Off Topic. Do not reply to this message

You still haven't given us a good definition of physical reality. If you mean anything "real", then any real thing is by definition physical. That would make angels, God, or just about anything, if real, physical.Let me ask you something. Before observation, what is a particle? What form is it in?What enables particles to either be more wave-like or more particle-like without any exchange of energy?If something has no matter, is it physical?Is a photon purely physical?If from a photon's perspective, we would not measure time nor space, does that mean time and space are not fundamental to physical existence?Can something exist in a state where time and space are not apparent?These are some of the many questions you need to answer if you are going to answer the question on what "physical" means.So have at it. Define physical so we can test things to see if they are indeed just physical or rooted in the physical. Moreover, perhaps the physical part of reality is rooted in the non-physical part of reality. Certainly, we see particles popping in and out of existence and appearing to exist in states that are intrinsincly undefined and in states not apparently from observation as something "physical."This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-01-2005 06:52 PM

Off Topic. Please do not reply to this message

You guys complain that ID is off-topic for science because of the concept of a Designer, maintaining that only "physical" areas are acceptable for science.I call BS on that. You can't define physical any longer based on purely classical principles.If something is real, it is part of reality whether it was called physical or spiritual, natural or super-natural.That's where you guys make a mistake. You assume science cannot deal with the spiritual, but in fact, all spiritual traditions I am aware of believe there are spiritual laws and that the spiritual is closely connected and intertwined with the physical. So per science, the "spiritual" is physical, and the supernatural is natural. It's just a distinct part of reality, a sector of reality, and in fact, QM seems to even deal with what were formerly known as spiritual principles. One aspect of the "spiritual" is invisibility to the naked eye, but somehow connection to energy. Another aspect is connection to consciousness.So it is improper to criticize theories as unscientific simply because they overlap with religion or spiritual traditions.It is unscientific in fact to assert an outdated paradigm of what science is based on a false definition of physical reality, which no one here thus far seems capable of providing anyway.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-02-2005 10:58 AM

Oops, edit to change ...I thought you referred to Michael Ruse. Yea, the whole claim of evolution is as true as 2 plus 2 equals 4 shows how far removed the minds of evolutionists are from real science. It's a shame, but they are not educating people, but indoctrinating them.This message has been edited by randman, 12-31-2005 04:39 PM

It works just the same if you assume ID, creationism or just about anything. In fact, belief in ToE claims has caused harm medically as organs there were not vestigal were claimed as vestigal and useless.

Percy, it's not a potshot at all. Claiming that ToE is as true as 2 plus 2 equals 4 in an educational setting is such a gross overstatement and shows such a bizarre lack of understanding of knowledge, that indeed it shows that Dr Ruse in arguing for evolution has not clue as to what the nature of science is.In math, you can talk of proofs, and 2 plus 2 equaling 4 is not a theory, but a hard fact, something proven.The ToE, no matter how much you guys claim otherwise, is not proven. It is built up from conjecture, and often the data itself is analyzed with such an inherent bias that clear thinking among evos is impossible. If you want me to cite my usual examples of such lack of clear thinking, extremely prevalent for decades among evos both on a professional ane educational level I will.So statements that evolution is as true as 2 plus 2 equals 4 shows an extreme ignorance of the nature of science being more tentative than that, and the nature of evolutionary theory and the evidence and lack thereof supporting it. Evolutuonary theory is just not of the nature that it can be tested with a certainty as arithmetic can.If you guys cannot see that, I suggest something is wrong with your way of thinking about things. Such a gross overstatement should have been spotted immediately by the evos here. If it was not, the situation, in terms of indoctrination, is even worse than I thought.

We remove legs, arms, kidneys and all sorts of thing when we have to. The fact you think merely we can and do remove something as evidence of an organ being vestigal and somehow validates ToE is a completely bizarre concept devoid of rationality, imo.In the past, evos considered a great many organs to be vestigal, including the thymus. Unfortunately, removing something like the thymus is far worse for you than to remove the appendix or tonsils, but then again, losing a leg is not as bad as losing a liver. So the fact some parts are more vital than others still is a very poor argument for advancing evolutionary theory. Heck, there are millions of people that have lost a finger or part of one living normal lives as well. Heck, one of them, Jerry Garcia, was even a pretty good guitar player before he passed away.There are millions without their gall bladders as well. Lots of things go bad and are removed, or removed by accident. Big deal, as far as evo arguments. I think a big problem percy is you guys think your theories are factual when a lot of other people see the propoganda nature of evolutionism. I don't think evos would be in such trouble with the public if they stuck to science and facts, but they have advanced, imo, pseudo-science, and regardless of what you feel, the American people have a right to educate their kids as they see fit.The government and schools are for and by the people, not the other way around. That's something evos would do well to remember. I suspect this case will be similar, but in reverse, to the Scopes-MOnkey trial, a harbinger of times to come....Imo, evos brought it upon themselves with all of the overstatements and hoaxes passed off as facts over the decades. Because of these things, I don't think evolution as a science deserves the respect or trust of the American people.

Well, my stance is teach the contoversy. Show what the critics of evolution say, side by side, with what evos claim.I think, for example, if I was allowed to post a pic of the latest and best illustration of "the first whale", Pakicetus, in a tone pointing out that it isn't a whale at all, that evos would be backtracking all over the country and forced to present sober arguments instead of wild tales and overstatements passed off as facts, and then both evos and non-evos would be better served.That would be real education instead of indoctrination.

You mean if students were subject to evo standards for cladistics, and years of virtual brainwashing, then calling a land mammal with virtually no whale features at all, the first whale, could be something they would accept. So we want the right to maintain our absurd overstatements and propaganda technigues because otherwise they might not buy things we want to teach on top of the initial overstatements and illogic.

Yea, pakicetus resembles a whale like a Model T resembles a Chevy? Like I said, if critics could point out the nonsense you guys teach kids, as evidence, side by side with evo claims, people would be laughing at evos, and they would be forced to rely on sober, measuredm and scientific claims, something evolutionism has thus far never done.

Nuggins, do they even teach the Bible in public school?LOLIt is EXTREMELY TELLING though that you associate teaching the Bible with teaching evolution. I doubt you meant it as a concession that evolution is essentially quasi-religious in nature, but there you go.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what teaching the controversy is. Teaching the controversy is just presenting the truth of what the data says and does not say, and so in this example, we would point out that evos claim this creature as a whale, but in fact:It possesses no whale features.
It is called a whale based on a slightly expanded aural cavity, which can be explained in many various ways.
It is a 4 legged, running, land mammal, with no distinguishing characteristics that separate whales from other whale ancestors.The story of evo claims in respect give one a good idea on how evos use data, first making wild overstatements that Pakicetus was aquatic or semi-aquatic, etc, etc,....

Teaching the controversy is not teaching creationism but teaching what critics say about evolution in order to expose the many myths, mistatements, overstatements and hoaxes that evos rely on to convince people ToE is true.

Sorry. I genuinely thought it was so obvious that it needed no explanation.

Shraf, frankly I assumed Dr Ruse that was quoted in the newspaper article linked to was not Micheal Ruse since I am aware he holds the view that evolution has been presented and at times is, and still has aspects, more indicative of a quasi-religion than hard science. It sounds like you are a little unaware of the things he has written since in some respects he agrees with me, and not you, on evolutionism.But if you think whoever Dr Ruse is, and it may be Michael Ruse, is misquoted, take it up with the press, not me.

OK Mark, list the top 20 distinquishing features of existing, observed whales and explain how Pakicetus shares some of those.Or you can retract your claim?