User talk:GeorgeFThomson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, GeorgeFThomson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Guettarda 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

1 Moved from Talk:Intelligent design
2 Flame out
3 Moved from Talk:Intelligent design
4 Your crap on the evolution page
5 Moved from Intelligent design Talk page
6 Suggestion
7 Moved from Talk:Intelligent design

[edit] Moved from Talk:Intelligent design

As Intelligent Design is categorized as "junk science" by "evolution", which is a big degrading terminology !: May I ask a respectfull question to Evolution believers or studiers or whatever ?: As I mostly comply in all logic with Intelligent Design, although I'm not a christian, whose main definition is that an "intelligent agent" designed life, and not an "unintelligent agent" of natural forces/energy as Evolution teaches, how does Evolution consider natural forces/energy, intelligent or unintelligent ??? GeorgeFThomson 19 August 2006

Small correction. "As Intelligent Design is categorized as "junk science" by" the scientific community. Science cannot tell you the answer to your question. That goes for all of science, not just for the field of evolution. Science answers the question of how these forces/energies interact, not what they fundamentally are. For all we know, Gravity is simply a big pink bunny in a alternate dimension playing with his fur. So just like gravity might have some intelligence behind it, so might evolution. Science doesn't address these questions as nobody can think of a way to test these questions scientifically. Science does not require a supernatural intelligence for all the theories to work, but it does not exclude the possibility that a supernatural being is creating all the observations we make (such as evolution, gravity, weak and strong forces, etc etc).--Roland Deschain 17:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The one point very few ID suppoerters, creationists, etc., can't seem to get is that science is agnostic: it does not give a rat's ass whether there is no god, one god or twenty gods as the existence or non-existence of a diety/dieties is irrelevant to the phenomenon(a) being studied. •Jim62sch•

18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

George, you seem to be missing another point as well. The reason that ID is junk science has nothing to do with whether there is an intelligent force behind the universe - the problem with ID is the way in which it proposes to demonstrate the existence of that intelligent force. If God created the world 200 years ago with its current appearance of age, the current scientific conclusions would be identical. The issue is neither "truth" nor "Truth" - the issue is the use of the scientific method as a tool for understanding the universe. ID is presented as science, but it uses methods which are best described as junk science (including their proposal to redefine science). As Jim said, the scientific method does not have an opinion on the existence of God or Gods, and it cannot address the doings of a supernatural being. That does not mean that God(s) exist(s) or do(es) not. If God(s) act(s) by natural mechanisms, it may be possible for science to study those mechanisms and actions, if he/she/it/they act(s) by supernatural means, then there is no way for science to address the actions of God(s). Guettarda 18:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely, I prefer to adhere to the power of the maximum good of pure logic, and recognize that no natures process (un-intelligent) that I know of yet can make life, much less design humans. And I mean this, even the biggest known yet Giga-giga (tera...something) computer cannot ideate life. When it does, you let me know ! I don't need to believe in mere gods or God nor Gods either, but something most probably yes, and not mere energy without persona, to objectively believe Intelligent Design. What Evolutionist and aparently Science has not understood is that like we can't see a designer it doesn't mean we weren't designed intelligently. So the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) obviously as far as I can read through lines declares that, the intelligent did not come from the non-intelligent by mere definition of name: ID . And so does my theory Near Perfect Life (NPL) "The intelligent did not originate from the non-intelligent, nor did a being/creature perfect itself (NPL) organically by mere practice or natural selection in big scale or macro-mutations, and is esentially as always has been from design, but is highly adaptable to it's environment although humans aren't that so, as other less intelligent creatures are". These defimitions aren't entirely new, they are just composed a bit better. And many more newer definitions apply, which will be published in my 2 books. Being "agnostic" by the way complies with being logic, ups secret...!, but evolution doesn't.GeorgeFThomson 19 August 2006

Your argument, that "no natures process (un-intelligent) that I know of yet can make life" is known as the argument from ignorance and is not logical. It's also not accurate - theories that life could originate through known processes are quite well-established. I'm nor sure what you meant by "even the biggest known ... computer cannot ideate life". Regardless of what you are trying to say, computing power has to do with speed of calculations, not complexity. To say "[w]hat Evolutionist and aparently Science has not understood is that like we can't see a designer it doesn't mean we weren't designed intelligently" suggests that you don't understand the scientific method and didn't read what I had to say carefully. Anyone who understands the scientific method does understand that if "we can't see a designer it doesn't mean we weren't designed intelligently". I can't figure out what you are trying to say in the remainder of your posting - I realise that English probably isn't your first language, but could you please try rephrasing what you have to say? Guettarda 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As to about a fine tuned Universe, proposed by ID and "creationists", I don't have much to say on, as we don't know all or much about ourselves here on Planet Earth and life and our origins, how can we "see" beyond very far with much accuracy ?, which I find hard to depend on. But all I know because I've "been told" is that all planets seem to be fine tuned around the Sun, and that the timing on Earth goes fine tuned to "atomic clocks" with slight corrections !. (NPL would propose what does, periodic regularity/or-slight-irregularity-variation in rotation and traslational movements of planets and the Sun in our Galaxy, imply ?) I have looked at a few planets and believed what I was seeing, but we haven't been there yet to proove this 100% ! GeorgeFThomson 19 August 2006

Again, I am having difficulty with your English. Sorry. Guettarda 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

GeorgeFThomson, you mention your books coming out, and seem to be trying out the ideas here (and getting an unsurprisingly sceptical response). WP:NOR policy is clear that this is not the place for original ideas: when your books are published and notable enough to have reviews, no doubt an article can then be written by another editor: you're advised to avoid writing articles about yourself, but can suggest the subject on talk pages. Until then, another forum such as TalkOrigins will be more suitable. ..dave souza, talk 07:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the orbits of planets are fine-tuned, because they are regular? I hope I misunderstood you, as the orbits of planets are defined by the simplest of physics.

In any case, Guettarda is right: while you continually profess to follow strict logic, you actually use several logical fallacies to back up your arguments. Please see our article on logical fallacies.

Finally, considering the fact that you seem to have problems expressing yourself in English, might I ask what language you are more familiar with? -- Ec5618 08:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The spacing of the interrogatory and exclamatory marks would indicate French, but the grammar is odd.

In any case, Guettarda is correct on all counts. As for fine-tuning of the planets, what you perceive to be fine-tuning (regularity) is explained by Newtonian Physics (at least, well enough, Relativity require slight modifications to Newtond laws). In any case, Uranus has a slight irregularity that led to the discovery of Pluto, so the fine-tuning argument goes out the window. •Jim62sch• 14:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more like some Germanic language, maybe Dutch to me (the double "o" to form "prove" suggests it). In any case, it's not French and this is oh-so-much besides the point.:)--Ramdrake 14:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Geez, next I was going to opt for Chaldean. •Jim62sch• 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, when you say: "that the scientific method accepts that even though you don't see a designer it doesn't mean we weren't designed intelligently", is a clear logical understanding of ID and so it should be an accepted hypothesis and/or theory ! Thanks for your clear capacity in expresing and writting in the English language. I enjoy confronting ideas and seeing how you guys think and what level of knowledge you have ! I don't spell perfectly (NPL) for your info ! GeorgeFThomson 17:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 10:12 (YVR)

Guettarda, the "argument from ignorance", is not logical, as you clearly state, so it could be illogical, or I could categorize it differently using pure logic, but I don't have an analysis of this in my mind at the moment. GeorgeFThomson 17:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC), 10:24 (YVR)

So, are you saying English is your first language? And were you suggesting that the orbits of planets are fine-tuned, because they are regular?

In any case, your above post shows ignorance of the scientific method on your part, I'm afraid. A hypothesis is not something that can't be disproven, as you seem to suggest. Indeed, quite the opposite. Unless a concept can theoretically be disproven by evidence, it is not a hypothesis. Period. You may want to read up on the concept of falsifiability.

As for your second post, I have no idea how you justify to yourself what you say. The rules of logic are rigid. They do not change with a little thought. If something is illogical, you cannot reason it away. -- Ec5618 17:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And, may I ask, what does "I don't spell perfectly (NPL) for your info" mean? Are you a part of the National Puzzlers' League? I really don't follow. You cannot expect us to continue to try to deduce your meaning from incomprehensible code. -- Ec5618 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I manage my brain under English and Spanish. Ec5618, "logical fallacy" clearly states that although the argument could or is true the way to prove it or deductive argument is not acceptable to science and/or logic. I said we know of slight planetary irregularities and so what would this imply: fine tuning, or the possibility for everything to fly out of control, without rotating axis or rather just as a ball would spin out of control if thrown in space. There are fine tuning gravitational forces and other ones probably also, apparently !. NPL stands for near perfect life as indicated above in this section. GeorgeFThomson 17:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC), 10:45 (YVR)

You make two points. One, you claim that, although your argument is based on a logical fallacy, it may still be correct. This is true. The point is, however, that you reached a conclusion through false logic. The conclusion may be accurate, but you have not shown that to be the case. In this case, you have nothing with which to back up your claim. That you are not be able to imagine life forming does not mean that it is unlikely. You would probably have a hard time imagining how a microwave oven works, too.

Your second point is astonishing. A comparison may be in order.

A ball in a bathtub will roll to the lowest point, where it will remain at rest. If you poke at the ball, it will eventually stop rolling again. The system is stable.
On the other hand, a ball balanced on top of another ball will probably fall off if you poke it. The system is unstable.

Now that we've established that not all systems fall apart when you poke at them, I hope you can see that the planets don't really need to be closely monitored to keep them from flying off. -- Ec5618 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me how anything here can possibly be used to improve this article. This entire section lacks Verifiability, No original research, and cited sources. This entire arguement is about the personal philosophy and believes about the nature of the universe.--Roland Deschain 18:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved here from Talk:Intelligent design. -- Ec5618 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I found myself in my user talk, so here I am. But I will make sugestions in your other articles of reference when possible. 24.86.45.243 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Above is my DNS or one of them. GeorgeFThomson 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flame out

George, please read Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. We're only interested in improving the articles here - not fighting. --Uncle Ed 17:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Talk:Intelligent design

[edit] Your crap on the evolution page

My figure of 99.99% was not prophecy or prediction, it was based on a little something called research - which is also the basis for evolution, and is also the thing which ID/creationism lacks entirely. It was a 1991 Gallup poll that found that only 0.15% of biologists in the United States accepted some version of creationism - and as the United States is the place where it is most common, the figure falls much lower when considered globally. ID is neither a hypotheses or a theory - it is a religious or philosophical belief, and has no place in a science class. ID has never produced a single peer-reviewed paper on its subject, nor has it - despite the millions in funding from the Discovery Institute - made any impact on the scientific community. That isn't because of a conspiracy theory, it's because anyone with half a functioning brain can see it's a load of crap. It has no more place in science class than the 'stork theory' of sexual reproduction. I'd say join the 21st century, but evolution has been so fully accepted scientifically for so long that it'd be more like join the 20th century. JF Mephisto 13:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your categorizations of "crap" to rightfull thought, analysis, and hypothesis is not scientific. Your capability of making this judgement astounds me. Evolutionists need to be scientific enough to permit other hypothesis, mainly the one of Intelligent Design (ID). It never attracted my intelligence to be taught evolution, but it did to hear about designing super complex life from it's simplest forms to it's most complex intelligence of humans. What has been accepted for so long, as evolution has, is the similar to, as was "black african slavery" that was accepted as normal for so long and not so long ago. GeorgeFThomson 21:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

All right. Once more. Intelligent design, as proposed by the Discovery Institute, is not a scientific theory. The same goes for your generalised concept of 'design in nature'. Neither is not even a hypothesis (which is not another word for theory, or another type of theory), as neither is not falsifiable. There isn't a single experiment that would prove that there isn't a designer. If an experiment fails to show the existence of a designer, soimeone might simply say that the experiment was flawed, or that the designer will not be found unless it wants to.

Science does not work that way.

Evolution is regularly tested, however. Consider what this means.

The Theory of Thermodynamics might be falsified by finding a source of physical energy that needs no fuel, such as an ever burning candle.
The Theory of Evolution might be falsified by finding that cells can function and reproduce without DNA. Or by finding that genes are uniquely created for each creature, as opposed to a combination of genes from the parents or progenitor.
The geologic time scale, as determined through dating and fossil finds might be falsified by finding two animals, which supposedly existed in entirely different times, fossilised together in a layer of rock, such as a fossilised domesticated animal or of a lion next to the fossil of a dinosaur. It might also be falsified by finding that re-testing a rock provides an ever changing age depending on the mood of the researcher.
Intelligent Design cannot be falsified. Its basic premise is: "Maybe, someone or something did it, somehow." No amount of physical evidence could ever prove that to be false. Whether it is believable is a personal matter, and a topic of philosophy.

Please stop claiming that Intelligent design is a theory, or a hypothesis. You are not qualified to make this judgement. Please -- Ec5618 21:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course my calling Intelligent Design crap isn't "scientific". Calling something crap is a matter of personal opinion, even though I base that opinion on science. "Evolutionists" are perfectly happy to permit other hypotheses: there is, in fact, many debates within evolutionary biology. What is not debated, however, is whether evolution through natural selection exists, and whether it is accountable for the diversity of life on the planet. That's because there is observable and evidentiary support for it which is absolutely overwhelming. There has never been a single piece of evidence to actually contradict it - for example, as Ec5618 points out above, finding a dinosaur next to a domestic cat in the same geological stratum. It is possible to trace the geological time scale and see the small, incremental changes that have eventually led to life as it is now on the planet. You can harp on about how ID/creationism is a hypothesis or a theory as much as you like, but it does not fit the scientific definitions of either. It must be able to produce predictions which can be found to be false. It must provide a basis for research. It does neither. It simply says that some things look like they're designed - to which scientists have countered tons of material showing how those things could have arisen by natural means. It's fine as a philosophical belief, but it is not scientific. Under any criteria in which ID was allowed into the classroom, we'd also have to admit astrology and homeopathy. And frankly, the fact that you compare evolutionary science to slavery is very telling of the position of IDists in general - no real science, no actual argumentation, just shrill and demented political statements. JF Mephisto 22:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand and know that science so far doesn't know how to experiment to prove 'intelligent design'. But I didn't know if a hypothesis couldn't be proven it wasn't a hypothesis. As far as I know when it can't be proven or disproven, it is stated as such and continues as such. The same as all science method could disprove Evolution, for it to be objective Science, which has been clearly stated here. GeorgeFThomson 23:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But if Intelligent Design isn't science, then it can't be in a science class, and doesn't belong in biology textbooks or biology entries on encyclopaedias. It's really that simple. Intelligent Design doesn't need to be disproven to be excluded any more than we have to disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy in order to write the article on dentistry. It isn't that science doesn't know how to experiment on Intelligent Design, it's just that Intelligent Design isn't a scientific position - it's just saying that some undefinable organisms, in some undefinable way, appear to be designed. Like we have stated, the modern synthesis of evolution is science precisely because it could be disproven. We could find modern mammals existing in a pre-Cambrian strata. We could find a dog and a dinosaur in the same stratum. We don't. Instead, we find evidence supporting it at every step. When evolution was developed as a theory, no one had heard of genetics. But now, because of it, we can see that genetically speaking all animals share their expected relationships. It has been tested in experiments, including the fruit flies shown on the evolution talk page. There is simply no rational basis for questioning the existence of evolution and that natural selection is the major force in driving it. That's why, as I said earlier, at least 99.99% of qualified scientists reject creationism. Just give it up, you're wasting your time arguing against the obvious. JF Mephisto 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to be blind not to say anything worse to say what you say and what scientist stand for. I'd believe evolution and natural selection if I couldn't see...!GeorgeFThomson 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mephisto, you are so obvious, when you moved me here, to discuss with me, on a page nobody has access to, but you editiors. It must be that I'm touching some soft spots of evolutionists, and I know how to disprove you all. GeorgeFThomson 16:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe in the conspiration theory that evolutionists have "brain washed" everybody so that they are the only accepted thought to be taught. You are all so ancient and un-human.GeorgeFThomson 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But what about the fact that Intelligent design isn't science? Can you atleast accept that it doesn't fit the definition of science? -- Ec5618 16:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is as much science as the best man made machine is, regardless of who is seeing it, to declare it self made itself, and self bettered itself under natural selection. I will chew up evolutionist and todays Science that is not much science suporting only evolution. I will use Medicine and Artificial Intelligence and BioGenetics and Genetics Engineering and Cloning and Pure Logic and...and...! GeorgeFThomson 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Chew" them up? So, you think you're smarter than 99.9% of all PhD biologists? That, despite the fact that you can barely type coherently, you're in some sort of position to formulate a rational argument that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people qualified in these fields have somehow overlooked? You've already been told why ID isn't science. As for the rest of that stuff about machines declaring that they made themselves, I can't make the slightest bit of sense out of it. Are you on medication? JF Mephisto 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of you, GeorgeFThomson. On the one hand, you claim to have come here to discuss things. You claim to be writing a book, you claim to be interested in what we have to say. But when we present clear arguments, you dismiss them as 'brain washing', 'ancient', 'unhuman', and 'blind'. And you claim to be following 'pure logic',yet you ignore us when we point out a logical fallacy in your reasoning.

Some things are clear. You are not listening to our arguments. You dismiss, but do not refute. You have no reason to dismiss logic, yet you do. I don't understand you. -- Ec5618 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand you and how your mind concepts are stuctured and that of evolutionists. I do like what has been written on logical fallacy. GeorgeFThomson 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mephisto I'm sorry to say that by what I have so far read of, AI 'Artificial Intelligence', Psycology, Phsychiatry, Medicine, Computer Science and Software, Logic, Genetics Engineering, Cloning, Software Quasi-Similation of alleged Evolutionary processes, etc..., I'm convinced that 99.9% of all PhD Biologists must be ignoring voluntarily 'Intelligent Design', but I find it hard to believe that I'm smarter than they are ! By the way pure logic doesn't need to type coherently, as there lies the capability of logic analysis, no ties of any sort. Free analysis and theorization under logic or pure logic!!! I'll perfect my writting capability to a more scientific style, as I'm more used to different literature other styles of writting, but in Civil Engineering, I rubbed up against quite a few of scientific papers, and through ID and creationism I've read biologist style of papers, and others online.GeorgeFThomson 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm very interested in everyones arguments, as pure logic is brain software...! I respect as humans persee reagrdless of attitude or word all persons of every nature of thought...! But also you are allowed to 'interact' in thought exposition, and so your knowledge of todays Science and what is considered Science is crucial, for a further advcance of Science to a more open analysis of thought and arguments, hypothesis, theories, etc... If "Intelligent Design" is only an argument, line of reasoning, to Science, so be it. But by Analogy, to inorganic things that we know are "intelligently designed", can't analogy mean to Science that seemingly "More Complex Organic" beings be also "Intelligently Designed" to not be just moving blobs without shape or function, to mention something else !-----GeorgeFThomson 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you are interested in learning. I will say this though: if you dismiss evolution again, I will leave this page. Evolution is a science, based on observable facts. Know these facts then:

Science deals with observable phenomena. Light is observable, with a specialised sensor (an eye or a camera). Radioactive decay is observable too, with a sensor.
There are unstable versions of atoms, which transform into other types of atoms. Uranium can become plutonium. Carbon can become nitrogen. This doesn't happen very often, but we can measure it when it happens.
Unstable atoms have what is known as a half-life: In a sample of a form of cobalt, after fifteen minutes half of the atoms in a sample of cobalt will have turned into something else. So, after half an hour, the sample will only contain a quarter of the original number of atoms.
We can accurately measure the half-life of a version of an atom.
Carbon has a half-life of 5730 years.
All known life contains carbon atoms. 98.89% of these are normal, but 1.11% are unstable. If these turn into nitrogen, the lifeform is damaged, but it can repair itself.
When an animal dies, is stops repairing itself, but its carbon can continue to turn into nitrogen.
So, in living animals and plants, 1.11% of all carbon is unstable. But in dead animals, some of those unstable atoms will have turned into nitrogen.

All of these are facts, backed up by careful measurements. Using these facts we can draw conclusions. For example:

If an animal is 5730 years old, it will only contain 0.555% unstable carbon.
If an animal is 11460 years old, it will contain 0.2775% unstable carbon.

I realise that this is not easy to understand. But thousands of scientists have considered what I have described, and they agree that Radiometric carbon dating is a valid way of dating dead things. It's not perfect, and you have to careful. But it is accurate.

Please do not dismiss scientists because you do not understand what they do. Science has given you computers and medicine. And all of that is as scientific as carbon dating.

Ad for intelligent design. Please read the above posts. If you still cannot see that intelligent design is a philosophy, not a science, please tell me what you don't understand. -- Ec5618 01:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I don't care what Science considers as Science, nor what millions of years you prove or disprove. It doesn't matter to pure logic. If Evolution is so sacred to you, so be it. But to ignore by logic what you see by simple comparison and give another explanation, I don't know how you would define that. I'll be studying all postings on Wikipedia and others, to come up with my Scientific, hypothesis, hopefully, and not Philosophy, as I refute Evolution the same as you and Biological Science refute me or not. --GeorgeFThomson 01:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You keep talking about 'pure logic', whatever it is. Why? How is it relevant to discussions on the validity of evolution, or even science? And how can you say that you do not care what science is, and still maintain that you will create a scientific hypothesis to refute evolution?

You cannot decide what science is, or what is science. You cannot formulate a scientific hypothesis (nay, scientific anything) without science. And you cannot refute something, without understanding it first. That is logical. -- Ec5618 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea all right. It seems that the PhD's of creationism and Intelligent Design don't understand what Science is, and they have profoundly studied Evolution, excluding religion of course ! Anyway can I ask you guys some questions in your terminology ?:

(1) Can Evolution Science clearly state that their theory states: 'increase in complexity by natural causes, and in large scale(macro-mutation) formed life, beings/creatures' ? I have never understood this.

(2) How does Evolution explain 'maximum complexity' reached by a life form cannot be bettered or perfected aparently in large scale(macro-mutation) ? As a paralel argument to 'irreduceable complexity', what has stoped large scale evolution ? 'The argument of 'maximum complexity' means: In other words a human is a human and won't be anything else, your precious fruit flies will never be anything else, etc...as hybrids don't breed, etc... ? Otherwise mythological(myth-or-logical) beings would have likely ocurred: like half horses, half men, and so on ...!: meaning the argument 'clear differentiation complexity'.

3) How does Evolution deal with 'Specified Complexity', as I haven't read to see if you have any arguments on this issue ?

GeorgeFThomson 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your "pure logic"? Old, discredited and retarded arguments about complexity? You're a joke.

1) Yes, evolution allows increases in complexity - for example, from a single-celled organism to modern mammals, over many billions of years. That's because it isn't random - when new mutations occur, the principle of natural selection works to save those that are useful and delete those that aren't. So, gradually, things become more complex. There is absolutely nothing that says this shouldn't be so. Some creationists refer to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but that is based on a) a misunderstanding of the Second Law, and b) ignoring that it only applies to closed systems, which the earth is not.

2) I really don't know what you're talking about here. There's no such thing as "maximum complexity." Complexity isn't even really a biological term, and nothing has stopped large scale evolution. The planet is nearly between four and a half and five billion years old, and life is believed to have existed on it for about three and a half billion. Homo sapiens have only been around for two hundred thousand years or so, the earliest in the homo genus for about 2 million years old. Look at this picture of hominid skulls, which shows the evolution of the genus. a) a picture of a modern chimpanzee for comparison, b) and c) are australopithecus africanus, which existed around 2.5 million years ago and is considered our earliest hominid ancestor, d) and e) are homo habilis, which is 1.9 million years old, f) is homo rudolfensis - 1.8 million years old, g) is homo erectus, 1.75 million years old, h) is homo ergaster, also 1.75 million years old, i) is homo heidelbergensis which is 125-300,000 years old, j), k) and l) are homo neanderthalis (neanderthals), which lived contemporaneously with modern humans but died out several tens of thousands of years ago, m) is a modern human from 30,000 year sago, and n) is a contemporary modern human ... All these pictures show clearly the evolution of the homo genus, which is still occurring. Large vertebrates, like us, take time to evolve and isolation, because we must undergo quite a bit of genetic change for us not to be able to breed with one another. Other, smaller invertebrate animals have been observed speciating in the wild, for example, the peppered moth and the apple maggot. You can find thousands more by typing 'speciation' into Google Scholar. That isn't to say anything for the huge fossil record which forms the primary proof of evolution, demonstrating the slow incremental development of new species over time.

3) If you'd bothered to read the article on specified complexity, particularly the criticisms part, you'd have seen why mathematicians and scientists both consider Dembski to be a fringe lunatic without support. He has even been contradicted by experiment.

JF Mephisto 13:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1) I like the answer to question number one, it is clearly opposite to my logic and Intelligent Design. So to you guys a encyclopedia cannot record human thought and beliefs (if that is what it is)!

2) If 'maximum'complexity' doesn't mean anything to you ? We predict by logic that modern humans won't develop into anything better (perfecting) and so has always been that way organically mainly, but shure has developed in mental practice ability. You don't mention nothing about 'clear differentiation complexity', or what you say is not conclusive, natural selection does not differentiate species with similar functions (walk-eat-mammal reproduction). Complexity is a necesary definition. You cannot isolate Biology from other Sciences, as your conclusions could be misleading without you knowing it or realizing it. So it would be good you upgrade on other Science papers.

3) A improbability is logically an impossibility (less than 1x10^150). That's what Evolution is ! You ask a 'artificial intelligence developer' ! If Dembski is a fringe lunatic, that is only a statement a specialist can give, and could be wrong, as this is quite subjective !

(4) Pure Logic is a middle position between evolution and Intelligent Design, but more inclined to (ID), as more probable.

(5) An added argument is that if human youngsters cannot learn language if fully issolated, but have the capacity, how did they develop by evolution the capacity. Clearly this opposes increase in complexity with practice !

GeorgeFThomson 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1) An encyclopaedia article on a scientific subject is supposed to explain the current scientific consensus on that subject. On an issue like evolution, it explains how evolution works and how it accounts for the diversity of life on the planet. Intelligent Design is not scientific and has no scientific backing, so it doesn't have any place in the main article and is instead put in a 'social & religious perspectives' category. Just like in the article on the earth it is explained that it is round and orbits the sun. Sure, some people think it's flat, but that doesn't change the science. You keep on going on about your "logic," but you haven't demonstrated any. I'm starting to think you're using the word simply to describe any opinion you decide to have.

2) Who has predicted that humans won't develop? Better is a subjective word. There's no such thing. Natural selection simply produces the changes which will most suit an organism in a given environment. There isn't linear progression from less complex to more complex or more 'perfect.' And I find it very rich that you suggest I read scientific papers, when you're the one pushing a position that the vast majority of the scientific community considers unsupported pseudoscience. If you think there is a limit to how complex an organism can be, provide some evidence for that or shut up.

3) Dembski doesn't know what he's talking about. His math isn't accepted by other mathematicians or the scientific community as a whole. Some of the things that he has claimed are impossible have actually been observed to happen - for example, rapid development of sugar-processing enzymes in bacteria when the original genes allowing that to happen are removed and the bacteria is placed in a sugar-rich environment. He uses the terms 'improbability' and 'complexity' interchangeably. It's all smoke and mirrors that amounts to nothing.

4) What is "Pure Logic"? And in what sense does it occupy a middle ground between evolution and Intelligent Design? I can't really make the slightest bit of sense of what you're talking about. Do you even know what the word 'logic' means?

5) There are hundreds of scientific papers on the evolution of language. You can see many of them in Google Scholar, and it's even discussed briefly here on Wikipedia. Your not being bothered to read them doesn't qualify as an objective argument against evolution.

JF Mephisto 16:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not making sense. How does the fact that evolution allows for increased complexity relate to recording 'human thoughts and beliefs'?

Maximimum complexity is a term anyone on the internet seems to use, yet you insist on using it. You 'predict by logic' that humans will not develop? What logic? And even if that were true, it wouldn't mean that humans have always been the way they are now. You use terminology without explaining it. What is 'walk-eat-mammal reproduction'? What is 'clear differentiation complexity'?

Evolution is not a logical impossibility. I don't know where you got your numbers ('less than 1x10^150'), but similar numbers have long ago been shown to be based on faulty mathematics.

You define pure logic as a middle between evolution and intelligent design, yet you also claim that you will refute evolution. This is not logical. It is inconsistent.

You end with a baffling argument language that I am unable to decode. What are you saying?

You ended your previous post by claiming that, according to evolution, half man/half horse creatures should exist. What are you basing that on? -- Ec5618 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution sucks...!GeorgeFThomson 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't understand what I'm saying about language, I won't make it clearer ! GeorgeFThomson 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If most probably humans wont be able to make from scratch another one similar, how did 'mother nature' do it un-intelligently ? GeorgeFThomson 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You Evolutionists Biologists are more 'ancient magicians' to me than designing something, as self designing capabilities is more than external causes doing it...! So if Evolution said, we had self capabilities to develop more, this would be more acceptable logically, than external natural un-intelligent forces doing it...!GeorgeFThomson 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution falls over by its own alleged weight of so much experimentation ! If something is true, you don't have to experiment much to prove it! It simply is true...by a few clear experiments of logic !GeorgeFThomson 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You all are pathetic GeorgeFThomson 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"how did 'mother nature' do it un-intelligently ?"

You seem to be asking a question, and I could answer it, but you don't really intend to listen. Let's just leave it at : logical fallacy, Argument from ignorance.

As for everything else. Well, I hope you can atleast be honest in future. You do not follow logic. You are not interested in logical reasoning. You do not care about facts. If nothing else, I hope you can admit that to yourself. -- Ec5618 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I live in modern times, as you would want to eliminate (by burning-throwing in to beasts, etc...) all christinas, and intelligent design believers, and people like myself, again, as it is the same attitude technically, we have science and so we have the truth...! Simply small minds...that this world mostly has...! This makes me very sad...!----GeorgeFThomson 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On what do you base that? Very few people want to eliminate Christianity. And since there are still over 2 billion Christians left, you really shouldn't wory. What you should worry about are people who are willing to ignore logic and facts in order to convince themselves and others that they are right. If anything, they have small minds, as they do not have enough faith to face a small challenge. -- Ec5618 17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The previous mentioned strongest thought prevailing over a weaker thought process imposed by a bigger group is savage "EVOLUTION" ----GeorgeFThomson 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You "EVOLUTIONISTS" need to go through life with a asimetric body, to see if you then will prove or disprove "EVOLUTION". Like lets say: conflicting noises from more than two ears, two brains comflicting one with the other, three legs getting tangled up with the other, and reproducing only like this, and no bettering occuring as all would die anyway imperfect, etc... to see what you would conclude, "Evolution" did it...!GeorgeFThomson 17:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What? I ask again, why do you say that science wants to eliminate Christianity? That you have a problem with the concept of evolution is clear. That you are unwilling to listen to other people is clear. That you are hurling baseless accusations is clear. Why do you say that science wants to eliminate Christianity? -- Ec5618 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

YOU GUYS ARE NOT READING YOUR OWN TEACHINGS OR BELIEFS. On your Evolution page at 'Evolution and Devolution', it is clearly stated that EVOLUTION caused life to be more COMPLEX, etc... SO YOU GUYS TALK AGAINST YOURSELVES when you say that 'complexity' is not even a BIOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGY ?!!!!GeorgeFThomson 23:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What? No-one on this page has suggested that 'complexity' is not a term used in biology. Maximum complexity is not a term used in biology. No-one on this page has suggested that evolution doesn't cause life to be more complex, so there is no contradiction. In fact, on this page, JF Mephisto has said:

"Yes, evolution allows increases in complexity - for example, from a single-celled organism to modern mammals, over many billions of years. That's because it isn't random - when new mutations occur, the principle of natural selection works to save those that are useful and delete those that aren't. So, gradually, things become more complex. There is absolutely nothing that says this shouldn't be so."

And I ask again, why do you say that science wants to eliminate Christianity? That you have a problem with the concept of evolution is clear. That you are unwilling to listen to other people is clear. That you are hurling baseless accusations is clear. Why do you say that science wants to eliminate Christianity?

Just so we're clear. The important question here is this: "Why do you say that science wants to eliminate Christianity?" -- Ec5618 00:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys really suck............ GeorgeFThomson 23:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

EVOLUTION should permit the analysis of the contrary theory or hypothesis or argument, to be really Objective and not exclusives. You eliminate the contrary to your teachings/studies/beliefs, and so you are not on correct logical analysis ground. I WILL EAT YOUR LEGAL LOGIC UP, YUMMY ! @#$%^&*+GeorgeFThomson 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)+*&^%$#@!

True. Evolution does permit the analysis of contrary theories. Intelligent design is not a theory, as per the definition of the word theory. Why can you not see the logic here? Science is defined. Intelligent design fails the definition of science. Intelligent design is not science. Perhaps you should read the article on logic. -- Ec5618 00:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

YOU un-intelligent believer GIVE THEN THE CONTRARY ARGUMENT OR HYPOTHESIS OR THEORY THEN. GeorgeFThomson 00:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you really not been listening? All we've tried to do on this page is give you logical arguments. The page is literally full of contrary arguments. You may want to start reading from the top of this page. When you're done, you may request more.

Finally, why do you say that science wants to eliminate Christianity?-- Ec5618 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

DUH...YOU ARE NOT READING...I SAID LIKE YOU decide what a theory is, I SAID ALSO "CONTRARY ARGUMENT" YOU HAVE TO PERMIT THE CONTRARY "A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T" TO BE TAUGHT AND ANALIZED TO BE OBJECTIVE....YOU FRUIT AND NUT EATER and descendant from apes... GeorgeFThomson 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not decide what a theory is. Scientific consensus decides what a theory is. The definition of theory decides what a theory is.

You also do not decide what a theory is. That you would like intelligent design to be scientific, doesn't make it so.

On top of all this, intelligent design is not a contrary argument to evolution. Intelligent design purports to be an addition to the the theory of evolution.

Finally, why do you say that science wants to eliminate Christianity?

Finally, why do you say that science wants to eliminate Christianity?-- Ec5618 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

HE WHO DOESN'T SCIENTIFICALLY ANALYZE THE CONTRARY AS AN ARGUMENT IN HIS BOOKS IS ONE MIND SIDED AND BIASED GeorgeFThomson 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. If you really believe that all 'arguments' should be studied, you should really study the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is an alternative 'argument', just as intelligent design is. -- Ec5618 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I particularly give piddle squat what science defines as theory if they don't clearly teach and publish the contrary argument. WHATARE THEY TRYING TO COVER UP...HA...HA...HA GeorgeFThomson 00:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Science was defined a long time ago, before any of this was an issue. It wasn't defined to exclude intelligent design, as you suggest.

Please stop yelling.

Why do you say that science wants to eliminate Christianity?-- Ec5618 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS WHAT RANDOM EVOLUTION COULD AT THE MOST HAVE "MADE".....YOU IGNORANT....! 24.86.45.243 09:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design are two well defined words, that have great significance. All 'inorganic' less complex objects are "made" and "designed" by high intelligent humans. How does "biologists evolutionists" define intelligent design, diferently than the definition of a flying spaghetti manster ? GeorgeFThomson 09:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

YOUR MISTAKE IS TO COMPLETELY DISQUALIFY INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AT LEAST SAY: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN ONLY BE APPLIED FOR EVOLUTIONISTS TO INORGANIC OBJECTS...YOU IGNORANT AND ILLOGICAL IN YOUR LEGAL AND SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS....! GeorgeFThomson 09:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say that science wants to eliminate Christianity? -- Ec5618 09:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionist would have away with christianity if they could, because of what you say. I myself have heavy arguments that destroy most of the Bible for example that I haven't read in any other place, but that does not eliminate what the Bible has of folkloric intelligence and knowledge...! GeorgeFThomson 09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Most Christians accept the Theory of Evolution. Evolution does not have away with Christianity. Many scientists are religious, and accept evolution.

I understand that you might think that religion and science don't mix, but they do. If God can create the world, why can't he create evolution? -- Ec5618 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

EVOLUTIONS BIGGER MISTAKE IS TO SIMPLIFY THE PROBLEM, WHICH IS A NORMAL ILLOGICAL THING TO DO. Evolution ignores the difficulty and complexity of LIFE You are all so ignorant...! GeorgeFThomson 09:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that you seem to have problems understanding even the simplest concepts of science and philosophy, it hardly seems that evolution is too simple. Evolution explains the difficulty and complexity of life. -- Ec5618 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been told I'm one of the best users of language (brain software), and I will define legal logical scientific concepts to completely ridicule evolution or at the best confront in Science, so that you don't think you are the 'leading crowd' and only rightfull and scientific correct thought. Logical Fallacy is only a one way one sided concept of logic at the momment to my logic. I'll find the way to logically prove your fallacies (or scientific illogicall methods) !

You are not good at using the English language. I have no idea what 'brain software' is suppored to be. There is no such thing as a 'legal, logical scientific concept'. Please stop making up words.

You just admitted you don't have proof that evolution isn't true. Here's a thought: you stop claiming that evolution is crap, until you actually have logical proof of it. -- Ec5618 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys and science stop calling "intelligent design" crap, you can call crap most stories of the Bible and most of 'creationism', but not "intelligent design...!, this conclusion by mere logic ! GeorgeFThomson 10:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said intelligent design was crap, I said it was intellectually dishonest. I said it was pseudoscience. I said it was an attempt at presenting religion as scientific. -- Ec5618 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Brain software" is 'language' in analogy of 'computers' which would be the main use of the word 'software'. So all characters (letters, numbers, words, etc...) form my definition of known Brain software, that permit thought. There is also 'quemical and electrical' communication functions that are apparently automatic. We can't prove any other composition or functioning by what I can tell so far. The Human Brain by the way is claimed to be the most complex thing on Earth ! So I study much about it ! Artificial Intelligence, tries to "immitate", such wonderfull thing, and can't....and most likely never will ! GeorgeFThomson 10:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that's an interesting field of study. How is it relevant to this disucussion?

HOW DO I CHANGE THE COLOR OF MY USER NAME TO 'ORANGE' ? CAN YOU PLEASE DO IT ? GeorgeFThomson 10:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop screaming. -- Ec5618 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

AI can't imitate any mammalian brain yet. But that doesn't mean that those brains couldn't have evolved biologically. What a retarded argument. Our brains developed from our ancestors, whose brains were less complex, and so on and so forth until you get back to organisms whose brain was little more than part of the nervous system. At each stage, the development of the brain was caused by mutation which gave the organism an advantage in its environment by being more intelligent, enabling it to transmit its genes. This is so pathetically easy to understand that it undermines any claim you have to "Pure Logic" - it's a child's argument. JF Mephisto 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I already know that you think the brain developed from a little nervouse stem, through animals, right up to the fully developed human brain. That is what I was taught at high-school, and all papers that I have read ! But the only evidence you have of this is what you see from embrions, is it, or whatever...! but you don't have an organic quemical experiment to prove this that does not qualify differently from 'logical fallacy'.... GeorgeFThomson 18:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure George can imitate a mammalian brain. What a troll. •Jim62sch• 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Insults aside, I think that GeorgeFThomson is caught in a logical loop. If God is perfect, and God is honest, and the Bible is God's inerrant word, then God didn't create false evidence of evolution. But only God could have created evidence of evolution at the scale we see today. Only God's evidende could convince thousands of people around the world that evolution is true. Yet, if evidence of evolution exists, the Bible isn't inerrant, God cannot be honest, cannot be perfect. It is the literalist dilemma. -- Ec5618 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is where I differ and I am designing new logic. Any designer ( you mentioned a God ) is not perfect obviously, the Bible cannot be the inerrant word of a God, I studied and have most study books of the Bible for around 20 years, we don't know what the apparent evidence is telling us: so the first thing to fall for is the obvious, that is evolution, that this evidence could be false, is seeing through the obvious (I like it=it's pure logic). But my (pure logic=new definition to be done), is seeing beyond the obvious, and other possibilities arrise (let your imagination go wild...I'm not going to tell you). Evolution is a too easy solution to the problem presented, a such a big diversity of life with similar basic components, say DNA, etc... I'm letting my analysis go beyond the obvious, this is my study, but all as possible in the logic realm of science, as I don't need to define anything as supernatural (in the superstition area), rather super-natural as beyond our size, power, thought imagination/creativity, whatever,... !!!! GeorgeFThomson 18:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Science is all about allowing other possiblities. Considering the obvious is boring, but the unknown is fascinating. As such, science seeks to answer questions. I cannot seem to get you to see that. Science is not an enemy of religion. Religious fanatics may be.

On top of this, your pure logic is not logic by any definition. -- Ec5618 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE STATED THAT THE BIBLE HAS FOLKORIC INTELLIGENCE AND DATA. But I'm not going to blurt it all out...! GeorgeFThomson 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Even Answers in Genesis acknowledges that the bible cannot be seen as a source of contenporary scientific knowledge or insight. -- Ec5618 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T TAKE ME WRONG, BUT I'M NOT REDIFINING INTELLIGENT DESIGN WHEN I SAY THAT (ID) IS CORRECT FOR 'INORGANIC THINGS' FROM WHERE THE ANALOGY IS MADE CLEARLY SO EVEN THOUGH IT CAN BE CONSIDERED A LOGICAL FALLACY I'LL FIND A CORRECT LANGUAGE TO USE TO BE ABLE TO QUALIFY FOR SCIENCE GeorgeFThomson 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop yelling. You said that Intelligent design deserves to be taught in schools. As per Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, it does not. You said it is a theory. As per science, it is not. You said it is a hypothesis. As per science, it is not. You said evolution seeks to replace religion. You are ignorant of your own religion. -- Ec5618 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I will find the correct definition to the contrary or middle point or whatever point, to correctly, give Science it's evolution standing. The 'contrary' should be established somehow ! And it is logical to study life to find out our Origins if they be designed or by natural causes.....hick-up !.....hich-up !.....hick-up.....! It seems that objective evolutionists are not interested in studying the contrary.....Medicine and Doctors are always baffled of the wonders of life and the human body.....! Evolution never expresses the wonders of life as such, they seems to express in their writtings it happened like this and not we suppose as a theory that it did....these are your further mistakes.....! xxxxx 24.86.45.243 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Every Evoltionary papers I read is so haughty and arrogant, and never expresses the 'complexity' nor amazement of life or life's beings, they just write like the only authority, possible correct thought or argument, meaning and inffering, it happened so easily over so many millions of years, and magic, fairy tale here we are today.....bingo. It amazes me how you have defined theory and hypothesis to serve your own purposes. Mother Nature can never do anything for you nor me, nor never did.....!, is a more logical thought than the 'fairy tale' of 'evolution'.....! 24.86.45.243 00:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

dO yOU kNOW hOW dIFFICULT iT iS tO mAKE sYNTHETIC mEDICINES, cOMPOUNDS, qUEMICAL sUBSTANCES, eTC...!!!? hOW cAN mOTHER nATURE bE sO pOWERFULL tO dO sO...?, all the experiments and results you speak of to my logic means a great adaptability of autonomous beings, but you don't see the facts, to evolution, it's 'self development (evolution)' from the first cell and unicelular being...! I'ts amazing how evolutionary minds think and analyse, it simply bafles me ! 24.86.45.243 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is amazing how you evolutionary minds think and analyse and your logic is not logical, although it might seem to be on paper. You clearly state that Intelligent Design in the context of Organics and Evolution, is not Science, but Philosophy and Religion _________ GeorgeFThomson 00:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC) _________

Wow. You don't even make sense at the best of time. Now you've clearly lost what tenuous grip you had on reality. It all becomes clear now. You're just crazy. JF Mephisto 00:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, well...! Can you explain to me to your very advanced intelligent thought process and in self control mind, what you would define as crazy ? GeorgeFThomson 01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite. In your mind, evolution is philosophy and religion, but intelligent design is a theory and a hypothesis. And evolution is the magic fairy tale. It seems you're ignorant of even the minor points of this issue. -- Ec5618 08:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

" I am designing new logic" -- Okey-dokey. •Jim62sch• 20:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Intelligent design Talk page

Hi: I'm back to try to qualify "Intelligent Design" correctly. ID is simply 'computer science', and intelligent design of the most advanced artificial intelligence computer that we know so far, which we accept as a fact. ID applies what is a fact of 'inorganic objects" designed by humans to highly complex organic beings, namely humans, directly by analogy and by similitude of functioning, and proposes that more complex beings can't self make themselves. 24.86.45.243 10:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is correctly studying life, but do it without any inclination, in other words, study it from the 'evolutionists' perspective, but make no mistake to not study from a design point of view, to not miss any objectivity, nor facts. In other words lets be "adults" now and good 'forensics of life' on Earth. GeorgeFThomson 10:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to redefine intelligent design. On your user page, you yelled: "Evolutions bigger mistake is to simplify the problem, which is a normal illogical thing to do. Evolution ignores the difficulty and complexity of LIFE You are all so ignorant...! " If you had bothered to study evolution, you would know that, if anything, evolution is amazingly complex.

I would suggest to other editors that they have a look at GeorgeFThomson's user page. Among other things, this users logical argumentation includes "You guys really suck" and "I'm glad I live in modern times, as you would want to eliminate (by burning-throwing in to beasts, etc...) all christinas ^[sic]". -- Ec5618 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm redifining Intelligent Design to give it's inorganic meaning in the design of things that humans do, as animals design only what they need for animal life. Your problem with (ID) is that you say it doesn't qualify as science for "ORGANIC" studies. But I will find a way to make it qualify...! GeorgeFThomson 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in general, and take this a SERIOUS word of advice, if you get corrected over and over again or crossed out, it is seriously time to reconsider your position, and inform yourself better about a certain subject. I am at least talking about myself, and truly think it does apply to others as well. Be reasonable here and bear with me: WP, at least the english one has made its breakthrough in numbers in that at a certain lower limit there are enough individual editors assigned at any given time, around the globe that is, who are professionally educated about this very topic so as to maintain the professionalism of pretty much the majority of (ripened) articles on WP. There is no conspiracy or anything else going on, and i know how much we value our own input, but look at the other angle, WP has certain rules and above all a lot of highly educated specialists who contribute. Now i am not the kinda guy that worships anyone, but i do respect other contributors who professionally edit WP articles from whose contributions i ultimately profit. NO ONE SAYS you should stop thinking critically. You are welcome to roam around the net and see how much NPOV WP really is! Of course if you dispute that the heart, the core and fundament of what sicence is all about, namely formulating the phenomena of nature into a neutral, and abstract language called mathematics is somehow itself a conspiracy, or discriminating or dumbeninng or whatnot, argue about that on the according WP page, but i deem you smart enough to understand the neutrality of an abstract language and what abstraction means. Sorry if some parts came over as disrepectful, i really didn`t mean to but do have a strange way of conveying my concepts.Slicky 11:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a book and language guy. According to my Dictionary, Intelligent Design is a Concept and also an Argument :

Concept:

(1) something thought or imagined: something that somebody has thought up, or that somebody might be able to imagine.

(2) broad principle affecting perception and behaviour: a broad abstract idea or a guiding general principle, e.g. one that determines how a person or culture behaves, or how nature, reality, or events are perceived. Example: the concept of time.

(3) understanding or grasp: the most basic understanding of something. Example: has little concept of what is involved.

(4) way of doing or perceiving something: a method, plan, or type of product or design.

Argument:

(1) disagreement: a disagreement in which different views are expressed,often angrily

(2) reason: a reason put forward in support of or in opposition to a point of view. Example: the arguments for and against the planned development.

(3) stated point of view: the main point of view expressed in abook, report, or speech

(4) discussion: debate or discussion about whether something is correct

(5) GRAMMAR noun element in clause: a noun element in a clause that relates directly to the verb, e.g. the subject or object.

(6) COMPUT feature controlling computer program: a value that modifies how a command or function operates in a computer program.

GeorgeFThomson 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly TEZH you are having linguistic problems...! GeorgeFThomson 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear on where my interpretation of 'concept', 'movement', or 'ID' is in conflict with anything you've put here. Perhaps you're implying that ID isn't just some proposition P, but also the 'argument' that P is true. That's pretty redundant. Not entirely, but to all intents, constructions, and purposes related to this article, it is redundant. Tez 11:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thar be trolls here! I'd leave GeorgeFThomson well alone Tez - as Ec5618 and •Jim62sch• wisely advise below. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution doesn't seem to study other concepts or arguments, that are opposite or contrary, like Intelliegnt Design, only hypothesis or theories, of their thought liking. As to accept the mention at least as here in Wikipedia, would be a more balanced objective Science and not objective one sided Evolutionary Science. GeorgeFThomson 00:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

...that is to say, "a science consonant with theistic convictions" ... Kenosis 01:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"would be a more balanced objective Science and not objective one sided Evolutionary Science" - huh? Lack of balance in evolutionary biology? Have you ever cracked open an evolutionary biology journal? Guettarda 01:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design applied to Organic Biological Evolutionary concepts, is also a clear definition composed of two words clearly defined in a dictionary. GeorgeFThomson 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biology Journal don't study opposite concepts or arguments to Evolution, but a Science Journal should ! GeorgeFThomson 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GeorgeFThomson, how can you come back here and expect to be taken seriously after what you yelled on your user page? According to you, Intelligent design is a theory and a hypothesis, evolution is religion and philosophy. According to you, evolution is false, you don't have proof to back this statement up, yet you claim that you will use pure logic to prove it at some point. And you claim that evolution tries to eliminate all Christians. -- Ec5618 08:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And I thought that's what the lions were for. ;) In any case, I can't be bothered with George's opinions after his conduct on his user page: "Evolution sucks...!GeorgeFThomson 17:03, 22 August 2006", "Evolution falls over by its own alleged weight of so much experimentation ! If something is true, you don't have to experiment much to prove it! It simply is true...by a few clear experiments of logic !GeorgeFThomson 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)", "You all are pathetic GeorgeFThomson 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)", "Simply small minds...that this world mostly has...!". "You "EVOLUTIONISTS" need to go through life with a asimetric body, to see if you then will prove or disprove "EVOLUTION". Like lets say: conflicting noises from more than two ears, two brains comflicting one with the other, three legs getting tangled up with the other, and reproducing only like this, and no bettering occuring as all would die anyway imperfect, etc... to see what you would conclude, "Evolution" did it...!GeorgeFThomson 17:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)". Such acrid ramblings do not bode well for the possibility of anything George writes being taken seriously. •Jim62sch• 09:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly for all you guys to say the following expresion and categorizations like: "fringe lunatic", "crazy", etc... surely makes you quite judgemental and haughty and very arrogant.......! GeorgeFThomson 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionists adults descendants from apes, pure logic is what will use evolutionaries studies plus all 'intelligent design' studies and of 'creation research society (crs)', etc., to propose accepted arguments, and then hypothesis, and finally theories new to the 'Modern' Biological Evolution Science of the day. So don't feel offended in any way. I'm just doing what you do ! If your offended in any way, take it positively ! GeorgeFThomson 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What you call 'pure logic' has nothing to do with logic, and you know it. So please stop using the term. For the record, you were the one who began the name calling. Don't pretend to have the moral highground. You had every right to speak, and you chose to use that right to call the rest of us lunatics. Don't complain now that we have lost the will to listen to you. -- Ec5618 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry I read, and really read, and I know your terminology of 'falsifiability', and I'll use all others, to qualify for hypothesis and then theory ! It's going to be interesting, as I like playing around with language, dictionaries, legal terminology, and encyclopedias (recopilation and publishing of all thought, things, etc...) ! GeorgeFThomson 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A 'falsifiability' to 'intelligent design' is to say it self designed, could be, in other words, evolution is the 'falsifiability' to the contrary, although you say that you can not 'falsify' or prove or disprove a designer. I'll find the correct wording...! You bet on it... ! It's what my mind was made for to analyse all written data, and use my logic to propose new concepts with this data and all visible data my eyes can see ! I'm developing continuosly ! GeorgeFThomson 17:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For example: the movie "Planet of Apes" makes more sense to me ...! Evolution has set up their terminology so that nothing else can be proven or disproven nor even mentioned or considered as just a concept nor argument. GeorgeFThomson 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What does Planet of the Apes prove? -- Ec5618 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Legally for your information you Biologists Evolutionists and the Dover case, and School Boards, etc. are 'hanging yourselves' being monopolists of thought. An opposite 'concepts' and 'argument' has to be taught as science !!! GeorgeFThomson 17:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The judge in the Dover trial didn't clearly state that School boards only teach Science text books and 'monopolists' thoughts, and that School has not been an 'encyclopedia' for the clear teaching to all of opposite thoughts and knowledge, and for example, the teaching of other models of the Universe, although not taught in Science textbooks of the day. To judge 'intelligent design' as 'religion' is simply a 'semantic' problem only, but is excluyent of 'objectivity'. Religion is to use the Bible. Intelligent Design would not be permitted to use the Bible, only to propose their models and thought principles and what they consider as Scientific backing to the contrary Theory/hypothesis of Evolution. GeorgeFThomson 18:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The judge also didn't clearly state that two is greater than one. What's your point? That are you trying to prove?

Intelligent design is not a theory. Nor a hypothesis. -- Ec5618 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a fact, is a clear definition, concept, applied to 'inorganic objects'and organic medicines made by humans, and thus Science that a lot of it has to studied to be able to be, not to mention what animals design/create automatically. GeorgeFThomson 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design applied to inorganic things and objects, is a clear concept and argument, and definition, similar to the use of 'concept' in the following wording: the concept of time; or the most basic understanding of something: has little concept of what is involved, etc... Also as 'argument' is a reason put forward in support of or in opposition to a point of view. Evolution seems to have 'grave' problems when 'Intelligent Design' is applied to organic matter and beings/creatures. GeorgeFThomson 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting there may be an 'argument of time', somewhere? -- Ec5618 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The only 'argument of time' I can think of is, if you 'argument that time' can be 'absolute' as also being 'relativist', or that time could be 'warped or bent' as light, like in the theory/hypothesis of a galactic 'black hole'. Example: absolute time passing in space respect to the Sun or other reference point, regardless if the planets have rotated at the same speed or not. So has time varied argument or has time varied or can be varied argument as the fast-forward or rewind (at what 'x' speed)of a tape or dvd movie ? GeorgeFThomson 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia': is a reference work offering comprehensive information on all or specialized areas of knowledge, as Wikipedia is. GeorgeFThomson 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, encyclopedia is reference work. I'm not going to argue with you on this point. -- Ec5618 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So where is disagree is that School should be the teaching in a subject called 'Encyclopedia' of all other notions and concepts and arguments against or contrary to a particular hypothesis or theory accepted as Science, to be 'objective' students. For example it is interesting to know other models of our known Universe although not clearly supported by evolutionary school boards of the accepted Science of the day. GeorgeFThomson 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Who gave you the idea that school should teach encyclopedia? -- Ec5618 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's my idea and would support better a reason how and under what "content = (that it doesn't currently qualify apparently as science)", 'intelligent design' could be taught for the instruction to all of knowledge, when Evolution is being taught, all variables should be put on the table, i.e. other thoughts, analysis, concepts or arguments, under a encyclopedia book publication, for now. GeorgeFThomson 20:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're proposing that all students should learn about the world. You're proposing that they should learn more than just science, they should also learn about philosophy and religion. They should learn about history, geography, and so forth. If this is what you're argueing, I don't see what the problem is. In the United States, for example, students are taught about English, mathematics, science, sex, social science, physical education, religion. The same is true for many other Western countries.

It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to change the world. We merely report on it. We write the facts, as they are written, nothing more. And the fact is that while intelligent design is many things, it is not science and never will be, so it will never be taught in science class. I'm sure it is mentioned in classes that deal with religion or the social sciences, but it doesn't deserve to be treated as science. I am not going to explain to you again why it isn't science. Suffice it to say that intelligent design is like astrology; there is no evidence that it is useful, nor true. -- Ec5618 22:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Students are taught a wide variety of things, including these things.

However, when evolution is taught,

My Conclusion is: Like Evolution is the only thing Science teaches as Science in Biology classes of every level. Then for you to be objective you should clearly state what Evolution isn't: (1)Evolution isn't 'intelligent design' as religion proposes it, but teaches as the only evidence to 'natural causes' as the designers non-intelligent of life on Earth. Etc... If you are not willing to do this you are not objective and so you do not put all the variables on the table. To fully define and conceptualize Evolution, you have to state what Evolution isn't to be fully explicit. GeorgeFThomson 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Perhaps it would help if you were to state exactly what you would like to see happen to the article on intelligent design. It seems you believe that intelligent design should be defined as science. Why? Please try to be clear. -- Ec5618 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What I have said is: I don't have clearly, but tentatively, at the mommnet a definition, concept, argument, that would qualify under the known scientific method premises, be it 'falsifiability', or other for 'intelligent design' to be defined as science. Only that it qualifies applied to inorganic things made by humans, as Science. I'm studying what linguistics, wording, concepts, arguments, and (semantics: logic relating to the conditions in which a system or theory can be said to be true) to use, for it to be aplicable to a contrary or differing definition of the theory of Evolution. GeorgeFThomson 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: you state that you have an scientific idea, right? You claim that your idea is already scientific, and that when you've completed the idea it will be falsifiable?

If this is true, and I understand you correctly, I would like to hear your definition of scientific or science. -- Ec5618 23:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution doesn't accept 'intelligent design @ [1]' and 'creation research society @[2]', publishing and experiments of PhD's, as you say they don't comply with science or are just incorrect. Yea I'll find the logic scientifc method wording to propose a contrary hypothesis soon ! GeorgeFThomson 16:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear your definition of scientific or science. -- Ec5618 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Science is clearly defined here in wikipedia, as far as I know. GeorgeFThomson 14:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear if you accept that Evolution has to define and at least mention the contrary of at evolution isn't so that we all really know and realize the implications of what evolution really is. It seems evolutionists don't realize themselves, according to my numbers and the established 'logic'. GeorgeFThomson 14:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are sidetracking to what I say in my conclusion. GeorgeFThomson 14:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I will find no matter what it takes a feasable argument and definition to qualify as an opposing hypothesis to Evolution. You count and bet on it. Evolution cannot be the only thing taught as science. I'll find the correct wording to scientifically refute Evolution. GeorgeFThomson 14:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you suggest that intelligent design is science, I'd like to hear your definition of science. Most scientists disagree with you, and your interpretation of the word science.

For the record, it is not the responsibility of science teachers to teach things that are not science. As such, only evolution should be taught in science class. -- Ec5618 15:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This clearly reveals to me that I am right in what I have said about Evolutionists ! You don't think anything else is going to be qualified to be taught also, other than 'evolution'....??!??. I will see so that isn't so anymore...! Isn't that clear ! I will use all known papers, publications and books, and my own analysis and wording, to qualify as science. GeorgeFThomson 15:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggested that Intelligent Design is science when applied to things made by humans..........!!!!! GeorgeFThomson 15:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you suggest that intelligent design is science, I'd like to hear your definition of science. Most scientists disagree with you, and your interpretation of the word science.

For the record, it is not the responsibility of science teachers to teach things that are not science. As such, only evolution should be taught in science class. -- Ec5618 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just commented on the "Evolution" article page at "...a Theory", that would it be helpfull for the article, to clearly state what "Evolution" isn't and clearly what it is, as I find it hard to find this stated clearly. I can list a few of these isn'ts and is's for you. If not then I don't have any more comments for now. -- GeorgeFThomson 17:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My question isn't that complex. What is your definition of science?

Is and isn'ts? Evolution is a science. It isn't a religion, nor a conspiracy.-- Ec5618 17:21, 26 August

2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll answer yours and then propose what 'Evolution' isn't and is, by what all you guys and Science states, and you negate or affrim or ignore. -- GeorgeFThomson 18:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Science is what all dictionaries, encyclopedias, accepted science books, define it to be, and that complies with the accepted definiton of the known scientific method, to be able to study phenomena, etc., via hypothesis, theories, experimentation, and observation. -- GeorgeFThomson 18:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, unless you can think of an experiment r observation to prove that biological life is intelligently designed, intelligent design cannot be science. Right? -- Ec5618 20:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As to logical fallacy, the premise might be logically true, though not provable, so far, as no one has ideated an experiment and/or valid argument for such, apparently. So 'intelligent design' of biological life does not qualify to the known science of today, clearly, under these terms. GeorgeFThomson 21:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design does qualify as you say and Science says, as to what Biological Evolution is not, which means a lot. GeorgeFThomson 21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? What means a lot? -- Ec5618 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a declared probably one of the first 'Atheist of the God of the Bible and probably of any other God(s) as such', of the 21st century educations standards, that is trying to develop theoretically, valid scientific arguments and hypothesis, differing and/or refuting "Evolution". -- GeorgeFThomson 22:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What?

Ec5618: I've received sufficient information now on "Evolution" at the commnetary at 'evolution discussion: 'Just a Theory', about evolution not being guided or un-guided, that Roland Deschain says evolution doesn't or can't know. ---- GeorgeFThomson 23:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you getting at? Science can't prove gravity either. Do you have a strong desire to refute gravity too? Why are you so fixated on evolution? -- Ec5618 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear. When you say "...Roland Deschain says evolution doesn't or can't know.", I mean "...Roland Deschain says science doesn't or can't know." The scientific method cannot answer the question of ultimate causes. That's all there is to it. If you want answers to ultimate causes (ex: where did atoms come from), take your pick from millions of sacred text throughout the world (I prefer Scientology). I share Ec5618 sentiment: "Why are you so fixated on evolution?"--Roland Deschain 03:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fixated on 'Evolution' because it's the only origins (big bang theory, etc...) taught compliant with science so far ! Also I seem to see clearly life's data is telling me something different, of which my small hypothesis will aim to cover ! -- GeorgeFThomson 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Atoms of course will be considered, but DNA is small enough for me so far, although atoms do form well structured defined, molecules, and 'elements'. GeorgeFThomson 16:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For your analysis and criticism of Intelligent Design in their published papers of great interest, eliminating of course all reference of religion or the Bible, you can refer to: Available archives on CD at www.creationresearch.org , and online archives at www.answersingenesis.org. Some articles are very convincing from these creationists PhD's. Of course they would hardly be published in "Nature" or "Science" magazines, as some are quite revealing of what evolutionists do to cover up other evidence that doesn't comply with Evolution and natural selection. GeorgeFThomson 13:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps these creationist PhDs have failed to adhere to the scientific method. From our article on the Discovery Institute:

The Templeton Foundation, who provided the Discovery Institute with grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, later asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, "They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "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," he said. [3]
The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth." [4]

I'm sorry, but none of the 'creationist PhDs' you mention has done research into intelligent design. They just continually congratulate eachother on their faith. Perhaps their articles are convincing to you, but without research and evidence, it will never convince scientific minds. -- Ec5618 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Talk:Intelligent design

I'm recolecting suficient arguments that comply with Science and the scientific method. But for starters it is disturbing what "creationists PhD's" list as more than 300 geological inconsistencies found and "covered up" or "falsified" or fraudulent procedures, for the conclusions given, by Evolutionists; problems with time frames of geological eras with strata, as Evolutionists are only "linear time frame" minded !!!; no possible method for the formation of cells that are mini-maxi synthesising laboratories of more than 100,000 molecules in humans, some used to form a "correct" DNA, RNA, ATP, etc... , as natural selection would have to be linear-random for this, but Evolutionists claim that from DNA onward, and cell memory, natural selection could be "cumulative" and thus not-linear (to not run out of available time), etc...My conclusion is that Evolutionists run out of time in the Universe for the possible formation of a working cell, for then this cell to be able to have an alleged memory for Evolutionary-natural selection to allegedly to be able to function from then on. So you are missing out in your time frame of billions of years prior to the first correctly functioning cell and DNA...!!! SO Evolutionists run out of available time prior to DNA and the first cell, and then they find time with "cumulative selection" after and onward from the first "correct" cell and DNA. According to my logic Evolutionists need nearly "twice the time" of the age of the Universe accepted, if their "imagined mega-macro-evolution", works with natural selection principles. Ups I blurted it out, but I couldn't hold it in any more. I've read most of your books, and this "prior" time needed is not mentioned...! THESE ARE JUST A FEW THINGS I'VE NOTED IN READING YOUR LITERATURE OF BOTH "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" AND "EVOLUTION", and there are many more arguments. GeorgeFThomson 16:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to explore what you are talking about, but I have no idea what it is. I'm curious, what is your native language? Seriously, I can't parse any content out of this post.-Psychohistorian 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You would have to read most books of Richard Dawkins and other "Evolutionists", plus Intelligent Design" proponents, Michael Behe and William Dembski, plus all archives mentioned of "creationists" too be able to understand, aparently! Also you would have to understand how you evolved to become self aware of yourself and that you could think, all by yourself with or without wanting to, ha...ha!. Very profound...and too complex for any scientist to grasp the truth! GeorgeFThomson 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You all know by now that I don't fully defend Intelligent Design in any incorrect or illogical concept, much less any religion. I do use folkloric knowledge to discern probable happenings...! But I also refute Evolution as it has been defined so far...! GeorgeFThomson 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're saying either, and I've been reading your posts a while longer. Perhaps you should consider writing comments in another language, or asking someone to help you write them. -- Ec5618 05:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See who can decifer or interpret for you because I'm not going to explain it anymore, than the way I have written, as it can only be understood to who wants to understand. GeorgeFThomson 16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's your choice, obviously. Just don't expect people to bother to interpret what you say, when braver men than I have tried and failed. -- Ec5618 21:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/o/User_talk%7EGeorgeFThomson_1a5a.html"

User talk:GeorgeFThomson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Moved from Talk:Intelligent design

[edit] Flame out

[edit] Moved from Talk:Intelligent design

[edit] Your crap on the evolution page

[edit] Moved from Intelligent design Talk page

[edit] Suggestion

[edit] Moved from Talk:Intelligent design

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search