Zogby poll on evolution is released

UPI web site ^ | 7 March 2006 | UPI

[RunningWolf]

I used to be one that saw no or little conflict about toe.

However I changed my mind and that is without a religious experience for it to happen. How is this? I looked and read, spent lots of time in museums and libraries. I read the thesis, the papers.

What did I see? Everything that is called evidence and/or
Scientific fact is in truth one mans ^{times many} interpretation of thing/s

What you call fact Detroit, may in fact be not reality. For science is proved wrong almost daily by new discoveries.

Science is all well and good, but its religious adherents need to step down from their tower of Babel.

Wolf

[Boiler Plate]

Dim,
Actually MATTHEW MAURY got the idea of ocean currents directly from the Bible, so I guess your worldview has been completely shattered. Sorry about that.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[RunningWolf]

//your worldview has been completely shattered//

No that will never happen, for he is god in/of his world I think.

All evidence demanded by and offered for the contrary will be found lacking, or it will not 'be seen'.

Wolf

[Boiler Plate]

Very likely true, however there was once this guy from Tarsus, named Saul and.....

[metmom]

Since you know that, maybe you can tell me where to find this: There's somewhere where the water cycle is described. I don't recall exactly where, it seems to me that it's Job, Psalms, or maybe even Proverbs. I can't recall any thing specifially enough as far as wording that would make doing a search by verse, word, or phrase any help, even if I could get the right version.

[Boiler Plate]

Psalm 8:8; Ecclesiastes 1:6

Here is an article about it

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=20022

and here is the Wilkipedia article

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=20022

[metmom]

Thanks.

'Night.

[RunningWolf]

Wow that is a great wonderful story. Tarsus

I only wish I could be the Saul from Tarsus

Wolf

[AndrewC]

Nice reaction. Where did the benzotriazole come from?

Plus

The two relevant reactants were dissolved in acetonitrile, and transferred into a Pyrex photo reactor immersion well. The solution was degassed for 10-15 minutes by the bubbling of nitrogen through the solution. Irradiation of the solution under a nitrogen atmosphere for the specified length of time was achieved by the use of a 125 W medium pressure mercury discharge lamp. After the reaction was complete, the solvent was removed in vacuo and the resultant crude photoadduct was purified by flash column chromatography using the solvent system stated.

Why do you suppose they degassed the solution?

Finally, for one experiment..

A solution of benzotriazole (2.68 g, 22.5 mmol) and maleimide (0.43 g, 4.43 mmol) in CH3CN (100 ml) was irradiated according to the general photolysis procedure for 16 h. After this time an insoluble brown precipitate had formed, this was collected by suction filtration and washed with EtOAc (2 × 50 ml) to give 2a as a brown solid (0.37 g, 39%; mp 289-290 °C);

2.68 + .43 - .37 = 2.74

Where do you suppose that 2.74 grams went?

[Dimensio]

Actually MATTHEW MAURY got the idea of ocean currents directly from the Bible, so I guess your worldview has been completely shattered.

I have done some research and while I found that Maury derived the inspiration for his study from Psalms, his published work was based upon observation, without introduction of the suggestion of divine intervention. If you have a direct reference that says otherwise, I will hear you out. Thus far, however, my worldview remains intact.

[elfman2]

"It was becoming more and more difficult trying to understand and respond to your unsubstantiated paranoia."

For future reference, it called projection.

[elfman2]

"It was becoming more and more difficult trying to understand and respond to your unsubstantiated paranoia."

For future reference, it's called projection.

[ahayes]

Nice reaction. Where did the benzotriazole come from?

It doesn't matter. The point is to show that light can induce a reaction to produce a more complex molecule. It doesn't matter where the particular reactants in this case comes from, and it doesn't matter if this particular reaction doesn't have quantitative yield. The point is that 1. The argument has been made that the second law of thermodynamics requires that light always break down molecules outside a living system and 2. Actual reality shows this is not true. You're once again shifting the goal posts--first it was "that's impossible," now it's "this particular reaction has crappy yield, especially in the presence of oxygen." Umm . . . different point, and one not half as compelling.

And I don't have to suppose anything, I know. :-D

[Boiler Plate]

EM2,
Look if you feel that you can not talk about God in the science classroom because you are going to be made fun of, then OK, don't do so. As far the rest of us, please don't try and "project" your fears. Anyway here is little something that might help you.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Warmest Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Boiler Plate]

Dim,
The deal was, introducing the "Concept of God" into their work and deriving inspiration would certainly fall under that category. As you know the first part of the scientific method is the hypothesis. Mr. Maury derived his hypothesis from the Psalms, so you might want to be checking on that old worldview there after all.

However if you need some more to chew on there is aways Blaise Pascal. He certainly had a habit of making reference to that God fellow.

In any case you are going to find out for yourself if your "worldview" is correct, as there are only 2 certain things in this life, death and taxes. You have certainly felt the effects of the latter and the former is just around the corner.

All righty it's time to place your "Wager".

Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[elfman2]

"As far the rest of us, please don't try and "project" your fears."

That ridiculous accusation you're reduced to repeating is as pathetic and disingenuous as your “Warmest Regards”. You're not doing yourself any favors.

[Dimensio]

The deal was, introducing the "Concept of God" into their work and deriving inspiration would certainly fall under that category. As you know the first part of the scientific method is the hypothesis.

The issue is not over the inspiration for scientific inquiry, but rather introducing non-scientific concepts into scientific explanations. Mr. Maury engaged in the former, but I see no evidence to suggest that he engaged in the latter.

Mr. Maury derived his hypothesis from the Psalms, so you might want to be checking on that old worldview there after all.

Mr. Maury was inspired to investigate oceanography from a passage in Psalms, however his final theory was based upon actual research and observation, not Biblcal claims. I do not understand the point that you are attempting to make.

In any case you are going to find out for yourself if your "worldview" is correct, as there are only 2 certain things in this life, death and taxes. You have certainly felt the effects of the latter and the former is just around the corner.

Again, I do not understand the purpose of this statement. What is the point that you are trying to make? I do not see how the alleged consequences of a "worldview" are relevant to the discussion.

[Boiler Plate]

EM2,
let's go over some of your fears.

You know the old adage, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”? Introduce divine intervention into science, and it’ll be endlessly ridiculed, student’s interring it into formulas, suggesting it while brain storming, excusing failure with it, etc… Go ahead a put it into Calculus while your at it.

If our adolescents were compelled to go to Purdue where you encountered evangelical excesses, I’d be more concerned, but wouldn’t conclude that two wrongs make a right.

Teaching non-science in science is like marrying homosexuals. It potentially allows anything in, blurring its methods through lack of standards and corrupting its results.


These are simply your own paranoid fears. As the saying goes "even paranoids are right sometimes". Unfortunately for you that is not the case here. You never provided any facts or evidence to back them up. Honestly evangilical excess at Purdue, that really is a little over the top.disingenuous as your “Warmest Regards”.

Who are you to doubt or judge my sincerity? My dear Elfman when I say Warmest Regards I do mean it, otherwise I would not bother replying to you at all, in that I have much better and more profitable things to do.

I would suggest that you spend some time studying just how complex life is and then delve into the problems of randomness accounting for the design of it. My original assertion is that entropy simple disallows complex information systems from forming on their own. No one here can dispute that. the best they can argue is that the earth is not a closed system. The reply is "So what" you still have to have a system in place to organize the energy. A simple anecdote is why does my Mercedes Benz rust? Well, it is entropy. Think about it.

Kindest Regards
Boiler Plate

[Boiler Plate]

Dim,
No I'm sorry, you are wrong. That is only your way of squirming out of it.
Nice try though.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Dimensio]

No I'm sorry, you are wrong.

Please explain how I am wrong.