<<Jim: I'm sorry, Pim, but talk.origins does not constitute a legitimate,
objective, credible or refereed forum for "showing" much of anything. I
posted a criticism of the Robison piece (which you rely on) some time ago.
I am surprised how easily you dismiss data you do not agree with as not
legitimate.>>
You've changed the issue. Address the one I presented, viz., that talk.origins
is not a legitimate scientific journal. That's why the "data" is automatically
questionable.
So, for yet another time, do you have ANY citations to scientific journals to
support your assertion of a "deluded" Behe?
No? Then you ought to keep your mind a tad more open to the possibility that
nothing has been "shown" as you assert.
<<Jim: So my question remains. Where has it been "shown," in a legitimate
forum,that Behe is "deluded"? You no doubt have the citations in the
Robison post, but did you know that Behe posted an answer to this,
explaining that ALL of the papers cited by Robison are concerned with the
development of *metabolic
pathways* (metabolic pathways are NOT irreducibly complex)? And did you
know
that Robison never responded? What does that tell you?
What should it tell me ?>>
That the attack by Robison on Behe was erroneous.
<<And why are you trying to imply wrong-doing
rather than addressing the comments by Robison which address the formation
of a irreducibly complex system in small steps ?>>
I never said anything about "wrong-doing." Those are your words. What I
pointed out was that Robison made an allegation that turned out to be false. I
don't say he did so knowingly, but it was pointed out to him that he was wrong
and he never challenged that fact. That should tell you that you are relying
on poor piece of work.
<<Let's focus on the argument and not on the person>>
That's exactly what I would like you to do. The issue is a simple one. You
have asserted that it has been "shown" Behe is deluded. Outside of the
erroneous talk.origins piece, what do you base that on?
Jim