Does ID follow the scientific method?

No one is arging against order, law or harmony. We are arguing that those are not in the slightest evidence for an inteligent desighner.Example of order forming: When you throw dice long enough you see that there is order in how many times a number drops comapred to other numbers that is order forming though there is no evidence that there is an inteligence behind the dice telling them what number they should drop on.A2+B2=C2 in a triangle its a law still no evidence of a inteligence telling the longest side of the triangle to be the root of (a2+b2)Harmony well if you are refering to animals in nature the more food availible to herbavores the more herbavores the more herbavores you have the more carnivores you get, it works backwards too a harmony still no sighn of an inteligent being controlling it.Inteligent desighn has always failed because it presumes an inteligent being controling everything, or desighning life WHITOUT any evidence that would point to that conclusion other then the bible.

Jar are the methods I have initially set out in the form of Observation, evaluation, experimentation, and predictions scientifically based?If you answer is no then please explain whyYou witness change and natural selection in the available evidence, we wittness clear order, law and harmonyDid you arrive at your information, differently than me? If you did, explain howYour ad ons are not necessary for these basic evaluations are theyIf your implication is that i cannot deduce design because I cant see or witness the designer then that would not follow because it ignores simple rules of fact gathering and evidenceEven if i did not actually witness a crime because it was past history, I can still find evidence that supports that conclusion, correct?Your question is therefore invalid and illogicalDawn Bertot

No you didn't. I asked you to specify exactly what data you would look for to determine whether the Genesis Planet was designed. I asked you what equipment you would use and how you would analyze the data. You answered none of those questions. The question isn't "who" the designer is. The question is: How would you design an experiment to detect design in the first place. What exactly would you plunk down on the lab bench?I'm not asking for a general approach. I'm asking for one simple specific experiment.Edited by ringo, : Fixed cApitAlizatiN.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

And you presume order, law and harmony requires a desighner because???

As usual you have not been paying close attention to this argument that has been going on for months now.because it has been going on for months now I am not inclined to go back through and dig out every reference, or like intimations to the same argument I made in post 131dewise take 131 and show why it is not science and show why its conclusions are not valid as scienceThis should pose no problem for you correct?Dawn Bertot

[qs] R writes:Would you kindly respond to refernce in 131 that I highlighted, because that is the argument and specific experiment I am saying would accomplish such a featIf you cant respond to it just say so 131 please address it, you have your experiment and example, hop to itDawn BertotDawn Bertot

I didn't ask what argument you would use. I asked what data you would collect, specifically. Would you weigh leaves? Would you test soil pH? I asked what equipment you would use, specifically. An infrared spectrometer? A gas-liquid chromatograph? I asked how you would analyze the results, specifically. Linear regression? Standard deviation?Message 131 says nothing about that. You haven't devised a specific experiment or even hinted at one.I'm not asking for vague descriptions of what a lab building looks like. I'm asking for specifics.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

No, you have not supported your position and I have repeatedly shown you why, but I will repeat it yet again.As I pointed out in Message 77 and in Message 94 and in Message 128, the scientific method actually goes and observes, tests and replicates design processes to determine the different results between a designed object like a stone tool and a naturally occurring one.

quote:

---

An important point that I think needs to be stressed is that determining if something is designed involves observing and testing the methods and practices.

​

For example, in the case of stone tools scientists observe knapping practices, even perform knapping, to see exactly what are the characteristics of a hand made stone tool as opposed to a natural occurring rock or chip.

​

It is this step, actually observing how the designer created the artifact that is missing in the IDM.

---

Now yet again I ask as I asked in Message 132:

quote:

---

Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change.

---

How does IDM actually investigate how the designer effects change?

---

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

Where did you argue that order, law and harmony are not evidence of design Lord help us, no one is this simplistic. What would the dice do if no one threw them? Can the lines in the triangle be any more or less than they are, do they change and become something else, working in harmony with other physical properties No, the harmony in the substructure right up to that you describe, that forms another animal with teeth to eat another animal, not the results design cannot fail because it is not based on a designer, but the evaluation of natural process, doing what they doYou are confusing presuppositions and conclusions with what can be logically and physically deducedIf design fails for the reason it cannot produce a designer, which is a conlcusion,Then macro-evolution and nature, by soley natural sources fails for the same reason, because it cannot produce any evidence for events not now availablehappily both positions rely on the same type of evidenceDawn Bertot

In response to your latest post abbout an experiment being showed in poste 131. Would you mind doing it again one more time for me cause i cant find any examples. I hate to dissapoint you but there is no logic in the development faze of lets say a human, Gills are made and then unmade, a tail is made and then unmade.... logicly a small form a human would be made and then grown whit none of these energy wasting illogical steps. Sorry i cant evan find what you think is pointing to desighn much less conclude it is desighn. Well logicly if i would desighn a race to look like me for all eternety i would make it in a way that it could not change, though every species can change dna mutations are happening all over the world in every species even humans.If the order you say was so fundamental then why all the bad mutations. Like all of the genetic desieses we humans can have.If there is so much harmony in our bodies what about auto immune desieses when ones own body attacks itself. YES BECAUSE YOU HAVE SHOWN NO EVIDENCE ONLY WILD GUESSES WHY SOMETHING COULD SHOULD BE!!! How much evidence did DARWIN have (well more then ID cause id has none) and he hypothesised evolution and it was later refined and proved. Because ID usualy starts whit an unproven assumption to support its theory and then uses its theory to support the asumption.

Above and wherever i find them posted now will you tell me WHY DO YOU PRESUME THEY NEED A DESIGHNER? They would wait for an erthquake and fall on their own now stop avoiding the question. They are triangles evolution has nothing to do whit triangles. It has all to do whit laws though. And there is no law saying because a2+b2=c2 there cannot be any evolution it says that at least this law has no desighner controling it. So what are you saying heare that evolution made them your grammer has me confused. Um now i am realy confused is there a desighner or no or what do you presume he actualy did. Snap his fingers made the big bang and then waited 15 billion years so the erth would form then made the first cell and waited some more for humans to arive so they could worship him. Usualy ID says a desighner desighned it all.What form of ID are you preaching? What that the harmony in nature is so complex it had to be desighned why why could it not acure naturaly?? Whitout any aid from an inteligence?? Sorry to dissapoint you but there is plenty of evidence for macro evolution i still haveto see ANY evidence for a Desighner or that anything in nature actualy is desighned.

Ok, so is this what your trying to say:IDM = SM.
But ID = IDM + Creation by an intelligent being.Or have I got myself confused.

That's the problem--the answers to your questions are readily available in the quote I provided of the Dover decision. You just don't want to accept those answers.The Dover trial was conducted with experts on both sides, and it arrived at answers based on their testimony. You can claim that ID follows the scientific method all you want, but we already have expert testimony, under oath and with cross examination, along with a federal district judge's ruling, that clearly finds that ID is not science.And insults are neither necessary nor appropriate. They certainly don't advance your cause. Let's see the test! You have been asked by several posters to show the test and you keep ducking the question. But you don't have a test. Just like many IDers you are trying to appropriate the methods of science then pervert them to your own ends. ID is all about seeing design in everything no matter what the evidence actually shows. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. That's because ID is nothing but religion, and all your protests won't change that. The modern version of ID was "designed" specifically to get creationism back into the schools after the Edwards decision removed it (in the form of creation "science") from the schools.The book, Of Pandas and People is the smoking gun; the creationists who wrote that got caught with their hands in the cookie jar changing "creationists" to "design proponents"--without changing anything else! There is your proof: even creationists admit that the two are the same.

---

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

Hi, Bertot. I don't understand why you think this is a sufficient answer. It's a generic, baseless assertion. In order to meet the criteria of the question, it needs to be specific, and supported with evidence.Please model your responses after the example I gave in Message 141: doing so will amply demonstrate your point, if indeed your point is true.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

The ID hypothesis is indeed dependent upon supportive evidence of an existing designer having the intelligence, ability and energy sufficient to implement an intelligently designed and managed universe.There is, in fact, evidence for the designer. The problem is that it is not studied, researched or peer aired. Elite secularist conventional media, academia and methodologies allow no consideration for that possibility.The unique Buzsaw hypothesis and theoretical conclusion is thus: Premise and hypothesis: The Universe has been designed and managed infinitely having unbounded space.

​

Observation:

​

Analysis: Analyze all observations via the scientific method, both conventional and alternative by expanding research, including data supportive to existing metaphysical energy and intelligence.

​

Prediction:

​

Theoretical Conclusion: An intelligent designer has created, destroyed, arranged and managed all existing energy and matter in the unbounded space of the Universe infinitely.
The Universe is a closed system being essentially a perpetual machine via an intelligently managed energyEdited by Buzsaw, : Add words for clarityEdited by Buzsaw, : Revise some wordingEdited by Buzsaw, : More wording improvement. Edited by Buzsaw, : Ditto

---

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.