Does hydrogen turn into people?

Would you call claiming an absolute truth as scientific?

If IC isn't being considered as evidence for a designer, then what is? Every website I've read so far has implied IC is evidence of design. So, if IC isn't evidence of design, then what is in your opinion? I have been reading up on this, and every so called prediction I've seen, including one you posted here, is relying on science not discovering something and considering that as evidence for ID. What prediction's exist that doesn't rely on this out right obvious attack on lack of knowledge in the scientific community?

Here's a decent article.

www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by Produkt

If IC isn't being considered as evidence for a designer, then what is?

So do you actually read any the replies I offer? Apparently not, because, honestly this is going to be the fourth or fifth time - at least, that I've written this in this particular thread.

IC is a hypothesis about systems that have no other explanation re: their origins or how they could have come into being via currently known mechanisms.

You are correct though... we don't know how something came into being... design is interested in studying those systems from a different basis of hypothesis formation.

Every website I've read so far has implied IC is evidence of design.

What you actually mean to say is this: "What I infer from every website I've read suggests IC is evidence of design."

Without having specifics to discuss though we really can't say whether something was implied or whether you inferred it.

IC can't be 'evidence' of anything because it's a hypothesis.

So, if IC isn't evidence of design, then what is in your opinion?

Please see the above, as well as all my previous answers to this question.

I have been reading up on this,

Hallelujah!

and every so called prediction I've seen, including one you posted here,

Hmmm... not sure what predictions you're talking about. I haven't posted any predictions in this particular thread.... .

Perhaps you're referring to my statement re: the origins of Photosynthesis.

Ummm.... that's not a prediction. That's an empirical statement re: the status of knowledge about the origins of photosynthesis.

Maybe... this is part of the problem you don't seem to have a clear understanding of some fundamental definitions.

is relying on science not discovering something and considering that as evidence for ID.

Ummm... no it's not.

What prediction's exist that doesn't rely on this out right obvious attack on lack of knowledge in the scientific community?

Dude, you have a serious problem. A statement of the current gaps in scientific knowledge coupled with a new system of hypothesis formation to solve said problems does NOT constitute an 'outright obvious attack' re: anything 'in the scientific community.' I know this is a conspiracy forum and all, but lighten up.

Scientists, myself included, are NOT attacking science by supporting ID. That's just dumb. If anything scientists are risking their careers and livelihoods by supporting ID. We've already discussed the effect it's had on Behe's and Dembski's academic careers. I've mentioned my closeted behavior re: ID in my professional life several times. There is nothing to support this ridiculous assertion that ID is an attack on science.

In anticipation of your next post: I did not say that some groups of people aren't using ID for their own political ends, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Damn, you are lame, mattison.

Hey... I never claimed to be a comedian.

Parfaitin? That's one of the corniest things I've seen on this site. Really. I guess you thought that was "hip" or "cool."

Stick to that slick ID and please, PLEASE don't try to fit in with "our video game, TV ruined generation."

Like I said... I never claimed to be a comedian.

I wouldn't say I thought it was hip or cool. In fact... I knew it would come across as lame.

And I am definitely not trying to fit in with you... please don't misinterpret my corny attempt at humor as trying to fit in with you. Not really sure how one 'fits in' in an anonymous online forum, but I suppose this is peripheral.

On a more serious note:
Busting on each other, and a fair degree of even not good natured ribbing are certainly not things I am opposed to. I can take it as well as I can dish it out.

But in general, I try to pepper my insulting derogatory comments in between the rebuttals I offer to your 'arguments' against ID. ie, while I can make rude comments, I offer them in the context of other information.

For example, you could have rebutted the antibiotic argument I made yesterday, and called me lame in the context of doing that...

But instead, you've chosen to run from this particular argument not once but twice now.

I might be corny, lame, and insulting, but at least I offer something substantial, and have managed to address every 'argument' you've ever thrown my way.

Still waiting on your reply to my antibiotic post(s).

Leftbehind,

I may not get a chance to respond to you until later....

going to take some time with my posts to you.

I can reply to produkt and fruitseeka here and there in between experiments. Will probably not reply to you until after work, depending on what I have going on... mabye sooner if I get a good chunk of time.

Would you call claiming an absolute truth as scientific?

What prediction's exist that doesn't rely upon lack of scientific discovery?

Originally posted by Produkt
Would you call claiming an absolute truth as scientific?

Look... I see where you're going with this. I say of course not, and you say Aha but ID assumes there is a designer, thus ID isn't scientific.

Nice try, but the problem comes in when you apply the same test to abiogenesis and the origin of speicies. Is an absolute truth scientific? Of course not. Therefore abiogenesis, which assumes naturalistic is the only means by which life could have come to be, is therefore unscientific. IOW, abiogenesis assumes naturalism as an absolute truth.

Do you see the problem with this? Probably not.

All origins theories suffer from this particular dilemma, and I'm not sure how you perform science without assumptions, but that's not the way we here in the research community perform science. Experiments are based on sets of assumptions.

That a designer exists is not an absolute truth, it's an assumption, at least as far as ID is concerned.

What prediction's exist that doesn't rely upon lack of scientific discovery?

All of 'em. Predictions aren't based on lack of scientific discovery, their based on observation, experience, and certain set of assumptions which are also based on observation and experience, as well as evidence.

I see how this goes... I'm obligated, for some reason, to address every single rebuttal you make, and you don't have to address any of mine... nice MO.

Observation's of what? What does ID observe? ID observe's that scientist's have no current explanation and predict's scientist's will never come up with explanation's for this so called IC 'hypothesis'.

What prediction's exist that does not rely on this system of prediction?

What prediction's exist that would show a system is ID without predicting that scientist's will not find an explanation for otherwise?

ID with ET in mind is still naturalism. ID with god in mind is supernatural.

What predictions in ID exist for supernatural or ET that doesn't rely on predicting that scientist's will not find an explanation for otherwise?

Originally posted by Produkt
Observation's of what? What does ID observe? ID observe's that scientist's have no current explanation and predict's scientist's will never come up with explanation's for this so called IC 'hypothesis'.

No it doesn't.

What prediction's exist that does not rely on this system of prediction?

One more time: all of 'em. A prediction of nothing isn't a prediction, scientifically speaking.

What prediction's exist that would show a system is ID without predicting that scientist's will not find an explanation for otherwise?

What?

ID with ET in mind is still naturalism. ID with god in mind is supernatural.

Wrong. A theory with a designer in mind isn't ID.

What predictions in ID exist for supernatural or ET that doesn't rely on predicting that scientist's will not find an explanation for otherwise?

What is this, a game of how many times can I (produkt) ask the same ridiculous question in a single thread?

Your innane rants aren't helping the anti-ID position.

What does ID observe that show's intelligent design that doesn't rely on predicting scientist's won't find an answer to otherwise?

What prediction's exist that would show a system is ID without predicting that scientist's will not find an explanation for otherwise?

Wrong. A theory with a designer in mind isn't ID.

Wrong. ID is an intelligent designer, the pre-assumtion that some form of intelligence designed the universe and life within.

ET is still naturalism. God is supernatural.

What predictions in ID exist for supernatural or ET that doesn't rely on predicting that scientist's will not find an explanation for otherwise?


Your the so called expert. Answer the question's.


[edit on 3-3-2006 by Produkt]

Produkt, please rephrase all of your questions in a manner such that they are intelligible. As soon as you do that, I'll give 'em a shot.

Does that mean you'll address even one of the issues I've brought up in this thread... thus far this thread has been pretty one-sided in terms of addressing actual issues.

If you need to break your questions down into individual questions.

As they stand now, they're not answerable.

Who told you I was an Expert? I don't see an FSME tag on my profile.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by mattison0922]

Don't play stupid.

What observation's are there in ID that undeniably show something was designed with intelligence behind it WITHOUT predicting that scientist's WILL NOT find a more natural explanation for it.

Originally posted by Produkt
Don't play stupid.

Not. Your questions were (are) unintelligible.

I'll give a shot.

What observation's are there in ID that undeniably show something was designed with intelligence behind it

There are none. We've discussed this before. Origins science doesn't lend itself to undeniable proof. It's the nature of origins science.

WITHOUT predicting that scientist's WILL NOT find a more natural explanation for it.

Okay... how many times have we gone over this... must be at least 5 by now.

Produkt, a prediction that something will not happen isn't a scientific prediction.

I know this is tough for you... I didn't think it was that tough though...

Read the words in red over and over again, then compare your question to the words in red.

BTW, nothing in ID says science won't find a mechanism for something... I know it's fun to put that spin on it and all, but it's not true.

Reread my question. Observation's, not proof. What observation's in ID show something or suggest something is of an intelligent designer of some sort?

It's not that hard guy. Either ID has something to back it up, or it doesn't.

I wonder if your Dembski.

www.talkdesign.org...

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by Produkt
Reread my question. Observation's, not proof. What observation's in ID show something or suggest something is of an intelligent designer of some sort?

Mabye you should re-read your own question

Originally posted by Produkt
What observation's are there in ID that undeniably show something was designed with intelligence behind it

I bolded the critical part of your question. Perhaps you can explain to me how to 'undeniably show something' doesn't constitute proof?

But in an effort to answer this more recent question

Observations suggestive of processes other than naturalism at work in the origin of biological organisms.

1. DNA is homochiral, yet organic synthesis clearly shows that when synthesizing chiral molecules, a heterochiral mixture obtained. No known natural forces generate one stereoisomer. In general they are formed in equal amounts.
   
2. DNA exists as polymer. Nucleotides form polymers via the aid of enzymes only. Outside of living cells (and yes this includes viruses), DNA doesn't polymerize into lengths or more than 10 or 20-mers, and then only under the most artificial of conditions. Furthermore the polymerization reactions are precluded both enthapically and entropically by competing reactions.
   
3. Proteins exist as polymers of homochiral, alpha amino acids, in addition to the problems of stereochemistry, and polymerization shared by nucleic acids, proteins have an additonal difficulty in that all the amino acids are of the alpha variety. Alpha amino acids aren't preferred in organic synthesis, IOW, there is no known naturalistic mechanism by which alpha amino acids are selectively synthesized.

I could go on... but we'll see how reasonable your response to these is.

In anticipation of your next post... this is not attacking what science doesn't know. This is pointing out inconsistencies with Known chemical and physical laws as they pertain to currently existing theories of biological origins.

It's not that hard guy. Either ID has something to back it up, or it doesn't.

This coming from the guy who's not responded to a single 'issue' lobbed at him

I wonder if your Dembski.

I'll take that as a compliment. But if you were familiar with Behe, Dembski, and others, the most obvious imposter would be Johnathan Wells.

Maybe I'm him.

This topic is supposed to be about a naturalistic origins model; not is ID scientific. There's plenty of threads around here re: testability - backdoor creationism conspiracy - review of protein structures etc, etc... and of course a new topic can be started to explore any other issues with the design versus chance debate at your pleasure.

I'd really like to hear from the anti-ID crowd (or anybody) on a naturalistic model. The Op asked ya'll to take it from hydrogen to man, which may be a bit much. Take it from the BB to organic compounds... should be a good place to start. Then, of course, there's the holy grail of origins research - abiogenesis. Personally i'd favour a Panspermia model, some would probably argue that's passing the buck re: early Earth conditions not suitable for formation of life. I say figure out how to make chemistry - biology first... if it can be shown to be possible, regardless of conditions, then the universe is plenty big enough to accomodate any scenario necessary imo.

So design opponents fire away... Big Bang Theory, stellar evolution et al have you half way there. The restrictions (testability/falsification) are a bear in biological origins though... good luck.

That sounds extremely bizzare. Could you please post more information on this? Links? I don't think that's possible. Hydrogen can't be made into a human being...

In what way is any of those point's suggestive of design? I'm looking for something suggestive of design itself. What prediction's are made for those thing's that allow those thing's to be suggestive of design?

Originally posted by Produkt
In what way is any of those point's suggestive of design? I'm looking for something suggestive of design itself. What prediction's are made for those thing's that allow those thing's to be suggestive of design?

It depends on your perspective. They aren't suggestive of naturalistic mechanisms. If they're not suggestive of naturalistic mechanisms, you tell me what they're suggestive of.

Those are observations, not predictions. I didn't say there was a prediction standing behind each and everyone of those observations. I said ID has predictive power. Big Difference.

Let's turn the tables for a moment though.

Perhaps you care to comment on the incredible predictive power offered by NDT.

Produkt, when I stated both of the following,

Boy... you don't know me at all..

and

Boy... did I call that one or what?

I was NOT calling you boy.

I was stating it in the context of Boy... wasn't that something. IOW... Man, wasn't that something, or Gosh, wasn't that something.

No offense intended.

So what your saying is ID has nothing of it's own accord to make it a credible science? For example, the need to use something that isn't fully explainable by science as a way to imply that some intelligent designer could have possibly had a hand in creation ...