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

Why are they better? Why does order and law evidence design? Why is it a logical and reasonable assumption? Except in the case of life where order is produced through unintelligent processes. You don't get to dismiss falsifications of your claims so easily. But we can test hypotheses. You always seem to ignore this fact. Negative argument fallacy. It is up to you to support your claims, not for your challengers to disprove. It appears that you need to brush up on the use of logic. We can provide testable hypotheses as to how life gains order through the process of evolution. Where are your testable hypotheses? So the cuboidal design in a salt crystal imply that a designer placed each and every atom in a cuboidal arrangement? Or did this design occur through unintelligent mechanisms?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

What about it? Last I checked abiogenesis has chemistry as it's mechanism, not magic. What observation, if made, would not fit perfectly with ID? How does the nested hierarchy fit with ID? How does the pattern of orthologous ERV's among humans and other apes fit with ID? How do transitional fossils fit with ID? If you are going to claim that ID fits perfectly then you must show HOW it fits perfectly. Otherwise, your claims are quite hollow. What does this have to do with ID? Can ID stand on it's own or not?

Evolution is a theory. Theories are not facts. Theories explain the facts. If you are going to criticize science perhaps you should learn how it works first.

The purpose of snowflakes is to reflect heat back into space thereby cooling the Earth. They have specificity. We also observe that snowflakes gain this purpose through unintelligent mechanisms meaning that purpose can arise through unintelligent processes. Please show me how my avatar triggers a recognition response. There are 6 billion different arrangements of nucleotides that all produce humans. That is hardly specific.

You carry between 100 and 200 mutations not found in either parent. So which 200 genetic diseases are you suffering from?

Can you point us to the ID research on this subject?

What makes plasmids so special? Eukaryotes have chromosomes which can all be viewed as separate, non-circular plasmids if you want to. Actually, when DNA damage occurs in bacteria it triggers the SOS response which includes the upregulation of error prone polymerases and recombinases. The random mutation rate and random recombination rate is elevated in hostile environments. This is the observed mechanism. The evolution of tetrapods resulted in the loss of the pre-existing function of fins to produce legs. Why is this a problem? How is modification of pre-existing structures a problem for evolution since this is exactly what the theory proposes?

If someone is curious about how reality works and came to be then they would start with the evidence, construct a testable explanation (i.e. hypothesis), and then make new observations that will either confirm or falsify that explanation.This is how we approach questions of the unknown in general, be it in the scientific laboratory or in the courtroom. We form an explanation and then ask ourselves what we should and should not see if our explanation is correct. In a courtroom we predict that the fingerprints at the crime scene should match those of the defendant. If they match another person then our explanation is falsified.IMHO, we are not dealing with curiosity in this thread. We are dealing with people who need to defend a conclusion against curiosity. The ID/Creationist crowd starts with a dogmatic, faith based conclusion that was not arrived at through testing and asking questions. Quite the opposite. They start with a conclusion that can not be questioned and arose from faith. Therefore, all observations must be forced to arrive at the conclusion, even at the price of illogical arguments and a well tossed word salad.This is made quite clear in Dawn Bertot's continued bastardization of the words "logic" and "evidence". First, in order to guarantee that the needed conclusion is reached the conclusion is included as one of the premises. Order is defined as design, and then order is used to evidence design as one example. Nowhere does anyone explain how order evidences design. It's as if any fingerprint, no matter it's characteristics, suggests that the defendant is guilty. It's as if any DNA at the crime scene, no matter it's sequence, suggests that the defendant is guilty.Nowhere does Dawn explain why order evidences design. It is simply asserted. Nowhere does Dawn explain why order can not arise through unintelligent processes. Nowhere does Dawn separate function from purpose. Nowhere does Dawn set out a logical argument consisting of distinct premises and a conclusion, even though Dawn claims that the argument is "logical".Perhaps the best example of logic gone awry is this statement Dawn Bertot:"what will the evidence and logic allow concerning the origin or design"This is bass ackwards. It is the WRONG QUESTION. It is a question bred from starting with a conclusion and forcing the evidence.The question should be "what evidence will the CONCLUSION ALLOW". What evidence should we see AND NOT SEE if the conclusion is correct. Dawn Bertot was never able to describe these potential falsifying observations. Dawn Bertot has it bass ackwards.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.