Originally posted by XanthosNZIf you believe in creationism then you don't care about scientific evidence. I don't think the idea was created just for schools, though, as the church has been teaching it for a long time. A more accurate way to describe it is that there has been an attempt to bring religious teaching back into public schools through the backdoor using creationism by passing it as a theory rather than a religious belief.
Creationism contradicts all scientific evidence. And so does Intelligent Design, the friendly face of Creationism that was created in an attempt to backdoor into schools.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI have no doubt you are correct, I have a lot of respect for Scott, a
Looking for evidence that supports a hypothesis and ignoring evidence that contradicts it is utterly in opposition to the Scientific Method. Doing so invalidates any conclusions you reach and anyone in the pursuit of truth (rather than the pursuit of the "right" answer) would be doing themselves and others a disservice.
Now I haven't seen any of Scott's ...[text shortened]... ntific Method which means he doesn't look for only the evidence that backs his hypothesis.
great deal of it to tell you the truth. I do not for a sec believe he
is attempting to do anything but the right thing in how he trys to
understand the universe he finds himself in. I've never accused him
of doing anything against science either, I do point out to him from
time to time he is a creature of faith too.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayeveryone has something that they believe based on faith.
I have no doubt you are correct, I have a lot of respect for Scott, a
great deal of it to tell you the truth. I do not for a sec believe he
is attempting to do anything but the right thing in how he trys to
understand the universe he finds himself in. I've never accused him
of doing anything against science either, I do point out to him from
time to time he is a creature of faith too.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhat are you trying to say?! Of course there is a Yeti in every coke machine.
I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow just in time for my exam. Does that make me a creature of faith? Surely there is a difference between believing that the sun will rise and believing that there is a Yeti inside every Coke machine who breaths on the cans to make them cold?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAny takers for the most idiotic president?
Because we have the mightiest army, I suppose. Didn't I mention that somewhere already in this thread when I was talking about how great America is? I meant to, if I didn't. There are so many good things about my country, I occasionally omit a few whenever I go on one of my patriotic spells, enumerating them.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI put it there to show that changes in gene frequency are measurable, as shown at the bottom of the page.
An interesting link that highlights statistics, not a formula which describes NS. By the way, it is not an equation. The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrim is considered a "law." I place the quotations around the word, as it is a law which "may fail to apply" in five certain circumstances:
* mutation
* gene flow
* genetic drift
* nonrandom ma ...[text shortened]... it appears. Especially where one may need it the most for the argument to be satisfactory.
The law in practice does not apply absolutly, as mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift happen pretty much constantly. Nonrandom mating and natural selection occur with high frequency also.
The fact that the equilibrium doesn't occur strictly in nature demonstrates that gene frequencies are not stable. Mutation, gene flow etc are in fact happening constantly. If evolution were not occuring, then the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium would be ironclad, as population genetics would be static.
Originally posted by whiteroseThis "damn culture of fear" is the very one allowing you to live nestled securely within whatever country you find yourself knitting. Get rid of the DCoF and see how far you get on that Bolero vest with the Muslims in charge. Dumb as a bag of hammers though Bush may be, I'll take the power-mongers pulling his strings over the so-called fidels anyday.
Strange, I've been gone now for years and I don't miss it at all, damn culture of fear.
Originally posted by mrstabbyAnd therefore non-applicable as a formula in this case.
I put it there to show that changes in gene frequency are measurable, as shown at the bottom of the page.
The law in practice does not apply absolutly, as mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift happen pretty much constantly. Nonrandom mating and natural selection occur with high frequency also.
The fact that the equilibrium doesn't occur strictly in natu ...[text shortened]... then the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium would be ironclad, as population genetics would be static.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesUhm . . . ever been to Venezuela? I've spent some time there. Que molleja! It's unbelievable. There are few American women that come close, except perhaps the Venezuelan-American women.
OK, let's see...Is it because we have the hottest women?
Edit: and my wife . . . love ya honey.
Oh yeah, creationism can only be supported by appealing to the whim of an unobserved magical superbeing. Therefore it cannot be used to meaningfully understand any process in nature or to predict the outcome thereof.
Nothing is wrong with the theory of evolution. At least not that we can discern at this point with our empirical knowledge.