The lunacy of the Darwinists

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Cold fusion...seems that if you stick your hot tongue on a frozen metal object outdoors when the ambient temperature is below freezing, you will directly experience cold fusion....

http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue6/ar6energy1.html



Science and humanism of course stand on their own merits, simply because they self define what are the merits that they should be standing on should be.

It is a circular position they tread, but it it makes them happy to do the following, fine by me....

<img src=http://jacobsmedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/man_hamster_wheel_lg_nwm.gif>

Quote from stu:

good, then you seem to support the statement as correct.

The Scientists or the Thests who thinks Cold Fusion is a fact, will find soon find out by the Science that it aint. The Scientists or the Thests who think evolution is a fact, will find soon find out by the Science that it is.The Scientists or the Thests who think doing unto others as you would not want to be done unto you is alright, will soon find out by the clear expression of humanitarianism, they are wrong.
Indeed, science and humanism stand on their own merits.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from jem:

Quote from kjkent1:

First, let's get Z out of the way -- you can't pin down gas -- you can only contain the odor. Now then...

Gallup polls conducted in Sep-Oct 05 show that the majority of Americans endorse a "purely creationist view."

The following is what I found on that Gallop poll.

A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds three-quarters of Americans have thought at least a moderate amount about the origin of human beings, and two-thirds say it matters to them which theory about how human beings came to exist is correct. Americans are more likely to endorse a purely creationist view of the origin of humans than a purely evolutionary view or a view involving elements of both. Majorities of the public say evolution and creationism should be taught in public school science classes, while fewer believe intelligent design should be taught.

That does not necesarily mean what you say it means. Do you have the full poll?



Here is one I found

from the cbsnews.com cite.
November 18-21, 2004.)



VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

God created humans in present form
All Americans
55%
Kerry voters
47%
Bush voters
67%

Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
27%
Kerry voters
28%
Bush voters
22%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
13%
Kerry voters
21%
Bush voters
6%

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism and evolution
All Americans
65%
Kerry voters
56%
Bush voters
71%

Creationism instead of evolution
All Americans
37%
Kerry voters
24%
Bush voters
45%

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 885 adults interviewed by telephone November 18-21, 2004. There were 795 registered voters. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on all adults and all registered voters.


For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.



©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Looks to me like your research supports my position -- about the poll, that is. As for the gas, well...(chuckle).

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I think that what most voters really want is for their children to be educated, taught how to think for themselves, not to be indoctrinated by theistic or atheistic dogmas in the public school systems.

Quote from jem:

Quote from kjkent1:

First, let's get Z out of the way -- you can't pin down gas -- you can only contain the odor. Now then...

Gallup polls conducted in Sep-Oct 05 show that the majority of Americans endorse a "purely creationist view."

The following is what I found on that Gallop poll.

A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds three-quarters of Americans have thought at least a moderate amount about the origin of human beings, and two-thirds say it matters to them which theory about how human beings came to exist is correct. Americans are more likely to endorse a purely creationist view of the origin of humans than a purely evolutionary view or a view involving elements of both. Majorities of the public say evolution and creationism should be taught in public school science classes, while fewer believe intelligent design should be taught.

That does not necesarily mean what you say it means. Do you have the full poll?



Here is one I found

from the cbsnews.com cite.
November 18-21, 2004.)



VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

God created humans in present form
All Americans
55%
Kerry voters
47%
Bush voters
67%

Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
27%
Kerry voters
28%
Bush voters
22%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
13%
Kerry voters
21%
Bush voters
6%

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism and evolution
All Americans
65%
Kerry voters
56%
Bush voters
71%

Creationism instead of evolution
All Americans
37%
Kerry voters
24%
Bush voters
45%

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 885 adults interviewed by telephone November 18-21, 2004. There were 795 registered voters. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on all adults and all registered voters.


For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.



©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[nononsense]

Quote from kjkent1:

Nice try, but it doesn't matter whether God is everywhere or nowhere. Even if he is everywhere and in everything, even if the universe is the embodiment of what God is, change in this universe requires power, and change that occurs without power in this universe is magic. Period.

E = m*c^2

I'm sure you're familiar with that formula, because it comes from the physicist who you always use a authority for your view that randomness is only perceived.
...

Kent,
Your views on the 'power' of God are akin to those of a flat-earth observer. In fact nobody has any clear idea of these, except that he is The Almighty.

Your E = m*c^2 relationship - in fact E stands for energy, not power - is the best earthlings came up with till now, in trying to comprehend something of the realities of the physical world he is placed in. The formula in question is related to the concept of space sustained by 3 spatial and one time coordinate. Who ever said God is 'trapped' in such space, or for that matter in a kind of space that the next Einstein will come up with, God willing, not before at least another 300 years?

Your little colored picture of the explosion means nothing compared to processes taking place in God's universe as we believe to observe it these days.

Kent, better stick to physics. If you want to know more about God, learn how to pray and take up theology.

nononsense

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from nononsense:

Kent,
Your views on the 'power' of God are akin to those of a flat-earth observer. In fact nobody has any clear idea of these, except that he is The Almighty.

Your E = m*c^2 relationship - in fact E stands for energy, not power - is the best earthlings came up with till now, in trying to comprehend something of the realities of the physical world he is placed in. The formula in question is related to the concept of space sustained by 3 spatial and one time coordinate. Who ever said God is 'trapped' in such space, or for that matter in a kind of space that the next Einstein will come up with, God willing, not before at least another 300 years?

Your little colored picture of the explosion means nothing compared to processes taking place in God's universe as we believe to observe it these days.

Kent, better stick to physics. If you want to know more about God, learn how to pray and take up theology.

nononsense

Energy is merely the release of power. Your description does nothing to rebut my analysis.

I have no disagreement with you as to the possibility that God "plays dice with the universe," in the probabilistic sense. But, you are interjecting the "maybe" there's some other power that we don't understand argument, and that is pure theology, not science.

If you want to change a subatomic particle without applying magical forces, then you're gonna need to shrink either a high or low energy accelerator down to the size of a virus and then place it into Lenski's bacteria petri dish, and if you apply all of the energy required to do that little task, over an infinitesimally small period of time, then the result is gonna be a really big explosion.

The alterative is simply that you spread the activity over a long period of time so as to distribute the energy required.

And that distribution of energy over time, when concerning the change to biological organisms has a simple name attached:

Evolution.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

STU you have a reading comprehension problem and this quote just proved it.

That is not an item between us.

Quote from jem:
.....

Regarding Stu's comment about proof of evolution.

You write the reference, then you say I have the reading comprehension problem.

Quote from jem:
KJ and z10 have been having that argument for months. I have no reason to get into with a person who would never admit he was wrong even if I I found Adam's second rib hiding in the garden of Eden or I produced Arius to explain what the trinity is not, or I had God manifest as the Trinity.

Quote from stu:
In the unlikelihood of you being able to do any of those things jem, just some well grounded argument on your behalf might help. And here..I admit I was wrong..once! I thought you were interested in genuine debate. How wrong could I be!

So jem the item between us in this thread now , ... .isn't evolution a fact ?

 

[nononsense]

Quote from kjkent1:

...

No more protein, gene, DNA, bacteria, petri dish, scientists, lab, street, town, etc., etc., etc.
...

Who says so? Are you sure?
Carl Sagan would make another lill' TV show telling the people about the birth of a new, yet unknown life form

 

[nononsense]

Quote from kjkent1:

Energy is merely the release of power.

Wrong.
Power is the time derivative of Energy.
To simple minded people you could perhaps say:
"Power is merely the release of Energy",
but don't quote nononsense on this.

 

[stu]

• 
  
  

  Quote from stu:
  
  "Science and humanism can stand on their own merits without the need of bolt on ..."ists", such as theists creationists or even atheists."

  
  
  

  Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
  The clear expression of so many Darwinists Humanists and Scientists.....

  
  

  
  Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
  
  Science and humanism of course stand on their own merits, simply because they self define what are the merits that they should be standing on should be.
  

  Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
  
  The clear expression of so many Darwinists Humanists and Scientists.....

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

It is a circular position they tread, but it it makes them happy to do the following, fine by
me....<img src=http://jacobsmedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/man_hamster_wheel_lg_nwm.gif>

 

[Ricter]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I think that what most voters really want is for their children to be educated, taught how to think for themselves, not to be indoctrinated by theistic or atheistic dogmas in the public school systems.

Relative to the kids... Lmao, spoken like a good relativistic thinker.

But anyway, is a worldview dogmatic if it has as a crucial part of its method a mechanism to review and update itself?