[xm177e2]

My point was that creation {in the case of this program} took place by *design*.

But what does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have a point.

If your point is that the program was designed by evolutionists and that therefore it should not be trusted, you have made a circumstantial case for distrusting the program.

But you need to do better than that. "It's made by evolutionists, therefore it's false" just doesn't work. If you think there is something logically wrong with the program, find it and say so.

Remember that Michael Behe does not deny microevolution of the sort that takes place in the program. He does not deny that organisms can adapt to their environment. He denies that the type of small changes that take place in that computer program could end up producing something with irreducible complexity. There may be other reasons to reject evolution, but they're outside the scope of this thread. This thread is only about Michael Behe's theory that IC cannot be evolved.

The program has done exactly what Michael Behe says is impossible: it's shown so-called "irreducible complexity" can be evolved by making small changes to a "design DNA," like the kind of mutations scientists have observed in animals, the kind of mutations Michael Behe admits take place in nature.

There has been absolutely no "moving of the goalposts." If you wish to discuss something separate (like speciation, or the origins of life itself), that's for a different thread. I'm not trying to be rude (well, I was last night hehe) but it's important not to lose focus on a single issue at a time.

[Paloma_55]

But you need to do better than that. "It's made by evolutionists, therefore it's false" just doesn't work. If you think there is something logically wrong with the program, find it and say so.

Go back to my post and find that quote.

I can not argue with someone who makes up quotes.

Unless I were to respond to your earlier statement... "I am not capable of making an intelligent point, so I make up quotes to create a strawman that I can argue against".

In this case, I would have to agree with your self-assessment.

You *really* get way too worked up over this. You have misrepresented what I have said, and in fact made up stuff and put it in quotes. I strongly suggest that you take a chill pill, relax and it will work itself out.

I could care less if you agree with me, OK? Drop it.

[Jorge]

"My point was that creation {in the case of this program} took place by *design*."

But what does that have to do with anything? I don't think you have a point.

It was an excellent point illustrating the utter blindness and hypocrisy of evolutionists. A point that obviously went over your head.

By the way, you spend far to much time, and too many words attempting to defend your positions. It's boring.

Brevity is the soul of wit.