@S. Schiller: You claim the same tools can be used …

Comment on “Blindingly Obvious Artifacts” of Intelligent Design by Gene Fortner.

@S. Schiller:

You claim the same tools can be used so that there is no difference. But here is why there will always be a difference if you want to listen. Your communications about identifying artefacts from intelligence always seem to be “Just-So Stories”, consistent Rudyard Kipling’s works for little children. What one needs to do is too responded in a way that a true scientific investigation would address the process of identifying potential artifacts.

One of the driving factors behind the SETI project is the belief that finding life beyond Earth will prove that since life has evolved elsewhere, it must have evolved here on Earth.

Talk about “JUST SO STORIES”.

The DRAKE equation is not science it is wishful thinking, faith in a bankrupt hypothesis.

“the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.”

Michael Crichton

If an apparently non-random pattern (which might possibly have some unknown meaning) is proof of an intelligent source, one must also believe that the clearly non-random patterns in the DNA molecule (which certainly do have some meaning) are proof of an intelligent source.
Let’s state the same thing slightly differently. Suppose SETI discovers a non-terrestrial radio signal that contains information. That will be considered to be irrefutable evidence of an intelligent source because it could not possibly have been randomly generated. It logically follows that a DNA molecule containing information could not have been randomly generated, and must be irrefutable evidence of an intelligent source.

Gene Fortner Also Commented

“Blindingly Obvious Artifacts” of Intelligent Design

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
Mr. Schiller,

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

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?!

Summary of 60th General Conference Session (2015)
Thanks Sean

GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation


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.

GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen:


Sin is transgression of the law.

Where does it say being born is a sin?