The sad thing is that the majority of Christians don't want ID taught as a _scientific_ theory. The important point to note is that by your (and other evolutionists') reasoning, evolution isn't a _scientific_ theory, either. How would you, personally, design an experiment to falsify (or otherwise) evolution? If it can't be done, then evolution cannot be disproved, making it the same as ID. Neither are _scientific_ theories. Either mention both or mention neither - it's unfair to students to claim that evolution is a scientific theory (or worse, fact) when it doesn't meet your own standards for falsifiability.
No, your argument is a misrepresentation of what I said. I'm not claiming that ID is acceptable because macro-evolution isn't verifiable, I'm claiming that neither should be taught as fact. Both (or neither) can be given as possible explanations for the origin of life. Of course, other theories would then need to be included for it to be fair at all.
"Sophistry, again. How do you prove a given fossil is not half-way mutated?" All that needs to be shown is several fossils demonstrating gradual change from 1 species to another. You don't need to prove that "a given fossil is not half-way mutated". One only needs to show that there are fossils either side of it mutation-wise.
Thanks for taking the time to think through your argument, as well. Many of the replies in this discussion have been by ACs who don't present any logic, just insults; yours is a breath of fresh air.
You claim that "The evidence in the fossil AND genetic record is ubiquitous" for half-mutated organisms. Could you please provide me with some of this ubiquitous evidence? One link will do.
This is the third call for some "ubiquitous evidence" I've seen in the comments attaches to this article, and none has been provided. It seems to me that, as it takes too much effort to find some "ubiquitous evidence", you're resorting to calling my request "bullshit".
Finally - someone reasonable:) Out of curiosity, how would you design an experiment that would demonstrate that macro-evolution was false? You said: "Macro-evolution is, as you point out, a theory, but it is a testable and falsifiable theory...". I'm just wondering how you would go about doing that. Any suggestions?
I'm not aware of any fossil evidence showing half-way mutated species. If someone knows of some, could they provide a link to a reputable website detailing this evidence?
As a Christian, I find the backlash against ID vaguely amusing. What needs to be understood is the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. Nearly no reasonable person would claim that selective pressure over a long period of time can cause gradual changes to a species' DNA. This is called micro-evolution, and in fact the large majority of Christians have no problem with it. Also, it's the only process Darwin demonstrated did actually occur. He then generalised this - changes between species - to species changing into completely different species, by assuming a very long period of time for micro-evolution to occur. ID argues that this wouldn't be enough. The Young Universe concept is completely separate from ID and the two shouldn't be confused.
The only point of difference between evolutionists and ID (different from creationism) is macro-evolution. We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes, just the assumption that it could occur, given that intra-species changes occur. This is the 'flaw' in evolution that IDers seek to have pointed out - macro-evolution _isn't consistent with the scientific method_.
With all the public backlash and misrepresentation of what the ID movement really stands for, I thought it important to add a bit of reason into the mix, to give the majority of people speaking out against ID (who don't really understand what it stands for and just see it as a Bible-pushing fundamental Christian movement) some idea of what ID is really all about.
I would disagree with that. The number -0 does not exist, so sqrt(-0) would be undefined, not an integer.
And yes, you're right, none of this makes 3i an integer.
Imaginary numbers are not integers. There is no such thing as a non-real integer.
Proof (if you still don't get it): Starting premises: 1. {Integers} is a subset of {Real numbers}. 2. The intersection of {real numbers} and {imaginary numbers} is the empty set {}: no real numbers are imaginary.
As all integers are real numbers, no integers are imaginary numbers.
A simple hierarchical list will show this more clearly.
Er...yes banks are...?
Banks borrow from individuals to lend at a higher rate to individuals and organisations. The profits from this pay dividends to investors, salaries for workers, and expenses to other organisations.
What else do banks do that isn't included in that?
Someone else comments on moving money around between Fat-Cats. That's not how it works. People get rich (on the whole) by other people getting poor.
Actually, merely "moving money around between Fat-Cats" will raise how much people value whatever currency is being used and will make "People get rich".
Explanation: Economic growth is when more money changes hands faster (trade). Reference: Circular Flow Model - it's basic stuff.
Ashton
I had the same problem as you a while ago, and spent ages looking for some good video conversion software. I would recommend Virtualdub - it handles loads of formats intelligently and I've never had a problem with it. Head over to virtualdub.orgto get it.
-Ashton
I agree. Aging parents and a command line interface? If they knew how to handle a command line interface, would they ask their kid to set it up for them?
That's what the web interface I mentioned is for.
-Ashton
Microsoft is winning in the portability game. It is much easier to get content off of your MCE box than a TiVo.
Will the [MPAA/Sony/whatever] like this? I know we all thought Microsoft were going to buddy up with the producers of copyright by pushing DRM, but making portability easier than with TiVo? This is an interesting move following their "Trusted [DRMed] Computing" initiative. Then again, they'll probably foist DRM onto it anyway so that the content you take off it is still heavily restricted.
-Ashton
Actually they have, but you'll need to be able to access the site fully (read: from a PC) to change it.
-Go to preferences
-Go 'homepage'
-Tick the 'Light HTML' box
-Profit!
Consider this case: the parents of a friend of mine run Windows XP on all their computers (about 4). My friend runs Slackware (like me) on his laptop. Say 3% of all new PC sales run Linux. We disregard changing the OS aftermarket, as it roughly cancels out.
My friend's parents do not reinstall Windows when it breaks. They buy a new computer. For some reason my friend hasn't enlightened them, but....
My point is that if new Windows PCs break 10 times more often, they are probably replaced twice as often as Linux PCs. This of course doubles their sales figures.
Closer inspection of the abstract of patent 4,873,662 reveals that:
Informaton for display at a terminal apparatus of a computer is stored in blocks the first part of which contains the information which is actually displayed at the terminal and the second part of which contains information relating to the display and which may be used to influence the display at the time or in response to a keyboard entry signal. For example, the second part of the block could include information for providing the complete address of an another block which would be selected by the operation of a selected key of the keyboard.
The second part of the block could alternatively influence the format and/or color of the display at the terminal.
[Emphasis mine]
Actually it seems that as well as patenting the hyperlink, patent no. 4,873,662 could be construed as also patenting all of HTML!
-Ashton
Actually, if you think about it, what we want is "SCO" to point to "litigiousbastards.com" as people are more likely to search for "SCO" than "litigious bastards". Join the fight! Visit SCO's website!
Slashdot Mirror
The sad thing is that the majority of Christians don't want ID taught as a _scientific_ theory.
The important point to note is that by your (and other evolutionists') reasoning, evolution isn't a _scientific_ theory, either. How would you, personally, design an experiment to falsify (or otherwise) evolution? If it can't be done, then evolution cannot be disproved, making it the same as ID. Neither are _scientific_ theories. Either mention both or mention neither - it's unfair to students to claim that evolution is a scientific theory (or worse, fact) when it doesn't meet your own standards for falsifiability.
Ashton
No, your argument is a misrepresentation of what I said. I'm not claiming that ID is acceptable because macro-evolution isn't verifiable, I'm claiming that neither should be taught as fact. Both (or neither) can be given as possible explanations for the origin of life. Of course, other theories would then need to be included for it to be fair at all.
"Sophistry, again. How do you prove a given fossil is not half-way mutated?"
All that needs to be shown is several fossils demonstrating gradual change from 1 species to another.
You don't need to prove that "a given fossil is not half-way mutated". One only needs to show that there are fossils either side of it mutation-wise.
Thanks for taking the time to think through your argument, as well. Many of the replies in this discussion have been by ACs who don't present any logic, just insults; yours is a breath of fresh air.
Ashton
You claim that "The evidence in the fossil AND genetic record is ubiquitous" for half-mutated organisms. Could you please provide me with some of this ubiquitous evidence? One link will do.
This is the third call for some "ubiquitous evidence" I've seen in the comments attaches to this article, and none has been provided.
It seems to me that, as it takes too much effort to find some "ubiquitous evidence", you're resorting to calling my request "bullshit".
Ashton
Finally - someone reasonable :)
Out of curiosity, how would you design an experiment that would demonstrate that macro-evolution was false? You said: "Macro-evolution is, as you point out, a theory, but it is a testable and falsifiable theory...". I'm just wondering how you would go about doing that. Any suggestions?
I'm not aware of any fossil evidence showing half-way mutated species. If someone knows of some, could they provide a link to a reputable website detailing this evidence?
As a Christian, I find the backlash against ID vaguely amusing. What needs to be understood is the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.
Nearly no reasonable person would claim that selective pressure over a long period of time can cause gradual changes to a species' DNA. This is called micro-evolution, and in fact the large majority of Christians have no problem with it. Also, it's the only process Darwin demonstrated did actually occur. He then generalised this - changes between species - to species changing into completely different species, by assuming a very long period of time for micro-evolution to occur. ID argues that this wouldn't be enough.
The Young Universe concept is completely separate from ID and the two shouldn't be confused.
The only point of difference between evolutionists and ID (different from creationism) is macro-evolution. We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes, just the assumption that it could occur, given that intra-species changes occur. This is the 'flaw' in evolution that IDers seek to have pointed out - macro-evolution _isn't consistent with the scientific method_.
With all the public backlash and misrepresentation of what the ID movement really stands for, I thought it important to add a bit of reason into the mix, to give the majority of people speaking out against ID (who don't really understand what it stands for and just see it as a Bible-pushing fundamental Christian movement) some idea of what ID is really all about.
Ashton
Nivea
I would disagree with that. The number -0 does not exist, so sqrt(-0) would be undefined, not an integer. And yes, you're right, none of this makes 3i an integer.
Imaginary numbers are not integers. There is no such thing as a non-real integer.
Proof (if you still don't get it):
Starting premises:
1. {Integers} is a subset of {Real numbers}.
2. The intersection of {real numbers} and {imaginary numbers} is the empty set {}: no real numbers are imaginary.
As all integers are real numbers, no integers are imaginary numbers.
A simple hierarchical list will show this more clearly.
We divide numbers into 3 categories:
Rational numbers
- Integers
- Whole numbers
Irrational numbers
- such as pi, sqrt(3) and e
Imaginary numbers
- such as 3i(which is sqrt(-3))
I hope this explains it more clearly.
-Ashton
> confining mathematics to the set of real integers
I challenge you to provide me with a non-real integer.
Ashton
You of course mean g-scalar.
Ashton
Er...yes banks are...?
Banks borrow from individuals to lend at a higher rate to individuals and organisations. The profits from this pay dividends to investors, salaries for workers, and expenses to other organisations.
What else do banks do that isn't included in that?
Explanation: Economic growth is when more money changes hands faster (trade). Reference: Circular Flow Model - it's basic stuff.
Ashton
Alternatively, he could do s/breath/\1e/;
I had the same problem as you a while ago, and spent ages looking for some good video conversion software. I would recommend Virtualdub - it handles loads of formats intelligently and I've never had a problem with it. Head over to virtualdub.orgto get it.
-Ashton
That's what the web interface I mentioned is for.
-Ashton
Then again, they'll probably foist DRM onto it anyway so that the content you take off it is still heavily restricted.
-Ashton
Actually they have, but you'll need to be able to access the site fully (read: from a PC) to change it.
-Go to preferences
-Go 'homepage'
-Tick the 'Light HTML' box
-Profit!
Consider this case: the parents of a friend of mine run Windows XP on all their computers (about 4). My friend runs Slackware (like me) on his laptop. Say 3% of all new PC sales run Linux. We disregard changing the OS aftermarket, as it roughly cancels out.
My friend's parents do not reinstall Windows when it breaks. They buy a new computer. For some reason my friend hasn't enlightened them, but....
My point is that if new Windows PCs break 10 times more often, they are probably replaced twice as often as Linux PCs. This of course doubles their sales figures.
-Ashton
Here's a yummy little google cache for y'all.
[Emphasis mine]
Actually it seems that as well as patenting the hyperlink, patent no. 4,873,662 could be construed as also patenting all of HTML!
-Ashton
Actually, if you think about it, what we want is "SCO" to point to "litigiousbastards.com" as people are more likely to search for "SCO" than "litigious bastards". Join the fight! Visit SCO's website!