Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wande wrote-



Which of us had the best style wande?

Cue for a song-

Oim walkin' backwards for Christmas.
Across the Rift Valleee
Oim walkin' backwards for Christmas
It's the only thing for me,
Oim walkin' to the sideways
Oim walkin' to the front
Everybody looks at me
Ans says Oim a silly custard.

By The Goons.

wande quoted-



How far is that from the nose-cone of a Saturn B on the launch pad at the Cape?

wandel. Im glad that this article had its reference checking correct and noted that the NAture article on Tiktallik did not state that Tiktaliik "walked on Land". There had been some confusion about how far the scientists who worked in Ellsmere, would take their limb homology.

Spendius, a Turritella is a Miocene to Recent mollusc that has a complex coiled test. The pasta , turritelli, is named for this mollusc.
My "adventures in spelling" take me to places that ordinary confines of rules of common orthography, you have to be able to just keep ahead of me and form the words in your mind.

As for your blathering about "who understands what and more", I care not a firkin of warm spit .

fm-

I once took a test which might fit the idea of a "complex coil".More than once actually Father I told my confessor. He pretended to disapprove but I could feel the envy through the grill. If you would like to aggravate priests you should go to confession and tell them lurid stories.

If you wish to bring spit into it I'm glad it's warm.I really hate cold spit. It's so passe don't you think?

No, going to confession and telling the priests lurid stories will only encourage them.

Spendi--Now why would you goad a priest? In my formative years I just gradually stayed away from all the Churches arcane ritual, having been totally disillusioned when I learned the history of the origins of the Catholic Churches rituals and " policies and procedures".

As far as MacKay , Ill stop after this, since you feel Im in a rant ( I dont , but Im always sensitive that readers of posts are always better at percieving us than we ourselves are).
J macKay has earned a Phd and has summarily (being without any evidence)turned and denied much of the basis of even receiving the degree. SO, his credentialed opinions ( as a geologist) are based heavily on his degree conferring a certain "punching of the official ticket of credibility". Hes earned a degree, makes most of his reputation as a holder of said advanced degree in a relevant science, and then he denies the veracity of the basic science underlying his dgrees. However, hes never ever published his concerns or proofs of doubt. NOW HES a friggin hypocrite, and his opinions arent really worth the firkin of spit (not the least of the reason is that he selectively avoids any real evidentiary confrontations).
Hes one of a relatively small number of people whove earned degrees in science (just for the bragging rights) and then turn their lifes work loose to bamboozle the minds of kids and the untrained religious , entirely based upon holding the degree. In reality they are hucksters who took a diversion for a time and acquired a degree under false pretenses. The Creationist web sites stae that Duane Gish (or John Mackay or Steven Austen or even russ Humphreys) are respected scientists with advanced degrees in their fields. NO THEY ARE NOT. Theyve spent the time knuckling under to pass all the requirements to acquire a degree, then they jettison most of their sciences underpinnings and turn into shiny suited Bible hucksters..

Heretics you mean?

From both our points of view.

But hey-it's competitive and they are only as good as society says. They would pack it in if it wasn't paying. I have nothing against huckstering in principle. I think most of us are engaged in a type of huckstering-it's just that we have a gentleman's agreement not to call it by that name.

They are a part of life's rich tapestry and if what they do is not illegal I don't see how a scientific mind can criticise them. Some pure scientists wouldn't criticise a lot of illegal stuff. But I think your analysis of McKay a trifle superficial.

The Church rituals are quite significant actually. Ritual is a component of human social behaviour everywhere. It unifies for one thing. It humbles. It's calming and hints things are under control like the brass band on the White House lawn. That's a ritual. Seeing a virgin married with full ritual says something important about her. It values her. It giver sexual union a sacramental tone. It's the same with funerals and baptisms and community hymn singing and contracts to supply the local plant with stationary or meat pies and vending machines. With no religion contracts would be awarded fairly by a bunch of highly paid bureaucrats sitting around in plush offices for months on end miles away from the action. Which could be classed as huckstering I think.

Some get bored with that and activate their contacts to get a grant to study mile deep sedimentary rocks in eastern Ethiopia with a small staff of willing and dedicated female helpers. Darwin only got his contract because others dropped out. The Rev Jenyns turned it down and then Henslow because his wife looked miserable and then FitzRoy had his own mate lined up and it was only when he backed out at the last minute that the "rump" candidate Darwin was offered the place.

Not that I'm claiming that evolution theory wouldn't have appeared later anyway but it makes one think about chance. Suppose Henslow's wife had had a dragoon officer lover and not looked miserable.Henslow goes instead of Darwin and Origin doesn't get written. That's almost akin to a random mutation.

Heretics you mean?

From both our points of view.

But hey-it's competitive and they are only as good as society says. They would pack it in if it wasn't paying. I have nothing against huckstering in principle. I think most of us are engaged in a type of huckstering-it's just that we have a gentleman's agreement not to call it by that name.

They are a part of life's rich tapestry and if what they do is not illegal I don't see how a scientific mind can criticise them. Some pure scientists wouldn't criticise a lot of illegal stuff. But I think your analysis of McKay a trifle superficial.

The Church rituals are quite significant actually. Ritual is a component of human social behaviour everywhere. It unifies for one thing. It humbles. It's calming and hints things are under control like the brass band on the White House lawn. That's a ritual. Seeing a virgin married with full ritual says something important about her. It values her. It giver sexual union a sacramental tone. It's the same with funerals and baptisms and community hymn singing and contracts to supply the local plant with stationary or meat pies and vending machines. With no religion contracts would be awarded fairly by a bunch of highly paid bureaucrats sitting around in plush offices for months on end miles away from the action. Which could be classed as huckstering I think.

Some get bored with that and activate their contacts to get a grant to study mile deep sedimentary rocks in eastern Ethiopia with a small staff of willing and dedicated female helpers. Darwin only got his contract because others dropped out. The Rev Jenyns turned it down and then Henslow because his wife looked miserable and then FitzRoy had his own mate lined up and it was only when he backed out at the last minute that the "rump" candidate Darwin was offered the place.

Not that I'm claiming that evolution theory wouldn't have appeared later anyway but it makes one think about chance. Suppose Henslow's wife had had a dragoon officer lover and not looked miserable.Henslow goes instead of Darwin and Origin doesn't get written. That's almost akin to a random mutation.

Heretics you mean?

From both our points of view.

But hey-it's competitive and they are only as good as society says. They would pack it in if it wasn't paying. I have nothing against huckstering in principle. I think most of us are engaged in a type of huckstering-it's just that we have a gentleman's agreement not to call it by that name.

They are a part of life's rich tapestry and if what they do is not illegal I don't see how a scientific mind can criticise them. Some pure scientists wouldn't criticise a lot of illegal stuff. But I think your analysis of McKay a trifle superficial.

The Church rituals are quite significant actually. Ritual is a component of human social behaviour everywhere. It unifies for one thing. It humbles. It's calming and hints things are under control like the brass band on the White House lawn. That's a ritual. Seeing a virgin married with full ritual says something important about her. It values her. It giver sexual union a sacramental tone. It's the same with funerals and baptisms and community hymn singing and contracts to supply the local plant with stationary or meat pies and vending machines. With no religion contracts would be awarded fairly by a bunch of highly paid bureaucrats sitting around in plush offices for months on end miles away from the action. Which could be classed as huckstering I think.

Some get bored with that and activate their contacts to get a grant to study mile deep sedimentary rocks in eastern Ethiopia with a small staff of willing and dedicated female helpers. Darwin only got his contract because others dropped out. The Rev Jenyns turned it down and then Henslow because his wife looked miserable and then FitzRoy had his own mate lined up and it was only when he backed out at the last minute that the "rump" candidate Darwin was offered the place.

Not that I'm claiming that evolution theory wouldn't have appeared later anyway but it makes one think about chance. Suppose Henslow's wife had had a dragoon officer lover and not looked miserable.Henslow goes instead of Darwin and Origin doesn't get written. That's almost akin to a random mutation.

Heretics you mean?

From both our points of view.

But hey-it's competitive and they are only as good as society says. They would pack it in if it wasn't paying. I have nothing against huckstering in principle. I think most of us are engaged in a type of huckstering-it's just that we have a gentleman's agreement not to call it by that name.

They are a part of life's rich tapestry and if what they do is not illegal I don't see how a scientific mind can criticise them. Some pure scientists wouldn't criticise a lot of illegal stuff. But I think your analysis of McKay a trifle superficial.

The Church rituals are quite significant actually. Ritual is a component of human social behaviour everywhere. It unifies for one thing. It humbles. It's calming and hints things are under control like the brass band on the White House lawn. That's a ritual. Seeing a virgin married with full ritual says something important about her. It values her. It giver sexual union a sacramental tone. It's the same with funerals and baptisms and community hymn singing and contracts to supply the local plant with stationary or meat pies and vending machines. With no religion contracts would be awarded fairly by a bunch of highly paid bureaucrats sitting around in plush offices for months on end miles away from the action. Which could be classed as huckstering I think.

Some get bored with that and activate their contacts to get a grant to study mile deep sedimentary rocks in eastern Ethiopia with a small staff of willing and dedicated female helpers. Darwin only got his contract because others dropped out. The Rev Jenyns turned it down and then Henslow because his wife looked miserable and then FitzRoy had his own mate lined up and it was only when he backed out at the last minute that the "rump" candidate Darwin was offered the place.

Not that I'm claiming that evolution theory wouldn't have appeared later anyway but it makes one think about chance. Suppose Henslow's wife had had a dragoon officer lover and not looked miserable.Henslow goes instead of Darwin and Origin doesn't get written. That's almost akin to a random mutation.

I'm sorry about that.I was told the post hadn't gone.

My analysis of Mackay is correct. He doesnt want the question asked of his "credentials" cuz hes hardly ever used them in any meanigful manner.

spendi, The bug on a2k has many of us making multiple posts. I've tried to delete as many as possible, but it must be done before anybody makes another post on the thread. When you get the debug post, it doesn't mean what it says; it still posted.

A Summary of the Concepts in Darwin's "Origin of the Species" (Source: National Geographic Magazine, November 2004)

wande quoted-



Yes-okay.But the random differences are only a success or failure in the particular environment they arrive in.These differences may well be in a statistically predictable ratio and the environment is the selecting agency not the random variations.
When a species can create its own environmental conditions as with humans,and especially in cities,a pronounced distortion takes place.

As an example one might consider differences in success in a monarchy or a dictatorship to that in the wild West in the 1840s,say or the selection in of the rare black moth mutation under industrial conditions. The successful male in the wild-West would probably be interned,or worse,in a dictatorship or monarchy.

Students are rightly taught that humans are animals and for real natural selection to function normally where they are concerned conditions would need to be similar to the wild.

Hence,and I realise I might be accused of sophistry here, students may well conclude that humans are not animals and only came into existence as humans a few thousand years ago,the coming to self-consciousness,and that all pre-existing life was thus formed with them and in the state it was.

Thus the Creation is a metaphor for the coming of self-consciousness to humans and it was to be expected that stories and myths or various types would be invented to explain it and also to be expected was that these would be erroneous and to do with psychological considerations. I think it is widely accepted that Greek thinking saw the whole previous past as encapsulated into a short period of which human memory could cover in art.

It is asking rather a lot of the human race that it dump the whole of this tradition overboard in one fell swoop and make way for the hegemony of the scientist who can provide no garuantee of the continuance of his novel ideas.

Nope, often the random differences are neither beneficial nor helpful under a given set of circumstances.

Chum-

You are reading too fast mate.

I don't see your point.

Nobody is asking christians or religionists to dump the whole of "this" tradition overboard in one fell swoop. Most understand that old habits die hard; but it's incumbant upon people to realize the futility of pushing beliefs that has no evidence to support it. There are much resources out there to relearn about truth, logic, and ethics. One needs only put some effort into it with an open mind.