My Clay Sun has published a report on the recent Clay County School Board meeting:
Despite impassioned opposition from science experts, teachers and some clergy, Clay County School Board members unanimously resolved Tuesday night that evolution should be presented as a theory, and not fact, in the classroom.
The board passed a resolution, proposed by Superintendent David Owens, asking the Florida Department of Education to reword its newly proposed state standards, which presents evolution as “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence.”
The Baker County, Florida, School Board approved a similar resolution a month ago.
The Florida State Board of Education is scheduled to vote Feb. 19th on proposed changes to state science standards.
Creationists will likely continue their campaign that evolution is “just a theory”, and as such should not be presented as fact. Their argument is that unless a theory has been “proved”, it is no more valid than any other theory. They don’t realize – or choose not to acknowledge – that most theories in science have not been “proved”, and it’s not the purpose of science to provide dogmatic proof of anything.
Scientists will likely continue to get worked up and make compelling logical arguments that will go right over the Creationists’ heads. They’ll not accept that appeals to logic don’t work on those who have abandoned logic for faith.
Here are some links if you’d like to read more.
My Clay Sun report on the Clay County School Board resolution
Florida Today article on the upcoming State School Board vote
Florida Citizens for Science coverage of the issue
We need to decide how we’ll proceed …
Lots of people say “there’s no evidence either way so it must be equal probability” about God, but there’s no evidence that there isn’t an element that tastes exactly like chocolate, is green, one millilitre weighs the same as a car and is normally 5000 degrees celsius, so is it equal probability?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is showing social evolution, by destroying their own education system they are condemning their children to an inferior future. If creationists are so afraid of evolution their faith must not be very strong. This is simply ridiculous, we have to keep Florida from demeaning evolution like this or other states will begin to follow suit and they may even begin to attack the FSM ‘theory’ of life.
I am ready to contact any board member, freedom from religion group, news group, anyone to bring this situation to the front pages and let the sensible people take action.
-Will
-Atheist Pitbull
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To hell with the counties – go after the heart of the education system the school board itself!!! RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
it is more powerful weapon to make them look IDiots, than simply reject ID/crea bull***t
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am afraid that we cannot do much. Our best hope is that people in florida will be concerned about it and work out together against this political crap.
RAmen, my friend, RAmen… this country is going as crazy as the world, as crazy as any God who would create it… I am so glad that I found here some people to understand that. HE (the FSM) necessarily created it by accident, or being drunk.
But no time to despair, let work for the next generation. We certainly need to increase visibility, whitout to get shot. Hard task.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evolution is a theory as much as Gravity is a theory. When will they learn?
Anyways, I say we try and get our theory of creation included.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Such a shame. I agree that logical arguments can unfortunately go no where.
I obviously don’t live in Clay County, and I’m curious: do schools in that area have “World Religions” classes at any level of public education? Some variation of this class exists at the majority of Canadian high schools – is this the case in the States?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am from Florida Citizens for Science. It is apparent that you folks had quite an effect on Polk County a while ago. With that in mind, I would recommend that you go ahead and take the same approach with the other counties and the state BoE.
Scroll down a bit on the FCS blog and you’ll see a post that lists darn near every single person and county that has come out as anti-evolution. Reference and contact information is all there for your use.
Thanks,
Brandon
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Looks like I’m going to have to re-mail my letter and start advocating others to follow suit
This is a horrible, spit-in-the-face at science.
I and embarrassed to live in Florida.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The more people know they’re created by the FSM the better!
Because uhm… you know. It’s good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evolution IS ‘just a theory’.
.
But so is Creationism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Praise be to our Lord the Flying Spaghetti Monster! We have another chance to ensure that impressionable children are taught the truth about the origin of man. Maybe “evolution” is just a theory, but our explanation is a FACT, and should be taught along side those other “explanations.”
.
Let’s show support for the inclusion of alternate “theories” of the origin of man and the proliferation of species all over the world. What a glorious day!!
.
RAman
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seriously, nothing scientific is ‘proved’ as science deals not with truth, and science is not a hierarchy. When somebody says that a theory is ‘just a theory’ because it ‘hasn’t been proved’ they are showing their ignorance of science as a theory isn’t a second rate speculation; it is a well studied, peer reviewed, and consistent explanation of something observed.
Example: Person A claims there is a dragon in his garage. Person B asks for verification. Person A claims that the dragon is invisible and cannot be felt. As the dragon has no means by which to observe it, it is not verifiable or falsifiable, meaning that it is not science’s realm to deal with.
In the same path, creationism cannot be placed under the class of science, as it is not science, not even pseudo science; it is nothing but speculation based not upon observation but faith. Faith is not wrong, but it is not scientific, and to believe it is is not only disrespecting science but disrespecting the basis of that faith itself is, in most cases, not up for scrutiny.
Sorry if I’m taking things a bit seriously, but I personally get really peeved when I hear of individuals bashing on rational, scientific reasoning ignorant of the meaning of the terms they use. The only word for such things is quite honestly bullshit.
If they cannot see what it is the science is, then they must agree to teach the ways of our Noodly Master, lest they feel his saucy wrath (i think they have a creme for that now).
May your pasta never cool,
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It should remain as a theory. Evolutionary Theory is a theory because it can’t be proven. Theories cannot be proven. Hypothesis’ can be proven, but not theories. Once there is a hypothesis, we will see, but for now, there isn’t. On the flip side, all religious doctrines are false by nature (except FSMism of course). Evolutionary Theory should not be considered “fact” (until there is a written hypothesis with parameters) and religion should be kept in church.
“If religion is scientific enough to be taught in science class, then that must mean that science is spiritual enough to be taught in church.” – 2 Gryphon
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is my understanding that evolution IS theory.
Perhaps my definitions are wrong, but a theory comes from a hypothesis (which ID has never been able to “evolve” from, pun intended) and the hypothesis is put to test, quantified, and recreated – all based on facts (water freezes at 32 F, humans develop from the combination of both parents genetic material, 2 + 2 = 4, etc).
Hence I do not see what the big deal if the school board wants to state that it is a theory. Or am I missing part of the story here?
Instead we should make sure that they begin to explain to kids (and adults) exactly what a scientific theory is. Every frustrating argument I have had with a creationist breaks down when they use the term “theory” to describe intuition and/or any loosely put together idea…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Religion is a hoax
But Evolution still is just a theory, at least from a scientific point of view.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A victory for Pastafarianism!!! Now we can spread The Good Word (and The Good Food) to little children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BY THE WAY!!!!! Florida will be 100% more Pastafarian in the next two weekends. It’s GASPARILLA!!!!! There will be a dramatic rise in Pirate activity. The children’s parade was yesterday — AND it’s already colder!!!! Coincidence? I think not. Next weekend is the big one with all the GROG and drunken wenches. FSM be praised.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gaar. I guess the mounds of evidence supporting truth and rationality can’t get past centuries of indoctrination. And really, the change in wording isn’t that bad. Honestly, taking the word “theory” out of it may help avoid confusion. Perhaps we should lobby the Church to teach the (non-scientific) “theory” of creation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
On another website (arstechnica.com) I read another quote from one of these county board meetings that gives such a clear insight as to the level of scientific insight we’re up against:
.
“evolution is presented as one of several theories as to how the universe was formed.”
.
When the YECs can’t distinguish between the origins of different life forms and the origins of the universe anymore, isn’t it time to rethink the place of the democratic process in determining science curricula?
One of the ancient Greeks once summed it up slightly arrogantly but very correctly:
.
“Democracy is a pain if you know better.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Offtopic: Darwin is currently spinning in his crypt. So is each intelligent being that ever died. So why not harness that rotational energy? Hook em up to a generator? Or, better yet, pass a “teach evolution as a fact” bill and every stupid or gullible being will start spinning. Apparently, there’s more of those, therefore, there was more of those, so hooking up those crypts would create a lot of energy! And help fight against global warming!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
how do i contact the school board????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Give us the links and let’s start writing now. Why wait? It’s much harder to put the cat in the bag than to keep it from getting out. While I can certainly see the upside of teaching Flying Spaghetti Monsterism in public screwals – it would really get people to think about religion – science class is not the place.
My fingers are at the ready, – Fizz.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I live in the county and, as a student, it’s pretty sickening to see stuff like this being done. And people wonder why Florida’s public schools suck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t have any problem with them teach evolution as a theory. After all, that’s what it is, just like the theory of gravity or Quantum theory.
What they’re really trying to do is say “hey, you aren’t saying all of your science is absolutely correct in absolutely every situation, thus it’s just a /’theory’/ that we can just ignore. LALALALALA, CAN’T HEAR YOU!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is it just me or are the comments not working right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Now that we have decided to lobby for equal time, is there a central e-mail we are sending our e-mails to?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There was an editorial in the Miami Herald on Jan 10 in which another Florida Superintendent is quoted saying resolutions against evolution have been passed in 12 districts.
http://www.miamiherald.com/418/story/373532.html
“Oscar Howard Jr., superintendent of Taylor County’s School District, and Danny Lundy, vice chairman of the School Board, spoke in accents from that other Florida. ”We’re opposed to teaching evolution as a fact,” Howard said, adding that his School Board and 11 others have passed resolutions against the imposition of evolution in the school curriculum.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You can tell that the people who support ID are poorly educated. An educated person knows there is a difference between ’scientific theory” and an every day theory. Hell they taught us that in my high school and that was 20 years ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Stevo
I don’t know about other schools in the county, but as of 2000, Orange Park High offered classes on the Old Testament and New Testament as electives, but no other classes on world religion. It is possible that the topic was discussed in the (also elective) humanities/anthropology courses they offered at the time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
“In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
“In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement “It’s not a fact, it’s only a theory.” True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.”
You are confusing the common usage definition of the word theory with the scientific definition. The two are not synonymous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There seems to be a little confusion among our Pastafarian brothers and sisters so let me lay down the facts as it were. The Scientific Method starts with facts which are observable events, objects, or what have you. Now facts are a dime a dozen: the sun rises in the east, I had cornflakes for breakfast, school buses are yellow. On their own facts don’t mean much but thanks to natural human curiosity we want to know how things work, function etc. etc. so we come up with a hypothesis to explain these phenomenon which requires research, observation of more facts and experimentation. Once we think our hypothesis is pretty solid we present it to the scientific community which puts it under immense scrutiny and does its own research, observation of even more facts and experimentation to see if the hypothesis is up to snuff. Now when a general consensus is reached among the scientific community that hypothesis may become a theory but if any new damning evidence comes out against it we’ll have to alter the theory or start over from scratch. Now the million dollar question is What is evolution? Well it’s both fact and theory. Evolution is fact in that organisms have been observed to change through successive generations plus speciation events have been observed in laboratories numerous times. That is fact aspect the theory is the how or why ergo Darwin. Now gravity is also fact and theory, one can show the fact behind it every second of every day just by let’s say dropping your bowl of cornflakes Voilà! it falls to the ground. The theory is why it falls now interestingly enough we don’t have really any hell of an idea how, several physicists though have hypothesized things like bending of space. But the fact is the theory of evolution is on the order of many magnitudes more well understood, tested etc. than gravity now how’s that for some food for thought. Anyway that’s my .02 cents
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
abe chutmarani sale sab………..mailko delete kia hain kya…..sale randio ke aulad. oooooo…ooo..ooo.oo.o
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
After wading through all the verbal carpet bombing taking place over on the aforementioned miami herald article, I see no end in sight.
The willfully ignorant feel safe and secure with their faith, antthing else is bad.
they “know” that they are morally superior to us critical thinkers because they have faith.
The secularists(?) just cant understand why they cling to their faith in the light of overwhelming evidence. They see it as a lack of education.
Maybe they are both right…or wrong. I dont hold enough pretty pieces of stamped paper to even touch this argument. BUT, I will say this: Our children believe what they are told to believe. Tthey have it tempered when they come home, go to church, play video games, etc. But in the end, what they are taught, and the opinions of the peiple they care about are everything.
I say remove evolution completely from high school. They only spend a short week on it anyway, and most kids struggle to even stay awake for it. I see ID having the same effect. Saveit for college, when people who WANT to know can learn the facts.
Let the ignorant stay ignorant, we will always need someone to flip burgers, after all, if thats where you end up, it’s god’s plan right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@neo-noodly convert,
The best reason to teach evolution is to destroy many of the lies that religion has put forth, thereby diminishing the negativity of religion and greatly expanding the happiness and accomplishments of humanity. If “only… a short week ” is spent on evolution, then that should be changed to – until everyone understands it, with regular repitition just to make sure.
I’ve seen the preacher and the damage done, Fizzmick
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Science deals with complexity and order only. Whenever origin is discussed the realm of science is no longer a part of the conversation. Origin relates to philosophy, theology, or cosmology. Hence, Darwin’s “Origin of a Species” is not a science but a philosophy or cosmological view.
In fact, Ben Franklin had learned how to harness electricity and invented the lightning rod. Numerous experiments took place testing inanimated tissues, shocking them then observing reflexes. Mary Shelley wrote the horror story “Frankenstein” in 1825 commentng on these experiments. In 1832, Darwin had his evolution enlightenment. It seems to me that Darwin was riding on the wings of fantasy not science.
It is a shame that so many people today believe in a false science and understanding of the natural.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Two separate points, hopefully fast:
First, I second Fizzmick; do we have good addresses to write (respectfully…) to (…to which to write?), re Florida creationism?
.
Second, quite some few Pastafarians seem to have a very firm grasp of some of the nittygritty that gets scrambled in “technical” debates with ID-ers; Wench Nikkiee comes to mind immediately. I watched a “NOVA” program as a dropped-jaw technical ninny the other night: it revolved around a large Turkish family in which many of the children walked on their hands, rather than upright. Before it was done, we were led thru evolutionary genetics, how research on such an issue is done and what kind of theories (….er, hypotheses…) are developed and can be checked. It ended with me – a big, tough pirate – a little teary because of the hope and kindness that materialized in the awful situation. Anyway, pointers to good educational materials from knowledgeable folks out there would help! Wench N. has already noted some….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There needs to be a bigger campaign to highlight the proper meaning of “theory”.
In science, a theory is a higher level of knowledge than fact. Facts are stuff like “the sky is blue”, “if you drop your computer out of the window it will fall” etc. Facts just are. Theories explain WHY facts happen – why the sky is blue, why the computer falls. They give facts meaning and reason.
Using the proper scientific use of the word “theory”, gravity is “just a theory” as is atomic theory, heliocentricity and many other scientific “facts”.
There hasn’t been enough effort made to get this embedded in the minds of the general public, with the effect that the creationists can shout “just a theory” and get away with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Neo-noodly convert, said in part:
.
“Let the ignorant stay ignorant, we will always need someone to flip burgers, after all, if thats where you end up, it’s god’s plan right?”
.
I say, “Sometimes the ignorant end up in the White House.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul, on Jan 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 am, said in part:
.
“There seems to be a little confusion among our Pastafarian brothers and sisters so let me lay down the facts as it were. The Scientific Method starts with facts which are observable events, objects, or what have you. Now facts are a dime a dozen: the sun rises in the east, I had cornflakes for breakfast, school buses are yellow. On their own(,) facts don’t mean much…”
.
Actually, facts, themselves, do not MEAN anything. “Facts” or existing “states of affairs” have no meaning. They just are – they exist. Meaning is assigned by people.
.
We might find it meaningful that event A always occurs before event B. We might infer that A causes B. That could be our theory about the cause of B. That “theory” would be how the facts of A and B become meaningful. If tests of the theory should fail to support the meaning we attach to it, then the theory will turn out to be meaningless.
Paul, your explanation was so clear and understandable that I hope everyone reads it, especially those who doubt the validity evolution as an explanation for how we got here.
.
You said, “Anyway that’s my .02 cents.” I think it was worth much more than 2/100 of a cent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apprentice Frederic -
I missed that NOVA but will watch it online. Kudos to you for your compassion and recognition of the “hope and kindness” that keeps many researchers plugging away at difficult problems.
You wanted suggestions about educational materials from “knowledgeable folks”. All I know is what I learned in my studies, formal and otherwise. I know I came to understand Evolution deeply enough that by my senior year at college I was smitten with its beauty, elegance, complexity, unity, and truth. Graduate work and research reinforced my wonder.
The problem with learning about evolution is that there are too many ways of approaching the subject. Molecular genetics, population genetics, molecular systematics, paleontology, ecology, geology ….. Evolution is the framework that links all of biology together and evidence from every field of biology supports the grand and great theory of Evolution.
I recommend starting at the beginning- Darwin’s Origin of the Species. After that ……I don’t know how much you want to read.
The Double Helix, Watson & Crick
A sci-fi novel: Code of the Lifemaker, James P. Hogan
And fairly arcane: Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution, Li & Graur, but rather readable: Phylogeography; the History and Formation of Species, John C. Avise.
Those last two are only if you’re very curious.
Of course Edward O. Wilson, Dawkins, and Gould are all good and you will learn from their books. To get a real grip on the theory you will have to do some studying.
Which brings me to: NOVA gets its stuff right, but a lot of science reporting gets things wrong. Sometimes it’s a little thing like calling a protozoan a virus, but sometimes its a major concept like evolution. Evolution doesn’t mean our ancestors were monkeys!
Humans are not the most highly evolved life-form that every other life form is trying to evolve into! Forgive my !!! Both of those egregious mistakes were made (in conversation with me) by elementary school teachers. Teachers, not first graders. Two different teachers obviously, one a creationist, another enlightened enough to believe in, but not understand evolution. I put my child in a different school.
Sorry so long, but Apprentice Frederic, your desire to learn has moved me to excess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you ignore the law because of Christian beliefs, you are guilty of religious discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and even atheists. This is a federal crime. Start enforcing the law and lock up a few of these morons. Board members do not have the right or the power to force Christian beliefs down the throats of others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have a question about this religion. I have not been able to dis-prove this FSM so I am converted. My question is like any good religion there must be some type of power structure. What does it take to be a pirate? Are there different levels of pirate hood? How are these levels earned if there are levels?
Thanks
Hammer
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
interesting.
a theory is something that hasn’t been proven yet, right?
umm, creationism isn’t proven. No religion is set in stone. The Bible was written by men, sinning men, mind you. The word of God needs to be interpreted in order to be written down.
I don’t understand why our Gospel is any different…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami, please get your facts right. Darwin wrote the “Origin of Species”, not the “Origin of Life.” The problem he was addressing was how, after life began (by whatever cause), life diversified from original simplicity to the observed multitude of different living forms. His solution to this question was evolution by natural selection. He backed up his proposal by tremendous and intricate observations, made by himself but also by others. This factual support was one of the things that made scientist in the 19th century take evolution seriously. In the 175 plus years since then, thousands of scientists have made millions of observations, ALL OF WHICH have served to confirm the fundamental hypothesis. Now, it might not have turned out this way. One pleistocene rabbit fossil would have made (and, in theory, still could make) the whole thing come crashing down. That is what makes evolutionary theory scientific, and why ID (and pastafarianism) is not scientific but rather religious.
I’m not sure what Ben Franklin (an A list scientist in the 18th century) or Mary Shelly have to do with Darwin.
Respectfully,
–Tom C.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ All,
I have recently visited the florida citizens for science website and discovered that the situation is getting worse by the day. I am not sure is exactly how big of impact we can make but I think it is important we organize a campaign, perhaps in conjuction with other like-minded organizations, to address this issue before it takes firm hold and spreads through the nation. Thank you!
RAmen to all!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Hammer,
I have been visiting this site for a about a year and far as I can tell there are no levels or rank structure. I believe we are all equally important in his noodly embrace. Welcome aboard!
RAmen!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DNAbled,
Many, many thanks! His Very Noodliness has touched me thru you….I’ll be busy for a while!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
TOM, Darwin’s intent was to show the origin of life through speciation. Natural selection is a naturalistic axiom he presented in support of his theory. His theory, when when regressed, naturally takes one to the conclusion of the origin of life. At this point, many believe there was a spark that caused a protoplasmal global to become life much in the same fashion that Mary Shelley wrote about sparking inanimate tissue into the life of Frankenstein. This was the science of the times and the science fiction horror stories that ensued due to Franklins discovery of how to harness electricity.
Belief in speciation, depends on your worldview and how one looks at activities in the metaphysical realm. In general, molecular machines or nano-technology goes to the DNA strand to obtain instructions. These molecular machines then endow biological life. Evolutionist believe that DNA is a blueprint for life for these machines. Over time, the blueprint is adjusted in support of the process of natural selection. The chicken and egg question is a problem in this view. Did life come first or did these molecular machines exist first? Another problem is if the molecular machine becomes irreverisbly damaged it cannot simply repair itself then return to its animated state. The known natural process of enthropy is upheld.
Non-evolutionist believe that DNA is a pattern makers template and not a blueprint. In this view, information is contained not only within the DNA strand but is also applied to DNA. This extra information includes timing, duration, and sequencing of the genes firing and chromosomes attaching. By adjusting the timing, sequence, or duration of a gene firing different species and features will form.
The main point of contention between the two arguments is the origin of all this information. Science cannot explain where information originates. So the problem we humans are confronted with is the limits and truth of science. Is speciation an honest natural process? Or are the species the outcome of a DNA template in which a patternmaker controls the sequencing, firing, and timing of the process?
Another major point of contention is the notion of Randomness. Evolution relies on this as a natural phenomenon since it is the driver of evolutionary change. Non-evolution proponents do not believe randomness exist as a natural phenomenon.
Both Evolution and Non-Evolution arguments are philosophies that use a kind-of-science to explain their view point. If one or the other is taught then both need to be taught. Once again science only deals with complexity and order. Humans need to be honest about their science too.
Clearly, Darwin’s cosmological views crept into his science. In my view, the schools are doing a tremendous disservice to our future generations by not training them with the proper appreciation for both the art and the science of the natural.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hey where do I email these people about adding these much needed clarifications to things like gravity? if i had the gospel on hand I would quote but isn’t our main issue with people who think like this that they don’t go all the way? I say we do a mass email campaign about theory vs fact. The wikipedia article has a nice talk page for it that people can be directed to, there’s only slim discussion of provability but those who brought up ID/evolution being invalid were blathering lunatics (and unreadable, further proving the point).
so do we have some email addresses?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami it is clear you are a creationist.
.
Sorry but Darwin’s theory when regressed does not imply an originator. That is something a creationist would come up with to put evolution and creationism into the same realm. It is not. It would be a disservice to teach creationism as science when it is not. By your own words when you start speaking of the metaphysical realm you left scientific theory and go into the realm of religion or philosophy. If you want to teach creationism in one of those classes then that is fine. But Darwin did not intend for his theory to be used to explain how it all began. When taught in a science class they do not teach where we came from but how the species has evolved over time.
.
The arguments you put forth as what the non-evolutionist proclaim is the same answer they use for everything else. It is basically along the lines of God wanted it that way so it wasn’t a mistake yet you can’t show any proof. Your DNA template is a bunch of BS. Must be nice to be able to say it has to do with the timing, sequence etc.. so there is no such thing as randomness. Like everything else with creationists (yes non-evolutionists are creationists so call it was it is) you can not disprove your argument, and therefore it can’t be scientific theory. We can prove a gene mutation or you can disprove a gene mutation in the DNA. That’s the difference.
.
When you put “Another problem is if the molecular machine becomes irreverisbly damaged it cannot simply repair itself then return to its animated state. The known natural process of enthropy is upheld.” is an old argument that creationists have been pointing out for years .
.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
.
“Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics”. This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, “The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
.
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don’t violate any physical laws.
.
So as stated before leave religion out of the classroom. It is no surprise we are the laughing stock of the world and our educational system is sub par. It is also not a surprise that it is usually in the Southern states this is a problem, especially in the bible belt where I believe the average I.Q. is that of a retard.
.
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All, the fact that many of you couple Christian beliefs with a so-called science of Evolution indicates a clear understanding on your part that Evolution is truly a counter cosmological revelation to those of Judeo/Christian worldview. From a distant observation point, it seems that many have choosen a side in the fight for cosmological revelations. The agnostics and atheists comment they have no God to defend but attack their defensive points of rooted in a kind-of-science and these people come out of their chairs fighting. It seems to me, in the case of the atheist and agnostics, that they have a God and it is a NULL that they defend. I have spent time with many other faiths such as Islamics. They too have a kind-of-science that justifies thier worldview.
The question, each human is challenged with is discovery of the cosmological truth. This cosmological truth has no relevance to those outside the discovery. Our schools should prepare each human being for his life journey and ultimate discovery of truth. This is accomplished by developing skills and introducing tools and methods for the adventure – not telling them this or that cosmological revelation is the way it is.
Coincidentally, the original intent of our forefathers is consistent the challenge of discovery. Thomas Jefferson spoke about the Freest expansion of the human mind. I am bothered that so many push a cosmological view whether that is Evolution, spatial trans-spermia, or some other belief as a scientific truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
Well, realize that science isn’t entirely open-minded, especially to things that’s undetectable. I may not be a scientist of any form, but at least I’m perfectly aware that Science only cares about what is observable and what isn’t, much like Mathematics only about numbers, symbols, and equations. Sure, science teaches some things that we assume is there, yet we can’t observe (example: quarks). But what these assumptions all have in common is that it can be disproved (as with other similarities, but lets stick with this). Think about your own theory for a minute, and see if you can disprove it.
If DNA is merely a pattern-maker template, then it either has no will of its own, or incredibly good at cloaking itself to look like it has no will. Why, it even let us create clones and glow-in-a-dark mice and tobacco plants! Under the assumption that there is a pattern-maker, the only way it will be accepted by science is (assuming it’s indirectly observable) when it can be disproved.
.
Tom was right when he said, “One pleistocene rabbit fossil would have made (and, in theory, still could make) the whole thing come crashing down.” That is a significant disproof of Evolution an archaeologists have yet to find. If your theory has a good disproof to it, I’d like to hear it. Until then, we’ll refuse to see it as a science theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
Also, I don’t know where you made the connection between Frankenstein and Evolution, but Darwin came up with the idea by making connections between different species, farmer’s breeding, fossil records, and most important, shifts in human economics. The growth and death of new businesses gave Darwin the eureka moment when he realized a similar approach can be taken to speciation. With some modifications, the idea fit so well with the data he collected, many readers of his detailed notes urged him to write the “Origin of Species”. Yes, he was PUSHED to write it, not fantasized into writing it.
.
Whether you still want to call that a fantasy is of you opinion, but I think it’s a pretty creative and genius idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All: I am not a creationist. I have only posed contrasting viewpoints. Also the patternmakers template is not my argument. It is one of Matt Ridley’s who is a European Biologist. He has written several books such as ‘Nature Vs Nuture’.
I am versed in science, mathematics, and to some extent various theologies. Transpecies mutation violates many long standing scientific principles and mathematical rigor. If randomness did exist then its opposite, order, could not exist. Science and mathematics are ordered otherwise experimentation and mathematics are impossible. There is no mathematical formula for randomness. The closest approximation has 100 variables but still cannot achieve true randomness. Natural processes / phenomenon, according to the comments I read must be observable and provable. In science, natural processes must also be durable and operate uniformly throughout the physical universe. Yet we have never observed evolutionary progression in practice. If it is a ongoing process then I should observe humans and animals in various stages of evolution today. It should be an ordered process. The arguments for not observing evolutionary progression falls back on randomness and obfuscation both which are not scientific nor mathematical.
Godel’s Theorem is one of the most important understandings in mathematics. It is important to note that mathematics describes our universe. There are many important concepts related to Godels Theorem that will not be discussed here. The implication of Godel is that all logical systems of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules. In order to fully describe a logical system, one has to be outside it looking back but then needs to describe the new vantage point by stepping and looking back further. In short, no system can be self-descriptive. One approach to solving this human perception problem is to have the buck stop with a God. The three monotheistic faiths have a message from a vantage point outside this logical system humans call the world. Godel also has implications on the notion of randomness. In the last 10 years randomness has been redefined from true randomnness or patternless phenomenon to one of degrees or approximation of randomness which is still not true randomness but degrees of probalistic order. The bottom line is that order persist and the human mind is limited in its ability to perceive reality.
I’ll talk about science theory later.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Mr.Miami
I would like to counter your arguements in order as a biologist though I am a tad rusty so please allow me a little leway.
1) Saying that because you cannot model something does not mean it does not exist. There have been countless attempts to model the electrons of the atom, and the final version I saw involved the cloud of probability so just because you cannot model true randomness does not mean it is nonexistent, nor does it mean that it is not the actual state of things in mutation. But even if its not, this does not disprove evolution. Evolution does not require random change. Evolution merely requires that physical traits be capable of being passed from generation to generation and that when there is some form of environmental pressure those traits convey either an advantage or a disadvantage. Whether or not randomness is involved is a question of whether you believe in a truly random world, some do, some do not. This does not change the fact that if a person is born with 6 fingers on each hand, regarless of if this happened because of random chance or the FSM using his Noodlie Apendage to change the DNA, and there is no environmental pressure which favors or disfavors 6 fingered hands then the trait will neither increase or decrease in its prevalence in the population. Similarly, if a trait is normally harmful but in certain environments or forms it provides a fitness gain then the trait increases in the population. We can see this principal in action in our own species in the forms of the genes for Sickle Cell Anemia. In environments where Malaria is extremely common the genes for Sickle Cell Anemia confer a fitness advantage in the heterozygous form. It is believed this is why the genes for this disease are so prevalent in people descended from those who lived in the areas of Africa where Malaria was particularly prevalent.
2) As to the statement that we have never observed evolution, I am going to assume that by this you mean speciation. If not then there are countless examples of natural selection in action which can easily be referenced. For speciation the examples are far harder to come across so I will merely direct you to a link of several documented instances
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
3) Regarding your reference to Godel’s work; While I am not a mathematician and so have very little knowledge of this, it seems to me to be saying that a theory cannot be both complete and consistent. This fits with the idea that we cannot prove that evolution is real, we can merely find evidence which supports and fits into it and evidence which disproves it. To date all the evidence has been of the former none of the latter thus the theory is consistent, but since it is constantly expanding as evidence is gathered it is not complete. The interpretation you are using would seem to indicate that studying our world is pointless as we can never understand it, which would seem to mean that every field of science should be abandoned. What you are arguing for is the end of trying to understand the world around us and to blindly accept the teaching of the “divinely inspired.” If that is what you wish then that is your right, but do not force the rest of the world to go back to the dark ages with you.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
In opposed to ElvishMonarch, I’m just a lowly college student, but at least even then, I can make a few counter-arguments.
.
1)”[Evolution] must be observable and provable.”
It is. Including, yes, speciation. We CAN prove that speciation exists using a simple experiment:
Clone two human population, and leave them living on two radically different islands. Neither population are allowed to leave the island, nor receive any outside contact. Observe.
This is a statistically tight experiment, yet it can’t be conducted for one obvious reason: it is immoral. The same is said for proving that smoking kills. Believe it or not, we HAVEN’T proven that smoking really harms human health, but the reason we didn’t was because it would be incredibly immoral to do so. Evolution falls into the same gap (that with the really long time issue…). We can only go back to using visible evidence as key to supporting Evolution.
.
2)”If randomness did exist then its opposite, order, could not exist”
You’re talking like Einstein, who made the same argument to the Quantum Physics. Currently, experiments point that indeed physics in a smaller scale are incredibly random and unpredictable, while at the same time, the realm of the big is orderly and proper. Nobody has a solid idea why (though the string theory seems to say something).
I find it unsurprising that the same thing occurs in the biological world: bacterias and virus mutate randomly at rapid speed, yet it’s rare to see mutation in the human population. We have plenty of evidence that randomness exists, and practically NO evidence that it doesn’t. At the same time, we have plenty of evidence that order exists, at least in bigger scales. Why must it be difficult to believe that randomness can exist in our current, rather orderly world?
.
3)”randomness and obfuscation both which are not scientific nor mathematical.”
Computer Science strongly revolves around randomness. I really don’t see your point here. While, yes, it is humanly impossible to come up with a perfectly random algorithm, it doesn’t stop us from trying. And anyways, because we can’t make up random things doesn’t mean nature can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MV: Thanks for your comments on entropy, etc., which I thought most lucid.
I loved your other comment: “For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones.”
.
Could we infer from this that NOODLY appendaged deities survive better than non-noodly appendaged ones???? I read an interesting book once called “The Great Pretender” – the thesis seemed to be that gods evolve also, although it may only be that their picture in the minds of mortals evolves…Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant by “appendage” LOFLMAO.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ElvishMonarch,
This might be utterly irrelevant, or wrong (or both), but I was taught in high-school biology many years ago that 6-fingeredness is actually a dominant gene in humans, and we – almost – all have 5 fingers because we – almost – all have the two recessive genes needed for 5 fingers. Wouldn’t it be great to be able to flip the creationists a two-fingered bird????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all, but especially MrMiami:
I really liked some few, but for sure one particular statement of MrMiami: “Our schools should prepare each human being for his life journey and ultimate discovery of truth. This is accomplished by developing skills and introducing tools and methods for the adventure – not telling them this or that cosmological revelation is the way it is.
.
That seems to me to be dead on! I do have a personal problem with all of you, however, which is that my last and much-loved Global-Baloney-detecting canary is dead on the bottom of its cage this afternoon after exposure to an overly large number of cosmic allegations stated as facts. In his calm sanity, perhaps MrMiami will forgive me for picking one of his: “…It is important to note that mathematics describes our universe….” How about: “We humans TRY with abjectly modest success to use mathematics to describe a BIT our Universe.” ? Both description and prediction are limited in the most humbling practical way by our ability to know and describe a problem, and by our machinery. In a far more profound way, they are limited both by physical uncertainties (quantum mechanics, “chaos”, bla, bla, et cet.) and mathematical limits evidently imposed by work such as Goedel’s (which I am too stupid to really understand) and related work in the theory of computation. There is no reason whatsoever to imagine that the nature of the material universe is limited by what mathematics we know, and an argument about that is presently theological disputation and therefore an irrelevant waste of time in any case.
.
The real point of all this is that science is far more humble and far more powerful
than the philosophical logic-chopping presently infecting these pages: it accumulates provisional facts, via theory and experiment, and attempts to organize and extend them, and make useful (or merely interesting!) predictions. The facts and the framework are forever incomplete and forever vulnerable. If creationists want to claim they do science, let them organize facts and generate explanations and predictions that can be verified by sane people. It’s not clear that they’re ever gonna pull that off. In the meantime, thermodynamics is, if not infallible, pretty good for refrigerators, jet engines, the interiors of stars, and surely at least helpful for some aspects of living organisms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apprentice Frederic -
You are not too stupid to understand Goedel. Don’t sell your self short. I don’t have a thorough understanding of his work either but if I put enough time into it I could. You too.
My condolences on your canary. So sad. Do you know where I could get one – a Baloney detector?
You say and are right- “If creationists want to claim they do science, let them organize facts and generate explanations and predictions that can be verified by sane people.” I’m afraid creationists have no idea what science is and don’t care. They are frauds with an agenda.
And that’s the genius of our noodly religion. We can adopt their own cherished illogic and certitude to advance our agenda. And since our god is so much more attractive than theirs – well, I think the real message gets through to the bright minds that are not totally shut yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Appretince Frederic
(Yes I changed my name, I thought this was more appropriate)
You are correct. The gene for polydactylism is dominant. This in itself is evidence for natural selection. In a world with no selective pressure favoring one trait over the other you would expect 3/4th of the population to be polydactyl (using mendelian genetics). Instead the ratio is closer to 1/500 (per a google search so trust at your own risk). A similar, though far worse example, is Huntinton’s disease which is passed via a simple dominant trait. Of course its just as possible that the FSM has made us all have only 5 fingers on each hand as he doesn’t want us becoming too noodlie.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ALL:
.
Many of you seem to be confusing unpredictability, probability, and randomness as the same thing. Many of you also do not understand what quantum physics is telling us. Another point I am noting is that many are confusing science philosophy with theology, comsology, or other philosophies. On a final note, I also am concerned that some of these people are teachers who impart their unusual understanding upon impressionable minds.
.
First, randomness is described to be phenomenon or event that has no predictability, pattern or sequence to it. Order is a system that is defined and structured but is not required to be predictable. Some systems are perfectly ordered and deterministic. These systems are linear. Other systems are perfectly ordered but indeterminant. These systems fall under Chaos Theory and are non-linear. Nearly all scientist will tell you that our universe is perfectly ordered but indeterminant. Indeterminance is not randomness. Instead, it is probabilistic. Probability is ordered based on the mathematical formula that describes it. Typically, when graphed these probabilistic equations map out regions of space in which a result will occur, where in that region we do not know but it will occur according the the formula in that region. Hence, true randomness cannot be described by a mathematical formula.
Second, quantum physics tells us many things. Most of our discoveries about the quantum realm, also known as the Planckian Realm, comes from atom smashing experiments. Behavior in this realm is probabilistic. It is ordered. Physics at our level depends on local actions which does not apply in the quantum realm as non-local action occurs. This tells us that our perception of reality is not fully understood. In fact, at 10 to the minus 35 meters the physical universe completely disappears. That is space vanishes and with it so does time. Thus, the smallest unit of time is 10 to the minus 43 second. Coincidentally, this is the same speed that your eye detects a photon of light. So the boundary limit of the physical universe is also a boundary limit to your ability to percieve reality. It is also the boundary limit beyond which the physical sciences no longer apply. Another interesting discovery is that every particle in the universe is in instantaneous communication with every other particle faster than the speed of light. Finally, when that last particle vanishes after being split in half the what remains is light.
.
What do these discoveries mean? They mean our universe is not inifinite, that our ability to understand is limited, and that what we thought we knew – we do not know. Noble prize winning quantum physicists Richard Feyhman remarked strangely that there are only two things that ARE certain; what quantum physics tells us and the Judeo/Christian Bible tells us. Everything else us up in smoke. This led many people to discover a strong correlation between Quantum Physics and the Judeo/Christian Bible. In their findings, they stated that the universe essentially breaks down to light and the Genesis 1:3 tells us that God spoke the universe into existence in the form of light. Hebrews 11:3 states that the universe is made from that which is intangible and qunatum physics is telling us that light comes together ’some how’ to form a particle through a process of ‘compactness’ in a probabilistic manner. This may be those peoples views but it seems they may have something kind of correlation. It gets quite extensive if studied.
.
Anyhow, I am finding that many people are posting misunderstandings of quantum physics and we need to fully understand the science.
.
Third, as for the philosophies go science philosophy is different than Theology, Cosmology, or generalized Philosophy. Unlike the others, science philosophy does not make cosmological revelations or discuss God. Science philosophy applies the scientific rigor to gray areas in order to bridge the gap in knowledge. For example, using the ideal gas laws to describe boiling water would require a change in the mathematical formulas at some mystical point in time as the water changed from steady to dynamic to chaotic states. Another philosophy would be to apply a set of equations that describe or model the event without changing equations.
.
To address, the comments about a BIT of the universe. Physics has been attempting to developed a unifed model of the universe for some time. Edward Whitten, a Physicist, has made some significant strides in this arena. He took 10 theories that are well accepted (E=mc2 for one) about different pieces or BITs of our universe then organized them into a mathematical model. This model was introduced in 1998 and is known as the Brane World Model. It has a mathematical error in it which suggest that it is not complete but it is strides ahead of where we were. One of the key points is that not only is there space time in this model but 6 other dimensions. One of which is gravity. I suspect that space time is a subset of a gravitational domain. This could attrutibute for gravity causing space time to change shape. It could also account for how all particles are in instantaneous communication throughout space time. Fascinating model. Another point is that it affects the big bang which could be simply a series of mini-slaps that re-order space time.
finally, I comes too many teachers who teach an incorrect science. Case and point is a PBS special on Evolution, “What About God!”. The teacher was not teaching science but instead his cosmological views which were not ID or related to Christianity as a science. I equate this to a math teacher putting up political posters in the classroom. Neither has its place in the classroom.
In the end, all men need a God. Which one wins out is a toss of a coin. (a probabilistic outcome) If our schools do it right, the student will have the skills and ability to embark on his life journey of discovery. My hope is that everyone of them finds the true God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
First sir I would like to point out that you completely ignored my initial rebuttals about your arguements concerning randomness. Let me reiterate it for you, nowhere does Evolutionary theory require randomness…not ONE place. Do mutations appear random? To us yes. Could it be found out that there is some force acting that is actually acting which only appears random to our limited understanding? Absolutely. The fact is that with our current scientific knowledge we can’t necessarily see what if any order exists in that situation and it is not the place of science classes to say what that order could be. Instead it is science’s job to describe things as they appear. Whether or not there is a higher order is a matter for philosophy and theology. You reference the Abrahamic religious texts in relation to science to try and demonstrate that they are more right then other faiths and therefore we should all accept them and teach their philosophy is disturbing at the very least.
Finally, your statement that “all men need a God” is not only insulting and demeaning, it is a flat out lie. People have the right to believe or not believe as they see fit. It is that attitude that has led to my being harassed repeatedly by people trying to convert me. The fact of the matter is sir, that there are millions of people out there who are perfectly content, and in fact feel empowered by, a world with out God(s). Perhaps the thing that was most convincing to me that there is no God was a look at history. If you look at that you will find that for thousands of years before Judaism first popped into existence there where countless polytheistic faiths through out the world. If there is only one true god, and always has been only one true god, why is Judaism not the first faith in the archaeological record? Why did all that time pass without it being worshiped? You would think that if there was a single true god that was benevolent it would not have let all those countless generations of people live before the first faith to worship it would show up.
If you think science validates your religion that is your right, but keep it to yourself and don’t try and force your philosophy on others
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami: I am not sure that I believe that “true randomness” doesn’t have a probability distribution associated with it, but am Devoutly Noodly enough to be willing to be educated. Can you give me a concrete example or point me to a place where this notion is clarified?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Mr.Miami,
You wrote, “Richard Feyhman remarked strangely that there are only two things that ARE certain; what quantum physics tells us and the Judeo/Christian Bible tells us.” I have read many complete books on and by Richard Feynman. I don’t know who “Feyhman” is I, assume you just made another error. However spelling is not nearly as important as truthful expressive content, which you really seem to be in short supply of.
Here is a quote from FEYNMAN in HIS OWN BOOK What do you care what other people think. “In those days, in Far Rockaway, there was a youth center for Jewish kids at the temple… Somebody nominated me for president of the youth center. The elders began getting nervous, because I was an AVOWED ATHEIST BY THAT TIME (caps changed for emphasis by me)… I thought nature itself was so interesting that I didn’t want it distorted like that [by miracle stories]. And so I gradually came to disbelieve the whole religion. From What Do You Care What Other People Think?, 1988, pp25-28.
I suggest you read that book or “Genius the life and science of Richard Feynman” to get the truth of what a great insightful man who understood the previously understandable thought about religion. HE HATED IT!
Mr Miami your lies and twisting are so dangerously fraudulent that they seem criminal. Fizzmick PaChee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
REGARDING MY LAST POST, Aside from a couple typos, (which I usually let slide) I left out the word “not” before the last “understandable”. That should be apparent but in case it’s not, here’s this post. Sorry -Fizzmick
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Miami,
Aside from all of your arguments, In the end you are wrong! All men do NOT need a god.
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Elvish Pirate Monarch:
.
Evolution relies entirely on random actions. It is the randomness of natural selection that causes change. It is random action that causes genetic drift. It is random action that caused life to burst into existence. There is no pattern or order to Evolution. There is only one thread line running without parallel processes of evolution emerging. Only one Frankenstienian protoplasmal global sparked into life and began this epic maundering path of evolution from which humans emerged over the eons of time. We do not see the evolutionary process running on other threadlines and there is no concurrent observation of other life at different stages of this evolutionary path.
.
Evolution is a philosophy that you so eloquently expressed is disturbing to teach. It tryies to demonstrate its validity using science. It is not science. There are other views in which the strength must be weighed.
.
The fact that you defend your world without a God or a God that is NULL is the one you defend on the basis of evolution indicates to me that you need a God and the one you chose is a NULL. No human is trying to convert you here or force you to believe anything. You have a disposition not to assess other information limiting your understanding to something that perhaps is more comfortable for you.
.
As for your comments about a true God. In the judeo/christian worldview there are different ages and different systems of accountability to that God. The current age is the Church Age. This will come to an end at some point and there will be another system of accountability. At one time the Judeo/Christian walked amongst men and that God desires to do that again.
.
I have studied science, math, and theologies with an open mind. Perhaps you should do the same. In doing so you’ll need to approach it without tryinf to justify your beliefs and allow the knowledge to lead you to the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Apprentice Frederic
.
Fundamental mathematics philosophy establishes formulas as order. True randomness cannot be ordered as it has no pattern or sequence. We live in a universe of duality. Every force has an equal an opposite, male-female, positive-negative, order-randomness. Mathematics toys with randomness using psuedo-random formulas which push the occurence of a repeating pattern or sequence far enough out to appear to be random. Probability is ordered as there is a formula that describes its behavior though not predictable.
.
In learning about mathematics you’ll learn that there are 4 number realms; real, imaginary, complex, and surreal. Surreal number like infinite also are not natural phenomenon as the universe is bounded.
.
In science philosophy there are three major arenas;(linear), (non-linear), and (probabilistic). Newtonian science is heavily oriented towards linear systems. Chaos theory is heavily oriented towards non-linear systems. Quantum theory is heavily reliant on probability. There is no honest science of randomness because then repeatable science experiments would be impossible and in fact science itself would not be possible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ohio Pirate :
.
Even atheist and agnostics have a God.
.
Atheist will fight to no end to defend thier God who is a NULL. While atheist claim to have nothing to defend, they have defensive points of evolution, soup kitchen theories, and big bang as their evidence of a NULL God.
.
Agnostics claim ignorance and/or apathy towards the God discussion but acknowledge a God when they choose to ignor him like some sort of spoiled child. If there was nothing to ignor what is the point?
.
Look at all the religions and things humans worship. How many people on their death bed acknowledge God? Darwin did.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami,
You are WRONG AGAIN. HAVE YOU NO SHAME? You explain why two is two, why three is three and add them up to an answer of eighty-”forty” or twelve”teen” or other numbers that are so convoluted that only the most diligent with a firm knowledge can wade through your crap. That they take the time should show you that you will not succeed in poisoning many minds.
Not that it is even relevant to evolution, as has been explained many times, but read Chaos The Making Of A New Science, it has been out for years and shows certain orders out of disorder.
It is you who comes to the table with preconceived notions willing to disregard anything which contradicts them, making statements that are specious (fraudulent) to try and confuse. Although it would be tough to procure, I would support seeking a restraining order to prevent YOUR TEACHING ANYBODY ANYTHING. -Fizzmick PaChee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami,
Specious is only applicable to the uneducated to whom the garbage you expound is plausibly deceptive. You have portrayed falsehoods as true, deriving them from truths, partial-truths, and outright fabrications in a way that displays a dangerous talent. Much like other con-men you are stealing from people. In this case it is truth.
When mankind advances to the point where we can travel back in time (with the ability to bring people back to the future alive) your life – everyones life – will be reviewed. Then decisions will be made as to what to do by distant future generations.
As you have promoted superstitious lies that go against all evidence and logic in a way that is serving to really harm people, my guess is that your punishment will be severe. You are not an ignorant man, that could be forgiven – but one who does know better. Perhaps, you won’t even be brought back at all!
Repent MrMiami. Do it quickly for time is fleeting, and one never knows when their time is up. Don’t wait until tomorrow. -Fizzmick PaChee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami:
Darwin did NOT turn religious on his deathbed. It is a lie put forth by the Christian church.
His daughter Henrietta commented in 1922: “I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Miami:
Oh…my….Spaghetti Monster ! Now I’m reading some of your earlier posts…you need to get your facts straight. Not only did Darwin never have said deathbed confession, but Richard Faynmen was an athiest too. Do some research and site your sources for crying out loud.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
Sir, natural selection is in no way random. It is simple cause and effect. A happens and B is the result. Can it be random? Of course it can? Could there be some higher order that we cannot understand? completely possible. The scientific theory of evolution neither supports or denies god. Does it refute the literal story told in a book written several thousand years ago by the hands of some Jewish priests? Yes. The argument you make assumes that one cannot be religious and still believe in evolutionary theory. I can tell you sir that I have known many biologists who find no such contradiction. Evolution is a how. It is a theory which explains the natural method by which it occurs. Why things have turned out the way they are is a question of theology not of the natural sciences. The natural sciences deal only with the natural world. Why most you and your fellow creationists insist on making people choose between reason and blind faith? Why do you insist on conveying the lie that one cannot have their reason and still have their faith in god? This way of looking at things is what led to Galileo being imprisoned for heresy. These arguments are the same his persecutors used to dismiss the heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I fully support you Mr. Miami. Keep it strong!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
more good ammo –
Atheist Universe – David Mills
The Making of the Fittest – Sean B. Carroll
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also as a side note, Darwin was a devoutly religious man his whole life. He struggled for years to reconcile his faith in the literal truth of the bible and the world reason showed him. Some people can’t reconcile those 2 things, and for them I have pity. Others refuse to reconcile them and instead try to force people to choose one or the other, for these people I hold nothing but contempt. A world without monsters that go bump in the night; a world where a man with a disease isn’t labeled as being possessed by a demon; this is the world you and yours wish to deny. Rather then merely hide in your dogma and superstition you want to foist them upon the rest of us. To this sir I say no! Too long have we struggled to banish the cold dark of superstition with the light of reason and knowledge to let the likes of you take us back! An enlightened mind can see the miracle of creation, the amazingly simple processes which allow for such a diverse and varied planet, and be amazed by that. What could be more miraculous then the shark, a creature so well adapted to its environment that it has survived for 400 million years?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@EntropyBrian
Isn’t MrMiami amusing. He’s even more hopeless than the average YEC. Even they have caught on to the sroty of Darwins death bed conversion being a lie:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Fizzmick PaChee, Elvish M., EntropyB and DNAbled:
.
First, apologies for small past and present contributions to brouhahahahaha.
.
Second, FWIW, I attended – 40-some years ago – a school where Richard Feynman was a much-lionized physics prof (my own academic position there was formally designated as “Miserable F*****g Frosh”). His apparent IQ exceeded the cumulative IQ of many bible college faculties – even presupposing normal intelligence at the latter. It seems to me likely that Feynman’s comments about quantum mechanics and the Bible should be understood either as irony or sarcasm – you all have said as much, and if so, I think you’re right.
.
Finally, I checked my teeny library, and – sure enough – there was an unread autobiography of Charles Darwin there. I’ll read it and write a book report, but I have to expect that Elvish P. M. is exactly right. In his age and time, Darwin would have been deeply religious and deeply conflicted; believing that his thinking was a tribute that revealed more of the subtlety and wisdom of the Creator, and smart enough to know (he was right!!!!!) that a storm of obloquy and vilification would be most of what he got for it. Of course, eventually, the English realized that he was right, and that Englishmen stood at the very pinnacle of the evolutionary pyramid. I believe – but don’t know – that similar things could be said about Galileo and his pal Pope Urban, and maybe Einstein and Newton as well. RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
At Mr. Miami,
You say Atheists will defend their idea of evolution to the death, and that idea represents a god of sorts. This is a gross generalization. There are many of us atheists who believe in Evoltion because of its evidence, but are open to other possibilities based on their evidence. Therefore, we believe in an IDEA not an Absolute GOD. I hope you see the difference. Our minds are never tethered and always looking to learn.
RAmen!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would like to add a correction. Darwin infact did lose his christian faith. But not until the loss of his daughter which was after he had finished writing On the Origins of Species. And even after he never claimed to be an atheist. He considered himself an agnostic. My apologies for my faulty memory on the subject, however my point still stands as darwin had settled on his theory of evolution well before the death of his daughter which troubled his faith so much. (For those who do not know, Darwin had originally planned to publish Origins postumously and only changed his mind when another naturalist sent him a paper to review which, while less supported, had reached the same conclusions.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All:
.
Regardless of whether or not Feynman was a Christian or Atheist his remark still stands. Speculating, he probably was commenting about certainty in quantum physics and the persistence of the Judeo/Christian Bible throughout time.
.
Regarding Darwin’s death bed recant of evolution. I have seen evidence to both arguments and we will probably never know the truth on this account. Pulling up webpages on the internet as evidence to one way or the other is not veritable truth even with references. One would have to back track and do the research himself to conclude with any degree of confidence. Unfortunately, none of us have the luxury of that time.
.
I read Chaos: Making a New Science by James Glieck when it first came out. In fact, I was learning chaos mathematics years before the book was published.
.
Time travel? Times arrow? Reviewing lifes? That sound a little too Christian to me. I believe the Bible calls that “The Judgements”; Judgement of the Saints, Judgement of Man, Judgement of the Angels…
.
I have made no remarks about my personal beliefs. Many of you have attempted to employ childish tactics to draw me into an argument in defense of one view or the other view. This thread line is about Evolution I have presented arguments against evolution and many of you cannot defend the belief in evolution rationally. Instead, you launch into attacks on me. Your ’so called’ science has no strength ion this case. You need to rethink your understanding and defense of it.
.
Many of you think creationism is the same as Intelligent Design and it is not. Creationism is absolute literal belief in what the Bible says without the use of validation from creation. Intelligent Design uses science discovery to validate and/or reconcile what the Bible states. Blind Watchmaker arguments that Evolution falls under rely solely on science discovery remarking that another discovery will reveal the origin. But then that ultimate discovery has never determined the origin of the natural and seems to keep moving it out further and further.
.
So now I am back to the starting point. The story remarks that one is strolling along through the universe and stumbles upon something complex. Curious about this complex thing a scientific investigation is launched to study the order behind it. Once the sceintific investigation is complete, some sort of assertation about the origin of the complex object is made. What we are looking at is science only deals with complexity and order. Origin is a cosmological, theological or philosophical discussion and not science.
.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that most Christian know little to nothing about science and cannot discuss it meaningfully in support of revelations about origin. Those outside the faith could care less about bible quotes.
.
The problem with Evolution is that it is a misrepresentation of science to make cosmological revelations about the ‘origin of a species’ or about the universe.
.
There has to be common ground in order to comparatively assess the two view; Intelligent design and Evolution. That common ground needs to be science but humans have confounded science in support of their revelations to the point that there is very little common ground. Major differences exist in many things like the notion of order, nature of time, how DNA operates, the nature of information, and the definition of life.
.
The bottom line is that most people believe in one or the other and little will sway them to one side or the other. The battle for these beliefs is so desparate in many people that they want to impose their views rather than allow a maturing human to make the discovery on his own.
.
I was disturb by a high school science teacher’s comments that those Christian are out to ruin science as he spewed his cosmological revelations and very very science. I was equally disturb by Christian’s who could not adequately argue their views on science and nature without holding up a Bible and quoting scripture to those who could care less. For those asking for citations its “Evolution: What About God?”, PBS ISBN 1-57807-856-3
.
I’ll provide a long list of references later for any of you to read if you feel so compelled to pursue further thought. However, be prepared to set aside time, your wild opinions, and be willing to throw anything you know up in smoke, Sfumatso which is a Da Vincian principle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here are some references. Not all inclusive.
“Chaos: Making a new Science”, James Gleick, ISBN-13: 9780140092509
.
“The Universe in a Nutshell”, Stephen Hawkings, ISBN-13: 9780553802023
.
“Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe”, Roger Penrose, ISBN-13: 9780679776314
.
“The Holographic Universe”, Micheal Talbot, ISBN-13: 9780060922580
.
“Entangled Minds”, Dean Radin, ISBN-13: 9781416516774
.
“Elegant Universe”, Brian Green, ISBN-13: 9780375708114
.
“Programming the Universe : A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos”, Seth Loyd, ISBN-13: 9781400033867
.
“Genome : The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters”, Matt Ridley, ISBN-13: 9780060894085
.
“Nature Via Nurture : Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human”, Matt Ridley, ISBN-13: 9780060544478
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I found this book on Information Theory to be curiously interesting.
.
“Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About”, Charles Knuth, ISBN-13: 9781575863269
.
Dr Knuth is a MIT professor in information sciences and discusses the problems of randomness and God. He is a Christian and started the John 3:16 movement. It is an interesting perspective.
.
Other opposing perspectives to study include Segan, Dawkins, and Feynman. Read about the Quantum Bible. It think this may be getting at Feynman’s quote about certainty.
.
Many randomness proponents quote Einstien who once said that God rolls the dice. The only problem they fail to realize is that dice rolling is nothing more than a probability problem and not random. Outcomes are limited to a set group of outcomes that are ordered by a mathematical formula. Chances of certain combinations can be established – hardly random action.
.
Here is a thought, read ECC 3 in the Bible. It is about order, perfect timing, all living beings having the same fate, and judging lives for those of you who talked about time travel. It is a song by the rock group the Birds.
.
I am not trying to convert anyone here. All I am doing is providing information for your review. You’ll need to make your own decisions about life. I don’t know why the schools can’t operate in this manner?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would like to present this in a Christian like conversation:
.
I thought this from the NIV Bible was kind of Star Warish. It begins in MARK 5:27-5:34. Basically, Jesus is like a Jedi knight. A woman touches him and he feels the force or power flow from him. Could this force or power be a natural force? Afterall Jesus is supposed to be God and God created the Heavens and Earth.
.
Col 1:15-17 remarks that Jesus holds everything together. One of the key words in the Colossians passage is a original Greek word ’sunistemi’ which means “to stand-together,” “to be compacted together,” “to cohere,” “to be constituted with.” This passage can be applied to the structure of the atom, for example. The nucleus of every atom is held together by what physicists call “weak” and “strong” forces. Physicists today are familiar with four basic forces in the natural world: gravity and electrical forces, plus a “strong” and a “weak” nuclear force. The first two forces decrease in strength inversely with the square of the distance between two objects; the latter two forces act only at very short ranges. There is thus an active force imposed on the universe, which actively holds the very atoms of the material world together moment by moment, day by day, century by century.
.
This is how an Intelligent Design proponent may reconcile the Bible with science from a Christian viewpoint. Earlier I discussed how a Christian views the endowment of biological life from DNA as a patternmakers template where the patternmaker is controlling the timing, sequence, and duration of genes firing. These views give rise to an active and participating God in his creation from a Christian perspective. However, this is fantasy to someone outside the community of faith. The Bible quotes are meaningless to those people.
.
So how could ID and evolution be taught side by side? I have some thoughts that I’ll share later.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami Feb 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“Regarding Darwin’s death bed recant of evolution. I have seen evidence to both arguments and we will probably never know the truth on this account. Pulling up webpages on the internet as evidence to one way or the other is not veritable truth even with references.”
.
I disagree!
You’re just trying to cover for spouting one of the most well worn, fallacious, ignorant and consistently refuted, pieces of YEC crap! Bad job at trying to cover for your woeful ignorance and lack of intellectual integrity MrMiami!
Darwin’s daughter even went out of her way to kill that rumour started by the wishful thinking of one Lady Hope! There is plenty of documented evidence which refutes that fairy tale.
.
“The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood”
.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
.
Really…only the most desperate ill informed creationists ever bring that one up!
.
Even AiG disowns that old cannard!
.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
.
“Which arguments should definitely not be used?”
“Darwin recanted on his deathbed.”
“Many people use this story; however, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him—even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if it were true, so what? If Ken Ham renounced the Bible, would that disprove it?”
.
More from the biggest creationist propaganda site on the net….AiG
.
“The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin’s family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on 8 February 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was ‘false and without any kind of foundation’,4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had ‘no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view’.5
.
Charles’s daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, ‘I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … . The whole story has no foundation whatever’.6 Some have even concluded that there was no Lady Hope.”
.
Be embarrassed and regrettable for your blatant and ignorant dishonesty MrMiami!
Disgusting!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
☠DutchPastaGuy☠ Feb 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 am
“He’s even more hopeless than the average YEC. Even they have caught on to the sroty of Darwins death bed conversion being a lie:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp”
.
Ahh…see you already referenced that DPG
I somehow missed your post before I posted mine. That’s what I get for skimming over all these posts I’ve missed too quickly!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Wench:
.
Thank you for your extensive pre-occupation in the Darwin recent issue.
.
I suggest you move on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami and Wench Nikkiee,
MrMiami we would all love to “move on”. Unfortunately IDiots like you MrMiami display a dangerous talent for deception that must be countered with truth. Should you decide to “move on”, rest assured that we will follow with enough firepower to keep you from affecting all but the feeblest of minds.
Wench Nikkiee, THANK YOU :) for taking the time to help overpower this IDiot. -Fizzmick PaChee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr Miami, the biggest difference between ID and creationisme is that ID CLAIMS to use science to prove their points. However they rarely do so in a scientific, proper way.
*
“Intelligent Design uses science discovery to validate and/or reconcile what the Bible states. ”
To me that is not science.
That is starting with the answer and then selecting those answers that “prove” your point. Like they do at AiG.
*
@Wench:
Thank you for your extensive pre-occupation in the Darwin recent issue.
I suggest you move on.
Why? because she proves you wrong in a major way?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MRMiami
I will again say to you, stop using randomness as an arguement against evolution. All it does is misrepresent evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution via natural selection merely states that in nature there is a struggle to survive, and that in this strugle there are individuals who have some physiological difference which gives them an advantage in the competition for resources (including mates) which can be inherited. This advantage results in that individual having a higher fitness (in biology fitness represents reproductive success) then those individuals which do not have said trait. Said trait becomes increasingly prevalent in the species. If some form of reproductive barrier is established (see ring species for an example) then the reproductively isolated populations, which will find themselves in different ecological situations, will over time develop differences from one another (please note that a reproductive barier is all that is needed, which does not necessarily mean a physical barier). As time passes the differences between the two populations will accumulate until they are sufficiently different from one another to be unable to produce viable offspring when mated (such as when a horse and a donkey are mated). Please sir explain to me what part of that is random?
`
Many a christian biologist will tell you that none of that process is random. There could be a designer, there could not, the fact is that science doesn’t care nor does it try to answer that question. Whether there is some supernatural presence which is responsible for those traits appearing is a matter of philosophy not science. There are geneticists who look at DNA and see a marvel of nature; there are others who look at the genome and see the language of god. Neither is right or wrong, it is a matter of their faith.
`
Finally sir, what you and your fellow ID proponents seem to not be able to grasp is that evolutionary theory provides a natural, testable, frame work for all areas of modern biology. Without evolutionary theory Mendel would never have done his research into elementary genetics. Without evolutionary theory Watson and Crick would never have gone looking for DNA. Genetics only exists because people where trying to figure out the mechanism of inheritance that the law of evolution requires to function (the only reason it isn’t commonly called a law is that the term has gone out of favor in scientific fields, if newton where writing up his works on motion today they would be called theories). If science had been unable to find a method of inheritance guess what? Evolutionary theory would have been disproved. That sir is why evolution is science. There are countless ways to disprove it, there is no way to disprove ID.
`
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
You have said once and again that atheists (and agnostics) believe in some sort of god, implying that atheism is just another religion.
I should like to point out that that is as stupid as pretending that barefoot is a type of shoes.
.
Is it so difficult to understand that not believing is not another way of believing?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well miami (mr. is a sign of respect and due to your comments you shall not recieve it) why should Wench stop trying to proove her point? if we all did this nothing would ever get proven exept the bad theories
i apoligize for spelling and grammer mistakes as i am in a hurry to get to class,
thank you
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
“@Wench:
.
Thank you for your extensive pre-occupation in the Darwin recent issue.
.
I suggest you move on.”
.
The science-minded Pastafarians have moved on, as has much of the rest of the world. You’d be welcome to join us. We’re not in any way an exclusive club. The Almighty and merciful (and drunk, incompetent) FSM is ok with it if you don’t believe in Him, as He is not vain. I’m one of many here who are atheists and Pastafarians at the same time. So if you want to keep some other god(s) on the side, I’m sure He would be fine with it. So everyone is welcome to join. Well almost everyone, there is the one condition of having at least some amount of rationality and intelligent thinking left inside your head.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
wow…I am really starting to dislike this whole…thing. While that matters not at all to anyone whom is not me, it should make all of you at least stop for a second and thnk. Is it possible that all of this was meant to happen? Why does god, whom has hidden (in plain sight?) and refused to prove and validate himself and his message, want us to bicker and squabble and drive the wedge deeper?
This is a closed system (the argument, that is.) why does he want strife between his children? There is no devil here, knowledge and opinion have no intrinsic evil within them. While there is statistically at least a couple of bad eggs in this dicussion, I see no diabolic influence here. So is this a case of two rights making a bigger wrong? We need some perspective.
Problem is, the only one who can truly grant perspective is in hiding. Awful convenient isn’t it? Every day we come a little bit closer to understanding the whole equation. Nobody here has a “personal” beef with god mr. Miami. In fact I have seen almost every person here state SOMETIME that given proof, they would have faith. It’s not their fault that god has decided that proof is antithetical (?) to his existence.
I see lots of very intelligent people being villainized for not going along with the same old crap we have been force fed for our own good. We are tired of being told how immoral we are for wanting more information. We choose to live decent moral lives according to our own devices, as opposed to a 2000 year old, often re-written, poorly re-translated, contradictory, book of stories assembled by dozens of authors over almost 1200 years time. That burden of proof would be the same if the same book (all detractors included) was a physics test.
On the other hand, these people really do feel like they have something “else” inside of them. If they insist it is holy spirit, fine. If it is an alien chest-burster with a grinning jesus bobble head, fine. Just keep it to yourselves.
This debate ALWAYS devolves into “my sources say this” followed by “well, my sources say your sources are wrong on this teeny-tiny point.” That is an argument for another time. The argument that is SUPPOSED to be here is supposed to be how and why it is immoral and abusive to teach fantasies and speculation in SCIENCE class. And not just ANY speculation and fantasy, Judeo-with-heavy-emphasis-on the CHRISTIAN fantasy. EVOLUTION is science. RELIGION is religion. It really is that simple. We don’t teach math during history and music class. We dont teach P.E. during computer lab. So why are we cramming RELIGION into SCIENCE class?
We have all this hair splitting about theories and hypothesis and blah blah blah. If semantics are involved in an argument this convoluted, there is definitely something shady going on…after all, here is another great semantic posturing quote, “I did NOT have SEX with that woman.” (caps added by me for emphasis.) anyone remember that one?
Hows about this as a compromise. We atheistic, scientific types will admit that we don’t REALLY know all the answers. Fair?
You religious type folks. admit that you don’t REALLY know for sure that all that biblical frippery is true or not.
While we sort out the “facts” and take a deep breath, lets be sure to KEEP RELIGION AND SCIENCE OUT OF THE SAME CLASSROOM. A comparitave class -yes. A debate class -yes. but not to be taught as a fact. For the one thing we ALL know, including most of the YEC’s is that while the bible makes a nice bedtime story, and that Jesus guy was pretty neat, these two things will probably not matter one whit to a Florida public school graduate, as he assembles my double cheeseburger and pours my coke for me.
Unrepentent…until proven wrong.
Neo-Noodly convert…searching for some perspective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is it possible that all of this was meant to happen? Does god, whom has hidden (in plain sight?) and refused to prove and validate himself and his message, want us to bicker and squabble and drive the wedge deeper? Why would any concerned parent want to see their children murdering each other over who is the better child? Why can’t an omnipotent super being get a message to us that isn’t riddled with inconsistency? Why won’t he do anything about the other religious sects that want us all killed? Maybe it is DIVINE EVOLUTION! He obviously wants us to kill off the weaker members of our race…no, he heals cancer victims…that can’t be right either. OH! Better yet, lets just say that while we follow his will, we are too insignificant to understand his will…so it’s okay to be ignorant?
Before I forget: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ This is one of the better websites addressing the inconsistencies of Christian belief. I recommend it to anyone who wants a good read.
Why does he want strife between his children? There is no devil here. Regardless of what the hate mailers say, knowledge and opinion have no intrinsic evil within them. (Regardless of that silly little story blaming women for the fall of mankind from grace…I mean really, an apple? Blaming women? How…patronizing) I see no diabolic influence here. Does anyone beg to differ? So is this a case of two rights making a bigger wrong? We need some perspective.
Problem is, the only one who can truly grant perspective is in hiding. Awful convenient isn’t it? Every day we come a little bit closer to understanding the whole equation. Any yet…It is my understanding that nobody here has a personal beef with god. It is mostly his idiotic worshippers and their cut and paste biblical literalism. Personally, it was my over zealous grandparents that atheized me. I don’t blame god. I blame them, but that is a different story. God has apparently decided that proof is antithetical (?) to his existence. Only blind faith will get you into heaven. I am sorry, Christian America, but I have a problem with that. When you stop questioning the doctrine, and “just follow orders” you cease being human. We want answers because we either evolved that way, or because we were “designed” that way. One or the other. It is not a flaw to wonder why. The flaw is to demonize people who do.
The biblical literalists would have us believe that as soon as an omnipotent super being creates an entire universe…he pulls up a cloud. Grabs a pen and paper, and starts making notes. Now, insert the occasional smiting or natural disaster for shits and giggles, and you have GOD. Doesn’t that seem a bit…odd? That would seem to me to be the height of hubris…you know, that deadly sin pride? That we, insignificant little fleebs that we are compared to our creator actually merit his time and attention on even a part time basis? I see the scenario a little differently.
So god created us in his image. The book says that right? We need only look around at our works. In fact, here is an experiment.
1.)Buy an ant farm.
2.)Treat them like you would your favorite thing in the whole universe. Talk to them. Care for them. Buy a whole room of new furniture JUST for the ants. Now make everything perfect. Give them all the food and living space they can possibly need.
3.)now, put an apple jolly rancher inside and tell them very sternly that if they touch it, they will be punished.
Now..it is very important that we all understand that it was a GIVEN to an omnipotent being that it was going to happen.
4.)When they inevitably do, backhand the ant farm onto the ground, swear a lot, torch a couple with a flaming…lighter. Then shake your head in disgust, and leave them to their fates. After all, their just stupid ants, and you have other things left to do. Should only take a couple of days.
I see lots of very intelligent people being vilified for not going along with the same old crap we have been force fed for our own good. We are tired of being told how immoral we are for wanting more information. I have no fear of oblivion when I die. I don’t need to believe in stories told to frightened and superstitious people living in an incredibly brutal era. I choose to live a decent moral life according to my own devices. Unfortunately, I am still going to hell because I didn’t wasn’t an invisible friend.
Even colored with the FACT that the first American settlement at Plymouth Rock was founded by ultra-conservative religious loonies (even for the time!) we have come a long ways. Believing that god actually cares about us on an individual level is a bit silly. BTW Did you name your ants? While you may have cared about the colony, what about the ones that died and were eaten? Don’t worry if you didn’t, I hear we all look the same from cloud level anyway.
On the other hand, these people really do feel like they have something “else” inside of them. If they insist it is holy spirit, fine. It is a given that there is a large percentage of people that need instructions and hand holding to do anything but sleep and poop. If the good book helps ou through those crisis moments of knitting vs. quilting or whatever it is that you folks do when you aren’t praying, that’s fine. We find you silly. You find us silly. BOOM! Instant ad hominem. Just don’t get YOUR faith all over me. Righteous faith, divine fire, alien chest-burster with a grinning jesus bobble head, fine. Just keep it to yourselves.
The argument that is supposed to be here is how and why it is immoral and abusive to teach fantasies and speculation in SCIENCE class. And not just ANY speculation and fantasy, Judeo-with-heavy-emphasis-on-the-CHRISTIAN fantasy. EVOLUTION is science. RELIGION is religion. It really is that simple. We don’t teach math during history and music class. We dont teach P.E. during computer lab. So why are we cramming RELIGION into SCIENCE class?
We have all this hair splitting about theories and hypothesis and blah blah blah. If semantics are involved in an argument this convoluted, there is definitely something shady going on…after all, here is another great semantic posturing quote, “I did not have SEX with that woman.” (caps added by me for emphasis.) anyone remember that one?
How’s about this as a compromise? We atheistic, scientific types will admit that we don’t REALLY know all the answers. Fair? I think we can reasonably assume most of us will convert given any incontrovertible proof. A 500 foot tall robed and bearded man laying waste to Las Vegas seen on youtube would probably fit the criteria.
You religious type folks. admit that you don’t REALLY know for sure that all that biblical frippery is true or not. Admit you weren’t there, and that if 5 people cannot keep a whispered message intact over 5 minutes time, that your dogma was probably hit by a Karma at least a dozen times in the last millennium ahem…king James version…ahem. Just remember, that just because a king ordered the bible changed for his own personal gain, does not absolve you of responsibility. You are going to hell for worshipping a false prophet.
While we sort out the “facts” and take a deep breath, lets be sure to KEEP RELIGION AND SCIENCE OUT OF THE SAME CLASSROOM. A comparative class -yes. A debate class -yes. But it does not deserve to be taught as a fact. Stealing research from prominent scientists and publishing their work out of context doesn’t count as fact. For the one thing we ALL know, or may soon know, including most of the YEC’s is that while the bible makes a nice bedtime story, and that Jesus guy was pretty neat, these two things will probably not matter one whit to a Florida public school graduate, as he assembles my double cheeseburger and pours my coke for me.
Unrepentent…until proven wrong.
With his long percolating rant expelled…Neo-Noodly convert will continue searching for some perspective…and now an ant farm. Thank you for reading my .02 I hope you get something from it…just not anything contagious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
sorry about the double post. The first one was copied from word and pasted to wrong window, it needed polish. Need more sleep…yes sleeeeeep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all
.
With regard to deathbed statements, I hope it won’t cast more than a momentary pall on the thread to say that I do expect to die, perhaps soon, but do plan to die in most beatific Pastafarian way possible: namely, while watching a stripper, so that my transition into Pastafarian heaven will be completely seamless. It fills my heart with pity and sorrow that neither smug Christian, tormented agnostic, nor relentlessly bigoted atheist will ever make such a trip. But I also believe, in spite of whatever he said or thought on his deathbed, that an exception was vouchsafed to Charles Darwin, and that he occupies an honored mansion on the highest beer volcano above the Pastafarian Vale of Vermicelli. His work, after all, is, indeed, a critical portion of the foundation of all the present and future evidence that the FSM’s handiwork is perfect. RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami
Open your heart and mind to feel the enlightenment of His Noodly embrace.
The truth shall set you free.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cdesignproponentist being interviewed by a scientist journalist:
.
Journalist: You say you have a new theory about Intelligent Design.
IDiot: Can I just say here, for one moment, that we have a new theory about Intelligent Design
Scientist: Exactly. Well, what is it?…
.
IDiot: Oh, what is the theory?
Journalist: Yes.
.
IDiot: Oh, what is the theory, that it is. Well, you may well ask me what is our theory.
.
Journalist: I am asking.
.
IDiot: Good for you. My word, yes, Well, what is it that it is – this theory of ID.
Well, this is what it is – the theory of creation by an Intelligent Designer that we have, that is to say, the theory of Intelligent Design which is Intelligent Design.
.
Journalist: Yes, I know it’s about Intelligent Design. What is it?
IDiot: Where? Oh, what is our theory? This is it. The theory that we believe is as follows. This is how it goes. The next thing I’m going to say is ID theory. Ready?
.
Journalist: Yes.
.
IDiot: …This theory goes as follows and begins now.
“All intelligently designed things are brought about by an Intelligent Designer through a process of intelligently conducted design.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All:
.
Science deals with complexity and order. I don’t hear science discussions. You are making my point about evolution. You continue to present nothing in support of the philosophy but instead insist of focusing on methods of obfuscation, projection, and attacks on me. Where is the beef? That is not referring to your oposition to anything I am saying. I am asking where is the strength in your argument?
.
I have showed contrasting views and discussed how science is used to reconcile Intelligent Design. How is science used to reconcile with the evolution philosophy? Evolutions philosophy is that there is nothing more beyond the natural. The natural emerged from random cosmic events. That the natural is becoming more organized. How does evolution define life or reconcile intelligence and self-awareness? How does evolution reconcile the findings of quantum physics, irreducible complexity, and the origin of information?
.
Here is a curious thought. Why does a bit have heat content and information theory is really the same thing as thermodynamics? Why are human senses ordered using the identical mathematics (Fouriers) as information theory, thermodynamics, and wave mechanics? Why is human perception limits equal to the boundary limits of the physical universe? why is the Planet Earth at the geometric center of the orders of magnitude within the universe?
.
Once again the problem we are faced with between Blind Watchmaker arguments (evolution, big bang, and other various soup kitchen theories) and Intelligent design arguments are not science but philosophical arguments that have colored the lens of science in order to justify the philsophies. The divergence is wide and getting wider between the two. I do not see any way possible to teache honest sceince then use it to reconcile with the philosophies because there are people who realize that their philosophical beliefs are then challenged. They are unwilling to accept a alternative that is better supported.
.
some of the major differences in the science of the two are:
.
Intelligent design -vs- Evolution
1. Order -vs- randomness
2. Order to increasing Disassociation -vs- Disassociation to increasing order
3. Origin of Information -vs- Natural Selection and Genetic drift
4. DNA template (patternmaker provides information) -vs- DNA blueprint (ignores origin of information)
5. Life involves an embodiment and spirit -vs- Life is microbes, plants, and animals
6. God resolves Godels problem self description -vs- increasingly more complex models without answers
.
The list can quickly become lengthy. The point is once again science deals with order and complexity only. It should not be mared with all the noise of philosophies about origin. Nonetheless, it is origin philosophies that overshadows one’s view of science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Elvish Pirate Monarch
.
First, I have not remarked about my own philosophy. I unerstand science and I am asking many of you to demonstrate the strength in Evolution. Please provide me how natural selection is mathematically ordered.
.
Crowd behavior, financial markets, and other seemingly chaotic systems are ordered using bayesian mathematics, complex adaptive systems, and and chaos theory. Is there a set of mathematical formulas that are either probabilistic or non-linear that order natural selection? What is the pattern we see in it? If this cannot be ordered then it is random.
.
Once again Evolution proponents claim inert material is ’shocked’ into animated life somehow – we do not understand how yet. Some state that a Frankenstein-like protoplasmal globule began a evolutionary thread line that lead to the current state of affairs. What I don’t understand is why only one threadline started? If there is scientific order to this evolutionary process where is it?
.
On one hand there is a Tree of life that has a Microbe, Plant, and Animal kingdom that allegedly details the order. On the otherhand, evolutionist insist that all life emerged from that single cell. Then why isn’t the plant and animal kingdoms under the microbe tree? I does not make sense.
.
On one hand evolution has this maundering process of natural selection and genetic drift that causes transpecies mutations over time. On the other hand there is no empirical order to how this occurs. There are just a bunch of good ideas. I watched the PBS series “Evolution” where I saw drama, hunches, and characterizations but little science. People walking around the jungle looking at short billed birds then going into the mountains and looking at long bill birds to conclude they flew up there and got cut off over time getting longer bills because flowers have deeper nectar at altitude is not science. What if the opposite were true – birds were at altitude and flew into the valley? I watched an optical engineer develop a variable focus lense by injecting water between two transluscent films. Then conclude that this ‘could’ have been how a more focused eye developed. It did not take into account the billions of neural connections, cones, and other biological complexities of the eye. Also it did not discuss the complexity of the holographic brain in which the eyes act as data and reference beams mutually.
.
This brings me to another point of the brain-mind problem. The brain is the biological functioning mechanism but the mind is something more. The mind seems possess a sense of conscience. where did this comes from? Despite desparate attempts be psychologists to model and predict its behavior the best they can do is about a 60% guess regarding human behavior on a rare good day.
.
Evolution coupled with science cannot answer many of these questions. However, science coupled with Intelligent Design has stronger support. A more harmonious result.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ID’s supposed scientific process methods of design prediction or “inference” (e.g. Dumbski’s Explanatory Filter…EF) fails once again. No surprises!
Still no scientific inference, method or evidence, just more vacuous assumptions and assertions, not to mention embarrassingly fundamentally flawed mathematics. Ho hum..
.
“The Intelligent Design Challenge – Dénouement”
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/the-intelligent-3.html#more
.
“Another (failed) test of the Design Inference”
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/a-test-of-the-d.html
.
Do the cdesignproponentsists even know what’s really going on with regard to the multiple documented failures of the presumptions and predictions of *ID research science*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr Miami “Evolution coupled with science cannot answer many of these questions. However, science coupled with Intelligent Design has stronger support. A more harmonious result.” I have yet to see science coupled with ID. All I see is pseudo-science coupled to faith and beliefs.
*
How does evolution reconcile the findings of quantum physics, irreducible complexity, and the origin of information?
It does not. It simply is an explanation of how life developed and changed after forming. It says little on origins.
And please leave irreducible complexity out of it, that has been refuted over and over and over again. Evolution does not have to reconcile that with anything, it is nonsense.
Quantum physics I now nothing about.
*
Most tv-series are made for those with little training in science, therefore they keep it simple, much simpler than reality could ever be. It is a starting point, for those who wish to learn more there is more, much more.
*
Please do not say I attack you, I do not. Your ideas yes, since I disagree with them. But I have always try to be polite, even if I utterly disagree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami,
I have read all of your posts and you are obviously an educated person and very passionate about I.D.. However, I think you’re missing the point of this website and others who follow the same format. I am not concerned about what you believe or how you choose to validate it to yourself, and it is not my place to tell you either. One of the ideas of this site is to illustrate that unless any idea including I.D. is willing to bring testable evidence that can be subject to critical analyzing for as long as it takes to validate it, it is not welcome nor defined as a science. Therefore teaching it along side theories like evolution and gravity, to name a few, would be doing a great diservice to students everywhere. If you want to teach ideas based in faith then do so in a proper venue, i.e. theology classes or an elective covering spiritual beliefs, or a history of religious movements. Any of these, I think, would be acceptable by the science community.
To close I would like to say if you are arguing your points of I.D. to help us understand your beliefs then I applaud your convictions. However if you are arguing your points to try and convince us to somehow “see the light” then it has fallen on deaf ears, and always will. There will always be those of us who will fight to continue to keep faith based ideas (religion,I.D.) out of the public schools, govt. and anywhere else it may have the opportunity to persecute those who believe differently.
RAmen!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami,
I would like to give you something to think about:
Given we assume the possibility of a “natural” and a “spiritual” (=”supernatural”) world.
Then, we have the following choices:
1. The spiritual world (God, “The Designer”, The FSM etc.) exist, but does not interact with the natural world.
2. The spiritual world (God, “The Designer”, The FSM etc.) exist, and interacts with the natural world:
a) with our (the natural) world affecting the spiritual world in a one-way manner,
b) with the spiritual world affecting our (the natural world) in a one way manner,
c) both worlds interact, thereby influencing each other (= we pray, God helps),
d) the spiritual world exists and influences our world, but without any rules (1,2 = Supernaturalism).
3. The spiritual world doesn’t exist; therefore there is no interaction possible (= Naturalism).
From this follows:
We don’t have to care about 1, since we can never experience any effects of the supernatural.
We don’t have to care about 2a, since we cannot distinguish this one from 1.
If we take 2b and 2c into consideration, we should be able to detect (measure) the effects of the spiritual world, since there is physical interaction with those things that we can measure anyway.
If this is the case (and it should be), 2c and 2d are not distinguishable from 3 (= the supernatural world doesn’t exist). Effects of the supernatural haven’t been measured yet.
From 2d, we would expect a lot of miracles. A religion based on 2d would have difficulties to provide any rules. However, true miracles have not been convincingly reported so far, and all known religions propagate certain rules.
From this we can learn that in any case we don’t have to care much about the supernatural (except the FSM, of course).
(Taken and translated essentially from dittmar-online, a German site)
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I need to amend my first comment.
“There will always be those of us who will fight to continue to keep faith based ideas (religion,I.D.) out of the public school”
What I meant was to keep it out of public schools as a required class. I believe all ideas are welcome in a learning environment as long as they are not forced on those who do not want them.
RAmen!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami
.
I don’t have the nerves to reply to everything you said since I can already feel my blood pressure rising. I will, however, address what appears to be your main point without which your little cardhouse of intellectuel dishonesty, distortions and half-truths collapses.
.
You claim evolution relies on random mutation which then of course requires the existence of randomness per se which, again you claim, does in fact not exist. This means random mutation and thus evolution are impossible and do not exist.
But, see, no matter how many mathematical, philosophical, yet never really scientific “proofs” about the non-existence of randomness you manage to provide, it doesn’t change the fact that “random” mutations exist and are quite measurable. About every 100.000th cell of our body is slightly mutated.
So either mutations are not “random” or randomness does, in fact, exist. Either way, you and your nice little “theory” (the not-scientific term here) are quite, and I do mean QUITE, wrong.
Also? This list is hilarious:
Intelligent design -vs- Evolution
1. Order -vs- randomness
2. Order to increasing Disassociation -vs- Disassociation to increasing order
3. Origin of Information -vs- Natural Selection and Genetic drift
4. DNA template (patternmaker provides information) -vs- DNA blueprint (ignores origin of information)
5. Life involves an embodiment and spirit -vs- Life is microbes, plants, and animals
6. God resolves Godels problem self description -vs- increasingly more complex models without answers
Try:
Intelligent design -vs- Evolution
1. Pseudoscience -vs- Science
2. Intellectual dishonesty, ignorance and stagnation -vs- Free inquiry
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sir, you seem to once again have missed my point. Evolution is a process. It is a how. There are many reasonable people who hold that the creator as they see it uses evolution as a tool. This is a philosophy. It is not science, can never be science, and should not be science. You are confusing the philosophical beliefs with scientific research. The evolutionary spread of traits is modeled probabilisticly. We can and have used projective models to demonstrate how evolution would work in a theoretical environment using modeling programs. We can do this because it implies that the order of cause and effect is part and parcel with it. Trait A appears (the reason it appears is irrelavent to this), environmental pressure B favors that trait over others. Mathamatically you would predict that trait A would become more prevalent, which is what evolutionary theory predicts. The reason ID is not science is there is no way to test it. Just like the biologists who believe that evolution is the method worked by their god, ID is a matter of faith. No ammount of evidence can disprove the existence of god. Asking people to disprove that a supernatural force is the cause of the diversity of life is like asking me to disprove that lightning hits people because Zeus is mad at them. All science can do is look for the testable, the rational.
`
It is completely possible that tomorrow incontreverible evidence could arise disproving the theory of evolution. Tell me sir, what evidence could ever be found to fully disprove the existence of a designer? All of the evidence found to date supports the mechanism of evolution via natural selection. Transitional fossils are in abundance, genetic analysis demonstrates relationship, embryonic studies show the evolutionary history of a species, and yet all this evidence means nothing to ID proponents. Why? Because their “theory” is untestable. They say a “designer” made things be how they are, but no attempt is made to describe what evolution describes, the mechanism. You say a designer did it, but how did it do it? That is what science wants to know, that is what evolution explains. The reason things are that way, the why, are things that people must reach on their own, be it divine design, random chance, or drunken spaghetti monsters.
`
Finally, you throw around mathematics to say that evolution is impossible yet you do not seek to use mathematics to support ID. Evolutionary theory has withstood over 150 years of constant scientific scrutiny, probability studies and more. I am a biologist, not a mathematician so I can’t tell you the branch of mathematics involved beyond that, but the fact is that you can express evolutionary change with probability formulas, and you can make projections using those formulas.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bonobo:
.
There is no transitional relationship in evolution. Evolution is chuck full of comical frauds. Nearly all the pillars of Evolution have been exposed as an intelligently designed pranks. Let me list some of them:
.
1. Piltdown man HOAX, 1912 in Sussex England a amature paleotologist charles dawson discovered the missing link is a fossil that appeared to half man and half chimp. 1953 proved to be false as a modern human skull and chimp jaw.
.
2. Peppered moth hoax. This claimed pollution caused a color change from pale to black. The pale ones were eaten by birds because they were more easily seen against dark trunks. The evidence was doctored dark peppered moths were glue to tree trunks for the photo. The natural Pepper moth rest on high branches, not on trunks and come out at night.
.
3. Vertebrates Hoax. All vertebrates looked the same in the beginning according to drawings by Dr Heckle. Dr Richardson in aug 1997 Journal of Anatomy and embriology remarked it was a fake after attempting to recreate the drawings but empirical evidence was somewhat different.
.
4. Miller-Eury experiment HOAX. This experiement attempted to recreate the soup kitchen and used the Jupiter atmosphere as the early Earth atmosphere model. They successfully created amino acids. This experiment was determined to be a fraud in 1953. Scientitst concluded that the early Earth atmosphere was not like Jupiter but instead was mostly CO2. This was not conducive of forming amino acids.
.
There are numerous other hoaxes. How mcan anyone take Evolution as a serious scientific endeavor with so many hoaxs? It is a comical joke!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami,
At the end of the day, with all your diatribes you have not shown one ounce of proof where science is used to reconcile Intelligent design.
1. No matter how many times you say it, evolution does not deal with genesis.
2. As for your tree of life comment.
A. The claim refers to results that indicate that horizontal gene transfer was common in the very earliest life. In other words, genetic information was not inherited only from one’s immediate ancestor; some was obtained from entirely different organisms, too. As a result, the tree of life does not stem from a single trunk but from a reticulated collection of stems (Woese 2000). This does not invalidate the theory of evolution, though. It says only that another mechanism of heredity was once more common.
.
B. Horizontal gene transfer does not invalidate phylogenetics. Horizontal gene transfer is not a major factor affecting modern life, including all macroscopic life: “Although HGT does occur with important evolutionary consequences, classical Darwinian lineages seem to be the dominant mode of evolution for modern organisms” (Kurland et al. 2003, 9658; see also Daubin et al. 2003). And it is still possible to compute phylogenies while taking horizontal gene transfer into account (Kim and Salisbury 2001).
3. Earlier posts when you mentioned the Cambrian Explosion.
A. The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed. some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.
B. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.
C. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.
D. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals.
So you can keep writing all your very extensive comments but all you keep doing is throwing out the same arguments the ID proponents do and call it science. You are entitled to believe in whatever you want but using some type of creator to answer all the unknowns due to our stage of development is a cop out. Hundreds of years ago they would have thought the microwave was magic and God like but we know it isn’t. We can explain it now. Just like we will be able to explain the different things we can not grasp at this point.
MV
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think mrMiami’s last post, 1st paragraph, he “unerstands science” is a challenge to demonstrate the strength of our understanding of the theory, he just left out some words. I’m not sure why he thinks natural selection is mathematically ordered, or even what he means by that (not having slogged through every word of his missives).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all
A fairly common plotline in both modern and ancient stories goes along the lines of “Traveler(s) on a Lonely Road run into a Lunatic and have to Deal with Him/Her to get past.” Alice in Wonderland and Monty Python come to mind. Anyway, all the training manuals say “Don’t imagine you can talk them into sanity.” I am sad to note, that, while MrMiami has evaded our childish ploys to draw him into an argument, the Pastafarians – certainly including me – are biting hook, line, and sinker. But even the biggest hook will hold only so much global baloney, and, with this, I quit biting, and will write to the Florida school boards instead.
.
The text is:”Why does a bit have heat content and information theory is really the same thing as thermodynamics?” While petty and irrelevant to evolution, it IS relevant to the general level of global baloney seen in certain kinds of argument seen above: bits have energy content because they are physical entities, not just because they are bits: a puff of smoke has heat content, the heat in a burst of neutrinos (proposed for communication with submarines, LOFLMAO) seems less – well – relevant, even if VERY energetic. To be sure, there is “entropy” associated with a message or “information” that is defined analogously to Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy, but the connection – admittedly profound enough – is by way of the probability theory MrMiami seems to deplore. (A sincere apology promised if I’ve misunderstood.) In fact, one might state correctly that there is entropy associated with throwing dice: 7’s – more probable – represent higher entropy than “snake-eyes”, but that doesn’t establish any important cosmic relevance of casinos to thermodynamics. (I hope there are casinos near the stripper factories in the hereafteer, BTW.) In fact, thermodynamics has a tremendous amount of physical content that is utterly absent from mathematical information theory (See, e.g., “Thermal Physics”, Charles Kittel, John Wiley).
.
Speaking of entropy, I did suggest a new unit of entropy in an earlier post: the BLIVOT. The blivot is defined as 10 pounds of b**ls**t in a 5 pound bag. RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all: I lied. There is a relevance, but not Cosmic. Casinos make bundles of money on really good odds in their favor. The odds in thermodynamics are – not always, but typically – overwhelmingly, humungously, mindbogglingly, better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALL:
.
Ok you guys win. Your science is is unquestionable. Everyone of you evolved from an chimp and coincidentally act like one too.
.
We have no common ground and there is nothing we can discuss. The infidels should die.
.
The point on information centers on the differences in the philosophies. One accounts for naturalistic information and the other does not at all account for information. Information is an underpinning of the universe and demonstrated in the Planckian realm. The natural is reconciled with the Bible account in Genesis 1:3 where the universe is spoken into existence in the form of light or waveforms. A poor attempt at fantasy using quantum information and computing is the movie the ‘Matrix’.
.
Anyhow, you all have won. There is nothing that can be discussed because you guys have demonstrated such prolific understanding. Pehaps many of you should consider becoming the next Ghandi.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apprentice Frederic all i can say is that you rock!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr Miamai please grow up. You come here to engage in debate, when we do, and question your assumptions you go all testy. And coming up with bible-parts and quotes and some nice soundbites is-not-science!!! TRY to get that in your head please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pasta Wench:
.
The problem is that none of you have presented any science. Your remarks is a good example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ MrMiami,
Evolution = Tangible evidence, fossilized records, genetical codes fitting perfectly in gaps that had existed earlier, bones of animals containing traits between two species and that look like both.
Your turn = ? ? ? “FAITH!”, “Ask the creator”, “Only the creator knows”, “Obviously the creator didn’t want us to know that answer” “It’s easier to explain and accept for some poeple”.
See the difference and evidence.
The bottom lines cannot be tested or measured or critically analyzed, therefore are not a science.
RAmen!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh yeah,
HAPPY DARWIN DAY!!!!
RAmen!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The question is sir what type of science do you want? Is biology not a science? I have done my best to explain evolutionary theory as a biologist and yet you seem to miss some key points.
1) Evolution via natural selection is a mechanism based on simple cause and effect relationships
2) Evolution does not attempt to explain how life first developed on this planet, merely the process by which it developed from the simplest forms to more complex forms.
3) Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of god, there are many devoutly religious biologists who accept evolutionary theory.
4) Randomness is not a part of or a requirement for evolution. Whether you believe there is true randomness in the universe or not it does not change the predictions evolutionary theory makes.
5) Intelligent Design cannot be disproven this is why its not science. No matter how many transitional fossils are found, how many genetic relationships are demonstrated, it will never disprove that some supernatural force designed anything, however if a human fossil dating back 65 million years ago was found that would disprove current evolutionary theory forcing biology to reevaluate
6) You refererd to the “hoaxes” in evolutionary theory let me evaluate each in turn:
A)Piltdown man was indeed a hoax, and it was a hoax which in and of itself did not jive with the other evolutionary evidence. It showed early hominids originating in europe when all the other evidence did and does show them originating in Africa.
B)While the early experiments on the peppered moths did indeed have flaws, as you indicated, later studies which remedied flaws found that the conclusions drawn were essentially valid (per wikipedia because I don’t have access to other documentation at the moment)
C)I am not familiar with nor can I find any reference to this so I cannot adequately respond to this
D)The experiments concerning the origins of life itself are always in high flux due to a lack of true understanding of when life originated here or what the planet was like at the time (the oldest evidence for life dates back 3.8 billion years ago and that is sparse). These hypothesis are not part of evolutionary theory since natural selection cannot be in effect till there is actual life.
~
If you want specific formulas for evolution then I am afraid that I cannot help you as that was not something I studied, and of all the fields in science biology is primarily an observational field. Most biologists work off of statistical analysis and empirical evidence, not abstract mathematical theories, though again I know there have been computer models which map the spread of a trait through a population via natural selection. Analysis of ring species can be helpful in demonstrating how genetic drift can lead to reproductive isolation and the formation of new species that are in the earliest stages of speciation. Beyond this I do not know what else I can give you.
~
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, and while I’m thinking about it, let me explain the basics of modern taxonomy (the naming of species) since it was asked why there are different kingdoms. Taxonomic classification is designed around the idea of differeing levels of evolutionary relatedness. This means that the higher up the classification ladder 2 species diverge the further back their lines split from a common ancestor. There are in fact 2 levels of organization above the kingdom level, though they are rarely used (Domain and Life). In the expanded system you find that the 4 eukaryotic kingdoms (Protista, Plantae, Animalia, and Fungae) are in their own Domain, indicating that the 4 each branched off from a common eukaryotic ancestor. The remaining 2 kingdoms (Archae bacteria and eubacteria) are in seperate domains (though this is debated). If you go far enough back you find that all of the groups fall under the life taxon (which if extrat terrestrial life were discovered would change to indicate earth based life forms) indicating the current hypothesis that all life shares a common ancestor species.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ MrMiami,
OK – you win, you’ve entrapped me.
.
Richard Feynman, after he won the Nobel Prize, is supposed to have said that he got the Prize for “sweeping a great problem under the rug.” To me, that showed a certain wry humility worth emulating. This is just a conjecture on my part, but I truly doubt that Feynman, ever, in his professional career, said anything remotely as condescending, gassy, and empty as “Information is an underpinning of the universe and demonstrated in the Planckian realm.” Feynman died later of some nasty form of cancer, and remarked that the worst part of that was that the process of dying was so boring. Ludwig Boltzmann killed himself, but no comments that I’m aware of were passed on. In fact, I once heard Feynman debate a theologian (see below) and thought his most telling question was: “What are your results?”
.
You probably know far more than I about the famous Huxley-Wilberforce debate. Huxley was, I thought, appropriately respectful. Wilberforce was in fact not a bad guy and – indeed – an accomplished product of a superb education. Huxley’s most important words characterized Wilberforce appropriately: “…a man of restless and versatile intellect…” who misused his abilities. My tiny simian brain actually holds some respect for you, and also holds the thought that those words might apply to yourself as well. His Noodly Appendage (like the Hand of the Almighty) guards and rewards humility. Might be worth trying.
.
Eventually, as you know, Huxley was far snottier: Wilberforce eventually fell from his horse onto his head and died of his injuries. Huxley’s comment was something to the effect that the first contact of the Lord Bishop’s brains with reality was, unfortunately, fatal.
.
That’s it, I promise. Hope to meet you in a stripper factory some day!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami,
Mathematics is an extremely powerful tool. However, no mathematical theorem or equation “proves” or “disproves” anything beyond the logical connection between a premise and a conclusion. If a premise is false, so is the conclusion, regardless of how sophisticated and impeccably correct the applied mathematical apparatus is. No mathematical theorems or equations can “displace” evolutionary biology. Its successes and failures can only stem from empirical research and observations bolstered by proper theorizing, wherein mathematics, however important and enlightening, is always only a tool.
.
Again you have not shown any science in any of arguments either. Honestly, you sound like William Dembski’. Maybe your are William since he tries to argue the same points.
.
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Funny how 80 years ago the ACLU was demanding that evolution AND creation models of origins be taught in public schools as mandated by the Constitutional requirement of neutrality to competing ideologies of origins. This was the purpose of the famous Scopes trial in 1925.
However as evidenced yesterday at the Orlando hearing on changing science curriculum in public schools- it was apparent that now the forces of intolerance and dogmatic exclusiveness were evident by the ACLU’s insistence that any criticism of evolution or inclusion of the alternative models of origins were a violation of church and state. This seemed to be the attitude of many of the administrators in the public school system as well though most parents strongly disagreed.
In fact the intent of these changes to public school curriculum seems to be to indoctrinate children into believing evolution is a fact and as a result that any and all scientific criticism of this molecule to man theory by mutation and natural selection to be irrelevant or simply ignored as idiotic. It seems that there is an inquisition of belief in our academia that is blind or unwilling to acknowledge that evolution is a theory in crisis and that the scientific foundations of neo-Darwinism are in fact crumbling all around us as new discoveries in cellular research, dna, biology, information systems etc. run in opposition to the evolution hypothesis. In fact it appears that any notable scientist who dares question evolution theory runs the risk of losing his job, noble prize nomination, publishing rights, etc. as happened to Sir Fred Hoyle, Dr. Robert Gentry, Dr. Wilder-Smith and numerous others in the recent past.
As I testified at this hearing-in my 26 years study on this subject I am certain of only one thing- that BOTH models of origins require a giant leap of faith as both macro-evolution and creation models are historic events or require vast ages of time. When men like Dr. Wilder Smith who has 3 Phd’s in organic chemistry & pharmacology can succesfully argue the creation case against evolutionists like Richard Dawkins(Huxley Debate in Oxford,England in 1986) I’d say that this issue is far more complex than most realize. In such a case…both evidences scientifically should be taught and debated in school for in such an atmosphere true education and critical thinking takes place. Read Dr. Wilder-Smith’s book “A Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolution” for a world class scientist’s critique of the chemical impossibility of macro-evolution.
Chip Rohlke
BS/MS Systems Mgmt FIT
po box 34117 Indialantic Fl.
321-298-9796
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Chip
One of the things I find most disturbing about this entire debate is that people who have degree in actual biology start trying to use their degrees in other fields to demonstrate that they know what they are talking about. Dr. Smith’s Phd’s in chemistry are impressive, and if I were asking a question about chemistry I would defer to his wisdom on that subject. But when it comes to biology, ask biologists. If you asked an honest to goodness biologist. Dawkins is one as is Dr. Kenneth Miller, the renowned Biologist from Brown university who is also a devout Roman Catholic. Both of them will tell you that evolution is not “a theory in crisis” as will almost any other biologist. Every single piece of evidence that has been discovered over the past 150 years since Darwin’s original theory was published has done nothing but support it. All of the pro ID crowd out there seem to think that science is covering up the evidence that disproves ID, but evolutionary theory has not always been widely accepted in the biological community. It took evidence, solid, consistent evidence, for evolution via natural selection to develop from a hypothesis to a true theory.
`
As for your arguement concerning the scopes trial, I will merely say that the public view of such matters change. 50 years ago it Atheism was considered grounds for dishonorable discharge from the military, 80 years ago it was seen as proper for schools to have teacher led prayer. 150 years ago it was acceptable for one person to own another (a practice which interestingly enough is endorsed in the bible).
`
Finally, please stop saying evolution is the model for the origin of life. It is not. It is the model for explaining the diversity of life.
`
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
*edit* people who DON’T have a degree in biology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But… evolution is a fact in my mind. i mean…we devovled from pirates! ya…
peace love and pirates
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Elvish Pirate Monarch,
Excellent post.
.
You missed one small item, however. Chip is actually on the FSM side. He agrees that alternative explanations should be taught in science classes. Pastafarians rejoice! We have another supporter! I can hardly wait until our “correct” version of “the truth” is given a fair exposure to those impressionable minds who yearn for enlightenment.
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Elvish PM, MV, DNAbled, RDPWench, et al.
Way ta go…and my apologies. EPM’s point about training well taken: my training is in physics, and you obviously don’t need any help from me, LOFLMAO. I’m really gonna disappear from this, but will read with great interest. Thanks for your help and hints.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“new discoveries in cellular research, dna, biology, information systems etc. run in opposition to the evolution hypothesis.”
.
Chip, could you cite specific references to support that assertion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Long live the pirates!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALL
.
ONE EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION is the formation of fossils today is rare and modern rock layers are slow to form. They are usually very thin, found in river beds and off the coast. However, in the past thick sediment layers covered entire continents that eventually formed rock layers and are filled with fossils. In order to create fossils of this magnitude in a single geological layer it has to happen rapidly such as a sudden flood. A animal dying and laying on the surface are consumed by bacteria, insects, and predators within days and usually entirely gone in weeks for certain. Therefore, in order to achieve the quality fossils we are seeing in one geologic layer, the fossilization process would require rapid burial and preservation of the carcass. Additionally, there would need to be high pressure and cooler temperatures such as would be found under deep water.
.
ANOTHER EMPIRICAL OBASERVATION is it takes 10 feet of bark and plant debris to form a coal seam 1 foot in height, 10:1 ratio. Historical coal seams are often many feet, if not 10’s of feet, thick. A 20 foot thick coal seam would need 200 feet of plant debris. Another EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION is that the land has to be mined in order to reach these seams as time has built numerous layers above it that coincidentally possess fewer fossil records. EMPIRICALLY, the Coal seams coincide with thick rock layers where the largest account of fossils are found than prior to it or after it.
.
Evolutionist teach that coal is a result of millions of years of peat build up in swamps. But modern processes do not indicate this kind of event and EMPRICIAL EVIDENCE is counter to this thought. There are not massive coal seams forming underneath swamps and there are fewer fossil records in other layers. The fewer fossil records in other geologic layers indicate that millions of years of evolution are not at work. In fact, it offers no record at all of evolution. All the major coal and fossil finds are in one geological period.
.
We have EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED when Mount Saint Helens erupted that there were massive acres of plants and trees swept into lakes by flash flooding. This rapid flooding causes the plants and trees to accummulate into lakes and dense layers began to form on the bottom of lakes as the palnts rotted. Animals also were trapped and rapidly buried during these flash floods rapidly. While Mount Saint Helens is a less intense event than the one required to cause the layer effects we EMPIRICALLY OBSERVE across entire continents, it is a modern day process that reflects the processes necessary to cause the events during a more violent Earth period.
.
I think those who are evolution proponents need to rethink they science and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE such as all those HOAXs to promote the psuedo-science of evolution. The other understandings out there you’ll need to investigate. The Muslims believe, at least in the Koran, that our Universe floats on the back of a cosmic turtle. Those Christians think that the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE reconciles the Biblical account of the Great Flood in Genesis. Personally, I like Edwards Whittens model of the Brane-World Universe myself. Its way cooler.
.
The Brane-World Universe is 10 dimensional Universe with worlds colliding and membranes slapping worlds. It has hyperspace ports and cosmic slip streams. It also has an eleventh dimension that is a mathematical error. Wrapped up in that error is a variety of things among which is that the model is incomplete. This, I believe, is because of Goedel’s Theory of Incompleteness and I believe also not taken into account in the model is human thought or self-awareness. But then those Christains say this model reconciles the Biblical accounts of Jesus opening up the heavens to see the Prophets and how he could walk on water. They claim it is a natural account on how Jesus could and leave rooms without using doors or windows. Those Christians also claim this model accounts for evil principalities in other domains which humans battles against! Whatever, its just a cool model.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALL:
.
BTW mathematics is an extremely powerful language that communicates natural relationahips and demonstrates their viability.
.
For example, mathematics can be used to disprove the occurence of something SUSPECTED to be a natural phenomenon. There are several approaches to this. First, the natural order of this process is mapped into the language of mathematics through a method like the Buckingham Pi Theorem or other methods. Once the mathematical order is established this model could be a future model, a present model, a probabilistic model, or others. If in the end, the math demonstrates that the likelihood of this SUSPECTED natural process is unlikely or statistically impossible then the math has disproven the SUSPECTED natural process as being not true.
.
Let us take Global Warming for instance. The honest science regarding the warming of the Earth is that radiant energy from the Sun excites atmosheric molecules into heightened energy states. These excited molecules rotate, vibrate, and translate faster creating higher orders of heat content. At night, when the Sun is no longer bombarding the Earth with radiant energy, these molecules disipate their energy and return to a ground state or resident level of heat content.
.
The ‘would be’ correct science of Global Warming is that man has added such enormous levels of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that the innate resident heat of the atmosphere has increased because the composition of the atmosphere has changed to such an extent that it now retains more heat. ie the CO2 molecule is assumed to have a higher ground state heat content then Oxygen and Nitrogen. Thus, increasing atmospheric temperatures.
.
I am not going to go into the statistical thermodynamics of the CO2 molecule vs the O2 and N2 molecule which, by coindicence, is described by mathematics and one can determine the amount of dumping necessary to increase atmospheric temperatures one degree. I suspect that before the temperatures increase humans will have suffocated as the atmosphere is about 21% oxygen and humans begin to suffocate below 19% oxygen. Nonetheless, if you calculate the volume of the atmosphere using the a 12 mile limit. Then use the EPA estimates for dumping of greenhouse gases to calculate the global density of these gases, ie tons/cubic mile. Finally, compare that to the standard density of the atmosphere and you’ll find that the official estimates amount to nothing more very small percentage of the total global atmosphere. I calculated it to be apercentage on the order of magnitude of about 10 to the minus 7th power for consistent dumping over 100 years based on 2005 numbers. I would remark that human pollution has contributed to the atmosphere the equivalent of one drop of red coloring into the Pacific Ocean. Let us call Al Gore’s Strange truth the ‘Stop The Drop’ campaign.
.
Once again the TRUTH is in the mathematics not me or some nut with a redline graphic. What a powerful tool for disproving some environmental whack job! Coincidentally, there is an assessment out on what Global Warming is really about – its a politically motivated scheme to rally people to leftist ideologies. The study shows a long history of similiar efforts with the same agendas; global cooling, global dimming, food crisis, energy crisis, land crisis, disease pandemics, etc…
.
Here is another mathematical problem – there is not enough time for the evolution revelation to evolve given current models. Sounds like evolution is having a difficult time passing its math test.
.
So MV when you remark that math does not prove or disprove anything I think you missed the point of mathematical ‘proofs’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@All
.
After listening to many of you and your remarks, I am now thinking of starting my own website. Perhaps I’ll call it ‘The Far Flung Poo Chapel’. There I’ll have a section that requires posters to submit verifiable photos and Cirricula Vitea’s. There I’ll establish veritable standards for conduct, knowledge, and intellectual exchange.
.
In another section I’ll create products that are for purchase on the site and offer unmoderated posting then compare the moderated to the open posting. This will expose the incredible foolishness of those garage physicists and mathematicians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami,
Evolutionist as you put it do not teach about coal. That would fall into the Geology.
Your attempt to use your example came from an old website http://www.pacificrim.net/~nuanda/origins/CoalBeds.html [now defunct] and used misinformation about the process of coal beds. It even sited events from Mount St.Helen. Your example of 10 feet of bark is irrelevant without knowing the area, type of bark, temperature, pressure and a multitude of other factors. As for your “empirical observations”, please provide the text’s you are referring to that state this. Capitalizing EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE each time does not make it evidence without knowing the context, source, the methodology used in it’s gathering. It is sort of like gathering DNA evidence. If you collect it but it is contaminated in the process any results gathered is worthless.
.
Your “braneworld universe” has five dimensions — four spatial dimensions plus time (not 10 as you claim). The braneworld theory predicts that relatively small “black holes” created in the early universe have survived to the present. The black holes, with mass similar to a tiny asteroid, would be part of the “dark matter” in the universe. As the name suggests, dark matter does not emit or reflect light, but does exert a gravitational force. String Theory deals with at least 10 Dimensions.
.
In regards to your “must be a flood”: From http://www.talkorigins.org.
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren’t the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
.
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn’t such evidence show up?
.
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn’t regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
.
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986].
.
Like Apprentice Frederic I think i will sit back for a while as well. No matter what anyone says or puts forth in response to your arguments you will continue to believe what you believe and nothing is going to change that. It is like talking to a deaf person, no matter how much you say they still won’t hear you.
However, if something was put forth that could be validated, tested, validated again, myself and others could adapt to the new information. That is what science is about. Constantly changing and adapting as new information validates or nulls current understanding. It is like with God / Creator. If there was definitive proof I think anyone on here would then believe. However there is no proof so skepticism remains until there is such proof.
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
mrmiami,
It is frightening how you think that you can distort a debateable question of how fossils were laid down into a false assumption that evolution is incorrect and get away with it. You know better! There are many solid geologic theories and other branches of science that support the dating. As to what would cause such massive amounts of debris, you state one yourself, volcanoes. There are others, among them glacier movements causing sudden water flows. Just because we see a swamp today, doesn’t mean that it was around for long enough to form coal. One reason that the fossil record is incomplete is that major events or perfect conditions rarely occur. I know you understand these concepts!
String theory that you speak of (without naming it, – maybe to make yourself look smarter which is really wierd) does not predict walking on water or through walls on a regular basis. Many charlatans have claimed supernatural abilities using spurious explanations of magical or mystical powers. On examination all have been exposed as frauds. That’s why we need science, to keep people honest. There are laws to prevent frauds. I suggest they be applied to you. -Fizzmick PaChee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“In order to create fossils of this magnitude in a single geological layer it has to happen rapidly such as a sudden flood.”
.
“The fewer fossil records in other geologic layers indicate that millions of years of evolution are not at work. In fact, it offers no record at all of evolution. All the major coal and fossil finds are in one geological period.”
.
“Those Christians think that the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE reconciles the Biblical account of the Great Flood in Genesis.”
“those Christains say”
“Those Christians also claim”
.
Hehehehehehe
This guy is hilarious :)
Am I the only one reading YEC troll here?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mr miami
you do pose som facts, they do not fully support to your conclusions
this site explains how coal are created
http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=98
this site explains how fossils are created
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/paleontology/FossilsAndFossilisation/Howfossilsformed/Howfossilsformed.htm
it does not indicate any supernaturality
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Mr. Miami
.
You are contradicting yourself. You state that the type of large fossil deposit that we see as coal seams could not be formed by processes happening today. Then you cite Mt. St. Helens as proof that large flooding events can result in thick deposits. So the type of events that can cause thick deposits are indeed happening today. I think you simply do not have a real concept of the enormous amount of geologic time involved in the history of life. The processes we see happening now, multiplied by billions of years, can produce the fossil layers we see, and also the vast diversity of life forms we see today, which are only a small percentage of the life forms that have ever existed.
.
EMPIRICALLY, we observe many fossil layers, with many different rates of deposition and preservation rates of fossils. There are coal seams building up under swamps today. The Carboniferous Period left especially thick layers because conditions were right for lush plant growth. But those layers are nowhere near the majority of the fossil-bearing sediments. Go take a look for yourself sometime. I have. I’ve seen lots of fossil-bearing sediments that are not part of any coal seam. I’ve been to the cliffs in Maryland and seen millions of years of buildup of marine molluscs. I’ve been to the tar pits in L.A. and seen many tens of thousands of years worth of Mammoths and Dire wolves trapped in the tar. (But suprisingly, only one human. If it were from a flood, there should be many humans in the deposit, but there are not.) I’ve seen road cuts through mountains, where the coal is a narrow layer sandwiched among many many others. GO LOOK for yourself, don’t just trust what some creationist tells you.
.
As for Edward Witten, I spent four years majoring in physics. I stuffed my head with mathematics and quantum theory, and I finally learned enough to know that I was nowhere close to being able to begin to comprehend the mathematics of Witten’s work. Don’t try to twist his work to fit a narrow vision of the Cosmos. Unless you are at the Post-Doctoral level in Mathematics AND Physics, you just aren’t qualified to comment on it. I know I’m not. I don’t understand Brane Theory, but I’m sure it’s nothing like what you just described.
.
Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies to formal systems (such as mathematics), and says that they cannot be simultaneously both complete and consistent. Once a system is complete enough to express all the true statements we would like to say, it also becomes inevitable that self-contradicting statements can be produced as well. (Along the lines of “This statement is false.”) It does not mean that any particular mathematical model must be incomplete. (Perhaps it applies to religions though. If a religion has become complete enough to address all the questions mankind has, it will inevitably become internally inconsistent. But that’s just me musing. I’ve never found a religion to be that complete.)
.
I think you are using lots of big words without really understanding what they actually mean. I encourage you to do lots more study. But not at a bible college please.
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Ande:
.
I gave a natural explanation not a supernatural one. I just so happens that the natural explanation coincides with what the supernatural had been telling us.
.
Also your websites do not discuss the fact that nearly the entire collection of fossils and nearly the entire naturally occurring reserves of fossil fuels such as coal happened during one geological period. In natural geologic language that was pretty sudden.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami Feb 16th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“I am now thinking of starting my own website. Perhaps I’ll call it ‘The Far Flung Poo Chapel’.”
.
Hahahahahaha….I think you should.
Name suits :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MV
.
EMPIRICAL means it can be observed. Use your eyes. This is a good starter for sources.
.
I did not get my discussion from one of your defunct resources.
.
The BraneWorld model is an outcome of 9 theories, string theory being one and relativity another, Edward Whitten mathematically combined to in order to develop a unified theory. It is 10 dimensions and when conformally mapped into three dimensions so humans can see what it looks like, it has globes and membranes. Each globes or world is theoretically a universe of its own. The movie ‘TimeLine’ was written about the Brane-World model. Each World was a different instance in time in the movie and people could take adventure trips and vacations to other worlds. Even the movie the Matrix attempted, albeit very poorly, to incorporate elements of the Brane-World model.
.
String theory is NOT 10 dimensions. String theory is about wave mechanics of violently vibrating and ultra-thin strings that are sometimes close looped harmonics and other times open ended harmonics. These strings occur in the Planckian realm or below. When a bunch of them come together in a compactness process not yet understood they form a particle. Hence, the particle-wave theory of light.
.
MV, your science is really messed up as is your cosmological views. You need to study multiple theologies and cosmologies in comparison. You need to be able to properly divide science and cosmological revelations. Science Only deals with complexity and order- nothing more. Origin has nothing to do with science. However, science can be use to reconcile cosmological and theological revelation just as archeology confirms historical accounts. Perhaps you should actually study in somewhere that is not pushing a political or cosmological agenda. OOPS! I forgot you are just another brick in the wall. You are one of those independent non-conforming American Sceintist who wears blue jeans, tennis shoes, and looks like everyone of the other bricks. Your schools are brainwashing you with hogwash. I have seen it first hand and even listened to them spew untruths about things I have actually been involved with. Even the teachers cannot see beyond thier own noses. Watch the PBS special ‘Evolution: What About God’ and see how far those science-philosophy teachers are from the science they allegedly espouse.
.
The schools need to teach people how to learn and study – how to be an independent thinker. The schools got to get out of this mindset of TELLING students something who then take notes and are tested on their note taking. Discovering how to learn and study makes life more exciting than debating people over thier half baked ideas of reality or science.
.
I have lived in South Florida for some time. Despite winning awards for being terrific schools, I have seen the enormous idiocy the schools turn out. I have spoken to many young folks who have no understanding of history, mathematics, science, or the arts. Michelangelo in a mutant turtle to them. They can play sports well and usually been with ’someone’ sexually by time they graduate. The sad thing is they are being mislead – most likely for political purposes. Even the churches here are messed up and do not even practice what they preach.
.
So if the schools are teaching bunk and the churches cannot get it right what does that do for future humanity? Are we going to evolve into bald one eyed aliens who travel back in time with a understanding the Brane-World model to freak people out and cause TV shows like the X-Files?
.
I hope not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy”
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/17/galaxy-amino-acid.html
.
Is it just a coincidence that the above image uncannily resembles His Noodlyness?
I think not!
RAmen
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Wench Nikkiee:
.
Soup kitchen experiments created the same kind of amino acids right here on Earth years ago. The problem was that the amino acids were naturally created but life did not emerge because the conditions that created the acids are hostile to carbon based life. The ’so-called’ building blocks were present but life could form because the environmental conditions were not conducive to biological life. The experiments while interesting were of little value.
.
So the same process seems to have naturally occurred 250 million light years away in the vast void of space amidst a cluster of stars. I am for one skeptical that there is this finding so far away from our solar system that it is almost conveniently out of reach. I would like to review the data myself and repeat the experiment by other researchers. There needs to be a consensus.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all,
Reading MrMiami’s diatribes has been interesting at first, then obnoxious, and finally nauseating. His “global warming” estimate and associated comments above are sheer, gibbering, slobbering nonsense. Anyone can do airthmetic, even if they can’t do statistical thermodynamics: see, e.g.,
.
http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/SHL/GW.html
.
which you can judge for yourselves is light years closer to facts than MrMiami. If he wants to take on badmouthing Princeton, let him! From its manner and grammar, one would guess that the rest of his ranting is the same. (I dunno shit about string theory, maybe he’s right, there.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami
Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality. Such research may also be conducted according to hypothetical-deductive procedures. I know what it is but i guess you do not. You still have not cited your sources. You didn’t observe it yourself.
.
As for Bransworld and String Theory, I am not a scientist but I searched numerous cites that stated what I put into the comments. So as far as my science being messed up it must be all the other websites out there . Wait I forgot, you know everything and everyone else is wrong.
.
Based on most of your comments everyone else in the scientific community are a bunch of morons. You are narcissistic which anyone reading your comments can easily figure out.
.
As for half baked ideas on the reality of science, i think your cake has been baking way too long and is overcooked. It is time to remove it from the oven.
.
For your explanation against Wench Nikki, you say they have little value because life at the time was not conducive to carbon based life forms, but I have seen many programs on the Discovery Channel talking about finding life in places once thought uninhabitable. For example, finding life in the deep oceans near volcanic vents. Watched another program recently where simple single cell organisms were in early oceans when it would be considered not conducive to biological life. Wait, i forgot again you know everything and all other scientist out there are crap.
.
Please let us know when you will receive your Nobel Prize for “MrMiami’s Theory of Self Glorification through the use of the 2nd Law of MrMiami’s Thermo-Indulgence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Pope Murgatroyd:
.
Thank you for your article link.
.
It so happens that I have an Aerospace background and studied the applied science of operating vessels in a variety of off planet atmospheres. So your article was interesting to me not as a science but as politics.
.
Did you know that more than 70% of the Global atmosphere on this planet is processed in a treeline above 50 degree North? Through the process of photosynthesis plants convert CO2 to O2. It is an amazing process where the global atmosphere is dynamically managed. Coincidentally that treeline is expanding. Could it be because of the ready availability of CO2? Just think Americans get fat eating all the time. Could these plants have the similiar problem?
.
There has been three sciences to global climates on this planet. They are:
.
1. The CO2 blanket: C02 was creating a blanket at altitude trapping the sun rays between the surface and the blanket. The problem is that the CO2 molecule has an atomic weight of 46. Oxygens atomic weight is 32 and Nitrogens is 28. The long standing scientific principle of bouyance suggests that CO2 settles and cannot be a gas blanket at altitude.
.
2. Increasing Content: This science suggested that the volume of CO2 was overwhelming the planet and retaining heat in the molecules. Long standing science of molecules and atoms indicates that molecules and atoms have ground states and always return to these ground states. Unless the source of heat is continuously applied, longterm retention of heat in the molecule is not possible. I think the sun has set on this science.
.
c. Solar Heating Cycles: This is a early 1960’s NASA study that indicated that heating of the Earth’s atmosphere is a 24 hour cycle. 100% of the heat received each day is radiated back into space. The heat remaining is the resident heat or ground state heat content of the atmosphere and Earth’s surface. It is the correct science.
.
Now, your article is posing another look at the same old stories.
.
The article remarks that the resident levels of carbon dioxide are increasing and determined from ‘actual’ measurements not models. It is a return to the second science. I found the number in conflict. The EPA reports the CO2 emissions in 2005 were 650 million metric tons. Your article reports in 1994 that 6 Gigatons per year were being emitted. After remarking it does not use models it then goes on to model using interpolation of the data. I agree with the assessment that models diverge quickly and long term projections, which could be days based on the method, are useless.
.
A key point of your article to note is ‘policy’ = politics. The UN is horrid for skewing information and studies. In the Oil for Food program the UN incorrectly assessed the population of Baghdad to be millions of more people than actually there in order to promote the program which has now been exposed as a scam. Your article data source is from the UN IPCC. Hence, the article discussing policy and a politically corrupted organization reinforces my earlier remarks that Climate Change is politically motivated.
.
Thank you for reinforcing my understanding.
.
I agree that we should consider nuclear power and other cleaner options for energy. I believe homes can be entirely energy self-sufficient using a combination of solar, wind, and geothermal power. This will reduce the degree of tradegy following natural disasters as people will have power in their homes if proper designed. I have been through hurricanes and was without power for a month waiting for our highly responsive policy makers in government to make my life better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
–
Sorry for the grammar and spelling, english is not my mother language
–
“by coindicence, is described by mathematics ” Of course here you are using irony. It’s not a coincidence, as mathematics is the language of science. Here we agree, the rest of your comments are the product of missunderstanding and missinformation. Let’s take the global warming part, were you have mixed a true and a big error:
–
“Let us take Global Warming for instance. The honest science regarding the warming of the Earth is that radiant energy from the Sun excites atmosheric molecules into heightened energy states. These excited molecules rotate, vibrate, and translate faster creating higher orders of heat content. At night, when the Sun is no longer bombarding the Earth with radiant energy, these molecules disipate their energy and return to a ground state or resident level of heat content.”
– yeah! that part is real, although seems to be unnecessary and your explanation is a little barroque
–
“The ‘would be’ correct science of Global Warming is that man has added such enormous levels of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that the innate resident heat of the atmosphere has increased because the composition of the atmosphere has changed to such an extent that it now retains more heat. ie the CO2 molecule is assumed to have a higher ground state heat content then Oxygen and Nitrogen. Thus, increasing atmospheric temperatures.”
–
This part is WRONG, or more, you are LYING in order to prove your point.
The fact here, is that the CO2 molecule get excited with the electromagnetic radiation that the Earth radiates. You could look at the wikipedia -it’s that easy.
The sun radiates energy, increasing Earth’s heat. All bodys at more temperature than 0ºK radiates energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation; specifically the Eath with larger wavelength than that of the sun. This radiation excites de CO2 molecule heating it. Is a fact well known that not all the molecules get excited with the same wavelenght -quantum physics. The N2 and the 02 don’t get excited with earth’s radiation. Thus, a relatively litlle increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can increase Earth’s mean temperature. Beeing your premises so wrong, i won’t give a coin for your calculations about our impact in the atmosphere’s composition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
–
we have seen you know nothing about thermodynamics. How can you speak of String theory knowing nothing about quantum physics? Also you are mixing sciences:
–
“Evolutionist teach that coal is a result of millions of years of peat build up in swamps.”
–
No, they don’t. That’s not a matter for biology, it’s geology. MV has well explained were you are wrong – so better than i could, i’m not a biologyst nor a geologist.
–
I’m a mathematician:
–
“Here is another mathematical problem – there is not enough time for the evolution revelation to evolve given current models. Sounds like evolution is having a difficult time passing its math test”
–
I suppose that’s another lie of yours. Of course, I should calculate by myself. I would need the probability for a mutation in human beings -wait, IDiots didn’t know anything about mutations-, and an estimation of the survival’s probability of that mutation in the poblation. I promise to evaluate this and post-it eventually -I need time.
In any case, that’s not a difficult test and I’m sure a lot of byologists have yet done -with positive outcome
–
“So MV when you remark that math does not prove or disprove anything I think you missed the point of mathematical ‘proofs’.”
–
Absolutely NOT. You missunderstanded what MV said, I assume you did it by error or on purpose. Math or logic prove or disprove given the premises are true. False premises can prove false consecuences.
–
So, your arguments are wrong, mixed with sciences that you don’t understand -you are trying to seem very sage, we are not that silly- and thus you get to false conclusions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiamy
–
(I promise is the last one I psot here for today, sorry!)
–
“MV, your science is really messed up as is your cosmological views”
– I don’t know how is the science of MV, say MVlogy, but I’m sure is far less messed up than yours
“You need to study multiple theologies and cosmologies in comparison.”
–
No, we needn’t. We can study cosmology. Theology only can be studied as part of sociology or history
–
“You need to be able to properly divide science and cosmological revelations”
–
I can’t see why, but are you saying that cosmology is not part of science? Sure, you mean astrology
:-p
–
“Origin has nothing to do with science.”
–
Uff… origin has “nothing” to do with evolution, science is coming closer to origin everyday. Science has nothing to do about “why the FSM ceated us” – why we are here, if this question has any sense.
–
“However, science can be use to reconcile cosmological and theological revelation just as archeology confirms historical accounts”
–
Well, archeology confirms some historical accounts. I can see your point, but not, the Bible is not an historical account, sorry. Archeology has disproved many of his points. Of course, we Know the FSM is changing the data.
Yeah, I wonder what has to say the bible about cosmology…mmm…earth is a circle? -not a sphere- the sun rotates around the earth? It says that the other stars are also suns? Anything of relativity?
You mean that the Bible -God’s word- can be tergiversed -is that not a sin?- to seem not to be so wrong.
–
May his noodly appendage touch you
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
News from Florida, according to a news article yesterday, the state board of education approved the new science standards which indicate evolutionary theory is a key concept in the biological sciences. This was great news to 99.9% of Biologists. The observable facts, the empirical evidence, all have done nothing but support evolutionary theory. The fossil record, which is far from complete and never will be complete, provides overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory. Creationists are very good at PR, and they are very good at ignoring the evidence to support their view that evolution is somehow a theory in crisis. While I know that this is only a small victory, and I have no doubt those who think that religion is science will find a new place to wage their war, I will take solace in this victory for today at least. To all the pro ID and pro-creationists out there here is my suggestion to you; until you can provide a testable, disprovable, hypothesis and evidence to support it keep your faith in your church and keep science in the science class room.
`
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok guys!!!! I heard it on the radio this morning (sorry I’ve been MIA– just closed on my first house, FSM be praised!) Evolution will be taught as science but must be referred to as “The Scientific Theory of Evolution” and classes will allow debate about this topic so our young Pastafarians can argue that evolution is CRAP and the world was created by the FSM. I consider this a moderate victory. Now back to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Even an atheist is easily fooled if he/she/it believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. His Big Bang Theory doesn’t hold even a drop of water. His idea that there was no life before the big bang and the complete idiocy that the grand daddy of all explosions occurred and created the earth from nothing but dust particles and all life form, trees, plants, grass, fish, fowl, animals, and human beings,(not to be confused as animals) proves to me that the man was a complete imbecile. It also proves that all of his followers have the same extremely low caliber of intellectual capabilities to think for themselves. Just humor me and ask yourselves a couple of questions. Have you ever seen an explosion that created life? On the contrary, explosions destroy life. Where did these gases and dust particles come from to cause this big bang? All of the elements needed for this big bang were already in existence,(created), so you are led to believe that Creationism provided all of the elements to prove that Creationism is not only a fact but the only conceivable valid explanation. I am amazed at how many hypocrites have the audacity to say that they believe in God when they don’t even believe His Word. It is total nonsense to accept the idea that God did create everything through evolution. Darwin was merely one of many of Satan’s pawns that he used to cause people to believe that God did not create the universe and life. When one accepts that line of thinking, they have decided that there is no God. Thus, Satan’s work is accomplished. In the last several decades it has become more and more ‘not socialy acceptable’ to believe in God and that He did everything that He said He did, including His provision of an extremely ‘uncool’ eternal environment for ALL of those who do not believe Him but also obey His commandments. Think about it, did Darwin’s theory vs Intelligent Design = Unintelligent Design vs Intelligent Design.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@at mr miami
I did look into the mater of sudden carbonification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous_Period
it apears that there was flooding that caused it and that there are alot of fossils from these particular sites and periods.
But your conclusion that a lack of abundance in all periods would mean that the theory of evolution i false does not make sense.
.
“The fewer fossil records in other geologic layers indicate that millions of years of evolution are not at work. In fact, it offers no record at all of evolution.”
.
you only need two points to establish a change. As far as I understand we have several: each carbonification period and present time.
You can’t possibly object to that life has changed since then
you cant deside exactly when change has happen but that is not nessecary, just that a change has happened. You must then find an alternative way that species change and make it more possible than evolution or else (most likely) evolution stays
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami.
I must admit there was plenty of lowlands covered with water in the coarboniferous period. I just don’t see any geological data that indicates a monster flood.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
But wait is that his noodlyness lurking in the swamps.
LOP P-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all
.
I need to complete my thoughts on Item 2 Increasing Content in my last post. While the atoms always return to a ground state the only way atmospheric heat content can increase is by adding enormous qualities such that the CO2 atoms overwhelm the nitrogen (~78%) and oxygen (~21%) heat content. If the amount of CO2 necessary to achieve tmeperature increases reduces the oxygen content below 19% oxygen then humans have a greater problem than global warming.
.
One point of the Global warming exercise is to see the various sciences and perspectives that human put on things that are not always pure science. Evolution has the same problems. It is a battle of ideologies that influence science rather than science influencing the ideologies.
.
It is unfortunate that pliable minds are indoctrinated into wild the thoughts of pre-existing humans rather than allowed to develop into independent thinkers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm…interesting
“MODEL ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATUTE ON EVOLUTION [version: 9/7/2007]
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views regarding biological and chemical evolution and students concerning their positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
“A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT….
BE IT ENACTED BY ____________:
Section 1. This law shall be known as the “Academic Freedom Act.”
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution.”
http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php
Surely such an act would be an opening to allow FSM theory to be taught along side evilution and bibble creationism!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami Feb 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“I am for one skeptical that there is this finding so far away from our solar system that it is almost conveniently out of reach. I would like to review the data myself and repeat the experiment by other researchers. There needs to be a consensus.”
.
Oh…so you think maybe these astronomers are involved in some massive conspiracy to promote awareness of His Noodlyness?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Starbuckaneer Feb 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am
“Evolution will be taught as science but must be referred to as “The Scientific Theory of Evolution”
.
By specifying it as “The Scientific Theory of Evolution”, students will no doubt be required to learn the correct definition for a Scientific Theory! Good show :) I noticed they also added the Scientific Theory term to : The Scientific Theory of Cells, The Scientific Theory of Atoms, The Scientific Theory of plate tectonics and the Theory of Electromagnetism.
.
http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=478
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all:
.
Alot of responses. I’ll review and get back.
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David T Jones you are the one that is a fool. Darwin didn’t develop the Big Bang Theory. Actually it was based on the observations from Edwin Hubble that the universe was expanding and Fred Hoyle was the first to coin the phrase. Also, evolution has nothing to do with origin. Creationism as you put it is not fact. There is no proof. .
.
It may be very easy for someone like you to say God must have done it because you don’t understand something. That is why scientist continue to look for answers, it is to easy to give up and say God did it. To say Darwin was one of Satan’s pawns just further supports that you come across as one of the Christian fundamentalist lunatics. So no one in their right mind could give any credence to the crap you put out since you don’t know what the Theory of Evolution is, you don’t know anything about the Big Bang Theory and you believe there is a Satan. No hypocrites here. We don’t pretend to follow one set of ideas then forget them when we feel like them, unlike most the Christian whack jobs that come here and act the opposite of what the Bible teaches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To David Jones,
`
I would like to first inform you that Darwin had NOTHING to do with the “Big Bang Theory.” The Big Bang Theory was postulated by astronomers and physicists 50 to 100 years after Darwin’s theory of evolution was posted. The big bang theory does not say life was created by this explosion, in fact it deals with things going on several billion years before the earth was even formed. Now I am sorry if a book which didn’t see its final compilation determined till approximately 1500 years ago, had a huge number of texts rejected by the church, and which has been translated countless times over the millenia doesn’t really come off as evidence to me. You and others claim that the rational mind should reject science in favor of the “word of god” and yet the word of god has been interpreted by, had parts rejected by, and was written by people. Look up the history of the ecumenical councils where the Roman Catholic church debated and argued which texts should make it into the cannon, what you will find is a huge number of texts which were rejected. Why were these texts any less the word of god then the ones the councils decided to include? The fact is that every single word in the bible, or any other holy book for that matter, was written by a PERSON if not multiple PEOPLE. You can claim that they were divinely inspired but you can no more prove that then I can prove that they weren’t. Regardless they were written by mortal hands and, as you well know, humans are inperfect and can make mistakes. Is it not possible then that the writers misunderstood? A poem called “The Word of God” puts it best ” The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the bible; God wrote the world.”
~
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have nothing further given my responses are not being posted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami, @all:
Let me first apologize sincerely to you (MrMiami) personally and to the readership of the thread in general. My last post was petty and obnoxious, and, FWIW, I do apologize. Pastafarian ideals are at least as high as Christian ideals (except during piratical activities, such as raiding parties, carousing with Wenches, etc.) and my lapse was inexcusable and un-Pastafarian.
However, lest I appear too abject, let me repeat my objection more quantitatively. I did search for EPA data and found two related sites:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.html
Both sites quote annual emission numbers of the order of 5000 Tg of CO2 for the US only. My arithmetic – and I will be happy to be corrected – is that 1000 Tg (10^15 g) is identical to 1 metric gigaton. Interestingly, the emission numbers are fairly close to what you would estimate by converting the annual US energy consumption of 10^20 J (equivalent to about 15 horsepower per capita) into chocolate eclairs at 10 food calories/gram. I think your EPA quote is an order of magnitude too low…..
And I hate to argue much about your version of global warming dynamics anyway. I think I’d like to hear you debate someone who had actually looked hard at the details of energy transport (including radiation) in the ocean/atmosphere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Pope Murgatroyd:
.
My Global warming discussion was an illustration to show that there are three sciences to the issues and two of them are incorrect sciences. The same problem plagues origin issues. There are incorrect sciences in order to promote a belief about origin. In the case of evolution, the early science is flawed (randomness among other phenomenon are not naturalistic) then buried in the other arguments built off of the incorrect understanding.
.
In the case of Intelligent Design, the Christians often do not have a meaningful grasp of the science or are able to meaningfully reconcile it with the Bible. They throw out simplistic answers usually coupled with a verse. In their view God Created the science but cannot use the science effectively to argue their point. In the case, of ‘Answers in Genesis’ group they talk to the wrong audience which is the common problem. I reviewed their DvD set.
.
I have that Chuck Missiler at http://www.Khouse.org is much better at discussing technical topics and reconciling it with the Bible.
.
Creationist, who are not Intelligent Design proponents, act more like “Answers In Genesis” than they do as rational thinkers of ID.
.
Clearly, at least in my mind ID is the middle ground but few people have a adequate grasp of math, science, and ID.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0