“All my girl friends say I'm intelligent ,because I'm always falling.”

“The Dark Sucker Theory

For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers. The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light.

First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room.

So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a full Dark Sucker.

A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.

There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.

Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating candle.

Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light.

Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.

Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.
last edited: 8/19/05 9:23:08 PM”

“Ah... The Classics!”

“From "The Onion:"

"Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity with New "Intelligent Falling"
Theory"

KANSAS CITY, KS-As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public
schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose
Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical
Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held
"theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new
theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force,
but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them
down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied
Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity-which is taught to our children as a law-is founded
on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between
all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton
himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for
which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is
alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical
physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the
International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For
Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular
gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus
ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian
conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to
give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not
asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that
students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed
decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used
by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent.
Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about
gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This
fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory
in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory
Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind,
both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making
them fall-just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind
is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling
everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This
clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law
based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical
physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's
mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general
relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen
Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the
Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of
a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully
compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is
supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need
to
realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for
'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an
elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the
'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear
force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt
their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of
the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is:
His name is Jesus."”

“KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2”

“I guess I should glance at the posts above mine before I post, huh?”

““Gee Mutt, how can I put this simply for you.

The origin of the universe, as today's science teaches it, violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

Is that easier for you to understand?”
Sarge
3:05:16 PM
8/15/05

I was working on a thread with Sarge on this earlier comment. I went round about with him (largely a failure to communicate on my part). Here was my last response:

“I guess we are agreeing that we disagree. At least that's something.

The statement that the universe has zero total energy is just General Relativities way of saying the universe is stable. And since the total energy must be a constant (the 1st law of thermodynamics) then if it is zero now it was zero at the beginning of time.

Look, there is a reason the Big Bang Theory is called a theory. It's a way to model the creation of the universe. In a zero energy model the positive energies of mass offset the negative potential energy of gravity to yield a zero total energy and you get a universe that can spontaneously be created from “nothing”. That’s not just an ordinary “nothing”. This “nothing” would be the quantum vacuum upon which spacetime is imprinted (not contained within) and where a sea of virtual particle pairs pop in and out of existence “stealing” energy for less than a Planck Time and then returning it.

Is it "proven"? No, of course not. It is a theory that explains certain things we can see and also fits to our understanding of the laws of the physical universe. So to date it is a good model that has proven itself useful. To date I have not seen one better, but I admit that's not saying much.

... and it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. In fact it intentionally preserves them. That was the start of this discussion.

last edited: 8/17/05 12:25:23 AM”
pitts
12:16:15 AM
8/17/05 (2 days later)

I would still like to follow up on this. My point was that the origin of the Universe as Science teaches it does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics because the theory is intentionally designed such that they are satisfied. Hence I didn't understand Sarge's earlier comment and I believe he is incorrect on this point.

If we are done with this then I would like to move onto the other discussion that we didn't spawn off. That was that I commented that one argument related to Evolution was that it violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics (with respect to entropy). Sarge's comment was:

I realize how the 2nd law is typically used to refute evolution, but I am reserving that for another discussion. It applies to this discussion if you are willing to concede that your mathematics only work if you are allowed to ignore physical laws that have been documented by science.

I would be happy to move onto this topic if my comments on the prior one have closed this thread.
last edited: 8/21/05 11:04:41 PM”

“One of the best web sites I have seen to date with respect to humor on this topic (some may not find this funny.)

http://venganza.org/

The site starts with:

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
.
.
.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it...

It's all downhill from here. It ends something like this:

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.


last edited: 8/21/05 11:15:07 PM”

“pitts - No. The other topic is not closed. I will respond soon. Sorry I haven't yet, but I forgot to get back to it. I'll respond by lunch today. Since I last responded to you, I have discussed this with another learned yet objective "big banger" ; ) to make sure that I didn't miss anything from your view before I respond, and I am convinced I am on the money. Back later ...
last edited: 8/22/05 5:37:23 AM”

“I guess we are agreeing that we disagree. At least that's something.

Let’s try to correct that.

The statement that the universe has zero total energy is just General Relativities way of saying the universe is stable. And since the total energy must be a constant (the 1st law of thermodynamics) then if it is zero now it was zero at the beginning of time.

You are right ONLY IN REFERECE TO TIME AS IT RELATES TO OUR PERSEPECTIVE OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE. One point you are overlooking is that we are talking about CREATION or ORIGIN of the universe. Using a human’s birth as an analogy, you are saying that time began when then human egg was fertilized. Time for that human did not exist before the point of fertilization. (in this analogy, the human is = to anything of this known universe) The problem with that is that time DID exist before the human was fertilized. That is, something “fertilized” the egg, and therefore both time and matter pre-dated the fertilization of the egg. (in this analogy, fertilization = the big bang)

The problem is that in order for zero energy to be a characteristic of a known universe, and in order for quantum fluctuation to take place, you must have a pre-existing “something”. I realize that you are taking the approach that time only began once the known universe was created, but using your method of birth of the known universe, something had to have existed prior to the quantum fluctuation to have taken place. Once again, you have argued several times that with quantum fluctuations something can be created out of nothing, yet you have not demonstrated that via an experiment, or mathematical model. This is a presumption that is incorrect. This really cannot be proven in a laboratory, so a mathematical model would suffice. Yet, you have not provided one (because it does not exist).

Look, there is a reason the Big Bang Theory is called a theory. It's a way to model the creation of the universe. In a zero energy model the positive energies of mass offset the negative potential energy of gravity to yield a zero total energy and you get a universe that can spontaneously be created from “nothing”. That’s not just an ordinary “nothing”. This “nothing” would be the quantum vacuum upon which spacetime is imprinted (not contained within) and where a sea of virtual particle pairs pop in and out of existence “stealing” energy for less than a Planck Time and then returning it.

Another definition. Your definition is missing something. The “vacuum” you refer to is what I referred to earlier as “foam”. That foam (a) exists, and (b) consists of time/matter. Because of that fact, creation/origin had to have existed BEFORE the “sea of virtual particle pairs pop in and out of existence ‘stealing’ energy for less than a Planck Time and then returning it. Think about it pitts, all of these things you mentioned HAD to exist for the event to take place. They existed because they were previously created, either by an IDer, or by some previous event which you have failed to return to in this discussion.

Is it "proven"? No, of course not. It is a theory that explains certain things we can see and also fits to our understanding of the laws of the physical universe. So to date it is a good model that has proven itself useful. To date I have not seen one better, but I admit that's not saying much.

It only fits our understanding of the laws of the physical universe to the point you were willing to return to (the quantum fluctuation which supposedly started this whole process). The problem you have not addressed is something had to have happened and existed before this event WHICH DOES NOT “fit to our understanding of the laws of the physical universe”, which is what I originally stated which began our dialog.

... and it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. In fact it intentionally preserves them. That was the start of this discussion.

(see above) – You have not gone back far enough to the “origin” of the universe. Only to a time where you feel comfortable speaking.”

“my question is, why is it that lay-men who have read a book or two, think that they are qualified to argue with men and women with ph d's in math and physics and have devoted their entire adult lives to the study of this topic?”

“crash - I don't know, but I have read a few books on the subject and have discussed this with an astro-physics professor from Cornell University (where Carl Sagan taught). We discussed origins (this was about 4 years ago). With my limited reading as compared to his I even corrected him on a technical point regarding white holes he made much to his chagrin. LOL! My friends were watching this debate/discussion and I would think they would say that your point is an invalid one. By the way, this professor from Cornell ... he believes in not only Intelligent Design, but in God and Jesus. Yes, an astro-physics professor from Cornell that believes in ID, and Jesus. Imagine that. But, hey! Who are we to argue with a ph d in math and physics??? Certainly you wouldn't?!?!”

“I saw a peanut stand, heard a rubber band,
I saw a needle that winked its eye.
But I think I will have seen everything
When I see an elephant fly.

I saw a front porch swing, heard a diamond ring,
I saw a polka-dot railroad tie.
But I think I will have seen everything
When I see an elephant fly.

I seen a clothes horse, he r'ar up and buck
And they tell me that a man made a vegetable truck
I didn't see that, I only heard
But just to be sociable, I'll take your word

I heard a fireside chat, I saw a baseball bat
And I just laughed till I thought I'd die
But I'd been done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly.

I even heard a chocolate drop,
I went into a store, saw a bicycle shop.
You can't deny the things you see,
But I know there's certain things that just can't be.

The other day by chance, saw an old barn dance,
And I just laughed 'til I thought I'd die.
But I think I will have seen everything
When I see an elephant fly.
last edited: 8/22/05 7:58:35 AM”

“Crash bang: I have always been amazed at how easy this stuff is to read despite the amazingly hard math that sits behind it. I have a lot of education on this topic, yet I still consider myself a "lay person". I am very interested and like reading/discussing this topc as are a great many people. The heavy sale of Hawking’s books is evidence of this.

Here is a good read for you. I don't know if this is from one of his books or not, but the tone is certainly his. He is clearly an amazing and gifted person. His ability to express himself is certainly not limited by his disability!

Sarge, this is actually a worthwhile read for you as well. I am not making a point here (other than the last one), just offering an interesting read.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html

The other links are really good reading as well.

Franky, this is more fun for me than the fuego/flame threads. I keep turning those off. I shouldn’t post on them. I get really angry. :)”

“pitts - In case you missed it, before crash's post I responded to our earlier conversation.”

“I did, thanks. I am swamped with work this week but I'll get back to this tonight. Thanks!

These posts are more involved than the "Republicans are Nazis" posts. I have GOT to stop reading those flame threads and more importantly stop posting there.
last edited: 8/22/05 10:20:26 AM”

“http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcgough15aug15,0,5903150.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

PUT ASIDE the question of whether "intelligent design," the latest alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, is good science. The more interesting question is whether it is good theology.

ID argues, supposedly on purely scientific grounds, that the complexity of life, especially at the cellular level, points to an Intelligent Designer. It's adherents won't call that designer God, but the conventional wisdom is that Christians can only be pleased if ID gains traction. But that's not necessarily so, though ID certainly has its Christian cheerleaders, and they aren't all fundamentalists.

Last month, for example, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Vienna, published an Op-Ed article in the New York Times assailing "neo-Darwinism" and sounding a lot like a supporter of ID.

"The Catholic Church," he wrote, "while leaving to science many details about the history of life on Earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world."

Schoenborn conceded that Pope John Paul II said in 1996 that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis" (a statement science writer Michael Shermer once paraphrased as "evolution happened — deal with it"). But the cardinal also argued that this "rather vague and unimportant" papal pronouncement must be read in light of John Paul's comment 11 years earlier that "the evolution of living beings … presents an internal finality which arouses admiration [and which] obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

But is acceptance of ID (and rejection of Darwinism) really required by the basic belief contained in the Apostles' Creed?: "I believe in God … creator of Heaven and Earth"? It all depends, as Bill Clinton might say if he were a theologian, on what the definition of "creator" is.

Long before Darwin, Christian thinkers struggled with the paradox that portraying God as "maker of heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible" (in the words of another creed, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan) could give the Deity less than his due.

The problem, Protestant theologian Langdon Gilkey explained in his 1965 book "Maker of Heaven and Earth," is that a "maker" could be a mere craftsman, shaping raw material, rather than a truly omnipotent God. The solution, was to emphasize that God created ex nihilo, "from nothing."

"In the Christian doctrine of creation," Gilkey wrote, "God is the source of all and creates out of nothing. Thus the Christian idea, far from merely representing a primitive anthropomorphic projection of human art upon the cosmos, systematically repudiates all direct analogy from human art." God instead is the "transcendent source of all existence."

Moreover, Gilkey wrote, human beings discover God the creator "not from a careful scientific or metaphysical analysis of the general experience of nature and of finite existence, but rather from the illumination that comes from special encounters with God in revelatory experiences."

And that points to a different problem with a naive embrace by the church of intelligent design. Christian faith cannot be produced by a reflection on scientific knowledge or supposed gaps in that knowledge.

The Catholic theologian Luke Timothy Johnson makes a similar point. "The Christian confession of God as creator," he writes in "The Creed," "is not theory about how things came to be, but a perception of how everything is still and is always coming into being.

"God's self-disclosure in creation, therefore, is not like the traces of the watchmaker in his watch. God is revealed in the world first of all not through the 'whatness' of things but through the 'isness' of things. That anything exists at all is the primordial mystery that points us to God."

Johnson sees this vision of creation as being "entirely compatible with theories of evolution." He adds: "The theories of the natural and biological sciences address, and can only address, the interconnecting causes of beings that have been or are now already in existence. They cannot account for existence itself."

And although Johnson doesn't refer specifically to intelligent design, he calls its close relative, creationism, a "failed enterprise lacking … intellectual integrity."

For atheists, the distinction between these accounts of the doctrine of creation and intelligent design might seem a distinction without a difference. After all, they both see a God of some sort behind or under (pick your metaphor) physical reality. Yet for many Christians, it is not only possible but necessary to reject the idea of God as the watchmaker, the mere Intelligent Designer, who walks away from his work.”

“It all depends, as Bill Clinton might say if he were a theologian, on what the definition of "creator" is.

HAHA, so far that's the funniest thing I have read today!

That said this does have some excellent points in it.
last edited: 8/22/05 1:31:22 PM”

“I love how evolutionists try to blend creation or ID theory with an evolution debate. They keep saying "you're not saying this, but you really mean this ..."

It's strawman at the high-level.
last edited: 8/22/05 2:11:24 PM”

“They keep saying "you're not saying this, but you really mean this ..."

Example?”

“ID theory has nothing to do with referring to specific intelligent sources (Mutt quoting Buck)

It is a clever back-door ploy to get creationism in the classroom, I must admit.”
Mutt
5:39:51 PM
7/21/05”

“Mutt is right on with that!”

“Hmmm - I don't see that it's a "strawman", but then again, you have an odd and unique take on that term. ID is creationism in sheep's clothing. That is a fact, regardless of Buck's denial. Refuting that fact is not a strawman.”

“All these brainiacs around here and timeclime still has a tent that smells like cat piss. You'd think with all these smarts around here someone could have figured it out for poor timeclime.”

“Intelligent Stank Removal??”

“Mutt - Ok, let's turn it around. Evolutionists only want to promote the magical world of cellular replication to promote their martian agenda. Their agenda is an evil one and should not be allowed in our schools. Any evolutionist who tells you otherwise is lying.”

“haha Nigal!
last edited: 8/22/05 3:23:48 PM”

“"...evil agenda..."

OK, what is this evil agenda??

How many kids do you have in school, Sarge?

Home school them or send them to a fundamentalist school if you are afraid of the real world.”

“And what is an "evolutionist"??

Evolution is not an "ism", it is merely science, which is an active and evolving process itself.”

“Meh, the fundis admit it themselves.”

“Does anyone recall being taught this stuff in school? I sure as hell wasn't taught cosmology/Big Bang theory in public school. That wasn't until college. I don't recall ever being taught Darwin or evolution but if I did it would be in High School Biology class.

Then again high school was a blur.
last edited: 8/22/05 3:27:41 PM”

“And while I make the comment above I'll add that Evolution is odd because it is both a fact and a theory. We know for a fact that organisms evolve and change in response to their surroundings through a process of natural selection. So Evolution is just an observable fact. However, the application of this concept over long periods of time as a proposal for the origin of all the species of life that inhabit the earth is a clearly a theory. I think this aspect of the topic is really interesting.”

“Evolution belongs in biology class and creation belongs in Sunday School.”

“Evolution (as in the origans of man) can't really be taught as fact or as anything but a theory either though.”

“ origin of all the species of life

Let's not muddy the waters here. Two different theories.”

“Nigal, that's just the fallacy that IDers try to use - they purposely try to equate the lay definition of fact with scientific fact to confuse the ID sheeple.”

“What are the two theories we are talking about here? I thought there was only one.”

“OK, origan of all life then. Ok now, create life in the lab please.”

“We know for a fact that organisms evolve and change in response to their surroundings through a process of natural selection. So Evolution is just an observable fact.

pitts, this isn't a true statement. We not observe one species evolving and "changing" into another species. The same species responding to their environment through horizontal variation, sure, but not becoming new species. Evolution is NOT an observable fact (if it were there wouldn't even be discussion about it). We can observe how specific species react and adapt to changings in the environment, that is something no one would deny and is consistent even with "creationists" much less Intelligent Design'ers, but we do not observe one species actually evolving into another class of species.”

“Evolution can be seen all around us. When it occurs on small scales it's called microevolution. It is an observable fact.”

“Bad post
last edited: 8/22/05 3:58:23 PM”

“Evolution can be seen all around us. When it occurs on small scales it's called microevolution. It is an observable fact. I can give you examples of it.

That doesn't mean it's the process that formed all the species we see on Earth today, so that's a theory. It's a theory that has a LOT of evidince supporting it but it's still a theory.”

“I didn't say evolution of existing species. I'm talking origin of life. Is evolution even replicable at all in a lab?”

“Sure it is.”

“my question is, why is it that lay-men who have read a book or two, think that they are qualified to argue with men and women with ph d's in math and physics and have devoted their entire adult lives to the study of this topic?” - Crash Bang

Why then, Crash Bang, do you continue to argue with these respected PhD's who question current evolutionary teaching?

ANDREW BOCARSLY, Ph. D.
Chemistry
Princeton University

HENRY F. SCHAEFER III, Ph. D.
Quantum Computational Chemistry
University of Georgia

ROBERT TINNIN, Ph.D
Biology
Portland State University

BENJAMIN VOWELS, M.D.
Dermatology
University of Pennsyluania

STEPHEN MEYER, Ph.D
Philosophy of Science
Whitworth College

MICHAEL BEHE, Ph.D.
Biochemistry
Lehigh University

DAVID IVES, Ph.D
Biochemistry
Ohio State University

WILLIAM DEMBSKI, Ph.D.
Philosophy
Northwestern University

ROBERT KAITA, Ph.D.
Plasma Physics
Princeton University

FRED SIGWORTH, Ph.D.
Physiology
Yale Medical School

LEO ZACHARSKI, M.D.
Medicine
Dartmouth Medical School

DAVID VAN DYKE, Ph. D.
Chemistry
University of Pennsylvania

ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D.
Biology
Ithaca College

ROBERT KOONS, Ph.D.
Philosophy
UT, Austin

GORDON C. MILLS, Ph.D.
Biochemistry Emeritus
UT Medical Center, Galveston

DONALD D. HOFFMAN, Ph.D.
Cognitive Science
University of California, Irvine

ROBERT PRUD'HOMME, Ph. D.
Chemical Engineering
Princeton University

ALVIN PLANTINGA, Ph.D.
Philosophy
University of Notre Dame

GEORGE LEBO, Ph.D.
Astronomy
University of Florida

JOHN FANTUZZO, Ph.D.
Psychology in Education
University of Pennsylvania

WALTER BRADLEY, Ph.D.
Chairman, Mechanical Engineering
Texas A & M University

DONALD L. EWERT, Ph.D.
Molecular Biology
Wistar Institute

DOUGLAS LAUFFENBERGER, Ph.D.
Cell & Structural Biology
University of Illinois

JACK OMDAHL, Ph.D.
Biochemistry
University of New Mexico

JOSEPH M. MELUCHAMP, Ph.D.
Management Science
University of Alabama

KIRK LARSEN, Ph.D.
Zoology
Miami University (Ohio)

PAUL CHIEN, Ph.D.
Biology
University of San Francisco

WILLIAM SANDINE, Ph.D.
Microbiology
Oregon State University

H. C. HlNRICHS, Ph. D.
Physics
Linfield College

WILLIAM STUNTZ, J.D.
Law Faculty
University of Virginia

CHRIS LITTLER, Ph.D.
Physics
N.Texas State University

JOHN ANGUS CAMPBELL, Ph.D.
Speech Communication
University of Washington

T. RICK IRVIN, Ph.D.
Institute for Environmental Studies
Louisiana State University

DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D.
Biology
Eastern College

STEPHEN FAWL, Ph.D.
Chemistry
Napa Valley College

OTTO HELWEG, Ph.D.
Civil Engineering
Memphis State University

J. GARY EDEN, Ph. D.
Elect. & Computer Engineering
University of Illinois

H. KEITH MILLER, Ph.D.
Biology (ret.)
Capital University

JOHN COGDELL, Ph.D.
Elect. & Computer Engineering
University of Texas, Austin”

““Sure it is.”

How?”

“pitts, I guess you gotta define "evoution" as you use it then. You didn't say "micro evolution", you just said "evolution". There is no dispute about micro-evolution, or micro-changes WITHIN existing species. That's just simple adaptation of each species. That has nothing to do with proof that species turn into entirely different species.”

“Here's another list for Crash Bang, who thinks no one should question PhD's who study this stuff. Why are you "laymen" questioning these guys? :^D

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

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State”

“Nigal: Hmmm, well I am not a biologist so Buck's credentials could crush me here.

Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a process if microevolution. That's a good example we see today and is a real problem for us.

I could dig up more. I know there are examples of species changing color or size to adapt to environmental changes that are well documented (these aren't lab based, but the process is the same).”

“We not observe one species evolving and "changing" into another species

Not true. After millions of generations of - I believe it was fruit flies - the latest generations were incapable of breeding with the earliest. Just one example of observed evolution.”