This is a different claim.
In which Matzke & Pallen directly contradict your claim that evolving bacterial flagella in a lab “is how scientists have been trying to falsify Behe’s claim”:
Scott Minnich speculated in his testimony that studies on flagellar evolution need not be restricted to sequence analysis or theoretical models, but that instead this topic could become the subject of laboratory-based experimental studies. But obviously, one cannot model millions of years of evolution in a few weeks or months.
(My emphasis)
It’s almost as though you don’t read the articles before posting them. 
He just flat out lies, then lies again to distract from his previous lie. And these people cry and moan that without theism there isn’t an objective morality.
4 Likes
False.
You directly referred to it. “Lab” is not a proper noun, btw.
I’m not and you know it:
You owe me a retraction and apology, Bill.
1 Like
Hi John
For asking if you are making stuff up I apologise. The tone of people conflating two of my claims looked like bad faith to me. I will assume for now you had mistaken two different claims to be the same.
So now it’s everyone else’s fault if Bill forgets what he said.
2 Likes
They are different claims. The first claim is theoretical as it is clearly speculative. The second claim is based on work being done. Matzke’s work is what I had in mind backing the second claim.
Do you know the First Rule of Holes?
1 Like
I am not in a hole John. I am dealing with misunderstanding the best I can. You can reject my explanation but I think you are just kidding yourself that these claims are the same. They are clearly not.
Tell me what “this” means above.
1 Like
Ok thanks. Yes I misspoke here.
1 Like
We can accept that you’re not trying to lie. You’re just very bad at expressing what you mean to say. Might I suggest that you pay more attention to your words and perhaps make sure before posting that you say clearly what you mean? You need this more than anyone else who posts here.
1 Like
Fair enough.
1 Like
Let me also suggest you read more carefully what others tell you, because I am the second person to post your response with added bold type.
2 Likes
I honestly thought Faizal was making a straw man argument and appreciated you pointing he was not but basing his argument on one of my errant replies.
1 Like
Yes, but you should know that I am the second person to point this out explicitly, not the first. You ignored or perhaps failed to understand the first attempt to point it out, though everyone else got it. You might search for that post.
1 Like
You were the only one that provided evidence of my error.
Please look before you type. Check out post #2925.
1 Like
Here you did not post evidence.
You were being vague and cost a lot of time. If you had the evidence then you should have posted it.
Again, please look before you type. Actually read the replies people make to you. Think about what they say. Now, that would save time.
1 Like