There are somethings that materialism cannot explain but design does explain.  When materialism explains something, even if design also explains it we accept materialism as the explanation.   It is a special pleading not to accept design when design explains it but materialism can't.

Only people with a prior commitement to materialism won't accept design when design is the better explanation.  Accepting design is not "jumping to God dunnit".  Accepting design is not the same as declaring the character of the designer.  You wish to make the leap to God in an attempt to make design as absurd sounding as those who cling to the materialism despite the evidence to the contrary.

This is not in debate.  The idea that materialism accounts for life and diversity of life is the debate.


Design can and has increased biological information at a rate far faster than required to account for observed diversity.  Design has produced self-replicating biopolymers.


I see why your prejudice forces you to see materialism in the position.  I see that materialism is a grand failure in its attempt to meet the claims made of it.  I also note again that fewer than 27% of scientific community according to Gallup accept this position.  With 26% I hardly call that favored.


Materialism has met its match and despite your attempts to prop it up, it is nearly DOA. 

I am not making a claim for God, I am making a claim for design.  Design is a valid mode of explanation, just as materialism is a mode of explanation.  The difference is that design accounts for observed diversity and design accounts for the chemic assemblies required for life but materialism does not and the hard sciences tell us why materialism cannot and will not account for these clear markers for design.  It is appropriate to remind you again what a more honest materialist admits about your weak position.

http://www.itsallpolitics.com/forum/index.php?topic=1015.msg25340#msg25340

Barney, your propensity to make special pleadings to attempt to prop up materialism is astounding.  When you point out issues that materialism can't answer either, it makes you appear dim.


Has material mechanisms made self-replicating polymers?  No.  Did/can the material processes we are aware of make the universe and life? No.


Can you show that material exists outside of the universe?  No.  Can you show the material in this universe makes itself? No.


Can you show that materialist mechanisms can create life? No.


Can you show that evolution even results in new forms or function?  No.  I can demonstrate that design is capable of generating the rate of change required to account for diversity of life.


Yes, Many components and systems contain clear characteristics of design while a few do not.


Yes.  You have not been able to demonstrate any flaws in the probability analysis and Information analysis.


I point to what we have already determined design is capable of accomplishing.  You claim they are gaps in your understanding because you refuse to accept the valid explanation offered, namely design.  You are making the appeal to ignorance not I.  I offer deductive evidence that design accounts for the observations made, while you claim ignorance.


Yes, We have a catalog of observed evolutionary processes.  These cataloged processes are insufficient to account for observed diversity.  If other processes existed, they also must be occurring now at sufficient rates to account for observed diversity but the rate we find them operating is exactly zero. 


I can show that probability theory consistently works, is reliable and models reality without error.  I can show that you don't wish to understand probability theory when you make such foolish statements.


I can show you that no scientific article is without its critic and rebuttals.  The peer reviewed ID articles have their critics too.  You are one such critic who claims to have rebutted every one of them.  However, I can walk through any one of a number of articles and demonstrate that you cannot falsify any of them.


I can point to hundreds of reverse engineering successes in medicine.  All presuppose purpose and design, but your prior commitment to materialism prevents you from accepting that as evidence for design.  I can point to the huge successes in genetic engineering as clear examples of what design has done in changing biological systems.


Your prior commitment to materialism in your mind is perfectly valid, how strange.



Most of the questions are leading questions.  In logical fallacies they are "Begging the Question".  But you are so poor at framing questions, I was able to answer several of them.  You are a fraud.

So, no answers STILL. You just ask questions to questions and throw in an ad hom.

Very mature!


(But better to appear dim to an idiot, than actually be dim.)

Yeah, its funny. Ever since I started calling out RF's logical fallacies by name, he has tried to return the favor - but always butchering it.

I always have a little laugh when I see it. He's so cute in trying to be like me.

Heheheh... touche'!
I like to just cut to the chase instead of explining why its wrong, since it is so obviously wrong. Naming the fallacy quickens the pace to the point that he always ignores or doesn't comprehend.

Has Lewotin become RF's new savior? Does he sudden'y know everything about Materialism, or does he have one voice that RF seems to like.

I suppose RF will have no problem with me claiming "Fred Phelps said...." and thus speaks for Xianity.