"Creation Science" experiments.

Actually in post #155 I pointed out (to you) that in order for such examples to be presented we would have to agree on some basic definitions. Here again is exactly what I said,(((before we even start such a conversation we would need to both agree on what constitutes "real" science, what constitutes a real scientist, what counts as real research, and finally what counts as peer review publications. If you can't define all of those terms without in someway excluding or disqualifying the concept of Intelligent Design before we even start, then the point I've made all along has just been validated. )))I had expected an attempt on your part to put together some definitions for those terms in a way that does not automatically exclude the concept of ID, but thus far no such definitions have been put forth (and that's been over a week ago).Also I suppose that you are not talking about any scientific discovery made by a scientist who also happens to personally hold a creation world view, but rather something directly relating to evidence for ID or creation origins. If that is correct then please affirm.

But yet in the same post you said: "I am asking you for a single example of of verified prediction derived from the logical consequences of creationism/ID theory which has directly led to the discovery of new evidence. A discovery." Therefore I am going to assume that what you really want is not just "A" discovery, but rather you are looking specifically for scientific discoveries that support the theory of creation or intelligent design?That being the case I again am reiterating that I can not and will not even begin such a discussion until the ground rules have been laid for what we will and will not accept as science. If for example the scientific evidence I presented seems to strongly support a designing agent having been involved with the formation of life, but the implications of such evidence means this would require a supernatural entity (but your definition rejects the supernatural as a scientific hypothesis), then there is nothing further to discuss because by your definition this would not be "scientific" evidence.Kind of like the murder of a small town sheriff's wife, in which all the officers who investigated the crime started with the preconception that anyone could be a suspect with the exception of the sheriff.

Well then "we" assumed wrong. I've been around enough to know that when the nitty gritty of the arguments start to flow, the goal posts change and the scientists I present along with their research gets accused to be only pseudo science. Instead of "we" continuing to try and goad me into doing something I have stated very clearly will not transpire until certain criteria is met, why don't "WE" just define the damn terms so "WE" can get this show on the road?

That's a real good question Son. Why don't you go ask someone claiming that ID is not a scientific theory like "we" do? And preferably on a thread designed for that topic.

The ID proponents doing the research would say yes to all of the above. And even though I said the "implications" would require a supernatural entity, the researchers make no such conclusions. In fact the theory of ID ends after pointing out that an intelligent source is the more likely of all conclusions. They do not suggest ghosts, ghouls, or goblins. They leave the speculations as to what that intelligent source is, to the theologians. It is the Biblical creationists who take it beyond this point. But my point is that if you do not even allow for the possibility of an intelligent source then you will opt for only natural conclusions no matter how ridiculous or unlikely they are.But this wraps back around to my original point. You will never see evidence for ID, no matter how clearly it is presented, if you refuse to allow for it. And that is all I have been trying to say all along.

Thank you for making my point for me. To you it is not science when the conclusions allow for an intelligent source for life and the universe. As far as your claim that "creationists can not aim," that's an easy assertion made by someone who refuses to clearly define the "out of bounds" line. It kind of reminds me of one of those so called "friendly" games of volley ball on the beach. The other school jocks will goad you into playing, but all of their hits are in while all of yours seem to keep being "out." But none of them seems willing to just take a second to make lines in the sand. It's almost like they are afraid of the outcome, when the rules are fair. But again (for the umpteenth time), I refuse to play until such lines have been drawn. I don't think that is what they said at all. They made a good case to suggest that the evidence for an old earth is not so cut dry "etched in stone" (pardon my pun). They suggest that if several of the "world clocks" suggest a young earth and several suggest an old one, it is not being very responsible to only "cherry pick" the one's that best suits your world view. Of course the RATE team are Biblical creationists and therefor their world view allows for a "Goddidit" as a possible explanation. That doesn't mean they quit the investigation at all. Just that they are not so narrow in their search. But just so you are clear, I refuse to comment on any of their particular findings until those boundary lines are established.So don't try it

Your sentiments are charming, but they don't address my point, or the topic of this thread. Again, that depends on how you are going to define science. If you define it in a way that excludes ID as an explanation from the beginning... well then I guess according to you... not.

If it was as well defined as you think, then there would not be people like me claiming that creation and ID are scientific theories (and yes even Richard Dawkins the atheist admits it), and then people like "Jar" (in post #15) clearly saying they are not.This is why I insist on having the person I am discussing "science" with, define exactly what they view as science. I will not waste a single second chasing all of their crazy passes, only to have them called "out of bounds" when I catch them. I'm sorry if you can not appreciate this, but you know what the "kitty said when the milk ran dry." I agree that some had ill intents in the ID community. But to throw the baby out with the bath water is not a fair reaction. You and I both know that some in the "Evolution camp" have not all been on the up and up. That of itself would not be a fair reason to invalidate the theory of evolution. That would be like refusing to ever ride in Joseph Cugnot's 1769 invention of the automobile, simply because some used the thing for sinister purposes. Likewise you can not use peoples sinister motives for using ID, as a reason to disqualify it as a scientific theory. Again I will be glad to do so just as soon as you define what you mean by "science" and I see that it does not exclude ID as a possibility even before we get started.

No you didn't. What you laid out were examples of scientific experiments. But you did not define what qualifies as science in your eyes. And this is what I seem to not be able to convey to you people. Your beginning post of this thread lays out the question like the old childhood school bully who asks, "Does your Daddy know your so dumb?" The very question postulates itself in such a way that a plain yes or no answer sets up the person to fail either way. To answer no means that the kid is admitting he is dumb but just that his daddy doesn't know it.You are doing the same thing in your request for "creation/ID science experiments." On the one hand you are asking for the experiments, but on the other you define science in such a way as to exclude ID or creation as even being a possibility. If that is not true then you would have no problem just defining science in a way that does not exclude ID or creation.

Yes I very much get this hooah. I wouldn't suggest otherwise. The basic concept of what science is-is very clear. What you can't deny though is that variations also clearly do exist, of how to interpret what science is. What I mean by that is (what you refer to as secular science) aka naturalism, says that all phenomena must have a completely natural explanation. This may not show up worded this way in any of the science manuals, but we know that the attitude is there and screamed loud and clear.Intelligent design proponents say that if the most logical conclusion of the evidence is an intelligent designer (even if the implications of that means something beyond natural) then it must have been designed.Biblical creationists say that the scientific evidence happens to agree with the biblical account of all origins. (Consequently that makes all Biblical creationists also IDists, but all IDists do not necessarily have to be biblical creationists.) Again, if I were only asking for the "actual" definition, I own a dictionary. I am trying to convey something else here. You want experiments done by IDists within the ID paradigm that supports the theory of ID.My point is that if you don't allow for the possibility of ID to begin with (i.e. naturalism), then you will not consider those doing the experiments to be real scientists, you will call their experiments "pseudo science," and you will never see their conclusions as scientific. Well there it is folks. ID/creation isn't actually science. I don't know how my point could have been made any more abundantly clearer than this? You want science from somebody on the one hand, but on the other you already have decided nothing they do is really doing science. Under those conditions you tell me, why should I even bother trying?

You accuse me of misrepresenting you when that is what you do. You are like the pick-pocket in the crowd who steals someones wallet and slips it into some poor unsuspecting saps coat pocket, and then you cry "thief" to attract the cops and they find the "goods" on him. Note that I never said Dawkins says they are doing valid ID science, what I said was that he admits they are scientific theories.Here are Dawkins exact words from his 2006 article about "Why there almost certainly is no God."
My assertion was (and still is) that if it were so well defined, we would not have some people on one hand claiming that creation and ID are scientific theories, and people on the other claiming they are not. And then as an example I quoted both you and Richard Dawkins (who are both presumably supposed to be on the same team) but who seem to be in direct conflict with one another about this.

Finally after some 80 posts someone decided to clearly and decisively draw the lines in the sand. So If I present an ID experiment that follows all of the above steps, am I to understand that we will accept it as "science?"

Observation: The manner in which intelligent agents act and interact can be observed in the natural world and these actions can be described as producing abstruse particularized communication (apc). Only agents acting with intent and purpose can produce apc. Examples: scientists have studied the apc of honey bees and found that certain patterns of dance are very particularized and communicate intricate information to others in the hive. Likewise with dolphins and many other species, apc can clearly be seen. Natural materials used by an intelligent source display apc. For example a birds nest is comprised of twigs and leaves but is intentionally formed in a bowl shape. A stick in the hands of a chimpanzee displays apc when he uses it as a tool to retrieve ants from an ant hole. And of course the most complex is human apc observed in our language and machines etc... From our observations, apc is only a design product of an intelligent source and never occurs by natural unintentionally guided processes.Hypothesis: We should be able to distinguish between intelligently designed objects, and naturally formed (unintentional) objects. Even though some natural processes produce very complex and intricate patterns, only intelligent sources produce this kind of complexity in a particularized form of communication of information. Therefore when we observe any object with apc, we theorize that it must have an intelligent source.Experimentation: Within the ID paradigm on origins of life we can examine biological structures and see if we can detect apc. However since we are examining systems with reproductive capabilities (many generations after the fact), and since the opposing evolutionary theory suggests that such systems can improve or progress through natural processes of random mutations and natural selection, we must be careful to distinguish between actual apc, and the mere appearance of apc.
So the first stage of the experiment would be to study the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule of any biologic organism and measure the arrangement of its nucleotides with the Shannon algorithmic principle to see if it contains information. Secondly we would then compare this information with natural patterns to see if it differs in a way that can only be described as an abstruse and particularized form of communication. And finally in consideration of the above mentioned possibility of only observing the appearance of apc, we must examine all known human data bases on the subject to see if there have ever been any reported observed cases of either; 1.a deoxyribonucleic acid molecule forming by natural unguided processes (even on a very primitive level) or 2.any observed cases of a biological system, complete with reproductive capabilities, forming without the need of a deoxyribonucleic acid molecule.Conclusion: Because apc has only been observed being produced by intelligent sources, and because biological structures exhibit incredibly high levels of shannon information in their DNA which also exhibit enormous amounts of apc, and because no observed biologic systems have ever been reported to exist apart from DNA nor have any even primitive forms of DNA ever been observed forming by natural processes, we can draw the logical conclusion that an intelligent source must at least be responsible for the first living reproducing organisms. Recognizing the implications of this conclusion Intelligent Design proponents leave it at this, and make no further attempts to determine or even speculate what that source may have been.Two examples of published research that supports Intelligent Design are:Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer, by biochemist (and creationist) Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]: The study concludes that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would be completely overcome by incredibly high numbers of errors. However the editing enzymes are made themselves by DNA. This is an incredible argument for design."Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds." by D. Axe, Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315. The study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, only about "one in 10 to the 64th signature consistent sequences forms a working domain and that the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10 to the 77th. The conclusion of the study is that "functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." And because evolution theory says that only organism with a functional advantage are preserved, his study shows how difficult it would be for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. The study also demonstrates that there are high levels of very particularized and abstruse structures in enzymes, a predicted indicator of intelligent design. Conformation that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design has even been made by Dr. Axe himself in interviews where he commented on the study.Other scientific publications within the ID paradigm:‘. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models," Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211—228 (2006).W.-E. Lnnig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements," Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Lnnig, W.-E. Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119."Inventions, Algorithms, and Biological Design," By John Bracht, CiteSeerX"Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," by D. Axe, Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol 301:585-595 (2000).

There's no comparison between crystals and protein molecules. Though crystals appear to produce quite elaborate patterns, the information in the crystal is quite small in comparison to a protein molecule. Crystals are merely repeated information.A simple example using letters of the alphabet can show the difference between the two types.1. ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC2. A CAT SAT ON THE MATBoth have the same number of characters, both are very ordered, except only line two resembles the kind of particularized abstruse information found in a protein molecule. The first can be compressed into three characters and reproduced by a computer programed to repeat the sequence 7 times. The second line can not be compressed.

Abstruse: meaning highly complex.Particularized: to be directed towards a specific object or purpose.Communication: to exchange or share information.The concept of apc is to abstrusely communicate or form an aperatice for the purpose of communicating particularized information. If you are asking me if I came up with the theory of Intelligent Design, then of course not. The theory has been out there for awhile. If you are just asking did I copy and paste this from somewhere, the answer is no. With the exception of the examples of publications I have accumulated over the years from various sources, which I am pretty sure I copied and pasted the publications and their source references directly. Some I may have entered in manually from various hard copy sources.