Intelligent Design

[AAA]

I actually think the exact opposite.

Quelle surprise.

Way to ignore what I meant by opposite when I explained it afterwords. There are plenty of religious scientists who don't think it's too complicated and we just accept God.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Right; then it should leave evidence that can only point, unambiguously, to itself.

How so? a 3 dimensional being claiming to be a part of a higher being doesn't sound familiar?

How do you know I'm not a being from a higher dimension?
Burden of proof.
I'm supposed to prove my claim.

This 3 dimensional being you talk about, has it proven it's claim, it so, how?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You don't make a case for your own position by pointing at the limitations if the opposition, even if they are genuine limitations anyway - which is something else that's only been declared and not demonstrated.

So I ask again: how would you set about testing for this designer of yours?

That's exactly how you compare competing hypothesis. We know that a designer could explain the specified sequence. We don't know that mutation could explain it. You can't demonstrate either in a lab because they both rely on a special, non-repeatable event. Laboratory science can't study historical events

Then in that case nobody has any reliable historical records.

All historical field studies defer to lab analysis for authenticity testing and date validation (got that from the school of James Michener ).

[Cyberman]

You don't make a case for your own position by pointing at the limitations if the opposition, even if they are genuine limitations anyway - which is something else that's only been declared and not demonstrated.

So I ask again: how would you set about testing for this designer of yours?

That's exactly how you compare competing hypothesis. We know that a designer could explain the specified sequence. We don't know that mutation could explain it. You can't demonstrate either in a lab because they both rely on a special, non-repeatable event. Laboratory science can't study historical events

Ok, so let's go with the idea that, as you put it, "a designer could explain the specified sequence". Now how would you set about demonstrating that? By what means would you eliminate ambiguity, to be as sure as possible that your hypothesis is representative of reality?

[Cyberman]

I agree, which is why I said the jury's still out. If Krasnopolsky and his colleagues are correct, the absence of areological activity doesn't really leave many alternative options other than microbial. This is what following the evidence means in this instance:

Step 1. Observation: methane on Mars
Step 2. Hypothesis: possible presence of microbial life
Step 3. Test hypothesis against observation to eliminate possibilities
Step 4. Revise or abandon hypothesis in the event of falsification

We have methane coming from vents underwater here on earth, and we know that mars has water, and used to have a lot more. Again it is just a carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms. molecules more complex than that arise abiotically. I think that saying life is the only cause is premature. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I agree and I have already said that. Nobody is saying that life is the only explanation for the observation; that's why they're looking.

[Cyberman]

Right; then it should leave evidence that can only point, unambiguously, to itself.

How so? a 3 dimensional being claiming to be a part of a higher being doesn't sound familiar?

Then how can you know it's even there?

[ApeNotKillApe]

A human is a four dimensional object.

[Cyberman]

Good point.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Maybe I should have mentioned that earlier, would've saved the presuppositionalist a lot of typing. He just seemed to be enjoying himself so.

[The Valkyrie]

Right; then it should leave evidence that can only point, unambiguously, to itself.

How so? a 3 dimensional being claiming to be a part of a higher being doesn't sound familiar?

Which one?

Hundreds, if not thousands of people have claimed to be the son or daughter or direct incarnation of various gods.  Should we believe them all on the merits of their claims?