Re: Your tests are untestable

topmind wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
DNA-ID does not attempt to verify anything and

It verifies the same kind of stuff as SETI: artifacts of ET.

No, it does not. No testable predictions can be logically generated
from the Bryce Jacobs DNA-ID non-hypothesis. Your vague speculations
are untestable.

If you disagree, present a scientific hypothesis of intelligent design,
right here, right now.

flies in the face of what is known about genomes.

Not. Even accepting your silly "they would have noticed" notion, you
agreed that not every possible testable message/artifact would produce
big outliers. Thus, even being 80% done is still not "done".

As has been repeatedly explained to you, there is no evidence that any
non-natural process was involved in the evolution of the genomes
studied. You are the one claiming that such a process took place,
therefore it is your responsibility to prove it.

It is clear now that you are motivated by factors outside the scientific
method.


I question your motivations also.

Zachriel has done more work to investigate your vague speculations and
attempt to show you how to look for evidence yourself than you ever
have or will. His motivations are not in question. Yours are.

But whatever this motivation, it hasn't been sufficient for you to
either acquaint yourself with the available evidence or the available methods
of investigation, or to make novel observations of your own.

Irrelavent. I am discussing testable, not tested.

Completely relevant. The Bryce Jacobs DNA-ID non-hypothesis ("Some
being or beings may have manipulated some genome or genomes on Earth at
some point in time in the recent or deep past and may have left some
unknown pattern encoded in some unknown fashion using some unknown
technique for some unknown purpose. Maybe.") is not testable. No
conceivable empirical observation could possibly falsify it.

You have never presented anything remotely resembling a scientific
hypothesis nor have you shown the slightest inclination towards making
empirical observations of your own. All available evidence strongly
indicates that you are nothing but a troll.

Produce a scientific hypothesis of intelligent design or admit that you
are incapable of doing so.

hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences.

test, the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or
operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or
rejection.

http://www.m-w.com/

Is this allegedly "proof" that it is boolean? I don't see how it can
only be interpreted as a boolean test. Please show me how the above can
only be read as boolean tests.

Please answer the question that has been repeatedly posed to you.
Which do you think is more likely:
a) Thousands of working scientists have never noticed that the basis
for their life's work is invalid, or
b) You don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about?

Your criteria for failing DNA-ID is too vague and inconsistent to be
objectively evaluated.

Explaining empirical evidence. Not in conflict with existing
observations. Falsifiable. Predictive.

The Bryce Jacobs DNA-ID non-hypothesis is not science by any measure.

Some things are definitely science. Some things are not. There may be a
chaotic region between the two, but DNA-ID does not fit in the gray zone. It
is not science. It does not follow from what is known. It ignores what is
known. It explains nothing. It offers nothing.

It is not that different from SETI.

"It" is so vague as to be completely undefined. Produce a scientific
hypothesis of intelligent design or admit that you are incapable of
doing so.

BJ

----
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dfa00a58f25f28ac:
Bryce Jacobs (topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
| First make a list of the first 500 prime numbers:
| A: 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 29 .....

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their
    ... the evidence for the existence of the tree there would be no ... Do you honestly believe that scientists don't apply logic to their ... about factoring in "the unknown" into what conclusions ... Science works on evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Something for the Fundies...
    ... Evidence for my position would be when a person says "I don't know." ... you are assuming that people use God to explain away ... So you think scientists who believe in God do not use the scientific ... > You can make anything point to god if you decide the unknown is unknowable ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Something for the Fundies...
    ... Evidence for my position would be when a person says "I don't know." ... you are assuming that people use God to explain away ... So you think scientists who believe in God do not use the scientific ... > You can make anything point to god if you decide the unknown is unknowable ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their
    ... enriched this group when s/he wrote: ... the evidence for the existence of the tree there would be no ... Do you honestly believe that scientists don't apply logic to their ... about factoring in "the unknown" into what conclusions ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... > There are a lot of scientists that would disagree with you. ... Red shift is NOT evidence of an expanding universe, ... > for photons of different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)