RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Walter D. Wright's thread, pre-programmed and other theories of evo< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,04:53   

Quote
First time for everything. First time trying to find "add new reply." It would be nice to link to my website and start a Subject. However, since I am NEW and plead ignorant Design, I shall attempt to do what my ancestors did - eat ants under rocks.

It is a paradox. I am only beginning with a very seemingly unrelated issue to attempt to make a corollary. Assault gun sales should be illegal; but as History has taught over and over again, if a government makes one type of fire arms illegal, soon others will be as well. Look at Germany's History. Our Constitutional rights are that we can 'bear arms' and have the freedom to have protection - Not from having guns; but freedom to have protection for owning guns.

I am writing my words carefully and do not desire to stoop to the clichť' - but I am afraid I will for this purpose. Make marijuana for medicinal uses illegal, and only the criminals will be the ones who possess the drug. Make gun possession illegal and tighten registration, and only criminals will possess them.

We cannot, even for the tragic few, outlaw assault weapon sales. Remember the Prohibition days in America? How many who like to drink would choose to return to the gang ruled days of the 1920's ?

I am totally aware that thousands are killed and or injured for life by irresponsible individuals who drink and drive. That individual can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Many fathers sexually abuse their children. Should we outlaw 'Fatherhood?' It does seem laughable; but in the same stratum of logic follows both crimes. A priest or ecclesiastical leader abuses children. Should we as a society mandate all those who choose the Priesthood to be physically castrated?

The government has taken away prayer in schools, no matter what the creed; therefore are our Religious Liberties been trampled upon? Only Darwinian Theories of the Origin of the Human Race and Life on Earth are tolerated to be taught in Public Schools and although the Supreme Court states that any Scientific Theory can be taught, our Tax money funds the ACLU and the NCSE to hire the best attorneys in the country to fight against teachers who desire to open studentsí minds to other Evolutionary Theories or Pre-programmed Theories - defending Ďfoundationlessí Darwinian thought. Anyone who ignorantly states that Intelligent Design is not a Valid Scientific Theory is probably of the same mentality to believe that the Universe listens to, and obeys our Axioms and man-made Laws of Particle Physics or Thermodynamics - as if the Cosmos is really cares. WOW. Next, we will be charging the Sun for property tax.

--------------
Walter D. Wright
Original post
What appears to be his website: http://www.iwalter276.org
And a quote to get us started:
Quote
Many Darwinian Biologists believe they are the only one capable of making additions and clarifying Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species." They somehow use the logic that since Darwin was a Biologist, then somehow only a biologist can understand. Wow - what piety. First let us place this dialogue in a realm so everyone can understand, instead of 'court-room lingo.' I will use common terms, so the common individual who is well-education does not have to wade through the 'windfoggery' of the Scientific Jargon, which comes very close to that of the Legal Profession and the twisted wording of the Politician.

So, not a biologist then....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,05:11   

So I suppose I'll start.
 
Quote
teachers who desire to open studentsí minds to other Evolutionary Theories or Pre-programmed Theories

Given that a theory is †
Quote
a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Are you sure that the other theories you want students taught are really theories? Are they really supported by scientific evidence? If so, please detail the theory and the evidence that supports it.
 
Quote
Anyone who ignorantly states that Intelligent Design is not a Valid Scientific Theory

It may be a valid theory but it's not a valid scientific theory. If it is in fact a valid scientific theory then please provide the details of exactly what that theory is, and what the evidence supporting it is.

And please provide predictions unique to the "scientific theory of Intelligent Design" that differentiate it from the theory it is trying to displace.

What predictions do your alternate theory's make and how can they be tested?

Here, let me quote more from Wikipedia
Quote
Essential criteria:
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.
In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:
It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

Please support your claims against the commonly accepted definition of "a scientific theory".

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,05:18   

Walter, on what basis do you make this claim?
Quote
According to the Bill of Rights Atheism and Secularism are legal religions

http://www.iwalter276.org/id13.html

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,05:25   

Hi Walter!
† †
Quote
The government has taken away prayer in schools, no matter what the creed; therefore are our Religious Liberties been trampled upon?

LOL. Think carefully, what is religious liberty? If you can decide for yourself if, when, and where you pray according to whatever religion and god you prefer, or if the government prescribes the place, time, and modalities of your prayer?
† †
Quote
Proponents of school-sponsored prayer are largely, but not exclusively, Christians †of various denominations; however, some major Christian denominations are opposed to the practice. Many of the key cases against government-sponsored school prayer have been filed by Christians in regions of the country where they are a minority, such as the Catholic †and LDS (Mormon) families who filed in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe in the overwhelmingly Southern Baptist Texas Gulf Coast.
source
How would you like school-sponsored prayers if the mayority religion were different from yours?
† †
Quote
Only Darwinian Theories of the Origin of the Human Race and Life on Earth are tolerated to be taught in Public Schools and although the Supreme Court states that any Scientific Theory can be taught, our Tax money funds the ACLU and the NCSE to hire the best attorneys in the country to fight against teachers who desire to open studentsí minds to other Evolutionary Theories or Pre-programmed Theories - defending Ďfoundationlessí Darwinian thought.

AFAIK, both the NCSE and the ACLU are mainly financed by membership fees and donations. Oh wait, this is the internet, right? We can check:
NCSE form 990 (*.pdf; p. 9): 1.1 millions of 1.3 millions total income are from direct public support (membership fees and donations). Government grants for 2008: 0 $
ACLU form 990 (*.pdf, p. 9): 30.1 of 30.5 millions total income are from direct public support. Government grants (2008): 0 $
† †
Quote
Anyone who ignorantly states that Intelligent Design is not a Valid Scientific Theory is probably of the same mentality to believe that the Universe listens to, and obeys our Axioms and man-made Laws of Particle Physics or Thermodynamics - as if the Cosmos is really cares. WOW. Next, we will be charging the Sun for property tax.

Nice random capitalizations. Inspiring.

You don't really believe that scientific laws actually try to prescribe anything, do you? Scientific laws are descriptive, generalisations derived from empirical observations.
BTW, you're the one who expects that the cosmos is listening and caring, or why else would you be interested in prayers?

As you apparently don't know what a scienitific law is you probably don't know what a scientific theory is, either. Case in point, you believe ID is one.
See Oldman's post for why you're wrong.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,05:36   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 06 2010,04:53)
And a quote to get us started:
† † † † †
Quote
Many Darwinian Biologists believe they are the only one capable of making additions and clarifying Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species." They somehow use the logic that since Darwin was a Biologist, then somehow only a biologist can understand. Wow - what piety. First let us place this dialogue in a realm so everyone can understand, instead of 'court-room lingo.' I will use common terms, so the common individual who is well-education does not have to wade through the 'windfoggery' of the Scientific Jargon, which comes very close to that of the Legal Profession and the twisted wording of the Politician.

So, not a biologist then....

That certainly got me started. Hi Walter!

Like yourself, I am not a scientist either, and yet I don't think I share your disdain for science, scientists and "Scientific Jargon". I won't bother with your American fascination with firearms; I suppose that is a legacy of your Wild West.

Nor do I think that is a relevant subject for this forum.

If we could limit the debate to issues relating to the scientific issue: Did/do species evolve, and what is the cause? Examining all available evidence is a good place to start. I don't know your position WRT the ultimate origins: How come, why is there life on this planet at all? As far as I can tell, nobody knows - even though many scientists are studying the subject and have yet to find any reason why life could not be the result of natural processes. But WRT evolution that is something we need not bother with; we know there is life on the planet and know it must have started somewhere, sometime - and the geological and fossil record clearly shows a pathway through geological time for the evolution of species.

The field is wide open for anyone to propose causes, mechanisms, hypotheses on how and why, but the record of the history of life on this planet stands firmly set in stone for anyone to examine.

So how does your scientific theory of evolution look? Maybe you prefer a non-scientific theory? Faith-based? The stage is yours.

____
Edit: typos.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,05:39   

I am very "well-education".

Should correct that stuff on your page though, Walter...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,06:07   

I just watched a couple of Walter's videos and was blasted away by the power of his argument in video 6:
Quote
The Torah was in the process of being written 4000 to 6000 years ago ... The Koran was given by the late 7th century.

It would be totally improper and plagiaristic to add my own writings to either of these texts, claiming my writings to actually belong as a clarification for the statements of God; thereafter include my writings as theology theory.

Yet, strangely enough, Biology scientists, studying stratification fossils to base evidence for Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species engage the use of these exact logic methods, to justify their plagiaristic additions to the writings of Charles Darwin.

Religionists would not tolerate that manipulation to base a theory. Why do scientists?

Scream all you want it is a good question.

What is this I don't even

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,07:06   

Quote (JLT @ June 06 2010,06:07)
I just watched a couple of Walter's videos and was blasted away by the power of his argument in video 6:
Quote
The Torah was in the process of being written 4000 to 6000 years ago ... The Koran was given by the late 7th century.

It would be totally improper and plagiaristic to add my own writings to either of these texts, claiming my writings to actually belong as a clarification for the statements of God; thereafter include my writings as theology theory.

Yet, strangely enough, Biology scientists, studying stratification fossils to base evidence for Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species engage the use of these exact logic methods, to justify their plagiaristic additions to the writings of Charles Darwin.

Religionists would not tolerate that manipulation to base a theory. Why do scientists?

Scream all you want it is a good question.

What is this I don't even

Someone should ask him what version of the Bible he reads and when it was written.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,08:01   

Wow! we have another Robert Byers on our hands!

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,11:36   

Quote (Quack @ June 06 2010,06:01)
Wow! we have another Robert Byers on our hands!

Walter seems to have a lot of time on his hands. I watched his YouTube "What is Life." It is a shame that Walter has not used his free time to study science. He is promoting the old "elan vital" idea that failed in the 1820s (F. WŲhler, 1828 "ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA" Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig).

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2010,12:58   

Quote (JLT @ June 06 2010,04:07)
I just watched a couple of Walter's videos and was blasted away by the power of his argument in video 6:
 
Quote
The Torah was in the process of being written 4000 to 6000 years ago ... The Koran was given by the late 7th century.

It would be totally improper and plagiaristic to add my own writings to either of these texts, claiming my writings to actually belong as a clarification for the statements of God; thereafter include my writings as theology theory.

Yet, strangely enough, Biology scientists, studying stratification fossils to base evidence for Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species engage the use of these exact logic methods, to justify their plagiaristic additions to the writings of Charles Darwin.

Religionists would not tolerate that manipulation to base a theory. Why do scientists?

Scream all you want it is a good question.

What is this I don't even

Simple:

1. Evilution is a religion, like Judaism
2. Jews don't fuck with the Torah.
3. Evilutionists shouldn't fuck with TOS.

Apparently he's never heard of the Talmud...

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
iWalter276



Posts: 9
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,08:19   

Thank you ALL for your responses. I will make my remarks.
You all are observing myself from different angles.
I had neurosurgery several years ago, am disabled and to keep my brain cells somewhat functional, I opted to get into some forum dialogues. I started my first site: http://www.iwalter276.org  as an attempt for e-commerce only, having written and published, I attending with my 92-year old father to a Ďscamí Poetry Convention which provided all participants opportunities of publication with what is called, ĎVanity Publishers.í Of course, not to discourage my father, I compiled his poetry and several other poets, whom I met at the convention, and observing how many were actually skilled and had latent potential; however unaware of the undercurrent of the corporation funding the numerous entities; i.e., Writing Courses, Literary Contests, Publishing Firms Ö , I felt that I could provide a service for those with actual potential. Since I was a new e-commerce corporation and Emergency Room visits, resuscitations, ICUís and other surgeries, rather put a delay on my ambition of an ambition. However, after taking the time of designing my own site pages and doing the artwork (a hobby), I would receive from family, YouTube.com videos, which some Ďsoft and cuddlyí and  others technical and scientific. Obviously I had nothing but time.

I started to watch a few of the videos on subjects as archeology and religion, science and astronomy, and started immediately seeing some poorly scripted and ugly stuff. Two years ago, hoping to have a healthy intellectual interchange, I produced my own one or two videos (which do not exist anymore). I felt they would give me the Ďtemperature of the waterí and where to swim. Within a day, I was bit in the but, my arm torn off, and someone told everyone on the net, my parents never were married (Bill Cosby), and called every Army colorful noun - but crude - in the book, and some not in the book.  Somewhat still weak from all the four hospitals and drugs, I tried to respond politely and explain my brief. I could not get off first base. I found myself spending more time answering more and more questions. Realizing what the game was - I took my site off of YouTube.

I stayed off, then after paying for my surgeonís new car, and understanding the game and the audience which I was addressing, I launched again. This time, I re-wrote my scripts, turned off the ratings and comments, directed my subject matter in a firm yet generic fashion (empirical logic) and simply expatiated my views, countering many posted videos in retort. Therefore, if one was to try to follow a pattern - there is none. YouTube has a 10-minute limit as you all know, and I was not interested in publishing. I have a slow growing cancer in my liver, lupus, grand mal seizures, and frankly I really donĎt care if I write down equations. I am grateful for my belief system. I donít feel brainwashed or duped. I have raised 6 daughters to respect othersí beliefs as well and my daughters have excelled. One attended Reed College in Portland, then the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and graduated from Columbia and teaches near Princeton, NJ. One went to Smith College in Boston and teaches science. One is just as brilliant academically; but chose to be a mother, from which I have my two Jewish granddaughters. One has my issues; but she is a fighter. One went to Japan and majored in Japanese and is teaching and the last is teaching. Do I need to prove anything to anyone. I donít think so. I lost some vision out of one eye and had the other operated on, so I do make spelling errors. I donít know anyone who does any writing who does not. That is why spell check is so great. Sometimes. It does not do great on syntax.

Now, you know a bit about me, before pissing on me, so I will attempt to give one-line answers to your questions. By-the-way, I am very grateful I finally found a forum as this
And I have no qualms with your digging at my stuff. I know some of my babies are ugly.

QUESTION:  oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
      So, not a biologist then....
ANSWER: Give the man a prize.

QUESTION:  oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
      Are you sure that the other theories you want students taught are really theories? Are they really supported by scientific evidence? If so, please detail the theory and the evidence that supports it.

      It may be a valid theory but it's not a valid scientific theory. If it is in fact a valid scientific theory then please provide the details of exactly what that theory is, and what the evidence supporting it is.

     And please provide predictions unique to the "scientific theory of Intelligent Design" that differentiate it from the theory it is trying to displace.

     What predictions do your alternate theory's make and how can they be tested?

ANSWER: You first. Has the Theory of Darwinian Selectivity been ídouble-blindí tested and proven the laboratories? Can you duplicate, or anyone else, Darwinian ĎTheories?í
Where did the first self-replicating molecule come from? How did it come to be? So far, all laboratory experimentation has failed to shed even the slightest glimmer of hope on Darwinís Ďunguided mutational selectivity;í whereas, Alfred P. Wallaceís Theory of Evolution - being guided - not random; but determined empirically has fulfilled Scientifically in Einsteinís words, ďThe grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.Ē - Albert Einstein -

I will side by old Albert any day of the week. That is why at this stage of my life, Logical Deduction speaks more powerfully to me than Berkley professors, whose only desire is to be published, claim the singularity is as small as a Neutron. Did that man eat paint chips as a child? That has to be the dumbest statement made by a supposedly intelligent individual. Comprehend logically, 140 Billion Galaxies, with Black Holes and Super Black Holes, the size of our solar system, at the center of these galaxies, with all the light, energy transposed back to matter, being how big? And you think I fell off the turnip truck? With my last video, I became as bold as I have. Here is the link. Enjoy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL83B_BIFRI

QUESTION:  oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
      Walter, on what basis do you make this claim? (According to the Bill of Rights Atheism and Secularism are legal religions}


ANSWER: Legal affiliation. That is a verifiable means used in the court systems, since the Bill of Right are the first Amendments of our Constitution, which James Madison introduced. The Supreme Court, from time to time passes Bills which amend our rights. This is one.

First there is no real Ďroot wordí in ancient Hebrew for the English word Religion.
The closest word we have is ????, (torah) meaning teachings. Which could be any group of teaching. It is only tradition that places it in the confides of Religiosity.
The Hebrew word ????, (kadosh) is translated into Holy or sacred and would be more akin to Religion; but it is taken on a personification of a trait of an individual or relating to an object.

There are no words in Hebrew for Religion; therefore it is with this I make my claim. It is a way of life and does not necessarily have to deal with God; but with morals. Many Atheists I know are moral people, giving to worthy causes and helping others. Just as adversely many who claim Religiosity, show outward expressions and inwardly are ďÖwhited sepulchers full of dead manís bones.Ē

As to Atheism being a Ďso-calledí Religion. I did not make the ruling. I am only reporting the Supreme Court Decision, and obviously as in all their decision as in Wade vs. Rowe, many have tried to read into that decision what they want and interpret it the decision. So, you will find URLís which are pro and con. Just as in Darwinian Theories and Intelligent Design, or String Universe Theories and Bubble Theories of the Universe. Judges I know look at Wade vs. Rowe as the biggest mistake the courts have ever made, wishing it could somehow be expunged. Here are headers and brief body copy and URL links for your study.

The great thing about America, is as a journalist, we can choose words and fight our personal battles; but we also will fight to the death for others to have the right to speak. Which does not mean slander. Slander is not freedom of speech.

LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."
"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895

Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)
Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty

Background Information
In the early 1960s, Roy Torcaso was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the position of Notary Public. When the time came for him to actually assume his duties, he was denied his commission and had his appointment rescinded because he refused to declare his belief in God.
Article 37 of Maryland's Declaration of Rights stated:
[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God.
Torcaso filed suit in state court because he felt the test unfairly penalized him for not believing in God.
Court Decision
In a unanimous decision in 1961, the Supreme Court reuled that Maryland's religious test violated Torcaso's religious freedom.
In his majority opinion, Justice Black stated that the need to protect people from taking religious test oaths was what led to the creation of Article 37 of the Constitution:
No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This was soon followed by the First Amendment which further guaranteeed basic religious liberties:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
The state tried to argue that they did not actually force anyone to profess a particular religious belief because no one was compelled to hold a public office - such positions are entirely voluntary. The Court responded that no citizen should be asked to sacrifice constitutional liberties simply to hold a public office.
Significance
This decision prohibited the government from using religious faith as one of the criteria for assuming public office. The Court rejected the argument that holding such jobs is a privilege that can be restricted to people of some prescribed religious belief.
One of the reasons this case is important is some of the dicta which were attached to the final opinion. The term dicta is a plural and shortening of "obiter dictum," or "said in passing." Such statements are personal opinions of the justice - they are not necessary to the final result and have no legal force.
In a dictum footnote attached to this opinion, Justice Black wrote:
Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.
This is frequently cited by people on the religious right as that the Supreme Court has declared Secular Humanism to be a religion, but such people are simply unaware of the fact that dicta have no legal force. Ignoring this uncomfortable fact, however, allows them to argue that any hint of Secular Humanism in schools is a violation of the separation of church and state - an ironic argument, since they would be happy to dispense with separation anyway.
http://atheism.about.com/library....ins.htm


Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court
Atheist Groups in Prison Court Made Good and Bad Decisions, says Atheist Blogger Another Court, Another Time Historical Precedence and Jefferson

Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court
For the purposes of protection under the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (May 13, 1997), decided the Orange County N.Y.
Department of Probation could not force Robert Warner, an atheist, to attend
religion-based alcoholic treatment programs against the dictates of his own
beliefs.
"The district court agreed with Mr. Warner's argument that these meetings involved
a substantial religious element. Participants were told to "believe that a Power
greater than ourselves could restore us," and that they must "turn our will and
our lives over to the care of God as we understand him." In addition, the "Step"
program ordered those participating to "Admit to God ... the exact nature of our
wrongs," be "entirely ready to have God remove all these defects ... (and) ask Him
to remove our shortcomings," and to seek "through prayer and meditation to improve
our conscious contact with God, as we (understand) Him. The meetings were also
punctuated with frequent prayers of a Christian nature."
Four months into the program Mr. Warner complained that, as an Atheist, he found
the meetings objectionable due to their religious nature. It was then that his
probation officer determined that Warner lacked sufficient commitment to the idea
of learning the techniques of remaining sober, even though he apparently had not
been found in violation of his probation orders to remain sober!
"Attorneys for Mr. Warner relied on a number of legal precedents, including:"
[refer to link] http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alanon1.htm
Atheist Groups in Prison
But two years earlier, in the case of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, the 7th Circuit Court
of Appeals declared atheism a religion for purposes of protection under the
Establishment Clause. The court said prison officials violated an inmate's rights
because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"James Kaufman filed suit while incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional
Institution after submitting an official document titled "Request for New
Religious Practices." He asked permission to form an inmate group "to stimulate
and promote Freedom of Thought, and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds,
dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices, (and to) educate and provide information
concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices."
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm
Court Made Good and Bad Decisions, says Atheist Blogger
An atheist blogger saw a good side and a bad side to this ruling. "What the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals got right:" said Matt Dillahunty, was that
"atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different
question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular
devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture."
What court got wrong, Dillahunty said, is that "Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics."
The Court in this case recognized that unless the prison system had prevented all
gatherings of religion, preventing a group of atheists to gather was a violation
of the Establishment Clause.
"They didn't declare that atheism was a religion, they declared that atheism was
afforded equal protection with religions under the Establishment Clause." [italics
added]
http://www.scribd.com/doc....s-Court

Hi JLT,

QUESTION:  JLT
      Think carefully, what is religious liberty? If you can decide for yourself if, when, and where you pray according to whatever religion and god you prefer, or if the government prescribes the place, time, and modalities of your prayer?
ANSWER: In the 13th and 15th Centuries, Religionists and Scientists alike, were sequestered as to their progressive thinking. Tyndale was killed because of proximity to the Ruling Church. Martin Luther and Guttenberg, although despised by the Church escaped with their lives, living in Germany. Galileo and Newton had to beg forgiveness from  the pope. That is NOT Religious liberty. The Pilgrims with all their human failings, came here to form a Free Government away from tyranny. Some who wish to demote the ideals of the Founding Fathers call them Theists. I would be as well, if my background, historically was as suppressed as theirs was. The framed the Constitution. They did the best they could. As citizens were given freedoms abundantly, as a poor child becoming a parent may overindulge their children. It is unfortunate these self-same freedoms of speech are used by the slanderous to degrade those in political office, change good laws, using our soft shoulders to cry on and having an agenda to enslave.

QUESTION:  JLT
      How would you like school-sponsored prayers if the mayority religion were different from yours?
ANSWER:  If I chose to life Jericho (a beautiful place. If I were to choose a place to die - it would be there). Now being occupied by Islamic or Palestinians, I would respect them and their religion with utmost respect and live my outward life in accordance to their Religious practices - closing shops - praying 5-times a day, etc. And I would gain their friendship and love. I would not in my wildest dreams ever consider pushing my beliefs on them, although I would treat them honestly as the Koran also teaches. (I have a Royal Edition of the Koran given to me by leadership at the University of Bahrain. It is a cherished addition to my library).

QUESTION:  JLT

      Nice random capitalizations. Inspiring. (Thank you. Literary license).

You don't really believe that scientific laws actually try to prescribe anything, do you? Scientific laws are descriptive, generalizations derived from empirical observations.
BTW, you're the one who expects that the cosmos is listening and caring, or why else would you be interested in prayers?  (I know you can tell if one is sardonic - canít you? I believe that answers that question.)
As you apparently don't know what a scientific law is you probably don't know what a scientific theory is, either. Case in point, you believe ID is one.
See Oldman's post for why you're wrong.
ANSWER:  I am afraid that I do take offense to you judgmental statement. You do not know me, nor I know you. I have made no judgments on your dissertate writings and I do not appreciate, however inadequate you may feel they are, you doing that to mine. I choose not do be maximally descriptive. I am purposefully pulling away from the Piety of Academia, so people will and can understand. I am sick and tired of the nose so high in the air, if it were to rain, most academicians would drown. Thereon my sarcastic statement, which you had too much English on your billiard ball, not comprehending the Gnostic meaning that we think we are so high and mighty, we believe the Universe has to obey our miniscule understanding of principles we have not a clue. ďWhen they are learned, they think they are wise.Ē B.S. That does not refer to a degree of achievement, just a degree of underachievement. Oldman is built his entire educational pursuit on a foggy foundation. Darwin did everyone a large disfavor.

How can a Theory which has been constructed on several shaky axioms, still be classified a ďTheory?Ē I am passing the burden of proof to you. Yes, I have studied paleontologists (who many are now back-peddling), biologists, geneticists, and Darwinís work as opposed to Wallace. I am still waiting for the shout of the Ďmissing link,í the fossilized remains of a transition animal from Precambrian to the (I did not coin the phrase), life explosion of the Cambrian. I am not interested in all the sub divisions in between. I am aware of animals of the Precambrian era: sponges, jellyfish, early versions of sea animals,  early algae. Charles Darwin himself was worried about the sudden appearance of fossilized records in the Primordial Strata, fearing it would have negative impact on his Theory of Ďunguided mutational selectivity.í (Charles Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. Murray, London, United Kingdom. pp. 315Ė316.)

I myself have yet to hear any ípostí Precambrian and ípreí Cambrian bones rattle. If that not be enough, multiply astrophysics with microbiology and genetics. The entire puzzle and library of books, written by some very capable individuals, still leaves a Black Hole of a Paradox.

Astrophysics. Are you reading Science Fiction or Science Fact, when you study the ĎSingularity?í Where is your evidence to support it? There is NONE. Oh, I am very aware of the data gathered by the WMAP. But that my friend is an after picture. The beginning is nothing but ĎGUESS.Ď And it is not even meaningful. More garbage than gibberish. Where is your proof of the Singularity. I do not want some quote. Read again, Einsteinís statement I conveniently place above. I did so because we are so mixed up in axioms and theories, we cannot see the tree for the forest. We have lost our minds in who can scribble the most unintelligible than the other. We have all forgotten the true aim of all science: Empirical Facts by Logical Deduction. And for the 140 Billion galaxies to Ďrubber-bandí upon itself and become a piece of matter as big as a Neutron is pure CRAP. It is not logic. It is not factual. And that what my 40 years of research and study have lead me to believe about Darwinian Thinking and The String and Bubble Universe Theories. At least Sir Isaac Newton used his mind, instead of making some stupid ďStar TrekĒ remark.

Now, you show me the burden of proof why a Neutron is unstable. Why the Neutron and Proton originally have the same mass, why the bostons know what to do and how to interact. Why Carbon is the most plentiful element in the Universe when it should not be according to the laws of Fusion, why in atoms, there are levels of energy and only so many electrons can travel in those levels, why atoms know how to and when to make covalent bonds instead of no covalent bonding, why a carbon-based molecule as the DNA could have suddenly appeared? And  functions as the leader, with each atom holding a page of information. These are scientific question more plausible than ďsomewhere and somehow.Ē Students are not robots and mindless. They can see through the smoke screens and Darwin, building his ĎTree of  LifeĒ upside-down forgetting the most important iatrical part - self-replication out of MUTATION? Oh, what is going through your Scientific mind. Donít give me ďyou apparently don't know what a scientific law is you probably don't know what a scientific theory is, either.ď That is an insult of the lowest order. ALL matter is ďPre-programmed!!!


Hi Quack.
I hope I look as good as your icon when I am fossilized. Quack, quack

QUESTION:  .
      That certainly got me started. Hi Walter!

Like yourself, I am not a scientist either, and yet I don't think I share your disdain for science, scientists and "Scientific Jargon". I won't bother with your American fascination with firearms; I suppose that is a legacy of your Wild West.
(A Scientific/Religious Philosopher. My over-done segue was too much, I do admit and apologize for.)

Nor do I think that is a relevant subject for this forum. (Again, correct. My mind was venting another forum I was about to start; therefore yours unfortunately received a poor introduction. I could have cut straight to the subject. I actually am try to be more concise).

If we could limit the debate to issues relating to the scientific issue: Did/do species evolve, and what is the cause? Examining all available evidence is a good place to start. I don't know your position WRT the ultimate origins: How come, why is there life on this planet at all? As far as I can tell, nobody knows - even though many scientists are studying the subject and have yet to find any reason why life could not be the result of natural processes. But WRT evolution that is something we need not bother with; we know there is life on the planet and know it must have started somewhere, sometime - and the geological and fossil record clearly shows a pathway through geological time for the evolution of species. (Correction, the fossilized record shows one thing and one thing only - fossils. Paleontologist arrogantly attach them. Following Darwinian Selectivity, deduced similarities in sockets and limbs and assumed and connection. Yes, I am a proponent of Adaptation; but that is a far cry from ďOrigin of the Species and the Descent of Man.Ē Alright, I am not ashamed. I will bring in a Creator into this Scientific conversation. It still remains scientific, for this Creator possess all Scientific knowledge. This creator did not create the world in 6-literal days (I do not buy any offshoots, who do so just to appease and try to come closer to the scientific community. It was, after all the Literal Creationists, from which our Pilgrim forefathers fled and which religion of Literal Creationists, pointed the first lancet at the scientists. If I were a Scientists back then, I would probably be a Theists as Einstein as well).

I choose to bring in a Scientist Creator for one reason and one only. If I were in His position, and in the reptile or mammal for, whatever form of life uses a knee joint, it may not be the same in every animal; but why reinvent the wheel. If it works and is efficient in a T-Rexís knee and can take the pounding, then it would be efficient in a manís knee, or an Elephantís knee. That is just as scientific - if IDT insisted a Scientific Intelligence was the source of life. No spark. No mud hole. No muck. With all the microbial life forms for billions of years prior to the end of the Precambrian Era, when early invertebrates and early fish lived, a very, very valid Scientific Question is this: Which microbial life form did the dinosaurs come from? Was it different than the mammals? Were the Apes different than man. And donít give that garbage about the genomes. There are so many minute variation even with genomes that it is not only possible; but very likely that there is not relationship between man and ape whatsoever. And you know that.

The field is wide open for anyone to propose causes, mechanisms, hypotheses on how and why, but the record of the history of life on this planet stands firmly set in stone for anyone to examine. (The Byzantine Ruins that are under the trafficked streets of the East Bank, which I have walked by myself alone many times, has not one whit of proof that there is a relationship between the two cultures or what and how the people lived.)

So how does your scientific theory of evolution look? Maybe you prefer a non-scientific theory? Faith-based? The stage is yours. (What is wrong with Faith? Have we dis-converted ourselves so much from that past, we are ashamed of it. When you are outside on a starry night, are you really certain your ladder is leaning against the right wall? I do not believe Religion should be taught in two places: in oneís home and at oneís assembly of worship. But science cannot prove Darwinian Selectivity, nor can science prove the existence of God. A Religionist also cannot prove the existence of God. The same marvels, both groups point to that give credit to their statements.
No one will ever will this debate. So why are both side so smug?)


Hi, Schroedlingís Dog \
Sorry about being boastful. It was a retort to a fellow that called me a F-----g I---t. Those are labels I do not take lightly. So, I get PeeOíd once in a while. I am human.

QUESTION:  Schroedlingís Dog
      Should correct that stuff on your page though, Walter...
ANSWER:  Correct. You are right. I should check my spelling. I produced those in PhotoShop, which unfortunately does not have spell checker, and that was not a good time for me. I am still paying 4 hospitals, so I had to drop the editing capabilities on the http://www.iwalter.org  site, even though I own it permanently. I am ashamed of the spelling; but I hope people look at the message and not the method. I even ran across a misspelled word in my ďGlobal WarmingĒ video, which is my best viewed yet. Although some of the others that I put on the second time, I took off for changes; but lost my clicks, then I thought, oh well. If you want to view the Global warming one, the link for that one is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGgQIqRK48

--------------
"May the LORD BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU. Amen. I'm praying for you". - Louis
COMMENT:  Thank you Louis for your patience. May the Lord bless you.
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G
ANSWER:  Sorry, I know what hail is made out of. What is the context? Some say, that I am witty; but others believe Iíve only made it half way.  
"Forget Jesus! Stars died so we all could exist!" Lawrence Krauss
ANSWER:  Yes, I know that Star and Novas are the ultimate alchemists; but I still believe in Christ. Thanks anyway.

Hi Carlsonjok,

QUESTION:  Carlsonjok
Someone should ask him what version of the Bible he reads and when it was written.

ANSWER:  Someone really should not. They may not like my answer. I have done translation and am aware of ancient Aramaic and Hebrew. Even though the Latin word for Bible biblia was used in the Medieval time, we really need to go back to the original Greek to understand the meaning of the original root. Ta biblia literally means "little papyrus books. Therefore the Bible as we have it today, literally came into existence in the 5th Century.
It is important to understand that after the death of Christ, the Church of believer split into 3 different groups and locations. One was in Rome. One was in Constantinople. And the last was in Egypt. Each had their own set of scriptures and each group included different books which the others did not. There were other influences The Torah and the Samaritan Torah, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic Text, to name only a few.

Also scholars believe, as diligent as scribes were or tried to be over the thousands of years; being there were no printing presses, everything had to be hand printed and several copies of each book was available to the public for basically all Synagogues. Therefore, we can only assume, that 2000 years ago, at the time of Christ, it is very possible there were several copies of the writing of the prophets. No one knows how many copies or which ones the Lord read.

To answer the question, I study all forms of Scriptures, even the Dead Sea Scriptures. For there is much good in them all. I also study Josephus and Philo.

Hi again, Quack. (I hope your not a physician)

QUESTION:  Quack
Wow! we have another Robert Byers on our hands!.

If I could prove even one small part of my faith through purely
scientific methods that would be highly satisfying intellectually-
-Scordova

See my video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6NpLXZYwCU


Seriously, natural selection does not have any kind of
creative power at all. All it does is kill of the runts.
- Unknown creationist.
Here is a video which may help:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C61k7yYyKmk
Hi Dr. GH

QUESTION:  Dr. GH
Walter seems to have a lot of time on his hands. I watched his YouTube "What is Life." It is a shame that Walter has not used his free time to study science. He is promoting the old "elan vital" idea that failed in the 1820s (F. WŲhler, 1828 "ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA" Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig).



ANSWER:  I hope that does not bother you that I have time on my hands. Yes, I do study science. Thank you very much. I have never studied the old idea of ďelan vital.Ē Are you so sure that part of what F. Wohler was not heading the Ďwrightí direction (no pun intended) You may want to view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8eF3p5QdNA&feature=related

I was blinded by the tard.(I do hope that was prefaced by re-)

Duane Allman, in response to the question "How are you helping the revolution?": "There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
Every one is entitled to their own view. Ainít it great.


Hi fnxtr

Simple:

1. Evilution is a religion, like Judaism
2. Jews don't fuck with the Torah.
3. Evilutionists shouldn't fuck with TOS.

Apparently he's never heard of the Talmud...


I will not consider this a question. I just love fellows who canít spell, think they are cool, use gutter language (we've come a long way as a society - don't you think? Perhaps you don't.  And the topping on the cake, they in they 'coolness' believe others are not that cool.

For your information, yes, I have heard of the Talmud. I have the whole collection in my library. Have you been to Israel?
Oh, what a shame. Don't know your own culture. Pity. Oh, using that language does not make you grown up, so maybe you should - grow up that is.
I can be just as big an jerk as you can. So donít push your luck.

--------------
Walter D. Wright

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,08:26   

Mullingsesque!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,08:36   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,08:19)
Where did the first self-replicating molecule come from? How did it come to be?

The point is that you claim to know already. Or rather, you claim to know *how it did not* happen. It required a deity of some type, right?

So, simply tell me how you know that!

Or is it a case of "science does not know so it must have been god"?

If so, which god? And how do you know that?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,08:44   

So when I ask about the predictions of ID Walter says
Quote
You first.


I'll take that to mean "there are none but I don't want to say that".
Quote
Has the Theory of Darwinian Selectivity been ídouble-blindí tested and proven the laboratories?

The point is that "Darwinism" is a scientific theory.

ID is a theory but it does not rise to the level of a scientific theory.

You simply ignore all that and try to put the onus on me instead when it's you making the claim that needs to be supported.

Very telling.

EDIT: And yes, "evolution" has been "proven" or rather observed in a lab setting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lenski

but it's still a bacteria right? ...

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,08:52   

"Now, you show me the burden of proof why a Neutron is unstable. Why the Neutron and Proton originally have the same mass, why the bostons know what to do and how to interact. Why Carbon is the most plentiful element in the Universe when it should not be according to the laws of Fusion, why in atoms, there are levels of energy and only so many electrons can travel in those levels, why atoms know how to and when to make covalent bonds instead of no covalent bonding, why a carbon-based molecule as the DNA could have suddenly appeared?"

I'll address these first, as I am a chemist, not a biologist.

Most particles have a half-life, including neutrons, which can split to form a proton and a beta particle (high energy electron)

Carbon is not the most plentiful element. Hydrogen and helium are by far the most common, as would be predicted by the unified theories of physics.

Bond nature depends on the electronegativity difference between elements. Atoms don't "know" what type of bond to form ( a rather odd notion, childish even) Carbon has 4 valence electrons, so it must form covalent bonds primarily given its size (can't have a large ionic charge) Because it can ond four times, it can make a variety of molecules.

Carbon-based molecules can be generated easily. Most simple carbon compounds exist in the earth's crust (think carbonate) and organic chemists have synthesized a wide variety of compounds from carbonate, methane, and other simple molecules.

Self-replicating RNA has been synthesized too:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20100122222139data_trunc_sys.shtml

we've come a long way from the "primordial soup" experiment

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,09:25   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,08:19)
Hi Carlsonjok,

QUESTION: †Carlsonjok
Someone should ask him what version of the Bible he reads and when it was written.

ANSWER: †Someone really should not. They may not like my answer. I have done translation and am aware of ancient Aramaic and Hebrew.

Interesting choice of wording. †I am aware of ancient Aramaic and Hebrew also, and did a little translation when I took Spanish in high school. †So, I guess I could say exactly the same thing. †So, should I assume that you just worded it poorly and have actually translated scripture from Hebrew and/or Aramaic? †Or are you just trying to put one past me?

But, never mind that. It really isn't relevant.

I will, however, give you a piece of advice. †Below you will see some words that are underlined. That is a hyperlink. Click it for a post I wrote about the typical lifecycle of people, such as yourself, that show up here. †I would say, Step 1 doesn't apply in your particular case. †But, be aware that I fully expect you to follow Steps 2 through 8 in some fashion.

Click Here.

I hope you surprise me, but I wouldn't bet that you will.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,09:26   

Creationist
AGW denialist
Cites include worldnut daily and youtube
Fetus fetishist
...
Is there a bingo card in the making?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,09:32   

OMG this guy is hilarious.

Okay, so if my 1. 2. 3. list was wrong, what on earth were you trying to say with that insane rant about the Torah and Darwin? Seriously, Wally, there's reading for comprehension, but you need to work on writing for comprehension.

So I used a bad word. Suck it up, princess. I'll probably do it again. As far as I know, the queen is not here.

Clue, Wally: †"Evilutionist" is a parody of creationist attitudes toward the facts.

Look, it's tragic that you've had all these medical problems and everything, but you're still a loon. †And that is no-one's fault but yours.

.. and...My own culture? WTF does that even mean? I'm a 3rd generation Canadian agnostic.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,10:27   

Quote
Why Carbon is the most plentiful element in the Universe when it should not be according to the laws of Fusion, why in atoms, there are levels of energy and only so many electrons can travel in those levels, why atoms know how to and when to make covalent bonds instead of no covalent bonding, why a carbon-based molecule as the DNA could have suddenly appeared?


Walter, here is a link to a very useful chart

http://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vchart/index.html

From that chart (and some clicking) you will learn that carbon is not the "the most plentiful element in the universe." Hydrogen is. (IIRC) The per cent distribution of normal matter elements is approximated as one minus the inverse of the natural log of their mass. With a mass of about "1" hydrogen wins. Rocky planets are very different. And in case you were wondering, the "laws of fusion" are just fine. And there is nobody with both mental stability, and a proper education who believes that, "the DNA could have suddenly appeared."

I don't know if you posted abundant personal information as  excuse, or explanation of your many bizarre and untrue statements. I reject it as an excuse, but certainly can see it as an explanation.



*Edited to repair broken grammar

Edited by Dr.GH on June 07 2010,10:37

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,11:28   

Quote
Hi again, Quack. (I hope your not a physician)

Sincerely, I am not much except an old fellow who spent a lifetime trying to learn and understand as much as possible of the universe and mankind. I just register that you have an agenda. That doesn't bode well for your future here. It would be different if you were here for the learning but since you are not, I'll just say goodbye and wish you good luck. I am afraid you are wasting your own as well as our time here. But that's what we are here for.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,12:50   

Quote (Quack @ June 07 2010,17:28)
[SNIP]

But that's what we are here for.

Well some of us are here for the orgies and LOLcats.

Anyway...

Welcome Walter. I hope your time with us is as fruitful as Carmen Miranda's headgear.

I have read your first post with some interest. Indeed it convinced me that assault rifles should be able to be legally owned, in fact your post made me want to own one.

I am very interested in people who ignorantly think that man-made laws of particle physics and thermodynamics dictate how the universe runs. I would like some information on these people. They must be very powerful, after all it seems that if they wrote the laws differently we could have a different universe. Very interesting. Could you please tell us more.

Incidentally, I award you half a timecube for your first effort. Well done.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,12:56   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,14:19)
[SNIP]

You all are observing myself from different angles.
I had neurosurgery several years ago, am disabled and to keep my brain cells somewhat functional, I opted to get into some forum dialogues.

[SNIP]

I can be just as big an jerk as you can. So donít push your luck.

I just saw this.

Pity plea to internet tough guy in one post. Marvellous. Kudos, Walter.

Also, having read your replies I have decided to increase your award to 0.75 timecubes. You are very well education and intellect, please tell us more.

Louis

ETA: P.S. Walter, I cannot click through to other websites as the ACLU and the NCSE are using mind control rays to corrupt America's youth and ween them off the Jesus. If I go to other websites then their evil Space Lizard Overlords will see through my foil headgear and read my design for a perpetual motion machine. I hope you understand.

--------------
Bye.

  
iWalter276



Posts: 9
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,13:18   

Please inform me. Is the name of this URL:
"Intelligent Design Creationism Adovcates?
The name implies, all involved are pro ID.
Am I mistaken?
Respectfully,

--------------
Walter D. Wright

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,13:21   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,19:18)
Please inform me. Is the name of this URL:
"Intelligent Design Creationism Adovcates?
The name implies, all involved are pro ID.
Am I mistaken?
Respectfully,

Yes we are all Pros at ID. Especially that Elsberry chap. He's very, very good at ID. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he knows more about it than almost anyone.

Hope this helps.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
iWalter276



Posts: 9
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,13:27   

Dr. GH,
Excuse the unfinished thought. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe with obvious reasons. Solar Funaces. Carbon is the most plentiful for life and the easiest for other element to bond to for compounds for life.
As a chemist, you know, three Helium nuclei, with the same harmonics, at the same velosity, need to meet at the same instant to make the nuclei for a Carbon Atom. The chances for that occurance are slim at best. Design has fine tuned the dials for that to happen.

--------------
Walter D. Wright

  
iWalter276



Posts: 9
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,13:35   

To: Oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
My inquiry of "Where did the first self-replicating molecule come from? How did it come to be?" was not to avoid an answer, it was to obtain an answer that Darwinian Evolution(I will still choose to use the term, Selectivity), has not shown. Therefore, how can Darwinism be considered a Scientific theory any more than ID, if both Theories cannot answer the basic question, which is: "Where did the the first self-replicating  molecule or cell come from?"
Mr. Michael Ruse only has guesses, so unless you know something he does not, you might write him. Fair is fair.
Based on the fact that both Theories cannot answer the basic question gives both Theories equality, does it not?

--------------
Walter D. Wright

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,13:42   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,19:27)
Dr. GH,
Excuse the unfinished thought. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe with obvious reasons. Solar Funaces. Carbon is the most plentiful for life and the easiest for other element to bond to for compounds for life.
As a chemist, you know, three Helium nuclei, with the same harmonics, at the same velosity, need to meet at the same instant to make the nuclei for a Carbon Atom. The chances for that occurance are slim at best. Design has fine tuned the dials for that to happen.

If particle physics etc is man made and doesn't describe the universe accurately, how do you know this?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
iWalter276



Posts: 9
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,13:49   

fnxtr,
Your comment:
"OMG this guy is hilarious.

Okay, so if my 1. 2. 3. list was wrong, what on earth were you trying to say with that insane rant about the Torah and Darwin? Seriously, Wally, there's reading for comprehension, but you need to work on writing for comprehension.

So I used a bad word. Suck it up, princess. I'll probably do it again. As far as I know, the queen is not here.

Clue, Wally:  "Evilutionist" is a parody of creationist attitudes toward the facts.

Look, it's tragic that you've had all these medical problems and everything, but you're still a loon.  And that is no-one's fault but yours.

.. and...My own culture? WTF does that even mean? I'm a 3rd generation Canadian agnostic."

You complete missed the point. I could care less what your belief system is. If I have not made that as transparent as glass, I will repeat it again. I know and respect Atheists who can carry on a conversation without gutter talk. It does not make me a prude; but why should I have to subject myself to it? It is called respect.

So you think I am loon, a nut, or "OMG this guy is hilarious." That is not the reason for this dialogue. The dialogue is to discuss the validity of IDT vs some unproven - yes unproven (talk to Richard Dawkins, he also admits, he does not know the origin), Again, if Darwinian Selectivity, by Charles own words was ''unguided," and this websites premise is to support IDT, then Darwinian theories have won their Scientific place in the text books by default, supported by the NCSE, which is fighting all other Scientific Theories. Why is the door for equality in educational thinking welded shut? Is that a dumb ass question? I don't think so.

--------------
Walter D. Wright

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,13:53   

Hi Walter - do you think there should be some criteria for which "theories" get taught. There's an opposing viewpoint to everything, should everyone get a turn?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:06   

is walter bjray's grandfather?

  
iWalter276



Posts: 9
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:07   

Dear Richard Hughes (and those that agree with him),

No doubt I have come across as an individual that 'has the characteristics of speculation.' You may say it with tounge and cheek; however speculation or Hypothesis or Axioms, science has been building upon this premise for hundreds of years. You may be a parrot; however, I am trying to break out of the box.

--------------
Walter D. Wright

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:08   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,20:07)
Dear Richard Hughes (and those that agree with him),

No doubt I have come across as an individual that 'has the characteristics of speculation.' You may say it with tounge and cheek; however speculation or Hypothesis or Axioms, science has been building upon this premise for hundreds of years. You may be a parrot; however, I am trying to break out of the box.

I am trying to break into the box. Where's the entrance? Will there be slippers?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:11   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,13:49)
.Why is the door for equality in educational thinking welded shut? Is that a dumb ass question?

No, it's not a dumbass question.

It's a lie.

The door was open for creationism in the 19th century, when creationists tried their hardest to defend their notions against the new kid on the block, evolution via natural selection. They lost that fight, just as the adherents to phlogiston theory lost in the previous century when a better and more useful explanation supplanted phlogiston.

The door of science is always open for new ideas and new evidence. It's open if you can come up with new evidence that your old notions might be right. But that's the problem. Neither you nor anyone else has any new evidence for creationism or creationism-lite (aka ID). And whining about the door being shut is not evidence. It's just whining.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:24   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,14:07)
Dear Richard Hughes (and those that agree with him),

No doubt I have come across as an individual that 'has the characteristics of speculation.' You may say it with tounge and cheek; however speculation or Hypothesis or Axioms, science has been building upon this premise for hundreds of years. You may be a parrot; however, I am trying to break out of the box.

Have you tried eating with your bum and pooping with your mouth? That would be box-breaking alright.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
iWalter276



Posts: 9
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:25   

Quack,
That remark 'are you a doctor' - quack was supposed to be a friendly joke. However you have given me the best advice.
I wish not to waste anyone time. I was not giving my "sob story" but a reason, since I was snidded for spelling, why I cannot see as well as I can. But I asssume getting to know one another is 'old fashioned' and as remarked, am I someone 'grandfather?' Aluding to the fact that I believe in God and have antiquated ideas.
I posted my sites in good faith, hoping for good feedback, felt attacked, responded in kind and asked to leave due to wasting my time as well as yours.

I wish you all well in your pursuit of Intellect and knowledge and you all will make fine candidates for the 14th century sequestering team.

Work hard in the belief of your supioriority. Thank you Louis for at least being part way civil. And to the rest. Yes, I am real, just pushing the 'thinking envelope,' an exercise I would recommend.

--------------
Walter D. Wright

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:27   

Hey Walter, 'different' isn't always 'better'. Some healthy skepticism if good - but here's the million dollar question - do you apply that skepticism equally to all things?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:32   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,20:25)
[SNIP]

Thank you Louis for at least being part way civil. And to the rest. Yes, I am real, just pushing the 'thinking envelope,' an exercise I would recommend.

You are most welcome. Now, that "thinking envelope", what's the postage for one of those?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:32   

Walter, here is a link to a cute little piece on nucleosynthesis. It is written in simple terms, with lots of pretty cartoons.

There is a special section just about carbon. Good luck.

(Just a hint about the "probability of a triple alpha reaction: It happens inside stars with the temperature about 6*10^8 degrees K, and a pressure of about 2*10^5 grams per cubic centimeter. And it does not require three nucleons to interact simultaneously. In fact there is 10^-16 seconds that the Beryllium 8 nucleus exists. If that seems like a very short time- it is. But, it is chemically a very long time since the reaction only takes about 10^-21 seconds. Therefore, the existence of (8)Be is about at equilibrium. This does "up the odds").

Edited by Dr.GH on June 07 2010,12:51

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:39   

I am concerned that preloaded evolution cannot explain how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Needless to say that neither can CreationIDism, so that's makes them both useless and we can ignore them in favour of Assault Rifle Jesus's favourite bedtime story.

I think that we need to think outside the box whilst pushing the envelope into another box and refusing to accept dogma whilst challenging any and all attempts to cast a sceptical eye on anything.

It's all the fault of the communists and anyone who wants to prevent people praying in schools to nuclear missiles.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:52   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,13:35)
To: Oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
My inquiry of "Where did the first self-replicating molecule come from? How did it come to be?" was not to avoid an answer, it was to obtain an answer that Darwinian Evolution(I will still choose to use the term, Selectivity), has not shown. Therefore, how can Darwinism be considered a Scientific theory any more than ID, if both Theories cannot answer the basic question, which is: "Where did the the first self-replicating †molecule or cell come from?"
Mr. Michael Ruse only has guesses, so unless you know something he does not, you might write him. Fair is fair.
Based on the fact that both Theories cannot answer the basic question gives both Theories equality, does it not?

"Darwinian Evolution" is only concerned with the activity that happens after entities that can replicate themselves exist.

The origin of those replicating units was not considered by Darwin in published works.

†  
Quote
Mr. Michael Ruse only has guesses, so unless you know something he does not, you might write him. Fair is fair.

Abiogenesis research on the other hand has progressed well past "guesses".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Other_models
I personally think auto-catalysing networks hold much promise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....reation

You may consider them guesses as the work was not handed down directly via clay tablets. Yet more scientific research happens in those fields a day then has happened in the entire history of Intelligent Design.
†  
Quote
Therefore, how can Darwinism be considered a Scientific theory any more than ID, if both Theories cannot answer the basic question, which is: "Where did the the first self-replicating †molecule or cell come from?"

Many theories cannot answer that question yet they are considered scientific. As Darwinism does not attempt to address that question it cannot be judged on it's ability to answer it. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, does claim to be able to answer that question. And as you have noted, it cannot, therefore it is not scientific.

Thank you for admitting that, at least.
†  
Quote
Based on the fact that both Theories cannot answer the basic question gives both Theories equality, does it not?

As noted, one theory is not concerned with the question you are asking. Putting that aside, there is a massive body of evidence supporting "Darwinism" and a natural origin of life. Even if you put all that aside as "guesses" you still cannot say a single thing relevant to the origin of life with regard to it's origin via Intelligent Design.

If you think otherwise, feel free to note what ID says about the origin of life, other then "it was designed". Which I kinda guessed anyway.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:56   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,14:25)
I wish you all well in your pursuit of Intellect and knowledge and you all will make fine candidates for the 14th century sequestering team.

Work hard in the belief of your supioriority. Thank you Louis for at least being part way civil. And to the rest. Yes, I am real, just pushing the 'thinking envelope,' an exercise I would recommend.

Oh, we done already? I guess I should have read the entire thread before bothering to write my last reply.

Ok, well fuck you then. I guess that's what you want said? Now you can claim the nasty evolutionists swear and poke fun and that's why you [strike]chickened out. [/strike] left with your dignity intact.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,14:59   

I think we should have a "No profanity until page three of any creatobot thread" rule. Maybe even until page four.

They just quit.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,15:16   

Hi Walter,

I was actually in the process of writing a longer response to you but it seems that you're already leaving, so I won't bother.

I'm sorry that you felt offended by my statement that you probably don't know what a scientific theory is, but maybe then you shouldn't produce videos in which you claim that it's plagiarism if scientists refine and extend existing theories because you can only claim that if you haven't the foggiest idea what a scientific theory is. Or was that another "sarcastic statement?"

You single-handedly dismiss 150 years of scientific achievements but scientists are the ones with their nose in the air who don't realize that they don't have a clue. According to you, their life-long study and research amounts to nothing ("degree of underachievement"), while your 40 years of armchair study apparently gives you great expertise not only in biology but in physics as well.

It seems that you prefer to use polemics instead of factual arguments yourself but don't like it if you're answered in the same vein...

Anyway, if you're still looking for a pro-ID forum, why not try Uncommon Descent? You'd fit in perfectly, really.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,15:25   

Quote (Dr.GH @ June 07 2010,20:59)
I think we should have a "No profanity until page three of any creatobot thread" rule. Maybe even until page four.

They just quit.

We accidentally the creationist?*

Louis

*With apologies to any /b/tards watching. Herp derp derp.

--------------
Bye.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,15:44   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,11:35)
To: Oldmanintheskydidntdoit.
My inquiry of "Where did the first self-replicating molecule come from? How did it come to be?" was not to avoid an answer, it was to obtain an answer that Darwinian Evolution(I will still choose to use the term, Selectivity), has not shown. Therefore, how can Darwinism be considered a Scientific theory any more than ID, if both Theories cannot answer the basic question, which is: "Where did the the first self-replicating †molecule or cell come from?"
Mr. Michael Ruse only has guesses, so unless you know something he does not, you might write him. Fair is fair.
Based on the fact that both Theories cannot answer the basic question gives both Theories equality, does it not?

Newton's theory of gravitation cannot answer the basic question, which is: "Where did the first mass come from?"  Is it a scientific theory, Walter?  It does seem to work rather well.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,16:42   

Quote
Therefore, how can Darwinism be considered a Scientific theory any more than ID, if both Theories cannot answer the basic question, which is: "Where did the the first self-replicating †molecule or cell come from?"

That's not the basic question. The questions addressed by evolution theory are (1) why is a single nested hierarchy so prevalent across known life forms, (2) why are closely related species clustered near each other geographically, (3) why is it so common to find evidence that a later species is a modified copy of an earlier species, etc. (a biologist could no doubt make a much longer list). Those patterns are a direct logical consequence of the premises on which evolution theory is based, and that's why evolution is accepted by scientists, and why it is what gets taught in science classes (at least those that are properly run).

To put this another way, arguing against a theory requires addressing the questions that the theory does answer, and showing that it answers them incorrectly, not by referring to questions that it doesn't address.

Quote
As a chemist, you know, three Helium nuclei, with the same harmonics, at the same velosity, need to meet at the same instant to make the nuclei for a Carbon Atom.

I'm not a physicist, but that doesn't sound right. Oh, three He atoms is one way to make a carbon, but other ways that come to mind are 1+5=6 (H+B=C), 2+4=6 (He+Be=C), and 3+3=6 (Li+Li=C), none of which require more than two nuclei hitting each other at the same time.

Quote
Seriously, natural selection does not have any kind of creative power at all. All it does is kill of the runts.
- Unknown creationist. †

Mutations increase the amount of variety within the species or population. Selection happens when varieties that don't do as well become a smaller fraction of that population. It's the positive feedback from repetitive variation plus selection that produces new abilities in the members of the species, not either of those mechanisms by itself.

Quote
But science cannot prove Darwinian Selectivity,

That depends on what one means by "prove". What scientists can do (and have done) is figure out what patterns would be highly likely consequences of the premises in the theory, and highly unlikely to occur together if it's wrong, and check if those patterns are routinely observed. (I listed three such patterns in an earlier paragraph.)

Quote
a very, very valid Scientific Question is this: Which microbial life form did the dinosaurs come from? Was it different than the mammals?

See website http://tolweb.org/Amniota/14990 for the relationships of those groups of species. Their common ancestor was an early reptile or reptile-like species, not a microbe.

Quote
Did/do species evolve, and what is the cause? Examining all available evidence is a good place to start.

That is what scientists do. It's how the theory was formulated in the first place.

Quote
ALL matter is ďPre-programmed!!!

If that's your way of saying that two atoms of the same element will undergo the same chemical reactions when put in the same circumstances, then yes. But I don't see the point of putting it that way.

Quote
Why Carbon is the most plentiful element in the Universe when it should not be according to the laws of Fusion,

I would expect the relative abundance of elements to generally go down as the atomic number goes up. I don't offhand know what a "law of fusion" is, unless it's a funny way of saying that elements with 2 or more protons are produced by fusion of lighter nuclei, mostly in stars plus some that happened before the universe cooled off from the big bang.

Henry

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,16:49   

Quote (Louis @ June 07 2010,12:39)
I am concerned that preloaded evolution cannot explain how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Needless to say that neither can CreationIDism, so that's makes them both useless and we can ignore them in favour of Assault Rifle Jesus's favourite bedtime story.

I think that we need to think outside the box whilst pushing the envelope into another box and refusing to accept dogma whilst challenging any and all attempts to cast a sceptical eye on anything.

It's all the fault of the communists and anyone who wants to prevent people praying in schools to nuclear missiles.

Louis

"The clarity is devastating, but where is the ambiguity? Over there, in a box."

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,16:58   

Hey, Wally?

Still there?

Just one more thing:

You vent about them sci-en-tif-ical types with all their high-falutin' language and stuff, and yet you engage in the worst linguistic obfuscation I've ever seen. †

It doesn't make you look like a poet, or an artiste, or particularly clever, it makes you look like you don't have the cojones to use straight talk to say what you really mean. †

Or that you don't even know what you really mean.

(Danger: Saxon word ahead!)...

Get to the fucking point, already.

Thank you.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,17:09   

Quote (Louis @ June 07 2010,12:32)
Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,20:25)
[SNIP]

Thank you Louis for at least being part way civil. And to the rest. Yes, I am real, just pushing the 'thinking envelope,' an exercise I would recommend.

You are most welcome. Now, that "thinking envelope", what's the postage for one of those?

Louis

A penny for your thoughts? †Or do you have to put your 2 cents in? †(pace Carlin).

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,19:00   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,13:18)
Please inform me. Is the name of this URL:
"Intelligent Design Creationism Adovcates?
The name implies, all involved are pro ID.
Am I mistaken?
Respectfully,

First, "URL" is an acronym for "Uniform Resource Locator". It's the thing with an "http://" prefixing it in the address bar of your browser, not the content of any graphic or text on the page that your browser displays once it retrieves the URL.

Second, the graphic in question alludes to the course-credit-for-online-trolling policy of IDC advocate William A. Dembski, where students are required to enter into discussions online defending IDC in order to earn a certain percentage of points toward their grade in a philosophy course he teaches.

Most people don't have that sort of cognitive issue in parsing the graphic and figuring out what it means.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,19:52   

Walter's an ESL student, right?  Why do IDiots assume lots of words equal smart?  A little advice, if you're open to it, Walter:

fewer words
more focus
single idea

it'll help

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,20:34   

Quote (iWalter276 @ June 07 2010,11:49)
It does not make me a prude; but why should I have to subject myself to it? It is called respect... Is that a dumb ass question? I don't think so.

Hey! Show some self-respect here.
 
Quote
I could care less what your belief system is.

Thanks for caring.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein †(H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2010,23:04   

In my previous post I mentioned expecting that the abundance of elements would go down as the atomic number went up. That does seem a reasonable first approximation, but might have exceptions. One factor that occurs to me is that the average bonding energy (i.e., how much less rest mass is present in the nucleon than it had as a free particle) also varies with atomic number, and nuclei with higher bonding energy nuclei might form more readily than those with lower bonding energy.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2010,03:11   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 08 2010,01:00)
[SNIP]

Most people don't have that sort of cognitive issue in parsing the graphic and figuring out what it means.

Yeah, but Wes, most people aren't right. You have to remember we are all evil Darwinist commies trying to legislate away Wally's right to shoot assault rifles whilst praying at school. Or something.

Our interpretation of our own words is simply wrong. We're all pro-ID apparently.

HTH HAND

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2010,04:18   

Walter, you probably won't read this but anyway, just in case:

You struck me as somewhat like an elephant barging into a china store.

In short, your strategy was absolutely disastrous.

A better strategy that might work better for you in future forays into the evil world of science would be to cut down on the crap, make at least your initial message(s) short and to the point. Just state your position, your intentions, and maybe ask a couple of questions about basic, fundamental issues.

It was - and is - most unwise to come charging with a chip on your shoulder, declaring that according to you personal opinion, 150 years of science is only so much bullshit.

I wish you better luck in the future, unless you are too stubborn to learn & take sound advice, but it is, as they say, your own funeral. †(With English not being my language, I may not always get my metaphors right.)

EDIT: A couple of hours later after I have been using the time to think while mowing the lawn:

I told you I am †
Quote
I am not much except an old fellow who spent a lifetime trying to learn and understand as much as possible of the universe and mankind.

and feel like asking: Do you spend any time trying to learn and understand?

What I conceive as a fundamental difference between you and the rest of us here, is that it seems you don't do anything to verify your "knowledge". Your dead wrong statements about carbon comes to mind.

Whether you decide that your goodbye was final or not, here then is what I try to do all the time - and what I recommend that you do too:

I check my facts.

I started typing distribution of elements and Google obligingly offered a number of choices, of which I chose in the universe and got 6 600 000 results.

I offer just #4 What Is the Most Abundant Element?

Quote
What Is the Most Abundant Element?

Answer: The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, which makes up about 3/4 of all matter! Helium makes up most of the remaining 25%. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. All of the other elements are relatively rare.

Ignorance may be overcome, but stupidity is incurable.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2010,07:39   

Quote (Henry J @ June 07 2010,21:04)
In my previous post I mentioned expecting that the abundance of elements would go down as the atomic number went up. That does seem a reasonable first approximation, but might have exceptions. One factor that occurs to me is that the average bonding energy (i.e., how much less rest mass is present in the nucleon than it had as a free particle) also varies with atomic number, and nuclei with higher bonding energy nuclei might form more readily than those with lower bonding energy.

Henry, the abundances of some elements like beryllium are much lower than a log linear model expects, and it turns out they all form with a particularly unstable intermediate. Others, like iron, are much more abundant and have a nucleus far more stable than average- particularly to neutron and alpha irradiation.

See the link I posted earlier.

An additional good resource is Hydrogen Fussion in Stars.

Edited by Dr.GH on June 08 2010,06:00

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
  56 replies since June 06 2010,04:53 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]