Amazing Biological Nanotechnology

[bhsmte]

You are wandering away from my direct links into other areas on those websites. My direct links are to pages that support what I believe and which were under discussion when I posted them.
Since it was suggested that I provide lnks I provided them. Now it's nitpicking with the links.

If you can't explain how the links support your argument, you are going to be questioned on it. If you refuse to explain, that is on you.

 

[Radrook]

If you can't explain how the links support your argument, you are going to be questioned on it. If you refuse to explain, that is on you.

I provide those links because I keep getting too many repeated requests to clarify and I was told that in order to avoid being swamped I should place links. Now I get swamped with demands that I clarify the links because the readers still can't see? I might as well remove them and replace them with the former Einstein quote.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And I keep repeating that I am not arguing against theistic evolution but to no avail.
Now of course you will ask what I consider theistic evolution. Something that I previously explained several times before as well but to no avail.

Is that a "no"?
So, you DO accept that the flagellum could have evolved?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are wandering away from my direct links into other areas on those websites.

Eum... no.
Your second link is directly addressing Behe's argument concerning the flagellum.

Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum

...on an evolution denial website...

 

[Radrook]

Eum... no.
Your second link is directly addressing Behe's argument concerning the flagellum.

Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum

...on an evolution denial website...

That link is relevant to the objection raised concerning the flagellum. I'm talking about wandering around and seeking where the Discovery Institute might be in disagreement with me as if I were somehow bound by the Discovery Institute. I am not beholden to either that institute or the Behe. We might agree on some points but disagree on others. So I really don't see why you keep striving to restrict me ion that way.

 

[Radrook]

Is that a "no"?
So, you DO accept that the flagellum could have evolved?

Not in the manner that you understand it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not in the manner that you understand it.

What does that mean?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That link is relevant to the objection raised concerning the flagellum

That link is about Behe's "specified complexity / irreducible complexity" argument, which states that the flagellum could not have evolved, which stands at the very core of the Intelligent Design model, and which is in complete contradiction of the stance of theistic evolution concerning that specific topic.

See, this is why we aks you the question what your stance is regarding the evolution of the flagellum... Because your responses concerning this subject are self-contradictory.

Theistic evolution and ID are on opposite sides of the table concerning this specific subject.

If you say that you agree with both ID and theistic evolution, then you are thus literally expressing a self-contradicting position.

The fact that you keep dancing around this question and categorically refuse to give a straight answer, it makes me conclude that you actually have no idea what your position is. ie: you don't know what your position is. That's fine, by the way. There is no shame in being ignorant about something - as long as you acknowledge it in all honesty, off course.

At the moment though... you are all over the place with this one and you are contradicting yourself every other post. I also am quite convinced that you don't even realise it.

I'm talking about wandering around and seeking where the Discovery Institute might be in disagreement with me as if I were somehow bound by the Discovery Institute.

Nope. Now, we're talking about the very link in your signature and your continued pointing out that you "don't argue against theistic evolution".

But the very link concerning Behe's ID argument in your signature plainly contradicts the position of theistic evolution on this subject.

This is why everybody here is so confused when reading your posts on this subject.

I am not beholden to either that institute or the Behe.

The link in your signature, says otherwise.

So I really don't see why you keep striving to restrict me ion that way.

Because you continue to express mutually exclusive positions on this topic, as I explained above.


One can also wonder why you insist on talking about "intelligent design" when your idea about that differs completely from what everybody else means when they talk about ID (being the model as proposed by the discovery institute)... While you also continually express that you are not arguing "against theistic evolution".

If you aren't arguing "against theistic evolution", and if by ID you do NOT mean ID as everybody else understands it.... why even insist on calling it ID in the first place? If your beliefs align with theistic evolution.... then why not just dump the ambiguous ID chatter (and all the baggage that comes with it), and just call yourself a "theistic evolutionst", and call it a day???

That would instantly clear up any and all confusion.


I mean.... if I insist on calling a chair a "table", and then continually express the idea that I don't have any problem with the word "chair" and what it stands for and that I don't really mean by "table" what everybody else means by "table"....... Then why not just call it a chair and be done with it?

 

[Radrook]

That link is about Behe's "specified complexity / irreducible complexity" argument, which states that the flagellum could not have evolved, which stands at the very core of the Intelligent Design model, and which is in complete contradiction of the stance of theistic evolution concerning that specific topic.

See, this is why we aks you the question what your stance is regarding the evolution of the flagellum... Because your responses concerning this subject are self-contradictory.

Theistic evolution and ID are on opposite sides of the table concerning this specific subject.

If you say that you agree with both ID and theistic evolution, then you are thus literally expressing a self-contradicting position.

The fact that you keep dancing around this question and categorically refuse to give a straight answer, it makes me conclude that you actually have no idea what your position is. ie: you don't know what your position is. That's fine, by the way. There is no shame in being ignorant about something - as long as you acknowledge it in all honesty, off course.

At the moment though... you are all over the place with this one and you are contradicting yourself every other post. I also am quite convinced that you don't even realise it.



Nope. Now, we're talking about the very link in your signature and your continued pointing out that you "don't argue against theistic evolution".

But the very link concerning Behe's ID argument in your signature plainly contradicts the position of theistic evolution on this subject.

This is why everybody here is so confused when reading your posts on this subject.


The link in your signature, says otherwise.



Because you continue to express mutually exclusive positions on this topic, as I explained above.


One can also wonder why you insist on talking about "intelligent design" when your idea about that differs completely from what everybody else means when they talk about ID (being the model as proposed by the discovery institute)... While you also continually express that you are not arguing "against theistic evolution".

If you aren't arguing "against theistic evolution", and if by ID you do NOT mean ID as everybody else understands it.... why even insist on calling it ID in the first place? If your beliefs align with theistic evolution.... then why not just dump the ambiguous ID chatter (and all the baggage that comes with it), and just call yourself a "theistic evolutionst", and call it a day???

That would instantly clear up any and all confusion.


I mean.... if I insist on calling a chair a "table", and then continually express the idea that I don't have any problem with the word "chair" and what it stands for and that I don't really mean by "table" what everybody else means by "table"....... Then why not just call it a chair and be done with it?

Simple-because I am not a theistic evolutionist. I am merely saying that the concept of theistic evolution doesn't clash with the intelligent design concept. Also, you are placing restrictions on my freedom to quote which you don't place on yourself. You mighty quote a scientist in areas that he agrees with yon on but ignore the areas where he doesn't agree on other issues. Quoting a source doesn't obligate the one quoting to agree with EVERTHING which that source proposes. I might quote Mahatma Gandhi. Does that mean I am a Hindu? Or I might quote Mohammed. Does that make me a Moslem? Does it obligate me to agree with everything else they claimed? Of course not. Richard Dawkins stated that it is foolish to strive to contact extraterrestrials. Are the scientists who are still trying to contact ET in agreement with him? They consider him a brilliant physicist and agree with the bulk of his theories but obviously they don't pay him much mind when it comes to communicating with ET. In the same manner I can quote from the Discovery Institutes articles if the article agrees with my concept but not feel obligated to agree with EVERYTHING that they might teach.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not in the manner that you understand it.

Assuming that you know how TagliatelliMonster understands the evolution of the flagellum, in what respect is your understanding of its evolution different from his?

 

[bhsmte]

I provide those links because I keep getting too many repeated requests to clarify and I was told that in order to avoid being swamped I should place links. Now I get swamped with demands that I clarify the links because the readers still can't see? I might as well remove them and replace them with the former Einstein quote.

Anyone can post links. Not everyone can articulate how the link supports their position. To me, those who fall into the latter, dont have a credible argument.

 

[bhsmte]

Simple-because I am not a theistic evolutionist. I am merely saying that the concept of theistic evolution doesn't clash with the intelligent design concept. Also, you are placing restrictions on my freedom to quote which you don't place on yourself. You mighty quote a scientist in areas that he agrees with yon on but ignore the areas where he doesn't agree on other issues. Quoting a source doesn't obligate the one quoting to agree with EVERTHING which that source proposes. I might quote Mahatma Gandhi. Does that mean I am a Hindu? Or I might quote Mohammed. Does that make me a Moslem? Does it obligate me to agree with everything else they claimed? Of course not. Richard Dawkins stated that it is foolish to strive to contact extraterrestrials. Are the scientists who are still trying to contact ET in agreement with him? They consider him a brilliant physicist and agree with the bulk of his theories but obviously they don't pay him much mind when it comes to communicating with ET. In the same manner I can quote from the Discovery Institutes articles if the article agrees with my concept but not feel obligated to agree with EVERYTHING that they might teach.

You can keep claiming theistic evolution doesnt clash with ID, but the evidence which has been pointed out to you countless times, shows you are wrong.

 

[Radrook]

Assuming that you know how TagliatelliMonster understands the evolution of the flagellum, in what respect is your understanding of its evolution different from his?

True! He doesn't go into minute detail about what his idea exactly involves does he? So I am left to imagine what he means based merely on his attitude towards an intelligent designer right? Then when forced to surmise what he means based on the meager information provided I am criticized-correct?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

True! He doesn't go into minute detail about what his idea exactly involves does he? So I am left to imagine what he means based merely on his attitude towards an intelligent designer right? Then when forced to surmise what he means based on the meager information provided I am criticized-correct?

Nobody forced you to surmise or claim anything. You claimed your understanding of it was not like his; this is an implicit claim to know the difference. I'm just asking you what that difference is.

You can't blame someone else for the vacuity of your own statements; if you don't know what someone means, you should ask them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Simple-because I am not a theistic evolutionist. I am merely saying that the concept of theistic evolution doesn't clash with the intelligent design concept.

You mean.... with your version of the intelligent design, of which you refuse to explain how it differs from what everybody else understand as being the "intelligent design" concept.

And if "theistic evolution" doesn't disagree with whatever-it-is that you believe, then why would it be wrong to call you a "theistic evolutionist"? Clearly, if you refuse to identify as such, then there must be something there that clashes with your views, yes?

Once again, I'm left confused about what it is that you actually believe.

Also, you are placing restrictions on my freedom to quote which you don't place on yourself.

I'm not. I don't actually care who or what you quote. I'm looking purely at the content. And the content of the link is identical to the content of Behe's argument. It, in fact, IS Behe's argument.

So I have no idea why it would be somehow wrong or restricting to talk about Behe's argument.

You mighty quote a scientist in areas that he agrees with yon on but ignore the areas where he doesn't agree on other issues.

I'm not talking about area's where you might not agree with Behe. I'm talking only about the very argument from Behe that the link is about. Being the flagellum and the idea's behind it: irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Those are mentioned in the other link about ID as well, by the way.

Do you disagree with these arguments? Which are, factually, Behe's arguments?

Quoting a source doesn't obligate the one quoting to agree with EVERTHING which that source proposes.

Okay. So you only agree with certain parts of the page that the links point to? This is the moment that I'm going to ask you to list which parts of those pages you do agree with and which parts you do not.

Or I might quote Mohammed. Does that make me a Moslem? Does it obligate me to agree with everything else they claimed? Of course not.

And I never said you should. Again, I'm talking purely about the argument presented on the page directly behind the link.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True! He doesn't go into minute detail about what his idea exactly involves does he? So I am left to imagine what he means based merely on his attitude towards an intelligent designer right? Then when forced to surmise what he means based on the meager information provided I am criticized-correct?

This is your thread. This is about you and your position on ID / theistic evolution.
I'm just asking you questions to try and understand your position.

I still don't really know what it is that you believe or propose.

If it is that important to you, then you may assume for all practical intents and purposes that I'll just side with the mainstream scientific consensus on the matter.

Eventhough I don't see how it should matter what I believe or don't believe, for you to be able to explain what you believe.

Your position isn't dependend on mine, now is it?

 

[Radrook]

Anyone can post links. Not everyone can articulate how the link supports their position. To me, those who fall into the latter, dont have a credible argument.

I can easily articulate any information I place links to and more. I simply don't think it necessary for me to do so just to prove to you that I can. If indeed you feel that I'm just some ignoramus mindlessly offering links then so be it. But me wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise only to have you glibly declare that you still can't see? Not by a long shot.

 

[Radrook]

This is your thread. This is about you and your position on ID / theistic evolution.
I'm just asking you questions to try and understand your position.

I still don't really know what it is that you believe or propose.

If it is that important to you, then you may assume for all practical intents and purposes that I'll just side with the mainstream scientific consensus on the matter.

Eventhough I don't see how it should matter what I believe or don't believe, for you to be able to explain what you believe.

Your position isn't dependend on mine, now is it?

OK! Then I guess you side with what you consider the more acceptable explanation.
.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are wandering away from my direct links into other areas on those websites.

I am looking at the very webpages you link to in your signature. I am not going anywhere else on the webpage. For example:

Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum

The entire webpage is one long argument that ID must be true because the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved.

My direct links are to pages that support what I believe and which were under discussion when I posted them.
Since it was suggested that I provide lnks I provided them. Now it's nitpicking with the links.

Then you reject theistic evolution, just as those webpages do.

 

[Loudmouth]

That link is relevant to the objection raised concerning the flagellum. I'm talking about wandering around and seeking where the Discovery Institute might be in disagreement with me as if I were somehow bound by the Discovery Institute. I am not beholden to either that institute or the Behe. We might agree on some points but disagree on others. So I really don't see why you keep striving to restrict me ion that way.

If you are not beholden to Behe or the DI, THEN WHY IN THE WORLD DO YOU LINK TO THEIR ARGUMENTS IN YOUR SIGNATURE?????

You directly link to an article that says theistic evolution could not have produced the bacterial flagellum, and then uses an argument from ignorance to argue for ID.