http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/of-models-and-algorithms/comment-page-5/#comment-265082
Easy Bill
If your magic mind wasn’t disembodied then what body did it reside in, and how was that determined?
Your attempting to invoke a straw-man here. Humans are used to test the mechanism. Humans contain minds and bodies.
Why don’t you post the claims you made in that link? Because they have nothing to do with the questions I asked that you’re avoiding.
Here are the questions
“Please provide ID’s physical mechanisms. testable hypotheses, predictions which arise from ID’s tenets, and method of falsification.”
Here is what’s on your squid ink link
“The intelligent design argument is about the capability of a mind as a mechanism. What we are observing in cells are long functionally constrained linear sequences and parts that appear arranged for a purpose. Matter and its properties appear to not have the capability to explain the origin of what we are observing in evolution as complexity has increased over time requiring lots of new origin events. The cell itself also does not seem powerful enough to explain these changes on its own”
I see no physical mechanism. no testable hypotheses, no predictions which arise from ID’s tenets, no method of falsification.
Major FAIL with that lame bluff Bill.
2 Likes
Can’t find anything so far. I will tentatively retract it. In order to discuss this issue much further I have to know what kind of creationist you are. Remind me. How much evolution and how much time to you allow there to happen?
How would he prevent it from happening? Or are you a young-earth creationist? And how do you explain the c-value paradox?
Can you support that claim with quotes? Of course in order to study ID scientifically one must place constraints on one’s hypothesis of a designer, and these are decisions on what God would or would not do. I note that you place such constraints when it’s convenient and avoid them when it isn’t, as with the problem of evil.
2 Likes
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 
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.
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.
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
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.