Thu, 28 Feb 2008
>>
>> #77
>>
>>>> # mattmc once said in another place:
>>>> February 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
>>>>
>>>> The Stupid... It burns
>>
>> McMatt is very perceptive - the stupid does (sic) BURN;
>> he is about as perceptive as an all-beef patty en route
>> to a Mickey D's, and we all know that there is No Salvation in
>> Ronald!
>>
>> You all laugh now, but when the TRUTH is eventually known -
>> as it will be to each of us, individually. Evolution will fall.
>> TSLoT will be reconsidered in light of the INSPIRED calculations
>> of the late, great Auguste du Gerdemain and of the calculations
>> of those who first defined the isoclysmic property of
>> the du Gerdemain manifold.
>>
>> Read them and weep for Salvation in Christ:
>>
>> Auguste du Gerdemain, Recherches de la me. Chos. et de la
>> Thermodynamique, Vol 42, No. >> XIV, pgs. 21-35, (1879)
>>
>> and
>>
>> K. Ludwig, L. Mayer, X. Austerlitz, and P. Olsen in 1885 in the
>> Zeitschrift fuer Phys. der re. >> Naturfor., Vol. 10, No. 7, pgs.
>> 23-24.
>>
>> It is not my fault if you ignore the Truth.
>>
>> Peace be unto you,
>>
>> Mark Witt
>>
>> Intelligent Design,
>> Institute of Theory
>> New Haven, CT
>>
>> Posted by: Mark Witt | February 28, 2008 2:40 PM
2.28.2008
2.27.2008
No Intelligence Allowed XVIII
Wed, 27 Feb 2008
Brother Karl:
Re: #458 Karl Tobien Says:
>> "...May you one day know the TRUTH; for it, and only it, will truly set you free..."
I appreciate your help - the others should not condemn your words. You are CLEARLY one who knows, but you appear to be slightly adrift doctrinally. Please allow me to share your spiritual rudder with you for a while; I who walk now, have little time left in this guise.
Salvation is not TRUTH, whether CAPITALIZED or lowercase. Salvation is not a metaphor or a song. Salvation is only through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, the Anointed One. Only through HIM EXPLICITLY, who is ONE and the same with the TRINITY.
Many deceptions come by the way of metaphor - each definition masks a GAP through which the Deceiver may slip. I beg you not to lessen the Truth of Salvation on a mischanced word.
Bring forth the EVIDENCE! Let the exact TRUTH be known. The lesser faiths are weak and must be tempered in the forge or they will be rendered SLAG in the furnaces of Hell.
Pride comes for all: you and I included. It is best avoided as are Sloth, Envy, Lust, Greed, Gluttony and Wrath.
Evolution does not make sense. Scientifically, it is a loser's game. Why vainly roll dice against eternity? Dust proves design. Remember that the wages of sin are death and that NO ONE is spared the final judgment.
Shirakawasuna rakes his soul in an attempt to tear it from his being - no atheist has yet succeeded, and none EVER shall.
If you give the TRUTH only sparingly, only Hellfire will come. Be emboldened and shirk not your Faith as does (Shirk)awasuna!
May God Bless, Ben Stein!
Peace and strength be to you,
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Brother Karl:
Re: #458 Karl Tobien Says:
>> "...May you one day know the TRUTH; for it, and only it, will truly set you free..."
I appreciate your help - the others should not condemn your words. You are CLEARLY one who knows, but you appear to be slightly adrift doctrinally. Please allow me to share your spiritual rudder with you for a while; I who walk now, have little time left in this guise.
Salvation is not TRUTH, whether CAPITALIZED or lowercase. Salvation is not a metaphor or a song. Salvation is only through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, the Anointed One. Only through HIM EXPLICITLY, who is ONE and the same with the TRINITY.
Many deceptions come by the way of metaphor - each definition masks a GAP through which the Deceiver may slip. I beg you not to lessen the Truth of Salvation on a mischanced word.
Bring forth the EVIDENCE! Let the exact TRUTH be known. The lesser faiths are weak and must be tempered in the forge or they will be rendered SLAG in the furnaces of Hell.
Pride comes for all: you and I included. It is best avoided as are Sloth, Envy, Lust, Greed, Gluttony and Wrath.
Evolution does not make sense. Scientifically, it is a loser's game. Why vainly roll dice against eternity? Dust proves design. Remember that the wages of sin are death and that NO ONE is spared the final judgment.
Shirakawasuna rakes his soul in an attempt to tear it from his being - no atheist has yet succeeded, and none EVER shall.
If you give the TRUTH only sparingly, only Hellfire will come. Be emboldened and shirk not your Faith as does (Shirk)awasuna!
May God Bless, Ben Stein!
Peace and strength be to you,
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No Intelligence Allowed XVII
Wed, 27 Feb 2008
Re: #414 Thinking Man said:
>> “…well thought out comments about evolution….
>> play (sic) out well in the funny pages.”
So far, I have seen no ‘well thought out’ comments about evolution. If such comments did exist, one might think that they were funny, but for the final conclusion. The DATA JUST IS NOT THERE.
Re: #417 mayhempix said:
>> “Now that is true religious bigotry. Mark believes that
>> only those who “get it” like he does will live in eternal
>> bliss with their all powerful god while non-believers will
>> rot in hell for eternity. Discrimination anyone?”
Discrimination IS WHAT IT IS. Discrimination comes from Above. The One True Religion and Apostolic Faith in its very nature Discriminates. God DISCERNS reality from on High. As clearly as God knows Up from Down, Left from Right, Front from Back, Constant Motion from Rest and Good from Evil, HE discerns ABSOLUTES. (…Moral RELATIVITY has been washed away with one flood…)
When the poverty of evolutionary ‘data’ is Peer-Reviewed by the Great Referee, the ‘great’ evolutionary ‘theory’ will be found wanting and will be cast into a lake of fire. (…surely, NONE of you would want to join it? you are SMART enough not to want this, RIGHT?)
Whether what you say is blasphemous against the Spirit will be noted and recorded in the Book of Life as surely as the end approaches Infinity. Will your Name be in the Book or will it go to Nothingness? Will you be among the EVIL DEAD SOULS damned for Infinity? What will be the limit of your Arrogance?
Will the AUTHOR greet you? Or will you be among the BLASPHEMY-CHALLENGED? POOR SKEPTICS who speak incantations against the Spirit are like the CHICKS in need of GATHERING [Matthew 23,37] and are surely doomed. (…the WISE would read [Matthew 12,31] and [Matthew 26,7]…)
http://skepchick.org/blog/
These questions go beyond everyday life in ways that poorly-sighted homo sapiens can barely realize. Only the hetero sapiens (OTHERS WHO ARE WISE!) who have cast off their evolutionary illusions and titles will have a chance of Salvation through Jesus Christ the Salvator.
(…otherwise, it will come to pass:…that’s right…of all you ’smart’ people who are not even fit to calculate the parameters of Intelligent Design…who’s laughing now…who’s laughing NOW… please wise up, HOMO SAPIENS!)
Peace,
Mark Witt
(Hetero sapiens)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Re: #414 Thinking Man said:
>> “…well thought out comments about evolution….
>> play (sic) out well in the funny pages.”
So far, I have seen no ‘well thought out’ comments about evolution. If such comments did exist, one might think that they were funny, but for the final conclusion. The DATA JUST IS NOT THERE.
Re: #417 mayhempix said:
>> “Now that is true religious bigotry. Mark believes that
>> only those who “get it” like he does will live in eternal
>> bliss with their all powerful god while non-believers will
>> rot in hell for eternity. Discrimination anyone?”
Discrimination IS WHAT IT IS. Discrimination comes from Above. The One True Religion and Apostolic Faith in its very nature Discriminates. God DISCERNS reality from on High. As clearly as God knows Up from Down, Left from Right, Front from Back, Constant Motion from Rest and Good from Evil, HE discerns ABSOLUTES. (…Moral RELATIVITY has been washed away with one flood…)
When the poverty of evolutionary ‘data’ is Peer-Reviewed by the Great Referee, the ‘great’ evolutionary ‘theory’ will be found wanting and will be cast into a lake of fire. (…surely, NONE of you would want to join it? you are SMART enough not to want this, RIGHT?)
Whether what you say is blasphemous against the Spirit will be noted and recorded in the Book of Life as surely as the end approaches Infinity. Will your Name be in the Book or will it go to Nothingness? Will you be among the EVIL DEAD SOULS damned for Infinity? What will be the limit of your Arrogance?
Will the AUTHOR greet you? Or will you be among the BLASPHEMY-CHALLENGED? POOR SKEPTICS who speak incantations against the Spirit are like the CHICKS in need of GATHERING [Matthew 23,37] and are surely doomed. (…the WISE would read [Matthew 12,31] and [Matthew 26,7]…)
http://skepchick.org/blog/
These questions go beyond everyday life in ways that poorly-sighted homo sapiens can barely realize. Only the hetero sapiens (OTHERS WHO ARE WISE!) who have cast off their evolutionary illusions and titles will have a chance of Salvation through Jesus Christ the Salvator.
(…otherwise, it will come to pass:…that’s right…of all you ’smart’ people who are not even fit to calculate the parameters of Intelligent Design…who’s laughing now…who’s laughing NOW… please wise up, HOMO SAPIENS!)
Peace,
Mark Witt
(Hetero sapiens)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Discovery Institute I
Tue, 26 Feb 2008
Subject: IMPORTANT: Re: POST #413 on :
Expelled! the Blog - a pornographic link
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:10:41 -0600
Dear Sirs and Lady:
Since I am not sure whom to contact, I am writing to you; this is to indicate that to which your fine Institute's name is being linked. I know personally the ridicule that your Institute's efforts have faced as I have attempted to expound similar views regarding Intelligent Design. This below-mentioned attack is a vile attack that could hurt your credibility by association. PLEASE take this seriously - this was posted after I mentioned Dr. West's book on the site. There is no direct contact link to the maintainers of the blog,
(http://www.expelledthemovie.com/contactus.php):
Here in particular, Post #413:
This reader/poster linked into a pornographic site and the moderator did not catch it. Please advise the people who maintain the site that this has occurred. I was ABSOLUTELY shocked to find what was contained there. Your name is linked to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by the petition that was advertised - the one I signed regarding Academic Freedom. Please take care not to expose your friends to vile content. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Your work is truly amazing.
Re: #413 SldIsh Said:
>> "February 26th, 2008 at 6:16 am
>> Ben Stein lost the argument as soon as he mentioned the Nazi’s.
>> (The trailer)
>>
>> Godwin's (sic) Law for the win!
>> Guess you can close your bibles and go home then, have
>> a nice day."
Sincerely,
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Subject: IMPORTANT: Re: POST #413 on :
Expelled! the Blog - a pornographic link
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:10:41 -0600
Dear Sirs and Lady:
Since I am not sure whom to contact, I am writing to you; this is to indicate that to which your fine Institute's name is being linked. I know personally the ridicule that your Institute's efforts have faced as I have attempted to expound similar views regarding Intelligent Design. This below-mentioned attack is a vile attack that could hurt your credibility by association. PLEASE take this seriously - this was posted after I mentioned Dr. West's book on the site. There is no direct contact link to the maintainers of the blog,
(http://www.expelledthemovie.com/contactus.php):
Here in particular, Post #413:
This reader/poster linked into a pornographic site and the moderator did not catch it. Please advise the people who maintain the site that this has occurred. I was ABSOLUTELY shocked to find what was contained there. Your name is linked to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by the petition that was advertised - the one I signed regarding Academic Freedom. Please take care not to expose your friends to vile content. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Your work is truly amazing.
Re: #413 SldIsh Said:
>> "February 26th, 2008 at 6:16 am
>> Ben Stein lost the argument as soon as he mentioned the Nazi’s.
>> (The trailer)
>>
>> Godwin's (sic) Law for the win!
>> Guess you can close your bibles and go home then, have
>> a nice day."
Sincerely,
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Pharyngula I
Tue, 26 Feb 2008
>> "#47
>> Ironically interesting it is how the tables are
>> turned in this lecture! Dr. West clearly did his
>> research - he read Darwin's expurgiated writings
>> and even Darwin's unexpurgiated writings.
>>
>> What knowledge this man must possess!
>> "#47
>> Ironically interesting it is how the tables are
>> turned in this lecture! Dr. West clearly did his
>> research - he read Darwin's expurgiated writings
>> and even Darwin's unexpurgiated writings.
>>
>> What knowledge this man must possess!
>>
>> It is good to know of this video. Thank you -
>> the people on the Expelled! blog need to
>> know of this.
>>
>> Mark Witt
>>
>> Intelligent Design,
>> Institute of Theory
>> New Haven, CT
>>
>> Posted by: Mark E. Witt | February 26, 2008 3:36 AM"
>> It is good to know of this video. Thank you -
>> the people on the Expelled! blog need to
>> know of this.
>>
>> Mark Witt
>>
>> Intelligent Design,
>> Institute of Theory
>> New Haven, CT
>>
>> Posted by: Mark E. Witt | February 26, 2008 3:36 AM"
No Intelligence Allowed XVI
Tue, 26 Feb 2008
On QUOTE-WHINING:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/john_west_caught_quotemining.php
IS there a better name for it? Can THEY not stand up in the face their own words? Did Diogenes carry a flashlight? Was Procrustes' bed comfortable?
It is ironically interesting how the tables are turned in this lecture! Dr. West clearly did his research - he read Darwin's expurgiated writings and EVEN Darwin's unexpurgiated writings.
What knowledge this man must possess! Everyone on this site should carefully note Dr. West's every word. He is a man of rare scholarship!
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
On QUOTE-WHINING:
http://scienceblogs.com
IS there a better name for it? Can THEY not stand up in the face their own words? Did Diogenes carry a flashlight? Was Procrustes' bed comfortable?
It is ironically interesting how the tables are turned in this lecture! Dr. West clearly did his research - he read Darwin's expurgiated writings and EVEN Darwin's unexpurgiated writings.
What knowledge this man must possess! Everyone on this site should carefully note Dr. West's every word. He is a man of rare scholarship!
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No Intelligence Allowed XV
Sat, 23 Feb 2008
Re: #317 John B. Sandlin said:
>> "Did you coin a new term in isoclysm? That’s one
>> I’m not familiar with either. A uniform washout?"
One might think that. However, 'isoclysm' (approximately, single-wash, or uniform-wash as you properly noted) is a direct translation of the French technical word 'ISOCLYSME' which comes from the following paper:
"...du Gerdemain’s publication is in the French journal Recherches de la me. Chos. et de la Thermodynamique. The citation is: Auguste du Gerdemain, Recherches de la me. Chos. et de la Thermodynamique, Vol 42, No. XIV, pgs. 21-35, (1879). The BnF should have this journal archived."
--M.E. Witt
I hope that this is an adequate reference.
Re: #323 Marcus Williams said:
"Then Mr. Witt went on to provide some calculations with obfuscating language and a reference to a paper from 1828.
You might want to read something more current. ..."
Sorry, I made a mistake as I was typing while mad. So little honest discussion is part of this discourse. I had meant the term to contain:
[(h-bar)k][(h-bar)k] not 2 [(h-bar)k].
Indeed, I have done so and frequently. Please see the reference given at the beginning of this note.
Re: #323 Marcus Williams further said:
"I’m only a biologist, and even I know that."
Galatians 5,20-21 may be a proper response to this claim.
Dangerous and deadly are the cardinal sins of PRIDE, Lust, Greed, Wrath, Avarice, Gluttony and SLOTH. In life, various PRIDES are difficult to avoid as are the other various sins in decreasing difficulty. Strangely enough, SLOTHS are relatively easy to avoid - at least, that is so in my experience. Typically, I cannot avoid wrath well at all.
On a daily basis along with various scripture, I try to remember the famous quotation from Catullus that ends "...res ineptior nulla est." It keeps me focussed on the serious nature of the matters at hand. Maybe it would also be of help.
Re: #323 Marcus Williams still further said:
"And G. Gonzalez, whom Mr. Witt also sites, has been refuted:"
I will agree that I cited him as a potential source for understanding mathematics - whether or not he could help is unclear from his publication record - BUT the link that you provided offers no refutation of my statement; clearly, my uncle, TOO, has a rake. Ignoratio elenchi seems popular on this site. What does it take to dispel these illogical arguments??!
Peace,
Mark Witt
New Haven, CT
Re: #317 John B. Sandlin said:
>> "Did you coin a new term in isoclysm? That’s one
>> I’m not familiar with either. A uniform washout?"
One might think that. However, 'isoclysm' (approximately, single-wash, or uniform-wash as you properly noted) is a direct translation of the French technical word 'ISOCLYSME' which comes from the following paper:
"...du Gerdemain’s publication is in the French journal Recherches de la me. Chos. et de la Thermodynamique. The citation is: Auguste du Gerdemain, Recherches de la me. Chos. et de la Thermodynamique, Vol 42, No. XIV, pgs. 21-35, (1879). The BnF should have this journal archived."
--M.E. Witt
I hope that this is an adequate reference.
Re: #323 Marcus Williams said:
"Then Mr. Witt went on to provide some calculations with obfuscating language and a reference to a paper from 1828.
You might want to read something more current. ..."
Sorry, I made a mistake as I was typing while mad. So little honest discussion is part of this discourse. I had meant the term to contain:
[(h-bar)k][(h-bar)k] not 2 [(h-bar)k].
Indeed, I have done so and frequently. Please see the reference given at the beginning of this note.
Re: #323 Marcus Williams further said:
"I’m only a biologist, and even I know that."
Galatians 5,20-21 may be a proper response to this claim.
Dangerous and deadly are the cardinal sins of PRIDE, Lust, Greed, Wrath, Avarice, Gluttony and SLOTH. In life, various PRIDES are difficult to avoid as are the other various sins in decreasing difficulty. Strangely enough, SLOTHS are relatively easy to avoid - at least, that is so in my experience. Typically, I cannot avoid wrath well at all.
On a daily basis along with various scripture, I try to remember the famous quotation from Catullus that ends "...res ineptior nulla est." It keeps me focussed on the serious nature of the matters at hand. Maybe it would also be of help.
Re: #323 Marcus Williams still further said:
"And G. Gonzalez, whom Mr. Witt also sites, has been refuted:"
I will agree that I cited him as a potential source for understanding mathematics - whether or not he could help is unclear from his publication record - BUT the link that you provided offers no refutation of my statement; clearly, my uncle, TOO, has a rake. Ignoratio elenchi seems popular on this site. What does it take to dispel these illogical arguments??!
Peace,
Mark Witt
New Haven, CT
No Intelligence Allowed XIV
Fri, 22 Feb 2008
Re: #278 JBS said:
>> =======================================================
>> Nice...point. You apparently...know me very well. I apologize....
>> I will desist. Like I said, I’m sorry....I again apologize....I know
>> I can sound haughty at times...did I come off as arrogant? We...
>> all...(sic) quote scripture...
>> sincerely(sic)....
>> John B. Sandlin
=========================================================
Dear John,
I can see that the Spirit is guiding your writings if not your hand. Though you seem unsure of your words, I have the gift and Grace of reading. [Lamentations 3,30] I appreciate your apology and will quell my 'strident' tones. Maybe a conversation will bear fruit if the words are woven of the loom of kindness. I apologize.
To the point of the blog:
Evolution is a failed concept because it cannot explain the changes leading to life on the earth in the amount of time that it has had to work; if one were to start with pre-organic chemistry and hope to achieve the diversity of life on earth, such a short time could not be sufficient. This whole argument would be impossibly simplified without Intelligent Design. [Hence, the allied concepts of Minimum Simplicity and Irreducible Complexity. After the suppression of Guillermo Gonzales, who is next?
If each reasonably-sized creature has about Na of atoms (6 X 10^23) and evolution required each atom to gain/lose 2(h-bar)(k)(J) to interact with its closest neighbor via electron transfer to bond for f(Na!) 2 (h-bar)k (J), the uncertainty would be so large that no reasonably-sized creature would have a well-defined spatio-temporal event in R4 - hence the du Gerdemain manifold and the sharpened Hodge star duality that generates the manifold's spin cocycle - and the critical property of isoclysm. Corey, you will realize the wisdom of my words someday - I told you to check out the partitives (functions) and their effect on the du Gerdemain manifold. [IF you doubt me, contact G. Gonzalez, he knows his math and will likely present this material in a much clearer fashion.] A paper that is not as hard to find, but may be tangentially applicable to this modern debate is: F. Wöhler, Ann. Phys. Chem. 88, 253 (1828) - it all depends on your state of knowledge.
Thus, it is clear that the current state of life on Earth could not have evolved. Can you refute or contest any of these statements in a meaningful manner?
Peace,
Mark Witt
[Lamentations 3,36]
Re: #278 JBS said:
>> =======================================================
>> Nice...point. You apparently...know me very well. I apologize....
>> I will desist. Like I said, I’m sorry....I again apologize....I know
>> I can sound haughty at times...did I come off as arrogant? We...
>> all...(sic) quote scripture...
>> sincerely(sic)....
>> John B. Sandlin
=========================================================
Dear John,
I can see that the Spirit is guiding your writings if not your hand. Though you seem unsure of your words, I have the gift and Grace of reading. [Lamentations 3,30] I appreciate your apology and will quell my 'strident' tones. Maybe a conversation will bear fruit if the words are woven of the loom of kindness. I apologize.
To the point of the blog:
Evolution is a failed concept because it cannot explain the changes leading to life on the earth in the amount of time that it has had to work; if one were to start with pre-organic chemistry and hope to achieve the diversity of life on earth, such a short time could not be sufficient. This whole argument would be impossibly simplified without Intelligent Design. [Hence, the allied concepts of Minimum Simplicity and Irreducible Complexity. After the suppression of Guillermo Gonzales, who is next?
If each reasonably-sized creature has about Na of atoms (6 X 10^23) and evolution required each atom to gain/lose 2(h-bar)(k)(J) to interact with its closest neighbor via electron transfer to bond for f(Na!) 2 (h-bar)k (J), the uncertainty would be so large that no reasonably-sized creature would have a well-defined spatio-temporal event in R4 - hence the du Gerdemain manifold and the sharpened Hodge star duality that generates the manifold's spin cocycle - and the critical property of isoclysm. Corey, you will realize the wisdom of my words someday - I told you to check out the partitives (functions) and their effect on the du Gerdemain manifold. [IF you doubt me, contact G. Gonzalez, he knows his math and will likely present this material in a much clearer fashion.] A paper that is not as hard to find, but may be tangentially applicable to this modern debate is: F. Wöhler, Ann. Phys. Chem. 88, 253 (1828) - it all depends on your state of knowledge.
Thus, it is clear that the current state of life on Earth could not have evolved. Can you refute or contest any of these statements in a meaningful manner?
Peace,
Mark Witt
[Lamentations 3,36]
No Intelligence Allowed XII
Thu, 21 Feb 2008
THIS IS TOO MUCH:
Re: #242 John B. Sandlin said:
"Based on the site you link, I’m...“Not Wise.”"
--John B. Sandlin
Only after the Truth is known, can the dichotomy be shown! (The question remains whether the above epistemological statement can be understood!) Clearly, JBS realizes that only the penitent MAN shall pass beyond the CONFINES of an id - so he KNEELS before the Wisdom of TRUTH.
We are different - DIFFERENT from THE homo sapiens - shall I capitalize this to satisfy someone's need for 'orthographic security'?
'H'omo sapiens, there! Do you feel secure in your little evolutionary title? Do the branches of the evolutionary tree make you feel warm, fuzzy and secure?
We have chosen to drop that evolutionary title to encourage the debate to be free and unsuppressed! We are the HETERO SAPIENS!
I am sorry, JBS -
As the Nail of Dispute rises, the Hammer of Truth must come down. After all, Carpentry was His Trade. (See Mark 6,2-8 and Numbers 1,6-18)
JBS, epithetically the Linguist [Corey, you have been Expelled! and no longer need an Epithet!], fathomed the word shift only shallowly, apparently, and became ALL '-phobic'.
[If only John knew Mark well - specifically Mark 12:31! John, come to the Institute of Theory and experience the embrace of Truth.]
The tangential conjunction of Greek and Latin in the word/prefix homo was realized, but not understood correctly.
Why would one expect intellect to be placed on a scale? Who weighs intellect? Surely, one's Newtonian forebears would have known that? Or have the materialists of the Academy warped all thinking beyond the seasoned, sensibility of Truth? All now stand behind the Iron Curtain of Academic Knowledge.
It is clear that arrogance is its own reward.
Where is JBS? Oh...there he is... hiding in the branches of his evolutionary tree.
"...ZACCHAEUS, MAKE HASTE AND COME DOWN;...."
--Luke 19,5 (KJV)
Are We NOT Men? I repeat - ARE WE NOT MEN?! The materialist grip on the Academy must be broken on the wheel of Truth that spins round and round.
Peace to you, John B. Sandlin, but this discussion with you is pointless. Agreement on a standard of Truth will never be reached. My FAITH in the Truth is truly stronger than your MATERIALISTIC EMPIRICISM ever could possibly be and will always be so.
May God Bless the Strength of Ben Stein!
Mark Witt
(Hetero sapiens)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
THIS IS TOO MUCH:
Re: #242 John B. Sandlin said:
"Based on the site you link, I’m...“Not Wise.”"
--John B. Sandlin
Only after the Truth is known, can the dichotomy be shown! (The question remains whether the above epistemological statement can be understood!) Clearly, JBS realizes that only the penitent MAN shall pass beyond the CONFINES of an id - so he KNEELS before the Wisdom of TRUTH.
We are different - DIFFERENT from THE homo sapiens - shall I capitalize this to satisfy someone's need for 'orthographic security'?
'H'omo sapiens, there! Do you feel secure in your little evolutionary title? Do the branches of the evolutionary tree make you feel warm, fuzzy and secure?
We have chosen to drop that evolutionary title to encourage the debate to be free and unsuppressed! We are the HETERO SAPIENS!
I am sorry, JBS -
As the Nail of Dispute rises, the Hammer of Truth must come down. After all, Carpentry was His Trade. (See Mark 6,2-8 and Numbers 1,6-18)
JBS, epithetically the Linguist [Corey, you have been Expelled! and no longer need an Epithet!], fathomed the word shift only shallowly, apparently, and became ALL '-phobic'.
[If only John knew Mark well - specifically Mark 12:31! John, come to the Institute of Theory and experience the embrace of Truth.]
The tangential conjunction of Greek and Latin in the word/prefix homo was realized, but not understood correctly.
Why would one expect intellect to be placed on a scale? Who weighs intellect? Surely, one's Newtonian forebears would have known that? Or have the materialists of the Academy warped all thinking beyond the seasoned, sensibility of Truth? All now stand behind the Iron Curtain of Academic Knowledge.
It is clear that arrogance is its own reward.
Where is JBS? Oh...there he is... hiding in the branches of his evolutionary tree.
"...ZACCHAEUS, MAKE HASTE AND COME DOWN;...."
--Luke 19,5 (KJV)
Are We NOT Men? I repeat - ARE WE NOT MEN?! The materialist grip on the Academy must be broken on the wheel of Truth that spins round and round.
Peace to you, John B. Sandlin, but this discussion with you is pointless. Agreement on a standard of Truth will never be reached. My FAITH in the Truth is truly stronger than your MATERIALISTIC EMPIRICISM ever could possibly be and will always be so.
May God Bless the Strength of Ben Stein!
Mark Witt
(Hetero sapiens)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No Intellligence Allowed XI
Wed, 20 Feb 2008
RE: #200 mayhempix Said:
>> “2:9 All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to
>> their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first.”
>> “…God hid the speed of light in a number of Jews (sic)
>> knowing it would show Einstein and science to be
>> irrelevant (sic) in the 21st century…the real truth.”
Friends,
“They will set out first.”
--Numbers 2,9.
This relates to the invariance of c under boosting. Can you not see this simple fact? c is to be set out first as a first principle beyond Galilean invariance. The REAL truth is hard to suppress. There are logical and numerical realities in the Book of Numbers - though they may be esoteric and seem SURREAL to you.
I HAVE NOT TRIED TO FIND A WAY TO CON ANYONE HERE - especially, you COREY
(http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/12/31 )
- nor have I EXHORTED ANYONE HERE to dismiss simple reality. COME ON, GUY! Have you seen nothing in my writings? I am not trying to be a DICK - pardon my language - I am trying to help you see!
One may see my references to Numbers as irrationality; FINE - embrace the irrational, but realize the TRUTH.
I need a break. Why can’t I get through to you?
Peace,
Mark Witt
(Hetero sapiens)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
RE: #200 mayhempix Said:
>> “2:9 All the men assigned to the camp of Judah, according to
>> their divisions, number 186,400. They will set out first.”
>> “…God hid the speed of light in a number of Jews (sic)
>> knowing it would show Einstein and science to be
>> irrelevant (sic) in the 21st century…the real truth.”
Friends,
“They will set out first.”
--Numbers 2,9.
This relates to the invariance of c under boosting. Can you not see this simple fact? c is to be set out first as a first principle beyond Galilean invariance. The REAL truth is hard to suppress. There are logical and numerical realities in the Book of Numbers - though they may be esoteric and seem SURREAL to you.
I HAVE NOT TRIED TO FIND A WAY TO CON ANYONE HERE - especially, you COREY
(http://www.penny-arcade.com
- nor have I EXHORTED ANYONE HERE to dismiss simple reality. COME ON, GUY! Have you seen nothing in my writings? I am not trying to be a DICK - pardon my language - I am trying to help you see!
One may see my references to Numbers as irrationality; FINE - embrace the irrational, but realize the TRUTH.
I need a break. Why can’t I get through to you?
Peace,
Mark Witt
(Hetero sapiens)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No Intelligence Allowed X
Tue, 19 Feb 2008
Re: #7 Rheinhard Said:
>> “Actually I think this rather shows the fear and
>> desperation of the IDiots behind EXPELLED.”
Re: #10 Paul Said:
>> “I think the film will be unwatchable crap.”
Re: #12 mattmc Said:
>> “…that it is that it was too long to keep your short attention
>> spans….this pit of intellectual dishonesty and stupidity.”
Re: #21 Benjamin C Said:
>> “…to lie and obsfuscate like Geoffrey Simmons of the
>> Discovery Institute did in his recent debate with Dr Myers?
>> Simmons said in that debate “The fossil record is more
>> incomplete now than it was in Darwin’s day”. Is is
>> intolerent of me to think that Simmons is a fool for
>> saying such nonsense?”
WHAT a collection of venom, vitriol and vapidity, I dare say:
For future reference, you may classify your insults regarding IQ as follows:
IQ# Classification
“70-80 Borderline deficiency
50-69 Moron
20-49 Imbecile
below 20 Idiot”
(see http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx for this reference)
If anyone has any additional insults to add to the above table, by all means, please give me a list and the corresponding IQ#’s. As is easily seen, I and the other truthful agents of ID are not even on this scale! It is simply sad that we cannot achieve your level of communication.
Re: #22 Kat Reagan Said:
“…some big claims backed up by poor fallacies and quote mining.
…
This is probably will not be posted because “Big Ben Stein” wishes to unfairly suppress the freedom of speech. If he cannot suppress it, he surely does a great job insulting it.
…
This is probably will not be posted because “Big Ben Stein” wishes to unfairly surpress the freedom of speech.”
“…quote mining…”
HA, HA, KAT!!! You make it sound like we are irrationally digging for fossils. Not likely given the highly-unlikely radioactive decay of the carbon-14 nucleus. There are answers in the Genesis, and there are also answers in Numbers. See Numbers 2,7-18 and watch the invalid arguments decay! How is that for science? Note the speed of the light in Numbers 2 Verse 9. Not the accuracy or precision that one would expect, is it!? This certainly came before Einstein! What is the perfected value of pi? Well, let us check…I Kings 7 Verses 23-26. Again, this is not the accuracy or precision that one should expect, is it!?
“…Big Ben Stein…”
KAT, if I may call you that, is this an indelicate reference? KAT, KAT, KAT…. What is Mr. Stein a star of blue films or a cock towering over London? Please do give him the dignity that he deserves.
Such transparent rhetoric is shameful.
Re: #25 Corey Said:
…
“Aren’t you supposed to be out of town? In any case, I saw you lips moving but all that came out was “butter-flavored towels,” “plaid monkeys,” and something about “shimmy cars.””
It seems that Corey the Statistician is back. Can Corey earn his epithet? Is the variance of the delta distribution nonzero? Of course, it is safe to assume that he is quite intelligent. (After all, the design was….)
Mark Witt
(Hetero sapiens)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Re: #7 Rheinhard Said:
>> “Actually I think this rather shows the fear and
>> desperation of the IDiots behind EXPELLED.”
Re: #10 Paul Said:
>> “I think the film will be unwatchable crap.”
Re: #12 mattmc Said:
>> “…that it is that it was too long to keep your short attention
>> spans….this pit of intellectual dishonesty and stupidity.”
Re: #21 Benjamin C Said:
>> “…to lie and obsfuscate like Geoffrey Simmons of the
>> Discovery Institute did in his recent debate with Dr Myers?
>> Simmons said in that debate “The fossil record is more
>> incomplete now than it was in Darwin’s day”. Is is
>> intolerent of me to think that Simmons is a fool for
>> saying such nonsense?”
WHAT a collection of venom, vitriol and vapidity, I dare say:
For future reference, you may classify your insults regarding IQ as follows:
IQ# Classification
“70-80 Borderline deficiency
50-69 Moron
20-49 Imbecile
below 20 Idiot”
(see http://www.iqcomparisonsite
If anyone has any additional insults to add to the above table, by all means, please give me a list and the corresponding IQ#’s. As is easily seen, I and the other truthful agents of ID are not even on this scale! It is simply sad that we cannot achieve your level of communication.
Re: #22 Kat Reagan Said:
“…some big claims backed up by poor fallacies and quote mining.
…
This is probably will not be posted because “Big Ben Stein” wishes to unfairly suppress the freedom of speech. If he cannot suppress it, he surely does a great job insulting it.
…
This is probably will not be posted because “Big Ben Stein” wishes to unfairly surpress the freedom of speech.”
“…quote mining…”
HA, HA, KAT!!! You make it sound like we are irrationally digging for fossils. Not likely given the highly-unlikely radioactive decay of the carbon-14 nucleus. There are answers in the Genesis, and there are also answers in Numbers. See Numbers 2,7-18 and watch the invalid arguments decay! How is that for science? Note the speed of the light in Numbers 2 Verse 9. Not the accuracy or precision that one would expect, is it!? This certainly came before Einstein! What is the perfected value of pi? Well, let us check…I Kings 7 Verses 23-26. Again, this is not the accuracy or precision that one should expect, is it!?
“…Big Ben Stein…”
KAT, if I may call you that, is this an indelicate reference? KAT, KAT, KAT…. What is Mr. Stein a star of blue films or a cock towering over London? Please do give him the dignity that he deserves.
Such transparent rhetoric is shameful.
Re: #25 Corey Said:
…
“Aren’t you supposed to be out of town? In any case, I saw you lips moving but all that came out was “butter-flavored towels,” “plaid monkeys,” and something about “shimmy cars.””
It seems that Corey the Statistician is back. Can Corey earn his epithet? Is the variance of the delta distribution nonzero? Of course, it is safe to assume that he is quite intelligent. (After all, the design was….)
Mark Witt
(Hetero sapiens)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Academic Freedom Petition
Mon, 18 Feb 2008
>> Email Validation Required for AcademicFreedomPetition.com
>> petition@academicfreedompetition.com
>> Verification Link:
>> http://academicfreedompetition.com/register.php?code=xxxxxx
>> Email Validation Required for AcademicFreedomPetition.com
>> petition@academicfreedompetitio
>> Verification Link:
>> http://academicfreedompetition
No Intelligence Allowed IX
Mon, 18 Feb 2008
Now is the time to end the combative, the calculated, the arbitrary and the ‘reasoned’ suppression of thought. It is time to end the academic suppression of Big Science. I am tired of all the suppression and all the so-called, peer reviewing of what is clearly a closed-circle, planned denial of the presentation rights of ID - a theory without parallel or disproof.
Apples and Oranges…proof by design in their complexity.
Penguins and Elephants…uncles on the paternal side?
Steak and Lettuce…Bill and Diane, no doubt ?!?
Apes and Kittens…clearly the precursors to man!
I THINK NOT!
Weak arguments are cast to and fro about thermodynamics. Who has the energy to keep up with this heated diatribes? Why not have an honest discussion of thermodynamics? Why not just accept the facts as they lie?
From the manifold comes the answer. The problem is finely cut by Ockham’s razor until, but one solution remains. Argue against that statement, my friends. Can you? Will you even try?
Or do you cry:
“Out! Out! Simple-minded ignoramuses.”
“Away with the enfeebled morons who are barely smart enough to breathe!”
“Get your hands off of my knowledge!”
Sir, it is not your knowledge!
What evidence gives one the right to dictate a truth and to deny a theory? That is correct - no evidence. How dare you place induction over the principle of deduction? You who have the grace of a mind. Are we not MEN? No, you would say that we are MERELY de-evolved steps on the path to something greater! Carbon dating?! How does one trust radioactive decay? You say it is a random process? The random answers that it generates are just as good as rolling a pair of dice against eternity and will prevail just as well.
Fine. Proclaim or debate. Let us take the freedom to debate or be Expelled!
Mark Witt
(Hetero Sapiens)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Now is the time to end the combative, the calculated, the arbitrary and the ‘reasoned’ suppression of thought. It is time to end the academic suppression of Big Science. I am tired of all the suppression and all the so-called, peer reviewing of what is clearly a closed-circle, planned denial of the presentation rights of ID - a theory without parallel or disproof.
Apples and Oranges…proof by design in their complexity.
Penguins and Elephants…uncles on the paternal side?
Steak and Lettuce…Bill and Diane, no doubt ?!?
Apes and Kittens…clearly the precursors to man!
I THINK NOT!
Weak arguments are cast to and fro about thermodynamics. Who has the energy to keep up with this heated diatribes? Why not have an honest discussion of thermodynamics? Why not just accept the facts as they lie?
From the manifold comes the answer. The problem is finely cut by Ockham’s razor until, but one solution remains. Argue against that statement, my friends. Can you? Will you even try?
Or do you cry:
“Out! Out! Simple-minded ignoramuses.”
“Away with the enfeebled morons who are barely smart enough to breathe!”
“Get your hands off of my knowledge!”
Sir, it is not your knowledge!
What evidence gives one the right to dictate a truth and to deny a theory? That is correct - no evidence. How dare you place induction over the principle of deduction? You who have the grace of a mind. Are we not MEN? No, you would say that we are MERELY de-evolved steps on the path to something greater! Carbon dating?! How does one trust radioactive decay? You say it is a random process? The random answers that it generates are just as good as rolling a pair of dice against eternity and will prevail just as well.
Fine. Proclaim or debate. Let us take the freedom to debate or be Expelled!
Mark Witt
(Hetero Sapiens)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No Intelligence Allowed VIII
Thu, 14 Feb 2008
Friends,
After reading countless posts regarding the evolution of man and seeing attack after attack after attack - COREY, be humble not proud - I shake my head.
I want to fight against the academic suppression of Big Science that manifests itself today, but there is little success.
Let the Evolutionists be with their kind for now! Accept them when they accept you. Love them, but hate their sin. We are different than them - we have come through the wilderness in which they are thought-bound by sin.
I suggest that we, the Faithful, the Reasonable, the Loving, the Accepting, adopt a new designation.
We are not derived from Evolutionary acts of laughably random chance. My heart and my hands are not the product of the throes of dice - this a metaphor for you ILLITERATE scientists. We are different and made in the image of the Creator. Throw off the evolutionary labels, HOMO SAPIENS!
We are the HETERO SAPIENS. Let them accept us in the name of freedom, logic, reason and love.
May God Bless you all!
May God Bless Ben Stein for his Fairness!
Peace, Love, and Strength through the Lord to you all,
Mark E. Witt
(HETERO SAPIENS)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Friends,
After reading countless posts regarding the evolution of man and seeing attack after attack after attack - COREY, be humble not proud - I shake my head.
I want to fight against the academic suppression of Big Science that manifests itself today, but there is little success.
Let the Evolutionists be with their kind for now! Accept them when they accept you. Love them, but hate their sin. We are different than them - we have come through the wilderness in which they are thought-bound by sin.
I suggest that we, the Faithful, the Reasonable, the Loving, the Accepting, adopt a new designation.
We are not derived from Evolutionary acts of laughably random chance. My heart and my hands are not the product of the throes of dice - this a metaphor for you ILLITERATE scientists. We are different and made in the image of the Creator. Throw off the evolutionary labels, HOMO SAPIENS!
We are the HETERO SAPIENS. Let them accept us in the name of freedom, logic, reason and love.
May God Bless you all!
May God Bless Ben Stein for his Fairness!
Peace, Love, and Strength through the Lord to you all,
Mark E. Witt
(HETERO SAPIENS)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No Intelligence Allowed VII
Thu, 14 Feb 2008
Re: #297 Corey Said:
>>"February 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
>>Mark Witt wrote: “Please note that I wrote “through the
>>Second Law of Thermodynamics.” The point of attack is
>>not directly the Second Law - instead, it is the Zeroth
>>Law. It is important not to conflate these two
>>statements.”
>>And this is what we call a moving goalpost fallacy.
>>Predictably it fails as well. Here’s the 0th law: If
>>two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium
>>with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with
>>each other. In other words, if A & B are the same
>>temperature as C, A & B are also the same temp. As the
>>sun’s surface is several thousand degrees Kelvin, we
>>know Sol and Terra are not in equilibrium. Mark…make
>>sure you actually read some physics before
>>posting-Wikipedia, Google, and textbooks will be used
>>against you (and it makes you look like an idiot).
>>The rest of your post is irrelevant."
HOW UNFAIR, Sir! You dismiss me out of hand!
Your repertoire of counterarguments is quite predictable, TOO.
At some point, you are going to tell me that the time translation invariance of a Lagrangian is related to conservation of energy by Noether's theorem.
(You might add for flavor that Emmy Noether was a German mathematician that studied at Erlangen, but was denied a paid professorship in Germany because she was a woman. Then she immigrated to the US....)
That is all beside the point.
You might also mention that the first law of thermodynamics is a restatement of conservation of energy for a system that is defined by a particular boundary.
Ok, that is all well and good.
Also, you already stated that the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is essentially the transitivity of equality applied to temperature.
Who has not heard that before?
I could have looked it up on Wikipedia or I could have used Google. Why should I, though? I have a pretty damn good idea of exactly what I am doing!
Admittedly, I am a little uneasy with the handling of the sharpened Hodge Star Operator. Maybe I miscalculated the boundary terms, but I don't think so; I doubt that I am off by any more than a factor of 6 times the square root of the variance - AND that is pretty good for any calculation!!!
It seems that the single-wash property (isoclysm) of the system DOES, indeed, generate spin cocycles on the manifold associated with the du Gerdemain manifold.
If you go back to the original papers - especially, Auguste du Gerdemain's paper. I am sure my position will be clear to you.
FIND someone who can help you with the French text and take a look at the partitive functions and their use in du Gerdemain. Yes, yes...I know that the common terminology in modern statistical mechanics refers to them as PARTITION functions, but this is using the original FRENCH terminology!
I would like to have a productive exchange with you, so please do as I ask with an open mind.
May God Bless B.S.!
Sincerely,
Mark Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Re: #297 Corey Said:
>>"February 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
>>Mark Witt wrote: “Please note that I wrote “through the
>>Second Law of Thermodynamics.” The point of attack is
>>not directly the Second Law - instead, it is the Zeroth
>>Law. It is important not to conflate these two
>>statements.”
>>And this is what we call a moving goalpost fallacy.
>>Predictably it fails as well. Here’s the 0th law: If
>>two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium
>>with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with
>>each other. In other words, if A & B are the same
>>temperature as C, A & B are also the same temp. As the
>>sun’s surface is several thousand degrees Kelvin, we
>>know Sol and Terra are not in equilibrium. Mark…make
>>sure you actually read some physics before
>>posting-Wikipedia, Google, and textbooks will be used
>>against you (and it makes you look like an idiot).
>>The rest of your post is irrelevant."
HOW UNFAIR, Sir! You dismiss me out of hand!
Your repertoire of counterarguments is quite predictable, TOO.
At some point, you are going to tell me that the time translation invariance of a Lagrangian is related to conservation of energy by Noether's theorem.
(You might add for flavor that Emmy Noether was a German mathematician that studied at Erlangen, but was denied a paid professorship in Germany because she was a woman. Then she immigrated to the US....)
That is all beside the point.
You might also mention that the first law of thermodynamics is a restatement of conservation of energy for a system that is defined by a particular boundary.
Ok, that is all well and good.
Also, you already stated that the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is essentially the transitivity of equality applied to temperature.
Who has not heard that before?
I could have looked it up on Wikipedia or I could have used Google. Why should I, though? I have a pretty damn good idea of exactly what I am doing!
Admittedly, I am a little uneasy with the handling of the sharpened Hodge Star Operator. Maybe I miscalculated the boundary terms, but I don't think so; I doubt that I am off by any more than a factor of 6 times the square root of the variance - AND that is pretty good for any calculation!!!
It seems that the single-wash property (isoclysm) of the system DOES, indeed, generate spin cocycles on the manifold associated with the du Gerdemain manifold.
If you go back to the original papers - especially, Auguste du Gerdemain's paper. I am sure my position will be clear to you.
FIND someone who can help you with the French text and take a look at the partitive functions and their use in du Gerdemain. Yes, yes...I know that the common terminology in modern statistical mechanics refers to them as PARTITION functions, but this is using the original FRENCH terminology!
I would like to have a productive exchange with you, so please do as I ask with an open mind.
May God Bless B.S.!
Sincerely,
Mark Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Panda's Thumb I
Thu, 14 Feb 2008
This is quite like the mid-90's case of Michael Udall Derbyshire at Oxford. I have mentioned it in more detail at:
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/02/07/
Sad. It is so irrational, but, after all, it is just as noted in the book of Numbers 1: 41-42 and Numbers 3: 14-15.
God Bless, B.S.!
Sincerely,
Mark Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT 06437
This is quite like the mid-90's case of Michael Udall Derbyshire at Oxford. I have mentioned it in more detail at:
http://expelledthemovie.com
Sad. It is so irrational, but, after all, it is just as noted in the book of Numbers 1: 41-42 and Numbers 3: 14-15.
God Bless, B.S.!
Sincerely,
Mark Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT 06437
No Intelligence Allowed VI
Wed, 13 Feb 2008
Re: #238 MAH
Re: #240 Corey
and
Re: #247 Shiritai
Please note that I wrote "through the Second Law of Thermodynamics." The point of attack is not directly the Second Law - instead, it is the Zeroth Law. It is important not to conflate these two statements.
This approach is explained in the 1885 Zeitschrift fuer Phys. der re. Naturfor. paper by Ludwig, Mayer, Austerlitz, and Olsen which includes the boundary-independent du Gerdemain Function.
This function was first well-defined and is only well-defined on a du Gerdemain manifold: one could ask any competent string theorist or topologist who works with M-theory about the construction of a du Gerdemain manifold and its associated fibre bundle. The isoclysmic (Gk. single-washing) property of this system arises from a representation of the homotopy group of this particular manifold. To be specific, in a simplified example, Jordan curves are not definable on this kind of manifold, so one is forced to perform a k-fold surgery in k+1 dimensions using a sharpened Hodge star operator. This eliminates the boundary concerns as well as the problem mentioned above: thus, it yields the isoclysmic (i.e., single-wash property of the system) and generates several spin cocycles on an associated manifold.
This level of mathematics is not to be expected of a person with a BS, an MS or a PhD in mathematics - even candidates on a tenure-track would have a bit of a problem absorbing this material readily if it were not directly related to their research goals (M-theory, Chern-Simons forms, orbifolds, gauge theory, etc.), but, if you are still interested in it, I suppose that I could find a few elementary references and primers to get you up to speed on these topics.
A good place to start is M. Spivak's "Calculus on Manifolds" followed by B. Hall's "Lie Groups, Lie Algebras and Representations: An Elementary Introduction" from there the remaining path is to go back to the original papers and work through them. They are a little hard to come by, but I plan on traveling to Paris in the next couple of months so I'll see if I can get a copy from the Bibliotheque nationale de France. However, the notation of the day does leave quite a bit to be desired. If you don't believe me, try reading H. Grassmann's Ausdehnungslehre: it has similar difficulties.
(Good luck!)
For reference purposes, and, in case you happen to beat me to Paris, du Gerdemain's publication is in the French journal Recherches de la me. Chos. et de la Thermodynamique. The citation is: Auguste du Gerdemain, Recherches de la me. Chos. et de la Thermodynamique, Vol 42, No. XIV, pgs. 21-35, (1879). The BnF should have this journal archived.
I hope that this helps you.
Sincerely,
Mark Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
P.S. Please read The Book of Numbers, Benjamin C., it will help you understand these things.
Re: #238 MAH
Re: #240 Corey
and
Re: #247 Shiritai
Please note that I wrote "through the Second Law of Thermodynamics." The point of attack is not directly the Second Law - instead, it is the Zeroth Law. It is important not to conflate these two statements.
This approach is explained in the 1885 Zeitschrift fuer Phys. der re. Naturfor. paper by Ludwig, Mayer, Austerlitz, and Olsen which includes the boundary-independent du Gerdemain Function.
This function was first well-defined and is only well-defined on a du Gerdemain manifold: one could ask any competent string theorist or topologist who works with M-theory about the construction of a du Gerdemain manifold and its associated fibre bundle. The isoclysmic (Gk. single-washing) property of this system arises from a representation of the homotopy group of this particular manifold. To be specific, in a simplified example, Jordan curves are not definable on this kind of manifold, so one is forced to perform a k-fold surgery in k+1 dimensions using a sharpened Hodge star operator. This eliminates the boundary concerns as well as the problem mentioned above: thus, it yields the isoclysmic (i.e., single-wash property of the system) and generates several spin cocycles on an associated manifold.
This level of mathematics is not to be expected of a person with a BS, an MS or a PhD in mathematics - even candidates on a tenure-track would have a bit of a problem absorbing this material readily if it were not directly related to their research goals (M-theory, Chern-Simons forms, orbifolds, gauge theory, etc.), but, if you are still interested in it, I suppose that I could find a few elementary references and primers to get you up to speed on these topics.
A good place to start is M. Spivak's "Calculus on Manifolds" followed by B. Hall's "Lie Groups, Lie Algebras and Representations: An Elementary Introduction" from there the remaining path is to go back to the original papers and work through them. They are a little hard to come by, but I plan on traveling to Paris in the next couple of months so I'll see if I can get a copy from the Bibliotheque nationale de France. However, the notation of the day does leave quite a bit to be desired. If you don't believe me, try reading H. Grassmann's Ausdehnungslehre: it has similar difficulties.
(Good luck!)
For reference purposes, and, in case you happen to beat me to Paris, du Gerdemain's publication is in the French journal Recherches de la me. Chos. et de la Thermodynamique. The citation is: Auguste du Gerdemain, Recherches de la me. Chos. et de la Thermodynamique, Vol 42, No. XIV, pgs. 21-35, (1879). The BnF should have this journal archived.
I hope that this helps you.
Sincerely,
Mark Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
P.S. Please read The Book of Numbers, Benjamin C., it will help you understand these things.
No Intelligence Allowed V
Wed, 13 Feb 2008
A reply to Benjamin C. of post #211:
>> Marc Witt – [sic]
Frequently, people do inadvertently misspell my name. I will give it here for the record: Mark Edwin Witt, IV. However, I feel that the IV is a pretentious affectation of a by-gone era and choose to leave it off.
>> Define post-objectification.
That is easy to accomplish. Post-objectification relates to the ontology of Darwinian reality as a basis of Darwinian epistemology. Instead of taking Bayes' theorem as a sensible starting point and taking the standard, a priori approach to Inductive Logic that any rational person would take, Neo-Darwinians insist on an [unbelievably naive!] a posteriori approach to Inductive Logic, and, in so doing, explicitly post-objectify their theories. This just cannot be helped if they chose to remain willfully ignorant of this classical philosophical problem; even Kant could not surmount this as was implied as an underlying theme in his "Critique of Pure Reason" (I. Kant, 1781).
Another group that is quite blatantly guilty of post-objectification is the group of adherents to M. M. Bakhtin's (possibly one of your countrymen if I read your background properly) theory of literary criticism. Please do note that from like comes like as is evidenced in the Darwinian Literary Studies of Boyd, Carroll, Cooke, Gottschall et al.
>> What are the “neo-Darwinian post-objectivist theories”?
As noted above, all present Neo-Darwinian theories are explicitly post-objectified due to the flawed logic that is evidenced in this post.
>> Define triple-point states and multiple-point state of evolution.
Triple-point states of evolution are specific instances of multiple-point evolution in which the genes are purely intra-telomerically distributed; hence the description as a triple-point state -i.e., telomer, centromer, telomer. Multiple-point states of evolution are less well known and virtually unappreciated by the Neo-Darwinians - they typically involve simultaneous extra-telomeric distribution of genes. Either way, only ID can explain the fine boundary between that which is intra-telomeric and that which is extra-telomeric.
>> Show examples of “academic suppression of (by?) (sic)
>> Big Science”, other than the Discovery Institute’s
>> poster children (i.e. Meyers, von Sternberg,
>> Gonzalez, Crocker, et al).
Come now, the classic case in the mid-90's of Michael Udall Derbyshire, a promising researcher in Dawkins' own department no less, should be more than enough warning against the academic suppression of Big Science! That poor man lost his position, his home, his wife, his children and was driven to commit suicide due to academic suppression in its most vile form. Even now, ironically so if you are so cold-hearted, this item is suppressed by this very department. May Mr. Derbyshire rest in peace. (For further information, just contact the Dawkins Foundation, http://www.richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ )
>> What is the Institute of Theory?
The Institute of Theory is a privately-funded enterprise that was founded to ardently explore new ID-centric theories of life and debunk the NDPO (Neo-Darwinian Post-Objectivist) theories. For the first five years of this mission, we have been granted a very tidy sum as development and research capital. Indeed, it is expected that this enterprise will spark a subsequent generation of development. We stand proudly in the reflected glory of that bastion of freedom, the Discovery Institute - though admittedly they may not yet be acquainted with us. Someday, we hope to doggedly work with them united in this struggle for the freedom of suppressed ideas.
>> You said – “No doubt your next attempt to enhance your
>> standing and to promote your argument will begin by
>> silencing me and the Institute of Theory!”
Of course, this is the standard model of human behavior - no offense to you is meant. One always attacks that which one is ill-equipped to understand - if nothing else, this fact should be quite clear by tracing the above postings to this point.
>> ………What makes you think that I give a rats’ ass about
>> you and the “Institute of Theory”?
Ultimately, it will be necessary for the neo-Darwinians to assimilate to reality. That is why you should care. Though ID's proponents may be loquacious (as am I), (and possibly a bit tiresome on their points), it is truly hopeless for the Neo-Darwinians to resist. One should remember the aphorism "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." Unity is good for the collective.
>> You go on- “Big Science can barely contain itself in
>> its irrational attempt to foist itself on school
>> children: it begins with numbers and counting” “see
>> Numbers 1:4-14 or Numbers 3:14-15”
You must admit that Lord's way is, indeed, transcendental - it is as clear as day in Numbers. Just read it and allow the simple truth to guide your mind. The truth is always counts. The Neo-Darwinians should leave the school children alone, or, at least, should give them the choice to stand with the Lord and affirm or deny the validity of any counter-evolutionary arguments like multiple-point evolution. Freedom is not such a stringent demand!
>> ………Now you go from being merely kooky, to certifiable
>> crazy! What in the world do the twelve tribes of
>> Israel have to do with anything here?
Now, now, I have tried to be nice. Ok, maybe I concentrate too much on Numbers, but, if Genesis is also read, you will find the answers in Genesis for sure.
>> DELETED!!
Try to be civil.
>> Benjamin C. Boris-Natashia
>> (Provisional Grand Poobah)
>> Villains, Thieves and Scoundrels Union
>> Local 12
At least, be honest. It would be better if you called yourself Benjamin Boris C. Natashovich if you do not desire to be totally transparent!! I will play along with you, but only so far, Sir!
Good Day!
Mark Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
A reply to Benjamin C. of post #211:
>> Marc Witt – [sic]
Frequently, people do inadvertently misspell my name. I will give it here for the record: Mark Edwin Witt, IV. However, I feel that the IV is a pretentious affectation of a by-gone era and choose to leave it off.
>> Define post-objectification.
That is easy to accomplish. Post-objectification relates to the ontology of Darwinian reality as a basis of Darwinian epistemology. Instead of taking Bayes' theorem as a sensible starting point and taking the standard, a priori approach to Inductive Logic that any rational person would take, Neo-Darwinians insist on an [unbelievably naive!] a posteriori approach to Inductive Logic, and, in so doing, explicitly post-objectify their theories. This just cannot be helped if they chose to remain willfully ignorant of this classical philosophical problem; even Kant could not surmount this as was implied as an underlying theme in his "Critique of Pure Reason" (I. Kant, 1781).
Another group that is quite blatantly guilty of post-objectification is the group of adherents to M. M. Bakhtin's (possibly one of your countrymen if I read your background properly) theory of literary criticism. Please do note that from like comes like as is evidenced in the Darwinian Literary Studies of Boyd, Carroll, Cooke, Gottschall et al.
>> What are the “neo-Darwinian post-objectivist theories”?
As noted above, all present Neo-Darwinian theories are explicitly post-objectified due to the flawed logic that is evidenced in this post.
>> Define triple-point states and multiple-point state of evolution.
Triple-point states of evolution are specific instances of multiple-point evolution in which the genes are purely intra-telomerically distributed; hence the description as a triple-point state -i.e., telomer, centromer, telomer. Multiple-point states of evolution are less well known and virtually unappreciated by the Neo-Darwinians - they typically involve simultaneous extra-telomeric distribution of genes. Either way, only ID can explain the fine boundary between that which is intra-telomeric and that which is extra-telomeric.
>> Show examples of “academic suppression of (by?) (sic)
>> Big Science”, other than the Discovery Institute’s
>> poster children (i.e. Meyers, von Sternberg,
>> Gonzalez, Crocker, et al).
Come now, the classic case in the mid-90's of Michael Udall Derbyshire, a promising researcher in Dawkins' own department no less, should be more than enough warning against the academic suppression of Big Science! That poor man lost his position, his home, his wife, his children and was driven to commit suicide due to academic suppression in its most vile form. Even now, ironically so if you are so cold-hearted, this item is suppressed by this very department. May Mr. Derbyshire rest in peace. (For further information, just contact the Dawkins Foundation, http://www.richarddawkinsfounda
>> What is the Institute of Theory?
The Institute of Theory is a privately-funded enterprise that was founded to ardently explore new ID-centric theories of life and debunk the NDPO (Neo-Darwinian Post-Objectivist) theories. For the first five years of this mission, we have been granted a very tidy sum as development and research capital. Indeed, it is expected that this enterprise will spark a subsequent generation of development. We stand proudly in the reflected glory of that bastion of freedom, the Discovery Institute - though admittedly they may not yet be acquainted with us. Someday, we hope to doggedly work with them united in this struggle for the freedom of suppressed ideas.
>> You said – “No doubt your next attempt to enhance your
>> standing and to promote your argument will begin by
>> silencing me and the Institute of Theory!”
Of course, this is the standard model of human behavior - no offense to you is meant. One always attacks that which one is ill-equipped to understand - if nothing else, this fact should be quite clear by tracing the above postings to this point.
>> ………What makes you think that I give a rats’ ass about
>> you and the “Institute of Theory”?
Ultimately, it will be necessary for the neo-Darwinians to assimilate to reality. That is why you should care. Though ID's proponents may be loquacious (as am I), (and possibly a bit tiresome on their points), it is truly hopeless for the Neo-Darwinians to resist. One should remember the aphorism "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." Unity is good for the collective.
>> You go on- “Big Science can barely contain itself in
>> its irrational attempt to foist itself on school
>> children: it begins with numbers and counting” “see
>> Numbers 1:4-14 or Numbers 3:14-15”
You must admit that Lord's way is, indeed, transcendental - it is as clear as day in Numbers. Just read it and allow the simple truth to guide your mind. The truth is always counts. The Neo-Darwinians should leave the school children alone, or, at least, should give them the choice to stand with the Lord and affirm or deny the validity of any counter-evolutionary arguments like multiple-point evolution. Freedom is not such a stringent demand!
>> ………Now you go from being merely kooky, to certifiable
>> crazy! What in the world do the twelve tribes of
>> Israel have to do with anything here?
Now, now, I have tried to be nice. Ok, maybe I concentrate too much on Numbers, but, if Genesis is also read, you will find the answers in Genesis for sure.
>> DELETED!!
Try to be civil.
>> Benjamin C. Boris-Natashia
>> (Provisional Grand Poobah)
>> Villains, Thieves and Scoundrels Union
>> Local 12
At least, be honest. It would be better if you called yourself Benjamin Boris C. Natashovich if you do not desire to be totally transparent!! I will play along with you, but only so far, Sir!
Good Day!
Mark Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No Intelligence Allowed IV
Wed, 13 Feb 2008
Re:#203 graphicsully said: "Let us speculate that the theory of evolution is brought to an end or found to be unproven. Maybe through the second law of thermodynamics with enthropy, but none the less, debunked."
Finally, someone with whom to agree! Debunking is indeed the goal. Obviously, this primed free energy function as defined by Dr. Josiah Willard Gibbs of Yale and later slightly modified by Dr. Andrew Gibbs while he remained living into the last century (only Josiah Gibbs is usually given the credit) leads to a clear and fairly devastating disproof of evolution through the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
For those of you who are not well acquainted with the niceties of ID or with the hard realities of thermodynamics, this primed Gibbs Free Energy of an isoclysmic system (as given by K. Ludwig, L. Mayer, X. Austerlitz, and P. Olsen in 1885 in the Zeitschrift fuer Phys. der re. Naturfor., Vol. 10, No. 7, pgs. 23-24) that is quasi-statically bound to an adiabat such as a cell or a human body is while it is still alive is the entropy plus the enthalpy divided by a temperature-dependent scaling factor - often shortened to Enthrapy - please watch your spelling graphicsully. (It was a pleasant surprise, though, to see that someone here knows of this thermodynamic function!) It has its origin in a perfect differential and remains invariant under an arbitrary Legendre transformation. Case closed! Not only is the viability of evolution disproved, but the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is necessarily vitiated. (see Turner, L.A., Am. Jour. Phys., Vol. 29, pgs. 71-76 for the standard reference.)
Why must there be so many idiots in the world? I am sure that you must think that! Please be civil and just follow the derivations to their logical conclusions and do not assume all ID'ers are unmitigated fools who have nothing to offer but sophisms and invalid arguments. Only fair and balanced consideration of thought will lead us out of the wilderness. The Truth will be known even if it takes 1000 years.
If this disproof were well-known in the general population through publication in major newspapers - like the New York Times for instance - one wonders how we can try to understand the new times effect on man just as graphicsully does propose. All that can be hoped for is for this to reach a wider audience and for the removal of the suppression of academic ideas.
Until now, I have always heaped praise exclusively on Ben Stein, but the producers of this movie do deserve a full measure of credit also. Thank you, Messieurs, and may God bless you.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Re:#203 graphicsully said: "Let us speculate that the theory of evolution is brought to an end or found to be unproven. Maybe through the second law of thermodynamics with enthropy, but none the less, debunked."
Finally, someone with whom to agree! Debunking is indeed the goal. Obviously, this primed free energy function as defined by Dr. Josiah Willard Gibbs of Yale and later slightly modified by Dr. Andrew Gibbs while he remained living into the last century (only Josiah Gibbs is usually given the credit) leads to a clear and fairly devastating disproof of evolution through the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
For those of you who are not well acquainted with the niceties of ID or with the hard realities of thermodynamics, this primed Gibbs Free Energy of an isoclysmic system (as given by K. Ludwig, L. Mayer, X. Austerlitz, and P. Olsen in 1885 in the Zeitschrift fuer Phys. der re. Naturfor., Vol. 10, No. 7, pgs. 23-24) that is quasi-statically bound to an adiabat such as a cell or a human body is while it is still alive is the entropy plus the enthalpy divided by a temperature-dependent scaling factor - often shortened to Enthrapy - please watch your spelling graphicsully. (It was a pleasant surprise, though, to see that someone here knows of this thermodynamic function!) It has its origin in a perfect differential and remains invariant under an arbitrary Legendre transformation. Case closed! Not only is the viability of evolution disproved, but the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is necessarily vitiated. (see Turner, L.A., Am. Jour. Phys., Vol. 29, pgs. 71-76 for the standard reference.)
Why must there be so many idiots in the world? I am sure that you must think that! Please be civil and just follow the derivations to their logical conclusions and do not assume all ID'ers are unmitigated fools who have nothing to offer but sophisms and invalid arguments. Only fair and balanced consideration of thought will lead us out of the wilderness. The Truth will be known even if it takes 1000 years.
If this disproof were well-known in the general population through publication in major newspapers - like the New York Times for instance - one wonders how we can try to understand the new times effect on man just as graphicsully does propose. All that can be hoped for is for this to reach a wider audience and for the removal of the suppression of academic ideas.
Until now, I have always heaped praise exclusively on Ben Stein, but the producers of this movie do deserve a full measure of credit also. Thank you, Messieurs, and may God bless you.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No Intelligence Allowed III
Tue, 12 Feb 2008
Benjamin C said: "I have nothing to fear from Stein’s ideas or anyone else’s, but what I do fear are those who unthinkingly ignore evidence, artificially contrive a controversy as a public relations tool, and try to foist their own narrow religious interpretations on me, the scientific community, and most sadly – school children."
Then the inconvenient truth of my posts (#158, #171) should make you uneasy, indeed. I have carefully considered and weighed each and every fact against the neo-Darwinian post-objectivist theories that have been presented - I do not UNTHINKINGLY ignore evidence; it is quite well considered before I throw it into the dustbin of NDPO theoretical structures that have not in ONE way enlightened the world of biology, medicine, morality or religion in the last 149 years since the reign Miescher-Darwin began. Yes, theoretical biology has not made one single, well-qualified advance in modern times beyond revealing the irreducible complexity of the cell's DNA - just as ID has predicted it. Please note that statistical thermodynamics guarantees that the complexity remains irreducibly represented especially when the nuclei are off shell - i.e., in all energy regimes including room temperature up to lightning strikes as is well-known.
It is unbelievable that you would promote your ideas of NDPO biology based on genetic change here much less transcribe them for all to see. No doubt your next attempt to enhance your standing and to promote your argument will begin by silencing me and the Institute of Theory!
Well, promote your genetic ideas here all you want, Sir!
You argument to raze the irreducibly complex is reducibly simple and not even logical: the irreducibly complex and can only be described by the application of the original yardstick - it is not clear that Big Science has the measure of this yardstick or will ever attain it.
As I have said before, Big Science can barely contain itself in its irrational attempt to foist itself on school children: it begins with numbers and counting. This unseemly practice always starts in the same way. [The Lord's way is outlined with crooked strokes - see Numbers 1:4-14 or Numbers 3:14-15 - but it is ALWAYS transcendent.] The same cannot be said of the slippery logical slope of Big Science-sponsored indoctrination that leads to the Post-Objectified neo-(Miescher-)Darwinist Empiricism, Sir!
If only Ben Stein has courage and fortitude to stand astride this issue in a veritable Rho-Chambeaulian dispute with Big Science, may his success be ordained and academic freedom of thought be secured.
Lastly, I take umbrage at your base attempts to promote Mr. Stein as a propaganda tool. Ben Stein is not a propaganda tool, Sir!
MGBBS!
Sincerely,
Mark E. Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Benjamin C said: "I have nothing to fear from Stein’s ideas or anyone else’s, but what I do fear are those who unthinkingly ignore evidence, artificially contrive a controversy as a public relations tool, and try to foist their own narrow religious interpretations on me, the scientific community, and most sadly – school children."
Then the inconvenient truth of my posts (#158, #171) should make you uneasy, indeed. I have carefully considered and weighed each and every fact against the neo-Darwinian post-objectivist theories that have been presented - I do not UNTHINKINGLY ignore evidence; it is quite well considered before I throw it into the dustbin of NDPO theoretical structures that have not in ONE way enlightened the world of biology, medicine, morality or religion in the last 149 years since the reign Miescher-Darwin began. Yes, theoretical biology has not made one single, well-qualified advance in modern times beyond revealing the irreducible complexity of the cell's DNA - just as ID has predicted it. Please note that statistical thermodynamics guarantees that the complexity remains irreducibly represented especially when the nuclei are off shell - i.e., in all energy regimes including room temperature up to lightning strikes as is well-known.
It is unbelievable that you would promote your ideas of NDPO biology based on genetic change here much less transcribe them for all to see. No doubt your next attempt to enhance your standing and to promote your argument will begin by silencing me and the Institute of Theory!
Well, promote your genetic ideas here all you want, Sir!
You argument to raze the irreducibly complex is reducibly simple and not even logical: the irreducibly complex and can only be described by the application of the original yardstick - it is not clear that Big Science has the measure of this yardstick or will ever attain it.
As I have said before, Big Science can barely contain itself in its irrational attempt to foist itself on school children: it begins with numbers and counting. This unseemly practice always starts in the same way. [The Lord's way is outlined with crooked strokes - see Numbers 1:4-14 or Numbers 3:14-15 - but it is ALWAYS transcendent.] The same cannot be said of the slippery logical slope of Big Science-sponsored indoctrination that leads to the Post-Objectified neo-(Miescher-)Darwinist Empiricism, Sir!
If only Ben Stein has courage and fortitude to stand astride this issue in a veritable Rho-Chambeaulian dispute with Big Science, may his success be ordained and academic freedom of thought be secured.
Lastly, I take umbrage at your base attempts to promote Mr. Stein as a propaganda tool. Ben Stein is not a propaganda tool, Sir!
MGBBS!
Sincerely,
Mark E. Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No Intelligence Allowed II
Tue, 12 Feb 2008
(#168 Frank Says:)
>> Bear in mind also that you are arguing with an ID
>> advocate here, not a Creationist. You can’t shoot
>> me down with perceived imperfections because I make no
>> claim of a perfect deity as designer.
Frank,
As admirable as your illustrations of the use of faulty logic are, one must remember the following dicta:
"6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:"
-AND-
"11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
Both are from Deuteronomy 5. It is vanity to deny the perfection of the Creation and of the Creator. To do so is to risk teleological annihilation of the immortal soul.
It is only through the unitary simplicity of Christian thought and logic and by the Grace of the Creator that the truth of ID may be seen to be that which it is.
Ben Stein is doing us all an immeasurable service by his effort to overthrow the hegemony of Big Science. The dogmatic suppression of truth and of logic and of evidence by Big Science is a modern day Inquisition. Big Science can hardly contain itself in its efforts to maintain its neo-Darwinian post-objectification as the only viable theory of life.
Furthermore, Dawkins in his role as the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada is more than willing to apply hammer and tongs to the soft flesh of the truth that is the theory of ID.
Who can question that ID must be responsible for triple-point states of evolution or multiple-point states of evolution? What random pressures could lead to this superposition? One would think that random processes would be driven by temperature! How ridiculous!
NO, the Evo's have all the answers! Yes, it is all hammers, tongs, and branding irons for those who would question this incontrovertible evidence - especially those who would attempt to join the ranks of the Academy. NO...No TENURE for you again and again and again!
It is the triumvirate of delusion (Dawkins, Dennett and Harris) that we must unite to defeat. (RANT OFF)
Ben Stein is the one true hope that we have. He has the celebrity and courage to allow us to stand against the academic suppression of Big Science.
May you all be blessed by the Lord.
May God Bless Ben Stein.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
(#168 Frank Says:)
>> Bear in mind also that you are arguing with an ID
>> advocate here, not a Creationist. You can’t shoot
>> me down with perceived imperfections because I make no
>> claim of a perfect deity as designer.
Frank,
As admirable as your illustrations of the use of faulty logic are, one must remember the following dicta:
"6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:"
-AND-
"11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
Both are from Deuteronomy 5. It is vanity to deny the perfection of the Creation and of the Creator. To do so is to risk teleological annihilation of the immortal soul.
It is only through the unitary simplicity of Christian thought and logic and by the Grace of the Creator that the truth of ID may be seen to be that which it is.
Ben Stein is doing us all an immeasurable service by his effort to overthrow the hegemony of Big Science. The dogmatic suppression of truth and of logic and of evidence by Big Science is a modern day Inquisition. Big Science can hardly contain itself in its efforts to maintain its neo-Darwinian post-objectification as the only viable theory of life.
Furthermore, Dawkins in his role as the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada is more than willing to apply hammer and tongs to the soft flesh of the truth that is the theory of ID.
Who can question that ID must be responsible for triple-point states of evolution or multiple-point states of evolution? What random pressures could lead to this superposition? One would think that random processes would be driven by temperature! How ridiculous!
NO, the Evo's have all the answers! Yes, it is all hammers, tongs, and branding irons for those who would question this incontrovertible evidence - especially those who would attempt to join the ranks of the Academy. NO...No TENURE for you again and again and again!
It is the triumvirate of delusion (Dawkins, Dennett and Harris) that we must unite to defeat. (RANT OFF)
Ben Stein is the one true hope that we have. He has the celebrity and courage to allow us to stand against the academic suppression of Big Science.
May you all be blessed by the Lord.
May God Bless Ben Stein.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No Intellgence Allowed I
Mon, 11 Feb 2008
"Expelled" should be a fantastic movie! Finally, someone has the courage to address the neo-Darwinian post-objectification of religion. If only the Darwinists who are involved in propagating their standard anti-truth dogmas such as "objective" reality would see the charm, the beauty and, I dare say, the truth of Creation instead of their strange, topsy-turvy, upside-down take on what is the simplicity of Christian thought. It is, indeed, a dark matter when souls turn away from the omnipresent and omniscient Creator. It is truly A DAGGER in my heart. It leaves me with less energy and hope for my fellow man's salvation.
May you all be blessed by the Lord.
May God Bless you, Ben Stein!
Sincerely,
Mark E. Witt
"Expelled" should be a fantastic movie! Finally, someone has the courage to address the neo-Darwinian post-objectification of religion. If only the Darwinists who are involved in propagating their standard anti-truth dogmas such as "objective" reality would see the charm, the beauty and, I dare say, the truth of Creation instead of their strange, topsy-turvy, upside-down take on what is the simplicity of Christian thought. It is, indeed, a dark matter when souls turn away from the omnipresent and omniscient Creator. It is truly A DAGGER in my heart. It leaves me with less energy and hope for my fellow man's salvation.
May you all be blessed by the Lord.
May God Bless you, Ben Stein!
Sincerely,
Mark E. Witt