GarthP2000

The answer to you is: Never. Period. End of story. P.S., and not to worry MarkO. I don't think that being a Catholic bishop is (or should be) a crime. ... Really. ... Truly. ... Why, some of my best friends are Catholic. So you can come to the front of the bus now. Being Catholic is still legal (at least in most states and principalities. Check your local listings).

Frankly, I think they should just legalize the weed -- totally! A-yup, legalize it. For one thing, how many people have died from smoking weed, hmmm? ..... Answer: 0! How many people have committed domestic violence from smoking weed? Same number (or if there are those who get violent from smoking the stuff, the number is so damn low, nobody sees it). How many people have died in traffic accidents from smoking Maryjane? How many people have really went on to *stronger* drugs because they 'started out' on marijuana? How many people have gotten cancer and bronchitis from smoking marijuana? You compare the effects overall that marijuana has had on people, and the abuses therewith, and you compare that with the results from smoking cigerettes, or drinking alchohol, ..... No contest! At all! Oh, by the way, I don't smoke marijuana. At all. Never have. (As tho' that really matters) ... And I am still for its complete legalization.

A quick question, if I may. How does one access this podcast? Thanks!

Cuz she like hockey *extremely* well?

I got to the button that said "Order 5 Star DVDs" ... and then I knew that it ain't free. Nice try, but I think I'll pass on that 'green card', thank you very much. <_<

Dmiller (and others who evidently see a *Constitutional Rights* issue here in how the police supposedly **abused** their power), Hhmmmm, now this presents quite a puzzle. Lemme think for a second which is worse here: 1) Someone barrelling down the 35 mph limit street (which could have very well been a rather busy street, even with pedestrians crossing the street, or cars pulling out into it here and there) at 127 mph (a very LETHAL speed if/when you are hit by said vehicle, even if you're inside your car). Ie., a (even potentially) very dangerous situation setup by an unthinkably pathological, self-centered twit. or 2) The seizure of the car from said unthinkably pathological, self-centered twit by police, and them then using it for the DARE -- Drug Abuse Resistance Education -- program, (Did I get the font sizes right, Dave? ;) ) a _dangerous_ and out-to-lunch 'gummint' program (perhaps because they are following Nancy Reagan's lead, and trying to get kids to "Say NO!" to drugs), a program that had nothing to do with speeding, thus causing a fraudulant misrepresentation of law enforcement (just so they can get a fancy car :B) ) and show it off to the kids they are trying to keep off drugs. ... HOW DARE THEY?!? The vile deceivers! Never mind that nobody gets hit by a 127 mph lethal weapon in such a program, --- but never mind that insignificant side detail here. They are (mis)using that fast car for D.A.R.E Drug Abuse Resistance Education -- program. <_< Now can anyone see what is wrong with this picture here? P.S., and for those who think that unlawful _stealing_ is going on here, ... Gee, I was under the impression that said arrangement and program was legally set up according to the laws of the particular state. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

No, my answer is "I believe that evolution theory is true because other people has presented enough connecting (and logical) evidence to convince me that said theory is true. I have rejected the creationist theory because simply presumptively believing the scriptural account, and blindly having that at the unquestionable standard stops that theory from having any scientific basis applied to it whatsoever." And as to the argument that the same blind faith is being applied to the theory of evolution, my answer to that is, there are indeed certain scientists who treat evolution like its an article of faith. But that's the in-duh-vidual doing that. Keep in mind that Darwin didn't come up with the idea of evolution, _then_ went out to look for evidence to back it up. He dealt with it from the scientific standpoint: Investigate first, come to your (tentative) conclusion afterwards. Conclusions based on faith (which creationism is when you boil it right down) come to the conclusion first, _then_ scrounge around for evidence to back it up, and reject any evidence that doesn't comply with the faith conclusion. And because of that, its creationism as a whole that is based on blind faith. Tell me something. If we are to accept theories like (Christian based) creationism as scientific alternatives, then why not accept the Hindu creation account? I mean, can you disprove that theory? You weren't there to observe the process, so how do you really know that that isn't true? ... Or how about applying that test on the Greco-Roman myth creation account? ... Or the Norse Viking account, complete with Odin and Thor? ..... I mean, really. Can you really disprove all that? See what I mean?

Bolshevik, Do you think that _all_ sciences are based on exclusively direct observation of the object(s) in question? What about archeology? Direct observation of the person who's bones we study, and whos writings we may come across? How much in that scientific discipline is not based on direct observation? And yet is regarded widely as based on fact?

Bolshevik, You didn't stop the video when Carl said that there would probably be 10 other systems in the galaxy, did you? From my perspective, I just have a very hard time believing that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe. Sorry chief, but my 'gut reaction', coupled with just the massive amounts of other stars throughout the galaxy alone, let alone counting the billions and billions of other galaxies, ... Nope, no sale. And even just having it at 10 is (AFAIC) highly unlikely. True, I'm a lowly science layman, and can give you no scientific research, copiuos amounts of data, and Mr. Spock to prove my point. ... Then again, niether do you. So from that perspective, its a stalemate. Until, .....

Yet, even with those 'unlikely odds', when taken into account the (Carl Sagan accent on) 'billions and billions and billions' (Carl Sagan accent off ;)) of stars, in the billions and billions of galaxies in the (known) universe, the odds of us being 'the Only ones', even on its face, ... drops. Significantly.Here's more of an in depth look at expanding what I'm talking about. ... True, it isn't proven, but I think that, even with a cursory understanding of statistical math, the man provides a rather valid point: Enjoy!

Man, I don't know if I can wait that long.

Good! Perhaps before then, you can post a question that shows that you put some thought behind it, as the 'which came first - the chicken or the egg' question is laughable, both from a biological/evolutionary standpoint, as well as a philosophical one. Especially if you're going to use it as an attempt to pose a valid challenge to evolution. I'm not a scientist perhaps, and even I can see that.

... the species/genus/family before it. NEXT! P.S., I find the question humorous too, ... in that you actually consider that a possible serious question to ask. ... particularly coming from a science teacher who teaches biology. :huh:

The evidence is speaking for itself. It's just being blindly discarded to the side because most Creationists absolutely refuse to seriously consider it, particularly of it crosses/challenges Scripture. Or maybe we're on the 'defensive' (as you love to call it) because it isn't evolution itself that is being 'defended' here, but the process of science itself; the discovery, the analysis, the scrutiny, the challenging of ideas held because of blind obedience, the daring to lay aside of That Which is Determined to be True Because The Holy Writ Says So. Ie., the open process of thinking for ourselves, and demanding that things be either a) proven, or failing that b) are based upon the preponderance of the evidence, more than any competing theory. And since you're so up on Charles Darwin, perhaps you have read about his history, particularly in when he challenged the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church of England, and what he had to go through because they stoutly stood against his theory of evolution, and they did so precisely because he openly challenged the Genesis account. (Their attitude which does nothing to show their dedication to independent thought, wouldn't you say?) The Scopes Trial, same attitude. Openly challenging the Scriptures wasn't tolerated there. And they were blatent about it. (Hell, many of their descendants in Dayton Tenn. still stand behind the Creationists as regards that case. ) Nowadays the process against evolution is more subtle, more indirect. Now they want Creationism and ID to be taught as 'alternative' science. And the core reason why many scientists are against this isn't because of some mistaken (yet still popular) belief that evolution shall be the ONLY theory taught, like it was some freekin' gospel, but rather, because Creationism is anchored irremovebly on maintaining the authority of the Scriptures as regards the Genesis account, that alone keeps it from being regarded as a genuine science. Ie., the Genesis account is not allowed to be challenged, tested, scrutinized, criticized, etc. ... not if you are going to consider yourself a Creationist. They presuppose the Scriptures to be true regarding the earth's beginning, and then go from there to find supporting evidence. Ie., the decision has been made first, the 'research' comes after. ... An approach that has all the integrity of VPW's version of 'research', no matter how well its presented.

My avatar is of course, Zonker from Doonesbury. That guy is so cool, and a total riot. Oh yeah, he's a slacker, but he's a slacker with a big heart. :B)

Bingo!!

Heh! Gotta love the ad at the bottom for Careers in Law Enforcement/Policing (from Kaplan U.) Be willing to bet that one of favorite courses is "High Speed Chases: Techniques and Tricks!" featuring that car. Videos supplied by World's Fastest Police Chases TV series from CourtTV. :D But seriously, I kinda side with Linda and Notawayfer on this one. Speed kills, and I'm not talking about the drug. There is no comparison between getting caught with a reefer in the glove compartment, ... and speeding down the highway at 127 mph, endangering anyone unfortunate to accidently get in his way. I just LOVE 'reasoning' like that! 'POTENTIAL' danger, nobody gets hurt. So why the big deal. . . . . . until someone gets killed! A little too late to go 'Oops!' then. <_<

So let me get this straight. You don't believe in the Creationist account? ... Then why defend it as tho' you do? :unsure: And as far as 'bringing religion into this', its the Creationists who bring religion into this, by their dogged refusal to allow their Genesis creation account to be scrutinized/challenged by evolution or anything else. They were like that back in Darwin's day, and they are still like that today.

Ahh, not so fast. So because it was science sites _addressed to children_ is why you dismiss it out of hand, ... while you respond with "Obviously something over your head.", that 'something' being your own opinion of the matter, non-scientifically backed, of course. It must be a real kick in the teeth when it takes a couple of childrens sites, backed by theories reached through valid and proven science, 'kicks to the curb' your counterarguments, backed by nothing more than a religious doctrine and your dedication to such. ... Life is so unfair sometimes, isn't it? P.S., oh, and your usage of this: "However, due to my lack of knowledge in this topic and the conflicting numbers of scientists, my values may be off. I suppose there's no agreeable data because there is probably no real efficient method of measuring all the tectonic plates on earth. . . . Also, the earth is constantly changing and so there is no exact number to reflect the velocities of the plate tectonics." doesn't even begin to address the scientific impossibility of the earth going through such massive tectonic changes in such a short amount of time. Suffice it to say that the movement of the plates is extremely slow on an inch(es) per year basis, and no evidence of any major and rapid movement of said plates/continents in such a short time has been found. ... At all. What this does mean is valid and proven science isn't something that comes up as The Answer all at once. Ie., its an ongoing process, where more and more information, evidence, and proof is being found, tested, and applied on a continuous basis. This illustrates one of the mistakes Creationists make when dismissing science. Ie., there are 'gaps' in scientific theories, sometimes big ones, ... at first. And creationists _presume_ that scientific theories are nothing more than flawed guesswork, and leave it at that. But as more research is done, those 'gaps' get filled in with valid information, ... and proof. Such is the theory of evolution. Back in Darwin's day, the theory was quite primitive as regards the amount of data Darwin had, ... as compared with now. Oh, and using the argument that plate tectonics as being a new science to dismiss or downplay it does nothing to disprove the facts that are already known due to this 'new science'. ... Again, some Creationists see the threat to their Genesis doctrine due to tectonics, and they go ape-s**t. ... Again, it boils down to the ongoing point of defending the Genesis creation account, at all costs. And I oughtta know, as I used to be one of them and I am well familiar with the mindset. ... Ie., Been there, done that, ... burnt the t-shirt. Frankly, those kid sites show a helluva lot better understanding of the scientific process than that looney bin up in Kentucky.

What? Did you miss the link provided by Oenophile? Ie., http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml, which provides a thorough explanation, as well as footnotes to resources. And as a counterargument, you provide, ....... what? :unsure:

... which means that over the past 6,000 years, means that it would have moved over an intercontinental, multi-time zone distance of ... only 510 meters. ... Ie., only a little over half a kilometer. ... Ie., only about 1600 feet. ... Ie., only about 5 1/3 football fields end-to-end. ... Ie., only ......... The scientific soundness of Creationism comes through again! ..... ..... Yah! <_<

Because Creationists keep bringing it up as the final authority, and the authority that they just won't challenge. They are often open minded and apply independent scrutiny towards a lot of things scientific, ... until they come to a scientific claim that crosses the Bible. Then they back off from that, and remain obedient to the Scriptural account in Genesis, no matter what the evidence might be to the contrary. And I've heard just as lame arguments like that as a desperate attempt to rendering racism as a necessary result of evolution. I've heard John Schoenheit's tape on evolution making that outrageous claim (and his pi** poor attempt to 'document' that), and from a few other sources. Now you want to stir up that wasted canard. ... Give your reputation a break. Get a better argument! <_<

On the contrary, I know that many (if not all) of us who learned and accept evolution as factually true want for people to understand it. See what it all consists of, and all. ... As hard as this may be for you to believe this, I don't want you to accept evolution simply because some authority figure says so. You make up your own mind on that. But when the growing evidence is leaning more and more towards evolution, and you have the biblical literate people go ape-s**t over that, and for no better reason than that it is challenging what their scriptures say, then they really have no solid standing to accuse evolutionary biologists of blindly accepting anything. Ie., it would clearly be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And what (terrible I presume?) social implications would that be? :o

... and since when were Creationists a 'race' of people? Hiding behind the race card, I see. ... Desperate, really desperate.

Proof that irony is indeed entertaining. A line uttered by a creationist: "I wish people would have the guts to think for themselves." ((Wiping tears away)) Thanks for the hearty laugh!