We have evidence of who designed the heiroglyphics.


Of course. They have to have evidence of a designer before they can conclude a "purposefully built transmitter".


You can't infer an unobservable designer just because you don't have an easy explanation. "Unknown explanation" comes miles and miles and miles before "designer" on the list of inferences.


Don't be silly. Of course there is. We have observed thousands/millions of chemical compounds and thousands/millions of reactions. It's only the specific mechanism that's uncertain. No chemist seriously questions that there could be such a mechanism.


Nobody cares what you call "unscientific".

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

Not even I question that. There could be a lot of things...

Including a designer...

And we have lots of evidence to show what design is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmjt4fzu ... re=related


And we have good logical reasoning to show that DNA could not have evolved as you elude to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPBHPqUIn7I

None of you ever address these points, you only continue to deny and declare foul.

The evidence and the argumentation are here to address if you care to do so.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

You contradict yourself.


You're the one who's failing to address the important points: no mechanism for design and no evidence of a designer.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

Your right... that is a contradiction as written. I should have been more specific about what you were eluding to.

Let me rephrase the proposition this way, 'DNA could not have evolved by means of natural selection'. And it is easy to understand why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPBHPqUIn7I

However, life could have evolved (as Dawkins postulates) by some 'other' means. This I believe as well.

Dawkins is right in my opinion. There is something 'unworldly' going on one way or another. Though from there, he and I part company as to the extent of the distinction.

What this mechanism is, no-one knows. But it appears to be outside of our usual thinking, solutions, and resources.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

First off, present YOUR best support for your position. YouTube videos carry little weight.

Second, whoever said 'DNA could not have evolved by means of natural selection' is either pulling your leg or trying to con you.

We can look around and see DNA evolving all the time.

But Natural Selection is of course only part of the story.

Or maybe the author was trying to talk about the origin of DNA? That is a different story entirely and not a subject of the Theory of Evolution.

So it appears that there are a couple possibilities. The author of the video could be hopelessly ignorant. Certainly a possibility.

Or the author may not be ignorant and just counting on the ignorance of his audience and the hope that they do not notice all he is doing is creating strawmen and Misdirection so they do not see him palm the pea.

But none of that addresses the question, "Why would anyone pay attention to ID or Creationism?"

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

The same can be said of natural selection which tells us nothing about how life originated. Hence Dawkins admission that there is no natural explanation.



That model is long standing, and after centuries of scientific research within multiple disciplines, it is better understood than ever: http://www.templetonprize.org/bios.html

The problem for you and yours is that the model contains a 'rival doctrine' (as Dawkins puts it) i.e. a different philosophical approach to reality and causation. But your inability or unwillingness to apply yourself to the model, in no way is equivilant to an argument against it. You simply expel the model from the market place without ever adressing it and it's details at all.



Actually, that is the burden of proof residing in, and flowing from a naturalistic metaphysical (or philosophical) posture.



And no such abiogenical model exists that can give a step by step explanation, so by your own definition abiogenesis is content free and of no value.

Life does not arise from non-life. That is the law of biogenesis. This is observable in the form of natural selection otherwise known as "re-production".

The burden of proof is on the shoulders of naturalists to give any evidence that life can be "produced" by nothing more than molecules and the laws of physics.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Of course. That is the whole point. It is also where the study of Abiogenesis is directed.

The key point is that until that is done, the answer is "We don't know yet."

The answer is not "Gee that's a tough one so lets just say the designerdidit."

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Accusing your opponents of dishonesty does nothing to address the issues.

The Youtube video is presented because it captures with much detail the problem which I can and have very easily enuciated before...

Natural selection cannot occur without the presense of DNA. Therefore, natural selection cannot itself have produced DNA.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Well then, please do dispense with the accusation that since 'the ID model' does not give a step by step account, that it is therefore content free and of no value. Nobody's model can claim that. And work is preceding in more than one framework for positioning the question.

There is no need for claiming that one particular approach to the problem is 'the way the truth and the life' and that everything else is nonsense.

Only God can claim that consistently.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

No one said that Natural Selection produced DNA. Except the author of the video.


In addition, that has nothing to do with the question which is "Why would anyone pay any attention to ID or Creationism?"

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Nonsense. The ID position CANNOT contain any information or teach us anything beyond what we can learn through normal science. It can never have any value or use.

Abiogenesis IS developing the step by step model. It uses physics and chemistry.

ID, if it ever wants to be anything more than a joke, must also produce those step by step models. The tools that are available for ID to use are chemistry, physics and magic.

Since the first Law of Magic is "A magician never revels his secrets" ID must forever remain a sanctuary for "The Lack of Knowledge."

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

You are still confused between evolution and abiogenesis, and you have misunderstood Dawkins.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

And by the way... God did it...

One way or another 'the whole of reality' produced life. And since not everyone has the same meaning in mind when they use the term 'God' I can respect those who do not understand or concur.

But the fact remains that one definition of God is 'The ultimate and supreme reality'.

Reality as a whole did it. We do not know how... other than it was spoken or willed by the very nature of reality. I believe the ssaid reality is living, therfore to me, He willed (i.e. spoke) and it was.

Life is therefore Holy or 'whole'. It does not consist of singular properties but brings a diversity of character to harmonious fruition.

Whatever the method in it's entirety, it is alien to our current knowledge. That does not make it miraculous. It just makes life miraculous to us.

God forbid we ever ran out of mystery and miracles... that's what makes life marvelous; every solution multiplies the number of questions. Perhaps one day we will cease with asking and simply live and enjoy.

Perhaps one day I will do that...

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

From a scientific perspective, the Templeton prize is pretty much a joke. It is awarded for its religious value, not its scientific value.

From Heller's own statement:

Well, duh! The cause of mathematical laws is mathematicians.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

That seems to be pantheism, the belief that nature is God. And I had thought that pantheism was considered heresy within conservative Christianity.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie