gribbling

So what... Michael is the only one who doesn't get a "Happy Ever Afterlife?"

Or could the creators just not get the actor for the final episode?

If that is indeed the case:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200812...

then doesn't that mean that in any theological argument, neither side can use scripture to support their case (since the other side may reasonably object that they are using the scripture incorrectly)?

Creationists, which (if any) of these statements summarise your stance on the theory of evolution?

I’m not trying to start a tirade of abuse or flame-style name-calling here: I am genuinely curious about the reasons why people reject the theory.

If you could also state the level of scientific education you have, I’d appreciate it.

If more than one reason matches-up, then feel free to select them all.

Also, if you have a different reason, then please state that instead (and I’ll maybe add it in as another option for others to select)

[1] there is so much evidence disproving the theory that many scientists reject it.

[2] there is stronger evidence against it than there is for it; the fact that so many scientists still believe it just shows they don’t know how to do their jobs.

[3] there is stronger evidence against it than there is for it; the reason why so many scientists still support it is because they are atheists who need an excuse to reject God.

[4] while it is true that many scientists believe it – it is only a theory and not a law, so it is still reasonable not to believe it.

[5] many scientists reject the theory, but they are afraid of speaking-out because they’ll immediately be harassed or fired for questioning the scientific consensus.

For completeness’ sake, this question is going to be posted on both Religion & Spirituality and on Science & Mathematics: Biology.

Thanks.

Creationists, which (if any) of these statements summarise your stance on the theory of evolution?

I’m not trying to start a tirade of abuse or flame-style name-calling here: I am genuinely curious about the reasons why people reject the theory.

If you could also state the level of scientific education you have, I’d appreciate it.

If more than one reason matches-up, then feel free to select them all.

Also, if you have a different reason, then please state that instead (and I’ll maybe add it in as another option for others to select)

[1] there is so much evidence disproving the theory that many scientists reject it.

[2] there is stronger evidence against it than there is for it; the fact that so many scientists still believe it just shows they don’t know how to do their jobs.

[3] there is stronger evidence against it than there is for it; the reason why so many scientists still support it is because they are atheists who need an excuse to reject God.

[4] while it is true that many scientists believe it – it is only a theory and not a law, so it is still reasonable not to believe it.

[5] many scientists reject the theory, but they are afraid of speaking-out because they’ll immediately be harassed or fired for questioning the scientific consensus.

For completeness’ sake, this question is going to be posted on both Religion & Spirituality and on Science & Mathematics: Biology.

Thanks.

I heard an interesting thing on the radio last night:

apparently at any one time, the UK has about 800,000 books in print and in circulation. This is 4 times the number the USA has in circulation.

Given the relative populations of the UK and the USA, this means that, per head of population, the UK has about 75 times the number of books in print that the USA does.

What, if anything, does this mean? Especially given that the Literacy rates of the two countries are roughly comparable (both 99%, or ranking 18th).

Called "The **** Game"

Interested to see what people come up with for this one...

It's a game with movie titles, where you take the movie title and substitute the word "****" for a word in the title (hopefully to amusing effect).

Admittedly, it works best when you are drunk.

The best ones I've heard so far:

The **** Whisperer (The Horse Whisperer)

Enter The **** (Enter The Dragon)

An **** Full Of Dollars (A Fistfull Of Dollars)

Gorillas In The **** (Gorillas In The Mist)

Every Which Way But **** (Every Which Way But Loose)

Arsebiscuit (Seabiscuit)

My Big Fat Greek **** (My Big Fat Greek Wedding)

So - what can other people come up with?

When people ask "If God is omnibenevolent, then why is there evil in the world?", the normal reply is "Because God wishes us to have free will. So He allows us the option to turn our backs against Him and thereby to bring evil into our lives."

My counter-point then is this:

God was the one who created the universe. So He defined what "Free Will" is, and what "evil" is. He *could* have created another form of free will which did not allow us to do evil - but He did not.

A response to *that* is to say "Yes. But God has a plan we cannot understand. All of this - including the form of free will He created in us - is part of that plan. And this plan is one that we cannot understand."

And my response to *that* is:

OK - but God also created our minds and our intelligence. He could also have made us in such a way as to have an understanding of His plan, and thereby removed the obvious cruely in giving us free will which neccessarily implies evil. But He did do that either.

When people ask "If God is omnibenevolent, then why is there evil in the world?", the normal reply is "Because God wishes us to have free will. So He allows us the option to turn our backs against Him and thereby to bring evil into our lives."

My counter-point then is this:

God was the one who created the universe. So He defined what "Free Will" is, and what "evil" is. He *could* have created another form of free will which did not allow us to do evil - but He did not.

A response to *that* is to say "Yes. But God has a plan we cannot understand. All of this - including the form of free will He created in us - is part of that plan. And this plan is one that we cannot understand."

And my response to *that* is:

OK - but God also created our minds and our intelligence. He could also have made us in such a way as to have an understanding of His plan, and thereby removed the obvious cruely in giving us free will which neccessarily implies evil. But He did do that either.

Warning - spoilers!

I just watched this recently, and a thought occurred to me:

Indy (and his dad) both drank from the Holy Grail in "The Last Crusade", right?

So shouldn't they have been immortal?

I don't think this was addressed in the movie. His dad had died, and Indy had aged (even commenting on this with Mac at the beginning). But they didn't even refer to the Grail at all, did they?

You hear a lot about the "secularisation" of western society nowadays: about how the church (or mosque, or temple, etc.) no longer plays as central a role as it used to, and about the rise in atheism and agnosticism.

My question is - is this really happening? What statistics are there to support this allegation? If it is happening, does it vary from country-to-country and ethnicity-to-ethnicity?

You only have to browse through questions in many different sections here in Y:A, and in other fora elsewhere on the net to see a lot, even a disporoportionate amount of issues regarding religious issues: evolution vs creationism is an obvious example, but so is debate of the Archbishop of Canterbury's statements, and the allegations of rising Islamic fundamentalism.

Are these debates truly reflective of the opinions and moods of modern society, or is it just a side-effect of the openness of the internet for such issues to be aired?

You hear a lot about the "secularisation" of western society nowadays: about how the church (or mosque, or temple, etc.) no longer plays as central a role as it used to, and about the rise in atheism and agnosticism.

My question is - is this really happening? What statistics are there to support this allegation? If it is happening, does it vary from country-to-country and ethnicity-to-ethnicity?

You only have to browse through questions in many different sections here in Y:A, and in other fora elsewhere on the net to see a lot, even a disporoportionate amount of issues regarding religious issues: evolution vs creationism is an obvious example, but so is debate of the Archbishop of Canterbury's statements, and the allegations of rising Islamic fundamentalism.

Are these debates truly reflective of the opinions and moods of modern society, or is it just a side-effect of the openness of the internet for such issues to be aired?

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is generally considered as a sub-species of the wolf (Canis lupus).

The wolf itself has several sub-species: Timber Wolf (Canis lupus lycaon), Arctic Wolf (Canis lupus arctos), European Wolf (Canis lupus lupus), the archetypal Grey Wolf (Canis lupus), and more.

And, of course, there are many different breeds of the domestic dog, from the Chihuahua to the St. Bernard.

My question is:

If the Chihuahua and St. Bernard are physically incapable of mating with each other, due to the difference in size, can they be considered to have speciated?

I received an email recently with this in it:

(I could read it fine, BTW)

________________________________________________

Are you one of the 55 people out of 100 who can read this?

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

________________________________________________

So - my question(s):

Why can't some people read it? Does this have anything to do with dyslexia? What about other languages like Chinese with entirely different methods of constructing words?

Right.

4 days ago, I posed a question asking how many people believe in Neo-Darwinian Evolution. I posed this question on both the Religion & Spirituality and Biology categories, and said I'd post the results.

The Results were:

For Biology: 58% Yes, 21% No, 21% neutral

19 respondants in total.

For Religion & Spirituality: 55% Yes, 39% No, 6% neutral

32 respondants in total.

Right.

4 days ago, I posed a question asking how many people believe in Neo-Darwinian Evolution. I posed this question on both the Religion & Spirituality and Biology categories, and said I'd post the results.

The Results were:

For Biology: 58% Yes, 21% No, 21% neutral

19 respondants in total.

For Religion & Spirituality: 55% Yes, 39% No, 6% neutral

32 respondants in total.

Right,

A few Q&A recently on evolution have prompted me to ask:

How many people on this site believe in Neo-Darwinian Evolution?

You don't have to post any *reasons* why you do or do not believe. I think the standard reasons are probably "taken as read" - I'm just interested, and am going to post this on both the Science and Religion fora.

I'll also post the results once this question's time is up.

Right,

A few Q&A recently on evolution have prompted me to ask:

How many people on this site believe in Neo-Darwinian Evolution?

You don't have to post any *reasons* why you do or do not believe. I think the standard reasons are probably "taken as read" - I'm just interested, and am going to post this on both the Science and Religion fora.

I'll also post the results once this question's time is up.

I mean - have I missed some major news story, or what?

... where one constituent is completely surrounded on all sides by the other?