KBCid wrote:So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?
sandy_mcd wrote:For the last time, I have addressed this question many times in the past. Obviously you are unsatisfied with my replies, so i suggest you try elsewhere in the future.
You have not ever attempted to answer this question until now.
sandy_mcd wrote: In science, if you can't directly test something, you test its results, consequences, or effects. I am truly sorry that this answer doesn't satisfy you, but it works for tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists..
I am quite aware of indirect testing. This type of testing presupposes the existence of what you are testing for and if you get a result that appears favorable then you infer the existence of what you presupposed. Got it. Know it. And yet you still did not provide any method to test the subjects I have been specifically pointing out at every turn;
How do you test for a single common ancestor of all life?
How do you test to show that mutation is actually random?
How do you test to see if NS can perform what they think it does?
So once again you avoid these specific topics and try to redirect the question at hand to other things...
sandy_mcd wrote:Let me give you some examples:
1) the Higgs boson was discovered - no one has one in their hand, they looked at effects from lots of experiments and built up a statistical model
Or so you believe it was discovered.
Both of the Higgs boson-hunting experiments at the LHC see a level of certainty in their data worthy of a "discovery".
More work will be needed to be certain that what they see is a Higgs, however.
Higgs boson-like particle discovery claimed at LHC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455
Even the scientists involved are sure to state "More work will be needed to be certain that what they see is a Higgs, however." But for you this information was enough for you to state that "the Higgs boson was discovered". There is a good point to be seen in their experimentation though,
They are performing tests to provide evidence for the existence of something and until they can get enough experimental evidence to back them they never say that the higgs boson is a fact. The fact is that as scientists they recognise that you can't posit the truth of something without testable and repeatable evidence.
sandy_mcd wrote:2) atoms can't be seen, they are observed through indirect spectral analysis or interactions with various fields
Atoms can't be seen by the naked eye that is true. This and other things like it we make mechanisms for which can enhance our normal abilities such as; The scanning tunneling microscope and Atomic force microscopy. so the truth is we can test things beyond our normal senses by use of mechanical advantages. The mechanisms do the seeing for us. Even now we are now attempting to see the atoms nucleus. However, The point here is that atoms or what we consider atoms were only theoretical and untestable until the technology arrived to allow for it to be seen.
sandy_mcd wrote:3) measuring decay products in minerals gives the age
This of course is entirely dependand on decay rates being constant. What test was performed to confirm this? none. Its an assumption without scientific backing. The evidence against it of course comes along by accident;
Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2 ... after-all/
And this is just in the here and now. What about in the past, were decay rate always the same? and how can it be tested for? it can't. It is all presupposition. Belief. untestable.
sandy_mcd wrote:4) counting tree rings gives the age
Or so you believe. again.
Occasionally, trees will produce more than one ring in a year. Other times a tree can go a year without producing a ring.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/highelevationwh ... nquire.htm
Trees rings typically acrue one ring a year and if the conditions are right during their lifetime then this is what we will see. however, we don't know what the conditions were before recorded history so its a crapshoot to assume that a ring for a year is and has been a constant. So the fact is that counting tree rings may or may not give a proper age.
sandy_mcd wrote:There are millions such examples. If you want to reject all of these, fine. But please don't pretend you are having a modern scientific discussion.
I don't need to reject your assertions as the references I cite do this for me. The question is why do you accept them as truths when there is evidence against them? apparently your science has some problems maintaining their scientific backing. Probably from making untestable assertions.
sandy_mcd wrote:I suggest you temporarily put aside your research on design (which is proven anyway, right?) and devote your efforts to purging science of all these imposters. Good luck in your endeavors.
Bad science will be eliminated as it becomes more apparent that presupposed truths are not all they are cracked up to be and ID will keep on looking at the world around us and discerning evidence of design where the information types lead.