danielsangeo

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!

The problem with that is that all the evidence that we currently have points to the Big Bang theory. There is absolutely NO evidence that would lead us anywhere near creationism or intelligent design. Now, unless evidence were provided (of which none has ever been provided by anyone anywhere at any time) for creationism or intelligent design, it should not be taught in regular school as fact.

I am not Ross Scott, but the way I do it is to use Subtitle Workshop to type in and time all the lines. My workflow for it is as follows: 1. Download the Youtube video 2. Type in all the lines in a place like Microsoft Word (for spell-checking purposes) 3. Open Sony Vegas and place markers at the beginning and end of each line. 4. Open Subtitle Workshop and transfer the timings (via the Vegas markers) into there and copy the lines over. 5. Keep individual lines to less than 40 characters, placing text on multiple lines if possible. 6. Save in Subrip format, then upload the SRT file to this forum. Let me know if you have any questions with this.

Could you, perhaps, produce that evidence? Paul's First Letter to the Church in Corinth, Chapter 15, 3-6 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." So, that's the evidence? There are those that believe that this is a 2nd century interpolation and was not written by Paul, but assuming it was (purely for the basis of argument), where is the corroborating evidence?

Then, really, anything could be taught, even a flying spaghetti monster. But what is of import here is science. Intelligent design is no scientific. It relies entirely on the logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance". Historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ are both more accurate and plentiful than many other historical accounts of that era of History. There are corroborating evidences of the Ressurected Christ appearing to more than 500 people at once, Could you, perhaps, produce that evidence?

God or an intelligent designer is also impossible to prove. So, unless you can produce evidence of Him or it, ID/creationism does not belong in science class.