|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Taq writes: Once again, observing letters on a page describing a designer is not the same as observation of the designer itself. Oh. Well then, how about we apply that to anti-matter?
Taq writes: Buzsaw writes: Analysis: Analyze all observations via the scientific method, both conventional and alternative by expanding research, including data supportive to existing metaphysical energy and intelligence. How is this analysis done, specifically? Here's one example. Assemble all of the data in the Biblical Record about the alleged Exodus. As explorer/researcher Ron Wyatt, Lennart Moller and others have done, go on expeditions to research the area which the Biblical Historical Record cites as the region of the alleged event. Document the supportive evidences which are discovered, etc. Why do the SM scientists such as National Geographic's Robert Ballard and other secularists have no interest in either falsifying the alleged evidence or verifying it? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Why do the SM scientists such as National Geographic's Robert Ballard and other secularists have no interest in either falsifying the alleged evidence or verifying it?
Why should they do your work for you?
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz writes: Here's one example. Assemble all of the data in the Biblical Record about the alleged Exodus. As explorer/researcher Ron Wyatt, Lennart Moller and others have done, go on expeditions to research the area which the Biblical Historical Record cites as the region of the alleged event. Document the supportive evidences which are discovered, etc. Why do the SM scientists such as National Geographic's Robert Ballard and other secularists have no interest in either falsifying the alleged evidence or verifying it? Because even if that was true (which it is not, Moller and Wyatt never found or presented any evidence and only falsified data) it has NOTHING to do with an ID Methodology or Intelligent Design. You have not yet addressed the issue of how IDM uses any processes or procedures so it is impossible for us to address IDM at all. As I pointed out back in Message 77 "You (Dawn Bertot) have consistently failed to tell us what method you use to tell designed objects from non-designed objects." And as I pointed out in Message 94 :
quote: Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change. Show us exactly how the designer effects change. Until you can do that, nonsense like the mythological Exodus or Flood are irrelevant. Stop trying to create yet another attractive rabbit hole by pointing towards things that never happened and books that are totally irrelevant to the topic. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Why do the SM scientists such as National Geographic's Robert Ballard and other secularists have no interest in either falsifying the alleged evidence or verifying it? Because most of what they get is called PRATT point refuted a thousand times. And they do not want to take the time to refute it the 1001 time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Still on Wyatt and Moeller ? Wyatt was hardly scientific. He was incapable of doing decent research (wrong about the Bible, wrong about the satellite data, wrong about Egyptology). He was incapable of conducting a decent archaeological investigation. He was a liar and a fraud. And he found no significant evidence. While we don't have the same evidence of dishonesty against Moeller he saw even less than Wyatt "discovered" and was not much more competent either.
Real archaeologists did a far better job - and that is how we know that the Exodus DIDN'T occur as the Bible describes it. And you know perfectly well why Ballard won't bother with Wyatt's bullshit. because it IS bullshit. THe evidence just isn't there, and you know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
What is Admin going to do when he sees the current crop of messages?
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Removing off-topic content. Please do not reply to moderator messages. --Admin
MESSAGE 224
The general function on the above linked page by A.C. McIntosh, Information and Entropy (about 1/3 down the page) is the one I abbreviated above in response to the four criteria by Bluejay.
Admin writes: In your earlier message you described a couple hypotheses and a couple possible experiments related to ID. Forming hypotheses and performing experiments are part of the scientific method. But in this message you've reverted to Dawn Bertot's approach of simply asserting that ID follows the scientific method. You're arguing that this guy said this and that guy said that, but you're ignoring the central focus of the thread. My mistake has not been fully recognizing the HUGE distinction you and others are making between the scientific method, and mere secularism. In the beginnings of the ID movement, it was rejected as science solely on religious grounds. It’s been fairly effortless for ID proponents to show the details of its work to be secular, (that’s some of what I’ve been doing in this thread, Dawn too) but the thread title uses the words scientific method, and that’s obviously being defined as a lot more than just a disconnect from religion.
Evolutionists in this thread have provided a few examples of evolution research following the scientific method, as well as some additional examples of a more general nature. These examples were provided as illustrations of what is being requested from IDists, an example or two of actual ID research following the scientific method. I’ll work on that.
Supporters of ID who wish to talk about something other than examples of ID following the scientific method should not be posting to this thread. Much of what you seem to take exception to in my posts is my responses to evolutionist posters who are clearly trying to draw me off topic. It just seems to me that they shouldn’t be posting here either, but it’s your forum. Didn’t you move this thread to the Free For All forum so that it would have just a little more flexibility? I’ll abbreviate those types of responses from here on, but some I can’t resist.
I've posted a number of messages to this thread, and I think I've been pretty clear about what is needed, and I think a number of other participants have also been pretty clear about this, particularly BlueJay. It's time to address the topic. I’ll do that.
If supporters of ID continue to post off-topic I'll just close the thread. You might want to just go ahead and do that anyway, because if you don’t this could turn out to be the biggest display of goalpost moving by evolutionists that EvC forums has ever seen. _________________ MESSAGE 91 My fellow Kentuckian;
Bluejay writes: Hi, Dawn. I would like to do one thing. I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines: Four lines? I can’t reduce it to just four lines, but I’ll make it as brief as possible - how about.....nine lines?
1)An example of ID making observations of the natural world. Recent discoveries in the simplest forms of life now show that the initial information content in DNA and living proteins rather than being small must in fact be large, for any evolutionary process to work to begin with.
2)An example of ID formulating a hypothesis based on those observations. Information in the cell could possibly arise in a top-down fashion (where intelligence is already present) rather than the emergent bottom-up fashion of Darwinism.
3)An example of ID experimenting to test that hypothesis. The tracing of pathways towards new organization and machines, whilst obeying all the laws of thermodynamics, consistently shows that new machinery requires a pre-existence of intelligence from an outside source.
4) An example of ID forming a theory based on the results of the experiment. The results of this testing can be applied to DNA, since the basic coding is the cause, rather than the consequence, thus the top-down approach gives another scientific paradigm (theory) for understanding the molecular machinery which is consistent with known thermodynamic principles. This appears to me (as a non scientist / I'll link below to where I condensed this from) to be a combination of two things that don’t go on in mainstream science; 1) a challenge to certain parts of evolutionary theory, and 2) an exploration into the origins of life, which the scientific community constantly assures us has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
If you can provide examples of all of these steps, then I would say that ID has at least passed the barest minimum standards of the scientific method. I suspect that most scientists would require more than just this bare minimum, but it would at least be a start. I suspect it worked for about....20 minutes after being tossed to the wolves, then the goalposts were moved. __________________ MESSAGE 233
Taq writes: I assure you, ALL scientists want to know what ALL of the functional DNA sequences are in any given genome. As I can equally assure you that biological studies within an ID framework can be done without violating the establishment clause of the first amendment, or following any religious rituals or doctrines. We’ll never believe each other, so there we are. But the least I can do is explain exactly why I don’t believe that all (evolutionist) scientists want to know everything about DNA sequences, even if that knowledge cripples their beloved naturalistic worldview.
Dr Adequate writes: marc9000 writes: Biologically reasonable quickly swerves away from any ‘scientific method’. Reasonable to whom? To those in the scientific community who are mostly atheists, or to the general public (that funds them) who are mostly religious? If Behe was suggesting such a vague and subjective test, then I admit that what he is proposing is unscientific.In which case I am at a loss to know why you brought it up. He knows, and I made clear, that Behe wasn’t the one suggesting such a vague and subjective test, it was Coyne and Orr who were suggesting it. Two scientists/authors that are in opposition to ID. He’s trolling, and practically no evolutionist on forums such as this would ever acknowledge it. Neither would most any of the big heavies in the scientific community, such as Dawkins, Myers, or Provine. I can tell by remembering their arrogant smirks in the movie Expelled.
subbie writes: I pointed out that ID starts with the unquestioned assumption that the bible is inerrant. This kind of ridiculousness gets winks and nods from everyone in mainstream science — no one asks him where in any official description of ID he gets this nonsense.
Taq writes: The fact of the matter is that no one is using the IDM to deduce what these functions are. If you think I am wrong then please point me to a peer reviewed paper where someone uses the IDM to discover specific function in a given stretch of DNA. A specific function? A general hypothesis isn’t good enough? Here is a page full of general ones, I assume when they became public, the goalposts moved to a specific function. Chances are the Discovery Institute has it, but hasn’t released it to the wolves yet, because they know the goalposts will move to several specific functions. Then when there are several, there will never be enough.
Please elaborate and keep your focus on the above. --Admin A raggedy abbreviation by me no doubt, but it should get the idea across. I’m sure the goalposts have already been moved beyond it, but for a time, however short, it was the scientific method. __________________________ MESSAGE 244
Coyote writes: But it is interesting that most of the proponents of ID seem to have very different ideas of what it does and how it does it. Perhaps you could all get together and agree on your definitions of terms, methods, types of evidence, hypotheses, and tests. Until you can agree among yourselves you are nothing but a rabble making a lot of noise. ID thought processes are diverse, and many ID proponents can think for themselves. They don’t have to blindly fall in line behind a leader like Richard Dawkins. New knowledge about the cell has come to light only in recent decades, and the ID movement is young. The atheist rabble making a lot of noise about Darwin in the late 1800’s is well documented. ____________________ MESSAGE 259
What is Admin going to do when he sees the current crop of messages? I'll take my medicine like a MAN, and this Thursday I'll give THANKS for it! Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Dr Jones writes: edited cause I fell for Buz's off topic BS. Let's recap before alleging Buz off topic. Taq alleged that no evidence has ever been cited supportive to the existence of the Biblical intelligent designer. I responded by citing one of my examples of supportive evidence. Taq responded with the implication that the designer should be seen. I alluded to antimatter which also has never been seen, etc. Though digression into aspects of topic debate could lead off topic, imo, the exchange between Taq and me did not. ABE: Go to Message 163 and follow the designated response message trail at the bottom of each response. Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Bertot.
Dawn Bertot writes: My experiment involved simply unpluging the computer from the wall and plugging it back into the same outlet, that is before trying to simply turn it back on Now the point is this, while I was conducting my scientific experiment, I stopped short in any further investigation because the methods that I employed were sufficienct to come to a conclusion that was valid and solve the problem Does this mean my investigation was not a SM, becuase it did not display every single on of the methods advocted by yourselves? Absolutley not? Even in your truncated example, you followed all the steps of the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, test, conclusion/theory. The extra steps Straggler added, that you shaved off, were repeated applications of the entire scientific method, not individual steps of the scientific method. In your ID argument, you are not shaving off entire cycles, but are removing steps from within individual cycles. This is not the same thing. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Buzsaw writes: I responded by citing one of my examples of supportive evidence. Taq responded with the implication that the designer should be seen. I alluded to antimatter which also has never been seen, etc. Not everyone says everything the same way. Taq actually used the word observation, and he was only expressing that he feels there is a lack of evidence in support of the actual existence of a designer. If you can describe an application of the scientific method that has produced evidence for the designer then that would be on-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
The metaphysical SM would include possibilities, causes and evidence of what exists in space and time. The SM of the metaphysical involves aspects of both the physical and the metaphysical.
Metaphysics Metaphysics includes the undefined science of ".......physics, philosophy, existence, time and space, astrobiology, perception......." The term meta means beyond.. It includes phenomena beyond the physical relative to what it is and what it is like. ABE: Evidencing the metaphysical would/should include research supportive of the metaphysical aspects of the Exodus alluded to in this thread. Edited by Buzsaw, : Forgot spellcheck Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
No I don't. Read me carefully. I did. Here is what you said: "There is, in fact, evidence for the designer. The problem is that it is not studied, researched or peer aired. Elite secularist conventional media, academia and METHODLOGIES allow no consideration for that possibility." [emphasis mine] "Secular" scientists use the scientific methodoloy. You are saying that this methodology does not allow for ID.
Note that word, "evidence." Where there is evidence there should be science. There is a difference between evidence and facts. Facts which can be used to test a hypothesis are called evidence. So you need a testable hypothesis before you can claim to have evidence. Where is that testable hypothesis and the null hypothesis?
There are some IDSM scientists applying the SM who's chances of getting peered, studied in academia, researched by conventional science or aired in the public media are near nil. Then you shouldn't have any problem telling us how they apply the SM, the experiments that they are running, and the hypotheses that they are testing. We keep asking for these things and you guys keep avoiding it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The metaphysical SM would include possibilities, causes and evidence of what exists in space and time. The SM includes TESTABLE possibilities that are then TESTED. In ID, what are these testable possibilities and how are they tested?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Oh. Well then, how about we apply that to anti-matter? You can design experiments where you predict specific outcomes based on the hypothesis of anti-matter. You then run these experiments. Guess what? The results of the experiments (the observations) match the predictions. So how does ID follow this methodology?
Assemble all of the data in the Biblical Record about the alleged Exodus. As explorer/researcher Ron Wyatt, Lennart Moller and others have done, go on expeditions to research the area which the Biblical Historical Record cites as the region of the alleged event. Document the supportive evidences which are discovered, etc. Ok, now what? Is this data empirical? If not, then it is out. Now, what is the hypothesis that we are testing with this data, and what is the null hypothesis?
Why do the SM scientists such as National Geographic's Robert Ballard and other secularists have no interest in either falsifying the alleged evidence or verifying it? Why don't you ask them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Member is making no effort to address the topic and has been suspended for 24 hours. --Admin
Hello Thylacosmilus
I would like to do one thing. I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines: 1. An example of ID making observations of the natural world. Recent discoveries in the simplest forms of life now show that the initial information content in DNA and living proteins rather than being small must in fact be large, for any evolutionary process to work to begin with.
2. An example of ID formulating a hypothesis based on those observations. Information in the cell could possibly arise in a top-down fashion (where intelligence is already present) rather than the emergent bottom-up fashion of Darwinism.
3. An example of ID experimenting to test that hypothesis. The tracing of pathways towards new organization and machines, whilst obeying all the laws of thermodynamics, consistently shows that new machinery requires a pre-existence of intelligence from an outside source.
4. An example of ID forming a theory based on the results of the experiment. The results of this testing can be applied to DNA, since the basic coding is the cause, rather than the consequence, thus the top-down approach gives another scientific paradigm for understanding the molecular machinery which is consistent with known thermodynamic principles. This appears to me (as a non scientist) to be a combination of two scientific things that don’t go on in mainstream science; 1) a challenge to certain parts of evolutionary theory, and 2) an exploration into the origins of life, which the scientific community constantly assures us has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. My responses to your four lines above were condensed from one on this list of peer reviewed work. A.C. McIntosh, Information and Entropy, about 1/3 down the page. A raggedy abbreviation by me no doubt, but it should make clear that his more detailed peer-reviewed article would clearly and thoroughly address every one of your four steps.
If you can provide examples of all of these steps, then I would say that ID has at least passed the barest minimum standards of the scientific method. How many phases of standards are in the scientific method? Are there bare minimums, medium level, and high level standards? This thread’s central focus is this;
Message 15Does the ID methodology follow the Scientific method, for it to be considered science and therefore teachable in the science classroom, regardless of eithers conclusions Most posters in this thread, yourself included, are posting here because they, like the scientific community in general, believe that the ID methodology does not follow the scientific method. Yet we haven’t seen any real attempt by anyone here from that position to concisely define exactly what the scientific method is. Shouldn’t the scientific method be clearly defined, with a commonly used, predictable, unchanging meaning?
I suspect that most scientists would require more than just this bare minimum, but it would at least be a start. Most scientists, but not all? Why not all? A start for what? A political decision? A re-evaluation of what the scientific method actually is? Another central focus of the thread, contained in the above quote by the thread starter is teachable in the science classroom. In other discussions on forums such as these, I’ve been told that what is teachable in the science classroom isn’t political, isn’t a democracy, that it should be left up only to the scientific community, since they are the most qualified to know what science actually is. Don’t you think they should be able to provide a clear definition for what the scientific method actually is? Something unchangeable? Something with one phase, instead of three or more? Edited by Admin, : Temporarily hide content. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content, announce temporary suspension.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024