"Creation Science" experiments.

The result of an experiment is always a new event, and never a repeat of an old event.Science does experiments to test procedures and methods, not to repeat events. We test our explanation of past events by testing whether the processes and actions that our explanations assert do indeed have the kind of outcomes that we see in the evidence of those past events.

I think you are making a mistake in taking offense to what Blue Jay wrote in Message 29.Firstly, that message was a reply to Dawn Bertot. It was Dawn Bertot who had said that you made an ignorant statement. Blue Jay was calling her out for that, pointing out that if she saw you as saying something foolish, she should have attempted to educate you instead of just calling names.If you read that in context, you will see that Blue Jay was using the words expressed by Dawn Bertot in order to more effectively communicate with her. I don't see any indication that Blue Jay would ordinarily have chosen "ignorant" as the appropriate word to use.

I would guess most scientists will accept whatever evidence.Once the scientist finds good evidence, he will then say that the evidence is natural.You seem to hold the view that there is a fixed division in the natural and the supernatural. But history does not support that view. Rather, there is a division in the natural and the supernatural, but the division is not fixed. As science grows, more and more moves into what is considered the natural realm, and the supernatural realm continues to shrink.The folly of supernaturalist religion, is that it sets itself up to fail. It will never find any evidence, for once evidence is found that evidence will be considered part of the natural realm.

It is the name of some over-the-counter pills you used to be able to buy at the drug store. I think it was Aspirin, Phenacetin, Caffeine.

References? For sure, that is not the statement of any "precise mathematical laws."

Which method?Your previous paragraph gave two methods, one due to Shannon, the other due to Chaitin. And they don't give the same answer. Moreover the Chaitin method depends on having an agreed UTM, and you have not specified which UTM you are using. Generally, the choice of UTM is not important if one is looking at the asymptotic information density for infinite strings. But DNA is very finite.And then you say "it is indeed abstruse information." Yet as far as I know, neither Shannon nor Chaitin used "abstruse" as a technical term. Did either Shannon or Chaitin say how their theories of information relate to Mount Rushmore, or how they relate to combination locks? Or did any other scientists working with their definitions of information, connect them to Mount Rushmore or to combination locks?

I only have a few posts in this thread, though I have been following it.My conclusion: The sensible suggestions for possible experiments on "creation science" appear to have all come from the evolutionist/scientist participants. I see only hand-waving and special pleading arguments from the creationists.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie