Does hydrogen turn into people?

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
I was unaware that there was any provable evidence.

If you are unaware of the evidence for evolution and the sort of stuff you are talking about, then why do you reject it?

Isn't evolution a theory? If there was provable evidence would they still call it a theory?

Darwinian Evolution is a hypothesis. The organization of inorganic chemicals into organic ones and then into living organisms is a hypothesis. These hypotheses are all supported by evidence. A hypothesis never gets proved, and it never becomes a 'fact'. A theory is just a generally accepted hypothesis, not substantively any different. Theories and hypotheses never get proven, nor can they be proven. They can only be refuted. Darwin's theories about evolution haven't been refuted. Some of the various abiogenetic hypotheses haven't been refuted either. However, I would caution that there isn't wide agreement on any of them, nor any one hypothesis of abiogenesis that is consider 'the' theory of abiogenesis.

produkt
evolution is what happened after those first strands of RNA and DNA started to reproduce and change in it's initial enviroment

There's not many reasons to say that evolution starts with the formation of RNA/DNA like genetic materials.

Science has already shown that these very same chemical's exist in abundance through out the universe

DNA/RNA do not exist outside of living organisms, as far as I am aware. There are some complex organic (organic like 'organic chemistry', not 'from living stuff') molecules out there, in the universe. And some experiments, like Miller-Urey, have shown that some 'precusors' to life can form abiotically, which was surprising, but thats not the same as abiogenesis (neverminding of course that mille-urey showed that these things can form in a reducing environment, and that the early earth isn't thought to have been reducing anymore).

DNA does exist outside of biological cells. They're called virus's.

Viruses can't exist without living organisms, they cannot replicate on their own. If they could, we'd call them 'small cells'.

Originally posted by Produkt
So what your saying is ID has nothing of it's own accord to make it a credible science? For example, the need to use something that isn't fully explainable by science as a way to imply that some intelligent designer could have possibly had a hand in creation ...

Nope. Didn't say that at all.

I think I see what you're up to....

You obviously don't want to talk actual science, you've not dealt with even a single issue lobbed at you.

You continue to ask the same questions over and over, despite having received an answer multiple times, and misquote or otherwise misrepresent my statements.

Finally, when things get a little too heated... you run to the authorities. Gotcha.

Nice MO.

Bye Produkt.

news.uns.purdue.edu...
www.sciencenews.org...
www.ch.cam.ac.uk...
www.sciencemag.org...
72.14.207.104
www.ast.cam.ac.uk...

Again, what observation's in ID are suggestive of an intelligent designer. Has ID observed ANYTHING suggesting a designer WITHOUT relying upon lack of scientific knowledge or lack of knowledge for all the underlying principle's of the universe, from it's conception on to the development of life. If ID does not have anything that does not rely upon the lack of current knowledge, then it is not scientific at all.

Again, ID either has something to back itself up with or it does not.

www.talkdesign.org...

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 3-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by Rren
I'd really like to hear from the anti-ID crowd (or anybody) on a naturalistic model. The Op asked ya'll to take it from hydrogen to man, which may be a bit much. Take it from the BB to organic compounds... should be a good place to start. Then, of course, there's the holy grail of origins research - abiogenesis. Personally i'd favour a Panspermia model, some would probably argue that's passing the buck re: early Earth conditions not suitable for formation of life. I say figure out how to make chemistry - biology first... if it can be shown to be possible, regardless of conditions, then the universe is plenty big enough to accomodate any scenario necessary imo.

Some good articles in the new scientist this week about panspermia (the alien rain study looks interesting - bat blood or alien organisms?). Panspermia may even answer the chirality problem...

www.newscientistspace.com...

Edited to answer next post: mattison, the ref's at the end of the article...

Angewandte Chemie International Edition (vol 44, p 2)

edit: here's the proper ref...

Angewandte Chemie International Edition
Volume 44, Issue 35, Pages 5630-5634



[edit on 3-3-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 3-3-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Some good articles in the new scientist this week about panspermia (the alien rain study looks interesting - bat blood or alien organisms?). Panspermia may even answer the chirality problem...

www.newscientistspace.com...

Melatonin, Great find! That's an interesting hyptohesis re: radiation... have you seen the primary refs... gotta see if I can find 'em.

Nice.

No reasonable precursors to photosynthetic proteins have been described,

www.sciencedaily.com...
photoscience.la.asu.edu...
www.sciencemag.org...

Originally posted by melatonin
Edited to answer next post: mattison, the ref's at the end of the article...

Angewandte Chemie International Edition (vol 44, p 2)

edit: here's the proper ref...

Angewandte Chemie International Edition
Volume 44, Issue 35, Pages 5630-5634
[edit on 3-3-2006 by melatonin]

Umm... my fault. What I meant to ask was does your Inst. subsribe to Angewandte CIE.
But I actually managed to back door my way in through a buddy's inst. account.

Thanks anyway.

I know I posted this link before, but I'm really curious as to what peoples take on it is. You have to admit that it does describe elementary particles pretty accurately for ancient text. I think that it is a wonder that the progression from atoms to man could be known 1500bc.

Found an article written by a christian about this whole ID thing.

qurl.com...

As Dembski demonstrates here, while ID insists that it is not natural theology, it still uses a type of "God of the Gaps" argument--where science falls short of an explanation, we find God hard at work holding the whole mechanism together. Only ID is not referencing the Christian God or even the Victorians' detached Jehovah-like deity. Instead they're making room for any kind of supernatural being(s) or force(s) to do the work. "We see someone's fingerprints," ID-ers say in effect, "but we can't be certain whose they are."

This should be the first signal to Christians that ID is not all its cracked up to be.

Well, atleast it's nice to know that not all people of faith think ID is helping out faith.

God of the gaps.

qurl.com...

The intelligent design approach is based on a fallacy known as "the God of the gaps." What it says is that there is a point at which, in the physical world, when we are unable to come up with a scientific explanation for a given phenomenon at the present moment, it is evidence that a designer was at work.

The problem of course, is that this philosophy is self-defeating because it restricts the possibility of its own validity to the linear passage of time. Get it? Every time we say that God must be involved and it's proved because we don't understand how the eye works, we end up looking stupid when a new discovery shows us how the eye works. The gap is a mental one that underlies this sort of reasoning.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say! There is NO evidence for a designer. None. It all boils down to our own arrogant stupidity that we see so called order and purpose. Complex pattern's are a normal thing in nature, unless you want to start assuming snowflakes, shapes in clouds, man on the moon, face on mars, etc., all have some intelligent designer behind them all as well. The problem lies within our inablity to explain fully the exact condition's for how life started. We don't know those condition's, nor do we know all the condition's for evlution, nor do we know all the underlying principle's behind the universe and how it operate's, nor do we know the condition's and model of physics that existed prior to our universe that could have possibly lead to the birth of our universe. This is exactly what ID attack's to claim evidence for ID. Even questioning the almighty mattison0922 and his oh so mighty knowledge of ID, the damn guy can't provide a single observation in favor of ID that does not rely on predicting that science will not find an answer to that observation. And he's also got this arrogant idea, that ID has no need to explain the designer. WRONG. If the designer did not need to be designed himself, then there is NO reason to doubt that this universe and life within, as per evidence indicate's, could not have come about naturally. If the designer needed to be designed.... you run into a major problem.

qurl.com...

This argument has the form

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* Therefore, the things in this gap are best explained as acts of God.

This is not based in logic. It is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science.

Down through the centuries, science has eliminated a great many of its gaps. People who had used the Gap argument were embarrassed, since their God shrank in power with each new scientific advance. For example, after the work of Galileo and Newton, it was no longer thought that angels pushed the planets across the heavens.

A more recent example is the argument by some Creationists that complex molecules (such as amino acids) could not have arisen by natural processes on the early earth. Hence, life could not have arisen by natural means, and God must have miraculously created these chemicals while creating life. The chemicals were part of a Purpose.

The basis of this argument was a gap in scientific knowledge. This basis fell apart when molecules (including organic molecules) were detected in interstellar space by astronomers. The argument came further apart when amino acids were found inside the Murchison meteorite. Apparently the basic molecules of life form naturally in some quite harsh places, and there is a way for vast quantities to have arrived intact on the early earth. So, their existence has Purpose only to the extent that the entire galaxy does.

Organic chemicals are NOT a rarity in this galaxy. It's still unknown if life even exist's elsewhere, so there is no reason to assume that life is a rarity when the chemicals for life are NOT a rarity. We've only BEGUN to locate planet's and we've hardly scratched the surface. To have the mindset that life on this planet is special and rare is to have the mindset of a self-centered arrogant person who doesn't know jack, but like's to pretend he does.

dsc.discovery.com...



[edit on 3-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I know I posted this link before, but I'm really curious as to what peoples take on it is. You have to admit that it does describe elementary particles pretty accurately for ancient text. I think that it is a wonder that the progression from atoms to man could be known 1500bc.

I looked this over at work today... not sure what to say... they mention minute particles, etc., and even certain numbers of particles. But I am not enough of a physicist to be able to correlate this any elementary particles.

Did you have a particular angle YOU were thinking about? I mean for example those 6 'minute particles,' at least that was my take on it, do you think they correspond to some fundamental particles, ie quarks, muons, leptons, etc.

Like I said... I'm not enough of a physicist to judge this... I could try to look it up, but I'm behind with posts already.

Leftbehind... promise I won't let you live up to your handle...

Gotta take my wife out to dinner, but will try to catch up a little later.

OK, mattison, I got ya.

I guess your style is game goofy. Real playas like me brush shoulders, pop collars, and keep it gully. I stay gutta posted up like Shaq in tha paint on the block and pimp harder than woodpecker lips. I be on tha grind like I'm making love, keepin it real to tha bone gristle. I can lace the tardy people up, but I blink dolla signs, so you gotta come with that feddy to earn ya way under this bosses will be bosses umbrella. Ya smell me, pimpin?

Moving on. You said I was hush mouth on your antibiotic thing. Got a little busy on this end, but I had to reply to you bringing my name up in a reply to Produkt.

Let me get this straight. Not only does the allele frequency stay the same in the bacteria example, but the population of bacteria also stays the same? What? That makes no sense.

You introduce a selective agent, a drug, and it wipes out most of the bacteria in a population. Has that population not changed? Is it the same size as it was before? Now, say the population bounces back, but now it has mostly bacteria of a different strain. No change yet?

Now, say these 2 strains have 2 alleles of a gene that codes for a surface protein on the capsule. The normal bacteria have allele 1, the mutant has allele 2. Allele 2 confers resistance to a bacterium, while allele 1 offers no resistance. Before, allele 2 is rare or even not present at all in the population, while allele 1 is common. Therefore, the frequency of allele 2 is quite low. But, the drug comes and wipes out those cells with allele 1, so this frequency goes from high to low. Now, the frequency of allele 2 gets high because the mutants now have a selective advantage over the normal bacteria. Is this not a change in allele frequency for this population?

It doesn't even take a lot of knowledge of evolution to see that the allele frequency changes, leading to a change in the population. Common sense will tell you that. By your logic, if ebola evolved (or was engineered ) to become airborne and wiped out 90% of the people in the US, the human population in the US would not change. And, after however many years, if the people who survived the disease repopulated America, this is still not a change in the US human population. Come on, now, huh?

Chuuuuch.

I've come to the conclusion that all these supporter's of ID, don't even have a leg to stand on. They won't dare discuss the nature of the designer itself because they know damn well it spells doom to the whole idea of a designer. Either the designer needed a designer ad infinitum or the designer came about through natural means per chance. Obviously, if the designer came to be through natural means per chance, as per evidence suggest's of our own universe, then there is NO reason to doubt that our universe and our form of life couldn't do the same. No, all they can and have done is show that DUH we don't have all the damn answer's and NO that does NOT mean there was a designer. These oh so knowledgable folks, like our good old matty here can't show anything for ID that doesn't rely upon predicting that science won't discover an explanation to. Matty here can't show ONE thing that definately suggest's a designer on it's OWN accord. Matty here can do nothing more then spew nonsense dribble on how we already know science doesn't have all the answer's and claim that ID does. No, ID does not Mr. Matty. Now he's either ignoring me while reading this or has me on ignore because I refuse to stop asking him for some observation that would lead one to conclude a designer on it's own footing WITHOUT relying upon the assumption or prediction that scientist's won't find another explanation for. He's failed to do so and can do nothing more then attack and insult in such a childish nonsense manner proving he doesn't have jack to work with.

So Mr. Matty. What observations are there that are suggestive of design? Your so much more knowledgable then the rest of us, so this shouldn't be that difficult of a question for you to answer. What observations are there?

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by truthseeka
OK, mattison, I got ya.

I guess your style is game goofy. Real playas like me brush shoulders, pop collars, and keep it gully. I stay gutta posted up like Shaq in tha paint on the block and pimp harder than woodpecker lips. I be on tha grind like I'm making love, keepin it real to tha bone gristle. I can lace the tardy people up, but I blink dolla signs, so you gotta come with that feddy to earn ya way under this bosses will be bosses umbrella. Ya smell me, pimpin?

Ummm... word.

Let me get this straight. Not only does the allele frequency stay the same in the bacteria example, but the population of bacteria also stays the same? What? That makes no sense.

Nope, please re-read my post, the allele frequency changes. The population stays the same. No alleles that weren't present before are present now. The only thing that's different is the frequency of said alleles within a population.

See the difference?

You introduce a selective agent, a drug, and it wipes out most of the bacteria in a population. Has that population not changed? Is it the same size as it was before? Now, say the population bounces back, but now it has mostly bacteria of a different strain. No change yet?

No... it doesn't have bacteria of a different strain. It has the same bacteria that it had before... ie: the quality of the genetic information hasn't changed only the quantity. The population has changed only via the allele frequencies present. The alleles were of course present before the selective agent, thus, no new strains exist.

Now, say these 2 strains have 2 alleles of a gene that codes for a surface protein on the capsule. The normal bacteria have allele 1, the mutant has allele 2. Allele 2 confers resistance to a bacterium, while allele 1 offers no resistance. Before, allele 2 is rare or even not present at all in the population, while allele 1 is common. Therefore, the frequency of allele 2 is quite low. But, the drug comes and wipes out those cells with allele 1, so this frequency goes from high to low. Now, the frequency of allele 2 gets high because the mutants now have a selective advantage over the normal bacteria. Is this not a change in allele frequency for this population?

I bolded the fallacy in the above statement. How can something that isn't present in a population be selected for? If the gene isn't there it isn't selected for. If the gene exists, then it existed irrespective of the selective agent. The only thing that's changed is the allele frequency.

But yes, you're right, that is a change in the allele frequency... something I clearly stated in my reply to you.

From my original post:

The population of bacteria doesn't change. The frequency of pre-existing alleles changes. The population is unchanged in and of itself. The relative frequencies of each allele already present has changed, nothing more.

It doesn't even take a lot of knowledge of evolution to see that the allele frequency changes, leading to a change in the population. Common sense will tell you that. By your logic, if ebola evolved (or was engineered

) to become airborne and wiped out 90% of the people in the US, the human population in the US would not change. And, after however many years, if the people who survived the disease repopulated America, this is still not a change in the US human population. Come on, now, huh?

Hmmm... perhaps you should re-read my logic. I very clearly stated the frequency of alleles changes.

Originally posted by Produkt
He's failed to do so and can do nothing more then attack and insult in such a childish nonsense manner proving he doesn't have jack to work with.

Based on what I've read in this thread. I don't see any of that. Care to show where mattison has attacked and insulted you? Why are you discussing the opponent instead of the subject now? Because you don't have anything better to say? Quit that now and keep to the subject. And don't answer this post either.

Man, how does the population stay the same?

Organisms die and are eventually replaced. How is that the same? So, would agree that if ebola became airborne and wiped out 90% of the US population, the US population is the same as it was before the ebola hit? Man, that is bogus.

I guess I gotta call you out on this. From your posts, you insinuate that you are a lecturer at a public university in the NATURAL sciences department (biological sciences, to be exact). Hence, you are a scientist with a PhD in something.

If your degree is in a branch of biology, then you know something about evolutionary theory. Now, you mean to tell me, with your knowledge of evolution, that ID is currently on the same level as evolution?

If you say yes, you are a liar. Either you're not a lecturer, or you're pretending that you don't know evolution. See, you know that evolution not only states the mechanism through which it works, but actually describes the mechanism through which it works. You also know that ID does no such thing.

Why do you still claim that ID is science? Why not concede that at this point, science has not advanced enough to properly test the main tenets of ID? I have had lecturers and professors who are scientists, yet believe in God. HOWEVER, they would be the first to tell you that science, at its current state anyway, can say nothing on the existence or non-existence of God. But, they still believe in God, as I do.

See the difference here? They believe in a creator/higher power, but they don't bring this into their professional lives. You, maybe a deist of some sort, would like to do otherwise if it wouldn't hurt your career (assuming you're not lying about it. You have lied before, so I'm just saying... ).

Seriously, doormatt (gotta make a corny slam on your name for fruitseeka ), how can you, as a scientist, claim with a straight face that ID is science? You know damn well that it isn't science; it's philosophy, or a philosophy of science. As a scientist, you know that results from experiments that confirm an idea are the best evidence for a hypothesis/theory. As a scientist, you know that the designer thing will eventually fall apart. Either the designer is supernatural, thus outside the bounds of science, or the designer is a life-form such as an ET, which could have arisen from natural processes or another designer. Produkt makes a good point that if the ET is the designer and it came about through natural processes, then that doesn't exclude natural processes for the origins of life on Earth.

Doormatt, why are you being so deceptive? I guess that's the nature of those who support ID. I gotta give it to your camp, y'all really came up with clever ways to deal with some of the biggest problems with y'all's idea...

Did you have a particular angle YOU were thinking about? I mean for example those 6 'minute particles,' at least that was my take on it, do you think they correspond to some fundamental particles, ie quarks, muons, leptons, etc.

The lines I'm most interested in are these

16. But, joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.

17. Because those six (kinds of) minute particles, which form the (creator's) frame, enter (a-sri) these (creatures), therefore the wise call his frame sarira, (the body.)

18. That the great elements enter, together with their functions and the mind, through its minute parts the framer of all beings, the imperishable one.

19. But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.

20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.

First, the minute particles that contain measureless power. As is well known now, the strong nuclear force binding atoms can release "measureless power" which can be used today through nuclear fission. This alone is meaningless though, because the power spoken of does not necessarily mean nuclear power.

This is interesting because leptons come in six types, electrons muons, tau-lepton, the three corresponding neutrinos. If the creator combined these with particles of himself, could the creators particles be quarks, which combine to form protons? Once these particles put together we have an atom.

Rather than thinking of the creator as a separate entity, I think the creator that Manu is speaking of is that which is the basis for matter. As line 19 shows, it seems that these sarira are meant to be described as the fundamental particles of which the world is made.

Line 20 is the kicker for me. If we can go back to high school chemistry, we know that atoms are organized on the periodic table of elements according to atomic number. As each element is listed, we notice that each indeed has qualities of the preceding element.

Maybe each line individually doesn’t have much meaning, but together, they paint a very good picture of the makeup of atoms, and their properties.


[edit on 4-3-2006 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by truthseeka
Man, how does the population stay the same?

One more time: The population has changed only via the allele frequencies present. There has been a shift in the frequency of pre-existing alleles nothing more.

Organisms die and are eventually replaced. How is that the same? So, would agree that if ebola became airborne and wiped out 90% of the US population, the US population is the same as it was before the ebola hit? Man, that is bogus.

The population is still human, the population has no more genetic diversity than it had before. In fact the population is now much less genetically diverse. The population has no new alleles. Pre-existing alleles have been selected for, nothing more.

Did you actually have a rebuttal, or did you just want to continue to call observed facts lame?

I guess I gotta call you out on this. From your posts, you insinuate that you are a lecturer at a public university in the NATURAL sciences department (biological sciences, to be exact). Hence, you are a scientist with a PhD ifn something.

Molecular and Cellular Biology.

If your degree is in a branch of biology, then you know something about evolutionary theory. Now, you mean to tell me, with your knowledge of evolution, that ID is currently on the same level as evolution?

You certainly have a penchant for misquoting don't you? I said that IDT and ET share the same degree of scientific validity. That is to say they have approximately the same degree of predictive power, same ability to form hypotheses, etc. I didn't say the evidence for ID is equal to that of ET.

If you say yes, you are a liar. Either you're not a lecturer, or you're pretending that you don't know evolution. See, you know that evolution not only states the mechanism through which it works, but actually describes the mechanism through which it works. You also know that ID does no such thing.

I couldn't care less what you believe. ID is not a mechanistic theory, but nonetheless IS capable of yielding naturalistic mechanistic information... not about ID, but that's not really the issue.

Why do you still claim that ID is science?

Because it's my opinion. Why do you still claim it's not? See how that works?

Why not concede that at this point, science has not advanced enough to properly test the main tenets of ID?

Because that's not true. I can think of plenty of testable hypotheses. I'm sorry you can't.

I have had lecturers and professors who are scientists, yet believe in God. HOWEVER, they would be the first to tell you that science, at its current state anyway, can say nothing on the existence or non-existence of God. But, they still believe in God, as I do.

Good. Then thus far your professors sound like they understand the concept of science, and what's testable. Science can't comment on the existence or non-existance of God.

So? That's not what ID does. It tests for the design, big difference. As I've mentioned, probably hundreds of times now, testing for design is well within the limits of science, and is the basis of a couple of different scientific disciplines.

See the difference here? They believe in a creator/higher power, but they don't bring this into their professional lives. You, maybe a deist of some sort, would like to do otherwise if it wouldn't hurt your career (assuming you're not lying about it. You have lied before, so I'm just saying... ).

God has nothing to do with my professional life, and neither does ID. I am perfectly happy with my current research program, and have no real interest in researching ID professionally. While origins science is my hobby... to a certain extent, I think that Origins science is a fabulous squandering of scientific talent that could be better used in disease research, etc. That's why origins science is my hobby, not my business.

Seriously, doormatt (gotta make a corny slam on your name for fruitseeka

),

Not bad... not bad...

how can you, as a scientist, claim with a straight face that ID is science?

Because I am familiar with the theory.

You know damn well that it isn't science; it's philosophy, or a philosophy of science. As a scientist, you know that results from experiments that confirm an idea are the best evidence for a hypothesis/theory.

Ummm... okay... but ID can produce testable hypotheses, and thus 'evidence.' IOW, ID can be scientific.

As a scientist, you know that the designer thing will eventually fall apart. Either the designer is supernatural, thus outside the bounds of science, or the designer is a life-form such as an ET, which could have arisen from natural processes or another designer.

Ummm... the designer isn't part of the theory... so it's not going to 'fall apart.'

Produkt makes a good point that if the ET is the designer and it came about through natural processes, then that doesn't exclude natural processes for the origins of life on Earth.

No one said it did. Some people don't believe this, and should be able to pursue their own hypotheses from their own set of metaphysical presuppositions.

Doormatt, why are you being so deceptive? I guess that's the nature of those who support ID. I gotta give it to your camp, y'all really came up with clever ways to deal with some of the biggest problems with y'all's idea...

This is a joke. Nothing I've said has been deceptive, and I've answered pretty much every question you've ever thrown at me.
Unfortunately you can't say the same.

Your response to my antibiotic rebuttal. "That's lame." Really scientific and well thought out.

Ummm... okay... but ID can produce testable hypotheses, and thus 'evidence.' IOW, ID can be scientific.

Evidence of lack of knowledge is not evidence of design.

Ummm... the designer isn't part of the theory... so it's not going to 'fall apart.'

Wrong. In order for a thing to have been designed, a designer must have existed to design. ID relies upon the assumption of this designer, and the second you question the nature of the designer, the theory starts to topple. One one side, your left with an infinite amount of designer's with no definitive answer to how it all began, and on the other hand your left with the designer comming about through natural processes and if that aspect of the designer is true, then there is no reason to doubt those same processes for our universe. We lack the knowledge of how all this work's, so one can not logically conclude that there was a designer.

Again, lack of knowledge is not evidence of design.

Ummm... okay... but ID can produce testable hypotheses, and thus 'evidence.' IOW, ID can be scientific.

I've asked this of you before with no answer. What observations in ID have been made that show evidence of design?

And to answer your question's, I've posted a few links here and there that answer some, maybe not all, but some. Science doesn't have all the answer's, nor does it lay claim to have all the answer's. Science isn't assuming nor claiming any absolute truth's in regards to the birth of our universe. Science is working with observable evidence of it's theories and those theories get constantly reworked, changed, or dropped when new discoveries and observations are made. Science doesn't claim an absolute truth for whatever pre-date's the big bang. There are various model's and theories for a possible scenario for what might have existed prior to the event. Science does not discount the possibility of a higher power, but science has found no evidence to suggest a higher power had any helping hand in the creation of the universe nor our species. If future observations are made that do suggest a higher intelligence, then science will rework it's theories and model's accordingly. But, and again, in no way is evidence of lack of knowledge count's as evidence of design. As it stand's right now, there is no evidence of design.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
First, the minute particles that contain measureless power. As is well known now, the strong nuclear force binding atoms can release "measureless power" which can be used today through nuclear fission. This alone is meaningless though, because the power spoken of does not necessarily mean nuclear power.

This is interesting because leptons come in six types, electrons muons, tau-lepton, the three corresponding neutrinos. If the creator combined these with particles of himself, could the creators particles be quarks, which combine to form protons? Once these particles put together we have an atom.

Hmmmm.... that's interesting... that's the question I was asking. Thanks

So, and I could look this up, but if you know... a proton is something like an up, down, and a strange quark... maybe... what's a neutron...

What about the different colors and ... is it flavors(?) of these particles. How does all of that fit in? Forgive me... it's been a while since I read any of this physics stuff.

Rather than thinking of the creator as a separate entity, I think the creator that Manu is speaking of is that which is the basis for matter. As line 19 shows, it seems that these sarira are meant to be described as the fundamental particles of which the world is made.

Isn't that sort of like the Solist perspective...ie: the creator distributed itself among the universe, and thus accounts for the... 'behavior' of matter?

Line 20 is the kicker for me. If we can go back to high school chemistry, we know that atoms are organized on the periodic table of elements according to atomic number. As each element is listed, we notice that each indeed has qualities of the preceding element.

Maybe each line individually doesn’t have much meaning, but together, they paint a very good picture of the makeup of atoms, and their properties.

Hmmm... that's an interesting perspective... I need to read over that document again. It was tough for me to get through... just not used to reading words in that context... if you know what I mean... sort of like reading Shakespeare, which has always been tough for me.