Does ID follow the scientific method?

Taq, I see you emphasised the word, METHODOLOGIES. I'll up you some on emphasising. I'll emphasise, "ELITE SECULARIST CONVENTIONAL MEDIA, ACADEMIA AND METHODOLOGIES ALLOW NO CONSIDERATION FOR THAT POSSIBILIY. "You missed my valid point that conventional SM is incomplete whereas the metaphysical science methodology, call it MSM, is the complete science which researches, studies and airs both, the ID metaphysical evidence and the physical evidence, a classic example being the Exodus Case book and aired Exodus Video revealing the findings of the MSM which was applied in that research. Oh wow! How to spin valid evidence! Fact is derived from evidence. No? Mmm, not really. It's more like, evidence applied to test hypotheses determines whether hypotheses qualify factually for the MSM. The hypothesis has been tested over many expeditions by numerous explorers and scientific researchers and the results of a valid evidenced hypothesis published.Where do you get that "null" nonsense? It has yet to be nullified. Where are the SM marine researchers, such as the renowned Robert Ballard? They're all out to lunch on anything alluding to MSM. It's all researched and the MSM has been applied. The results and conclusions have all been published. Don't look for it in the bully pulpit peer reviews. Their SM is incomplete, biasly ignoring the MSM data in their exclusive elitist circles where IDSM scientists need not apply.Taq, you people keep on keeping on hollering for evidence and other SM data when all you need to do is view the researched MSM evidence on Lennart Moller's Exodus Video or read his excellent book, THE EXODUS CASE which peers, if you will, the MSM scientifically researched data.

---

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.

Edited: I replied to marc's message, which has been deemed off topic. I would say in his defense that much of it was on topic, or at least seemed to be intended as such. To say that he was "making no effort to address the topic" seems to me to be unduly harsh.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, of course not. It's not out until it's falsified. That's the job of your SM people who are out to lunch. Until it is falsified it's in. Don't wait for conventional biased peer reviews to declare it empirical. LoL on that! Taq, why do you keep asking answered questions? Your first question in this message was answered in your next quote of me. Hello! Go, read carefully and figure.

---

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.

Buz, the Biblical Exodus is as usual just another of your totally irrelevant to a topic misdirection tactic as well as having been totally refuted time after time, most recently in Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?, yet another thread where you simply ran away as each and EVERY supposed piece of evidence you presented was shown to be either nonexistent or just plain false.And the "metaphysical science methodology" is just another example of you stringing words together and thinking they have some meaning and another attempt to create an attractive rabbit hole in the vain hope that folk won't expect you to support your position for once.When you can present the model showing exactly how your imaginary metaphysical fantasy effects change, then perhaps it will be worth something more than a quiet chuckle.

---

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

Buz pull your head out of your ass and learn what a null hypothesis is.The rest of your post is, unsurprisingly, off-topic bullshit.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Tell you what, Jar and Jonsey. Copy and paste my stuff, as Taq has done and go at refuting the pertinent points posted as Taq has attempted to do. Then I'll respond.ABE: Dr Jones: Aside from your smartass remarks, you did teach me something. Thanks. Null means non-factual. I have never heard of the term null hypothesis until I looked it up. Lo and behold, (no surprise) what considered to be non-factual on main street America, SM elitists in academia apply as valid. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in text.

---

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.

I addressed the only pertinent part of your post; your lack of knowledge of what a null hypothesis is. The rest is off-topic BS.The topic of the thread is: With your babbling on about the"MSM" you quite clearly are admitting that the ID methodology does not follow the scientific method but some other make-believe methodology.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Just to clarify, you're saying that the ID method is not the same as the scientific method - i.e. you're disagreeing with Dawn Bertot.

---

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

Well Buz, I did that in the very post you are replying to. "Opine Pertaining Pertinent Points Posted, Please" Sheesh Buz, yet more nonsense crap.I'll post it again in case you missed it.

quote:

---

Buz, the Biblical Exodus is as usual just another of your totally irrelevant to a topic misdirection tactic as well as having been totally refuted time after time, most recently in Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?, yet another thread where you simply ran away as each and EVERY supposed piece of evidence you presented was shown to be either nonexistent or just plain false.

​

And the "metaphysical science methodology" is just another example of you stringing words together and thinking they have some meaning and another attempt to create an attractive rabbit hole in the vain hope that folk won't expect you to support your position for once.

​

When you can present the model showing exactly how your imaginary metaphysical fantasy effects change, then perhaps it will be worth something more than a quiet chuckle.

---

The points are simple, most anyone can understand them.First, the imagined exodus, in addition to being just a myth, is irrelevant to the topic and just another attempt by you to misdirect folks attention and direct them down another attractive rabbit hole.Second, "metaphysical science methodology" just plain don't exist until you can provide the method and model for your imaginary metaphysical critter to effect change.When you can present the model showing exactly how your imaginary metaphysical fantasy effects change, then perhaps it will be worth something more than a quiet chuckle.But I predict that once again you will simply avoid addressing the issue or supporting your position as always.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

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

Thanks for addressing one of my pertinent topic points, Ringo.I'm not disagreeing with Dawn totally. I'm reinforcing Dawn's position by explaining how the metaphysical Science Method (MSM) is a more complete science methodology than the biased scientific methodology (MS). MSM researches all sciences, both physical and metaphysical whereas MS limits their methodology to the physical. Thus the MSM is the more complete and non-biased science methodology.I believe Dawn and I agree on this. Perhaps Dawn will weigh in on whether that is the case.

---

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.

Is this what Behe meant in the Dover trial when he used a definition of science that included astrology?

---

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

Good, then can you explain the model and methods that the metaphysical critter effects change?

---

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

You're not reinforcing Dawn's position, you're subverting it, you're conceeding that ID does not follow the scientific method.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

I think that's quite possible. However, the claim that Dawn has made, the claim that Dawn is supposed to be defending in this thread, is that the ID method and the scientific method are the same. Claiming that the ID method is "better" is for another thread.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote attribution.

---

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

quote:

---

Taq, you people keep on keeping on hollering for evidence and other SM data when all you need to do is view the researched MSM evidence on Lennart Moller's Exodus Video or read his excellent book, THE EXODUS CASE which peers, if you will, the MSM scientifically researched data.

---

If there really is significant evidence in the video or book why do you - and all the other Wyatt supporters who have ever been to this site - try to palm us off with rubbish instead ?It seems to me that the main difference in your "method" is that it institutionalises your own biases. The only "god" truly in it is you. Thus you want there to be significant evidence for Wyatt's claims therefore to you there is (and the fact that there isn't can be ignored). You want Wyatt and Moller to be using the scientific method instead of doing shoddy crank research at best therefore to you they are never mind their many hopeless errors. The same methodology applies to your so-called "Bible study" (which is nothing of the sort).But doubtless you disagree. So then I'll challenge you to defebnd the rewrite of Egyptian history favoured by Wyatt and Moller. Egyptian history is much easier to research (and I have a source actually used to "support" some of their arguments - Tyldesly's Hatsepshut).
Surely, if they are being scientific such a major change to Egyptian history must be supported by sound evidence - and deal with the evidence supporting the mainstream view, too.Of course my position is that they are not being scientific, that the rewrite is nonsense and that they ignored the real evidence because they - like you - placed personal bias way above intellectual honesty and scientific integrity. The real evidence fails to show any support for their claims and in fact refutes them on some significant points.If you say that you will dare to defend them I will start the thread. I don't think that you will. I think that you know in your heart that Wyatt and Moller are peddling bullshit and that you are only pretending to have the evidence.