Random update
I'm bored. So I update this thing. Life is good but I hate school. I have to go an extra semester, which isn't the end of the world, but it is a pain. I'm getting tired of sitting in Geology lectures as we discuss how old things are supposed to be, while no real proof is presented. We are to assume that because we can fit a plausible scenario to the rocks that that scenario is right. But I can fit plausible scenarios and hypotheses to the same rocks that would have them take much less time to form. They tell us that the Radio-isotope dating is the key, but it just doesn't work. Rocks that we watched form twelve years prior to testing were dated to be between 200,000 years and 2,000,000 years old. If the method doesn't work on rock of known age, how will it work on something we didn't watch form?
I've also been seeing a lot of bashing on Intelligent design recently. First, Intelligent Design is not directly associated with any particular religion. It is a group of scientists who have applied certain scientific principles and find evolution lacking and evidence for an intelligent designer of the universe. The main principle applied is the search for specified complexity. This is a complex order that has some meaning or informational quality. For instance, the Old man of the Mountain in Vermont was an erosional feature that appeared to make a profile of a man's face. This was not specified complexity because the image was not of a specific person, nor would all people even see the face. Mt. Rushmore is an example of specified complexity because a person with the right information can identify each of the faces on the mountain. Because this is the case, we would guess that an intelligent being created Mt. Rushmore while random processes created the Old Man of the Mountain. (and we'd be correct) Intelligent Design scientists argue that because DNA is coded information that can be translated by RNA and carries the blueprint for all the structures of a living thing, it is on of many examples of specified complexity in the natural world. In fact, DNA contains more information in one tiny molecule than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Our smallest, fastest computers are a joke compared to the amount of information storage per unit size of DNA. A simple cell is more complex than the Space Shuttles and work like a miniature city. Calling Intelligent Design subscribers idiots for not playing by the naturalistic rules of present academia is unfounded. They are scientists who are willing to dump the assumptions and look at science from a new angle. But since their ideas would remove the basis for humanists and their religion, they must be ridiculed and scorned in the public eye. And you thought Darwin brought us out of the Dark ages of Science? Bull $&*%%
I've also been seeing a lot of bashing on Intelligent design recently. First, Intelligent Design is not directly associated with any particular religion. It is a group of scientists who have applied certain scientific principles and find evolution lacking and evidence for an intelligent designer of the universe. The main principle applied is the search for specified complexity. This is a complex order that has some meaning or informational quality. For instance, the Old man of the Mountain in Vermont was an erosional feature that appeared to make a profile of a man's face. This was not specified complexity because the image was not of a specific person, nor would all people even see the face. Mt. Rushmore is an example of specified complexity because a person with the right information can identify each of the faces on the mountain. Because this is the case, we would guess that an intelligent being created Mt. Rushmore while random processes created the Old Man of the Mountain. (and we'd be correct) Intelligent Design scientists argue that because DNA is coded information that can be translated by RNA and carries the blueprint for all the structures of a living thing, it is on of many examples of specified complexity in the natural world. In fact, DNA contains more information in one tiny molecule than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Our smallest, fastest computers are a joke compared to the amount of information storage per unit size of DNA. A simple cell is more complex than the Space Shuttles and work like a miniature city. Calling Intelligent Design subscribers idiots for not playing by the naturalistic rules of present academia is unfounded. They are scientists who are willing to dump the assumptions and look at science from a new angle. But since their ideas would remove the basis for humanists and their religion, they must be ridiculed and scorned in the public eye. And you thought Darwin brought us out of the Dark ages of Science? Bull $&*%%