First, evolution is philosophy, not science. It is not demonstrable, repeatable or reproducible. (If you think it is, please give me the precise instructions by which I can take simple elements and produce a living creature.) Science cannot answer the question of origins, it is strictly the realm of philosophy. One would hope though that we would base our personal philosophies upon things that have substantial evidence.
When you take into account the fact that there has never been shown to be a single beneficial mutation, they have always been detrimental and often fatal either to the initial individual or to their immediate offspring, that spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago, that there have been no aquired traits passed on (such as the long necks of those that put rings around their necks to stretch them, and yet their offspring are born with normal neck length, or mice whose tails were cut off for many generations ant yet, the offspring were still born with tails) and that the fundamental assumptions regarding radiometric age dating have been proved false, (decay rates have been shown to change when pressure, temperature, electric and megnetic fields and monomolecular layer stress, change. Many other factors can affect each of the different methods, and other assumptions are quite clearly false, i.e. no daughter products present, closed system with no possible contamination, etc.), it would seem that evolution does not have enough evidence to be taught in a philosophy class either.
Your right. It is not exactly % body fat, but rather total fat intake that is the primary factor in the multi-factored disease of type II diabetes. Other factors include genetics and amount of exercise. It is the high fat diet that prevents the absorption of sugar into the cell, somehow preventing absorption at the insulin receptor sites along the cell membranes.
I cannot remember the name at the moment, but a researcher that conducts most of the diabetes research in the USA (contact me and I will get you more info), put first year med students on a 65% fat diet and within 3 weeks 100% of them were diabetic. He then took those same students, put them on a 5% fat diet with a pound of sugar a day and 11 weeks later none of them were diabetic.
A good source of health info is http://www.pcrm.org the website of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. It shows the real connections between lifestyle and disease and focuses more on causes and prevention than on treating symptoms. Inability to handle sugar is a symptom of the disease. There has been research for more than 50 years showing that high fat diets are a primary causal factor in type II diabetes.
And here is one that looks candidly at problems with both the models of long age of universe and short age of universe.
http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm
I am reading the site that was posted, some arguments are well founded and some definitely are not. I will continue studying it and when I can, I will look up the other research again. You should also be aware that there have been more recent studies on moon dust that support the earliest measurements much more than some in-between have, as well as evidence that much of the dust on the moon would have come from the moon itself as a result of meteorite impact rather than just the dust from space. I believe that this is mentioned in the article above.
One of the test I know of that shows C-14 assumptions are wrong is when they tested material from a living mollusk and by the C-14 method it was found to have been dead for over 10,000 years. (I can get you a reference, but I will have to dig through material at home(I am not at home at the moment)).
The basic assumptions of radiometric dating are:
1) The amounts of radioactive particles in the atmosphere has been relatively constant.
2) The ratios of radioactive to nonradioactive within given materials are always the same when created (or if organic material -- at death).
3) The rate of decay is constant.
The first is obviously flawed as volcanoes emit lots of radioactive particles and the amount in the atmosphere fluctuates constantly.
The second is flawed and an example is already given that shows this for C-14.
The third assumptions is based on the fact that the evidence we have is that the decay rate fits an equation that includes the speed of light. There have been a couple of researchers that have discovered evidence that the speed of light has slowed over time. I have looked at evidence both for and against this finding and have not been able to come to a conclusion on this. This puts assumption 3 in question.
There are a lot of facts that can be interpreted either for a long age of the earth or a short age of the earth or at least short age of life on the earth. Not all creationists believe that the earth was created X number of years ago (the most common is 6000), but some believe that the earth was here before that, but that life was created at that time.
Evidence is clear that the magnetic field of the earth has been weakening. The best mathematical models of the data show that if (big if) the magnetic field has been weakening constantly fitting the same equation, 10,000 years ago life forms we know could not have existed and 40,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field equivalent to a magnetic star.
The amount of dust on the moon (approx. 1/8"), according to the current rate of collection of dust, only allows for a time frame of 4000-40,000 years for dust to have been collecting on the moon.
If you want references, I can get them, but I am currently not at home were I can get them.
The purpose of most of the efforts such as the one in Kansas (I cannot speak of that effort specifically as I don't have first hand knowledge of what is going on in that state, but I do have first hand knowledge of some similar efforts in some states), is to have the evidence both for and against evolution presented, and not have evolution presented as a fact. It currently is presented as a fact in schools and most scientists, in high school as well as colleges and universities and elsewhere, do not look at all of the evidence and many times evidence that does not fit evolution does not get published. (I am sure you would agree that establishments, i.e. media, government, medicine, science, monopolies(MS), industries (tobacco, power, agricultural), etc., often cover up evidence that contradicts or threatens their theories, ideas, way of life, means of making money, etc.) Most people never hear about the evidence that gets covered up or that journals and magazines among other forms of media, refuse to print or cover. There are too many examples to list. If you want to see all of the evidence you really have to dig. You can't be content with mainstream press and text books.
I used to be a high school math & science teacher and have studied lots of evidence on both sides of many topics. (You have to if you want to actually know what you are talking about and have informed answers for teenagers, who often see through things that most adults can't).
If you are interested in studying all of the facts and want to discuss the facts and their possible implications intelligently, (no flames, can agree to disagree and still study facts together, provide references (which I couldn't do from work--writing this on lunch break), let me know, I would be glad to carry on ongoing discussions with you regarding this.
Dealers can roll their own with whatever OS they want. This means the small dealers, not just the large corps like Toshiba, Dell, Compaq etc. You might even find some dealers willing to sell you the barebones laptops that they can get, or at least sell you one complete, but with no OS. I know because I have been a small computer dealer as a second job for 8 years, and have several different sources for barebones laptops.
Slashdot Mirror
First, evolution is philosophy, not science. It is not demonstrable, repeatable or reproducible. (If you think it is, please give me the precise instructions by which I can take simple elements and produce a living creature.) Science cannot answer the question of origins, it is strictly the realm of philosophy. One would hope though that we would base our personal philosophies upon things that have substantial evidence.
When you take into account the fact that there has never been shown to be a single beneficial mutation, they have always been detrimental and often fatal either to the initial individual or to their immediate offspring, that spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago, that there have been no aquired traits passed on (such as the long necks of those that put rings around their necks to stretch them, and yet their offspring are born with normal neck length, or mice whose tails were cut off for many generations ant yet, the offspring were still born with tails) and that the fundamental assumptions regarding radiometric age dating have been proved false, (decay rates have been shown to change when pressure, temperature, electric and megnetic fields and monomolecular layer stress, change. Many other factors can affect each of the different methods, and other assumptions are quite clearly false, i.e. no daughter products present, closed system with no possible contamination, etc.), it would seem that evolution does not have enough evidence to be taught in a philosophy class either.
Your right. It is not exactly % body fat, but rather total fat intake that is the primary factor in the multi-factored disease of type II diabetes. Other factors include genetics and amount of exercise. It is the high fat diet that prevents the absorption of sugar into the cell, somehow preventing absorption at the insulin receptor sites along the cell membranes.
I cannot remember the name at the moment, but a researcher that conducts most of the diabetes research in the USA (contact me and I will get you more info), put first year med students on a 65% fat diet and within 3 weeks 100% of them were diabetic. He then took those same students, put them on a 5% fat diet with a pound of sugar a day and 11 weeks later none of them were diabetic.
A good source of health info is http://www.pcrm.org the website of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. It shows the real connections between lifestyle and disease and focuses more on causes and prevention than on treating symptoms. Inability to handle sugar is a symptom of the disease. There has been research for more than 50 years showing that high fat diets are a primary causal factor in type II diabetes.
Here are some references on problems with K-
Ar dating methods.
http://www.icr.org/research/as/as-r01.htm
http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm
And here is one that looks candidly at problems with both the models of long age of universe and short age of universe.
http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm
I am reading the site that was posted, some arguments are well founded and some definitely are not. I will continue studying it and when I can, I will look up the other research again. You should also be aware that there have been more recent studies on moon dust that support the earliest measurements much more than some in-between have, as well as evidence that much of the dust on the moon would have come from the moon itself as a result of meteorite impact rather than just the dust from space. I believe that this is mentioned in the article above.
One of the test I know of that shows C-14 assumptions are wrong is when they tested material from a living mollusk and by the C-14 method it was found to have been dead for over 10,000 years. (I can get you a reference, but I will have to dig through material at home(I am not at home at the moment)).
The basic assumptions of radiometric dating are:
1) The amounts of radioactive particles in the atmosphere has been relatively constant.
2) The ratios of radioactive to nonradioactive within given materials are always the same when created (or if organic material -- at death).
3) The rate of decay is constant.
The first is obviously flawed as volcanoes emit lots of radioactive particles and the amount in the atmosphere fluctuates constantly.
The second is flawed and an example is already given that shows this for C-14.
The third assumptions is based on the fact that the evidence we have is that the decay rate fits an equation that includes the speed of light. There have been a couple of researchers that have discovered evidence that the speed of light has slowed over time. I have looked at evidence both for and against this finding and have not been able to come to a conclusion on this. This puts assumption 3 in question.
There are a lot of facts that can be interpreted either for a long age of the earth or a short age of the earth or at least short age of life on the earth. Not all creationists believe that the earth was created X number of years ago (the most common is 6000), but some believe that the earth was here before that, but that life was created at that time.
Evidence is clear that the magnetic field of the earth has been weakening. The best mathematical models of the data show that if (big if) the magnetic field has been weakening constantly fitting the same equation, 10,000 years ago life forms we know could not have existed and 40,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field equivalent to a magnetic star.
The amount of dust on the moon (approx. 1/8"), according to the current rate of collection of dust, only allows for a time frame of 4000-40,000 years for dust to have been collecting on the moon.
If you want references, I can get them, but I am currently not at home were I can get them.
The purpose of most of the efforts such as the one in Kansas (I cannot speak of that effort specifically as I don't have first hand knowledge of what is going on in that state, but I do have first hand knowledge of some similar efforts in some states), is to have the evidence both for and against evolution presented, and not have evolution presented as a fact. It currently is presented as a fact in schools and most scientists, in high school as well as colleges and universities and elsewhere, do not look at all of the evidence and many times evidence that does not fit evolution does not get published. (I am sure you would agree that establishments, i.e. media, government, medicine, science, monopolies(MS), industries (tobacco, power, agricultural), etc., often cover up evidence that contradicts or threatens their theories, ideas, way of life, means of making money, etc.) Most people never hear about the evidence that gets covered up or that journals and magazines among other forms of media, refuse to print or cover. There are too many examples to list. If you want to see all of the evidence you really have to dig. You can't be content with mainstream press and text books.
I used to be a high school math & science teacher and have studied lots of evidence on both sides of many topics. (You have to if you want to actually know what you are talking about and have informed answers for teenagers, who often see through things that most adults can't).
If you are interested in studying all of the facts and want to discuss the facts and their possible implications intelligently, (no flames, can agree to disagree and still study facts together, provide references (which I couldn't do from work--writing this on lunch break), let me know, I would be glad to carry on ongoing discussions with you regarding this.
Randy
randy@nospam.hesscomputers.com
Dealers can roll their own with whatever OS they want. This means the small dealers, not just the large corps like Toshiba, Dell, Compaq etc. You might even find some dealers willing to sell you the barebones laptops that they can get, or at least sell you one complete, but with no OS. I know because I have been a small computer dealer as a second job for 8 years, and have several different sources for barebones laptops.