At least there's no evidence to say ID could not have happened.
Furthermore, if we don't teach philosophy in science class, how come public schools don't seem to teach it at all? Maybe the general consensus is to leave it to the college level, but kids don't really have a chance in education to discuss things at the philosophical level.
And furthermore, why should two branches of study be kept isolated from each other?
I see what your saying, and I don't want to force my beliefs down anyone's throat. There are many people that do, and it destroys good discussion. I also apologize sorry if I come across that way.
One thing I want to make clear is that the result does not prove the hypothesis. If someone is murdered, there may be many hypotheses as to how it happened, and any one of them may be possible.
There is plenty of evidence presented by both sides of the Intelligent Design/Creationism/Evolution debate, and if they are right, they could all paint a valid picture of the universe.
I just want schools to be places of healthy discussion and debate rather than battlegrounds.
None of it is provable. Have you seen God? No. Have you seen the Big Bang? No. Have you seen people evolving from monkeys? No. One or the other could be true.
If either one is really true, then it will stand out as the greatest theory in science. If one is really false, then it will crumble under it's own weight.
Seeing as both theories have lasted a long time, I'd say that gives them equal chance. Why aren't our kids smart enough to think for themselves? This could start some healthy discussions in the classroom as kids make their choices.
Science requires the scientific method, which according to Webster is: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"
Since you cannot observe or experiment with the origins of the universe, there must be no science involved, only educated guesses. Calm down!
I do agree that Linux has usability issues. Before they start advertising it as mainstream, they need to make sure that you can use it without needing to be a command-line person.
But for now, I love it for its technicalities. It makes it fun.
Still, I wouldn't instantly recommend it to just anybody. Anything that requires command-line turns people off. I like learning the command line, but some people think that's just going backwards. CLI for geeks, GUI for everybody else.
Actually, here's some support. I'm a (relatively) happy Vista user.
I don't know how you got it to work on a four-year-old laptop though, my congratulations.
But seriously, once you turn UAC off (because hackers will find a way around it anyway) and you use compatibility mode for most software, your good to go. I'm not totally happy, there were plenty of software problems at first, but I finally gave up on them and moved on. And as an OS improves, hardware will improve too. And people have super-high expectations for software these days. They want all the fancy graphics, so they have to up the hardware requirements. Maybe it's sad that it can't run old hardware, but hey, it's Microsoft, not Linux.
Right now, I run Vista Home Premium with Linux virtual machines and am doing just fine.:)
So what about those rumors about the oil companies having a grip on the government and the auto manufacturers? If someone invents a new technology, couldn't some big corporation buy all the rights to it so we never see it again? And then the oil companies could make out with the loot while they have a chance.
I'd have to say there's a whole lot more to it than that, but it could be one reason why no alternatives have really worked.
Slashdot Mirror
At least there's no evidence to say ID could not have happened.
Furthermore, if we don't teach philosophy in science class, how come public schools don't seem to teach it at all? Maybe the general consensus is to leave it to the college level, but kids don't really have a chance in education to discuss things at the philosophical level.
And furthermore, why should two branches of study be kept isolated from each other?
We all lived for thousands of years without texting. Now we're stupid enough to pay for it. Wish I had thought of it...
I see what your saying, and I don't want to force my beliefs down anyone's throat. There are many people that do, and it destroys good discussion. I also apologize sorry if I come across that way.
One thing I want to make clear is that the result does not prove the hypothesis. If someone is murdered, there may be many hypotheses as to how it happened, and any one of them may be possible.
There is plenty of evidence presented by both sides of the Intelligent Design/Creationism/Evolution debate, and if they are right, they could all paint a valid picture of the universe.
I just want schools to be places of healthy discussion and debate rather than battlegrounds.
None of it is provable. Have you seen God? No. Have you seen the Big Bang? No. Have you seen people evolving from monkeys? No. One or the other could be true.
If either one is really true, then it will stand out as the greatest theory in science. If one is really false, then it will crumble under it's own weight.
Seeing as both theories have lasted a long time, I'd say that gives them equal chance. Why aren't our kids smart enough to think for themselves? This could start some healthy discussions in the classroom as kids make their choices.
Science requires the scientific method, which according to Webster is: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"
Since you cannot observe or experiment with the origins of the universe, there must be no science involved, only educated guesses. Calm down!
Is that particular paper known for "stretching" the truth?
If it is false, we'll probably hear all about it later anyway.
I do agree that Linux has usability issues. Before they start advertising it as mainstream, they need to make sure that you can use it without needing to be a command-line person.
But for now, I love it for its technicalities. It makes it fun.
So is it wrong that Apple bundles Apple-branded iLife with its computers? No one seems to notice...
Usually, if someone knows enough about computers to be programming, they will probably figure out what Visual Studio is.
Um, at $400 it's more expensive than a new iPhone (no, I'm not calculating service charges).
It also seems pretty expensive compared to other phones too.
Am I missing something, or is Linux not cheap anymore?
Still, I wouldn't instantly recommend it to just anybody. Anything that requires command-line turns people off. I like learning the command line, but some people think that's just going backwards. CLI for geeks, GUI for everybody else.
Actually, here's some support. I'm a (relatively) happy Vista user. I don't know how you got it to work on a four-year-old laptop though, my congratulations. But seriously, once you turn UAC off (because hackers will find a way around it anyway) and you use compatibility mode for most software, your good to go. I'm not totally happy, there were plenty of software problems at first, but I finally gave up on them and moved on. And as an OS improves, hardware will improve too. And people have super-high expectations for software these days. They want all the fancy graphics, so they have to up the hardware requirements. Maybe it's sad that it can't run old hardware, but hey, it's Microsoft, not Linux. Right now, I run Vista Home Premium with Linux virtual machines and am doing just fine. :)
bear with us. some nerds grew up with these things.
FREE?
can we afford to give a destroyer or cruiser to every ship that sails the sea? seems like nuclear is a little too risky right now.
Actually... When America tested it's first fighter jet it had a dummy propeller.
So what about those rumors about the oil companies having a grip on the government and the auto manufacturers? If someone invents a new technology, couldn't some big corporation buy all the rights to it so we never see it again? And then the oil companies could make out with the loot while they have a chance. I'd have to say there's a whole lot more to it than that, but it could be one reason why no alternatives have really worked.