Missouri puts prayers back in skool...

[Clinton Huxley]

We've been through this charade before. It soon became clear that Seth fundamentally and probably wilfully misunderstands the scientific method. He just doesn't get it. No skin off my nose.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You guys ignore Seth's failure to address the issue at hand easier than I do. I have a low tolerance for lying.

[Seth]

Let's have one testable prediction made by Seth's "theory".

Here's one: Through the use of intelligent design it is possible to manipulate DNA to guide the course of natural evolution down specific pathways.

Now find an intelligence capable of manipulating DNA somewhere in the universe(s) that has manipulated DNA to guide the course of evolution. Perfectly testable. Not currently achievable however.

Oh, wait, it IS achievable and that particular research has been done and the results are conclusively positive: Intelligence capable of manipulating DNA to guide the course of evolution has been observed...right here on this planet...at the Monsanto labs and elsewhere.

Therefore, such a thing is not only possible, but has been observed in fact and is therefore a scientific fact.

The remaining questions include, "are there other intelligences in the universe(s) capable of the same level, or more sophisticated manipulations of DNA to guide the course of evolution existing today, or is there physical evidence of such an intelligence existing some time in the past?"

The answer is a qualified "yes." The existence of life on Earth shows that such intervention cannot be excluded as a cause for the forms of life on Earth without valid evidence that no such intervention did, or could have occurred.

Our human inability to detect such an entity or intervention at present does not impeach the theory or the testability of the proposition, it merely highlights the primitive nature of our scientific knowledge and understanding.

If an infinite number of monkeys put an infinite number of palms to each and every one of their infinite faces, there would still not be enough face palm. You have created a rather dull "Just So" story. I've asked for a prediction of your theory. Predict something we should find in the fossil record, or in current DNA, or wherever you like, regardless of whether we can currently detect it. Peter Higgs postulated the Higgs Boson. No-one could detect it when he did that. Took a while for experimental science to catch up.

Why am I limited to predicting something to find in the fossil record? And an intelligence capable of manipulating DNA could easily do so without leaving a "Made in Galaxis" tag behind. I've stated a prediction, it's factually true. Rational inference says that what is true today could be true yesterday or elsewhere or both. It is physically possible to manipulate DNA to guide the course of evolution. That much we know. If you could prove that DNA could NOT be successfully manipulated to guide the development of an organism then you could say that intelligence could not produce what appears to be evolutionary change. But you can't prove that. It's an indisputable fact that DNA can be manipulated by intelligence to guide the development of an organism. What this means is that it HAS ALWAYS BEEN POSSIBLE to do so, since the very beginning of life on earth. It's a physical function and feature of DNA that it can be modified, either by random mutation and evolutionary pressure OR by intelligent design. Indeed, as Atheists so often insist when deriding creationists, human science is on the cusp of "intelligently designing" living cells in the lab. That which can be done today using physical science could have been done yesterday had that level of scientific understanding and skill been available then.

Therefore, postulating that there exists, or that there at one time existed an intelligence that was capable of manipulating DNA (or for that matter creating living cells out of basic chemicals) on earth (or somewhere else) in the deep past is a completely rational and scientific inference, notwithstanding that human "experimental science" is not up to the task of discovering that linkage today. You just don't want to admit that this is a valid hypothesis because YOU don't know how to test for it. Testing for it may require significant extragalactic or extrauniversal exploration and discovery. It might take millions of years for our technology and understanding to advance to the point where we can penetrate alternate universes or travel effectively between galaxies in our own universe and thereby have the chance of finding the creators, who may have left a filing cabinet full of DNA blueprints for blue-green alge and hominids sitting on a methane iceberg on Europa or locked up in a black obelisk in a small crater somewhere on the dark side of the moon.

But to discard the hypothesis merely because there is no way to test it at present is as much a faith-based dogmatic denial of the scientific method as any theist's.

[Seth]

We've been through this charade before. It soon became clear that Seth fundamentally and probably wilfully misunderstands the scientific method. He just doesn't get it. No skin off my nose.

Then it should be simple for you to rebut my claims by attacking them rather than attacking me personally. Yet you cannot do so. This indicates that you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

[Seth]

Seth, your hypothesis is bunk. Things are proposed: irreducible complexity. Debunked, every case.

Strawman. I've said nothing whatever about "irreducible complexity."

This whole thing occurs because nothing is designed for the final form where it looks useful. Junk is recycled.

Says you.

However, BT corn is specifically designed to do something other corn does not do, and it's the product of intelligent design. This is not to say that evolution is not how organisms change form, not at all. But you cannot rationally deny that whatever BT corn was before Monsanto started meddling with it's genetic structure, today that particular organism is an intelligently designed one. The only rational inference that one can draw from that fact is that what can be done today could have been done 65 million or a billion years ago by some other intelligence. That you cannot prove this is what happened is irrelevant to my claim, just as it's irrelevant to the claim of evolution that there is not a continuous fossil record of intermediate forms for us to look at that proves the gradual change due to "natural" evolution rather than intelligent design.

Both are possible.

[klr]

Seth, who made God?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, who made God?

FSM.

[Seth]

Seth, who made God?

Who said anything about God?

[klr]

Seth, who made God?

Who said anything about God?

C'mon, cut the BS, we all know where this argument is going.

So let's cut to the chase: Who made God? Who was the Prime Mover?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Cue the ducking and dodging.

[Clinton Huxley]

Hilarious. Simply repeating the same mistakes from the last time this dead dog drifted down the river. Still doesn't understand. Poor Seth.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's have one testable prediction made by Seth's "theory".

Here's one: Through the use of intelligent design it is possible to manipulate DNA to guide the course of natural evolution down specific pathways.

Now find an intelligence capable of manipulating DNA somewhere in the universe(s) that has manipulated DNA to guide the course of evolution. Perfectly testable. Not currently achievable however.

Oh, wait, it IS achievable and that particular research has been done and the results are conclusively positive: Intelligence capable of manipulating DNA to guide the course of evolution has been observed...right here on this planet...at the Monsanto labs and elsewhere.

Nobody denies that. That isn't "ID."

Therefore, such a thing is not only possible, but has been observed in fact and is therefore a scientific fact.

Nobody said it wasn't. It isn't ID, though.

The remaining questions include, "are there other intelligences in the universe(s) capable of the same level, or more sophisticated manipulations of DNA to guide the course of evolution existing today, or is there physical evidence of such an intelligence existing some time in the past?"

Nobody argues that intelligent life can't manipulate DNA. What they argue is that there is no evidence that an Intelligent Designer created the universe.

The answer is a qualified "yes." The existence of life on Earth shows that such intervention cannot be excluded as a cause for the forms of life on Earth without valid evidence that no such intervention did, or could have occurred.

Nobody things terraforming or seeding planets with life, or manipulating DNA is impossible.

Our human inability to detect such an entity or intervention at present does not impeach the theory or the testability of the proposition, it merely highlights the primitive nature of our scientific knowledge and understanding.

What do you mean "such an entity?" What you're talking about are living things manipulating other living things. That has nothing to do with ID "Theory."

[Coito ergo sum]

That was a golden age of insanity. People like Seth aren't really trying.

Maybe if we jangled our keys at him he'd go away.

Such weak intellects. Rather than refute my reasoning and logic, you both typically resort to personal insults. Clearly you've lost the debate but are afraid to admit it.

Seth, really, man....I hope you're just fucking around.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1248244

[Tero]

Cannot be excluded is not part of science. Once a reasonable explanation is found, the rest are of little value.

[Seth]

Seth, who made God?

Who said anything about God?

C'mon, cut the BS, we all know where this argument is going.

So let's cut to the chase: Who made God? Who was the Prime Mover?

Why are you bringing God into a scientific discussion?