Yeah, it's gotten bad.
Back in the 80's they realy knew how to make a car.
Sure they would flip but everyone would get out unharmed , just in time for the A-Team to chase them down.
You've simply listed a set of impossiblities and affixed it as a test to the evolutionary theory.
Using the same logic I can make creationism disprovable. Creationism (at least the version pushed by the fundimentalists) claims there is only the one true God can create. So if you go out and find another diety capable of creation, or manage to create something yourself ex nihilo, the creationary theory is disproven.
"Creationism can't be proven either. It's not science because it can't be disproven, which is one of the fundamental requirements for any concept to posess in order to have scientific merit."
Thank you for proving my point. Note:Evolution can't be disproven either. Not without sitting around and observing it for a billion yeras. Hence neither theory has scientific merit.
Sure you can be confident, but what is your confidence based on if you can't prove what you believe in? I'm not the best speller but I think it starts with a f.
Something thathas always bothered me about this debate is how both sides abuse the very concept of science. Is just me or does anyone else believe that for any theory to be remotley scientific it has to have definitive experimentation. To many idiots with PHD's are running experiments with results that indicate or suggest something to be true, but hey never proove it definitively. Assumptions are always made. This is why I'm a strong believer that neither evolution or creationism(ID or whatever you call it) should be taught in the science classroom. Put it back in Philosophy 101
where people are used to questions that can't be answered. Evolution won't be proven unless you observe a specieces for a billion years. Creationism won't be proven unless someone convinces God to donate a tissue sample to a lab.
Both sides are simply making guesses based on inconclusive evidence several years (I won't argue how many) after the fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Um... dumb ass is two words not one.
You are here by labled a brown nose.
Wow, do you support macintosh products over the phone by any chance?
that was fucking stupid.
Whereas your post was a model of brilliance, wit and insight.
News flash: his post was not intended to be a model of brilliance, wit, or insight.
News flash: neither was his, or yours, or mine.
Yeah, it's gotten bad. Back in the 80's they realy knew how to make a car. Sure they would flip but everyone would get out unharmed , just in time for the A-Team to chase them down.
Civilization IV I think.
Never played poker eh?
[shamless karama whoreing]
Why it's the job of the good people at Slashdot of course.
[/shamless karama whoreing]
They did.
The last episode (The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings)
implied that Fry and Leela got together.
All hail the new UberGeek.
That's why we vote republican.
They charge more.
It's been tried but schools keep churning out MBA's.
You've simply listed a set of impossiblities and affixed it as a test to the evolutionary theory.
Using the same logic I can make creationism disprovable.
Creationism (at least the version pushed by the fundimentalists)
claims there is only the one true God can create. So if you go out and find
another diety capable of creation, or manage to create something yourself ex nihilo, the creationary theory is disproven.
"Creationism can't be proven either. It's not science because it can't be disproven, which is one of the fundamental requirements for any concept to posess in order to have scientific merit."
Thank you for proving my point.
Note:Evolution can't be disproven either.
Not without sitting around and observing it for a billion yeras.
Hence neither theory has scientific merit.
Sure you can be confident, but what is your confidence based on if you can't prove what you believe in? I'm not the best speller but I think it starts with a f.
Something thathas always bothered me about this debate is how both sides abuse the very concept of science. Is just me or does anyone else believe that for any theory to be remotley scientific it has to have definitive experimentation. To many idiots with PHD's are running experiments with results that indicate or suggest something to be true, but hey never proove it definitively. Assumptions are always made. This is why I'm a strong believer that neither evolution or creationism(ID or whatever you call it) should be taught in the science classroom. Put it back in Philosophy 101 where people are used to questions that can't be answered. Evolution won't be proven unless you observe a specieces for a billion years. Creationism won't be proven unless someone convinces God to donate a tissue sample to a lab. Both sides are simply making guesses based on inconclusive evidence several years (I won't argue how many) after the fact.
Glad you got the joke and realized it wasn't a spelling error.d &lastnode_id=1765531
Definition of patiented
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Patiente
Here's the link http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=176552 3&lastnode_id=1765513
Finally a slashdot story where no one can possible imagine a beowolf cluster of these.
Why is this modded funny?
This is the most insightful post I've ever read.
This is wrong, realy realy wrong. You might think the matrix sequels were wrong but thats just peanuts to this.
The dead have risen and are voting republican!
Wow, meatballs really are happy.
We really don't need them either.
There's a nasty puma down there too or so the sign says.
Taxing our Brains has already been considered. Sadly there's not enough revenue to be made from this.