Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable

topmind wrote:
The reasons why this analogy is particularly weak have been
addressed by others in this thread. Basically, you can't name
a single machine that has all of the characteristics you list
and your list does not include the one characteristic shared
by all life, namely reproduction.

So if robots can be taught to make robots, suddenly the scales
tip?

Even if some specialized machines could be built to mimic
characteristics of living things, the vast majority of machines do
not share many, if any, of those characteristics. _All_ life
shares that characteristic. What are you trying to show with such
a poor analogy?

Trying to squirm out of the reproduction pit you dug yourself. I
have just exposed you as full-of-crap here. I caught you, dude. I
hold the above up as representative of the lame logic you use.

You claim X is the key, I pop X, and they you claim Y is key. I pop
Y and then you claim Z and keep circling around and around.

EXPPOOOOOOSSSSSEEEEEED!

Wow. This must be one of those instances you refer to when you said
"Whether my victories are real or hallucinations, they are satisfying
either way." (Here's a free clue: this is one of the hallucinatory
ones.)

I'll try to explain using only simple words. You are comparing
machines with living beings and yet:
- You ignore the fact that no machine has all of the characteristics
your list.
- You ignore the fact that most machines share very few characteristics
with living things.
- You ignore the fact that the only characteristic common to all living
things is not a characteristic of any existing machine.
- You ignore the fact that even if a machine were built to mimic that
one characteristic, the vast majority of machines would still share
very few characteristics with living things.
- You ignore the fact that even if a machine were built to mimic that
one characteristic, it would still share very few characteristics with
the vast majority of living things.
- You ignore the question of what you're trying to prove with such a
poor analogy.

Despite all of this, you claim to have won something.

Clearly the problem is that you have no idea of what winning an
argument looks like. Allow me to provide an example from a recent post
that you have failed to respond to for some odd reason:

> > The theory of evolution does not claim that evolution by
> > common descent with modification and natural selection
> > (plus some other clearly specified mechanisms) may have
> > occured somewhere at some time. It claims that it
> > occured here and is responsible for the variety of life
> > we observe on this planet. That claim is falsifiable by
> > finding just one instance where it does not hold.
>
> That is horse-wash. Only you claim it is all-or-nothing.
> You guys make up imaginary hurdles and imaginary rules. At
> least quote an expert in the field.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution."
-- Theodosius Dobzhansky

"Charles Darwin turned biology into science, rather than
stamp-collecting."
-- Steve Jones

"What is biological evolution?

In the biological sciences, evolution is a theory of change
that accounts for the pattern of similarities and differences
among living things on earth throughout the earth's history
and across all the habitats and biomes that exist or have
existed in that history."
-- Dr. Andrew J. Petto,
Dept. of Biological Sciences,
U of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

I suggest that you also consult any undergraduate, or even
high school level, biology text. Kenneth Miller's are
particularly good.

(Hint: At this juncture, an honest man who had written what
you did would admit that his claims were unfounded and
incorrect. He might even be inspired to educate himself
before continuing to discuss the topic in order to avoid
further public humiliation.)

That, my dear namesake, is how one wins an argument. Notice the clear
and direct refutation of the erroneous claim. Admire the use of
multiple sources. Appreciate the twist of the rhetorical knife in the
final paragraph.

Feel the pain of knowing that you'll never be able to do it.

What is pivotal is that your claim of "We can put messages in DNA and
distribute them across the galaxy" is simply wrong. At our current
level of technology, we cannot. It may turn out to be an intractable
or prohibitively expensive concept.

Hogwash! Each Voyager craft weighs about a ton. Just toss the
scientific instruments and replace them with the spore pods.

The Voyagers are out of fuel. How would they correct their course over
a journey of multiple light years? How would they identify suitable
planets for seeding? How would they achieve orbit around such planets?
How would they get the genetic material to the surface without burning
up? How would they ensure that it was placed where it could replicate?

Your claim that "We can put messages in DNA and distribute them across
the galaxy" is simply wrong.

You have yet to explain what your hypothesis is, why it predicts
images, pi, or sequences of prime numbers, how it predicts those
patterns will be encoded, or where they should be found. Until that
information is forthcoming, there is no way to tell if they are likely
or not in any particular DNA sequence. If your hypothesis predicts
that your intelligent designer used a one time pad, for example, the
whole bonobo genome could constitute a high resolution image of the
letter Pi surrounded by primes.

That is just details.

Science is in the details. Without specifics, your non-hypothesis
isn't testable. Since literally any result could be viewed as
supporting your speculations, they are unfalsifiable.

Nobody here has ventured that SETI would stop being based on a
scientific idea of they had to turn to content analysis of a signal
to test it further.

That's because that's not what SETI is doing. If any anomalous signals
are detected, the techniques used to evaluate them will be judged on
their scientific merits. Right now, what they're doing qualifies as
science.

Whether the signal is in the sky or in DNA, the issue is nearly
identical. One is up, and one is on the ground.

Yet again, you have not presented a scientific theory or hypothesis of
intelligent design. There is no way to test and potentially falsify
your vague speculations. This is in stark contrast to the SETI
radiotelescope project.

The scientific hypothesis being tested by SETI has been explained to
you repeatedly.

You make crap up repeatedly. It was crap the first time you said it,
and it is still crap. Duplicating crap only results in more crap.

I challenge you to defend your assertion that my summary of the SETI
radiotelescope project is inaccurate. The project documentation is
available on SETI's web site. Prove your point or retract it.

BJ

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Announcing A New Unifying Principle of the Evolutionary Sciences
    ... > Announcing A New Unifying Principle of the Evolutionary Sciences: ... > The biota is a naturally occurring purposeful ... > science of complexity--upon which to view evolutionary phenomena as the ... as a single living unit. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... (non living) ... observed event hence I would classify the theory as a philosophical - ... In other words, science. ... it either fals in the history or ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is biological life?
    ... >>>definition of biological life. ... Is the cell its fundamental form? ... >> properties or characteristics of living things and study how living ... Some biology text ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Looks bad in MudVille..
    ... Will Ford and GM  be the frosting on the cake of crap ... covered with lemon frosting and little sprinkles? ... the cat box .. ... When I look back at how I was living a decade ago, ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: What is biological life?
    ... >>definition of biological life. ... > properties or characteristics of living things and study how living ... Some biology text ... > It is clear that cells and organisms are alive. ...
    (talk.origins)