THOTH

You exactly "prove" my point...you fail to understand the difference between a "proof" - which exists only in mathmatics and "eveidence" which is in the realm of science. It is impossible for evolution to be disproveed mathmatically at this time because one cannot accuratly determine all of the processes that must be disproved. We are still in a process of discovering what these thinsg are - as the science and our understanding advances. In the meantime evolution is considered factual based on the available - very good empiricale evidence. To deny that it is true is to say that you don't believe in science and scientific method. So yeah - the earth was made in 7 days..is 4,000 years old and all of that...LOL - rihgt..yeah show me the matmatical proof of that! LOL

You fail to understand scientific method http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html Also - do you take Asprin for headahes (or at least admit that folks do and that it is effective)? - well do you understand the exact chemical proces why it works? No - but it can be obseved to be effective - thus the statement that Asprin has been proven to cure (some/most/whatever as appropriate) headahces is true. We wouldn't just chew bubble gum to cure a heacdache now would we? Seems to em that You and Sasun are of the belief that we can just make up some explanation and our belief alone is val;id for it to be true...not.

Leonard Krishtalka, director of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. Referring to ID, he said, "That's a religious belief, and science has no comment on that." Referring to the lack of understanding of the evolution of a living cell, Dr. Kristalka commented: "The absence of knowledge does not mean the answer is a supernatural creator." and more... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html And from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...finetuning.html "...Creationism is a vacuous theory: intelligent design does not make any real predictions. It doesn't even attempt to explain why we have the specific laws we do instead of others, i.e. others that would support life. It is thus not much of an explanation, being empty of any substantial content. For instance, why is the speed of light just what it is instead of something else? The theist can only appeal to God's whim, while the scientist pursuing methodological naturalism has a good chance of finding a natural reason for the value of the speed of light. And we can say this, because history proves that the odds are entirely on his side (cf. my "Prima Facie Presumptions vs. The Lessons of History"). In contrast, what a Creationist theory ought to predict, which a naturalistic theory would not, does not turn up. The laws of physics proceed without any regard for right or wrong, good people or bad, and they proceed relentlessly and monotonously, never demonstrably deviating, much less with anything like a value-laden purpose; resources are arbitrarily limited and randomly distributed without regard for merit; and no clear supernatural events or messages are present in any of our lives--guns are not suddenly turned into flowers, churches are not protected by mysterious energy fields, True Bibles are not indestructible nor do they glow in the dark, preachers cannot regenerate lost limbs, and when we ask God a question, with all sincerity and earnest urging, we never receive a clear, reasoned answer that all can hear and agree upon. Thus, intelligent design is a rather poor explanation for the universe we have, whereas a naturalistic theory fits it like a glove. We are faced with what is ultimately a mindless, careless, silent and blind machine. Doesn't it make more sense that it should have an ultimately mindless, careless, silent and blind cause? The point is that Intelligent Design really doesn't bring anything to the table as far as explaining our universe, our actual universe. By focusing solely on one single feature, an "ability to produce life," Fine Tuning proponents miss the forest for the tree."

Here is a good one (and from a Christian site no less!) Various U.S. court decisions have concluded that "creation science" is not actually science. This is because the beliefs of creation scientists cannot be falsified. i.e. it would be impossible for a creation scientist to accept a proof that naturalistic or theistic evolution is true. That is because their fundamental, foundational belief is that the Book of Genesis is inerrant. All physical evidence is judged by comparing it to Genesis. No evidence from nature can disprove this belief. Once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of their scientific studies, they no longer are free to follow where the data leads; they cease being a scientist. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_over.htm Oh and at the very bottom of the page: Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems. LOL

Yes who is the ignorant one...

Well - thats not what I see right off the bat - if you look at the first post. And in fact, if so, tey are still essentially wrong... "... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd. I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. " - Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988), from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985). Great guy...got to meet him once! Oh and please also read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html (actually back it up and read the whole thing - as i posted earlier)

More...a must read if you really doubt (and care)...go ahead...take your time...lol http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Yeah Axel (#6), Sev Marde et al - I have the whole series on DVD..and before that on video (Beta even!)...am a long time fan..great stuff....so much (very cool stuff) most of you young folks are completely unaware of...pity...

I agree completely...except for the Jewsih part of it..I mean Jews normally don't care for Christmass..and besides they have a bunch of their own holidays anyway...mor epower to them i say...but yeah Valentines day and showing your love...I'm all for it...and some people do need to be remined (sad)...but I think its those of us who show stuff evry day who even tend to do abit more and enjoy it a bit more...I certainly enjoy the extra affection! LOL

Gurgen - that is a current picture..photography had not been invented in ancient times! Our technology has EVOLVED quite a bit since then....

Oppurtunity is th driving force. Does water run downhill because of suopernaturla intervention..no there is such a thing as gravity..and this complels this action. In nature - which is both chaotic and orderly (but ultimatly variable and unpredictable)..and (demonstratably) mutable - we see that organic life mutates and adapts and that often these mutations prove the difference for survival thus those with these new traits do so - and reproduce - etc etc - its all really very simple..and i do suggest reading Darwin himself (as I have) - Origin of the species is fascinating stuff - anyone with an open and inquisitive mind cannot help but be amazed...and no need to supppose forces and the like - for which no proof whatsoever can be generated - to expalin what is easily understood and plain to see...

Please understand a few things: - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981: "Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. ... There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination." Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986: "...in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution": (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml) "...evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

Species is a human defined categorization with a greta deal of variability. We discover new "species" all the time...and clearly - as Darwin saw - many of these are specific adaptations for environments etc etc. That you question evolution...yet are all impressed by various (all of the above) conspiracy theories...well doesn't really say much for your opinion on anything - IMO)

Mouse...while there is certainly something to what you say here (and as if this is news to some of us)...its also way overblown (IMO)..but yes if you look at the history of banking in Europe and the whole system of national debt used to pay off all these various wars etc etc...well yes - seems something of a conspiracy...and much of the rest as well....trouble is...secret societies or no...its just not in mans nature (to be able to pull it off)...and its funny to me that the greatest villains in much of thee conspiracy theories - the Jews - seem to have come off at the short end of things quite a bit....anyway...fun speculation...but beyond that....hmm...welll....

Good question number 6.

Yes Armat - i'm with you..what a joke. Evolution is fact - as much fact as is possible..probably even more factual then your mathmatics Anon...like who is really to say/know/understand the real topology of the universe (or OK Domino multiverses) etc etc...talk abotu theories without much proof...and regarding fluctutions in the belief of such...and subject to extreme paradigm shifts...etc etc

TB - I agree and I disagree. Sure I would love to see more posts and involvement (information adn ideas) from folks who have knowledge and interest in wjats goign on in Armenian and in improving the conditions over there - and have ideas to do such, plans for such etc. And we seem to be lacking really knowledgeable and intererested folks in this area at this time...(though I would like to see such I do not fit this profile unfortunatly). I also like to see commentary and input on and about Armenians in the Diaspora - and we are seeing much of this IMO - and some of the changes in our forum are perhaps reflective of changes here as well- and that just is. I also like to see folks expressing (and sharing) their interest in arts and culture and history and life in general - and we have much of this. Overall I don't think that things are so bad - but yes could certainly be improved - and yes I would like to see less of the out and out useless/silly threads and posts...but what is one to do? (and some are fun as well - and I approve...I just said I would personally prefer less...) ...Have to work with what you have - and I don't see that we can't have a bit of both. It seems to me that when interested/knowledgeable folks post ineresting and worthwhile posts that normally they are followed by like discussion. So its up to those who care about such to initiate this sort of thing. And he - this is the internet...you will always have your Anonymouses and such...you just deal with the fact that you can't trust everything you read and that there will be a certain amount of out and out crap.... As for me I have considered leaving this forum recently, and still might..but for personal reasons...though I do admit that I find much (but not all) of the discussions of late much less interesting that they have been in the past. But on the other hand I do think there are some great new posters who have much worthwhile to contribute..even if it may not be along your ideal lines TB. I'm just not sure - for myself - that weeding through the chaff and all the rest is worthwhile for me right now..and perhasp you and others are at similar decision points....but whatever..its what you make of it I guess...and frankly I wouldn't have bothered this posting or any more at all if it wasn't for someone pleading with me not to leave because of the contention that what I post is/has been worthwhile...but perhaps they are mistaken eh? ...I am not so sure myself at times... For what might be valuable and interesting to some might just be total garbage to others...(and I can envision who is nodding their head thinking of my posts right now...)..but who is really to say who is right and who is wrong or better yet if both might be right and wrong...

Yes very well said Sev-Marde. And to em these Armo guys deserve what they get - which is hopefuly not much (consideration)...

Anileve - a former g/f of mine is an agent who books jazz & comedy acts in the city. She also sings herself - wonderful voice...but its with blues (where her voice is low down sultry/raspy) where she shines (think of the movie commitments if you want to get a sense of her repitoire...and more of course...she's been in several bands...often several at once...one I recall was the Rockomatics...another - don't remember the name of it..but it was her fronting a bunch of entertainment industry lawyers who had this little side jazz band...forgot the name - but it had something to do with being lawyers..anyway...) Her (current?) husband is a producer of Jazz acts and owns his own studio. They press their own CDs and sell them in the city. Its way cool. Every so often I'll head up to the city and we'll hit the clubs all night and party..way fun...she likely books act at your little club..sounds like her kind of place...

please...you can do better...

Acher - sorry you didn't like 1984..but somehow I can see that you missed the point of it. Its always been a favorite of mine of course..and not just because the main character and I share names...its really a classic - with a great many truisms for our age..just as is Adolos Huxly's Brave New World - alnong very related lines...I recommend both most highly. And no Dan...don't think that she quite ruined it...

? ...utterly bored is more like it

LOL Steve - got to say - good one!

Dan - i am claimign no such thing - I was paraphrasing others here on this forum. In general i think these kind of arguments are rathewr silly. yes it can indeed be interesting discussing where people might have come from and such...but the take on the issue is where I have the problem...this claim that the Jews of today have no linkage to the Hebrews of the bible - and so on and so forth...

Yeah a real book is better...the only way unless one is really desperate....and Maral - those without kids here really don't have a clue do they...its tough to find time -and peace & quiet - to actually sit down (or curl up) and read a good book....it just doesn't happen...or rarely (though for those of us with limited time - but who drive a lot - books on tape can be awesome!)... And Dan - have you read "The Razors Edge" by Maughm? or even seen the movie - with Bill Murray (and don't laugh he was great in it)...both highly worthwhile!