Odd that you should choose that example (you're good at this), because the `theory of gravity' only matches what gravity does, it can't actually say why it does what it does. It says `gravity does this' and stops before getting to the `because' part. Same goes for theories of magnetism. The theory of evolution, despite its amazing flexibility, does not explain the data. For example, turtles have nice hard shells that fossilise readily, and indeed we have plenty of turtle fossils - but no fossils at all of proto-turtles, half-formed turtles. Nothing markedly different from the turtles that swim past a few kilometers east of me right now. Pulling the `unlucky' gag about the incompleteness of the fossil record won't wash, because - as I said - we have plenty of turtle fossils... and the same goes for many other species.
Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs:
* Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell.
* Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993)
* Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc..
Biology and Geology:
No, I use science to deal with science. You are the one subcategorising everything and wriggling like a worm on the hook instead of giving straight answers. You don't seem to have understood the point about explanatory power. If it explains too much, then it shows that it has really explained nothing. If it is so flexible that it will fit anything, then it is also so weak that it cannot support anything.
Amazing. You don't understand that a theory in biology doesn't need to have anything to do with geology? The theory of evolution predicts X in geology, or the theory of evolution explains Y data in geology?
I like your last sentence. Just replace "it" with God.:).
The Hammer. Hey, you are the one claiming that a 19th century miners hammer is millions of years old. And even some of Baughs supporters believe that it is at the most 700 years old.
Mt St Helens:
Were they indeed carved through hard rock? How do you know? Or is it materialist presumptions again? If Creation theory is correct, the rock the Grand Canyon was carved through was likely to have been not particularly hard at the time.
You mean by the Noah's worldwide flood, disproven 200 years ago by Christian geologists? So you are invoking the supernatural to make the rocks in the Grand Canyon softer?
About biology and geology:
Yes, they are. But biological evolution has certain prerequisites, and these prerequisites can be eliminated by examining geology. Again, you are acting as if reality were partitionable at will to suit your needs. It isn't. It's all interconnected. Which, BTW, is another problem for evolution.
Hmmm. Lets see... Geology indicates that the earh is very old, about 4 1/2 Billion years old. The theory of evolution requires fairly large time frames. So Geology does support TOE.
And don't forget - geology was used to disprove Noah's worldwide flood. (Actually, the Christian geologists were trying to get evidence to support the flood).
-asb
Re:Science, faith and the material world
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.' -- Roger Lewin, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.
Hmmm. The Neck of the Giraffe was written by Francis Hitching. See faqs/hitching.html
" Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin. "
Gary Parker - you know, he believes that the earth was covered by 9000 feet of water by Noah's Flood. Too bad that a global flood was disproven 200 years ago by Christian geologists.
By the way, do you believe in a global Noah's flood?
On one hand you're saying that I must present to you a theory, and on the other you are ruling any possible theory `out of court'.
No, just satisfy items 1-3. But no hocus-pocus.
Make up your mind: will your faith in materialism (and confusion of it with science) prevent you from examining any theory rationally (so you must forfeit any proof and be honest about your faith), or will you actually reason through a theory if I present one?
My "faith" in "Materialism"? ROTFL. I just don't invoke the supernatural when looking at things, in science or elsewhere. If my car doesn't work, I do not assume it is a supernatural event.
You do not seem to understand the difference between believing that the sun will come up tomorrow, gravity will exist 5 minutes from now, etc. and a religious "faith".
Here is a review of Darwin on Trial My Phillip Johnson. There are links to Johnson's home page, other reviews, a debate with Johnson, and an article by Johnson about "The Blind Watchmaker".
Four, huh? I got into a discussion with one of them, leonbrooks, in an older slashdot thread recently. The best part was when he argued that a (fake) millions of years old hammer and canyons at Mt St Helens (made from volcanic ash - not at all like normal canyons in rock) could not be explained by the theory of evolution. Of course, he brought Hitler into the discussion:).
-asb
Re:Support for your theory
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
`Well-supported' means that there is much evidence to back it. Evolution has had much opinion, much theory and much modelling grow up around it but essentially zero actual hard evidence in support of it being right.
Well, despite your claims, there is overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs. And the theory of evolution explains the data. Just like the theory of gravity explains the effects of gravity.
About Pattersons lecture. Everything he wrote before and after that time supports evolution. So I expect that it is an out of context quote, an opening dialog meant to be contraversial to get their audiences attention. I've seen ministers do the same sort of thing in sermons - question the existance of God, etc. in the first few minutes, and then spend the rest of the time refuting their opening remarks.
One of the big problems with evolution is that it can be bent to fit almost any circumstance, almost any evidence. In other words, it has very little - if any - actual explanatory power.
Well, you are the one trying to use a theory in the field of biology for questions dealing with geology (see below), or Adolph Hitler, so you are one who is trying to bend it to fit any circumstance. But in the area of biology, evolution has much explanatory power. Some biologists refer to it as "The Grand Unifying Theory" of biology, since it explains the diversity of species, their adaptations, their relationships, etc.
There is also a considerable body of evidence which evolutionary theory is completely and utterly unable to explain in any meaningful way, from `spectacular' finds like a wooden-handled steel hammer in `300-450 million year old' rock and the mini-Grand-Canyon at Mt St Helens to very mundane problems with cell mechanisms.
And Mt St Helens - you really cannot try to compare "canyons" carved through ash to canyons carved in rock.
Furthermore, evolution isn't supposed to explain these two things. Evolution is a theory in the field of biology, and those events are (other than fraudulent or deceptive) in the field of geology.
Evolution is a scientific-sounding expression of the religion of Materialism.
All of science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. You use of "Materialism" seems to me to be Material vs Spiritual, or, put another way, natural vs. Supernatural.
Theories in science must do the following:
1) Explain the data 2) Be falsifible. 3) Make predictions.
A theory that invokes the supernatural can violate these three items effortlessly; the supernatural can be invoked to explain away anything. As an example, *some* young earth creationists claims that the earth is 6000 years old or so, and God made the earth look older. Or, my favorite: Last Wednesdayism: The Invisible Pink Unicorn made the Universe just last Wednesday, but made it look old, and gave us memories of the past. Can you disprove it? Well, you can say it is silly. But you cannot absolutely disprove it. Things that happened last year are just part of the memories inparted into all of us by the IPU. The Grand Canyon, the stars - all created by the IPU last Wednesday to look old.
That is why theories that invoke the supernatural are not scientific theories. Creationism, and their buddy, Intelegent Design (Creationism without saying the G word), may be theories, but they are not scientific theories because of this.
The theory of evolution satisifies all three criteria for a scientific theory. And that is why is is a scientific theory.
Thank you for proving my point. I used an example, where I took a dispicable group [the Klan] that had taken something [Christianity], and perverted it, to demonstrate that it is wrong to do what you had posted before, about Darwins' theory of evolution and social darwinism.
You then tried to reenforce your claim - which seems to indicate that misapplying something is ok with you. So you have no problems with the Klan? They did the exact thing that Hitler did [perverting something], and you seem to like using Hitler as an arguement.
As you said; principle, method, implementation.
And, speaking of Hitler:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Adolph Hitler
So, here he is using Christianity, instead of Darwins' theory of evolution. I condemn both uses. How about you?
-asb
Re:dork.origins, Wistar and theories
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
The Wistar conference wasn't a disagreement. The mathematicians there were in general agreement on this point: evolution is mathematically well out of the question.
ROTFL. Really.
Evolution is a fact. This is physical evidence, and there is an overwhelming amount of it. This includes fossels, DNA, and evolution observed in the wild and in the laboratory.
The theory of evolution provides a framework, an explaination of the evidence, and allows predictions to be made. Just as with any scientific theory.
As far as mathematics goes, computer models of natural selection have been around for many years that demonstrate that evolution by natural selection does work.
You claim that creationists have had answers to the question "what is the scientific theory of creationism?". But they all fail the simple tests of any scientific theory:
1) Must explain the data 2) Must be falsifiable 3) Must be able to make predictions.
These are simple criteria; however, their answers all boil down to one thing: Goddoneit! And that ceases to be science, since science deals with the natural world, and God [or Gods} deal with the suernatural world. Basically, if something is supernatural, items 1-3 would not necessarly hold.
By the way, "special creation" is a supernatural event, so it is not in the relm of science. And your use of the term "materialism" is humorous. Sort of Material vs Spiritual. Well, science does not deal with the supernatural - it is the natural world that it applied to. So it is silly to claim that "materialistic" is not scientific. And this is true for ALL of science, including physics, chemistry, etc.
Since a business can get fined for hiring illegal aliens, it would be a simple way to cover their asses.
-asb
Re:Cheap throwaway lines
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
The theory of evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories. An overwhelming number of scientists working in related fields concur. And most of them are Christian. Your "sources" are are from groups that are, IMO, a bunch of Christian fundamentalist crackpots. Not only do the mainstream Christian denominations have no arguement with the theory of evolution, they teach it in their colleges and universities.
The theory of evolution does what all good scientific theories do - they explain the evidence, and can be used to make predictions. It explains the fossel record, bacteria resistance to antibiotics, relationships of species, differences in DNA between species, etc.
By the way, if there was a
SERIOUS
challenge to the theory of evolution, it could make a scientists career. Heck, these days, it could make them rich. Think about the potential in biological research, taking new directions. So far, though, there have been no real challenge to that 143 year old theory - just minor refinements. Few scientific theories have held up as well.
So, can you tell me what a scientific theory of creationism is? It has to follow all of the usual rules for a scientific theory - explain the data, be falsifiable, and be able to make predictions. Just saying "God done it!" won't work.
Talking past issues, erecting strawmen, arguing from false premises, fudging results - these are all of the standard creationist tactics. These are documented at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creation is ts.html
I got a kick out of your link above "WISTAR destroys evolution". "Evolutionary theory is a myth". Hmmmm. The value of a scientfic theory is in its ability to explain data, and to make predictions. The theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science, so it's hardly a myth.
By the way, trying to point out minor disagreements by scientists in fields related to evolution, and then claiming that it disproves the theory of evolution is dangerous. Someone could also claim that the far greater differences between the Christian denominations proves that Christianity is a myth:).
Oh, and while you are at it, could you please post a scientific theory of creation? It must explain the data, be falsifiable, and make predictions - a standard for all scientific theories. I know that the good folks at the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins have been asking creationists that for many. many years for that, and have never gotten an answer.
I wish we had a 56K connection. Our phonelines only support 28K, and this is a relatively new, upscale housing development. Too far for DSL, too. Considering how well the DSL providers are doing, I would not be surprised if the average connection speed is lower today than last year
Gee, Leon. So busy lying today, I see. There is no relation between Darwin's theory of evolution and so called Social Darwinism. It's like claiming that Christianity is racist because the Klan was a "Christian" organization.
-asb
Re:Genetics discrediting evolution
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
Yawn. You really should try harder. Again, go to www.talkorigins.org. So far, all of your arguements are false.
Sorry, these so called sources are so discredited, it isn't even funny. Just a bunch of raving loony creationists. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org - there is plenty of info refuting these crackpots.
By the way, most mainstream Christian denominations have no problem whatsoever with the theory of evolution. And the theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in all of science.
What they really would like to do is to eliminate *all* used book sales. Since books can be legally sold used (there was a court case many years ago about it), they can only use alternative methods like this boycott attempt, or they could try to limit a stores access to new books (Garth Brooks tried to keep one of his albums from being sold (new) at stores that also sold used CDs).
Attempts to reduce the possible outlets of used book sales can result in reduced value of the books we already own.
Because the pre 2.4.10 memory manager stank. The new VM meant that a job I was running used 30-40% less memory, so it could actually fit on our beowulf cluster.
> In fact, I really think the new VM should have waited for 2.5 as well. I just couldn't figure out why you'd change such a fundamental piece in the middle of a stable tree!
The original 2.4 VM stank. We couldn't run jobs on our beowulf clusters with pre 2.4.10 because it required 30-50% more memory than our nodes had. And adding memory was out of the question - the memory slots were completely filled, and 1GB rdrams were quite pricey at the time. But it runs w/o swapping under 2.4.10.
Any programs we use that take more than a few hours write out restart files every 1-2 hours, so we can restart the job if the machine dies. It also helps to have restart files so you can debug a program that ran for a week and died - you can restart it with debugging on, and repeat the last few iterations.
Some of us run programs for 1-2 months. My longest was about two weeks, though.
If you want to read a description, episode by episode of how Cardcaptor Sakura (CCS) was hacked apart, go to www.cardcaptors-uncensored.com. Not only did they cut 1 1/2 to 4 minutes per episode out, and change the dialog and music, they changed the personality of the characters by their choice of the dub [h]actors.
My kids (8 and 10) love CCS, and they don't have any problem with reading the subtitles.
>we're trying to do something about the pricey bit)
ADV is one of the best studios as far as providing anime at a fair cost. Of course, I'm all in favor of even lower costs:). Are you refering to Princess Nine? (A great series, BTW).
Slashdot Mirror
Odd that you should choose that example (you're good at this), because the `theory of gravity' only matches what gravity does, it can't actually say why it does what it does. It says `gravity does this' and stops before getting to the `because' part. Same goes for theories of magnetism. The theory of evolution, despite its amazing flexibility, does not explain the data. For example, turtles have nice hard shells that fossilise readily, and indeed we have plenty of turtle fossils - but no fossils at all of proto-turtles, half-formed turtles. Nothing markedly different from the turtles that swim past a few kilometers east of me right now. Pulling the `unlucky' gag about the incompleteness of the fossil record won't wash, because - as I said - we have plenty of turtle fossils... and the same goes for many other species.
p art1b.html
:).
Turtles: (from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/
Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs:
* Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell.
* Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993)
* Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc..
Biology and Geology:
No, I use science to deal with science. You are the one subcategorising everything and wriggling like a worm on the hook instead of giving straight answers. You don't seem to have understood the point about explanatory power. If it explains too much, then it shows that it has really explained nothing. If it is so flexible that it will fit anything, then it is also so weak that it cannot support anything.
Amazing. You don't understand that a theory in biology doesn't need to have anything to do with geology? The theory of evolution predicts X in geology, or the theory of evolution explains Y data in geology?
I like your last sentence. Just replace "it" with God.
The Hammer. Hey, you are the one claiming that a 19th century miners hammer is millions of years old. And even some of Baughs supporters believe that it is at the most 700 years old.
Mt St Helens:
Were they indeed carved through hard rock? How do you know? Or is it materialist presumptions again? If Creation theory is correct, the rock the Grand Canyon was carved through was likely to have been not particularly hard at the time.
You mean by the Noah's worldwide flood, disproven 200 years ago by Christian geologists? So you are invoking the supernatural to make the rocks in the Grand Canyon softer?
About biology and geology:
Yes, they are. But biological evolution has certain prerequisites, and these prerequisites can be eliminated by examining geology. Again, you are acting as if reality were partitionable at will to suit your needs. It isn't. It's all interconnected. Which, BTW, is another problem for evolution.
Hmmm. Lets see... Geology indicates that the earh is very old, about 4 1/2 Billion years old. The theory of evolution requires fairly large time frames. So Geology does support TOE.
And don't forget - geology was used to disprove Noah's worldwide flood. (Actually, the Christian geologists were trying to get evidence to support the flood).
-asb
At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.' -- Roger Lewin, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.
Hmmm. The Neck of the Giraffe was written by Francis Hitching. See faqs/hitching.html
" Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin. "
Gary Parker - you know, he believes that the earth was covered by 9000 feet of water by Noah's Flood. Too bad that a global flood was disproven 200 years ago by Christian geologists.
By the way, do you believe in a global Noah's flood?
On one hand you're saying that I must present to you a theory, and on the other you are ruling any possible theory `out of court'.
No, just satisfy items 1-3. But no hocus-pocus.
Make up your mind: will your faith in materialism (and confusion of it with science) prevent you from examining any theory rationally (so you must forfeit any proof and be honest about your faith), or will you actually reason through a theory if I present one?
My "faith" in "Materialism"? ROTFL. I just don't invoke the supernatural when looking at things, in science or elsewhere. If my car doesn't work, I do not assume it is a supernatural event.
You do not seem to understand the difference between believing that the sun will come up tomorrow, gravity will exist 5 minutes from now, etc. and a religious "faith".
-asb
Stephen J Gould, for one example, found that evolution didn't work for him, so he completely rebuilt the theory of the mechanism for it.
Thank you for showing all of us that you do not understand Punctuated Equilibria.
-asb
Sorry, but the second that you add supernatural, you make the following to be meaningful:
1) Explain the data
2) Be falsifiable
3) Make predictions.
Lets have some fun!
Creationism.
1) Explain the data
Goddoneit
2) Be falsifiable
Goddoneit, and then made it look different (think of the "Flood").
3) Predictions
Godwilldoitagain
-asb
Here is a review of Darwin on Trial My Phillip Johnson. There are links to Johnson's home page, other reviews, a debate with Johnson, and an article by Johnson about "The Blind Watchmaker".
-asb
Four, huh? I got into a discussion with one of them, leonbrooks, in an older slashdot thread recently. The best part was when he argued that a (fake) millions of years old hammer and canyons at Mt St Helens (made from volcanic ash - not at all like normal canyons in rock) could not be explained by the theory of evolution. Of course, he brought Hitler into the discussion :).
-asb
`Well-supported' means that there is much evidence to back it. Evolution has had much opinion, much theory and much modelling grow up around it but essentially zero actual hard evidence in support of it being right.
Well, despite your claims, there is overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs. And the theory of evolution explains the data. Just like the theory of gravity explains the effects of gravity.
About Pattersons lecture. Everything he wrote before and after that time supports evolution. So I expect that it is an out of context quote, an opening dialog meant to be contraversial to get their audiences attention. I've seen ministers do the same sort of thing in sermons - question the existance of God, etc. in the first few minutes, and then spend the rest of the time refuting their opening remarks.
One of the big problems with evolution is that it can be bent to fit almost any circumstance, almost any evidence. In other words, it has very little - if any - actual explanatory power.
Well, you are the one trying to use a theory in the field of biology for questions dealing with geology (see below), or Adolph Hitler, so you are one who is trying to bend it to fit any circumstance. But in the area of biology, evolution has much explanatory power. Some biologists refer to it as "The Grand Unifying Theory" of biology, since it explains the diversity of species, their adaptations, their relationships, etc.
There is also a considerable body of evidence which evolutionary theory is completely and utterly unable to explain in any meaningful way, from `spectacular' finds like a wooden-handled steel hammer in `300-450 million year old' rock and the mini-Grand-Canyon at Mt St Helens to very mundane problems with cell mechanisms.
Oh yes, Baughs famous hammer. Typical creationist "Evidence". A 19th century miners hammer encased in soluble minerals. http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/hammer.htm
And Mt St Helens - you really cannot try to compare "canyons" carved through ash to canyons carved in rock.
Furthermore, evolution isn't supposed to explain these two things. Evolution is a theory in the field of biology, and those events are (other than fraudulent or deceptive) in the field of geology.
Evolution is not a scientific theory!
Evolution is a scientific-sounding expression of the religion of Materialism.
All of science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. You use of "Materialism" seems to me to be Material vs Spiritual, or, put another way, natural vs. Supernatural.
Theories in science must do the following:
1) Explain the data
2) Be falsifible.
3) Make predictions.
A theory that invokes the supernatural can violate these three items effortlessly; the supernatural can be invoked to explain away anything. As an example, *some* young earth creationists claims that the earth is 6000 years old or so, and God made the earth look older.
Or, my favorite: Last Wednesdayism: The Invisible Pink Unicorn made the Universe just last Wednesday, but made it look old, and gave us memories of the past. Can you disprove it? Well, you can say it is silly. But you cannot absolutely disprove it. Things that happened last year are just part of the memories inparted into all of us by the IPU. The Grand Canyon, the stars - all created by the IPU last Wednesday to look old.
That is why theories that invoke the supernatural are not scientific theories. Creationism, and their buddy, Intelegent Design (Creationism without saying the G word), may be theories, but they are not scientific theories because of this.
The theory of evolution satisifies all three criteria for a scientific theory. And that is why is is a scientific theory.
-asb
Thank you for proving my point. I used an example, where I took a dispicable group [the Klan] that had taken something [Christianity], and perverted it, to demonstrate that it is wrong to do what you had posted before, about Darwins' theory of evolution and social darwinism.
You then tried to reenforce your claim - which seems to indicate that misapplying something is ok with you. So you have no problems with the Klan? They did the exact thing that Hitler did [perverting something], and you seem to like using Hitler as an arguement.
As you said; principle, method, implementation.
And, speaking of Hitler:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the
Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the
work of the Lord." Adolph Hitler
So, here he is using Christianity, instead of Darwins' theory of evolution. I condemn both uses. How about you?
-asb
The Wistar conference wasn't a disagreement. The mathematicians there were in general agreement on this point: evolution is mathematically well out of the question.
ROTFL. Really.
Evolution is a fact. This is physical evidence, and there is an overwhelming amount of it. This includes fossels, DNA, and evolution observed in the wild and in the laboratory.
The theory of evolution provides a framework, an explaination of the evidence, and allows predictions to be made. Just as with any scientific theory.
As far as mathematics goes, computer models of natural selection have been around for many years that demonstrate that evolution by natural selection does work.
You claim that creationists have had answers to the question "what is the scientific theory of creationism?". But they all fail the simple tests of any scientific theory:
1) Must explain the data
2) Must be falsifiable
3) Must be able to make predictions.
These are simple criteria; however, their answers all boil down to one thing: Goddoneit! And that ceases to be science, since science deals with the natural world, and God [or Gods} deal with the suernatural world. Basically, if something is supernatural, items 1-3 would not necessarly hold.
By the way, "special creation" is a supernatural event, so it is not in the relm of science. And your use of the term "materialism" is humorous. Sort of Material vs Spiritual. Well, science does not deal with the supernatural - it is the natural world that it applied to. So it is silly to claim that "materialistic" is not scientific. And this is true for ALL of science, including physics, chemistry, etc.
-asb
Since a business can get fined for hiring illegal aliens, it would be a simple way to cover their asses.
-asb
The theory of evolution does what all good scientific theories do - they explain the evidence, and can be used to make predictions.
It explains the fossel record, bacteria resistance to antibiotics, relationships of species, differences in DNA between species, etc.
By the way, if there was a
- SERIOUS
challenge to the theory of evolution, it could make a scientists career. Heck, these days, it could make them rich. Think about the potential in biological research, taking new directions. So far, though, there have been no real challenge to that 143 year old theory - just minor refinements.Few scientific theories have held up as well.
So, can you tell me what a scientific theory of creationism is? It has to follow all of the usual rules for a scientific theory - explain the data, be falsifiable, and be able to make predictions.
Just saying "God done it!" won't work.
-asb
Talking past issues, erecting strawmen, arguing from false premises, fudging results - these are all of the standard creationist tactics. These are documented atn is ts.html
:).
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creatio
I got a kick out of your link above "WISTAR destroys evolution". "Evolutionary theory is a myth". Hmmmm. The value of a scientfic theory is in its ability to explain data, and to make predictions. The theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science, so it's hardly a myth.
By the way, trying to point out minor disagreements by scientists in fields related to evolution, and then claiming that it disproves the theory of evolution is dangerous. Someone could also claim that the far greater differences between the Christian denominations proves that Christianity is a myth
Oh, and while you are at it, could you please post a scientific theory of creation? It must explain the data, be falsifiable, and make predictions - a standard for all scientific theories. I know that the good folks at the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins have been asking creationists that for many. many years for that, and have never gotten an answer.
-asb
>decent >= 56K Internet connections.
I wish we had a 56K connection. Our phonelines only support 28K, and this is a relatively new, upscale housing development. Too far for DSL, too.
Considering how well the DSL providers are doing, I would not be surprised if the average connection speed is lower today than last year
-asb
Behe: A list of links to reviews of his book Lets just say his book doesn't look very good.
-asb
Gee, Leon. So busy lying today, I see. There is no relation between Darwin's theory of evolution and so called Social Darwinism. It's like claiming that Christianity is racist because the Klan was a "Christian" organization.
-asb
Yawn. You really should try harder. Again, go to www.talkorigins.org.
So far, all of your arguements are false.
-asb
Sorry, these so called sources are so discredited, it isn't even funny. Just a bunch of raving loony creationists. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org - there is plenty of info refuting these crackpots.
By the way, most mainstream Christian denominations have no problem whatsoever with the theory of evolution. And the theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in all of science.
-fm
What they really would like to do is to eliminate *all* used book sales. Since books can be legally sold used (there was a court case many years ago about it), they can only use alternative methods like this boycott attempt, or they could try to limit a stores access to new books (Garth Brooks tried to keep one of his albums from being sold (new) at stores that also sold used CDs).
Attempts to reduce the possible outlets of used book sales can result in reduced value of the books we already own.
-asb
>If they aren't good for the server market, the 120GXP aren't good for anything- since what regular home user ever needs that much space?
Video editing.
Or Office 2003.
-asb
Because the pre 2.4.10 memory manager stank. The new VM meant that a job I was running used 30-40% less memory, so it could actually fit on our beowulf cluster.
-asb
> In fact, I really think the new VM should have waited for 2.5 as well. I just couldn't figure out why you'd change such a fundamental piece in the middle of a stable tree!
The original 2.4 VM stank. We couldn't run jobs on our beowulf clusters with pre 2.4.10 because it required 30-50% more memory than our nodes had. And adding memory was out of the question - the memory slots were completely filled, and 1GB rdrams were quite pricey at the time. But it runs w/o swapping under 2.4.10.
-asb
Any programs we use that take more than a few hours write out restart files every 1-2 hours, so we can restart the job if the machine dies. It also helps to have restart files so you can debug a program that ran for a week and died - you can restart it with debugging on, and repeat the last few iterations.
Some of us run programs for 1-2 months. My longest was about two weeks, though.
If you want to read a description, episode by episode of how Cardcaptor Sakura (CCS) was hacked apart, go to www.cardcaptors-uncensored.com. Not only did they cut 1 1/2 to 4 minutes per episode out, and change the dialog and music, they changed the personality of the characters by their choice of the dub [h]actors.
My kids (8 and 10) love CCS, and they don't have any problem with reading the subtitles.
-asb
>we're trying to do something about the pricey bit)
:). Are you refering to Princess Nine? (A great series, BTW).
ADV is one of the best studios as far as providing anime at a fair cost. Of course, I'm all in favor of even lower costs
-asb