Science: knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

I think science should not be in question. But its never that cut and dry, emotions unfortunately come into the discussion.

Well, I am glad you admit that you think I am ignorant. Just because I dont see things your way makes me ignornat? Thats a little far stretch isnt it.

And the reason you cant prove me wrong is because there is no proof.

Wirelessly posted (8310)

Let's all rest assured that everyone who has posted to this thread is ignorant in some form or fashion. The real meaning of that word is "uninformed". I take pride in my ignorance because it enables me to keep learning. I might add that ignorance can also be obtained by refusing to learn.

But there is proof Dawg. All the scientific studies that have been conducted on the subject have created a body of evidence. It is this body of evidence that forms the basis of the Theory of Evolution. I've already laid it out for you numerous times in this thread. Again, you just choose not to believe any of it.

I don't know why this bothers you so much. I've provided all the proof I can. I've provided links to books, websites, experiments, etc. The proof is all there for everybody to see, if that is of interest. I know it's not of much interest to you. For some reason, it threatens your belief system in such a way that all you want to do is attack the thought behind the theory. And condemn anyone who actually believes in this scientific work.

Anyway, I'll look for your further posts on the subject, if you choose to respond to anything in this thread.

And before you say the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, read this:

Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

I don't know bigolsparky. I agree with you. But obtained might not be quite the right word. People settle for ignorance. People accept ignorance. For many reasons. Laziness, stubborness, lack of grey matter? Maybe I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but to obtain ignorance denotes a willful disregard of the facts. Am I getting lost in the semantics? :oops:

But you are dead on in 'enabling learning'. And Lord knows, the resources are out there is one wants to learn something. Now more than ever. For example, I'm not worth a damn when it comes to fixing something around my house. But my son recently knocked a hole in the drywall. Sure enough, there are precise step by step instructions on how to patch it right out there in cyberspace that even I can understand. I can't tell the hole was there now.

But the key is only when someone wants to learn are they able.

Wirelessly posted (8310)

Yes, you are lost in the semantics. If ignorance were chosen or sought because it conflicted with ones ideals it could be obtained, hence painfully aware or ...

Of course. Got where you were going with your comments. And I fully agree. (y)

And with a little bit of geometry and trigonometry, I can prove that elephants can climb trees but we all know its not true. So until there is 100% truth with out a shadow of doubt to prove the other way I will rely on what God tells me is truth. If I am going to rely on faith I would surely like to rely on God then scientists. And since I will meet God soon in my life I think that is the right choice for me.

I'm not reading from Dawg's posts that he is bothered.

thexxx8901;oxxx8901;ryxxx8194; xxx8194;[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Source: Dictionary.com

A theory is a guess. A good guess, perhaps, but still a guess.

If you begin with the assumption that science is right until proven otherwise, you conclude the Theory of Evolution is a correct guess because all the facts gathered by scientists so far support it.

If, however, you start with the conclusion that the Bible is right until proven otherwise, you conclude the Theory of Evolution is at best an incomplete guess (and at worst completely wrong), because it has not yet accounted for everything mentioned in Genesis.

You seem to be confusing logical arguments with rational ones. A truly logical argument would take into account both the rational and the irrational because both exist. Faith is inherently irrational. If you want to argue with a Christian, a Muslim, or a member of any other faith, you cannot do it simply by laying facts before him. No matter how many pieces of evidence you produce, you will have neglected a full 50% of the topic if you don't also address faith in your arguments.

In addition, religion aside, you (a scientist) can't persuade most laymen to place their complete trust in scientific theories. No one can forget that once the world's best scientists insisted that the world was flat. No matter how you dress it up, a guess is still a guess and not a fact.

Ok. I'll wait for the calculations. Post your proof here when you're ready. I'm serious. I'd like to see your proof.

I'm not sure what posts you have been reading! :razz: He certainly seems bothered about this to me.

You cannot use the definition of theory from a dictionary. That is a common mistake used by people in opposition to evolution. You must use the definition of scientific theory, which I have posted above.

I (or any any other scientist for that matter) do not begin with the assumption that science is right. Science always starts with questions! Hypotheses are formed. Research and inquiry is conducted. Hypotheses are either confirmed or not. Research continues. A body of evidence is either produced or not. It's classic scientific inquiry. You would be surprised how many research trials end with the hypothesis being proved wrong. And scientists will report this as a valid experiment because it still answered a question.

I can't help you on this one. There are however, plenty of religions that have no problem with accepting a creator as well as evolution.


But Kathryn, as I mentioned, there are a large number of scientists who fully accepted both. Take a look at Ken Miller when you get a chance. He was the main witnes for the plaintiffs in the Dover case. And I'm sorry, but I don't agree that a truly logical argument has to take into account any irrationality. Maybe it's the analytical side of me.

Again, it's not a guess. And further, I think it comes down to what threatens most. The germ theory certainly doesn't threaten most, right? Yet it is widely accepted by almost everyone, non-scientists included. Ironically, germ theory completely depends on evoutionary theory. Yet one is accepted and one is not accepted by certain people.

I would counter that you need to accept that any lay person, whenever they see the word "theory," would argue that a valid synonym is "guess" because that's how the English language is used. Irrespective of industry professionals say. I mean, I don't expect lay people to understand that when I talk about telephony, odds are I'm not saying anything about phones.

If you want to persuade people, you need to meet them where they are. Religious people included.

You are speaking to me as if, "darn it! It's so clear and straightforward!" :-) In a way you're right. I accept that this is how scientists work because one of them (you) says so. But I do believe scientists begin with the assumption that the theories in existence so far are correct, and I believe that's half the reason this debate exists.

I disagree, unless you're arguing with a machine. Humans are irrational (some more than others). Look at our courting and mating behavior. Look at how we behave when cut off in traffic. Look what happens when you apply alcohol. (And yet we seek it out anyway!) If human irrationality isn't taken into consideration by you, the speaker, you won't make any significant headway in an argument with one. Even with the most superior arguments in existence.

I think some people are wired to look at a situation and see what's wrong, missing, and otherwise exceptional. For example, my husband is one of those. It makes him an exceptional trial attorney, but sometimes he can be hard to deal with personally because he finds fault. And many people are threatened or offended when fault is pointed out in what they do or say.

This gets back to taking into account human irrationality (aka people skills). Someone who did that would adjust the presentation of his facts so that they would have the best chance of being received and digested without any counterproductive arguments made or offense taken by his target audience. And then meaningful dialogue could occur.

Texas: From saved to doomed in just 6 hours! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

ah Democracy, its great. Unless trying to compete globally with faster moving societies.

"Texas Board of Education creationist Barbara Cargill today proposed an amendment to the science standards saying that teachers have to tell their students there are different estimates for the age of the Universe. This is not even a veiled attempt to attack the Big Bang model of the Universe, which clearly, and through multiple lines of evidence, indicates the Universe is 13.7 +/- 0.12 billion years old.
So Ms. Cargill is right, if she means that "different estimates" range from 13.58 to 13.82 (given one standard deviation) billion years old.
But she doesnxxx8217;t mean that at all, does she? If you read her website, youxxx8217;ll see shexxx8217;s an out-and-out creationist. She has a large number of, um, factual errors on her site that are clearly right out of the Creationist Obscurational Handbook.
Anyway, her antiscience amendment passed 11 - 3."

Test, I've been following that closely. There's a blog being updated as things happen. What a train wreck. I've posted about Don McElroy. He's the Chairman of the state board of education. He is behind all this nonsense. As I've mentioned, he thinks the earth and everything on it is 10,000 years old.

Texas Freedom Network

Yeah, I read all the Don McElroy stuff.

Well when you give the power to the people then sometimes they make bad choices.

Well that's just stupid. That means anyone that doesn't have God in their heart is evil? All of these people are evil?

Main Page - Celebrity Atheist List

Again, wrong. Lucy (Australopithecus) is over 3 million years old.

Thanks Kathryn. Another very thoughtful reply. I enjoy reading your viewpoints in this thread.

Well, I can't accept that. Your synonym is precisely the reason. It's used so often by lay people to diminish the theory and the body of work that exists. That's why I've constantly posted the explanation here in this thread. There is a difference. It comes down to education. I will try to educate anyone, including lay people, what it takes to become a scientific theory. It's central to the debate.

Yep, I understand that. And I do try. You and I have had very good exchanges in this thread.

:oops: Sorry, I don't mean to do that. And yes, absolutely, scientists start with the premise that a scientific theory is the general truth precisely because a large body of work already exists. But scientists do research on specifics. And trust me, the hypotheses formed, don't always turn out to be true! That's why you will often read in the literature that the theory is being 'tweaked'. Scientists are constantly making new discoveries about the specifics of evolution. But to date, there have been no ground breaking research that would disprove the theory. On the contrary, as E. O. Wilson has recently said, Darwin was astoundingly correct.

In addition, as I have said many times in this thread, if there were a way to test whether or not creationism is true, there would be scientists lined up around the block getting in on the action. It would be Nobel worthy work. To date, there has been no way to test this idea, much to the chagrin of the Discovery Institute.

I begrudge the point. In fact, there are those who would say that 'irrationality is a conserved trait'. That it is an evolutionary advantage in some cases. Wow, even thinking about that makes my head hurt. And I'm not saying that I'm not as irrational as the next person. Just ask my wife. :smile:

Agreed.

Again, I agree. If you get a minute, look up Ken Miller and check out some of his work. He was a witness for the plaintiff in the Dover case. He was very very effective. He took down Michael Behe in grand fashion.

Test, I assumed you did a copy/paste, but I suspect this should be 1 standard error, not a standard deviation. Error in the original, I suspect.

Yes I do.
Prove it then. Show me absolute 100% proof.

From a post on the blog.

xxx8220;In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, xxx8220;This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!xxx8221;? Instead they say, xxx8220;No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.xxx8221; xxx8212; Carl Sagan

yeah, straight copy and paste.


dawg, must suck thinking so many people around you are evil. I would certainly hate to live that way too.

I dont walk around thinking people are evil. I generally dont think about people I dont know at all. I have enough worrys in my own life with out worrying about others.

I would never ever say my God is little. He is bigger than any one could imagine. He controls it all.

As usual, you missed the point. No surprise there!

So then why did he create Satan / Lucifer or atleast allow him?

I wonder how long I will have to wait for your proof Dawg? Do you plan on showing how you can prove that elephants can climb trees? You said you can. So I eagerly await.

Carl Sagan was a very bright person. I'm not surprised by this quote. And he raises a valid question. Makes one wonder.

I'm looking for my notes right now. My geometry teacher showed us this. Its coming I just have to find it.

Just another star gazer. And I am not surprised you think hes bright.

Lucifer was created by God as an angel. He chose his own path in history. Just as you all have.

Right Dawg. Just pull it out of your ass. Like all your other drive by posts.

Your contempt for science is astounding. (n)

You didn't answer the questions. Why if God is all powerful would he allow Lucifer to turn into Satan? Perhaps that a whole thread in itself.

Go **** yourself! Its been twenty two years since I was in school its not like I keep that on my desk. If you don't like my post you can always ignore me. You don't have to be a prick all the time.

I did answer you, God is a free choice God you make your choices and he gives you the consequences or rewards.

Excellent example of tautological reasoning.

A post from Dawg in another thread:

You can see for yourself here:

http://www.blackberryforums.com/rumo...ger-5-0-a.html


http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2009/irony-meter.jpg

Ok Dawg. I've said it before. And I'm going to try it again. I'm going to ignore your posts to this thread from now on. Unless you post something meaningful.

Hilarious!

Ken Miller on The Colbert Report

Kathryn, you've seen my posts talking about Ken Miller. Here is his webpage if you are so inclined. He has a very interesting take on evolution. And as I've mentioned, he was a lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover case.

Ken Miller's Evolution Page

I have defended my stance that relates to this thread. You are the one has not proven that i evolved from an ape thats what i want you to prove to me.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/...20246690_o.gif

Becoming Human

79.06.02: Hominid Evolution

Welcome to the Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery

Hominid Evolution, Australopithecus afarensis africanus anamensis, Homo sapiens neanderthal neandertalensis heidelbergensis antecessor ergaster erectus rudolfensis habilis, Paranthropus boisei robustus aethiopicus, Ardipithecus ramidus, Hominid speci

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early Hominin Evolution:* Menu of Topics

Human Evolution: The fossil evidence in 3D

Evolution: Humans: Humankind (I like this reference in particular)

Human Evolution Archaeology human origins hominid species images

Streaming video : Hominid evolution and development : Nature

A Brain for All Seasons: Human ... - Google Book Search

Evolution of the Brain: Creation of ... - Google Book Search (Looks fascinating. I'll buy this one to read.)

The Riddled Chain: Chance ... - Google Book Search

Human evolution: an illustrated ... - Google Book Search

The fossil evidence for human ... - Google Book Search

Hominid evolution: past, present ... - Google Book Search

Eve spoke: human language and human ... - Google Book Search

The Human Pedigree: A Timeline of Hominid Evolution: Scientific American

Hominid Species

Human evolution - A look at human origins through species profiles and hominid imagery

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3607/...0aa54802_o.jpg

Let me google that for you :smile:

This Newsweek article combines not only science and reliion, but also politics. I must say that I enjoyed reading it.

Hitchens: Why Texas Is Right on Teaching Evolution | Newsweek Culture | Newsweek.com

I thought this paragraph was particularly interesting. And it is true that scientists can and have predicted what fossil they may find in a certain area and certain layer of sediment based on evolution and plate tectonics. If you don't believe that, google a book calld 'Your Inner Fish'.

It's not just that the overwhelming majority of scientists are now convinced that evolution is inscribed in the fossil record and in the lineaments of molecular biology. It is more that evolutionists will say in advance which evidence, if found, would refute them and force them to reconsider. ("Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian layer" was, I seem to remember, the response of Prof. J.B.S. Haldane.) Try asking an "intelligent design" advocate to stipulate upfront what would constitute refutation of his world view and you will easily see the difference between the scientific method and the pseudoscientific one.

This is a update/aftermath to the TX school board vote on science standards. From the National Center for Science Education. A setback for public school students as far as I'm concerned.

A setback for science education in Texas | NCSE

This is interesting on many levels. Comments?

97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US « Strange Maps

I am embarrassed is the simple comment that I will make. In today's world this is simply not acceptable.

Right. In large part, it is due to people like this. A misguided young earth creationist. Who is Chairman of the TX State Board of Education. I wish Gould were still alive so he could properly deal with this nut. He'd tear him to pieces. He doesn't realize that Gould's statis was not a day, but many tens of millions of years.

YouTube - Don McLeroy on Stephen Jay Gould and stasis

There was a link on that page to Genie Scott, patiently -- oh so patiently -- trying to explain matters to the board.

I imagine that the biology department at UT-Austin is simply not answering any emails from colleagues around the world. How could this happen in their state?

I watched the Genie Scott video as well. Oh so patient. That's her M.O.

All the universities in TX strongly opposed the school boards attempts to water down instruction on evolution. There were many letters written as well as those who spoke at the meetings. To no avail. Yes, it must be embarrassing to be a biology professor in that state.

According the definition of Scientific Theory, predictive power must be present. To get a good look at the predictive power of the Theory of Evolution, check out the story of Tiktaalik. Made famous by Neil Shubin.

Book Title: Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5 Billion-Year History of the Human Body

Website: OBA / Faculty / Neil Shubin

Prior to 2004, paleontologists had found fossils of amphibians with necks, ears, and four legs, in rock no older than 365 million years old. In rocks more than 385 million years old they could only find fish, without these amphibian characteristics. Evolutionary theory predicted that since amphibians evolved from fish, an intermediate form should be found in rock dated between 365 and 385 million years ago. Such an intermediate form should have many fish-like characteristics, conserved from 385 million years ago or more, but also have many amphibian characteristics as well. In 2004, an expedition to islands in the Canadian arctic searching specifically for this fossil form in rocks that were 375 million years old discovered fossils of Tiktaalik.

This is an interesting article. More philosophy than science, but thought provoking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/op...=1&ref=opinion

I liked this line:

We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.

Meat for Sex
 

Guess it's not a real big surprise, eh? 8-)

Meat for sex? - SciTechBlog - CNN.com Blogs

No surprise at all! Get the bottle of cab out along with a filet.

Lol! That would be a little more advanced perhaps, than spearing a wooly mammoth. :smile:

I completely agree with this paper written by Eugenie Scott!

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf

I agree with THECB. Do you?

ICR sues THECB | NCSE

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School filed suit over the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's decision to deny the ICR's request for a state certificate of authority to offer a master's degree in science education. The complaint, filed on April 16, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, named Raymund Paredes, the Texas Commissioner of Higher Education, and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and its members as defendants, in both their official and individual capacities, accusing them of imposing "an unconstitutional and prejudicial burden against ICRGS's academic freedom and religious liberties" (p. 63) and asking the court for declarative and injunctive relief.

No.

If students can learn a subject, be tested on it, and apply it going forward... and it isn't against a law of some kind... then it is a legitimate form of education whether we agree with it or not.

Now, if no one wants to accredit said degree, that is another matter entirely. But to deny a private school the right to teach what they want and issue students with corresponding degrees is a First Amendment issue with me, pure and simple.

agreed

I agree, in large part because they are asking to be certified as a Master's degree in SCIENCE. If they want to call it a Master's degree in the Humanities, then I suspect that it would be acceptable.

Wirelessly posted (bb pearl 8130)

Well I did not read all of this thread but I notice some of you say tgat evolution is theory. Well everything in the bible is not true either. How can 1 man have 2 fish and 1 bread to feed over 1000( not really sure about the number) people and make them all full? Or how can one man spread a very large body of water just waving his arms apart so people can escape. Or when did you ever see someone walk on water. If you can prove any of this then I will be a believer.

I believe schools should teach it all from every angle and have the students use the matter that is holding there ears in place for a change. Obama has to say what he has to so no one will be offended or hurt there feelings on this matter. Schools need to to what they are design to do and that is teach our young ones so they have what it take to make a decision in there own lives.

If you say so(n)

So prove it for the man Dawg.

bexxx8901;liefxxx8194; xxx8194;(bi-leef)
xxx8211;noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Exactly Katherine.

The burden of proof is on the him. I can look out my window and see Gods creation. You prove to me that God did not create the earth. There is only faith either way. I would much rather belive God exists than not. It would be a pretty scary world with out him.

you could be polite enough to spell her name correctly.

Really nice article on evolution of land mammals to sea animals.

A Missing Link, p.1 - Puijila: A Prehistoric Walking Seal

looks like a skeleton to me could be anything in truth.

To your untrained eye, sure. To a scientist who studies fossils of this group everyday, looks like something entirely different.

Looks like our buddy Don McLeroy is in hot water over in Texas.

WATCH: State education chair faces senate panel | Austin | Texas News | Texas Cable News | TXCN.com | News for Texas

End poor guidance of Texas education

Sure, if you say so.

I didn't say so. It's not my research. I was simply posting the results of recent scientific research that I found interesting. Obviously, you could give a rip. Which doesn't surprise me at all.

Dude I was just busting your balls on this one. :razz: I actually think fossils are cool

Lol! It's hard to tell with you sometimes Dawg. :smile:

I know. I decided to leave this thread alone to be honest. I respect what you do, I just don't know what I believe anymore to honest with you. Anything and everything can be made up or falsified these days.

Don't get me wrong I still believe in God, but what has he allowed or disallowed to be discovered.

I've struggled with this on and off again myself. In the end I decided that as a Christian, it simply doesn't matter. We can debate the degree to which the Old Testament should be taken literally until the cows come home, and we won't get anywhere. My personal relationship with Christ is not dependent upon what happened before His birth, or the manner in which it was recorded. How we all got here is interesting philosophical discussion material, but what we choose to do with the lives we've been given is where He said our focus ought to be. And while science can give our lives color and context, it is completely incapable of giving them depth or meaning. Science is all about What, and the Bible is about Why. Although each hints at the existence of the other, I think we fail when we apply one to the other for the answers to those respective questions.

YMMV, of course. ;-)

You guys are veering off into the philosophical. Not my strong point. I think though Kathryn, that your statements about science wouldn't be agreeable to many scientists. There are many scientific efforts that seek to answer why. Often, what is the easy part and is researched with specific hypotheses. Then a larger body of research is synthesized together to answer why. Anyway, maybe it's semantics. I do agree with most of what you have written.

We've come a long way in this thread. This is not the way I've seen others evolve (lol, for lack of a better word).

Ok, I hear you. (y) One caveat. Science has a way of severely weeding out dishonesty. Scientists who falsify or lie are cast aside and discredited, often very publicly. There's a lot of self policing among scientists.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I mean, I haven't decided if the point of this forum is to seed random thoughts and hope a handful of them sprout into healthy intelligent conversations... or whether they merely exist to entertain our moderators by creating opportunities for the stressed-out masses to engage in the verbal equivalent of mud wrestling.

If the latter, this thread is a colossal failure at present. ;-)

You folks knew that I would post an article about evolution and swine flu. So as not to disappoint, here it is.

Swine Flu Is Evolution in Action | LiveScience

IDK, are you being fastidious (:razz:)? There were some serious back and forths earlier in this particular thread that may qualify.

LOL! Note the words "at present."

So the indians that we have today have evolved? Because they got smart and figured out a way to survive with the white man?

Have robbers evolved because they have figured out a way to rob banks better?

I see that the virus (not sure on the alive or not alive) has figured out a way to beat the system (the Body).

Dawg, not sure I understand the analogies. I think you are talking about culture and society, not evolution. The flu virus evolution is simply meant to show rapid evolution of viruses, even over a few months. If they can do that over a few months, what could happen over millions of years. The evolution of germs coincides with evolution of hominids and other mammels is pretty fascinating, IMHO.

see you call it evolution I call it adapting. My analogies were to show the comparison. I guess I did a bad job.

A new comprehensive website on evolution. I'll be checking it out.

Evolver Zone

Hey no worries man. I see adaptation as a major part of the evolutionary process. It's central to the Theory of Evolution. Mutations that happen to be advantageous are carried on to the next generation. Good basic stuff.

I like this video, even though the graphics are quite lame. It provides a basic explanation of what evolution is all about.

YouTube - Evolution

Wow. djm, you will like this one. And I hope others who have contributed to this thread and those that are just reading will give it serious listen.

YouTube - Skewed views of science

Outstanding Presentation
 

Mriff, that was outstanding discussion, targeted towards laypersons, of the fundamental principles of philosophy of science. If I was still teaching I would use that in undergraduate courses on research methods. (y)(y)(y)(y)(y) Excellent.

I would like to know why ratings and comments have been turned off on that piece, although I can make some educated guesses.

Really, I'm ok with her right to home school her children any way she wants to. (Good luck to them if they want a job in science.) But I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars to fund this 'education'.

Christian working mom homeschools âxxx8364;xxx8220; on state's dime

I enjoyed reading this article.

Donxxx8217;t Mess With Textbooks § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM

What about her tax dollars? I mean, we all pay taxes.

For public education sure. I pay my fair share and I'm happy to. I just don't think I should be subsidizing her home schooling. That should be her cost if she chooses to teach her children at home.

I think the tax money should follow the student. Public education is not superior to private in most areas. Religious issues aside, why should parents be stuck with inferior schools? If the tax money doesn't follow the student, you set up a situation where only the rich can ensure their children are educated as they see fit.

The gauntlet, so to speak, has been thrown down. I suspect there will be no successful arguments for a designed gene.

YouTube - Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover

I must confess that I agree. But to an extent. I'd say fix the schools but as here in FL, there are no funds to do that. Or at least the legislative bodies are loath to raise taxes to provide funds for public education. But allowing tax money to follow the student would provide for endless need for more and more money. I happen to be one of the lucky ones I guess. The public schools where I live are outstanding.

I still say that I shouldn't be responsible for funding a private home school education for someone who has perfectly good schools in their neighborhood, as the parents of this story have.

sorry i've been in training for a while now so i haven't been around, but did this get posted yet?

"MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?