Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Molecular biologist Michael Behe described a system made of several interacting parts, whereby the removal of one part would disrupt the functioning of the whole, as being irreducibly complex. Both creation scientists and intelligent design proponents highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies, because they argue against evolutionary hypotheses. The very structure of these systemswith their interdependent parts working all together or not at alldemands a non-Darwinian, non-chance, non-piecemeal origin.
A team of evolutionary molecular biologists thinks it may have refuted this concept of irreducible complexity. In a recent study, the researchers focused on a specific cellular machine involved in protein transport and claimed that it was indeed reducible to its component parts. But did they use real science to demonstrate this, or just scientific-sounding phrases?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
Thanks for the ping!
Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology.
Is ICR defending astrology as well?
Is "under oath" supposed to mean something here? Perhaps that he isn't lying about what his opinion really is?
If we went to Mars and found a threaded metal bolt, it could be explained as a random natural phenomenon through the application of statistical possibilities, however slight.
(Monkey + Typewriter) X Time = Shakespeare
However, common sense says it can't happen.
This has been explained to evolutionists ad nauseum, with no effect. They repeat the same misrepresentation even after having the truth explained to them.
If you would actually read Dr. Behe's testimony instead of letting hack evolutionist websites do your thinking for you; you would see that Dr. Behe testified that ID was falsifiable in the same manner that astrology had been falsified.
But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of your beliefs.
You should never accept a statement by an evolutionist at face value. Their minds don’t work correctly and their statements are likewise false.
Behe actually testified that ID was falsifiable just as astrology had been falsified.
In an evo mind, that translates into the false statement that you saw.
Your side lost. Deal with it.
==But hey, don’t let the truth get in the way of your beliefs.
I wonder if the evos realize that their entire worldview can be summed up by the very last word of your reply.
1 in a billion chance? Acceptable.
1 in a trillion chance? Acceptable.
One trillionth in a trillion chance? No problem.
Such unquestionable acceptance smacks of blind faith to me, which is what they suggest they just can't accept.
Darwinists sometimes naively point to 'evolutionary' iterations in technology without grasping the numerous intelligent decisions and multiple concrete changes in design and manufacturing for even small product upgrades. The reality is, changing most decently-optimized products requires numerous simultaneous changes to maintain function and efficiency such that it is an improvement over the old product design.
A biological example would be the shift from a reptilian lung to an avian lung. What makes a reptilian lung work in its environment is quite different from the optimal design for an avian lung, and requires substantial redesign. Not gradual 'evolution.' The same could be said for innumerable other biological features (such as different eye designs, bones, urea excretory systems, etc.) found in such a proposed transition. Evolutionism has embarassingly become a 19th-century word story unable to cope with the specifics and complexities of modern scientific discovery.
“This is a Meta-article that contains no peer reviewed site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever.”
It appears that the assumption of your statement is that FreeRepublic “scientists” are not intelligent enough to read an article of this nature and conclude that it is a “Meta-article”. Were you attempting to dissuade others from actually reading the inflammatory material and deciding for themselves? The article itself is not that brilliant, yet you threw up a warning like you were addressing a sixth grade school lab experiment. How incredibility paranoid.
So we found part of one of the crashed missions. Next!!!
You saying this, is priceless. Please continue.
ROFLOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.