Comment on “Blindingly Obvious Artifacts” of Intelligent Design by Gene Fortner.
The ability to determine design is God given as is the ability to communicate via spoken and written word.
Intelligent Design is a bit more than pattern recognition. You might come out of your ivory tower and design and implement a pattern recognition system.
An end to the madness?
The fifth edition of the DSM psychiatric manual may be the last.
he Economist weighs in on broken peer review
Peer review is failing to ensure data quality, finds a study … The analysis, led by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), found that about one-third of papers submitted to five physical-chemistry journals between 2003 and 2013 contained erroneous or incomplete data, which can make it hard to replicate findings and can lead to poor regulatory decisions. Peer review does not have the capacity to evaluate the current flood of data, say co-authors Michael Frenkel and Robert Chirico, chemists at NIST in Boulder, Colorado. “The rate of errors is an elephant in the room,” says Frenkel. – See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/is_nothing_sacr077661.html#sthash.MtyxsniL.dpuf
Gene Fortner Also Commented
If I had gone to my boss and asked for $$$$ based on the Drake Equation that is based on pure speculation I would probably been demoted.
The Drake Equation is political science.
“Blindingly Obvious Artifacts” of Intelligent Design
I am a retired systems engineer. My job for 20 years was to put up 24/365 systems to support manufacturing factories.
They consisted of hardware and software and protocols. I put up my first F/O network in 1985. It was/is called Intelligent Design.
I have only recently become acquainted with Sean’s website. His argument seems to be that you can detect an artifact. I agree with him. In fact it is self evident.
“The position here is to demonstrate that Sean Pitman’s approach to ID and empiricism is untenable.”
Bloviating won’t cut it.
“Blindingly Obvious Artifacts” of Intelligent Design
The Drake Equation
Frank Drake is the only scientist in the world famous for what he has not found, and for his Drake Equation that calculates any answer from a series of unknowable unknowns. – See more at: http://crev.info/2010/11/seti_reinvades_oz/#sthash.KHWxB5Fz.dpuf
The Drake Equation is a joke. It’s nothing more than a propaganda tool for atheistic cosmology, using visualization to give an air of scientific authority to ignorance. He left out the only term that can bring the possibility of life above absolute zero: intelligent causation. Only a fool would throw good money at ignorance (10/12/2007).
The most egregious thing in Drake’s know-nothing resume (08/22/2008, 05/01/2008, 08/17/2007, 02/11/2007, 01/24/2007) has been the founding of a society that is dead-set against intelligent design (02/20/2007), while employing intelligent design principles in its core strategy (12/03/2005). SETI should be renamed the Search for Evolutionary Tricks of Imagination (04/17/2008, 04/01/2008, 03/17/2008). Thanks to Brett Miller for illustrating this in another clever cartoon. –
See more at: http://crev.info/2008/11/raise_money_by_accomplishing_nothing/#sthash.A3ISaOsk.dpuf
Organized ignorance: When you don’t know what you are talking about, does it help to organize your ignorance? Apparently Claudio Maccone thinks so. Astrobiology Magazine said Maccone took another look at the Drake Equation for calculating how many aliens inhabit the galaxy.
But the Drake equation must not be evaluated only by the numerical values it produces. Some say the Drake equation is a way to organize our ignorance. By exposing the extraterrestrial intelligence hypothesis mathematically, we limit the real possibilities to each term and approach the final answer: how many alien civilizations are there?
Maccone massaged the ignorance with new inputs and came up with a new estimate of how many alien civilizations there are, which nobody can check. He simultaneously solved another problem of organized ignorance: why hasn’t SETI detected any aliens yet? Answer: the average distance of these unknown civilizations might put them too far for our current detectors to find. How convenient; maybe we can use that method to explain why we haven’t found ghosts.
See more at: http://crev.info/2012/12/are-scientists-capable-of-stupidity/#sthash.F2xKoToy.dpuf
Recent Comments by Gene Fortner
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Bill “How inane would it be to claim an apple tree is not an apple tree unless and until it has apples on it?”
Comparing babies and apple trees is a bit more inane than comparing apples and oranges.
“The ONLY DEFINITION FOR SIN that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law… IT CONDEMNS EVERY SIN, AND REQUIRES EVERY VIRTUE.” E.G. White, ST, March 3, 1890 par. 3.
If it is a sin to possess a fallen nature then there must be a law against it. Has God given a law forbidding anyone from being conceived with a fallen human nature? If there ever was a law that was impossible to keep, this would be it, for how could one choose not to violate it before one existed?!
No statement was necessary.
In fact I consider it thoughtless.
FB#6 should have absolutely no effect on their ability to support the world church and perform work faithfully and with integrity.
Sin is transgression of the law.
Where does it say being born is a sin?