So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

Yes, that point I understand. It's the definition Tesla has been insisting on. It quickly became apparent that he reaches his frustration threshold very quickly, so in Message 290 I switched to his definition. Irrationality does have its advantages.--Percy

I would have to agree with Percy. There is a clear contradiction. When people claim that something is supernatural, like faith healing, they care claiming a positive belief in the supernatural. What tesla seems to be forwarding is a negative belief, quite the opposite of the colloquial usage. "Supernatural" is used to denote activities that are outside the purview of scientific explanation, not activities that we are ignorant of.To swing this back on topic, what supernatural mechanisms are ID supporters really pushing? Natural mechanisms? Perhaps something akin to Lamarckism or Lysenkoism? No. They are pushing the idea that God directly acted on matter to produce life (or ex nihilo if you prefer). What we are asking is how this mechanism can be tested by science.

LMAOYour cute when your angry.

---

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

The only difference between how supernatural science works vs. natural sciences, is acknowledgment.Supernatural phenomenons are already being studied. Universities are studying human behavior's and recognition patterns from child birth in an attempt to see how beliefs are formed.Some scientists spend a lot of time debunking phenomenon and scoring short roles in television programs just to say "science cannot explain this"I believe that the study of supernatural phenomenon will find groundbreaking discoveries when they build the supercomputer with mass statistical capabilities that will hopefully unlock data storage--access and interpretation--of the human mind.(There is already some work in this as statisticians from the NSA have teamed with communication companies to make breakthrough in massive data analysis.)Because of current mindsets of many scientists, it is unlikely a mediocre scientist will make breakthroughs on the supernatural fronts. It is most probable that work on understanding the human brain as it physically operates will unlock mysteries of consciousness and make breakthroughs concerning the supernatural.I have my own hypothesis on the subjects of God and other (apparently) supernatural phenomenon-- and time will tell--if science evolves as I believe it will.Superior consciousness (which has a high probability of being true) is unlikely to be understood or even communicated with; if we do not even have the capacity to understand our own consciousness.p.s. Sorry I took so long to respond, I Don’t have work today, but I am proud to announce my girl is in her 11th week of pregnancy

---

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

I'm saying: It is the opinion of official examiners in studied cases that the apparently 'supernatural events' are unexplainable. Please do not make me start posting all the problems with these 'theories'. They are full of holes and you have enough education to know that.Ask again if you really want me to do that, and I will. (And not the problems with light refraction, or with electron transfer through non opaque materials, but the actual theories I mention in the post that you decided to summarize with basic electron wavelength function.

---

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

Stop laughing and learn to read and comprehend.
I was not angry - I was copying your arguments.I guess it was all too much for you to understand.

So which are they? Unexplainable, unexplained, or supernatural? I still don't understand why you think that particles which lack the ability to interact with light are somehow supernatural? Can you explain? Neutrinos, for example, hardly interact with larger atoms at all. Does this make neutrinos supernatural?A prosecutor's case may be full of holes. The prosecutor may not have solid evidence linking the defendant to the murder scene, for example. Does this mean that the murder victim was killed by supernatural means? Does this mean that the prosecutor's case is also supernatural?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Unexplained, currently unexplainable, and considered by many to be Supernatural.Supernatural as define as: considered beyond the scope of science and the natural order.
Beyond defined as : On the far side of; past: Just beyond the fence. 2. Later than; after: beyond midnight. 3. To a degree that is past the understanding, reach, or scope of: ...
I have no idea to what you’re referencing. I said in post 271:"The events are not fictional. Our ability to explain supernatural events can be considered fictional. But so can: dark matter, big bang theory, string theory, chaos theory, and any other theory not proven."Edited by tesla, : typing errors

---

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

Ok then fine. Let’s have an English lesson on the true meaning of this word supernatural one last time.supernatural/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.beyond/bˈnd/
3. To a degree that is past the understanding, reach, or scope of...Should I define the word attributed? maybe understanding too?Edited by tesla, : yadda yadda.

---

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

Answer this question correctly and I will accept your tuition:My parrot is blue.
My parrot is not blue.
Is my parrot blue?(You got it wrong last time. Maybe this time you will get it right.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Language is easily misinterpreted. One of my favorite sentences I stumbled upon while taking technical writing was:
I'm kicking cancer in the balls!It's not a very clear sentence because is the writer kicking the cancer in the balls? (Figuratively as American language would imply) or is the writer kicking cancer in the balls ? As most second language English speakers would read?When in a debate with experienced debaters--who are looking to win a debate regardless of any real truth-- misinterpreting a writers language is often intentional to disgruntle their opponent.Plato wrote of this in his work Sophist in about 367 BCEPlato dialog area [239] from 'Sophist' :str. I see, Theaeteus, that you have never made the acquaintance of a sophist.
Theat. why do you think so?
str. He will make believe to have his eyes shut, or to have none.
Theat. what do you mean?
str. when you tell him of something existing in a mirror, or in a sculpture, [240] and address him as though he had eyes, he will laugh you to scorn, and will pretend that he knows nothing of mirrors and streams, or of sight at all; he will say that he is asking about an idea."To answer your question however, yes it would be contradictory to say something is blue, and then say it is not, when both of the words 'blue' are the same definition.The post that began this debate, I had said 'supernatural' alone, and then mentioned 'supernatural phenomenon' Easily confused when the definition of supernatural is not being used by its literal dictionary definition, which at least many here have gotten comfortable using it improperly. Which in turn, makes the debate difficult.I thank you for your concession, but let us not cease discussion if any healthy thing could be learned or discovered through continuation of discussion.

---

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

If these occurrences are beyond the 'laws of nature' then how can we study them? As far as consciousness goes there is actual research being done on understanding how consciousness works (specifically in the field of Psychology). However say theoretically that Consciousness is 'supernatural' (i.e. beyond the laws of nature), how would we test this? Okay now you're going under the assumption that these occurrences actually happen. Scientists don't assume something is correct, we assume it is incorrect. In assuming it is incorrect we then attempt to falsify the theory/hypothesis (prove it wrong). If the theory is falsified it is then thrown away; if the theory is not falsified it is then submitted for peer review (in which further test take place in an attempt to falsify the theory).What Hypothesis would we form? How would we test this properly? How would we falsify it? You're going on the assumption that Consciousness cannot be explained through natural means. What if it can? Why does consciousness have to be a supernatural (beyond natural) occurrence?Perhaps this would be better studied in the fields of Psychology and Philosophy? Not all Scientists do, but yes you are correct, this breaches into the realm of personal belief. Because these ideas you're proposing cannot be tested through any natural means it is not something a Scientist could say is correct or incorrect, meaning that it is purely up to the individual to make up their mind's about such things. Thus with your line of thinking we could propose anything 'Invisible Flying Unicorns do exist, science should test the existence of flying unicorns but unfortunately it can't because it is beyond scientific means.' Tell me, do we conclude then that Invisible Flying Unicorn's exist? A Scientist would perhaps say 'there is no natural explanation for these, thus they are a null set'. But you seem to propose to assert the idea that they exist regardless.But again we're off topic, how do you propose we test Intelligent Design in the universe? Poltergeists and consciousness appear to have very little to do with this, unless I'm missing something.

So you're not actually talking about ID full stop? Then this conversation is completely irrelevant...yay for time wasting.Perhaps you should make a new thread for this topic?Oh but congratulations on your the good news =)Edited by Scienctifictruths, : No reason given.

Ok then fine. Let’s have an English lesson on the true meaning[sic] of this word 'blue' one last time.blue /blo͞o/
Noun, adjective: The primary color between green and violet in the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 450 and 500 nm.
Adjective: low in spiritsparrot /ˈparət/
Noun: A mainly tropical bird (family Psittacidae), often vividly colored, with a short down-curved hooked bill and a raucous voice, some kinds of which are able to mimic the human voice.Should I define the word 'my'? maybe 'is' too?Answer the question...
My parrot is blue.
My parrot is not blue.
Is my parrot blue? Please note (since you seem immune to anything even slightly subtle) this is how your posts are presented.
If you can't answer the question, then how are we meant to answer your questions?

You missed 'scientific understanding' which is how we understand the laws of nature.
Psychology involves examination of thoughts themselves, like philosophy, which isn't going to help near as much as physically understanding the thought process. The physical behaviors of thoughts are more physics and chemistry than psychology and philosophy. Not entirely correct. Scientists accept a lot of assumptions. They have to believe what they are studying is real, or else they could not run experiments.A reminder of this is reflected by this quote:Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations.For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4This means, since philosophy is used to choose models; assumptions must be made and then explored. No. I'm going on the assumption science has no real answer because it is beyond our current abilities to understand. Evidence supports that.We need to understand the physical functions of consciousness. Poltergeists and consciousness have everything to do with the potential of intelligent design. It proves that consciousness appears to exist beyond biological means.Perhaps the only way to begin exploring the possibilities is to first examine what we do know about thoughts.http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19731/"A glowing protein provides insight into how learning strengthens the ties between neurons. " Neuroscience For Kids - action potential "The resting potential tells about what happens when a neuron is at rest. An action potential occurs when a neuron sends information down an axon, "Oh wait? The electrical signals carry information? Well now, wouldn’t it be nice to read that imbedded information?Is it possible other pulses of this frequency carry information? What of information being imbedded in other wavelengths? We do not know how to read this information. So is it possible greater entities communicate long distances by imbedding information through these channels? It could be. and that’s a place to start.

---

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