ID Believers Not All Creationists..

[rudemonk]

Re: ID Believers Not All Creationists..

Well it is hard to seriously answer a question turned from my joke seriously.

Of course, if God himself demonstrably and provably left the message one would not be able to deny that fact and remain rational.

I'm confused now by the mixing of terms, Intelligent, the "I" in ID, now with being conflated with unconscious design...where Mr. Low goes off track though really is by using the word 'accident.' Happenstance and mutation are not the main drivers of the evolutionary process.

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: ID Believers Not All Creationists..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well it is hard to seriously answer a question turned from my joke seriously.

Of course, if God himself demonstrably and provably left the message one would not be able to deny that fact and remain rational.

I'm confused now by the mixing of terms, Intelligent, the &quot;I&quot; in ID, now with being conflated with unconscious design...where Mr. Low goes off track though really is by using the word 'accident.' Happenstance and mutation are not the main drivers of the evolutionary process. </div></div>

Perzctly! Mr Low redefines the terms... garbles the terms, then believer in ID come along and say, &quot;See, even those that don't believe in gods, can believe in this 'theory.'&quot; Harumff!

This treatise is for Mr Low's readers to OM over.

[Wahalla]

Re: ID Believers Not All Creationists..

It is called the Cinderella Enigma..... The fact of the matter that the conditions at a quantum level are ideal in the universe for life to develop... The simplest example is the energy charge distridenisty of a quark... Hence the charge density of a proton.... if it was any weaker it would not bind with an electron to form hydrogen.... if would collaspe explosively if it was any stronger.... BP may correct me on this.. It has been a very long time since I studied Hamiltonian Equations... And my maths was never that strong.. I under stood it for about 1/2 an hour when Proffesor Slater taught it to me.... See the rum bars are after all educational insitutions...

What the importance of this in evolution you ask.. Once Hydrogen combines with oxygen it forms water.. Because of the charge distribution, hence the length of the H-O bond is shortened and thus there is an unequal distribution of charge on this bond... delta(-)O-H delta (+)allowing hydrogen to hydrogen bond not strongly enough.. This allows the water unique property in that it floats when frozen.... What is unique about hat Life at least life based on Carbon and Hydrogen (organic) could not have formed or survive on the earth if ice did not float.. As there were periods in the earth history when life would have beenn estinguished as the earths temp was that cold... (As well as the fact that pelagic nature of proto organism based on single cells would not have happened or developed..)

This however ruels out the simple explantion that that god formed the universe on the 23rd October 4444 BC at 4pm as per the Genesis time explanation....

Now I have never heard any one combine quantum physics, thermodynaics, Chemistry, biology geology before to explain evolution... So what the hell do I know...

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: ID Believers Not All Creationists..

Giving creationists the oxygen of publicity
Do rational people always need to fight back?
August 6, 2007 6:33 PM

In a world where any uninformed lunatic - not just journalists - can cast their inexpert ramblings into the blogosphere for anyone to read, scientists increasingly have a problem. Bogus scientific notions that fit with a favoured political credo spread like wildfire and scientists can do little to stem the tide. Climate change, MMR and intelligent design, to take just three examples, are all topics where the sea of falsehood can seem overwhelming.


Of course, this is not only the internet's fault - the traditional media has played its part too. But what is a scientist to do? Argue with the climate sceptic, and she gives the impression that there is a real debate on the issue. Carefully explain why intelligent design is wrong and he risks fuelling a non-existent scientific controversy.

The stakes are perhaps even higher with Kentucky's new-ish creation museum. In less than 2 months, the place had pulled in over 100,000 visitors, at $19.95 a throw or $1000 for life membership.

I haven't been, but its visitors are paying for a pretty flimsy grasp on reality. The hi-tech anamatronic exhibits, for example, show humans hanging out with dinosaurs.

The US Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology has denounced it as presenting, &quot;visitors with a view of earth history that has been scientifically disproven for over a century.&quot; And the National Centre for Science Education (with the backing of over 800 scientists in surrounding states) has warned that, &quot;students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level&quot;.

The LA Times was more blunt. Its editorial said:

&quot;With the opening of the Creation Museum, young people will be getting another side of the story. Too bad it starts with 'Yabba-dabba-doo!'&quot;

But here's the dilemma.

Statements of derision may serve little purpose other than to drive more visitors to the attraction and swell the coffers of Answers in Genesis, the loopy organisation that set it up. By trying to set the record straight are we simply playing into their hands?

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/08/giving_creationists_the_oxygen.html

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: ID Believers Not All Creationists..

ScienceDaily (Aug. 8, 2008) &amp;#8212; Prevailing theoretical models attempting to explain the formation of the solar system have assumed it to be average in every way. Now a new study by Northwestern University astronomers, using recent data from the 300 exoplanets discovered orbiting other stars, turns that view on its head.

The solar system, it turns out, is pretty special indeed. The study illustrates that if early conditions had been just slightly different, very unpleasant things could have happened -- like planets being thrown into the sun or jettisoned into deep space.

Using large-scale computer simulations, the Northwestern researchers are the first to model the formation of planetary systems from beginning to end, starting with the generic disk of gas and dust that is left behind after the formation of the central star and ending with a full planetary system. Because of computing limitations, earlier models provided only brief glimpses of the process.

The researchers ran more than a hundred simulations, and the results show that the average planetary system's origin was full of violence and drama but that the formation of something like our solar system required conditions to be &quot;just right.&quot;

The study was recently published in the journal Science.

Before the discovery in the early 1990s of the first planets outside the solar system, our system's nine (now eight) planets were the only ones known to us. This limited the planetary formation models, and astronomers had no reason to think the solar system unusual.

&quot;But we now know that these other planetary systems don't look like the solar system at all,&quot; said Frederic A. Rasio, a theoretical astrophysicist and professor of physics and astronomy in Northwestern's Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. He is senior author of the Science paper.

&quot;The shapes of the exoplanets' orbits are elongated, not nice and circular. Planets are not where we expect them to be. Many giant planets similar to Jupiter, known as 'hot Jupiters,' are so close to the star they have orbits of mere days. Clearly we needed to start fresh in explaining planetary formation and this greater variety of planets we now see.&quot;

Using the wealth of exoplanet data collected during the last 15 years, Rasio and his colleagues have been working to understand planet formation in a much broader sense than was possible previously. Modeling an entire planetary system -- the varied physical phenomena associated with gas, gravity and grains of material, on such a variety of scales -- was a daunting challenge.

The work required very powerful computers. The researchers also had to judiciously decide what information was important and what was not, so as to speed up the calculations. They decided to follow the growth of planets, the gravitational interaction between planets, and the whole planetary system in its entire spatial extent. They chose not to follow the gas disk's fluid dynamics in fine detail, but rather more generally. As a result, they were able to run simulations spanning a planetary system's entire formation.

The simulations suggest that an average planetary system's origin is extremely dramatic. The gas disk that gives birth to the planets also pushes them mercilessly toward the central star, where they crowd together or are engulfed. Among the growing planets, there is cut-throat competition for gas, a chaotic process that produces a rich variety of planet masses.

Also, as the planets approach each other, they frequently lock into dynamical resonances that drive the orbits of all participants to be increasingly elongated. Such a gravitational embrace often results in a slingshot encounter that flings the planets elsewhere in the system; occasionally, one is ejected into deep space. Despite its best efforts to kill its offspring, the gas disk eventually is consumed and dissipates, and a young planetary system emerges.

&quot;Such a turbulent history would seem to leave little room for the sedate solar system, and our simulations show exactly that,&quot; said Rasio. &quot;Conditions must be just right for the solar system to emerge.&quot;

Too massive a gas disk, for example, and planet formation is an anarchic mess, producing &quot;hot Jupiters&quot; and noncircular orbits galore. Too low-mass a disk, and nothing bigger than Neptune -- an &quot;ice giant&quot; with only a small amount of gas -- will grow.

&quot;We now better understand the process of planet formation and can explain the properties of the strange exoplanets we've observed,&quot; said Rasio. &quot;We also know that the solar system is special and understand at some level what makes it special.&quot;

&quot;The solar system had to be born under just the right conditions to become this quiet place we see. The vast majority of other planetary systems didn't have these special properties at birth and became something very different.&quot;

###

In addition to Rasio, other authors of the Science paper are Edward W. Thommes, an adjunct professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, former postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern and lead author, and Soko Matsumura, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern.

The computer simulations were performed on a supercomputing cluster operated by Northwestern's Theoretical Astrophysics Group and partially funded by a Major Research Instrumentation grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Rasio's research group on exoplanets also is funded by a grant from the NSF Division of Astronomy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807144236.htm