sci.energy.hydrogen

On Apr 5, 11:22=A0am, "daestrom"
wrote:
> "OG" wrote in message
>
> news:65p6hjF2h6jm1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Gunner" wrote in message
> >news:61fev3t872pusern0h78niq5apt7bgh8c0@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:08:39 +1000, Terryc
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> In the film, host Ben Stein tracks down
> >>>> scholars who have been "expelled" by the academic community for their=

> >>>> support of intelligent design (ID), a research program that flies in
> >>>> the face of Darwinism.
>
> >>>lol, there is no science in intelligent design,
>
> >> ''
> >> Your biased opinion is noted
>
> > So what disproof of ID is available?
>
> Ever try to prove a negative?
>
> Your question is a classic case of claiming, "Since you can't prove I'm
> wrong, I must be right!!!" =A0What disproof is there that the sun is fuele=
d by
> hydrogen? =A0Just because there *is* hydrogen in the sun, doesn't prove th=
at
> some other source of energy is at work. =A0Just because the amount of ener=
gy
> and it's spectrum corresponds well to experimental evidence with hydrogen
> here on earth doesn't 'disprove' that something else exists. =A0But the cl=
ose
> agreement between experimental evidence on earth, and careful observations=

> of the sun 'strongly suggests' that the principle source of energy in the
> sun in fact *is* hydrogen fusion. =A0But someone tomorrow could postulate =
a
> totally different energy source and the burden of proof would be on them t=
o
> show how the their theory not only explains the new energy source, but
> *also* explains why all the past observations and evidence still fit into
> the new theory.
>
> Real science postulates a theory that can be tested. =A0By logical deducti=
on
> from the posulated theory, we conclude that there should be such-and-such
> indications and then we look for it. =A0We can also deduce that so-and-so
> should *not* be found and we look for that as well.
>
> But ID's biggest 'evidence' is the irrational assertions of some folks
> saying, "Something so complex just couldn't have come about randomly." =A0=
They
> ignore that slighly less complex structures *are* found in nature,
> supporting the idea that the final structure is just a minor mutation from=

> an earlier structure. =A0They do some mathematical trickery trying to show=
the
> chance of some random pieces coming together from zero to a fully function=
al
> structure would take more random tries than time in the universe. =A0But s=
uch
> trickery ignores the natural selection of simpler structures that can evol=
ve
> much more quickly.
>
> To date, there is no evidence found anywhere of alien landings. =A0Nor has=

> there been any finding of any evidence that biologic structures have been
> tampered by some outside intelligence (other than mankinds own attempts).
> So there is extremely little supporting evidence for ID.
>
> Yet there *has* been a vast amount of evidence collected that supports
> evolution. =A0So far, the overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that
> evolution is much, much more likely to be 'correct' than ID.
>
> 'Scientists' that do poor science and ignore selective evidence to promote=

> their pet theories, or resort to slight-of-hand statistics to 'prove' thei=
r
> point are often 'expelled'. =A0And for good reason, they're not following
> sound scientific methods and principles, they're acting as zealots instead=

> of scientists.
>
> daestrom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Plus, the mechanism behind evolution is clearly understood and as yet
has not been found to have a hole in it. the mechanism behind
intelligent design is as yet completely blank.