Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-01-2017 12:19 AM
415 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, Dredge, DrJones*, frako, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 409 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminAsgara
Post Volume:
Total: 805,915 Year: 10,521/21,208 Month: 3/3,605 Week: 151/873 Day: 3/148 Hour: 3/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
19Next
Author Topic:   The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge
tesla
Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 196 of 285 (688595)
01-23-2013 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Genomicus
01-23-2013 6:42 PM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
I apologize for my rudeness. I had thought you were educated and giving me a hard time.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Genomicus, posted 01-23-2013 6:42 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Genomicus, posted 01-23-2013 7:28 PM tesla has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 197 of 285 (688598)
01-23-2013 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by tesla
01-23-2013 7:18 PM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
I had thought you were educated and giving me a hard time.

Geez, thanks. Now please respond to my points.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 7:18 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by tesla, posted 02-01-2013 11:27 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 198 of 285 (688601)
01-23-2013 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by tesla
01-23-2013 9:43 AM


Re: the answer.
I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'.

I'm saying let the religious fund real God seeking

Try the Discovery Institute ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 9:43 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by tesla, posted 02-01-2013 11:34 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 199 of 285 (688604)
01-23-2013 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by tesla
01-23-2013 9:49 AM


Re: the answer.
Yes, because indirectly, through an I.D. hub, they would.

OK. Maybe we are getting somewhere.

So what is an "I.D. Hub"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 9:49 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2013 9:51 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 211 by tesla, posted 02-01-2013 11:54 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 200 of 285 (688614)
01-23-2013 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by AZPaul3
01-23-2013 8:41 PM


Re: the answer.
So what is an "I.D. Hub"?

How about an impartial non-profit that issues grants to students to study actual science, funded by (religious) donations, for students that want to investigate ID?

I think a lot of religious people would donate to such a program.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by AZPaul3, posted 01-23-2013 8:41 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by AZPaul3, posted 01-24-2013 12:15 AM RAZD has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 201 of 285 (688629)
01-24-2013 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
01-23-2013 9:51 PM


Re: the answer.

  • impartial non-profit
  • funded by (religious) donations
  • study actual science
  • investigate ID

Sounds oxymoronic all around. But lets give some leeway.

Are there some research proposals that would match the "actual science" and "investigate ID" criteria? I keep getting visions of Behe's irreducible complexity or Fairchild's prayer healing where the "actual science" is hostage to predetermined conclusions like all other "religious" research ever devised.

I would like to see some grant proposals.

However, there is the strong possibility that if there are grants to do real actual science research into ID the results will disappointingly show it is all bullshit. I guess that's just a chance we will have to take. Not that the proponents will believe the results just like they don't believe the ... real science results ... already done. But, hey, maybe some kids will learn to do some real science in the process. That's a win-win ... ehh ... lets just say it's a win situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2013 9:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Genomicus, posted 01-24-2013 12:25 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2013 10:30 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 202 of 285 (688630)
01-24-2013 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by AZPaul3
01-24-2013 12:15 AM


Re: the answer.
However, there is the strong possibility that if there are grants to do real actual science research into ID the results will disappointingly show it is all bullshit. I guess that's just a chance we will have to take.

Isn't there that strong possibility for a number of grant proposals? A lot of this depends on your perception, too. For some of you, there's not a trace of a clue that biological life was engineered, while for others there are such clues.

But I really don't think we need $5,000,000 to test specific ID hypotheses. Some of the hypotheses I outlined a few pages back could be neatly tested using standard bioinformatic techniques. If ID is to make any headway in academia, it will be through the medium of the scientific literature. By proposing novel hypotheses to current biological problems (e.g., the problem of the origin of life), the ID position could be tested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AZPaul3, posted 01-24-2013 12:15 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2013 1:03 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5685
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(3)
Message 203 of 285 (688636)
01-24-2013 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Genomicus
01-24-2013 12:25 AM


Grant proposals?
Isn't there that strong possibility for a number of grant proposals? A lot of this depends on your perception, too. For some of you, there's not a trace of a clue that biological life was engineered, while for others there are such clues.

A while back the Templeton Foundation solicited grant proposals to research "Intelligent Design," and funded quite a few of them. The results were very disappointing, leading to the following decision:

The Templeton Foundation Distances Itself from “Intelligent Design”

We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/the-templeton-f.html

So, what you are asking for was tried and abandoned nearly a decade ago.

Face it: "intelligent" design is religion with the serial numbers filed off in a dishonest hope of fooling someone. (That hasn't and will not work.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Genomicus, posted 01-24-2013 12:25 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Genomicus, posted 01-24-2013 10:18 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 204 of 285 (688652)
01-24-2013 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Coyote
01-24-2013 1:03 AM


Re: Grant proposals?
A while back the Templeton Foundation solicited grant proposals to research "Intelligent Design," and funded quite a few of them. The results were very disappointing, leading to the following decision...

That probably wasn't research on intelligent design as a biological hypothesis, was it? Although the exact details appear to be elusive, I strongly suspect that what the Templeton Foundation actually funded was research by ID proponents on subjects like the limits of protein evolution. Understanding the limits of protein evolution is of interest to ID researchers, but that in itself does not test the notion that biological life was engineered.

So, what you are asking for was tried and abandoned nearly a decade ago.

But I'm not asking for that. I suggest testing specific ID hypotheses (instead of focusing only on the limits to Darwinian evolution). Sure, there's the risk that "if there are grants to do real actual science research into ID the results" will demonstrate that ID is a futile area of research. But then again, there's the chance that the ID hypotheses will be experimentally validated, and this would lead to a whole new area of research.

Face it: "intelligent" design is religion with the serial numbers filed off in a dishonest hope of fooling someone.

The proposition that biological life on Earth was engineered is religion? Please elaborate on how the above idea is religious in nature.

Now, the Intelligent Design Movement certainly has a religious and political agenda, but let's not confuse the movement with the idea.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2013 1:03 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 205 of 285 (688654)
01-24-2013 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by AZPaul3
01-24-2013 12:15 AM


Re: the answer.
Sounds oxymoronic all around. But lets give some leeway.

Are there some research proposals that would match the "actual science" and "investigate ID" criteria? ...

Actually I have been half-heartedly thinking of creating such a grant awarding body to encourage kids to get into science. I would expect failure to be part of the education.

Wanna help?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AZPaul3, posted 01-24-2013 12:15 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12933
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 206 of 285 (688670)
01-24-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by tesla
01-23-2013 1:22 PM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
tesla writes:

So all I'm getting from you is ignoring all that data I have just stated in a simple post, that God is potential, and it's time we explore those potentials with legitimate science....


What legitimate science does is explore potentials. What I'm not getting from you is any specifics about how your suggestions will point in the direction of "God".

You'e basically just saying, "Go out and look for stuff." What we want in this thread is something more specific.

Columbus wouldn't have gotten any funding if he had proposed just sailing around until he found something interesting. He had to specify what he was looking for, where he expected to find it and how he planned to go about getting there.

That is what we want from you. Not just, "Look around and you'll find God," but, "I think God is at location X. I propose to go there by following route Y which will cost Z dollars."

Tell us what route Y is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 1:22 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 207 of 285 (688684)
01-24-2013 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by tesla
01-23-2013 7:00 PM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
On particles . The object of this endeavor is to answer whether or not intelligence and design are a part of life’s history.

Then why can't we study life?

You’re asking me to give you an experiment to prove there is greater being, without looking for greater being.

False. I am asking if life has been altered by an intelligence in the past. Why would we need too? When we want to determine if a rock was used as a tool by a primitive intelligence on Earth we don't have to travel back in time to interview that intelligence. Rather, we look at the marks left on the tool. We look for striations from wear and patterns of knapping, as two examples. We can also trace the flint used in the arrowheads to the source rocks and determine where arrowheads are made. All of this is done without needing to grill or detect the intelligence themselves. So why can't we do the same with life?

Yes Rutherford ran experiments, but the gold foil experiment next to the LHC is like comparing the first wheel next to today’s blue tooth robotically driven electric car. The capabilities and knowledge have to be available.

That is what I am asking for, experiments in the field of biology that will grow our knowledge of technology with respect to intelligent design just as it is done in all other fields of science.

We have places to start. Improve space travel.

Is that where they started for determining what makes up the atom? No. Is that where they started out when they tried to figure out how arrowheads were made thousands of years ago? No. What you are discussing is not scientific research.

One potential I already said to you, would be to monitor the electromagnetic spectrum for likenesses next to brain communication.

So how will this be used to test the hypothesis that life was designed by an inteligence in the past?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 7:00 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by tesla, posted 02-01-2013 12:05 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 208 of 285 (688685)
01-24-2013 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by tesla
01-23-2013 7:06 PM


Re: the answer.
That’s just it Taq. The lack of evidence means we need to start looking deeper into what we know about the possibilities that exist concerning greater being potentials, and how to find them.

So what experiments can I run in the field of biology to obtain this evidence?

There is not enough data to conclude anything other than "I do not know" by anyone who is honest about what so called data we have concerning the issue.

So what experiments can I run in the field of biology so I can know if an intelligence changed life in the past?

That is the whole premise of having an 'I.D. science theory'. It is possible.

That's not science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 7:06 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 209 of 285 (689600)
02-01-2013 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Genomicus
01-23-2013 7:28 PM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
The English you wish clarified is simply stated and clear. Please restate any confusions of how I define words that are not used in the same manner or definitions by individuals with similar teachings of how to use ambiguous words... and I will attempt to explain the definitions so that you understand the idea I am attempting to relay.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Genomicus, posted 01-23-2013 7:28 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 210 of 285 (689604)
02-01-2013 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by RAZD
01-23-2013 8:04 PM


Re: the answer.
Try the Discovery Institute ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

If that write up is accurate the discovery institute is unacceptable.

Teaching 'anti-evolution' does not fit the goals of science, which in my opinion, will not throw away science when offering alternate theories or possibilities.

Evolution does not teach that God is not, or that I.D. is not a possibility: if it is being taught that way, then the teachers are being just as indoctrinating and foolish as those who teach two of every animal will fit on a boat.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2013 8:04 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017