Re: SETI researchers make the same claim snex attributes to ID theorists--how embarassing

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:17:15 -0700, snex <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

seems once again the wacky dr pitman is making claims that it is
possible to separate artificial signals from designed signals without
any knowledge or assumptions about the identity, methods, or motive of
the designer.

SETI researchers have claimed this for at least 75 years. SETI
researchers have absolutely no knowledge WHATSOEVER about the
identity, methods or motives of any putative extraterrestrial. And
yet SETI is a fully sanctioned by secularists under atheistic
Naturalism. Go figure...

BOTH ID theorists and SETI researchers make a number of assumptions.
However, there's only one assumption that is required of both to sort
between a "signal" and some purely naturalistic time slice of
electromagnetic radiation.

Next, I suggest that the atheists in the forum chip-in and buy snex
an English language dictionary. Snex has repeatedly failed to
comprehend that a "signal," by definition, is an object of
communication between intelligent agents. Snex reveals as part of the
initial conditions of the problem situation that object 1 and object 2
are, in fact, signals. To characterize them as such means that snex
has already revealed that they are the result of intelligent agents.
This makes the solution trivial.


so, ive decided to step up my signals a notch. lets see
somebody apply ID theory to them and come up with an answer from the
following:

A) neither signal is designed.
B) only signal 1 is designed.
C) only signal 2 is designed.
D) both signals are designed.

please submit your work so we can all see exactly how ID theory
tackles something like this.

signal 1: http://xens.org:8080/signal1.txt
signal 2: http://xens.org:8080/signal2.txt
(line breaks are not a part of the signals, they are added for
legibility)


If these "bits" were read off of some time slice of electromagnetic
radiation coming from the direction of Alpha Centuri by some SETI
researcher, then she would attempt to match them against a data base
of patterns of known intelligent design. That is, in order to
identify intelligent design we must share some common elements of
background information with the sender. Who the sender is, how they
sent it, why they sent it, and when they sent it are entirely
irrelevent to determinining whether it is a signal or not.


If these bits were read off of some time slice of electromagnetic
radiation by a USA NSA SigInt Officer on a frequency used by the
Chinese armed forces and emanating from a Chinese communication site
this would not be an assignment for ID theory but one for Signal
Analysis and CrytoAnalysis.

I suggest snex delete the word "signal" and provide a problem
situation which would actually interest an ID theorist.

Regards,
T Pagano







.

Relevant Pages