Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:00:40 GMT
Richard Forrest wrote:
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
<snipped>
"Purpose" is an assumption which cannot be tested by scientific
hypothesis.
In science one investigates by testing hypotheses.
So where is the testable falsifiable hypothesis for how evolution
produced protein synthesis?
Read the literature.
Given the fact that we are able to design and build systems similar to
the systems involved in protein synthesis, and given the fact that we
are able to manipulate DNA, it is no stretch to say that an advanced
intelligent agent could put together something along the lines of
protein synthesis from scratch. The closer we get, the more it proves my
point.
Another "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario:
If we synthesise proteins in the lab, it's supports the assertion that
an intelligent designer did it.
If we can't synthesise proteins in the lab it supports the assertion
that an intelligent designer cleverer than us did it.
What test do you propose for which the explanation that an intelligent
designer, of unspecified but possibly supernatural powers using
unspecified but possibly supernatural methods is *NOT* possible.
The example you gave earlier - from memory a cat giving birth to dog -
is perfectly explicable in terms of an intelligent designer of this
type. So is the sudden appearance of pink and blue unicorns in
Trafalgar Square dancing a quadrille, or a dog giving birth to a new
and fashionable shade of purple.
Yet where is the falsifiable testable progression from the precursor to
protein synthesis to the final process via evolution?
Read the literature. "An intelligent designer did it" is not an
scientifically valid explanation. Something which can "explain"
anything is in scientific terms utterly useless.
So believe in an "intelligent designer" if you want - but don't kid
yourself that your convictions constitute a scientific theory.
RF
I take your "Read the literature" answers as "I don't know".
It's par for the course here. Evolutionists spout all this high and
mighty rhetoric about how they have the market cornered on real science,
yet when asked to provide one simple example for the success of their
"unchallengeable" theory, they resort to vagueness, artful dodges and
innuendo.
I have observable evidence of the power of real intelligent design in
action. You have observable evidence of the power of real mutations in
action. The rest is conjecture based on these real observations. Yet,
somehow, your theory is the ultimate and mine is substandard. I guess
"real" science will remain unchallenged.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Iain
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- References:
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Wall Of Sleep
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Wall Of Sleep
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Wall Of Sleep
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Wall Of Sleep
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Wall Of Sleep
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Prev by Date: Re: funny creationsist
- Next by Date: Re: Re: "Evidence" for Evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Next by thread: Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|