[_ Old Earth _] Stick to the point

[Jayls5]

Explain in detail how to test ID. Show how it can make predictions. Show how it's science. Put nothing else in this thread.

No diverting. No vague descriptions of "data where it leads" nonsense, which means nothing

 

[Rick W]

No diverting. No vague descriptions of "data where it leads" nonsense, which means nothing

I've been trying to keep people on topic for years. :-?
Piece of advice.
Forget it. It's a lot less stressful. :-D

 

[Guest]

Explain in detail how to test ID. Show how it can make predictions. Show how it's science. Put nothing else in this thread.

No diverting. No vague descriptions of "data where it leads" nonsense, which means nothing

I can do that in my amazing ten step proof!
My perfect and irrefutable proof of ID is as follows:

1) Buy a PhD from an unaccredited diploma mill and claim it makes me smarter than you and everyone else who disagrees with me.
2) Develop a hypothesis tailored to my personal beliefs. Evidence is for sissies.
3) Claim that because we don't know what causes something, I must be right. Ignore anything and everything else pertaining to science. Dangerous territory.
4) Quote-mine Collin Patterson.
5) Quote-mine several other people who dare oppose my idea.
6) Scream "IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY TO SILENCE MY GENIUS!!" at the top of my lungs, regardless of whether anyone's actually paid me any attention or not.
7) Cover both ears and eyes and sing "I can't heeeeear you" to any naysayers.
8) Repeat any of the above steps as necessary.
9) ???
10) Profit!

Let's see you evil, horrible <Insert term erroneously implying that a given area of science is a religion> disprove that!

(I'm learning fast how to make a logical, convincing and well-structured argument around here aren't I?) :D

 

[Geth]

Explain in detail how to test ID. Show how it can make predictions. Show how it's science. Put nothing else in this thread.

No diverting. No vague descriptions of "data where it leads" nonsense, which means nothing

I can do that in my amazing ten step proof!
My perfect and irrefutable proof of ID is as follows:

1) Buy a PhD from an unaccredited diploma mill and claim it makes me smarter than you and everyone else who disagrees with me.
2) Develop a hypothesis tailored to my personal beliefs. Evidence is for sissies.
3) Claim that because we don't know what causes something, I must be right. Ignore anything and everything else pertaining to science. Dangerous territory.
4) Quote-mine Collin Patterson.
5) Quote-mine several other people who dare oppose my idea.
6) Scream "IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY TO SILENCE MY GENIUS!!" at the top of my lungs, regardless of whether anyone's actually paid me any attention or not.
7) Cover both ears and eyes and sing "I can't heeeeear you" to any naysayers.
8) Repeat any of the above steps as necessary.
9) ???
10) Profit!

Let's see you evil, horrible <Insert term erroneously implying that a given area of science is a religion> disprove that!

(I'm learning fast how to make a logical, convincing and well-structured argument around here aren't I?) :D

I loled hard :-D

Nice one XoM

Greetings
Geth

 

[BobRyan]

1. The OP "claims" to want to discuss ID but then insists on NOT using the DEFINITION for ID which as we all know -- is the "Academic FREEDOM to FOLLOW the data where it leads without having to hog-tie scientific discovery so that it will always be guaranteed to pander to the needs and dictates of atheist dogma".

I find that "instructive".

2. Secondly the OP appears to "want" to talk about the TEST for ID. I have repeatedly shown that the SAME TEST that was used in the case of ID in the field of EM Wave forms -- the test arleady SHOWN to work and to provide results -- is the one that should then ALSO BE used in the field of "applied chemistry" that we call "Biology".

The TEST consists of studying the form SEEN in nature and discriminating (filtering) out what "Rocks can do given enough time energy and mass". This is done in the case of the EM Wave form by seeing what those rocks DO produce on their own -- and IGNORING it to see what we have left.

Turns out it is pretty easy to implement a "SCAN" function under those conditions.

So -- we have the TEST. Now the next step is picking an example in Biology and applying the same proven workable test.

The first FEW examples have already been selected for us - and one of them is the case of DNA mRNA Proteiin synthesis.

The ID scientists have so far proven that rocks are doing that and no Darwinist has been able to get the rocks to do it. So far the test points to ID in that case.

Obviously.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Let's see you evil, horrible <Insert term erroneously implying that a given area of science is a religion> disprove that!

(I'm learning fast how to make a logical, convincing and well-structured argument around here aren't I?) :D

Nope - you failed -- again.

Because you provided a case of "gross equivocation between the confirmed junk-science hoax infested religion of atheist darwinism and actual sciences like math and physics".

As for the confirmed junk-science religion of atheist darwinism -- we have a thread dedicated to Piltdown junk-science confirmed 40 year fraud and the Simpson horse series example of junk-science confirmed 50 year fraud foisting onto the unsuspecting public a fossil sequence "that never happened in nature" according to modern atheist darwinists.

Then there is the neanderthal age/dating fraud perpetrated by darwinists for over 30 years.

The Nebraska man fraud.

The fraudulent presentations for the myth that ontology recapitulates phylogeny as Ernst Haeckle perpetrated it for over 40 years.

You know all this "good science" littering the religion of atheist darwinism just looks like one confirmed hoax after another. So that is why the term junk-science keeps getting applied to the religion system of darwinism.

Kinda reminds me of some of Patterson's cogent comment s about the "relgion" of Darwinism being promoted as "revealed truth" and accepted more on "faith" than on science.

Funny thing is that each time I mention those inconvenient comments i.e one of my “silver bullet†quotes about Darwinism and “Anti-knowledge†or Darwinism and “revealed truth†or Darwinism and “stories easy enough to make up†the response is almost always in the form of a clear distinct “HARRUMPH!†composed of 20% smoke, 20% sound and 60% furry (SSF) accompanied by generous amounts of hand waiving and sometimes even ad hoinem “ ill wishingâ€Â. ;-)

Bob

 

[Snidey]

1. The OP "claims" to want to discuss ID but then insists on NOT using the DEFINITION for ID which as we all know -- is the "Academic FREEDOM to FOLLOW the data where it leads without having to hog-tie scientific discovery so that it will always be guaranteed to pander to the needs and dictates of atheist dogma".

I find that "instructive".

I constantly tell myself engaging with Bob is not worth it but then I get sucked in by the lulz. How could that POSSIBLY be a definition for ANY scientific theory? "Following data where it leads" is what scientists do, and cannot be the description of any particular scientific idea. When your definition is this intellectually vacuous, the game's already over. On the other hand, someone who is not Bob might actually have a definition that makes some semblance of sense.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Explain in detail how to test ID. Show how it can make predictions. Show how it's science. Put nothing else in this thread.

No diverting. No vague descriptions of "data where it leads" nonsense, which means nothing

You won't ever find one. I have looked myself.

Just a lot of gobblitygook wording to say "we r science because we say so!", followed by some argument against "rocks to man", or a long winded discussion of "specified complexity".

Never any thing about the predictive power, application or evidence.

Heck, a simple, "Show me a way to find some PRJ stuff on ID." ends up with a bunch of QQ'ing about the secret society of science that dominates all information, and excludes anything that points up.

 

[Rick W]

I'm still trying to get someone to post examples of insertion mutations in nature to support evolution.
All I get is that it is so.
:smt102

 

[Snidey]

I'm still trying to get someone to post examples of insertion mutations in nature to support evolution.
All I get is that it is so.
:smt102

Off topic a bit? I will post some quick Google results in the other thread.

 

[Jayls5]

Ironically, Bob was the closest one (still not really) to following the purpose of this thread.

No jokes. No evolution discussion. This is simple stuff here.

Explain how ID is science. "Following data where it leads" is not an explanation because that applies to science in general. So, for example, if you think that "rocks" have some testable from of ID, then explain EXACTLY what it is. What are you testing? (By the way, this is entirely different from testing for known carbon based lifeforms with deep space sensory equipment for patterns we use ourselves in communication).

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I'm still trying to get someone to post examples of insertion mutations in nature to support evolution.
All I get is that it is so.
:smt102

you have seen them, maybe you just choose not to accept them.

 

[Guest]

Let's see you evil, horrible <Insert term erroneously implying that a given area of science is a religion> disprove that!

(I'm learning fast how to make a logical, convincing and well-structured argument around here aren't I?) :D

Nope - you failed -- again.

:<
Awww, but I followed your example to the letter! How could I possibly fail!?

As the thread title says, stick to the point, why is ID science? You haven't disproven my ten step proof so as far as I'm concerned.

*resorts to step seven*

 

[Jayls5]

Let's see you evil, horrible <Insert term erroneously implying that a given area of science is a religion> disprove that!

(I'm learning fast how to make a logical, convincing and well-structured argument around here aren't I?) :D

Nope - you failed -- again.

:<
Awww, but I followed your example to the letter! How could I possibly fail!?

As the thread title says, stick to the point, why is ID science? You haven't disproven my ten step proof so as far as I'm concerned.

*resorts to step seven*

Stop muddying up this thread with garbage. I'm not asking for sarcasm showing the lack of science in ID, and you're certainly not helping your side with it. Let the ID supporters put up or shut up without turning a thread into a circus.

 

[Guest]

Wow, calm down. :|

You're asking the impossible, there is no way to test Intelligent Design and there is no way it's science. If the only people to reply to this thread were as you ask, those who had a method they could use to test intelligent design, you'd be met with a rather deafening silence. I've asked the same question many many times, and no-ones come remotely close to giving a proper answer. I'm dead serious when I say that my reply is about as good as you're going to get as far as testing intelligent design is concerned.

As you wish though, and I shall refrain from making more comments except if I can be bothered to politely explain to people that they're not making any sense, although I trust you'll be able to judge that and do it yourself.

Good luck in your quest, I look forward to seeing if anyone can prove me wrong in my statement above by making a better argument for how to test ID than I did in my original post. So far, with most of the regulars having fired their opening salvos, it's looking pretty good for me and my theory. 8-)

 

[BobRyan]

Let's see you evil, horrible <Insert term erroneously implying that a given area of science is a religion> disprove that!

(I'm learning fast how to make a logical, convincing and well-structured argument around here aren't I?) :D

Nope - you failed -- again.

XoM
:<
Awww, but I followed your example to the letter! How could I possibly fail!?

Easy -- "note the inconvenient details".

Bob said
Nope - you failed -- again.

Because you provided a case of "gross equivocation between the confirmed junk-science hoax infested religion of atheist darwinism and actual sciences like math and physics".

As for the confirmed junk-science religion of atheist darwinism -- we have a thread dedicated to Piltdown junk-science confirmed 40 year fraud and the Simpson horse series example of junk-science confirmed 50 year fraud foisting onto the unsuspecting public a fossil sequence "that never happened in nature" according to modern atheist darwinists.

Then there is the neanderthal age/dating fraud perpetrated by darwinists for over 30 years.

The Nebraska man fraud.

The fraudulent presentations for the myth that ontology recapitulates phylogeny as Ernst Haeckle perpetrated it for over 40 years.

You know all this "good science" littering the religion of atheist darwinism just looks like one confirmed hoax after another. So that is why the term junk-science keeps getting applied to the religion system of darwinism.

Kinda reminds me of some of Patterson's cogent comment s about the "relgion" of Darwinism being promoted as "revealed truth" and accepted more on "faith" than on science.

Funny thing is that each time I mention those inconvenient comments i.e one of my “silver bullet†quotes about Darwinism and “Anti-knowledge†or Darwinism and “revealed truth†or Darwinism and “stories easy enough to make up†the response is almost always in the form of a clear distinct “HARRUMPH!†composed of 20% smoke, 20% sound and 60% furry (SSF) accompanied by generous amounts of hand waiving and sometimes even ad hominem “ ill wishingâ€Â.

As the thread title says, stick to the point, why is ID science?

I followed your lead on that one..

I don't mind getting back to the post by ME that has not been answered -- yet.

I will post it "again".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1. The OP "claims" to want to discuss ID but then insists on NOT using the DEFINITION for ID which as we all know -- is the "Academic FREEDOM to FOLLOW the data where it leads without having to hog-tie scientific discovery so that it will always be guaranteed to pander to the needs and dictates of atheist dogma".

I find that "instructive".

2. Secondly the OP appears to "want" to talk about the TEST for ID. I have repeatedly shown that the SAME TEST that was used in the case of ID in the field of EM Wave forms -- the test arleady SHOWN to work and to provide results -- is the one that should then ALSO BE used in the field of "applied chemistry" that we call "Biology".

The TEST consists of studying the form SEEN in nature and discriminating (filtering) out what "Rocks can do given enough time energy and mass". This is done in the case of the EM Wave form by seeing what those rocks DO produce on their own -- and IGNORING it to see what we have left.

Turns out it is pretty easy to implement a "SCAN" function under those conditions.

So -- we have the TEST. Now the next step is picking an example in Biology and applying the same proven workable test.

The first FEW examples have already been selected for us - and one of them is the case of DNA mRNA Proteiin synthesis.

The ID scientists have so far proven that rocks are doing that and no Darwinist has been able to get the rocks to do it. So far the test points to ID in that case.

Obviously.

Bob

Wow! There it is "again" the same post highlighting all the inconvenient details - about the TEST for ID the one already PROVEN and the area where it is yet to be APPLIED.

Not your every day darwinist pablum so it might be difficult for some folks to read.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ironically, Bob was the closest one

You don't say.

And the "answer" to the points raise in that post of mine??

Instructive that we are "Still waiting...." for your response.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Ironically, Bob was the closest one

You don't say.

And the "answer" to the points raise in that post of mine??

Instructive that we are "Still waiting...." for your response.

Bob

Only you are still waiting, because everyone else is on topic.

How about you provide an actual test for ID instead of the invalid one you gave.

 

[Jayls5]

You don't say.

And the "answer" to the points raise in that post of mine??

Instructive that we are "Still waiting...." for your response.

Bob

You got my response from the very post you just selectively quoted me from.

"Explain how ID is science. "Following data where it leads" is not an explanation because that applies to science in general. So, for example, if you think that "rocks" have some testable from of ID, then explain EXACTLY what it is. What are you testing? (By the way, this is entirely different from testing for known carbon based lifeforms with deep space sensory equipment for patterns we use ourselves in communication)."

So what are you testing for, exactly?

In a nutshell, I am asking you to do some major elaboration here:

2. Secondly the OP appears to "want" to talk about the TEST for ID. I have repeatedly shown that the SAME TEST that was used in the case of ID in the field of EM Wave forms -- the test arleady SHOWN to work and to provide results -- is the one that should then ALSO BE used in the field of "applied chemistry" that we call "Biology".

The TEST consists of studying the form SEEN in nature and discriminating (filtering) out what "Rocks can do given enough time energy and mass". This is done in the case of the EM Wave form by seeing what those rocks DO produce on their own -- and IGNORING it to see what we have left.

Turns out it is pretty easy to implement a "SCAN" function under those conditions.

Elaborate on what you said above. No vagueness please, which it seems to be full of.