So.. Yahoo is mature and Google is not because Google's news service reprints many and varied websites-- but not some of the "blogs" you like-- and Yahoo's news service reprints Reuters? I'm not entirely sure what's going on here but it sounds like you are misinterpreting some kind of personal poor experience with Google's sales department as an actual problem.
Google and Yahoo news do not even offer remotely the same kind of service, nor are the services equal in importance. Yahoo News is almost closer to the core of Yahoo's service than even the search; Google News is more auxiliary from Google's perspective, and I don't think they're even getting much money off of them.
Anyway, frankly IMO "blogs" shouldn't be on google news anyway. Period. If I wanted a blog aggregator, I'd go to a blog aggregator. Google News is a news aggregator. The difference may mostly be only in terms of what the aggregated sites choose to identify themselves as, but that's enough of a difference for me.
As for AdSense, the categories based on which things can get classified as inappropriate for AdSense are extremely broad and if you're expecting close attention paid to border cases, I think you're expecting things of the service that the service never intended. And if the person your complaint here concerns is Michelle Malkin...? Well, from what I've read of her stuff, if you're trying to defend her against accusations of racism then some article about Nelson Mandela would be only the tiniest part of the problem.
Don't be surprised if in a few more years of broadband development, that Yahoo is able to position itself as an alternative to many cable TV providers.
So... wait. Darl McBride is still running SCO? I had gotten the impression there was some kind of major management shakeup at SCO in the last year. But Darl McBride is still running it? It seems he's been awfully quiet lately. What did I miss, exactly?
Anyway, once again we see here that SCO's purpose is only in attacking Linux, not in promoting themselves or building anything else constructive. This PR may do negative things for Linux, but it won't do anything positive for SCO. Because if you're going to use a UNIX, why on earth would you use SCO's? SCO UNIX was almost univerally known as the worst of the bunch among the tiny fraction of us who had heard of them before they became the anti-linux attack dog, and the company's future viability seems entirely dependent on the successful completion of some incredibly dubious lawsuits-- meaning you may find yourself without a vendor in a year or so. And anyway, why on earth would you want to buy software from a company who is so incredibly enthusiastic about suing its owncustomers?
(Incidentally: If you are Muslim or have a Muslim surname, perhaps it would be best if, if you are getting married in the near future, that you do not discuss this subject with anyone by email. Just to be safe.)
Those X-rays don't "escape" the black hole because they aren't coming from inside the black hole. The idea is that as stuff falls into the black hole, it gets ripped apart at the atomic level. As it gets ripped apart, it emits x-rays. Because the matter hasn't quite reached the event horizon yet when this starts to happen, these x-rays are able to make it away from the black hole.
So in other words those x-rays aren't coming from the black hole. They're coming from just outside the black hole, the dying screams of the matter falling in. So no "escaping" is involved, not exactly.
Then there's Hawking radiation but that's different, I don't think those are X-Rays.
As printer manufacturers have shown, you don't actually need regulatory power in order to regulate. It appears at least some companies will silently and secretly sell out their customers if the government so much as asks nicely.
Bottom line: Sure, absolutely: be vigilant. But there will never be compulsory "implants" that will be required for all.
Well, the company that makes them is lobbying to move things in the direction of making them compulsory for all. They may not ever succeed at this. But does that make it okay that they're trying?
Yes, the practice of ex-political officials entering industry and using their contacts for lobbying purposes is common. However just because it is a common thing does not make it a good thing.
At any rate, you are probably right that these things won't ever become mandatory-- in the United States. But there are lots of other places in the world. The government of China, for example, already has national "citizen identification" cards, and already has a precedent of compulsory medical care (for example abortions). Do you think it would be the least bit unusual if this kind of chipping became mandatory there? Because I don't.
Or at least the worst in several years. The blurb says basically the exact opposite of what the link says. May I suggest one of the/. editors add a little "update: the above is wrong in every way" to the end?
There's no indications anyone outside the company even has something looks like a dev kit yet, they haven't revealed what the machine even is to the public and I don't think they've revealed it to most developers. Microsoft's got, like, near-finished games. Sony's got devkits going out and they're publicly apologizing to developers for not being able to manufacture enough of them. Ask Nintendo what they're up to? They talk about the DS and its online plans.
I don't think Nintendo's anywhere near ready to ship this thing.
Also their memory supplier let slip that they believed the revolution would ship in "mid-2006". Take that however you want.
My personal suspicion would probably be that the Revolution is going to be released last. Nintendo's either got the most amazing show of secrecy ever constructed among men, or they aren't nearly as far along as Sony and Microsoft. And I doubt Sony will delay a console release just because they don't have any games. They didn't delay the PS2 launch for lack of games, they didn't delay the Japan PSP launch for lack of games, and when they delayed the American PSP launch (for lack of games at the time of Japanese launch?) it didn't really help them much.
If I'm right about this, though, Nintendo probably won't suffer much for coming out last. They seem to be going for a very different sort of strategy next generation than Sony and Microsoft.
In other words, some random guy who doesn't work for Sony is predicting that Sony may delay the PS3, based basically on having read the same news reports you and I do.
This should be taken with exactly as much credence as if you'd heard "well this guy on the internet thinks that Sony is going to..."
Yeah, you're write. And I'm sure it would be inaccurate to claim creationism emerged during the 1950s. I'm afraid I was trying harder to be humorous than right ^_^ Still, you can salvage my original post if you reorder the dates, for example moving the first bit from 1905 to whatever date it was at which religion was originally kicked out of the schools.
What I am trying to say is that you only need two amino acids to make a protein. No, an amino acid is not a protein. However, two amino acids joined in a chainis a protein. Two amino acids is different from a single amino acid, but I would not call it much more impressive.
Here, let's look at the definition of the word "protein".
Dictionary.com says:
Any of a group of complex organic macromolecules that contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and usually sulfur and are composed of one or more chains of amino acids.
Chemistry.about.com says:
A polypeptide or molecule made up of polypeptides.
Wikipedia says:
A protein (in Greek = first thread) is a complex, high molecular weight organic compound that consists of amino acids joined by peptide bonds. Proteins are essential to the structure and function of all living cells and viruses.
But then says:
Proteins are generally large molecules, having molecular masses of up to 3,000,000 (the muscle protein titin has a single amino acid chain 27,000 subunits long). Such long chains of amino acids are almost universally referred to as proteins, but shorter strings of amino acids are referred to as "polypeptides," "peptides" or rarely, "oligopeptides".
The dividing line is undefined, though "polypeptide" usually refers to an amino acid chain lacking tertiary structure which may be more likely to act as a hormone (like insulin), rather than as an enzyme (which depends on its defined tertiary structure for functionality).
So it really comes down to what you're trying to say here. Two sources would qualify two amino acids plus a bond as a protein; wikipedia distinguishes between "proteins" and simple polypeptides, but only in terms of scale, and the distinction is based in convention rather than anything terribly clearly defined. Scale is terribly important in terms of whether chemical generation of amino acids is "impressive"; in fundamental terms-- "can these things happen or not"-- it is not as important. The difference becomes more one of probability rather than fundamental possibility.
If what you are trying to say is that the miller-style experiments don't prove abiogenesis, then yes, of course they don't. However, they do provide an excellent basis for the idea abiogenesis is plausible. And as I've noted, I'm not particularly interested in whether abiogenesis is or even really can be proven.
In the meanwhile, it seems entirely unreasonable to expect that if early "abiogenerated" self-replicating systems existed, they would have anything like the level of complexity seen in modern proteins-- since the proteins we see in living organisms today are very much not random, they were built up by already-existing life over millions of years of iterative refinement.
As I said, there is not a big difference between a protein and an amino acid. Chemically speaking, anyway, the difference is a single bond.
You could then go on from there to move the goalposts and demand we produce not just simple proteins, but really complicated proteins or self-replicating proteins or (random complicated thing), but at some point you just have to ask what is the point? The Miller-style experiments are certainly sufficient to demonstrate organic molecules not only can form from purely natural processes, but form extremely commonly under the correct conditions. We don't have any actual need to generate "life". (Assuming we can even find a division more stringent than the division between organic and inorganic molecules that we can all agree on. Is an enzyme "life" or "nonlife"? "Self-replicating" is a good and important division, but the creation of self-replicating systems of molecules by chance, if it happened at all, is something that we know for certain to have happened only once, ever, in the history of all time and space. Why on earth are you expecting to happen by chance in a laboratory?) We don't even particularly need "abiogenesis" theories to be proven accurate; there is certainly no need for such theories to be true in order for the theory of evolution to be true.
The interesting thing to me is that we can cross the organic-inorganic boundary. This would seem to make abiogenesis theories plausible to the only degree I would personally care about. It would also perfectly well shatter the idea that "producing life from nonlife" is "unnatural", since there's no meaningful chemical difference between the two.
Whether abiogenesis theories are accurate is a totally other question, but not a particularly interesting one; no other theories are resting on abiogenesis, and even if we definitively prove that self-replicating molecules can be chemically formed the specific accuracy of abiogenesis as the origin of life on earth is still not particularly testable without a time machine. No one seems to gain anything from going beyond this point except organic chemists and nanotechnology/materials science people.
Well, if you want to make that distinction then I am unsure whether or not she actually produced polypeptides/proteins when she performed the experiment. However, it wouldn't be all that weird or surprising if she did. All you need for something to qualify as a "protein" is two amino acids and one peptide bond. The peptide bonds may be less likely to form "naturally" than the amino acids themselves, but it can still happen.
What may come as a surprise is that most Creationists and IDists agree that there is speciation and adaptation. It's evident that animals adapt. What is more the crux of conflict is whether species can adapt to become an entirely new and different specie.
I see this from time to time and it's rediculously disengenonous. "We believe in speciation! But we don't believe in speciation." Species adapting to become a different species is what speciation is.
Every time I see this I cannot help but come to the conclusion that the "adaptation vs speciation" thing, or the "microevolution vs macroevolution" thing, or the "species adapt but do not evolve" thing, are nothing more or less than hand-waving away evidence. That is, anything that we have undeniable evidence of having observed occurring gets shifted into the "adaptation" or "microevolution" pile, anything that cannot be directly observed-- say, because it takes a couple thousand years to happen-- is shifted into the "macroevolution" or "becoming a different species" pile. Once this division has been made, everything in the "macroevolution" pile is denied to be true, even though it's the exact same process as the other pile, just on longer timescales.
The problem here, basically, is that there is technically no such thing as a "species". A species is a human construct, a pedagogical concept. There is no firm, reasonable, or real-world boundary between one species and the next; the difference between species is just a classification system, a subjective one created by humans. The creationist who accepts "adaptation" attempts to take these arbitrary, human-created boundaries between different groups of genomes and claim them to be immutable, uncrossable, "natural". But this doesn't really work, and it isn't scientific because "species" isn't rigorously defined enough to provide any good reason why evolutionary processes would suddenly cease to function at the species line, or even provide a reasonable explanation of exactly what it would mean were this true.
The "lightning zapped a glob of primordial ooze, thus forming the first proteins" idea is not only unnatural (life coming from non-life), but also unproven (why can't we reproduce this phenomena today?)
To say evolutionists have all the answers isn't true, is it?
To say anyone has all the answers is untrue. This is the entire problem. Science fundamentally recognizes that you cannot possibly ever have all the answers. Religion does not.
Those who promote creationism expect science to have all the answers, now. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. The idea of the scientific process is to come up with the best and most exhaustive possible rigorous explanation of natural phenomena which can be said to be consistent with all observable evidence. Given this, it's just plain silly to stand outside science and yell "if there's anything you haven't figured out an answer for yet, then it must have been the hand of God!".
Scientology/Dianetics is just as much of a "science" as Intelligent Design. Scientology had mastered the art of hiding religion behind pseudoscientific jargon long before the term "Intelligent Design" even existed.
I wonder how the creationists would feel about Scientology being taught in schools?
Darwin was, in fact, wrong about some things. This was because he was the first person to write on his subject and he didn't have the 150 years of study and evidence we have on the subject today. For example, Darwin didn't know one single thing about genetics.
However, it doesn't matter the things that Darwin was wrong about, because Darwin's on the origin of species is not as far as I'm aware actually taught anywhere, except as a historical relic. What schools teach is biology. I.E., the state of biology in 2005, not the state of biology in 1855 when Darin was working.
However:
Darwin's version is done without God. It occurs by pure chance.
All evolutionary theory is based on this idea.
Also Darwin version states that things evolved slowly and when we look at the evolutionary picture we see that it is not true. Look at how the horse evolved.
I really don't know what you mean by that, but this sounds like you've been listening to some creationist oversimplifications. So to clarify: The theory of punctuated equilibrium does not in any way contradict or stand in opposition to the theory of evolution or darwinism. Meanwhile, it says here that current theory states horses evolved over a period of about 53 million years. That sounds pretty slow to me.
While I fully acknowledge that there are Creationists out there who quite literally believe the Bible's version of the creation of the Earth and our species, and indeed the universe, reject evolution out-of-hand, and ignorantly stand steadfastly against science, there is an actual place for philosophical debate about why we're here.
There is a place for such a debate, I'm sure.
However I do not think that place is in the public schools.
I do think public schools should be allowed to offer theology or comparative religion classes-- and they already are! But I think it would be absolutely inappropriate to place such things into the general or mandatory curriculum.
I also think that if faith is is going to promote itself, it should actually refer to itself as faith and be straightforward about itself, rather than trying to dress itself in the language of pseudoscience.
But anyway, you're arguing against a viewpoint I really don't think anyone has expressed. You say you agree creation theories don't belong in a science classroom-- but whether or not it belongs in a science classroom is the entire problem. Teaching philosophy in a philosophy class has never been a problem or something that needs to be defended, and comparitive religion classes in high schools across the nation demonstrate that.
Slashdot Mirror
So.. Yahoo is mature and Google is not because Google's news service reprints many and varied websites-- but not some of the "blogs" you like-- and Yahoo's news service reprints Reuters? I'm not entirely sure what's going on here but it sounds like you are misinterpreting some kind of personal poor experience with Google's sales department as an actual problem.
Google and Yahoo news do not even offer remotely the same kind of service, nor are the services equal in importance. Yahoo News is almost closer to the core of Yahoo's service than even the search; Google News is more auxiliary from Google's perspective, and I don't think they're even getting much money off of them.
Anyway, frankly IMO "blogs" shouldn't be on google news anyway. Period. If I wanted a blog aggregator, I'd go to a blog aggregator. Google News is a news aggregator. The difference may mostly be only in terms of what the aggregated sites choose to identify themselves as, but that's enough of a difference for me.
As for AdSense, the categories based on which things can get classified as inappropriate for AdSense are extremely broad and if you're expecting close attention paid to border cases, I think you're expecting things of the service that the service never intended. And if the person your complaint here concerns is Michelle Malkin...? Well, from what I've read of her stuff, if you're trying to defend her against accusations of racism then some article about Nelson Mandela would be only the tiniest part of the problem.
Don't be surprised if in a few more years of broadband development, that Yahoo is able to position itself as an alternative to many cable TV providers.
Wait, wasn't this exact same prediction being batted around, like, five to seven years ago? And didn't it fail to work out then either? Hm, you are a blogger, aren't you.
You have obviously received a lot of negative information before you started writing this 'math'.
Either that or he is working in the modular arithmetic group of order 6.
But that isn't even a field, so I don't know why he'd be doing that.
So... wait. Darl McBride is still running SCO? I had gotten the impression there was some kind of major management shakeup at SCO in the last year. But Darl McBride is still running it? It seems he's been awfully quiet lately. What did I miss, exactly?
Anyway, once again we see here that SCO's purpose is only in attacking Linux, not in promoting themselves or building anything else constructive. This PR may do negative things for Linux, but it won't do anything positive for SCO. Because if you're going to use a UNIX, why on earth would you use SCO's? SCO UNIX was almost univerally known as the worst of the bunch among the tiny fraction of us who had heard of them before they became the anti-linux attack dog, and the company's future viability seems entirely dependent on the successful completion of some incredibly dubious lawsuits-- meaning you may find yourself without a vendor in a year or so. And anyway, why on earth would you want to buy software from a company who is so incredibly enthusiastic about suing its own customers?
Now imagine, no heavy encryption, no PGP, just plain text from teenage punks...and they couldn't get anything useful because they used CODE words.
Oh, I dunno. I think the Homeland Security crowd has the "code words" thing down pat already. Or they believe they do, anyway.
(Incidentally: If you are Muslim or have a Muslim surname, perhaps it would be best if, if you are getting married in the near future, that you do not discuss this subject with anyone by email. Just to be safe.)
This isn't funny and I'm disturbed
Right. Because if it's horrible, or truthful, or both, then it could not possibly be funny.
Like, hundreds of thousands of civilians being immolated alive during a war isn't funny.
Or, people having their throats ripped out by wild animals. That isn't funny.
And then there's the Holocaust. Genocide is never, ever funny.
---
Man, I bet you must be the life of every party.
But what would we call them? Nisco? Cikia? Nokisco? Just don't see a good name.
They should both do a three-way merger with Abbot Laboratories, then we could call the whole thing Nabisco
Those X-rays don't "escape" the black hole because they aren't coming from inside the black hole. The idea is that as stuff falls into the black hole, it gets ripped apart at the atomic level. As it gets ripped apart, it emits x-rays. Because the matter hasn't quite reached the event horizon yet when this starts to happen, these x-rays are able to make it away from the black hole.
So in other words those x-rays aren't coming from the black hole. They're coming from just outside the black hole, the dying screams of the matter falling in. So no "escaping" is involved, not exactly.
Then there's Hawking radiation but that's different, I don't think those are X-Rays.
As printer manufacturers have shown, you don't actually need regulatory power in order to regulate. It appears at least some companies will silently and secretly sell out their customers if the government so much as asks nicely.
Bottom line: Sure, absolutely: be vigilant. But there will never be compulsory "implants" that will be required for all.
Well, the company that makes them is lobbying to move things in the direction of making them compulsory for all. They may not ever succeed at this. But does that make it okay that they're trying?
Yes, the practice of ex-political officials entering industry and using their contacts for lobbying purposes is common. However just because it is a common thing does not make it a good thing.
At any rate, you are probably right that these things won't ever become mandatory-- in the United States. But there are lots of other places in the world. The government of China, for example, already has national "citizen identification" cards, and already has a precedent of compulsory medical care (for example abortions). Do you think it would be the least bit unusual if this kind of chipping became mandatory there? Because I don't.
It isn't even named "My Computer" anymore! So the version number will read as different on the properties for... "Computer".
And people claim Microsoft doesn't offer incentives to upgrade. Pfft.
Or at least the worst in several years. The blurb says basically the exact opposite of what the link says. May I suggest one of the /. editors add a little "update: the above is wrong in every way" to the end?
Retro studios is owned by Nintendo, so very likely they have access to stuff "normal" developers wouldn't.
Still, it's interesting to hear the rumors that the 3-second Metroid Prime 3 clip from E3 was.. running on a Gamecube.
I think I agree with you about the secrecy thing.
There's no indications anyone outside the company even has something looks like a dev kit yet, they haven't revealed what the machine even is to the public and I don't think they've revealed it to most developers. Microsoft's got, like, near-finished games. Sony's got devkits going out and they're publicly apologizing to developers for not being able to manufacture enough of them. Ask Nintendo what they're up to? They talk about the DS and its online plans.
I don't think Nintendo's anywhere near ready to ship this thing.
Also their memory supplier let slip that they believed the revolution would ship in "mid-2006". Take that however you want.
My personal suspicion would probably be that the Revolution is going to be released last. Nintendo's either got the most amazing show of secrecy ever constructed among men, or they aren't nearly as far along as Sony and Microsoft. And I doubt Sony will delay a console release just because they don't have any games. They didn't delay the PS2 launch for lack of games, they didn't delay the Japan PSP launch for lack of games, and when they delayed the American PSP launch (for lack of games at the time of Japanese launch?) it didn't really help them much.
If I'm right about this, though, Nintendo probably won't suffer much for coming out last. They seem to be going for a very different sort of strategy next generation than Sony and Microsoft.
The source for this is "an analyst".
In other words, some random guy who doesn't work for Sony is predicting that Sony may delay the PS3, based basically on having read the same news reports you and I do.
This should be taken with exactly as much credence as if you'd heard "well this guy on the internet thinks that Sony is going to..."
Which is to say.
None.
You are correct.
Yeah, you're write. And I'm sure it would be inaccurate to claim creationism emerged during the 1950s. I'm afraid I was trying harder to be humorous than right ^_^ Still, you can salvage my original post if you reorder the dates, for example moving the first bit from 1905 to whatever date it was at which religion was originally kicked out of the schools.
What I am trying to say is that you only need two amino acids to make a protein. No, an amino acid is not a protein. However, two amino acids joined in a chain is a protein. Two amino acids is different from a single amino acid, but I would not call it much more impressive.
Here, let's look at the definition of the word "protein".
Dictionary.com says:Chemistry.about.com says:Wikipedia says:But then says:So it really comes down to what you're trying to say here. Two sources would qualify two amino acids plus a bond as a protein; wikipedia distinguishes between "proteins" and simple polypeptides, but only in terms of scale, and the distinction is based in convention rather than anything terribly clearly defined. Scale is terribly important in terms of whether chemical generation of amino acids is "impressive"; in fundamental terms-- "can these things happen or not"-- it is not as important. The difference becomes more one of probability rather than fundamental possibility.
If what you are trying to say is that the miller-style experiments don't prove abiogenesis, then yes, of course they don't. However, they do provide an excellent basis for the idea abiogenesis is plausible. And as I've noted, I'm not particularly interested in whether abiogenesis is or even really can be proven.
In the meanwhile, it seems entirely unreasonable to expect that if early "abiogenerated" self-replicating systems existed, they would have anything like the level of complexity seen in modern proteins-- since the proteins we see in living organisms today are very much not random, they were built up by already-existing life over millions of years of iterative refinement.
As I said, there is not a big difference between a protein and an amino acid. Chemically speaking, anyway, the difference is a single bond.
You could then go on from there to move the goalposts and demand we produce not just simple proteins, but really complicated proteins or self-replicating proteins or (random complicated thing), but at some point you just have to ask what is the point? The Miller-style experiments are certainly sufficient to demonstrate organic molecules not only can form from purely natural processes, but form extremely commonly under the correct conditions. We don't have any actual need to generate "life". (Assuming we can even find a division more stringent than the division between organic and inorganic molecules that we can all agree on. Is an enzyme "life" or "nonlife"? "Self-replicating" is a good and important division, but the creation of self-replicating systems of molecules by chance, if it happened at all, is something that we know for certain to have happened only once, ever, in the history of all time and space. Why on earth are you expecting to happen by chance in a laboratory?) We don't even particularly need "abiogenesis" theories to be proven accurate; there is certainly no need for such theories to be true in order for the theory of evolution to be true.
The interesting thing to me is that we can cross the organic-inorganic boundary. This would seem to make abiogenesis theories plausible to the only degree I would personally care about. It would also perfectly well shatter the idea that "producing life from nonlife" is "unnatural", since there's no meaningful chemical difference between the two.
Whether abiogenesis theories are accurate is a totally other question, but not a particularly interesting one; no other theories are resting on abiogenesis, and even if we definitively prove that self-replicating molecules can be chemically formed the specific accuracy of abiogenesis as the origin of life on earth is still not particularly testable without a time machine. No one seems to gain anything from going beyond this point except organic chemists and nanotechnology/materials science people.
Hm?
Well, if you want to make that distinction then I am unsure whether or not she actually produced polypeptides/proteins when she performed the experiment. However, it wouldn't be all that weird or surprising if she did. All you need for something to qualify as a "protein" is two amino acids and one peptide bond. The peptide bonds may be less likely to form "naturally" than the amino acids themselves, but it can still happen.
What may come as a surprise is that most Creationists and IDists agree that there is speciation and adaptation. It's evident that animals adapt. What is more the crux of conflict is whether species can adapt to become an entirely new and different specie.
I see this from time to time and it's rediculously disengenonous. "We believe in speciation! But we don't believe in speciation." Species adapting to become a different species is what speciation is.
Every time I see this I cannot help but come to the conclusion that the "adaptation vs speciation" thing, or the "microevolution vs macroevolution" thing, or the "species adapt but do not evolve" thing, are nothing more or less than hand-waving away evidence. That is, anything that we have undeniable evidence of having observed occurring gets shifted into the "adaptation" or "microevolution" pile, anything that cannot be directly observed-- say, because it takes a couple thousand years to happen-- is shifted into the "macroevolution" or "becoming a different species" pile. Once this division has been made, everything in the "macroevolution" pile is denied to be true, even though it's the exact same process as the other pile, just on longer timescales.
The problem here, basically, is that there is technically no such thing as a "species". A species is a human construct, a pedagogical concept. There is no firm, reasonable, or real-world boundary between one species and the next; the difference between species is just a classification system, a subjective one created by humans. The creationist who accepts "adaptation" attempts to take these arbitrary, human-created boundaries between different groups of genomes and claim them to be immutable, uncrossable, "natural". But this doesn't really work, and it isn't scientific because "species" isn't rigorously defined enough to provide any good reason why evolutionary processes would suddenly cease to function at the species line, or even provide a reasonable explanation of exactly what it would mean were this true.
The "lightning zapped a glob of primordial ooze, thus forming the first proteins" idea is not only unnatural (life coming from non-life), but also unproven (why can't we reproduce this phenomena today?)
We can. It's been done many times. One of the students in my high school attempted a variant of the experiment and actually got it to work.
To say evolutionists have all the answers isn't true, is it?
To say anyone has all the answers is untrue. This is the entire problem. Science fundamentally recognizes that you cannot possibly ever have all the answers. Religion does not.
Those who promote creationism expect science to have all the answers, now. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. The idea of the scientific process is to come up with the best and most exhaustive possible rigorous explanation of natural phenomena which can be said to be consistent with all observable evidence. Given this, it's just plain silly to stand outside science and yell "if there's anything you haven't figured out an answer for yet, then it must have been the hand of God!".
Scientology/Dianetics is just as much of a "science" as Intelligent Design. Scientology had mastered the art of hiding religion behind pseudoscientific jargon long before the term "Intelligent Design" even existed.
I wonder how the creationists would feel about Scientology being taught in schools?
Laws are mathematical, Theories are scientific.
Darwin was, in fact, wrong about some things. This was because he was the first person to write on his subject and he didn't have the 150 years of study and evidence we have on the subject today. For example, Darwin didn't know one single thing about genetics.
However, it doesn't matter the things that Darwin was wrong about, because Darwin's on the origin of species is not as far as I'm aware actually taught anywhere, except as a historical relic. What schools teach is biology. I.E., the state of biology in 2005, not the state of biology in 1855 when Darin was working.
However:
Darwin's version is done without God. It occurs by pure chance.
All evolutionary theory is based on this idea.
Also Darwin version states that things evolved slowly and when we look at the evolutionary picture we see that it is not true. Look at how the horse evolved.
I really don't know what you mean by that, but this sounds like you've been listening to some creationist oversimplifications. So to clarify: The theory of punctuated equilibrium does not in any way contradict or stand in opposition to the theory of evolution or darwinism. Meanwhile, it says here that current theory states horses evolved over a period of about 53 million years. That sounds pretty slow to me.
While I fully acknowledge that there are Creationists out there who quite literally believe the Bible's version of the creation of the Earth and our species, and indeed the universe, reject evolution out-of-hand, and ignorantly stand steadfastly against science, there is an actual place for philosophical debate about why we're here.
There is a place for such a debate, I'm sure.
However I do not think that place is in the public schools.
I do think public schools should be allowed to offer theology or comparative religion classes-- and they already are! But I think it would be absolutely inappropriate to place such things into the general or mandatory curriculum.
I also think that if faith is is going to promote itself, it should actually refer to itself as faith and be straightforward about itself, rather than trying to dress itself in the language of pseudoscience.
But anyway, you're arguing against a viewpoint I really don't think anyone has expressed. You say you agree creation theories don't belong in a science classroom-- but whether or not it belongs in a science classroom is the entire problem. Teaching philosophy in a philosophy class has never been a problem or something that needs to be defended, and comparitive religion classes in high schools across the nation demonstrate that.