Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution

[CoolBug]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_in_the_Cell

A book by an ID proponent?

Okay lets play that game...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_the_Gods%3F

[buyeye]

A book by an ID proponent?

Okay lets play that game...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_the_Gods%3F

But my guy is not a criminal or fraudster ,Source :http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken

Däniken was convicted of several financial crimes, including fraud, shortly after publication of his first book.[5] He later became a co-founder of the Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association (AAS RA), and designed the theme park Mystery Park in Interlaken, Switzerland, that first opened on 23 May 2003.[6]

[Unhappy438]

Could you perhaps point to their methodology which you claim to be scientific?

SETI uses electromagnetic radiation to monitor for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other worlds. Thats a Scientific methodology.

[CoolBug]

But my guy is not a criminal or fraudster ,Source :http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken

Däniken was convicted of several financial crimes, including fraud, shortly after publication of his first book.[5] He later became a co-founder of the Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association (AAS RA), and designed the theme park Mystery Park in Interlaken, Switzerland, that first opened on 23 May 2003.[6]

I know, putting that guys book there was satire, ancient aliens? rofl I watch ancient aliens as a comedy series.

Thought someone might see the humor.

[CoolBug]

SETI uses electromagnetic radiation to monitor for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other worlds. Thats a Scientific methodology.

They are trying to argue that it's not empirically scientific like for example Evolution where when they test they get positive results.

No results is not negative results however.

And it's laughable that anyone thinks they're in the same league as ID hogwash that never was or will be a friend of science.

We are proof that a civilisation can evolve and become intelligent, by that conclusion and the amount of stars planets and solar systems in the universe(s), it is probable that there is other intelligent life out there.

At least SETI isn't pissing all over biology while it looks for life on other planets. Harvard and Berkely universities have SETI centers, SETI Institute has helped NASA on space missions and ID is being compared to SETI? what a joke. Shows you how desperate the proponents are to have some sort of legitimacy.

[Unhappy438]

They are trying to argue that it's not empirically scientific like for example Evolution where when they test they get positive results.

No results is not negative results however.

And it's laughable that anyone thinks they're in the same league as ID hogwash that never was or will be a friend of science.

Except it has produced results even if they are not significant. Also i would like to add that by them not finding what they have been looking for is a result in itself.

From wiki :

Results

To date, the project has not confirmed the detection of any ETI signals (see extraterrestrial intelligence). However, it has identified several candidate targets (sky positions), where the spike in intensity is not easily explained as noisespots,[9] for further analysis. The most significant candidate signal to date was announced on September 1, 2004, named Radio source SHGb02+14a.

While the project has not reached the stated primary goal of finding extraterrestrial intelligence, it has proved to the scientific community that distributed computing projects using Internet-connected computers can succeed as a viable analysis tool, and even beat the largest supercomputers.

We can continue with Techne's warped view of thinking, is string theory now not Science because it also is yet to reach its primary goal. I can list 100s of other things that haven't reached their goal but that doesn't mean its not Science. Stupid argument is stupid.

[OrbitalDawn]

I am looking for something that makes SETI an example of good empirical science. The "hey, it looks like it has an intelligent source but I can't scientifically verify it" or the "hey, ID isn't science" aren't argument for SETI being an empirical science.

As I said in my post, which you seemed to have misread or something. SETI is looking for patterns or occurrences similar to ones that we can produce, with our limited knowledge of nature and how to manipulate it. So we have a standard that we can measure findings against. Naturally one would have to be very careful with any conclusions or extrapolations.

ID goes way beyond that and tries to point to a 'creator' that didn't only create some biological things that we could maybe reproduce (and use as a standard), but created the entire universe, including the natural laws that govern it. I'm not sure how you can't see the difference.

[RiaX]

ID is the same as creationism, just a different name.

[Ekstasis]

ID is the same as creationism, just a different name.

Mooi man

[Techne]

As I said in my post, which you seemed to have misread or something. SETI is looking for patterns or occurrences similar to ones that we can produce, with our limited knowledge of nature and how to manipulate it. So we have a standard that we can measure findings against. Naturally one would have to be very careful with any conclusions or extrapolations.

ID goes way beyond that and tries to point to a 'creator' that didn't only create some biological things that we could maybe reproduce (and use as a standard), but created the entire universe, including the natural laws that govern it. I'm not sure how you can't see the difference.

As I implied earlier, both ID and SETI are looking for patterns or occurrences similar to the ones we an produce.
SETI look for radiowaves that may have an intelligent source.
ID is looking for codes (e.g. genetic code or fine tuned constants) or machines that may have an intelligent source.

So both have some sort of standard.

Also, as explained earlier, ID cannot even IN PRINCIPLE get you to theism. So it cannot get you to something that produced the laws of physics (Again, whatever they are or mean) or created the universe.

And, like ID, SETI has no empirical method to confirm whether something is the result of intelligence without evidence of the intelligent source itself. And for this reason, SETI, like ID, is most likely not an empirical science that can empirically confirm its hypothesis. At best you may argue it is some sort of theoretical science, not an empirical science.

[CoolBug]

ID by principle cannot get you to theism?

Okay?

Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. The Institute defines it as the proposition 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." [1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". [3] The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, [n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity. [n 2]

[RiaX]

and what is this intelligence they are refering to?