactics in this case, and until he addresses it one way or another, one has to start questioning if AronRa is being honest about his other claims.

Now......I know for a fact that AronRa quotes Judge Jones' decision in his "Foundational Falsehoods....." series,.....the only question remaining is how you managed to miss it.

And how does any of this show that Behe "intentionally intended to deceive" as AronRa claims? And even if it did, it still doesn't explain AronRa's dishonest tactics in his video. Throw out a quote about a red herring while giving one yourself... irony.

o.o do we need to address the issue of disciple something? I mean, if he/she really wants it addressed, maybe he/she ought to put it here in the forum for everyone to see, not only the youtube mind you, but the specific issues raised.

I, like AronRa, have family obligations, and repeating my claims that I already made in a video and that can be readily watched here, is not something I have time for. And how does that mean I don't really want it to be addressed?

I do think, however, that it would be more appropriate to move this to my other post: http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=7609

Behe asserted a claim as fact even though he was ignorant of the evidence. That is dishonest.

I'm not going to address you again until you watch the video.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm not going to address you again until you watch the video.

I fail to see the problem.

Ignore me if you like, it wont change a thing. Maybe Behe is a liar or perhaps he's just an idiot, either way he was dishonest. he asserted things with no basis, seemingly on a whim, and when called on it he had to concede he was talking out of his arse. The man is a fool of the highest order regardless of his intent.

 

[lrkun]

Excuses are unbecoming.

Ah well.

 

[australopithecus]

I find it hard to take a lecture about AronRa's honesty from a man who blatantly quote mines Darwin on his YouTube page...

I've highlighted the quote mine in the full original text.

But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons are both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that, if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, C. livia, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas.

So with natural species, if we look to forms very distinct, for instance to the horse and tapir, we have no reason to suppose that links directly intermediate between them ever existed, but between each and an unknown common parent. The common parent will have had in its whole organisation much general resemblance to the tapir and to the horse; but in some points of structure may have differed considerably from both, even perhaps more than they differ from each other. Hence, in all such cases, we should be unable to recognise the parent-form of any two or more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a nearly perfect chain of the intermediate links.

Honesty you say....? :roll:

 

[Inferno]

heh... and I thought irony was supposedly a Christian trait.
Did you even watch the video?

(...)

If Behe said that I would be very interested if you could show me where in the transcripts he said that.

No, why waste time? You asked for a specific point to be addressed, namely Behe's dishonesty. I've provided you with exactly that, so why bother watching your video? Tell me how I'm wrong and I'll address it, but I won't bother watching your video.

Anway, why the hell am I repeating what AronRa said? Look, here it is:

Court Transcript[/url]"]Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?

A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that.

Q. So these are not good enough?

A. They're wonderful articles. They're very interesting. They simply just don't address the question that I pose.

Q. And these are not the only articles on the evolution of vertebrate immune system?

A. There are many articles.

Q. May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

Q. Professor Behe, what I have given you has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 743. It actually has a title, "Behe immune system articles," but I think we can agree you didn't write these?

A. I'll have to look through. No, I did not.

Q. And there are fifty-eight articles in here on the evolution of the immune system?

A. Yes. That's what it seems to say.

Q. So in addition to the, some of these I believe overlap with the eight that I previously identified that Dr. Miller had talked about, so at a minimum fifty new articles?

A. Not all of them look to be new. This one here is from 1991 that I opened to, I think it's under tab number 3, it's entitled "Evidence suggesting an evolutionary relationship between transposable elements and immune system recombination sequences." I haven't seen this article, but I assume that it's similar to the ones I presented and discussed in my testimony yesterday.

Q. And when I say new, I just meant different from the eight that I identified with Dr. Miller.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. A minimum of fifty, and you're right they're not all new. Some go back as early as 1971, and they go right through 2005, and in fact there's a few that are dated 2006, which I guess would indicate a forthcoming publication.

A. I assume so.

Q. Okay. So there's at least fifty more articles discussing the evolution of the immune system?

A. And midpoint I am, I certainly haven't had time to look through these fifty articles, but I still am unaware of any that address my point that the immune system could arise or that present in a detailed rigorous fashion a scenario for the evolution by random mutation and natural selection of the immune system.

Q. I think you said in your deposition you would need a step-by-step description?

A. Where in my deposition did I say that?

Q. Do you remember saying that?

A. I probably said something like that, but I would like to see it.

Q. Is that your position today that these articles aren't good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?

A. These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject.

Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?

A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.

Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those?

A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.

Q. It would be a waste of time?

A. It would not be fruitful.

Q. And in addition to articles there's also books written on the immune system?

A: A lot of books, yes.

Q. And not just the immune system generally, but actually the evolution of the immune system, right?

A. And there are books on that topic as well, yes.

And so on and so forth. Notice especially the last bit: "It would not be fruitful (to read the articles in question)." And why not? Because he is "not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes".
So who cares about his confidence? Basically what he's saying is what I simplified above: Behe does not think that ToE COULD even account for the immune system (among others) so he doesn't bother reading the articles, yet he confidently declares that there is no evidence for that. That's lying, that's dishonest. He's aware that the articles exist, so he's lying when he says that no explanations exist and he claims something as fact when a cursory reading can show him wrong, that's dishonest.

Point proven, thread closed? Move on.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

To borrow from an old lawyer joke, "How can you tell when a creationist is lying? A: When he opens his mouth to speak.

Creationist lying, whether when engaging others or quietly to oneself, is a given, is it not? Specific lies seem trivial against the backdrop of creationism's history of having been debunked from the laboratories to the Internet to the courts to infinity and beyond. I struggle to see the difference between "Speaking as a creationist..." and "Speaking as a liar..." given creationism's sordid history and the rubber ducky mentality of its proponents.

Going further, creationism advocates, as opposed to the passive go-along-with-the-gag creationists, look all the world like pathological liars. Here's a take from the highly rewarding search for "religion" + "pathology".

One of the strongest human drives is that for conscious integration of one's cognizance. In other words, the individual has a natural Internal Imperative to Rationalize anything and everything he or she thinks or does. This drive is so strong that a person cannot live with a conscious recognition of a contradiction. The internal imperative causes an individual to distort both perception and reasoning in order to maintain a perceived unity of cognizance. The driving force is one's emotions, which will support and defend any internalized cognizance.

http://myreality.churchofreality.org/index.php?showtopic=1349

An ugly shoe that fits quite well, methinks.

 

[RedYellow]

But AronRa still fails to show how Behe intentionally intended to deceive in the Dover trial.

Even if he wasn't intentionally trying to deceive anyone, he still showed that he hadn't done his homework by asserting that there wasn't enough research done on the subject at hand. Seriously, who cares if he wasn't lying? he still proved himself to be poorly educated on what he was speaking against.

Intelligent design/creationism is not a scientific theory, and this is proven by the fact that pretty much every argument is just a criticism of evolution, instead of an actual explanation for the evidence. Imagine a world where there had never been a theory of evolution. How many books would exist on intelligent design? How many ways could you find to basically say, "It happened magically?" Apparently you would only need one book....

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

How about this.
I'm going to make a teaching method that says that an Invisible Creator made the Universe in 1970.
My main supporting evidence is that whenever I set my computer to 1970 - the entire thing crashes. Therefore, nothing could have existed before 1970.

I will invent an entirely new teaching method about my 40 year old Earth idea.

It actually gets to the point where I am placed infront of a judge in court over the validity of this madness - and I admit that my only "evidence" was a load of bullshit, and I had not actually done any peer-reviewed insight into the matter.

The moral of the story?

Epoch Fail

 

[DiscipleTube1]

I will post my response in another video here