"Creation Science" experiments.

You mean you're finally going to admit that you know what science is?Good, now get on with it.

If you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, then I suggest that you find out the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, and that way you will say fewer things that are blatantly untrue.

If someone had made up his mind that there were no unicorns, and you had a unicorn, wouldn't it be worth your while to show him your unicorn?If, instead, you went on whining out feeble excuses like this, don't you think people would begin to suspect that you didn't have a unicorn?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, the supernatural beings are the hypothesis by which he wishes to explain the observations.Observing the real world is step #1, fantasizing about sky-fairies is step #2. What's going to give him trouble is step #3.

Is this an article of faith or a scientific discovery?If it is a scientific discovery, where is the evidence for it? Does my genome contain apc?Only we know how that was produced --- by unintelligent processes of DNA replication, meiosis, and recombination. So if my genome contains apc, it would constitute a counterexample. And yet it seems that "we" cannot.---But let me stop you there. You are clearly not following the scientific method as it has been explained to you. Writing words like "Observation", "Hypothesis" and "Experimentation" in front of bits of creationist dogma does not magically make you a follower of the scientific method any more than donning a lab coat would make you a scientist.Your hypothesis is meant to predict the observations.In your case the "observation" ("Only agents acting with intent and purpose can produce apc") is another hypothesis --- and one falsified by actual observation if my genome contains apc. And your "hypothesis" ("We should be able to distinguish between intelligently designed objects, and naturally formed (unintentional) objects.") predicts nothing about what kinds of things we should observe.The stage at which you derive predictions from your hypothesis are simply lacking. Indeed, it seems itself to take the form of a prediction --- that there should be a method for distinguishing undesigned things (such as my genome) from designed things (such as a sharpened stick).But I don't see where this is getting us or from what hypothesis you derived the prediction.Now, try again. The scientific method does not consist of occasionally uttering certain magic words such as "hypothesis" and "experimentation". They are not magic. They have meaning and describe certain things that you have to do to do science.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Observation! Mohammad is the prophet of Allah. Hypothesis! Allah is the one true God. Experimentation! Read the Koran. Conclusion! لا اله الا الله محمد رسول اللهSee, I said the magic words! (Apart from this "prediction" thing that you all keep banging on about.) Behold, I have done SCIENCE!

On the one hand, there's evidence for this thing called "evolution" (perhaps you've heard of it) which strongly suggests that this process was produced without intelligence just as ever other novel process we ever observe arising in single-celled organisms is produced by evolution and not by intelligence (I suppose genetic engineering is an exception, but surely you do not claim that the intelligence in question was human).On the other hand, there is as yet no evidence for this aiding intelligence of which you speak --- perhaps at some point you could come up with some.(NB: Circular reasoning does not constitute evidence for anything except the paucity of intellect of the person indulging in it.)

How can it be? You haven't yet given us a criterion for identifying apc.If I say that "all elephants are fruminous", then I can't claim this hypothesis to be proven by observation until I tell you what "fruminous" means. I can't even claim that it is a hypothesis until I tell you what "fruminous" means. If it turns out that it means "bright pink and octagonal", then the hypothesis has been disproven by observation. But until I tell you what it means, I'm not even putting forward a hypothesis.Now you stand in a similar situation. You have, to be sure, given us examples. You say that a pointy stick possesses apc and that this, for example, does not: But this gets me no nearing to knowing the criterion, it just tells me what you think of various things --- and surely the definition of apc can't just be that a thing has apc if you say it does.Nor does looking at the words the acronym stands for help me much, since there is no sense in normal English in which a pointy stick is "abstruse".So you must first define your terms. This is a basic part of science. No-one would have gotten Nobel Prizes for talking about quarks if they hadn't said what a quark was.Only after you have defined your terms can a statement couched in these terms be submitted to scientific scrutiny. There is no scientific test for a claim that "telulant bimologies are wentiple".I await your elucidation with interest.

Because no-one but you has ever used the term apc, because they don't know what it means. No, it's similar to asking "how do I know that only humans create flugglewerp?"

Golly, you waste a lot of your time on this stuff. This is, of course, untrue, as you would know if you had yourself taken any interest in the subject on which you now wish to lecture others. As the theory of evolution does not predict that we should be able to do this, this does not constitute a test of the ToE. Perhaps if you wish to continue posting on this thread, you should find out the meaning of the word "experiment".You should also notice that the title of this thread is "Creation Science" experiments, not Freeform Whining About Science And The People Who Understand It. Maybe at some point you'd like to contribute to the topic.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If this is actually true, then I wish that you would share the joke with the rest of us.

Some citations would be nice.But I've seen a lot of creationists pull out this card. Er ... you realize that if this is true it makes the theory of evolution even more plausible, don't you?No, apparently you don't.

But this is simply, flatly, untrue.Consider, for example, the genome of a tiger. How was it produced? By an unintelligent process involving two other tigers making sweet sweet love.If you will admit that the genome of a tiger possesses "specified complexity" then you have your counterexample right there. And if you will not admit this, then your mistake is not even a creationist argument.We know for a fact that the very things you're trying to explain by a supernatural intelligence were in fact produced by a natural and unintelligent process.You know this too.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And having carefully examined the process that you are discussing, your evidence that proves that all the scientists who actually did the experiment and observed the results are wrong is as follows ... And having carefully examined the process that you are discussing, your evidence that proves that all the scientists who actually did the experiment and observed the results are wrong is as follows ... In the first place, you mean "manner" and in the second place SCIENTISTS WATCHED IT HAPPEN.How far can denial go?

Creationists are participating in a vast elaborate long-term experiment to see if the Argument From Design will ever fool anyone who isn't already an idiot.So far, the results seem to favor the null hypothesis.