No. What I see is that people are letting a little imprecision in language to get around the problem of there being no plausible naturalistic scenario for the origin of life.
Furthermore, Darwin speculated about ponds and the origin of life. Origin of life research and speculations are very much tied to evolution, since chemicals need to survive and replicate.
While I understand what you are saying, people are using "evolution" to represent naturalism and materialism in general. So for all practical purposes, that's what is the debate is about. Naturalism, especially the "ism" part. Criticisms in regards to naturalistic origin of life scenarios may say "evolution" but that is what they mean.
I'll take you up on that
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
Could you just give me your mother's maiden name along with the acount number?
HTML, etc. are open-standards. The problem here is how to get an open standard when none already exists. IE and Firefox could, by and large, display the same stuff.
If Microsoft doesn't support ODF and most people are using Office, the hurdle is that much higher. The web allows IE and Firefox to co-exist. ODF would allow Office and other products to co-exist. But we face the problem of getting ODF supported in the first place, which wasn't the problem with HTML and other web standards.
Greater freedom causes problems. Gun violence, drunk driving, and all manner of things. But there are trade-offs we make. For instance, I go through airport screening. So no absolute freedom but a completely safe society wouldn't be worth living in either.
Similar to the opposing concerns of usability and computer security.
If politicians are going to get involved very heavily in how people make and spend money, we should expect money to try to exert influence in politics.
...that's stealing. People may try to justify stealing because the laws are bad (and the laws may need to be changed) but that doesn't change the fact that we steal things that don't belong to us.
We are stone-cold thieves. That's the human condition.
It is factored in as the Universe is designed to allow us in this window for humans to investigate. I may be mischaracterizing the argument, but the overall point remains that this factor is used in cosmology-based ID arguments.
You just produced random genetic code. You didn't increase any information in your hypothetical example. I think you know that DNA carries genetic information.
Known examples of random mutation cause loss of functionality and sometimes that loss of functionality causes something beneficial for survival to happen.
Could you point me to any known experiment or observation which shows some new functionality which isn't simply a degradation of previous information?
You call BS. I call for examples based on observation.
Conservatives want courts to base things on the law and the Constitution. So unless you have a specific legal gripe, I don't mind that you dislike this court.
I don't like outcome X, therefore the Court should have decided Y.
There is no reference in your complaint to the law, the Constitution, or improper legal reasoning. And that is the general difference between liberals and conservatives regarding the Court. That's why conservatives hated the Kelo decision.
A lot of Intelligent Design proponents believe in genetic front-loading. For example, the genes for my Labrador (friendliness, webbed feet, etc) were present originally in wolves. Same goes for Poodle genes. They just needed some reshuffling.
Not a perfect description, but the main point is that there is breadth to the Intelligent Design movement with variant points of view. You may be thinking simply of Young Earth Creationists.
Slashdot Mirror
No. What I see is that people are letting a little imprecision in language to get around the problem of there being no plausible naturalistic scenario for the origin of life.
Furthermore, Darwin speculated about ponds and the origin of life. Origin of life research and speculations are very much tied to evolution, since chemicals need to survive and replicate.
We aren't talking about graphiti and squeegee guys?
While I understand what you are saying, people are using "evolution" to represent naturalism and materialism in general. So for all practical purposes, that's what is the debate is about. Naturalism, especially the "ism" part. Criticisms in regards to naturalistic origin of life scenarios may say "evolution" but that is what they mean.
Could you just give me your mother's maiden name along with the acount number?
This is what I would tell Ms. Plame:
When trying to protect your identity, don't send your husband on a very high-profile mission.
Is this statement absolutely true in all circumstances or not? Just curious.
...only one leaves.
HTML, etc. are open-standards. The problem here is how to get an open standard when none already exists. IE and Firefox could, by and large, display the same stuff.
If Microsoft doesn't support ODF and most people are using Office, the hurdle is that much higher. The web allows IE and Firefox to co-exist. ODF would allow Office and other products to co-exist. But we face the problem of getting ODF supported in the first place, which wasn't the problem with HTML and other web standards.
I've been going to Ocean City, NJ since I was a babe. Paying to get on the beach gets under my skin.
I'm not too concerned about Big Brother. I don't think Ocean City is big enough or desires to go down that route.
But they control access to who goes on the beach. And that, while probably constitutional, stinks.
Scotland may have sparse areas. America has a whole mess of it. I've driven across it. There is a whole lot of nothing all over the place.
Greater freedom causes problems. Gun violence, drunk driving, and all manner of things. But there are trade-offs we make. For instance, I go through airport screening. So no absolute freedom but a completely safe society wouldn't be worth living in either.
Similar to the opposing concerns of usability and computer security.
If politicians are going to get involved very heavily in how people make and spend money, we should expect money to try to exert influence in politics.
This is an issue with radio stations? They already bleep profanity.
If you pass the test, you are dead.
...that's stealing. People may try to justify stealing because the laws are bad (and the laws may need to be changed) but that doesn't change the fact that we steal things that don't belong to us.
We are stone-cold thieves. That's the human condition.
The viruses are intelligently designed. I'm not vouching for Microsoft Windows.
It is factored in as the Universe is designed to allow us in this window for humans to investigate. I may be mischaracterizing the argument, but the overall point remains that this factor is used in cosmology-based ID arguments.
Nylon Bacteria was taken up by the ID community here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ why-scientists-should-not-dismiss-intelligent-desi gn/
You just produced random genetic code. You didn't increase any information in your hypothetical example. I think you know that DNA carries genetic information.
Known examples of random mutation cause loss of functionality and sometimes that loss of functionality causes something beneficial for survival to happen.
Could you point me to any known experiment or observation which shows some new functionality which isn't simply a degradation of previous information?
You call BS. I call for examples based on observation.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Because random mutations can't produce new information. Evolution is downhill in regards to information.
Conservatives want courts to base things on the law and the Constitution. So unless you have a specific legal gripe, I don't mind that you dislike this court.
I don't like outcome X, therefore the Court should have decided Y.
There is no reference in your complaint to the law, the Constitution, or improper legal reasoning. And that is the general difference between liberals and conservatives regarding the Court. That's why conservatives hated the Kelo decision.
A lot of Intelligent Design proponents believe in genetic front-loading. For example, the genes for my Labrador (friendliness, webbed feet, etc) were present originally in wolves. Same goes for Poodle genes. They just needed some reshuffling.
Not a perfect description, but the main point is that there is breadth to the Intelligent Design movement with variant points of view. You may be thinking simply of Young Earth Creationists.
Cancel or allow?
Let someone willing to take the negative publicity deal with the school district.