Originally Posted by jillianleab
AJ
Well, see that's the thing. Behe DIDN'T use new tools to discover anything. He took old tools and just didn't follow their directions and came up with new findings.
The advancements in modern labratory tools ARE new tools. My old wood handled shovel broke awhile back. I went and bought a new one. It had a fiberglass handle with a foam rubber grip and the shovel was more ergonomically desgined. New tools provide better work environments. So what you're saying is that he didn't follow the standard marching orders which allowed him to "come up with NEW FINDINGS." Cool!
Is a screwdriver a hammer if I use it to beat a nail into the wall?
Certainly. Not a good one though; however, if the nail is in the wall, I guess that's all that matters.
How come you let tal off the hook but you seem determined to beat a dead horse with me? There is no way you will bring me to your line of thinking.
Oh I know that I won't change your mind and I have no intention of trying. I'm just exposing the fallacies of your arguments. You haven't even read the book and yet you play judge, jury, and executioner as you take potshots at Behe's credibility. I find that unprofessional and hypocritical. That's all. You still haven't admitted that you haven't read the book because you don't want to look bad.
You provided Behe's name as a authority, and I've shown you that perhaps, he's not one.
At least you used the word "perhaps." That's not a scientific absolute. Bravo. I provided his name as an alternative to the norm and status quo. Everyone knows about the theory of evolution that is relentlessly passed of as fact. It's not a fact. There are many, many missing pieces to the evolutionary puzzle. Behe, on the other hand, shows the layman how microsopic organism operate and function and simply asks how that organism could survive without any one of its components. It's a good question. No answers as of yet from the scientific peanut gallery. He's attacked for some statement he may have made but nobody has attacked his findings. If any of his discoveries or findings were faulty, you could rest assured that the science gurus would be all over it.
I'm trying to make you think, to reconsider.
In an earlier statement, you said that you weren't trying to change my mind. Okey-dokey then.
You have no support to your argument that Behe's theory holds any water in the scientific sense.
But Behe does and you have no evidence to refute his facts.
If you simply say, "I believe his theory because I have faith" I can accept that, but as long as you claim science has anything to do with it, when clearly it has been demonstrated to the contrary, I have to insist you are mistaken. Want to prove yourself right? Get the scientific community to agree with you instead of me.
