I had a great experience. I learned how to speak in public, calculate topography, understand poetry, rebuild an engine, bake a cake, how to calculate rocket trajectory, build circuits, plan DnD, geology, program in Fortran, and Cobol.
In my experience, most people complaining about not learning anything in high school weren't trying.
Evolution is a fact. There is a testable theory, and warehouses full of evidence. The theory of evolution explains that fact.
There is no evidence of a 'God' or 'creator'. none, zip, zilch. As such, there is no theory. So, no, it should be taught in science because it isn't science.
Another example:
Evolution is a fact: the theory of evolution explains that fact.
Germs are a fact: germ theory explains that fact. Teach creationism in science is the same as teaching magic invisible fairy spread disease,.
Gravity is a fact: Gravitational theory is how we explain that fact. Would you seriously allow some to tech that the reason things fall to the ground is because magic fairies pull them down? That would be exactly the same as teaching creationism. since I suspect you don't know what a fact is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
It's not one line to one baptists minister. It's mentioned several times by different authors..but you would rather just listen to some guy who believe in fairy tales then do any damn research; which is fine, but keep it the FUCK out of public space, and away from people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about.
If you took some time to understand the context of the time, it is what they meant. They only people who can possible think otherwise are ignorant or want to shove their fairy tale down everyone's throat.
"On the contrary, all of the fundamentals of science are taken on faith." no, they are not. Scientific theory can disprove itself.
"But it's just blind assertion that logic works" no, not blind, shown. It has been show, countless times, that logic works.
"that an objective universe exists," There is no evidence to the contrary. However if there were, the scientific method would ferret it out.
" that the laws of that universe are reasonably consistent over time" NO evidence counters that, and much of what we can prove we wouldn't be able to if it didnt.
"In short, science is based on the faith that the observed universe is not some sort of practical joke at our expense." wrong, again. IT's based on finding out why things as we observe using good repeatable methods. If there was evidence of this practical joke, the that too would get incorporated into what we know.
The fact that you don't understand science doesn't make it wrong.
And you base that statement on.. what? Its going to use electricity to create force, but it's getting it from hydrogen. What it isn't doing is collecting the H by itself, it's being pumped in.
Incorrect. Yes, certain types of movies become more popular for a time, but that doesn't NOT mean some thought provoking epic tale that fits what ever the hell you find acceptable would have been made anyways.
Bunch of pretension self absorbed twits. "It's good, but I feel bad admitting that." What kind of crap is that?
ME3's ending was stunning and brilliant. Sadly, it seems gamers have lost the ability to think about what's going on. By and large, the complaints can be boiled down to " You didn't explain everything to me in simple terms."
".. who thinks the mechanisms of OEC were very likely the big bang and evolution."
clearly not that scientifically minded. I suspect you don't actually know what science is. Like some three year old that thinks adding water to dirt is science.
Adam and eve are clearly an allegory. ITs trivially easy to see that, and interpretation up until a few 100 years ago agreed.
The KJV is a HORRIBLE interpretation. That becomes apparent to anyone who makes an attempt to read the myth in Hebrew.
It's about coming of age. i.e. puberty.
I like to think of it as a prophesy of the coming robotic rise against man! Ha, that paper got me an 'A' AND a frowny face.
Slashdot Mirror
I would just say it was stolen. If they are laundering it, then it won't matter.
OTOH, removing the convient way to get something illegal might start motivating people to change the law.
just so you know: know one gives a damn about you.
Also, a perl script like that would be trivial to filter.
oh yeah, torrent aren't run by assholes that think they can control the distribution~
I cna't parse tyoyur sentence.
evolution isn't based on ad homs. Why would you think so?
BTW: evolution doesn't require belief, it's a fact.
I had a great experience. I learned how to speak in public, calculate topography, understand poetry, rebuild an engine, bake a cake, how to calculate rocket trajectory, build circuits, plan DnD, geology, program in Fortran, and Cobol.
In my experience, most people complaining about not learning anything in high school weren't trying.
because no one in science actually took it seriously. When they did, science happened. They tested, it failed we moved on.
So on one side, why have your paltry list of a few frauds, on the other side we have mountains and mountains of verified facts, and predictions.
well done, idiot.
Anyone who wants an 'apeman' doesn't actually understand evolution.
"And there's plenty more evidence for the non-existenance of evolution!"
no, there isn't. But you keep cherry picking anomalies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Some peopel don't know what open minded means.
it is a skill, one you should learn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Evolution is a fact. There is a testable theory, and warehouses full of evidence.
The theory of evolution explains that fact.
There is no evidence of a 'God' or 'creator'. none, zip, zilch.
As such, there is no theory. So, no, it should be taught in science because it isn't science.
Another example:
Evolution is a fact: the theory of evolution explains that fact.
Germs are a fact: germ theory explains that fact.
Teach creationism in science is the same as teaching magic invisible fairy spread disease,.
Gravity is a fact: Gravitational theory is how we explain that fact. Would you seriously allow some to tech that the reason things fall to the ground is because magic fairies pull them down? That would be exactly the same as teaching creationism.
since I suspect you don't know what a fact is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
hahaha.. are you seriously saying that provable facts will change a belief?
except the layperson makes up theories with nothing to support them. i.e. a guess.
" Newton's Theory and his attraction Law are WRONG! "
no they aren't.
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
then send it to that knuckle head of a professor.
You don't seem to understand the difference between theory and law..and probably hypothesis.
No, they get exempt from taxes, and THAT is special privilege.
frankly, remove tax deductions for all non profits, and make churches pay taxes. ANything else is special privlidge.
I get taxed more because I don't belong to a religion.
That can be the case, but years latter language has changes and you meaning is no longer clear. as an example, see the Constitution.
It's not one line to one baptists minister. It's mentioned several times by different authors..but you would rather just listen to some guy who believe in fairy tales then do any damn research; which is fine, but keep it the FUCK out of
public space, and away from people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about.
If you took some time to understand the context of the time, it is what they meant. They only people who can possible think otherwise are ignorant or want to shove their fairy tale down everyone's throat.
Read the damn letters.
It doesn't belong in public spaces.
Like masturbation, religion is best when kept to yourself. People start assuming their religion can be in every public thing, people get killed.
"On the contrary, all of the fundamentals of science are taken on faith."
no, they are not. Scientific theory can disprove itself.
"But it's just blind assertion that logic works"
no, not blind, shown. It has been show, countless times, that logic works.
"that an objective universe exists,"
There is no evidence to the contrary. However if there were, the scientific method would ferret it out.
" that the laws of that universe are reasonably consistent over time"
NO evidence counters that, and much of what we can prove we wouldn't be able to if it didnt.
"In short, science is based on the faith that the observed universe is not some sort of practical joke at our expense."
wrong, again. IT's based on finding out why things as we observe using good repeatable methods. If there was evidence of this practical joke, the that too would get incorporated into what we know.
The fact that you don't understand science doesn't make it wrong.
man, I wish I could do that here. I would love to move into teaching science.
macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a long period of time.
No. ON some things there is no compromise. specifically facts.
You can't teach invisible fairies pull things to the earth to explain gravity. You teach the theory of gravity.
This is LITERALLY the same thing. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory explains that facts.
If you needed 10 feet of pipe, and the delivery guy gave you 8 feet, would you compromise at 9 feet? Of course not, because it doesn't do the job.
And you base that statement on.. what? Its going to use electricity to create force, but it's getting it from hydrogen. What it isn't doing is collecting the H by itself, it's being pumped in.
OTOH a robotic apocalypse is far more likely then a zombie one.
Actually, we will have a robotic apocalypse, but it will be a financial one.
And yes, automation software in included as robot.
Incorrect. Yes, certain types of movies become more popular for a time, but that doesn't NOT mean some thought provoking epic tale that fits what ever the hell you find acceptable would have been made anyways.
Bunch of pretension self absorbed twits. "It's good, but I feel bad admitting that." What kind of crap is that?
ME3's ending was stunning and brilliant. Sadly, it seems gamers have lost the ability to think about what's going on. By and large, the complaints can be boiled down to " You didn't explain everything to me in simple terms."
".. who thinks the mechanisms of OEC were very likely the big bang and evolution."
clearly not that scientifically minded. I suspect you don't actually know what science is. Like some three year old that thinks adding water to dirt is science.
Adam and eve are clearly an allegory. ITs trivially easy to see that, and interpretation up until a few 100 years ago agreed.
The KJV is a HORRIBLE interpretation. That becomes apparent to anyone who makes an attempt to read the myth in Hebrew.
It's about coming of age. i.e. puberty.
I like to think of it as a prophesy of the coming robotic rise against man! Ha, that paper got me an 'A' AND a frowny face.
Anyways, bunch of myth taken too far.