Re: Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID


On 27-Jan-2008, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Martin Hutton wrote:
On 22-Jan-2008, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Kermit wrote:
On Jan 21, 12:27 am, topmind <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Kermit wrote:
On Jan 12, 10:06 pm, topmind <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 12, 4:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
even the web comic artists are laughing at them.

For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.

http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm

xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
lines, either.

The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a
supernatural
creator. One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by finding
say
photographs and logos hidden in DNA. Thus, ID, as written,
*is*
testable.

Ah. All those biologists who are not religious who insist that
there
is a designer, yes. Refresh my memory and name one or two, could
you?

You are confusing proponent motivations with ideas.



Monsanto Inc. is an Intelligent Designer of sorts even.

Whether theologians want to bother testing for Zeta Glignok's
logo
in
DNA is another matter.

-t-

So what would disprove this "hypothesis"? Not finding photos or
other
messages encoded in human DNA, using the .jpg file format, by
2010?
If
you cannot predict where and under what circumstances they would
be
found, it is not testable.

How are SETI hypotheses disproved? Take Dyson Sphere detection as
an
example.

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.

As your "hypotheses" were so vague as to be almost unusable,
then you might, just might, be able to claim "NO". However,
the hypothesis:
There exists a set of more than 10 sequential prime numbers
encoded in the human genome.
was shown to to be false. IIRC, the search was extended to
the Fibonacci series and digits of pi and e in various bases.

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Goodbye hypothesis.



IIRC someone (who?) wrote algorithms searching for various
patterns in the published human genome sequence. These included
prime numbers and image frames. He also demonstrated that
coded image frames stand out in DNA sequences regardless of
encoding details.

If that was so, then he helped me demonstrate "testable". (We went off
on some wild topic tangents, but the bottom line for this issue is the
same.)

Yep...there isn't anything encoded in the human genome.

Falsified hypothesis...drop it.

--
Martin Hutton

.

Relevant Pages