2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

Probably we need to start another thread to get into the energy side of things. Suffice to support the original point here are the examples of his not being credited at the Smithsonian with designing the Niagra Falls power plant (which was a large exhibit), developing ac/dc electricity system for the power grid we use today, and wireless technology.Tesla did claim to develop the technology, and was in the process of building the system at Wardenclyffe when JP Morgan pulled the plug, for a system of wireless transmission and distribution of power to any point on earth. Many have dismissed the concept based on the mistaken impression he was talking about generating all of the power to be distributed. In fact, what he seems to have been doing was generating the frequencies and power to draw power from what he called the ambient energy or the ether all around us.Tesla did work on a lot of things, and it can be confusing sometimes if you mix up one technology with another, but reading some of his stuff more closely and reading others that looked into his work, I believe he was discussing pulling energy from the vacuum, or said another way, he seems to be talking about manipulating energy waves to resonate and tap into what he claimed were non-Hertzian waves that he claimed were all around us at all times.The non-Hertzian quality and some features suggest to me that he was tapping into vacuum energy and figured out a way to produce a flow from that ambient energy into a usable form in the manipulation of frequencies.

Yaro, already done that before, but it's interesting that you are not being censured for your post by the mods.Behe is one, in terms of an IDer, and as you know full well, there are plenty of scientists that are creationists, including the botany professor at NC State, Gerald Van Dyke, I had mentioned at some length before. He is a YECer.But you knew that already, didn't you?Irregardless, you are now shown to be wrong.Will you apologize for making the unfounded accusation?My suspicion is you won't.edited to correct name spellingThis message has been edited by randman, 09-01-2005 02:14 PM

That's only one part of the question. Which one of those two are currently persuing RESEARCH into ID. What expiriments have they performed, what expirements have they proposed.In other words, what actual science of ID are they currently practicing? No. You didn't answer my question. I bolded the important clause of the question for you.This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-01-2005 02:03 PM

I googled "Gerland Van Dyke" and couldn't find a thing.But let's play the balance game shall we --Gerland Van Dyke (assuming he exists) has X amount of influence on Biological science. His anti-evolution position should therefore be considered as a factor of X.On the otherhand, the POPE has Y amount of influence on Religion. He's Pro-Evolution position should therefore be considered as a factor of Y.You're suggesting that X is greater than Y.Funny, I google the pope and find lots and lots of sites.

Why don't you google their web-pages and then see the research they are currently engaged in for yourself?You juvenile posts in this area are not worth wasting time on since you know full well you are wrong, and that plenty of working scientists are doing research that are IDers and creationists.Or you can look at some of the work on AIG or ICR.Moreover, there is no such thing as ID science or evolution science. It's just science. ID, creationism and ToE are merely interpretations of the data accrued by scientists.

Looked at their sites. More requests for suckers to send money than scientific research.AbE:And ZERO independant replication or peer rebiew at either.This message has been edited by jar, 09-01-2005 01:17 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The topic is public opinion. Maybe we should get back to that.I believe the public has been moved more to want to include alternatives to ToE not because they are mere dupes, but that there are real problems with ToE, especially in the way it is presented.But the point of the thread is not really to debate the merits of ToE, but to discuss the fact that despite the massive funding for ToE proponents, this issue is not going away.

The topic is public opinion. Maybe we should get back to that.I believe the public has been moved more to want to include alternatives to ToE not because they are mere dupes, but that there are real problems with ToE, especially in the way it is presented.But the point of the thread is not really to debate the merits of ToE, but to discuss the fact that despite the massive funding for ToE proponents, this issue is not going away.

I did. All I find are their books promoting their theory. No actual experiments, lab work, field studies, nothing. Just arm chair conjecture. Where is the actual science they are practicing?It really seems to me that Behe is streatching his knowledge of science, into some sort of missguided christian apologetic:Michael Behe - Wikipedia

quote:

---

While promoting his book and theory, his lectures do not include much tangible empirical testing {scientific data} - instead they feature broad generalizations, rhetorical arguments, and mentions of his Christian faith....

---

Oh! Am I wrong? Prove me wrong! I'm gonna give you an absolute statemnt.There are currently NO scientific research projects, being performed by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, being persued in the field of ID/Creationism. Absolutely no experiments have been proposed, no field studies have been done, no credible scientific paperwork has been presented.There is my position. All you gotta show is that there is at least (1) One experiment, field of study, related to ID/Creationism, that is being carried out by legitemet scientists. Using the scientific method. AIG/ICR is a political, propaghanda, evangelizm site. They don't fund scientific work, nor do they promota any. All they do is deride evolution and never persue any actual science work.It is interesting with all the money this oragnization has, that they don't fund any reasearch to support their theories.

Exactly.In a recent poll 80% of Americans got it wrong.Most because they picked (2), which while factually correct, is not the answer to the question or the cause of the apparent rising sun.Amazing eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The VAST majority of the South would rather that history books teach that the South won the Civil war. Doesn't mean it should happen

I must admit, I didn't know the answer off hand. But then again, I can honestly say I have never asked/pondered the question! hehe.Learn something new every day.

Ah this is the matter that caused me to raise my anti-randman shields around the USS Firefox. The crux of it was this - The scientist that Randman mentions (Gerland Van Dyke)goes around christian groups giving talks on his evidence (Randman saw one in the 1980s). He has never (AFAIK) produced any peer-reviewed material on the matter at all.Nothing, nada - this was established at the time, it is therefore rather
disingenuous for Randman to be making statements like:

quote:

---

Why don't you google their web-pages and then see the research they are currently engaged in for yourself?

---

Because in regards to Van Dyke he already knows the answer...This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 02:38 PM

OK, here's some in a creationist peer-reviewed publication. It's a waste of time to try to publish explicit criticism of ToE in evo journals, but some creationists do publish in evo journals, but leave off conclusions critical of ToE. Gentry, for example, published his studies in mainstream journals.The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)I expect a full retraction from you, and if you don't provide it, don't expect me to ever waste my time looking up stuff that you can easily do yourself.This message has been edited by randman, 09-01-2005 02:35 PM

I would guess that the pope has zero (or less) influence on fundamentalist protestant christianity.