I wish people wouldn't put ideas in my head. But the anti-ID mantra's getting old. Anyhow, let's try:

[color:"purple"]No regulated moving part will ever occur on any object which did not result from intelligent design. [/color]

Ain't you glad I don't work for Discovery Institute?

This isn't a link. Explain what you mean please, including evidence.

Evidence? This is an hypothesis. It's testable. It's about as directly related to ID as it can be. Other than the fact that it exists, what problem do you have with it?

Have you considered getting a science tutor?

Another nice feature: countless tests are being performed on this hypothesis continually. There are plenty of random forces at work right outside my door. If I step outside and find the right evidence, it's overturned.

The initial problem I have with it is that I don't actually understand what you mean so I asked you to explain. What is a "regulated moving part"? Give an example please.

This is a fair question. Terms need to be defined.

An example of a regulated moving part would be the front wheels of (most) cars. They turn from lock to lock under the regulation of the steering wheel.

The car's antenna would be an example of an unregulated moving part. The wind can cause it to bend and vibrate because it isn't rigid. This motion is unregulated.

Or on a portable radio on could consider the station indicator vs the lid of the battery case. The station indicator moves under regulation of the tuning dial. The lid of the battery case is subject to being removed by the application of directed or random forces. It pops loose and may or may not return to its original position. Even if it is the hinged kind, it is still not regulated - merely constrained from becoming lost. It still swings freely in response to external forces.

Note that sufficient force can override regulation. A powerful external force applied to a front wheel can "jerk the steering wheel". This does not negate the fact that regulation is present.

A regulated moving part has a finite range of motion and doesn't move independently of its regulator (unless something is broken or malfunctioning).

So how does this relate to organisms? Most organisms regulate their moving parts by nerve impulses. Still not sure what you're getting at here.

Correct. You answer your own question.

Some might quibble over your use of "most", but... I don't understand what you don't understand here. So far you appear to understand.

I'm going to give up on this thread unless you explicitly state what you're trying to get at here. I'm not inclined to play 20 questions.

Why do you think that the fact that organisms can move their bodies is evidence for ID?

What I'm getting at: it's nonsense to claim ID isn't science because there's no testable hypothesis. I thought that one up while I was drifting off to sleep or just waking up - I forget which. Anyhow, it's not difficult to come up with one, and I don't claim to be the first. This may have been lurking in my memory for some time, so I can't even claim it's original.

I do maintain it's a valid hypothesis, and it supports ID. Big whoop. This thread should die quickly, and the issue should be settled. I don't expect evolutionists to give up their slander; slogans die hard.

Being as I'm not perfect, there's also a chance I'm mistaken here. Posting this hypothesis gives others a chance to review it and offer criticism. I welcome any valid criticism, as well as any suggestions for improvement.

In the meantime, countless tests of this hypothesis are under way!

For goodness' sake, explain what you are on about. Or this thread will die due to lack of sense.

Russ claimed in another thread that he thought the eye is irreducibly complex, which is a creationist idea that has been around a while. I showed him different steps in the evolution of the eye which begin with the simplest form, an eye spot that can detect light and dark. What's more, all of these evolutionary steps are still evident and can be studied in different organisms today.

Are you claiming that the mechanism for movement is irreducibly complex?

Irreducible Complexity is a separate hypothesis. I do not see it as incompatible with mine.

Is the hypothesis I propose valid or not?
Does it involve ID or not?
Is it testable?
Can it be improved?

These are the kind of questions that make sense here. Oh, and defining terms was on-topic.

I'd also be interested if you can produce evidence which could falsify it.

Beyond that, I simply demonstrate that it exists, in spite of evolutionist arguments from incredulity that no testable ID hypothesis exists.

Sorry for using purple - didn't know the other skin makes that look like a link.

Maybe someone else can make sense of this. Someone on your planet maybe.

I assume the part in purple is your hypothesis.

What testing do you think should be done to support or falsify this hypothesis?

What evidence/test result, should it occur, would falsify your hypothesis?

For my own edification:
1. Define regulated moving part.
2. Define intelligent designer.

Thanks

I'm content with the trillions (likely much more) of tests going on outside the front door right now.

I suppose one could observe other tests in other places, even on other planets. More testing is good. Successful tests justify higher confidence in the hypothesis, and if the hypothesis fails, the results can be used to continue the search for truth.The presence of a regulated moving part on an object that was not the result of intelligent design.

If it'll cheer you up, there is plenty of potential for debatable results. A solenoid could become entangled in some mattress springs and a battery could alight just so and... I'll not worry about it until it happens.
A regulated moving part is a distinct physical subset of the object, capable of controlled changes back and forth between at least two positions, or in a circuit, relative to the remainder of the object as a result of force(s) applied by other parts of the object, while maintaining its status as part of the object.

An intelligent designer is a thinking entity with the capacity to form plans.

If you mean life then you should be able to show evidence of the designer or lack thereof, otherwise life is not part of your experiment. The hypothesis states that no regulated moving part can occur without a designer. You can't determine if life had a designer so you can't use life as evidence in support or refutation of your hypothesis.

Please come up with an experiment that actually means something.

How would you try to do that? I know! We would not consider rabbits to be particularly intelligent, would we? Now, when 2 rabbits mate, the result is typically between 5 and 9 small objects with regulated moving parts. Voila! I have provided evidence that falsifies your hypothesis. whew! That took some work!

hmmm... we can not determine life did not have a designer so maybe we better forget about asking the question altogether.

Please come up with a reasonable response that actually means something.



Thanks for letting us know the level of your own intelligence. Undoubtedly it is difficult to presume a thing is able to understand more than it is.

Although you seem to have moved beyond the context of 'regulated' without realizng it, I will refrain from too much ado about it since your fingers most surely are on the keyboard as well. Hopefully, unless you use this as an occasion for multitasking but all of that aside... it's not within the realm of anyone's control except yourself wherewith I suppose we could also make an excuse for lack of control.

Though your heart may ponder and your mind may fail, but nevermind...

Scientists don't. Surprisingly when they come up with results that don't address the question that they didn't ask, people like you get upset that they don't mention the designer that they weren't looking for. Go figure.

Then you are saying that ma and pa bunny designed their offspring?

If this has something to do with my example, I can't see it. Sorry.

So why are you demanding an explanation when your own evo scientists don't require one? Go figure... hmmm.... seems you have your scales slightly unbalanced here. But that does give me the opportunity to require that you prove a designer was not present, as i retilt the scales to an equitable position. eg; admit dumb question or answer it or admit your unregulated fingertip is weighting the scale.



No, but funny you should need to ask. perhaps it would be easier to ask ma and pa bunny if they condone eating of chocolate bunnies.



yeah i know. Maybe it's because your thoughts have moved beyond the recognizable regulated patterns you generally associate with your thinking processes? have you thought of that? Maybe you could get a doctor to check it out.

You know, going back to the inquisition, you could use that chunk of history to even prove that humans are very very difficult to regulate without bloodshed.

but it wouldn't do squat for you when you have a heart attack or your thyroid stops working would it?


please try to control your mind-hand efforts on the keyboard. think first, type later or before you know it an inquisitor may show up with a hatchet to teach you regulation firsthanded, no pun intended. It still happens in Islamic countries you know.

At least God gave us free will. I'd hate to see you lose it. Of course if you choose to give it away that is your perogative. You could live just like ma and pa bunny and then you wouldn't have to ask questions or even think very much for that matter. animals do belong in cages after all don't they?

Just out of curiousity also Linear, I was wondering how exactly you equate the functions of your internal organs with your behaviors, say, sexual behaviors since that is the example you've provided?

Do you, for instance count heartbeats? have your ever forgotten to count heartbeats when a pretty woman walked by or have you experienced heart attacks at those moments by counting too much?

How many years are you planning on living and does it get tiring regulating your heart manually? Are you able to control your heart rythym according to the season or is that also beyond your control like your sexual desires? are you married and is your wife aware of these issues?

Evolutionists don't claim a designer exists and then insist that the claim must be accepted as a viable theory in science. ID adherents make that claim. So, if they want it to be accepted as a theory in science, they are on the hook for providing evidence to support it.

The point I was trying to make with the bunny comment was that they produce regulated moving parts without evidence of a designer being present. So, unless CTD can show the designer's hand in that process, his hypothesis is on the ropes.

Threats about what your god (or you?) will do and insulting me by saying I am a poor thinker and deserve to be in a cage. This is my appeal to Russ to sanction you for your insulting and threatening behavior.

Why do you feel threatened by me? I have not threatened you. Nor have I suggested God is going to do anything to you. I said, he gave you free will.

It is you who opined that behavior is regulated and I simply gave you historical examples of others who share your beliefs.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate for us all to feel threatened by you. People who believe that people are animals do put people in cages and cause them to suffer many atrocious things. There are numerous examples throughout history.

I took what you said to mean that my point of view deserved some sort of smoting by God or that I would/deserved to be put in a cage.

I did not say behavior is regulated, at least that was not my intent. Could you point out what I stated that gave you this idea?

First, people are part of the animal kingdom.
Second, I never made any statement that people were on the level of the "lower" animals, nor did I even imply that they deserved to be in cages. I don't understand why you would attribute that to me. Additionally, I don't understand how that subject even came up, seeing as it was not part of the topic.
Third, there are many examples of cruelty enacted by humans upon each other. Some are claimed to religious based, some are not. The cruelty is inflicted by people for their own ends and then justified by the use of religion, evolution, economics or video games as the excuse.

You may believe that the teaching of evolution is atheistic and the cause of the moral decay that you see around you, but that doesn't make those assessments true.

When did I provide any example of my sexual behaviors? Are you saying that since I brought up rabbit procreation that I was thinking about sexuality? What took your mind to that level?

Again, the reference to my sex life. Additionally, you imply that I cannot control myself and am lead around by my sex drive. What makes you insult me on such a low level?

There you go again. Sex and insults. It seems that you are obsessed with those thoughts. Do you think that all men cannot control their sexual desires or are you just trying to belittle me in a mean spirited way?

hey, you started it, don't get all wound up over my rebuttals.

If you don't like them, tough. they sure were funnier than your dumb rabbit sex comment. It was your idea, no one elses. Where exactly did you hope it would lead? To a discussion of the island of Hawaii?

I am not trying to belittle you or insult your intelligence, you've done plenty of that yourself. I was trying to point it out to you.

Sorry for the mistake. I'll try not to do it again. I can see you don't appreciate it.

Obviously, I think anyone could see that by now..



You did say it, more than once. but your most glaring example...

How would you try to do that? I know! We would not consider rabbits to be particularly intelligent, would we? Now, when 2 rabbits mate, the result is typically between 5 and 9 small objects with regulated moving parts. Voila! I have provided evidence that falsifies your hypothesis. whew! That took some work! ...

..and the rest in defense of that glaring example. It's pretty obvious you see the item of rabbits mating and producing more hopping little bunny rabbits, and everything involved in between in that process as an example of what you would define as regulated moving parts.

and if for some reason howsoever you did not intend to imply the same idea for humans, then i excuse your error though there doesn't seem to be much room for it. and likewise i will not point the error out to you again because you have made it quite redundantly clear that your opinions are above reproach and your insights should never be questioned. Regardless of the substance.



oh no, never. you are always correct.

You can provide your own rebuttal to your rebuttal after this too. Have fun with yourself and your own ideas. Regardless of the substance.

It appears I have been mistaken. I previously thought this was intended to be a joke.

The previous paragraph in this post just got done claiming such a test would be disqualified.


Is your attention span really that short, or were you being disingenuous?

My attention span is really that short.

I admit.

you know what else? I'm stupid and there does not seem to be any help for me.

The bunnies mating is an act of life forms.

A designer cannot be shown for Life, so saying that life has regulated moving parts cannot be used in supporting your hypothesis. Since a designer cannot be shown to be absent, I cannot say that life having regulated moving parts is a refutation of that hypothesis.

Now, unless you believe that the designer causes the bunnies to mate or puts together the components of the little bunnies, then baby bunnies have regulated moving parts that were not put together by a designer. You could say the designer, designed bunnies to make more bunnies and thus show my example to be in error. So be it.
However, I could then say that I believe in a Designer who made a universe with physical laws that allowed life to form without his having to lift a finger beyond the initial making of that universe. The advantage of my Designer is that He can exist and intervene in human affairs (Exodus, Jesus...etc) yet not be incompatible with abiogenesis, evolution or the Big Bang.