ID as Religion

But as we've established, he didn't put his ideas about God in his theories, either. You could start by displaying a designer capable of the feat.

You don't believe that your computer was constructed according to the laws of physics?

That's "nature". The laws of physics govern natural phenomenon.If you don't believe that nature governed the creation of your computer, then you believe your computer was created in violation of the laws of physics. If nature isn't the laws of physics, then what is nature?

Since when was that the question? We're discussing computers and their construction, not the origin of nature.Nature is that which proceeds according to physical law, by definition. If you don't believe that your computer was contructed naturally, you believe it was constructed supernaturally, that is, contrary to the laws of physics. By definition, it is true. Nature is that which is governed by the laws of physics. You believe that your computer was not constructed according to the laws of physics? You believe that your computer was constructed supernaturally? How can that possibly be the case, and why would any reasonable person believe you?

Well, prions don't, exactly - they just need a steady source of polypeptides of a certain sequence. Certainly living things are currently the most prolific source of those but they are by no means the only possible source.

Inventing things that I said isn't going to win you the argument. You believe that your computer was created supernaturally? Do you believe that, when you take a picture with a camera, a little man inside makes a painting of what he can see out of the lens? Who gives a fuck? Point not under discussion. Is it the laws of physics that you believe were created by intelligence, or certain biological structures? When you ask things like this, it's obvious that you don't even know. You don't think most people, or most reasonable people, believe that computers operate via the laws of physics instead of supernaturally? Would you care to conduct a survey on this subject?Isn't ascribing supernatural origin or operation to completely natural phenomenon the precise definition of "unreasonable"?Is it possible that the reason that you continually misrepresent my posts and then accuse me of doing it to you is because your terms are impossibly vague, but you refuse to specify them, out of a desparate need to avoid grounding your arguments in reality, where they would certainly be refuted instantly?

quote:

---

Prions are misfolded proteins that are capable of growing, replicating, and being passed on to daughter cells - that is, they are by themselves heritable. Beyond their disease manifestation, prions also occur naturally in some organisms (such as yeast) and may play important roles in their growth and development. Now, Osherovich and colleagues have identified the amino acid sequences that allow prions to aggregate and replicate - and thereby pass through generations of cells - and prove this by designing an artificial yeast prion that does not exist in nature.

---

This prion was created subject to the laws of physics, non-supernaturally, but it has never existed in any living thing before.

You've betrayed yourself, ID Man. Only a creationist would say something so stupid.