The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You,

[Loudmouth]

Evolution disproves what?

Intelligent design.

Apparently you aren't familiar with theistic evolution are you? theistic evolution has God using evolution to create living things.

Right. That isn't intelligent design. Here is an excerpt from an ID article (one I believe you have linked to before) on what would falsify ID:

Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwin’s Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to function—it is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behe’s argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.

How does one test and discredit Behe’s argument? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor.
http://www.discovery.org/f/494
​

Over and over and over again, every article on Intelligent Design states that ID would be falsified if evolution were shown to be the mechanism.

Necessarily?

I 'said that it can be interpreted or understood as a creator choosing to assemble his creation in that particular way. That's what theistic evolution is all about. It seems as if your atheist presupposition prevents that posibility.

What pattern of shared derived characteristics would NOT be interpreted or understood as a creator choosing to assemble his creation in a particular way?

If ID does not require a nested hierarchy, then it can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy.

 

[Radrook]

Intelligent design.



Right. That isn't intelligent design. Here is an excerpt from an ID article (one I believe you have linked to before) on what would falsify ID:

Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwin’s Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to function—it is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behe’s argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.

How does one test and discredit Behe’s argument? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor.
http://www.discovery.org/f/494
​

Over and over and over again, every article on Intelligent Design states that ID would be falsified if evolution were shown to be the mechanism.



What pattern of shared derived characteristics would NOT be interpreted or understood as a creator choosing to assemble his creation in a particular way?

If ID does not require a nested hierarchy, then it can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy.

Behe said what?

Not by a long shot! You are completely misunderstanding Behe. You see, Behe was talking about atheistic evolution not theistic evolution. Yes, of course, atheistic evolution is indeed incompatible with intelligent design. However, theistic evolution isn't. So your claim that every ID article repeats what Behe supposedly said must be referring to-atheistic evolution references as well. So your ID falsification claim is bogus.

 

[Loudmouth]

Behe said what?

Behe said that if there was an evolutionary pathway for creating an IC system then ID would be falsified.

Not by a long shot! You are completely misunderstanding Behe. You see, Behe was talking about atheistic evolution not theistic evolution.

It's the same thing. Atheistic evolution works through random mutations and natural selection. Theistic evolution works through random mutations and natural selection. One in the same.

 

[Speedwell]

So why are you so hostile to theistic evolutionists who reject ID?

 

[Speedwell]

Behe said that if there was an evolutionary pathway for creating an IC system then ID would be falsified.



It's the same thing. Atheistic evolution works through random mutations and natural selection. Theistic evolution works through random mutations and natural selection. One in the same.

And there you have it. Theistic evolution is an unfalsifiable proposition. You can't impose a theology on the unwilling with an unfalsifiable proposition.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oooh! looks like plain old organic chemistry too is a candidate for ID: The Language of Chemistry Unveiled...

Or not

 

[Radrook]

Misrepresentation of theistic evolution isn't a good way to be convincing.

 

[Radrook]

Oooh! looks like plain old organic chemistry too is a candidate for ID: The Language of Chemistry Unveiled...

Or not

Not if it involves mindlessness.

 

[Radrook]

And there you have it. Theistic evolution is an unfalsifiable proposition. You can't impose a theology on the unwilling with an unfalsifiable proposition.

That accusation of proposition demands that I be a theistic evolutionist. The accusation of imposition demands that I be approaching the subject from a religious angle. Both assumptions are bogus as is your idea of falsifiability which I explained in a previous post and am not going to go into again since I am not a machine.

 

[Radrook]

Intelligent design.



Right. That isn't intelligent design. Here is an excerpt from an ID article (one I believe you have linked to before) on what would falsify ID:

Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwin’s Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to function—it is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behe’s argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.

How does one test and discredit Behe’s argument? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor.
http://www.discovery.org/f/494
​

Over and over and over again, every article on Intelligent Design states that ID would be falsified if evolution were shown to be the mechanism.



What pattern of shared derived characteristics would NOT be interpreted or understood as a creator choosing to assemble his creation in a particular way?

If ID does not require a nested hierarchy, then it can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy.

The same claim of inability to see the obvious again! This is getting monotonous and annoying.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed at OP request.