Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science


Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2005 23:40:10 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
> <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
> <1135669210.869555.233740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >Deadrat wrote:
> >> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1135628009.238376.55830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> > Deadrat wrote:
> >> > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> > > news:1135477663.314044.220600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > Deadrat wrote:
> >> > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> > > > > news:1135461429.879983.297370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Deadrat wrote:
> >> > > > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > news:1135391546.084147.198500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > > > > > Deadrat wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > > > news:1135315824.700137.315910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > > > > > > > Deadrat wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > > > > > news:1135217628.045108.106780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > > > > > >
>
> [snip]
>
> >> The alternative is not to draw conclusions on zero data.
> >
> >The evidence *is* greater than zero. It may not be strong evidence, but
> >it is greater than zero.
>
> That is not at all clear. For many ID notions any and all evidence
> shows ID and so no evidence does. With that there is zero evidence.
> For some, your "life looks designed (by human-like entities)" I would
> argue that we have a sum of less than zero evidence. That is, the
> evidence points away from such design. What we have is zero evidence
> of the existence of these designers, of what they did, of how they did
> it, of when they did it, of where they did it, of why they did it.

Think about it in terms of SETI instead of ID. ID makes you guys too
emotional and stubborn.

>
> [snip]
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >> Your "DNA patterns" aren't good enough.
> >> Did you understand the significance of finding Shakespeare in DNA sequences?
> >
> >No,
>
> Well work until you do. Why isn't finding quotes from Hamlet evidence
> of design according to you?

Let me clarify. I would rank signals on a continous scale. Let's say we
have an evidence scale between 0 and 9, where 9 is irrefutable
slam-dunk evidence.

Seven words of contigious of Shakey I might give say a 2, and a whole
contigious chapter a 6 or 7.

>
> >but that is why we explore further. You seem to expect instant
> >gratification for exploration.
>
> What exploration do you propose? The genome is available and
> published, what patterns would show design? You keep dancing around
> this, but it is the key question.

No. I am only interested in what qualifies as science. I don't think
DNA searches are "worth it" in terms of human effort. However, that
does not mean it is 100% worthless. If zealots are motivated, let them
do it.

There is a reason SETI is not funded by the government and by
volunteers instead. The gov feels it is too much of a long-shot to
spend voter's money on. Thus, affectionados donate time and money
instead.

I don't care about ID DNA much. I am here to argue a point, not promote
a DNA version of SETI.

I don't spend any effort on SETI either, I would note. However, that
does not mean I don't consider SETI science. Those are two different
issues. Please stop mixing them.

>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>

-T-

.

Relevant Pages
Loading