The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge

Have you read ANYTHING I've written?You think just because you cannot run a 'test' on God that there is no possible way to do research on whether or not God is reality.The Gold foil test required Gold foil, but the Gold foil was not the information that was being sought. it was the piece used to do research on what it was bombarded with.When you do not know the ins and outs of the desired object of study, you have to run experiments and do research on pieces of the puzzle.You want to ignore the path that is necessary in I.D. research before you can "Run Experiments" on the desired object. Do you think you can run an experiment on moon rock without first obtaining the moon rock?Algorithms are necessary sometimes, and the study of so called I.D science requires a certain methodology of answered questions before you can answer the final question.Here is basically what you keep asking me to do:YOU say: You cannot run an experiment on planet (X), but if you show me how you could conduct scientific research on planet (X) I'll give you 5 million dollars.I say: oh, well that’s easy; just do researches on space capabilities until you find a way to get to planet (X) to conduct the research on it.YOU say: No, that’s not science conducted on planet (X), you have to show me how you can "directly" conduct science on planet (X).I say: Planet (X) is two million light years away, you have to follow the plan to get to planet (X) to run an experiment on it, but that doesn't mean it is not science on planet (X) to figure out how to get to it.YOU say: That’s not science unless you can show me how to directly experiment on planet (X) from here.I say: bullshit it is science. The moon could not be explored until they found a way to it, but the desire of science to get to the moon created rocket science to answer the question of the moon.YOU say: No it's not bullshit, because the moon isn't planet (X)So now, given we are still arguing that same reasoning, over and over and over and over: what do you want to do next?

We can. Let’s figure out the physics of consciousness. Let’s figure out what a dream is exactly, down to each neuron fire, each communication transfer, and every chemical exchange.

Yeah, but whats outside that box Taq? WHATS OUTSIDE THE BOX.

I.D. is not a science to explain life on earth. It's about understanding why life is.Those answers so far have not been answered. Science believes that it is impossible to research that question. That makes scientists, in my opinion, just as igtnorant as religious zealots who believe their religious text explain the answer to that question.I think it's an important question. Life is the ability of mass to preserve a form despite the interactive laws of the elements. It is in denying elements the ability to interact with each other so that a structure of elements is preserved. And then, the structure also supplies maps (DNA) for replication, and a method to make decisions of the total life-form, in the pursuit of preserving the arrangements.So, a part of knowing where we are going--which is extremely important to know in order to make decisions today--is to understand how and why we got to where we are. and one highly probable potential is that a designer set the wheel in motion. but...what kind of designer? a 'god'? an alien species? a greater life-form? nothing?You want to say 'nothing'. But you cannot prove that. But you want to research that. Well fine, then rule-out the possibilities scientifically. Don’t just 'decide'; "oh, I don't like the concept of 'God' because I can't wrap my brain around what that looks like, so I'll teach to ignore the potential"You would do better, and so would science, to accept the challenge of the potential, explore the possibilities and rule them out and further science. Scientifically, as I’ve already outlined: through understanding nature’s way of recording and using data through consciousness of biological algorithms, and through understanding what’s outside the earth life wise.I’m well aware we lack the necessary capabilities to truly do that yet, but if we do not begin researching and gaining those capabilities, the longer it will take, if ever, to bring science far enough to be able to legitimately answer the question of life and existing.

It's not that scientists are not religious. But the people who decide what is scientific to research do not include I.D. science, in which the same science is conducted, but to the end to explore potentials of greater being. Namely, the acceptance that Intelligent Design is a possibility and that there is a scientific route to take in pursuit of that assumption to answer the question: Was the universe, or life, the result of a design of greater being(s)?This would not be a topic if science was teaching in textbooks: yes, I.D. is a potential, scientists are exploring the potential through space exploration for the understanding of life forms outside our planet that are potentially greater than our species, and through scientific research on consciousness via learning how brains record and send data.

Oh you do you? Show me. (Capability to prove how and why life and existing is possible) Do you deny the probability? Should I use statistics to show the chances that a singularity of energy and it changing/evolving without outside variables to institute change? Do you deny unlimited possibilities? Ok. Let’s just for second make an assumption of sorts. I'm going to compare God to our own bodies.Our body is God, and Bacteria represent humans.
In human bodies: when bacteria levels reach a certain amount, the bacteria attack in unison. If the attack is a negative result on the human body, we react by taking medicine or in the event of extreme infection; cut off a limb.In my scenario given here, I'm going to say the body (God) is the universe; known and unknown, people are the bacteria. Now, if human kind becomes a problem to that body, how does that body (In this scenario it has an inconceivable awareness) deal with a problem within is construct?That would be a game changer in how we make decisions. So far, the only communication we know (with our universe) is reactions, and our behaviors exploring it are governed by them.Of course if humans are that insignificant to the main body, it's unlikely that we will evolve to be much more a part of the main body than the glimpse of existing we will be next to a billion years as our planet will eventually cease to exist.But then...What if?‘If’ is so little a word to be so big.My argument is that researching the brain and space exploration, potentially connecting with further along evolved species would be a benefit to our scientific goals of understanding. What I don't understand is why you reject that as I.D. science. The science includes the acceptance that we could exist inside of a body that was designed by greater being. Your version of science rejects that possibility. If that’s the only difference, why are you still arguing, and why have you not accepted my research plan, and why is accepting I.D. in science so evil in your eyes? People have accepted string theory. And nobody can even agree how to interpret why the mathematical curiosity is actually working.Dark matter. Need I say more? or how about a simple anomaly of energy could have been a fart in an electron and who would be the wiser? if the genius’s say it’s the God particle then oh well guess it is.You’re going to win this conversation in your own eyes. But you lost. I.D. is a possibility. There is a scientific path to explore the potential. You will never accept that truth.

Science is about exploring possibilities.
Genomes do not explain where the universe came from, or if there is greater species and beings.
You bring up church when referring to potentials of I.D. I did not bring religion into this. It leaves a lot of unanswered questions. And you do not appear to care for answers.

I would have to do research on who to fund in the realms of the proposal to either increase interstellar travel capabilities, research A.I. capabilities (build a better 'brain' potentials) or finally, fund brain research equipment.The best place to sink money is into universities or private or government assisted research agencies to employ the best and the brightest to research the given capabilities with today’s technology and emerging new information.I would find someone to fund to those ends, but I wouldn't mind buying an $80,000 house for the work of locating a scientist who could answer questions as they arise and are able to show they know the question being asked, and have some idea of how to begin.

Well let's make a distinction here, because what your describing does not represent all I.D’ists. You more adequately describe the religious. I'm sure the religious will decide to be I.D’ists, but that might not be a bad thing if they are actively supporting the science of understanding the body we live in, and potentially discovering God, in whatever form that 'could' be.

See, this is why our conversation is useless. You are discussing your closed minded idea of what 'life' is being questioned here.I'm not referring to genome sequences. I'm referring to the entire body of life, which is everything that exists, has a measurable quantity of 'something' and occupies reality.If you are looking for God, a greater thing, do you find that inside yourself, or do you find it outside the known universe? To find that, you look in both places, or begin building on capabilities to peer deeper into those areas to answer the question as our capabilities improve, in knowledge, and in understanding or even seeing what today is beyond our grasp to see.But don’t just ignore it. Too many people will support it.

I'll have to agree that sounds rediculous. If we knew what is was we were doing, we wouldn't call it re-search. -EinstienSometimes what you are looking for isn't perfectly clear. You continue to devope it and do not jump to conclusions. Your data has not yet broken the language of thoughts, and neither have we assessed what greater intelligence is because we have not discovered it. hence space exploration.Your data is important but it still does not prove that somehow fundamentally the system hasn't started from a designed point.Maybe I.D. as a science can be ignored for no relevancy (If it must include such inconsequential data), but searching for 'God' should not be abandoned.

Yes. I've given two that have a diverse set of proposals to increase their science. People ask for water you shovel them dirt, what do you expect?

Honestly, to assert that the universe could not do what it did is ludicrous. It did it. Now we do not know whether there was a point of development that led to directed elemental interactions that led to the human species.That is where the answer is still not known, therefore: To assert either idea as a fact, one has to be 'proven' true or false. And neither science nor religion, nor philosophy, or math has done anything close to verifying either statement to be true or false.In light of that; it is arrogance only, or self-imposed belief of opinion, for anyone to state to 'know' either way.Science should hunt for answers. We are very tiny in the grand scheme of things, and we need to recognize that for the sake of good science. You are referring to this statement:

quote:

---

Your data has not yet broken the language of thoughts, and neither have we assessed what greater intelligence is because we have not discovered it.

---

Science fiction of yesterday is science today. why are you unable to believe that today's science fiction or 'super-natural' will not be tomorrow’s science? The data does not tell us either way if the system has a design point, or rather does not. The data is missing that could help answer that question.If you are not about excluding mechanisms: then do not exclude my suggestions. Support them, and watch science grow.

Look back at the comments you quoted. The 'people' to whom he is referring are the religious of 'faith'. Many of faith come to science to hope to learn more about God. But instead of finding any encouragement on how to find God through science, they are told God is dead, and they are going to cease to exist.READ THAT AGAIN.Now, if you were any human being that held a belief and it was crushed --Without any benefit of facts to support the scientific assertion and assumption, you probably would not consider the scientist smart, or knowledgeable, and to some people you could be considered an actual enemy.AND THEN: the same ones those people were crushed by want to know why they are not supported more.Having no real proof that you will not continue to exist in some other dimensional part of the universal system, (but do recognize the potential of other dimensions) and also having no proof of God being, or NOT being, having literally, NO data for a conclusion, you come to a conclusion? It can only be opinion, because if you cannot see the egg outside your closed front door, that doesn't mean there isn't one there.

let’s recap so that you are not just going back to the initial points we have already agreed:
1. Science does not have any data to support, or deny greater being.
2. Science is too limited to know what greater being looks like, and does not fully understand the dynamics of the human brain.And also:
1. Science can see only a very small fraction of what is in the universe, and believes that other life potentials on other planets could exist similar to earth life.
2. That could also mean a more evolved species could be out there.Now that that is out of the way; to address your question: it's been answered. You refuse to accept that exploring the path that leads to further experimentation concerning the issue is the solution, since we cannot directly examine what we are not sure we are looking for. That is why it is called RE-SEARCH. I've answered this question of yours multiple times. The answer will not change. You are not accepting answers you do not agree with, despite the fact they are working answers to the question, and I’ve informed you there are many types of tests that can be run and performed in brain research and interstellar travel. Ok: 1. does anyone know if higher being designed anything is true or isn't, by scientific proof? No. (There is not enough evidence to prove there is or isn’t a God.) everyone examines the same information and then take many different paths of how they decide to answer the question. but the truth is, without proof, either potential is possibly true.See? Proven.