danielsangeo

It's easier to blame video games, though. What do you think would attract more viewers (hence more advertising dollars): "Teen Obsessed With Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Kills Six" "Teen Obsessed With Hot Pockets Kills Six"

Oh, so you're omniscient then? Nope. But, like werewolves, unless you have evidence.... So? You have to prove that it's impossible for it to occur, or you have no supporting evidence for that aspect of your theory. No. I did not make a claim. I made a disclaim. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the disclaimant. I have already proved evolution. It is a fact. Plain and simple. And I can prove it again and again and again. You want evidence of evolution? Look in a mirror. You want to see what a transitional species looks like? Look in a mirror. Adaptation is the way evolution happens. Without adaptation, evolution could not happen. With adaptations of adaptations of adaptation, evolution happens. That's just reality. Like heat conductivity, gravity, and germs, evolution exists. Now, teach it in science class. Next up: More excuses why no evidence is going to be provided for creationism.

So you're saying that because it goes against Evolution it can't happen? No, I'm saying that it goes against reality. Now, if you have evidence of it happening.... Yes you do... You made the claim that it cannot happen. That is a negative. See the word "not"?

What proof do you have of that? Because that would be the antithesis of the theory of evolution. If you could find two distinct genera merging into one species, that would falsify the theory of evolution. It just doesn't happen like a man doesn't become a wolf under the light of the full moon. It just doesn't happen. And no, we don't have to prove a negative.

I voted "no" because the media doesn't have a bias against video games, like Doom said. They have a bias towards sensationalism. Video games are easy target.

What would give YOU the right to expel a "governmentalist"? Isn't that a form of government?

I don't understand what you mean by this. It's not a sub-species. It's a NEW species. As in, the new species will not mate with the old species. A horse will not be able to mate with a duck. They're two different species. What, exactly, are you looking for, BTG? A horse giving birth to a duck? Because that's not what the theory of evolution says and would, in fact, falsify the theory of evolution.

Evolution changes the species, adaptation changes the individual. If that's the case, then evolution (change of species) has been observed.

Morphine for instance. "Major fracture detected. Automatic medical systems engaged. Morphine administered."

What do you think is the difference between evolution and adaptation?

I would like to ask: What do you call a society that completely abolishes the state (that is, no governing body whatsoever) but also abolishes capitalism (no private ownership)?

No, I meant humans. As in, the Golden Rule probably goes back to our evolutionary ancestors and appears to be exhibited in some other animal species. EDIT: For example.

Mr. Obama is doing very well, thank you very much.

It'll be hard to prosecute Mr. Assange because, apparently, it's going to be hard to prove that he broke any laws.

Of course. That's precisely my point.

I would call it a "system that works". Could it fail someday? Sure. But everything will eventually fail. Doom said that Germany is the "last domino"....asserting that it will eventually fail but then again, it's currently working and seems to be going on indefinitely. I say that's a system that works. Comparing the United States to Canada is what Doom complained that ThatSmartGuy and it's exactly what Doom did. Just sayin'....

And, since no one is suggesting identical health care plans..... By the way, what do you call something that works indefinitely?

I don't think that really qualifies as censorship.

It's "cute", but something like this will never catch on.

So that's your problem, you ignore the fact that those are drugs too.... You're addicted to oxygen. Not all "drugs" are the same. Oxygen is not a drug. Drugs are that which, when absorbed into the body, alters normal bodily function. Oxygen is a requirement for normal bodily function. Caffeine and tobacco are not. Caffeine and tobacco are psychoactive drugs. Psychoactives run the gamut from analgesics and anesthetics to antidepressants and even to hallucinogenics. Some drugs are more addictive than others. Some drugs cause actual physical impairment when trying to quit using them. Some drugs affect the body in very negative ways (such as, y'know, death?). Not all drugs are good. Not all drugs are bad. If you have a headache, taking a drug such as acetaminophen actually helps.

You could post them on this forum in that format. I'm sure someone would be able to convert them....I might not be able to; my life has gotten very busy so I haven't been able to devote any time to subtitling lately. Thanks!

I don't think you know what a theory is yet. Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains that fact, the laws of evolution are the rules that evolution follows ( e.g. a species cannot "de-evolve") Theory has never equaled fact. Ever. Right. "Theory" is an EXPLANATION of facts. So, you have the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Yet, there is a FACT of evolution. Nothing is "proven" in science. But there are facts, like gravity, germs, and evolution.

I am fine with philosophy and religion being taught in schools, but I'm a bit ambivalent on making them mandatory. Critical thinking, you bet. That oughta be a mandatory class. Philosophy and religion, however, should be electives.

Actually, evolution is a fact. Not really. Evolution is simply a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact. I do not believe that we should tell the students that they can believe almost anything because, well, we don't do that with any other subject based upon fact, so why science? Philosophy, I get. Science, math, history, etc? No. Most certainly not. We don't let children decide if 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 (it's most assuredly the former) so why should we "let children decide" where it comes to something as elementary as evolution?

I would have to say, nay, I'd have to shout: YES!