PhDP

Well... It could be difficult to respect the new rule as it goes harder. And about 30 it's easy IF sqrt(4) is ok (which, from a technical point of view, isn't).

4!+4+(4/4)=29

4!+(4+4)/4 = 26

[(4!*4)+4]/4 = 25

4*4+4+4 = 24

4! - 4^(4-4) = 23

4!-4+(4/4)=21

4!-4-(4/4) = 19

(4*4)+(4/4)=17

(4*4)+4-4=16

(4*4)-(4/4)=15

Lamarck wasn't very interested in religion while working on evolution and Darwin lost a lot of faith because of evolution. Also, science predate christianity and you certainly don't need god as an assumption to do science. Faith, any faith, is in contradiction with the spirit of science, how could faith in the christian god a necessary assumptions ?

That's a quite surprising statement.

Just get Stewart's Calculus. And you don't need a "teacher" to slow you down, there's plenty of math freaks all over the internet to help you (some of them even gather here at dusk).

Personally, I would prefer anthropology, but they don't really study the same thing, so no one is better than the other, they're different.

Shouldn't that be in "Pseudoscience and Metaphysics" ?

I just looked at it; press F1, it gives you all the important informations

y = x^2 = x squared

The molecular clock doesn't need to assume that.

Even simpler... [math] \lim_{x\to 8} \frac{e^x-e^8}{\sqrt{x+1}-3} [/math] With L'Hospital's Rule; [math] \lim_{x\to 8} \frac{\frac{d}{dx}\left(e^x-e^8\right)}{\frac{d}{dx}\left(\sqrt{x+1}-3\right)} [/math] [math] \lim_{x\to 8} \frac{\frac{d(e^x)}{dx}-\frac{d(e^8)}{dx}}{\frac{d(\sqrt{x+1})}{dx}-\frac{d(3)}{dx}} [/math] [math]\lim_{x\to 8} \frac{e^x}{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x+1}}}[/math] [math]e^8 \times 2\sqrt{8+1}}}[/math] [math]6e^8[/math]

He's like Ann Coulter and Jerry Falwell, you cannot take him seriously, but he's a very funny guy. My 2 favorites from Robertson; "The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they know what was going on.The people in the land of Palestine was very wicked. They were given over idolatry; they sacrificed their childrend; they had all kinds of abominable sex pratices; they were having sex, apparently, with animals, they were having sex men with men, and women with women; they were committing adultery, fornication; they were worshipping idols, offering their children up; and they were forsaking God. God told the Israelites to kill them all - men, woman and children, to destroy them. And that seems to be a terrible thing to do. Is it ? Or isn't it ? Well, let us assume there were 2,000 of them. I don't have the exact number. Pick a number. God said, 'Kill them all.' Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it ? That would be 10,000 who would probably go to Hell. But, if they stayed and reproduced, in 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 100 more years, they could conceivably be - 10,000 would go to a 100,000 - 100,000 could conceivably go to a million. And then, there would be a million people who would have to spend eternity in Hell ! And it's far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a 100 years down the road, and say, "Well, I have to take away a million people that would forever be apart from God, " because the abomination was there like a contagium, God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to chance; their hearts weren't going to chance; and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites, and pull the Israelites away from God, and prevent the truth of God from reaching the Earth. So, God, in love, took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number." "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

It's an interesting species, and the speculation about it's evolution is also interesting, but I think an honest answer would be; we don't know exactly. I don't think we'll ever be able to understand the exact evolution of all organisms.

It IS out of context and it is NOT a perspective on design. You really need to look further before making claims like that. Einstein was a pantheist, he believe God = Universe, he didn't believe in any intelligent, sentient God. When he said "God doesn't play dice", he was just refusing the indeterministic aspect of quantum physics, it have nothing to do with evolution.

You don't buy the limited knowledge argument, yet you attack evolution without knowing it, no ? Just look in this forum, it's full of creationist who doesn't have a clue about evolution, you won't heard from them rational argument about population genetics or serious critics about peer-to-peer reviewed articles, it's always the same kind of argumentation; ID is gaining ground, teach the controversy, lack of fossils, new informations on genome... I give you a mechanism which increase the quantity of informations on the genome, polyploidy, but I think (I might be wrong), but I think you don't have a clue what it is, the only thing you can do is looking for ID websites of books to answer to that. Do you know what evolution is, or did you reject it before knowing it ? About Einstein... I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. He didn't believe in a personal God, so how could he believe in design ? Also, he DID have a very limited knowledge of biology, he was monomaniac.

Intelligent Design is mostly an christian and American ideology, condemned by most biologists. In term of education, it make the U.S. look like a country of the third world. I don't see France, Quebec, US, Germany or Sweden considering teaching religious ideology in a science class. I think it IS offending that you defend ID before reading about evolution more deeply. You'll encounter lot of agressivity from evolutionists, when you are repeating the claim Intelligent Design is gaining ground, it's very frustrating, because every evolutionary biologist know it's false. ID can convince non-biologist and the public, biologist won't fall that easily. Most people who defend ID have a very limited understanding of evolution.