Then why must you reframe it in order to make your claim? Let’s deconstruct your reframing once again.


This can’t be the proper premise because ID infers that life is designed.  Therefore ID specifically allows for design in nature.


No,  this is more accurate:

2. When markers for design are found in nature we investigate these markers to see if any material mechanisms can account for them. 
3. We also investigate design processes to better understand the key characteristics of these markers.
4. Through a process of observation and testing we confirm that design processes generate these markers while materialistic mechanisms do not.
5. We investigate the theoretical basis of these markers to better understand why design is capable of generating them and confirm that material mechanisms are not.
6. From this we can infer design whenever these markers are detected.

Conclusion: Since we can't find designed things in nature, it must have been designed... as we stated in the premise.[/quote]

Likewise your conclusion is in error.  Try this one.

Conclusion: We can infer design exists in nature since many things found in nature contain characteristics and configurations that are often present in designed systems and never present in systems known to have materialistic causes.  Furthermore Information theory and probability analysis provides the theoretical basis to tell us why material mechanisms seem incapable of generating such systems.


DNA is a high entropy encoded deterministic instruction set on a low entropy chemical carrier.  Please show us how this is a false pattern.

I have taken exception to and directly contradicted your proposed premise.  This cannot be described as reframing.

A "marker for design" can just as easily also be a marker for some other characteristic.  It is a description of a particular characteristic not a conclusion.  I am sorry I am imprecise with my language.



Nonsense.  If this were true, you would have no trouble providing a material mechanism that adequately accounts for the characteristics I have previously described.  The reality is that my conclusion is supported by observation of the characteristic, tests and confirmation that design produces these characteristics, tests that demonstrate material processes do not produce these, repeated observations and experiments the confirm the results, and theorems from probability and Information Theory that provide the theoretical basis to demonstrate wh this is the case.


Complexity is not sufficient.  Complexity alone is the not marker I am speaking about.  You know this barney.  You are a fraud.


No the premise is that we see characteristics in nature that can only be explained by design.


Then it would be easy for you to provide an example that falsifies the claim.  I am waiting for that example.

It is an embarrassment to your materialistic faith that you are unable to produce even one simple example of materialistic mechanisms producing any of these markers.  How about an example of greater than 25 bits of new and original encoded information?  How about you provide even one example of where evolution has produced just one new protein binding site? Humans have thousands that are unique.  Imagine thousands of new ones in a population set presumed to be less than 10 Billion ancestors and now since evolution has been investigated in detail with over a billion, billion, billion, billion organisms studied, evolution has not produced even one and on the basis of the information I presented in the last post, I predict never will.  It is interesting though what we've learned evolution can do.  Evolutionary processes are very proficient at breaking functionality.

barney, is it intellectually more honest to say that until we discover how gravity was formed and how it manifests itself we should refrain from assigning any causes to gravitational pull? 

We do know how new protein binding sites can be designed by genetic engineering.  We know how a high entropy instruction set can be inserted into a low entropy carrier to encode construction and operational procedures.  We know this because we do it routinely.  These things are not gaps.  We know how these things are done.

Game over barney.

pretty soon we'll realize what a mistake it was to leave the island.

if you claim the mechanisms aren't known, how do you claim it is design?

I wasn't aware that you knew ALL the mechanical mechanisms that occur.  Since we know MM's exist, but your Great Designer doesn't, you are adding an unnecessary explanation into the gap.

You will retreat to say "we know design exists" but you are smuggling in a concept by saying it.

We know material beings design, and why, but we know of no method that intelligence can exist without a material body (brain).  (You agree with me, right, that we know material exists but not your designer?)

You are smuggling in the concept that intelligence can exist outseide of material mechanisms.

If you aren't (and retreat further), and claim that you MIGHT be talking about an alien intelligence that created us, you simply pushing everything back one step (since how did the aliens get so intelligent without evolution - or a god).

Either way, your whole concept - all of ID - is based on a logical fallacy that it can't recover from. You don't know, we don't know how everything happened, but we do know that material mechanisms can account for all the diversity in life and the formation of the universe.