"We know, on empirical warrant that choice can source FSCI, but have no empirical warrant that can stand the light of day, that chance and necessity can do so."
Actually gordo, "we" know no such thing. Unless and until you or another IDiot can coherently define, test, and demonstrate all four words in FSCI, in a scientific way, there is no such thing as FSCI. Don't forget joe-boi's famous words: "Again you cannot use that which needs explaining in the first place to do the explaining."
And since the S in FSCI stands for specified, you're going to have to show clear and convincing evidence that someone or something "specified" the alleged function, complexity, and information. In other words, you're going to have to produce the god you say did it, or the blueprints he/she/it used. Of course I'll expect to see the official seal and signature of god on those blueprints. A thumb print and photo identification of your god would be a good idea too, along with a DNA sample.
Is "choice" a new rhetorical talking point for ID? Who or what makes the "choice"? Is "source" just another way of saying 'create'?
Oh, and since your arguments are against the ToE, maybe you can show me where the ToE claims that chance and necessity can "source FSCI"? In fact, maybe you can show me where the term "FSCI" is used in the ToE at all? Maybe you can show me where Darwin used the term "FSCI", and claimed that chance and necessity can "source" it? Maybe you can show me where any scientific theory uses the term "FSCI", and that necessity and chance can "source" it? Maybe you can show me where "Darwinism" claims that chance and necessity can "source FSCI"?
You constantly accuse 'evolutionists' and 'Darwinists' of erecting strawmen and tossing out red herrings. YOU are erecting strawmen and tossing out red herrings, gordy. And you're a lying, blustering, cowardly dolt.