I'm guessing the Stanford running team has access to spongy, soft tracks for training. I know I could run barefoot rather comfortably on a track made of cork or whatever that is.
Slashdot: Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Okay okay, calm down calm down get a grip now. Ooh, this is an interesting sensation. What is it? Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things. Lets call it a... tail! Yeah! Tail! And hey, what's this roaring sound, whooshing past what I'm suddenly gonna call my head? Wind! Is that a good name? It'll do. Yeah, this is really exciting. I'm dizzy with anticipation! Or is it the wind? There's an awful lot of that now isn't it? And what's this thing coming toward me very fast? So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow', 'Ownge', 'Round', 'Ground'! That's it! Ground! Ha! I wonder if it'll be friends with me? Hello Ground!
Would you care to state one disproof of evolution?
Okay, but you have to trade me. I want one proof of evolution. Just one.;)
Probably the largest black eye for macroevolution comes from the foundational idea of transition. Transition is this concept of an amoeba evolving to something that eventually evolved into you.
However, transition loses on every angle: historical evidence, science and logic. Moreover, each of these areas has a variety of serious, unanswerable problems for Darwin.
For example, on the historical evidence side, your local paleontologist is still waiting for Darwin to be proven right by some other means. This is because there are still no fossil examples of evolutionary transition. We're talking a LOT of fossil evidence here that is repeatedly showing species that suddenly appear and then become extinct. The lack of transitional evidence is universal, not just mammals.
Even Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record and his famous book plays that fun old game of twister (spin the wheel dial, put right leg on red circle, spin the wheel dial...) trying to explain away this huge, ugly wart in his theory. That was even years before paleontologists evolved;) their skills, expertise with the ever-increasing evidence that refuses to support Darwin's theory.
Scientifically, we can only determine evolutionary proof from repeatable observations. Even if Darwinists weren't busy running away from the fossil evidence that embarrasses them, they still eventually have to deal with the fact that there are no living examples of transition for us to observe. Nothing.
And what about genetics and mutations? The field of genetics was around for a while before Darwin, but it was mostly ignored until late in the game. When genetics finally acquired some of it's deserved standing, evolutionists were once again embarrassed and quickly decided that mutations had to be the "answer".
Unfortunately, scientific evidence shows that mutations are repeatedly proven to be a reduction of genetic information, not an improvement or addition to the information. What's worse is that to evolve, we would need thousands of these non-existent "positive" mutations to improve our ability to survive. Mutations speak more for entropy than for evolution, and I personally think that entropy speaks against evolution.
We don't have historical evidence of transition and we have no living, repeatable, observable evidence of transition. If there never has been evidence and no evidence exists yet that points to the conclusion that "the butler did it", we have to at least be honest with ourselves and admit that the possibility exists that he may not have actually done it. I mean, any theory arrived at by drinking a couple glasses of whiskey ought to be given the same weight as the macroevolution theory.
If you're not asleep yet and you want me to start quoting authoritative names and facts from the respective fields, just let me know. There are a lot paleontologists, scientists, mathmeticians and documented materials that can say this stuff better than I can.
I, for one am glad to see that the Constitution means something.
Unfortunately, the constitution is already meaningless and using it to take prayer out of schools is more proof of it. If you think anything of the constitution, then you ought to have some sort of respect for the folks that wrote it: they thought God ruled.:P
It's time that all this talk of "school prayer" and "equal time" gets taken out of the picture.
I really have to agree with you here.
Evolution is a confirmed, Objective fact. Religion, and creation "science" is pure fantasy.
Evolution is not only not confirmed, it's disproven. Evolution has been repeatedly disproven since it's founding. Evolution's hold on the majority is becoming as embarrassing as the e-mail hoaxes that float around, continually exposing our friends and colleagues as e-mail newbies.
Personally, I'd like to see someone shut down these religious hoaxsters for good. Take these fundies out of the school system and out of our government. Religion, the crutch that it is, has no place in public life, mine or anyone elses.
I realize I'm about to crucified for this (blatant pun), and it's always an
amazing experience, but people are so electrified by the discussion of evolution
"versus" creation that they can't be bothered to think that macro evolution
is totally bonkers regardless of what you think about creation.
In fact, the only thing that seems to keep driving the myth of macro
evolution is the short-sighted fear that, if macro evolution is admitted to be
wrong, we must all get baptized and follow Jerry Falwell.
If somebody would kindly escort the Bible Thumpers out of the room for a moment, the rest of us can have a quiet moment and realize that macro evolution is not only completely unscientific, it's also an embarrassing hoax to believe in.
It would only take a few hours of effort to see that this is the case.
If you just want to annoy Christians, you can go around pretending to believe in evolution. That's fine. They're supposed to be long-suffering and patient. But belief in evolution is just another long-term version of that classic kiddy book: The Emporer's New Clothes.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, where do I get some of this free beer everybody's talking about?
;)
I'm guessing the Stanford running team has access to spongy, soft tracks for training. I know I could run barefoot rather comfortably on a track made of cork or whatever that is.
Slashdot: Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Okay okay, calm down calm down get a grip now. Ooh, this is an interesting sensation. What is it? Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things. Lets call it a... tail! Yeah! Tail! And hey, what's this roaring sound, whooshing past what I'm suddenly gonna call my head? Wind! Is that a good name? It'll do. Yeah, this is really exciting. I'm dizzy with anticipation! Or is it the wind? There's an awful lot of that now isn't it? And what's this thing coming toward me very fast? So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow', 'Ownge', 'Round', 'Ground'! That's it! Ground! Ha! I wonder if it'll be friends with me? Hello Ground!
--THGTTG
Check it out here
Okay, but you have to trade me. I want one proof of evolution. Just one. ;)
Probably the largest black eye for macroevolution comes from the foundational idea of transition. Transition is this concept of an amoeba evolving to something that eventually evolved into you.
However, transition loses on every angle: historical evidence, science and logic. Moreover, each of these areas has a variety of serious, unanswerable problems for Darwin.
For example, on the historical evidence side, your local paleontologist is still waiting for Darwin to be proven right by some other means. This is because there are still no fossil examples of evolutionary transition. We're talking a LOT of fossil evidence here that is repeatedly showing species that suddenly appear and then become extinct. The lack of transitional evidence is universal, not just mammals.
Even Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record and his famous book plays that fun old game of twister (spin the wheel dial, put right leg on red circle, spin the wheel dial ...) trying to explain away this huge, ugly wart in his theory. That was even years before paleontologists evolved ;) their skills, expertise with the ever-increasing evidence that refuses to support Darwin's theory.
Scientifically, we can only determine evolutionary proof from repeatable observations. Even if Darwinists weren't busy running away from the fossil evidence that embarrasses them, they still eventually have to deal with the fact that there are no living examples of transition for us to observe. Nothing.
And what about genetics and mutations? The field of genetics was around for a while before Darwin, but it was mostly ignored until late in the game. When genetics finally acquired some of it's deserved standing, evolutionists were once again embarrassed and quickly decided that mutations had to be the "answer".
Unfortunately, scientific evidence shows that mutations are repeatedly proven to be a reduction of genetic information, not an improvement or addition to the information. What's worse is that to evolve, we would need thousands of these non-existent "positive" mutations to improve our ability to survive. Mutations speak more for entropy than for evolution, and I personally think that entropy speaks against evolution.
We don't have historical evidence of transition and we have no living, repeatable, observable evidence of transition. If there never has been evidence and no evidence exists yet that points to the conclusion that "the butler did it", we have to at least be honest with ourselves and admit that the possibility exists that he may not have actually done it. I mean, any theory arrived at by drinking a couple glasses of whiskey ought to be given the same weight as the macroevolution theory.
If you're not asleep yet and you want me to start quoting authoritative names and facts from the respective fields, just let me know. There are a lot paleontologists, scientists, mathmeticians and documented materials that can say this stuff better than I can.
Schnucki
Unfortunately, the constitution is already meaningless and using it to take prayer out of schools is more proof of it. If you think anything of the constitution, then you ought to have some sort of respect for the folks that wrote it: they thought God ruled. :P
It's time that all this talk of "school prayer" and "equal time" gets taken out of the picture.
I really have to agree with you here.
Evolution is a confirmed, Objective fact. Religion, and creation "science" is pure fantasy.
Evolution is not only not confirmed, it's disproven. Evolution has been repeatedly disproven since it's founding. Evolution's hold on the majority is becoming as embarrassing as the e-mail hoaxes that float around, continually exposing our friends and colleagues as e-mail newbies.
Personally, I'd like to see someone shut down these religious hoaxsters for good. Take these fundies out of the school system and out of our government. Religion, the crutch that it is, has no place in public life, mine or anyone elses.
I realize I'm about to crucified for this (blatant pun), and it's always an amazing experience, but people are so electrified by the discussion of evolution "versus" creation that they can't be bothered to think that macro evolution is totally bonkers regardless of what you think about creation.
In fact, the only thing that seems to keep driving the myth of macro evolution is the short-sighted fear that, if macro evolution is admitted to be wrong, we must all get baptized and follow Jerry Falwell.
If somebody would kindly escort the Bible Thumpers out of the room for a moment, the rest of us can have a quiet moment and realize that macro evolution is not only completely unscientific, it's also an embarrassing hoax to believe in.
It would only take a few hours of effort to see that this is the case.
If you just want to annoy Christians, you can go around pretending to believe in evolution. That's fine. They're supposed to be long-suffering and patient. But belief in evolution is just another long-term version of that classic kiddy book: The Emporer's New Clothes.
Schnucki