The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge

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'. I'm saying let the religious fund real God seeking

Try the Discovery Institute ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

Enjoy

So what is an "I.D. Hub"?

How about an impartial non-profit that issues grants to students to study actual science, funded by (religious) donations, for students that want to investigate ID?

I think a lot of religious people would donate to such a program.

Enjoy

Sounds oxymoronic all around. But lets give some leeway. Are there some research proposals that would match the "actual science" and "investigate ID" criteria? ...

Actually I have been half-heartedly thinking of creating such a grant awarding body to encourage kids to get into science. I would expect failure to be part of the education.

Wanna help?

Enjoy.

Welcome to the fray Jackal32,

... . I suggest that the protein’s hardware (structure) determines its software (role in the cell) – and that software could not have originated spontaneously, it had to be programmed into the hardware. ...

This statement does not follow logically from your argument, but seems to be just an opinion placed as if it were a conclusion.

On the other hand we can see that many different proteins are involved, and we also see that selection is a systematic process that eliminates processes that don't benefit the survival and reproduction of the individual, thus resulting in a "spontaneous" (if that word can be used to cover multiple generations) selection of those systems that produce beneficial proteins.

... The source cited below states that there may be as many as 10,000 types of proteins in a cell -- Scientists estimate that each of your cells contains about 10 billion protein molecules of approximately 10,000 different varieties. ...

In a cell structure that has been subject to evolution for over 3.5 billion years. You are looking at a result of a whole lot of selection, not a suddenly new product.

I would spend the $5M on researching the software in our cells. ...

In what way? In the way it is being studied in microbiology or some new process of investigation?

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

... You will learn a lot here, ...

Particularly if you WANT to learn about things like evolution and how the theory of evolution explains the evidence of life on earth, whether that evidence is the fossil record, the genetic record, the historic record and the world around us.

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities ... and it is a FACT that this has been observed to occur in virtually every living species ...

... while feeling like you are swimming upstream if you debate against evolutionary theory

The process of anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the long term evolution of the entire (breeding) population of a species over multiple generations ... and it is a FACT that this too has been observed to occur, and it is fully explained by the process of evolution.

The process of cladogenesis involves an evolutionary branching event of a parent species into two or more closely related sister species, where the parent population and each daughter branch (and any subsequent smaller branches) form a nested hierarchy called a "Clade"; a process that leads to the development of a greater diversity of species in the world ... and it is a FACT that this has also been observed to occur, and it is fully explained by the process of evolution.

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis (phyletic speciation), and the process of cladogenesis (divergent speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies), are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

Dr. Adequate is the resident sarcasm expert. Think of the two older guys in the balcony on the muppet show ...

And many creationists could be compared to the Three Stooges, hitting each other with 2x4,s or poking the others in the eye, rather that provide substantiative evidence for their (often crackpot) concepts, and how they don't work together to arrive at any kind of consensus on those concepts ...

Concepts such as are bandied about by IDologists making silly claims like proteins are both hardware and software ...

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : topic connection

No arguments here about species evolving. ...

Yes, it is hard to argue with facts.

... It has limits though. ...

Where? How are those limits implemented? How does evolution stop happening?

... Argue with me all you want on your beliefs, but you need to stop calling it "fact" when you assume we came from elements billions of years ago, with no external help. There is NO evidence to that, simply theory.

Curiously we know that at one point life did not exist and at a slightly later point simple single cell life existed. We also know that since that first life that there has been an increasing number of forms (we call them species) of life, and I would call those facts that the first life was simple in form.

AND we can equally say:

... you need to stop calling it "fact" when you assume we came from elements billions of years ago, with some undefined kind of external help. There is NO evidence to that, simply belief.

Personally I would take theory over belief, as theory is based on an educated evaluation of evidence while belief is just opinion.

Now belief may be enough to think ID research would be a good idea, but once you start doing that research you need to involve theory, testing and falsification ...

Are you willing to have your beliefs falsified?

So, we agree that things evolve. We disagree on the limits.

There is no evidence of any limits or of any way for limits to arise. Perhaps you can clarify how those limits act? At what level within the body is further change prevented?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : finished

Welcome to the fray MrIntelligentDesign,

Yes, we need real science ...

Curiously I have not seen any reference to real actual science in any of your posts yet, just a lot of boasting and self-aggrandizement. This doesn't mean you don't have some science to back your claims, it just means you are wasting time and bandwidth getting there. How about cutting to the chase?

Just for a refresher, this (as I'm sure you - as one of a purported scientific bent - know) is the scientific process\method:

When you get to the bottom and the answer is "yes" then you can say you have achieved something new in science.

BUT there are more about my new discoveries...

Can you fill us in on how you covered each of the steps getting to the bottom of the chart? For instance, what journal did you publish in, and what is the reference so we can read it?

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

TAKE NOTE: that your ideal science flow is not applicable to me. ...

Actually it does if you are claiming to do science: that's the rules of modern science.

... I think that I've already PROPOSED a new thread ...

Which did not propose a single aspect that could be considered science, it was a long ramble going nowhere.

... . I always think that we are in Galileo's time. ...

Except that we aren't. One of the curious thing about quacks is that they like to compare themselves to Galileo ... it's almost like a litmus test.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/...tics-are-like-galileo.htm

quote:

---

Some climate change skeptics compare themselves to Galileo, who in the early 17th century challenged the Church’s view that the sun revolves around the earth and was later vindicated.

The comparison to Galileo is not only flawed; the very opposite is true.

In contrast, Galileo’s views were not based on an infallible authority. His conclusions flowed from observations and logic. Galileo’s evidence- and logic-based method of inquiry later became known as the scientific method.

---

Galileo actually did experiments and published his results, results that have been replicated by others that confirmed his results.

You are going to have to step up if you want to claim his shoes.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added to quote re G.

5. I need the remaining amount to give more seminars to universities around the world to share the new discoveries in science from the new Intelligent Design. I hope this "new math" you plan to develop will also show us how you can cover $6,040,000 (+ "remaining amount") of research expenses with a $5,000,000 grant.

That's done by negative payment -- the universities would have to pay him for the seminars ... and I'm sure a couple of gullible fundie colleges might go for that as long as he doesn't step over the Christian godidit line ...

... or did he already do that in ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the new Intelligent Design :

quote:

---

... thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

"GodDidIt"

Or

"NatureDidIt".

---

Or they said "I don't know" or they said "God made the nature that made the rest" or they say "god is nature, nature is god" ... but those colleges will want him to assume the goddidit a priori ... and that it was their Christian god.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

It was not I who broke that rules but those peer-reviewers. When they broke the rules, are the not breaking the rules?

Sorry, I am not aware of any peer-reviewers breaking the rules, could you clarify? Provide evidence?

You knew, ToE had been around for 160 years now...It is long and ToE should have covered all topics for that life span of ToE ...

Nope. It just needs to investigate the evolution of species and breeding populations. Perhaps a part of your problem is a lack of knowledge\understanding of what the science of evolution is about.

... Many ToE's supporters told me that I am wrong but when I asked them to show me an experiment to show that their knowledge of intelligence is universal and scientific, they could not answer. HOW COME???...

They don't need to, it is not their claim. It is your claim and it is your responsibility to support it.

So far you haven't presented an hypothesis to be tested - that is a step that you need to take before asking anyone to devise an invalidation test.

In science, the only way to silence any QUACKS or CRACKPOTS is to make one experiment from ToE to explain that ToE's stance is right. Besides, ToE uses taxes and grants from people

Again, it is not the responsibility of a single scientist to prove you are wrong, the responsibility is yours to prove you are right.

It should only take a single experiment, right?

Then you can present your results.

Enjoy.