[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[Barbarian]

If someone wants to try a method outside of science, that's fine, so long as the don't pretend that it is science. Maybe someday, someone can get a form of ID to work; if so, that's great. For now, it's just a religion with some very unorthodox beliefs, and precisely zero discoveries to it's credit.

If you want respect and tenure, go do something of significance to earn it.

 

[BobRyan]

Is Atheist Darwinism "Science"? Not if one pays attention to the "inconvenient details" of the "junk-science foundation for Darwinism" thread.

Is ID "science"? HINT for the blindly devoted believer in atheist Darwinism -- ID is defined as the "Academic Freedom to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to DESIGN and a position that does not pander to atheists" -- so therefore the resoudning answer to the question is unquestionably -- YES!!

As already stated -

There is no "intelligent natural creature" argument in I.D science. All there is the blatant admitting "to the obvious" that something shows design or it doesn't.

The atheist religionist argument must "worry" about where such a fact might lead on a more religious and philisophical level -- the I.D scientist is free to ignore it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We already clearly established that ID proponents are trying to lead to "God" by their argument and would regress infinitely without Him. There would be an endless requirement of more complex intelligent natural creatures.

There is no "intelligent natural creature" argument in I.D science. All there is the blatant admitting "to the obvious" that something shows design or it doesn't.

The atheist religionist argument must "worry" about where such a fact might lead on a more religious and philisophical level -- the I.D scientist is free to ignore it.

That wasn't my concern though. I was asking about testing supernatural intelligence.

I.D is not about "testing supernatural intelligence" it is about "admitting to pattern complexity and design".

The atheist religionist must then "worry" about the possibility that the intelligence behind a given disign "might be supernatural" but the I.D scientist does not have to worry about that at all when admitting to the obvious fact that something shows the characteristic of design.

I.D already IS science "by definition" but politics and atheist jiihad against "some facts" have orchestrated the censorship of academic freedom SUCH that admitting to these facts can not be "considered" in areas where they hold political or financial power.

WHAT IS Science -- apart from atheist religionist's "needs"??


[quote:3fc52]
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

NOTHING in the defintions says "UNLESS the source of the electromagnetic wave form is found to be intelligent" OR "unless the electromagnetic wave form is found to have a design, pattern, complexity -- carry information.." -- i.e. TV.

The only way that ID could ever be considered science would be to say it only applied to testable/natural intelligent designers.

Wrong.

The science effort to SEE or RECOGNIZE design as an attribute of something in nature has NOTHING to do with the atheist religionist's NEED to be assured that that any and all future analysis of the SOURCE of that design will always be constrained to fit his/her religious faith!

You continually mix in the stated "need" of the atheist religionist with the pure objective attributes of science AS IF such a mix "is another kinda valid science" -- it is not.

Bob[/quote:3fc52]

When I wrote that post -- I knew I would need to wait a long time for anyone to come along and object who ALSO pays attention "to details".

So far... still waiting.

Bob

 

[jwu]

I.D already IS science "by definition" but politics and atheist jiihad against "some facts" have orchestrated the censorship of academic freedom SUCH that admitting to these facts can not be "considered" in areas where they hold political or financial power.

[emphasis mine]What find would falsify ID then?

 

[BobRyan]

Again for the objective unbiased reader --

Intelligent Design:
"Academic Freedom to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to DESIGN and a position that does not pander to the doctrines and dogma of atheists"

This defintion is "distinctly" science-based and as such is "designed" to drive dogmatic believers in atheist darwinism through the roof and to willingly demonstrate the wild leaps of non-science ranting that they unwittingly "exchange" for respect and appreciation for "actual science".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

JWU asks the question -- "what find would falsify ID" by definition where that definition is "The Academic FREEDOM to follow the data where it leads - EVEN if it leads to the discovery of DESIGN in a form that does not pander to atheist dogma" --- indeed what would falsify "Academic freedom"? What would falsify the "decision NOT to pander to the doctrines and dogma of atheists"?

BY DEFINITION -- it is what ALL scientists SHOULD have been doing all along.

But the issue of "falsification" for a specific claim of DESIGN (for example in a "TV signal" or a "Radio signal" (i.e. DESIGN in electromagnetic wave form)} is to SHOW that it carries no information.

"OBVIOUSLY" --

HINT -- the more OBVIOUS the inconvenient facts the more they scare the willies out of atheist darwinist believers!!

Bob

 

[jwu]

JWU asks the question -- "what find would falsify ID" by definition where that definition is "The Academic FREEDOM to follow the data where it leads - EVEN if it leads to the discovery of DESIGN in a form that does not pander to atheist dogma" --- indeed what would falsify "Academic freedome"? What would falsify the "decision NOT to pander to the doctrines and dogma of atheists"?

BY DEFINITION -- it is what ALL scientists SHOULD have been doing all along.

That however is not the definition of "science". If you want to argue that "ID is science by definition", then it needs to match criteria that define science. Falsifiability is an essential one of these.

But the issue of "falsification" for a "TV signal" or a "Radio signal" (i.e. DESIGN in electromagnetic wave form) is to SHOW that it carries no information.

HINT -- this scares the willies out of atheist darwinist believers!!

Bob

How can one show the absence of information? What methodology would one use? Please explain it in detail how this would work. Wouldn't that even be overkill, as "ID or not ID" is not congruent to "information or no information"?

 

[BobRyan]

Just "the obvious" -- for example in DNA and in Electromagnetic wave form -- the issue is encoding, decoding and data transferred that contains 'information' that determine or dictates some action.

For example "building a protein" or for electromagnetic wave form - information that could be used for "guiding a rastor scanner" etc.

you know -- "the obvious".

Bob

 

[jwu]

Please state "the obvious" with technical details. What type of information theory would you apply? Which metric would you use to measure the content of information in first instance?

How would naturally condensing information fit into this falsification criterion? Isn't absence of information a massive overkill, a bit in the direction "showing that DNA doesn't actually exist would falsify ID"?

PS: A while ago i made a thread about this, which received quite little input from the ID crowd. Perhaps you can change this:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31716

 

[Jayls5]

When I wrote that post -- I knew I would need to wait a long time for anyone to come along and object who ALSO pays attention "to details".

So far... still waiting.

Bob

Sorry buddy, it doesn't work that way. If I write several pages responding to your incoherent ramblings, I expect you to at least address that it exists. You can't just use this passive aggressive bull and vaguely assert that everyone isn't paying attention to the "details" of your posts.

My response right here: report.php?f=19&p=377792

You haven't addressed a single thing from it, and you've now continued to repost your own stuff. News flash: we saw it the first time, and I even responded to it the first time. If you're frequently going to blow people off that try to discuss things with you, we are quickly going to find the ignore button and stop talking to you all together. You'll be enjoying a nice conversation with yourself.

 

[BobRyan]

Please state "the obvious" with technical details. What type of information theory would you apply?

The same one that I apply to electromagnetic wave forms -- (hint: TV exists)

Just stating the obvious.

As for you -- what kind of "deny-all" model would you apply so that we would have to toss out our TV's?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Again for the objective unbiased reader -- (A reference for this page)

Intelligent Design:
"Academic Freedom to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to DESIGN and a position that does not pander to the doctrines and dogma of atheists"

This defintion is "distinctly" science-based and as such is "designed" to drive dogmatic believers in atheist darwinism through the roof and to willingly demonstrate the wild leaps of non-science ranting that they unwittingly "exchange" for respect and appreciation for "actual science".

 

[BobRyan]

When I wrote that post -- I knew I would need to wait a long time for anyone to come along and object who ALSO pays attention "to details".

So far... still waiting.

Bob

Jay
Sorry buddy, it doesn't work that way. If I write several pages responding to your incoherent ramblings, I expect you to at least address that it exists. You can't just use this passive aggressive bull and vaguely assert that everyone isn't paying attention to the "details" of your posts.

My response right here: report.php?f=19&p=377792

Sorry buddy -- did you try clicking that link??

Talk about incoherent!

What is up with that??

Sooner or later you will post something that make sense -- keep trying I know you can do it.

Bob

 

[jwu]

Please state "the obvious" with technical details. What type of information theory would you apply?

The same one that I apply to electromagnetic wave forms -- (hint: TV exists)

Just stating the obvious.

What would be the respective biological counterparts of TV-station->modulated signal->receiver? How is a modulation supposed to be a measure of actual information contained in the signal? It might contain nothing but random noise, after all.

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[jwu]

And how would you then quantify the amount of information in the string of DNA/RNA?

Based on what would you decide which out of two such strings contains more information than the other? We, after all, need to decide which base pairs actually represent information (possibly even compressed information), and which are just noise.

 

[Jayls5]

When I wrote that post -- I knew I would need to wait a long time for anyone to come along and object who ALSO pays attention "to details".

So far... still waiting.

Bob

Jay
Sorry buddy, it doesn't work that way. If I write several pages responding to your incoherent ramblings, I expect you to at least address that it exists. You can't just use this passive aggressive bull and vaguely assert that everyone isn't paying attention to the "details" of your posts.

My response right here: report.php?f=19&p=377792

Sorry buddy -- did you try clicking that link??

Talk about incoherent!

What is up with that??

Sooner or later you will post something that make sense -- keep trying I know you can do it.

Bob

Oh I see. Incoherence is synonymous with improperly copying a link? Nice try. You know exactly what I was talking about in my post. I attempted to copy a link for your convenience, and I made a mistake. This does nothing to negate your duties to not be a douche and respond to an articulate response to your post.

Here you go, edit:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30#p377792

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry buddy ....

Bob said

Sorry buddy -- did you try clicking that link??

Talk about incoherent!

What is up with that??

Sooner or later you will post something that make sense -- keep trying I know you can do it.

Bob

Oh I see. Incoherence is synonymous with improperly copying a link?

Crickets.....

Just get the link right and try again.

As I said - I have every confidence you can master this.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We already clearly established that ID proponents are trying to lead to "God" by their argument and would regress infinitely without Him. There would be an endless requirement of more complex intelligent natural creatures.

There is no "intelligent natural creature" argument in I.D science. All there is the blatant admitting "to the obvious" that something shows design or it doesn't.

The atheist religionist argument must "worry" about where such a fact might lead on a more religious and philisophical level -- the I.D scientist is free to ignore it.

You seem to think that scientists don't extrapolate from their conclusions and investigate the consequences and application of them.

Wrong.

And it is more than a little "instructive" that your comment appears to have no relevance at all to my post that you are quoting.

If a scientist comes to a conclusion that appears to be empirically wrong based on other theories, doubt is immediately brought into question.

"Doubt" can be raised in "real science" but not in "junk science". In Junk-science religions like Darwinism the way you "defend against doubt" is courtroom censorship.

Conversely to "promote" junk-science religions you use "courtroom biology" as we saw in the Scopes trial and "Nebraska man hoax" they presented in that "courtroom biology experiment".

The moment you deem something to be too complex to have been created by more simple means, you necessarily are stating (by implication) that there is an infinite regress of more complex natural designers. This would completely contradict our scientific model of the universe, our concept of time, and basically a ton of theories.

Your "definition" is incorrect.

You presume that "finding design" would "invalidate OUR model of the universe" for atheist religionists that is true - but that is not true for everyone else.

The rest of us are "free to follow where the data leads"

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

The proof of ID "as science" is obvous in it's everyday use.

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

The reason that electromagnetic wave form analysis that "admits to design" is allowed by atheist religionists is that THEY have no doctrine of the form "human designers do not exist".

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Sorry buddy ....

Bob said

Sorry buddy -- did you try clicking that link??

Talk about incoherent!

What is up with that??

Sooner or later you will post something that make sense -- keep trying I know you can do it.

Bob

Oh I see. Incoherence is synonymous with improperly copying a link?

Crickets.....

Just get the link right and try again.

As I said - I have every confidence you can master this.

Bob

Uhh... you quote the post that I got the link right in, you delete the link from the post you quote, and then you asked me to try again. Clever.

I see you then made a poor effort of responding to my post, which I noticed is becoming habitual of you. I'm not going to bother to expend effort on your terrible arguments if this is going to be a trend. I doubt you even responded to half of what I said based on what I saw you quoted, so I didn't even bother reading what you have to say. If you're not going to read mine (or respond to it), I'm not going to read yours. You're steadily making your way in the direction of my ignore list. You might win a space soon.