Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

[steen]

Well, Oracle, I think you can quote 70 and 70 more researches and scientists, but you would not convince the Darwinists quoting each other (tryreading’s post and enigmo’s post: …I say WE give up…) This is power of WE.

Irrelevant claptrap. It is not who you quote, but rather what the evidence is. So once you have actual, scientific data to present, THEN it start mattering.

BTW, when you quote ignorant stuff such as "Darwinists, it is a very good indication that you don't know what you are talking about. What Darwin did was to 150+ years ago suggesting a Scientific Hypothesis. The science lies in the research that has followed since, and which has lead to the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

And yes, it would help you greatly if you actually KNOW what that is before trying to discuss it, so you don't run into the same problems as Oracle did with posting what was outright falsehoods, exposing the ignorance and willingness to post falsehoods that creationists adhere to.

not discuss implementing ID in schools. Before prescribing a cure you should have researched the condition of the patient (schools). You should have asked yourself how did it happen that Darwinists gained such control and ability to suppress any questions just by quoting each other.

Ah, more creationist lies. Nothings being "suppressed;" it merely is the case of the ID crowd not having any actual scientific data to present. If all you have is "I believe that...," or "I can't believe that..." then you don't have any science, so you have nothing to say in science class.

How did Darwin’s fantasies gain such spread and power, while Mendel’s genetics, which appeared almost at the same time, was practically unknown..

Hmm, so you never learned about Mendel?

It has never been found a trace of species in the process of evolution,

Ah, so now YOU have resorted to lying. How sad and pathetic. We certainly have posted links to scientific evidence of speciation.

And remind me again why speciation is necessary for evolution to have occurred? It seems like you don't even know what evolution is to begin with, indicating your argument against it as being VERY DISHONEST.

Do you ALWAYS bear false witness like this, blasphemously spitting God in the eye with your falsehoods in God's name? Why is it that creationists feel it is OK to be LYING FOR JESUS?

but only the end results – the missing links were imagined by Darwin, a good scientist, whose input in classification of species must not be underappreciated.

What "missing links? And again, what is it you are trying to disprove here? You complained that Darwin was pushed to much in the school. It sure seems like your ignorance of evolution is evidence that it isn't pushed enough.

When Darwin was still alive, Mendel showed that adaptation to environment was a fantasy.

No, he didn't. No need to lie here, is there?

No experiments could prove Darwin,

Another lie.

while Mendel always had a predicted result..

Actually, Mendel fudged and changed his data.

It was not so long ago when laws of math and thermodynamics (discovered quite long ago) came into play to say that substance could not organize itself in the way Darwin claimed it could.

And that claim also is false. Even your very existence is proof that your claim is false. Are you going to claim that you didn't start from a single cell which has grown and developed to a complex, millions-of-cells organism? Per your argument, that would violate laws of thermodynamics (Not to mention your extreme ignorance in trying to apply laws of THERMOdynamics to something unrelated to energy)

Of course, real scientists had been too busy with discovering real laws rather than paying attention to fiction theories around.

Which is why the creationist and ID lies are non-issues to scientists, as they are all lies anyway.

Genetics was running on background while Darwin was reining, and he is still reining.

Hmm, perhaps you haven't noticed, but Darwin died long time ago. :rofl

You should have asked yourself – why and how did it happen?

When the scientific method proved the validity of the Scientific Theory of Evolution, while showing creationist and ID lies as the false claptrap anti-science that it is.

Before breaking you forehead at the wall called WE, THE DARWINISTS, you should have looked for weak spots.

Well, the weak spots are in the creationist and ID lies.

 

[MrFungus420]

Well, Oracle, I think you can quote 70 and 70 more researches and scientists,

He didn't quote anyone. He just made a claim that some unknown person said something.

but you would not convince the Darwinists quoting each other (tryreading’s post and enigmo’s post: …I say WE give up…) This is power of WE.

Well, seeing as the term "Darwinist" is meaningless, I wonder who you are refering to. Darwin did what anyone can do, he proposed an hypothesis. After much research, Darwin's hypothesis was modified into the modern theory of evolution.

You cannot discuss implementing ID in schools.

That's because there is no place for teaching religious beliefs in public school.

Before prescribing a cure you should have researched the condition of the patient (schools).

The problems with schools are another subject entirely.

You should have asked yourself how did it happen that Darwinists gained such control and ability to suppress any questions just by quoting each other.

Evolution is taught because it is a scientific theory, and it is taught as a theory. To be a theory, something must have supporting evidence and be falsifiable. Neither of which apply to creationism/ID.

How did Darwin’s fantasies gain such spread and power,

If you want to talk about fantasies, we definately should be talking about creationism/ID. They have no supporting evidence. The only way that they are at all believable is if you already have the requisite faith.

while Mendel’s genetics, which appeared almost at the same time, was practically unknown.

Really? The man considered the father of the study of genetics is practically unknown?

It has never been found a trace of species in the process of evolution,

Ignoring the speciation that has been observed. Culex molestus has speciated from Culex pipiens in the London Underground within the last 150 years or so.

but only the end results – the missing links were imagined by Darwin, a good scientist, whose input in classification of species must not be underappreciated. When Darwin was still alive, Mendel showed that adaptation to environment was a fantasy. No experiments could prove Darwin, while Mendel always had a predicted result.

No, he was able to show the probability of certain characteristics to show up based on dominant and recessive genes.

It was not so long ago when laws of math and thermodynamics (discovered quite long ago) came into play to say that substance could not organize itself in the way Darwin claimed it could.

Except, of course, that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a closed system, and the Earth is not a closed system.

Of course, real scientists had been too busy with discovering real laws rather than paying attention to fiction theories around.

It is due to the work of those scientist that we have the theory of evolution. When an hypothesis gains the status of theory, it means that it is accepted as true by the scientific community on the whole.

Genetics was running on background while Darwin was reining, and he is still reining.
You should have asked yourself – why and how did it happen? Before breaking you forehead at the wall called WE, THE DARWINISTS, you should have looked for weak spots.

And, that is the best that those who support creationism/ID have to offer. Nothing better than arguments from incredulity because they don't understand how it could have happened. It is the height of arrogance, thinking that because they don't understand it, it can't be right.

 

[justone]

I have never been a Darwinist, people like you invented the word.

I think you are afraid of the theory of evolution, oracle is too. The fear is it contradicts your version of a particular religion. I have assumed you are a Christian, maybe I'm wrong, but if you are and this theory shakes your beliefs, your faith is very weak.

How would I be afraid of the theory evolution if I said that Darwin's work MUST not be underapprecited???
Why do I look like a Christian but not like a Jew to you?
I desagree with Oracle on too many things. So do not mix us together the mixture can blow. And if you do not like to be called Darwinist I apologize - you are who you are.

It seems like you don't even know what evolution is to begin with, indicating your argument against it as being VERY DISHONEST... so now YOU have resorted to lying. How sad and pathetic. We certainly have posted links to scientific evidence of speciation.

If I don't know I am ignorant but I am not DISHONEST. I would be dishonest if I did know but would not tell what I knew. I would be lying. There may not be discussion without logic.
I spent some time in my life trying to convince myself in Darwin' theory going through links and books - did you try to convince youself in ID or God as hard as I tryed to covince myself in evolution?

You complained that Darwin was pushed to much in the school. It sure seems like your ignorance of evolution is evidence that it isn't pushed enough.

I did not complained I pointed to the fact that neither ID nor God nor Genetic Evolution are reprsented in schools. I did never say that Darvin was pushed too much. I cannot imagine Darwin being pushed too much or not enough. I have full respect for the man an I think he would not like it. I cannot have complains also because I think when they gradute 99.99% percent of them have no clue about Darwin's theory anyway. I wish they would know some basic math at least.

Hmm, so you never learned about Mendel

And this is the only thing you can say about my refference to Mendel?
His works are the actual and scentific data you asked for.

Are you going to claim that you didn't start from a single cell which has grown and developed to a complex, millions-of-cells organism? Per your argument, that would violate laws of thermodynamics (Not to mention your extreme ignorance in trying to apply laws of THERMOdynamics to something unrelated to energy)

Also I can send you to Enthropy in thermodinamics but there too little freedom for you to talk over there - mostly differential equasions. Your cell has a certain order of organization of energy and it produces and/or consumes energy when it grows or reorganizes into different sructure. Generally from the point of view of the Universe or a scientist all of this is transformation of energy.
I will not be mentioning your "extreme ignorance" - you know what you know.

Well, the weak spots are in the creationist and ID lies..

Swear to God and Darwin I am not a creationist, I cannot even prononce this word. And I am not an ID - fortunately they have abbreviation so I can prononce. But once I was majoring in thermodinamics.

 

[justone]

I think you are afraid of the theory of evolution, oracle is too. The fear is it contradicts your version of a particular religion. I have assumed you are a Christian, maybe I'm wrong, but if you are and this theory shakes your beliefs, your faith is very weak. .

How can I be afraid if I said Darwin’s work MUST not be underappreciated?
Why do I look like a Christian to you , but not like Jew for instance?
I disagree with Oracle on too many things, so please do not mix us together – the mixture can blow.
If you do not like to be called Darwinist I apologize – you are who you are, I did not mean to offend you.

It seems like you don't even know what evolution is to begin with, indicating your argument against it as being VERY DISHONEST. .

If I don’t know I am not dishonest, but I am ignorant. If I know one thing but tell the opposite one I am lying. Be logical ,at least.

Ah, so now YOU have resorted to lying. How sad and pathetic. We certainly have posted links to scientific evidence of speciation. .

I spent some time trying to convince myself in theory of evolution and going through links and books. Did you every try hard to convince yourself in ID or God? And I just noticed you how you keep on quoting each other in your attacks on Oracle. As to the set of links one can take the Bible and make a set of quotes from it proving that there is no God.

Irrelevant claptrap. It is not who you quote, but rather what the evidence is. So once you have actual, scientific data to present, THEN it start mattering.
Actually, Mendel fudged and changed his data. .

And genetics works everywhere with results so predicted that they even call it engineering. Genetics and genetic engineering just by theirself have a critical mass of actual and scientific data to represent. And this is just one example.

Even your very existence is proof that your claim is false. Are you going to claim that you didn't start from a single cell which has grown and developed to a complex, millions-of-cells organism? Per your argument, that would violate laws of thermodynamics (Not to mention your extreme ignorance in trying to apply laws of THERMOdynamics to something unrelated to energy) .

Another example is thermodynamics. Your cell has a certain order of organization of energy. When it grows it consumes and/or produces energy. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE UNIVERSE OR A SCIENTIST ALL OF THIS IS JUST TRANSFORMATION OF ENERGY.
I will not mention you extreme ignorance – you know what you know.

Well, the weak spots are in the creationist and ID lies. .

Swear to God and Darwin I am not a creationist, - as Bush would say, I can hardly pronounce this word. And I am not an ID – fortunately they have abbreviation, so I can pronounce.
Once I was majoring in thermodynamics.

 

[jfuh]

I never said that the theory of creationism is based on observational science. That is, it is speaking about the past, which we cannot observe. The difference between that and the big bang (which, incidentally, I do not accept) is that you can observe the universe and draw conclusions (right or wrong) from what you see.

Evolution is observational, Creationism is nothing but religoius dogma. You did not witness creation at any point, nor is there any shred of observational evidence for it. The contrary for Evolution, which has a plethora of evidence in support of it.
Evolution can explain 99.99% of all observations made about the natural living world. Creationism, due to the supernatural basis of it, explains precisely 0.

vs. evolution at the present.

Thanks for the heads up that the topic has switched, as you were prior to, a firm supporter of ID, now it's Creation, very well.

Yes. The laws of morality are reflections of himself (his personality). This really isn't a very good argument.

My bad, not morality, mortality. I find it interesting that you would issue a sex to a being that exists outside of physical laws. Have you observed this?

He tells us both these things.

You're creator told you that it was a He? Where?
"He" also told you he had no begining?

I never claimed that particular argument was based on science. However, all my arguments that are meant to be based on science, are.

Lies

 

[jfuh]

And that claim also is false. Even your very existence is proof that your claim is false. Are you going to claim that you didn't start from a single cell which has grown and developed to a complex, millions-of-cells organism? Per your argument, that would violate laws of thermodynamics (Not to mention your extreme ignorance in trying to apply laws of THERMOdynamics to something unrelated to energy)

You mean I didn't appear supernaturally in this world? Goodness, I came from a single cell?

 

[jfuh]

I spent some time trying to convince myself in theory of evolution and going through links and books. Did you every try hard to convince yourself in ID or God? And I just noticed you how you keep on quoting each other in your attacks on Oracle. As to the set of links one can take the Bible and make a set of quotes from it proving that there is no God.

Here's the variance. We didn't start out with one sided religious dogma claiming the absolute idea of creation/ID. Started out blank, and the more rational one prooved more probable seeing as with all the evidence surrounding it. With religious dogma it's shunned upon to question the print in the bible. Never had to convince myself of ID. God has nothing to do with this at all, you're relation between god and ID seems to reference evolution as atheist, which is completely untrue.
Bottom line, there's a plethora of evidence in support of evolution, there is no evidence whatsoever for creation.
Creationism should be taught in no where but sunday school where as evolution is a science and belongs in the science classroom.

And genetics works everywhere with results so predicted that they even call it engineering. Genetics and genetic engineering just by theirself have a critical mass of actual and scientific data to represent. And this is just one example.

not much in relation at all to the discussion.

Another example is thermodynamics. Your cell has a certain order of organization of energy. When it grows it consumes and/or produces energy. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE UNIVERSE OR A SCIENTIST ALL OF THIS IS JUST TRANSFORMATION OF ENERGY.
I will not mention you extreme ignorance – you know what you know.

I would suggest you read up more on this topic, you're argument really is making you sound..... well you know what I mean.
Simply put, the relation for this with regards to the argument at hand? none. Has no argumentative purpose with relation to creationism nor evolution. If this were for the argument of how evolution stays within the confines of thermodynamic order, sure, the mechanisms are in place on the molecular levels, but it is not how evolution works. Trait selection has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

Swear to God and Darwin I am not a creationist, - as Bush would say, I can hardly pronounce this word. And I am not an ID – fortunately they have abbreviation, so I can pronounce.
Once I was majoring in thermodynamics.

Then you should know there is no correlation of thermodynamics with this thread.

 

[steen]

If you do not like to be called Darwinist I apologize – you are who you are, I did not mean to offend you.

A "Darwinist" would be somebody who adhere to Darwin's original hypothesis of 150+ years ago.

If I don’t know I am not dishonest, but I am ignorant. If I know one thing but tell the opposite one I am lying. Be logical ,at least.

If you make absolutist claims against something without even knowing what it is, then sorry but you are dishonest. Ignorance is not a defense against making claims of "certainty. If you don't know anything about a subject, you can explore the subject, but you can not in all honesty make false claims about it.

I spent some time trying to convince myself in theory of evolution and going through links and books. Did you every try hard to convince yourself in ID or God?

Huh? Are you nuts? I am a Christian, so that point is downright insulting.

And I have looked at the ID in detail. It is based solely on the "I can't believe that it evolved" claim of disbelief. There simply is no other evidence, no ID evidence FOR the ID position. Do you know of one? Please link to it or report it here if you do.

Hence, when the ID crowd calls it science, they are lying. What else do you want me to explore about it? Their claims are bogus, and what they claim have in many instances actually already been documented through scientific research as evolution.

So ID is a pack of lies, no different than the creationist pack of lies. As for my Christianity, your apparent claim of its absence because I don't adhere to fundie lies, that is just ANOTHER example of where you want to make claims without having a clue.

I would suggest you change your tactic and investigate and explore something before making false claims about it, unless you like to hear the word "liar" directed against you a lot.

And I just noticed you how you keep on quoting each other in your attacks on Oracle. As to the set of links one can take the Bible and make a set of quotes from it proving that there is no God.

And what is the relevance of this nonsense? You denied that there were evidence of speciation despite us having provided links to such examples. Your claim is a lie. Your blabbering irrelevance doesn't hide that you are spewing false claims.

Next time, please (as I have advised above), check to make sure your claims are true before posting such false witnessing. If you don't want to be called on false claims, stop making them.

And genetics works everywhere with results so predicted that they even call it engineering. Genetics and genetic engineering just by theirself have a critical mass of actual and scientific data to represent. And this is just one example.

And genetics drive evolution, and as such makes it predictable and scientific. Yes, very nice. So?

Another example is thermodynamics. Your cell has a certain order of organization of energy. When it grows it consumes and/or produces energy. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE UNIVERSE OR A SCIENTIST ALL OF THIS IS JUST TRANSFORMATION OF ENERGY.

And? You made false claims about Thermodynamics and how it precluded evolution.

I will not mention you extreme ignorance – you know what you know.

I know that by now, your ignorance is proved. I also know that you were unable to provide any support for your claim when challenged as false.

Swear to God and Darwin I am not a creationist, - as Bush would say, I can hardly pronounce this word. And I am not an ID – fortunately they have abbreviation, so I can pronounce.

So you are an unaffiliated false prophet or something like that? Why the false claims?

Once I was majoring in thermodynamics.

That MUST be a lie. It simply can not be true with the ignorant claims above. If you majored in "thermodynamics" (Where would you get such a major, anyway?), you would know that it deals with energy flow, not gene mutations and changes in allele distribution.

 

[steen]

You mean I didn't appear supernaturally in this world? Goodness, I came from a single cell?

Nah, the great Spaghetti Monster created you, Didn't you know?

 

[tryreading]

How would I be afraid of the theory evolution if I said that Darwin's work MUST not be underapprecited???
Why do I look like a Christian but not like a Jew to you?
I desagree with Oracle on too many things. So do not mix us together the mixture can blow. And if you do not like to be called Darwinist I apologize - you are who you are.

It appeared to me that you were arguing against evolution, and only Christians do that, from what I've seen. Jews have more worthwhile axes to grind, it seems.

Please be more careful about attributing quotes to the right people.

 

[justone]

I would suggest you read up more on this topic, you're argument really is making you sound..... well you know what I mean.
Simply put, the relation for this with regards to the argument at hand? none. Has no argumentative purpose with relation to creationism nor evolution. If this were for the argument of how evolution stays within the confines of thermodynamic order, sure, the mechanisms are in place on the molecular levels, but it is not how evolution works. Trait selection has nothing to do with thermodynamics.


Then you should know there is no correlation of thermodynamics with this thread.

I quoted the opponent and replied to the quote. I replied to the statement that growing of a cell has nothing to do to the energy.
Also I replied to the statement that “a single cell which has grown and developed to a complex, millions-of-cells organism”. If you disagree with somebody who is on your side you should direct advise to read more to him or her. I did not really mean to go on this subject, because it would take pages. As well it would take pages to relate Genetics to theory of evolution, at least in my understanding. I just pointed in the direction of relation and gave 2 leads for you to research. If you know everything you have no need to research. If you know they have nothing to do evolution or genetics drives evolution you have no need. You may have better knowledge and you may have learned about things I don’t even know they exist. But in the rules for this forum there is no mentioning that only smart and intelligent persons who know everything can participate. I am trying to understand you as much as I can on the level of my intelligence – because I do not have another level. And I appreciate arguments, if they do not point to my ignorance or me lying and making up false statements. When you get tired of my ignorance just click remove me from your list. Unless you like to for an easy prey to show off.

Going back to thermodynamics – let me try to put a few pages into a few sentences.
You see: when one of you makes statement: “a single cell which has grown and developed to a complex, millions-of-cells organism?” you talk about substance, matter and its structure, organization and keeping it together. Those are the things thermodynamics deals with directly; and when you say “the mechanisms are in place on the molecular levels” – this is more related to chemistry and physics.
Thermodynamics states that substance, matter left alone cannot organize itself. The more it cannot grow or develop in complex structures (organism).
Actually it tends to develop into chaos, uncertainty. Thermodynamics calls this chaos “Entropy” and it measures it and uses in equations. At one time the world was scared by “thermodynamic death of Universe” – when the Universe was taken into the equations as a closed system. Then it was theoretically assumed that the Universe wass an open system… Let me stop… So, generally, according to these laws substance cannot self-organize into cells and cells cannot self-organize into “complex organism”. Something has to organize it.
And that theory of big bang – when the entire Universe first had a size ---- could fit into you palms. And again – opened or closed Universe question – whose palms are holding it.
I have never found the answer – I always thought the Neanderthal man was my latest predecessor –at least I was sure this was what you thought me all the time. It is like a picture with different animals ever dogged out and dotted lines between them illustrating evolution from one animal to another and nothing ever dogged out on those lines and the Neanderthal man right behind me. Then science came to a play, they took DNA test and it turned show that I and the Neanderthal man were totally different spices. It just happened. Now I am missing my latest predecessor and cannot find a new picture, new construction with dotted lines. I read what I read, I saw what I saw, I understood what I understood – what would be reason or need for me to lie or falsify, telling you about it?

 

[Engimo]

You see: when one of you makes statement: “a single cell which has grown and developed to a complex, millions-of-cells organism?” you talk about substance, matter and its structure, organization and keeping it together. Those are the things thermodynamics deals with directly; and when you say “the mechanisms are in place on the molecular levels” – this is more related to chemistry and physics.
Thermodynamics states that substance, matter left alone cannot organize itself. The more it cannot grow or develop in complex structures (organism).
Actually it tends to develop into chaos, uncertainty. Thermodynamics calls this chaos “Entropy” and it measures it and uses in equations. At one time the world was scared by “thermodynamic death of Universe” – when the Universe was taken into the equations as a closed system. Then it was theoretically assumed that the Universe wass an open system… Let me stop… So, generally, according to these laws substance cannot self-organize into cells and cells cannot self-organize into “complex organism”. Something has to organize it.
And that theory of big bang – when the entire Universe first had a size ---- could fit into you palms. And again – opened or closed Universe question – whose palms are holding it.
I have never found the answer – I always thought the Neanderthal man was my latest predecessor –at least I was sure this was what you thought me all the time. It is like a picture with different animals ever dogged out and dotted lines between them illustrating evolution from one animal to another and nothing ever dogged out on those lines and the Neanderthal man right behind me. Then science came to a play, they took DNA test and it turned show that I and the Neanderthal man were totally different spices. It just happened. Now I am missing my latest predecessor and cannot find a new picture, new construction with dotted lines. I read what I read, I saw what I saw, I understood what I understood – what would be reason or need for me to lie or falsify, telling you about it?

You have a horrible understanding of thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that any closed system tends towards disorder. Net disorder. If you have an open system (such as the Earth, which is receiving a continual input of energy from the Sun), there is no reason that order cannot appear with an addition of energy. Hell, even in a closed system you can have a local increase of order at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. How do you think that tremendously complex things such as snowflakes develop spontaneously out of water?

 

[justone]

If you make absolutist claims against something without even knowing what it is, then sorry but you are dishonest. Ignorance is not a defense against making claims of "certainty. If you don't know anything about a subject, you can explore the subject, but you can not in all honesty make false claims about it. ..

I thought I had been exploring the subject. I thought I did as much as I could. Can you call me just stupid. Please. I guess not, - those who disagree with you don't know anything about the subject , do no exploration and therefore are ignorant and therefore are dishonest and your are the lie detector?
It is a question mark.

Huh? Are you nuts? I am a Christian, so that point is downright insulting..

Also I am nuts. May I at least apolgize? I am certainly here not to insult Christians.

Hence, when the ID crowd calls it science, they are lying. What else do you want me to explore about it?

I am just trying to imagine a whole crowd of ID people who do not know anything about the subject, did no exploration and therefore are ignorant and therefore are lying. Why would they do so?

There strange thing: I myself did not find too much of evidence in ID theory.
Can you imagine a chance you and me did not explore the subject enough from their point of view and therefore we are... who we are?

 

[justone]

You have a horrible understanding of thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that any closed system tends towards disorder. Net disorder. If you have an open system (such as the Earth, which is receiving a continual input of energy from the Sun), there is no reason that order cannot appear with an addition of energy. Hell, even in a closed system you can have a local increase of order at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. How do you think that tremendously complex things such as snowflakes develop spontaneously out of water?

You are not afraid of falling into the same pit I did trying to explain my understanding of thermodynamics in a few sentences. I find you comments very reasonable and of a kind I like and I understand your thinking. I cannot quite agree with you, I said things which were a little bit different and I said them in short. But I cannot argue. I signed for the forum just yesterday and today I found myself all over the place talking about things I did not intend to talk - like discussing thermodynamics. I am not a scientist and I am not the one who discovered those things I was talking about. It was 20 years ago when the last time I opened a book on thermodynamics (3 years of my life). And recently within a few years I have been reading writings of other people on relation to evolution. I did not mean to read in order to argue to the public, but just for myself. I do not know if it would be interesting for you to research, what I could read. I am pretty much sure those people were quite up to date.
I did not realize that I really have to have all the references at hand. I am not sure how I can do that when I am taken all over the different subjects. (Also English is my second language and that poses another problem for my references as well as for my expressions and even using terms of thermodynamics – I did not study or use it in English).
I intended to have some fun. Now I think I should have to stop or take a breake and analyze the experience. So, since I have no arguments to post for you, the right thing in my understanding is to say that you are right. Or if I ever get back I must say you are completely!! right at this moment.

 

[steen]

Going back to thermodynamics – let me try to put a few pages into a few sentences.
You see: when one of you makes statement: “a single cell which has grown and developed to a complex, millions-of-cells organism?” you talk about substance, matter and its structure, organization and keeping it together. Those are the things thermodynamics deals with directly; and when you say “the mechanisms are in place on the molecular levels” – this is more related to chemistry and physics.
Thermodynamics states that substance, matter left alone cannot organize itself. The more it cannot grow or develop in complex structures (organism).

False. There is no such statement or even idea in Thermodynamics. It says absolutely nothing about matter or organizing into structures. Why are you misrepresenting science so? Thermodynamics is about ENERGY and energy flows, not matter.

Actually it tends to develop into chaos, uncertainty. Thermodynamics calls this chaos “Entropy” and it measures it and uses in equations.

And that also is false. Entropy simply is energy becoming unavailable, spent. You seem to know NOTHING about this stuff that you are trying to make claims about. And yet you claim a major in Thermodynamics?

At one time the world was scared by “thermodynamic death of Universe” – when the Universe was taken into the equations as a closed system. Then it was theoretically assumed that the Universe wass an open system… Let me stop…

Please do. It is all nonsense. Are YOU makign this up, or are you using some lying, creationist source here? It surely have nothing to do with Science. And I MUST conclude that your claim regarding your major is a flat-out lie.

So, generally, according to these laws substance cannot self-organize into cells and cells cannot self-organize into “complex organism”. Something has to organize it.

Nope. What you are spewing is NOT related to the laws of thermodynamics. You are posting gibberish nonsense. What si your source?

And that theory of big bang – when the entire Universe first had a size ---- could fit into you palms. And again – opened or closed Universe question – whose palms are holding it.

Very irrelevant to the issue of Evolution and ID.

I have never found the answer – I always thought the Neanderthal man was my latest predecessor –at least I was sure this was what you thought me all the time.

It is not, and we certainly have not made that claim here. Not our fault that you are utterly undeucated about the subject you are trying to talk about. Nor is it our fault that you claim a major in a science field when you show utter ignorance of the basics.

I would suggest now as a very good time to come clean and admit that you lied about you major. Because your credibility is rapidly being trashed beyond repair.

It is like a picture with different animals ever dogged out and dotted lines between them illustrating evolution from one animal to another and nothing ever dogged out on those lines and the Neanderthal man right behind me.

What nonsense are you talking about?

Then science came to a play, they took DNA test and it turned show that I and the Neanderthal man were totally different spices. It just happened.

Huh? They were ALWAYS characterized as a different species. Do you have ANY clue how silly your claims sound?

Now I am missing my latest predecessor and cannot find a new picture, new construction with dotted lines. I read what I read, I saw what I saw, I understood what I understood – what would be reason or need for me to lie or falsify, telling you about it?

Well it seems that you decided to spew utter falsehoods based on extreme ignorance, and then lied about your qualifications.

 

[steen]

..those who disagree with you don't know anything about the subject , do no exploration and therefore are ignorant and therefore are dishonest and your are the lie detector?
It is a question mark.

It is not the disagreement, but rather the false claims and the claims directly contradicted by evidence that exposes this.

I am just trying to imagine a whole crowd of ID people who do not know anything about the subject, did no exploration and therefore are ignorant and therefore are lying. Why would they do so?

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Likely, they are recycled creationists who feel that they need "proof" for their god, not unlikely the Israelites building their Golden Calf.

 

[paulmarkj]

Thermodynamics states that substance, matter left alone cannot organize itself. The more it cannot grow or develop in complex structures (organism).

What about substances that are not left alone, like all the substances on Earth that are continually heated up by the sun? What does Thermodynamics say about an open system like Earth?

 

[Jerry]

In every other thread i've looked at containing Intelligent Design the debate has turned into the argument of whether or not Intelligent Design is correct or plausible. I'm more interested in seeing (fact-based) arguments on why the teaching of intellegent design would help or harm students.

So basically, "should the public high school science curriculum include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design"?

to start it off:
The Theory of Intelligent Design is religion based and would therefore impose one's religions over students who might not share the same opinions.

Show me the *purely scientific* theory of any I.D. variant. Provide as many links as possable to peer-reviews of said *purely scientific* theory.

 

[robin]

Advocates of ID claim the thirty or so components of the rotary propulsion mechanism in flagellum exist only in these organisms & for that purpose thus indicating the presence of ID.
It's been shown however that these components do exist in organsims that are precursors to these flagellum & all that was needed for the propulsion mechanism to evolve was for the components to have become organised in the right locations. Thus ID is false science based on a false premise in this case.
It should not be taught in schools.

 

[Robodoon]

Yes and Evolution thrown out.

Evolution was just introduced to destroy our Christian heritage, The rich have a new system for the world and plan to make us slaves.

SEE EARTH CHARTER and the ARK OF HOPE

ITS SATANIC AND FROM THE UNITED NATIONS, VIA GORBY, ROCKEFELLER AND STRONG.

Also SEE REECE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS on how the Rockefeller Foundation and others took control of our school systems so we could be dumbed down.

 

[Jerry]

Yes and Evolution thrown out.

Evolution was just introduced to destroy our Christian heritage, The rich have a new system for the world and plan to make us slaves.

SEE EARTH CHARTER and the ARK OF HOPE

ITS SATANIC AND FROM THE UNITED NATIONS, VIA GORBY, ROCKEFELLER AND STRONG.

Also SEE REECE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS on how the Rockefeller Foundation and others took control of our school systems so we could be dumbed down.

Link it.
Make the script look like this:
what ever you want here[/url

Finaly, add a " ] " at the very end.

When you preview your post, it should look something like this:
[url=http://jibjab.com/Home.aspx]Political Cartoons

 

[MrFungus420]

Yes and Evolution thrown out.

Evolution was just introduced to destroy our Christian heritage,

Care to back that assertion up, or are you just babbling?

The rich have a new system for the world and plan to make us slaves.

So, you think that teaching science is a way to make slavery legal again? I'm leaning towards babbling...

SEE EARTH CHARTER and the ARK OF HOPE

ITS SATANIC AND FROM THE UNITED NATIONS, VIA GORBY, ROCKEFELLER AND STRONG.

The full text of the Earth Charter can be read here: http://www.earthcharterusa.org/earth_charter.html

It calls for: respecting life and the environment, protecting ecological integrity, social and economic justice, and democracy, nonviolence and peace.

I can see why you would think that it's satanic. Boy, talk about going directly against the teachings of Jesus...:roll:

I do have a problem with the Earth Charter, but it is the same objection that I have to the UN in general. It calls for "equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations", which to me sounds like redistribution, and controlling the type of government that countries can have. But, that's another discussion entirely...

The Ark of Hope can bee seen here: http://arkofhope.org/

Also SEE REECE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS on how the Rockefeller Foundation and others took control of our school systems so we could be dumbed down.

Tracking down this little tidbit requires going to conspiracy and extreme right-wing religious websites, usually associating it with the Illuminati, the New World Order, etc.

The Reece Committee itself was an investigation into the tax-exempt status of several organizations during McCarthyism.

 

[jfuh]

Yes and Evolution thrown out.

Evolution was just introduced to destroy our Christian heritage, The rich have a new system for the world and plan to make us slaves.

SEE EARTH CHARTER and the ARK OF HOPE

ITS SATANIC AND FROM THE UNITED NATIONS, VIA GORBY, ROCKEFELLER AND STRONG.

Also SEE REECE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS on how the Rockefeller Foundation and others took control of our school systems so we could be dumbed down.

GO back to school, this time pay attention to your instructor.

 

[tryreading]

Yes and Evolution thrown out.

Evolution was just introduced to destroy our Christian heritage, The rich have a new system for the world and plan to make us slaves.

SEE EARTH CHARTER and the ARK OF HOPE

ITS SATANIC AND FROM THE UNITED NATIONS, VIA GORBY, ROCKEFELLER AND STRONG.

Also SEE REECE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS on how the Rockefeller Foundation and others took control of our school systems so we could be dumbed down.

If you pucker your lips, then rapidly move your forefinger up and down on your lips while making a sound, you'll make a more worthwhile statement than the above.

 

[steen]

He is just a troll anyway, as nobody can be that ignorant and still know how to turn on the computer.