Very little in science is "conclusive." I think Behe has the better of the debate, but there is certainly a debate taking place (contrary to the loud claims of some evolumaniacs).
Very little in science is "conclusive."
Indeed -- then perhaps you should stop making absolute statements such as "The "higher intelligence" evolved---as we can't have done because we contain irreducibly complex biochemical systems", as if you *did* have some sort of conclusive demonstration of the validity of your claim, especially when it turns out that when challenged to provide *any* evidence in favor of your claim, your examples fall flat.
I think Behe has the better of the debate,
Even after your complete inability to respond to the many flaws identified in his argument on this thread? Fascinating.
but there is certainly a debate taking place (contrary to the loud claims of some evolumaniacs).
Oh look, another childish insult -- what a surprise.
But do feel free to support *this* new amazing claim of yours; please point out an example of an "evolumaniac" (definition, please?) who makes a "loud claim" (how loud?) that there is no "debate taking place" on this topic. This should be entertaining.
Very little in science is "conclusive."
Is there any special reason you failed to acknowledge that I then went on to show that Behe's examples fail even when we drop the "conclusive" requirement? Shouldn't you either attempt to defend his examples, or be intellectually honest enough to withdraw them as support for your claim?
By focusing only on the "conclusive" issue when that wasn't the key issue in my post, and thus avoiding the rest, are you perhaps trying to be a "sneak"?