What exactly is ID?

I wouldn't know, nor would I claim to know any of that, nor would any scinetist, if all he had as information was the writing on the paper. It could have been pooped out by a hippo with three horns on his butt as well.... Yes, that's how science works. We work with the data we have. Since there is no evidence of any aliens ever having visitred this planet, we assume it was created by the only intelligence we know capable of producing it: man. Yes, this is true for all science. We infer that because it has written language on it, we know people used in the past. And we know people wrote on stones. No, nor does anyone claim they would. That's science for ya, tentative. We go with the best assumption we have untill more evidence is available that shows otherwise.So, if you have evidence for this intelligent designer, show it, and we can then discuss whether or not he designed life on this planet. Untill then we go with the explanation that is simplest: Life arose by natural means and evolved by natural means.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Yes. However, no one is claiming that it is absolutely certain it was made by humans. It is however the most likely scenario, there is no evidence that it's origin is anything else but human. I don't believe self replicating machinery happens by chance alone. No, my hippo isn;t intelligent. An assumption based on all the available evidence. And untill evidence shows up that points to something else, that is what we'll go with. Because we know things like this are designed by humans. Why? We know human intelligence creates information. We also know a whole bunch of other unintelligent things create information. We infer human design, becuase we know humans create things like that. No. We know of no intelligence that would create DNA as information. Therefore we do not infer intelligence. No, since again, we don't know of any intelligence that would create DNA. Your analogy is false. Not personally. But we must have evidence of the designer existing. Like we do with the rossetta stone. We know jumans exist, we know they use language and we know they write it in stone. We know nothing of your DNA making designer, if there even is such a thing. Yes. Now, what do we know of the DNA designer? Wrong. First we need to know what this intelligence is that creates such information. Without that we have no way of knowing if it is indeed a product of intelligence. No it isn't. The best explanation is that untill we have an intelligence capable of designing DNA, we infer it doesn't need an intelligence. Wrong. Untill we have the designer, we infer nothing of the sort. We're working on it. Think again of my first sentence, it is the most likely scenario that it arose naturally, since we have absolutely no evidence of a DNA desigenr. So, where is your evidence for this DNA designer? Untill you provide that, we can ignore that as a possibility, because it needlessly complicates things.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

It's an inference made on the available evidence. We know humans use writing, we know they write in stones. We don' know of anything else that uses writing or writes in stones, ergo, we conclude it was made by humnas. And until other evidence is presented, that will be the explanation. Chemistry and physics. Boh are not based on chance. You didn't say that, you said the stone was made by an intelligence. My hippo isn't intelligent. Because we have evidence pointing to a likely cause of that intelligence. We have no such vidence for DNA. We know information is created by unintelligent things as well. A bird building a nest is creating onformation. the exact identity perhaps, but not the general characteristics of the designer. We can't do any such things for your designer. We know absolutely nothing about him, let alone if he exists at all. Based upon all the available evidence. But why ignore evidence to do that? Yes we do, actually. Why else bring it up? So is a bird's nest. There is plenty information created without intelligence. You even admitted it when you said that the stone could be pooped out by a hippo with three horns on its butt. That's not an intelligent cause for the stone. Yes we do. Of course we do, mankind. At least, all evidence points to that. know it? No. Infer it from all the available evidence? Yes. Then by extension, you can't say DNA is either. Thank you for disproving your own point. If we know it is designed, yes. Do we know this? No. We don't even know that. For by your own admission, information (the rosetta stone) can be created by unintelligent things (my hippo). No, but we infer it from the evidence. I infer it was human, untill more evidence contradicting that is presented. Just like I infer DNA is natural until evidence to the contrary is presented. But you know the characteristics of the individual. You know absolutely nothing about your desigenr, if he even exists at all. Ignoring evidence, and adding unnecesary things in the process. I infer from the evidence the characteristics he would have had. It is a set of chracteristics. That's not the same thing. You ignore evidence. Not all mureder cases are solved, you know. It all depends on the available evidence. Same with the stone. All evidence points to a human origin. Now wth DNA absolutely nothing points to an unnatural cause. Yes. Because of the evidence, and because we know humans kill other humans. No it doesn't. Circular reasoning. You want it to be designed, therfore say it is, and then say it requires a designer. And again you disprove yourself. If this is true for me, then the same is true for you. We have clues pointing us in the direction of natural causes. While we have no evidence pointing in any other direction. Exactly... This is true for you as well... Again, thank you. We do indeed. Everything points to a natural cause. There are no marks of design in DNA. Then you have to know it is designed, something you already admitted you do not. And in fact, you admitted things that appear designed (the rosetta stone) can be created wothout any design in mind (my hippo). You need to know characteristics of the designer though. Which you admittedly don't know anything about. {ABE}: Anyway. We can fill entire books about this subject. That has however become completely unnecessary because you admitted that things that you think look designed (the roseta stone) can be created by a completely designless and unintelligent process (the pooping of my hippo), or indeed, even by chance alone. In short, we're done here, you admitted that DNA can arise by pure chance, or by an unintelligent, designless process. In other words, that there is absolutely no ground for claiming it must have been designed. Thank you, I couldn't have done it better myself.Edited by Huntard, : Added last bit

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Well, with the right conditions, it's actually inevitable for the first replicating "cell" to form. What those conditions are is what we're trying to find out now. That was actually to prove a point. One that Smooth apparently agreed with. Even though stuff looks designed, that doesn't mean it is. Sure it is. Are you saying a nest contains no information at all? It has no height, structure, depth, width, strength...? So are we when we're creating information (like the rosetta stone), we simply shape what is already there. Of course not, it's not programming anything, is it? The info it is creating can be converted into digital code, however. I wouldn't really call a bird intelligent (Does the expression bird brain ring a bell? ) Seems to me he's done here, he has admitted that even though something looks designed, it could still have arisen by chance, or by an unintelligent designless process. Digital code in the cell? What are you talking about? It can be converted into digital code, yes, but it's not digital code all of its own. That's an argument from authority. Because we don't know yet what those components are and what the ideal environment for them is. One thing it certainly wasn't is sterile. I agree. It's only ever been about that. At least, in my experience.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

No, I have current scientific evidence which shows me that. And unlike faith based notions, I am not unwilling to change mine when the evidence suggests I was wrong. True. All evidence we have points in that direction, however. First of all, DNA has it's base in chemistry, not the other way around. Second, are you denying the nest has information? Exactly, we shaped what was already there. So? The one being executed by a bird and the other being a result of chemistry? I certainly can. I'd make it out of stainless steel, line it with the best isolating material around, place some guns on it to scare off predators.... I think you get the idea. There is still 400 bits of flurble wakles information? What the hell is CSI information? That's what we like to call evolution. No, you need chemistry and physics. No. Why would it have to deal with hypothetical probems? It's better off dealing with real ones. I'm sure you can. They'd probably either be answered, or nonsensical. Ah, seems like language got in the way again. I was thinking digital as in a computer type of way, turns out that's not the complete definition of digital. My apologies (see, I change my position to suit the evidence ). The question now remains, so what? I didn't quote anything. Nor do I pretend that what I'm writing here is science. It's based on science, but it's not science itself. If you provide the entire article, instead of quotemining it, perhaps I can. Of course not. Science has settled this issue. It's the religously inclined that are the ones who aren't "buying" it. (quickly, quotemine it like the climate mails and use it to prove the big science conspiracy! ) Yes, and what understanding has religion brought us? None. And evolution? A whole great big deal! Everything can be. Says nothing about the validity of the theory though. I thank you for losing this debate (Godwin, I like you more each day). Also, Hitler believed he was doing he creator's work (or should I say, Intelligent Designer?).

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Good. Now, the inference made on the available evidence regarding DNA is that it has a natural origin. Case closed (again). No. I'm saying chemistry and physics don't need "chance". Irrelevant. You said it could have. That's all that is needed to tear down the "it [i]must[/] have been designed" argument. No. The likely cause in one instance was humans. In the other one it was chemistry and physics. Ok, then how about worms making patterns in sand. Are worms intelligent? But you would need to if you wanted to know if something is indeed designed. I was referring to your further generalization regarding the stone. You have to ignore evidence to do that. We don't. And I didn't say that. We have to know the characteristics of what designed it though, else we wouldn't know if it was deigned. Yes, yes we do. No it isn't. For you have absolutely no evidence of DNA being designed, other then your wanting it to. It's a great big circle you're arguing here. The designer exists because DNA is designed. Why is DNA designed? Because it has a designer. Round and round it goes. See Percy's post for a rebuttal. Again, you assume DNA is designed without actually showing it is. An unintelligent designer. Or worms making patterns in the sand... Because how else are we to know he can create DNA? It's a set of characteristics. And you'd have to ignore evidence to do that. Wrong. All evidence points to it, while no evidence points to anything else. The evidence that humans use writing, and that humans write in stones. And in doing so have shown your own argument to be false as well. Again, thank you. And in the process invalidated your own position. I really can't thank you enough. Then why bring it up, if you think your own reasoning is false? Would this method by any chance involve the process of simply asserting something to be designed? Because that is what you're doing. Changing the goalposts are we? You agreed that something that looks designed can arise by pure chance. Your argument is dead with that admission. Then why did you agree it could? I'm not saying that. I'm saying it could have, and you agreed. Also, you're asserting the same thing with your designer. That humans use writing and that humans write in stones. The evidence. Because all evidence points in that direction. Most likely male. Not really no. You're ignoring evidence that DNA came about naturally, and adding this unnecessary designer. All evidence points to the fact it can. So, you're not adding a designer? In this case you are. A subset? And how do you know what all the subsets are? Undoubtedly. What's your evidence for them? So are unintelligent causes, and even pure chance, by your own admission. Based on nothing whatsoever. And so can you. You even admitted that with my hippo example. You yourself even said it could've been by pure chance. Maybe it was a pooping hippo with three horns on its butt. While ignoring the unintelligent causes you admitted could've made it as well. And if a pooping hippo did it, we would both be wrong. No idea. He was most probably human though. It's much more then you have, however. No, for then you are ignoring evidence. Nope. Pooping hippo. No. You add unnecessary agents, and ignore evidence. The evidence that points to a natural cause for DNA. Did I say it would? Nor is it relevant to the point. The point is we can tell it's a human because we know the characteristics of a human. So, DNA is full of made up stuff, which was made up to be able to say that DNA must have been designed. It's an instance of hippopoop. So, creatures with more base pairs then humans don't exist? It's full of hippopoop, and that is a reliable indicator of non-design. You assert it is designed, however, and then say it therefore requires a designer. You have not shown it is designed, nor have you produced any designer capable of designing it. You don't agree with your own reasoning? Then why bring it up? Have you got a while to read? Hippopoop is a reliable mark of unintelligence. DNA is hippopoop. No, you assert design. Scientifically as well. I don't know any scientist that would sy it is impossible for a hippo with three horns on its butt to have pooped out the Rosetta stone. They will be quick to point out however, that no evidence points to that conclusion, and that until it does such things should be disregarded. Because else you can't say what he designed.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

well then, here's a document written by actual ID people, clearly linking it to christianity and creationism.Will you accept that?

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Nothing. This isn't about science investigating astrology however. This is about astrology itself being science. Science did, and found out astrology is a load of bullcrap. Of course there is. However, again, you misunderstood. Science can investigate almost anything. Like the the claims for UFO's. That doesn't mean those claims are scientific though. Yes, that could very well be the case. Thus far nothing real has turned up though. However, does this make Astrology itself science? No. for the simple reason it doesn't follow the scientific method as it is currently defined. Science can investigate the claims made by astrology. AStrology itself however is not science. Unless you broaden the definition of science to include ID, then astrology suddenly does become science.Get it? Investigation, yes. Being, no!

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Thank you. I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying here. What "something else"? What is ID categorized under now, if not religion? It is according to the Wedge Document I linked, written by the people who thought up ID and who are now it's main advocates .

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

I'm sorry for this off-topic posr, but I couldn't just let this pass. Is this a snide remark about your impending "socialized medicine"?Because if it is, it's complete and utter bullshit, unless you're all doing something seriousy wrong. I live in a country where they have socialized medicine, and I can choose whatever doctor I please.Now that that's cleared up, please continue the thread.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

And it couldn't possibly be recorded wrong in the bible because? While I don't agree with your course of action (and yes, I'm an atheist), here you go. It just did. Tells you something about faith, doesn't it? Well, guess he never was then. Since I just provided you evidence of a mutation that increased information in the genome (as it added something that wasn't therer before), and also is a survival advantage (the bacteria can now digest stuff it couldn't at first), I guess your personal relationship with christ isn't all that you make it out to be.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

He did that in Message 362And again in Message 664, where he quotes Dembski (although, without a direct source, perhaps that could be provided.):

Isn't that what he's doing when he says: "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."Or am I missing something here?

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

I don't know if you want to continue this discussion here, but here goes: Not all creationists are biblical literalists either. In my opinion saying: "God created/disgned this and that" is creationism. So, if Dembski says that the designer of ID is the christian god, he is saying it is creationism.

But isn't ID the way to show how "biblical creationism" is evidenced in reality?I mean, say ID was evidenced, wouldn't Dembski then be overjoyed he found "evidence for god's creation"? He clearly thinks that's how it happened, evidenced by his adam and eve quoet.