Southstar
Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29) | Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?
Tell you what, let's do a simple little test. I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because a human designed it. The other is a sequence created from random numbers. Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.
Any interest in that? |
Tried that, got the following crytpic message back.
| Quote |
"The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though."
|
...our lab is currently trying to find design in the statement above, but at the moment we are pretty sure there isn't any.
--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin
|
