Mutations: evolution's engine becomes evolution's end! (estimates time to extinction)

macroevolutionists+ always moving the goalpost for others, but never ever being bound by their own arbitraily ‘others imposed’ restrictions

And just for the record- Man has soem of the atributes of God- inteligence, wisdom and understanding, and the evidneces for intelligent causation/IC show the NEED for such attributes when examining the cosntructions in biolgoy-

I am still waiting for god to strike me down....

Any second now.....

You used a lot of words there, why didn’t you just cut to the chase and explain that the subject is just too complex to understand so that proves that God did it.

That is the basis if the I.D./Creationist argument.

[[You used a lot of words there, why didn’t you just cut to the chase and explain that the subject is just too complex to understand so that proves that God did it.]]

Because that woudl be a lie- one that is being fostered by anti0-ID folks who intentionally misrepresnt ID science liek yourserlf- you know full well it’s a lie as well- but alas- you’ll never quit perpetrating the lie- ID isn’t too complex no more so than studying complexity in ancient objects is ‘too complex’ to come ot a beyond reasonable doubt conclusio nthat an intelligence was NEEDED to create the objects- your accusation is assinine and disingenious

[[That is the basis if the I.D./Creationist argument.]]

When you decide you want ot engage in an intellectually honest conversation about ID let me know- not itnerested in discussing your assinine accusations over and over again- many folks including myself have repeatedly shown that ID makes NO such absurd statement, and that it shows over and over again the NEED for intelligence behind IC which incidently isn’t too ‘complicated’ to understand- only a dolt would make such a suggestion!

well then you might want to go through history and see what happened to those who mocked God- you might just get your wish if you;’re inviting trouble willingly

For htose hwo might be itnerested in rising above ignorant, petty, pat accusaitons about ID, ID is not, contrary to the ignorant accusations agaisnt, ‘too complicated to understadn, and hterefore the supernatural has to be invoked’.

Some have attempted to explain away irreducible complexty, only to find htemselves trapped in the very IC system they are attempting to explain away. As I mentioned, Miller tried to criticise the IC system of complex blood clotting in mammals by pointing to lung fish blood clotting, and hten proceedign to intelligently construct unatural processes and itneractions to ‘show how more complex blood clotting coudl evovle’, but the only hting Miller managed to do was to prove that IC truly is IC even htough it might be constructed of some components which could be reduced- but in so doing, he neglected to mention that in order to ‘deconstruct’ the reducible components, he was forced to invent more irreducible components to deal with hte ‘evolving’ hypothesis.

The problem for naturalism is that it MUST always appeal to systems which did NOT exist in nature in order to ‘deconstruct’ irreducible complexity, and in so doing, it proves that other irreducibly complex mechanisms MUST be inpalce BEFORE the deconstruction can take place.

another key element is the fact that the naturalist is forced to go back to the beginning, when biological systems did not occure, and he MUST construct complex systems from mere chemicals, and MUST construct hierachies of information that MUST be inplace before any such constructions can be utilized in a coherent manner by supposed emerging systems- every minute ‘deconstruction’ is forced to borrow from previous irreducibly complex structures, until you end up at hte beginning when no such systems could have been present to borrow from- and appealing to ‘natural miracles’ to explain away IC is a practice of faith, not science- especially in light of hte fact that we can show that to remove irreducible components of IC renders the whole IC system unfit for survival.

Ira seems to look down his nose at ‘faith’, but the reality is that he and other macroevos have a much stronger faith in hte unseen than do ID proponents inthat they MUST appeal to processes that defy and violate natural laws in order to construct their hypothesis- processes which they can NOT see, duplicate, nor test- ID o nthe other hand is able to test IC by removing the critical irreducible components of IC, and seeign whether or not hte species can remain viable. The ONLY answer the naturalist can give to the complete lack of evidnece supporting evolving complexity is “We just haven’t discovered hte process yet’ and ‘we can show that IF you do this, IF you restrict this, IF you isolate this from happening, and IF you protect this from occuring, then it’s possible this coudl lead to that- in otherwords, IF you intelligently construct an unnatural setting, intelligently protect, intelligently weed out problems, etc etc etc, then a complex system might, just6 might, begin to emerge (however, havign compeltely faield ot demonstrate even one fully emerged system, the naturalist is then required to explain away hte trillions of other IC systems that MUST have evovled- if they can’t even demonstrate on simplistic example of IC, how are we to beleive trillions of other IC systems emerged without any evidnece to show their slowly evolving cosntructions? ONLY by appealing to the miraculous can an evo even begin to state such a thing- but it’s awful funny that they look down their nose at anyone who suggest an intelligent construction lies behind intelligent irreducibly constructed systems- better to beleive an unthinking supernatural ‘natural process’ soemhow managed the miraculous than to think an intelligent agent left His obvious signs all over life’s construcitons apparently!

By the way- nature has becoem the naturalist’s ‘god of the gaps’- an accusaiton they love levelling toward ID proponents- but mention the fact that their god of the gaps is an unintelligent natural process- and al lyou get is a harumph!

“In any case, the receptor-ligand pair by itself is certainly not irreducibly complex. These pairs represent only small components of complex physiological processes such as metabolism, inflammation, immunity, and electrolyte homeostasis. For such pairs to have any selective advantage as part of the regulation of larger physiological processes, many other protein components have to be present.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3419

Yep- explain away IC by appealing to lower IC systems- Brilliant!

IC isn’t ‘too complicated to understand’ contrary to the ignorant statements made by soem who apaprently are intimidated by complexity- We understand it just fine, and can explain how complexity functions, what components are needed, and whether nature is capable of producing such complexity, or whether nature would NEED to violate natural laws in order to ‘intelligently construct’ the complexity- Miller himself proved an intelligent constructor is NEEDED to construct irreducible complexity, and hte suggestio nthat ID shows a NEED for an intelligent causer renders ID a religious process and unscientific shows a complete lack of understanding abotu what science is, and what it can and can’t consist of- Science appeals to the NEED for intelligence in many many scientific proceedures, and showing hte NEED for an intelligent constructor does not in any way render the process a ‘religious practice’, no more so than any other science that investigates the NEED for intelligence behind structures-

the failure to recognize this shows a fundamental lack of understanding, and shows that those makign such claism are more about adherrign to hteir own personal agenda, and not to the actual sicentific methods of investigation- apaprently, since the evidneces show that nature is incapable of intellgient construction of IC, the only defense for hte failing hypothesis of Macroevolution is to belittle the opposition with petty remarks that are ocmpeltely false- and hte sad part is that those makign such claims are the ones steeped i nthe very accusations htey level agaisnt others.

Miller claims that the problem with anti-evolutionists like Michael Behe and me is a failure of imagination

Behe is an evolutionist.