Evidence for God from Science

KBCid wrote:I wonder how many more ways sandy_mcd can avoid answering these simple questions? stay tuned and see how the exciting drama unfolds...

Gman wrote:Good luck with that...

G, I am beginning to question whether the anti-creationists working this site are really anti-creationists. It is beginning to look like some people are being paid to make the Evo / atheist side look foolish. What do you think? random chance of multiple foolishness or intelligently designed foolishness?

lolololol apparently my sides can hurt from causes other than you G so that is one hypothesis out the window.

KBCid wrote:Again you are wrong here because my definition of the scientific method does not mean that "test it is to reproduce it". Test it stands alone and repeat it stands alone. One must first be able to test something for it to be scientific in the first place and reproducibly testable to get confirmation. This is how the scientific method operates. It is also not simply my definition since I have referenced a number of cites that say the exact same thing in english;

This is way past the point of being useful. I work at a scientific college. The professors here do not agree with your interpretation that evolution, geology, and astronomy are not sciences. Sorry, i will go along with them.
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false

KBCid wrote:Since I have cited the evidences that cause my argument the onus is now on you to show why it is not correct.

Yep, when i can't even pin down what you mean. How about this: I propose that your ideas about science are balderdash. Please see any scientific library and look in almost any scientific journal. That is my evidence; the onus is now on you to prove me wrong.

But seriously, as pierson5 said " I think it would be nice if we could find some common ground". You have your idea about design; i thought we were trying to discuss them in the context of science. A number of posts later, it became clear that KBCid's definition of science is different from that of most scientists. When i tried to find put exactly what he means by science, he refuses to answer simple questions about what fields of study are even science but repeatedly claims that it is clear if we just apply his rules. What is his real purpose? It doesn't seem to be to discuss anything.

PS Just for the record, "engineering" and "science" are not synonymous.

KBCid wrote:
G, I am beginning to question whether the anti-creationists working this site are really anti-creationists. It is beginning to look like some people are being paid to make the Evo / atheist side look foolish. What do you think? random chance of multiple foolishness or intelligently designed foolishness?

lolololol apparently my sides can hurt from causes other than you G so that is one hypothesis out the window.

I see a lot of these "so called" evolutionists actually proving ID for us... So sometimes I just watch. It's such a mass of confusion that no one really knows what they are talking about anymore.. Sometimes I think we have to set the ground rules straight.. Ok, I'm advocating for ID and you are the evolutionist position. Now go....

Now back to our philosophy discussion shall we? Sorry I mean science.. Oopps.

It is pretty incredible how KBC and Gman feel that this argument has been hands down won by them, while Pierson, Sandy and I would probably all say that this argument has done nothing for ID and done nothing but pose questions to evolution (though by no means discredit or disprove evolution). And considering how around 99.9% of all scientists across all fields who have heard this argument would agree with the latter position, it's pretty amazing how one person thinks he has completely destroyed the foundations of biology in one fell swoop without actually doing any research for ID or any research that demonstrates evolution is wrong.

In the meanwhile, my university alone will continue to produce millions of dollars of research and hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in the fields of evolutionary biology, geology, and astronomy/astrophysics despite being "fake" scientists according to KBC. And just as I'm sure you laugh at the notion that they are intelligent and highly educated individuals, they would almost certainly scoff at the notion that one guy with little background in their fields believes he has discredited everything they have ever done.

We will certainly see where ID goes in the next few years. Unfortunately, without any real research done on the topic and no body of work to stack against evolution, odds are the debate will continue to rage on in the public scene while scientists by and large pay it no mind. It's like a biologist recently said, there is a reason ID proponents are trying to circumvent scientific progression by trying to win over the uneducated public instead of actually doing research and presenting it to scientists. They know they have no scientific leg to stand on, so they take there plight to the media and the courts in hopes to force scientists to accept their views. It's pretty amazing that no other fields of science take the "persuade the public, then do the science" approach, yet ID feels perfectly comfortable with using the Wedge strategy.

Ivellious wrote:It is pretty incredible how KBC and Gman feel that this argument has been hands down won by them

It isn't so hard to see when you read the thread 'and' understand what has been said. The question here is that if ID is such a fail then why are you wasting your time on a creationist site attempting to defend evolution?
You don't see us arguing with flat earthers on their site.

Ivellious wrote:It is pretty incredible how KBC and Gman feel that this argument has been hands down won by them, while Pierson, Sandy and I would probably all say that this argument has done nothing for ID and done nothing but pose questions to evolution (though by no means discredit or disprove evolution). And considering how around 99.9% of all scientists across all fields who have heard this argument would agree with the latter position, it's pretty amazing how one person thinks he has completely destroyed the foundations of biology in one fell swoop without actually doing any research for ID or any research that demonstrates evolution is wrong.

Foundations of biology? 99.9% of all scientists? Wow.. I'm shaking.

By the way, if you have ever read my posts, which it seems you haven't, I'm not exactly sold out to ID... My belief is that questions of ID will naturally arise out of "so called" science classes without actually trying to defend it. Why? Because science is based on one's philosophy... But thanks, maybe I'll consider it someday. It seems to have you stumped too..

KBCid wrote:Again you are wrong here because my definition of the scientific method does not mean that "test it is to reproduce it". Test it stands alone and repeat it stands alone. One must first be able to test something for it to be scientific in the first place and reproducibly testable to get confirmation. This is how the scientific method operates. It is also not simply my definition since I have referenced a number of cites that say the exact same thing in english

sandy_mcd wrote:This is way past the point of being useful. I work at a scientific college. The professors here do not agree with your interpretation that evolution, geology, and astronomy are not sciences. Sorry, i will go along with them.

Then they also don't agree with the definitions cited which are not mine. You are free to be told your position by whomever you choose.

KBCid wrote:Since I have cited the evidences that cause my argument the onus is now on you to show why it is not correct.

sandy_mcd wrote:Yep, when i can't even pin down what you mean.

So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?
How do you test for a single common ancestor of all life?
How do you test to show that mutation is actually random?
How do you test to see if NS can perform what they think it does?

What part of all this english can't you pin down?

sandy_mcd wrote:PS Just for the record, "engineering" and "science" are not synonymous.

Nor has anyone implied that the two terms are synonymous

DEFINITION OF ENGINEERING/ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
According to the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET):
ENGINEERING is the profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize economically the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind.

Of course this only applies if you are simply doing a word comparison.

Now if you talk with the people at Harvard
Engineering Sciences
ENGINEERING IS ABOUT BUILDING BRIDGES ... but in ways you may not expect.
Here’s a quick look at some of the connections engineers are constructing at Harvard alone …
moving atoms across a surface with such high precision and control that it is possible to detect and analyze particles as small as a single molecule of DNA
using microbes to clean out the gunk that forms inside water pipes that conduct heat and, in the process, dramatically increasing energy efficiency
building living machines by “programming” cells to count, code signals, or do other tasks
understanding the motor control process of the human nervous system, in order to develop engineering-based therapies for neuromuscular diseases such as Parkinson’s
In fact, the well-being of our society and entire planet increasingly will rely upon future technological breakthroughs: “Innovation is at the core of creating a sustainable human society,” according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/academics/u ... g-sciences

But we all know Harvard people are a bit different than the norm right?

KBCid wrote: So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?

For the last time, I have addressed this question many times in the past. Obviously you are unsatisfied with my replies, so i suggest you try elsewhere in the future. In science, if you can't directly test something, you test its results, consequences, or effects. I am truly sorry that this answer doesn't satisfy you, but it works for tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists.
Let me give you some examples:
1) the Higgs boson was discovered - no one has one in their hand, they looked at effects from lots of experiments and built up a statistical model
2) atoms can't be seen, they are observed through indirect spectral analysis or interactions with various fields
3) measuring decay products in minerals gives the age
4) counting tree rings gives the age
5) looking at landscape changes indicates the great Missoula floods
6) examining isotope ratios indicates diet or whether athletes have been using drugs

There are millions such examples. If you want to reject all of these, fine. But please don't pretend you are having a modern scientific discussion.
I suggest you temporarily put aside your research on design (which is proven anyway, right?) and devote your efforts to purging science of all these imposters.

Good luck in your endeavors.

KBCid wrote:So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?

sandy_mcd wrote:For the last time, I have addressed this question many times in the past. Obviously you are unsatisfied with my replies, so i suggest you try elsewhere in the future.

You have not ever attempted to answer this question until now.

sandy_mcd wrote: In science, if you can't directly test something, you test its results, consequences, or effects. I am truly sorry that this answer doesn't satisfy you, but it works for tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists..

I am quite aware of indirect testing. This type of testing presupposes the existence of what you are testing for and if you get a result that appears favorable then you infer the existence of what you presupposed. Got it. Know it. And yet you still did not provide any method to test the subjects I have been specifically pointing out at every turn;
How do you test for a single common ancestor of all life?
How do you test to show that mutation is actually random?
How do you test to see if NS can perform what they think it does?
So once again you avoid these specific topics and try to redirect the question at hand to other things...

sandy_mcd wrote:Let me give you some examples:
1) the Higgs boson was discovered - no one has one in their hand, they looked at effects from lots of experiments and built up a statistical model

Or so you believe it was discovered.
Both of the Higgs boson-hunting experiments at the LHC see a level of certainty in their data worthy of a "discovery".
More work will be needed to be certain that what they see is a Higgs, however.
Higgs boson-like particle discovery claimed at LHC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455

Even the scientists involved are sure to state "More work will be needed to be certain that what they see is a Higgs, however." But for you this information was enough for you to state that "the Higgs boson was discovered". There is a good point to be seen in their experimentation though,
They are performing tests to provide evidence for the existence of something and until they can get enough experimental evidence to back them they never say that the higgs boson is a fact. The fact is that as scientists they recognise that you can't posit the truth of something without testable and repeatable evidence.

sandy_mcd wrote:2) atoms can't be seen, they are observed through indirect spectral analysis or interactions with various fields

Atoms can't be seen by the naked eye that is true. This and other things like it we make mechanisms for which can enhance our normal abilities such as; The scanning tunneling microscope and Atomic force microscopy. so the truth is we can test things beyond our normal senses by use of mechanical advantages. The mechanisms do the seeing for us. Even now we are now attempting to see the atoms nucleus. However, The point here is that atoms or what we consider atoms were only theoretical and untestable until the technology arrived to allow for it to be seen.

sandy_mcd wrote:3) measuring decay products in minerals gives the age

This of course is entirely dependand on decay rates being constant. What test was performed to confirm this? none. Its an assumption without scientific backing. The evidence against it of course comes along by accident;
Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2 ... after-all/
And this is just in the here and now. What about in the past, were decay rate always the same? and how can it be tested for? it can't. It is all presupposition. Belief. untestable.

sandy_mcd wrote:4) counting tree rings gives the age

Or so you believe. again.
Occasionally, trees will produce more than one ring in a year. Other times a tree can go a year without producing a ring.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/highelevationwh ... nquire.htm
Trees rings typically acrue one ring a year and if the conditions are right during their lifetime then this is what we will see. however, we don't know what the conditions were before recorded history so its a crapshoot to assume that a ring for a year is and has been a constant. So the fact is that counting tree rings may or may not give a proper age.

sandy_mcd wrote:There are millions such examples. If you want to reject all of these, fine. But please don't pretend you are having a modern scientific discussion.

I don't need to reject your assertions as the references I cite do this for me. The question is why do you accept them as truths when there is evidence against them? apparently your science has some problems maintaining their scientific backing. Probably from making untestable assertions.

sandy_mcd wrote:I suggest you temporarily put aside your research on design (which is proven anyway, right?) and devote your efforts to purging science of all these imposters. Good luck in your endeavors.

Bad science will be eliminated as it becomes more apparent that presupposed truths are not all they are cracked up to be and ID will keep on looking at the world around us and discerning evidence of design where the information types lead.

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:KBCid, It seems from your last reply, we keep repeating many of the same arguments. I think it would be nice if we could find some common ground. The system you are referring too is rather broad. I looked over the previous citation you gave at the beginning of this thread:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9975/

It is also irreducibly complex since the number of individual components neccesary to allow it to function are vast and vastly beyond chance to be able to form.

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. Let's ignore the "chance" and "IC" comments for now and see if we can't get to the details of this system.

KBCid wrote:

During the past decade, particular proteins have been identified that play a role in the formation of each of these limb axes. The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a. The interactions of these proteins determine the differentiation of the cell types and also mutually support one another.

Pierson5 wrote:It appears researchers have identified certain proteins responsible for the positional information needed to construct a limb that has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system (although some have considered it 4 dimensional, to include time). Maybe we could focus on one protein at a time and take a closer look at it?

To clarify this point here "researchers have identified certain proteins" that take part in "a three-dimensional coordinate system". We cannot look at one protein and discern the system. This is and will continue to be the problem for the researchers as the researchers themselves point out;

"How is it that the embryo is able not only to generate all the different cell types of the body, but also to produce them in a way that forms functional tissues and organs? It is one thing to differentiate the chondrocytes and osteocytes that synthesize the cartilage and bone matrices, respectively; it is another thing to produce those cells in a temporal-spatial orientation that generates a functional bone. It is still another thing to make that bone a humerus and not a pelvis or a femur. The ability of limb cells to sense their relative positions and to differentiate with regard to those positions has been the subject of intense debate and experimentation. How are the cells that differentiate into the embryonic bone specified so as to form an appendage with digits at one end and a shoulder at the other? (It would be quite a useless appendage if the order were reversed.) Here the cell types are the same, but the patterns they form are different."

I understand there is more to the system than just one point. Much of which is still undiscovered (origins unknown), do you agree?

And, as said in this citation, they must all work together:

The interactions of these proteins determine the differentiation of the cell types and also mutually support one another.

But, just as we can reverse engineer a motor and determine where each part came from, and it's subsequent function, can we not do the same thing with the proteins in this system?

It seems to be the same fallacy Behe was committing with his flagellum. You can look at the flagellum as a whole and claim it irreducibly complex, but when researchers studied it, it wasn't so. The proteins did have other functions along the way and the flagellum is not IC. If we take a look at the system you are promoting and it does not turn out flawed like Behe's flagellum, you may have something here, right?

The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a.

Are these proteins not performing 3D spatiotemporal control?

KBCid wrote:and what ultimately did these researchers who have already observed the various individual proteins had to say on the subject, "The positional information needed to construct a limb has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system". They and I are both saying that the individual actions of the proteins are not autonomous. every step in the formation process is controlled systematically.

Sure, and that's fine. I just find it a little odd that out of the many citations you gave, you seem to be the only one who comes to the unique conclusion of biological design. That doesn't mean you are wrong, of course. Although, it certainly raises the bar as far as the burden of proof goes.

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I'm just trying to narrow down the argument a little, as I'm in the middle of moving and getting ready for the new quarter. I'm getting increasingly short on time.

...
The only thing we can conceptually meet on here is what functionality is necessary to replicate 3 dimensional formations of matter. In this area we can define specific system requirements that could generate the observable evidence.

Biological reproduction?

Oh, and one more thing. Do you accept such things as astronomy to be legitimate scientific disciplines? I know you may have answered this before, but it should be a simple yes or no answer. This is getting into the discussion you are having with Sandy, and I'll try and keep it brief.

KBCid wrote:It is also irreducibly complex since the number of individual components neccesary to allow it to function are vast and vastly beyond chance to be able to form.

Pierson5 wrote:Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. Let's ignore the "chance" and "IC" comments for now and see if we can't get to the details of this system.

Well no it isn't. Let's not ignore anything and we can discuss what is required functionally for the system to operate.

KBCid wrote:To clarify this point here "researchers have identified certain proteins" that take part in "a three-dimensional coordinate system". We cannot look at one protein and discern the system. This is and will continue to be the problem for the researchers as the researchers themselves point out;.

Pierson5 wrote:I understand there is more to the system than just one point. Much of which is still undiscovered (origins unknown), do you agree?

Of course they are still reverse engineering the individual components. If you had to guess, how many components have they identified so far?

Pierson5 wrote:But, just as we can reverse engineer a motor and determine where each part came from, and it's subsequent function, can we not do the same thing with the proteins in this system?

Of course that is the wonderfull thing about reverse engineering a systematic material form.

Pierson5 wrote:It seems to be the same fallacy Behe was committing with his flagellum. You can look at the flagellum as a whole and claim it irreducibly complex, but when researchers studied it, it wasn't so. The proteins did have other functions along the way and the flagellum is not IC. If we take a look at the system you are promoting and it does not turn out flawed like Behe's flagellum, you may have something here, right?

If it seems the same to you then try and bring their rationale to the table. Wouldn't that be logical?

The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a.

Pierson5 wrote:Are these proteins not performing 3D spatiotemporal control?

Are they performing their part in systematic control or are they the total cause? If you choose total cause then the question regresses to how they get to their positions in space and time. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about infinite regress. lol

KBCid wrote:and what ultimately did these researchers who have already observed the various individual proteins had to say on the subject, "The positional information needed to construct a limb has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system". They and I are both saying that the individual actions of the proteins are not autonomous. every step in the formation process is controlled systematically.

Pierson5 wrote:Sure, and that's fine. I just find it a little odd that out of the many citations you gave, you seem to be the only one who comes to the unique conclusion of biological design. That doesn't mean you are wrong, of course. Although, it certainly raises the bar as far as the burden of proof goes.

That is a hypothesis based on a number of foundational understandings but a hypothesis none the less. If you really want to try and raise the bar try and define how such a complex interactive system arose by chance alone.

Pierson5 wrote:I'm just trying to narrow down the argument a little, as I'm in the middle of moving and getting ready for the new quarter. I'm getting increasingly short on time.

KBCid wrote:The only thing we can conceptually meet on here is what functionality is necessary to replicate 3 dimensional formations of matter. In this area we can define specific system requirements that could generate the observable evidence.

Pierson5 wrote:Biological reproduction?

You can call the system whatever makes you happy. I simply call a replication system a replication system. It is all just matter after all right?

Pierson5 wrote:Oh, and one more thing. Do you accept such things as astronomy to be legitimate scientific disciplines? I know you may have answered this before, but it should be a simple yes or no answer. This is getting into the discussion you are having with Sandy, and I'll try and keep it brief.

nope. you must be able to test a hypothesis by scientific method. Be aware though that not every discipline operates completely on or off the scientific method. You need to discern where the line is crossed in each discipline.

KBCid wrote:

KBCid wrote:To clarify this point here "researchers have identified certain proteins" that take part in "a three-dimensional coordinate system". We cannot look at one protein and discern the system. This is and will continue to be the problem for the researchers as the researchers themselves point out;.

Pierson5 wrote:I understand there is more to the system than just one point. Much of which is still undiscovered (origins unknown), do you agree?

Of course they are still reverse engineering the individual components. If you had to guess, how many components have they identified so far?

I am not familiar enough with the body of literature to even guess. I'm not sure. I was merely focusing on this particular citation. Would you agree, however, that much of it is still undiscovered (origins unknown)?

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:But, just as we can reverse engineer a motor and determine where each part came from, and it's subsequent function, can we not do the same thing with the proteins in this system?

Of course that is the wonderfull thing about reverse engineering a systematic material form.

So, examining each of these (identified) proteins would be a good start to determine how this system may have come about, correct?

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:It seems to be the same fallacy Behe was committing with his flagellum. You can look at the flagellum as a whole and claim it irreducibly complex, but when researchers studied it, it wasn't so. The proteins did have other functions along the way and the flagellum is not IC. If we take a look at the system you are promoting and it does not turn out flawed like Behe's flagellum, you may have something here, right?

If it seems the same to you then try and bring their rationale to the table. Wouldn't that be logical?

That is what I'm attempting to establish. Something we both agree upon, and we can go from there.

KBCid wrote:

The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a.

Pierson5 wrote:Are these proteins not performing 3D spatiotemporal control?

Are they performing their part in systematic control or are they the total cause? If you choose total cause then the question regresses to how they get to their positions in space and time. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about infinite regress. lol

I'm not sure I follow. The "total system" would be the collected formation of all the limbs in an organism, correct? So, this "part" of the system (e.g. thumb-pinky) would just be one piece. Each of the pieces (that we know of) function the same way to collectively make up the whole system, correct?

When you say "how they get their positions in space and time," what are you referring to? The limbs, or the proteins responsible for the formation of them?

KBCid wrote:

KBCid wrote:and what ultimately did these researchers who have already observed the various individual proteins had to say on the subject, "The positional information needed to construct a limb has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system". They and I are both saying that the individual actions of the proteins are not autonomous. every step in the formation process is controlled systematically.

Pierson5 wrote:Sure, and that's fine. I just find it a little odd that out of the many citations you gave, you seem to be the only one who comes to the unique conclusion of biological design. That doesn't mean you are wrong, of course. Although, it certainly raises the bar as far as the burden of proof goes.

That is a hypothesis based on a number of foundational understandings but a hypothesis none the less. If you really want to try and raise the bar try and define how such a complex interactive system arose by chance alone.

I'm glad you use the correct terminology regarding your hypothesis. I cringe every time I hear "ID Theory." If you want your hypothesis to develop into a competing theory, the burden of proof is on you.

When we can establish some common ground, I will look into answering your question about how this system came about by "chance."

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I'm just trying to narrow down the argument a little, as I'm in the middle of moving and getting ready for the new quarter. I'm getting increasingly short on time.

KBCid wrote:The only thing we can conceptually meet on here is what functionality is necessary to replicate 3 dimensional formations of matter. In this area we can define specific system requirements that could generate the observable evidence.

Pierson5 wrote:Biological reproduction?

You can call the system whatever makes you happy. I simply call a replication system a replication system. It is all just matter after all right?

It generates observable evidence of replicating 3D formations of matter, which is what I was addressing. I honestly don't see the point of this comment...

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Oh, and one more thing. Do you accept such things as astronomy to be legitimate scientific disciplines? I know you may have answered this before, but it should be a simple yes or no answer. This is getting into the discussion you are having with Sandy, and I'll try and keep it brief.

nope. you must be able to test a hypothesis by scientific method. Be aware though that not every discipline operates completely on or off the scientific method. You need to discern where the line is crossed in each discipline.

Well, I was not expecting that. Interesting...

So, making an observation, followed by a hypothesis and testable, falsifiable prediction is not science in your book?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_As ... fic_Method

For example:

Hypothesis: Sun orbits the earth
There are many predictions which may support this hypothesis
Daily observations indicate hypothesis correct

However, some measurements will contradict this statement (motions of other planets). These tests/measurements can be repeated by other astronomers.
Hypothesis is false.

That's not science?

Pierson5 wrote:I am not familiar enough with the body of literature to even guess. I'm not sure. I was merely focusing on this particular citation. Would you agree, however, that much of it is still undiscovered (origins unknown)?

then a fair question here is why are you attempting to discuss this subject?
To agree that much is "still undiscovered" Would presume a working knowlege of every component in order to assert the extent of what is left to be discovered right?

Pierson5 wrote:So, examining each of these (identified) proteins would be a good start to determine how this system may have come about, correct?

ummm it would appear that so far it's a no. they have examined the proteins intently and still can't understand how they act in concert and much less about how they came to play that part.

Pierson5 wrote:That is what I'm attempting to establish. Something we both agree upon, and we can go from there.

You can bring whatever you think will work for you and see how it fairs. If you find something from the interaction to agree with me on then all the better.

Pierson5 wrote:Are these proteins not performing 3D spatiotemporal control?

KBCid wrote:Are they performing their part in systematic control or are they the total cause? If you choose total cause then the question regresses to how they get to their positions in space and time. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about infinite regress. lol

Pierson5 wrote:I'm not sure I follow. The "total system" would be the collected formation of all the limbs in an organism, correct? So, this "part" of the system (e.g. thumb-pinky) would just be one piece. Each of the pieces (that we know of) function the same way to collectively make up the whole system, correct?

You were referencing the proteins. And the question is do you think the 'proteins' are performing as a part of a greater system or are they acting independantly? and if you think independantly then how do these proteins get to their specific positions to do their part?
Each of the pieces we do know about do not all function the same way. Have you read none of the reference papers I have cited?

Pierson5 wrote:When you say "how they get their positions in space and time," what are you referring to? The limbs, or the proteins responsible for the formation of them?

Proteins... the subject you refered to.

Pierson5 wrote:Biological reproduction?

KBCid wrote:You can call the system whatever makes you happy. I simply call a replication system a replication system. It is all just matter after all right?

Pierson5 wrote:It generates observable evidence of replicating 3D formations of matter, which is what I was addressing. I honestly don't see the point of this comment...

Sure that works.

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Oh, and one more thing. Do you accept such things as astronomy to be legitimate scientific disciplines? I know you may have answered this before, but it should be a simple yes or no answer. This is getting into the discussion you are having with Sandy, and I'll try and keep it brief.

nope. you must be able to test a hypothesis by scientific method. Be aware though that not every discipline operates completely on or off the scientific method. You need to discern where the line is crossed in each discipline.

Pierson5 wrote:Well, I was not expecting that. Interesting...
So, making an observation, followed by a hypothesis and testable, falsifiable prediction is not science in your book?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_As ... fic_Method

I have already cited the same reference I suggest you look back just a bit and see what it was all about

Pierson5 wrote:For example:
Hypothesis: Sun orbits the earth
There are many predictions which may support this hypothesis
Daily observations indicate hypothesis correct
However, some measurements will contradict this statement (motions of other planets). These tests/measurements can be repeated by other astronomers. Hypothesis is false. That's not science?

Let's see now you are;
hypothesizing that the sun orbits the earth and that there are undefined predictions to support the hypothesis which really doesn't help define anything for me.
And then you assert that daily observations indicate your hypothesis was correct. Hmmmm
So far you are in good company with some ancient peoples because for 1500 yrs or more the observable evidence backed their geocentric theory too.
Now you state some measurements contradict the hypothesis and it is repeatable. nice
In this case it appears that the hypothesis cannot be adjusted to fit the new data so it has no choice but to go into the hypothesis garbage bin. so far it has scientific method written all over it. To bad that the original 'theory' had enough evidence to make it a theory and enough believers to overlook some of the little things that didn't agree with it.

Pierson5 wrote:Oh, and one more thing. Do you accept such things as astronomy to be legitimate scientific disciplines? I know you may have answered this before, but it should be a simple yes or no answer. This is getting into the discussion you are having with Sandy, and I'll try and keep it brief.

No, that discussion has stalled with nothing new happening. I'm done here.

Pierson5 wrote:Oh, and one more thing. Do you accept such things as astronomy to be legitimate scientific disciplines? I know you may have answered this before, but it should be a simple yes or no answer. This is getting into the discussion you are having with Sandy, and I'll try and keep it brief.

sandy_mcd wrote:No, that discussion has stalled with nothing new happening. I'm done here.

the discussion stalled when you kept redirectiong the thread that is about evolution and intelligent design into questions about other disciplines such as astronomy and geology. Avoiding the specified points that were brought up about evolution is also a quick way to stall a discussion that is supposed to deal with that directly.

sandy_mcd wrote: In science, if you can't directly test something, you test its results, consequences, or effects. I am truly sorry that this answer doesn't satisfy you, but it works for tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists.

KBCid wrote:I am quite aware of indirect testing. This type of testing presupposes the existence of what you are testing for and if you get a result that appears favorable then you infer the existence of what you presupposed. Got it. Know it. And yet you still did not provide any method to test the subjects I have been specifically pointing out at every turn;
How do you test for a single common ancestor of all life?
How do you test to show that mutation is actually random?
How do you test to see if NS can perform what they think it does?
So once again you avoid these specific topics and try to redirect the question at hand to other things.....