Yes, it's hopeless but here goes:
The point rather is, JoeG, that if we replace the input of “random noise” with “radio telescope data” can you use FSCO/I to tell the difference between the two?
1- Who cares?
2- What does that have to do with ID?
3- The input is what we would be investigating. Nothing else matters
And why are you stuck on FSCO/I? It's as if OM is a little simple-minded child.
But anyway the first thing a scientist would do is ask for the source of your sequence(s). If you were unable to say then the scientist would say who the fuck cares? Then you would have some serious explaining to do.
For some reason OM thinks science is a parlor game- "Hey look, if we take nature and do this and this and this, and then take a man-made sequence and do this and this and this, I bet no one can tell one from the other!!!11!!!!111!!!"
Unfortunately he is so self-unaware that he doesn't realize or doesn't care that materialism cannot even muster a methodology to test its claims. So he has to flail away at ID. Too bad the only people listening are the morons who don't know any better. And BTW, your position claims to be able to determine design from not. I bet you didn't realize that either.
Messages printed out are designed, irrespective of the content of the actual message, so it *must* have had agency involvement to be printed!
No, you ignorant fuck. Again don't blame us because you are too stupid to figure out a proper example.
Do scientists try to determine if etchings on a cave or rock wall were from possible humans, animals or nature? Yes. The context, OMassface. Messages and character sequences do not exist in isolation. Even if received over the airways it will have a certain signature. Mother nature just blasts away. Intelligent agencies use narrow communication bands.
And you said that they were both obviously designed because they were print outs on paper.
You are misremembering.
Then Richie ReTARDo chimes in with his oft refuted tripe:
also, any experiment shows design because experiments are designed.
No Richie, only ignorant assholes like you say that. If an experiment takes intervention, unreal initial conditions or non-natural conditions, then you cannot say "nature didit!" because obviously it didn't.
Joe Felsenstein asks:
Are these folks claiming that they have some way of telling whether a message is a message (as opposed, say, to random noise)?
Random noise not run through any man-made apparatus. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Leave nature alone and yes, we can use tried and true design detection techniques to determine if an intelligent agency was required or not.
But we understand why you cannot do so- your position can't explain anything except disease and deformities.
OK OM chooses ignorance"
I think I must have missed this step in the EF, the calculation of CSI and FSCO/I. Can you provide a reference to the ID literature where the source of the object under question is considered?
LoL! It's called SCIENCE you ignorant little-minded punk. With SCIENCE we make observations in nature and then try to explain them. Crime labs work at the scene of the crime. Archaeologists work at the site of the dig. Everything is tagged and bagged. Scientists know the context in which the objects were found.
The only way to be sure we can avoid doing “this and this” to the data is to channel it straight into our minds directly.
Right, and you can do that just by making the observation of nature, duh. Once you run it through a machine it becomes an artifact, duh.
For example, I measured which way the wind was blowing once an hour.
N, E, E, E, N, N, N, E, E, W, E, E, E, N
Good for you. And you just turned it into an artifact. You are just an ignorant asshole, OM. And obviously you don't know anything about science.
As I said above, you seem to have given up on the whole “FSCO > X == Design” idea.
No, you ignorant fuck. I just know there are other tools beside that one that I can use to determine if agency involvement was required.
Now it’s “is it blasted? Not design. Narrow band = design”.
One, I did NOT say that "narrow band=design". Obviously you have mental issues. Also Seth from SETI said it::
A SETI radio signal of the type we could actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. (a sine wave, is the example he gave)
Consider pulsars - stellar objects that flash light and radio waves into space with impressive regularity. Pulsars were briefly tagged with the moniker LGM (Little Green Men) upon their discovery in 1967. Of course, these little men didn't have much to say. Regular pulses don't convey any information--no more than the ticking of a clock. But the real kicker is something else: inefficiency. Pulsars flash over the entire spectrum. No matter where you tune your radio telescope, the pulsar can be heard. That's bad design, because if the pulses were intended to convey some sort of message, it would be enormously moreefficient (in terms of energy costs) to confine the signal to a very narrow band. Even the most efficient natural radio emitters, interstellar clouds of gas known as masers, are profligate. Their steady signals splash over hundreds of times more radio band than the type of transmissions sought by SETI. - Seth Shostack
And I know you are misremembering our earlier conversation. If you have evidence to the contrary then post it.
Can you describe an experiment that would not require ‘intervention’?
Miller-Urey; Lenski ; Flemming; Pasteur
The "wow" signal was interesting but unverifiable- that is no one ever found it again. We don't know where it came from except "out there", and that just isn't good enough. What needs to be done is to figure out what can transmit on the wavelength and in a narrow-band. You know- science! Oh you don't know science...
And it's very telling that OM ignored most of my post...