That’s what I meant.

Re: Charles Krauthammer.
Speaking of chaos theory…

Which you conservatives promply ignore when it comes time to question your opponents’ sanity. Re: Charles Krauthammer.

The only standards conservatives have is that anything that helps a conservative must be good.

Ahem…

Entropy is not a measure of disorder. It is rather a measure of freedom of motion.

There is no hypothesis or theory or anything that says the world developed at random. To say otherwise is quite simply a lie.

So Frank, why do you lie? Is it because that’s the conservative position?

Wow. Satan is ice skating.

The outcome of the case prompted major editorial changes to the book. It was initially focused entirely on creationism but was extensively edited to refer to “intelligent design” instead. The first draft was called Creation Biology (1983); the next was Biology and Creation (1986); the third, Biology and Origin (1987); and later in 1987, the authors settled on the final title, Of Pandas and People. [9] They also deleted more than 250 references to “creationism” and the “creator” and replaced them in the final version with “intelligent design” and “intelligent designer.” [10] (and in one case a reference to “creationists” was replaced by “cdesign proponentsists” (sic)) [11]. FTE founder Jon Buell claims that the word creationism was a “placeholder term” whose definition “changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word.” [12]

Global warming, and much other scientific theories, are subject to peer review and scientific scrutiny. Find contrary evidence and the theory is modified. It’s called science.

I just said the universe isn’t orderly. Didn’t mean the universe doesn’t have rules to follow.
Entropy always favors chaos.

ID shouldn’t even be classified as worthy of scientific thought.
ID is an opinion, thus it should not be taught in schools.

What i mean is not that the functioning of gravity, say, is random but that the fact of gravity itself is utterly random. We call it the Law of Gravity but it isn’t really a “law” because law is a manmade concept and laws are manmade things. The human concept of law becomes a metaphor for explaining how gravity works but what IDers do is take that metaphor and extend it beyond all logic to claim that gravity must have been something “created” by an intelligent being because only intelligent beings create laws. But law, again, is only a metaphor, as per the dictionary: “a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature.”

Hilarious. Frank’s approach to logic: If A is proven incorrect it stands to reason that B will gain in credibility, despite being totally unrelated in anyway shape or form. OF course we can plumb the full depths of frank;s infantile understanding of the world in this statement:

When any of you have tested the hypothesis that the world has developed at random (and yet somehow became orderly, after we began to notice), you let me know.

Frank, the universe became “orderly” exactly at the time we began to notice because we use terms like “order” and “laws” and “design” metaphorically to explain what is essentially random, orderless and utterly meaningless. Like all IDers, Frank can’t see passed the metaphors that humans use to communicate concepts. Here’s the average ID argument in a nutshell: Scientists have shown that the universe is governed by certain “laws of nature” and only intelligent beings can create laws so the universe must have been created by an intelligent designer. What they don’t get is that when applied to physics or any other natural phenomenon, “laws” is a metaphor. The “laws of nature” is an entirely human concept designed to make sense of what is utterly and totally random.
The order you think you see Frank doesn’t exist, it is a human projection onto a massive system that we call the universe, but even calling it a system is to fall into the trap of metaphor.

ID mistakes the means of communicating about something for the thing itself and then holds that error out as evidence of something. It’s total sophistry.

ID is not science.
If you would like to understand why, please read the book “Finding Darwin’s God,” by cell biologist and devout Catholic Ken Miller.

Miller explains why there is overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is right on the money; why ID is not science; and how a Christian can maintain a belief in (Biblical) God while accepting evolutionary theory as scientific fact.

If you really have a desire to understand these things, please take a look at Miller’s book.

If you just want to throw silly fundamentalist nonsense around then, nevermind.

Well played.

I can only conclude that you’re a sick, sad man.
Except sometimes you’re so wrong, you should turn in your Clinical Psychologist’s smock.

By the way, Duros disagrees with you: Is he a sick, sad man, too?

I was just fooling about Al Gore — I know he didn’t invent the Internet, or inspire “Love Story”.

Don’t get me started on how many climatologists think the “danger” of global warming is overblown, and how many don’t think it is even worth worrying about.

I can only conclude that you could use some time in therapy, but you know that that would be a false conclusion, because I don’t know you. I’ve never even met you. And I follow “the Goldwater rule”:

it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he/she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement..

“When any of you have tested the hypothesis that the world has developed at random (and yet somehow became orderly, after we began to notice), you let me know”

you have again demonstrated your profound ignorance on the topic of evolution by natural selection. For the umpteenth time, no one is claiming that the world is random, or that it ever was. Natural selection is a decidedly non-random process. If you want to be even more basic about it, the movement of particles that comprise all matter in the universe behave in a decidedly non-random way. This is why you didn’t spontaneously disintegrate after your birth. Additionally, analysis of the geological and fossil evidence is “testing the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection.” Besides THAT, I don’t have to conduct my own scientific testing of the theory of natural selection if I can comprehend the analysis of scientists who study it. Four, “global warming” refers to the average temperature of the whole Earth… no one disputes that the Earth has trended upwards in temp over the past century or so. Just because much of the continental U.S. is in a deep freeze doesn’t mean that the Earth’s overall temp is down. One of the predictions of climate change theory is that weather will become more extreme. Perhaps we’re seeing that right now with frigid temps and major snowfall in April. Finally, you’re an idiot. You’re so thoroughly wrong, so often… why do you even bother posting? I can only conclude that you’re a sick, sad man.

one of the components of Intelligent Design that differentiates it from Creationism is that the Creator (in ID) isn’t necessarily the Christian God.

While I am not an expert on Christianity, it is my understanding that one of the main tenets (if not THE main one) is that the Christian God is the creator of the universe. You shall have no other gods before me, or whatever.

If the Christians who are pushing Intelligent Design are genuine in their assertions then they have voided their own religion.

So these moronic Christian Creationists pushing ID are either lying in an effort to sneak their creationist bullshit into our schools, or they really are idiots who believe it’s possible that their god isn’t the one true god.

Any way you slice it, it’s still baloney.

I like mine extra crispy.

Hypothesis, schmythosesis

When any of you have tested the hypothesis that the world has developed at random (and yet somehow became orderly, after we began to notice), you let me know.

Just because Al Gore invented the Internet, and was the inspiration for “Love Story”, doesn’t mean he knows diddly about climate change (global warming’s new name, now that it doesn’t seem to be getting any warmer — but there’s always next year, right, guys?).