Dak

given that youv accepted that that is true, how would macroevolution not work? what would stop all of those little changes accumulating over time and causing a significant accumulated change? theres lots of proof. check out paleontology. btw, this is paleontology, not the theory of evolution. that depends on what form of christian creationism your talking about. the catholic one, for example, is (if i understand it correctly) quite compatable with evolution. if your talking the 'god made everything last tuesday' (or whenever YECs think the earth was created) version, then yes there is lots of evidence against it. and yet, you can say that evolution is a bad argument just because you cant prove it? not that it is unprovable, btw.

1) again, you are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution; so what your saying should be "this is where creationism and abiogenesis are not compatable" 2) theres no reason why god couldnt be responsible for abiogenesis, so what you should be saying is "this is where some forms of creationism and abiogenesis are not compatable" there are theories of abiogenesis which can be summarised as 'life came from dust'; and again, theres nothing, scientifically, to say that god isnt responsible for guiding/setting up evolution. basically, evolution and abiogenesis are incompatable only with a literal belief in parts of the bible; if you dont believe the bible to be literal, then the two are compatable.

next person who mentions linux in this thread is going to get a pineapple passed through their digestive system backwards

first a telly tubby, now pokemon... actually, i quite like pokemon in small doses: the random wierdness appeals to me. as for what the dragon thing is... its a dragon. I lifted it from a program called 'RPGmaker' or something, on account of the fact that I love dragons and my favorite colour is blue.

pokemon? [edit]Old!?![edit]

Theyre also the linux symbol, which i feel may have influensed yd's desision to use it as an avitar. but how far can you take it? could you deduse that the agressiveness of yodas stanse is reflective of APs psycosis? or is it an attempt to overcompensate for her shameful former life as a cheerleader? or does, as you say, she merely like starwars? or is she a wrinkly green runt? are people who use their own image vein? confident? honest? unimaginative? i dont normally go in for psycoanalysing, but i think its interesting how little aspects of ones persona can (possibly) manifest themselves.

righty-dokums: how much, and what, does a persons username and avitar say about them?

iv always felt that people should have more unique names -- i mean, the idea of getting names out of a book, a list of names which have already been used a zillion times already, is kinda odd... someones name should be unique, i feel. So i chose dak, cos its unique and isnt in common use, then found out that it is in common use (its short for dakerty, or something) but it was too late then. anyway, my real name is booooooooooooooooring. Even in real life i usually go by a nick-name of some kind (usually 'bitch', for some odd reason) i think, tho, its more done out of accepted practice: most people use pseudonyms, so most new people chose pseudonyms aswell. btw, are internet pseudonims real nouns? should they take capitals?

Do you think someones choice of avitar (and possibly username) says anything about them?

Im infering from that that you are also of the oppinion that "just because the state descides something is wrong does not make it wrong. If i descide that something is right, then i will follow my bellief and do it irreguardless of illegality." that kind of attetude should only be adopted by those who are mature and responcible, and who are both capable of and willing to concider their actions in great depth and from multiple points of view before doing anything, and even then should only be adopted with caution. Im sure youd be the first to complain if you were beaten up by someone who descided that beating people up is OK (despite the fact that its illegal), or if your mum was raped by someone who descided that the fact that the state descided that rape is wrong does not, in actual fact, make it wrong. I cant help but get the impression that you broke the law and are now throwing a wobbly at the fact that you got caught and punished, rather than accepting the repercuttions of your actions. proportionally more crimes. it may not sound an inportant difference, but it is. black people would have to put in a hell of a concerted effort to actually commit more than 50% of crimes.

replace 'black' with 'people who live in slums' then. Its still the same argument. And Im sure there are biological reasons why 20-25 year old males are more inclined to violence, yet we dont curfew them.

it depends how you look at it. statistically, in an area where crime is disproportionately commited by kids/blacks, then any given kid/black person is more likely than adults/whites to be a criminal. on the other hand, its unfair to judge either most kids or most blacks on the actions of what is generally a minority of that demographic. again, its generally a minority of the demographic. To argue the same thing but with kids replaced with blacks, theres generally some kind of local social reason why crime is commited disproportionately by blacks (in the areas where it is). So one could offer a reason why blacks are statistically more likely to commit crime, and then use it as justification for curfewing all blacks [edit]or, having read post #48, you could replace 'black' with 'poor' to get the same argument[/edit] but it would stop them from commiting crimes. I just feel were being a tad blazae about the rights of people who are < 16, whilst we wouldnt even dream of inpinjing on those same rights of a 20-25 year old by curfewing all, guilty and innocent alike, based on the behaviour of a minority of that age-group. If we were to curfew 20-25 year olds, I'm sure thered be numerouse accusations of contraventions of human rights, and no-one would react to those accusations by saying 'youngish adults deliver to the groin of common sence'.

again, tho, its statistically provable that in some areas a higher frequency of black people are criminals, but theres no curfews being inposed upon blacks. or, for that matter (to stick with age-based criteria), theres no curfews being plased on people in their early 20s, who are definately mostly responcible for violent crime. A tad strange that under-16s can be curfewed on the grounds that under-16s are yobbish, but theres no curfew for 20-25 year olds being proposed on the grounds that 20-25 year olds are violent.

as i understand it, the majority of malware are not compatable with linux; so, you might come into contact with them, but they shouldnt be able to install/work on your linux. Having said that, there are malwares specifically writern for linux, so for that reason (amongs others) its worth using a firewall even with linux. Id hazard a guess that linux with a firewall is probably safer than windows with a firewall. ZoneAlarm wont 'get' anything, what with it being a firewall and not a scanner*. It just stops (most) stuff from getting on your computer in the first place. [edit]* just remembered, ZoneAlarm do make anti-virus and anti-malware scanners, but i assume your talking about the bog-standard free firewall[/edit]

So does the law that says we cant kill people: thats limiting our freedom to be murderouse. I think you have to strike a balance... for example, by depriving me from the freedom to murder, you are also protecting me (and everyone else) from being murdered, so i think thats a more than fair trade. by prohibiting knifes on planes, you are again protecting people, and at what cost? is it really that much hassel to get by on a plane without a knife? no. again, fair trade-off of freedoms vs protection (or another way of looking at it: you loose your freedom to carry a knife, but your freedom to not get stabbed is protected to a higher degree; i think if you took a servay, most people would place more value on the latter) but by curfewing kids... sure you reduse crime, but at what cost to the kids? its alot more impacting to say that you cant go out after 9pm than to say that you cant have a knife on a plane. compare with this argument: "surely if we gave everyone a curfew of 9pm, crime would plummet". would you (assuming your 18+) be happy being cept inside after 9pm, even if you had a perfectly clean criminal record?

I swear I remember doing this before, and I swear I did it cos you linked to it Economic Left/Right: -6.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08 Same as nelson mandella, apparently.

I like this site (419 is nijerian police code for fraud) personally, i keep on getting invitations to view women 'nekkid' on their webcams.

Welcome, creationists, to Science Forums and Debate ======================================================== Please refrain from 'drive-by heathen-preaching', which is where you make one post scorning us for our 'belief' in evolution and then bugger off. This is a discussion forum, not a statement forum. We therefore ask that you stick around to discuss your points with us. Drive-by heathen-preaching tends to merely occupy the moderators' time deleting them, and paints creationists in a bad light. Purpose of this thread This thread was written due to the number of creationists who visit this site to argue against evolution. Whilst this is perfectly ok (this is, after all, a discussion forum), I felt that, due to the posting quality (or lack thereof) of most of the creationists, it would be useful to have a thread to direct them towards, priming them for the debate and addressing a few issues which we have become weary of repeatedly explaining. So, here it is... One thing to note: many of the creationists who have visited us previously have been loons, so I apologise in advance if parts of this post sound like I'm assuming that you're a loon. Religion is belief in powers beyond the five senses; science is an evaluation of empirical knowledge Neither needs to deny the other. It'd be worth bearing this in mind: its generally not worth the effort of trying to convince a scientist to believe that what he logically knows to be a fact is incorrect; likewise, it is usually not worth the effort of trying to logically prove that a religious persons beliefs are incorrect. For a scientist, logic usually trumps belief; and belief trumps logic for a creationist. Having said that, please do not confuse knowledge/logic with belief: please do not attempt to convince us to merely 'believe' that evolution is wrong, and please do not attempt to pass off your belief as evidence. Please bear in mind that this is a science forum: arguments against evolution should be logical/factual. Before you post, please... Read the forum rules. read things you need to know. Learn a little about how scientific arguments are conducted: scientific procedure: scientific procedure hypothesis: Blike's thread Theories/models: And explanation of an observed phenomena or process, which is consistent with observations made of that phenomena/process, and which is supported (and initially based upon) a collection of scientifically supported hypotheses. citing/referencing: Please indicate the source from which you got your facts. Be careful that your sources are reliable and accurate, and do not be offended if someone demands a source: its part of the scientifically process which we are all subjected to. How to cite and reference. logical fallacies; what to avoid doing: Here is a list of logical fallacies. They are invalid ways of applying logic. You may have your arguments rebuked by simple quotes of the name of the logical fallacy that you have committed (eg, 'appeal to tradition'). In which case, look the fallacy up, and either reword your argument so that it is not fallacious, point out why your original argument was not fallacious, or accept the rebuttal of your argument. Note that the accusing you of circular logic doesn’t mean that the claims are false, just that, logically speaking, you must prove them in another manner. Here are a few logical fallacies which visiting creationists have had difficulty understanding. STRAW MAN This is where you argue against a point which was never made, typically a warped version of what was said, which is easier to rebuke than the actual point which was made. An example would be claiming that, were evolution real, and as natural selection is constantly improving us, we should (according to the theory of evolution) be perfect by now. As we're not, evolution is patently untrue. This is a strawman because evolution does not claim that we should be perfect. We are continually 'improving', so to speak, in relation to our fitness to survive in our habitat. As our habitat is constantly changing, this makes 'perfection' hard to achieve. In addition, were we to attain perfection, we would more than likely lose it instantaneously due to our inclination to mutate -- losing this inclination to mutate would be losing our ability to adapt, and so we would hardly be 'perfect' for very long even if we did. So basically, the argument is attacking a claim which evolution doesn’t make, even by extension. For another definition, click here CIRCULAR LOGIC Circular, or self-referencing, logic (AKA begging the question) may well be cited when you attempt to use the fact that god wrote the bible to prove that the bible is correct, and the fact that the bible claims god exists to prove that god exists. The reason that these aren’t valid is pretty simply that you cant use two unproven things to prove each other -- and scientifically speaking, the bible and god are not proven (or disproven). At least one of them (god or the bible) would have to be proven independently of the other first. For another definition, click here And remember, testing an idea (eg, arguing against it, trying to pick holes in it etc) is part of the scientific process and nothing personal . What evolution is (and isn't) Right-ho, there’s a lot of confusion about this in the creationist camp. Basically, this is what evolution is: The change in allele frequency in a population over time Creationists generally define evolution thus: Evolution is the process whereby humans came from nothingness, without the aid of a god. This is not the scientifically definition of evolution. For a start, the last bit ('without the aid of a god') is not part of the theory of evolution (see below). In addition, by defining evolution as every process that happened in the chain of events that, starting from nothing, resulted in mankind, you are including a lot of theories which are not covered by the scientist's definition of evolution. You can still find many people who will discuss the other things here, but if you refer to them as evolution people will invariably get confused. Please bear in mind, then, that on this science forum 'evolution' pertains only to the change in allele frequency in a population over time, and the causes and effects thereof. By the way, the correct scientifically term for the all the events stretching from the creation of the universe to the creation of contemporary species is 'natural history'. what those other things are With their relevant field. The creation of the universe from nothing: the big bang (quantum physics) The formation of the earth and sun: planetology (physics, astronomy, geology) The creation of life from non-life: abiogenesis (biochemistry) The creation of the different forms of life: evolutionary history (biology, phylogenetics, paeleontology) The mechanism of the alteration/creation of the different forms of life: evolution (biology, genetics) Learn a little about evolution before completely dismissing it No-one is implying that you need to obtain a BSc(bio.) before you can comment on evolution; only requesting that you make an effort to understand what is said to you, and follow (and read) any links given, and -- mainly -- that you do not profess that the entire field is bull without understanding anything about it. As previously stated, no-one will deny you your right to believe whatever you want, by please do not pedal your beliefs as facts. If you wish to prime yourself with a little basic knowledge of evolution, then read below. Also, if you have a specific argument against evolution, it may be interesting to search for it here, where they have rebuttals of the more common creationists arguments. Basics of evolution by Mokele Evolution = change in allele frequency in a population over time Natural selection = differential propagation of genotypes (due to differences in ability to survive, resist disease, find mates, etc) Sexual selection = differential success in acquiring fertilizations between genotypes (a sub-set of natural selection) Genetic drift = the effects of random chance on evolution, mostly seen in small populations and on genes with low frequency Founder effect / genetic bottleneck = the isolation of a small random or nearly-random sub-set of a population, resulting in alterations in gene frequency due to chance. The modern technical definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time". In layman's terms, it defines evolution as genetic change in a population. There are several consequences of this definition. One is that non-selective forces that affect gene frequency (often strongly) have been incorporated into evolution. This is fitting, since these forces have actually had great impact. One is genetic drift, which is just the effects of random chance in a population. If you have two alleles, equally represented, but no selection acting on them, eventually one will vanish, just by chance, since animals die for non-selective reasons. Another is the founder effect, aka genetic bottleneck, in which a small sample of a population survives a disaster or colonizes a new location. Because this sample is small, chances are that not all alleles will be represented and that the ratio will change. Think of it like having a bowl of red, yellow and blue marbles, where red and yellow are 48% each and blue is 4%. If you take a sample of 9, red and yellow probably won't be equal anymore, and you might lose blue entirely. Then of course there's natural selection, the one we're all familiar with. However, it should be noted that it isn't progress towards perfection or even improvement in an absolute sense, but just adaptation to local conditions and selective pressures (environment, pathogens, parasites, etc). It can also prevent evolution. If you have a population with a bell-curve distribution of a trait, and the extremes are selected against, the mean value will never change. There's also sexual selection, the competition for mates and fertilizations, which can actually run counter to natural selection (with survival-decreasing adaptations like the peacock's tail). More: Demo's thread Radical Edward's thread Glossary of terms Evolution is not incompatible with the belief in a deity/deities Whilst evolutionary theory is, generally speaking, incompatible with a literal interpretation of the book of genesis, it is not incompatible with religious beliefs per se. The theory of evolution describes, scientifically, the mechanism by which life-forms change. Evolution makes no assumptions about why the universe exists in such a manner, or (strictly speaking) how the very first life arose. Nor does the theory of evolution eliminate the possibility that a deity(s) is guiding the process of evolution. Furthermore, evolution does not state or imply that humans do not have souls. The subject of souls is not a scientific one, so science officially has no opinion. Another common gripe with evolution is that it makes man 'less special'. All I have to say to that is that there was nothing special/distinct about the way humans evolved (compared to how other life-forms evolved); histologically, genetically, anatomically and generally all-round-physiologically, there is nothing to separate us from the majority of other animals (except in the way that all species are unique in some manner or another). And yet, we are the only animals which can utilise complex communication, use complex logic, build complex stuff, and have the biggest communities on the earth. There is lots that can be viewed as making humans distinct from other animals, which begs the question why? Why humans, and why only humans. These are questions that can be answered both scientifically and religiously. Basically, evolution could be viewed as making man less special, or it could not. Its a question of personal belief. Examples of how deism and evolution can be compatible The book of genesis can be viewed as allegorical deux ex machina: evolution exists/happens, but is guided by god. This is a very slightly different version of evolutionary theory, but scientifically there is no reason why it couldn’t be the case. It works like thus: imagine a dice is rolled. Whatever the outcome is, it will be unlikely. For example, if a three is rolled, there will only have been a 1/6 chance that that would happen -- ie, more likely than not that a three would not be rolled. Yet we accept the outcome as normal, aware that, unlikely as getting a three was, whichever outcome happened would be unlikely and so the unlikeliness itself is no reason to question its occurrence. However, of all those outcomes, is it not possible that god caused the three to occur? Yup. If the dice were rolled over and over again, then the high frequency of occurrence of the number three would tip us off as to something peculiar happening, but with just the one occurrence, gods' interference would leave absolutely no indications that things were being tinkered with. The implications of this are as thus: the evolution of any given body-plan (including humans) by a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations is slim. Yet humans evolved with exactly this body plan. Are we surprised that we evolved to this plan, when the chances of us possessing this plan were so slim? No. Because, whatever design we ended up with, the chances of getting that specific design would be slim (like the fact that whichever number the dice threw up would only have had the relatively small chance of 1/6), and so we don’t question the fact that this specific body-plan was unlikely to evolve. But, just like the 'god forcing a three' example, there would be absolutely no indication were the hand of god to have guided our evolution to yield this specific end-result, and so it is entirely possible that he did. deux in machina: The belief that all of the natural laws (including the ones that evolution follows) are created and upheld by a deity, whose essence basically keeps the universe 'ticking over'. (its worth noting that Catholicism teaches a form of creation/evolution which basically combines the above three concepts) really intelligent design: The belief that a deity had the uber-planning abilities to create a universe, including all of its energy, matter and laws, and furthermore to design aforementioned laws so that, completely unguidedly, they would result in the emergence of life. God then created the universe with a colossal explosion, and then watched his creation unfold, and life evolve as per his plans. And there are more (see here and here for some more ways in which evolution and religion can be compatible). I'm not trying to convert you to any of the above beliefs, just demonstrating that the theory of evolution is NOT incompatible with belief in god(s), or belief in god(s) as creator. Its an issue which comes up repeatedly, and hopefully this post will save having to explain it again. Some useful facts which most visiting creationists have been unaware of Evolutionists are not all atheists and/or Satanists. Scientist are not all atheists and/or Satanists. Atheists are not all Satanists. Evolution is not incompatible with the belief in deities, or the belief that a deity(s) created life, the universe and everything (see above). Science itself is agnostic. To believe or not to believe, for every person, is a matter of personal belief. Some may base their decision not to believe on science, others may base it on something else. Others still base their decision to believe on science, and the wonders and complexities of the universe that it reveals. Basically, there is no reason, scientifically, not to believe in god; nor has science disproved god. Virtually no-one accepts Darwinism anymore. Aspects of Darwinism have been taken, improved upon, and mixed in with modern genetics and Mendel's theories of inheritance, to form the 'modern synthesis', which is the current model of evolution. We are well aware that the theory of evolution is a theory, and are not trying to convince anyone otherwise. If we were trying to hide the fact that it is a theory, then choosing to call it 'the theory of evolution' would have been a mistake. Inserting the word 'just' before the 'a theory' bit accomplishes nothing. Science does not claim that humans evolved from apes or monkeys; rather, that humans, apes and monkeys share a common ape-like ancestor. And finally... I hope you enjoy your time here on science forums and debate. If you treat others politely and with respect, you will be treated likewise. You may receive some animosity due to the behaviour of previous creationists who have visited this site and behaved/argued poorly (and I'm afraid that, more-often-than-not, they do), in which case I apologise in advance and suggest that you request that they not pre-judge you based on the behaviour of previous visiting creationists. Please do not feel offended if your threads get moved into the philosophy and religion or pseudoscience and metaphysics forum, as they will still more-than-likely be replied to. And please feel free to stick around after your argument against evolution has ended. You will undoubtedly be an asset to the religion and philosophy forum, and you may learn a little more about science, even if its only in a 'know your enemy' kinda way Last thing: remember that, as a creationist, you represent creationists as a whole: insanity, stroppieness, hypocrisy and failure to grasp simple concepts will not improve the light in which creationists as a whole are viewed. Inversely, sanity, reasonableness, refrainment from hypocrisy and the ability to grasp (but not necessarily accept) simple concepts will go some way towards reversing the bad image that the majority of the previous visiting creationists have left us with. --------------------------------------------------- If you find yourself repeatedly having to explain something to the visiting creationists, feel free to add a reply to this thread so we can link to it My thanks to Phi For All and Mokele for their help in creating this post

Welcome, creationists, to Science Forums and Debate ======================================================== Please refrain from 'drive-by heathen-preaching', which is where you make one post scorning us for our 'belief' in evolution and then bugger off. This is a discussion forum, not a statement forum. We therefore ask that you stick around to discuss your points with us. Drive-by heathen-preaching tends to merely occupy the moderators' time deleting them, and paints creationists in a bad light. Purpose of this thread This thread was written due to the number of creationists who visit this site to argue against evolution. Whilst this is perfectly ok (this is, after all, a discussion forum), I felt that, due to the posting quality (or lack thereof) of most of the creationists, it would be useful to have a thread to direct them towards, priming them for the debate and addressing a few issues which we have become weary of repeatedly explaining. So, here it is... One thing to note: many of the creationists who have visited us previously have been loons, so I apologise in advance if parts of this post sound like I'm assuming that you're a loon. Religion is belief in powers beyond the five senses; science is an evaluation of empirical knowledge Neither needs to deny the other. It'd be worth bearing this in mind: its generally not worth the effort of trying to convince a scientist to believe that what he logically knows to be a fact is incorrect; likewise, it is usually not worth the effort of trying to logically prove that a religious persons beliefs are incorrect. For a scientist, logic usually trumps belief; and belief trumps logic for a creationist. Having said that, please do not confuse knowledge/logic with belief: please do not attempt to convince us to merely 'believe' that evolution is wrong, and please do not attempt to pass off your belief as evidence. Please bear in mind that this is a science forum: arguments against evolution should be logical/factual. Before you post, please... Read the forum rules. read things you need to know. Learn a little about how scientific arguments are conducted: scientific procedure: scientific procedure hypothesis: Blike's thread Theories/models: And explanation of an observed phenomena or process, which is consistent with observations made of that phenomena/process, and which is supported (and initially based upon) a collection of scientifically supported hypotheses. citing/referencing: Please indicate the source from which you got your facts. Be careful that your sources are reliable and accurate, and do not be offended if someone demands a source: its part of the scientifically process which we are all subjected to. How to cite and reference. logical fallacies; what to avoid doing: Here is a list of logical fallacies. They are invalid ways of applying logic. You may have your arguments rebuked by simple quotes of the name of the logical fallacy that you have committed (eg, 'appeal to tradition'). In which case, look the fallacy up, and either reword your argument so that it is not fallacious, point out why your original argument was not fallacious, or accept the rebuttal of your argument. Note that the accusing you of circular logic doesn’t mean that the claims are false, just that, logically speaking, you must prove them in another manner. Here are a few logical fallacies which visiting creationists have had difficulty understanding. STRAW MAN This is where you argue against a point which was never made, typically a warped version of what was said, which is easier to rebuke than the actual point which was made. An example would be claiming that, were evolution real, and as natural selection is constantly improving us, we should (according to the theory of evolution) be perfect by now. As we're not, evolution is patently untrue. This is a strawman because evolution does not claim that we should be perfect. We are continually 'improving', so to speak, in relation to our fitness to survive in our habitat. As our habitat is constantly changing, this makes 'perfection' hard to achieve. In addition, were we to attain perfection, we would more than likely lose it instantaneously due to our inclination to mutate -- losing this inclination to mutate would be losing our ability to adapt, and so we would hardly be 'perfect' for very long even if we did. So basically, the argument is attacking a claim which evolution doesn’t make, even by extension. For another definition, click here CIRCULAR LOGIC Circular, or self-referencing, logic (AKA begging the question) may well be cited when you attempt to use the fact that god wrote the bible to prove that the bible is correct, and the fact that the bible claims god exists to prove that god exists. The reason that these aren’t valid is pretty simply that you cant use two unproven things to prove each other -- and scientifically speaking, the bible and god are not proven (or disproven). At least one of them (god or the bible) would have to be proven independently of the other first. For another definition, click here And remember, testing an idea (eg, arguing against it, trying to pick holes in it etc) is part of the scientific process and nothing personal . What evolution is (and isn't) Right-ho, there’s a lot of confusion about this in the creationist camp. Basically, this is what evolution is: The change in allele frequency in a population over time Creationists generally define evolution thus: Evolution is the process whereby humans came from nothingness, without the aid of a god. This is not the scientifically definition of evolution. For a start, the last bit ('without the aid of a god') is not part of the theory of evolution (see below). In addition, by defining evolution as every process that happened in the chain of events that, starting from nothing, resulted in mankind, you are including a lot of theories which are not covered by the scientist's definition of evolution. You can still find many people who will discuss the other things here, but if you refer to them as evolution people will invariably get confused. Please bear in mind, then, that on this science forum 'evolution' pertains only to the change in allele frequency in a population over time, and the causes and effects thereof. By the way, the correct scientifically term for the all the events stretching from the creation of the universe to the creation of contemporary species is 'natural history'. what those other things are With their relevant field. The creation of the universe from nothing: the big bang (quantum physics) The formation of the earth and sun: planetology (physics, astronomy, geology) The creation of life from non-life: abiogenesis (biochemistry) The creation of the different forms of life: evolutionary history (biology, phylogenetics, paeleontology) The mechanism of the alteration/creation of the different forms of life: evolution (biology, genetics) Learn a little about evolution before completely dismissing it No-one is implying that you need to obtain a BSc(bio.) before you can comment on evolution; only requesting that you make an effort to understand what is said to you, and follow (and read) any links given, and -- mainly -- that you do not profess that the entire field is bull without understanding anything about it. As previously stated, no-one will deny you your right to believe whatever you want, by please do not pedal your beliefs as facts. If you wish to prime yourself with a little basic knowledge of evolution, then read below. Also, if you have a specific argument against evolution, it may be interesting to search for it here, where they have rebuttals of the more common creationists arguments. Basics of evolution by Mokele Evolution = change in allele frequency in a population over time Natural selection = differential propagation of genotypes (due to differences in ability to survive, resist disease, find mates, etc) Sexual selection = differential success in acquiring fertilizations between genotypes (a sub-set of natural selection) Genetic drift = the effects of random chance on evolution, mostly seen in small populations and on genes with low frequency Founder effect / genetic bottleneck = the isolation of a small random or nearly-random sub-set of a population, resulting in alterations in gene frequency due to chance. The modern technical definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time". In layman's terms, it defines evolution as genetic change in a population. There are several consequences of this definition. One is that non-selective forces that affect gene frequency (often strongly) have been incorporated into evolution. This is fitting, since these forces have actually had great impact. One is genetic drift, which is just the effects of random chance in a population. If you have two alleles, equally represented, but no selection acting on them, eventually one will vanish, just by chance, since animals die for non-selective reasons. Another is the founder effect, aka genetic bottleneck, in which a small sample of a population survives a disaster or colonizes a new location. Because this sample is small, chances are that not all alleles will be represented and that the ratio will change. Think of it like having a bowl of red, yellow and blue marbles, where red and yellow are 48% each and blue is 4%. If you take a sample of 9, red and yellow probably won't be equal anymore, and you might lose blue entirely. Then of course there's natural selection, the one we're all familiar with. However, it should be noted that it isn't progress towards perfection or even improvement in an absolute sense, but just adaptation to local conditions and selective pressures (environment, pathogens, parasites, etc). It can also prevent evolution. If you have a population with a bell-curve distribution of a trait, and the extremes are selected against, the mean value will never change. There's also sexual selection, the competition for mates and fertilizations, which can actually run counter to natural selection (with survival-decreasing adaptations like the peacock's tail). More: Demo's thread Radical Edward's thread Glossary of terms Evolution is not incompatible with the belief in a deity/deities Whilst evolutionary theory is, generally speaking, incompatible with a literal interpretation of the book of genesis, it is not incompatible with religious beliefs per se. The theory of evolution describes, scientifically, the mechanism by which life-forms change. Evolution makes no assumptions about why the universe exists in such a manner, or (strictly speaking) how the very first life arose. Nor does the theory of evolution eliminate the possibility that a deity(s) is guiding the process of evolution. Furthermore, evolution does not state or imply that humans do not have souls. The subject of souls is not a scientific one, so science officially has no opinion. Another common gripe with evolution is that it makes man 'less special'. All I have to say to that is that there was nothing special/distinct about the way humans evolved (compared to how other life-forms evolved); histologically, genetically, anatomically and generally all-round-physiologically, there is nothing to separate us from the majority of other animals (except in the way that all species are unique in some manner or another). And yet, we are the only animals which can utilise complex communication, use complex logic, build complex stuff, and have the biggest communities on the earth. There is lots that can be viewed as making humans distinct from other animals, which begs the question why? Why humans, and why only humans. These are questions that can be answered both scientifically and religiously. Basically, evolution could be viewed as making man less special, or it could not. Its a question of personal belief. Examples of how deism and evolution can be compatible The book of genesis can be viewed as allegorical deux ex machina: evolution exists/happens, but is guided by god. This is a very slightly different version of evolutionary theory, but scientifically there is no reason why it couldn’t be the case. It works like thus: imagine a dice is rolled. Whatever the outcome is, it will be unlikely. For example, if a three is rolled, there will only have been a 1/6 chance that that would happen -- ie, more likely than not that a three would not be rolled. Yet we accept the outcome as normal, aware that, unlikely as getting a three was, whichever outcome happened would be unlikely and so the unlikeliness itself is no reason to question its occurrence. However, of all those outcomes, is it not possible that god caused the three to occur? Yup. If the dice were rolled over and over again, then the high frequency of occurrence of the number three would tip us off as to something peculiar happening, but with just the one occurrence, gods' interference would leave absolutely no indications that things were being tinkered with. The implications of this are as thus: the evolution of any given body-plan (including humans) by a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations is slim. Yet humans evolved with exactly this body plan. Are we surprised that we evolved to this plan, when the chances of us possessing this plan were so slim? No. Because, whatever design we ended up with, the chances of getting that specific design would be slim (like the fact that whichever number the dice threw up would only have had the relatively small chance of 1/6), and so we don’t question the fact that this specific body-plan was unlikely to evolve. But, just like the 'god forcing a three' example, there would be absolutely no indication were the hand of god to have guided our evolution to yield this specific end-result, and so it is entirely possible that he did. deux in machina: The belief that all of the natural laws (including the ones that evolution follows) are created and upheld by a deity, whose essence basically keeps the universe 'ticking over'. (its worth noting that Catholicism teaches a form of creation/evolution which basically combines the above three concepts) really intelligent design: The belief that a deity had the uber-planning abilities to create a universe, including all of its energy, matter and laws, and furthermore to design aforementioned laws so that, completely unguidedly, they would result in the emergence of life. God then created the universe with a colossal explosion, and then watched his creation unfold, and life evolve as per his plans. And there are more (see here and here for some more ways in which evolution and religion can be compatible). I'm not trying to convert you to any of the above beliefs, just demonstrating that the theory of evolution is NOT incompatible with belief in god(s), or belief in god(s) as creator. Its an issue which comes up repeatedly, and hopefully this post will save having to explain it again. Some useful facts which most visiting creationists have been unaware of Evolutionists are not all atheists and/or Satanists. Scientist are not all atheists and/or Satanists. Atheists are not all Satanists. Evolution is not incompatible with the belief in deities, or the belief that a deity(s) created life, the universe and everything (see above). Science itself is agnostic. To believe or not to believe, for every person, is a matter of personal belief. Some may base their decision not to believe on science, others may base it on something else. Others still base their decision to believe on science, and the wonders and complexities of the universe that it reveals. Basically, there is no reason, scientifically, not to believe in god; nor has science disproved god. Virtually no-one accepts Darwinism anymore. Aspects of Darwinism have been taken, improved upon, and mixed in with modern genetics and Mendel's theories of inheritance, to form the 'modern synthesis', which is the current model of evolution. We are well aware that the theory of evolution is a theory, and are not trying to convince anyone otherwise. If we were trying to hide the fact that it is a theory, then choosing to call it 'the theory of evolution' would have been a mistake. Inserting the word 'just' before the 'a theory' bit accomplishes nothing. Science does not claim that humans evolved from apes or monkeys; rather, that humans, apes and monkeys share a common ape-like ancestor. And finally... I hope you enjoy your time here on science forums and debate. If you treat others politely and with respect, you will be treated likewise. You may receive some animosity due to the behaviour of previous creationists who have visited this site and behaved/argued poorly (and I'm afraid that, more-often-than-not, they do), in which case I apologise in advance and suggest that you request that they not pre-judge you based on the behaviour of previous visiting creationists. Please do not feel offended if your threads get moved into the philosophy and religion or pseudoscience and metaphysics forum, as they will still more-than-likely be replied to. And please feel free to stick around after your argument against evolution has ended. You will undoubtedly be an asset to the religion and philosophy forum, and you may learn a little more about science, even if its only in a 'know your enemy' kinda way Last thing: remember that, as a creationist, you represent creationists as a whole: insanity, stroppieness, hypocrisy and failure to grasp simple concepts will not improve the light in which creationists as a whole are viewed. Inversely, sanity, reasonableness, refrainment from hypocrisy and the ability to grasp (but not necessarily accept) simple concepts will go some way towards reversing the bad image that the majority of the previous visiting creationists have left us with. --------------------------------------------------- If you find yourself repeatedly having to explain something to the visiting creationists, feel free to add a reply to this thread so we can link to it My thanks to Phi For All and Mokele for their help in creating this post

what, after we'd had the war and after we'd finished complaining loudly about it. still, i suppose bush was in the area, and i doubt that anyone searched him have they actually established which group was responcable yet?

they have, indeed, called off their plans to buy claria, but they shouldnt have concidered it in the first plase, considering they own an antispyware program -- talk about a conflict of interests! The fact they abused their trust as an antispyware program producer to effectively delist claria products whilst they were concidering purchasing claria is dispicable. by-the-by, have downloaded knoppix and am playing around with it. its too early to pass judjemnt, but im already surprised by how fast it runs, concidering its running off of a CD.

It was sarcasm. If you dont bother to make sure your sites are compatible with non-IE browsers, then people with non-IE browsers possibly have trouble getting onto your site, and so dont bother? Anyway, i see 25% non-IE browsers, a full 1/4 of all your visiters! yes, IE accounts for the majority -- 75% -- but 25% is by no means insignificant. back on topic, iv downloaded knoppix and am playing about with it. it seems quite fast, considering its running from the CD drive.

I wonder why you have so few visiters using non-IE browsers

If there were a religion forum and a philosophy forum, then: where would buddaism go? where would athiesm go? where would spirituality go? where would religiouse philosophy go? Where would philosophical questions about the nature of religion go?

tbh, i think kids who commit crimes get off too lightly... like those 'happy slappers' atm mentioned, refered to as 'towny little f***s' where i come from. they dont seem to ever get punished, and thus have little deterrent. I say, punish the kids who commit crimes more and leave the rest alone. there really is no reason that they (law abiding kids) shouldnt be able to see a late-night-movy at the cinema, or walk back from their mates at late o'clock. Personally, the one guaranteed way to make me completely disreguard any given authority is if that authority punishes me when im following their rules.