Re: Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID
- From: bryce.topmind.jacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:06:50 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 27, 11:56 pm, topmind <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Martin Hutton wrote:
I'm not going to argue with you on this one, other than to point out
that they are somewhat more specific than "we hope to find
confirmation of some kind, somewhere."
Prime numbers have been suggested. One can calculate the probability
of finding a given length of primes per DNA "digits" searched, and see
how far above that the candidate primes are. For example, a long prime
may be calculated as being a 1 in 20 chance of happening by expected
chance. If such was found, then deeper searches would be taken up.
Weren't these hypotheses soundly disproved last year?
No.
You know, bald faced lying like this when people can easily Google the
previous discussion just makes you look like even more of an idiot
than you have already proven yourself to be.
You came up with two non-hypotheses during your last period of spewing
forth into this newsgroup. One was the Bryce Jacobs cargo cult non-
hypothesis:
"There are no known sequential prime digits (as defined by encoding
algorithm X)
longer than length Y in the DNA of earth species."
As noted then, this has the form of an hypothesis but none of the
substance. A scientific hypothesis must explain empirical
observations, must be based on empirical evidence and logical,
scientifically supported assumptions, and must make specific, testable
predictions the failure of which would serve to falsify it.
Your cargo cult hypothesis does not meet these criteria. For example:
- What empirical observations lead to your hypothesis? Note that
analogies are not evidence, particularly when they fail to take into
consideration essential characteristics of one of the entities being
compared.
- On what assumptions does your hypothesis depend?
- What is the scientific and logical basis for each of those
assumptions? Note that any additional assumptions required must also
be scientifically and logically supported. For example, interstellar
travel is not automatically plausible.
- What is algorithm X? How exactly does it derive from the empirical
observations and grounded assumptions underlying your hypothesis?
- What is length Y? Why Y, exactly, rather than Y-1 or Y*57?
- What predictions derive directly from your hypothesis?
- How can those predictions be tested?
- How would a failure of any of those predictions falsify your
hypothesis?
Your second attempt was 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."
This is simply pathetic.
During the same period, you were also repeatedly corrected on your
misconceptions of falsifiability ("falsifiable in the absolute sense"
being your particular nonsensical phrase) and the scientific method
("true-ifiable" exists only in your rather limited imagination).
Oh, and we mustn't forget the discussion of your mathematical
prowess. See my sig for details.
So yes, everything you're babbling about now has been soundly refuted.
BJ
----
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dfa00a58f25f28ac:
Bryce Jacobs (topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
| First make a list of the first 500 prime numbers:
| A: 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 29 .....
.
- References:
- Re: Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID
- From: topmind
- Re: Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID
- Prev by Date: Re: SnoozeBusters: Intelligent Design Scholars Muzzled By Scientific Establishment
- Next by Date: Re: Have we become alt.atheism?
- Previous by thread: Re: Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID
- Next by thread: Re: Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
