Comments

The reason theres no smooth transition from the space shuttle to the orion space vehicle is because 1) niether the Orion or the Ares launch vehicle (orions launch system) are ready for actual missons now, won't be ready by the time of the shuttles retirement date of 2010, and probably won't be ready by their proposed date of 2014 (an optimistic estimate). 2)NASA is already incredibly underfunded, and the fact that they are currently able to maintain there aging equipment and fund new missions is a feat all its own. But current shuttle missions average about $1 billion per launch. The idea that the Orion and a brand new launch platform could be operational anywhere near the shuttles retirement date is both incredibly expensive and unrealistic. In a perfect world where politicians actually know how to allocate tax payer dollars the orion project would have been funded much earlier and construction, testing and deployment of the vehicle would have been timed to coincide with the retirement of the space shuttle, rather than having to go at least 6 years without any US based launch system to take us to the space station that was funded more by the US than anyother participating country. One other thing, if I remember correctly the Jules Verne is a suuply ship, not suited to carrying (live) passengers. AS it stands its simply an automated supply vessel, and even so, its maintained by the ESA not USA, and could create an issue similar to the one about using Russian Soyuz craft. The truth is, we should have our own nationally based launch system by the time the shuttle retires, eliminating our dependence on launch vehicles controlled by forgein powers.

Quick correction, I meant to say dark energy, not matter, in my previous post. But it doesn't change that much, my point is the same. I would just like to clarify that I do know the difference between ID and the theory surrounding dark energy, I'm simply starting small just trying to convey a teency weency little concept first, and I’ll work my way up from there. Dark energy is believed to comprise about 70% of the universes overall mass-energy, and is believed to generate repulsive gravitational forces, thought to be the driving force behind the accelerating expansion of the universe. We know this because the known (visible/detectable) mass in the universe could not generate the kinds of gravitational forces we have detected. So scientists came up with dark energy. Dark energy is a term used to describe an unknown variable. The object/mass itself cannot be seen, it neither reflects nor generates any electromagnetic radiation in the known spectrum, but its influence can be observed and felt. Presently, there is no way to test for the existence of this material on the macroscopic scale (scientists are currently “searching” for the hypothetical particles/material that comprise dark energy, which may be detectable with our current level of technology). Its existence as a theory is entirely dependent on the utilization of its theorized effects on the surrounding environment as evidence. It is neither testable nor is it falsifiable. There is no other known force in the universe that generates a repulsive gravitational force, so there is no reference point for us to create any sort of an accurate hypotheses, or to back the claim up with evidence; and even if the universes expansion were to slow or stop, that would fail to prove that dark energy does not exist, but that there is simply another variable at work. Its effects can be seen, but by nature, dark energy itself, cannot (this is where it starts sounding a little like the argument for the plausibility of a God, if it weren’t for all the “evidence and testability” to support it). It is at this point that this discussions main topic quickly changes from what does and does not qualify as science, to what does and does not qualify as evidence, as well as what is and is not testable. After examining these criteria, we can then determine whether or not given scientific theories and principles still fall into the category of science. I would like to clarify my point. I am not attempting to validate ID as a scientific theory, but rather show that not even what modern scientists have deemed scientific, actually qualifies as science. I know what ID is, and it is not science. As N3DG said earlier, scientific theory is considered scientific because it is testable, repeatable, and can be used to make predictions of future results. This statement is absolutely true. My issue is that the theories surrounding dark energy/matter, as well as many other scientific theories (including evolution), are not testable or falsifiable, and use biased and inaccurate evidence to support themselves, and therefore do not qualify as scientific theory. The scientific field has become extremely comfortable with using inductive reasoning and inference to develop hypotheses and fill in the gaps concerning unknown forces/phenomena. The problem is that this method applies our accumulated knowledge and experiences to concepts completely foreign to us. Think about how often you hear “life cannot exist without water”, this statement is both true and inaccurate. There are scientists today, who genuinely believe that in order for life to have arisen on another planet, water and organic compounds must have been present (not just for earth-like life to develop, but any). This is a testable statement. Every organism on this planet requires water in some stage of its life to survive. We can prove that prehistoric organisms needed water for survival, and can use observations and tests today to prove that modern organisms do. So using this evidence, and there is a lot of it, one could infer that in order for life to survive, water must be present in the organisms surrounding environment. This statement qualifies as a scientific theory, and is provable with evidence. But just because it’s a scientific theory, does not necessarily mean it is accurate. We end up taking evidence from our known world and applying it to the unknown as a constant. When working under this assumption, we can call any sort of theory fact, and any observations can be utilized as evidence. If we are to accept every single fact we know today as a universal standard that stretches through time and space, than there is no question about the validity and credibility of these scientific principles. But what must be understood is that when you play connect the dots, without all of the dots; you get a very inaccurate representation of the actual product, even if the final result appears fairly conclusive. As I stated earlier, at this point in time I am simply trying to convey a concept, not write a research paper. There are many basics that must be discussed and understood before any sort of productive scientific discussion can be had, and maybe I’ll touch on them later. To wrap up, I would like to clarify, I’m not arguing for ID or creationism’s acceptance among the scientific community as scientific theory; but that there are discrepancies amongst the scientific community itself concerning what is believed to qualify as evidence, as well as science. So far I‘ve only skipped along the outskirts of my evidence, never delving to deep into it, mainly because to do so would be a huge endeavor. This discussion has ties to all scientific fields, and is a very complex subject, and not one I’m going to professionally discuss in a comments section of a webpage. I’m hoping just to get people to listen and think, just opening new paths of thought (not to bring people to creationism, but to see the world and universe as it really is, to come to terms with where we are and what we really know). If anyone has any questions or comments (as long as their polite) for me I will gladly answer them to the best of my ability. I would also like to note that I stand by my previous statement about the rankings on this site being irrelevant and biased. IPPY makes a good point that it seems pretty clear that the evolutionists are voting a lot more than the creationists. I myself haven’t voted once. My previous posts weren’t even anything you could really disagree with, I made a statement about the progress of this discussion and I asked a question, but somehow both of my posts were given a ranking of 1 out of 3. Just thought I’d put it out there.

This topic becomes more annoying the longer you listen to it. There are quite a few problems with having this argument. I wish I could say discussion, but that would require some form of decency and etiquette when exchanging ideas, rather than sarcasm, mockery, and overall disregard for others beliefs (which both sides are equally guilty of). My question to anyone who posts after this is what do you hope to gain by participating in this debate. Are you honestly trying to educate or enlighten another group that lacks a rudimentary understanding of this scientific principle, or are you looking to bash a belief that you consider ridiculous or inferior to yours. And that statement goes both ways, it applies to creationists as well as evolutionists. You cannot hope to get others to listen to what you have to say (no matter how valid your point), if you criticize them for believing what they do, no matter how stubborn or thick-headed you believe them to be. There is absolutely nothing productive about this approach. All you do is fuel an argument with no end in sight. You would at least save yourself a headache by not participating in the conversation. To all creationists, the truth of the matter is, Creationism will not be taught in schools, no matter how much you whine about it, no matter what you say, or what logic you try and apply to the argument, things just aren’t going to happen that way. I’m not dogging the belief itself, but there’s nothing to gain from arguing anymore. More people disagree than agree with you, and that’s not about to change; so let it go and raise your own kids the best you can. I would like to point something out though. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution or creationism. The real issue is how you express your beliefs and how you interact with individuals of differing beliefs. It’s obvious that many people posting here feel strongly about what they believe and there frustrations have been expressed in their posts, that’s why some are more snippy or sarcastic than others. But, GOD-IS-IMAGINARY, specifically, is the best representation of what is wrong with this discussion. Of all the posts I read yours were the most rude, mean-spirited, or outright malicious in nature. From what I recall you were the one saying “magic man in the sky”, “bible thumping lunatics”, etc. You gain nothing from talking to people like that. You anger those of a differing opinion, and make future discussions that much more unproductive. It really wouldn’t be the United States if everyone was attacked or harassed for not having “the right belief”. Even KKK members are entitled to their opinion (unfortunately), but they get less grief than creationists do. You can't blame your behavior on teachers trying to take evolution out of schools or to bring creationism in. Whether or not creationists push to have their beliefs taught in public schools, they would still be ridiculed for being ignorant, stubborn and so on. It’s human nature to single out and attack those who are different. Look at our history, its just who we are. You can’t try and blame this conflict on one particular group, they’re both guilty. Catholics killed millions of people of differing opinions in the past (which is more representative of the time period than the faith itself), ethnic cleansing still happens to this day. And now, evolutionists/atheists have large enough numbers in nations all over the world to turn the tables on all creationists. I’ve seen students openly harassed in high school/university classrooms by their teachers and professors, simply for believing in something their teacher deemed ridiculous. You want to know why these creationists are being so difficult, this is why. Unfortunately though, there really are a large number of loud mouthed, ignorant, religious crazies out there that do nothing to support creationists claim, but discredit any valid claim they do make. I won’t pretend that creationists are smarter than they are, many do believe what they believe from a lack of education, and barely understand their own religious beliefs. You have to be careful who you listen to, one religous zealot does not speak for all creationists. Scientists have tried to use evolution to prove that blacks are more closely related to apes than other people, but the scientific community quickly denounced them and there theories and distanced themselves from those views as much as possible. So if they get to choose who does and does not speak for them, so should creationists. I do see the problem with that however, there are MANY denominations, and you can't argue against them all, so you generalize. But, you have to choose which people you address carefully. They aren't all highschool dropouts going through the motions of an aged and outdated belief system. There are plenty of educated creationists out there, they just aren't as noticeable as the loud mouthed, bible thumping lunatics (they tend to draw attention towards themselves). As I stated once before, this discussion has been going on for decades, if you honestly believe you’re going to make a difference in the comments section of this page, you’ve got another thing coming. In all honesty, this discussion is more trouble than its worth, and I’m sure both parties will agree to that. Another thing, using the rating of someone’s post on this website is an ineffective way of trying to invalidate that person’s comment. Their rankings here mean nothing. If any of you have taken courses in statistics, or even attended a high school math class, I shouldn’t have to elaborate. N3DG- I believe you stated that “ID is a theory that exists in the absence of knowledge” in one of your earlier posts. Do the research on dark matter, and explain how the same doesn’t apply to it, an unproven scientific theory(I want to point out, I’m not making an association between evolution and dark matter by saying “unproven”, I’m simply saying that even by scientific standards, dark matter is just a theory. I’ll give you credit because you do seem to have a decent grasp of evolutionary theory, as well as scientific law. I also believe you know how to support your claims with evidence, but it’s the evidence where I disagree with you. I would like to continue and talk about those sites you posted earlier providing evidence of evolution (which I did read through), but I’ve been typing for a while and I’m bored now, maybe later.