RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 5300
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,15:20   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,11:53)
Gary, I will get to your post when time allows...

From how long it took for me to respond to your last reply to me, I'm OK with being patient.

I also have this from the The National Academy of Sciences:

What is a theory?

The word “theory” serves so many purposes in the English language that confusion is almost inevitable.
Theory has been used to describe concepts ranging from a speculative idea (“it’s just a theory”) to a law of nature
(the “theory” of gravity).
This report suggests that a useful way to define theory in biology is as a collection of models. Biologists use
models—which can be verbal, mathematical, visual, or physical—to represent various aspects of nature for particular
purposes. Most biological systems are too complex to be described by a single model; often, biologists use
several models to approach a research question.
The models a biologist uses—or the theoretical and conceptual frameworks they apply—inform the entire
scientific process, from the tools used, to the experiments done, to the interpretation of the results, and more. For
example, the techniques a biologist might use to analyze a sequence of DNA would vary depending on the researcher’s
conceptual framework. If one’s model of the genome assumes that only those DNA sequences that code for
proteins are important, one may use a technique that only analyzes these sequences. An alternative model that assumes
that non-coding DNA sequences have an important role would require a different extraction technique. Only
the second technique could have discovered that non-coding sequences are responsible for preventing a cell from
turning cancerous or allowing a plant to resist a predatory insect.

You can here see how theory is for models. This Theory of Intelligent Design easily meets the toughest NAS requirements of them all by not allowing non-model evidence for the hypothesis you have. It's not me that has to be satisfied, it's literally the theory that I just speak for. There is a system to be by the letter followed or it's not what the above definition is describing. It's not complicated though. Follows PBS definition for hypothesis for children, where with the right experiment it's quickly shown to be true or false. The one I linked to on YouTube is the same thing. In complicated cases like a model of the universe it gets more difficult to be sure either way, but we don't have to worry about that, it's the same thing for any cosmological model. Where it is impossible for the "group mind" to form where matter and antimatter exist together my hypothesis is false, particles for some reason must be independently intelligent but I would be thrilled my hypothesis looks like its more likely false, because your model would open the box so we have some idea either way. Science is here not dividing up over hypothesis it's working together to develop an experiment.

I sent out a few short replies to the easy ones before being able to get back to you with something complete enough to post. And I'm still adding detail! But at least you know why I (on behalf of what a theory requires) must have things a certain way or it's not a computer model Planet Source Code could get excited over either. There would not even be a computer model to submit for review, that ended up coming from email and award and excellent comments plus 5 stars from two reviewers who gave it an honest going over. That very much indicates how well it's meeting NAS standards for theory. That in turn makes otherwise impossible things happen in the greater mind of science, which would otherwise not believe what they heard at coffee break at the the lab about an ID theory from like a whole other Planet that's actually very good for systems biology already being here to experiment with. It's here how it moves in mysterious ways while in a subtle way amplified by creativity of the culture changers who thrive on scientific revolution too:

U2 - Mysterious Ways

The theory has to have the NAS lost for words and all the rest that totally changes how things now go in the very real scientific arena, or else it's not getting excited about there either. No insight into who and what we are, or even pompous establishment deserving rebelling against. The only way all this is possible, is to have a winning scientific method, that works everywhere.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]