Does ID follow the scientific method?

None, real scientists will do that for you.What you need is to propose a test for design.

We're not talking about "order and harmony". We're talking about intelligent design.And so far you haven't done any tests, you haven't described any tests, you haven't specified what you're testing for.I'm asking you for one simple test that you would do to identify design. What would you be holding in your hands while you're doing the test?So far, you've demonstrated that the ID method is fundamentally different from the scientific method because the scientific method does propose detailed experimental procdeures.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

If thats you in the picture, sorry doll face, yes we are talking about order and harmonyThings like change and natural selection are all that can be deduced by scientific observationDesign is a conclusion, like nature being the sole mechanism for the existence of things. those are conclusions not provable. Whats left is logic by deduction If what I provided is not a test could you give me an example of test that involves different and better principlesShow me your method, describe the steps Im sorry to be rude but the above is so funny and indicative of the science mind. it actually believes and cannot distinguish between what is rational and what is neededRingo a test does not need to be complicated or detailed to be a test, or scienceYes science conducts detailed test to and FOR information concerning present information.. that does not mean its conclusions concerning details and events, that are no longer available are as accurate and detailed concerning information and events presentlySorry I had to change that last sentenceWhy cant you see that distinctionBoth you and i test for what information can be deduced presently, thats all we can do.Your methods and your conclusions are no better. think about it logicallyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Off topic?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. I've also PM'ed alschwin about how to avoid what will be the wrath of Admin when he sees the current version of the message tomorrow.Edited by alschwin, : Off topic?

Only one; but that one has to produce repeatable results, it has to rely on solid data, and it has to lead to a reliable conclusion stemming directly from the observations. (Subjective opinions and unsupported claims need not apply.)So far you have provided none of these. And you have provided no real-world definitions of "order" and "harmony" that can be used in such a test.Here are some of the problems:Different observers can look at "a leaf" or any other object and come up with different opinions on "order" and "harmony" (whatever those terms mean). Unless you can define some objective criteria you are dealing with the subjective.There are all kinds of leaves, from those you don't want growing in your lawn to fossils hundreds of millions of years old. What data will you collect, and from which leaves will you collect it? What will you do to ensure that your data is not subjective? What criteria will you use to ensure you have enough data? What measurements and observations will you take? How much additional data will you need from other organisms? You didn't think you could just study leaves, did you?When you have enough data, how will you work from that data to a conclusion? What data will you use, and what data will you judge not to be important? What criteria will you use to decide these things? What assumptions will you use, and how well supported are they? Will you be able to establish a theory that explains all the data, as well as related data, and ignores no important data?When you can start to answer these questions, and literally hundreds of additional related questions, you may be able to come up with a suitable test.But first, you really should establish some relationship between "order" and "harmony" and the real world. At the moment those terms seem more suitable for a sophomore bull session well lubricated with adult beverages and unbridled ignorance. So how are you going to study the "pattern of logical and orderly progression?" Measure them? Study them in historical perspective, using fossils and radiometric dating?Seems like what you are describing is basic biology and paleontology, which is being practiced by thousands of scientists around the world. Their results fill floors in major university libraries.But I think what you are really doing is depicted in the following cartoon: See, there is that "step two" -- it doesn't bother you because you already know the answer and you have no need to go through all the steps that are customary in science. But that's why you don't have a test you can describe for us. That's why you don't have a method you can describe. That's why you keep coming up with these subjective and undefined terms, such as "order" and "harmony" that ultimately mean nothing.Fact is, you are peddlin' religion lite and we all know it. That's all that ID is, and ever will be. And that is why it has to be promulgated by folks such as yourself and sold to an already religious audience instead of working scientists and peer-reviewed journals.Real scientists won't touch ID with a ten foot cattle prod for the reasons outlined above, and many others.

---

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

Thank you, atleast that is a start I love the science mind it is so funny. ironically it is void of logical deduction, the very thing it needs the mostC, all information, not at present and not now available is void of reliable conclusions, but it is not void of logical probabilitiesAny information derived by the SM, about information not now available or conclusions of the same is at best speculative, but that deosnt mean it is wrong or inaccurate, just not demonstratableSo, now listen, pay close attention. The SM, unless it is dealing with present visible information and conclusion that can presently be proved, suffers the same fate as any test or theoryYour methods and conclusions are no better, than the IDMs, science approach we use in the conclusions concerning, order, law and harmonyIt amazes me that you believe I actually need to keep conducting tests to see if order actually is order Why do you assume my test needs to be complicated to be valid. thats funnyDawn Bertot

No we're not. Nobody disputes that order and harmony exist. What you're trying to do is establish a linkage between order and harmony on the one hand and design on the other hand.We have something that exhibits order and harmony. Your hypothesis is that that order and harmony originate from a designer.Your claim is that the ID method for testing that hypothesis is the same as the scientific method. The scientific method proposes experiments to test the hypothesis, so if your method is the same as the scientific method, that's what you need to do. Certainly. I hypothesize that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen in a ratio of 2 to 1 by volume. The equipment that I require is two test tubes, a source of electric current and a beaker of water. I propose to pass an electric current through the water and collect the separated hydrogen and oxygen gases in the test tubes, one over each electrode. If my hypothesis is correct, I will collect twice as much hydrogen as oxygen. I'll test the hydrogen (to a first approximation) by igniting it. I'll test the oxygen (to a first approximation) by inserting a glowing splint to see if it promotes combustion.I've been asking you to describe a similar experiment in similar detail for distinguishing design from natural processes.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Dawn, you stupid bitch. No, that's not Ringo. That is Sharon Stone in an Old West movie about an epic race (which also featured Gene Hackman) in whch one member rode with a whisky-soaked bullet bitten by himself -- sorry, but I never have watched that movie, except for a singular scene where one Mexican contestant in that race soaked that bullet in whisky before returning it between his teeth. Unless I'm mistaking it for yet another Western I had not seen in which Sharon Stone was a contestant in a series of noon-day showdowns. I will leave it up to Ringo to resolve that.You have proposed something that is substantially different from what science would have produced. The onus is on you to produce evidence of that..

EPIC FAIL!And the sad part is you can't even see why.Good night.

---

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

While I dont like the language, that is funny as crap. "You stupid bitch". bastard would be more accurate, I have a pair. You know a guy named sue sort of thing yeah I know that, I watched it again this very day on ION, for about the 10th time. I was hoping ringo was actually Sharon. well you know what they say, poop in one hand and wish in the other and watch which one fills up the fastestOfcourse no one is faster than Will Mannon (steve forrest) episode of Gunsmoke, where he guns down five bad guys in about 2 seconds, with festus left wityh his mouth haning openThe actual quick draws of today are even more impressive. I would hate to get on the bad side of one of those dudesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No, again, design is a conclusion of observed evidence. It doesnt mean design is the source, it means it is a logical conclusion of the available evidence of obvious order.I dont need to, nor can I or you produce tests to demonstrate the actual evidence of events that are no longer available. Those are called conclusions Dr A As eloquent as your speech sounds, they do not detect change or evolution as the SOURCE of order found in anything. Nice try though.The source of the order is an event no longer detectable, outside revelation)What they detect is simply change and what we detect is orderYou are free to believe that natural sources soley, are the cause of order and change or evolution. Demonstrating it in reality, or the physical world, is another thingSo when the dust settles and the smoke clears, all we are left with are two logical possibilites, both of whcih are testable in physical propertiesBoth of which are and use the same exact methodologyBoth of which are scienceAnd those are the facts I have already done this and the conclusion of your statement is a misrepresentation of my positionAs a matter of fact i have stated numerous times its not about design, initially and directlyDawn Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You still do not get it you base your conclusion on the base that order needs desighn to be order. You have not put one argument forward that would say or point to that. Until you do it is more logical to assume that order can spawn naturaly whitout the aid of inteligence.

I value his comments concerning the subject greatly and While i agree with his conclusion as well, I do not think that is initially how the design argument is established, but i personally agree with the majority of its tenetsDawn Bertot

To demonstrate you do not Actually understand what you are saying, one simply needs to point out that you have no knowledge of how events started to begin withSo claiming that order can start on its own and demonstrating it are two different thingsUntil you can prove that order and all order is and can start on its own, order most certainly points to designperhaps you could conduct one of those complicated, very involved in depth SM test to prove to us that order is not designed and that it in every place starts on its own. especially the beginning of thingsbecause we already know the SM is superior to all other forms of investigation and it can answer all questions, even the ones where the direct evidence is no longer available, correctdawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

At another time i asked you not to lecture me on Military protocol. While you were learning how to not, to dangle your modifiers, I was learning how to scale and not dangle from constantina wireIn my stint I actually participated in events, in the line of duty, that would make you pukeSo if i happen to split an infinative, I think I have already accomplished more in there than you will ever have in the NCO academyso take your regs and pressed shirt and impress someone else with that crapolaPipe down junior absolutley D, look at this very eloquent and complicated explanation and see if it really involves anymore than i have already indicated. What you have described is nothing more than a commonsense investigation, the likes of which anyone would use and employThe only part other than that is the reference to the supernatural, which is not necessary to formulate the ID supposition, initially that isDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.