Learning about Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design
Fernando....@gmail.com
of Intelligent Design.
I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
Regards,
Fernando
Richard Clayton
I'll save you time: There isn't one. Even the Discovery Institute
hasn't put forward a scientific "theory of intelligent design," There
are no known examples of ID research. The Discovery Institute has also
stated that at this time, there isn't anything to ID worth teaching.
ID is a smokescreen. It makes no testable predictions, proposes no
mechanisms, and ultimately offers nothing more substantial than a vague
claim that "Something, somewhere, somehow, is wrong with evolution."
Hope that helps!
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
Friar Broccoli
This is a link to the recent NOVA program on the Dover trial
which will give you an overview of the situation and discusses
the "documentation"
http://www.torrentportal.com/torrents-details.php?id=1524610
Free Lunch
"Fernando....@gmail.com" <Fernando....@gmail.com> wrote in
<886277ab-f651-4589...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
>of Intelligent Design.
>
>I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
>documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
Well done. You were sent on a false mission. You will never find such a
scientific theory. It does not exist.
>I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
>direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
>detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
You will have to ask the Discovery Institute or William Dembski, one of
their chief claimants why they still haven't developed a scientific
theory of intelligent design. They are very closed mouth about it.
John Wilkins
The theory of intelligent design is this:
1. Things are too complex to be naturally evolved. Don't ask why, they
just are.
2. Scientists are poopy heads who find things out that ought not be
found out.
3. Something, sometime, somehow, somewhere made things complex.
4. If we can explain it naturally now, then it evolved. But if there is
anything we haven't yet explained, it is intelligently designed and we
should stop looking for any other explanation.
5. This isn't religion, really. No, really.
6. Insert some impressive looking math here.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Cory Albrecht
Unfortunately for your friend there is no actual "Theory of Intelligent
Design". Fellows of the Discovery Institute, the biggest and most
important backer of ID in the United States, had to admit in court and
under oath they the know of no research that has been done on ID. Also,
they had to admit that the definition of "science" they used to call ID
a science was so poor that even astrology would qualify as "science".
Groups like the Discover Institute and other ID supporters aren't
interested in doing any real science, theirs is purely a political
movement which is trying to force science to confirm to their religious
beliefs. Go read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy> and
<http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf> to see what the ID
crowd really wants.
Dana Tweedy
Cheezits
> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
> documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
I've been reading this newsgroup for over 15 years and I haven't seen one
either.
If you ever find one, let us know!
Sue
--
Convinced that they sport intellectual D-cups, the creationists will
stuff in whatever Kleenex they can find to maintain the illusion.
- Grandbank
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
> documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
You won't. There is none. Try as you might, all you will find is a classical
"play me the song of FUD" against proper science.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Desertphile
wrote:
If you find it, please notify the Discovery Institute Church, and
Judge Jones.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<pockZIGe...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Fernando....@gmail.com wrote:
> > A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
> > of Intelligent Design.
> >
> > I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
> > documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
> >
> > I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
> > direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
> > detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Fernando
>
> I'll save you time: There isn't one. Even the Discovery Institute
> hasn't put forward a scientific "theory of intelligent design," There
> are no known examples of ID research. The Discovery Institute has also
> stated that at this time, there isn't anything to ID worth teaching.
>
> ID is a smokescreen. It makes no testable predictions, proposes no
> mechanisms, and ultimately offers nothing more substantial than a vague
> claim that "Something, somewhere, somehow, is wrong with evolution."
>
> Hope that helps!
But there is an Intelligent Design hypothesis. It is: "Some where,
at some time, some things did something."
mcv
As far as anyone knows, there is no scientific theory of intelligent
design. There is a political lobby group for intelligent design,
however. Perhaps that's what you are looking for? Otherwise, the
closest you're likely to get is some aspects of evolution that could
use some more research.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
michael
>Fernando....@gmail.com <Fernando....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
>> of Intelligent Design.
>>
>> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
>> documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
>>
>> I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
>> direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
>> detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
>
>As far as anyone knows, there is no scientific theory of intelligent
>design. There is a political lobby group for intelligent design,
>however. Perhaps that's what you are looking for? Otherwise, the
>closest you're likely to get is some aspects of evolution that could
>use some more research.
Do scientists have a GOD microscope
or magnifying glass?
You know, one that can detect the intervention
of intelligence?
Sounds like there are some aspects of science that could use some
more research ...
TomS
Richard Clayton stated..."
>
>Fernando....@gmail.com wrote:
>> A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
>> of Intelligent Design.
>>
>> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
>> documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
>>
>> I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
>> direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
>> detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Fernando
>
> I'll save you time: There isn't one. Even the Discovery Institute
>hasn't put forward a scientific "theory of intelligent design," There
>are no known examples of ID research. The Discovery Institute has also
>stated that at this time, there isn't anything to ID worth teaching.
>
> ID is a smokescreen. It makes no testable predictions, proposes no
>mechanisms, and ultimately offers nothing more substantial than a vague
>claim that "Something, somewhere, somehow, is wrong with evolution."
>
> Hope that helps!
Just a bit of a quibble.
There is no *theory* of intelligent design. No scientific theory, no
theory of any kind.
As far as predictions, I can only think of things like "the immanent
death of darwinism". That may be considered testable, but given
that it has been a failure for a hundred years ...
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
er...@swva.net
Hang a left past the invisible pink unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti
Monster will fix you right up.
Eric Root
Lee Oswald Ving
news:64q7l35g857bgokul...@4ax.com:
Are you saying that ID uses terms like "intelligence" when they mean
"god?"
Interesting. Can you tell us why they don't just say, "god" then?
> Sounds like there are some aspects of science that could use some
> more research ...
Well, if you count on the IDers to do some, you're gonna be dissapointed.
OTOH, there are several fields of science devoted to studying the
artifacts of the only intelligences we're aware of. What field is it that
you think is lagging?
michael
wrote:
>michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:64q7l35g857bgokul...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 03 Dec 2007 11:22:16 GMT, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>Fernando....@gmail.com <Fernando....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific
>theory
>>>> of Intelligent Design.
>>>>
>>>> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
>>>> documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
>>>>
>>>> I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
>>>> direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
>>>> detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
>>>
>>>As far as anyone knows, there is no scientific theory of intelligent
>>>design. There is a political lobby group for intelligent design,
>>>however. Perhaps that's what you are looking for? Otherwise, the
>>>closest you're likely to get is some aspects of evolution that could
>>>use some more research.
>>
>> Do scientists have a GOD microscope
>> or magnifying glass?
>>
>> You know, one that can detect the intervention
>> of intelligence?
>
>Are you saying that ID uses terms like "intelligence" when they mean
>"god?"
>
>Interesting. Can you tell us why they don't just say, "god" then?
Relative to us the intelligences are godlike compared to us.
>
>> Sounds like there are some aspects of science that could use some
>> more research ...
>
>Well, if you count on the IDers to do some, you're gonna be dissapointed.
>
>OTOH, there are several fields of science devoted to studying the
>artifacts of the only intelligences we're aware of. What field is it that
>you think is lagging?
Paranormal studies for one.
Steven L.
Start with the explanation on Wikipedia:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the
universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent
cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
It's an assertion at the fringe of science. In that way it is
comparable to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), which
asserts the possibility of radio signals from outer space that can be
proved to come from an intelligent civilization not our own. (And yes,
SETI has its critics too, who claim it's not scientific either)
How you prove that a particular radio signal is of artificial origin
rather than a phenomenon of Nature is an interesting problem in
information theory.
The usual example given by SETI proponents is if we could detect a
well-defined signal from some distant star that was shown to represent a
sequence of prime numbers. Since there is no known natural process that
can generate prime numbers, that would be strong evidence that
intelligent aliens sent the signal.
To date, no such signal has been detected from outer space.
And to date, no such unambiguous evidence of Intelligent Design has been
detected either.
It wouldn't have been difficult for an Intelligent Designer to have
encoded the first ten digits of pi into our DNA, using a simple encoding
scheme. Or a sequence of prime numbers. Or anything that indicates
intelligent thought.
If scientists ever find prime numbers encoded in the DNA sequence of
some species, that would be VERY hard to explain solely by natural
selection. That's the kind of evidence the ID proponents need to find,
in order to prove their theory.
Merely attempting to find flaws in the evidence for natural selection
does *NOT* constitute evidence for Intelligent Design, since Intelligent
Design has never been the null hypothesis for natural selection.
This is where the ID proponents have been less rigorous than the SETI
proponents (and even SETI requires some pretty vast leaps of faith).
There are still many things about our universe that astronomers don't
understand. But SETI proponents don't leap from that fact to claiming
that those phenomena "must be" of intelligent origin (space aliens) just
because we don't yet understand how they work as natural processes.
The ID proponents are constantly pouncing on alleged flaws in the
evidence for natural selection to claim that helps boost their theory.
It doesn't, because it shouldn't.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3p78l3tea30opjdgp...@4ax.com...
Even more interesting. Can you describe these intelligences in detail?
>>
>>> Sounds like there are some aspects of science that could use some
>>> more research ...
>>
>>Well, if you count on the IDers to do some, you're gonna be dissapointed.
>>
>>OTOH, there are several fields of science devoted to studying the
>>artifacts of the only intelligences we're aware of. What field is it that
>>you think is lagging?
>
> Paranormal studies for one.
>
There's plenty of that going on, without much success. Are you asking that
say, biologists, geologists and paleontologists include the paranormal in
their efforts? If so, how so?
JR
Davej
<Fernando.Chapa....@gmail.com> wrote:
> A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
> of Intelligent Design.
>
> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
> documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
The "theory" of intelligent design is merely a claim predicting one
thing -- that at some point we will all be forced to admit that the
complexity of biological life cannot be explained by natural
processes. To understand the flaws in this argument you can search for
reviews of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box."
Lee Oswald Ving
news:3p78l3tea30opjdgp...@4ax.com:
...what "intelligences" would those be?
>>> Sounds like there are some aspects of science that could use some
>>> more research ...
>>
>>Well, if you count on the IDers to do some, you're gonna be
>>dissapointed.
>>
>>OTOH, there are several fields of science devoted to studying the
>>artifacts of the only intelligences we're aware of. What field is it
>>that you think is lagging?
>
> Paranormal studies for one.
Hmmm...are you sure you're simply not happy with the lack of results?
mcv
> On 03 Dec 2007 11:22:16 GMT, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Fernando....@gmail.com <Fernando....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
>>> of Intelligent Design.
>>>
>>> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
>>> documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
>>>
>>> I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
>>> direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
>>> detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
>>
>>As far as anyone knows, there is no scientific theory of intelligent
>>design. There is a political lobby group for intelligent design,
>>however. Perhaps that's what you are looking for? Otherwise, the
>>closest you're likely to get is some aspects of evolution that could
>>use some more research.
>
> Do scientists have a GOD microscope
> or magnifying glass?
They have access to microscopes and magnifying glasses, yes. What you
could mean by a GOD microscope, I have no idea.
> You know, one that can detect the intervention
> of intelligence?
Direct detection of the intervention of intelligence is not possible
as far as I know. Detection of traces left by such intervention is
possible. For example, stone or iron shaped in a way not normally
found in nature, and usable for a very specific purpose, can be
considered intelligent intervention in the shaping of that stone or
iron.
> Sounds like there are some aspects of science that could use some
> more research ...
Well duh. That's all science is about. It's a never ending quest.
The most valuable contributions of ID to science, for example, is
the identification of a couple of not-quite-fully understood areas
of evolution. More research will bring more understanding.
mcv
>
> Start with the explanation on Wikipedia:
>
> Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the
> universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent
> cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>
> It's an assertion at the fringe of science. In that way it is
> comparable to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), which
> asserts the possibility of radio signals from outer space that can be
> proved to come from an intelligent civilization not our own. (And yes,
> SETI has its critics too, who claim it's not scientific either)
I'm inclined to agree. SETI is mostly wishful thinking against all odds
(we wouldn't be able to detect our own planet from 1 ly distance), but
there is one very important difference between SETI and ID: SETI is
searching. It doesn't blindly assume something and then hammers on those
assumptions, it is actively looking, making new observations and new
analyses. And even if they don't find what they're looking for, there's
always the possibility that they find something else that's equally
interesting.
ID could be like this if they spent all their effort not on lobbying
and politics, but on actual research into those areas of biology where
they think understanding is lacking. If they think there's a biological
mechanism that can't have evolved, they shouldn't simply assume that
and claim it as the final truth, they should do research into the genes
that make up that mechanism, how those genes differ in related species,
when they might have formed, when they might have mutated, etc. Run
simulations to see if perhaps they could have evolved after all. Do
something! Try to add new knowledge, new understanding.
If they did that, I would respect them, applaud them, even. Whether
they turn out to be right or wrong. But as it is, they just claim
stuff and don't do even the tiniest bit of actual research.
> Merely attempting to find flaws in the evidence for natural selection
> does *NOT* constitute evidence for Intelligent Design, since Intelligent
> Design has never been the null hypothesis for natural selection.
But finding those flaws can still be of scientific interest, if only to
indentify areas that require more research. The fact that that research
hasn't been done doesn't prove a thing, but it'd be nice if the IDers
were at least somewhat interested in that research, and not just in the
flaws themselves.
Desertphile
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Fernando....@gmail.com wrote:
> > A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
> > of Intelligent Design.
> >
> > I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
> > documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
> >
> > I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
> > direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
> > detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
>
> Start with the explanation on Wikipedia:
>
> Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the
> universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent
> cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>
> It's an assertion at the fringe of science. In that way it is
> comparable to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI),
No. We know radio signals from intelligent beings exists in the
universe (we are one example): we do not know of any gods that
exist.
Inez
> Fernando.Chapa....@gmail.com wrote:
> > A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
> > of Intelligent Design.
>
> > I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
> > documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
>
> > I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
> > direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
> > detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
>
> Start with the explanation on Wikipedia:
>
> Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the
> universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent
> cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>
> It's an assertion at the fringe of science.
Exactly. It's an assertion, rather than an actual theory.
> In that way it is
> comparable to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), which
> asserts the possibility of radio signals from outer space that can be
> proved to come from an intelligent civilization not our own. (And yes,
> SETI has its critics too, who claim it's not scientific either)
>
In my mind the major difference is that SETI actually has proposed a
test to tell if radio signals being from an intelligent source. ID,
on the other hand, only picks nits with evolution. They seek no
positive evidence for a designer.
> How you prove that a particular radio signal is of artificial origin
> rather than a phenomenon of Nature is an interesting problem in
> information theory.
>
> The usual example given by SETI proponents is if we could detect a
> well-defined signal from some distant star that was shown to represent a
> sequence of prime numbers. Since there is no known natural process that
> can generate prime numbers, that would be strong evidence that
> intelligent aliens sent the signal.
>
> To date, no such signal has been detected from outer space.
>
> And to date, no such unambiguous evidence of Intelligent Design has been
> detected either.
>
> It wouldn't have been difficult for an Intelligent Designer to have
> encoded the first ten digits of pi into our DNA, using a simple encoding
> scheme. Or a sequence of prime numbers. Or anything that indicates
> intelligent thought.
>
> If scientists ever find prime numbers encoded in the DNA sequence of
> some species, that would be VERY hard to explain solely by natural
> selection. That's the kind of evidence the ID proponents need to find,
> in order to prove their theory.
Or perhaps one day a designer will invite scientists to tour her
lab.
> Merely attempting to find flaws in the evidence for natural selection
> does *NOT* constitute evidence for Intelligent Design, since Intelligent
> Design has never been the null hypothesis for natural selection.
>
> This is where the ID proponents have been less rigorous than the SETI
> proponents (and even SETI requires some pretty vast leaps of faith).
> There are still many things about our universe that astronomers don't
> understand. But SETI proponents don't leap from that fact to claiming
> that those phenomena "must be" of intelligent origin (space aliens) just
> because we don't yet understand how they work as natural processes.
>
> The ID proponents are constantly pouncing on alleged flaws in the
> evidence for natural selection to claim that helps boost their theory.
> It doesn't, because it shouldn't.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
>of Intelligent Design.
There isn't one.
>
>I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
>documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
That is because there isn't one.
>
>I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
>direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
>detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
There isn't one.
>
>Regards,
>Fernando
Glad to help.
--
Bob.
MitchAlsup
> It wouldn't have been difficult for an Intelligent Designer to have
> encoded the first ten digits of pi into our DNA, using a simple encoding
> scheme. Or a sequence of prime numbers. Or anything that indicates
> intelligent thought.
Given that the "encoding" is unknown, it is HIGHLY likely that someone
could come up with a sequence of someones DNA that in their 'code'
actually does enumerate the first 10 digits of Pi.
Kermit
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:00:36 GMT, Lee Oswald Ving <leeov...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >michael <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >news:64q7l35g857bgokul...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On 03 Dec 2007 11:22:16 GMT, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >>>> A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific
> >theory
> >>>> of Intelligent Design.
>
> >>>> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
> >>>> documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
>
> >>>> I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
> >>>> direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
> >>>> detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
>
> >>>As far as anyone knows, there is no scientific theory of intelligent
> >>>design. There is a political lobby group for intelligent design,
> >>>however. Perhaps that's what you are looking for? Otherwise, the
> >>>closest you're likely to get is some aspects of evolution that could
> >>>use some more research.
>
> >> Do scientists have a GOD microscope
> >> or magnifying glass?
>
> >> You know, one that can detect the intervention
> >> of intelligence?
>
> >Are you saying that ID uses terms like "intelligence" when they mean
> >"god?"
>
> >Interesting. Can you tell us why they don't just say, "god" then?
>
> Relative to us the intelligences are godlike compared to us.
Cool! Sounds like you know something about these guys. Could you tell
us how you found out about them? We'd like to check for ourselves.
(Science likes to double-check others' observations. It helps keep
errors in check.)
>
>
>
> >> Sounds like there are some aspects of science that could use some
> >> more research ...
>
> >Well, if you count on the IDers to do some, you're gonna be dissapointed.
>
> >OTOH, there are several fields of science devoted to studying the
> >artifacts of the only intelligences we're aware of. What field is it that
> >you think is lagging?
>
> Paranormal studies for one.
This is going to be disappointing: whenever good studies of the
paranormal have been done, they've found nothing :(
I know; I was hoping for years that there was some of this way cool
stuff out there, but every time I looked at the research - nada, zip.
There is some scientific activity going on with Shamanism, but it all
seems to be ways of inducing altered states. All the interesting stuff
is happening inside people's skulls. As a martial artist I was hoping
that those spooky old men with mad kung fu skillz would be on to
something, but everything I've seen has been explainable by
psychology, balance, physiology, and the like, but especially lots and
lots of practice. Ah, well.
Kermit,
who should be good in 50 or 70 years.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Woops! You forgot the party line that the "Intelligent Designer" is
not God.
>
> Sounds like there are some aspects of science that could use some
> more research ...
So what potential observation or measurement could *not* be explained
by "GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner did it"?
RF
Primary AL
Pleeeeze. Pick a bigger target. Slaying the Flying Spaghetti Monster
over and over, while putting the Hick fundies on the outskirts of
reason in jail only paints a picture of intellectual sloth and
paranoia one might ascribe to those you seek to banish.....Pick on Al
Einstein for being an agnostic. -Or Steven Hawking for writing: "And
God Created The Integers" (and for not joining your club).-Or Bucky
Fuller for his statement: "The Universe is an omni contracting, omni
expanding.
Or, you can instead thank Eddy Hubble for finally providing what
atheist fundies wanted, to make evolution based atheism work: A
universe (just one mind you) that is "measurable" and continually
moves away from earth, and the farther away it gets from earth the
faster it goes (but is slowing down too and black holes suck in whole
galaxies and we can't really see what hasn't been there for hundreds
of thousands of years, but we believe it is.. and, oh, our local
galaxies ones are getting closer together)
And he learned all this from right here close to Earth- in our galaxie
among trillions (Earth is is around 50,000 light years away from the
center right?--well he doesn't know where the center is...but he
believes hes got a good perspective right here on earth. ..So, that
must be the way it is because we can't find any other
explanation....anyway it's all a work in progress isn't it? Well
maybe.
Pip R. Lagenta
>A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
>of Intelligent Design.
>
>I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
>documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
>
>I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
>direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
>detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
>
>Regards,
>Fernando
Try:
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1592575552>
"The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design"
A more aptly titled book has never been written.
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
josephus
> Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Start with the explanation on Wikipedia:
>>
>> Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the
>> universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent
>> cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>>
>> It's an assertion at the fringe of science. In that way it is
>> comparable to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), which
>> asserts the possibility of radio signals from outer space that can be
>> proved to come from an intelligent civilization not our own. (And yes,
>> SETI has its critics too, who claim it's not scientific either)
>
> I'm inclined to agree. SETI is mostly wishful thinking against all odds
> (we wouldn't be able to detect our own planet from 1 ly distance), but
> there is one very important difference between SETI and ID: SETI is
> searching. It doesn't blindly assume something and then hammers on those
> assumptions, it is actively looking, making new observations and new
> analyses. And even if they don't find what they're looking for, there's
> always the possibility that they find something else that's equally
> interesting.
>
actually at 1 ly our radio signals are bright. and they are noisy. we
have very strong radio signals and anyone looking for them out at 1 ly
would notice them. we even broadcast directed signals. we are a very
noisy species. we make a lot of racket. why wouldnt the aliens do that
also.
> ID could be like this if they spent all their effort not on lobbying
> and politics, but on actual research into those areas of biology where
> they think understanding is lacking. If they think there's a biological
> mechanism that can't have evolved, they shouldn't simply assume that
> and claim it as the final truth, they should do research into the genes
> that make up that mechanism, how those genes differ in related species,
> when they might have formed, when they might have mutated, etc. Run
> simulations to see if perhaps they could have evolved after all. Do
> something! Try to add new knowledge, new understanding.
really lame. the ID dont talk dont tell dont identify the designer.
does not have a leg to stand on. it does not have ANY TESTS, by
design. it cannot even be directly disproved and that makes it nonscience.
>
> If they did that, I would respect them, applaud them, even. Whether
> they turn out to be right or wrong. But as it is, they just claim
> stuff and don't do even the tiniest bit of actual research.
>
>> Merely attempting to find flaws in the evidence for natural selection
>> does *NOT* constitute evidence for Intelligent Design, since Intelligent
>> Design has never been the null hypothesis for natural selection.
>
> But finding those flaws can still be of scientific interest, if only to
> indentify areas that require more research. The fact that that research
> hasn't been done doesn't prove a thing, but it'd be nice if the IDers
> were at least somewhat interested in that research, and not just in the
> flaws themselves.
>
>
> mcv.
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
> direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
> detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
This may be as close as you get to the scientific theory:
Introduction to Multiple Designers Theory
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000509.html
fnord,
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Robert J. Kolker
>
> The "theory" of intelligent design is merely a claim predicting one
> thing -- that at some point we will all be forced to admit that the
> complexity of biological life cannot be explained by natural
> processes. To understand the flaws in this argument you can search for
> reviews of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box."
How does one go about proving such a negative?
Bob Kolker
>
Jack Mollier
More than that, actually. See http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/865f7da489caab9e
for an example from a few months back,
Jack
Rupert Morrish
The Discovery Institute is the single largest organisation devoted to
Intelligent Design.
Would you like to propose a different target, princess?
> Slaying the Flying Spaghetti Monster
> over and over,
No-one has yet disproved the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
At the moment, there is no theory of intelligent design with more
evidence that that of the noodly appendage.
> while putting the Hick fundies on the outskirts of
> reason in jail only paints a picture of intellectual sloth and
> paranoia one might ascribe to those you seek to banish
Only those fundies who have actually broken the law seem to be in jail.
Jailing criminals is hardly paranoid.
>.....Pick on Al
> Einstein for being an agnostic. -Or Steven Hawking for writing: "And
> God Created The Integers" (and for not joining your club).-Or Bucky
> Fuller for his statement: "The Universe is an omni contracting, omni
> expanding.
Why? Were any of them trying to force their beliefs into science classes
in public schools?
>
> Or, you can instead thank Eddy Hubble for finally providing what
> atheist fundies wanted, to make evolution based atheism work: A
> universe (just one mind you)
If you have evidence of other universes, I'm sure the cosmologists would
love to hear from you.
> that is "measurable" and continually
> moves away from earth, and the farther away it gets from earth the
> faster it goes (but is slowing down too and black holes suck in whole
> galaxies and we can't really see what hasn't been there for hundreds
> of thousands of years,
All true.
> but we believe it is..
Do you have a reason to believe it has changed?
> and, oh, our local
> galaxies ones are getting closer together)
Yes. Fascinating stuff, gravity.
>
> And he learned all this from right here close to Earth- in our galaxie
> among trillions (Earth is is around 50,000 light years away from the
> center right?--well he doesn't know where the center is...but he
> believes hes got a good perspective right here on earth. ..So, that
> must be the way it is because we can't find any other
> explanation....anyway it's all a work in progress isn't it? Well
> maybe.
No maybe about it. If you have better measurements, or a better
explanation of the existing measurements, let's see them. We are all
waiting to be convinced by better data.
>
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Primary AL
> Primary AL wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 7:57 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> >> Fernando.Chapa....@gmail.com <Fernando.Chapa....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
> >>> of Intelligent Design.
> >>> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
> >>> documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
> >>> I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
> >>> direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
> >>> detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Fernando
> >> The theory of intelligent design is this:
>
> >> just are. Distortion
>
> >> 2. Scientists are poopy heads (childish Distortion) who find things out that ought not be
> >> found out.
>
> >> 3. Something, sometime, somehow, somewhere made things complex.
> >> 4. If we can explain it naturally now, then it evolved. (Distortion) But if there is
> >> anything we haven't yet explained, it is intelligently designed like us and we
> >> should stop looking for any other explanation. DDDDDuhstortion.
>
> >> 5. This isn't religion, really. No, really. (Sarcasm, bitterness)
Absolutely 3rd rate argument.
But then it's your God given right to be an asss hole. An Atheist
society would have jailed you.
> >> 6. Insert some impressive looking math here. (Hatred Sarcasm, Protectionist bashing, Bitterness.)
> >> --
> >> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
> >> University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> >> "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
> >> bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
>
> > Pleeeeze. Pick a bigger target.
>
> Intelligent Design.
>
> Would you like to propose a different target, princess? (projection)
>
> > Slaying the Flying Spaghetti Monster
> > over and over,
>
> No-one has yet disproved the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
> At the moment, there is no theory of intelligent design with more
Wrong, Conceited and expectedly unkind.
>
> > while putting the Hick fundies on the outskirts of
> > reason in jail only paints a picture of intellectual sloth and
> > paranoia one might ascribe to those you seek to banish
>
> Only those fundies who have actually broken the law seem to be in jail.
> Jailing criminals is hardly paranoid.
Hopefully criminal behavior will not become augmented to the point
that you will be satisfied with the results.
>
> >.....Pick on Al
> > Einstein for being an agnostic. -Or Steven Hawking for writing: "And
> > God Created The Integers" ( for not joining your club).-Or Bucky
> > Fuller for his statement: "The Universe is an omni contracting, omni
> > expanding.
>
> Why? Were any of them trying to force their beliefs into science classes
> in public schools?
No, and they certainly were not trying to force the cultural beliefs
of the children out of their own schools either.
>
>
>
> > Or, you can instead thank Eddy Hubble for finally providing what
> > atheist fundies wanted, to make evolution based atheism work: A
> > universe (just one mind you)
>
> If you have evidence of other universes, I'm sure the cosmologists would
> love to hear from you.
Given our knowledge of the Universe there is no more reason to trust
in one single event then there is to believe in a plethora of events
repeating with the same frequency and measurement of energy/mass as
has always been the case, from time measurements, if denumerable that
would humble even the most tight assed Evo Fundie.
>
> > that is "measurable" and continually
> > moves away from earth, and the farther away it gets from earth the
> > faster it goes (but is slowing down too and black holes suck in whole
> > galaxies and we can't really see what hasn't been there for hundreds
> > of thousands of years,
>
> All true.
>
> > but we believe it is..
>
> Do you have a reason to believe it has changed?
>
> > and, oh, our local
> > galaxies ones are getting closer together)
>
> Yes. Fascinating stuff, gravity.
>
>
>
> > And he learned all this from right here close to Earth- in our galaxie
> > among trillions (Earth is is around 50,000 light years away from the
> > center right?--well he doesn't know where the center is...but he
> > believes hes got a good perspective right here on earth. ..So, that
> > must be the way it is because we can't find any other
> > explanation....anyway it's all a work in progress isn't it? Well
> > maybe.
>
> No maybe about it. If you have better measurements, or a better
> explanation of the existing measurements, let's see them. We are all
> waiting to be convinced by better data.
>
>
>
> -----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Primary AL
> Fernando.Chapa....@gmail.com wrote, On 02/12/07 05:18 PM:
>
> > A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
> > of Intelligent Design.
>
> > I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
> > documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
>
> > I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
> > direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
> > detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
>
> Design". Fellows of the Discovery Institute, the biggest and most
> important backer of ID in the United States, had to admit in court and
> under oath they the know of no research that has been done on ID. Also,
> they had to admit that the definition of "science" they used to call ID
> a science was so poor that even astrology would qualify as "science".
>
> Groups like the Discover Institute and other ID supporters aren't
> interested in doing any real science, theirs is purely a political
> movement which is trying to force science to confirm to their religious
> beliefs. Go read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy> and
> <http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf> to see what the ID
> crowd really wants.
By Primary Al, posted on PBS November 20, 2007 editorial comments.
"PBS gleefully produces the prosecutions' case, successfully winning a
ban on Intelligent Design information in public schools. PBS uses the
action as a shield for involvement in an anti Intelligent Design
documentary (carefully) accomplishing their objective, selling it as
"objective" documentary.
The case at hand effectively banned from public schools the
terrifying, damaging theory: "Life's' Basic Origin might have original
purpose."
The prosecutor in this case effectively used his skills to manipulate
an overly honest, forthcoming scientist for the "ID" defense, to
include "astrology" as a science. (Using the "testability" definition
where science is a process testing a theory by gathering information
and attempting to refute or prove the theory.
How childish and moronic can a court case become? Observe the attorney
for the prosecution's questioning:
"Can "astrology" be science by your definition?" Answer: "Yes." The
attorney follows, "In your opinion, is Intelligent Design also a
science?" Unaware of the trap, the compliant scientist answers, "yes."
The attorney makes his move: "So you believe Astrology and Intelligent
Design are science?" The scientist, intimidated and frozen replies:
"Yes.' The trap slams shut, and the Judge, becomes aroused at the
prosecutor's courtroom skills. The prosecutor overwhelms the judge on
an unsound logical progression.
Next on the agenda is the obscure, outdated writing......out of
context...microscopic, relative to the volumes of fervently researched
paper documents in an attempt to nail the Intelligent Design
scientists, We Hit PAYDIRT!! ONE page containing the
word:.."creative." And, ON THAT NOTE---THE CASE IS WON!!! "CREATIVE"
IS OUTLAWED!! What an opportunity to add volume on Evolution Theory.
Volume is convincing. It is imperative in ET.
The only teaching allowed in our deteriorating public schools, as an
answer to every child's question about life and matter and meaning, is
a scientifically vacuous, emotionally starved, romantically,
creatively dead, unfriendly, nihilistic, abusive and solidly dogmatic
one: "Chaos and random activity over time, are the only primary
facilitators of all matter and intelligent organizational existence."
I can see the court papers now;
"Any teaching of intelligent or creative solutions, or suggestions of
improvements, facilitated by any intelligence associated with the
universe or nature is strictly prohibited in public schools of The
United States of America. Any suggestion of organizational or adaptive
capacity remotely associated with facilitation by intelligence or
creative solutions or having to do with organizational tendency
regarding any cosmic activity is strictly prohibited. Any teaching
regarding intelligence as primary in life's battle for sustenance and
or sustained existence is prohibited. Any observable or non observable
process suggesting intelligence as facilitator and/or having anything
to do whatsoever with provisions necessary for capacity to devise,
design, anticipate, articulate, adapt, remember, adjust, build,
create or predict is strictly prohibited. Forecasting, prediction,
prioritization capacity, or mathematic articulations are not to be
suggested or taught as essentially intelligence driven. All
development comes from chaotic activity, accidents and mutation."
Primary Al editorial on PBS
Baron Bodissey
Let's see: You are objecting to a documentary about a trial in which
the ID is shown to be a non-science promoted by liars trying to
install their brand of religion in the science classrooms of public
schools.
And your problem is...?
By the way, the entire transcript of the trial is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
Where was the inaccuracy?
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
- Amazon Women on the Moon
Jim Lovejoy
news:9cacd6f2-b29c-4f92...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 3, 10:25 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>> Primary AL wrote:
>> > On Dec 2, 7:57 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>> >> Fernando.Chapa....@gmail.com <Fernando.Chapa....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific
>> >>> theory of Intelligent Design.
>> >>> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find
>> >>> any documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent
>> >>> Design. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me
>> >>> in the right direction or post a link to a document or website
>> >>> that explains, in detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen
>> >>> Design. Regards,
>> >>> Fernando
>> >> The theory of intelligent design is this:
>>
>> >> 1. Things are too complex to be naturally evolved.
>Distortion
Seem spot on to me.
>> >> Don't ask why, they just are.
> Distortion
Since you're so sure it's a distortion I'm sure you'll be just thrilled to
provide an undistorted explanation of that.
>>
>> >> 2. Scientists are poopy heads
> (childish Distortion)
Sounds like you're bitter because Rupert is being truthful instead of
polite. However, you're welcome to show exactly how it's a distortion.
I'm not holding my breath.
who find
>> >> things out that ought not be found out.
>>
>> >> 3. Something, sometime, somehow, somewhere made things complex.
> Distortion
Again seems spot on. Show me wrong. (Hint, claiming it's a distortion
without providing any evidence that it actually is a distortion is not
convincing.)
>> >> 4. If we can explain it naturally now, then it evolved.
>> >> (Distortion) But if there is anything we haven't yet explained, it
>> >> is intelligently designed like us and we should stop looking
>> >> for any other explanation.
>DDDDDuhstortion.
Nope. If you think it's wrong show why its wrong. So far all I've seen
from you is "is not".
>>
>> >> 5. This isn't religion, really. No, really.
>(Sarcasm, bitterness)
> Absolutely 3rd rate argument.
But again spot on.
> But then it's your God given right to be an asss hole. An Atheist
> society would have jailed you.
>> >> 6. Insert some impressive looking math here. (Hatred Sarcasm,
>> >> Protectionist bashing, Bitterness.) --
>> >> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
>> >> University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
>> >> "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony,
>> >> metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was
>> >> vicious."
>>
>> > Pleeeeze. Pick a bigger target.
>>
>> The Discovery Institute is the single largest organization (spell
>> corrected) devoted to Intelligent Design.
>>
>> Would you like to propose a different target, princess?
>> (projection)
>>
>> > Slaying the Flying Spaghetti Monster
>> > over and over,
>>
>> No-one has yet disproved the existence of the Flying Spaghetti
>> Monster. At the moment, there is no theory of intelligent design with
>> more evidence that that of the noodly appendage. (Distorted mindless)
>
> Wrong, Conceited and expectedly unkind.
Since it's your claim that there is a theory of intelligent design with
more evidence than that for the FSM, I don't suppose you'd like to present
it?
Thought not.
And I'll stipulate that it's unkind to tell people that con men are con
men, but it's necessary.
>>
>> > while putting the Hick fundies on the outskirts of
>> > reason in jail only paints a picture of intellectual sloth and
>> > paranoia one might ascribe to those you seek to banish
>>
>> Only those fundies who have actually broken the law seem to be in
>> jail. Jailing criminals is hardly paranoid.
>
> Hopefully criminal behavior will not become augmented to the point
> that you will be satisfied with the results.
Is there any evidence that he's asking for *any* expansion of the
definition of criminal behavior?
Oh, I forgot. You don't do evidence.
David Hare-Scott
"Primary AL" <aaver...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f511d7d4-0f7b-4025-814d-> How childish and moronic can a court case
become? Observe the attorney
> for the prosecution's questioning:
>
> "Can "astrology" be science by your definition?" Answer: "Yes." The
> attorney follows, "In your opinion, is Intelligent Design also a
> science?" Unaware of the trap, the compliant scientist answers, "yes."
> The attorney makes his move: "So you believe Astrology and Intelligent
> Design are science?" The scientist, intimidated and frozen replies:
> "Yes.' The trap slams shut, and the Judge, becomes aroused at the
> prosecutor's courtroom skills. The prosecutor overwhelms the judge on
> an unsound logical progression.
This reduction has two problems.
1) It is nothing like the exchange that took place. You have made up so much
and added so much coloured commentary that it bears only passing resemblance
to what was actually said.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm132
2) Despite it not being what happened, there is no unsound logical progression
or trap in what you present. If the witness accepts A is science and B is
science there is nothing illogical about accepting A and B are science. There
is nothing in your construction to overwhelm the judge, nor was there in the
original testimony.
If we go back to what was actually said the witness was deposed as saying by
his definition of "scientific theory"; astrology, ID, the ether theory of
light and others were scientific theories and that is what he repeated in his
court testimony. Where is the trap?
You don't do your position any good by manufacturing material.
David
mcv
> mcv wrote:
>> Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Start with the explanation on Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the
>>> universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent
>>> cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>>>
>>> It's an assertion at the fringe of science. In that way it is
>>> comparable to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), which
>>> asserts the possibility of radio signals from outer space that can be
>>> proved to come from an intelligent civilization not our own. (And yes,
>>> SETI has its critics too, who claim it's not scientific either)
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree. SETI is mostly wishful thinking against all odds
>> (we wouldn't be able to detect our own planet from 1 ly distance), but
>> there is one very important difference between SETI and ID: SETI is
>> searching. It doesn't blindly assume something and then hammers on those
>> assumptions, it is actively looking, making new observations and new
>> analyses. And even if they don't find what they're looking for, there's
>> always the possibility that they find something else that's equally
>> interesting.
>
> actually at 1 ly our radio signals are bright. and they are noisy. we
> have very strong radio signals and anyone looking for them out at 1 ly
> would notice them.
Can you back that up? Broadcast signals quickly lose strength over
interstellar distances. As I understand it, we wouldn't be able to
detect our own planet at 0.4 ly distance, and only tightly beamed
transmissions will be noticable over such distances. And you can only
detect such transmissions if they're aimed directly at you.
> we even broadcast directed signals. we are a very
> noisy species. we make a lot of racket. why wouldnt the aliens do that
> also.
They can be noisy all they want, but it's not even a drop in a bucket
compared to the noise coming from their star. Perhaps if they were to
create a radio transmitter powered by a small star, then we'd detect
it.
josephus
that is not exactly true. the signal falls off as the square of the
distance. I think you are thinking about the mesages form various space
craft out by the oort cloud and they are faint because it is a 40 watt
transmitter. we have SUPER STATIIONS broadcasting at 100,000 watts.
not exactly the same. and there are hundreds of these stations. AM FM
military and then there are the radar folks. that is a lot of noise
josephus
mcv
> distance. I think you are thinking about the mesages form various space
> craft out by the oort cloud and they are faint because it is a 40 watt
> transmitter. we have SUPER STATIIONS broadcasting at 100,000 watts.
But we are talking interstellar distances here, not a mere signal to
the moon. Mere kilowatts aren't going to get you there. You need
terawatts at least, and directional instead of broadcast.
> not exactly the same. and there are hundreds of these stations. AM FM
> military and then there are the radar folks. that is a lot of noise
A lot of noise that won't reach the nearest star. Some time ago I read
an interesting article about this, but I can't find it anymore. I did
find <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html>
which says:
"It should be apparent then from these results that the detection of AM
radio, FM radio, or TV pictures much beyond the orbit of Pluto will be
extremely difficult even for an Arecibo-like 305 meter diameter radio
telescope! Even a 3000 meter diameter radio telescope could not
detect the "I Love Lucy" TV show (re-runs) at a distance of 0.01
Light-Years!
It is only the narrowband high intensity emissions from Earth
(narrowband radar generally) that will be detectable at significant
ranges (greater than 1 LY). Perhaps they'll show up very much like
the narrowband, short duration, and non-repeating, signals observed by
our SETI telescopes. Perhaps we should document all these
"non-repeating" detections very carefully to see if any long term
spatial detection patterns show up."
I admit I don't know much about the technicalities of this, but the
article seems to agree with me that you'd need directional terawatt
transmissions, and not simple broadcasting. So there can be tons of
intelligent civilisations out there, sending out enormous amounts
of noise, but unless they're poiting really powerful transmitters
straight at us, we'd never detect more than the occasional random
blip.
josephus
I was talking about noise, not communication. we have no reason to talk
to anyone. but if anyone is looking they will notice us.
anyway in space there is very little to dissipate the signal unlike on
earth where the atmosphere dissipates that signal.
> "It should be apparent then from these results that the detection of AM
> radio, FM radio, or TV pictures much beyond the orbit of Pluto will be
> extremely difficult even for an Arecibo-like 305 meter diameter radio
> telescope! Even a 3000 meter diameter radio telescope could not
> detect the "I Love Lucy" TV show (re-runs) at a distance of 0.01
> Light-Years!
I thought you were talking about 1 ly. the SETI folks are not looking
for signals like you are talking about. they are looking for non
natural signals (noise) and we put that out in spades.
>
> It is only the narrowband high intensity emissions from Earth
> (narrowband radar generally) that will be detectable at significant
> ranges (greater than 1 LY). Perhaps they'll show up very much like
> the narrowband, short duration, and non-repeating, signals observed by
> our SETI telescopes. Perhaps we should document all these
> "non-repeating" detections very carefully to see if any long term
> spatial detection patterns show up."
>
> I admit I don't know much about the technicalities of this, but the
> article seems to agree with me that you'd need directional terawatt
> transmissions, and not simple broadcasting. So there can be tons of
> intelligent civilisations out there, sending out enormous amounts
> of noise, but unless they're poiting really powerful transmitters
> straight at us, we'd never detect more than the occasional random
> blip.
> \
there is a frequency range called the watering hole. it is a clear
channel across all of space. they could see a signal like ours for a
couple of hundred light years. we really do put out a lot of noise. and
any body trying to hear them would have to filter us out.
>
> mcv.
mcv
I sincerely doubt that.
> anyway in space there is very little to dissipate the signal unlike on
> earth where the atmosphere dissipates that signal.
If you broadcast in all directions, like we are doing, the signal is
dissipating all of its own. That's why you need a narrow, directed
beam in order to reach accross interstellar distances.
>> "It should be apparent then from these results that the detection of AM
>> radio, FM radio, or TV pictures much beyond the orbit of Pluto will be
>> extremely difficult even for an Arecibo-like 305 meter diameter radio
>> telescope! Even a 3000 meter diameter radio telescope could not
>> detect the "I Love Lucy" TV show (re-runs) at a distance of 0.01
>> Light-Years!
>
> I thought you were talking about 1 ly.
And I had 0.4 ly in my head. I didn't know at that time that I'd find
a reference that you couldn't even make out a signal at 0.01 ly.
> the SETI folks are not looking
> for signals like you are talking about. they are looking for non
> natural signals (noise) and we put that out in spades.
If it's noise you're looking for, how do you distinguish non-natural
noise from natural noise? You need some sort of signal that's not
drowned out by background noise, and that's only possible when it's
a narrow beam directed straight at us.
That's all that SETI is testing: whether someone out there is trying
to send something directly at us.
>> It is only the narrowband high intensity emissions from Earth
>> (narrowband radar generally) that will be detectable at significant
>> ranges (greater than 1 LY). Perhaps they'll show up very much like
>> the narrowband, short duration, and non-repeating, signals observed by
>> our SETI telescopes. Perhaps we should document all these
>> "non-repeating" detections very carefully to see if any long term
>> spatial detection patterns show up."
>>
>> I admit I don't know much about the technicalities of this, but the
>> article seems to agree with me that you'd need directional terawatt
>> transmissions, and not simple broadcasting. So there can be tons of
>> intelligent civilisations out there, sending out enormous amounts
>> of noise, but unless they're poiting really powerful transmitters
>> straight at us, we'd never detect more than the occasional random
>> blip.
>> \
> there is a frequency range called the watering hole. it is a clear
> channel across all of space. they could see a signal like ours for a
> couple of hundred light years.
Only if it's a narrow, directed beam. Anything else will dissipate too
soon.
Robert Grumbine
[trim]
>>>> actually at 1 ly our radio signals are bright. and they are noisy. we
>>>> have very strong radio signals and anyone looking for them out at 1 ly
>>>> would notice them.
>>>
>>> Can you back that up? Broadcast signals quickly lose strength over
>>> interstellar distances. As I understand it, we wouldn't be able to
>>> detect our own planet at 0.4 ly distance, and only tightly beamed
>>> transmissions will be noticable over such distances. And you can only
>>> detect such transmissions if they're aimed directly at you.
>>>
>>>> we even broadcast directed signals. we are a very
>>>> noisy species. we make a lot of racket. why wouldnt the aliens do that
>>>> also.
>>>
>>> They can be noisy all they want, but it's not even a drop in a bucket
>>> compared to the noise coming from their star. Perhaps if they were to
>>> create a radio transmitter powered by a small star, then we'd detect
>>> it.
>>
>> that is not exactly true. the signal falls off as the square of the
>> distance. I think you are thinking about the mesages form various space
>> craft out by the oort cloud and they are faint because it is a 40 watt
>> transmitter. we have SUPER STATIIONS broadcasting at 100,000 watts.
The high power stations are broadcasting in AM. There's a reason -- the
ionosphere bounces the signals (hence little goes to space) so that far
distant (beyond line of sight) folks can receive signals. FM, TV, etc.
are at higher frequencies which pass through the ionosphere. As they can
only be received line of sight, their broadcast power is much lower than
the AM. Doesn't take much to receive a signal from 30 miles away vs. the
600 I've pulled in AM stations with cheap equipment. (Taking those as
scalings suggests 125 watts as a broadcast power for FM typical. The
AM station I received mentioned its 50,000 watt signal strength.)
As far as ET detecting us from our incidental transmission goes,
either it's high power broadcast that is trapped, or it's low power
that they can't see for its weakness.
>But we are talking interstellar distances here, not a mere signal to
>the moon. Mere kilowatts aren't going to get you there. You need
>terawatts at least, and directional instead of broadcast.
Indeed.
[trim]
>I admit I don't know much about the technicalities of this, but the
>article seems to agree with me that you'd need directional terawatt
>transmissions, and not simple broadcasting.
I'll guess that you can get by with rather less than terawatts.
We're receiving the Pioneer and Voyager signals from their few watt
antennas at a distance of ca 70 AU, about 0.001 LY. They're
also fairly, iirc, broad beam antennas -- ca. 1 degree. Even with
just that, though, you're looking at only a matter of megawatts.
Then narrow the beam and it's a lower power requirement. (But the
narrower the beam, the less time you spend aiming in any particular
direction, so less chance for anyone to notice.)
Then again, make it 30 light years and still 1 degree beam, and
you're back to terawatts.
>So there can be tons of
>intelligent civilisations out there, sending out enormous amounts
>of noise, but unless they're poiting really powerful transmitters
>straight at us, we'd never detect more than the occasional random
>blip.
Yep.
Plus, they'd have to encode the signal in a way that we find
interesting. This is not a search for 'extraterrestrial intelligence'
so much as a search for intelligence a whole lot like us.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
josephus
I bow to your superior knowledge but we have an awful lot of stuff and
once it gets out of the atmosphere there is little or nothing except
distance to dissipate the signal. so I suspect we put out a 60 cycle
hum. Some of the military line of sight stuff is pretty powerful and
would go for a ways before it became undetectable plus there are a lot
of HF folks.
mcv
>
> I bow to your superior knowledge but we have an awful lot of stuff and
> once it gets out of the atmosphere there is little or nothing except
> distance to dissipate the signal. so I suspect we put out a 60 cycle
> hum. Some of the military line of sight stuff is pretty powerful and
> would go for a ways before it became undetectable plus there are a lot
> of HF folks.
If we really want to, we can get a signal out there. Take a powerful,
narrow beam, perhaps radar-like transmitter or sufficient power, and
aim it at the nearest star for a while. Then aim it at another star.
The problem is, someone will have to fund that effort that won't give
any meaningful results for years or decades. And that's my point: SETI
is looking for extraterrestrial intelligence that is actively trying
to communicate with us. And considering their results so far, it seems
not a lot of civilisations are interested in talking to us at the
moment.
Mark Evans
<Fernando.Chapa....@gmail.com> wrote:
> A friend of mine has persuaded me to learn about the scientific theory
> of Intelligent Design.
>
> I have been searching for several hours, and I can't seem to find any
> documents that explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
>
> I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right
> direction or post a link to a document or website that explains, in
> detail, the scientific theory of Intelligen Design.
>
> Regards,
> Fernando
Here is a link you might find useful:
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Understanding-Intelligent-Design/dp/1592575552/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196645177&sr=8-1
MarkEvans
Sam
news:32a2a450-dc10-43eb...@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Anyone who's looked at the trial transcript will recognize PBS didn't
manufacture any sort of interpretation. It's all so clearly spelled out in
the case there was only one way it could go.