The SETI principle

[phaedrus]

And the beat goes on ...

[ericmurphy]

This is how I see your argument -

Magellan - 'Ancient Romans made this sword'.
Eric - 'That's unscientific. You think Romans are some weird race of aliens from Jupiter. '
Magellan - 'No one thinks Romans are from Jupiter. 'Romans' means what everyone thinks Romans means - from Ancient Rome.'
Eric - 'No one has yet shown that that sword is Roman.'
Magellan - 'And? Does that mean the idea is unscientific?'
Eric - 'What specifically about that sword makes you think it was Roman?'
Magellan - 'Are you still trying to protest that the idea is unscientific or are you trying to work out how the scientific investigation might be conducted?'
Eric 'It's unfalsifiable. Everybody knows you can't tell us what Roman means.'

and so on for ever more.

More idiotic guesses from Magellan as to what my argument is.

This isn't even CLOSE to any argument I've ever made. If anything, it more closely resembles your OWN pathetic attempts at argument. I have consistently stated that we can, in fact, make reasonable hypotheses as to whether or not a particular object (e.g. a sword) was designed or made by a particular designer (e.g. the Romans). That you would somehow think my position is the opposite of this is either because you are a) breathtakingly stupid, b) breathtakingly dishonest, or c) both.

I'm going to go with c.

It's a bad sign for your confidence in your own arguments when you have to grotesquely misrepresent your opponents' arguments, Magellan. Especially when that misrepresentation bears a much closer resemblance to your own arguments than it does to theirs.

Now: are you going to tell me, and everyone else reading this thread, what specific observations you can make about living organisms make you think they are "designed?"

If you can't or won't, I'll have no choice other than to conclude you have absolutely no idea why you think living organisms are "designed."

[ericmurphy]

This is how I see your argument -

Magellan - 'Ancient Romans made this sword'.
Eric - 'That's unscientific. You think Romans are some weird race of aliens from Jupiter. '
Magellan - 'No one thinks Romans are from Jupiter. 'Romans' means what everyone thinks Romans means - from Ancient Rome.'
Eric - 'No one has yet shown that that sword is Roman.'
Magellan - 'And? Does that mean the idea is unscientific?'
Eric - 'What specifically about that sword makes you think it was Roman?'
Magellan - 'Are you still trying to protest that the idea is unscientific or are you trying to work out how the scientific investigation might be conducted?'
Eric 'It's unfalsifiable. Everybody knows you can't tell us what Roman means.'

and so on for ever more.

Magellan

Much more realistic:

Magellan - "Someone made this sword."
Eric - "Undoubtedly. Any idea who?"
Magellan - "An intelligence."
Eric - "Yeah, that's a pretty safe bet."
Magellan - "Why do you think that?"
Eric - "Well, why do you think that? You made the claim, originally."
Magellan - Because it's "designed."
Eric - "Well, yeah. It sure looks like humans designed it. Maybe the Romans."
Magellan - "So you admit it's designed."
Eric - "Well, yeah. I mean, I know what swords look like, I know what they're made of, and roughly how they're made, and to me, this looks like it might have been made by the Romans. It looks old enough, anyway."
Magellan - "So you admit you can tell if something was designed."
Eric - "I can tell some things are designed."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword is designed, you can tell anything is designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."
Magellan - "Why not? You can tell a sword was designed."
Eric - "That's because I know humans design swords."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword was designed, than you can tell anything was designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."
Magellan - "Why not? You can tell a sword was designed."
Eric - "That's because I know humans design swords."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword was designed, than you can tell anything was designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."
Magellan - "Why not? You can tell a sword was designed."
Eric - "That's because I know humans design swords."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword was designed, than you can tell anything was designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."
Magellan - "Why not? You can tell a sword was designed."
Eric - "That's because I know humans design swords."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword was designed, than you can tell anything was designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."
Magellan - "Why not? You can tell a sword was designed."
Eric - "That's because I know humans design swords."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword was designed, than you can tell anything was designed."

and so on for ever more.

[magellan004]

Much more realistic:

Magellan - "Someone made this sword."
Eric - "Undoubtedly. Any idea who?"
Magellan - "An intelligence."
Eric - "Yeah, that's a pretty safe bet."
Magellan - "Why do you think that?"
Eric - "Well, why do you think that? You made the claim, originally."
Magellan - Because it's "designed."
Eric - "Well, yeah. It sure looks like humans designed it. Maybe the Romans."
Magellan - "So you admit it's designed."
Eric - "Well, yeah. I mean, I know what swords look like, I know what they're made of, and roughly how they're made, and to me, this looks like it might have been made by the Romans. It looks old enough, anyway."
Magellan - "So you admit you can tell if something was designed."
Eric - "I can tell some things are designed."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword is designed, you can tell anything is designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."
Magellan - "Why not? You can tell a sword was designed."
Eric - "That's because I know humans design swords."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword was designed, than you can tell anything was designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."
Magellan - "Why not? You can tell a sword was designed."
Eric - "That's because I know humans design swords."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword was designed, than you can tell anything was designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."
Magellan - "Why not? You can tell a sword was designed."
Eric - "That's because I know humans design swords."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword was designed, than you can tell anything was designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."
Magellan - "Why not? You can tell a sword was designed."
Eric - "That's because I know humans design swords."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword was designed, than you can tell anything was designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."
Magellan - "Why not? You can tell a sword was designed."
Eric - "That's because I know humans design swords."
Magellan - "If you can tell a sword was designed, than you can tell anything was designed."

and so on for ever more.

This question (which you keep throwing up as some sort of shield) -

Now: are you going to tell me, and everyone else reading this thread, what specific observations you can make about living organisms make you think they are "designed?

is just a cheap stunt.

As long as a person knows something about a cause 'A' they can answer any question of 'A caused X' form.
'Did the Romans made this sword?'

Let's say Person N answers 'Based on my knowledge of the cause (Romans) my answer is Yes.' Just because that person answered 'YES' does not render 'Romans made this sword' scientific.

Let's say Person N answers 'Based on my knowledge of the cause (Romans) my answer is No.' Just because that person answered 'No' does not render 'Romans made this sword' scientific or unscientific.

Let's say Person N answers 'Based on my knowledge of the cause (Romans) my answer is 'Unsure' Just because that person answered 'Unsure' does not render 'Romans made this sword' scientific or unscientific.

So using your example -

- Magellan "If you can tell a sword is designed, you can tell anything is designed."
Eric - "That's not true. I can't tell if, for example, a mitochondrion was designed."

You can answer the question 'Is mitochondrion designed?' And your answer, whether it be 'YES, 'NO' or 'Unsure' does not render the hypothesis scientific or unscientific.

When you persistently ask me 'How do you (Magellan) tell if Mitochondrion is designed' you are looking for an excuse to say 'Therefore the hypothesis is unscientific'. But my answer cannot determine the issue of the merits of the hypothesis any more than your answer could.

As long as we know something about the cause - 'A caused X' then we can answer 'Did A cause X?'

You can answer 'Did Romans make this sword?' You might answer 'I have no clue' . Your reply says nothing about the 'validity' of the hypothesis.

You can answer 'Is this object designed? You can apply what you know about other designed things. And that's all that matters as far as science and exploration go.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

This question (which you keep throwing up as some sort of shield) -
is just a cheap stunt.

It's a "cheap stunt" to ask you why you believe something? A CHEAP STUNT? Are you HIGH?

No. You just have NO IDEA why you think living organisms were "designed." If you did have an idea, you could just tell me.

As long as a person knows something about a cause 'A' they can answer any question of 'A caused X' form.

But you DON'T know anything about A! You can't tell me a single thing about A! Which is why you say it's a " cheap stunt" to even ask you about it.

'Did the Romans made this sword?'

We know something about the Romans, you idiot. What do we know about this unknown, unknowable, nebulous "creator" you think designed living organisms?

NOTHING. That's what you know.

Let's say Person N answers 'Based on my knowledge of the cause (Romans) my answer is Yes.' Just because that person answered 'YES' does not render 'Romans made this sword' scientific.

It does too, moron. Since we know something about the Romans, and what they were capable of designing and manufacturing, we have some way of telling whether it's at least possible they could have made this sword, and if the sword is made of (for example) high-strength stainless steel, only an IDIOT would think the Romans made it.

By contrast, what can you tell us about what the alleged "designer" of a mitochondrion is capable of doing? What about the mitochondrion could possibly rule out some vague, nebulous "designer" about which you can tell us nothing?

And you've already admitted you can tell us nothing about it.

Let's say Person N answers 'Based on my knowledge of the cause (Romans) my answer is No.' Just because that person answered 'No' does not render 'Romans made this sword' scientific or unscientific.

Same answer, moron. Since we know something about the Romans and how they made things, we absolutely can say whether a particular item was or was not likely to be made by the Romans. Archaeologists answer this sort of question on a daily bases.

Let's say Person N answers 'Based on my knowledge of the cause (Romans) my answer is 'Unsure' Just because that person answered 'Unsure' does not render 'Romans made this sword' scientific or unscientific.

Same answer. Whether one particular individual does or does not have the expertise to answer the question does not render the question unscientific.

So using your example -
You can answer the question 'Is mitochondrion designed?' And your answer, whether it be 'YES, 'NO' or 'Unsure' does not render the hypothesis scientific or unscientific.

Really? HOW? How can we tell, Magellan? What is your basis for determining whether or not the mitochondrion was "designed," you gutless idiot? What is your criteria for deciding whether or not the mitochondrion was "designed"?

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CRITERIA! YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

When you persistently ask me 'How do you (Magellan) tell if Mitochondrion is designed' you are looking for an excuse to say 'Therefore the hypothesis is unscientific'. But my answer cannot determine the issue of the merits of the hypothesis any more than your answer could.

It's not an "excuse" to point out that you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to think the mitochondrion was "designed," and you have no way of telling one way or another whether it is "designed." That's what makes it unscientific.

As long as we know something about the cause - 'A caused X' then we can answer 'Did A cause X?'

You DON'T know anything about the cause. You know NOTHING about the cause.

You can answer 'Did Romans make this sword?' You might answer 'I have no clue' . Your reply says nothing about the 'validity' of the hypothesis.

WE KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE ROMANS, YOU IDIOT! We have some basis for deciding whether or not the Romans made a particular sword, you idiot! We know NOTHING about whoever it is you think "designed" the mitochondrion, you idiot!

You can answer 'Is this object designed? You can apply what you know about other designed things.

If we do that, we conclude that the mitochondrion was not designed:

[ericmurphy]

We can tell a jumbo jet was designed. Therefore we can tell a mitochondrion was designed.

That is the alpha and the omega of Magellan's dull-witted intelligent design "theory."

[magellan004]

Your answers were all over the place so please permit me to clarify what you meant.

Hypothesis - 'Romans made this sword'
An investigator asks someone ' Did romans make this sword?'
Case 1. The answer is 'Yes'.

Does the 'Yes ' answer render the hypothesis -
A. Scientific
B . Unscientific ?

Case 2. The answer is 'No'.

Does the 'No ' answer render the hypothesis -
A. Scientific
B . Unscientific ?

Case 1. The answer is 'I don't know'.

Does the 'I don't know ' answer render the hypothesis -
A. Scientific
B . Unscientific ?

Magellan

[Faid]

So let me get this straight.

After telling us for pages and pages that we don't know what hypotheses are, and that you don't need any 'criteria'to tell whether a hypothesis is falsifiable, Mags turns the tables and says "of course you need criteria, I've been telling that since day 1 [rather economical with the truth there], how about Theo's criteria, they sound nice".

And immediately after that, instead of discussing those criteria, he switches back to claiming that no criteria is necessary, toys around with his usual "if you can tell a jumbo jet is designed, you can tell if anything is designed" BS, and concludes with this last gem of reasoning:

That it's the answer a "testee" (not the "investigator", investigators don't really investigate in Magsworld, they just ask others) gives to the test, that determines whether a hypothesis is scientific.

Next, he'll tell us that it's the "testee" himself that determines that, and after that that it's the person who conducts the test, and after that whether the results are published, and after that the time and place the test took place, and maybe under what sign and hey, what about the weather we were having... ANYTHING to avoid discussing what he ADMITTED is needed, in a "whoops" moment he's trying to forget:

CRITERIA.

The same CRITERIA we was rooting for when he was babbling against falsifiability.

Mags, your evasive and deceptive tactics, your obfuscating contradictions and your silly tricks show you are by far the most dishonest guy I know on the internets, and I've seen many. If you really want your actions to confirm to your alleged beliefs, you better get your act together.

[magellan004]

That it's the answer a "testee" (not the "investigator", investigators don't really investigate in Magsworld, they just ask others) gives to the test, that determines whether a hypothesis is scientific.

Eric is pretending that the answers I give to his design question determine the matter (somehow) .

I am trying to get to the principle behind his asking me. I am not the investigator.

Why not help Eric out ? How would my answer to 'Is this bug/protein designed ?' affect the worthiness of the ID hypothesis?

1. If I answer 'Yes , mitochondrion is designed ' then the ID hypothesis is ...'
2. If I answer 'No , mitochondrion is not designed ' then the ID hypothesis is ...'
3. If I answer 'Unsure , then the ID hypothesis is ...'

Remember what happened last time I asked this sort of question? You huffed and puffed, avoided and ran away.

THEN THE HYPOTHESIS IS ...

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Your answers were all over the place so please permit me to clarify what you meant.

Forget it, Magellan. I've been as clear as day in every single post I've made to you over the past year. If you haven't understood my position by now, you never will. I am thoroughly sick of your idiotic misrepresentations of my positions.

Hypothesis - 'Romans made this sword'
An investigator asks someone ' Did romans make this sword?'
Case 1. The answer is 'Yes'.

Does the 'Yes ' answer render the hypothesis -
A. Scientific
B . Unscientific ?

Case 2. The answer is 'No'.

Does the 'No ' answer render the hypothesis -
A. Scientific
B . Unscientific ?

Case 1. The answer is 'I don't know'.

Does the 'I don't know ' answer render the hypothesis -
A. Scientific
B . Unscientific ?

Magellan

The ANSWERS to an observational test of a hypothesis have little or nothing to do with whether a hypothesis is scientific, you unbelievable moron. The question posed by the hypothesis determines that.

"Was this object 'designed'?" Not scientific.

"Was this object designed by the Romans?" Scientific.

If you can't figure out why the former is unscientific and the later is scientific by now, you never will. That's because you don't WANT to figure it out.

[ericmurphy]

Eric is pretending that the answers I give to his design question determine the matter (somehow) .

No I'm not, you moron. YOU are the one who is trying to claim that the answers to a hypothesis determine whether that hypothesis is scientific or not.

Hypothesis: the earth orbits the sun.

Answer: Yes.

Answer: No.

Answer: I don't have a clue.

None of these answers have anything to do with whether the hypothesis is scientific.

I am trying to get to the principle behind his asking me. I am not the investigator.

You're trying to muddy the waters to the maximum extent possible. It's not going to work, because everyone else here has a decent understanding of what a hypothesis is and what makes it scientific, or not.

Why not help Eric out ? How would my answer to 'Is this bug/protein designed ?' affect the worthiness of the ID hypothesis?

I'm not even discussing whether or not the question of whether a mitochondrion is "designed" is a scientific question anymore. It's not. That ship has sailed. It's been explained to you over and over and over again for more than a year now exactly and precisely why it's not. If you haven't understood by now, you never will.

Rather, I am asking you, personally, why on earth you even THINK a mitochondrion is "designed."

And, as it turns out, you don't HAVE a reason for thinking a mitochondrion is "designed."

[magellan004]

The ANSWERS to an observational test of a hypothesis have little or nothing to do with whether a hypothesis is scientific, you unbelievable moron. The question posed by the hypothesis determines that.

Then stop asking whether I think this or that is designed.

This is what you should be asking -
Do people (normal people with an average grasp of English and a normal (not weirdo like your's) understanding of 'Intelligence') have the capacity to answer 'Is this object caused by an intelligence?'

Yes they do. They can answer YES, NO or Unknown.
The question can be asked, the test can be run - because the hypothesis is scientific - the hypothesis is testable.



Magellan

[Faid]

Eric is pretending that the answers I give to his design question determine the matter (somehow) .

Eric is saying that your answers reveal your LACK OF CRITERIA. Not that it's the answer itself that determines the scientific nature of the hypothesis. Your dishonest distortions are pretty pathetic, mags.

I am trying to get to the principle behind his asking me. I am not the investigator.

Pure BS. You're only trying to obfuscate the extremely clear issues and questions posed to you, by misrepresenting others. Pretty low, especially for someone proclaiming elsewhere he can teach us a thing or two about morals.

Why not help Eric out ? How would my answer to 'Is this bug/protein designed ?' affect the worthiness of the ID hypothesis?

How about helping the conversation by responding to the ACTUAL question posed to you?

1. If I answer 'Yes , mitochondrion is designed ' then the ID hypothesis is ...'
2. If I answer 'No , mitochondrion is not designed ' then the ID hypothesis is ...'
3. If I answer 'Unsure , then the ID hypothesis is ...'

In all cases, moron, the demarcation of the hypothesis relies on the CRITERIA you use, and their application. You KNOW that. You have ADMITTED it, only a few pages ago. Stop pretending, stop evading, and NAME YOUR CRITERIA FOR ID.

Remember what happened last time I asked this sort of question? You huffed and puffed, avoided and ran away.

LOL. "Remember when I beat you that time, no I won't tell you when"? What are you mags, twelve?

Do you even know how to bluff?

Why not refresh my (and everyone else's) memory, mags?

THEN THE HYPOTHESIS IS ...

TELL US YOUR CRITERIA, coward. Or run away from the question, as we have seen you do for 25 pages. Your call.

[Faid]

Then stop asking whether I think this or that is designed.

This is what you should be asking -
Do people (normal people with an average grasp of English and a normal (not weirdo like your's) understanding of 'Intelligence') have the capacity to answer 'Is this object caused by an intelligence?'

Yes they do. They can answer YES, NO or Unknown.
The question can be asked, the test can be run - because the hypothesis is scientific - the hypothesis is testable.



Magellan

WHAT is the test, moron? WHAT is the METHOD, and WHAT are the CRITERIA?

You cannot deny the importance of all that in a test, because you have praised their importance before. You can either provide the specific criteria to determine "design" in an object, or admit you can't, admit that detecting "design" (in a way completely detached from the designer and undescribed) is UNTESTABLE, shut up and go read a book.


Simple options, Mags. Again, your call.

[ericmurphy]

Your answers were all over the place so please permit me to clarify what you meant.

Hypothesis - 'Romans made this sword'
An investigator asks someone ' Did romans make this sword?'

It's simply astounding that Magellan (or anyone who isn't in a permanent vegetative state) would think this is how science works.

And archaeologist is at a dig in Sicily. He's carefully and patiently removing the dirt from around an immensely old metal artifact. All he can see right now is the upper edge of what appears to be the hilt of a sword. Using dental picks and a fine-art brush, he carefully removes more sediment.

Three days later, he's got the entire sword freed from its matrix. He sets it down on the ground, and then clambers up to the roadway that passes by up the hill. He flags down the first motorist, has the driver follow him down to the site, points to the sword, and asks, "I Romani hanno fatto questa spada?"

He gets the answer, "Non potrei dire, io non sono un archeologo."

Well, he thinks, I guess my hypothesis must not be scientific.

Right, Magellan. Good going, on showing your utter, stupifying ignorance about how science works.