Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

[Jordo]

I didn't bother to waste my time reading all 577 prior post's, I did read a few of the first posts however and continue to be amazed at the followers of the Evolution religion...amazing how humans desire to have faith in the unseen...and Evolution continues to be just that... unseen

[Jammer]

PBF wrote:

<quoted text>
I am agnostic....
What expriment proves your side.
Please think before you use evolution since they have yet to find species jumping in evolution and they do not and can not explain the start of life.
Also I find it interesting how many democrats use religeon, Clinton & Obama. I find it more interesting that if they say they believe in a christian god but do not believe in creationism/intellegent design. Have you asked them. I respect those who live by thier beliefs rather than obvious hipocrites.....Please tell me that all of you good athiests vote independent, cause in this election you only have hipocrits to vote for......

I'd love to vote for an athiest. but no I will not vote for a gun stealing dem but at least John McCain says that the earth is billions of years old it is a start.

[Jammer]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
I.D. do not say GOD is the designer. WE DON'T IDENTIFY THE CREATOR! Mainstream media got you people minds all corrupted.

maybe not but it is christains that are pushing I.D. so it is the christains god that I.D. is talking about. Or what then Zeus is the creator. ya right

[London Water]

myspace.com/londonwater

[Jammer]

Jordo wrote:

I didn't bother to waste my time reading all 577 prior post's, I did read a few of the first posts however and continue to be amazed at the followers of the Evolution religion...amazing how humans desire to have faith in the unseen...and Evolution continues to be just that... unseen

Realy Evolution unseen. I guess you sit down and chat with your god over tea.
God is unseen Evolution is seen fossils can be seen touched weighted tested. gods not!!!

[Darwins Stepchild]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
No, the people who call themselves scientist looses for not following the evidence to *whereever* it leads.

Infinite...

The only thing you have that leads to ID is your pipe dream. There is no scientific evidence that remotely points to ID. IC is a bust. SCI is a bust. Both have been soundly refuted.

[PBF]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Infinite...
The only thing you have that leads to ID is your pipe dream. There is no scientific evidence that remotely points to ID. IC is a bust. SCI is a bust. Both have been soundly refuted.

Just curious, your take on Ben Steins "Expelled"

[Darwins Stepchild]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
okay, correct me if i'm wrong but your telling me that they did not use irreducible complexity as evidence nor did they use genetic information as evidence for design?

SCI, IIRC, was not introduced at the trial. Dembski had a snit and refused to testify for the defense.

As for IC, Behe was butchered on cross examination. He was forced to admit he had not even glanced at any of a huge stack of papers that proved his examples of IC weren't. Further, when Ken Miller was on the stand, he thoroughly debunked IC. IC was a complete bust for the defense.

Most telling, to me, was Behe's admission about the scientific standing of ID.

Now, read carefully. You are NOT going to like what you read, But it is the truth. You can check the trial transcripts online.

Behe admitted on the stand that, under the current definition of science, ID is not science. GOT THAT? Behe said that the definition of science would have to be changed to include study of the supernatural in order for ID to be considered science. He was forced to admit that astrology would count as science under his definition.

There you have it...from the big shot ID scientist himself...ID is not science.

[Bud]

PBF wrote:

<quoted text>
I am agnostic....
What expriment proves your side.
Please think before you use evolution since they have yet to find species jumping in evolution and they do not and can not explain the start of life.
Also I find it interesting how many democrats use religeon, Clinton & Obama. I find it more interesting that if they say they believe in a christian god but do not believe in creationism/intellegent design. Have you asked them. I respect those who live by thier beliefs rather than obvious hipocrites.....Please tell me that all of you good athiests vote independent, cause in this election you only have hipocrits to vote for......

What experiment proves my side?

Thousands of them. 150 years worth of testing and research.

Your are simply incorrect in your description of evolution. Evolution does not describe one species "jumping". Evolution does not attempt to describe the origin of life.

Democrats? What does that have to do with science?

Pick up a biology book.

[Darwins Stepchild]

PBF wrote:

<quoted text>
Just curious, your take on Ben Steins "Expelled"

I will admit, I have not seen it. Haven't had a chance to. I will probably watch it just out of curiosity when it comes out on DVD.

I HAVE been following the story for about a year now, ever since the brouhaha over the interviews came to light.

From what I know about the movie, which is quite a bit, I would say it is a crock.

The whole Darwin/Hitler connection has been floating around creationists since WWII. It is a bunch of bull if you know anything about the real history of Hitler. And I have studied WWII pretty extensively.

I have also followed the stories for years about most of the scientists they claimed were canned because of ID. Admittedly, ID may have added a touch of fuel to the fire, but in general, the scientist got canned because they were lousy scientists.

And what the movie claims happened to them is way over blown. Gonzalez didn't get fired. He was denied tenure. And if you read the story, he deserved it. Virtually no publications, grants or graduate students. He didn't deserve tenure. They claimed Sternberg got fired. Wrong...Sternberg had resigned before anyone even found out about the incident. As for his other positions...he was invited back after his term expired.

The movie is a ****y piece of propaganda from all I have read.

Go to ExpelledExposed.com and check out the other side of the story.

[lisa]

Why not,you people voted for 3rd. graders to learn about sex ed. thats nuts.....

[Anathema]

PBF wrote:

<quoted text>
Just curious, your take on Ben Steins "Expelled"

I haven't yet seen it, but every review I've seen has panned it cinematically.
From the descriptions, it sounds like Ben Stein's efforts to discredit the scientific community had completely backfired.

Of course, it is possible that with his twisted sense of humor, he purposefully torpedoed the movie as a way of emphasizing the stupidity of the ID crowd.

I'd like to watch it, provided I can see if for free and I can get my drunk on first!

[Darwins Stepchild]

Jammer wrote:

<quoted text>
theories of evolution of the chemical elements in the universe following the Big Bang and through nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovas.
Stars fuse hydrogen into helium when hydrogen is gone stars turn into red giants and fuse helium into oxygen then oxygen into iron that dont lasts long because that uses more energy then it make so the star collapses in on its self and blows up
biger stars make heaver elements

Just a bit of correction here. You got most of it right except for a few details.

An average size star, like our Sun, will fuse helium into carbon...plus a bit of nitrogen and oxygen. Once all the helium is gone, the star collapses into a white dwarf.

A really big star will fuse the carbon into iron. Once its core is all iron, it collapses. Doesn't matter how big the star is. Iron is it. As you noted, to fuse anything heavier than iron takes more energy than you get back. So the reaction can not sustain itself.

This collapse causes a supernova. NOW you have all the energy you need to fuse anything. Supernovae are where all the heavy elements are formed.

White dwarfs can pick up extra mass through collisions. If they reach a certain limit, they will go supernova also...and will also produce heavy elements.

Astrophysics lecture over.

As I said, you had most of the details right. Hope this helps.

[PBF]

Bud wrote:

<quoted text>
What experiment proves my side?
Thousands of them. 150 years worth of testing and research.
Your are simply incorrect in your description of evolution. Evolution does not describe one species "jumping". Evolution does not attempt to describe the origin of life.
Democrats? What does that have to do with science?
Pick up a biology book.

Thats an answer???????
Because most athiests seem to hate Republicans.
Open your mind.
Breath a little
look in the mirror
smile
get a little hate off of your mind.
Biology book
Theories
An educated guess
Did scientists of old believe the world was flat.
They were know to treat those who dared to think against thier peers as heretics.
Open a history book.

[lisa]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
I did, here is my first cut at a review:
I finally saw it, at the invitation of a Creationist friend of mine and She was heartily disappointed in the movie. I am still writing up what I felt was wrong with it, but her words were surprising, so I put them here for anyone who is interested.
First of all she was disappointed because at no time the movie defined what was Intelligent Design and the supposed science behind it. She firmly believed that if they had the no one could deny the movie a viable cry in the wilderness of fighting against the scientific community. So she was disappointed there.
Even she had serious issues with the connection between eugenics and evolution. In her words "That's the stupidest thing I have ever seen ... I don't agree with evolution, but that's just plain wrong!... What were they thinking?"
The scene of Ben Stein running all over Seattle in his cheap suit and ugly sneakers was ridiculous. And portraying the Discover Institute as a hole in the wall office was just marketing to build up the appearance of being some sort of Underdogs. Apparently my friend has been to the DI in Seattle and their facilities are remarkably modern, large, and plush!
She was also very disappointed in the scene of him lecturing what was supposed to be a group of students. She learned just after the movie -- not from me, but an article in a paper -- that the students were extras as opposed to real students she was pretty disgusted.
Her final words to me were an apology for putting me through that. I don't blame her, I blame Ben Stein. As you might guess I was looking to be pretty well bored, but I have to say I did laugh a lot, much to the displeasure of others in the audience. Anyone who swallows Ben Stein's 'mockumentary' really needs their heads examined.
I agreed with her on all points, plus a couple of my own: What the hell is "Big Science"? I think Ben Stein swiped the "Big" moniker from the "Big Business" of the 80's political debates and "Big Oil" of the 90's. There is no Big Science" and his approach at explaining it was ham fisted and utterly hilarious. The Scientific Community would certainly have trouble pointing to themselves, or any subset of themselves as some super shadow organization keeping scientific ideas hidden from view.
The examples of the supposed people persecuted have all be addressed here and in others places. In my opinion Ben Stein lied! He didn't get the Sternberg, Gonzales, Crocker, or Marks story straight and just presented them in the way he wished they had happened. My God since when did "Academic Freedom" mean that you could do anything you like in the classroom and not be held accountable. The movie was certainly slanted in the extreme and anyone who says Sternberg, Gonzales, or Crocker as victims better get their facts together.
Even though the movie did it's best to present Dawkins and Meyers is the worst possible way, I think they still came across more believable than the others -- but everything including the lighting and the way they were edited left much to be desired.
I have many more issues, but I am still writing them up. I have to look up a Darwin quote they used, I think they blew it big time, but I might need to see it again, I don't take shorthand and didn't get the whole quote -- as they said it. All in all I think my friend, while she isn't moving toward any support for the theory of evolution, she is certainly heading away from Intelligent Design! She plans on informing her Church Group about the screening and asked for my finished notes of my comments when I get done. An afternoon well spent!
[e-mail]
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/

i think u have way to much time on your hands

[polymath257]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
True, we can not detect the big bang directly. However, we do see plenty of signs of it in its after effects.
For one, we do know the universe is expanding. That is beyond question. Ergo, if one could travel backward in time, the universe would be smaller and smaller. This has a lower limit of size 0.
We also see the Cosmic Background Radiation. This is microwave radiation that is from the heat of the big bang. This is pretty conclusive evidence if one understands the physics involved.
We can not see past the CBR to the bb itself, because the universe would have been filled with plasma, which is opaque. The CBR comes from the time the universe first became transparent.(BTW, this is also the time when the first atoms formed. Plasma is completely ionized gas...no atoms.)

Actually, the observed anisotropies in the CBR give us a LOT of information about what happened before that point. This information can take us back to the point of inflation. So, while the decoupling that produced the CBR happened about 300,000 years after the expansion began, we actually have good evidence back to a fraction of a second after it began.

[PBF]

Anathema wrote:

<quoted text>
I haven't yet seen it, but every review I've seen has panned it cinematically.
From the descriptions, it sounds like Ben Stein's efforts to discredit the scientific community had completely backfired.
Of course, it is possible that with his twisted sense of humor, he purposefully torpedoed the movie as a way of emphasizing the stupidity of the ID crowd.
I'd like to watch it, provided I can see if for free and I can get my drunk on first!

Being agnostic I have found the views of both sides amusing. Both narcissistic in thier views.
I found the the movie interesting in its approach.
You are getting bad info he actually gives the Darwinists an opportunity to explain themselves in detail not in well crafted sound bites...
Do not let those on the left do your thinking and try to stay sober.

[American Atheist]

Religion is a disease! Religion kills rational thinking.Religion is not what gives us Morals.Our parents teach us that. They teach us right from wrong.For an example look at a troubled teen who was never taught morals from his parents.They usually have no remorse over a child that has had a good upbringing.It is not religion that plays a part in it it is simply education, when we inflict these falsified values into our public schools our freedoms our liberties our way of life will be destroyed.Even if I was a so called believer in religion I would be outraged by receiving a government documented way of teaching religion. Which then could be fabricated to control the individuals thoughts and beliefs.To me this is very dangerous ground and should be outlawed. Freedom of religion is a right this country should not just throw away.

[Pat]

Larry wrote:

Let's talk facts not emotion:

4) This issue has nothing to do with Church and State. It is not a religious question; it is a scientific question. And science demands that all alternatives be considered unless and until one is "proved" correct or one is "proved" incorrect. To exclude the concept of "intelligent design" (again put aside the issue of God in this equation)is to limit science to only a portion of the alternative answers. Only an insecure or small minded person would do that.
Larry (a biomechanical and genetic scientist)

First off Larry this is no more a scientific question then any other unsupported religious question. Plus, what makes you think science has excluded anything? All I.D. is, is an idea, it is not an alternative any more than saying the universe was created by the flying spaghetti monster. There is nothing to I.D. to exclude or accept from a scientific standpoint. It has zero going for it at this time but you can bet your last dollar that when some genuine evidence does present itself, it will be studied. With I.D. there is nothing at all to teach in school. All I.D. is right now is a "whait if" that happens to coincide with "god did it". I could come up with 10 dozen new what ifs every day of my life concerning the origin of life and the universe, should we also teach all of those too Mr Scientist?

[Darwins Stepchild]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the observed anisotropies in the CBR give us a LOT of information about what happened before that point. This information can take us back to the point of inflation. So, while the decoupling that produced the CBR happened about 300,000 years after the expansion began, we actually have good evidence back to a fraction of a second after it began.

Thanx, pm. I thought most of the info on the very early universe had come from Fermi Lab and CERN...confirmation of what the theories predicted.

I knew there were some things you could tell from the nature of the CBR, but didn't know you could get that much.