Evolution, in its current state, is religion, though.
No, it is not. It is a scientific theory.
Evolution is an organism's way of adapting over the course of millions of years to become a completely different organism in order to survive in a habitat in which the original organism would no longer thrive.
Let us stop right there. You don't even appear to know what evolution is. Evolution works on populations. In simple terms evolution can be defined as the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.
-- A basic definition that's obviously incomplete, has exceptions, etc. but covers most of the bases in the theory. Now tell me: How is that not religion? How do you not look at that, reasonably, and realized it's completely fucked-up theory that's full of stupid and guesswork? "Takes millions of years" is the first clue. We haven't been monitoring it for millions of years. A con man would say "Millions of years" so he could never be proven wrong. We simply don't have the number of fossils it would take to support such a claim. (So the tiemframe gives the theory a little elbow room, so what?). We also don't have the realtime observations to support it. Millions of years is hundreds of thousands of generations for horses, but billions of generations for, say, fruitflies. The closest we've come to a realtime observation would be seeing a bacteria get over its citrus allergy.
That the Earth is many times older than the Genesis account has been known since the 18th century. As I said to another poster, this absurd claim that we have to directly observe every moment is as absurd as demanding to know the syntax of every generation of spoken language from Proto-Germanic to Modern English.
The fossil evidence isn't even the only line of evidence. In general, the molecular data agrees with the fossil data giving us two independent lines of evidence; the twin-nested hierarchy. It has not been reasonable to attack evolution based on fossil evidence for over a century, and certainly not reaosnable to claim the relative scarcity of fossils (which there are far more of than you seem aware) for half a century.
Second -- It assumes that the organism's internal, blind workings can predict, accurately, not only that the environment WILL change, but HOW it will change, and adapt accordingly, MILLIONS OF YEARS before the environment changes (as environmental changes on the scale that necessitate evolution don't take millions of years. They take thousands.) I could write a thousand pages on why this is so stupid, but no one would listen, because you'll just "explain it away" -- which is precisely what religious zealots do when confronted with truth that shatters their doctrines. "Only a tenth of a percent adapt correctly, and the rest go extinct!" Oh ok. Whatever
I have no idea where you learned above evolution, but certainly not from any biology source. Every population has variability, it's always present. Some members of a population will be more able to survive the environment some will not. Those traits which tend even slightly to give a reproductive advantage will be selected for. Many traits are in fact neutral, and thus have reasonably good odds of simply being selected for (neutral selection or neutral drift), but can in fact at a later time either prove beneficial or harmful. Some genes in fact remain, but are suppressed through developmental processes (a whole other area that I challenge you to learn about), but can be re-expressed, thus leading to humans with long body hair all over their body or snakes with limbs and many other atavisms which are suppressed developmentally, even though the genes remain in our genome.
Third -- We assume that everything in our nature is product of evolution. Comparing apes to men, this is simply ridiculous, especially given the supposed timescales. To assume that evolution chan
Your worldview is ignorant, and not based on where science is. Evidence for speciation has been around for decades. Do you always base your beliefs on nonsense that has to be over a hundred years old by now?
Oh bullshit. Only the silliest of atheists claims God and science are incompatible. What is being pointed out is there is a wing of the conservative movement in the US which actively denies evolutionary biology, cosmology and geology simply because it creates enormous problems for their particular Biblical interpretations. In essence, it isn't a left-vs-right problem, it just happens that, over the last thirty years, most of the objections to teaching evolution in schools has come from people who make up a part of the Republican base.
i would put that the first couple picoseconds of Time are beyond what Science can state as Truth
1. Science does not deal in Truth. It deals in the best explanation that fits the evidence. 2. That we may not be able to probe further back that the Planck time right now does not mean we will never be able to. Burying your god in the gaps of our knowledge invites your god to get smaller as the gaps are filled.
and also show me an entire line of Fossils that show how a Proto-Quadraped became say a Horse (with complete skeletons at each stage).
Which is as absurd a demand as saying "Show me every generation of the spoken language between Proto-Germanic and Elizabethan English with complete syntax and vocabularies."
One does not have to have a complete data set to be able to make inferences based upon the data we do have, and thus we can say with a high degree of confidence that "Elizabethan English is descended from Proto-Germanic" and "all extant life evolved from a common ancestor", when in both cases we can only make indirect inferences about what Proto-Germanic and the earliest common ancestor of life were like.
Creationism has a pretty specific definition when we're talking about evolution. What you're describing, and what the Catholic Church tends to advocate is basically a form of theistic evolution. It is useful to have definitions for words so we can all speak the same language, and Creationism tends to be in a separate category from theistic evolution because Creationism, to one extent or another, inevitably denies key facets of evolutionary theory, whereas theistic evolution pretty much accepts all of evolutionary theory, but still keeps "God's hand" in affairs.
Nye does a reasonably good job of teaching basic science; including the scientific method. Evolution is a product of said method. So Nye is not telling anyone to believe anything blindly, but he has long been an advocate of proper science education.
Whether we agree to that or not (I'm an atheist so I think Genesis has no more to do with reality than Aztec mythology, but anyways), the question is inevitably centered around the question of what to teach children in a science class. In my view, and in the view of people I know who are Christians, it is not appropriate to teach Genesis in the science classroom, not even in the context of "Genesis and cosmology/geology/evolutionary biology don't need to disagree."
Simply put, it is not appropriate to discuss religion in a science class. How a person reconciles their faith and science is a matter between them, their god, and if they choose, their pastor/priest/rabbi/mullah/whatever.
To my mind, what would be more interesting would be a mission to one of the deeper canyons in Valles Marineris, where atmospheric pressure will be considerably higher, and where, perhaps, some layers may in fact be exposed. Lava tubes on Mars are likely to be as informative as lava tubes on Earth; in other words not so much from learning geological history per se.
I as well. Goodness knows how many anti-Ron Paul posts I've made that have had my posts modded down. If you're consistently being modded into oblivion, it's not because you're a dissenting voice, it's because you're either just consistently flaming or trolling, period.
Translation: I have found a meme that I can continually repeat to rationalize away any disturbing finding. Now come on kiddies, let's BURN MORE OIL!!!!
And the walled garden is fine for certain models. But when I consider what I've been doing lately, joining queries from heterogeneous data sources, there is no way this can work in a walled garden, where the limits are not so much on the questions I can ask but rather on the kind of data I can bring in to inform the question.
And for every walled garden we see, we see others bringing in virtualization services to try to capture the server and database markets, which are inherently general purpose in nature.
That and the fact that if the big guys did manage to wall in the PC completely, there's nothing stopping smaller companies from offering general purpose platforms. The Raspberry Pi and Beagleboard, and many other Linux-based computers show this can be done at the low end, and there's certainly nothing to stop scaling up from there. Most certainly if the next generation (or the generation after that) of PCs are completely locked down, there are and will be alternatives.
It is isnt violating religious freedom to force employers to pay for contraceptives any more than it violates religious freedoms to ban human sacrifice.
On bOth points I think you're likely lying. Making absurd. Pains to cover you're incredible stupidity is not unusual. And your post has all the hallmarks of some pathetic partisan trying to find cover.
Wake me up when Obama is instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat.
What we've understood is that you know little or nothing about Marxism, socialism or political theory. How can you possibly b an adult when you have the political sense of a three legged dog trying to chew his apps off.
Shill to whom? I'm reasonably sure Paul is sincere. Just as sure as I also believe him to be ignorant of history, economics, political theory and jurisprudence.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not. It is a scientific theory.
Let us stop right there. You don't even appear to know what evolution is. Evolution works on populations. In simple terms evolution can be defined as the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.
That the Earth is many times older than the Genesis account has been known since the 18th century. As I said to another poster, this absurd claim that we have to directly observe every moment is as absurd as demanding to know the syntax of every generation of spoken language from Proto-Germanic to Modern English.
The fossil evidence isn't even the only line of evidence. In general, the molecular data agrees with the fossil data giving us two independent lines of evidence; the twin-nested hierarchy. It has not been reasonable to attack evolution based on fossil evidence for over a century, and certainly not reaosnable to claim the relative scarcity of fossils (which there are far more of than you seem aware) for half a century.
I have no idea where you learned above evolution, but certainly not from any biology source. Every population has variability, it's always present. Some members of a population will be more able to survive the environment some will not. Those traits which tend even slightly to give a reproductive advantage will be selected for. Many traits are in fact neutral, and thus have reasonably good odds of simply being selected for (neutral selection or neutral drift), but can in fact at a later time either prove beneficial or harmful. Some genes in fact remain, but are suppressed through developmental processes (a whole other area that I challenge you to learn about), but can be re-expressed, thus leading to humans with long body hair all over their body or snakes with limbs and many other atavisms which are suppressed developmentally, even though the genes remain in our genome.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Your worldview is ignorant, and not based on where science is. Evidence for speciation has been around for decades. Do you always base your beliefs on nonsense that has to be over a hundred years old by now?
Oh bullshit. Only the silliest of atheists claims God and science are incompatible. What is being pointed out is there is a wing of the conservative movement in the US which actively denies evolutionary biology, cosmology and geology simply because it creates enormous problems for their particular Biblical interpretations. In essence, it isn't a left-vs-right problem, it just happens that, over the last thirty years, most of the objections to teaching evolution in schools has come from people who make up a part of the Republican base.
1. Science does not deal in Truth. It deals in the best explanation that fits the evidence.
2. That we may not be able to probe further back that the Planck time right now does not mean we will never be able to. Burying your god in the gaps of our knowledge invites your god to get smaller as the gaps are filled.
Which is as absurd a demand as saying "Show me every generation of the spoken language between Proto-Germanic and Elizabethan English with complete syntax and vocabularies."
One does not have to have a complete data set to be able to make inferences based upon the data we do have, and thus we can say with a high degree of confidence that "Elizabethan English is descended from Proto-Germanic" and "all extant life evolved from a common ancestor", when in both cases we can only make indirect inferences about what Proto-Germanic and the earliest common ancestor of life were like.
Creationism has a pretty specific definition when we're talking about evolution. What you're describing, and what the Catholic Church tends to advocate is basically a form of theistic evolution. It is useful to have definitions for words so we can all speak the same language, and Creationism tends to be in a separate category from theistic evolution because Creationism, to one extent or another, inevitably denies key facets of evolutionary theory, whereas theistic evolution pretty much accepts all of evolutionary theory, but still keeps "God's hand" in affairs.
Ah, solipsism rears it's ugly head.
Nye does a reasonably good job of teaching basic science; including the scientific method. Evolution is a product of said method. So Nye is not telling anyone to believe anything blindly, but he has long been an advocate of proper science education.
What exactly is your problem?
Whether we agree to that or not (I'm an atheist so I think Genesis has no more to do with reality than Aztec mythology, but anyways), the question is inevitably centered around the question of what to teach children in a science class. In my view, and in the view of people I know who are Christians, it is not appropriate to teach Genesis in the science classroom, not even in the context of "Genesis and cosmology/geology/evolutionary biology don't need to disagree."
Simply put, it is not appropriate to discuss religion in a science class. How a person reconciles their faith and science is a matter between them, their god, and if they choose, their pastor/priest/rabbi/mullah/whatever.
You hang around idiots.
Stop talking about your Congressman that way. Some of them have fur kilts and spikes in their clubs, I'll have you know.
To my mind, what would be more interesting would be a mission to one of the deeper canyons in Valles Marineris, where atmospheric pressure will be considerably higher, and where, perhaps, some layers may in fact be exposed. Lava tubes on Mars are likely to be as informative as lava tubes on Earth; in other words not so much from learning geological history per se.
I as well. Goodness knows how many anti-Ron Paul posts I've made that have had my posts modded down. If you're consistently being modded into oblivion, it's not because you're a dissenting voice, it's because you're either just consistently flaming or trolling, period.
Translation: I have found a meme that I can continually repeat to rationalize away any disturbing finding. Now come on kiddies, let's BURN MORE OIL!!!!
And the walled garden is fine for certain models. But when I consider what I've been doing lately, joining queries from heterogeneous data sources, there is no way this can work in a walled garden, where the limits are not so much on the questions I can ask but rather on the kind of data I can bring in to inform the question.
And for every walled garden we see, we see others bringing in virtualization services to try to capture the server and database markets, which are inherently general purpose in nature.
That and the fact that if the big guys did manage to wall in the PC completely, there's nothing stopping smaller companies from offering general purpose platforms. The Raspberry Pi and Beagleboard, and many other Linux-based computers show this can be done at the low end, and there's certainly nothing to stop scaling up from there. Most certainly if the next generation (or the generation after that) of PCs are completely locked down, there are and will be alternatives.
One of the greatest explorers of all time; right up there with Columbus, Magellan and de Champlain.
I urge you to go tell Buzz Aldrin your opinions.
It is isnt violating religious freedom to force employers to pay for contraceptives any more than it violates religious freedoms to ban human sacrifice.
All of it.
On bOth points I think you're likely lying. Making absurd. Pains to cover you're incredible stupidity is not unusual. And your post has all the hallmarks of some pathetic partisan trying to find cover.
Wake me up when Obama is instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat.
What we've understood is that you know little or nothing about Marxism, socialism or political theory. How can you possibly b an adult when you have the political sense of a three legged dog trying to chew his apps off.
Only an American would call Obama a Marxist. The United States is made of up 300 million political ignoramuses. Have you even read Marx?
Shill to whom? I'm reasonably sure Paul is sincere. Just as sure as I also believe him to be ignorant of history, economics, political theory and jurisprudence.
So much changing the world.
Star Trek V was bad no matter how you look at it.
The fact that at least one of her parents is an anti science bigot had nothing to do with it I'm sure