And how would you expect Microsoft to stop them? If they piss off the S.K. government too badly, the government can say to their corporations & citizens: "All Microsoft products are now public domain - have fun!".
That would be an immensely stupid thing for any government to do, and would probably be not-long-followed by an economic meltdown.
You might expect something that stupid to happen in, say, *North* Korea, or some other country run by an insane nutcase, but not from any remotely representatively-governed, economically liberal nation.
Actually, Darwin did - that, as we found more fossils, we would start to find the transition forms between species. That didn't happen. The fossils we found seem to fit into identifiable species, which is quite different from what Darwin predicted.
*Every* *single* *post* in this thread you have argued the position that evolution and creationism should be given equal time because neither has all the answers and thus require assumptions be made - completely ignoring that the assumptions necessary for evolutionary theory to be reasonable are orders of magnitude smaller (not to mention actually consistent with observed data) than those necessary for creationism.
My argument is that in both, you have ot belive in somethign that isn't proven as fact. My argument is that alot of the steps although using different resources,take the same mental awareness to come to whatever conclusion used to belive in either.
And you ignore that those same "steps" have led to large amounts of evidence supporting evolution and *zero* supporting creationism.
You now appear to be arguing that just because two different ideas are pursued in the same fashion, then they must be equally likely, no matter what the evidence actually supports. Ironically, this helps to demonstrate why creationism belongs in a philosophy or religion class, and not a science class.
umm.. thats not the way it was presented to me. But then again i don't believe creation is the way we came about. (think flying spaghetti monster). Speciation could definatly occur, after creation existed. Genisis only deals with a short period of time and doesn't say a word about what happens to life after it deals with it. (ok it does say some stuff but nothign to exclude evolution or speciation)
I am curious as to what "third way" you subscribe to if you feel neither creationism nor evolution can explain speciation...
here you seem to agree with me that evolution as the begining of life isn't and will not be proven.
No, I merely accept that the theory of evolution will - like all science - always be open to question and refinement.
Now to belive in this as the begining of lofe as we know it you must take a leap of faith (trust) in someones interpretation of what happened. This leap may be based on more convincing evidence so you consider it to be true or truer then other theories. The process you are taking to determin this is real, its what i'm talking about.
Wow, you really *are* arguing that merely considering two ideas makes either equally possible...
Using this same process, someone else could has been led to belive creation is the real begining and other yet belive in another way.
They could, if they chose to ignore all the evidence that supports evolution and the complete lack of any support creationism.
And thats my point, to belive in either, you have to belive that out of nothingness came something and majicaly enough steps took place fro life to happen and then form that one piece of life everything we know today is here.
Yes, the difference is with creationism you have to assume that the "magic steps" involved a god appearing from nothing and creating all the animals and plants, and with evolution you only have to assume a few bits of organic matter in just the right quantities got zapped with some electricity.
I'm sure you don't belive "god" created the hevens and the earth then a sinlge life from that mutated out of his control into what we see today. Some were that life had to happen and some process wich isn't proven had to occur. You have to place trust in alot of unprovable situation in order for it to happen. It is simular to the same trust creationist use.
The "trust" required to consider creationism isn't in the same ballpark as the assumptions necessary for evolution. Hell, it's not even playing the same game.
The mental process used to come to this trust is what i'm saying is equal. Not the competing thoeries.
Then why do you keep trying to say evolution is wrong, if you're not actually arguing about evolution vs creationism ?
Ok first, somewere you think i am trying to say evolution and creation are equaly sound. I'm not.
Yes, you are. Every time you spout stupidity like this:
I am saying that the to belive one you have to make the same leaps that other requires. I don't see any difference in saying this is true and this is not because although we havn't witnessed evolution jumping species, we "belive" it is possible and likley to happen.
You are basing your argument that evolution and creationism are equally likely based on the false dichotomy between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" ?
Wow. Just....wow.
Creation is the exact same thing.
No, it is not. Creationism holds that speciation *cannot* occur - thus that every species currently known has always existed - and as such is directly opposed to evolution.
Granted evolution or inteligent design thru evolution presents a more sound argument but neither evolution or creationism _has_been_proved_.
Nor will evolution ever be. Such is the nature of science.
Again, i'm not saying creation is a science rather then you need to employ the same faiths to belive in somethign not proven and to belive that what is being presented is the true meaning of the statment.
But you do. To believe in creationism, you must accept the basic assumption that, from nothingness, sprang an entity capable of
"creating" everything that currently exists on Earth. To "believe" in evolution, you simply need to observe the evidence supporting it.
Evolution has not been witness or observered outside differenet breeds withing the same species.
[...]
I challenge you to show me any research were Macro evolution has been proven to produce another species that can continue reproduction.
You keep mentioning science as it is the reason the thoery of evolution is fact, In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.
Ironic that you say this when I'm the one who has been using the word "Theory" correctly, rather than the pejorative manner you have.
In conclusion, i am not saying creation is equaly sound as evolution. I am saying that you need to make the same jump of faith (look it up) to belive aithor one is acurate.
I often hear from windows users that the/etc directory is much more complicated than it needs to be, and that things are hard to find. After I point out how much cleaner/etc is than the windows registry those complaints tend to go away as well.
I see this said often, and it's really just silly. Editing obscure files in/etc is the accepted and recommended way of configuring unix systems and services, whereas directly editing the Registry in Windows is neither recommended nor expected.
Yes, you *are*, by arguing that it and evolution deserve equal consideration.
Again, there are massive amounts of historical and experimental data supporting the theory of evolution. There is none support creationism.
I'm saying you employ the same system of faith in beliving either because the state in wich the proof of either is the same.
And you are wrong. There *is* evidence, both historical and experimental, that supports both the general theory of evolution *and* specific hypotheses within it. Added to that, evolutionary theory is consistent with other scientific fields. Creationism is none of these things. There is no evidence that it happened and it is inconsistent with existing knowledge.
People who belive we cam from monkey or apes have to belive in evidenc e that isn't there just as those beliving in evolution belive in evidence not there. Ther is a book that say a god said this is how earth and life begain, there is a thoery that say this is how easrth and life began, I the theory there is no proof that we evolved from apes or monkey, there are only indecation that it might be likley.
Firstly, evolution doesn't state such a thing.
Secondly, there is a great deal of evidence showing the evolutionary path towards Homo Sapien Sapien.
Thirdly, evolution concerns a hell of a lot more than just where humans came from. It encompasses all living organisms and, again, there is mountains of evidence supporting evolution in those organisms.
That we do not know, right now, the exact evolutionary path taken to every organism currently know, does not detract from all that we *do* know.
In the book there is no proof that some god made us and everythign around but there is proof that other passages were true, (yes, there is a very lucritive science in proving parts of the bible to be corect) usualy time line of this that happened ot the techoligy was present whensomethign was supposed to happen.
Parts of Star Trek are accurate as well, that doesn't make the parts of it that are fantasy any less so.
This "proof" in either course would leave some to belive thru faith that the rest could be true.
The difference being that there isn't any evidence supporting the "hypothesis" (and I use the term loosely) of creationism. Parts of the Bible being true does not automatically infer credibility to all of it.
This "proof" in either course would leave some to belive thru faith that the rest could be true.
Your problem is that you are trying to argue against evolution wholly within the framework of philosophical thought, and ignoring everything else. Since this is the only context in which creationism can even be given consideration, it is not surprising that - in your theologically-limited sphere of reasoning - you would do so.
However, that does not in any way lessen the massive amounts of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, nor the complete lack of any evidence supporting creationism. That one can potentially accord evolution and creationism equal footing by choosing to ignore the physical and experimental evidence supporting the former and discounting the latter, in an attempt to keep the debate purely philosophical (and even then, creationism fails Occam's Razor), does nothing to help your position, since it actually supports the principle that creationism belongs in the realms of philosophy or religion, and not science.
Or, to put it more bluntly, it's true that if you ignore science, evolution and creationism could potentially be compared (except for that small problem with Occam's Razor) on equal footing, but doing so simply agrees with what I've been saying - that creationism isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class.
You keep saying that science in the most important part of the discusion. If that is so then the theorey of evolution isn't even a Theory but a Hypothesis.
What I consider to be "evolutionary theories" can be tested repeatably in a laboratory under controlled conditions. Those tests say what is true now; they cannot say what actually happened 65 million years ago.
I have to wonder if you feel similarly sceptical about whether or not gravity existed "65 million years ago", or if the Earth back then was flat, or any of the millions of other "theories" that can only be tested today, but describe things that have happened in the past ?
Teaching evolutionary theories as fact today is a matter of science; teaching that it is how we arrived here is its own thing.
Even if I were to agree with that point of view, evolutionary theory still has mountains of evidence supporting the principle that "we arrived here today" by the processes it describes, whereas creationism has none.
Our observations of the fossil record do not constitute scientific experiments. Paleontology attempts to explain what actually happened, and that is not science. Paleontology is the study of the past. It says "Based on this evidence, we think that this is what happened." That's interesting (to some), but it's not science.
It also says "based on the evidence we have, these are the things we expect to find evidence for in the future". Evidence found within the study of paleontology is also used to support other fields such as evolution and biology and help create consistency through continued research (and vice versa). That's the "science" part.
Note that I'm not claiming that creationism is science either.
Indeed. The problem is you, like many others, are supporting the view that because various other fields of science are not "perfect", that creationism deserves equal recognition, or that those fields are somehow "uninteresting". This is wrong, because actual science is supported by evidence, is consistent with itself (or continually strives to be) and is quite happy to say "we don't know". Creationism is none of these things and as such, as I said earlier, is not science and thus deserves no time in a science class.
Sure, there are limitations to this prinicple, but don't delude yourself that an invalid ballot is in any way a protest vote. Consider who's chances of election it jeopardises. Nobody's?
*Everybody's*. By voting for no-one, you reduce the possible number of votes *every* candidate can receive.
The later has the same to do with it. creationism and biblical inteligent desing describes the making of man at the same time as the making of earth.
And...?
Now for the creation and the documents that claim it happened, there are all kinds of evidence provong that part of it were true too. And yes this is scientific evidence if you belive fossils and such to be a science.
Where does the fossil record record supports creationism ?
There has been no missing link found that can link man to any of it's ancestors beyond what would be currently considered human.
What is "currently considered human" is Homo Sapien Sapien, and there are a great deal of his Homo predecessors that lead a clear evolutionary path.
It is crazy to think placing blind faith in some document (probably created to control you) that says some god created te world as we know it and humans is wierd when in fact we are doing just that when looking at the evidence of evolution and the bigbang theories.
No, we're not. It appears you have a fundamental lack of understanding about what science actually is and how it functions.
The whole point of science is *not* to place "blind faith", but to go out and collect evidence, test (and falsify) old ideas, continually come up with new ideas about how everything fits together and the repeat the process ad nauseum. Inherent in this are the principle that hypotheses should sufficiently explain both existing evidence and any new evidence, in addition to predicting future discoveries and that theories are always open to refinement.
By looking at what scientist and your god hating influences have presented you, you are defending that with the same vigor as those who belive in some rligious text.
To "hate god" I would first have to believe such a thing exists. I don't.
In most if not all ways, you have been inducted into a rligion of science.
Science is not a religion, it's a methodology.
BTW, evolution is a reletivly new science compared to other explanations.
And this detracts from its comparitive validity how, exactly ?
I'm still not saying one is more corect then the other.
However, you are giving far more credence to creationism that it deserves. I have to wonder if you give the same level of credibility to people who believe the Earth is flat, or at the centre of the Solar System - and if not, why not ?
Just you need to have a faith to belive in either (any) as being corect.
No, you need faith to believe in creationism, since nothing else supports it - but the theory of evolution is supported by reams of evidence and decades of testing by the scientific method.
Those who claim that religion and science are antithetical do not understand either. Both are primarily concerned with ideas that haven't been proven yet.
Uh, no. Science is primarily concerned with finding out what happened and why. Religion (at least the ones relevant to this discussion) is primarily concerned with telling people that $DEITY did it and to worship him for doing so.
Think of creationism as being a scientific theory that you haven't found an experiment for yet.
This is actually a good point. When the creationism camp has managed to come up with some "scientific" hypotheses and experiments (rather than easily disproved theological ramblings), their claims of having a "scientific theory" might be taken more seriously.
Right now, however, it's not science. Nor, given it's swiss-cheese like foundations, is it ever likely to be.
Believing that the existence of man is an entirely natural occurrence requires accepting a number of far-fetched unproven hypotheses.
For example ?
This is no different than believing that a divine being created man, except our term for "accepting a far-fetched unproven hypothesis" is "having faith."
Actually it is, because "having faith" exhibits none of the attributes of the scientific method, whereas evolutionary theory exhibits all of them.
Just one example of a leap of faith related to the theory of evolution is that there is no basis for natural selection of life over non-life. Nature is an incredibly destructive and disorganizing force. Life is incredibly complex, organized, and delicate. I have to take an artificial hormone equal to literally one-billionth of my body weight every day or I become so sluggish it is difficult to lift my own arm. To put in proportion how delicate a balance that is, it would be like if 6 people calling in sick caused everyone on the planet to experience a drop in productivity that day.
The odds against the random appearance of just that one hormone are astronomical. The odds against it appearing just when it was needed in our development is unfathomable. [...]
Look, next time why don't you just say "irreducible complexity" and "the human eye" - you'll save yourself a lot of typing.
Also, speaking of "far fetched, unproven hypotheses", the one you're making here that the components of a complex natural system cannot exist independently is one of them - and it's been disproven on numerous occasions.
It is not sufficient to believe that the "infinite monkeys with typewriters" theory explains the first single-celled organism.
Indeed, it is not. Which is why *science* is trying to find out what happened and how, rather than simply stopping at the "belief" part like creationism does.
Even if you think the odds against the existence of a Creator are a gazillion to one, remember that the odds against the alternative are just as steep.
No, they're not. The odds against a complex organism - the "intelligent designer" - suddenly springing into existence are massively greater than the odds of a few protein strands doing the same thing.
Teaching that living things evolve is one thing, but if you start adding unproven hypotheses into the mix, there is no reason why creationism shouldn't be given equal consideration.
Yes, there is - because "unproven (and unprovable !) hypotheses" are the _only_ thing creationism has to offer, whereas evolutionary theory brings along with it evidence, provable hypotheses, consistency, critical review and the desire to learn more.
We don't have any evidence to prove scientificaly that either evolution or creationism is or is not true.
The difference is that there is a vast body of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution and none at all supporting creationism.
Again, this is because creationism is not science.
We have evidence that makes us want to belive one or the other but not complete proof.
We will never have "complete proof". That is the nature of science. It is this willingness to admit error or lacking and constant search for knowledge that separates it from religion.
Everything said to discredit one (scientificaly) can almost word for word be turn against the other and not be wrong.
I can't think of any criticism that can be levelled against creationism that can also be levelled against evolutionary theory.
If you wish to accord creationism equal footing with evolutionary theory, that's your prerogative, but don't try and pretend that doing so is being objective or "fair", because it's like saying the flat-earth model deserves as much recognition as the spherical earth model, or the geocentric model should be taught alongside the heliocentric one.
An invalid ballot is a vote that accepts whatever is the outcome of all the valid votes.
No, it is not. The meaning of any ballot is independent of any other ballot, and the election outcome. It stands alone.
Hardly a protest vote
Well, it's the closest anyone can get in our system. It's the only way voters have of saying none of the available options hold any representative views.
Voting for "the other guy" (assuming "the other guy" doesn't actually represent your views) is in no way, shape or form a "protest vote" against the standing government (or anyone else). It's an indication you support the views espoused by "the other guy".
So many people seem to have trouble with the concept that you don't vote against parties, you vote for them - or you don't vote at all.
Maybe so, but as a social science it has no relevance to the area it is supposed to "address". Much like the theory of a flat earth is relevant to a history class, but irrelevant to geodetics and geography.
It just attemps to explain it differently.
No, it does not. The whole point of creationism "science" is to try and poke holes in evolution. It makes no attempt to actually explain anything that isn't already "known" - or is inconsistent with existing knowledge - by simply attributing unknowns and inconsistencies to magic (or Pink Unicorns, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or gods, or whatever supernatural force takes your fancy).
There is no scientific proof that evolution or the big bang actualy happened. there is no scientif proof that evolution or the big bang happened to create life exactly as we know it.
There is mountains of scientific evidence supporting both the theories of evolution and "the big bang" (although what the relevance of the latter is to this discussion, I don't know).
There is _zero_ scientific evidence supporting creationism. Creationism doesn't meet any of the criteria of a scientific theory.
I know you're just trolling, but the depressing thing is you probably believe what you're saying as well.
While true, it's often missed that suppositions about something that has actually happened are not science either; it's not possible to show via repeatable experiment that one particular critter actually did evolve from another particular critter, though the underlying scientific theories that would allow that to happen can theoretically be shown to be true.
Which is precisely why evolutionary theory makes falsifiable predictions based on observations that can be (and have been) tested. Evolution a lot more than ruminating on how one dinosaur turned into another.
This doesn't mean that paleontology is worthless, of course; it should certainly be discussed. But in paleontology class, where it belongs, not science class.
Paleontology takes observations and generates testable theories, it is consistent with other existing knowledge, it is under constant refinement as new evidence is found and old theories are proven false, it uses controlled, repeatable methodologies, it does not claim to already know everything that can be known. Creationism does none of these things. That is why paleontology is a science and creationism is not.
Creationism is not in any way, shape, or form consistent with the definition of a science. Therefore, it does not belong in a science curriculum.
As science ? None...yet - and while the religious right-wingers here can only dream of the influence their brethren in the US have in Government, they're always doing their best to whisper in the right ears (and, depressingly, more and more openly every day).
(Well, not me personally, I voted Green, even though most of their ideas are asinine. It's kind of a protest vote.)
If you must "protest vote", lodge an invalid ballot - don't give people/parties (particularly crazy ones like the Greens) the idea you actually support them.
The UN is run by, and consists almost solely of, politicians and their lapdogs, thus making it inherently untrustworthy. And that said, boggles the mind after the UN corruption scandals of the last few years anyone naive enough to get past the initial "by and for politicians" aspect could possibly trust the UN.
Do I take it that the UN are supposed to serve the needs of USA first and the rest of the world second, if at all?
The UN are supposed to serve the needs of everyone. They rarely serve the needs of anyone except themselves.
I can understand how some of those working at the UN might not see it quite that way.
Undoubtedly, it's hard to ride the gravy train if you're looking out for anyone except yourself.
Always a better idea to get the bloodtest, hell if it takes 30 mins to get to the police station your BAC may have even dropped a bit.
That won't work, because the BAC detected by the blood tests is extrapolated backwards to the time you were pulled over. So the "wait it out" strategy only works if you can hold the blood test off long enough to get a BAC of "zero" (which is how sufficiently welthy people get away with it - by stalling the testing process with lawyers).
Slashdot Mirror
That would be an immensely stupid thing for any government to do, and would probably be not-long-followed by an economic meltdown.
You might expect something that stupid to happen in, say, *North* Korea, or some other country run by an insane nutcase, but not from any remotely representatively-governed, economically liberal nation.
Because until that point there is no soul. Duh.
</SARCASM>
All species are "transitional".
There's *at least* as many weird and wonderful places to hide malicious code in a typical unix system...
Correction: the "protection" that was always there is now turned on by default.
NO, thats not even my argument.
THEN WHY THE HELL DO YOU KEEP SAYING IT ?
*Every* *single* *post* in this thread you have argued the position that evolution and creationism should be given equal time because neither has all the answers and thus require assumptions be made - completely ignoring that the assumptions necessary for evolutionary theory to be reasonable are orders of magnitude smaller (not to mention actually consistent with observed data) than those necessary for creationism.
My argument is that in both, you have ot belive in somethign that isn't proven as fact. My argument is that alot of the steps although using different resources,take the same mental awareness to come to whatever conclusion used to belive in either.
And you ignore that those same "steps" have led to large amounts of evidence supporting evolution and *zero* supporting creationism.
You now appear to be arguing that just because two different ideas are pursued in the same fashion, then they must be equally likely, no matter what the evidence actually supports. Ironically, this helps to demonstrate why creationism belongs in a philosophy or religion class, and not a science class.
umm.. thats not the way it was presented to me. But then again i don't believe creation is the way we came about. (think flying spaghetti monster). Speciation could definatly occur, after creation existed. Genisis only deals with a short period of time and doesn't say a word about what happens to life after it deals with it. (ok it does say some stuff but nothign to exclude evolution or speciation)
I am curious as to what "third way" you subscribe to if you feel neither creationism nor evolution can explain speciation...
here you seem to agree with me that evolution as the begining of life isn't and will not be proven.
No, I merely accept that the theory of evolution will - like all science - always be open to question and refinement.
Now to belive in this as the begining of lofe as we know it you must take a leap of faith (trust) in someones interpretation of what happened. This leap may be based on more convincing evidence so you consider it to be true or truer then other theories. The process you are taking to determin this is real, its what i'm talking about.
Wow, you really *are* arguing that merely considering two ideas makes either equally possible...
Using this same process, someone else could has been led to belive creation is the real begining and other yet belive in another way.
They could, if they chose to ignore all the evidence that supports evolution and the complete lack of any support creationism.
And thats my point, to belive in either, you have to belive that out of nothingness came something and majicaly enough steps took place fro life to happen and then form that one piece of life everything we know today is here.
Yes, the difference is with creationism you have to assume that the "magic steps" involved a god appearing from nothing and creating all the animals and plants, and with evolution you only have to assume a few bits of organic matter in just the right quantities got zapped with some electricity.
I'm sure you don't belive "god" created the hevens and the earth then a sinlge life from that mutated out of his control into what we see today. Some were that life had to happen and some process wich isn't proven had to occur. You have to place trust in alot of unprovable situation in order for it to happen. It is simular to the same trust creationist use.
The "trust" required to consider creationism isn't in the same ballpark as the assumptions necessary for evolution. Hell, it's not even playing the same game.
The mental process used to come to this trust is what i'm saying is equal. Not the competing thoeries.
Then why do you keep trying to say evolution is wrong, if you're not actually arguing about evolution vs creationism ?
Yes, you are. Every time you spout stupidity like this:
I am saying that the to belive one you have to make the same leaps that other requires. I don't see any difference in saying this is true and this is not because although we havn't witnessed evolution jumping species, we "belive" it is possible and likley to happen.
You are basing your argument that evolution and creationism are equally likely based on the false dichotomy between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" ?
Wow. Just....wow.
Creation is the exact same thing.
No, it is not. Creationism holds that speciation *cannot* occur - thus that every species currently known has always existed - and as such is directly opposed to evolution.
Granted evolution or inteligent design thru evolution presents a more sound argument but neither evolution or creationism _has_been_proved_.
Nor will evolution ever be. Such is the nature of science.
Again, i'm not saying creation is a science rather then you need to employ the same faiths to belive in somethign not proven and to belive that what is being presented is the true meaning of the statment.
But you do. To believe in creationism, you must accept the basic assumption that, from nothingness, sprang an entity capable of "creating" everything that currently exists on Earth. To "believe" in evolution, you simply need to observe the evidence supporting it.
Evolution has not been witness or observered outside differenet breeds withing the same species.
[...]
I challenge you to show me any research were Macro evolution has been proven to produce another species that can continue reproduction.
There are a few here. Or a simple Google search will show you more.
You keep mentioning science as it is the reason the thoery of evolution is fact, In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.
Ironic that you say this when I'm the one who has been using the word "Theory" correctly, rather than the pejorative manner you have.
In conclusion, i am not saying creation is equaly sound as evolution. I am saying that you need to make the same jump of faith (look it up) to belive aithor one is acurate.
Yes, you are - and you are wrong.
I see this said often, and it's really just silly. Editing obscure files in /etc is the accepted and recommended way of configuring unix systems and services, whereas directly editing the Registry in Windows is neither recommended nor expected.
Yes, you *are*, by arguing that it and evolution deserve equal consideration.
Again, there are massive amounts of historical and experimental data supporting the theory of evolution. There is none support creationism.
I'm saying you employ the same system of faith in beliving either because the state in wich the proof of either is the same.
And you are wrong. There *is* evidence, both historical and experimental, that supports both the general theory of evolution *and* specific hypotheses within it. Added to that, evolutionary theory is consistent with other scientific fields. Creationism is none of these things. There is no evidence that it happened and it is inconsistent with existing knowledge.
People who belive we cam from monkey or apes have to belive in evidenc e that isn't there just as those beliving in evolution belive in evidence not there. Ther is a book that say a god said this is how earth and life begain, there is a thoery that say this is how easrth and life began, I the theory there is no proof that we evolved from apes or monkey, there are only indecation that it might be likley.
Firstly, evolution doesn't state such a thing.
Secondly, there is a great deal of evidence showing the evolutionary path towards Homo Sapien Sapien.
Thirdly, evolution concerns a hell of a lot more than just where humans came from. It encompasses all living organisms and, again, there is mountains of evidence supporting evolution in those organisms.
That we do not know, right now, the exact evolutionary path taken to every organism currently know, does not detract from all that we *do* know.
In the book there is no proof that some god made us and everythign around but there is proof that other passages were true, (yes, there is a very lucritive science in proving parts of the bible to be corect) usualy time line of this that happened ot the techoligy was present whensomethign was supposed to happen.
Parts of Star Trek are accurate as well, that doesn't make the parts of it that are fantasy any less so.
This "proof" in either course would leave some to belive thru faith that the rest could be true.
The difference being that there isn't any evidence supporting the "hypothesis" (and I use the term loosely) of creationism. Parts of the Bible being true does not automatically infer credibility to all of it.
This "proof" in either course would leave some to belive thru faith that the rest could be true.
Your problem is that you are trying to argue against evolution wholly within the framework of philosophical thought, and ignoring everything else. Since this is the only context in which creationism can even be given consideration, it is not surprising that - in your theologically-limited sphere of reasoning - you would do so.
However, that does not in any way lessen the massive amounts of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, nor the complete lack of any evidence supporting creationism. That one can potentially accord evolution and creationism equal footing by choosing to ignore the physical and experimental evidence supporting the former and discounting the latter, in an attempt to keep the debate purely philosophical (and even then, creationism fails Occam's Razor), does nothing to help your position, since it actually supports the principle that creationism belongs in the realms of philosophy or religion, and not science.
Or, to put it more bluntly, it's true that if you ignore science, evolution and creationism could potentially be compared (except for that small problem with Occam's Razor) on equal footing, but doing so simply agrees with what I've been saying - that creationism isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class.
You keep saying that science in the most important part of the discusion. If that is so then the theorey of evolution isn't even a Theory but a Hypothesis.
I have to wonder if you feel similarly sceptical about whether or not gravity existed "65 million years ago", or if the Earth back then was flat, or any of the millions of other "theories" that can only be tested today, but describe things that have happened in the past ?
Teaching evolutionary theories as fact today is a matter of science; teaching that it is how we arrived here is its own thing.
Even if I were to agree with that point of view, evolutionary theory still has mountains of evidence supporting the principle that "we arrived here today" by the processes it describes, whereas creationism has none.
Our observations of the fossil record do not constitute scientific experiments. Paleontology attempts to explain what actually happened, and that is not science. Paleontology is the study of the past. It says "Based on this evidence, we think that this is what happened." That's interesting (to some), but it's not science.
It also says "based on the evidence we have, these are the things we expect to find evidence for in the future". Evidence found within the study of paleontology is also used to support other fields such as evolution and biology and help create consistency through continued research (and vice versa). That's the "science" part.
Note that I'm not claiming that creationism is science either.
Indeed. The problem is you, like many others, are supporting the view that because various other fields of science are not "perfect", that creationism deserves equal recognition, or that those fields are somehow "uninteresting". This is wrong, because actual science is supported by evidence, is consistent with itself (or continually strives to be) and is quite happy to say "we don't know". Creationism is none of these things and as such, as I said earlier, is not science and thus deserves no time in a science class.
*Everybody's*. By voting for no-one, you reduce the possible number of votes *every* candidate can receive.
And...?
Now for the creation and the documents that claim it happened, there are all kinds of evidence provong that part of it were true too. And yes this is scientific evidence if you belive fossils and such to be a science.
Where does the fossil record record supports creationism ?
There has been no missing link found that can link man to any of it's ancestors beyond what would be currently considered human.
What is "currently considered human" is Homo Sapien Sapien, and there are a great deal of his Homo predecessors that lead a clear evolutionary path.
It is crazy to think placing blind faith in some document (probably created to control you) that says some god created te world as we know it and humans is wierd when in fact we are doing just that when looking at the evidence of evolution and the bigbang theories.
No, we're not. It appears you have a fundamental lack of understanding about what science actually is and how it functions.
The whole point of science is *not* to place "blind faith", but to go out and collect evidence, test (and falsify) old ideas, continually come up with new ideas about how everything fits together and the repeat the process ad nauseum. Inherent in this are the principle that hypotheses should sufficiently explain both existing evidence and any new evidence, in addition to predicting future discoveries and that theories are always open to refinement.
By looking at what scientist and your god hating influences have presented you, you are defending that with the same vigor as those who belive in some rligious text.
To "hate god" I would first have to believe such a thing exists. I don't.
In most if not all ways, you have been inducted into a rligion of science.
Science is not a religion, it's a methodology.
BTW, evolution is a reletivly new science compared to other explanations.
And this detracts from its comparitive validity how, exactly ?
I'm still not saying one is more corect then the other.
However, you are giving far more credence to creationism that it deserves. I have to wonder if you give the same level of credibility to people who believe the Earth is flat, or at the centre of the Solar System - and if not, why not ?
Just you need to have a faith to belive in either (any) as being corect.
No, you need faith to believe in creationism, since nothing else supports it - but the theory of evolution is supported by reams of evidence and decades of testing by the scientific method.
Those who claim that religion and science are antithetical do not understand either. Both are primarily concerned with ideas that haven't been proven yet.
Uh, no. Science is primarily concerned with finding out what happened and why. Religion (at least the ones relevant to this discussion) is primarily concerned with telling people that $DEITY did it and to worship him for doing so.
Think of creationism as being a scientific theory that you haven't found an experiment for yet.
This is actually a good point. When the creationism camp has managed to come up with some "scientific" hypotheses and experiments (rather than easily disproved theological ramblings), their claims of having a "scientific theory" might be taken more seriously.
Right now, however, it's not science. Nor, given it's swiss-cheese like foundations, is it ever likely to be.
Believing that the existence of man is an entirely natural occurrence requires accepting a number of far-fetched unproven hypotheses.
For example ?
This is no different than believing that a divine being created man, except our term for "accepting a far-fetched unproven hypothesis" is "having faith."
Actually it is, because "having faith" exhibits none of the attributes of the scientific method, whereas evolutionary theory exhibits all of them.
Just one example of a leap of faith related to the theory of evolution is that there is no basis for natural selection of life over non-life. Nature is an incredibly destructive and disorganizing force. Life is incredibly complex, organized, and delicate. I have to take an artificial hormone equal to literally one-billionth of my body weight every day or I become so sluggish it is difficult to lift my own arm. To put in proportion how delicate a balance that is, it would be like if 6 people calling in sick caused everyone on the planet to experience a drop in productivity that day.
The odds against the random appearance of just that one hormone are astronomical. The odds against it appearing just when it was needed in our development is unfathomable. [...]
Look, next time why don't you just say "irreducible complexity" and "the human eye" - you'll save yourself a lot of typing.
Also, speaking of "far fetched, unproven hypotheses", the one you're making here that the components of a complex natural system cannot exist independently is one of them - and it's been disproven on numerous occasions.
It is not sufficient to believe that the "infinite monkeys with typewriters" theory explains the first single-celled organism.
Indeed, it is not. Which is why *science* is trying to find out what happened and how, rather than simply stopping at the "belief" part like creationism does.
Even if you think the odds against the existence of a Creator are a gazillion to one, remember that the odds against the alternative are just as steep.
No, they're not. The odds against a complex organism - the "intelligent designer" - suddenly springing into existence are massively greater than the odds of a few protein strands doing the same thing.
Teaching that living things evolve is one thing, but if you start adding unproven hypotheses into the mix, there is no reason why creationism shouldn't be given equal consideration.
Yes, there is - because "unproven (and unprovable !) hypotheses" are the _only_ thing creationism has to offer, whereas evolutionary theory brings along with it evidence, provable hypotheses, consistency, critical review and the desire to learn more.
No.
The difference is that there is a vast body of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution and none at all supporting creationism.
Again, this is because creationism is not science.
We have evidence that makes us want to belive one or the other but not complete proof.
We will never have "complete proof". That is the nature of science. It is this willingness to admit error or lacking and constant search for knowledge that separates it from religion.
Everything said to discredit one (scientificaly) can almost word for word be turn against the other and not be wrong.
I can't think of any criticism that can be levelled against creationism that can also be levelled against evolutionary theory.
If you wish to accord creationism equal footing with evolutionary theory, that's your prerogative, but don't try and pretend that doing so is being objective or "fair", because it's like saying the flat-earth model deserves as much recognition as the spherical earth model, or the geocentric model should be taught alongside the heliocentric one.
No, it is not. The meaning of any ballot is independent of any other ballot, and the election outcome. It stands alone.
Hardly a protest vote
Well, it's the closest anyone can get in our system. It's the only way voters have of saying none of the available options hold any representative views.
Voting for "the other guy" (assuming "the other guy" doesn't actually represent your views) is in no way, shape or form a "protest vote" against the standing government (or anyone else). It's an indication you support the views espoused by "the other guy".
So many people seem to have trouble with the concept that you don't vote against parties, you vote for them - or you don't vote at all.
Maybe so, but as a social science it has no relevance to the area it is supposed to "address". Much like the theory of a flat earth is relevant to a history class, but irrelevant to geodetics and geography.
It just attemps to explain it differently.
No, it does not. The whole point of creationism "science" is to try and poke holes in evolution. It makes no attempt to actually explain anything that isn't already "known" - or is inconsistent with existing knowledge - by simply attributing unknowns and inconsistencies to magic (or Pink Unicorns, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or gods, or whatever supernatural force takes your fancy).
There is no scientific proof that evolution or the big bang actualy happened. there is no scientif proof that evolution or the big bang happened to create life exactly as we know it.
There is mountains of scientific evidence supporting both the theories of evolution and "the big bang" (although what the relevance of the latter is to this discussion, I don't know).
There is _zero_ scientific evidence supporting creationism. Creationism doesn't meet any of the criteria of a scientific theory.
I know you're just trolling, but the depressing thing is you probably believe what you're saying as well.
Which is precisely why evolutionary theory makes falsifiable predictions based on observations that can be (and have been) tested. Evolution a lot more than ruminating on how one dinosaur turned into another.
This doesn't mean that paleontology is worthless, of course; it should certainly be discussed. But in paleontology class, where it belongs, not science class.
Paleontology takes observations and generates testable theories, it is consistent with other existing knowledge, it is under constant refinement as new evidence is found and old theories are proven false, it uses controlled, repeatable methodologies, it does not claim to already know everything that can be known. Creationism does none of these things. That is why paleontology is a science and creationism is not.
Creationism is not in any way, shape, or form consistent with the definition of a science. Therefore, it does not belong in a science curriculum.
As science ? None...yet - and while the religious right-wingers here can only dream of the influence their brethren in the US have in Government, they're always doing their best to whisper in the right ears (and, depressingly, more and more openly every day).
If you must "protest vote", lodge an invalid ballot - don't give people/parties (particularly crazy ones like the Greens) the idea you actually support them.
Because it's not science.
Creationism should certainly be discussed - but in a religion or philosophy class, where it belongs, not in a science class.
One of the biggest problems with the American system is that there's nothing in between "PG" and "R".
I can't speak for other countries, but here in Australia we have:
G = OK for children (eg: Pride and Prejudice)
PG = Parental guidance "recommended" for "children" - generally under 13s (eg: Sky High)
M = For "mature audiences" - generally considered 13 and up (eg: Serenity)
MA = 15 years old and up only (legally restricted - under-15s must be accompanied by a parent or guardian) (eg: The Devil's Rejects)
R = Adults Only (legally restricted - I don't think under-18s are allowed at all, even if accompanied by a parent or guardian) (eg: Kill Bill)
There's also "X", but that basically only applies to pornography.
With a QT film, the "traffic lights" are simply shown riddled with bullet holes...
The UN is run by, and consists almost solely of, politicians and their lapdogs, thus making it inherently untrustworthy. And that said, boggles the mind after the UN corruption scandals of the last few years anyone naive enough to get past the initial "by and for politicians" aspect could possibly trust the UN.
Do I take it that the UN are supposed to serve the needs of USA first and the rest of the world second, if at all?
The UN are supposed to serve the needs of everyone. They rarely serve the needs of anyone except themselves.
I can understand how some of those working at the UN might not see it quite that way.
Undoubtedly, it's hard to ride the gravy train if you're looking out for anyone except yourself.
That won't work, because the BAC detected by the blood tests is extrapolated backwards to the time you were pulled over. So the "wait it out" strategy only works if you can hold the blood test off long enough to get a BAC of "zero" (which is how sufficiently welthy people get away with it - by stalling the testing process with lawyers).