As I said, Scott, you can look at the fossil record. Aren’t we talking about biology? And you can observe, in real time, how things work. Do we get Scott first, followed by a zygote, or the zygote increasing complexity into Scott?

First, you are including the assumption of natural progression (evolution) into your argument for it. If the zygote and Scott were designed, the very same order of appearance can mean something altogether different. Such a progression does not support one theory exclusively.
Second, such a progression still does not warrant your fabricated rule. You have argued that intelligence cannot beget intelligence because complexity cannot beget complexity. This has been your only argument to circumvent the design inference, but it is pulled from thin air. You can’t explain away evidence by inventing new laws.

As I’ve pointed out, the supernatural comes into the discussion because of the nature of some of the I.D. arguments, which attempt to rule out natural causes for some natural phenomena, like life.

It’s “natural vs artificial”, not “natural vs supernatural”.

Stonehenge is natural in that it exists in nature.

But nature, operating freely did not produce it. It is an artifact.

IOW icon you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation. And I find that very funny.

Would you care to show us the calculations?

You can do your own research.

Start with “the big bang”.

And when you say science, do you mean methodological naturalism, or methodological supernaturalism? Or, perhaps, methodological pre-naturalism?

None of the above.

The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.”

“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.

Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”

“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein

The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

Stonehenge has a history also.”

Well done! And it’s certainly a natural part of the universe, as were its designers.

That is irrelevant.

Are your intelligent designers part of the universe?

Very well could be.

You say that they are “pre-natural”, but fail to respond to my pointing out the obvious; that “pre” means nothing where there’s no time.

We don’t know when time began.

Does time require nature?

Provide the calculatiuon for that.

Also if nature has a beginning then there was a period before.

That is obvious.

And speaking about obvious it is obvious that natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature as they only exist in nature.

That you keep ignoring that fact speaks volumes about your agenda.

As I’ve pointed out, the supernatural comes into the discussion because of the nature of some of the I.D. arguments, which attempt to rule out natural causes for some natural phenomena, like life.

The supernatural comes in because people like you are too stupid to think of anything else.

ID does NOT require the supernatural.

To clarify, are you saying that without peer review a publication is worthless?

A newspaper publication is always worthless.

And without peer-review science doesn’t care about it.

Science. Science has demonstrated this universe, ie nature, had a beginning, meaning an origin.

Would you care to show us the calculations?

And when you say science, do you mean methodological naturalism, or methodological supernaturalism? Or, perhaps, methodological pre-naturalism?

“And that sez absolutely nutyhin’.

Stonehenge has a history also.”

Well done! And it’s certainly a natural part of the universe, as were its designers. Are your intelligent designers part of the universe? You say that they are “pre-natural”, but fail to respond to my pointing out the obvious; that “pre” means nothing where there’s no time.

“Saying it is a product of its history could mean it was a product of a designer.”

Obviously. My computer is a natural part of the universe, and the product of natural designers who are part of the natural universe.

“That you didn’t realize that just demonstrates how clueless you are,”

Except, of course, I did. We all know there are natural designers and designs, Joseph. As I’ve pointed out, the supernatural comes into the discussion because of the nature of some of the I.D. arguments, which attempt to rule out natural causes for some natural phenomena, like life.

Tell me, are you “cluefull”, in your opinion?

Actually, don’t tell me on this thread, as it’s disappeared off the front page, and we may as well all continue these fascinating discussions on more recent threads, as we’re not particularly on this one’s topic.

That’s not a valid argument because you’re making it up. Which kind of complexity requires simplicity? Which kind requires complexity? The kind that requires complexity, does that complexity require simplicity or complexity?
You’re making it up.

As I said, Scott, you can look at the fossil record. Aren’t we talking about biology? And you can observe, in real time, how things work. Do we get Scott first, followed by a zygote, or the zygote increasing complexity into Scott?

Don’t you agree with my point that it would be surprising to see a fully formed, highly complex being emerge from rock and start designing bacteria? Would that fit our observations of how things work?

The New York Times is NOT a peer-reviewed reference and what it says is meaningless.

To clarify, are you saying that without peer review a publication is worthless?

complexity of the kind you see in intelligent life forms like ourselves requires simplicity to precede it

That’s not a valid argument because you’re making it up. Which kind of complexity requires simplicity? Which kind requires complexity? The kind that requires complexity, does that complexity require simplicity or complexity?
You’re making it up.

Really?

Really, really.

I thought I.D. didn’t tell us anything about the designer(s), so how do you know this?

I didn’t need ID for that it is just a logical deduction.

Perhaps that is why you don’t understand it.

Which is also why you don’t understand the fact that YOUR position requires something beyond nature to get it started.