Re: SETI and the Detection of ID

On Nov 18, 11:53 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Nov 18, 4:59 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



there is no predictive value in ID, nor is it a hypothesis. a failed
idea is not a hypothesis any more than a corpse is a ballet dancer.

SETI is based on an ID theory.

actually, it's not.

no SETI scientist...none....says intelligence created a feature of
nature like creationists are saying about the feature of nature called
'life'.

SETI modifies a natural product. DNA IS a natural product.

The search for ETI does not modify anything.  It evaluates radio
signals for features that go well beyond known non-deliberate non-
intelligent natural productions while being within at least human-
level creative potential.

?? really? ETI invented electromagnetism? every time i watch
'trublood' on TV do I have to pay royalties to the ETI that invented
electromagetism?

the origin of life is unknown. it's YOUR contention that we know
enough about the origins of DNA to rule out natural processes, yet you
spew your frustration at scientists for doing basic research in this
very area

why would scientists do basic research in an area that's so mature we
can rule out the very processes they're investigating?

Certain types of DNA sequences cannot be produced by this or any other
non-ID method.  Human-designed sequence tags, for example, cannot be
produced by RM/NS.  And, there are other features in the same category
- like systems with functional complexity beyond the 1000aa threshold
level - i.e., systems that require at least 1000 fairly specified
amino acid residues working together at the same time.  These systems
have not been observed to be produced by RM/NS and statistically very
very unlikely to be produced by this non-ID natural mechanism this
side of trillions upon trillions of years of time.

i've already given you the benefit of the doubt for the sake of
argument: i'll stipulate RM/NS can not create DNA that codes for aa
chains>1000.

that, however, is not a mechanism. you seem to think that the rules of
logic say that ONLY 2 ideas exist: we KNOW that a natural process is
involved OR god did it. if we dont know the former then the latter is
automatically true

and that is NOT how science is done. sorry. you're not a scientist and
you're pushing religion.

sean is trying to use the most used failed idea in history. it's been
tried for 2000 years and it's ALWAYS been wrong always.

SETI is based on an ID hypothesis - as are many other scientific
disciplines.  

wrong. SETI is based on the principle that intelligence knows how to
use features of nature to express intelligence. it is NOT based on the
idea that intelligence knows how to CREATE features of nature like
life.

BIG BIG difference.

your idea....that there are intelligence processes in nature...has
ALWAYS been wrong. every time a new discovery has been made in
science, you creationists crawl out of your coffins, dragging your
stinking, dead, putrid corpse of the most failed idea in history, and
try it ONE MORE TIME.

you're leaving body parts all over history. your idea has ALWAYS been
wrong. for 2000 years it's been wrong. that's why science exists: if
'god did it' could explain nature, scientists would use it.

we don't.

your idea is wrong.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SETI and the Detection of ID
    ... nature like creationists are saying about the feature of nature called ... SETI scientist are indeed arguing that a feature of nature in the form ... signals for features that go well beyond known non-deliberate non- ... spew your frustration at scientists for doing basic research in this ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SETI and the Detection of ID
    ... nature like creationists are saying about the feature of nature called ... YOU say it's used all the time by scientists ... enough about the origins of DNA to rule out natural processes, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Multi-Protein Machines, Sequence Space & Possible vs. Likely
    ... of ID detection for forensics, anthropology, and even SETI. ... researched so natural processes can't be excluded. ... that nature could use the processes ventor's company used to create ... scientists are proposing to do and are doing. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SETI and the Detection of ID
    ... none of which are used by scientists to describe natural processes, ... potential causes  of events in nature ... position as the hypothesis of intelligent origin? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Follow up to Kermits: "The Missing Universe Museum"
    ... what single thing, in 2000 years, did creationism get right in ... explaining the features of nature? ... scientists answer 15 questions. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading