Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

[oracle25]

Let me ask you something: If I were too post this and than post it again, how much new information would I be giving you?

 

[Engimo]

Let me ask you something: If I were too post this and than post it again, how much new information would I be giving you?

Your posts tend not to give much information at all.

I see the analogy you're trying to make, and it's wrong. If you actually read the link on gene duplication, you would notice that it's not just the copying of genes, it is the copying of genes which then have mutations performed on them (like the aforementioned "insertion", which is [by definition] THE ADDITION OF NEW BASE-PAIRS INTO THE GENETIC CODE).

 

[MrFungus420]

Actually there is no evidence to support evolution.

Evolution is about the changes that occur in genetics over time. We have observed it. Creationists/IDers just dismiss it out-of-hand.

The general theory of evolution has evidence, is falsifiable, and makes predictions.

The only theory which makes any sense at all id ID.

ID is not a theory. There is no evidence to support it, it is not falsifiable, and it cannot make predictions. It meets none of the qualifications of a theory. It is, at best, an hypothesis.

Science does not make sense without a designer.

So, you think that science doesn't make sense unless it accepts something for which there is no evidence?

Therefore, discussion on some sort of higher power should be a required course in all scientific studies.

Why would you expect science to be concerned with that which has no evidence?

Both are illogical (and virtually the same). If you mean that there is no evidence that God exists, than I would have to agree with you. Because science studies nature and God is outside of nature we cannot detect God. However, we can see evidence of his work in EVERYTHING in the universe.

The only people who see that are those who already believe that a god did it. Without that bias, other explanations are seen, and found, for virtually everything.

No. We claim to know someone who knows everything.

No, you claim to know the answer for everything. The answer that you have is that "God did it", at least until it is proven to be wrong. That used to be the answer for lightning , until science proven that wrong. It used to be the answer for why people got sick, until that was proven wrong. It used to be the answer for why crops grew, until that was proven wrong. It used to be the answer for why the sun rose and set, until that was proven wrong.

 

[jfuh]

Actually there is no evidence to support evolution. The only theory which makes any sense at all id ID.

Have peer reviewed literature for this?

Science does not make sense without a designer. Therefore, discussion on some sort of higher power should be a required course in all scientific studies.

Any designer would then require a maker, who requires someone to give birth to them and so on. Nothing but circular reasoning.

Both are illogical (and virtually the same). If you mean that there is no evidence that God exists, than I would have to agree with you. Because science studies nature and God is outside of nature we cannot detect God. However, we can see evidence of his work in EVERYTHING in the universe.

That is saying that God is a he, which then moralizes god - blasphamy.
Then again your argument neither provides reason or an answer for or against any former argument. In essense, irrelevant.

No. We claim to know someone who knows everything.

Who is that some one? Baseless argument and again involving circular reasoning.

 

[steen]

So you are trying to tell me, that you base the origin of all life on earth on some test on yeast (which the experiment is called an adaptation, not evolution) and enzymes?

Nope. This was specifically in reply to the claim that:
"Scientists cannot begin to say that under 'x' conditions 'y' will evolve into 'z' over 't' amount of years. "

THAT is what the site disproved. That you try to extrapolate to other stuff merely shows you dishonest. So please don't do that, and don't make false claims about me.

And please also don't make the false implication that the Scientific theory of Evolution somehow deals with the origin of life as that also would be a false claim.

I looked at the website (it was my browser that had the problem) and most of the experiments described adaptations,

Which is evolution. But that is irrelevant. the site SPECIFICALLY was evidence to counter the claim listed in blue above. If your remarks are not specifically to that, then don't try to make any claims about what I am arguing or proving here!

not to mention the site is not a scientific site, just someones collection.

Of a list of studies that are referenced for their scientific source.

Did you miss that part?

So basically you prove they had competitive advantage by the fact their line survived?

No, by the increased prevalence of that beneficial gene in the population.

 

[steen]

This is an intellectually vacant statement.

You are talking about your own post, I hope.

 

[steen]

It is a theory and it may or may not be right. When it all boils down, one must have a degree of belief in evolution. It is not like gravity, and should not be taught as such.

It is like gravity, it has been evidenced and validated through the Scientific Method in exactly the same way as gravity, your misrepresentation none withstanding.

I am responding to this not b/c of my religious beliefs, but because I hate stereotypes. Is it hypocritical for someone who votes democrat to agree with something Bush says? No, and in the same way it is not hypocritical to be a Christian and to believe in some, or even the majority of scientific views. I mean think about it, you (most likely) believe in some of the same things Christians believe in, don't steal, don't murder, children respect your parents, the golden rule, etc. Is that hypocritical? Or just common sense?

It is HYPOCRITICAL to claim that Evolution is wrong and then deliberately reap the benefits derived directly from research based on Evolution.

It is like the pro-life abortion protesters who shows up wanting their daughter to have an abortion because their situation is "special." That's hypocritical. Likewise, it is hypocritical to insist on the benefits of evolutionary research while claiming that evolution is false.

 

[steen]

I know of no biologist who seriously thinks that flu shots are evidence of anything other than adaption (I don't even think Richard Dawkins makes such claims).

And adaptation is evolution, your falsehoods none withstanding. It is not our fault that you are making so many false claims here.

In fact it is YOU who cannot be reasoned with. If I didn't think this topic were so important I would end it altogether. You have yet too show me one example of new DNA being formed in an organism,

We have provided evidence of this. Every mutation is evidence of this.

By the way, you cowardly shrank away from showing us how you will actually measure whether something is "new" DNA. When are you going to show us what "new" DNA actually is? No? <snicker>

this is the only way something can evolve. Every single Micro-biologist recognizes this fact.

And evolution has been evidenced.

The only real reason you don't want ID design taught in schools is because you are scared of it.

No, it is because it is flat-out lies. And kids are ignorant enough about science already.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Yeah, if that were true we would have killed you guys off 140 years ago.

It is not for the lack of your trying that we are still here. Your time frame is a little off though for my particular group.

 

[oracle25]

And adaptation is evolution, your falsehoods none withstanding. It is not our fault that you are making so many false claims here.

No it is simply adaption, not evolution. Learn the difference.

We have provided evidence of this. Every mutation is evidence of this.

No mutations are evidence of this. Mutations are simply old genes in the wrong place. As discussed here:

In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists’ real scientific objections. Scientific American states this common straw-man position and their answer to it.



'10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.


On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example'. [SA 82]



This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).



'Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow'. [SA 82]



Once again, there is no new information! Rather, a mutation in the hox gene (see next section) results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place.1 The hox gene merely moved legs to the wrong place; it did not produce any of the information that actually constructs the legs, which in ants and bees include a wondrously complex mechanical and hydraulic mechanism that enables these insects to stick to surfaces.2

-Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (physical chemist)

By the way, you cowardly shrank away from showing us how you will actually measure whether something is "new" DNA. When are you going to show us what "new" DNA actually is? No? <snicker>

I did not "cowardly shrink away" I merely got tired of trying to explain this to you. New DNA is new genetic information, you would have to prove this happens before you can have evolution.

And evolution has been evidenced.

adaptations and changes have been evidenced, "goo-to-you" evolution has not been.

No, it is because it is flat-out lies

You criticize that which you do not understand.

And kids are ignorant enough about science already.

Yes because they are being fed evolutionary dogma that does not make sense.

 

[Engimo]

Jonathan Sarfati is a condensed matter physicist, he has no credentials in the field of biology. He also is a figurehead at the apologetics organization Answers In Genesis, and has a clear agenda to push.

Like I've said about 10 times, the consensus in the biological community is overwhelmingly in support of Evolutionary Theory.

 

[oracle25]

Jonathan Sarfati is a condensed matter physicist

He is a physical chemist who has written extensively on micro organisms.

he has no credentials in the field of biology.

No, but as you should know micro-biology and chemistry walk hand in hand.

He also is a figurehead at the apologetics organization Answers In Genesis, and has a clear agenda to push.

Most evolutionary biologists have a clear agenda to push. Most of them are members of humanist organizations who objectives include "to create a society free of superstitious beliefs" (i.e. destroy religion) agendas have nothing to do with the science.

Like I've said about 10 times, the consensus in the biological community is overwhelmingly in support of Evolutionary Theory.

I notice two things here: one is that you have presented no counter argument, you only try to attack Dr. Sarfati's character. Second is that you assume to know what the biological community thinks. The fact is a growing number of biologists are rejecting standard evolutionary beliefs in favor of something new.

 

[Engimo]

No, but as you should know micro-biology and chemistry walk hand in hand.

Except that's not the sort of chemistry he has a degree in. He is a physical chemist with a specialization in nuclear and condensed matter physics (which both have nothing to do with biochemistry at all) and a lower degree in spectroscopy (which also has nothing to do with biochemistry). He is outside of his field, and is therefore not a credible source. The fact that he works for someplace dedicated to "upholding the integrity of the Bible from page 1" seriously damages his intellectual credibility.

Most evolutionary biologists have a clear agenda to push. Most of them are members of humanist organizations who objectives include "to create a society free of superstitious beliefs" (i.e. destroy religion) agendas have nothing to do with the science.

That's blatantly untrue.

America's scientists are a surprisingly spiritual group, according to a survey in which almost 70 percent agreed "there are basic truths" in religion, and 68 percent classified themselves as a "spiritual person."
Overall, about a third said "I do not believe in God" in the analysis, which polled 1,646 scientists at 21 research universities across the nation.
The findings mirror a similar study of physicians released by the University of Chicago last month, which revealed 76 percent of the 2,000 doctors surveyed said they believed in God.

I notice two things here: one is that you have presented no counter argument, you only try to attack Dr. Sarfati's character. Second is that you assume to know what the biological community thinks. The fact is a growing number of biologists are rejecting standard evolutionary beliefs in favor of something new.

I do know what the biological community thinks. Seriously. I'm a scientist - I ask these people. Look in any biological journal, you'll see hundreds of papers on Evolution. There is a mountainload of evidence for it, and it is easily one of the most important and powerful theories that we have in the field of science.

 

[oracle25]

Except that's not the sort of chemistry he has a degree in. He is a physical chemist with a specialization in nuclear and condensed matter physics (which both have nothing to do with biochemistry at all) and a lower degree in spectroscopy (which also has nothing to do with biochemistry). He is outside of his field, and is therefore not a credible source.

True, Dr. Sarfati specializes in that field, but he has also been trained in biochemistry (since it is a required course when studying chemistry).

His biography is as follows:

Dr Jonathan Sarfati was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and later studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.


Dr Sarfati has been a Christian since 1984. He has long been interested in apologetics, the defense of the faith, and was a co-founder of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (New Zealand).1 Creation vs evolution is of course a vital area, because of the ramifications for the doctrines of Creation, the Fall which brought death into the world, and their links to the doctrines of the Incarnation, Atonement and Bodily Resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ.


In August 1996, he returned to the country of his birth to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant for the Creation Science Foundation in Brisbane. In this capacity, he is co-editor of Creation magazine, and also writes and reviews articles for TJ, the in-depth journal of creation, as well as contributing to the Answers in Genesis website.


In 1999, his first book was published*—*Refuting Evolution, which countered a teachers guidebook by the National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, which had been widely circulated and publicized. Refuting Evolution now has 350,000 copies in print. Later that year he was a co-author of the updated and expanded Answers Book, answering 20 of the most-asked questions about creation/evolution. He later wrote Refuting Evolution 2, countering the PBS Evolution series and an anticreationist article in Scientific American. In 2004, he wrote Refuting Compromise, defending a straightforward biblical creation timeline and a global flood, and answering biblical and scientific objections, concentrating on the errant teachings of day-age/local flood advocate Hugh Ross. It has been acclaimed as ‘the most powerful biblical and scientific defense of a straightforward view of Genesis creation ever written!’


Dr Sarfati is also a keen chess player. He is a former New Zealand Chess Champion, and represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads, and drew with Boris Spassky, world champion 1969–1972, in a tournament game (those interested in the game score and post-mortem photograph can see this chess site). In 1988, F.I.D.E., the International Chess Federation, awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master (FM). Dr Sarfati regularly accepts challenges from multiple players where he plays ‘blindfold’, i.e. from memory without sight or any physical contact with the board, so moves are communicated via a recognized chess notation (12 is the most played simultaneously to date—see photo, above right).


Dr Sarfati is married with one stepson.


Education

B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry (with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted)

Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry)


Honors/Awards/Associations

1988, F.I.D.E. Master title, The International Chess Federation



Publications


Books

Refuting Evolution (available in Russian)

Refuting Evolution 2 (with Michael Matthews)

Refuting Compromise: A biblical and scientific refutation of ‘progressive creationism’ (billions of years) as popularized by astronomer Hugh Ross

Answers Book (edited by Don Batten) with Ken Ham and Carl Wieland (available in Albanian, German, Hungarian, Russian and Spanish)

Answers to the 4 Big Questions (edited by Don Batten) with Ken Ham and Carl Wieland

The fact that he works for someplace dedicated to "upholding the integrity of the Bible from page 1" seriously damages his intellectual credibility.

Only if he is wrong, which you have yet to give any evidence of.

That's blatantly untrue.

No it's not. Many of the scientists who claim to have religious beliefs belong to such organiations as I dscribed. They try to appeal to compromisers (like Steen) by claiming that they love God or something.

I do know what the biological community thinks. Seriously. I'm a scientist - I ask these people. Look in any biological journal, you'll see hundreds of papers on Evolution. There is a mountainload of evidence for it, and it is easily one of the most important and powerful theories that we have in the field of science.

My guess is that you have a couple of friends who major in biology, and that these are the sources you are referring too. Perhaps you could give us the names of the people you have "asked" so we can look up there in depth research on the subject.

 

[tecoyah]

Most evolutionary biologists have a clear agenda to push. Most of them are members of humanist organizations who objectives include "to create a society free of superstitious beliefs" (i.e. destroy religion) agendas have nothing to do with the science.

This is a very true statement....most scientists in general work towards...oh...I dont know....maybe....explaining science. To do so, they will for good or bad (depending on your personal perspective) need to bypass superstition as it lacks the fundemental requirements science looks for.....the ability to be tested, and debunked or proven. Religion will never be proven as a scientific fact.....sorry but, this is simple logic. Short of one God or another coming down from on high and explaining who he/she is.....we are dealing with abstract mythology for the most part.

 

[steen]

No it is simply adaption, not evolution. Learn the difference.

Adaptation is a feature of Evolution. That you are so ignorant of the science as to not know this raises serious question about how much of a clue you actually have of what you are talking about.

No mutations are evidence of this. Mutations are simply old genes in the wrong place. As discussed here:

your source is lying. Mutations are radical changes in the DNA codes that causes significant changes in genes and thus in proteins coded for by the genes. So mutations are not changes in the position of genes, but rather a significant CHANGE in genes.

I am shocked that you didn't know even this very basic component of biology.

But I did notice that your source talks about"new information." Now, YOU have mentioned this a couple of times, and so have several creationist sources that I have seen. yet, I have never found any creationist who could actually tell me what that means, such as how you would actually be able to recognize when there was "new information" and how to measure it.

I have asked you a couple of times to clarify this, but you seem to almost cowardly avoid dealing with it.

That aside, there is nothing in the Scientific Theory of Evolution talking about "new information," so creationists making a big brouhaha about this seems utterly irrelevant. Evolution is already defined, and it is not clear why you feel that this concept at all matters in the Science of Evolution at all. (Not the least when you are not even able to provide a scientifically meaningful description of what it is.)

I did not "cowardly shrink away" I merely got tired of trying to explain this to you. New DNA is new genetic information, you would have to prove this happens before you can have evolution.

Well, you post a lot of words, and they are utterly meaningless. How do you measure "new genetic information," then? certainly a mutation is new genetic information that wasn't there previously. I already provided several links to such examples, including a very detailed description regarding the nylon-digesting bacteria.

So you are "tired of explaining it"? That sounds like another cowardly shrinking away. Your words are meaningless.

What is it? How do you recognize it? How do you measure it? How can you tell whether it happened or not? And why does it actually need to be present for evolution to occur? Your silly and simplistic claim does NOTHING to answer any of these points, so we must conclude that you simply do not know, and thus ARE cowardly slinking away from providing a meaningful answer.

But hey, I can play that dishonest trick as well: "creationism is false because there is no sigymorph noted."

There, wasn't that fun and meaningful?

So once you actually have an answer that matters and explains anything rather that stupidly repeats the same nonsense, feel free to provide it, instead of your stupid and cowardly slinking away from meaningful explanation of your nonsense.

Oh, that's right, I forgot. You are "tired" of not providing an explanation, so you will instead continue your non-answer babbling nothingness. yeah, why not!

adaptations and changes have been evidenced,

And THAT is evolution. Case closed, your ignorant misrepresentations about evolution none withstanding.

"goo-to-you" evolution has not been.

And what is that?

You criticize that which you do not understand.

No, I criticize your flat-out lies.

Yes because they are being fed evolutionary dogma that does not make sense.

No, it is because their science education is inferior and they need MORE evolution, biology, chemistry and physics.

 

[steen]

He is a physical chemist who has written extensively on micro organisms.

he is not a biologist. And he lied.

No, but as you should know micro-biology and chemistry walk hand in hand.

No, it doesn't.

Most evolutionary biologists have a clear agenda to push. Most of them are members of humanist organizations who objectives include "to create a society free of superstitious beliefs" (i.e. destroy religion) agendas have nothing to do with the science.

You are lying.

I notice two things here: one is that you have presented no counter argument, you only try to attack Dr. Sarfati's character.

I already explained how his very claim is utter nonsense, even at a biology 101 level.

Second is that you assume to know what the biological community thinks.

And yes, we know that.

The fact is a growing number of biologists are rejecting standard evolutionary beliefs in favor of something new.

Growing? Ah, you mean from 5 lying fundies to 6 lying fundies who claim to do biology research Uhum, yeah. "growing" :roll:

 

[steen]

True, Dr. Sarfati specializes in that field, but he has also been trained in biochemistry (since it is a required course when studying chemistry).

Ah, so you are claiming his requirement as an undergraduate course (which by the way usually is NOT required for a physical chemist, so you are lying).

And it also means that your claim of his scientific expertize in biochemistry was flat-out a lie as well.

His biography is as follows:...

Yes, absolutely no trainign in biology at all whatsoever.

Only if he is wrong, which you have yet to give any evidence of.

He is wrong.

http://www.cancerquest.org/index.cfm?page=302
For almost all types of cancer studied to date, it seems as if the transition from a normal, healthy cell to a cancer cell is step-wise progression that requires genetic changes in several different oncogenes and tumor suppressors. This is one reason why cancer is much more prevalent in older individuals. In order to generate a cancer cell, a series of mutations must occur in the same cell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
mutations are changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html
mutation: A change in genetic material that results from an error in replication of DNA.

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1505.htm
mutation (and other changes in genetic material) introduces new alleles into populations (or adds minusculely to the number of a type of already existing alleles).

http://www.biology.missouri.edu/courses/Bio1020/pdf/Exam_Reviews/bio2_unit13.pdf

Clearly, mutations do occur and this will cause changes in
a gene pool over time by introducing new genetic material
into a population.​

And so on, and so on.

No it's not. Many of the scientists who claim to have religious beliefs belong to such organiations as I dscribed. They try to appeal to compromisers (like Steen) by claiming that they love God or something.

back to stupid nonsense. Science depends on the data, nothign else.

My guess is that you have a couple of friends who major in biology, and that these are the sources you are referring too. Perhaps you could give us the names of the people you have "asked" so we can look up there in depth research on the subject.

All scientific sources agee, so you are full of it.

You are TOO dishonest and TOO ignorant for these conversations. You are not worth anybody's time spewing your false witnessing.

You are now on ignore.

 

[tecoyah]

You are TOO dishonest and TOO ignorant for these conversations. You are not worth anybody's time spewing your false witnessing.

You are now on ignore.

Oh....come on Steen, you gotta admit the entertainment value is more than enough to make up for the ignorance. Hell, I come in here once in awhile.....just to see what he wrote, Priceless.

 

[steen]

Ah, you mean like a class clown who doesn't know he is the clown?

 

[oracle25]

Ah, so you are claiming his requirement as an undergraduate course

Why not? Engimo claims to be an expert in thermodynamics because of his undergraduate course in it.

(which by the way usually is NOT required for a physical chemist,

This just shows that you did not actually read his biography. He did not obtain his Bachelors degree (nor his Ph.D.) in physical chemistry:

"He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’."

so you are lying).

Ah yes, I have been missing your signature retort, however illogical it may be.....

And it also means that your claim of his scientific expertize in biochemistry was flat-out a lie as well.

ooo, let me try this time...... your lying

Yes, absolutely no trainign in biology at all whatsoever.

This is not true, even if you discount the fact that he written extensively in peer reviewed journals on the subject.

He is wrong.

http://www.cancerquest.org/index.cfm?page=302
For almost all types of cancer studied to date, it seems as if the transition from a normal, healthy cell to a cancer cell is step-wise progression that requires genetic changes in several different oncogenes and tumor suppressors. This is one reason why cancer is much more prevalent in older individuals. In order to generate a cancer cell, a series of mutations must occur in the same cell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
mutations are changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html
mutation: A change in genetic material that results from an error in replication of DNA.

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1505.htm
mutation (and other changes in genetic material) introduces new alleles into populations (or adds minusculely to the number of a type of already existing alleles).

http://www.biology.missouri.edu/courses/Bio1020/pdf/Exam_Reviews/bio2_unit13.pdf

Clearly, mutations do occur and this will cause changes in
a gene pool over time by introducing new genetic material
into a population.​

And so on, and so on.

You are a lot like DNA, you never come up with anything new.

back to stupid nonsense. Science depends on the data, nothign else.

Interesting how this argument doesn't apply to creationists. Instead we get off the bat dismissals from people who haven't even examined the evidence.

All scientific sources agee, so you are full of it.

I would think that the evolutionist scientists (former) who met Pajaro dunes would disagree with this statement. All of which were biologists I might add. Among them was Dr. Dean H. Kenyon. Who co-authored the book Biochemical predestination And has now rejected his own theory set forth in that book.

You are TOO dishonest and TOO ignorant for these conversations. You are not worth anybody's time spewing your false witnessing.

You are now on ignore.

Fine ignore me. I've had enough of you incoherent babel.

 

[Engimo]

Why not? Engimo claims to be an expert in thermodynamics because of his undergraduate course in it.

That's cute. And what scientific training do you have, exactly? If we're going to bring unfounded personal attacks into it, let's start with your total scientific ineptitude and not my correct understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[jfuh]

Why not? Engimo claims to be an expert in thermodynamics because of his undergraduate course in it.

Most people who then specialize in a feild are mostly because of influences they had in undergrad studies. Obviously that is not why they are experts in thier fields. AS steen pointed out, biochem is not a requirement for physical chemistry students, nor chemistry disciplinaries in general, it's an elective course.

This just shows that you did not actually read his biography. He did not obtain his Bachelors degree (nor his Ph.D.) in physical chemistry:

"He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’."

I do not know what if anything this has to do with biochem not being a requirement, nor do I see any point being made here with relation to his "expertice" in biology.

I would think that the evolutionist scientists (former) who met Pajaro dunes would disagree with this statement. All of which were biologists I might add. Among them was Dr. Dean H. Kenyon. Who co-authored the book Biochemical predestination And has now rejected his own theory set forth in that book.

Any "scientist" that bases thier knowledge on anything not prooven or non-peer reviewed "evidence" is not a scientist.
Science is the explanation of observations in a logical fashion. Perhaps you may need to go back to highschool to understand this concept.

 

[oracle25]

Most people who then specialize in a field are mostly because of influences they had in undergrad studies. Obviously that is not why they are experts in thier fields. AS steen pointed out, biochem is not a requirement for physical chemistry students, nor chemistry disciplinaries in general, it's an elective course.

First, I have been trying to point out that Dr. Sarfati did not get his degree in physical chemistry, he got it in chemistry, with two substitute papers in physics.

Second, biochem usually is required to some degree in most university's.

I do not know what if anything this has to do with biochem not being a requirement, nor do I see any point being made here with relation to his "expertice" in biology.

This was really just a response too Steen saying that he got his degree in physical chemistry.

Any "scientist" that bases thier knowledge on anything not prooven or non-peer reviewed "evidence" is not a scientist.

These particular scientists went through a great deal of peer reviewing there work. May I point out (again) that these scientists are all former evolutionists who completely changed there minds about evolution. They came up with the theory which is now known as Intelligent Design. Most of them still hold no religious belief. So I don't want to hear that ID is a religious idea ever again.

 

[Engimo]

These particular scientists went through a great deal of peer reviewing there work. May I point out (again) that these scientists are all former evolutionists who completely changed there minds about evolution. They came up with the theory which is now known as Intelligent Design. Most of them still hold no religious belief. So I don't want to hear that ID is a religious idea ever again.

Show me a single, peer-reviewed paper that builds a case for Intelligent Design.