"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...


ID has predicted nothing, and there is no way to measure its accuracy.

As I understand it, It tries to explain a LACK of knowledge. It tries
to say that between fossil A and C, there was no intermediate fossil.
So the theory can only be disproved one example at a time, and never
ever proved.


Argh! One of the worst debates known to man and here I am entering into
it... I think mine will be a short lived involvement, but I do want to
comment on your statements above Bruce.

Intelligent Design is hard to nail down because it is so loosely defined.
There are almost as many degrees of it as there are people who believe in
it. There is however a very large contingent of folks who believe in
intelligent design that also believe in evolution to a point. The
differentiator tends to be whether things as we know them came into being
out of chaos or whether they came into being by creation. For these folks,
evolution does have a place. It's observable so it can't be denied. ID
does not attempt to deny something between fossil A and C necessarily, but
it does reject the idea of everything originating in some primeval pool of
goo. For many, a big bang type of theory and an expanding universe can
easily sit side by side with a creation notion. ID does put some of the
more radical evolution theories to the test, and that's as it should be.
There are radicals on both sides of the issues, as is the case in
everything. In the evolution camp there are those who are quick to jump to
conclusions not backed by science, simply because it's easy to throw the
cloak of evolution over things.

You are right - science today is shedding light on more and more things that
were themselves, cloaked in mystery for the entire time man has been on
earth. It takes time to overcome beliefs, traditions and long standing
"truths", even when armed with what has every appearance of being factual
evidence. However, science is not shedding a dismissing light on every
aspect of intelligent design. The very rules of science which make it
predictable and measurable imply an order within the universe that is
contrary to the absolute belief in evolution - or better said, to a denial
of intelligent design. As has been proposed many times by minds far greater
than mine, order does not come out of chaos, rather, order tends to decay
into chaos. As yet, I've never heard anyone put forward a theory for how
order in the universe evolved from chaos and somehow found a way to
stabilize at the level of order that we now base all of our science on.

I can't enter into a tit-for-tat type of argument to defend my position
because to be frank, this just has never been an important enough matter for
me to invest any significant amount of energy in. That makes me ill
equipped to argue point by point. My thoughts on the matter really
represent nothing more than a very casual interest in an argument which I
can observe taking place around me.

--

-Mike-

"Odinn" wrote in message
...

Disagree about what? About it being "God does not play dice" instead of
"God does not dice"?

Both translations available, though you wouldn't acknowledge them. In any
case, neither I nor you heard the original. Verb to dice means something
outside the kitchen as well. Pick some other nit to pick.

However, as noted, the comment referenced Heisenberg. You see, Einstein
more or less agreed with a deterministic universe, something Heisenberg
challenged. No conflict anywhere but between your your ears on that one.

The appropriateness to the topic of whether all, even scientists, have
beliefs that influence their assessment of reality is now twice-proven,
since the remark would not have been necessary in regard to LaPlace. Read
what's written, not what you want to hear.

"Mike Marlow" writes:

ID
does not attempt to deny something between fossil A and C necessarily, but
it does reject the idea of everything originating in some primeval pool of
goo.

I've heard ID proponents claim that the eye is too complex to have
"evolved." This is not the pool of goo you mention.


There are radicals on both sides of the issues, as is the case in
everything. In the evolution camp there are those who are quick to jump to
conclusions not backed by science, simply because it's easy to throw the
cloak of evolution over things.

And it's also easy to prove the accuracy of evolution by its
predictive model. It works.

However, ID can never be "disproved" because it provides no predictive
capabilities. It's like claiming ESP and UFO's exists. Disprove one
example, and we can claim it still exists, since it hasn't been disproved.


As has been proposed many times by minds far greater
than mine, order does not come out of chaos, rather, order tends to decay
into chaos.

You are confusing entropy with order/chaos.

Order can be created out of chaos. There are many examples. Brownian
motion will mix chaotic dispersions into a more orderly mises. Pour
milk into coffee, and it will "decay" into a uniform color. Wind
turbluence and weather are examples of chaotic systems that are very
difficult to simulate, but as we gain experience, we gain
understanding.

Crystals form out of chaos. Nanotechnology and the creation of
nanotubes also form out of chaos. A pile of random carbon atoms can
form perfect nanotubes - one of the most amazing materials in the
world. Personally, I think nanotubes is a better example of "ID."

Complexity theory of self-similar organisms show that patterns emerge
out of chaos. Also look at genetic programming.

There are many studies using evolution simulators that show exactly this.
And the results are surprising.

As yet, I've never heard anyone put forward a theory for how
order in the universe evolved from chaos and somehow found a way to
stabilize at the level of order that we now base all of our science on.

Now you have.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" writes:

ID
does not attempt to deny something between fossil A and C necessarily,
but
it does reject the idea of everything originating in some primeval pool
of
goo.

I've heard ID proponents claim that the eye is too complex to have
"evolved." This is not the pool of goo you mention.

I'm sure, but you're missing the point. I've heard BS stuff from
evolutionists too. There's all types in both camps. I stated that in a
couple of different ways in my reply. ID does not strictly imply what you
heard an ID believer state.



There are radicals on both sides of the issues, as is the case in
everything. In the evolution camp there are those who are quick to jump
to
conclusions not backed by science, simply because it's easy to throw the
cloak of evolution over things.

And it's also easy to prove the accuracy of evolution by its
predictive model. It works.

No, again you're missing it Bruce. A great deal of evolution rests on the
predictive or assumption that the "author" feels is justified by past or
related observations. That's fine - I don't have a problem with that as a
working model, but to suggest that all who subscribe to evolution only, are
honest in their science and don't jump to the conclusions that they want the
data to support is naive. Certainly you've heard about the misuse of data?
That does not exist strictly in the ID camp.


However, ID can never be "disproved" because it provides no predictive
capabilities. It's like claiming ESP and UFO's exists. Disprove one
example, and we can claim it still exists, since it hasn't been disproved.

So what? In what way does that discredit ID? Your statement also ignores
the fact that the order in the universe upon which science is built, and
which science leverages every day, could not come from chaos - by the very
rules and beliefs of that science.



As has been proposed many times by minds far greater
than mine, order does not come out of chaos, rather, order tends to
decay
into chaos.

You are confusing entropy with order/chaos.

Order can be created out of chaos. There are many examples. Brownian
motion will mix chaotic dispersions into a more orderly mises. Pour
milk into coffee, and it will "decay" into a uniform color. Wind
turbluence and weather are examples of chaotic systems that are very
difficult to simulate, but as we gain experience, we gain
understanding.

That's not order is it Bruce? Isn't that still chaos? Can you build a rule
out of the milk mixture with the coffeed? Don't get me wrong - I am not
prepared to tackle a debate on this, but isn't there a difference between a
mixture and order?


Crystals form out of chaos. Nanotechnology and the creation of
nanotubes also form out of chaos. A pile of random carbon atoms can
form perfect nanotubes - one of the most amazing materials in the
world. Personally, I think nanotubes is a better example of "ID."


But these things do follow specific rules - right?

Complexity theory of self-similar organisms show that patterns emerge
out of chaos. Also look at genetic programming.


But aren't you working with a very finite and predictable matter in those
cases? And... a matter that is in order, and not chaos?

There are many studies using evolution simulators that show exactly this.
And the results are surprising.

As yet, I've never heard anyone put forward a theory for how
order in the universe evolved from chaos and somehow found a way to
stabilize at the level of order that we now base all of our science on.

Now you have.

Don't take this as an insult because I just don't have the ammunition in
this field to cast an insult, but you haven't convince me yet.

I'm actually seeing where you are addressing my comments with tangential
comments and not addressing them headlong. That may make the conversation
wider, but I don't see how it will deal with the points at hand.

Anyway - my only point originally was that ID does not necessarily deny
evolution. It can very well embrace evolution but it does put bounds on it
to some degree, and of course, it does presume a creation.

--

-Mike-

On 10/2/2005 7:18 AM George mumbled something about the following:
"Odinn" wrote in message
...

Disagree about what? About it being "God does not play dice" instead of
"God does not dice"?


Both translations available, though you wouldn't acknowledge them. In any
case, neither I nor you heard the original. Verb to dice means something
outside the kitchen as well. Pick some other nit to pick.

I'm willing to admit that both translations are available, but that is
not what your previous message said, it said: "Others disagree", and I
pointed out that Hawkin's site said the same thing I did, not what you did.

However, as noted, the comment referenced Heisenberg. You see, Einstein
more or less agreed with a deterministic universe, something Heisenberg
challenged. No conflict anywhere but between your your ears on that one.

Yes, the coment referenced Heisenberg, but that is not what I said, I
said Einstein said the phrase out of deference (a completely different
word than reference) to Laplace. Which I pointed out was in the exact
same site.

The appropriateness to the topic of whether all, even scientists, have
beliefs that influence their assessment of reality is now twice-proven,
since the remark would not have been necessary in regard to LaPlace. Read
what's written, not what you want to hear.

You better read again what I said, not what you think I wrote. You
better go back an read what Hawkin's site said, because it said the same
thing I did. Seems you have a serious reading comprehension there.


--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
The statement of the Steve's List of the National Center for Public
Education says:


Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
biological
sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the
idea
that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are
legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is
no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural
selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically
inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist
pseudoscience,
including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into
the
science curricula of our nation's public schools.


i.e., the theory of evolution has now been reduced to orthodox dogma, and
to dare question it is tantamount to heresy and shall be dealt with
severely.

FYI, there are numerous scientists with strong credentials who strongly
question the dogma of macro-evolutionary theory.

The list of "Dissent from Darwin" is at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443.

Steve's List is at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp

Have a party trying to evaluate one list or the other for compelling
evidence for or against evolution. As a signer of Steve's List, I am not
impartial. I can agree that evolution by competition and selection is a
central feature of modern science; the reasons are not dogma but instead are
the result a huge amount of supporting evidence and a lucid, comprehensive
theoretical basis. As investigation continues, these supporting data and
understanding will continue to build a coherent
theory. ID boils down to an assertion of ignorance and inability to account
for some things. We will all see how it goes.

Steven Peterson

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita writes:

i.e., the theory of evolution has now been reduced to orthodox
dogma, and to dare question it is tantamount to heresy and shall be
dealt with severely.

The "theory" of evolution has predicted measured events millions of
times accurately.

No other theory can accurately predict what we measure with every
fossil we find.

If you have another theory that can be shown to be accurate 99.99999%
of the time, please submit it to a journal for review by peers.

For instance, if we find a horse-like fossil from rocks created in the
olicocege period, paleontologists can predict characteristics of the
fossil that they have never seen, even if it's a new variety. There
may be, and have been, surprises in the fossil record, as we learn
more and more. But the surprises are small. We don't see horses
suddenly changing from 2-legged to 4-legged creatures, or fossils of
Unicorns.

Your comment about questioning evolution being tantamount to heresy
is frankly silly. It's like questioning gravity.

Gravity is under attack. See http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 for
the theory of Intelligent Falling.

Facts are facts. The
parahippus came after the kalobatippus, which came after the
miohippus, which came after the epihippus, which came after the
pachynolophus, etc.

FYI, there are numerous scientists with strong credentials who
strongly question the dogma of macro-evolutionary theory.

It's okay to question it. Scientists can question everything. That's
what they do. But science is based on hypothesis and experiment. We
can use evolution to predict the characteristics of fossils of
different geological ages, including fossils of new and unexpected
types and categories.

ID has predicted nothing, and there is no way to measure its accuracy.

As I understand it, It tries to explain a LACK of knowledge. It tries
to say that between fossil A and C, there was no intermediate fossil.
So the theory can only be disproved one example at a time, and never
ever proved.

I can propose a theory that the universe was created at the moment of
my birth. This includes everyone "older" than I to be created
instantly with their apparent age, factual evidence, and memory, all
done by God for my benefit. (Something similar is done by literal
creationists, as light from stars millions of light years away must
have been created by God in transit on their way to earth.)

There is no way to disprove this theory I have proposed. That's
because it isn't science.


I like it. It is probably good for a few publications and might get you
tenure at certain institutions.

Perhaps those scientists who believe in Intelligent Design can
describe a way to test their hypothesis? I'd like to see this.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Mike Marlow" writes:

I've heard ID proponents claim that the eye is too complex to have
"evolved." This is not the pool of goo you mention.

I'm sure, but you're missing the point. I've heard BS stuff from
evolutionists too. There's all types in both camps. I stated that in a
couple of different ways in my reply. ID does not strictly imply what you
heard an ID believer state.

It seems to be the commonly understood model, AFAIK.

And it's also easy to prove the accuracy of evolution by its
predictive model. It works.

No, again you're missing it Bruce. A great deal of evolution rests on the
predictive or assumption that the "author" feels is justified by past or
related observations. That's fine - I don't have a problem with that as a
working model, but to suggest that all who subscribe to evolution only, are
honest in their science and don't jump to the conclusions that they want the
data to support is naive. Certainly you've heard about the misuse of data?


Sure. But peer review will and additional evidence will eventually
disprove misuse of data. This is common in science, and expected.
Every once in a while some new theory shakes up paleontology, such as
birds evolving from dinosaurs. If a better model predicts values
better, it will be accepted.


That does not exist strictly in the ID camp.

Because it's not predictive in nature.
Because it can never be tested, or disproven.


However, ID can never be "disproved" because it provides no predictive
capabilities. It's like claiming ESP and UFO's exists. Disprove one
example, and we can claim it still exists, since it hasn't been disproved.

So what? In what way does that discredit ID?

As I said - it's a theory, and not really science, because it can't be
tested. ID can be caused by God, by a superior alien race, or by my
invisible Uncle Harry.

You can't disprove any of them.

You are confusing entropy with order/chaos.

Order can be created out of chaos. There are many examples. Brownian
motion will mix chaotic dispersions into a more orderly mises. Pour
milk into coffee, and it will "decay" into a uniform color. Wind
turbluence and weather are examples of chaotic systems that are very
difficult to simulate, but as we gain experience, we gain
understanding.

That's not order is it Bruce? Isn't that still chaos?

No. The distribution of milk to coffee is more consistant that it was
in the beginning.

Can you build a rule
out of the milk mixture with the coffeed? Don't get me wrong - I am not
prepared to tackle a debate on this, but isn't there a difference between a
mixture and order?

Read up on emergent systems.

As yet, I've never heard anyone put forward a theory for how
order in the universe evolved from chaos and somehow found a way to
stabilize at the level of order that we now base all of our science on.

Now you have.

Don't take this as an insult because I just don't have the ammunition in
this field to cast an insult, but you haven't convince me yet.

Have you studied the science? Have you looked into the results of
people like Richard Dawkins? I think he was the one who uses computer
simulation to do millions of evolutionary steps, and found out many
cases of sudden leaps of brilliant mechanisms that cause systems to
evolve faster, and reproduce and survive better, where random events
did a better job than experts in designing survivable systems. (I was
reading about the results of his experiments in National Geographic,
AIR). If relatively simple computer models can do this, then more
complex biological systems can certainly have more complex solutions.

Order does come out of chaos.

Anyway - my only point originally was that ID does not necessarily deny
evolution. It can very well embrace evolution but it does put bounds on it
to some degree, and of course, it does presume a creation.

"Bounds" sounds like it says evolution is wrong in how it predicts
things. We wait for evidence of this.

I don't disagree with some of the things ID suggests. As I said -
nanotubes is a wonderful example.

But ID is not really science. It's metaphysics and philosophy, because
it's not a model of behavior. It a model for lack of evidence.

I see nothing wrong with metaphysics. Scientists do this all the time.
But the test of time is how accurately does the model predict events.

And frankly I can't see ID doing this, because it doesn't predict.

Well, perhaps it does, if you accept the facts that the universe DOES
exist in a wonderful way. But that's as far as the model goes.

The univese does exist. That proves ID. I agree.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Mike Marlow wrote:

...



Intelligent Design is hard to nail down because it is so loosely defined.
There are almost as many degrees of it as there are people who believe in
it.

Perhaps more as it is by no means clear that all of its proponents
believe in it. (Something it has in common with evolutionary biology).
Certainly a large number of proponents of one or the other under-
stand neither.

There is however a very large contingent of folks who believe in
intelligent design that also believe in evolution to a point. The
differentiator tends to be whether things as we know them came into being
out of chaos or whether they came into being by creation. ...
For many, a big bang type of theory and an expanding universe can
easily sit side by side with a creation notion.

If you are going to change the subject, could you at least change it
to woodworking?

Slow mutation and Natural selection is mute on the subject of the
creation of the Universe. It worked equally well in a steady-state
universe, an expanding one, a collapsing one or any of the hybrid
cosmologies. A criticism of evolutionary biology founded on an
'order cannot come of chaos' argument betrays a ignorance that is
truly multidisciplinary.

...

The very rules of science which make it
predictable and measurable imply an order within the universe that is
contrary to the absolute belief in evolution - or better said, to a denial
of intelligent design. As has been proposed many times by minds far greater
than mine, order does not come out of chaos, rather, order tends to decay
into chaos.

You really do not understand thermodynamics.

As yet, I've never heard anyone put forward a theory for how
order in the universe evolved from chaos and somehow found a way to
stabilize at the level of order that we now base all of our science on.

I have. His name is Isaac Newton. I have not read the work but
it is my understanding that he addressed the problem of the expansion
of a uniform gas and found that discontinuities were inevitable.

One could attribute all events in the universe, including my typos
as being determined by the initial conditions at the moment of the
(or 'a' for the general case) big bang, arguing for a completely
detrministic universe. A dogma stating that those initial conditions
were chosen by God would then produce the most rigid concept of
predestination any religious philosphy.

So what? The universe one observes, will be the same whether
credits God with its creation or not.

--

FF

Bruce Barnett wrote:
...

Order does come out of chaos.


And it comes with a price. The ultimate price predicted by
thermodynamics is commonly called _the heat death of the
universe_.

Order from chaos is a temporary thing. But "temporary" is allowed
to assume values large with respect to the human lifetime.

--

FF

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" writes:

So what? In what way does that discredit ID?

As I said - it's a theory, and not really science, because it can't be
tested. ID can be caused by God, by a superior alien race, or by my
invisible Uncle Harry.

You can't disprove any of them.


I've spoken with your invisible Uncle Harry - I can disprove that one...


"Bounds" sounds like it says evolution is wrong in how it predicts
things. We wait for evidence of this.

No - that's not how I meant it. I simply meant that ID can embrace
evolution bounded by the belief in an original creation.


I don't disagree with some of the things ID suggests. As I said -
nanotubes is a wonderful example.

But ID is not really science. It's metaphysics and philosophy, because
it's not a model of behavior. It a model for lack of evidence.

No contest. I hope you did not understand me to be arguing that it was
science.


I see nothing wrong with metaphysics. Scientists do this all the time.
But the test of time is how accurately does the model predict events.

And frankly I can't see ID doing this, because it doesn't predict.

But that's because ID satisfies itself with explaining wouldn't you agree?
No need for prediction under this guidline. As long as it embraces the
moving forward findings of science then there's really no big contention
there. I don't believe it has to embrace all of the theories of science,
but it certainly has to embrace some of them and of course, the findings.


--

-Mike-

"Steve Peterson" wrote in message
nk.net...
Your comment about questioning evolution being tantamount to heresy
is frankly silly. It's like questioning gravity.

Gravity is under attack. See
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 for the theory of
Intelligent Falling.

As long as we're entertaining multiple theories and since this post
involves the Kansas Board of Education
my vote goes to . . . http://www.venganza.org/
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston

Mike Marlow wrote:
"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" writes:

...


I don't disagree with some of the things ID suggests. As I said -
nanotubes is a wonderful example.

But ID is not really science. It's metaphysics and philosophy, because
it's not a model of behavior. It a model for lack of evidence.

No contest. I hope you did not understand me to be arguing that it was
science.


Good. The issue that is contentious is the assertion by some
that ID is sceince and should be taught in public schools.
That is obvously just an attempt to get the public schools
to teach religion, which is why it is contentious.


I see nothing wrong with metaphysics. Scientists do this all the time.
But the test of time is how accurately does the model predict events.

And frankly I can't see ID doing this, because it doesn't predict.

But that's because ID satisfies itself with explaining wouldn't you agree?
No need for prediction under this guidline.

However there is a need for a theory to predict under a scientific
guideline. Absent a prediction, a theory cannot be tested. THis
distinguishes scientific theory from certain other intellectual
constructs such as religious doctrine.

--

FF

Yeah, that is a good one. I shared it with a number of friends.

Steve

"D. J. MCBRIDE" wrote in message
...

"Steve Peterson" wrote in message
nk.net...
Your comment about questioning evolution being tantamount to heresy
is frankly silly. It's like questioning gravity.

Gravity is under attack. See http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
for the theory of Intelligent Falling.

As long as we're entertaining multiple theories and since this post
involves the Kansas Board of Education
my vote goes to . . . http://www.venganza.org/
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston

Australopithecus scobis wrote:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 15:40:27 -0700, fredfighter wrote:


Good. The issue that is contentious is the assertion by some
that ID is science and should be taught in public schools.
That is obviously just an attempt to get the public schools
to teach religion, which is why it is contentious.


My question is why anyone would choose to be an ignorant fool: The
creationists and other fundies, the "moon hoax" nuts, the "there is no
global warming" heads-in-the-sand; the list goes on. Why does anyone
drink the Kool-Aid of willful ignorance?

The correct response to the ID/creationists is not to meet them in debate;
it is to treat them with the scorn and derision they so richly deserve.
Debate is for equals.


A marvelous demonstration of scientific objectivity and dispassion.
You are a poster child for the IDers to use as an example of
scientific hubris, arrogance, and ignorance...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Australopithecus scobis wrote:

...


My question is why anyone would choose to be an ignorant fool: The
creationists and other fundies, the "moon hoax" nuts, the "there is no
global warming" heads-in-the-sand; the list goes on. Why does anyone
drink the Kool-Aid of willful ignorance?

The correct response to the ID/creationists is not to meet them in debate;
it is to treat them with the scorn and derision they so richly deserve.
Debate is for equals.


A marvelous demonstration of scientific objectivity and dispassion.
You are a poster child for the IDers to use as an example of
scientific hubris, arrogance, and ignorance...


Splorf! Mr Scobis never said he was a scientist.

--

FF

Charles Bull wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 19:41:35 GMT, "D. J. MCBRIDE" wrote:


"Steve Peterson" wrote in message
ink.net...
Your comment about questioning evolution being tantamount to heresy
is frankly silly. It's like questioning gravity.

Gravity is under attack. See
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 for the theory of
Intelligent Falling.

As long as we're entertaining multiple theories and since this post
involves the Kansas Board of Education
my vote goes to . . . http://www.venganza.org/


I'll vote for Pat Robertson, cuz once he is elected all lawfully elected head
of States will be assassinated who disagree with us and former Education
Secretary William Bennett as VP, "[Y]ou Could Abort Every Black Baby In
This Country, And Your Crime Rate Would Go Down"...

How about that oppositions and crimes free?

Plus our health care costs will go way down. All he has to do is
hold a televised press conference and faith-heal us.

--

FF

Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:31:40 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

Splorf! Mr Scobis never said he was a scientist.

Ok, easy to fix. I'm a scientist.

Get back Jack! So am I.

--

FF

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:18:54 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
.. .
The statement of the Steve's List of the National Center for Public
Education says:


Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
biological
sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the
idea
that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are
legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is
no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural
selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically
inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist
pseudoscience,
including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into
the
science curricula of our nation's public schools.


i.e., the theory of evolution has now been reduced to orthodox dogma, and
to dare question it is tantamount to heresy and shall be dealt with
severely.

FYI, there are numerous scientists with strong credentials who strongly
question the dogma of macro-evolutionary theory.

The list of "Dissent from Darwin" is at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443.

Steve's List is at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp

Have a party trying to evaluate one list or the other for compelling
evidence for or against evolution. As a signer of Steve's List, I am not
impartial. I can agree that evolution by competition and selection is a
central feature of modern science; the reasons are not dogma but instead are
the result a huge amount of supporting evidence and a lucid, comprehensive
theoretical basis. As investigation continues, these supporting data and
understanding will continue to build a coherent
theory. ID boils down to an assertion of ignorance and inability to account
for some things. We will all see how it goes.


Just as a point of clarification; very few people argue nor disagree with
the theory of microevolution within species. What I've seen as arguments
regarding the evolution of new species seem to be stretching the definition
of "new species" quite broadly. The poster who argued that predictions
within the fossil record using the horse as an example serve to point that
out. The horse is still a horse and not a cow nor something between a
horse and a cow or between a piece of primordial slime and a horse. What
is lacking is the "between-things" that one would expect to see. Modern
evolutionary theory has simply substituted "time" for "God".

Frankly, the issue of evolutionary theory is somewhat premature if modern
cosmology cannot adequately identify the origin of the universe without
violating the laws of logic and causality.

A broad majority of those who believe that intelligent design is a
reasonable explanation for the origin of universe are still interested in
science and exploring the world around them (as opposed to the derision of
those who claim those who adhere to the theory of intelligent design as
just wanting to use the phrase "God did it" when encountering questions).
They just approach that science from a different point of view -- rather
than trying to look at everything as some means of identifying the origins
of the universe, they approach these questions as trying to identify how
the universe around them works.

Steven Peterson




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:23:27 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
wrote:

My question is why anyone would choose to be an ignorant fool: The
creationists and other fundies, the "moon hoax" nuts, the "there is no
global warming" heads-in-the-sand; the list goes on. Why does anyone
drink the Kool-Aid of willful ignorance?

Did you say Kool-Aids? Pastor Jim Jones took his flock with him
to heaven and they richly deserved it!

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 19:41:35 GMT, "D. J. MCBRIDE" wrote:


"Steve Peterson" wrote in message
ink.net...
Your comment about questioning evolution being tantamount to heresy
is frankly silly. It's like questioning gravity.

Gravity is under attack. See
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 for the theory of
Intelligent Falling.

As long as we're entertaining multiple theories and since this post
involves the Kansas Board of Education
my vote goes to . . . http://www.venganza.org/


I'll vote for Pat Robertson, cuz once he is elected all lawfully elected head
of States will be assassinated who disagree with us and former Education
Secretary William Bennett as VP, "[Y]ou Could Abort Every Black Baby In
This Country, And Your Crime Rate Would Go Down"...

How about that oppositions and crimes free?

On 2 Oct 2005 18:47:16 -0700, wrote:


I'll vote for Pat Robertson, cuz once he is elected all lawfully elected head
of States will be assassinated who disagree with us and former Education
Secretary William Bennett as VP, "[Y]ou Could Abort Every Black Baby In
This Country, And Your Crime Rate Would Go Down"...

How about that oppositions and crimes free?

Plus our health care costs will go way down. All he has to do is
hold a televised press conference and faith-heal us.

.....With Pastor Benny Hinn as Secretary of Health
and Human Services, we will no longer need Doctors
and hospitals. Wow, what a change to our lives?

Australopithecus scobis wrote:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:31:40 -0700, fredfighter wrote:


Splorf! Mr Scobis never said he was a scientist.


Ok, easy to fix. I'm a scientist. Idiots are idiots. Reality is reality.
The poster to whom fredfighter replied has long been in my killfile.
Hubris is willful denial of reality. Arrogance is willful denial of
reality. Ignorance is willful denial of reality.


And of course, we should trust someone whose defense of "reality"
is grounded in ad homina attack and whose claims to knowledge
are unsubstantiated or perhaps even unsubstantiable. IOW,
this is a thinly veiled appeal to authority. You should try
for Pope - you share the same epistemology.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Steve Peterson wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
The statement of the Steve's List of the National Center for Public
Education says:


Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
biological
sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the
idea
that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are
legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is
no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural
selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically
inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist
pseudoscience,
including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into
the
science curricula of our nation's public schools.


i.e., the theory of evolution has now been reduced to orthodox dogma, and
to dare question it is tantamount to heresy and shall be dealt with
severely.

FYI, there are numerous scientists with strong credentials who strongly
question the dogma of macro-evolutionary theory.

The list of "Dissent from Darwin" is at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443.


'The' list, or 'a' list?

Cute though, it is a list of about 350 names, only a minority are
biologists and at a least a dozen or two aren't scientists at all.

--

FF

writes:

Bruce Barnett wrote:
...

Order does come out of chaos.


And it comes with a price. The ultimate price predicted by
thermodynamics is commonly called _the heat death of the
universe_.

That's entropy, which measured the total energy.

There are other forms or order and chaos that are not energy related.

I gave several examples of order evolving from chaos:
Crystals
Carbon nanotubes
Emegent systems.
Evolutionary simulations.


Order from chaos is a temporary thing.

Not necessarily. See above.




--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Mike Marlow" writes:

I've spoken with your invisible Uncle Harry - I can disprove that one...

Well, you have to prove to me that you have. :-)


No contest. I hope you did not understand me to be arguing that it was
science.


I admit I haven't followed all of the threat. I jumped in when you
said order does not come out of chaos. I gave 4 examples where that is
wrong.

And frankly I can't see ID doing this, because it doesn't predict.

But that's because ID satisfies itself with explaining wouldn't you agree?
No need for prediction under this guidline.

Okay. Fine. But then it then fits in with other faith-based theories,
such as "aliens live among us" ghosts, and palm readers.

If it makes us feel better in how we deal with the universe - fine.
I have no problem with that. :-)


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Australopithecus scobis writes:

My question is why anyone would choose to be an ignorant fool: The
creationists and other fundies, the "moon hoax" nuts, the "there is no
global warming" heads-in-the-sand; the list goes on. Why does anyone
drink the Kool-Aid of willful ignorance?

Unfortunately our schools teach memorization over thinking. I was
really upset when a local teacher "taught" their class that you can
only balance an egg on end on the equinox.

This is a teacher. A simple experiment would be able to test this
theory, yet the teacher was woefully ignorant of the principles of
science and ended up teaching her kids an urban legend.

The correct response to the ID/creationists is not to meet them in debate;
it is to treat them with the scorn and derision they so richly deserve.

This, unfortunately, accomplishes nothing. Look at James Randi's
continuous rant against the occult. You have skeptics on one side,
true believers on the other, and both make fun of the other
side. Because - frankly - who wants to listen to an asshole? (By that
I mean someone who is insulting and thinks you are an idiot).
Both sides think the other side are assholes.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 20:58:36 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Charles Bull quickly quoth:

On 2 Oct 2005 18:47:16 -0700, wrote:


I'll vote for Pat Robertson, cuz once he is elected all lawfully elected head
of States will be assassinated who disagree with us and former Education
Secretary William Bennett as VP, "[Y]ou Could Abort Every Black Baby In
This Country, And Your Crime Rate Would Go Down"...

How about that oppositions and crimes free?

Plus our health care costs will go way down. All he has to do is
hold a televised press conference and faith-heal us.

....With Pastor Benny Hinn as Secretary of Health
and Human Services, we will no longer need Doctors
and hospitals. Wow, what a change to our lives?

You guys are moving in the wrong direction. (see below)

--
A lot of folks can't understand how we came
to have an oil shortage here in America.

Well, there's a very simple answer...nobody
bothered to check the oil; We just didn't
know we were getting low.

The reason for that is purely geographical
- our OIL is located in Alaska, California,
Oklahoma and Texas.

Our DIPSTICKS are located in Washington, DC.

Mark & Juanita writes:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:18:54 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote:


Just as a point of clarification; very few people argue nor disagree with
the theory of microevolution within species.

Just a point of clarification.

Creationisis DID argue on the theory of micro-evolution until someone
pointed them to thousands of real examples where evolution occured.
First that just claimed it was "variations, and not a new species."
That's until someone pointed out a case where a new species occured.

Now the term is "macro-evolution" where macro consists of "A length of
time too long for humans to measure." Therefore - because no examples
exist, it's easy to argue that it doesn't exist.

What I've seen as arguments
regarding the evolution of new species seem to be stretching the definition
of "new species" quite broadly. The poster who argued that predictions
within the fossil record using the horse as an example serve to point that
out. The horse is still a horse and not a cow nor something between a
horse and a cow or between a piece of primordial slime and a horse.

Complete and udder nonsense. There are hundreds of differences between
cows and horses, and I am sure a 2-year-old can tell you dozens of
them. Try reading about the evolution of the horse.


Frankly, the issue of evolutionary theory is somewhat premature if modern
cosmology cannot adequately identify the origin of the universe without
violating the laws of logic and causality.

Nonsense. One might as well use that argument for electricity and gravity.

I can see it now.

"Use of electricity is premature because we don't understand how the
Universe was created."


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 20:58:36 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Charles Bull quickly quoth:

On 2 Oct 2005 18:47:16 -0700, wrote:


I'll vote for Pat Robertson, cuz once he is elected all lawfully elected head
of States will be assassinated who disagree with us and former Education
Secretary William Bennett as VP, "[Y]ou Could Abort Every Black Baby In
This Country, And Your Crime Rate Would Go Down"...

How about that oppositions and crimes free?

Plus our health care costs will go way down. All he has to do is
hold a televised press conference and faith-heal us.

....With Pastor Benny Hinn as Secretary of Health
and Human Services, we will no longer need Doctors
and hospitals. Wow, what a change to our lives?

(let's try this again with the proper sig)


You guys are moving in the wrong direction. (see below)


-----------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design
=================================================

Me too. And I think we have a consensus.

Steve

wrote in message
oups.com...

Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:31:40 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

Splorf! Mr Scobis never said he was a scientist.

Ok, easy to fix. I'm a scientist.

Get back Jack! So am I.

--

FF

The list of "Dissent from Darwin" is at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443.


'The' list, or 'a' list?

Cute though, it is a list of about 350 names, only a minority are
biologists and at a least a dozen or two aren't scientists at all.

--

FF

It is a specific list with that title. The reason I listed it is what you
point to. It is a sparse list, largely missing any leading scientists and
including many who are not in the biological sciences at all. For contrast,
the Steve's List, while tongue in cheek, illustrates that there are more
scientists named Steve (including some Stephanies) who reject ID as science
and support teaching of evolution and natural selection. It is in honor of
Stephen J. Gould, and includes many outstanding scientists in many fields.
It recently exceeded 600 names, even though it is a very limited sample of
all practicing scientists. Last time I checked, 600 350.

Steve #564

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
writes:

Bruce Barnett wrote:
...

Order does come out of chaos.


And it comes with a price. The ultimate price predicted by
thermodynamics is commonly called _the heat death of the
universe_.

That's entropy, which measured the total energy.

There are other forms or order and chaos that are not energy related.

I gave several examples of order evolving from chaos:
Crystals
Carbon nanotubes
Emegent systems.
Evolutionary simulations.


Order from chaos is a temporary thing.

Not necessarily. See above.




While entropy is related to energy flows, it is not a measure of energy.
The second law shows that if energy flows, there must be an overall increase
in entropy. If an ordered system is created, or if order in a system
increases, there must be a greater increase in the entropy of the
surroundings (i.e. the rest of the universe). It certainly does not inhibit
formation of ordered systems, only describes the cost of creating that
order.

Steve

"Steve Peterson" writes:

While entropy is related to energy flows, it is not a measure of energy.
The second law shows that if energy flows, there must be an overall increase
in entropy. If an ordered system is created, or if order in a system
increases, there must be a greater increase in the entropy of the
surroundings (i.e. the rest of the universe). It certainly does not inhibit
formation of ordered systems, only describes the cost of creating that
order.

That's a nice way to put it.
But I question one part. Forgive my weakness on thermodynamics. I'm more CS than EE.

If an ordered system is created, or if order in a system
increases, there must be a greater increase in the entropy of the
surroundings (i.e. the rest of the universe).

When you say "order" aren't you referring to energy?

And when order is increased, does the energy inside this piece
increase or decrease?

I am thinking of the "order" or rather - information - stored in a DNA
molecule.

Perhaps entropy and evolution aren't good disciplines to combine.
Randomness and chaos in individual DNA molecules is miniscule
comparted to the energy in the Universe.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Mark & Juanita writes:

The poster who argued that predictions
within the fossil record using the horse as an example serve to point that
out. The horse is still a horse and not a cow nor something between a
horse and a cow or between a piece of primordial slime and a horse. What
is lacking is the "between-things" that one would expect to see.

I'm still trying to comprehend this statement. In the single history
of "horse-like" things - there are hundreds of examples of
"between-things."

Do you NOT believe they exist?

Or do you have a concept of "between-things" as "things that there is
no fossil record for."

Or do you have a concept of a "between-thing" that shows a
relationship between two species where you define the species where
you expect to find a relationship between?

When you mention "horse and cow" - why do you mention these particular
species? Why not "horse and worm" or "cow and bird?"

Using http://tolweb.org/ we find ::
Horses are part of the odd-toed ungulates (Perissodactyla). Cows are
even-toed ungulates. (Artiodactyla)

Cows have more in common with whales than they do with horses, and
much more in common with creatures of category Ruminantia (deer,
goats, sheep, antelopes, etc.) i.e. animals that chew their cud.
There are more primitive cud-crewing animals that can be considered
common ancestors to cows and sheep.

To get a common horse/cow ancestor, you need to find primitive
placental mammals (Eutheria) because that's what horses and cows have
in common. And such creatures exist in the fossil record.

I get the impression you are looking for some sort of half and half
creature that is half horse and half cow, and if you can't find that
exact combination exactly as you expect, you discard the entire
concept.



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Bruce Barnett wrote:
writes:

Bruce Barnett wrote:
...

Order does come out of chaos.


And it comes with a price. The ultimate price predicted by
thermodynamics is commonly called _the heat death of the
universe_.

That's entropy, which measured the total energy.

There are other forms or order and chaos that are not energy related.

I gave several examples of order evolving from chaos:
Crystals
Carbon nanotubes
Emegent systems.
Evolutionary simulations.


Order from chaos is a temporary thing.

Not necessarily. See above.


Your examples above are all temporary, for large values
of 'temporary.'

Not even a diamond is forever.

--

FF

Knotbob wrote:
President Bush has my support (as well as a tiny bit more than
half the rest of the US population too-he did win-twice) to take the

....half the rest of the VOTING US population...


There... fixed it for ya.

-John

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:13:17 GMT, John Girouard wrote:
Knotbob wrote:
President Bush has my support (as well as a tiny bit more than
half the rest of the US population too-he did win-twice) to take the

...half the rest of the VOTING US population...

(shrug) if they can't be bothered to get off their asses and vote, then
why should I care about their opinions?

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
"Steve Peterson" writes:

While entropy is related to energy flows, it is not a measure of energy.
The second law shows that if energy flows, there must be an overall
increase
in entropy. If an ordered system is created, or if order in a system
increases, there must be a greater increase in the entropy of the
surroundings (i.e. the rest of the universe). It certainly does not
inhibit
formation of ordered systems, only describes the cost of creating that
order.

That's a nice way to put it.
But I question one part. Forgive my weakness on thermodynamics. I'm more
CS than EE.

If an ordered system is created, or if order in a system
increases, there must be a greater increase in the entropy of the
surroundings (i.e. the rest of the universe).

When you say "order" aren't you referring to energy?

And when order is increased, does the energy inside this piece
increase or decrease?

I am thinking of the "order" or rather - information - stored in a DNA
molecule.
Energy and entropy can't be directly compared, it is like apples and
oranges. They are just different things. However, on some kind of
subjective comparison, when some molecular changes occur involving deltaH
(change of chemical energy, or free energy) and deltaS (change of entropy),
the energy change is typically much greater. The driving force for a
chemical reaction is called the Gibbs free energy, deltaH - TdeltaS, where H
is essentially the energy in the chemical bonds and T is the Temperature
(~300 degrees Kelvin at room temperature). So the entropy term gets
multiplied by about 300. There are changes that are largely entropy driven,
such as phase changes (like melting) that involve changes in order but not
so much in the way of changing bonding. Interestingly, entropy changes are
also very major effects in black holes. Another effect that is largely
entropy is conformation changes of macromolecules, like a change of DNA
between random and a double helix.
I got distracted and carried away. Whether energy increases or
decreases with decreasing entropy (increasing order) depends on the details
of bond breaking and making.

This is going further and further away from woodworking.

Steve

Perhaps entropy and evolution aren't good disciplines to combine.
Randomness and chaos in individual DNA molecules is miniscule
comparted to the energy in the Universe.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Bruce Barnett wrote:
writes:

Bruce Barnett wrote:
...

Order does come out of chaos.


And it comes with a price. The ultimate price predicted by
thermodynamics is commonly called _the heat death of the
universe_.

That's entropy, which measured the total energy.

There are other forms or order and chaos that are not energy related.

I gave several examples of order evolving from chaos:
Crystals
Carbon nanotubes
Emegent systems.
Evolutionary simulations.


Order from chaos is a temporary thing.

Not necessarily. See above.


Your examples above are all temporary, for large values
of 'temporary.'

Not even a diamond is forever.


what happens to them? do they sublimate?

--

FF