[_ Old Earth _] The heart of the matter

[reznwerks]

"Mainstream scientists contend that there's no positive scientific evidence for intelligent design. They say the case for a supernatural designer is purely negative - an unjustified leap into theology to explain holes and uncertainties in evolutionary theory. "


"The only evidence that intelligent design is able to muster is the observation that science has not yet explained everything, and therefore design must be kept around as a default explanation for what is left," said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, R.I.


"There is exactly zero evidence for intelligent design," agreed Douglas Futuyma, a biologist at the State University of New York in Stony Brook. "Design advocates argue by claiming flaws or gaps in evolutionary knowledge or theory, not by any positive evidence whatever for their theory."

------------------------------------------------
Intelligent design leaders take pains to distinguish their position from "creationism" - the belief, based on the biblical book of Genesis, that God created the Earth and its inhabitants in six days 6,000 years ago. Instead, design backers accept that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that life is at least 3 billion years old.
------------------------------------------------
On irreducible complexity:


"The notion of irreducible complexity is nonsense," Miller, the Brown University biologist, responded in his 1999 book, "Finding Darwin's God."


"The mechanism of evolution is real, is observable and is more than adequate to the task," Miller said. "Evolution tinkers, improvises and cobbles together new organs out of old parts."


For example, he said, bacterial flagella evolved from simple tubes used by microbes to inject poisons into other cells. Jawless fish had a primitive blood-clotting system that grew more complicated in fish with jaws and still more complicated in advanced land animals.


"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts, which, while initially just advantageous, become essential," said Allen Orr, a biologist at Rochester University in Rochester, N.Y.


THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION Rebuttal



Mainstream biologists, however, insist that Darwinian evolution can explain the rise of new phyla and species. They say the Cambrian explosion wasn't as abrupt or as inexplicable as the design movement contends.


New evidence shows that relatively complex animals existed as many as 125 million years before the Cambrian period. Fossil embryos 40 million to 55 million years before the Cambrian have recently been discovered in southern China.


Recent studies of DNA sequences in well-dated fossils "set the divergences of these major groups to a time well before the Cambrian," Andrew Cameron, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, reported in the journal Science last year.


"As the fossil record becomes more complete, it sometimes provides the very intermediate forms the nonexistence of which the creationists were willing to predict," Miller said. "Even their favorite gaps are filling up, and the historical record of evolution becomes more compelling with each passing season."


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE Rebuttal

In response, Robert Hazen, a geologist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, said, "We don't have all the answers right now, but there is no evidence that the origin of life is other than a natural process."


In his new book, "Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin," Hazen recounted a host of experiments that attempt to show how chemical evolution might have produced a primitive "proto-cell" from complex organic molecules that were readily available on the early Earth. After that beginning, he said, the cells could have gradually evolved into the enormous range of organisms inhabiting the planet.


Although no one has created life in the laboratory yet, Hazen predicted that someone is likely to succeed in the next 10 to 20 years. That may not be the way it actually happened, but such an experiment would show that life could be created without divine intervention.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12755530.htm

 

[Solo]

1. Fifty-Two Ohio Scientists Endorse Objectivity. On March 20, 2002, representatives of Intelligent Design network, inc. and Science Excellence for All Ohioans issued a press release announcing the following statement signed by 52 Ohio scientists (49 of whom hold doctoral degrees):

“We Affirm:

That biological evolution is an important scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom;

That a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science;

That a science curriculum should help students understand why the subject of biological evolution generates controversy;

That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them; and,

That a science curriculum should encourage critical thinking and informed participation in public discussions about biological origins.

We Oppose:

Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically dedicated to teaching within the discipline of science; and,

The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories of origins.â€Â

Robert E. Bailey, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, Prof. Emeritus Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., M.S., Ph.D., M.S.B.S., M.P.H., Department of Biology, Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio

Christopher Boshkos, M.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine, Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine

Rudolf Brits, Ph.D., Nuclear Chemistry

Henry R. Busby, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Melody L. Davis, Ph.D., Chemistry

Kenneth S. Cada, M.S., Inorganic Chemistry

Gerald P. Chubb, P.E., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation, The Ohio State University

Alfred Ciraldo, M.D., Assistant Professor of Surgery, Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine

Arthur Dalton, M.D., Assistant Professor of Surgery, Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine

Robert DiSilvestro, Ph.D., Biochemistry, Professor, Human Nutrition, The Ohio State University

W. John Durfee, D.V.M., DACLAM, Director, Veterinary Research Resources, Case Western Reserve University Medical School

Leroy Eimers, Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville College

William V. Everson, Ph.D., Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Fellow, Cincinnati, Ohio

John A. Fink, M.D., F.A.C.S., Associate Professor of Surgery, Northeastern Ohio College of Medicine

Mark D. Foster, Ph.D., Chemical Engineering, The University of Akron

Steven Gollmer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Physics, Cedarville College

David H. Ives, Ph.D., Biochemistry, The Ohio State University

Jerry D. Johnson, Ph.D., Diplomat A.B.T., Toxicology

David A. Johnston, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wright State University

Kimberly Kinateder, Ph.D., Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Wright State University

Daniel Kuebler, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Robert Lattimer, Ph.D., Chemistry

Kim Laurell, DDS, MSD, former Assistant Professor of Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State University

Paul Madtes, Jr., Ph.D., Chairman, Biology Department, Mount Vernon Nazarene College

Don Mahan, Ph.D., Professor, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

George F. Martin, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Anatomy and Neuroscience, The Ohio State University

Joseph R. McShannic, M.D., F.A.C.S., Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine

James Menart, Ph.D., Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Wright State University

K. David Monson, Ph.D., Analytical Chemistry

Glen R. Needham, Ph.D., Entomology, The Ohio State University

Ron Neiswander, M.S., Chemistry, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

Gregory Ness, DDS, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Ohio State University

William Notz, Ph.D., Statistics, The Ohio State University

Donal P. O'Mathuna, Ph.D., Professor of Bioethics and Chemistry, Mount Carmel College of Nursing, Columbus

Drazen Petrinec, M.D., F.A.C.S., Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology, Mount Vernon Nazarene College

Dale W. Schaefer, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Cincinnati

Timothy W. Schenz, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry

William Shulaw, DVM, Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University

Richard Slemons, DVM, Ph.D., Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University

Walter L. Starkey, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Mark B. Swanson, Ph.D., Biochemistry

Sherwood G. Talbert, P.E., MSME, Mechanical Engineering

Pavi Thomas, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering

Stanley A. Watson, Ph.D., Cereal Chemistry, Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center, The Ohio State University, Retired

Karl A. Weber, Ph.D., Physical & Theoretical Organic Chemistry

Gerald S. Wegner, Ph.D., B.C.E., Entomology

Jeffrey Weiland, M.D., College of Medicine, The Ohio State University

Mitch Wolff, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wright State University

Patrick H. Young, Ph.D., Chemistry

David Zartman, Ph.D., Genetics & Animal Breeding, The Ohio State University

NOTE:The scientists listed above are from Ohio institutions and companies. In some cases, company policy prohibits them from listing their affiliation here in conjunction with personal and professional opinion.

2. 248 Scientists Express Skepticism of the Claims of Darwinism. The following lists reflect the sentiments of scientists with respect to the claims of Darwinism. The first list consists of 28 Georgia scientists who subscribed to the statement below during September 2002 as the Cobb County School Board was considering the adoption of an objective origins science policy. The second list consists of an additional 127 scientists from around the world who have subscribed from time to time. The third list consists of 93 New Mexico scientists including those from both university and non-university settings. Perusal of these lists reveals that they are composed of highly qualified and distinguished scientists, including members of the National Academy of Science, university professors and research scientists.
The statement subscribed to by these scientists is:

“We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and
natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.â€Â

28 Georgia Scientists
[Source: The Discovery Institute, Seattle, Washington]
Contact: Henry F. Schaefer – (706) 542 – 2067 or James Tumlin – (404) 727 - 2974

1. Gary L. Achtemeier: USDA Forest Service: Director, Southern High-Resolution Modeling Consortium: PhD - Meteorology, Florida State University
2. Wesley D. Allen: University of Georgia: Professor and Senior Research Scientist, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: PhD - Theoretical Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley
3. Richard M. Austin, Jr.: Piedmont College: Associate Professor, Biology and Chair, Natural Sciences
4. John H. Bordelon: Georgia Institute of Technology: Senior Research Engineer, Electrical Engineering: PhD - Electrical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
5. Russell W. Carlson: University of Georgia: Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Technical Director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center
6. Kieran M. Clements: Toccoa Falls College: Assistant Professor, Natural Science: PhD - Entomology, North Carolina State University
7. Leon L. Combs: Kennesaw State University: Professor and Chair, Chemistry and Biochemistry: PhD - Chemical Physics, Louisiana State University
8. Michael A. Covington: University of Georgia: Associate Director, Artificial Intelligence Center: PhD - Linguistics, Yale
9. Cham E. Dallas: University of Georgia: Professor, Pharmaceutics and Biomedical Sciences, and Director, Interdisciplinary Toxicology Program: PhD - Toxicology, University of Texas, Austin
10. Keith S. Delaplane: University of Georgia: Professor, Entomology: PhD - Entomology, Louisiana State University
11. Allison J. Dobson: Georgia Southern University: Assistant Professor, Chemistry: PhD - Chemistry, The Ohio State University
12. Mark D. Geil: Georgia Institute of Technology: Assistant Professor, Applied Physiology: PhD - Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University
13. Warren Gilson: University of Georgia: Extension Dairy Scientist and Associate Professor of Dairy Science: PhD - Dairy Science, The Ohio State University
14. Nolan E. Hertel: Georgia Institute of Technology: Professor, Nuclear and Radiological Engineering and Health Physics: PhD - Nuclear Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
15. Dewey H. Hodges: Georgia Institute of Technology: Professor, Aerospace Engineering: PhD - Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Stanford University
16. Rodney D. Ice: Georgia Institute of Technology: Principle Research Scientist and Adjunct Professor, Nuclear and Radiological Engineering and Health Physics: PhD - Radiological Science, Purdue University
17. Tom McMullen: Georgia Southern University: Associate Professor, History of Science: PhD - History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University
18. J. Carson Meredith: Georgia Institute of Technology: Assistant Professor, Chemical Engineering: PhD - Chemical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
19. Russell S. Peak: Georgia Institute of Technology: Senior Researcher, Engineering Information Systems: PhD - Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
20. S. William Pelletier: University of Georgia: Professor and Director Emeritus, Institute for Natural Products Research: PhD - Organic Chemistry, Cornell University
21. Henry F. Schaefer III: University of Georgia: Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry: PhD - Chemistry, Stanford University: 5 time Nobel Nominee
22. Norman E. Schmidt: Georgia Southern University: Associate Professor, Chemistry: PhD - Chemistry, University of South Carolina
23. Bretta King: Spelman College: Assistant Professor, Chemistry: PhD - Physical Chemistry, Howard University
24. Daniel W. Tedder: Georgia Institute of Technology: Associate Professor, Chemical Engineering: PhD - Chemical Engineering, University of Wisconsin
25. Charles B. Thaxton: Charles University, Prague: Assistant Professor, Natural Sciences: PhD - Chemistry, Iowa State University: Author "The Mystery of Life's Origins"
26. James A. Tumlin: Emory University: Associate Professor, Medicine: MD, University of South Florida
27. Robert W. Wentworth: University of Georgia: Health and Safety Training Coordinator: PhD - Toxicology, University of Georgia
28. Mark G. White: Georgia Institute of Technology: Professor, Chemical Engineering: PhD - Chemical Engineering, Rice University

127 National and International scientists
[Source: The Discovery Institute, Seattle, Washington]
Contact: Rob Crowther – (800) 643.– 4102 x107 - Rob@discovery.org

1. Neal R. Adrian: Principal Investigator, Environmental Science: US Army Research & Development Center: PhD University of Oklahoma, Microbiology
2. Moorad Alexanian: Professor of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington
3. Braxton M. Alfred: Emeritus Professor of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia
4. Michael Atchison: Professor of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School
5. Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, mber
6. Michael Behe: Professor of Biological Science: Lehigh U.
7. David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy - Princeton: Mathematician, Author
8. John Bloom: Assoc. Professor, Physics: Biola U.
9. Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas:
10. William H. Bordeaux: Chair, Department of Natural & Mathematical Science: Huntington College
11. John J. Brejda, : PhD Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
12. Rudolf Brits: PhD Nuclear Chemistry, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
13. Walter Bradley: Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A&M
14. Neil Broom: Assoc. Professor, Chemical & Materials Engineering: U. of Auckland
15. Paul D. Brown: Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada)
16. Donald F. Calbreath: Professor of Chemistry: Whitworth College
17. Shing-Yan Chiu: Professor of Physiology: University of Wisconsin, Madison: PhD Physiology & Biophysics, University of Washington
18. Melody L. Davis: PhD Chemistry, Princeton University
19. Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago
20. William A. Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago:
21. David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U.
22. Robert DiSilvestro: Professor of Human Nutrition: Ohio State University: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A&M.
23. Daniel Dix: Assoc. Professor of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina
24. Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Professor, Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine
25. Lee Ellmers: Professor of Physics & Mathematics: Cedarville University: PhD Physics, Syracuse University
26. Bruce Evans: Assoc. Professor of Biology: Huntington College
27. William V. Everson: Research Fellow: Oak Ridge Institute for Science & Education: PhD Human Physiology, Penn State College of Medicine
28. Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute
29. Clarence Fouche: Professor of Biology: Virginia Intermont College
30. Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Professor of Biology: Cedarville U.
31. Marvin Fritzler: Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School
32. Mark E. Fuller: Research Scientist: Envirogen Inc.: PhD Microbiology, University of California, Davis
33. Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.
34. Chris Grace: Assoc. Professor of Psychology: Biola U.
35. James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm
36. James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Professor: U. of Kansas Medical Center
37. James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U.
38. William S. Harris: PhD Professor of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City
39. Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois
40. Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan
41. Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK
42. Cornelius G. Hunter: PhD Biophysics, University of Illinois: Author: "Darwin's God"
43. Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences
44. David H. Ives: Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry: Ohio State University: PhD Physiological Chemistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
45. Tony Jelsma: Professor of Biology: Dordt College
46. Fred L. Johnson: Project Leader in Clinical Research: Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: PhD Pathology, Vanderbilt University
47. Jerry D. Johnson: Senior Toxicologist: Battelle Institute: PhD Pharmacology & Toxicology, Purdue University
48. Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Professor of Physics: U. of Idaho
49. James Keesling: Professor of Mathematics: U. of Florida
50. Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U.
51. Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U.
52. James Keener: Professor of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah
53. Douglas L. Keil: Engineering Manager: Lam Research Corporation: PhD Plasma Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison
54. Dean Kenyon: Professor Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U.
55. Michael G. Kinnaird: Director of R & D: Chemtek, Inc.: PhD Organic Chemistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
56. Daniel Kuebler: Asst. Professor of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville
57. Paul Kuld: Assoc. Professor, Biological Science: Biola U.
58. Heather G. Kuruvilla: Assitant Professor of Biology: Cedarville University: PhD Biological Sciences, S.U.N.Y at Buffalo
59. Carl Koval: Professor, Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder
60. Robert Lattimer: Senior R&D Associate: Noveon Inc.: PhD Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence
61. George Lebo: Assoc. Professor of Astronomy: U. of Florida
62. Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Professor of Surgery: U. of Washington
63. Matti Lesola: Professor, Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology
64. Lane P. Lester: Professor of Biology: Emmanuel College: PhD Genetics, Purdue University
65. Peter Line: Research Officer, Brain Sciences Institute: Swinburne University of Tech: PhD Neuroscience, Swinburne U. of Tech, Australia
66. Alan H. Linton: Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology: University of Bristol
67. Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor
68. Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.
69. Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley
70. Donald C. Mahan: Professor of Animal Nutrition: Ohio State University:
71. Robert J. Marks: Professor of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington
72. Andy McIntosh: Full Professor, Department of Thermodynamics: University of Leeds
73. Tony Mega: Assoc. Professor of Chemistry: Whitworth College
74. Brian J. Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U.
75. Thomas Milner: Asst. Professor of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin
76. Gordon Mills,: Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry: University of Texas, Medical Branch: PhD Biochemistry, University of Michigan
77. Forrest M. Mims: Researcher, Atmospheric & Aerobiological Sciences: Geronimo Creek Observatory:
78. Scott Minnich: Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Idaho
79. Lennart Moller: Professor of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm
80. Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.
81. Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)
82. David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U.
83. Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Professor of Psychology: Simpson College
84. Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U.
85. William Notz: Professor of Statistics: Ohio State University: PhD Statistics, Cornell University
86. Hugh Nutley: Professor Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U.
87. Yongsoon Park: PhD Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City
88. Darrell R. Parnell: PhD University Level Science Education, Kansas State University
89. Rafe Payne: Professor & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U.
90. Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute
91. Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Professor Computer Science: M.I.T.
92. Martin Poenie: Assoc. Professor of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin
93. Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
94. David Prentice: Professor, Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U.
95. Pattle Pun: Professor of Biology: Wheaton College
96. William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U.
97. Georgia Purdom: PhD Molecular Genetics, Ohio State University
98. Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U.
99. Dan W. Reynolds: Research Investigator: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals: PhD Organic Chemistry, University of Texas, Austin
100. Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
101. Thomas Saleska: Professor of Biology: Concordia U.
102. Phillip Savage: Professor of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan
103. Dale Schaefer: PhD Physical Chemistry, Massachusets Institute of Technology
104. Siegfried Scherer: Professor of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen
105. Ralph W. Seelke: Professor & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior
106. Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis
107. Fred Sigworth: Professor of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U.
108. Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Professor Of Chemistry: NAS member
109. Fred Skiff: Professor of Physics: U. of Iowa
110. Ken Smith: Professor of Mathematics: Central Michigan U.
111. Robert W. Smith: Professor of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha
112. Wolfgang Smith: Professor Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U.
113. Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U.
114. Walt Stangl: Assoc. Professor of Mathematics: Biola U.
115. Richard Sternberg: Postdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute
116. Mark B. Swanson: PhD Biochemistry, University of Illinois
117. Frank Tipler: Professor of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U.
118. James Tour: Chao Professor of Chemistry: Rice U.
119. Royal Truman: PhD Organic Chemistry, Michigan State University
120. Vincente Villa: Professor of Biology: Southwestern U.
121. Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Professor of Biology: Belhaven College
122. Todd Watson: Asst. Professor of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U.
123. Gerald S. Wegner: PhD Entomology, Loyola University
124. Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley:
125. John William Worraker: Senior Software Development Engineer: Hyprotech Uk Ltd.: PhD Applied Mathematics, University of Bristol
126. Patrick H. Young: PhD Chemistry, Ohio University
127. Henry Zuill: Emeritus Professor of Biology: Union College

93 New Mexico scientists
[Source: The Intelligent Design Network of New Mexico]
Contact: Joe Renick (505) 565 – 0137 - nmidnet@prodigy.net
1. Charlotte R. Abbink: Assoc. Prof. Emeritus, U. of New Mexico, College of Nursing
2. Russell Abbink: MS EE, U of Nebraska
3. Marc Apkarian: MS Exercise Physiology, San Diego State Univ.; PhD student in Exercise Physiology, UNM
4. Daniel W. Barnette: non-university scientist; PhD Aeronautics/Astronautic, Stanford Unviersity
5. John Baumgardner: PhD, non-university scientist
6. Anthony Bentley: non-university scientist; MS EE, UC Davis
7. J. Douglas Bentley: non-university scientist; MS EE, Arizona State University
8. Nathan E. Bixler: PhD, Chem. E., U. of Minnesota; non-university scientist
9. Gage Blackstone: Doctor of Vet. Med., Texas A&M University
10. Beatrice J. Burchfield: MS Physics and Mathematics, U. Wisconsin and U of Ill.
11. Edward L. Burgess, PhD Engineeering; non-university scientist and University of California (Ret)
12. Donald L. Burwell: MS Nuclear Science and Eng, Carnegie Mellon University
13. Robert S. Chambers: non-university scientist; PhD Engineering Mechanics, University of Texas at Austin
14. Wu-Ching Cheng: non-university scientist; MS Chem Eng.,Cornell Unviersity
15. Rick Cole: MS Science Education, New Mexico Tech.
16. Cecilia M. Colucci: MSE, Industrial and Management Systems Eng., Arizona State University
17. Harold Delaney: PhD, Professor, Dept. of Psychology, U. of New Mexico
18. Ginger De Marquis: non-university scientist
19. Mark De Spain: non-university scientist; MS EE, University of Portland
20. Gary A. Dilts: non-university scientist; PhD Mathematical Physics, U. of Colorado
21. Clark Dohrmann: PhD ME, Ohio State University
22. John R. Doughty: PhD Aerospace & Mech. Eng., Univer. Of Arizona (Ret)
23. Timothy J. Draelos: non-university scientist; PhD EE UNM
24. Virgil S. Dugan: non-university scientist
25. Kevin Eklund: non-university scientist
26. Michael W. Edenburn: non-university scientist; BS ME, University of New Mexico; MS ME University of Minnesota, Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA
27. Dale Erickson: MD Ind. University School of Medicine; Director Long Term Care, Presbyterian Hospital
28. Sue A. Erickson: PhD Health Education, U. of New Mexico
29. Paul Faculjak: MS Statistics, U of NM
30. Malcolm R. Fisher: MS. EE, U of NM
31. Charles B. Fite: non-university scientist; MS EE, U. of New Mexico
32. Daniel R. Galassini: Doctor of Vet. Med., Kansas State University
33. John C. Garth: PhD Physics, University of Ill, Champaign-Urbana
34. Jacquie Gladwell, MD; UNM School of Medicine
35. Daryl W. Grunau: non-university scientist systems engineer, PhD Mathematics, Colorado State University
36. G. Ron Hadley: non-university scientist; PhD Physics, Iowa State University
37. Kelly D. Hammett: PhD, Aeronautical Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology
38. Terry Hardin: MS EE, U. of New Mexico
39. Paul E. Hausgen: PhD Mech. Eng., Georgia Inst. of Tech.
40. Vern Hershberger: UNM; MS Haz. Waste/Material Mgmt Tech., Ariz. State Univ.
41. Terry Hinnerichs: non-university scientist; PhD Aeronautical Eng., US Air Force Institute of Tech., Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton Ohio
42. Todd N. Hinnerichs: MS Mech. Eng., UNM
43. Roy Holt: non-university scientist; MS Physics, Univeristy of Missouri, Kansas City
44. Fred James: non-university scientist; MS EE, UNM
45. Rondall E. Jones: non-university scientist; PhD Mathematics, U. of New Mexico
46. Jeanette Keenan: MS, Nursing, Yale University
47. Rebecca Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chem., University of New Mexico
48. David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chem., U. of New Mexico
49. Michael S. Kent: PhD, Chem. Eng. University of Minnesota, Research Scientist; non-university scientist
50. R. Barry King: Prof. of Envir. Safety and Health, Albq. Tech. Vocational Institiute, Adjunct Faculty, U of New Mexico, College of Eng., Adjunt Fac. College of Santa Fe, Chem and Environ Sci.; MS Marine and Environ. Biology, U. of Houston
51. Scott E. Klenke: non-university scientist; MS Mech. Eng., Arizona State University
52. Teresa Larranaga: PhD Pharmacy, U. of NM; Currently at Presbyterian Hospital
53. Roger Lenard: non-university scientist; MS Chem. Phys., Univ. of Puget Sound
54. Donald R. Locker: MS Physics, U. of Washington
55. Jeffrey Mahn: non-university scientist; MS Nuclear Eng., University of Michigan
56. John Martin: MD. U of NM School of Medicine, Assistant Clinical Professor, Lovelace Medical Center/University of NM School of Medicine
57. Ana Martinez: non-university scientist; PhD EE, U. of New Mexico
58. Shelley Nuttal Martinez: MS Information Systems, Univ. of Miami, (Fl)
59. Linda M. McClanahan: MS Exercise Physiology, UNM
60. Michael B. McLean: non-university scientist; MS ME, Naval Posotgraduate School, Monterey, CA
61. William H. McCulloch: PhD in ME, Texas Tech University; non-university scientist (ret.)
62. David K. Mehne: MD, U. of Arizona, Orthopedic Residency Martin Luther King Hospital, Los Angeles; Fellowship Adult Reconstruction (sub-Specialty), University of Southern California
63. Robert D. Moyer: MS EE, UNM; DMTS, non-university scientist
64. David Noble: non-university scientist; PhD ME, Fluid Dynamics, U of Illinois
65. Meiring Nortier: non-university scientist; PhD Nuclear Physics, Univ. of Stellenbosch, South Africa
66. Paul D. Price: MS Environ. Eng., NJ Institute of Tech.
67. Ronald H. Price: non-university scientist; MS. Geology, Texas A&M University
68. Harvey Ogden: non-university scientist; MA Mathematics, Univ. of Montana
69. Jeff B. Ogden: MS EE, U. of New Mexico
70. John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of New Mexico
71. Philip R. Page: non-university scientist; PhD Theoretical Elementary Particle Physics, University of Oxford, ,UK
72. William Powers: non-university scientist; PhD Physics, U. of Calif. San Diego
73. Joseph D. Renick: MS ME, Arizona State University, Research Scientist, Aerospace Defense Contractor
74. Mark. Rodriguez: non-university scientist; PhD Materials Science (Ceramics), Alfred University
75. Joe Sciabica: BS ChE University of California at Santa Barbara; MS SM University of Southern California; MS National Security Policy - National War College, Air Force Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate
76. Bernd R. Schlei: non-university scientist; PhD Ultra-relativistic Heavy-ion Physics, University of Marburg, Germany
77. W. Kent Schubert: non-university scientist; PhD Physics, Iowa State
78. Robert C. Siegrist: MS. MIS, Golden Gate University, CA
79. Mark F. Smith: non-university scientist; PhD Metallurgy, Iowa State University
80. Chris Stageman: MS Geology, New Mexico State
81. Patricia Stephens: MS Nursing, UC San Francisco; Associate Dean of Health Occupations, Albq. Technical Vocation Institute
82. Darrin Talley: non-university scientist
83. John Torczynski: PhD, Applied Physics with minor in Applied Mathematics, California Institute of Technology; non-university scientist
84. Nathan Tumlison: MS Physical Therapy, U. of Central Arkansas
85. Bryan M. Wayne, MD: U. of Texas Health Science Center
86. Douglas R. Weiss: non-university scientist; MS EE, University of Nebraska
87. Joe Vigil: non-university scientist; MS Engineering, U. of New Mexico
88. Joe R. Weatherby: non-university scientist, PhD ME, Texas A&M University
89. Linda Walkup: PhD Molecular genetics, Univ. of New Mexico Medical School, Lecturer on Molecular Genetic Issues
90. Pharis E. Williams: Retired from New Mexico Tech., MS Physics, US Naval Richard Harris: MS ME, U of Michigan
91. Christopher K. Wojahn: non-university scientist; MS EE, U of NM
92. Graham Yelton: non-university scientist; MS Chem Eng., UNM

Retrieved from http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org ... nPolls.pdf

 

[Vic C.]

:puppydogeyes:

You two owe me a new scroll mouse.

 

[Solo]

:puppydogeyes:

You two owe me a new scroll mouse.

Sorry Vic. Sometimes general statements that point towards undocumented statements that suggest all scientists are pro-evolution need visuals to manifest untruths. It appears that three states have scientists that have come out of the silent majority to express their doubts on evolution with some being pro-intelligent design.

These names are of 300 scientists from Ohio, Georgia, New Mexico, and others around the world, that doubt darwinism and the claims of the natural selection crowd. Imagine how many more if the remaining 47 states were polled how many there would be.

 

[reznwerks]

following

[

Robert E. Bailey, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, Prof. Emeritus Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University..........

You should also be aware that although the list appears to be large the vast majority of scientists do not believe that ID should be taught alongside evolutionary science. Again those scientists you posted ARE NOT qualified to render a point of view on the matter since they are not schooled in the disiplines of evolutionary science no matter how sincere they may be.

 

[reznwerks]

count

[

These names are of 300 scientists from Ohio, Georgia, New Mexico, and others around the world, that doubt darwinism and the claims of the natural selection crowd. Imagine how many more if the remaining 47 states were polled how many there would be.

You see this is where ID 'rs (that was funny) try to be dishonest and point to numbers as somehow a confirmation of dissent in the scientific community. As I said or rather as the poll numbers have confirmed 98% of those who study the matter accept evolutionary disiplines as fact. If"300" represent those (even though they are not qualified) that think ID should be taught my list would include the
29,100 scientists who think it should not. There is not ground swell for teaching ID by anyone who knows better. Not having an answer to questions does not mean GOD did it. Even though evolutionary science lacks some explanations who can answer it with "God did it" without any proof that a God exists and then you have to show Gods intent. You have your work cut out for you it seems. Evolution does not demand you believe in something. It only demands you look at the evidence presented. A belief system is quite the opposite. If ID had any credibility it should be able to show some evidence. It doesn't. The best it can do is question results but so far it fails to show any error in what is found.

 

[Solo]

Re: following

[

Robert E. Bailey, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, Prof. Emeritus Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University..........

You should also be aware that although the list appears to be large the vast majority of scientists do not believe that ID should be taught alongside evolutionary science. Again those scientists you posted ARE NOT qualified to render a point of view on the matter since they are not schooled in the disiplines of evolutionary science no matter how sincere they may be.

Your opinion. A typical response from a pro-evolutionist who thinks that only evolutionists have an opinion or understanding against the pseudo-science of evolution. Very boring Rez.

 

[Solo]

Re: count

[

These names are of 300 scientists from Ohio, Georgia, New Mexico, and others around the world, that doubt darwinism and the claims of the natural selection crowd. Imagine how many more if the remaining 47 states were polled how many there would be.

You see this is where ID 'rs (that was funny) try to be dishonest and point to numbers as somehow a confirmation of dissent in the scientific community. As I said or rather as the poll numbers have confirmed 98% of those who study the matter accept evolutionary disiplines as fact. If"300" represent those (even though they are not qualified) that think ID should be taught my list would include the
29,100 scientists who think it should not. There is not ground swell for teaching ID by anyone who knows better. Not having an answer to questions does not mean GOD did it. Even though evolutionary science lacks some explanations who can answer it with "God did it" without any proof that a God exists and then you have to show Gods intent. You have your work cut out for you it seems. Evolution does not demand you believe in something. It only demands you look at the evidence presented. A belief system is quite the opposite. If ID had any credibility it should be able to show some evidence. It doesn't. The best it can do is question results but so far it fails to show any error in what is found.

I have the proof of creation by God almighty, and I know 100% for sure that evolution is a scheme of flagrant false doctrines of the humanistic ideology. Some believe that man has all of the answers and others believe that God has all of the answers. I know that man is a liar, and that God has never lied nor can he lie. God has shown himself to me, and he obviously hasn't shown himself to you. Perhaps you are one that is a vessel of dishonor made for the purpose that you are currently serving. There are vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor meet for the purpose of the creator. Does the pot tell the potter how he should be made, and what the potter should do? No, that is not how a created vessel responds to his creator. Whether the vessel knows it or not, there is a potter that made him.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:14-24

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
2 Timothy 2:19-21

More scientists adhere to the evolution scheme of origins of man with less scientists believing in a creator. I would suspect that that aligns with the truth of the Word of God whereby the path of destruction is broad and wide is the gate therein, and many travel there; while strait is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to eternal life and few there are that find it. You have been shown the truth in the creation, in the Word, and in the warnings that many, many have shared with you. I suspect that you will either submit to the Lord one day, or remain on the path to destruction.


13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14

 

[reznwerks]

Re: count

[

These names are of 300 scientists from Ohio, Georgia, New Mexico, and others around the world, that doubt darwinism and the claims of the natural selection crowd. Imagine how many more if the remaining 47 states were polled how many there would be.

You see this is where ID 'rs (that was funny) try to be dishonest and point to numbers as somehow a confirmation of dissent in the scientific community. As I said or rather as the poll numbers have confirmed 98% of those who study the matter accept evolutionary disiplines as fact. If"300" represent those (even though they are not qualified) that think ID should be taught my list would include the
29,100 scientists who think it should not. There is not ground swell for teaching ID by anyone who knows better. Not having an answer to questions does not mean GOD did it. Even though evolutionary science lacks some explanations who can answer it with "God did it" without any proof that a God exists and then you have to show Gods intent. You have your work cut out for you it seems. Evolution does not demand you believe in something. It only demands you look at the evidence presented. A belief system is quite the opposite. If ID had any credibility it should be able to show some evidence. It doesn't. The best it can do is question results but so far it fails to show any error in what is found.

I have the proof of creation by God almighty, and I know 100% for sure that evolution is a scheme of flagrant false doctrines of the humanistic ideology.
What part of "facts and evidence" don't you understand?


Some believe that man has all of the answers and others believe that God has all of the answers.
I know that man is a liar, and that God has never lied nor can he lie.
Gods existance is in doubt. The book supposedly written by God or inspired by God is full of errors and contradictions. You can deny it till you are blue in the face but the evidence is glaring.

God has shown himself to me, and he obviously hasn't shown himself to you.
You are correct. However if he has shown himself to you then you should be able to prove it. You should have been given some insightful info that can nowhere else be found or something like that. Many make the claim you are now making but they are sure to take their meds on a regular basis.

Perhaps you are one that is a vessel of dishonor made for the purpose that you are currently serving. There are vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor meet for the purpose of the creator.
If there is a creator and I am a vessel working on his behalf then my purpose here is to enlighten you all. You have been misled and the creator wants you to know the truth.

Does the pot tell the potter how he should be made, and what the potter should do? No, that is not how a created vessel responds to his creator. Whether the vessel knows it or not, there is a potter that made him.
Are you implying knowledge to a pot? If so , why? Lets use your logic on this. How can a creator get created? You really can't just say God always was because this is a lazy escape from reality. If you want to just continue to argue God always was lets just say life always was and be done with it?

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:14-24
Where has God ever shown mercy or compassion? Please use scripture and don't use the example of God giving his son for sacrafice. I have blown that idea out of the water several times.

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
2 Timothy 2:19-21
Pulling verse out of the bible doesn't help your position at all. The bible is not a textbook and no one treats it as such.

More scientists adhere to the evolution scheme of origins of man with less scientists believing in a creator. I would suspect that that aligns with the truth of the Word of God whereby the path of destruction is broad and wide is the gate therein, and many travel there; while strait is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to eternal life and few there are that find it. You have been shown the truth in the creation, in the Word, and in the warnings that many, many have shared with you. I suspect that you will either submit to the Lord one day, or remain on the path to destruction.
There is no destruction and the Lords day is not coming. Jesus said he was coming back shortly and plainly said some would not die before he came back. The apostles believed it. How could they have been so wrong? What makes you think you know more than them? If they were wrong the odds are better than 50/50 that you are wrong as well.


13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14
Believing without evidence is called gullibility. I can't believe the creator of the universe would value such a quality in those he supposedly created.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: following

[

Robert E. Bailey, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, Prof. Emeritus Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University..........

You should also be aware that although the list appears to be large the vast majority of scientists do not believe that ID should be taught alongside evolutionary science. Again those scientists you posted ARE NOT qualified to render a point of view on the matter since they are not schooled in the disiplines of evolutionary science no matter how sincere they may be.

Your opinion. A typical response from a pro-evolutionist who thinks that only evolutionists have an opinion or understanding against the pseudo-science of evolution. Very boring Rez.

Would a plumber comment on the skills of an auto mechanic? Nuff said?

 

[Solo]

Re: count

I have the proof of creation by God almighty, and I know 100% for sure that evolution is a scheme of flagrant false doctrines of the humanistic ideology.

What part of "facts and evidence" don't you understand?

The facts and evidence transcends your physical realm and you are blind to its existence, but don't loose hope because even the staunchest of atheists have become believers; Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell for a couple.

Some believe that man has all of the answers and others believe that God has all of the answers.
I know that man is a liar, and that God has never lied nor can he lie.

Gods existence is in doubt. The book supposedly written by God or inspired by God is full of errors and contradictions. You can deny it till you are blue in the face but the evidence is glaring.

God's existence is in doubt with a small minority of unbelievers. The Bible has withstood the test of time for thousands of years; many more years than you or your book of beliefs. You have no glaring evidence of contradictions of the Bible that declare you are a sinner in need of a savior; and that God has provided a savior for all who believe in Him. End of story, your position is lacking.

God has shown himself to me, and he obviously hasn't shown himself to you.

You are correct. However if he has shown himself to you then you should be able to prove it. You should have been given some insightful info that can nowhere else be found or something like that. Many make the claim you are now making but they are sure to take their meds on a regular basis.

I am correct. God has proven himself to me, and I have no responsibility to prove anything to you. For all I know, you will die a child of the devil, rejecting the free gift of salvation for the mere short spell that you will reside in the flesh. You must prove God for yourself. When he comes to you inviting you to believe in him, then your choice will seal your eternal fate. I do not need medications on a regular basis. In fact I am one who is against taking drugs except for antibiotics, aspirin, and some pain pills when necessary.

Perhaps you are one that is a vessel of dishonor made for the purpose that you are currently serving. There are vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor meet for the purpose of the creator.

If there is a creator and I am a vessel working on his behalf then my purpose here is to enlighten you all. You have been misled and the creator wants you to know the truth.

Oh, you misread the meaning Rez, you are not working in God's behalf; you are just showing his word to be true. God is true and man is a liar. You are proving in yourself that God is true. Psalms and Proverbs say a lot with the following verses, and you are exhibiting the truth of it. Hopefully these verses will bring you to the point of self-examination whereby you will believe in Jesus Christ and reject the name of fool.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14:1

The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.
Proverbs 10:8

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. Proverbs 12:15

A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident. Proverbs 14:16

A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.
Proverbs 18:6

A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul.
Proverbs 18:7

Does the pot tell the potter how he should be made, and what the potter should do? No, that is not how a created vessel responds to his creator. Whether the vessel knows it or not, there is a potter that made him.

Are you implying knowledge to a pot? If so , why? Lets use your logic on this. How can a creator get created? You really can't just say God always was because this is a lazy escape from reality. If you want to just continue to argue God always was lets just say life always was and be done with it?

Name one thing that man has created from nothing. Man has never created anything that was created. He who created has no beginning or end, and he created time, space, and matter. Now you the vessel are going question his existence when you don't even know your own?

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:14-24

Where has God ever shown mercy or compassion? Please use scripture and don't use the example of God giving his son for sacrafice. I have blown that idea out of the water several times.

Once again you show your ignorance to the things of God and what mercy and compassion he has provided his creation. Perhaps you have been shown mercy and compassion because he has not required your life yet.

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
2 Timothy 2:19-21

Pulling verse out of the bible doesn't help your position at all. The bible is not a textbook and no one treats it as such.

The Bible is the Word of God, and has withstood the test of time longer than any textbook that is available today. Your lack of respect for the Word of God is your undoing. Of course, you have shown your abilities in your posts.

More scientists adhere to the evolution scheme of origins of man with less scientists believing in a creator. I would suspect that that aligns with the truth of the Word of God whereby the path of destruction is broad and wide is the gate therein, and many travel there; while strait is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to eternal life and few there are that find it. You have been shown the truth in the creation, in the Word, and in the warnings that many, many have shared with you. I suspect that you will either submit to the Lord one day, or remain on the path to destruction.

There is no destruction and the Lords day is not coming. Jesus said he was coming back shortly and plainly said some would not die before he came back. The apostles believed it. How could they have been so wrong? What makes you think you know more than them? If they were wrong the odds are better than 50/50 that you are wrong as well.

I am surprised that an evolutionist proponent such as yourself believing in a billion year old environment would think that 2000 years was not short. Many have not died since Jesus resurrection. They have eternal life after believing in him. A believer's inward new birth creation goes to be with Jesus as the body is buried in the earth. The redemption of the body will occur when Jesus returns.

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14

Believing without evidence is called gullibility. I can't believe the creator of the universe would value such a quality in those he supposedly created.

I have the evidence, and many believers were given the evidence at their rebirth experience. God came to them and they believed. I used to be gullible when I thought that I was ok without God, and I had no evidence to support that belief. You do not have any evidence to support that you will be ok without God either. I guess you are as gullible as I was.

 

[Solo]

Re: following

[

Robert E. Bailey, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, Prof. Emeritus Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University..........

You should also be aware that although the list appears to be large the vast majority of scientists do not believe that ID should be taught alongside evolutionary science. Again those scientists you posted ARE NOT qualified to render a point of view on the matter since they are not schooled in the disiplines of evolutionary science no matter how sincere they may be.

Your opinion. A typical response from a pro-evolutionist who thinks that only evolutionists have an opinion or understanding against the pseudo-science of evolution. Very boring Rez.

Would a plumber comment on the skills of an auto mechanic? Nuff said?

If the auto mechanic was incompetant in the field, and the plumber was aware of the lacking of the skills required to fix an auto, he would comment. You can bet your beatle that he would. Nuff said!

 

[itoldyounoalready]

Hey Solo,I see it's another post of the late night owls.Ijust wanted to add the fact about the golden ratio , it's just to orderly to be accounted for in evolution, and it's actuall true if you measure anything naturally made from the middle section, to the whole part the proportion can be expressed as phi or 1.618

 

[Barbarian]

The usual admonition applies about mechanical engineers who imagine they are competent in biology. "Folks are most down on the things they aren't up on."

I wonder if any of them would welcome an "alternative theory" on perpetual motion machines. Let the students decide. After all, there are far more engineers who accept zero point energy machines than biologists who accept intelligent design. Not likely, um?

"That a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science; ...

That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them; and,

These two paragraphs seem contradictory. The first wants students to distinguish testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims, and then conflates just such a claim by proposing that ID is a scientific theory. Even the guys who invented ID at the Discovery Institute admit it's religious, not a scientific theory.

"“The world is a mirror representing the divine life…Intelligent design readily embraces thesacramental nature of physical reality."- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August 1999.

Were there no physicists in that group to tell them that wave and particle are not "alternative theories" of light, but are combined into one theory? Eight grade science students know this. No one tells students that there is a scientific controversy over whether light is composed of waves or particles. At least I hope they don't. Why don't these "scientists" (many of whom are dentists, engineers, etc.) know this?

 

[Solo]

"Folks are most down on the things they aren't up on."

Exactly, Evolutionists are not up on the spiritual side of life as they have sold themselves under the pseudo-scientific guise of false origins of the created life; however there is hope, when evolutionists wake up to the spiritual side of life they become creationists. Those that do not wake up continue on being down on the spiritual side of life which they are not up on.

 

[cubedbee]

[
Exactly, Evolutionists are not up on the spiritual side of life as they have sold themselves under the pseudo-scientific guise of false origins of the created life;[

Completely false.

however there is hope, when evolutionists wake up to the spiritual side of life they become creationists.

Have known dozens of creationsists who have become evolutionists, not one evolutionists who has become a creationists.

Those that do not wake up continue on being down on the spiritual side of life which they are not up on.

Those who belive in creationism continue on being down on the spiritual side of life, substituting their own false beliefs for the truth of evolution that God has revealed in his creation.

 

[Solo]

[
Exactly, Evolutionists are not up on the spiritual side of life as they have sold themselves under the pseudo-scientific guise of false origins of the created life;[

Completely false.

however there is hope, when evolutionists wake up to the spiritual side of life they become creationists.

Have known dozens of creationsists who have become evolutionists, not one evolutionists who has become a creationists.

[quote:3fc24]Those that do not wake up continue on being down on the spiritual side of life which they are not up on.

Those who belive in creationism continue on being down on the spiritual side of life, substituting their own false beliefs for the truth of evolution that God has revealed in his creation.[/quote:3fc24]
Complete propaganda from the unbelieving humanistic perspective. Another systematic presentation of falsehoods invented to cast doubt on the Word of God and the truth contained therein. Many such unsaved plants spew the same garbage in Christian groups today, bent on destroying the truth of God.

I will let you in on a little secret though........God wins and all those that have believed a lie will be outed.

 

[Barbarian]

Complete propaganda from the unbelieving humanistic perspective. Another systematic presentation of falsehoods invented to cast doubt on the Word of God and the truth contained therein.

It casts doubt on the story you were told about what the Word of God says. But it is in no way contrary to the Word of God. You want a falsehood? Here's one:

"Evolutionists are not up on the spiritual side of life as they have sold themselves under the pseudo-scientific guise of false origins of the created life"

This lie is so blatant, I cannot imagine a Christian making it. Most of us accept that evolution is consistent with our faith in God.

Many such unsaved plants spew the same garbage in Christian groups today, bent on destroying the truth of God.

Do you honestly believe that Christians who disagree with you on this are "bent on destroying the truth of God?" May God forgive you.

I will let you in on a little secret though........God wins and all those that have believed a lie will be outed.

Then you best hope that He is merciful to you.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: count

I have the proof of creation by God almighty, and I know 100% for sure that evolution is a scheme of flagrant false doctrines of the humanistic ideology.

What part of "facts and evidence" don't you understand?

The facts and evidence transcends your physical realm and you are blind to its existence, but don't loose hope because even the staunchest of atheists have become believers; Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell for a couple.
If it transends the physical then its not measurable. As I said before believing doesn't make something true and counting how many or who believes doesn't make something true either. Anything else is guessing or rather hoping.

Some believe that man has all of the answers and others believe that God has all of the answers.
I know that man is a liar, and that God has never lied nor can he lie.

Gods existence is in doubt. The book supposedly written by God or inspired by God is full of errors and contradictions. You can deny it till you are blue in the face but the evidence is glaring.

God's existence is in doubt with a small minority of unbelievers. The Bible has withstood the test of time for thousands of years; many more years than you or your book of beliefs. You have no glaring evidence of contradictions of the Bible that declare you are a sinner in need of a savior; and that God has provided a savior for all who believe in Him. End of story, your position is lacking.
I have never said the bible is not popular. As for evidence ,do I really have to go into it again ? I have no sin and therefoe need no savior. I can't believe that you believe that the simple act of self deception (believing in things that have no evidence or possibility) is all that the all mighty would require for everlasting life. Come on does this really seem possible to you or more importantly probable?

God has shown himself to me, and he obviously hasn't shown himself to you.

You are correct. However if he has shown himself to you then you should be able to prove it. You should have been given some insightful info that can nowhere else be found or something like that. Many make the claim you are now making but they are sure to take their meds on a regular basis.

I am correct. God has proven himself to me, and I have no responsibility to prove anything to you.
On the contrary you do need to prove it to me and others since you are proclaiming it. How can you go around and say they need to be saved, they need to believe, the son of God really lived etc etc if you can't show one iota other than your faith for evidence.

For all I know, you will die a child of the devil, rejecting the free gift of salvation for the mere short spell that you will reside in the flesh.
I am not a child of the devil as he doesn't exist either. You are correct that life is short though and the only one you will have. There fore you should live it to the fullest and without fear.

You must prove God for yourself. When he comes to you inviting you to believe in him, then your choice will seal your eternal fate. I do not need medications on a regular basis. In fact I am one who is against taking drugs except for antibiotics, aspirin, and some pain pills when necessary.
I have already commented on the unbelievability of making a supernatural being happy by just proclaiming to believe he exists.

Perhaps you are one that is a vessel of dishonor made for the purpose that you are currently serving. There are vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor meet for the purpose of the creator.

If there is a creator and I am a vessel working on his behalf then my purpose here is to enlighten you all. You have been misled and the creator wants you to know the truth.

Oh, you misread the meaning Rez, you are not working in God's behalf; you are just showing his word to be true.
I have not misunderstood the post. You have misunderstood the intentions of God. He really wants you to be informed of the misinformation that is out there and he is using me to do that.

God is true and man is a liar.
You are a man.

You are proving in yourself that God is true.
If I am his vessel and imparting truth I guess it can be said that he is working through me.

Psalms and Proverbs say a lot with the following verses, and you are exhibiting the truth of it. Hopefully these verses will bring you to the point of self-examination whereby you will believe in Jesus Christ and reject the name of fool.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14:1
Thats a good arguement and really hard to counter but those who wrote it were very clever people when it came to convincing. I mean it goes right to the core of one thinks of himself. Who wants to be considered a fool? So the lazy unthinking embrace what is said and don't want to be included in the fools club. However that doesn't mean there is evidence of God .

The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.
Proverbs 10:8
Again who doesn't want to recieve something special? Who wants to be considered a fool? Very slick for the unthinking and gullible.

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. Proverbs 12:15
Again who wants to be considered a fool. The plea goes right to anyone with self confidence and makes them doubt themself. This is the basis for brainwashing. Destroy the person and his self worth. This is classic and right out of the book.(not the bible)

A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident. Proverbs 14:16
Again appeals to mans vanity for wanting to be wise and not considered the fool. Destroy the mans confidence which makes him open to suggestion. More classic brainwashing tactics.

A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.
Proverbs 18:6
More of the same.

A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul.
Proverbs 18:7
More of the same. By now you should be seeing a pattern of how Christianity is spread.

Does the pot tell the potter how he should be made, and what the potter should do? No, that is not how a created vessel responds to his creator. Whether the vessel knows it or not, there is a potter that made him.

Are you implying knowledge to a pot? If so , why? Lets use your logic on this. How can a creator get created? You really can't just say God always was because this is a lazy escape from reality. If you want to just continue to argue God always was lets just say life always was and be done with it?

Name one thing that man has created from nothing. Man has never created anything that was created.
He who created has no beginning or end, and he created time, space, and matter.
As I said you have not proof of the claim and it is not possible. Everything has a beginning. If you want to continue to make the unproven claim then do as I suggested and just say life always was and be done with it. It is just that easy. Just say it, but you have to believe it too.

Now you the vessel are going question his existence when you don't even know your own?
No one knows their own existance. They know they are here I know I am here. Everyone should question whether God is real and then look for evidence of him. Not knowing where something came from is not evidence for God.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:14-24

Where has God ever shown mercy or compassion? Please use scripture and don't use the example of God giving his son for sacrafice. I have blown that idea out of the water several times.

Once again you show your ignorance to the things of God and what mercy and compassion he has provided his creation. Perhaps you have been shown mercy and compassion because he has not required your life yet.
I thought for sure you would have attempted to answer that one. Maybe later , huh?

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
2 Timothy 2:19-21

Pulling verse out of the bible doesn't help your position at all. The bible is not a textbook and no one treats it as such.

The Bible is the Word of God, and has withstood the test of time longer than any textbook that is available today. Your lack of respect for the Word of God is your undoing. Of course, you have shown your abilities in your posts.
I don't believe the bible is the word of God for several reasons. God didn't sign it, and it is full of errors and contradictions. I would strongly suspect that if the creator of the universe took to writing a book to impart knowledge to his creation then I think the least of his problems would be to write something that all would be capable of understanding equally. Blaming Satan or some other intangible for lack of understanding is really a cop out.

More scientists adhere to the evolution scheme of origins of man with less scientists believing in a creator. I would suspect that that aligns with the truth of the Word of God whereby the path of destruction is broad and wide is the gate therein, and many travel there; while strait is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to eternal life and few there are that find it. You have been shown the truth in the creation, in the Word, and in the warnings that many, many have shared with you. I suspect that you will either submit to the Lord one day, or remain on the path to destruction.

There is no destruction and the Lords day is not coming. Jesus said he was coming back shortly and plainly said some would not die before he came back. The apostles believed it. How could they have been so wrong? What makes you think you know more than them? If they were wrong the odds are better than 50/50 that you are wrong as well.

I am surprised that an evolutionist proponent such as yourself believing in a billion year old environment would think that 2000 years was not short.
"Some standing here...." I shouldn't have to point it out again and trying to change the subject only shows you have concerns. The apostles believed the event to be in their lifetimes. If anyone is going to have any credibility the apostles (if they existed) would and they died disappointed. You really have no choice in the matter. Since he didn't come as he promised you have only the choice of putting it into the future for which it will never happen. Its the classic example of a dog race when he runs after the mechanical rabbit. It's always just out of reach but never to be caught. Jesus is always coming but he just never arrives.


Many have not died since Jesus resurrection. They have eternal life after believing in him. A believer's inward new birth creation goes to be with Jesus as the body is buried in the earth. The redemption of the body will occur when Jesus returns.
Again you make claims without any evidence.

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14

Believing without evidence is called gullibility. I can't believe the creator of the universe would value such a quality in those he supposedly created.

I have the evidence, and many believers were given the evidence at their rebirth experience. God came to them and they believed. I used to be gullible when I thought that I was ok without God, and I had no evidence to support that belief. You do not have any evidence to support that you will be ok without God either. I guess you are as gullible as I was.
As I said many times before. If there is God who is going to judge people he will do so based on what I have done and not what I believe. No creator of the universe is going to condemn people for not believing in things that have no evidence and no creator is going to reward people for being gullible into believing things for which they have not witnessed.

 

[Solo]

You continue to convince yourself, but your argument is as flimsy as the sand you build your house on.

You have once again shown the word of God as true. Thank you.