What exactly is ID?

I mistakenly calle them "hydroporins" in my previous post. They are "aquaporins". Maybe this should be a new topic around here.I suppose they were just there in the first living cell? Lucky it had them. Should we pretend the first living cell doesn't not need channels like aquaporins? What would have happened if it didn't have those narrow channels and the mechanisms to regulate what flows in and out of the cell?We should just assume they weren't designed. Right?The aquaporins - PMCEdited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

For your refutation to be scientific, I would say "yes". Water molecules are so small that nobody has actually observed them. This is part of what tells me the pores of the cellular membrane are very small.So here are some of my questions:Would the chemical constituents forming proteins, in the first cell, (assuming the first cell didn't have aquaporins but was indeed porous) automatically self-organize into the right type of membrane in order to protect the elegant machinery inside the cell?Are the aquaporins of the cellular membrane the result of self-organizational processes and therefore the result of the spaces between the protein molecules? If this were the case, I would expect to see thousands of them in an orderly arrangement. Or are they the result of unique spatial protein arrangements?

I will remind you many Darwinists also believe in a diety. You can cherry pick quotes from Hilter but that doesn't necessarily elicidate the entire reality.What were Adolf Hitler's ideology and beliefs? - Answers

So where is your scientific evidence? I think you assume someone has figured it out. When I debate you Huntard, I sometimes feel like I am involved in some sort of contorted debate. It makes me wonder if you are trying to grasp for things in an attempt to preserve your idealogy or justify your presence here.I mean you also ask me, "What the hell is CSI information?" Percy says it is something we contrived. Does this really render CSI obsolete? I have asked participants around here, "If CSI doesn't exist in DNA, then what kind of information does?" Is it Shannon information? What other types of measurement and description have people invented besides CSI? Do all of these things really not describe certain things that exist in the world? From a certain point of view, I understand that DNA exists and CSI is conceptual or used as a frame of reference. Maybe language gets in the way.Look at this article below:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=... Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination.All known metabolism is cybernetic — that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled.The above article looks like it could have come from the Discovery Institute.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Not that I can see or care to investigate at this point. What I am saying, using an analogy, no legitimate court of law would listen to only one side of a case whether it be the prosecution or the defense.

Oh no, I didn't miss that. Intelligent Design does not specify the identity of the designer. It does not tell us what type of clothes to wear or what kind of religious services to perform.I believe that Master Yoda seeded the Earth with life. It is up to me to find his signature somewhere in DNA and I am going to find it i'm telling you!!!

I can interpret this as calling me a liar however, I cast what I suspect is an insinuation aside. I researched "transpermia" in the Discovery Institute | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation. website. POSTMAN: Let me go back to God for a second since some folks at Discovery think I’m obsessed with the question. Here’s what’s difficult for me to wrap my head around. And I think Peter’s [?]. If the designer is unnamed but nearly all the advocates say that in their religious view it’s God, but that’s not a scientific view. There’s very few advocates of intelligent design who name a designer other than God, correct?MEYER: Umm, there are a few that are religiously agnosticMichael Denton, or the Buddhist, Jeffrey Schwartz, the neuroscientist at UCLA; Berlinski, who’s sympathetic design but not a proponent, is agnostic religiously. So, and I think some interesting examples, not from our camp but from the evolutionary, the world of evolutionary biology, would be people like Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, and even Francis Crick, who speculated that life had been designed and transported here from outer space, the so-called transpermia theory. So there are other options, and that’s one of the — we’re not trying to be sneaky. I think one of the things we objected to about your article is that it slightly hinted that we were being disingenuous in this, and maybe you didn’t mean that.I don't agree with everything Dembski says or does and I will leave it at that. I think religion should stay out of the science class. In fact, I think ID should stay out of the science class but I don't think Darwinism should be held up on a pedestal saying it is the the only pathway to the truth. I think ID belongs in philosophy and so does atheism.

I was just looking for a law that I wanted to post but I forgot the name of it. I remember thinking it was based on the assumption Darwinism was absolutely true. Anyway, I thought of something else here.Charles Darwin had apparently been influenced by the work of the geologist Charles Lyell. In Lyell's book "The Principles in Geology", a methodology is summarized as the following: Being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth's surface, by references to causes now in operation.Lyell believed when historical scientists are seeking to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know. Essentially, historical scientists should cite "causes now in operation." "The present is the key to the past."I realized after I read this, by utilizing this method to explain the past, it is based on the "assumption" that nothing extraordinary or supernatural played a part in the history of how life was formed and developed.It seems to me your statement also renders naturalistic and materialistic explanations invalid since Darwinism was formed under the assumption that there wasn't a designer involved.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

documentation pleaseI realized I stand corrected in one part of my posts. However, the above cut and paste I do not buy.To buy it would say no machinery would be necessary for a cell to replicate itself. Would it not need any of the following in this video?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg

Once again, I can't disagree with anything you stated although, we are clearly on opposite sides of the main issues. You seem to be one of the more rational people around here.Religion to me is based upon "abstract concepts of morality" but I don't believe that all religions are totally based upon this. Atheism is partly based upon abstract concepts of morality or at least you can derive moral concepts from it. I have no desire to be bonded by religion but I wish to seek and understand the wisdom from following some of its rules.

Let's go back to the comment this minor tangent stemmed from in the first place. I would agree with Stephen Meyer that every scientist or everyone has a motif but motives are irrelevant to accessing the validity of a claim. I think the evidence should stand on its own and the motivations behind the statements should not disqualify them. I think when someone questions the integrity or motives of an individual, I suspect a red herring.I have seen this on this forum and other forums time and time again. It is as though the naturalistic evolutionists have nothing else to say but to attack the person and not the substance of the debate. If someone is going to attempt to silence a debate this way then, this isn't science because I think science should advance by examination and debate.I might comment on the rest of you guys later but then again, maybe I won't.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I agree. Science does not seek the truth directly. Its power is in falsification. I do have a certain amount of respect for science. Its basic form has even helped me in my job. I sometimes seek competing expanations to see how well it may fit the evidence. I have found this has saved some time.There have been other times in my life when a certain something has worked for me and scientifically minded people on the net have stated it is bull*&%) but if it works for me then, the hell with what science says. I believe the term is neo-Darwinism. I would have thought you would have known what I was referring to neo-Darwinism even though I used a simplified term. I am not totally against neo-Darwinism. I am a believer in chaos.You might have wondered why a designer would conceal the evidence of design. It does seem to me the designer is hidden but science has become sophisticated enough to find some of the evidence hinting of a designer. Digital information in DNA is one good example. There is obviously some room for sequence alterations but science apparently believes (but has not proven) the first cell would have had at least 250 to 400 genes in order to perform its necessary functions.

I would say go with the rational explanation. Very few people if anyone would question the obvious explanation. When questions are not properly answered then, you have controversy such as the debate around intelligent design.

No, I am not implying that the designer wished to remain undetected (assuming the designer wasn't an alien). It seems to me there is enough knowledge and understanding to make a case either way. If that is what God wished to do then I think that is cool. Why would a god wish to force someone to believe? This could lead to resentment.And about that stuff I have personally experienced; man, I have seen some things that have left me speechless. I have seen science and metaphysics meet not that I would expect you would believe it.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

After reading those questions, I will remind you of two things. There isn't a scientific consensus of the origin of life. That came from oh, (who is that famous lady who has debated Stephen Meyer a few times?)So what does that mean? This means there aren't any definitive answers as to the process or the mechanisms involved. Even when a hypothesis is formulated, it doesn't account for the information necessary for the parts within the cell to work together coherently. No biologist thinks they can make a new cell by throwing all the right ingredients into a test tubes or a sterile tank.So who created the creator? This is a short example of infinite regression. Who created you Nuggin? Who created the creator who created Nuggin? Who created that creator as well? You eventually get to a place where you cannot answer so, does that mean you do not exist?