Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

timber-

Your post 2303709 is actually meaningless. I know it gives a certain impression from the general style and choice of words but it is meaningless so wide is the range of potential interpretation and applications.

The word "religion" specifically derives from a Latin concept having to do with nothing else.

Rotten meat, rotten compost, and rotten discourse share little other than the attribute of being rotten.

Bringing us right back around to the style and substance of discourse with which you choose to burden the rest of us.

timber-

Surely you don't think that the bluster and bombast you have regaled us with pulls the wool over anybody's eyes but your own.

PALEO PROTEOMICS_ A new field that is looking to discern the remnant proteinaceous materials left behind in fossils as rehydrateable polymers. The field has recieved the most attention after Mary SChweitzer (a Paleontologist from Uof NC) had discovered a fossil T Rex from the Hell Creek Formation that contained remnants of flexible tissue and actual red blood cells in the veins.
The Hell Creek formation, clearly of Cretaceous age (roughly 70 my based upon radioisotopic decay) had contained bones of a TRexfirmly contained within the formation as a replacement fossil (not a cast or mold).However because it was too bulky to fit in a packing crate after it was covered with plaster, the scientists decided to break the bones along a medial line. Thats when they discovered the soft tissue. This tissue , flexible and rubbery could be rehydrated (thus giving the sheen and pink color shown in the Science pictures. HoweverThe key, to the appearance and the presence of the lifelike soft tissue she believes, may be the iron content of the proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.

After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins triggers the formation of highly reactive oxygen" free- radicals". Other multivalent state metals in the environment may also produce the same effect.

Such metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer metal based polymers , which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.

"Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change" SChweitzer stated in A National Geographic Explorer update.(Thats her opinion, of course, and the resaerch is going on now)

There will be a presentation at the upcoming meeting of the GEological Society of America in Philadelphia , during the week of Oct 24 , 2006 (I know Im gonna be there< )
No matter what the outcome, I find it exciting as hell, and again, no matter what the conclusion, lets not bury our heads in the sand gunga. Im willing to accept findings once theyre peer reviewed.

Iron based polymers , called emulsion polymers include buffers and free radical initiators of the polymerization process.Chemicals consistent with decay , such as potassium Sulfur salts, complex amines, mercaptans, and Oxygen/iron free radicals can polymerize at temps below 100 degrees C. The final product is a latex-like substance which can lose water and dessicate while still remaining flexible.
We create silica based polymers forming such products as silane or siloxane which are waxy quartz rock material with a natural resonance. We used to create siloxane "glass harmonica" tubes by filling test tubes and columns with silica liquid, then with addition of a metal the matterial would "set up" and remain as a waxy glass that is so stable that we are looking to use it as a entombing material for nuclear waste. But thats another story
Perhaps Schweitzer is on the right track, perhaps not. Whatever the case, they are proceeding carefully since You dont want to destroy your field samples before analyzing them.(theyre using Rayman spec to do the analyses as well as Energy dispersive Xray))
Its been said that, since the first finding, her team has discovered a few more flexible tissue remains.

I think it is remotely possible but not very likely that all specimens were found in similar environments/conditions.

And you write from out your anal orifice. BUT, I believe others have told you more elegantly than I am able

rl

Quote:

I think it is remotely possible but not very likely that all specimens were found in similar environments/conditions.

That sounds like a scientific conclusion, on what evidence do you say its "remotely possible but not very likely". It seems that shes only working with fossils from the HEll Creek. All of them are not casts or molds but are real silicified bone .

Polymerization is what I had explained above ( but without a self assured ""remotely possible but highly unlikely") smugness. Usually, when a new frontier is pierced, We try not to draw conclusions without really strong data. Even a statement of "remotely Possible" is only demonstrating that you are merely attempting to get some "quality time"with a possible Stand on Creationism. As has been your and gungas stands, you hear of things in the popular press and even before the specimens are shipped home you have an opinion (I wont comment on their worth).
Please, Dont wet your pants, As I said before, the process of polymerization is quite common in fossil evidence. This just happens to be a unique one where the iron in haem or myoglobin are possibly responsible for the catalysis.

We know that the fossils are 70 million years old. You merely want to insert some incredulity because the pictures look like fresh meat no? Do I have your number?
The soft tissue had been rehydrated when the pictures were taken. And they were taken with color augment ation

He makes sense. You don't.

Very simple.

Edward (spendi) Bulwar Lytton-father of the Pre-Raphealite authors We are, I'm afraid, living in a fair imitation of a rathouse and that is the result of dipping a toe into the inexorable logic of materialism.

Quote:

And you write from out your anal orifice. BUT, I believe others have told you more elegantly than I am able

Another assertion but thanks for the compliment just the same.

Evolution a hard sell for many
(Mike Lafferty, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, October 9, 2006)

Kaleigh Paul listened politely as professor Susan Fisher explained the broad ideas of evolution theory in Biology 101 class last month at Ohio State University.

But after the bell rang, Paul said the lectures are not going to change her mind.

"I've gone through so many biology classes (before college) and it hasn't convinced me yet," said Paul, a 19-year-old sophomore from Zanesville.

"I was raised with creationism."

National polls show students are divided on evolution. Many adhere to what a preacher or parent taught them. Others didn't learn about it in high school, or the course was so watered down that it didn't leave an impression. Still, Paul acknowledged that Fisher's evidence and arguments are logical.

These days, that is enough for Fisher.

A few years ago, the biologist volunteered to teach 101, a class of 700 students that fills the Independence Hall lecture room and is meant for nonbiology majors. Fisher estimates that half the students don't accept evolution. It used to bother her.

"I'm not hacked off anymore," she said. "I want them to at least understand what they're rejecting. If they choose to ignore it, that's their prerogative."

Fisher said she polled her students at the beginning of the quarter about their views on evolution. She will do it again in December.

Microbiologist Neil Baker, who teaches another 101 section of 700 students, said changing beliefs is a tall order in a 10-week course.

"Evolution is something we can prove with modern-day examples," he said. "What a lot of students have a problem with is evolution with humans ?- that humans are special in some way."

National polls indicate that about half of Americans believe God created humans in our current form.

Glenn Branch, with the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., said the numbers haven't shifted much, in part because conservative arguments tap deep religious feelings.

"People are told, if your children reject creationism, they're going to reject God and burn in hell," he said.

But Branch said he is optimistic that state science standards will push evolution education in a direction supported by science.

In Ohio, creationists have complained that state highschool curriculum models teach only evolution. Biologists say creationism and intelligent design are religious beliefs that are best taught outside the science classroom.

In the meantime, such huge classes as Fisher's don't necessarily bode well for a scientifically literate American population, Branch said.

Nearly every seat in the lecture hall is filled. Latecomers sit on stairs. "We don't have conversations with individual students," she said. Questions are for smaller weekly recitation sessions with graduate teaching assistants.

"Those who don't come from a religious background accept evolution," said Wes Frew, one of Fisher's assistants.

Frew grew up in a religious household in Carrollton, a small town in eastern Ohio. His family believes in creationism. But now he debates his sister, who believes the Earth is a few thousand years old.

While few students raise objections in the recitation groups, graduate students and professors tread lightly on the issue, he said. "Professors try not to get too controversial. They try not to offend."

Fisher said she doesn't draw any lines in the sand.

"I'm not here to challenge their belief systems. I'm here to show the difference between science and religion. We have to get them to think about it," she said.

Middle-school and highschool teachers often tread lightly, too.

Over the summer, two Denison University seniors researched how high-school science teachers approach evolution. They found that many teachers are sensitive to criticism from students, parents and boards of education and don't feel sure about how to teach the subject.

Many teachers struggle, said Elizabeth Doerschuk, a Denison senior. "They didn't feel supported."

The findings are in line with a 2005 poll by the National Science Teachers Association. Of the more than 1,000 teachers who responded, 31 percent said they felt pressure ?- especially from students and parents ?- to include creationism and its near relative, intelligent design, in class discussions of evolution.

"I didn't learn about evolution until I took an introduction-to-biology course here at Denison," Doerschuk said.

Fisher said she came to terms with her own religious and scientific beliefs years ago. She once wondered about exactly when evolution began, as it encompasses chemical, geological and biological change.

"But it really doesn't matter what was the starting point," she said. "It could have been the big bang or God establishing the final laws of physics. We'll never know.

"That's why we call it faith."

"I'm not hacked off anymore," she said. "I want them to at least understand what they're rejecting. If they choose to ignore it, that's their prerogative."

National polls indicate that about half of Americans believe God created humans in our current form.

"People are told, if your children reject creationism, they're going to reject God and burn in hell," he said.

"What a lot of students have a problem with is evolution with humans ?- that humans are special in some way."

The Sunday Times October 08, 2006


Nervous men kill off the office romance
Roger Dobson and Yuba Bessaoud



A SERIES of high-profile harassment cases has sparked the first signs of "segregation" in the workplace as relationships between the sexes are disrupted by mutual suspicion.
Men are self-censoring innocent compliments and office banter when in mixed company, killing off office romance, according to a study by psychologists at the University of California, Los Angeles.



The academics have identified the emergence of a "glass partition" between the sexes that, they say, is also damaging the career prospects of women.

Kim Elsesser, co-author of Glass Partition: Obstacles to Cross-sex Friendships at Work, published in the academic journal Human Relations said: "The unintended consequence of sexual harassment awareness is that women suffer from men's uncertainty on how to behave.

"While it is mostly the men who feel restricted in what they say, unfortunately the career implications affect the women because the men have the power and women have a hard time befriending men.

"Just as the glass ceiling prevents women from reaching the top of organisations, the glass partition prevents women from making the friendships that could help their careers." She said rules intended to discourage romantic relationships were also making it harder to form work friendships.

Sexual harassment cases can trigger changes in the rest of the workforce. Phillip Randall, 32, is a middle manager at a small financial services company. He had been working there for six years when he was accused of sexual harassment by a female colleague. He insisted on using a pseudonym because the case is still being investigated.

He said that the office atmosphere had soured. "It's affected the liveliness of the whole workplace. It used to be such an enjoyable environment.

"The other staff don't go out for drinks as a group. There is an atmosphere of ?'who can I talk to?' They send fewer e-mails around the office because they are scared someone will take offence.

"It makes things difficult because as a manager you've got to relate to your staff."

The academic researchers found evidence of one of the most significant shift in attitudes since the influx of women into the workforce in the 1960s.

They found that 75% of male workers constantly considered the risks of being accused of sexual harassment when talking to female colleagues. Humour was considered one of the most risky areas.

Conversely, only 5% of women said they had to watch what they said around men but 66% noticed that men seemed inhibited. The researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 41 professionals.

Jane Mann, head of employment at Fox Williams, a City law firm, said sexual harassment legislation in the UK was creating similar patterns.

"People are much more wary of banter in the workplace and much more concerned about whether they are saying or doing the right thing.

The academics have identified the emergence of a "glass partition" between the sexes that, they say, is also damaging the career prospects of women.

are self-censoring innocent compliments and office banter when in mixed company, killing off office romance, according to a study by psychologists at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Also I believe that your attention to ladies foundation garments is forensically pathological.

Me and the whole media/advertising industry plus much more. I think "pathological" is defined as as aspect of minorities and there is a quite respectable psychological school of large proportions which defines the puritan as expressing a pathological fear of the female sex.

Are laughs in short supply where you are?

Are laughs in short supply where you are? NOT WITH ONE LIKE SPENDI ON THE LINE

Oh-BTW- are the Amish ID-iots? They seem to fit your definition.

Ok , so youre a puritan then.

THATS NOT MY PREFERRED TERM OF USE AND I DONT BELIEVE IVE EVER USED IT I MERELY CALLEM IDers,