danielsangeo

So, Bear Grylls is smarter than me?

I'm sorry to say this, but I think there are people today that are smarter than Aristotle. And it really depends on what you mean by "smarter". Aristotle would have a tough time with computers unless you taught him such. And could he understand deep space quasars? And let's not get started on modeling in Hammer.

I do know, actually. "Added information" is something creationists came up with to try to debunk evolution but they haven't been able to define it. When you try to nail them down on what they mean by "added information", they can't answer.

I've already researched this subject deeply and have heard many of the arguments and supposed "debunking" from people that have proven, time and again, to not know what they're talking about. How's that song go? "It's all been done before." Now, instead of going after me, provide evidence that evolutionary theory is wrong. This "must have 40 babies" thing is completely wrong.

I'm a fast reader.

[citation needed]

"These rates are simply too high for man to have evolved from anything, and if true would show that man must in fact be regressing." Why? "since there are no known examples where a mutation added information to the genome" Since these folks never give an example of what "added information" even looks like...............

The teacher had nothing to do with it, that is the only curriculum allowed in public schools here in the USA. I'm sorry, but my science teacher taught me things that had evidence for them....and he DEMANDED we quiz him and make sure that he's right. He required us to use critical thinking skills and experimentation to test hypotheses. In fact, he'd purposefully test us by giving us wrong answers and tried to get us to correct him. If he said that a specific liquid was an acid, we weren't supposed to just accept it as red that it was an acid; we had to test. Sometimes, it was an acid. Sometimes, it was a base. We were graded on whether we knew which was which. I remember, vividly, the teacher said Beaker A had an acid in it. I put my litmus paper into the liquid and it came up a base. I told the teacher that Beaker A was a base and he said "Correct" (telling the teacher that he was wrong) and gave me a positive mark on that test. He taught us to NOT simply accept what people say. That's what science is all about. Also, regarding your quip about it being the "only curriculum allowed", can we teach the controversy and state, in math class, that Pi=3 or that, perhaps, Pi=189,514?

Koocka: True, but atheists like it a lot....and there's not much in atheism to talk about. Atheism is just "don't believe in God". If it was just "atheism", then we don't need to go further than those four words.

Not quite. Unless you think that mathematics is also a "belief". Not quite. Science uses evidence and tries to falsify itself. Religion.........doesn't.

There are some times in the evolution of life that so-called "punctuated equilibrium" happens (generally over several thousand years). If there's a mutation that is very beneficial and this mutation leads to speciation and this new species wipes out the ancestor species, it could seem, from fossil records, that a species "suddenly" ends and a new species "begins"...but living in this "suddenly", it appears that there is a battle for dominance, but it's not like a single animal suddenly transmogrifies, werewolf-style, into a new animal (dog turning into a cat). That just doesn't happen. There are no "turtles with wings" or "giraffes with gills". That just doesn't happen and does not exist in the theory of evolution.

So where are it's parents and offspring? I want to compare... Are you suggesting that the creature that became that fossil didn't have parents or offspring? That's abiogenesis and that's not quite accurate. And we have evidence of this speciation based on environment. Take a look at the London Underground Mosquito. As for evidence of evolution itself, ask yourself one question: Are you identical in every way to your parents? If you have children, are they identical to you and your parents (and your grandparents)? If the answer is anything other than "yes", then you have your evidence for evolution.

Every single living thing on this planet is currently a transitional species. Look in a mirror. Look at what you're seeing. It's the reflection of a transitional species. This is a transitional fossil: Yes, but they won't mutate into 4 grapes... And a cat won't mutate into a dog. Do you know what evolution is?

One: Civil Protection: The Tunnel was being worked on. Two: Upheavals in Ross Scott's life including a recent move into a new place.

I think scientists cling stubbornly to science just as mathematicians cling to the notion of 2+2 equaling 4. It's not faith; it's not belief; it's fact. If you put two apples on a table, then you put two more apples on a table, there will be four apples on the table. There will never be five apples on the table or three apples, or any other number of apples. It's always four. Phlogiston theory was a hypothesis. There was no evidence for it and when it was tested, it was found to not be factual. They found that some materials got lighter after burning but then found that there were some materials that got HEAVIER after burning. There was no evidence for this "phlogisticated" material. I think it's like Galileo and the surface of the Moon. The idea was that the surface of the Moon was completely smooth. Galileo asserted that the discoloration of the Moon was due to mountains and valleys like the Earth had and provided evidence with his telescopes. The idea was then changed to having a clear shell over the mountains and valleys and the surface of the Moon was still completely smooth. Galileo smiled and then asserted that the clear shell could also have mountains and valleys that we just could not see. The "smooth Moon" hypothesis (which had no evidence) was dismissed.

Atheists can even have belief in an afterlife or perhaps reincarnation....atheism is just the lack of belief in deities. If atheism is a "belief" or "religion", then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

While I'm not at all a "believer" in that idea of capitalism I feel tempted to play devils advocate here. I think the most common reply to arguments of that kind are that since every company will want to take advantage of this cheap labor they'll all move there and the competition for workers will start "driving up" salaries which will eventually make the difference between the two countries much smaller (or non-existent). But, should that be our job? To drive up the wages of the rest of the world? (Just asking from a laissez-faire capitalism stance.)

I am actually a regular in the Black Mesa forums. They're not that bad...especially if you do research before posting.

I believe completely unrestrained (laissez-faire) capitalism is ultimately unpatriotic. Why do I believe that? In laissez-faire capitalism (or, let's call it "Michael Archer Capitalism"), there are no rules on business except for those against "the initiation of force". This nebulous concept however, leaves out a major problem: The cost of living in, say, the United States, is much higher than the cost of living in another country. This imbalance in the cost of living (for example, it's possible to live on $2/week in one country but impossible to live on even ten times that in the United States) leads to a "race to the bottom". Let's say I have a business. Let's also say that I have the ability to choose where to have the majority of my staff. I have a choice of: In America, hiring someone making $35k/year (minimum) or in Bangladesh, hiring someone making $3.5k/year (minimum). Both candidates have identical education and will bring an identical skillset to the position I'm hiring for. What would I choose? If I was a smart businessman, I'd hire the Bangladeshi person -- save $31.5k/year on a single position, who wouldn't?! However, if the majority of my support staff are in other countries, that means that people inside the United States are going without a job. "Dey durk yerrr jerbs!" in South Park parlance. This ultimately harms America. Laissez-faire capitalism harms America. Or any other country where this happens. Isn't this an "initiation of force"? Unless the cost-of-living is identical in every country or region in the world (I don't see this happening any time soon and isn't that "socialism" or "communism"; the redistribution of wealth?), then you're going to have this problem.

There are many things one can turn to such as friends and family, a hobby or something you really enjoy....or if it's a medical condition, medicine. If I might ask, can you tell me the steps on how that happened? If that is what you need to be "a more balanced person" then I say, more power to you. However, remember (and I know you know this so I'm not so much talking to you as to anyone else): not everyone needs religion or a belief in a deity to "keep one sane". I am actually both atheist and agnostic. Agnosticism and atheism answer two different questions. Agnostics say, "I don't know" and atheists say, "I don't believe". I say, "I don't know and I don't believe." I know of agnostic theists as well ("I don't know but I believe"). They aren't on a scale, such as atheist<>agnostic<>theist. On theism, you have three options: Theism (belief), atheism (no belief), antitheism (against belief). On gnosticism, you have the same three options: gnosticism (knowledge), agnosticism (no knowledge), and ignosticism (against knowledge, but I'm not sure I'm using the right word here). Also, I find the very concept of "belief there's no god" to be a bit weird. On the subject of driving a car, you actively drive a car. If you aren't actively driving a car (say, you're watching TV at home), are you still driving? I see the same here with belief. "Not believing" is not "believing in not". You and many Christians will be looking pretty silly for not getting into Valhalla.

I was asking anyone who cared to answer. You, Michael Archer, anyone...

It wasn't a scientific theory, regardless of what Wikipedia says...because it wasn't backed by evidence. It was, for all intents and purposes, a guess.

I think that there are degrees of "wrong". Simply saying that something was "wrong" in the past doesn't necessarily mean that something "wrong" today is of equal import. Let us take "pi" as a f'rinstance. A long time ago, without much math skills, they worked out that pi=3. Later, with more refinement, they found that pi=3.1 Then 3.14. Then 3.142. Then 3.1415. Then 3.1416. Then 3.14159. Then 3.141593. Then 3.14159265.... Later, with more and more refinement (we're still refining it today), we're out into the billions of digits for pi. Does that mean that we, today, are as wrong as those that said pi equaled 3? No. Does that mean that pi=3 was completely wrong for the time it was in? Also no. It was the best available evidence at the time. Science desires...no, CRAVES...pointing out flaws. It allows refinement. Those that claim that "Big Science" is trying to "keep evidence away that challenges Big Science" just doesn't know what they're talking about. Anyone that can point to a huge flaw in the theory of evolution would be the most famous scientist of their time. Millions have tried...and some have tried to introduce hoaxes such as Piltdown Man but under scrutiny, these hoaxes are quickly discarded. Evolutionary theory, like the value of pi, continues to be refined as more evidence comes in. Some things, such as phrenology, do not stand up under scrutiny and are eventually discarded as having no evidence or misusing (or even abusing) the scientific method in order to advance a conclusion. Phrenology was wrong because there was no evidence that it was right. I'd have to research "phlogiston theory" because I haven't heard of it, but I assume, at the moment, that it's similar. EDIT: Just looked up phlogiston theory. It wasn't a scientific theory at all. It was a hypothesis that fell apart under testing.

If all this was said before, then why is he still insisting on repeating the same mistakes?

My name has a sort of convoluted history. In 1994, I first subscribed to a BBS. I needed to pick a screen name and I wracked my brain trying to figure out a good one. And then the Karate Kid came on TV. Since my RL name is "Daniel" and the kid's called "Daniel-San" by Mr. Miyagi, I picked the name "DanielSan" as my screenname. This stuck with me as I got a webpage on "Geopages" which soon became "Geocities". So, a long time later, Geocities was bought by Yahoo. Yahoo eventually shut down Geocities e-mail addresses so I reregistered with Yahoo but "DanielSan" and "Daniel-San" were already taken so I took "danielsangeo". And this is how it is today.