MaxFly

What evidence do you have refuting the fact that I am the one responsible? It must be incorrect, because I am the one responsible! :lolsign: Lol... I'm not even going to get into this.

The only thing I would change in what you have posted is "explanation." In reference to science, I would refer to ID as an idea, but aside from that, the statement is fine. There is absolutely nothing factually wrong with that statement nor does it undermine science in any way. If the facts of past finding are presented, present them as facts. If there are other aspects that lack evidence, present them as theory. There is a reason why the Theory of Evolution is referred to as the Theory of Evolution. In kind, the theory of relativity is generally taught as a theory. For example when you set one object in rapid motion and another is kept stationary, time relative to the object in rapid motion unfolds just a tad slower that for stationary object. This has been tested. However, scientists are not certain exactly why this is so though there are theories. There are no proven equations as of yet establishing how time and speed relate in the theory of special relativity. Science openly admits that not everything on this subject is clear though the subject is 90-100 years old. As a result, yes, students should keep an open mind in light of future developments in the theory. However, it is again important to note that the term "theory" is solidly associated with special and general relativity. Evolution doesn't enjoy that burden in the classroom. Lol, so to clarify further, are you saying that science doesn't point to the possibility of an intelligent designer? Yes or No? To your second point... while there isn't evidence refuting intelligent design, there is evidence refuting the fact that you are the one responsible. I'm not sure where you are leading with this, lol, but feel free to continue...

Sad thing is that you can say that about most political parties... democrats included... Yeah, I said it.

Again, it's a matter of interpretation. You can't say that science doesn't point to the possibility of an intelligent designer (for the time being, it does), so to avoid taking a stance on whether it does or doens't, the realm of the conversation is shifted to religion. I don't understand what you were trying to say with the latter points... Could you clarify?

I'm not so much for teaching it as I am for adding the disclaimer that evolution is not the be all and end all. Such a disclaimer is well within the realm of a science class. I wouldn't go as far as teaching creationism as that certainly has more to do with theology. The case I mentioned at the beginning that is being carried out is about a disclaimer in science books asserting that evolution is "a theory, not a fact." By all interpretations, this is true, but strangely, people don't want to acknowledge it.

So herein lies the debate. I guess it's a point of perspective and we've come around full circle to the very beginning of this discussion. Some believe that science has nothing to do with an Intelligent Designer because there is no forseeable way to carry out experiments or provide evidence of Its existence. Other's will agree that science cannot prove that an Intelligent Designer exists, but will add that this is not the same thing as saying that science has nothing to do with intelligent design. They'll point out that nature and the physical world, which is observed through science, can point to the possibility of Its existence. Though it's not conventional science, it is reasonable.

Theories should definitely be taught, but at the same time, they should be treated as theories and taught as such. Also, yes, there are a few kinks in Newton's Laws of Gravity, a few of which Einstein's theory of gravitation addresses. However, it's important to note that while there may still be nuances in Newton's Laws yet to be fully explained, his formula has proven to be for the most part accurate... We build things and send things into orbit based on his formula. The nuances in Newton's laws of gravity are a far cry from all the work we still have to do in researching evolution. But you kind of help me make my point. Would it not be of benefit to students to address the wrinkles in Newton's Laws? It's like when they teach you about atoms in 3rd grade for the first time. They tell you that atoms have a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons and that the nucleus is surrounded by energy rings where electrons revolve around the nucleus. For general 3rd grade purposes, they have told you all you need to know for a rudimentary understading of the composition of an atom, but they haven't told you that electron energy levels are more complex than you have been led to believe. You'll get to that at some point in junior high or high school. The problem with the current teaching of evolution is that students rarely get to that more complex level of the subject where they encounter a full understanding. They leave thinking that evolution explains everything.

No it doesn't take into account the possibility that the universe is on a turtle's back... you are absolutely correct. However, is there anything that would lead us to considering that possibility? The simple answer is no. On the other hand, the specificity and order in nature does point to the possibility of an intelligent designer. I know you're joking... but I saw an opening to reiterate that point, and I couldn't refuse. As for "interminable." I was speaking to the future, not the past, and asking when, if ever, we will exhaust all theories. There will always be a theory that will put the idea of an intelligent designer on the back (bunsen...) burner. It is really our way of saying "Well let's not deal with this possibility until science forces us to do so" knowing full well that we will always be able to find a way to ignore the possibility.

There are a lot of theories, but explanations and theories are not the same. The goal of my previous post was to point out that evolution is being taught as more of an explanation rather than as the theory it really is.

Kobe wanted to go to LA. He idolized Magic and Charlotte picked him at 13, so they didn't think much about giving him away. They thought Vlade would have been able to help them immediately... I can't blame them... but in hindsight... ouch.

I consider Lost and Found a success, but I'm not happy with its level of success. I maintain that it could have done better; that's not to say that it did badly, but I did expect more from it.

While it is admirable to seek to exhaust every theory, the process can be interminable and who or at what point is someone to say that all research into these various theories has been exhausted? The approach doesn't take all possibilities into account. The Theory of Evolution was at its high point when Darwin proposed it. It was quickly embraced by the science community as viable, but the more we found out about the world, the less our model became viable. We found things that seems to be consistent with the model, and we found things that were inconsistent. Scientists won't say that what we know now doesn't point to the possibility of an intelligent designer... they'll say that we don't know everything, so lets not jump to conclusions... Those are two different things, but the latter takes predominance. It's too bad that the latter seems to only be mentioned when the former is brought up. Apart from the debate, the average student is more likely than not to think that our current model of evolution explains everything. If at the very least, the idea of intelligent design is a way to keep evolution honest, so be it... it seems to be the only way that the shortcomings and inconsistensies of evolution will be acknowledged. Other than our planet? Are you referring to the existence of amino acids found at meteorite impact sites?

Totally irrelevant... but Saved by the Bell used to be the jumpoff back in the days as was Family Matters... I can also still hear George Jefferson calling someone a jive turkey... Good times

I still can't believe that they went to a concert to protest. I uphold their right to assemble... there's no problem in that... but they have more pressing issues in D.C. that they should be worried about. Their priorities are a tad schewed... Libby/Rovegate, Miers, Iraq, deficit... priorities people... :stickpoke:

Most of the planets we have found in other solar systems are giant gas planets revolving around stars in close and speedy orbits. That's not to say that there aren't any planets like ours in the univerese. However, it is not that we have any evidence to back up the theory that there may be other earthlike planets with an atmosphere capable of sustaining life... we're confident based on probability... Isn't it ironic that we're basing scientific theory on probability...

Occam's Razor is used by a lot of atheist who argue against the existence of God, assuming that we can explain everything without adding the existence of an intellegent designer as such can't be observed by the senses or through empirical evidence. The point of intelligent design is that though science may not be able to solely prove the existence of an intelligent designer, it certainly doesn't prohibit nature from pointing to the existence of an intelligent designer.

While it is true that the odds do get better over millions and millions of years, we're talking about development from scratch without predisposition or specification. Even the millions of years don't put much of a dent in the odds. And when you add all the earthlike planets, you have the same problem with specification that we do on this planet. The odds may be even better yet, but still insignificant in the scheme of things.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9809237/ Rest in peace...

The operative word in that sentence is "reactions." By reactions, I mean chemical reactions where one or more atoms, molecules, or compounds interact, releasing or taking in energy to form new molecules or compunds. What I'm saying is that the necessary heat that would be needed as a catalyst for the reaction to start and to occur rapidly and repeatedly isn't even there to begin with when dealing with methane hydrate, further reducing the chances for amino acids forming and joining to create any meaningful proteins. Also, even though ice does freeze, melt, and migrate, we're talking about an early earth that was cooling down for millions of years. It's highly unlikely that methane would be able to be trapped in ice on an earth that was in the process of cooling down from very high temperatures in enough time for sizable amounts to exist when life would have had to come about. You would have to push back the origin of life several million years to have life originating from methane trapped in ice. That would create even more problems for evolution. You made a good point concerning organisms that can live in either extreme heat or cold; Archaebacteric for example. But it's important to note that while the organism is able to sustain itself even in these conditions, that has no bearing on whether it can be assembled in those conditions. Every organelle within that organism is aiding in sustaining it. The question is, if you could take parts out in a sort of backwards evolution, would these individual parts be able to sustain themselves. Would the first parts have even been able to be formed. We know what happens to proteins and DNA when there is too much heat... We know what happens when the necessary heat isn't present for reactions to commence and take place rapidly in cold regions as would be needed... and then we would need the proper gasses... Yes, but not impressive when you consider that the conditions were ideal. Conditions on earth would have to have been as ideal as these experiments, and we know that things weren't close to ideal on earth. Also, remember that these yeilds, even in a most ideal earth would be destroyed with heat and water and the processes would have to start and restart repeatedly. Which constraints have been revised? Water and heat still destroys and stymies the creation of simple organic compounds. Perhaps science has revised its notion of under what conditions living things can survive as you pointed out earlier, but as for the conditions under which organic compounds can be created and react with one another, that has remained unchanged. Lol, I'm not accusing you of anything, but for the sake of argument, irreducible complexity hasn't been refuted. As in the example of the bird lung... we are talking about crucial systems that would have been unable to evolve through evolution. You've certainly make a number of good points... but we're talking about processes that evolutionalists are saying have to have occured in a specific way. If you can show in whatever field you are in that a certain process is not able to develop or work out as evolutionists say it has to have worked out, you've sent them back to the drawing board at the very least. I'm not trying to say that mathematicians can completely refute evolution... but earlier, you discounted the field as irrelevant without knowing how the mathematician has come to support intelligent design.. I just wanted to point out that it is not a irrelevant as it would seem. You made a very good point about the "god stuff" but I don't think it's as simple as it would seem, and making it simple is where your point lies. There are additional results to taxing churches. Lets say churches were to soley focus on their "god stuff" and pay taxes, that still leaves the govenment or other charitable foundations to take on the responsibility of the other services churches provided. Your taxes would remain the same. If churches paid taxes and were able to maintain their other activities through increased donations, your taxes would be the same because people would contribute more tax deductible money to churches, and gifts or donations are generally not taxed at the same rate as income. The only way in which your taxes will be alleviated is if churches were taxed as businesses. I see your general point, but I just think there is more complexity in the issue. Well two things... From you scientific approach to the theory of ID... it seems as though our current explanations of certain aspects of certain stages of life don't properly describe the real world. We must refined our concepts in these areas to properly reflect the new data." In general, we know enough right now to say at the very least that the current model of evolution is inconsistent with much of the very evidence that is supposed to point to its validity, however it's still being taught in schools as fact and the inconsistensies are skimmed over if even addressed. Scientists have also theorized that we may be missing out on a physical law that would show how evolution came about or that future scientific developments will explain more about how organic chemicals react. The truth is that there is no indication of any knowledge that we are missing concerning chemical reactions or the laws behind them that would make our current model of evolution viable. Evolutionists charge those who believe in ID as wishful thinkers, but it goes both ways. Lol, I like your more "accurate" version. You added that the login program stores the correct character, but in saying this, you're alluding to the fact that nature has some level of specification... that it's disposed to producing life as the program would be disposed to producing the proper characters in order. To make your scenario even more accurate, we would need to have the program wipe out all the work the cat has done at random intervals and start all over again... including the characters it has gotten right...

Google bought this technology from Keyhole, and while Google does deserve a lot of credit for sprucing it up and adding further interactivity, let's have a moment of silence for the many contributions Keyhole has made........ Ok, that's enough. I used to have a Keyhole subscription a few years ago and it's definitely a bonus that I don't have to pay for Google Earth. It's a cool program. I expect that teachers would be excited about using it in classrooms and such. Incidentally, if you want to know how serious imaging sattelites are... as someone mentioned earlier in alluding to Enemy of the State, these are the satellites the Pentagon uses for military and reconnaissance purposes. Yes, they can find your house and can see if your car is parked infront if the weather is clear enough. It would be impossible for civilians to get live up to date images, but even if it were... it's not something the US govenment would allow.

It's good to see that they don't mind profiting from something they are there to protest... Silly Republicans... tricks are for kids...

Hey FuNkY.FrEsH.ChIcK, you may need to install divx.

Jonny, you've automatically earned 10 coolness points for the Thundercat Logo... May I please join the group?

They were going to steal the guy's Lamborghini expecting to get where... They would have been pulled over and arrested at gun point in about 5 blocks... Wow...

50 is really on something... I'm really waiting for him to say something serious to Jay. I think by then, he will have alienated everyone who is relevant in rap. Dude needs to be careful... He doesn't want Nas and Jay on a track addressing him...