The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge

let’s recap so that you are not just going back to the initial points we have already agreed:
1. Science does not have any data to support, or deny greater being.
2. Science is too limited to know what greater being looks like, and does not fully understand the dynamics of the human brain.And also:
1. Science can see only a very small fraction of what is in the universe, and believes that other life potentials on other planets could exist similar to earth life.
2. That could also mean a more evolved species could be out there.Now that that is out of the way; to address your question: it's been answered. You refuse to accept that exploring the path that leads to further experimentation concerning the issue is the solution, since we cannot directly examine what we are not sure we are looking for. That is why it is called RE-SEARCH. I've answered this question of yours multiple times. The answer will not change. You are not accepting answers you do not agree with, despite the fact they are working answers to the question, and I’ve informed you there are many types of tests that can be run and performed in brain research and interstellar travel. Ok: 1. does anyone know if higher being designed anything is true or isn't, by scientific proof? No. (There is not enough evidence to prove there is or isn’t a God.) everyone examines the same information and then take many different paths of how they decide to answer the question. but the truth is, without proof, either potential is possibly true.See? Proven.

My faith does not require a religion mister ringo. I do not have the education to perform advanced brain analisis. I do not have the engineering and physics degrees to build a better space engine. But I know where to start, and that scientists who have those capabilities are out there.So you wanted my true honest beliefs and opinions, and I give them, and you cannot find fault in them, you just choose to hold on to your beliefs, and be the naysayers that keep science from growing like all skeptics do. you want to know what the problem is between religion and science? science is so hard set to destroy religion that it is limiting it's own capabilities in science itself.

I went back and read all your posts where you mentioned brain research and interstellar travel. Turns out that's all you did, mention them. The opening post of this thread actually asks a more detailed question: Imagine that you're competing with proposals from other Christians. How are you going to convince a board of Christian fundamentalists that their $5,000,000 should be spent on seeking an omnipresent God in space or in the brain? How would you answer their questions, which might be somewhat like these:

• What leads you to believe God can be found through non-spiritual means?
  ​
• What if God is at the center of the Earth or Sun?
  ​
• What should we be looking for in the brain that would lead us to God?
  ​
• Have you had your sanity checked?
  ​
• ...etc...

--Percy

Could you imagine if Einstein had said something like:"My theory is right, you just need to put money in space program to prove it" (in case you don't know, he actually made predictions about what we would see if his theory was right instead) or any other scientists said something to this effect? Did you notice that everytime you hear about a researcher, you can actually describe his work? That's the difference between scientific research and ID, scientists actually do the work whereas you expect others to spoonfeed you the work you should be doing. That's why ID isn't respected by the scientific community, you spend all your time and money and propagande instead of actual research.Here's an example of what we would expect if ID was serious research:
Tests of special relativity - Wikipedia
Did you notice that the whole page isn't filled with:"put money here and that's it"?Edited by Son, : No reason given.

What experiments did you run to determine this? Where did you demonstrate this? Scientists also believe that life could be quite different than life here on Earth. Your point? What does this have to do with anything? Exploring space is not a scientific experiment. Exploring how the brain works is not a scientific experiment. They never have been. I am asking for specific scientific experiments that test hypotheses. You have not supplied a single one. Those are not experiments. Obviously, this thread is aimed at people who answer "yes" to that question.

We wanted you to describe actual hypotheses and the experiments that will be used to test them. The last thing we want is your beliefs and opinions.

No I didn't. I wanted to know why you're unwilling to test your beliefs and opinions. There is no problem between science and religion. Some religious people want to create a problem but they don't want to put any real effort into it.

Anything that exists is natural to existence. What if? Well, what if? You cannot start exploring potentials without the engineering capabilities to do so. Without a hadron collider, who could know what we know today about particle collisions?In the brain: we need to be able to interpret the codes on how the brain is storing and relaying information. It could be unique to each brain. when science can read thoughts and see or smell memories, then science can boast it know the brain, and more about consciousness.Sanity? That depends on who is judging. A fanatical Christian can decide you’re insane for not trusting what they believe, just as you can judge a man insane for believing in anything.If you want the specific tests that will be run, you need to talk to persons in those fields I have mentioned that could make breakthroughs in consciousness and interstellar travels. But then, I've said that once already haven't I?

I am willing. But you cannot explore past the capabilities of science. I'm suggesting improving scientific capabilities so that tests could be run.Edited by tesla, : edit.

If people will spend billions building a hadron collider, which they had no idea what was going to happen when the hydrogen collided, why wouldn't people spend on how to read thoughts and see dreams?You’re skirting the importance of the concept of God, and the entire path that leads to the capability to research that.

For real dude? Are you going to pretend to be dumb and blind? It doesn't take an experiment to prove where scientific knowledge ends.

I mentioned a couple tests. the current knowledge and equipment of today's science cannot complete them. Science needs better capabilities first.Hypothesis: a greater consciousness exists on another planet.Experiment: fly to other planets and see.Hypothesis: information of a greater consciousness can communicate long distances.Experiment: find a common algorithm based on how human consciousness reads and writes data for dreams, communication, thoughts and the like, then scan all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum to see if there is any similar coding.Hypothesis: We can create a greater consciousness than our own if we build a computer designed based on the brain, but make it much larger, and input a lot more knowledge and energy. a true AI.Experiment: sink money into AI research (programmers etc.), model the human brains communication methods. Tons of options here.

You must have been a wonderful test taker: Obviously you're not getting the $5,000,000.--Percy

But they did know what kind of experiments they would run when they built it. The difference is that you don't even have the beginning of an experiment that would test ID, if we gave ID billions to test their idea, what kind of experiments would we expect? You seem to have spent lots of time avoiding to answer that when a single response would suffice to get the discussion started. You don't need to be a specialist to describe the experiment, you just have to look for those so called ID scientists the same way I can point out tests for relativity despite not having a great understanding of it.Does your answer mean that your "theory" has no testable hypothesis meaning that it is in no way a science?Because the way you've described ID research so far make it seem as valid as fairy science or dragon science....Btw, you actually need to describe how your experiment would relate to ID, otherwise, I could just say something like :
"If we find life on other planets, it proves dragon science so dragon science is a valid science".Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Why would you hire a director to act, if he's a director? Would you hire a roofer to frame your house? Even if I was a neurosurgeon, and outlined some experimentation, you here would find a way to ignore the significance of the research and how it is related to I.D. science.