quote:
Actually, Wolverine's mutation is regeneration. The metal claws were part of a military experiment. People get this wrong all the time.
actually being an comic book fan/freak, the claws are bone, the adamantiam was part of the experiement. his mutation is his claws, heightened "animal like" senses i.e. smell, and extremely high regeneration. If you don't believe me, check out the origins series that has wolverine's beginnings as a sick little boy.
over exaggerated writing is simply my sarcasism used to illustrate a point in a more humorous tone, as in the point is made, but not in such a serious and technical tone as everyone seems to take it.
(hint: generalization)sometimes the way we view things is not based on logic, but our point of view that is developed from life's experiences.
quote:
"Don't set up a false dichotomy here. There aren't just two points of view, and most informed people of almost every belief system are satisfied with the evidence for evolution. My belief system has changed much throughout my life, and the evidence has always been convincing to me. I managed to be a YEC for a while because I was deceived by misuse of anecdotal evidence and unsupported assertions that I had an emotional need to accept."
again those are just two examples of the whole, an illustration and extreme generalization. not to mentnion I used these two fields because they are supposed to be unbiased of any opinions, but if you watch any current forms of news, they are far from it. you're not supposed to use clitches when reporting facts, stories, and you supposed to report both sides fairly, and not give commentary from the news room, nor are you supposed to report statistics based on 500 in the New York and call its America's latest poll, which NBC is extreme terrible for. I majored in communications, so I used something that I see.
Science...as the in the field of science that does most of the speaking out. Does it represent the majority? probably not, but they usually get the most press and usually are your extremists.
example...kansas school system
some schools don't carry religious classes unless its a university or college.
quote:
"The problem is that when you lay it out that way, if you insist on the false dichotomy view of things, there is absolutely zero evidence for a supernatural creation. The only evidence presented by "creation science" is actually evidence claimed to discredit some aspect of the theory of evolution or of related issues like the age of the earth. Virtually all of it can be rebutted by even an educated layman."
again people only view things from a perspective, you view me as a christian and automatically assume that I am saying view creationism as a science. ::rolls eyes:: what I am saying is that lay out what facts there are.....
if there are none, they you lay those out. if there are some, then you lay those out and you go from there. I'm saying that if people are so convicted about proving things, they should be able to get an education so they know what they have currently have available for information, in which most cases, schools do not give that option in the states much lesses have the sources (as in regards to highschool students). You're given a limited amount of options in a brief amount of time.
I gladly admit I was one of those students who wanted more information, i did not have access to a computer till I was in college. And most teachers taught things that were teaching as if it was a common law and that it can't be debunked. if it is a theory, then anything is possible, even if it unlikely.
unbiased opinion of theory would simply state as some of you have stated that most facts point towards evolution. personally I can't conclude carbon dating as pure fact because it can't be tested empirically since we as a race have not been alive that long. It assumes alot of constants. I can concur with evidence presented with natural selection.
theories can still have the option of being debunked, if it was totally unrefutable, it would be a law. yes there are facts other wise it would never have become a theory in the first place. i.e. continental drift theory vs plate tectonics
no offense and not to sound ignorant, but they are teaching gravity as a law in school. whether this is a misrepensentation of the truth, I don't know. Theory is a strict code of facts...like in music, however theory in music can sometimes be broken and rules can be bent because it is not law, which leads to people thinking outside the box.
and if you have people that think outside the box as well as other thinking inside and they work together....
maybe sooner or later you can prove things without a doubt.
I do believe microevolution is present and something that is proven in our history, but macroevolution hasn't been proven to the point of beyond doubt. There are still very few mutations that have proven not extremely harmful off the top of my head i can only think of gold fish being of one example of non-harmful mutation.
as for blue eyes, from my understanding it was a gene already included in the genetic make-up that is more recessive than brown eyes and more dominant than green or hazel.
mockery i have found in people. I've e-mailed and asked questions, most of the times getting no answers.
The only journals that I've read were probably about 8 years ago. about the time my teachers killed any love of science that i had left by discussions like why should sciencetist have to have any morals, they should do science and let man do what he wants with that information that science obtains...like the atomic bomb
my problem with that is that we know that there are minority of people who are just not right in their minds, lust for power and they misuse technology/science for their personal gain.
Again from my perspective (opinions and perspective are like butts...everyone has one) from a technology standpoint, porn is a waste of space on the internet that jams up traffic on the net and if you're like me and can only afford dial-up it sucks, not to mention the web is a wonderful too for learning, but often is filled with lots of deceit and misinformation because anyone can build one these days..
so that ruined it for me. Just the thought of no rational placements of precautions to prevent misuse of knowledge that could be used for something worthwhile...
by the way most of creationism is philophical and belief based. example: explanation of DNA to some creationists is that its like an organic binary code that is too complex to just "happen" and that it needs a programmer to design that complex code and like any programing code, it has its own language that can write many different programs, i.e. various animals. etc etc.
Where I live..again perspective....their have been alot of debates held at churchs, schools, etc from both many sides of things and thats where I get the idea of mockery from.
VCU specifically has been bad about this. Their science department is bad about this and often mocks students who do believe in God.
time: A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
i know this off the topic, but how do you measure time? how do you know it exits? speed=distance/time right? so we somewhat correlate that things change partly because time is always moving forward. then the speed of something is calculated by the distance from point a to point b then devided by time. so is there a constant that doesn't change so that we can measure time somehow other than a system of irreversible succession that never stops? something to compare it to? just curiousity. I'm sure some kind of physics answers this. but personally i have no clue
™ Version 4.2
