Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

because we havn't yet? what kind of question is that? we are just starting to understand the structures of the cell, what does this have to really do with IC?
if ID is to be thought of as a better theory than the ToE and abiogenesis,it has to answer questions neather of the others can, and answer questions it claims why the others are wrong.
if IC is the reason why ToE is not the answer we have to have an understanding of what IC is first!This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-30-2006 08:47 PM

yes and no.. people question the useage of complexity, what does it mean how do we measure it, what can we measure it agenst? Till you can tell us what complexity is and with it IC the term is meaningless and a faulty argumentThe ball is in your court, YOU have to come up with something, its not our job to prove you wrong, you have to show you are right

thats funny, are you sure you arn't reading Behe? he uses the same arguement with the mouse trap, and people have refuted that one http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html - for an review just as the author at T.O points out yes it will fuction but not all that wellThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 05-05-2006 08:59 PM

OK? no i was making the point that it was amusing that you hadn't read behe but came up with the same idea i think you misunderstood meas for this : i have and its nothing but nonsense, and meaningless science words with no meaning other than to impress non-science peoplewhy would we need to refute every chapter? his arguments amounts to "evolution couldn't happen because of some calculation we came up with that makes it impossible, so it is." or "i just don't consider it possible so its not"

no its not, name one publication that said it was "proof" of anything more than amino acids are possible to create
this is a creationist credited strawman

so how do we go aobut testing intelligence and design, so far anyone has yet to answer this funny,everyone who is asked who the designer is says god, so it is theological and only pretending to be science by denial of not defining the core of ID, the designer
as i have pointed out to someone else here, if complexity is how ID is defined, then any answer but a god that is eternal causes an ad infinum loop

wow nice dodge, so.. you have nothing, why should we accept this as science again? oh i know! because you say so, riiiggght everyone who posts here does, if you say aliens did it you have to ask who designed them then? more aliens? this is science?!? nice quotemining, i never said the arguments would be theological in nature i said the conclusions are. and it does imply god based on ID, as i said based on the way ID is setup, the conclusion has to be god in the end for ID to work based on how they claim things are designed, namely complexity. Also even if we found a 'designed' item on another planet, how would that help your argument? if its an object like we have we would know it since it would be like things we make, but how would we know its not natural if its nothing like what we make? this is just an argument to claim archology is like ID, but archologists know who designed the objects they find because theres only one answer not two or more, namely humans
can you tell me how you would answer if i asked you if the designer is not a god what would it be, if complexity is how you show stuff is designed? i'm sorry can you read what i wrote again? i said that IDiests deny they are trying to bring god into science by not defining the designer, which in 99% of the cases is god, the other 1% is stopping at aliens, so they don't have to take the last step to god. thanks for not getting it, and just trying to change the subjectEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

the only tests we can make involve humans, we have no other source of intelligence and as i said half a dozen times now, in the context we do have, which is us nothing other than what we make shows design, unless you can point some out? because it makes or breaks whether or not it is science, if ID isn't required to answer "who designed the designer?" we might as well accept esp exists or ufos. because if ID isn't accountable for answering ALL the questions it supposably claims to answer, why should we accept it?anyway you are arguing something i never claimed about evidence of design. i wish you could at least quote me where i said that my argument of the designer had anything to do with evidence of design, this is very disingenious of you and i feel this becomeing a waste of my time if you continue to misconscrue what i saymy real argument is that the identity of the designer as god is led by the reasoning that if the context of knowing if something is designed
is considering something complex as implying intelligent design then by logic the designer is designed as well. if the designer of the designer is designed, then it is meaningless and an infinit loop unless you invoke something eternal like god, this happens due to lack of evidence to measure ID or test it or do any science with it do you even bother to read my answers? you keep saying this but my answers never get through, ID claims the universe is designed, do you know of anything other than a god that can do this? do you even know anything about ID? it says evolution can't explain complexity it has nothing to do with evolution other than to say evolution is impossible , so it must have been designedi'm reading God based on what ID says what are you reading about? all of the leaders of the ID movement say its god. why shouldn't i accept what the people who bloody started the thing say, they like to deny it but they have plenty of papers showing what they really thinkI don't have a god issue, i have an ID issue that says Goddidit" in another form without calling it god, while claiming its science, with no scientific evidence and all the evidence they claim refuted 2 years agoi mean come on they took a creationist book and changed god to designer how low is that? i never said it did, you have that backwards, ID nullifies evolution, go read about intelligent design, all of its arguments claim a priori
that evolution doesn't explain complexity, but ID doesi said unlike what you claim i did.
that evolution answers the questions that ID claims it does and answers the why for we have a baddly setup spine and legs and heart and breath passage and backwards eyesID doesn't it claims its designed that way but thats it its "Designerdidit" this isn't science its junk masking itself as scienceanother question, why bother defending something you don't really agree with? or defending something you really don't understand?
if you have to invoke "well you just don't understand the reasons behind it!" then its hokum and shouldn't be counted as sciencenow answer childs question because i want to know your answer too pleasejust to add one last thing: from the ID wiki: Intelligent design - WikipediaEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.Edited by ReverendDG, : adding more