Intelligent Design

[AAA]

And I'll predict we find some form of microbial life on at least one other planet or moon in our solar system before the turn of the century.

The data isn't fully in yet and the jury still out, but the methane detected by the Curiosity rover on Mars may just be microbially produced. Geophysicist Vladimir Krasnopolsky - who may have to change his field to Areophysics - has said that since the planet has been geologically inactive for the last few million years, biological processes may be the more plausible explanation. And he's from the Catholic University of America.

Great, there's CH4, but its one of the simplest molecules, and its presence is very far from proving life existed there.

[The Grand Nudger]

[quote=When we try to test competing models we have to look at explanatory power of the options. We have to look at our experience of the origin of such structures.

Yup..and in that vein I won't correct your terrible use of inaccurate, well poisoning language.  I'll run with it.

Do we know from experience that random mutations can lead a new specified sequence of characters?

Sure do.

Do we know that intelligence can lead to new  specified sequence of characters?

Sure do.

The second one explains it better.

Not unless you can demonstrate that the intelligence does, in fact, exist...and further, that it was involved (as "evolutionists" have demonstrated in the case of their theory with regards to their explanation of cause). To illustrate. We know that a flower can grow on it's own, or be planted. However, simply knowing that a flower can be planted does not help to establish that any given flower -was- planted...nor does it make "a planter" the best explanation for a meadow.

[AAA]

I'm still hopeful for an acknowledgement of my earlier question:

Would an entity existing outside of time and space have any influence on events inside it?

I must have missed this question. Well it easily could. Can a 3D creature enter into a 2D realm? Yes it could, if we stuck our finger into a 2D realm, the 2D creatures would see a circular cross-section of our finger. Similarly a 4D creature could easily reach into our dimention, and we would see a 3D image only.

[Whateverist]

Wow, 82 pages .. about intelligent design. *turns around and walks back into the forums looking for more fertile ground*

[AAA]

God existed outside of the universe, meaning he existed outside of existence, or in other words, non-existence. God had to not exist before he could make the universe.

It's funny when a believer says god exists outside of space and time, they're just stating he only exists in an imaginary place.

Same place as you billions of other universes that you need to exist to make ours not look special

[Cyberman]

Okay, so how would you propose testing for this designer? Or are you more interested in confirming your presupposition as the conclusion than actually discovering truth?

Well considering that photolyase and other proteins arose due to non-repeatable chance events in evolutionary theory, and a non-repeatable creation event in design theory, we can't use typical laboratory science to test the competing models. We have to rely on the method of historical science outlined by Newton. When we try to test competing models we have to look at explanatory power of the options. We have to look at our experience of the origin of such structures. Do we know from experience that random mutations can lead a new specified sequence of characters? Do we know that intelligence can lead to new  specified sequence of characters? The second one explains it better. Is it too religious to be science? maybe according to some people, but I think we should follow the evidence where it goes even if we don't like the philosophical implications.

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?

[Cyberman]

The data isn't fully in yet and the jury still out, but the methane detected by the Curiosity rover on Mars may just be microbially produced. Geophysicist Vladimir Krasnopolsky - who may have to change his field to Areophysics - has said that since the planet has been geologically inactive for the last few million years, biological processes may be the more plausible explanation. And he's from the Catholic University of America.

Great, there's CH4, but its one of the simplest molecules, and its presence is very far from proving life existed there.

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

[LadyForCamus]

Well, at last there is some evidence. Here's my favourite talking cat, to explain how the evidence works. This should settle all this bickering. There's two parts so far, I'm hoping he will continue the series as it's as hilarious as is it entertaining.

http://youtu.be/qxHAGLQMVj4

http://youtu.be/n42ICQsrNcg

Have you guys ever seen any of the Betty Bowers series? They're a treat. Here is just a taste. The subject is off topic for this thread but I hope no one minds.

http://youtu.be/OFkeKKszXTw

[Cyberman]

I'm still hopeful for an acknowledgement of my earlier question:

Would an entity existing outside of time and space have any influence on events inside it?

I must have missed this question. Well it easily could. Can a 3D creature enter into a 2D realm? Yes it could, if we stuck our finger into a 2D realm, the 2D creatures would see a circular cross-section of our finger. Similarly a 4D creature could easily reach into our dimention, and we would see a 3D image only.

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

[Cyberman]

Yet again, Facebook has perfect timing:

I actually think the exact opposite.

Quelle surprise.