|The whole truth
Joined: Jan. 2012
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,12:44)|
|Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 03 2012,10:13)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,06:46)|
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 03 2012,04:35)|
|Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.|
Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.
So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.
Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):
1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed
If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.
I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.
Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.
Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.
Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. End up reading:
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple
3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed
Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".
Philosophy is not science. Therefore the second two are not even scientific questions, they are philosophical questions. At their core, are questions that begin here, which do agree with theory:
Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.
So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?
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.
Hmm, more irrelevant gibberish but no measurements/calculations. What a surprise. Not.
Oh well, don't feel too bad gary, none of the other IDiots can or will do it either.
Chalk up yet another day where "ID" has been shown to be vacuous.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27