Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[TagliatelliMonster]

I answered that question by saying that if Behe means that he doesn't permit the concept of theistic evolution then we don't agree since I find no conflict between theistic evolution which has the intelligent designer both establishing and supervising the evolutionary process and the concept of intelligent design.

In theistic evolution, the flagellum can happily evolve according to the processes of evolution theory. Being mutation + natural selection.

So... I take it then that you have no problem with the idea of the flagellum evolving?

Also.... if that is indeed what your position is....
Care to explain this thread then?
Amazing Biological Nanotechnology

ps: theistic evolution is in direct opposition of the intelligent design model.


<staff edit>

 

[Radrook]

In theistic evolution, the flagellum can happily evolve according to the processes of evolution theory. Being mutation + natural selection.

So... I take it then that you have no problem with the idea of the flagellum evolving?

ps: theistic evolution is in direct opposition of the intelligent design model.

<staff edit>

My research on theistic evolution shows that my viewpoint falls within acceptable parameters. In fact, I posted a reference to that fact before and it was totally ignored. I see absolutely no need for endless repeats merely because you folks demand it. <staff edit>

 

[Radrook]

It doesn't seem to delve into any details.



Does it? As far as I can see all it does is wrongly claim "that can't have evolved!"



Where's this "mindless genius" phrase you've started using come from? Is it supposed to be insulting or something?

No, I am not attempting to insult and if it is perceived that way I apologize. It is meant merely as a description of how I perceive your explanations which don't involve mind but are totally chemical-dependent.

bTW
I am NOT obligated to agree with everything that any other given person such as Behe might believe. I am sure that you don't agree with every single physicists but might be in general agreement. Please grant me the same right.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, I am not attempting to insult and if it is perceived that way I apologize. It is meant merely as a description of how I perceive your explanations which don't involve mind but are totally chemical-dependent.

No problem.

Do you not accept that random mutations that can be advantageous to an organism can occur? Again, I don't want to mirepresent what you believe, but are you suggesting that such beneficial changes are individually 'engineered'?

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, if you can't SEE that it delves into anything at all then you should deem it unworthy of your attention.
Yet here you are.

It would be a dull place if we all agreed.

 

[Radrook]

It would be a dull place if we all agreed.

True!

 

[Loudmouth]

Theistic evolution has no problem with that.

Intelligent Design does have a problem with Theistic Evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

If Behe means that he doesn't believe in totally mindless, unguided evolution then I agree.

Behe clearly states that Intelligent Design would be falsified if the flagellum evolved.

 

[Loudmouth]

Justifiable inference.

Then justify it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Theistic evolution doesn't view what he described as a problem of any kind. It explains it in an evolutionist way but sees an intelligent designer behind it.

What evidence is there for an intelligent designer "behind it"?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Behe clearly states that Intelligent Design would be falsified if the flagellum evolved.

Even that seems like faulty logic - the fact that one example of what was thought to be ID is falsified doesn't mean ID is falsified. For example, if ID predicts irreducible complexity and the flagellum isn't irreducibly complex, then the flagellum isn't an example of ID - but there may be others. It's not falsifiable in that respect - although if no examples of irreducible complexity can be found after extensive investigation, one could consider it to-all-intents-and-purposes falsified by default - what would be the point of it if it was insignificant to the point of being undetectable?

Incidentally, I find the 'predictions' of ID rather vague and unjustified - why should irreducible complexity be a prediction? How do they know how an intelligent designer might prefer to design a universe?

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts have been removed/edited for going off topic.

The OP posted a video.

If you don't want to watch the video and discuss the video, do not post in this thread.

Do not discuss each other, only the topic presented in the video.

 

[bhsmte]

MOD HAT

Posts have been removed/edited for going off topic.

The OP posted a video.

If you don't want to watch the video and discuss the video, do not post in this thread.

Do not discuss each other, only the topic presented in the video.

I have a quick question if i could. Some folks, have a habit of posting just videos or starting ops with just videos, without making any comment about them what so ever. Is it not appropriate, to ask the person who was motivated to post just a video, to provide their personal understanding of that video and to provide a summary of what they believe the video claims? Thanks.

 

[Speedwell]

<staff edit>

I answered that question by saying that if Behe means that he doesn't permit the concept of theistic evolution then we don't agree since I find no conflict between theistic evolution which has the intelligent designer both establishing and supervising the evolutionary process and the concept of intelligent design.

How does a "supervised" evolutionary process differ from a naturalistic evolutionary process, exactly? In any detectable way?

 

[Truthfrees]

I have a quick question if i could. Some folks, have a habit of posting just videos or starting ops with just videos, without making any comment about them what so ever. Is it not appropriate, to ask the person who was motivated to post just a video, to provide their personal understanding of that video and to provide a summary of what they believe the video claims? Thanks.

MOD HAT

Yes, for sure you can ask them for a summary, but they don't have to.

If you find someone isn't giving you the answers you want, you can't badger them, or discuss the person. This is called harassing/mocking/flaming/goading/off topic to the OP.

IOW if you find someone's thread is not a good thread for you, just don't post in their thread.

If you find a certain member is not a good person to have a discussion with, then don't discuss anything with them anymore.

 

[bhsmte]

MOD HAT

Yes, for sure you can ask them for a summary, but they don't have to.

If you find someone isn't giving you the answers you want, you can't badger them, or discuss the person. This is called harassing/mocking/flaming/goading/off topic to the OP.

IOW if you find someone's thread is not a good thread for you, just don't post in their thread.

If you find a certain member is not a good person to have a discussion with, then don't discuss anything with them anymore.

We are on the same page, thanks.

 

[Radrook]

I don't buy into the story that information appears out of nowhere and then mindlessly begins to program itself to do brilliant things. To me that is fairytale stuff.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't buy into the story that information appears out of nowhere and then mindlessly begins to program itself to do brilliant things. To me that is fairytale stuff.

Yea, you keep saying that.

 

[Radrook]

Suspension of disbelief doesn't apply when the proposition is intended to be taken as true but is patently false.

 

[bhsmte]

Suspension of disbelief doesn't apply when the proposition is intended to be taken as true but is patently false.

Can you demonstrate (with reliable evidence) that something is patently false? You make a lot of definitive statements, but never back those statements up with evidence to support them.