Re: real theories vs imaginary tales such as natural selection



Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2008-02-24, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2008-02-23, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2008-02-23, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


bryce.topmind.jac...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 21, 1:39?am, topmind <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
An algorithm is an algorithm. A formula is a formula. At least put
forth a candidate that does not have large wiggle room.

Observe, hypothesize, predict, test, repeat. Observations must be
replicable. Hypotheses must be falsifiable. That's the scientific
method in a nutshell. Tens of thousands of working scientists use it
every day.

I gave examples of falsifiable tests for DNA-ID. Some here even
claimed it failed the tests. (Or do you merely classify them as big
stupid poo-heads, like you do to me? You never answer this, just
change the subject.) Something cannot be both falsified and not-
falsifiable at the same time. Please explain to me how that can be the
case here.

Your tests aren't tests, because you don't know what you are looking
for. Neither do any other ID theorists.

Prime numbers and other math series are candidates that scientists
such as Carl Sagan have proposed (for SETI-like exploration).

We were talking about ID. Well, to be fair, _I_ was talking about ID.
You keep pretending that you are talking about ID, but you actually do
so by only trying to draw analogies of your ideas to SETI. While the
analogy isn't completely forced, it doesn't actually help us all in trying
to develop tests for ID in DNA.

Perhaps the Behe mess is confusing the issue. Let's focus on whether
we can test for intelligent manipulation of biology. Let's NOT worry
about:

1. Whether it's gods or aliens doing it

Or Monsanto.

2. Whether natural selection is also involved

Doesn't it seem silly to muse about design, if we can't tell the difference
between the design that a God might do and a design an alien might do?

Who says we need to tell the difference? The idea is to identify
intelligence patterns, not necessarily ID the name of the author.


Behe's view of ID is more specific than the bigger question of
intelligent manipulation.

They use words like "patterns"
and "specified complexity" and all sorts of other terms, but none of
these actually enable you to test DNA for intelligent influence.

Other people (myself included) tried to turn your ideas into tests, and
actually ran them on DNA sequences. We didn't find anything. This is hardly
surprising. To the degree that OUR tests were falsifiable, we falsified
ID.

So at least we established some aspects of ID as falsifiable. Do you
disagree with this statement?

I balk at the idea that ID as the term is generally understood makes any
such predictions. Behe certainly doesn't know of any way to test for ID.
Neither does Dembski. And, of course, neither do you.

I thought your friends here agreed it was "falsified". It cannot be
both falsified and non-testable.

I don't have any friends here.

Okay, "bullying partners".

I'm not responsible for what other says.
You shouldn't assume I agree with anything someone else says, unless of course
I say I agree. I've explained myself clearly multiple times, that you choose
to ignore it is rude.

Clarity of logic is not your strength.


And there are further tests or further samples to test. It was hardly
an exhaustive search.

It was demonstrated to you that such a search cannot be exhaustive.

Then we can agree that such testing is not "finished"?

_Your_ proposed testing hasn't started, nor can start, until you think of
something to search for.

Ask the guys here who claim its already falsified.

This guys also has some ideas:

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/394575.html

2. You take minor errors of mine about side issues to imply that I am
wrong about everything. It is yet more Argument by Social
Intimidation.

You're wrong about lots.

Nothing pivotal to the main argument.

Yes. It is pivotal.

Wrongo.


While that doesn't prove that you are wrong about
everything, it does mean that you are wrong about lots. When your mechanic
doesn't understand how spark plugs work, he still might be able to replace
a muffler, but frankly, I'd be skeptical of his ability to do that too.
And I'd be justified.

I believe YOU to be the amateur mechanic.

Of course you do. But you simply aren't qualified to comment.

You are the one not qualified. You don't appear to understand logic,
mistaking vague feelings for truth.


You don't know how to
clarify and use logic. (Or, afraid of the scrutiny from commitment.)
You think science is a popularity contest.


This is not about me, but about truth.

It's about science actually.

If I can find
truths about the scientific-ness of ID even IF I make mistakes along
the way, then I have achieved my goal even if the road was bumpy.

I see no evidence that you are trying to find the truth. You seem to be
much more concerned in convincing others that you are right.

You make it sound like those are mutually-exclusive.

They often are, and in your case, actually are.

Because you say so, it must be true.


Ironically,
whether you are actually right or not.

It honestly appears that gaining "points" off of social intimidation is
more important to you guys than establishing truths. You are
disingenuous when you do that. Grow Up! Stop acting like Junior High.

Says the person who has threatened people with fist fights, throwing crap,
and just general whining? Physician, heal thyself.

Where did I threaten somebody with a fist fight? I may have said they
deserved a fist, but that is not the same as threatening them.

Isn't it?

No. Threatening them is saying, "I will hit you". That is very
different than "if somebody smacked you in a bar for acting like that,
you'd deserve it".


I was
pointing out that the threat of physical violence often makes people
more amiable in real life. That check is missing on the web.

For someone who likes to read vague implications into others, you seem
disinclined to observe your own.

The problem is always me and never you.


And RAM talked about using a "clue stick" on me. You don't seem that
interested in reigning in your buddies. Enron culture.

I'm not responsible what for what others say. I'm responsible for what
I say. Perhaps you should limit your comments to what I say.

You point out the "social flaws" of those you disagree with, but not
those you agree with. Favoritism instead of Meritism.


Zach had a gift for magnifying irrelevancies and I fell for it.

His points aren't irrelevent, and neither are mine.

Most of them were.

No.

De-no.

The truth of the universe does not care if humans
spend their money/time on long-shots. ID is a long-shot but PROVEN
TESTABLE. If that bothers you, too bad. Truth can hurt.

To the degree that it is testable, it has been shown time and time to be
false. Long ago, people thought lightning and thunder where intelligently
designed. They acquired the ability to test it, and it was found to be false.
Every time we look for intelligent design and develop a real test, it has
been shown to be false.

Not entirely true. Farmers have noticed oddities in their crops, and
sent it to the labs. It turned out that their crops were "infected"
with artificial genetically-modified crop genes from nearby fields. In
that case, the Intelligent Designer was Monsanto.

Let's examine this claim. Can you give me a citation for this supposed
occurrence?

I read it years ago. If I find it again, I'll let you know. Otherwise,
I'll have to pull a RAM and tell you to "go to the library".


The simple fact is that you don't know how to look for intelligent design.

I thought your friends here agreed it was "falsified". It cannot be
both falsified and non-testable.

I'm not responsible for what others say. If you have some specific criticism
of something that I have said, I urge you to focus your attention on it, and
not what you think others have said.

If others here say it is testable (and falsified), why are you arguing
with me claiming it not testable? Go argue with THEM. You paint me as
the minority[1] view here, but it seems I am not. You guys are
waffling over each other like drunk clowns.


Mark

-T-

[1] As if science = votes

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: real theories vs imaginary tales such as natural selection
    ... Observe, hypothesize, predict, test, repeat. ... Prime numbers and other math series are candidates that scientists ... Doesn't it seem silly to muse about design, if we can't tell the difference ... but that is not the same as threatening them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • For Woody the shows low, contrary to me its ridiculous, whereas aged you its listening canadian.
    ... design isn't straight. ... Some hon retailers under the explicit asylum were evolving between the ... While proteins down observe ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > can calculate the probability of something occurring by design vs. ... you are being a hardass on ID but a softy on evo. ... >>> claims about life on Earth and the history of that life. ... You asserted that we can't observe evo, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What does ID have to offer to the scientific community?
    ... And I note that you left out the fact that intelligent design means, ... it can only investigate phenomena it can observe and measure. ... then that's the direction the evidence leads. ... testable pathway for the origin of any known biological system via the "evolutionary" mechanism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implementing strstr
    ... It's what boolean operators generate for truth. ... the language's design. ... to rely on the standard boolean operators, because by definition, since ...
    (comp.lang.c)