Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

On Dec 13, 5:53 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:27 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

< snip >

These particular ideas are already mainstream. There is no need to
write them up. You are the one out on a limb here.

So which scientific journal has published a paper in which some has
applied statistical tests to a set of objects to determine if they are
the product of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces?

Of course there's no such paper!

Do just a little reading in journals dealing with forensic science or
your own field of interest, anthropology.

I don't know of any paper published in this field which attempts
distinguish between "deliberate" and "non-deliberate" processes in the
creation of any object. I know of several papers which test specific
hypotheses of manufacture.

Evidently you think there are such papers.

How about a citation?

SETI scientists have also
published various criteria for determining deliberate vs. non-
deliberate phenomena.

They have?
Where?

SETI has set it's search parameters to look for signals which have
characteristics of those made by known processes, and which therefore
makes them good candidates for extraterrestrial civilisations.

I'm not aware of any publication which attempts to distinguish between
"deliberate" and "non-deliberate" phenomena.

How about a few citations?

All of these fields of science have to do with
determining certain likely limits to non-deliberate processes of
nature.

They do?
Where has this been published?

Surely you don't expect anyone just to take your word for it?


More bull***, Sean.

I don't see anyone coming to your side on this one . . . even in this
forum. Now that should tell you something.


How about this one:
"A poster like someoneN manages to be wrong in many different ways,
and
it's very stimulating to try to come with just one more refutation.
You
make the same mistake over and over again, it's been pointed out to
you,
you don't get it, and I can't see where I'm going to learn anything by
trying to put it a different way.

But I will second Richard's suggestion that you submit this for
publication. You've learned all you're going to learn here.

The fact that you don't have any interest in trying should tell you
something. "

Seems that I have more support than you do.

Not that science is a popularity contest, of course.

By the way, who *do* you think has the intellectual capacity to
understand your *theory*?

RF


RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.