No. Evolution spans too great a period for observation. Although it is possible in some circumstances to show evidence of Natural Selection, this does not prove Evolution. It merely proves a fact that is well-known; that is, a fact that is acknowledged by ID theorists and Darwinist theorists both. Natural Selection is merely a reduction of genes, not an expansion of genes in the organism.
"[Darwinism] is not science, because it does not meet the minimum requirements of a scientific theory. It is not disprovable by observation..."
It could be argued that Darwinism does not make any experimental predictions. There is a difference between predicting an vague event in the foggy future, and making a scientific hypothesis. The first is known as fortunetelling, and the second is known as science. No darwinist hypotheses have been made that can at all be observable, nor are they definite enough to prove anything
Because I'm too tired to read the other posts in this subject:P...
Darwinism can be looked upon as a religion of sorts as well. I personally have investigated both sides of this dispute, and have found that the evidence that one side holds up is the next point that the other side was planning to present. Therefore, in my (sleep-deprived) opinion, I think that an argument could be made that the 'facts' that the Darwinists use are as tangible as the 'facts' that the Intelligent Design people use.
As Darwinism cannot be conclusively proved (nor, at this point, have major parts of many of the theories on which many scientists today base their findings) it should not be presented as the only option. If a family feels that Darwinism is wrong, they can opt to send their children to a private school, or homeschool.
It is not right for a school to force one point of view on students, unless it is an extreme case, such as the Holocaust. The place of the educator is to educate and enlighten the students, allowing the students to make decisions later on in life. (Unfortunately, this concept is generally ignored throughout the education system.)Therefore, it is the responsiblity of the education system to present both Darwinism (as a scientific theory) as well as Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is supported by all major religions (I believe) and is therefore the belief that is held by the vast majority of the population.
Let me know what you think about this. However, if you're a rabid evolutionist or creationist, I don't care to hear from you;)
P.S. I wrote this far too late at night, so my apologies for any structure or mechanical errors.
Oh great, now half the reason that I use FireFox is gone. Yahoo! comes out with this great toolbar that sucks down my viewing area and my bandwidth. I'll bet that it's also pretty big, unlike the normal (unsponsored by any company) FireFox extensions...
ya, but you still own the package (for this month) with all those minutes etc. The phone is like you physical box. the software is like the subscription service. Speaking of which, I've heard distant rumours from a microsoft Canada contact that Billy's men are considering a subscription service for windows--pay $50 per year for the privilige of using windows and having all the updates. Of course, the initial outlay would be very small compared to now Why? can't Bill get his Maybach in the colour he wants? Is being a multibillionare not enough?
Giant? Webroot? WTF? Spybot is rather effective, but recently I've found that it's not cleaning everything. I clean approx. 5 machines a week (usually the same ones) at my school. They're Windows 98 Machines. (ya, i'm gonna kill the persons responsible for MyWebSearch, after castrating them with a spoon--it hurts more--and beating them senselessly--ya, that's a threat. Anyone wanna help) but enough rambling. Ad-Aware catches about 500 items, while Spybot only catches 70. However, Ad-Aware hangs up trying to delete the selection. Perhaps it's because it's windows 98, or they're slow machines, I don't know. Neither seems terribly effective. The only solution seems to be formatting for badly infected machines (which often have viruses anyways...), or unplugging the stupid thing and refusing to allow the users to access the internet if they're gonna be so stupid as to use CoolWWWSearch instead of google as their primary search engine
Anyways, it's a constant uphill battle, and I don't understand why a normal human being could possibly be so stupid as to offer such crap to stupid people. Sure, hacking and virus writing can be used as a status symbol, but Adware and Spyware are just sick.
I generally use the two most popular removal tools in concert, or just format.
Wow, I need to lay off the caffiene so that I don't post freaking books lmao.
~Not-so-anonymous Caffienated Coward
Slashdot Mirror
and once again /. shows how up-to-date it is.
This was on digg or something about 1 wk ago... can't find the original source
Can Darwinism be conclusively proved?
No. Evolution spans too great a period for observation. Although it is possible in some circumstances to show evidence of Natural Selection, this does not prove Evolution. It merely proves a fact that is well-known; that is, a fact that is acknowledged by ID theorists and Darwinist theorists both. Natural Selection is merely a reduction of genes, not an expansion of genes in the organism.
"[Darwinism] is not science, because it does not meet the minimum requirements of a scientific theory. It is not disprovable by observation..."
It could be argued that Darwinism does not make any experimental predictions. There is a difference between predicting an vague event in the foggy future, and making a scientific hypothesis. The first is known as fortunetelling, and the second is known as science. No darwinist hypotheses have been made that can at all be observable, nor are they definite enough to prove anything
Because I'm too tired to read the other posts in this subject :P...
;)
Darwinism can be looked upon as a religion of sorts as well. I personally have investigated both sides of this dispute, and have found that the evidence that one side holds up is the next point that the other side was planning to present. Therefore, in my (sleep-deprived) opinion, I think that an argument could be made that the 'facts' that the Darwinists use are as tangible as the 'facts' that the Intelligent Design people use.
As Darwinism cannot be conclusively proved (nor, at this point, have major parts of many of the theories on which many scientists today base their findings) it should not be presented as the only option. If a family feels that Darwinism is wrong, they can opt to send their children to a private school, or homeschool.
It is not right for a school to force one point of view on students, unless it is an extreme case, such as the Holocaust. The place of the educator is to educate and enlighten the students, allowing the students to make decisions later on in life. (Unfortunately, this concept is generally ignored throughout the education system.)Therefore, it is the responsiblity of the education system to present both Darwinism (as a scientific theory) as well as Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is supported by all major religions (I believe) and is therefore the belief that is held by the vast majority of the population.
Let me know what you think about this. However, if you're a rabid evolutionist or creationist, I don't care to hear from you
P.S. I wrote this far too late at night, so my apologies for any structure or mechanical errors.
i_nick at hotmail dot com
Oh great, now half the reason that I use FireFox is gone. Yahoo! comes out with this great toolbar that sucks down my viewing area and my bandwidth. I'll bet that it's also pretty big, unlike the normal (unsponsored by any company) FireFox extensions...
Wow! That's Great!
So that means that if I open it up, and three weeks later something goes wrong, it's my fault
ya, but you still own the package (for this month) with all those minutes etc. The phone is like you physical box. the software is like the subscription service.
Speaking of which, I've heard distant rumours from a microsoft Canada contact that Billy's men are considering a subscription service for windows--pay $50 per year for the privilige of using windows and having all the updates. Of course, the initial outlay would be very small compared to now
Why? can't Bill get his Maybach in the colour he wants? Is being a multibillionare not enough?
Giant? Webroot? WTF? Spybot is rather effective, but recently I've found that it's not cleaning everything. I clean approx. 5 machines a week (usually the same ones) at my school. They're Windows 98 Machines. (ya, i'm gonna kill the persons responsible for MyWebSearch, after castrating them with a spoon--it hurts more--and beating them senselessly--ya, that's a threat. Anyone wanna help) but enough rambling. Ad-Aware catches about 500 items, while Spybot only catches 70. However, Ad-Aware hangs up trying to delete the selection. Perhaps it's because it's windows 98, or they're slow machines, I don't know. Neither seems terribly effective. The only solution seems to be formatting for badly infected machines (which often have viruses anyways...), or unplugging the stupid thing and refusing to allow the users to access the internet if they're gonna be so stupid as to use CoolWWWSearch instead of google as their primary search engine Anyways, it's a constant uphill battle, and I don't understand why a normal human being could possibly be so stupid as to offer such crap to stupid people. Sure, hacking and virus writing can be used as a status symbol, but Adware and Spyware are just sick. I generally use the two most popular removal tools in concert, or just format. Wow, I need to lay off the caffiene so that I don't post freaking books lmao. ~Not-so-anonymous Caffienated Coward