The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

What requirements do scientists hold creation science to that they do not hold for themselves?

That's a good answer!Could we go further and test the design hypothesis? What obsevations of design are apparent, what predictions can we propose and which experimental designs can we use to test them?All the best,Larni

I'll repost my post:

I get it.Like how the water at the bottom of a puddle fits perfectly to the shape of the puddle.Now I get ID.

Hi tesla, long time no see.You say ID is the recognition of balance in all things: but that is not what ID staes, is it?ID states that the universe could not have arisen without a designer.I agree that intelligence exists in our minds but this has not been shown to require intervention. The water in the puddle fits the puddle perfectly because of the nature of water and puddles: not that the ater is designed to fit the puddle.A man can look at a computer and say that it is designed because it often has a lable saying 'made in China' (for example).Nature has no such markers. Everything to date that has been put forwards as a marker for design has been debunked (blood clotting is a good example put forwards in 'Pandas and People'0.Can you point to a marker of design in nature? If you can I'm all ears. How can this be different to 'However, if you do not understand god, how can you understand god'? But this is not the case: the supernatural is saying: Nobody understands; therefor god. this is god of the gaps and fallacious. You have proposed no experiment: what is the prediction and what is the experimental design? There is even no epistemological framework being used here apart from 'I believe what I believe'.

Hi tesla, long time no see.You say ID is the recognition of balance in all things: but that is not what ID staes, is it?ID states that the universe could not have arisen without a designer.I agree that intelligence exists in our minds but this has not been shown to require intervention. The water in the puddle fits the puddle perfectly because of the nature of water and puddles: not that the ater is designed to fit the puddle.A man can look at a computer and say that it is designed because it often has a lable saying 'made in China' (for example).Nature has no such markers. Everything to date that has been put forwards as a marker for design has been debunked (blood clotting is a good example put forwards in 'Pandas and People'0.Can you point to a marker of design in nature? If you can I'm all ears. How can this be different to 'However, if you do not understand god, how can you understand god'? But this is not the case: the supernatural is saying: Nobody understands; therefor god. this is god of the gaps and fallacious. You have proposed no experiment: what is the prediction and what is the experimental design? There is even no epistemological framework being used here apart from 'I believe what I believe'.

I think he means cause and effect here.

How is that in any way different from a human being?Be specific.

I didn't hink anyone would use the term complexity without an ability to measure it.How are you measuring complexity? Please, by specific. By that definition all life can be considered simple and thus not needing design.Edited by Larni, : Last point.

I think this is the problem, right here. Your statement is false: DNA has formed through natural and unguided processes.What makes you think it has not? You do understand that unguided does not equal random, don't you?Edited by Larni, : Last point

Then from now on I'm staying in.

Sigh.You mean Abiogenesis.Sigh.

So, let me get this straight:We can't actually measure complexity.Then complexity is useless for a guide as to whether something is designed or not.You do know you have torpedoed I.D. right there, with your own words, don't you?

I assert that what you really mean here is being wrong.

If it can happen in bacteria, please tell me what stops it from happening elsewhere.