[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[KenEOTE]

Well then Jay can you show me how the Big Bang is science?

The Big Bang is a theory we have no way of testing it. It is a starting place. You start there and then see where it leads.

ID is the same thing it is a starting place. It is a philosophy.

When creating a theory or studying anything you have a starting point. Evolution is the Big Bang, but some Evolutionist are now saying it is also ID. You have Panspermia and some other theories.

I just think it is arrogant and short sited to just say no there is no ID. I have no problem with a scientist taking the ID and using it as a starting point for their research. Can you tell me what it hurts to do that?

 

[Barbarian]

Well then Jay can you show me how the Big Bang is science?

Testable hypothesis, based on existing knowledge, tested by evidence, and confirmed.

The Big Bang is a theory we have no way of testing it.

By definition a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and confirmed. One example, the big bang, if it occured, should still be detectable. The physicists determined that it should be cooled down to microwaves of a specific waveband. Somewhat later, by accident, two engineers from Bell Laboratories found it; the predicted microwave background, the same no matter which direction one looked. Precisely what was predicted. This was a very specific test, which was verified.

It is a starting place. You start there and then see where it leads.

ID is the same thing it is a starting place. It is a philosophy.

Technically, ID is a religion. It is not testable, since it depends on an unobserved and untestable "designer", and the religious beliefs of it's adherents.

When creating a theory or studying anything you have a starting point. Evolution is the Big Bang,

Good heavens, no. Whatever gave you that idea?

but some Evolutionist are now saying it is also ID.

Not very many. And the ones that do are sort of unusual. Michael Behe testified that ID is science, and so is astrology. Not very reassuring.

 

[Guest]

Here is a post from Page 4 -- still going unnanswered.

The entire point for the electromagnetic wave form is that many are just random background noise -- get it??

You have to DETECT design and information. Just accepting every electromagnetic wave form or EVERY compound EVERY molecule does not get you the science case for "design" much less "intelligent design" at our level of ability to detect it.

So fine - tRNA (something you can actually transmit through the nucleus wall) - DNA - Ribosomes you know "the entire architecture superstructure" that produces the proteins and enzymes required for the overall individual living system.

Decoding done in the Ribosome vs the encoding done inside the nulceus so that the pattern sent creates the correct sequence of Amino Acids for the required Protein or Enzyme that is determined for that specific project.

You know -- design.

Just like we would transmit signals that can be decoded and then displayed in a usable format so action can be taken - or in this case thousands of actions in predetermined sequence depending the project being requested.

Bob

Bob, these statements go unanswered simply because they don't make any sense. What is this all saying? tRNA exists? Great. So what? Make a point and it shall be answered.

 

[Guest]

Well then Jay can you show me how the Big Bang is science?

The Big Bang is a theory we have no way of testing it. It is a starting place. You start there and then see where it leads.

ID is the same thing it is a starting place. It is a philosophy.

When creating a theory or studying anything you have a starting point. Evolution is the Big Bang, but some Evolutionist are now saying it is also ID. You have Panspermia and some other theories.

I just think it is arrogant and short sited to just say no there is no ID. I have no problem with a scientist taking the ID and using it as a starting point for their research. Can you tell me what it hurts to do that?

The big bang is science because it was a conclusion gathered from the available evidence. It is also science in the fact that the moment a genuine piece of physical evidence stands in opposition to it, it will be discarded.

I'm no expert on the big bang, but what I do no was it was a conclusion derived from the fact that the universe is moving outwards as if from a single point. Astronomers have also detected echoes in space that support the theory.

Intelligent design does the opposite. It says "God made the universe, what can we find to back this up?". Science starts small and builds up until a bigger picture can be seen, ID starts with a big picture and tries to fill in all the details. Clearly the two are not under the same envelope.

Evolution also has nothing to do with the big bang. Where do you get that from? That's like saying Evolution is the theory of gravitation. They are entirely different fields of science. It is fine for a proponent of evolution to believe in a god, but he has to realise that his belief in that until he can provide proof of god, then it is not science. As a scientist, you can start a research project beliving in a god, but until you can provide evidence you will get laughed at, just like anyone else who doesn't back up their claims.

I think you are right to say that the concept of an intelligent designer is a philosophy - but by extension it is not a science. That is what the topic was about. IMO, the idea of a God or an intelligent designer is perfectly credible. What is not perfectly credible is when creationists ignore physical evidence and claim that not only is there a god, but that everything in the bible is true in it's literal interpretation despite the cold hard facts opposed to it.

 

[BobRyan]

Well then Jay can you show me how the Big Bang is science?

The Big Bang is a theory we have no way of testing it. It is a starting place. You start there and then see where it leads.

But Ken ... "All the laws of physics changed" back then. (you know; 1-weak nuclear force, 2-strong nuclear force, 3-electromagnatism, 4-gravity) Didn't you know?

The 4 primary forces of nature were "combined into one" then 3 of them split off from gravity (eventually).

In the first 3 minutes of the big bang - our Universe "zoomed out to 100's 1000's of lightyears" in size.

Of course.

well... naturally..

Well... because that is what happens when God says "let there be...". ;-)

But what is also "interesting" the temperature of empty space BEFORE the Penzias and Wilson discovery and quite apart from a Big Bang calculation was being done -- was 2.5 degrees Kelvin.

And the predicted value for the BIG Bang temperature (if the Big Bang was reality) was "predicted" at first at 5 degrees Kelvin and then updated to 50 degrees Kelvin.

What did they find? 2.7 degrees!! So "whose number" did they "find"??

------------------------------------------

Contrast that BB story (theory) with the solid ID based science today that enables us to discriminate for ID electromagnetic wave forms -- vs simple "background noise" that rocks can generate given enough mass, time and exposure to an energy source.

conclusion gathered from evidence THEN PROVEN.


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"GO!" barks the researcher into the microphone. The oscilloscope in
front of him displays a steady green line across the top of its
screen. "Stop!" he says and the line immediately drops to the bottom.

Between the microphone and the oscilloscope is an electronic circuit
that discriminates between the two words. It puts out 5 volts when it
hears "go" and cuts off the signal when it hears "stop".

It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a
task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a
small number of basic components,

More "interestingly" is when the electronics system is set to "SCAN" meaning it DOESN'T know when or where a signal is going to appear that has "more meaning than background noise" it only knows to recognize DESIGN (not words) from background noise.

you know -- ID!!

You know -- the DIFFERENCE between ID formed patterns vs background noise WITHOUT knowing when or where they will appear.

PROVEN - ID.

Get it? yet?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a post from Page 4 -- still going unnanswered.

BobRyan wrote:The entire point for the electromagnetic wave form is that many are just random background noise -- get it??

You have to DETECT design and information. Just accepting every electromagnetic wave form or EVERY compound EVERY molecule does not get you the science case for "design" much less "intelligent design" at our level of ability to detect it.

So fine - tRNA (something you can actually transmit through the nucleus wall) - DNA - Ribosomes you know "the entire architecture superstructure" that produces the proteins and enzymes required for the overall individual living system.

Decoding done in the Ribosome vs the encoding done inside the nulceus so that the pattern sent creates the correct sequence of Amino Acids for the required Protein or Enzyme that is determined for that specific project.

You know -- design.

Just like we would transmit signals that can be decoded and then displayed in a usable format so action can be taken - or in this case thousands of actions in predetermined sequence depending the project being requested.

And so -- having no answer at all for that - Barbarian posts "AS IF" he wants us to believe that he still does not "understand the argument" itself.

CREATURES FROM PRIMORDIAL SILICON

It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a
task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a
small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson,
does not know how it works.

He can't ask the designer because there wasn't one.

Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and survival of the fittest...

The nonsensical story that Barbarian tells (whose fictional content is exceeded only by evolutionism itself) supposed that the point is HOW to get a circuit that DETECTS ID to "make itself" -- clearly not a part of the argument in the first place -- but misdirection fantasy and "pretending not to understand the argument" are the life-blood of atheist darwinist devotee responses.

Nothing surprising there.

Oh, and the Patterson quote-mining? Bob already knows it's a scam.

Nope - as YOU learned in the post given PATTERSON stated that the facts in the quote WERE ACCURATE and then ADDED that your endless pandering to atheist darwinism in the form of "STORIES ABOUT HOW ONE THING CAME FROM ANOTHER" are in fact NOT science at all!!

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader that you "protest so" whenever the atheist darwinist Patterson is quoted!

How embarrassing for you that your OWN LINK to Patterson's quotes shows HIM ARGUING again that your "story telling" about "how one thing came from another" is "NOT SCIENCE".

we showed you that Patterson himself said so.

So you know better than to keep pretending and you certainly know better than to quote from your OWN LINK of Patterson for fear of the embarrassment it causes you each time you do it.

would you like to see it again?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sunderland
"I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter:

On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

How devastating for devotees to the atheist orthodoxy of darwinism!!

How "instructive" that they run away from this quote from one of their OWN leading atheist darwinists!

By contrast ID has been shown to be PROVEN SCIENCE as exemplified in the study of electromagnetic wave forms!

How instructive to the objective unbiased reader!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Patterson LETTER to Explain his former Letter to Sunderland -- trying to dig out of the hole

(Hint: Here is where many have supposed that Patterson would “undo†or “papally annul†his previous frank statements regarding the glaring defects and shortcomings of atheist evolutionism. One way many hoped Patterson would do it is to claim that the quote of him was not accurrate – but instead Patterson AFFIRMS the accuracy of the quote AND ADDs to the weight of evidence against atheist Darwinism when he says the quotes the Creationists gave “were ACCURATE†as far as what they printed – AND then adds that atheist Darwinist evolutionism has “done more harm than good†to systematics.

Patterson's only "argument" is that Sunderlands quote IS ACCURATE and then adds that when you take Pattersons entire quote AS I HAVE PROVIDED IT - you get the right meaning (just as we SAW).

The meaning that is consistent with Patterson's argument that "STORIES about how one thing comes from another ARE NOT SCIENCE" - at all.

Sadly the atheist darwinist devotees do not want to read Patterson so as to see his entire argument!!

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes .

The passage quoted continues
[quote:a9e74]
"... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

[/quote:a9e74]

Patterson argues that by focusing on THIS part of his quote -- the correct direction of his point is obtained. And THIS IS THE PART where he EMPHASIZED that the story telling antics of atheist darwinist devotees "is NOT science" at all.

How "instructive" that THIS is the part of his quote that HE SAYS needs to be emphasized to get the "correct point".

I wonder how many times the darwinist horses can be lead to this water and still refuse to drink? ;-)

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

.....what is also "interesting" the temperature of empty space BEFORE the Penzias and Wilson discovery and quite apart from a Big Bang calculation was being done -- was 2.5 degrees Kelvin.

And the predicted value for the BIG Bang temperature (if the Big Bang was reality) was "predicted" at first at 5 degrees Kelvin and then updated to 50 degrees Kelvin.

What did they find? 2.7 degrees!! So "whose number" did they "find"??

------------------------------------------

Contrast that BB story (theory) with the solid ID based science today that enables us to discriminate for ID electromagnetic wave forms -- vs simple "background noise" that rocks can generate given enough mass, time and exposure to an energy source.....

I don't really follow what you are saying here, but that may be my fault.

There were several estimates made over the years for the temperature of the CMB or, if you prefer, the temperature of 'empty space':

1896 Charles Edouard Guillaume 5.6K.
1926 Arthur Eddington 3K.
1933 Eric Regener predicted 2.8K.
1941 Andrew McKellar 2.3K.
1946 Robert Dicke 20K, later revised to 45K.
1948 George Gamow 5K, revised in the 1950s to 10K and in 1961 to 50K (I guess this is the 'prediction' you are referring to above?).
1954 Finlay-Freundlich 1.9-6K.
1955 Tigran Shamonov 3K.

Do you think that science must be 'wrong' if various scientists make differing estimates of something based on their best understanding of particular phenomena and then, when techniques are developed to measure that something more precisely it either proves to be different from the estimates or matches most closely only one of those estimates? Are you demanding absolutes? I have no idea what you mean when you ask '"whose number" did they "find"' unless you think that science is only about looking for confirming evidence and discarding anything that disagrees with pre-existing asumptions. I would have thought the estimates quoted above and the COBE data would tend to lead you away from such a conclusion.

I also struggle to see how the identification of electromagnetic radiation from known non-natural sources as distinct from that natural sources in any way supports an argument for the identification of intelligent design in biology. Argument by analogy can be useful for illustrative purposes, but it is less than satisfactory as evidence for a particular conclusion.

 

[lordkalvan]

......Patterson argues that by focusing on THIS part of his quote -- the correct direction of his point is obtained. And THIS IS THE PART where he EMPHASIZED that the story telling antics of atheist darwinist devotees "is NOT science" at all.

How "instructive" that THIS is the part of his quote that HE SAYS needs to be emphasized to get the "correct point".

I wonder how many times the darwinist horses can be lead to this water and still refuse to drink?....

Sadly, Dr Patterson is no longer alive to discuss his intention and arguments further and so remains a passive source for whatever conclusions anyone wants to try and draw from his remarks. However, I am a little concerned that you can be so certain that your interpretation of his meaning is correct; it is certainly the case that, in one of the last things he wrote in the revised edition of Evolution he said:

[The] "misprints" shared between species ... are (to me) incontrovertible evidence of common descent. Evolution 2nd Edition (1998) p.122

Interestingly, in his review of this book Peter J. Mayhew of the Department of Biology at the University of York had this to say:

My guess is that if you are looking for an evolutionary text for 17–18-year-olds, Colin's book is hard to beat, and if you are looking, like me, to get back to evolutionary basics, this is something worth owning.

For the full review see:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n4/full/6885362a.html

This does not seem to support the view that Patterson had significant doubts about the basic soundness of evolutionary theory.

 

[Barbarian]

The nonsensical story that Barbarian tells (whose fictional content is exceeded only by evolutionism itself)

It's about a real experiment, Bob. The circuit exists. And it has no designer. It evolved by natural selection. Just what creationists say can't happen. No one even knows exactly how it works, because (as happens in biological evolution) it seems to have reworked various things to new uses in a way that the experimenters don't understand.

supposed that the point is HOW to get a circuit that DETECTS ID to "make itself" -- clearly not a part of the argument in the first place -- but misdirection fantasy and "pretending not to understand the argument" are the life-blood of atheist darwinist devotee responses.

Sure you're upset. And I can understand why you'd rather call this event "fictional" than admit it is true. After all, it destroys whatever arguments creationists might have had. But it is true. It happened, and the circuit did evolve, without any designer whatsoever.

Barbarian chuckles:
Oh, and the Patterson quote-mining? Bob already knows it's a scam. We showed him that Patterson himself said so. But Bob insists that he knows better than Patterson what Patterson thinks. Would you like to see it again, Bob?

Nope -

He certainly did. There's no point in denying it or in reposting the doctored "quotes." The scam is up, Bob. Feel free to post it again, if you think it will help you; it's a great help to us.

 

[Jayls5]

Well then Jay can you show me how the Big Bang is science?

The Big Bang is a theory we have no way of testing it. It is a starting place. You start there and then see where it leads.

ID is the same thing it is a starting place. It is a philosophy.

When creating a theory or studying anything you have a starting point. Evolution is the Big Bang, but some Evolutionist are now saying it is also ID. You have Panspermia and some other theories.

I just think it is arrogant and short sited to just say no there is no ID. I have no problem with a scientist taking the ID and using it as a starting point for their research. Can you tell me what it hurts to do that?

Saying the big bang isn't science because you can't directly witness it is like saying electromagnetic radiation isn't real because you can't see microwaves.

Instead of asking me basic questions that can be found with a .000001 second search on google (ex: background radiation off the top of my head), why don't you concede my point that ID has no testable criteria. If you disagree, then just tell me how to test it instead of evading.

(Oh, and BobRyan, stop posting already. Nobody wants to sift through your spam anymore that has been refuted and demonstrated to be based on false premises. You are a joke.)

 

[lordkalvan]

The nonsensical story that Barbarian tells (whose fictional content is exceeded only by evolutionism itself)

It's about a real experiment, Bob. The circuit exists. And it has no designer. It evolved by natural selection. Just what creationists say can't happen. No one even knows exactly how it works, because (as happens in biological evolution) it seems to have reworked various things to new uses in a way that the experimenters don't understand.......

This may well have already been referenced before, but if not it bears watching and considering. Actually, it bears rewatching and considering again and again......

Evolution IS A Blind Watchmaker at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

 

[BobRyan]

Except for the part where 'the point' of the argument is not "that circuits that detect ID wave forms and discriminate FOR ID and against background noise -- CREATED THEMSELVES over time".

That is the strawman Barbarian creates in his not-too-subtle bait and switch. I simply asked him "what readers" would possibly fall of for that transparently flawed antic.

His response was to duck the point entirely.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

So tell us, Bob, who designed the circuit. Not the man who set up the experiment; he doesn't even know how it works.

And yet, by natural selection the circuit evolved.

Exactly what the creationists say is impossible. What readers would believe it? Those who are willing to face reality

 

[BobRyan]

.....what is also "interesting" the temperature of empty space BEFORE the Penzias and Wilson discovery and quite apart from a Big Bang calculation was being done -- was 2.5 degrees Kelvin.

And the predicted value for the BIG Bang temperature (if the Big Bang was reality) was "predicted" at first at 5 degrees Kelvin and then updated to 50 degrees Kelvin.

What did they find? 2.7 degrees!! So "whose number" did they "find"??

------------------------------------------

Contrast that BB story (theory) with the solid ID based science today that enables us to discriminate for ID electromagnetic wave forms -- vs simple "background noise" that rocks can generate given enough mass, time and exposure to an energy source.....

I don't really follow what you are saying here, but that may be my fault.

There were several estimates made over the years for the temperature of the CMB or, if you prefer, the temperature of 'empty space':


1896 Charles Edouard Guillaume 5.6K.
1926 Arthur Eddington 3K.

1933 Eric Regener predicted 2.8K.
1941 Andrew McKellar 2.3K.
1946 Robert Dicke 20K, later revised to 45K.
1948 George Gamow 5K, revised in the 1950s to 10K and in 1961 to 50K (I guess this is the 'prediction' you are referring to above?).
1954 Finlay-Freundlich 1.9-6K.
1955 Tigran Shamonov 3K.

Temperature estimates of “space†were first published in 1896, even prior to George Gamow’s birth in 1904 (see Guillaume, 1896). C.E. Guillaume’s estimation was 5-6 K, and rather than blaming that temperature on some type of “Big Bang†explosion, he credited the stars belonging to our own galaxy.

Guillaume is also not a "Big Bang" theorist -- rather his argument was based on "hot stars" and black body radiation.

Do you think that science must be 'wrong' if various scientists make differing estimates of something based on their best understanding of particular phenomena and then, when techniques are developed to measure that something more precisely it either proves to be different from the estimates or matches most closely only one of those estimates? Are you demanding absolutes?

My argument is simply that if "correctness of PREDICTION" is to be used as an "indicator" of viability of theory then the guys that "guessed the temperature" at 2.5 Kelvin for the Universe Sans-Big-Bang won the prize.

The late Sir Arthur Eddingtonâ€â€in his book, The Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926)â€â€already had provided an accurate explanation for this temperature found in space. In the book’s last chapter (“Diffuse Matter in Spaceâ€Â), he discussed the temperature in space. In Eddington’s estimation, this phenomenon was not due to some ancient explosion, but rather was simply the background radiation from all of the heat sources that occupy the Universe. He calculated the minimum temperature to which any particular body in space would cool, given the fact that such bodies constantly are immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained a value of 3.18 K (later refined to 2.8)â€â€essentially the same as the observed “background†radiation that is known to exist today.

Eddington was not arguing for "Big Bang" but for "hot stars".

In 1933, German scientist Erhard Regener showed that the intensity of the radiation coming from the plane of the Milky Way was essentially the same as that coming from a plane normal to it. He obtained a value of 2.8 K, which he felt would be the temperature characteristic of intergalactic space (Regener, 1933). His prediction came more than thirty years before Penzias and Wilson’s discovery of the cosmic microwave background.

As for the ACTUAL Big Bang predictions -

Gamow started his prediction at 5 K, and just a few years before Penzias and Wilson’s discovery, suggested that it should be 50 K (see Alpher and Herman, 1949; Gamow, 1961). As Van Flandern noted:

[quote:f5df4]
The amount of radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption. Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform while doing so. It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct.

None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big Bang was close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50 K made in 1961, just two years before the actual discovery. [/color] Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball†becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space (2002, 9:73-74, parenthetical item in orig., emp. added).

[/quote:f5df4]

I have no idea what you mean when you ask '"whose number" did they "find"'

Well - that's "one solution" to that problem in "history" about predictions.

I also struggle to see how the identification of electromagnetic radiation from known non-natural sources as distinct from that natural sources in any way supports an argument for the identification of intelligent design in biology. Argument by analogy can be useful for illustrative purposes, but it is less than satisfactory as evidence for a particular conclusion.

The point is that the principle is the same. The objective is to detect IN NATURE an element of ID such that for something like a "scanning function" you can discriminate in favor of ID and against background radiation. (for example). The "scan" does not know ahead of time what it will find - but it can be designed to discriminate for specific attributes/characteristics of ID rather than simply amplifying every string of static that comes along.

It is not "looking for words" neither is it looking for "a musical note". It is looking for wave forms that are not the output of everyday rocks by being designed to discriminate for the wave patterns that are the product of design --

In the case of EM wave forms we have "the simple design" because the wave form itself does NOT "encode itself" does not "transmit itself" does not "error correct' and does not "decode and then translate and process to create some new PRODUCT"... Imagine how much EASIER the task WOULD have been if THAT kind of wave form could have been "available for detection".

The example is a case of "detection" using much SIMPLER attributes for design than are ALREADY available to us in other areas of science.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Bob, you were going to tell us who designed that circuit. Did you forget?

 

[BobRyan]

The nonsensical story that Barbarian tells (whose fictional content is exceeded only by evolutionism itself)

It's about a real experiment, Bob. The circuit exists. And it has no designer. It evolved by natural selection. Just what creationists say can't happen.

As usual the undoing of the rabbit trails you propose are IN the source you point us to.

First we have "the designer that does not exist"

His
experiments--which began four years ago and earned him his PhD--are
already making waves. Chip manufacturers, robot makers and satellite
builders are interested because the technique could produce smaller,
more efficient devices than those designed today using traditional
methods. Thompson's experiments have also inspired other research
projects and some serious speculation about whether technology is
poised to evolve in ways that will take it well beyond human
understanding.

Now let's take a look at these "genetic algorithms that came from nowhere"

Computer scientists have long looked to biology for inspiration. From
simplified models of the brain (from a known working schema)
they developed neural networks (not something rocks can do given enough time energy and mass) that
have proved particularly good at recognising patterns such as
signatures on credit cards and fingerprints. They have also worked out
ways to mate and mutate programs (programs -- entities rocks can't create given enough mass energy and time) and allow the resulting programs (result of WHAT) to
compete with one another to generate the "fittest" software for a
task.

These "genetic algorithms" have been used to evolve software...

OOPS! -- It is now glaringly obvious - THEY too were DESIGNED!

Your argument is that "in a highly DESIGNED system" enough random variables were introduced SUCH THAT the designer could not "predict the outcome".

That is FAR from the claim "you needed to prove" in your "no designer" argument.

Furthermore -- in the experiment we see far MORE design and function going in to the system that PRODUCES the "lights on effect" than the simple diode function that "results".

Again - this is gross failure for the starting argument "Something from nothing".

WHO then is falling for this stuff?

That is my question!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you were going to tell us who designed that circuit. Did you forget?

err -- um... please "read" the post above.

(though all of THAT information was conveniently IN the link you provided -- the one you "should" have already read)

Bob