The fact that I can wrongly misinterpret the data does not invalidate the test....
This isn't really about "misinterpreting data". It's rather a case of your test simply being completely useless as it fundamentally argues from ignorance, by principle.
It simply proves that like with any other test one can make wrong assumptions and reach wrong conclusions.
Here's the thing: your assumptions need to be
well motivated.
Let's go back to your own (false) analogy of dating methods.
The half-life of elements are assumed to be accurate when testing a sample.
But those assumptions are
very well motivated. And testable by themselves.
Whereas YOUR assumptions, in this "design detection method", is really just an appeal to ignorance.
To give an example, if a sample is contaminated then you will get a wrong result when dating it with radiometric dating.
Another false analogy.
But that doesn't mean that radiometric dating doesn't work, it simply means that people can wrongly assume that there is no contaminstion.
Again, contamination (or not) is not something that is "just assumed". Once more: assumptions need to be well motivated, and not just an appeal to ignorance.
So in summery
Yes one can misinterpret the data and wrongly assume that something has the attribute of SC
But the DNA sequence that
@tas8831 gave you DOES have the "attribute of SC". That's exactly the point. Knowing how the sequence originated, doesn't make the resulting sequence any less "complex" or "specified". These are properties of the existing sequence - no matter how it came about.
This is how your "method" is flawed. The entire purpose of identifying "specified complexity" in fact, is to serve as a method to FIND OUT how it came about.
So by saying that it looses this "attribute" if we discover that it had natural origins, then all this amounts to is "things are designed except when we find out that they aren't.
It's utter horse crap.
But that does nothing to invalidate the claim that SC can only come from a mind.
Except that it does.
The mutation that made the sequence function didn't reduce the "specificity" or "complexity" of resulting sequence. The resulting sequence is what it is and it has the properties that it has, no matter if a supernatural unicorn constructed it pre-planned particle by particle, or if it was assembled through natural chemistry.
I'm totally in agreement that the physical properties of existing objects can give us clues concerning if they are natural objects or artificially created objects, but clearly this "specified complexity" nonsense isn't such a metric.
Granted, It could be the case that I wrongly claimed that something has the attribute of SC and therefore wrongly proclaim design.
See, this just seems wrong.
To repeat: "specified complexity" is supposed to be a quality / property / attribute of an existing object. Kind of like a description of its shape, whereabouts, composition,...
Now, you are saying that if an object is found to be "specified and complex" then you can conclude it is designed. Unless you find out that it isn't designed. And then suddenly, it isn't "specified and complex" any more?
This just doesn't make any sense. What were you basing your initial judgement on, that it was specified and complex, before knowing how it came about?
Literally EVERYTHING about the object stays the same both before and after you discover it was produced by a natural process. But now you say that if it is known to be produced by a natural process, then it isn't "specified and complex".
So really, it's quite clear that to you, "specified and complex" is SYNONYMOUS with "designed".
While "designed" is supposed to be a conclusion from a premise where things are identified as "specified and complex".
This leads to the very interesting notion that this entire "dembski" method, really is just an assumed conclusion coupled with an argument from ignorance.
You follow?
But this mistake is detectable, you can always correct me
This shows that the test is testable and falsifiable.
No. It shows that the test is useless and fallacious.
Which is I don't claim 100% certainty, but as I explained before it seems possible (more likely than not) that the first living thing had the attribute of SC
Which is a very strange thing to say, because you don't even know what first life looked like.
So not only do you appeal to ignorance because of science not having discovered how life can originate, but you are also literally just "declaring" that first life was SC, while not even having any access to such life to study.
This is the epitome of making stuff up.
This claim could be reinforced or falsified as scientist discover new stuff... Again IDists make testable and falsifiable claims.
False.
When you refer to scientists discovering new stuff, you are referring to scientists working in the field of abiogenesis. They aren't studying or testing your invalid fallacious claims. This nonsense doesn't even come up in their line of work.
You are literally saying here that your mere "declaration" from ignorance should be seen as the default until scientists
actually answer the question of how life can come about.
YOU have NO test for your nonsense. Your "test" amounts to nothing more or less then an appeal to scientific ignorance. And when scientists actually close that gap, I'm sure you'll find another gap to fill without your invalid logic.
Granted that is a possibility
So, how do you propose to find out if it is?
If only you actually had a positive test FOR your nonsense which would yield POSITIVE evidence in support of your argument, instead of only pointing fingers at the failings of other ideas and the propping up of negative evidence, like in a good ol' argument of the gaps....
That's false the claim that SC can only come from a mi d is objective and testable.
How was it determined that it is?
How is that testable?
So as the claim that life has thus attribute
Except when you find out that natural mutations produced the specificity and complexity. Then suddenly it isn't specificied / complex, apparantly.
