Is ID science? Redux

No Bill, what a human did is not a test which shows a disembodied mind produced biological life. You’ve had that explained to you dozens of times too. Unless you claim humans designed and created biological life which is self-contradicting.

Final post :slight_smile: There is no reason to test your straw-man. You are mis representing the argument. The real argument is testable. Merry Christmas Tim.

Of course not Bill. The test would fail miserably and directly contradict your claim a disembodied mind physically can create genomes from scratch.

What real argument is that Bill? That a human can think of and physically produce an object? How is that a test a mind produced biological life?

Bill will now disappear in a cloud of squid ink leaving all questions unanswered as usual. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Humans also require DNA for their existence. So they cannot provide the model by which DNA came into existence.

So ID, if it wants to be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis, needs to provide a model based on observed mechanisms and processes by which a mind existed independent of any physical substrate, and was able to create chemical compounds thru the power of thought alone.

Could you please refer us to where we can find this model described? TIA.

You first need to make an argument that the design argument is not scientific. So far you are making assertions that have no scientific relevance. Humans are used to test the model. The fact they contain DNA is not relevant.

That is the truth. Purely natural processes are actually capable of producing high FI in that antibodies are evolved in only two weeks.

Both you and gpuccio have tried to pretend that only one process (somatic hypermutation) is producing FI, while ignoring V(D)J recombination.

Didn’t @gpuccio claim that he was going to do an analysis of antibody evolution? Whatever happened to that, Gil? Did he not get the answer he was hoping for?

3 Likes

I think it is scientific, in the same way that the claim the earth is flat is scientific. Both are claims that, if true, could be demonstrated thru scientific evidence. And they are not.

Common ground. :slight_smile:

OK, so I’ve answered your question. So let’s see the model, as you promised.

1 Like

It’s already been made Bill.

ID is not scientific because it has no physical mechanisms, has no testable hypotheses, makes no predictions, and can’t be falsified.

Your lame attempt at dodging the points raised is your tacit admission the assessment is correct.

2 Likes

We have more than a model. We have a tested hypothesis as evidenced in our exchange. The model of how a mind generates information is work in progress.

No you don’t Bill. A human mind produced and wrote down some information is NOT a test of your claim a disembodied mind POOFED physical genomes into existence.

This is not my claim it is yours.

If your designing “mind” is not disembodied then where does it physically exist? Answer the question honestly for once and give me a reason to stop referring to it as disembodied.

1 Like

@Giltil

I should point out that your objections only apply to atheists who support evolution.

Christians who support evolution are being perfectly logical from the viewpoint of Christianity.

Tim, a detailed description of the actual mind is not required to make this a scientific theory. Faizal understands this. He does not believe it until you can show a mind exists outside our purview but this is not required for it to be a scientific theory. If you want to take the position that you don’t believe it until you see direct evidence of the designer that is fine.

For me the evidence we see inside the cell is very strong indication that a mind is behind the origin and evolution of living organisms.

All you do is dodge question and cry about the term “disembodied”. Yet the fact remains you can’t describe where this "mind’ physically exists. Human minds exist in the substrate of the human brain, in the electrical and chemical processes of the synapses and neurons. “Disembodied” is the exact correct term for the magic supermind you keep asserting.

Once more with the usual ignorance based argument from personal incredulity. You never change, do you?

This is false. It’s an argument based on what we know minds are capable of.

Please spell it out, then. How does/did a disembodied mind create DNA by just thinking about stuff?

Round and round and round we go…Bill still has no physical mechanism or no evidence a mind by itself can physically manipulate matter but he’ll make the same silly claims ad nauseum. :roll_eyes:

1 Like