Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

[Done That]

Easter Bunny wrote:

<quoted text>
What makes me angry? I toured the church's tortue museum in San Gimignano and saw what happened to people for infractions as small as missing Sunday mass. There is nothing about the nature of religion to keep this from happening each time they have the power.

Sad but true power corrupts. The Saudi religious police sentenced a man to 150 lashes and 8 years in prison for being in a room with a woman not his relative. Men of science in Germany killed thousands to improve the race by weeding out the inferior. What will happen in the future when your genetic markers can be judged worthy or not. Through science only male babies are allowed to be born in China to a degree it will unbalance the future. Religion and science have not great ethic

[StopTheInsanity]

Done That wrote:

When you hear hoof beats think horse not zebra. When you see a non biologic do you see design or random chance. That computer you sit at has changed greatly. Do you think it evolved by chance or was there design behind it. I see biology as a design that is based on random change like a computer programed to write random code and keep those codes that work. It took a designer to make that computer. Isn't this great to be able to debate so many sharp minds, wow

You aren't debating. You're typing.

[Lawrence Wolf]

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>My thoughts exactly, you put it together nicely. I have no idea why "THEY" refuse to see the validity of that way of thinking. I'm actually surprised that they are not going for it full steam ahead, as it is so intrigueing. They already know probably and don't want the evidence to get out so they can protect there spiritless, Godlesss government controlled world. Even if little to no progress is made at first, it wouldn't be the only area of science that lacks evidence. We sure are no closer to absolute answers of existence then we ever were. Isn't about any word a label and not an absolute answer? Everything in the universe is matter/energy, so no matter what the subject, a chair, a person, a cloud, a waterfall, a lightning bolt, it's all made up of matter and we do not have a clue what the absolute nature of matter is. What I mean is matter is all made up of different combinations of the same basic particles of matter. We don't really even know what negative means other than opposite of positive.(someone will interject a definition that negative is a result of a certain spin of the particle, that is not an absolute answer) You break it down past quarks and gluons, fermions and bosons, when you get into the massless category you have pure energy although I like to think of energy as matter that is in reality not massless but massless for all practical purposes and I like to consider that energy is just matter in its most broken down state,(although I'll get attacked for that personal opinion when no one really knows), I don't think it is very clear the distinction between matter and energy. Anyway, the moral is that we can hypothesize that the position of a particle can be predicted by a wave function, but so what? Even if you could hold one in your hand and see it, in the absolute scheme of things, you really don't know in absolute terms what it is. Would the particle have a hard shell from the speed of the electrons' orbit, or ..... who knows? You hold a rock in your hand, the word rock is a label not an absolute term. The rock is made up of silcon and oxygen and aluminum, etc., those are labels. The elements are made of particles and we are back to what is a particle? The smallest bit of matter does not suffice as an absolute definition. I'm rambling, sorry, I'll stop

Some pretty good rambling there. I share your frustration. It's amazing how close-minded some of our scientific seekers of truth can be.
As a kid, I used to toy with the notion that the primordial "particle" had no size at all, but that it was pure energy. That suggested to me that physicists couldn't find it because it had no mass. I wondered if this energy was thought, or consciousness, and if it was the true source of all that existed. I'm still asking the same questions.

[Done That]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
One of my friends would disagree with you. He says there isn't a problem that can't be solved with a backhoe! A Rock Hammer would just be to small to do the job right :-)

If you own a hammer the world starts looking like a nail

[PoKay1kaDuB]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Existence itself isn't an area of science. It's an area of *philosophy*.(By the way, have you come up with an alternative to existence yet?)
***
<quoted text>
How do you know that it has one? Isn't that an unwarranted assumption?
***
<quoted text>
You tend to use the word "absolute" a great deal. What is it that you think that word means?

So who do you say we get to research the death phenomenon? Would you trust a priest? You need a scientist to do that. Death exists, why can't you research it? That might be a good place to start to find evidence to back up the obvious inabililty for abiogenesis to follow a spontaneous course, and the questionability of macroevolution. If there is ever found evidence of a continuance through death then this would be a sign of a higher power, a higher power that could make life possible, matter can't just be, by accident, let alone life itself. It is very mentally immature of you to be so sure that we die into extinction.
Just because the evidence is consistent with something does not mean we can make the connection, and just because we can't find any prior evidence, doesn't mean there isn't any, we are stuck with possibilities and theories, ID is a valid theory. I think it would be very wrong however to interject Yahweh or Bhudda, or any other specific God. You can't get any more specific than a generic higher power at this point.
Just because existence is an area of philosophy, doesn't mean we can't scientifically look into it. Or try to, just like we try to look into abiogenesis and macroevolution, but we still don't come up with anything except guesses.

[Done That]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed! I also believe that anyone who is trying to use science to justify their belief is as bad as anyone who tries to use science to deny another belief system. The issue of God is not one science can, nor should, even address!
I said "God" not religion. To me there is a huge difference between the two.

Religion a a feeble attempt to explain God or the Designer

[Done That]

Tinka wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL
That's awesome...You look like you had a great time..

Good morning. When were you last in Germany?

[Lawrence Wolf]

Roku Roku Roku wrote:

<quoted text>It would only become a legitimate subject if it has scientific supporting evidence. Do You know of any?

No. Science is as yet ignorant on the matter.

[LWsciencejunkie]

Zeke wrote:

<quoted text>
What was the tip off? The characteristic charm or the dedication to polite (and relevant) discussion?[Insert "rollingeyes" emoticon here.]

Both; plus the single-minded intensity. I've had very interesting "discussions" with that mob. They go like this:

LW:(Islamic scripture)
Muslim poster: "Yakka-boolah-Allah-whore -#^$%-DIE-slut-&%*dirka dirka DIRKA#@%!"
(or)
LW:(Islamic scripture)
MP: "It means a totally different thing in Arabic".(OR) "It doesn't say that, you're a lying infidel whore, slut, bitch, etc, etc."
LW:
AN ODE TO A MARTYR:
You spent yourself
You spent the others
Blood of your children
Sisters, brothers
All paid your way
Your price to buy..
ENTER ALLAH'S WHOREHOUSE IN THE SKY!
Well, I don't know
Just where you went
But I suspect
God's not a pimp.

Usually I get what you'd expect. Most gratifying.
This is my very last off-topic post. My brain is frazzled; I could not sleep last night in spite of two G$Ts and 150mgs of Trazadone. The earthquake and the cyclone and the my idiocy of thinking about them.

[Lawrence Wolf]

Roku Roku Roku wrote:

<quoted text>No objection at all if what is taught in science class has scientific supporting evidence. Do you know of any for Intelligent Design? Without scientific supporting evidence, it does not belong in a science classroom.

I agree. I never suggested otherwise. A philosophy class would seem more appropriate.

[Tinka]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
And teaching evolution has done that how exactly?

You know when I grew up in Germany, we weren't raised in a Religious state..
Sure Evangelists roamed over there....Catholics too, and in elementary school we were exposed to both evolution and Religion...At least we didn't have one or the other....
I always thought it to be a little strange that a monkey grew up to be human..especially having seen them in the zoo..
As far as my teacher in bible study was concerned...he handed out smokes during break...we burned a lot of incense and mainly ask questions rather than being told anything..
SO I guess I got lucky...
The mind as most scientists know is meant to wonder a bit and try to find answers, right?
I still say in this broad Universe there is and has to be room for all possibilities...
So from my own experience I know this to be true..
And as far as formulas..the question that I have...Who decided that table was table/Tisch or chair was chair/Stuhl?
Call me naive or ignorant...it makes no diff.. to me..
But fact is...that if through studies if one of the formulars was calculated wrong it would throw off everything wouldn't it?
I mean I really do not know much about working with them, but couldn't it be that there always could be someone that could come up with another equation? That has the smarts but not the interest? No not me..I am not pointing toward me...duhh...but I am just saying...

I just don't understand why life and what we have can be questioned to such an extreme...

I still think Earth in many ways is a lab...not to question it's existence but to study ahead...I would love to study how thin the barrier is between life and death..for I know the afterlife is real..there is something there....and if we could find the other side...wouldn't we then find life again??

[Lawrence Wolf]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd actually agree with you to a point. The main difficulty is that we have so little evidence about that 'initial causation' or whether it even existed. Unfortunately, when you go back before a microsecond into the current expansion, the temperatures were such that most information from that time was simply destroyed. And science has to deal with real data, not flights of fancy (which are very common in this area of study). So, while we have a number of different proposals (often involving proposed theories of quantum gravity), we have, as yet, no way of testing between these theories. If you have a proposal concerning how to do that, please let someone know!

I wish!

[Done That]

StopTheInsanity wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are going to correct someone it helps to have some idea of what you are talking about.
"Fact and Theory"
"In science, words are often used with precise meanings and connotations that differ from those in everyday life. Among such words are hypothesis and theory. In science a hypothesis is an informed statement of what might be true. For Copernicus, the revolution of the earth around the sun was a hypothesis with modest support; for us, it is a hypothesis with strong support.
Likewise, a theory in science is not an unsupported speculation. Rather, it is a mature, coherent body of interconnected statements, based on reasoning and evidence, that explains a variety of observations. Or, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, a theory is "a scheme or system of ideas and statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are known to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Thus atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of plate tectonics are not mere speculations or opinions, nor are they even well-supported hypotheses (such as the hypothesis that smoking causes cancer). Each is an elaborate scheme of interconnected ideas, strongly supported by evidence, that accounts for a great variety of phenomena.
Because a theory is a complex of statements, it usually does not stand or fall on the basis of a single critical test (as simple hypotheses often do). Rather, theories evolve as they are confronted with new phenomena or observations; parts of the theory are discarded, modified, added. The theory of heredity, for instance, consisted at first of Mendel's laws of particulate inheritance, dominance, and independent segregation of the "factors" (genes) that affect different characteristics. Exceptions to dominance and independent segregation were soon found, but the core principle of particulate inheritance remained. Building on and adding to this core throughout the twentieth century, geneticists have developed a theory of heredity far more complex and detailed than Mendel could have conceived. Parts of the theory are exceedingly well established, other parts are still tentative, and we may expect many additions and changes as the mechanisms of heredity and development are plumbed further."
---- Douglas Futuyma,Hypotheses, Facts, and the Nature of Science

Thank you for saying the same thing I was saying only far better. Parts of theory change when new and better facts are found

[LWsciencejunkie]

Lawrence Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>
I wish!

Have you checked out the LHC?

You should also take a look ata;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13b...

[PoKay1kaDuB]

Easter Bunny wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, if you believe the PR about "ID-lite", then maybe such an open-minded scheme as you're thinking of will be taught in some place at some time. Me, I'm skeptical that this will turn out to be the popular approach. Realistically, could that possibly be the goal of the same people who failed to get Creationism into all schools?
But as for trying to find the real cause of existence, unless you're a religious person with a bias, I don't think you'd be so stuck on ID as the proper approach to USE SCIENCE to answer the questions that are currently unanswered.
The thing is, whenever something is ambiguous, people can insist whatever they like about it. So even if you take the rather common religious person approach and say that you're comfortable with evolution, answering the pre-bang questions might not happen for a long time to come, if ever. This means that for the rest of time we'll be teaching a Christian-based interpretation of the source of existence because it's probably an unanswerable question that will always leave the door open for any conjecture at all.

I actually see your point. But I don't think it would go down as you think. SINCE we will probably not know the answers for a long time to come if ever, then it doesn't mean we have to endure that endless span of time teaching kids that Yahweh did it in six days, or that Bhudda says we "always were", to the exclusion of evolutionary theory. Evo theory can be presented as the most scientific theory but in an irrational universe, what is wrong with throwing in the other possibilities? If you are going to mention unobservable uncertainties like abiogenesis and macroevo, then fair is fair. No harm no foul. If we can insure that the children get educated in the future, there shouldn't be much to worry about, if the country goes down and they don't learn didley, then we have bigger problems, they won't be thinking about where we came from, it won't matter what is taught in science class. You will die into extinction so you say, what do you care if the future generations learn ID, you will have absolutely no awareness of it. It's funny how people make this a bigger deal than it really is.
We are past our own destiny as a unified people, we have no defense against corrupt governments anymore, who freakin cares, no more harm can come from this than what is already going on in the world. If the gov't doesn't want it, it won't happen, it doesn't matter what we think. We can argue all we want

[Drew Smith]

No Planes wrote:

John Lear has stated unambiguously that the speed and the feats attributed to "UA 175" were physically imposible.No aircraft with high bypass turbofans can fly at 1000 feet at 546 mph.Never demonstrated.The skin friction drag,the interference and wave drag are just too high and the turbofans lose thrust with speed.Air is three times as dense at sea level as at cruising altitudes.

Tell you what...you keep your irrelevant spam out of a forum about evolution and intelligent design, and I promise not to make any posts about evolution in a forum about "I'm singlemindedly addicted to 9/11 conspiracy theories". Deal?

[Easter Bunny]

TerryL wrote:

<quoted text>
Bang, Bang LW's silver hammer
came down on their heads!!!

LW Maxwell?

[rut roh]

Lawrence Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>
Some pretty good rambling there. I share your frustration. It's amazing how close-minded some of our scientific seekers of truth can be.
As a kid, I used to toy with the notion that the primordial "particle" had no size at all, but that it was pure energy. That suggested to me that physicists couldn't find it because it had no mass. I wondered if this energy was thought, or consciousness, and if it was the true source of all that existed. I'm still asking the same questions.

I like that idea!!!! But I have always thought of it as some type of electrical energy rather than thought.

[PoKay1kaDuB]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to redefine what a species is, because there are multiple species of finches. Geographic separation is ONE of the methods speciation is seen to have happened, the technical term is Allopatric speciation.
Peripatric speciation is when a new species are formed from isolated, small peripheral populations which are prevented from exchanging genes with the main population. The London Underground mosquito is a variant of the mosquito Culex pipiens which entered in the London Underground in the nineteenth century and is now a separate species through peripatric speciation.
Parapatric speciation, the zones of two diverging populations are separate but do overlap. Ring species are an excellent example.
Sympatric speciation, species diverge while inhabiting the same place. Three-spined sticklebacks and Tennessee cave salamanders are examples.
It's more than just geographic separation that can cause speciation, many environmental factors can contribute, geographical separation is just one of them, and the one mose easily recognized.

Right, any divergence that is observable is microevolution in my book. But divergence of human and ape from a common anscestor is another category, whatever you wanna call it. That is not observable, testable, no real evidence. If we diverged from a common anscestor, monkeys would have had the same potential, and you would expect them to at least be weaving baskets by now. We've been through that one before, so no need to rehash.

[Drew Smith]

Todd wrote:

You want to disprove God's existance and say it's all based on evolution.

Given that the vast majority of those who accept evolution are *theists*, and that over 11,000 U.S. clergy have signed a letter stating that they fully accept evolution, I would say that you're sadly mistaken.

***

Todd wrote:

I say there is no such thing as evolution, only adaptation.

What is it that you think adaptation is?

***

Todd wrote:

DNA base elements (nucleotide pairs) already exist.. where did they come from? Why are new base elements not being created or added to it's structure?

Because today there are an awful lot of little living things around that would eat them.