Amazing Biological Nanotechnology

[TagliatelliMonster]

You refer to the science community as if it excludes theists.

He did no such thing. He didn't even utter the words "atheist" or "theist". He was just addressing what the scientific community says concerning the flagellum and how the ID claims about it are false. Stop lying.

So I inferred that's what you meant. Same as I saying "The theist community...." It is an all-encompassing term.

No, the "scientific community" is not synonymous with "the atheist community".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

The "predictions" mentioned there have already been addressed in the thread about introns etc. I even linked you that response. As did other people.

You are very good at ignoring those responses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't respond because there is NOTHING you can say to convince me

Then discussion with you is futile.

the link I offered very effectively exposes it as utter nonsense despite your claims to the contrary.

In the rebutal posts to that link, it has been demonstrated that those points are fallacious. Off course, if you ignore it all, then you will not be aware of that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Incessant repetition of faulty reasoning isn't going to convince nor force a rational person to abandon rationality.

Asking how an idea, that is supposed to be scientific, can be tested is "faulty reasoning".

lol, owkay then...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The perennial question which is continually evaded is where did the information which is programmed into the DNA in order to get such a biotech machine assembled originate?

It's called evolution.

That is always answered vaguely with:

"The chemicals did it!"

or else

"What information? I don't see any information!""

Nobody here even posted such a response.

I challenge you to quote a single time that this supposedly happened.

Goog luck.

Such responses answer nothing but simply place logic on hold in order to evade.

What falsifiable test can determine if ID is present in any given object?

 

[bhsmte]

Then discussion with you is futile.


In the rebutal posts to that link, it has been demonstrated that those points are fallacious. Off course, if you ignore it all, then you will not be aware of that.

At this point, it has become quite obvious, he has no other choice to ignore certain questions. Too much pain involved with it and well evidenced science, becomes a threat.

 

[Radrook]

I have nothing to be concerned about from real science since genuine science doesn't challenge the ID viewpoint. Avoiding pain? Please note that the only pain I try to avoid is the annoying pain of having to hear senseless yapping. Any other type of input is welcomed.

 

[bhsmte]

I have nothing to be concerned about from real science since genuine science doesn't challenge the ID viewpoint. Avoiding pain? Please note that the only pain I try to avoid is the annoying pain of having to hear senseless yapping. Any other type of input is welcomed.

Talk about genuine science and ID then. Start with the scientific definition of ID and the falsifiable test, to determine when ID is present.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have nothing to be concerned about from real science since genuine science doesn't challenge the ID viewpoint.

That's because there is nothing there to challenge.

Science isn't really in the business of challenging unfalsifiable nonsense.

 

[Loudmouth]

I disagree that a person ceases to be scientist when he infers intelligent design from what he observes in nature.

Your inability to present any science to back your supposed inference refutes your claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Incessant repetition of faulty reasoning isn't going to convince nor force a rational person to abandon rationality.

Then why do you incessantly repeat the same faulty reasoning?

 

[Loudmouth]

This video shows how this motor is programmed to accurately and methodically assemble itself.

Are you saying that the flagellum did not evolve?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, since time and energy are limited it matters. Please note that I once spent six whole months debating with atheists on another website only to have them finally admit that they were refusing to see any of my arguments as feasible because of a deeply engrained aversion to anything that might even remotely smack of the supernatural or religious.

Please note that you are probably making it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

The perennial question which is continually evaded is where did the information which is programmed into the DNA in order to get such a biotech machine assembled originate?

That is always answered vaguely with:

"The chemicals did it!"

or else

"What information? I don't see any information!""

Such responses answer nothing but simply place logic on hold in order to evade.

Argument from ignorance.

If you have evidence that the information in DNA was put there by an intelligence, please present that evidence. Pointing to a lack of evidence for other theories does not support your theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have nothing to be concerned about from real science since genuine science doesn't challenge the ID viewpoint.

That's because ID isn't science.

Please note that the only pain I try to avoid is the annoying pain of having to hear senseless yapping. Any other type of input is welcomed.

Do you have something other than insults? Do you think that you can avoid our arguments by calling it "yapping"?

 

[Radrook]

Sorry but I don't buy the mindless genius idea.

 

[Jimmy D]

Sorry but I don't buy the mindless genius idea.

I thought you didn't like repeating yourself? No one asked you if you 'buy' a mindless genius idea, that's your strawman concept. Why are you ignoring the actual questions you are being asked?

You mentioned the flagellum as a 'reason' to 'conlcude' design.
Are you saying it could not have evolved?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry but I don't buy the mindless genius idea.

Argument from incredulity.

 

[Radrook]

Testing isn't necessary in order to make a justifiable inductive leap.
If testing were necessary for everything that we readily detect is true then you would be testing all day long. Furthermore passing the crucial criteria of logic or cogent reasoning itself is a test and intelligent design passes it via flying colors. What doesn't pass it is abiogenesis since there is absolutely no basis for an inductive leap since no observable pattern is evident whatsoever.

 

[Radrook]

Argument from ignorance.

If you have evidence that the information in DNA was put there by an intelligence, please present that evidence. Pointing to a lack of evidence for other theories does not support your theory.

The evidence forces an ID inference. Avoiding the inference is illogical and unscientific.