Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
Hypothesis: a greater consciousness exists on another planet.
Experiment: fly to other planets and see.
Hypothesis: information of a greater consciousness can communicate long distances.
Experiment: find a common algorithm based on how human consciousness reads and writes data for dreams, communication, thoughts and the like, then scan all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum to see if there is any similar coding.
Hypothesis: We can create a greater consciousness than our own if we build a computer designed based on the brain, but make it much larger, and input a lot more knowledge and energy. a true AI.
Experiment: sink money into AI research (programmers etc.), model the human brains communication methods. Tons of options here.
How does any of this relate to the design of life over the last 4.5 billion years?
Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
It doesn't matter. The conversations here are not about the truth, unless that truth fits the ideology of the long time posters here.
No, the conversation is about science. You have not shown how ID of life can be tested.
I have outlined enough to show where I.D. is valid. I recognize people have different versions of what I.D. science is, and how to go about exploring the potentials.
Science is not about "exploring potentials". Science is about testing hypotheses.
I'm tired of the conversations here anymore. It's just not productive to go in circles with those who refuse to open their minds.
I think we have very different concepts of what science is. You are pushing a much more philosophical approach. I am asking for a scientific approach. That is why we are talking past each other. Since this thread is asking for a scientific approach I would hope that you would try to produce testable hypotheses that actually relate to the design of life. If you want to start a thread focused on a more philosophical approach I would be happy to participate and try to mold my posts towards the questions or challenges that you present.
It's even more aggravating when those close minded accuse the open minded of being closed minded.
I am very open minded to evidence and testable hypotheses. Have any?
Dream deeper, because life is too short to bullshit ourselves through it and be satisfied.
That's exactly what dreams are, bullshitting ourselves into thinking that we have an explanation.
Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
Because if a greater consciousness existed, it would find more than we can and see things we cannot see. So we'll know more about the last 4.5 billion years, if higher consciousness could even get us to understand it. But it’s still and interesting and potential thing.
I'm still not seeing a testable hypothesis, and experiments that are meant to test it.
My solution is more complete because the places to put the money already exist.
I am not asking for places to put money. I am asking for specific hypotheses, and the experiments that are needed to test those hypotheses. For example, here is an excerpt from an NIH R01 grant:
quote:Aim 1. To define the structural variation in parvovirus capsids, and to determine the effects on capsid functions and DNA release. Hypothesis: That the capsids of parvoviruses undergo structural variation that is important for infection. That occurs through the binding or release of divalent ions, by site-specific proteolysis, or by variation in specific intra- or inter-chain bonds. a) Further define the structural flexibility in the capsid through analysis of the structures and to identify sources of variation using specific peptide and protease analysis. b) Determine the functions of specific capsid structures by preparing mutants with altered inter-chain bonds, divalent ion binding sites, or protease cleavage sites. c) Compare the functions of capsid structures in mutant or naturally variant viruses to reveal the structures and interactions that are critical for capsid stability, TfR binding, and the processes of cell infection. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/...ant/Documents/Parrishresplan.pdf
That's the type of science I am asking for. I am asking for specific hypotheses that relate directly to how life was designed in the past, and the experiments that are need to test these hypotheses. All you have offered so far is to fire people off in space in hopes of finding people who already have the answers. That isn't science.
1. 'God' is potential. Greater intelligence has never been found or measured, and we cannot communicate with lesser intelligence effectively. Which means: there is a lot we do not know, and in light of that, we should research.
That's great and all, but that is not scientific research. That is not what I am asking for in this thread.
Can you name a single subject where this would not be a potential answer? Let's look back at the history of science. At one point we didn't understand what made up the atom. What did we do? Did we decide to build a spacecraft so that we could find an alien civilization that did understand what the atom was made of? What about germs? Did we likewise build a space craft to find an alien civilization that could look at our sick people and figure out what was wrong?
None of this happened, did it? Instead, we built experiments, such as Koch's experiment with anthrax and Rutherford's experiment with gold foil. We depended on OURSELVES!! What you are suggesting is NOT scientific research. It is giving up.
The bottom line: To absolutely say God is not, or that God is, is an assumption, a chosen belief. And scientists are being foolish by not allowing funding from those who would and could fund such research as long as the title of the research also includes an admittance that God is a possibility.
1) Preaching is not easier than debating because in order to preach you have to listen to the Spirit...you cant just go off on your own intellect and opinion.
In my experience, preaching is based on an appeal to wishes and emotions. Preaching is only effective if you ignore both reason an logic. It isn't about listening to a spirit. It is about ignoring reason and going with what makes you feel good.
And that is really what we have with the ID movement. It isn't about finding a logical or reasoned argument. It is about defending a belief that you are already emotionally invested in from logic and reason.
That assumes that logic and reason rule God out. In my experience they don't.
If you use logic and reason how would you ever come to the conclusion that God does exist? Think of Russel's Teapot as a non-theological example of what I am talking about.
Why do people believe that this universe was created for them by a loving deity that cares about their day to day struggles? Because it makes them feel better. That is what preaching is, playing to those emotions.
Yes. The difference is they were not seeking higher consciousness. They were seeking a base particle.
In the opening post, I am seeking the history of life, not a higher consciousness.
You ignored everything I said, or failed to comprehend the importance of what I'm pointing out.
I understood it just fine. You wan to punt on the question of ID. You want to get in a spacecraft and find someone who already has the answers because you don't think we can find the answers. That's giving up. That isn't science.
I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'.
That is not what I was asking for. I am asking for research proposals on life's history, what has already happened.
When the God particle was found, it wasn't exactly what was initially thought it would look like.
Notice that we didn't have to get in a spacecraft and find someone who already knew what the God particle was like. WE FIGURED IT OUT ON OUR OWN. No need for research into space exploration or brain physiology. WE FIGURED IT OUT USING SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS.
Experiments that would have been impossible to run with the knowledge and technology of the 1920’s!
But not impossible with the brainpower of people from the 1920's. They didn't get this knowledge and technology by traveling in space and having someone give them this technology and knowledge. They got this technology and knowledge from doing experiments that were meant to investigate what makes up the atom. Rutherford did not build a spacecraft and try to find someone that already had the answers. He bombarded atoms with charged particles in the search for atomic nuclei. HE DID THE EXPERIMENTS.
Experiments 100 years from now will be built on the technology and knowledge derived from the LHC, not from flying in space to find someone that already has the answers.
What I am asking for is the experiments that should be run to investigate the history of life on this planet so that we can start down this path. What are these experiments?
On particles . The object of this endeavor is to answer whether or not intelligence and design are a part of life’s history.
Then why can't we study life?
You’re asking me to give you an experiment to prove there is greater being, without looking for greater being.
False. I am asking if life has been altered by an intelligence in the past. Why would we need too? When we want to determine if a rock was used as a tool by a primitive intelligence on Earth we don't have to travel back in time to interview that intelligence. Rather, we look at the marks left on the tool. We look for striations from wear and patterns of knapping, as two examples. We can also trace the flint used in the arrowheads to the source rocks and determine where arrowheads are made. All of this is done without needing to grill or detect the intelligence themselves. So why can't we do the same with life?
Yes Rutherford ran experiments, but the gold foil experiment next to the LHC is like comparing the first wheel next to today’s blue tooth robotically driven electric car. The capabilities and knowledge have to be available.
That is what I am asking for, experiments in the field of biology that will grow our knowledge of technology with respect to intelligent design just as it is done in all other fields of science.
We have places to start. Improve space travel.
Is that where they started for determining what makes up the atom? No. Is that where they started out when they tried to figure out how arrowheads were made thousands of years ago? No. What you are discussing is not scientific research.
One potential I already said to you, would be to monitor the electromagnetic spectrum for likenesses next to brain communication.
So how will this be used to test the hypothesis that life was designed by an inteligence in the past?