<<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.>>
Jim: 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.
Any data is automatically questionable, it's called science. But the
opposite does not automatically apply namely that data from a non-refereed
journal has no relevance.
Jim: So, for yet another time, do you have ANY citations to scientific
journals to support your assertion of a "deluded" Behe?
Do you have any publications in a legitimate scientific journal by Behe
addressing his arguments ?
Why are you unwilling to address valid comments under the excuse of 'not a
legitimate journal'.
<<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 ?>>
Jim: That the attack by Robison on Behe was erroneous.
Was it ? You are reading a lot into something you have no data for.
<<Let's focus on the argument and not on the person>>
Jim: 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?
I base it on the talk.origins piece which you claim is erroneous but which
I claim shows a viable mechanism for irreducibly complex systems to form.