Intelligent Design vs. Real Science

So is this field in Spitsbergen designed, or not? Why can I never get an answer to this picture?

---

"God is Santa Claus for adults."
- Mad Kallie

Dawn, your own writings show that when it comes to science and the scientific method you have no clue.I'm not going to waste any more time with you for a while.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

As I feared, you're just spewing yet more bullshit.Dawn, you never fail to disappoint.

That appears to be a different argument than the one you were having with Eta. More to the point, it seems to be in response to a side issue.To the topic, you were saying something about the suppression of information about ID and the brainwashing of children in a secular assembly line. You concluded Is your avoidance of my counterargument a concession on your part?

We have that model Buz, it is called the Theory of Evolution".Now present yours. If and when you present such evidence we will examine it. So far ALL the so called evidence you have presented has been refuted. HUH?Word salad. I don't even know of any evidence there is some life giving breath or what any of the rest of that alleged sentence means. More word salad Buz, utter nonsense.If and when you ever present any "corroborating evidence" THEN it can be examined.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Once again, ID has no model. It started from a conclusion. ID is not testable nor is it falsifiable. ID can not explain the evidence we do have. ID fails at every turn when it comes to being science.Compare this to evolution. Using the theory of evolution we can construct testable hypotheses. For example:"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Just a moment...Using this hypothesis we can test to see if humans and other apes share a common ancestor. So what are the ID hypotheses, and how are they testable? False. The evolutionary model lets us demonstrate shared ancestry between humans and other apes as shown above. It does so in a testable and falsifiable manner. The ID model doesn't have these attributes. It is not testable and it is not falsifiable. Do a google search for "cdesign proponentist". That should clear up a lot.ID is the result of "creation science" losing court cases and being booted out of schools. ID is an attempt to dress creationism in a lab coat and try to sell it as a science. That is the whole point of ID. No scientist is using ID to do scientific research. The only way in which ID is used is to push the creationist agenda of getting religion into science classes. Science is more than examination. Gathering facts is but a single step in the scientific method. You also need to construct hypotheses and then test those hypotheses. ID is incapable of doing this which is why it is not science. Observing order and law is but the first step in the scientific method. You also need to construct a hypothesis as to the cause of these observations, and then design experiments that will test this hypothesis (and the null hypothesis). ID does not do this. It jumps over the hypothesis and experiment stages of the scientific method and lands at the conclusion. This is why ID is not science. Making claims with no experimental support ignores the rules of science which is why ID is not science. If you want to claim that ID is science then you must follow the rules of science. The theory of evolution does have experimental support which is why it is science. So how do we test the claim that Order and Law are the product of an intelligent designer? Please describe these experiments, or admit that ID is not science.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Nonsense! Especially now that you have been told what a model is (and, no, it is not mere examination): A model needs to be constructed and verified. It is verified through testing it by examination of real-world evidence. Even if you were to construct a model out of whole cloth based solely on your prior understanding of how that which is being modelled works, it still needs to be tested to verify that it does actually describe what which it is supposed to model. The model must be tested.You have presented no model and have even erroneously identified the process of examination as your model -- the examination process is frequently guided by the model, but it is no more the model itself than an actual building is the same thing as a set of blueprints.But let us extremely charitable and assume that you do have a model, one which says that everything is designed. How did you construct that model? Out of whole cloth, based solely on your a priori understanding. OK, that might work. Now, how did you test that model? Com'on, we're waiting. How did you test that model? What do you mean, you have never tested your model? Then that means that you have nothing!Dawn, in order to test your model, you need to have what Coyote is asking for, a formal process for confirming your subjective observations as facts, a formal process for detecting and determining design. Something which you now finally admit that you do not have.Well, Dawn, if you have no way to detect or determine design, then how could you possibly test your model? And if you cannot test your model, then how could you possibly know that it actually does model nature?Dawn, by your own admission, you have nothing.

From Dawn's Message 55, also repeated in his Message 59, (my emphasis added): Dawn and his fellow IDists doing exactly what they berate others for allegedly doing.Dawn, meet your own petard.

Taq responded with, "What test could prove that order and law are the product of an intelligent designer?" is not possible since intelligent has never been defined by popular poles that can all agree on one specific definition.In reality isn't that how facts are determined by getting the majority to agree on the definition of it? Anyway, back to law and order, doesn't this suggest the opposite of chaotic and random behavior of mutations?The most important evidence that science can solve is how regulatory genes and Hox genes are formed by natural processes. Natural processes meaning auto responses to specific causes that react to them without directing it by any other source.For example, science daily wrote about the discovery of MqsA and MqsR complex that are regulatory genes found in biofilm formation on prosthetic devices used in the human body. These molecules have the ability to control their own transcription. It binds its own genetic promoter and also binds and regulates the promoters of other genes which is important in biofilm formation.This makes it difficult to treat in patients with antibiotics because they cannot penetrate this organized system of behavior that is directed by those gene molecules.This discovery is important because for the first time there is evidence of cells directing its own ability to survive with its genes and do not leave much room for chance to be a factor.

Whatever does any of that have to do with anything in that message to which you just "replied"?The scientific method is well-established and knowledge of it is freely available. Dawn falsely claims that his own ID "methodology" and "model" are identical to those of the scientific method. In my quote of him (in which your own quote does not appear), Taq offers a brief description of the sequence of actions to be taken in the scientific method and points out that ID vitally essential key steps. I then quoted Dawn in one of multiple cases of him accusing us of skipping steps. I concluded that that has Dawn hoisting himself on his own petard.So what does your "reply" have to do with that?BTW, you left out the effects of natural selection. It has been several decades, the better part of a century, since any non-creationist has seriously equated evolution with mutation. You might want to review the Grand Synthesis.

No. Facts become facts when many people observe the same thing. Facts are the world's data, the observations. Theories and models explain the data. DNA regulation is done through binding of protein or RNA to specific DNA sequences. This either shuts down transcription or turns transcription on. Mutations to either the DNA binding site or the DNA binding protein/RNA can alter the timing and strength of regulation.You might want to check out Thomas Schneider's EV program. It models the de novo evolution of DNA binding sites.
http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

Since there's nothing complex about it, being likely naturally caused by things dropping from the sky, it is not designed.There's nothing about it that would diminish the arguments for intelligent design.

---

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.

If something is not complex: it is not designed. Yes?How do you gauge complexity?
What did you measure to ascertain that the object in the image had no complexity?You mentioned that the object was probably naturally caused.
Is there a link between 'naturally caused' and 'not designed'?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Yeah, shit falls from the sky and splashes rocks around down here all the time, Buz. What isn't "complex" about hundreds of acres of stones all gathered up into rings with bare centers? If you saw a dozen rings like those in your backyard, would you think first of gophers or of neighbor kids? Or of shit falling out of the sky?Hint: neighbor kids would be my first choice if it were in my backyard. There aren't lots of kids in Spitsbergen.

I meant to say that the phenomenon was not intelligently designed. Have there been tests for meteor strikes in the region? If a meteor shower struck the terrain, containing relatively similar type rocks, perhaps it created the mounds. Erosion would wash the higher rocks so as to distinguish them from the surrounding terrain.What do geophysicists say caused the phenomenon?

---

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.