This wiki article is pretty complicated and discusses flagellum with detail that complicates the whole issue pretty quickly.  A site that seems to break down the information a little better is this one.

The bacterial flagellum consists of 3 major domains: an ion driven motor, which can provide a torque in either direction; the hook, a universal joint which transmits motor torque even if it is curved; and the filament, a very long structure which acts as a propeller, and behaves differently depending on which way the motor turns.

There are quite a few parts that make up bacterial flagellum.  If irreducibly complexity is correct, when these parts are separated they have no function.  About 5 years ago this issue was unanswerable.  This is not the case anymore.  What scientists are finding is that there are pieces of the flagellum that are grouped together.  These groups when separated have been found in other systems and species where they do operate by themselves and are an entire system with a specific function.

One of the major problems with ID is it’s lack of scientific data.  This appears to stem from the fact that those involved with ID try to force their theories into text books and classrooms rather than use the scientific process.  And because of this, many scientists are unwilling to take the theory seriously.

A great resource for this and other information is:
YouTube of all places!  The following is a video of Ken Miller’s talk on Intelligent Design at Case Western University. Ken Miller discusses this issue as well as the whole ID movement.

Could the universe we’re trapped in be a figment of imagination? There doesn’t even have to be something to imagine it, if it can happen it may well do automatically in an infinite number of possible situations simultaneously, back-up comes from the concept of superposition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition

Feel free to contact me for comments or questions

There is a lot of info here and for completeness I went into
quantum mechanics fairly deeply. This stuff took me 2 years to learn
and I know people who still don’t get all of it, myself included. The
best thing to do is to read it slowly, think about each concept deeply
and come back to me if anything needs elaborating on. You will find
deep concepts are highly concentrated, I do that as there is a lot and
in written form I only need to say once. However I am more than happy
to explain individual concepts, theres just a lot.

Feel free to email me : mca24@sussex.ac.uk

The fundamentals are the hardest because they cover quantum mechanics,
but get past this and if you like I can teach bonding, which is where
physics ends and chemistry begins, email me if you want some info on bonding

distant claws

Have at it.

About those monkeys

Flogging the flagellum

Half an eye is better than none

A significant amount of Christian apologia directed at atheists stands and falls (usually the latter) with the definition of atheism. There are several observations to make.

First, atheism is position taken in response to theism. It is pointless and close to irrational to debate nuanced definition of atheism when it is the theist who has to go first and define exactly what it is they believe in. Instead of quibbling over the definition of atheism, it makes a lot more sense to leave it at: “Whatever it is that you theists believe in, I don’t”. On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with wearing the label of atheism like a badge of honor, negative connotations among the religious or not.

Second, a label does not authoritatively define personal beliefs and values. Everybody but Christian apologists understands that dictionary definitions are simplified and just a starting point. They insist on erecting strawmen based on what somebody accepting the label atheist should believe in based on the dictionary definition of their choice, instead of answering to the positions most atheists actually hold.

So what’s an atheist? Not a theist. It’s up to any single one of us to determine where we stand with regards to the myriad of deities theists believe in.

But there is one quite fitting term, though its normally used in the sense of an insult: non-believer.

Back to True Believers

I’ll let them speak for themselves, but you may have to think about some of these a little:

1. Begging the question, or petitio principii, is the most common type of fallacy because it is the one that occurs most frequently.

2. A bad set of options is either a false dichotomy or a true dichotomy.

3. You should never label an argument as a slippery slope argument, because next thing you know, you’re going to be calling all arguments that and where will it end?

4. Special pleading is the only type of logical fallacy that is not fallacious. This is because it is “special.”

5. If you don’t know what argumentum ad hominem is, you’re an idiot.

6. An appeal to authority constitutes a logically sound claim. Even the Pope agrees, and he knows a lot of things.

7. There’s nothing wrong with a hasty generalization. After all, most of my friends believe that.

8. Saying I provided a false analogy is like me saying you’re just plain wrong.

9. A non-sequitur conclusion is one which does not follow from the premises, therefore the premises must be wrong.

10. Argumentum ad logicam is a fallacy, so it always leads to a false conclusion.

11. Amphibolies will deceive the foolish, because that is their nature.

12. You can’t accuse someone of the fallacy of equivocation without being guilty of using “equivocation” yourself. See?

13. If I am affirming the consequent, then I am committing a logical fallacy. I am committing a logical fallacy, thus I must be affirming the consequent.

14. If I am denying the antecedent then I am committing a logical fallacy. I am not denying the antecedent, therefore I am not committing a logical fallacy.

15. My fallacy of composition is comprised of sensible words, so naturally it is a sensible statement.

16. A fallacy of division is nonsense, therefore it is comprised of nonsensical words.

17. You better damn well believe that I never resort to an appeal to force.

18. Is your inquiry a loaded question or a stupid one?

19. People who object to a straw man are simply prejudiced against the noble straw people.

20. A non causa pro causa argument is made by nitwits, therefore it is this type of argument that is the cause of human nitwitism.

21. A lot of people know that an argumentum ad populum is valid, especially in this democracy we live in. They can’t all be wrong.

22. Ignoratio elenchi must be a rather popular fallacy, since sociological studies have shown that people tend to think emotionally rather than rationally.

23. My own arguments, by virtue of coming from me, can never really constitute a true “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

24. How can you say a claim is guilty of reification? Where is the empirical evidence for reification? Show me something solid I can hold in my hand, else there is no reason to believe you.

Please note: The original site, whimsicology.com, has since been taken down and partially rebuilt. I’d link the original page if I could find it.

Category:SEB

Reading List

Self-Illustrating Logical Fallacies

FAQs:

True Believers

Creationist Canards

Click here to return to SEB.

That pesky burden of proof - the apologist’s bane.

There is a reason why apologists define atheism as the positive denial of the existence of deities and engage in torturous attempts to define the uncommitted atheistic position, non-theism, away: the burden of proof. It is very obvious that many apologists are more than just frustrated by the non-theists ability to take pot shots at the apologist’s proof with impunity, while not offering a position to counter-attack.

It is very simple, though. It is the theists that make the positive claim, therefore by any rational standard the burden of proof is theirs. They try to redefine all atheists as making a positive claim of their own and subsequently try to shift the burden of proof. Even when faced with atheists indeed making the positive claim of deities not existing, the apologist’s ploy has an incurable defect. Without theists first positing the existence of deities, there would be no atheists and therefore, theists have to go first. To be more specific, they first have to define ‘deity’ and then make arguments why a deity thus defined exists. If they can’t make a strong enough case, the non-theist’s work is already done.

Back to True Believers

There a more than a few tired old misconceptions we hear from the True Believers that visit this site. This FAQ takes a stab at pithy answers.

What is atheism anyway

What is theism anyway

Semantics

The Supernatural

Pascals Wager

The Burden of Proof