Everytime I read a post of yours, I find myself discovering a new word. Imagine my disappointment when "debatge" ended up being just a typo. <br><br>I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left.
No, no, don't be disappointed. Be amazed, intrigued, charmed and amused. Yoyo is just employing a little neology ~ which is a word I had to look up, when he used it a few days ago. And I'm a serious wordaholic, so . . . <br><br> word, doings, good stuff.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Lea on 12/31/07 11:03 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
_________________________ I always deserve it. Really.
I think it'd be a good thing to have their detailed views on evolution, .... and global warming... what do they understand about stem cell research ?<br>I think it'd be interesting to hear their comments even on the simple topic of ethanol production to replace gasoline - pros and cons. I bet few have even half a clue.<br>They harp about how education has failed us in science and math but they're mostly naive dolts themselves on those 2 topics !!<br><br>David (OFI)
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical<br> purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is <br>accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.<br><br>Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that <br>can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated.<br> If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned <br>or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.<br><br>Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves <br>under stated circumstances. <br><br>Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural<br> world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.<br><br><br>The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the <br>common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into <br>facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. <br>They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and <br>creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, <br>and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific <br>theories we have.<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
I agree. Some confuse theories with facts. The Director of the Natural History Museum in France, and former President of the Geological Society, Dr Paul Lemoine, concluded: "The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it. Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for the people."<br><br> Some Darwinists insist that evolution is strict science, on the same footing with physics and chemistry. However, the laws of physics and chemistry can easily be demonstrated in a high school labratory. Evolution, on the other hand, consists of speculations about unobserved events that supposedly occurred millions of years ago. Science cannot view the past with the same authority as the present. No one has ever witnessed life spontaneously generate from chemicals, or one kind of animal transform into another, or mutations generate true biological advances, or complex biochemical systems evolve. For example, Sir John William Dawson, who pioneered Canadian geology and served as president of both McGill University and the British Association for the Advancement of Science, said "This evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; a system destitute of any shadow of proof and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech. Pick up any of Darwin's books or Spencer's Biology, and ask, 'What is assumed here and what is proved', and the whole fabric melts away like a vision." For an American viewpoint, Dr Wolfgang Smith, who taught at MIT and UCLA, said that "the salient fact is this: if by evolution, we mean macroevolution, then it can be said with the utmost vigor, that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction." <br><br> In Australia in 1999, a book was published entitled "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientist Choose to Believe in Creation." It has 50 chapters, each written by a scientist holding a Ph.D., none of whom accept Darwin's theory. In the U.S., the Creation Research Society has 600 voting members, all holding advanced science degrees, and all of whom reject Darwinian evolution. The inventor of the MRI, one of the most advanced tools in medicine, Dr Raymond Damadian, is a young-earth creationist. Many more examples could be cited, but I think the point is made.<br><br> Too many of the things evolutionists hypothecate that took place, is much more of a faith-based religion, than science! <br><br>I've joined the RON PAUL REVOLUTION - www.ronpaul2008.com
"The value of the partisan is not in the amount of men and equipment he destroys, but in how many he keeps watching." COL John S. Mosby, CSA
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, <br>and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific <br>theories we have.<p><hr></blockquote><p> <img src="http://i267.photobucke...aps" /> Proven Evolution <br><br>
Don't have to view the past to see evolution.<br><br>Try MRSA, PPNG, TRNG or even E coli O157:H7,<br>MRSA is methicillin resistant Staph aureus,<br>PPNG is penicillinase producing Neisseria gonorrhoeae<br>you get the picture... if you don't understand genetics, then you won't understand evolution... it's all in the genes !!<br><br>they didn't exist 30-40 years ago... they do today.<br>WHY? adaption, survival of fittest, evolved ... <br><br>it's evolution Mongol !!<br>simple evolution but very apparent.<br><br>David (OFI)
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.