[Michael Behe also said that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex. 12 years of research proved him wrong. He still says the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex.]
You can say he was proven wrong, I say otherwise. I saw the videos on YouTube, and while it may have been enough proof for someone looking to prove Behe wrong, it was not enough proof for someone unbiased like me.
To the open-minded, the bacterial flagellum remains irreducibly complex.
30 comments
to prove Behe wrong= to find an explanation for the bacterial flagellum, to show that it is not irreducibly complex
...and while it may have been enough proof for someone looking [to find an explanation for the bacterial flagellum, to show that it is not irreducibly complex], it was not enough proof for someone unbiased like me [who does not want to find an explanation for the bacterial flagellum].
Oh, JaredJammer, will you ever win?
After reading the transcript, it was Behe the Asshat himself who destroyed his own argument on the stand under cross examination in Kitzmiller Vs. Dover. At that point, I imagine the judge doing a big *headgavel* and calling a recess.
Creationism: Fails everytime it's tried.
JJ, if you think about it hard and well, being open-minded and saying bacterial flagella irreducibly complex is a contradictory statement.
Your unbias has no basis in fact or reality.
Jared Jammer: Officially smarter than Michael Behe.
This is like that Scientology episode when the boys tell all the Scientology believers that their religion is a big pile of fake and they still zealously believe it.
Huh. I own a DVD called Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (btw, you can get them for free from their website--not even any shipping) which demonstrates that bacterial flagella are not, in fact, irreducibly complex. The DVD explains it better than I could, but it's pretty damn irrefutable evidence.
"you can say he was proven wrong" BECAUSE HE WAS
[...it was not enough proof for someone unbiased like me.]
Unbiased by what? Facts?
[To the open-minded, the bacterial flagellum remains irreducibly complex.]
How is it open minded to maintain your opinions in the face of evidence that they are wrong?
I hate to break this to you, but the phrase 'open mind' means that your ideas, beliefs, and ideals could change in light of new evidence. You've shown stupendous evidence that you are in fact close minded.
"To the open-minded, the bacterial flagellum remains irreducibly complex."
Steve says you're full of shit.
You guys misunderstand ...
He's saying he saw videos on YouTube proving that the bacterial flagellum-motor ISN'T irreducibly complex, and he ISN'T CONVINCED by them.
While his skepticism toward YouTube is admirable, there are much better sources that DO demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the bacterial flagellum-motor isn't "irreducibly complex."
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
