“Oh, and you are an ass hole. (note: that is in response to your patronizing post - grow up ass hole - you act as if I'm the antogonist, but the truth is revealed here)”
Sarge
2:12:32 PM
10/25/05

“**ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A LIBBIE "STARTING IT", NOT SARGE, AS IS POPULAR OPINION**”
Sarge
2:14:52 PM”

“hahahahahahahaha”

“when you start referring to yourself in third person, youve officially lost it.

so sayeth the crash! bang! thang!”

“i dont know if youre trolling or if this is for real, but its highly entertaining either way. thanks for cheering me up :-D”

“From now on I will just point out when people are personally attacking me instead of responding in kind.”

“lighten up, francis :-P”

“From another thread:

On Sarge vs. Crash
“I find I am very often attacked with hate on here. It's only then that I reciprocate in kind. It gets old, but I've come to believe it's all the left can understand (on this forum).”
Sarge
8:37:52 PM
10/24/05



I wasn't watching the Crash Bang - Sarge thing closely, but I do know that Sarge has been calling me names and attacking my character for months. I have criticized his posts and challenged him on facts - but I have never engaged in name calling with him, but he continues to escalate with me.

Thus, I find Sarge's claims implausible.
last edited: 10/25/05 11:37:01 AM”
pedxing
11:35:18 AM
10/25/05
ignore this user”

“pedxing - One does not need to name call to attack.

You engage in patronizing behavior. That is on the same footing as name calling.

Your passive aggressiveness fools nobody.”

“So, you've found a way to justify bashing anyone who disagrees with you in a way that makes you unhappy.”

“For an example of patronizing language, read your last post.

pedxing, being made "unhappy" is not the same thing as someone being patronizing toward you.

I was looking at some old threads, and you are doing right now what you've done in the past.

You ignore normal adult conversation and twist words into nonsense, then attack that. It's passive aggressiveness. You (think you) can get away with not attacking the person by doing this. I was reading example of you doing this to me and to bacpac.

Read what I said. Does that equate to your (mis)interpretation of what I said when you repeated it back to me?

No.

Not even close.

And - that is how you debate.

Don't respond quickly to this. Take a few minutes and read what you JUST did.

What would you think if I did what you did? Essentially rewrite history (of what was said) in your interpretation.

That is what I and anyone has to deal with who "debates" with you.

You do it in a patronizing way.

Don't act surprised when you get attacked back. It's called retaliation.

**ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A LIBBIE "STARTING IT", NOT SARGE, AS IS POPULAR OPINION**
last edited: 10/25/05 8:50:13 PM”

“See, the word "unhappy" gives you the license to go off again and act like you are engaged in a righteous counter attack!

Given the size of the chip on your shoulder, I think my words were accurate and well chosen.”

“See, the word "unhappy" gives you the license to go off again and act like you are engaged in a righteous counter attack!

There you go again. That's not what I said. You spent ZERO time in self-reflection on this. It's obvious.

What I said was YOUR PATRONIZING BEHAVIOR is an attack.

YOU are the one who mentioned being "unhappy". Not me.

Man you're showing your true colors.

If fact, if anything I said that being "unhappy" (what you said) IS NOT THE SAME THING as what I said. I even spelled it out for you to point out your patronizing behavior and you just don't see it.
last edited: 10/25/05 9:02:14 PM”

“pedxing

Here's a serious question which I doubt you will contemplate in an adult fashion given history, but I'm willing to give it a try.

If you believe that I engage in such immature behavior, and you find it so reprehensible, then why would you do the following just now:

1) post "evidence" of posts which you find wrong, knowing that behavior would create conflict on this board
2) use those posts to draw this issue out even more than it was, knowing that behavior would create conflict on this board
3) accuse me of lying, when name calling and bashing is against your principles, knowing that behavior would create conflict on this board
4) continue the attack, which you started, instead of just soaking in another point of view, knowing that behavior would create conflict on this board
5) attack me again by saying my behavior is due to a "chip on my shoulder", knowing that behavior would create conflict on this board

What is your intent here?

Are you trying to make things better?

What are you trying to resolve?

or ... just maybe ... are you yourself engaging in the very same behavior which you claim to despise?

"Passive aggressive" - Look it up.”

“Sarge. There are some legitimate questions there, as well as some misunderstandings on your part.

As for the legitmate questions, I have to admit that I've let your abuse tick me off and I've done more fighting back than I should. I have a problem with holding my tongue when I am ill used or mis-represented and don't like the idea of holding my tongue just because someone will go off because they are unable to tolerate disagreement. I've not done well at holding my tongue when it would be best. I apologize to the board again.

Where I feel you misunderstand is the following:

When you say there you go again - there you are going again. I said that my use of the word "unhappy" gave you and excuse to go off. You found that patronizing. This is typical. Given your history, I'm begining to wonder how passive aggressive you are. You seem to accuse people of doing what you do.

I have never accused you of lying.

Blast away, you may have the last word in this round.
last edited: 10/25/05 10:24:23 PM”

“s-rge needs to evolve

wait

let me say it for you

**ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A LIBBIE "STARTING IT", NOT SARGE, AS IS POPULAR OPINION**

typical

*snickersnort*
last edited: 10/25/05 10:29:33 PM”

“A passive aggressive person would avoid confrontation and undermine their opponent’s position by drawing the discussion into an area where they feel they can't be blamed, like other people's behavior.”

“entertain me, dammit.”

“PITTS

PIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTSSSSSSS!!!!!

I AM A HIKING MACHINE!!!!!!!!!!!

I WILL HIKE YOU INTO THE GROUND AT MAMMOTH CAVE AND I WILL TELL THE NINJAS WHERE YOU LIVE!!!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH”

“this thread has totally gone to hell anyway. might as well totally degenerate it into a backpacking discussion. kinda makes things full circle”

“I have been reading your journal. You do indeed have the capacity to crush me. Wield that power with compassion!

If Ewker pulls a no-show like he is saying he might then I will be mightily pissed at him. I haven't done all this trolling just to have him not show up!”

“A passive aggressive person would avoid confrontation and undermine their opponent’s position by drawing the discussion into an area where they feel they can't be blamed, like other people's behavior. - pitts

Not true.

From psych central: "Someone who is passive-aggressive will typically not confront others directly about problems, but instead will attempt to undermine their confidence or their success through comments and actions which, if challenged, can be explained away innocently so as not to place blame on the passive-aggressive person."”

“They do those things you mentioned pitts, but not through avoiding confrontation, hence the term "aggressive". They are aggressive in a way that appears non-aggressive/confrontational. That's the whole point.
last edited: 10/26/05 5:51:26 AM”

“theyre coming to take me away
hee hee ho ho
to the funny farm
where life is beautiful
all the time
and ill be happy to see those
nice young men in their nice white suits
and theyre coming to take me away”

“if it says

LIBBIE LIBBIE LIBBIE

on the label label labia

you will like it like it like it

on your table table tibia
last edited: 10/26/05 6:34:04 AM”

“LOL”

“Oh ...
The nurses drink,
The doctors drink,
The patients do the same.
While we are Psycho-analised,
we sip our pink champagne.
Before Id sell my padded cell,
they'd have to break my arm.
Id be a lunatic to ever leave the funny farm......”

“Point taken. My statement still stands if I add a single word, however.

A passive aggressive person would avoid direct confrontation and undermine their opponent’s position by drawing the discussion into an area where they feel they can't be blamed, like other people's behavior.”

“If a passive aggressive person engages in "direct" confrontation, then they aren't passive aggressive any longer. So of course.

Again, that's the point of being passive aggressive. Being aggressive, but in a passive way. Doesn't make it any more justified.”

“Rather than directly address the topic of this thread you have chosen to undermine the conversation with rhetoric that you feel you can't be blamed for… like the way other people treat you. My posts on the Dover BOE case are legitimate posts related to this thread (ID and Public Schools). Likewise my direct challenges to some of the things you have posted are legitimate. You are the one engaging in passive aggressive behavior.

Frankly, I don’t care. The term “passive aggressive” was a label dumped on soldiers in the 1940’s. It was used to label soldiers that were not openly insubordinate but also did not do their work. I have no doubt that most people engage in some form of “passive aggressive behavior” as a natural defense mechanism on a daily basis. So in fact it can easily be justified because the term is vague and easily applies to a wide range of behaviors which is exactly what the military wanted it to be when they coined the term.”

“However, I could apply the “passive aggressive” label to the topic of this tread. Are you people (opening the audience up a bit) familiar with the Wedge Strategy? I am finding out that many people aren’t. I have done a LOT of reading on the topic of ID and public policy the last month or so. Let me tell you, this is some interesting territory. Those that aren’t familiar with the so called Wedge Strategy and want to know what this “Intelligent Design Movement” is all about read the article on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

It’s a strategy authored by the Discovery Institute that was uncovered when a document called the Wedge Document was leaked to the public. The claim is that this document was stolen but to my knowledge the Discovery Institute has never denied its accuracy and in fact known ID theory leaders like William Dembski have referenced it in transcripts of seminars I have read.

As stated in the Wedge Document, the strategy is designed to defeat "Darwinism" and to promote an idea of science "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The ultimate goal of the Wedge strategy is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian values. Center for Science and Culture Senior Fellow and Vice President and Discovery Institute co-founder, Stephen C. Meyer, alleges the Wedge Document was "stolen" from the Discovery Institute's offices

.
.
.
Intelligent design proponents, through the Discovery Institute, have employed a number of specific political strategies and tactics in their furtherance of their goals. These range from attempts at the state level to undermine or remove altogether the presence of evolutionary theory from the public school classroom, to having the federal government mandate the teaching of intelligent design, to 'stacking' municipal, county and state school boards with ID proponents.

So, for example, the movement shirks its duty to provide rigorous testable formulas by critiquing Darwinism. It is common sense that arguments against Darwinism are not arguments for Intelligent Design. This isn’t about common sense, however. It’s about public policy and the lengths to which certain groups will go to drive their agenda.
last edited: 10/26/05 10:45:15 AM”

“Rather than directly address the topic of this thread you have chosen to undermine the conversation with rhetoric that you feel you can't be blamed for… like the way other people treat you.

Which came first? Your passive aggressive behavior, or my retaliation. The answer is clear. You started it.

In fact, the REASON I brought your behavior to attention is because YOU were using that passive aggressiveness to avoid the issues (unless the issue was your point of view).

You are the one engaging in passive aggressive behavior.

Now you just look stupid! LOL! MY behavior is "passive aggressive"? You've got to be kidding! I'm spelling everything out for you. Get real dude. I'm admitting outright that I am retaliating. Nothing passive about that.

Frankly, I don’t care. The term “passive aggressive” was a label dumped on soldiers in the 1940’s. It was used to label soldiers that were not openly insubordinate but also did not do their work. I have no doubt that most people engage in some form of “passive aggressive behavior” as a natural defense mechanism on a daily basis. So in fact it can easily be justified because the term is vague and easily applies to a wide range of behaviors which is exactly what the military wanted it to be when they coined the term.

Regardless of semantics or the historical relevance of the term, you are being passive aggressive, as is often the case. Your weak attempt to draw attention away from that by discussing the history of the phrase is laughable! (I'm pointing my finger and laughing at you - nothing "passive" about that.)”

“You are the one engaging in passive aggressive behavior. - pitts

LOL! I still can't get over that one! OMG!”

“...all of which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Once again you are undermining the discussion by engaging in disruptive behavior, namely redirecting the discussion to be about how people treat you ... something you feel you can't be blamed for.”

“During the second day of his testimony, Behe said, “When you start putting constraints on science, science suffers.” On several occasions, the biochemistry professor compared the scientific community’s resistance to Intelligent Design with the way it shunned the Big Bang theory, which was first proposed by a Belgian priest in 1927.

Students, Behe told the court, deserve the opportunity for exposure to another theory, such as Intelligent Design, so they can “look at the data in a couple of different ways.”

Behe continually hammered on the most oft-repeated criticism of evolution, that it has too many gaps. For example, the Lehigh professor has written extensively about the immune system of vertebrates or things with backbones.

There has been no evidence on how the immune system has evolved, Behe testified. Taking issue with him, Rothschild presented Behe with a binder that contained 58 peer-reviewed articles on the evolution of the immune system and asked him if they represented adequate evidence in support of evolution.

“I’m not confident the immune system arose through Darwinian causes,” Behe responded.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21940”

“To prove, in a scientific sense, a guiding Intelligence in the creation of the Universe is impossible; and in my opinion, not worth trying. The fog of billions and billions of years has made the finding of “hard evidence” unlikely. So, as with pure Evolution (survival of the fittest, etc.) all that is at our disposal are theories, which in reality are only guesses – as well thought out, structured and supported by observation as they may be – they are still only guesses.
So, I would like to consider what kind of trail pure Evolution would leave and what kind of trail an all-encompassing Intelligent guiding force would leave.
I would suggest that pure evolution would be like going up a slippery slope with many more failures and dead ends than has been observed and that there would be many “near misses” in species evolvement and they would be somewhat easy to detect.
I would also suggest that evolution with Itelligence guiding it would go from plateau to plateau just as our own breakthroughs in Science, Manufacturing, Medicine and etc. has – it would be no different.
Plateaus, in many fields and endeavors and evolvement, can be traced back through many millenniums, and not only through written history. So, unless the nature of change itself changed somewhere in the foggy past the means suggest Intelligent Design.”

“...all of which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Once again you are undermining the discussion by engaging in disruptive behavior, namely redirecting the discussion to be about how people treat you ... something you feel you can't be blamed for.


...all of which is in response of you trying to derail this conversation via your passive aggressive behavior as my attempt to put an end to it by drawing attention to the fact that you do it.
last edited: 10/26/05 10:16:00 PM”

“I don't know that I find this approach that objectionable. If what is being proposed is to make a theory ("only guesses") and then to go out and make observations of the “trail” to differentiate theories or to refine their content then this is basically just the established process of the scientific method. The “trail” in this context would simply be a prediction that the theory would make. The prediction being considered here is the number of “failures” the theories predicts should be observed today.

First there is the Theory of Evolution. What I think is being proposed is that the number of "failures" observed versus those that Evolution would predict is inconsistent. Frankly, I don't know the number of "failures" that Evolution predicts. Likewise I don't know the number of observed "failures" or how they are observed (fossil record?). Do you?

Likewise I think what is being proposed is that Intelligent Design describes a process that produces far fewer “failures” and is more consistent with observation. Again, I don’t know how many “failures” Intelligent Design predicts and, as I said earlier, I don’t know how many are observed or how this observation is made. Once again I ask, do you? I would be interested in seeing the formulation for this prediction.

I can tell you that there exists a lot of observational evidence supporting Evolution. I’ll quote a consolidated reference but be warned this is heavy reading in places. At least it was for me. My background is for sure not Biology and my hard science days are 20 years behind me. Here is a link to a place where people can read and review the material:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I would also like to point out that the ‘breakthroughs in Science, Manufacturing, Medicine” throughout human history are wrought with failures and mistakes. Each of these “plateaus” was achieved only after a lot of experimentation and failure. James Burke (historian) made the point that no single advance in technology could be solely attributed to a single inventor. Each technological advance and its complex interaction with human history rode on the back of prior inventors that had little or no idea of the contribution (or lack thereof) that they were making. I guess my point is that it’s easy to look at history in hindsight and say that each plateau was a logical culmination of a series of historical events.”

“James Burke (historian) made the point that no single advance in technology could be solely attributed to a single inventor

except al gore and the internet, right, s-rge? nudge nudge”

“So, unless the nature of change itself changed somewhere in the foggy past the means suggest Intelligent Design.

Total Heaviosity, Dude!”

“unless the nature of change itself changed

I thought about this a lot last night as I was drunk playing the guitar.

The nature of change can be quantified if you look at the role that non-commuting operators play in Quantum Theory. In Quantum Theory wave functions describe the motion and dynamics of particles over time (change). Quantum Theory has an “operator” for each measurable parameter that describes a physical system (position, momentum, the Hamiltonian, angular momentum, etc). Each of these operators defines the “impact” that making such an observation has on the wave function of a particle. Said another way, the change that an observation has on a physical system is represented in Quantum Theory by an operator applied to the wave function that represents that system.

The point here is that the fairly well known Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is really just an expression of a fundamental law of mathematics that defines the properties of what are called non-commuting operators. Non-commuting operators are operators that produce different results based on the order in which they are applied. For example, measuring a particle’s position first and then its momentum would produce a different result than measuring the momentum first and then its position. Measurement of position and measurement of momentum are non-commuting operations… the order in which you perform these operations “changes” the end-result based on the order in which you measure them.

Our ability to observe change in turn is driven by the nature of non-commuting operations and the role they play in Quantum Theory. Buried in here somewhere is the nature of change since our ability to quantify change is dependant on our ability to observe the results of that change.”

“That's funny Phaedrus.

I like how it uses irony to show that (counter clockwise from the top right)

1. The lady is trying to impose on the doctor to kill her baby, yet she's turning it around as if the doctor is preventing her from going down the street.
2. The cartoon itself seems to forget by the end of it what the issue was, teaching a "theory" in schools, but uses the scientist to say how "dumb" the other guy is.
3. Again uses a doctor, except this one is somehow more qualified than the one in (1) to make decisions about killing someone, but the doctor in (1) is not qualified to make the decision not to kill someone.
4. In every case, the non-Christian was trying to impose their belief on the Christian, and the cartoon makes fun of when people do that.

That's great irony there Phaedrus! LOL! Thanks.”

“HARRISBURG, Pa. - A school board member who voted to include "intelligent design" in a high-school biology curriculum testified Friday that she never independently researched the concept and relied on the opinions of two fellow board members to make her decision.

Heather Geesey, a Dover Area School Board member, said she came to believe intelligent design was a scientific theory based on the recommendations of Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham — both members of the board's curriculum committee.

"They said it was a scientific thing," said Geesey, who added that "it wasn't my job" to learn more about intelligent design because she didn't serve on the curriculum committee.

.
.
.
Witold Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the families, noted in his cross-examination of Geesey that the policy was adopted over the objections of Dover High School's science teachers.

"The only people in the school district with a scientific background were opposed to intelligent design ... and you ignored them?" he asked.

"Yes," Geesey said.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9853328/#storyContinued

Jeff and Casey Brown testified that board member Alan Bonsell and the district's supervisor of buildings and grounds were offended by a senior art project that had been hung on the walls of the high school's science wing.

The large mural, a series of plywood sheets painted to depict an ape ascending into a man, had to be removed when the high school was undergoing renovations.

Jeff Brown testified that upon seeing the work that a student donated to the school, Bonsell began "snorting through his nostrils" and said students should not be exposed to the work because "this is not where we came from."

Casey Brown said the supervisor of buildings and grounds later burned the work because he didn't want his granddaughter, who was going to be entering the high school, to see it. Casey Brown's testimony started from memories of a 2002 board retreat when Bonsell, who had been on the board for three months, said he was "concerned with the state of morality" and that prayer and faith should be reintroduced to schools.

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3075731

...That school year, the school district had to put off buying biology textbooks because of a tight budget. The books were already so outdated that they weren't compatible with the curriculum, Casey Brown said.

But when the school board set out to buy the books for the next school year, William Buckingham spurred a movement against the textbooks because they were "laced with Darwinism," Casey Brown testified.

Board members made several "inappropriate" comments at June 2004 meetings, ranging from comments about taking a "stand" for someone who died on a cross to arguing that the separation of church and state is a myth, Casey and Jeff Brown testified.

Jeff Brown testified that when he expressed doubt about the board's apparent religious agenda, William Buckingham accused him of cowardice and said that if Jeff Brown had fought in the American Revolution, "we would still have a queen."

By the last week of July 2004, the board was divided, and William Buckingham had begun rallying for the intelligent design book "Of Pandas and People."

At the next board meeting, William Buckingham told his opposing board members that he and his political allies would vote for the biology textbook if they could also buy the "Pandas" book, Casey Brown said.

But William Buckingham's opponents found enough votes to buy only the biology textbook.

...A frustrated William Buckingham started to collect donations to buy the "Pandas" books, Jeff Brown said.

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3075731

Buckingham, a retired prison supervisor, admitted to the court he had attacked evolution and argued for students to be taught Christianity at various times before the school board adopted its policy.

He acknowledged telling a reporter in June of 2004 "this country was not founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such."

But he denied a report in a local newspaper, the York Daily Record, that he had complained in a school board meeting that "liberals and black robes are taking away the rights of Christians."

Buckingham acknowledged he had collected about $850 from members of his church to pay for about 60 copies of "Of Pandas And People," a textbook provided to students who wanted to learn more about intelligent design.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=uri:2005-10-27T223429Z_01_KRA781228_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-EVOLUTION.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=”

“I have been away for a few days, grandchildren visiting and all, but to get back to the discussion –
Mr “Pitts”, I find nothing to disagree with you about in your 26 October, 2005 posting. Do I know the answer to any of the two questions you asked? No, and would not presume to know. But then, we get to your 27 October, 2005 posting and I have a problem. Not with what you say but where it takes us.
My Grandmother always said, “the world is simple, it is the mind that complicates things”. I never knew what she meant until later in life when I have found that solutions to problems , once found, are simple, and are relatively simple to implement and to use. Once these simple elements of knowledge have been found we can use them to do wondrous things. From, a little bit of infection (vaccination) controls disease to, that by putting a combination of knowledge elements together (mass, gravity, force, acceleration, position location, time/speed/distant, etc.), we can orbit a distant Planet.
“We” have used, that which has turned out to be simple, to develop Hybrid Plants that resist disease and drought and to produce more food for the World than was, in the past, ever thought possible. As a result the peoples in the developed nations have gained in weight, height and life expectancy. Even the Biology of the world has changed. Animals that we domesticate have improved (evolved) and some, that we have cared little about, have disappeared. In other words, in our lifetime, we, and the world our Grandfathers knew, has evolved and to no small degree. I would suggest that evolution is accelerating and that some Intelligence is guiding its path. But then I digress –
The point I am trying to make in all of this is; that if the solution is not relatively simple then the answer has not been found. Take the issue of time. How many means of calculating the age of the Universe are there? Four or more? The last time I bothered to look, the “findings” of the various methods ranged from 11.2 to 20 billion years. Whatever method used the proponents of it have presented the means by which it was determined with a lot of data and supported it with a lot of “scientific jargon”. I believe that the method most in favor at the present time is the Hubble – it only has one small problem and that is it shows that some stars are older that the Universe itself. But what is five or ten billions years, more or less, plus an impossibility or two? What we do know is that the Universe is really, really, old. Maybe even beyond our ability to comprehend. What if our concept of time is wrong? Maybe “Time” does not fit the prevailing concepts. .
That brings us to Microevolution and Macroevolution. Most, unless they are hard core Creationist, have no problem with Microevolution. It is with what is presented as Macroevolution that disagreement arises. It is here that I have problems also. What is presented as Macroevolution primarily concerns itself with the Primal Broth and the evolvement of the creatures and plants of the sea and land up through Mankind. Against the totality of time, this is still Micro.
Would not the proper place to begin a discussion of Macroevolution start with the massing of energy involved in the Big Bang and its nature? Then with the plateaus of evolution that followed; starting with the Big Bang itself? Some of the other plateaus to be considered would be -
- The balanced distribution of Energy/Matter throughout the Universe

- The transformation of the base element formed in the Big Bang into the next element and eventually into all the elements that we are aware of. Gravity also showed up here and it is a interesting force. We know its properties and ratios in simple terms and yet do not know the ultimate cause of this force. Could we also throw in at this point the cessation of elemental change.
- The formation of Galaxies throughout the Universe via the clumping of matter in various sizes, the start of Fusion and the combining of Elements which form new substances – such as water.
- The placement of Planet Earth at the right distance from a right sized Star at the right axial tilt and the creation of all the water that our planet is blessed with. Water, which vaporizes at 212 degrees, contracts when cooled to 39 degrees, then expands
again to some degree and then freezes at 32 degrees but will evaporate at any temperature in between. All of this, together with the land lift and mountains, caused
by Tectonic Plate drift has created a weather system and a circulatory water system
without which life, as we know it, could not exist. (This is a major plateau)

This gets the table set for the start of life – in most peoples minds, other people think it could have began earlier on distant planets. I think it was in 1997 that a rock was found in the Antarctica that is believed to have come from Mars and is believed to contain microscopic structures suggesting a primitive life form. The rock was dated to be about four billion years old. (and you know how good we are at estimating timeJ) We are also searching earnestly for life in distant Galaxies. In my opinion where life is found is a mute point. It is intelligent design that is being discussed. So, back to plateaus –

- The creation of life from non-life and its encapsulation.
Which came first life or encapsulation? I find it difficult to believe that some barren substance had a thought and wrought a transformation. Oh, and what is life? An amoeba is deemed to be alive as it is a free-living cell but a virus is not because it can only exist within another organism. The later definition brings us to the embryo and the womb, but we don’t want to go there.
- The first heartbeat and the tissue to give it purpose.
Did it come before or after the formation of what passed for veins and the
fluid that was pumped?
- The first gestation and delivery.
Why change from what was? For that matter, “why life” at all. The fact that, despite all our efforts, we have found no sign of life in other places of the Universe indicates that there was no “natural” need to.
- The emergence of the Hypothalamus.
Which came first, hormones and cells with their receptors, or the central control point? If the controller was there before the other it had no purpose. If the cells and hormones were first then they operated without control. The Endocrine together with the Nervous system are to the world of mammals what the computer revolution has been to our society. It communicates throughout the body extremely well without any conscious thought or control It operates on parameters passed on through DNA. Is this not a form of intelligence?
- The passing from Cognition* to Reason
Why? If survival of the species and Natural Selection were the only impetus for all that has evolved, then cognition would do as it has with other animals.
*As defined in Webster’s New World Dictionary – 3d edition
“the process of knowing in the broadest sense, including perception, memory and judgment.”

As I pause and look back over what I have written this afternoon I find myself surprised at the amount of words. If I keep going I will end up writing a book and I have no credentials to do so on this subject. I am just a Pilgrim who happened upon this site, read a little, and felt compelled to add my “two cents”. So I am going to end this.
As you can tell from what I have written I firmly believe in Intelligent Design. I also feel that anyone who really considers the plateaus, from the beginning to where we are now, would at least have to give pause.
I think that most people who argue against ID are really arguing against religion and considering all the wars, persecutions, fostered hatreds and atrocities brought about in the name of God I don’t blame them. But in the beginning “God” had no name, it is only when some one found that in “naming and claiming” him there was power to be had that things started to get ugly.
Is there a God? If that is the name being put to the Intelligence that has guided evolution, my answer is yes. But if the question addresses an entity who only wants to direct mankind and in whose name all sorts of atrocities and evils of every sort can be performed and the perpetrators still be blessed and rewarded with Heaven – then my answer is, no.
As I said in my first posting, I believe we are still evolving and are actively participating in this ongoing evolution. Where we are going I don’t know, but I am enjoying the ride. I hope you all are too.
As Grandma said, it isn’t that complicated if you can keep it simple..”

“so, has anybody convinced anyone of anything yet?”

“I'm convinced that we all enjoy an unheardof amount of free speech in this country, and for that I am eternally grateful...now continue with the debate...may it never end!!! I think we can all agree on that?

Happy Halloween all you pagans and Christians alike!”

“may it never end!!! I think we can all agree on that?

no, we cant”