Pagano persists in his labelling all scientists as atheists despite it having been pointed out on numerous occasions that this is a categorically false designation. Will he stop this dishonest behaviour? My bet is that he won't, thus confirming once again that he and the ID movement he espouses are fundamentally dishonest.
- From: richardalanforrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:43:46 -0700
On Oct 1, 4:05 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[NOTE: THIS IS A REPOST OF POST IN ANOTHER THREAD STILL CURRENT]
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:19:22 -0700, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 30, 9:56 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:29:59 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sep 30, 8:00 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:33:16 -0400, "Cj" <cw...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Let us consider another thought experiment. ID finally gets its act
together and demonstrates mathematically that God was actually a committee.
Dembski's ID theory is not formulated to identify the intelligent
agent responsible for an intelligent cause nor is if capable of any
such thing.
Since Dembski's ID theory is not formulated as a scientific theory,
what it asserts (and that is all it does) is irrelevant.
I've tested this hot air before and all of the atheists have folded.
Let's call Hershey's bluff:
1. Produce the critieria necessary for a theory to be considered a
scientific criteria,
2. Identify which criteria ID theory fails to meet and why.
Assuming Hershey has the guts to respond I'll easily rebut and crash
several of the sacrosanct atheist theories including abiogenesis, Big
Bang, neoDarwinism with the same criteria.
i have already met both requirements. (1) is for you to use "ID
theory" to pass a double blind test on bit strings. (2) is the fact
that you will not and cannot do so.
___________________________
A REMEDIATION OF SNEX'S TEST
----------------------------------------
2. Let's assume that any of the bit patterns offered in snex's
previously failed posts were received by a SETI antenna pointed at
VEGA. Is it a signal or is it just a random pattern explanable by law
and chance? ID theory is formulated to aid in drawing a probablistic
inference but not a definitive conclusion. What is the process?
a. Is the bit stream required by natural law? No, which
means its a contingent event leaving chance and design as
possibilities.
b. Is the bit stream complex? Yes all of the bit streams
were long enough to be reasonably complex and for the sake of argument
let's assume that the complexity meets or exceeds Dembski's upper
probability bound. Unfortunately this still leaves chance and design
as possibilities.
c. Is the bit steam specified? By "specified" is meant that
one can detach from the bit pattern information that we can recognize
as such from our own background knowledge. And here is where snex,
bryant and the rest of the atheist rabble piss into the wind.
d. ID theory provides no tools whatsoever for observing,
analyzing and sifting an event to find and recognize the
specification. One of SETI's solutions to the recognition problem is
to pass candidate time slices of received electromagnetic radiation
through a pattern sieve. The sieve contains a finite collection of
patterns from man's background knowledge.
e. This means that any techniques for the recognition of a
specification in an event under investigation must come from outside
ID theory. The fact that I personally may not have the tools or
ability to sift and recognize a specified pattern in a collection of
2000 bits does not mean cryptanalysts and/or signint analysts don't.
Evolutionary theory requires a whole host of disciplines to keep its
house of cards intact.
f. Finally does the fact that snex personally can't produce
experimental eviidence of the emergence and develpment of biological
novelty during the course of a million generations of E Coli mean
that neoDarwinism is a failure?
Regards,
T Pagano
You keep on doing this, Tony. Who do you think you are fooling with
this dishonesty?
As for ID:
When an ID proponent proposes a test of the assertion that an
"intelligent designer", possibly using supernatural powers, has
interfered with normal evolutionary processes there will be a theory
of ID.
This would involve presenting a possible observation or measurement
which could *NOT* be explained by supernatural intervention. There is,
of course, no such potential observation or measurement.
It should be noted that Darwin devoted a considerable portion of
"Origin of Species" to trying to think of potential observations which
could *falsify* his theory. So far nobody has succeeded in doing so.
RF
.
- References:
- Some of the common mistakes atheists make about ID theory
- From: T Pagano
- Some of the common mistakes atheists make about ID theory
- Prev by Date: Re: And your point would be...
- Next by Date: Richard Dawkins in picture
- Previous by thread: Re: Some of the common mistakes atheists make about ID theory
- Next by thread: Re: Pagano persists in his labelling all scientists as atheists despite it having been pointed out on numerous occasions that this is a categorically false designation. Will he stop this dishonest behaviour? My bet is that he won't, thus confirming once again that he and the ID movement he espouses are fundamentally dishonest.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
