Moreover, we show that the failure to use the word 'evolution' by the scientific community may have a direct impact on the public perception of the importance of evolutionary biology in our everyday lives...
Um, i think it is quite the opposite. Because the public refuses to accept that our being here was just by chance, even the scientific community is taking note and is no longer pushing their beliefs down the publics' throats.
Evolutionism is a belief the public has not accepted.
There is no distinction in nature between microevolution and macroevolution.
Even if that were true, that is not the crux of the argument. They are not saying that evolution can't happen as much as they are saying that it didn't.
He who relies on rules to prove his point, has no point to be proven.:)
Anyway, his very example is incorrect.
Here are some clues to help you decide whether the sentence element is essential:
* If you leave out the clause, phrase, or word, does the sentence still make sense?
The answer to that is yes. Removing the comma leave a perfectly intelligible sentence. Indeed, i think i will email the author of that webpage his error.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you're going to have to find yourself a new pet peeve.
Besides, i didn't mean that it was incorrect. As i said, it is _redundant_. I'm an NT, i loathe uneeded redundancy.:)
If what you really meant to say is that he didn't care, then the correct phrase to use is "couldn't care less," not "could."
Okay, pet peeve rant time:
Saying "if" followed by a comma after the predicate implies "then", because it starts the reason! If you really meant to use "then", the correct punctuation would be to not use a comma. Otherwise, one of the two is extra and redundant.
We're Muslims out in space We're zooming along, protecting the Iranian race We're Muslims out in space If trouble appears, we'll put it right back in its place
When infidels attack us We'll give 'em a smack, we'll slap 'em right back in the the face
We're Muslims out in space We're zooming along, protecting the Iranian race!
While this is true, i'd rather the personal interest be more research oriented than discovery oriented. Let discoveries be done by the self-financed fame seekers.
I don't know why this proves evolution. Indeed, it proved devolution. Let me explain.
Evolution expects energy to do something, and then have a later generation take that into effect biologically.
Devolution is much more simple. Don't use it, lose it. If a human lives without expending much effort, the next generation will devolve, losing functionality. Do this enough over several generations, and a human can become a monkey. The proof of this theory is that these monekeys were able to "remember" something from there past. In a sense, there's still hope for them.
The fossil records proves my theory, as does much life in America.
one would think that exposing a mind yet incapable of informed consent to a sexual situation would be the mistreatment in question
Considering a great deal of child porn is voyeristic, that take away most of your argument. As for consent, the situation gets the feeling of the view, not necessarily the participant. So, even if it was such a situation, it is unlikely the child would realize it well enough to be "scarred" by it. Then again, it is rarely the situation.
your blindness to others in the face of gratifying selfish impulses, i mean, er, your mother teresa-level empathy for others is truly a humanistic vision
And you reaction to my comment only points to you being more concerned about the others enjopying themselves than about the people supposedly hurt.
Let me ask you, should pictures of adult rape also be illegal?
damn, what an evil place!..."pictures of naked children"
oh... i think that changes things a bit
No, that only enforces his opinion.
The reason we licence cars drivers is because they can be a danger to others. If he want to drive the car on his own land, he can be any age. Only driving on public roads falls under the jurisdiction of the law, drunk or not.
As for looking, there is no victim. The child is not hurt when they are looked at (and in many cases, had they known, they would actually enjoy the attention and control). If there was a victim, it was when the picture was taken. But it is indeed rare that the children are mistreated.
This is a thought crime. The law is because people say what you cannot think about. They also say the reason is so a child isn't hurt in the future, which is a bogus reason, simply because no such link has ever been shown, and in fact, the opposite has been shown, where people were able to release the pressure.
I have no problem with that. Indeed, discovery is a wonderful thing that pretty much helps everybody. It's the focus on finding life that bothers me. It seems to me their more interested in settling the personal problems of their own existence than finding anything helpful.
Reagan said it of government, i say it of schools. Replace the "government" with "school" and "economic" with "scholastic" from here.
The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.
Slashdot Mirror
Controversy at a conference?
This may generate as much interest as Darwin's debate.
Evolution doesn't mean "just by chance". It means there's a mechanism for what we got.
That is true. However, it is still why many people reject it.
Let's see. They...
Isn't that the modus operandi of religious fanatics?
Over a century of scientific evidence
Actually, very little evidence. Every time new "evidence" is found, trhe theory has to be changed...
and one of the most important tenets of modern biology is a "belief."
Evolutionism, is not a tenet of modern biology.
If you have a better scientific theory
Why does it have to be scientific? Science limits itself to what can be observed or objectively proven. Very thin scope if you ask me.
Moreover, we show that the failure to use the word 'evolution' by the scientific community may have a direct impact on the public perception of the importance of evolutionary biology in our everyday lives...
Um, i think it is quite the opposite. Because the public refuses to accept that our being here was just by chance, even the scientific community is taking note and is no longer pushing their beliefs down the publics' throats.
Evolutionism is a belief the public has not accepted.
There is no distinction in nature between microevolution and macroevolution.
Even if that were true, that is not the crux of the argument. They are not saying that evolution can't happen as much as they are saying that it didn't.
Very true.
I think SCO should see where they get here complaining that "Clay Breshears" is not a real person.
He who relies on rules to prove his point, has no point to be proven. :)
:)
Anyway, his very example is incorrect.
Here are some clues to help you decide whether the sentence element is essential:
* If you leave out the clause, phrase, or word, does the sentence still make sense?
The answer to that is yes. Removing the comma leave a perfectly intelligible sentence. Indeed, i think i will email the author of that webpage his error.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you're going to have to find yourself a new pet peeve.
Besides, i didn't mean that it was incorrect. As i said, it is _redundant_. I'm an NT, i loathe uneeded redundancy.
manoeuvre
tonne
Its uh bowt thyme oui taut England two spell.
I think SCO should see where they get here complaining that "Clay Breshears" is not a real person.
Just use a large mirror. I don't think Koran has any rules against occasional bending of the vectors of our 3D space.
Interesting. I think i will reflect on that for a while.
Just use a large mirror. I don't think Koran has any rules against occasional bending of the vectors of our 3D space.
I think that was punctuated incorrectly. Let me try.
Just use a large Mir or eye. Don't think Koran has any. Rules against occasional bending of the vectors of our 3D, space.
If what you really meant to say is that he didn't care, then the correct phrase to use is "couldn't care less," not "could."
Okay, pet peeve rant time:
Saying "if" followed by a comma after the predicate implies "then", because it starts the reason! If you really meant to use "then", the correct punctuation would be to not use a comma. Otherwise, one of the two is extra and redundant.
Not really. A moving section of the floor coulkd easily be put in to also point towards the same spot.
Of course the real trouble will start when they are on the moon, and Mekka is exactly above their heads
One of the banned prayer times?
I'm sure it could be worked out anyway.
See Muslims in space!
We're Muslims out in space
We're zooming along, protecting the Iranian race
We're Muslims out in space
If trouble appears, we'll put it right back in its place
When infidels attack us
We'll give 'em a smack, we'll slap 'em right back in the the face
We're Muslims out in space
We're zooming along, protecting the Iranian race!
While this is true, i'd rather the personal interest be more research oriented than discovery oriented. Let discoveries be done by the self-financed fame seekers.
I don't know why this proves evolution. Indeed, it proved devolution. Let me explain.
Evolution expects energy to do something, and then have a later generation take that into effect biologically.
Devolution is much more simple. Don't use it, lose it. If a human lives without expending much effort, the next generation will devolve, losing functionality. Do this enough over several generations, and a human can become a monkey. The proof of this theory is that these monekeys were able to "remember" something from there past. In a sense, there's still hope for them.
The fossil records proves my theory, as does much life in America.
<Prediction>All</Prediction>
<Prediction>Your</Prediction>
<Prediction>XML</Prediction>
<Prediction>Are</Prediction>
<Prediction>Belong</Prediction>
<Prediction>To</Prediction>
<Prediction>Us</Prediction>
<Prediction></Prediction>
<Prediction></Prediction>
<Predictions>
I'm sorry, i see the light now. Please accept my humblest apologies for my egregious error it trying to think about this rationally.
one would think that exposing a mind yet incapable of informed consent to a sexual situation would be the mistreatment in question
Considering a great deal of child porn is voyeristic, that take away most of your argument. As for consent, the situation gets the feeling of the view, not necessarily the participant. So, even if it was such a situation, it is unlikely the child would realize it well enough to be "scarred" by it. Then again, it is rarely the situation.
your blindness to others in the face of gratifying selfish impulses, i mean, er, your mother teresa-level empathy for others is truly a humanistic vision
And you reaction to my comment only points to you being more concerned about the others enjopying themselves than about the people supposedly hurt.
Let me ask you, should pictures of adult rape also be illegal?
damn, what an evil place! ..."pictures of naked children"
oh... i think that changes things a bit
No, that only enforces his opinion.
The reason we licence cars drivers is because they can be a danger to others. If he want to drive the car on his own land, he can be any age. Only driving on public roads falls under the jurisdiction of the law, drunk or not.
As for looking, there is no victim. The child is not hurt when they are looked at (and in many cases, had they known, they would actually enjoy the attention and control). If there was a victim, it was when the picture was taken. But it is indeed rare that the children are mistreated.
This is a thought crime. The law is because people say what you cannot think about. They also say the reason is so a child isn't hurt in the future, which is a bogus reason, simply because no such link has ever been shown, and in fact, the opposite has been shown, where people were able to release the pressure.
I have no problem with that. Indeed, discovery is a wonderful thing that pretty much helps everybody. It's the focus on finding life that bothers me. It seems to me their more interested in settling the personal problems of their own existence than finding anything helpful.
The landmark achievement is a significant step toward being able to detect possible life on rocky exoplanets
And here i thought the millions of dollars were being used for discovery that could help us. Silly me...
didn't mean to say the teachers should be the ones to mainly do this job.
:)
OK, just making sure.
teachers need to talk to their students and the parents need to participate in this as well.
Absolutely not! That is completely backwards!
Parents need to talk to their students and the teachers to reinforce this as well.
Reagan said it of government, i say it of schools. Replace the "government" with "school" and "economic" with "scholastic" from here.