Summations Only

Yea but that's not jar's point. Jar is arguing that you have to have the alien machinery before validly inferring design.

Except that they don't actually back you up, do they? Just because you think you see some sort of resemblance between what they do and what the ID crowd are wittering on about, doesn't mean that they do.And indeed, their methodologies explicitly contradict the dogmas of ID. For example, an archeologist will put the crudest of clay pots in the "designed" pile, and the skeleton of an antelope in the "natural" pile. If archeologists are detecting design, then their methods class organisms and their remains as being undesigned --- the exact opposite to the conclusion that IDists want to draw.And how are archeologists carrying out their classification? Of course, because they do know how clay pots are produced and how antelope skeletons are produced, contrary to your claims. If they didn't, on what basis would they distinguish designed objects? By some abstract measure of complexity? But then they'd keep the skeleton and throw away the clay pot instead of the other way round.So apart from you being wrong about everything, you've got a good point.

They back up my methodology of detecting design. Put differently, my methodology of inferring design is the same as SETI scientist et al. You've talked with me before, Dr Adequate, and I think you should know that I don't infer design simply because "it's so complex it must be designed!" Which seems to be your point with crude clay pots. Try not to confuse me with other ID proponent, mmk? Yes, there are several methods to make clay pots AFAIK. According to jar's logic (remember, I'm critiquing his logic here), you'd have to know which method was employed for which pot before being able to infer design. Still, you might want to take on the SETI example: I freely confess that the archaeology example isn't as close to home with regards to my point. Thanks.

Thank you. Have you read that paper? It's available hereNow how is this different from anything you have proposed?Notice that he proposes several things, most importantly a series of tests to uses, methods and mechanics.So far that is ONE of the things seldom found in the ID marketing field, and every one that has been put forward has been shown to be false.The important issue is that YOU are avoiding dealing with ID.Look at that article again.First it deals with something humans do, build artificial orbiting bodies.Second, it deals with how such things could be identified.This is very comparable to what archeologists and paleontologists do when examine a site. If they find a flake of what looks like dirt, they compare it what we know we do and have done. If they find a rock with sharp edges they compare it to samples made by a knapper.We know how such objects could be made because we make such objects.Now let's turn to ID.What is the method that the Designer uses to preload the genome?What is the evidence that the genome is preloaded?Finally, even if they orbiting body was detected as described in the paper, intelligent origin would not be inferred until all other possible sources could be eliminated.

Not true.You need to be able to duplicate the alien method.

Nope. Read the paper again. He only mentions humans building artificial orbiting bodies in the future at the end of the paper. The bulk of the paper concentrates on using lightcurve signatures to detect artificial objects in space, thereby allowing a new kind of SETI. So, would we need to have the aliens that designed those artificial objects in order to infer design of those objects? Not according to this paper. Humans don't build earth-sized orbiting bodies, which is about the size you'd need to send a detectable lightcurve signature to the aliens. Assume we detect an artificial object in space, using the techniques the author describes. What was the method the aliens used to design this object?

...And since we don't know what the alien method is, by your logic, we could not reliably infer design from a radio signal consisting of the first 500 prime numbers.

We build orbiting bodies even now and were doing so even before 2005.The method they used is the methods we use.

Of course we can determine methods they could use.The issue is method or model is presented for how the designer influenced evolution or that there is any preloaded genome.Why is it that those trying to market ID never seem to want to talk about ID, I wonder?

Yes, but not earth-sized objects, which, as I said would be required to make a detectable transit. That's why the author discusses an earth-sized body, not something like the ISS. Okay. So, again, assuming for sake of argument, we detect this object: how do we know what method the aliens used? To quote your own words: I assume that you have evidence of the lab? You're going to be consistent, are you not?

Really? How? And we'd need evidence of the lab remember, by your own words. You're trying to steer the conversation away from a very crucial point, so that we can keep going 'round and 'round in circles. Let's remember why we're bringing up the example of SETI etc. It's because you implied that (a) we'd need the lab of the designer to validly infer design, (b) you said that we have to be able to duplicate the tools and everything involved in generating the signal - which of course implies that we'd need to find the tools first, because just assuming they used the same tools as we do isn't valid ya know. Etc. This is a very critical point, because I brought up the example of how humans can engineer genomes. To which you replied that we need the lab. And so on. Don't try to get out of what you said, jar. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Sure, if we can detect the object we can determine lots about it, what it's made of, it's mass, the surface.We can compare that to what we build, just like the paleontologist examines pottery shards and stone tools.Why don't ID folk talk about how the designer influenced evolution, the method the designer used?

You brought up SETI.I believe that is irrelevant and just another attractive rabbit hole so you don't have to do any work related to ID.

Please address the points I make above. Are you conceding that we don't need to know the method used to construct the orbiting body (remember, assuming that the method is the same as ours isn't a conclusion that flows from any tests; further, the mass and surface isn't enough to know how it was made)? I was talking about that, until you brought up all sorts of ideas like we need the lab, etc. Do we or do we not need the lab where the orbiting object was built, jar?

I brought up SETI because I think it very neatly shows your inconsistency here.