 | | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) Although indirectly it seems that you are agin debating terminology and avoiding the real question (unless you misunderstood what I (they) meant by "transitional". Why are there no fossils that demonstrate transitions between any modern (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) I'm with Scott A. on this, while all patterns are equally likely (in a fair draw) to come up, if you want to maximize your expected result, choose patterns less likely to have been selected so you reduce the odds of splitting with someone (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) I've detailed this in previous posts, including the following one where I made a distinction between evolution as a process and the theory of evolution: (URL) that we are discussing material presented in schools, and so I will reiterate here (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) Well, definitely such a sequence is much less likely than a more "random looking" sequence. If you 6 numbers are the digits 1-9, there are only 4 such sequences compared to a total of 9!/3! sequences (if each digit can only occur once, 9^6 (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...)
|
|
(...) Most definitely, but that's only because there are more non-sequential combinations. But any PARTICULAR non-sequential combination is just as likely, obviously... (...) And again, the same applies... given that it'll be sequential, the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
For “sequential” read “consecutive” (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) Almost all the draws in the UK are live. There are “independent adjudicators” present to confirm that there is no shenanigans underway – what these people’s skills are I do not know. I doubt that you could discount a draw due to the selection (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) Actually, I honestly wonder whether they'd 'let' such a combination pass... I'm willing to bet that if they got the combination 1,2,3,4,5,6, that lots of people would insist that it was rigged, even if it didn't happen.... I dunno what they'd (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) If the UK lottery usage is anything to go by, I would avoid those numbers. I am sure I am right in saying it is the most common combination selected. If/when you win, you will have to share it with a lot of other players! That said, the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) And I'd argue that that's JUST as likely as any other combination of numbers, accepting that each lottery number is as equally likely to appear as the next. Hence, you're fine. (...) The difference is in the inherent behavior of the system. (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Dunno, are we? Are you actually saying that God needs to be fair? I certainly hope so-- but my personal interpretation from your side would be that God IS fair, not in a descriptive sense but in an equating sense. Part of what defines your God (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) If this is all you want, no problem. I concede that the creationist beliefs (as they relate to macroevolution) are not impossible. They are highly unlikely, unverifiable, and unsupported by the available observations, but I concede that it is (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) And that's EXACTLY my point. Let's take your argument to the next level. What if I say I worship Quazmon. Quazmon's my version of God. He delights in the suffering of his creation and abhors selflessness. He created the world to be very (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bxoing as a 'Youth' Sport.?
|
|
There is a good overview given here: "Boxing: The health risks" (URL) A "Ed "Boxer" Jones" <edboxer@aol.com> wrote in message news:G7pvrJ.DF@lugnet.com... (...) be (...) control... (...) times (...) boxing is (...) brain (...) fights (...) more (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bxoing as a 'Youth' Sport.?
|
|
(...) I have been boxing for decades (hence my alias - Ed Boxer). I train 3-4 times a week, I still fight white collar amateur exhibition fights. While it is true that repeated blows to the head cause brain damage, boxing is one of the safest sports (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bxoing as a 'Youth' Sport.?
|
|
(...) "aggression" is common to many sports. The problem with pugilism is that its aim is to give the opponent, at least, short term brain damage. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bxoing as a 'Youth' Sport.?
|
|
Does anyone have an opnion on this? Personally I feel that openly violent sports (such as boxing) should not be encouraged in schools. The problem with Boxing being that it normally invloves driect phyiscal agression against the two opponents.. This (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) What Larry meant was because Creationism explains everything, it really explains nothing. "Tigers look like lions" -- God's plan; "Dinosaurs don't graze on grassy plains all over the world any more" -- God's plan; "Plant chlorophyll has DNA (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) IANAP (I am not a paleontologist), but I'm not sure that the fossil record shows either of these things. It shows the spatial and historical pattern of life on earth (what lived where, when), but we can only infer the evolutionary process from (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Schoolbooks due suffer from a variety of errors. This however is not because Darwinian Evolution is wrong, but rather because the people writing the books are more interested in selling them then getting their facts right. (...) For the same (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
