Clarification/Follow-up by Toms777 on 08/01/03 12:40 am:
Jim, I saw the rebuttal a long time ago, and to me it appeared to be very weak. Re-read Behe after reading the rebuttal - those who argue against Behe appear to be grasping at straws.

First, he argues process rather than deal with the issue - not convincing. Most early science in history was established without formal papers - I found it hard to believe he was serious in suggesting this.

Second, he argues modifications to produce an IC. Extremely weak since an IC starts off by intelligent design (human) and is manipulated or modified by a human to produce the end result. A very strong argument for Behe.

Third, I am not going to take the time right now to go through the claim of false logic because to be honest, I don't have the time right now.

And lastly, this gent uses more than one logic fallacy, including ad hominems.

Not one of his "rebuttals" addresses the topic directly. That speak well for Behe and for the strength of his position.

Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/01/03 11:51 am:
I'll re-read the rebuttal. Perhaps this is an example of how different arguments appeal to different people. I read the Russ Doolittle letter with some interest, since I knew him at UCSD.

Clarification/Follow-up by Toms777 on 08/09/03 11:52 pm:
There has never been any observation of a new species. Why do we need a new flu shot? It is till the flu isn't it? Variation within a species has never been debated - there are tall people, short people, balck people, white people, etc., etc., but despite claims, the only way anyone has ever claimed to have observed a "species" chnage is by redefining the word "species" to include variation within a species.

That does not prove evolution, but rather is simply changing meaninsg in order to justify a claim.

Clarification/Follow-up by PraiseJah on 05/07/04 4:29 pm:
All: check out http://www.arn.org/

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 02/14/05 10:36 am:
It's time to revive this question enew to this board!

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 02/16/05 9:40 pm:
Squall :

"How can creationists not believe in evolution?"


Creationists do not base their conclusions on scientific research and theories, but on belief.
They reject anything scientific that is in conflict with their belief.
Creationism is nothing more than a supposition, based on religion, but lacking any form of scientific support.
It is a reaction to the succesful evolution theory by worried religious activists.
.
.
"How can you dispute it (evolution)?"
.
That's simple : some people are totally blind, while their eyes are functional and totally open, but their mind is thight shut.
.

Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/28/06 1:04 pm:
Please define evolution?
Creationist came up with the idea of natural selection. Anti-biotic resistance is an observable phenomenon.
What a creationist doesn’t believe is that new information can arise by itself from matter.
Anti-biotic resistance is a loss of information.
Natural selection can only sort existing information not create new information.
There is not one example of mutation increasing information.

For instance evolutionists love to talk about wingless beetles. There is no new information. They lost the genes to grow wings. Lots of little loses do not lead to gains, ask your stockbroker.

How can anyone seriously consider the possibility that the complex language of the biotic code arose from matter. That matter created intelligence?

This argument of yours is just a straw man. Anti-biotic resistance and natural selection occur so pets to people is true.
Nonsense.