VASOLINE SHORTAGE EXPECTED AT DARWIN BIRTHDAY BASH.

Sociology > Education > VASOLINE SHORTAGE EXPECTED AT DARWIN BIRTHDAY BASH.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	""
Date:	10 Feb 2006 01:46:54 PM
Object:	VASOLINE SHORTAGE EXPECTED AT DARWIN BIRTHDAY BASH.

<
<
========================
<

== BULLETIN ==

<
<. Pennsylvania News Alliance
<
PHILADELPHIA - The University
of Pennsylvania will celebrate
Charles Darwin's 197th birthday
Sunday with a party and there'll
be no shortage of either candles
or Vasoline.
<
Aside from the birthday cake
and dozens of rear-end collisions
will be an attempt to rally support
for evolution and counter the
"intelligent design" movement.
<
It's one of hundreds of "Darwin
Day" events planned around the
world by physical anthropologists
and other squirmin' vermin who
fear the teaching of the sham
of evolution have re-emphasized
the need to promote Darwin's crap,
even though there isn't a scinitilla
of physical evidence to confirm
it's true.
<

=======================

INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

<
This is the Hubble Telescope's 2004 ultra view photo, one
that was taken of a totally blackened sky as seen through
an EIGHT-FOOT-STRAW. Result: galaxies upon galaxies
upon galaxies, meaning that our universe is far bigger than
we can even begin to fathom.
<
http://www.spacedaily.com/images/hubble-ultradeep-desk-1024.jpg
<

=======================================

<
Ed Conrad

http://www.edconrad.com

<
Man as Old as Coal (with ample evidence to prove it.)
<

======================================

AND WHY ARE THE VERMIN SQUIRMIN'

<
PETRIFIED HUMAN SKULL EMBEDDED IN A BOULDER

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg

ANOTHER PETRIFIED HUMAN SKULL ( WITH EYESOCKETS BROKEN OFF)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
<
WORLD FAMOUS BONE EXPERT WILTON KROGMAN CONFIRMED IT TO BE HUMAN
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/krogwskull.jpg
<
PETRIFIED HUMAN FINGERS (OR A FINGER AND A TOE)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Fossils/FINGERS11.jpg
<
SHOWN DURING EXHIBIT AT MYSTERY PARK IN SWITZERLAND
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix2/MVC-006S.JPG

=======================================================
<

OTHER PETRIFIED SPECIMENS DISCOVERED BETWEEN COAL VEINS

<
PORTION OF A PETRIFIED TIBIA

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg

PETRIFIED HUMAN FRONTAL MANDIBLE
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrifiedx/MVC-002S.JPG

ED CONRAD DISPLAYS PORTION OF A HUMAN MANDIBLE

http://www.edconrad.com/images/zedjaw.jpg
<
HANDCARVED HANDLE FOR TOOL OR WEAPON THAT HAS TURNED TO COAL
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/MVC-009F.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-002S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-004S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
<
GGGGGGGGGREAT-GRANDPA'S MOST IMPORTANT 'TOOL'?
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/pp/MVC-022S.JPG
<
PORTION OF A PETRIFIED GALL BLADDER (CATscan shows gall bladder
inside)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z5gall.jpg
<
PETRIFIED HUMAN LUNG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z9lung.jpg
<
ONE HEMISPHERE OF A PETRIFIED HUMAN BRAIN
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/brain/MVC-001S.JPG

PETRIFIED MOLAR TOOTH
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ID/premolar.jpg

PORTION OF A DINOSAUR FOOT (embedded in coal strata)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
<
PAIR OF GIANT PETRIFIED FETUSES (one embedded in slate)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ID/MVC-013F.JPG
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-002S.JPG
<
PETRIFIED BONE EMBEDDED IN COAL-BEARING STRATA
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ID\MVC-017S.JPG

SEVERAL SPECIMENS OF PETRIFIED BONE EMBEDDED IN ROCK
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FossilsinRock/MVC-007S.JPG
<
PORTION OF A GIANT PREHISTORIC SCORPION
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG

MYSTERIOUS FOSSIL EMBEDDED IN SLATE, NEAR-COUSIN TO COAL
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/coalbones/inslate_mysterious.jpg
<
TWO SPECIMENS OF LEPIDODENDRON, BARK OF A COAL-AGE TREE
(Confirming Carboniferous age of specimens found with them)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-006S.JPG
<
=================================================
<

SOME FAVORABLE STATE-OF-THE-ART SCIENTIFIC TESTING

<
YERKES REGIONAL PRIMATE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/MVC-008S.JPG

AMERICAN MEDICAL LABORATORIES (Chantilly, Va.)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ID\MVC-024S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ID\MVC-002S.JPG
<
"CALCULUS BY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY" ON PETRIFIED PREMOLAR
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/graph.gif
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/result.gif
<
CATSCAN OF CALVARIUM (PORTION OF A HUMAN SKULL)
http://www.edconrad.com/images/catcalv.jpg

SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY (SEM) ON PETRIFIED TIBIA
http://www.edconrad.com/canals/sem.jpg
<
PRESENCE OF HAVERIAN CANALS (PHOTO OF INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF TIBIA)
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/proof1.jpg
<
================================
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: VASOLINE SHORTAGE EXPECTED AT DARWIN BIRTHDAY BASH.	11 Feb 2006 12:59:13 PM

<edconrad@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1139600814.253884.216180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

<
This is the ...

A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the
general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life
evolved, seeking to convince the public, politicians, and cultural leaders
that schools should "teach the controversy." However, there is no such
controversy; the scientific consensus is that life evolved.
The intelligent design controversy centers on three issues:
1. Whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories
of origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer
2. Whether the evidence supports such theories
3. Whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate and legal in public
education
Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge
based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). Intelligent
design proponents seek to change this definition by eliminating
"methodological naturalism" from science and replacing it with what the
leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls
"theistic realism", and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism,"
which means belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality
inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity. Intelligent design
proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain
phenomena, and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and
intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents
say that evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and
specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes.
Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both
evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only
evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs.
Teaching both, intelligent design supporters argue, allows for the
possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually
promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that
"Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in
an attempt to erase theism from public life, and view their work in the
promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central
role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger
debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design,
though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for
the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their
efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.
According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible
scientific case, and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools,
which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause.
They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for
scientific research. Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of
"equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit
to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school
system, including admittedly silly ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster
"theory." There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural
explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a
mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, intelligent design is
neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the
scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design
proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by
experiment."
Even though evolution theory does not explain abiogenesis, the generation of
life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot infer that
an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not
understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything
supernatural has occurred. The inference that an intelligent designer (a god
or an alien life force) created life on Earth has been compared to the a
priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids. In
both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable,
observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor. From a strictly
empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction
techniques, but must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built
the pyramids.
Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered
unscientific or questionable material, and support theistic evolution which
does not conflict with scientific theories. An example is Cardinal Sch�nborn
who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty...
with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory".
-------------------------------------
Defining intelligent design as science
The scientific method is based on an approach known as methodological
naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the
existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. Intelligent design proponents
have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is
even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science to
allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[52] This
presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about
how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as
scientific it must be:
-Consistent (internally and externally)
-Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's
Razor)
-Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
-Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
-Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated
experiments
-Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
-Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
-Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than
asserting certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it
must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are
matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at
all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the
word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that
it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not
falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic,
tentative or progressive.
In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in
September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent
design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific
theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention
of a supernatural agent." And in October 2005 a coalition representing more
than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement
saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to
teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on
every count as a scientific theory."
Intelligent design critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine
does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the
Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be
considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts.
The four Daubert criteria are:
-The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable
predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
-The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
-There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the
results.
-The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific
community.
In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005,
Judge John E. Jones III ruled that "we have addressed the seminal question
of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover
that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents."
-------------------------------------
Peer review
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse, and the
failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands
scrutiny, has weighed against intelligent design being considered valid
science. To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article
published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents claim bias by the
scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be
published. Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent,
conflicts with the naturalistic axiom of science. Proponents believe that
the merit of their writings is rejected for not conforming to purely
naturalistic non-supernatural mechanisms rather than on grounds of their
research not being up to "journal standards". This claim is described as a
conspiracy theory by some scientists.
The issue that the scientific method is based on methodological naturalism
and so does not accept supernatural explanations becomes the sticking point
for intelligent design and is addressed in "The Wedge" strategy as an axiom
of science that must be challenged before intelligent design could be
accepted by the broader scientific community.
The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any
scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this
research is extremely heated, and critics and advocates point to numerous
examples to make their case.
For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery
Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and
religion, says that they asked intelligent design proponents to submit
proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L.
Harper Jr., foundation vice president, said that "From the point of view of
rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come
out very well in our world of scientific review." At the Kitzmiller trial
the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or
testing.
The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a
case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for
having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards. Written by the
Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director Stephen C.
Meyer, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington in August 2004. The article was literature
review, which means that it did not present any new research, but rather
culled quotes and claims from other papers to argue that the Cambrian
explosion could not have happened by naturalistic processes. The choice of
venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so
outside the normal subject matter. (see Sternberg peer review controversy).
In the Kitzmiller trial, intelligent design proponents referenced just one
paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke, that mentioned
neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and that Behe admitted
did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.
Dembski has written that "Perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his
ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving
scientific research program." In a 2001 interview Dembski said that he
stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow
time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.
In sworn testimony at the Kitzmiller trial Behe stated that "there are no
peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported
by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous
accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and,
as summarized by the judge, conceded that there are no peer-reviewed
articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible
complexity. Despite this, the Discovery Institute claims that a number of
intelligent design articles have been published in peer reviewed journals,
including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely
members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no
established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design
article, and that intelligent design proponents have set up their own
journals with "peer review" that consists entirely of intelligent design
supporters which lack rigor.
-------------------------------------
Intelligence as an observable quality
The phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of
an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus
definition. William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence
leaves behind a characteristic signature." Such characteristics of
intelligent agency are assumed to be observable without intelligent design
specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be.
Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from forensics
to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence),
appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable." How this appeal is
made and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics
left largely unaddressed. Seth Shostak, a researcher with the SETI
Institute, refutes Dembski's claim, saying that intelligent design advocates
base their inference on complexity - the argument being that some biological
systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes - while SETI
researchers are looking primarily for artificiality.
Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by proponents are
radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key
elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design
proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without
knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions
(which scientists do know when searching for the results of human
intelligence) as well as denying the very distinction between
natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed
artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.
As a means of criticism, certain skeptics have pointed to a challenge of
intelligent design derived from the study of artificial intelligence. The
criticism is a counter to intelligent design claims about what makes a
design intelligent, namely that "no preprogrammed device can be truly
intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes." In
particular, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed
"intelligence" or creativity of a computer program was determined by the
capabilities given to it by the computer programmer, artificial intelligence
need not be bound to an inflexible system of rules. Rather, if a computer
program can access randomness as a function, this effectively allows for a
flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. Evolutionary algorithms, a
subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence),
have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection
can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are not
explicitly designed by a programmer. Evolutionary algorithms use the
Darwinian metaphor of random mutation, selection and the survival of the
fittest to solve diverse mathematical and scientific problems that are
usually not solvable using conventional methods. Furthermore, forays into
such areas as quantum computing seem to indicate that real probabilistic
functions may be available in the future. Intelligence derived from
randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the "innate" intelligence
associated with biological organisms and poses a challenge to the
intelligent design conception of whence intelligence itself is derived
(namely from a designer). Cognitive science continues to investigate the
nature of intelligence to that end, but the intelligent design community for
the most part seems to be content to rely on the assumption that
intelligence is readily apparent as a fundamental and basic property of
complex systems.
-------------------------------------
Arguments from ignorance
Eugenie Scott with Glenn Branch and other critics have argued that many
points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.
In the argument from ignorance, one claims that the lack of evidence for one
view is evidence for another view. They say that intelligent design is an
argument from ignorance as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its
conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause. They
contend that most scientists would reply that unexplained is not
unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response
than invoking a cause outside of science. Particularly, Michael Behe's
demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of
molecular systems seem to assume a dichotomy where either evolution or
design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution
becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of
living organisms.
They feel many intelligent design concepts could be described in these
terms, especially the neologisms, which they contend are designed to end the
desire for further investigation rather than to serve as the basis of
scientific hypotheses.
This has also been characterized as the "God of the gaps" argument, which
has the following form:
-------------------------------------
There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
The gap is filled with acts of God and therefore proves God.
Scientists state that this argument contributes nothing to scientific
knowledge since it merely answers the question with an explanation as
problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer and
which is ultimately unanswerable and unverifiable.
In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", John Allen
Paulos suggests that the apparent improbability of a given scenario cannot
necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is therefore more
unlikely than any other potential one:
"Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is
dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that
particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd
for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the
probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude
that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very
improbable."
This argument could be seen as a riposte to those advocates of intelligent
design who claim that only a sentient creator could have arranged the
universe in such a way as to be conducive to life. To transpose the "Bridge"
metaphor to the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy: the
probability of life "evolving" rather than having been "created" may appear
unlikely at first sight, but the evidence that this is the case could be
argued to be so widespread, deep, and heavily scrutinized that it would be
illogical to conclude that any other (and arguably less scientifically
compelling) hypothesis should take its place as the primary theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: VASOLINE SHORTAGE EXPECTED AT DARWIN BIRTHDAY BASH.	10 Feb 2006 02:17:56 PM

In article <1139600814.253884.216180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

writes:

<
<
========================
<

== BULLETIN ==

Hey Ed! How come you're not at the Tucson Gem, Mineral,
Fossil, and Bead Show?
-- cary
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: VASOLINE SHORTAGE EXPECTED AT DARWIN BIRTHDAY BASH.	11 Feb 2006 02:22:03 PM

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:17:56 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dsisdk$j0j$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):

In article <1139600814.253884.216180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
edconrad@verizon.net writes:

<
<
========================
<

== BULLETIN ==

Hey Ed! How come you're not at the Tucson Gem, Mineral,
Fossil, and Bead Show?

-- cary

Well, lots of folks aren't going
because of the beads.
Reminds them of genocide as
practiced by their ancestors,
dontchaknow.
++ gray
.

User: "Truth Will Set You Free"
Title: Re: VASOLINE SHORTAGE EXPECTED AT DARWIN BIRTHDAY BASH.	10 Feb 2006 07:17:30 PM

This scam has been going on for a long time, only a moron would fall for it
the idiot tried to sell this crap on Ebay where a certain Casino has become
famous for buying a bunch of this crap at incredible prices, and this guy
thought he could cash in on it
<edconrad@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1139600814.253884.216180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

<
<
========================
<

== BULLETIN ==