Um, I'd beg to differ. You can find anyone willing to argue for arguments sake. Take me for example, who would have thought that arguing over a "no you can't" statement was even possible. But then again, I'm reminded of children who argue over everything. Suffice it to say, you are just plain wrong or aren't looking hard enough.
Nice try though.
Oh, and the correct answer "Why yes! Yes you can!"
1) Not a problem. I think forcing kids into secular schools (where every religion but Judeo/Christian is taught) is a violation of 1st Amendment. When kids have to recite Koran, but Bible is nowhere to be found, I have an issue. Where is the ACLU??
2)False problem. Since all schools would compete for the same voucher, it wouldn't take money out of public schools unless they sucked. In which case they deserve to fail. Unintended consequence would necissitate plenty of private (not necissarily religious) schools taking vouchers, and the best ones replicating their success.
3) Not a problem. This is just a Red Herring. Many (if not most) Private Schools function on *much* less money than public schools. What makes you think this is going to change? There will always be places for the rich to flaunt their riches, trying to prevent this is nothing more than class envy, and a red herring.
4) This is a pet peave of mine. I work in public education, and many of the problem students account for most of the waste of money. It is so bad that in many cases, the truly bright and intelligent children are left to themselves, and aren't getting the education THEY deserve. However, vouchers can solve this problem, and so can private education. Variable Vouchers. Let the parents of the children who are "special needs" petition for increased voucher amounts based upon those needs. Force them to take responsibility for making sure those needs are filled, not just in school but also at home as well. Perhaps if a parent had to actually deal with their problem children, rather than passing them onto the schools for 6-8 hours a day, we could actually improve schools for those that actually want to be there.
Who knows. Perhaps he'd sign the Kyoto Accord, required 100 mpg cars, ever increasing government regulation in support of his environmental causes. I'm pretty sure that he'd ignore OBL and the other terrorists like he did under Clinton.
The war in Afghanistan was totally appropriate, since that was the base of operations for the attack. Unless of course, you're one of the Rosie O'Donnell groupies that think it was an inside job, setup and orchestrated in 8 months by Bush.
Which leaves us with Iraq, which isn't really a war anymore. The biggest mistake Bush made was not redefining the "war" once active battles were over. It is more of a state of policing. And if you don't think we should be there, nor should have ever been there, I might agree with you.
The point is, if it wasn't war, it would be something just as bad and intrusive. Clinton/Gore ignorned OBL and the likes of the Taliban, while having his own "wars" (Bosnia, Sudan) to cover his intern fiasco.
You might like the idea of over regulation to support Environmentalism, Health Care, Unions, Illegal Immigrants, and regulating and taxing the hell out of everything, and think it is great to "stick it to the man", but I don't.
The real difference is that a "professional" journalist has greater gravitas than your average Joe. While Joe may report something, it may or may not be true, but when a professional reports something it is assumed true. There is greater "trust" in a "professional" than average (unknown) Joe. However, when six Joes all report on an event, it is much easier to figure out what is and what isn't "truth" than a single source (professional) journalism. And when each of the three major broadcast news all run the same set of stories, all carrying the same party line, and much of the print and cable news is in lockstep, it isn't good.
I'd trust mob news reporting over network news any day.
The shift was subtle and sly. When the people wanted governance from government, that is when the shift came. Remember, the people have the power and are the power of the government, but when the people abandon their power, it gets filled by someone/something else.
Government takes that roll, then men seek out power in government, they consolidate that power, then we get tyranny.
This is what modern liberals don't understand. So, when you hear "free health care" (Next on the list) it is taking the responsibility from the people, and giving it to the government. The only result is more tyranny (aka "laws").
Free men don't need laws. Because Freedom demands responsibility on the part of the individual.
Tyranny comes in many forms. And if the US elections go the way that everyone thinks, we'll have two families in charge of the executive branch since 1988 (1980 if you count Vice Presidency), going on 2012 or 2016 (and beyond, if we're not careful). That is a whole generation that will have grown up only knowing Bush/Clinton presidency.
I suspect that there will be a Latino version of Bush available to run by 2016, and Chelsea will also be available by then. Can we afford more of the same?
The choice between the lesser of two evils, always results in choosing evil.
I refuse to vote for the lessor of two evils, and thus, will never vote for (D) or (R) again. Don't blame me for our government, I didn't vote for any of our leaders.
And in case you haven't figured it out, it doesn't matter if you voted for (D) or (R), you get basically the same thing.
"A war against an generic term, a tactic or unspecified groups of people cannot be won. (It cannot be lost either)."
This is the war that never ends. It just goes on and on my friends. Some people started it not knowing what it was, and they'll keep it going just because this is the war that never end......
"I've worked with people who are considered processional journalists and with citizen journalists in my community, and there is no reason to legally distinguish between the two."
I'd actually go further... there is probably good reason to distinguish between the two, where a citizen journalist may be more reliable (in general) than a "professional" one. Plenty of Professional Journalists have been found fabricating stories / events just to spice up the copy to increase viewership/circulation.
I trust the more "raw" version of an amateur over the sanitized (aka Doctored) versions coming out of many journalists. Remember too, that lately it was the less than "professional" journalists that have broken the news on these types of doctorings, from Photoshoped photos to CBS' fictional documents about GWB...
So, count me as one of the few that no longer trusts his news from major sources. they aren't reliable enough for me.
Except I'm not a Republican or Democrat. I'm a libertarian and a Libertarian.
My point is the same people making fun of GWB for his "Nuke U Lar " are the same ones that hail Jimmy Carter as a political genius, while ignoring his similar speach patterns.
Personally, I think BOTH are proven idiots. But what do I know, I'm not an (R) or a (D).
Geez, you'd think such scientific thinking people would know a flawed comparison when the typed it.
Two kinds of force in the world, that which is yielded reluctantly, and that which is yielded under no restrictions. Good always has a reluctance to use force, but will when necissary. Evil has no such compunction, and will yield force as a matter of course.
And deciding the difference between Good and Evil is of course a matter of perspective. One man's good is another man's evil (and often visa versa). The real question is who decides?
You just made my case for me. Thank you very much. You don't make a distinction between micro (observed) evolution and macro (never observed) evolution. Previously you made a distinction between the two. Because one requires observation (micro) while the other cannot be (macro), when you said that evolution doesn't account for the origin of life. Yet this is exactly what evolution DOES require. It requires inert organic materials spontaneously becoming life, and evolving into more complex life. That is the de-facto definition of evolution.
If there is no spontaneous formation of life from inert organic material (no external life force), then you become a creationist(external life force). Pick one.
"evolution (whether called macro or micro by you) does not, never has, and will never attempt to address the mechanism by which life emerged from non-life."
Sure it does. The moment you claim something other than a completely natural process created life, then you become a creationist. The whole idea of Evolution goes back to the origins of the universe, not just the spark of life. One cannot remove life from the origins of the universe. The whole point of old earth is to claim complete natural and autonomous progression from the Big Bang to now and beyond, and includes subcatagories of Evolution, Physics and many other things.
My questions and doubts of evolution have little to do with minor biological changes (micro evolution) and have more to do with the greater issues regarding the feild of natural processes. Either life spontaneously came from inert organic compounds, or it didn't If it did, we should be able to duplicate it (test it), even if it is momentary "life".
However the complexities required for even BASIC life are such that it is seemingly impossible to occur in this manner. Which leads to the question, how did life, the very first life occur, if not spontaneously then how? If natural processes were not apart of that, then what does that mean?? You have to have a thesis.
"he idea that we (and everything else) evolved from very small, simple organisms is widely accepted in the scientific community because it makes sense that if we can observe small changes over a short period of time, big changes should occur over long periods of time."
what good is half an eye? why two eyes? why not three? Why do some animals have eight? Why not five or seven? Evolution cannot and doesn't answer these questions. Why hundreds of legs? why four, why six, why eight. When did the change from no legs to four legs occur, and why are there creatures with evidence of legs but not actually having them?
How did monkeys evolve to have tails, and humans evolved to lose them, in the same environment?
"Evolution does not preclude the possibility of God creating life."
Yes it does. Because the moment you bring a deity into it, the whole thing changes.
"It simply says that life changes, rapidly enough that those changes are observable in our lifetime, and theorizes that selection pressure is the core reason for those changes."
Except that the fossil record simply disproves this. Millions of years with certain animals mostly unchanged. We know this because of the fossil record. So while Evolution requires changes we have evidence that some animals don't evolved. Why is that?
"It is further supported by the fossil record, which extensively documents the history of life on this planet, which predates man by billions of years, and which becomes progressively simpler and more primitive the further back you go."
Actually, there are very long periods of time of very little if any changes. Again, slow, steady changes would seem to not work in these cases. Of course the evolutionists have an answer, that is that the earth didn't change much during those Millions of years.
The bigest problem for evolution IS the fossil record.
"You can question the validity of this if you'd like, but understand: none of this evidence says anything about where th
What science has observed is MICRO evolution. What Evolution the theory requires is MACRO evolution.
It is difficult for micro evolution to explain a butterfly's metamorphosis. It isn't difficult to explain how a penguin adapts to its envirionment (but stays a penguin). All science has observed is MICRO evolution.
I'm not sure if you are aware of all the cases of observed micro evolutionary changes observed that reverted back to previously observed status. While grey squirrels can be white, and whole populations of white squirrels can spontaneously appear, they can just as easily revert back to grey squirrels. A new species isn't created (as was once thought and promoted by evolutionists) just because hair color changes.
My point has more to do with dogmatic and wrong application of terms used by EVERYBODY, Creationists or Scientists. The fact is the term "evolution" in the context that most people us it in, including many scientists, is either in error or lies.
Evolution as you describe is MICRO evolution, and I will fully agree that it has been observed. Macro Evolution has not. Micro Evolution may or may not translate into Macro Evolution, which DOES require life to spontaneously erupt from inert organic compounds. In fact, it depends upon it. Because if it doesn't sponaneously erupt somewhere in the universe from inert organic compounds, then we have a "god" to deal with, almost by definition.
actually, evolution requires abiogenesis. It requires the first life to be self replicating, mutable and with the ability to adapt in order to survive and to actually survive the harsh conditions.
The problem with Evolution is that the first life would not likely survive the conditions evolution requires for life to evolve. It is a huge catch-22 of evolution.
"Oh wait, he didn't realize it was wrong until it was quoted by creationists, and we know THEY can't be right, so it was withdrawn BECAUSE of them, not because it was wrong.
False. His attention was drawn to the paper because it was being quoted by creationists. He reviewed it to see what they could be getting at. He saw a number of errors in the paper. He withdrew it. RTFM."
Isn't that exactly what I said? He didn't realize it until it was quoted by creationists, which made him wonder what was wrong, and he changed his view and withdrew it. Either you are stupid, or just as dogmatic as the creationists. Neither of which helps the cause of science. He withdrew not because it was wrong (it was wrong for 50+ years), but rather because people he didn't like were using his work in a way he didn't like.
If there were no creationists, he wouldn't have withdrawn the paper. Like I said, it was lucky for him to find it before he died.
But it takes more than "predictive" capabilities to be scientific. It needs predictive replication.
This is exactly the reason why I'm not an evolutionist, but believe that theory is the best scientific one we have... for the moment. There is a difference. One is dogmatic, the other is not.
Slashdot Mirror
"no you can't."
Um, I'd beg to differ. You can find anyone willing to argue for arguments sake. Take me for example, who would have thought that arguing over a "no you can't" statement was even possible. But then again, I'm reminded of children who argue over everything. Suffice it to say, you are just plain wrong or aren't looking hard enough.
Nice try though.
Oh, and the correct answer "Why yes! Yes you can!"
"I mean, imagine you have a party and someone keeps trying to sell his Amway crap, going on everyone's nerves. Wouldn't you throw him out?"
No, I'd beat the crap out of him. Then, I'd throw him/her out.
MLM people are just plain annoying.
1) Not a problem. I think forcing kids into secular schools (where every religion but Judeo/Christian is taught) is a violation of 1st Amendment. When kids have to recite Koran, but Bible is nowhere to be found, I have an issue. Where is the ACLU??
2)False problem. Since all schools would compete for the same voucher, it wouldn't take money out of public schools unless they sucked. In which case they deserve to fail. Unintended consequence would necissitate plenty of private (not necissarily religious) schools taking vouchers, and the best ones replicating their success.
3) Not a problem. This is just a Red Herring. Many (if not most) Private Schools function on *much* less money than public schools. What makes you think this is going to change? There will always be places for the rich to flaunt their riches, trying to prevent this is nothing more than class envy, and a red herring.
4) This is a pet peave of mine. I work in public education, and many of the problem students account for most of the waste of money. It is so bad that in many cases, the truly bright and intelligent children are left to themselves, and aren't getting the education THEY deserve. However, vouchers can solve this problem, and so can private education. Variable Vouchers. Let the parents of the children who are "special needs" petition for increased voucher amounts based upon those needs. Force them to take responsibility for making sure those needs are filled, not just in school but also at home as well. Perhaps if a parent had to actually deal with their problem children, rather than passing them onto the schools for 6-8 hours a day, we could actually improve schools for those that actually want to be there.
UniSol Mice?
In Soviet Russia, Sorry I am
Who knows. Perhaps he'd sign the Kyoto Accord, required 100 mpg cars, ever increasing government regulation in support of his environmental causes. I'm pretty sure that he'd ignore OBL and the other terrorists like he did under Clinton.
The war in Afghanistan was totally appropriate, since that was the base of operations for the attack. Unless of course, you're one of the Rosie O'Donnell groupies that think it was an inside job, setup and orchestrated in 8 months by Bush.
Which leaves us with Iraq, which isn't really a war anymore. The biggest mistake Bush made was not redefining the "war" once active battles were over. It is more of a state of policing. And if you don't think we should be there, nor should have ever been there, I might agree with you.
The point is, if it wasn't war, it would be something just as bad and intrusive. Clinton/Gore ignorned OBL and the likes of the Taliban, while having his own "wars" (Bosnia, Sudan) to cover his intern fiasco.
You might like the idea of over regulation to support Environmentalism, Health Care, Unions, Illegal Immigrants, and regulating and taxing the hell out of everything, and think it is great to "stick it to the man", but I don't.
The real difference is that a "professional" journalist has greater gravitas than your average Joe. While Joe may report something, it may or may not be true, but when a professional reports something it is assumed true. There is greater "trust" in a "professional" than average (unknown) Joe. However, when six Joes all report on an event, it is much easier to figure out what is and what isn't "truth" than a single source (professional) journalism. And when each of the three major broadcast news all run the same set of stories, all carrying the same party line, and much of the print and cable news is in lockstep, it isn't good.
I'd trust mob news reporting over network news any day.
The shift was subtle and sly. When the people wanted governance from government, that is when the shift came. Remember, the people have the power and are the power of the government, but when the people abandon their power, it gets filled by someone/something else.
Government takes that roll, then men seek out power in government, they consolidate that power, then we get tyranny.
This is what modern liberals don't understand. So, when you hear "free health care" (Next on the list) it is taking the responsibility from the people, and giving it to the government. The only result is more tyranny (aka "laws").
Free men don't need laws. Because Freedom demands responsibility on the part of the individual.
Rich == powerful == Rich
Tyranny comes in many forms. And if the US elections go the way that everyone thinks, we'll have two families in charge of the executive branch since 1988 (1980 if you count Vice Presidency), going on 2012 or 2016 (and beyond, if we're not careful). That is a whole generation that will have grown up only knowing Bush/Clinton presidency.
I suspect that there will be a Latino version of Bush available to run by 2016, and Chelsea will also be available by then. Can we afford more of the same?
The choice between the lesser of two evils, always results in choosing evil.
I refuse to vote for the lessor of two evils, and thus, will never vote for (D) or (R) again. Don't blame me for our government, I didn't vote for any of our leaders.
And in case you haven't figured it out, it doesn't matter if you voted for (D) or (R), you get basically the same thing.
"A war against an generic term, a tactic or unspecified groups of people cannot be won.
......
(It cannot be lost either)."
This is the war that never ends. It just goes on and on my friends. Some people started it not knowing what it was, and they'll keep it going just because this is the war that never end
Woooooooooosh
"I've worked with people who are considered processional journalists and with citizen journalists in my community, and there is no reason to legally distinguish between the two."
... there is probably good reason to distinguish between the two, where a citizen journalist may be more reliable (in general) than a "professional" one. Plenty of Professional Journalists have been found fabricating stories / events just to spice up the copy to increase viewership/circulation.
...
I'd actually go further
I trust the more "raw" version of an amateur over the sanitized (aka Doctored) versions coming out of many journalists. Remember too, that lately it was the less than "professional" journalists that have broken the news on these types of doctorings, from Photoshoped photos to CBS' fictional documents about GWB
So, count me as one of the few that no longer trusts his news from major sources. they aren't reliable enough for me.
Except I'm not a Republican or Democrat. I'm a libertarian and a Libertarian.
My point is the same people making fun of GWB for his "Nuke U Lar " are the same ones that hail Jimmy Carter as a political genius, while ignoring his similar speach patterns.
Personally, I think BOTH are proven idiots. But what do I know, I'm not an (R) or a (D).
Geez, you'd think such scientific thinking people would know a flawed comparison when the typed it.
Two kinds of force in the world, that which is yielded reluctantly, and that which is yielded under no restrictions. Good always has a reluctance to use force, but will when necissary. Evil has no such compunction, and will yield force as a matter of course.
And deciding the difference between Good and Evil is of course a matter of perspective. One man's good is another man's evil (and often visa versa). The real question is who decides?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist's_theorem
Geez, that took all of about 20 seconds to load Wikipedia, copy and paste here. Perhaps next time, you'll do yourself a favor and go to WIKI first.
Remember it was Carter who first showed us how to pronounce it Nuck-U-Lar, not Bush. Funny how (D) conveniently forget this ......
By forcing religion upon everyone, you mean the Environmental Earth worshipping Wackos who are foisting the idea of Global Warming, right?
"What sort of physical conditions (pressure, temperature) would have to exist to produce carbon from a mix of hydrogen and oxygen? ;)"
Pick one of the following:
A)This will naturally occur due to Global Warming.
II)This will occur because of the war in Iraq.
3) Religious Nutball, everyone knows that's impossible.
e) All of the above
You just made my case for me. Thank you very much. You don't make a distinction between micro (observed) evolution and macro (never observed) evolution. Previously you made a distinction between the two. Because one requires observation (micro) while the other cannot be (macro), when you said that evolution doesn't account for the origin of life. Yet this is exactly what evolution DOES require. It requires inert organic materials spontaneously becoming life, and evolving into more complex life. That is the de-facto definition of evolution.
If there is no spontaneous formation of life from inert organic material (no external life force), then you become a creationist(external life force). Pick one.
"evolution (whether called macro or micro by you) does not, never has, and will never attempt to address the mechanism by which life emerged from non-life."
Sure it does. The moment you claim something other than a completely natural process created life, then you become a creationist. The whole idea of Evolution goes back to the origins of the universe, not just the spark of life. One cannot remove life from the origins of the universe. The whole point of old earth is to claim complete natural and autonomous progression from the Big Bang to now and beyond, and includes subcatagories of Evolution, Physics and many other things.
My questions and doubts of evolution have little to do with minor biological changes (micro evolution) and have more to do with the greater issues regarding the feild of natural processes. Either life spontaneously came from inert organic compounds, or it didn't If it did, we should be able to duplicate it (test it), even if it is momentary "life".
However the complexities required for even BASIC life are such that it is seemingly impossible to occur in this manner. Which leads to the question, how did life, the very first life occur, if not spontaneously then how? If natural processes were not apart of that, then what does that mean?? You have to have a thesis.
"he idea that we (and everything else) evolved from very small, simple organisms is widely accepted in the scientific community because it makes sense that if we can observe small changes over a short period of time, big changes should occur over long periods of time."
what good is half an eye? why two eyes? why not three? Why do some animals have eight? Why not five or seven? Evolution cannot and doesn't answer these questions. Why hundreds of legs? why four, why six, why eight. When did the change from no legs to four legs occur, and why are there creatures with evidence of legs but not actually having them?
How did monkeys evolve to have tails, and humans evolved to lose them, in the same environment?
"Evolution does not preclude the possibility of God creating life."
Yes it does. Because the moment you bring a deity into it, the whole thing changes.
"It simply says that life changes, rapidly enough that those changes are observable in our lifetime, and theorizes that selection pressure is the core reason for those changes."
Except that the fossil record simply disproves this. Millions of years with certain animals mostly unchanged. We know this because of the fossil record. So while Evolution requires changes we have evidence that some animals don't evolved. Why is that?
"It is further supported by the fossil record, which extensively documents the history of life on this planet, which predates man by billions of years, and which becomes progressively simpler and more primitive the further back you go."
Actually, there are very long periods of time of very little if any changes. Again, slow, steady changes would seem to not work in these cases. Of course the evolutionists have an answer, that is that the earth didn't change much during those Millions of years.
The bigest problem for evolution IS the fossil record.
"You can question the validity of this if you'd like, but understand: none of this evidence says anything about where th
What science has observed is MICRO evolution. What Evolution the theory requires is MACRO evolution.
It is difficult for micro evolution to explain a butterfly's metamorphosis. It isn't difficult to explain how a penguin adapts to its envirionment (but stays a penguin). All science has observed is MICRO evolution.
I'm not sure if you are aware of all the cases of observed micro evolutionary changes observed that reverted back to previously observed status. While grey squirrels can be white, and whole populations of white squirrels can spontaneously appear, they can just as easily revert back to grey squirrels. A new species isn't created (as was once thought and promoted by evolutionists) just because hair color changes.
My point has more to do with dogmatic and wrong application of terms used by EVERYBODY, Creationists or Scientists. The fact is the term "evolution" in the context that most people us it in, including many scientists, is either in error or lies.
Evolution as you describe is MICRO evolution, and I will fully agree that it has been observed. Macro Evolution has not. Micro Evolution may or may not translate into Macro Evolution, which DOES require life to spontaneously erupt from inert organic compounds. In fact, it depends upon it. Because if it doesn't sponaneously erupt somewhere in the universe from inert organic compounds, then we have a "god" to deal with, almost by definition.
"Repeat after me: abiogenesis is not evolution."
actually, evolution requires abiogenesis. It requires the first life to be self replicating, mutable and with the ability to adapt in order to survive and to actually survive the harsh conditions.
The problem with Evolution is that the first life would not likely survive the conditions evolution requires for life to evolve. It is a huge catch-22 of evolution.
"Oh wait, he didn't realize it was wrong until it was quoted by creationists, and we know THEY can't be right, so it was withdrawn BECAUSE of them, not because it was wrong.
False. His attention was drawn to the paper because it was being quoted by creationists. He reviewed it to see what they could be getting at. He saw a number of errors in the paper. He withdrew it. RTFM."
Isn't that exactly what I said? He didn't realize it until it was quoted by creationists, which made him wonder what was wrong, and he changed his view and withdrew it. Either you are stupid, or just as dogmatic as the creationists. Neither of which helps the cause of science. He withdrew not because it was wrong (it was wrong for 50+ years), but rather because people he didn't like were using his work in a way he didn't like.
If there were no creationists, he wouldn't have withdrawn the paper. Like I said, it was lucky for him to find it before he died.
Thank you!
... for the moment. There is a difference. One is dogmatic, the other is not.
But it takes more than "predictive" capabilities to be scientific. It needs predictive replication.
This is exactly the reason why I'm not an evolutionist, but believe that theory is the best scientific one we have
"His sudden "road to Damascus" moment is about as "convenient" as someone becoming a "born-again Christian" after being arrested."
Leave Paris Hilton and/or Michael Vick out of this.