I'm not sure where you get that languages are developed inadvertently.
If I take that same paper and crumple it into a shapeless mess, the shapeless mess is not intelligently designed even though I have some modicum of intelligence.
Click me
Posted on 04/19/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A new article in PLoS Biology (April 18, 2006) discusses the state of scientific literacy in the United States, with especial attention to the survey research of Jon D. Miller, who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School.
To measure public acceptance of the concept of evolution, Miller has been asking adults if "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals" since 1985. He and his colleagues purposefully avoid using the now politically charged word "evolution" in order to determine whether people accept the basics of evolutionary theory. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of Americans who reject this concept has declined (from 48% to 39%), as has the proportion who accept it (45% to 40%). Confusion, on the other hand, has increased considerably, with those expressing uncertainty increasing from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005.In international surveys, the article reports, "[n]o other country has so many people who are absolutely committed to rejecting the concept of evolution," quoting Miller as saying, "We are truly out on a limb by ourselves."
The "partisan takeover" of the title refers to the embrace of antievolutionism by what the article describes as "the right-wing fundamentalist faction of the Republican Party," noting, "In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, and Texas all included demands for teaching creation science." NCSE is currently aware of eight state Republican parties that have antievolutionism embedded in their official platforms or policies: those of Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas. Four of them -- those of Alaska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas -- call for teaching forms of creationism in addition to evolution; the remaining three call only for referring the decision whether to teach such "alternatives" to local school districts.
A sidebar to the article, entitled "Evolution under Attack," discusses the role of NCSE and its executive director Eugenie C. Scott in defending the teaching of evolution. Scott explained the current spate of antievolution activity as due in part to the rise of state science standards: "for the first time in many states, school districts are faced with the prospect of needing to teach evolution. ... If you don't want evolution to be taught, you need to attack the standards." Commenting on the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover [Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.], Scott told PLoS Biology, "Intelligent design may be dead as a legal strategy but that does not mean it is dead as a popular social movement," urging and educators to continue to resist to the onslaught of the antievolution movement. "It's got legs," she quipped. "It will evolve."
I agree regarding Chomsky. His death will be celebrated, but not so much his birth. And that's just by linguists. I call him the American Lysenko.
Well said, and well worth the saying.
Your own high standards of courtesy, consideration, and noble sentiment are much appreciated, such as the use of "jerk" at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1617533/posts?page=1148#1148
Who can say that chivalry is dead?
Heh. As a drummer, I'm sure that happens as well.
I knew you were going to say that! ;?)
No, my friend, I don't live in a binary world of absolutes. Drunk driving is not a crime because it results in CERTAIN death. It just imposes a risk of injury or death (a higher risk of injury or death if you want to get technical) upon innocent people who have not made that choice. I think any rational person can see an analogous situation in the withholding of life-saving medical treatment.
Your question was in response to a question (which you also never "addreeds"ed, btw), and implied that, since killing children already happened everyday (abortion), there was nothing wrong with a parent withholding medical treatment. If that was not you intent, perhaps you should clarify: do parents have the right to refuse ANY or ALL medical treatment at the risk/expense of their children's lives? Such a notion is alarming to most people, certainly most parents.
You know, I can understand some parents seeking "alternative" treatments when commonly accepted methods aren't working and their child's life is on the line. I can imagine I'd try just about anything to save my own children. But to refuse ANY treatment? It reminds me of backpack-laden children in the Middle-East, furthering the "cause" of their parents.
Average anuual temperature, degrees Fahrenheit.
Riyadh 77.4 F
Khartoum 84.6 F
Rio de Janeiro 73.9 F
Alice Springs, Australia 69.3 F
Mexico City 60.8F
Note that South America is quite pink in the map you posted, particularly the Amazon basin. Note also that radiation isn't strictly a function of the average temperature, but the average fourth power of the absolute temperature. I'll explain that to you if you ask nicely. Extreme conditions, such as are experienced in the central Sahara and Arabian peninsula in the summer, strongly perturb the result.
Ireland is such a great place. Why did you leave it to come to the land of eejits?
I don't understand. I've never had the slightest wish to live in North Texas.
Whorf also has a neat diagram of English spelling. It's actually a finite state machine, although called such by Whorf. I've used it as a basis for a random pronounceable password generator.
Chomsky didn't even understand when he got things right. In his work on English spelling, he came up with a set of rules that had to be applied in a certain order to root forms. These rules (derived synchronically) correspond to the historical changes in the order that these occured. Chomsky denied that this was true.
Chomsky was also hung up on binary trees. One can derive a better grammar sometimes (case grammar) by using multiple branches. Chomsky was always against such an idea.
I am of the opinion that grammar is not as important in natural language as it is in formal language.
I'm not sure where you get that but the inadvertent modification of language by a being that has intelligence does not make the evolution of language the result of intelligent design. Design indicates an intent, something that for the most part does not occur in language change. In fact language changes more or less at random as pronunciation and primary meaning drifts from one generation to another and words from other languages are co-opted.
Claiming intelligent design for any and all connections between humans and a process, no matter how tenuous the link to 'intelligence' or 'design', broadens the definition of 'intelligent design' to a point where it becomes meaningless.
If I take a page of letter size paper and fold it into a paper airplane that paper airplane can properly be called intelligently designed. If I take that same paper and crumple it into a shapeless mess, the shapeless mess is not intelligently designed even though I have some modicum of intelligence. Please do not point out that the paper is 'designed', the origin of the paper is a separate issue, we are concerned with the result of my actions, not a paper mill's.
Indeed you did. However the point you were trying to make, that countries who contribute the most CO2 should absorb more heat than countries who do not is incorrect. An increase in CO2, methane, and/or H2O is dispersed globally so will increase heat in all areas equally. To support the view that mean global temperature is not rising you would have to compare the same heat maps taken a number of decades apart. As they are they do nothing but show the heat variance in different areas of the earth. As is, they are incapable of showing any global mean temp. change.
Yeah that is why all life saving procedures are mandatory.
BTW speed kills.
To quote someone famous... "No shit, Sherlock". But the temperature used is Kelvin not Fahrenheit.
K K^4 xK/288K 288 6879707136 1 289 6975757441 1.013961394 290 7072810000 1.028068472 291 7170871761 1.042322241 292 7269949696 1.056723717 293 7370050801 1.071273915 294 7471182096 1.085973857 295 7573350625 1.100824566 296 7676563456 1.11582707 297 7780827681 1.130982399 298 7886150416 1.146291588 299 7992538801 1.161755674 300 8100000000 1.177375699 301 8208541201 1.193152708 302 8318169616 1.209087749 60F=288K 84F=302K 380/190 = 2.0And you make North Texas extremely happy that you stay where you are in your confused condition. BTW to help you out of your confused state, North Texas is not spelled Northern Ireland.
I'm not sure where you get that languages are developed inadvertently.
If I take that same paper and crumple it into a shapeless mess, the shapeless mess is not intelligently designed even though I have some modicum of intelligence.
Click me
Wrong.
An increase in CO2, methane, and/or H2O is dispersed globally so will increase heat in all areas equally.
Oh really? Then why does smog linger around big cities? Or why is Miami more humid than Death Valley?
CO not CO2 but relevant
I see spots.
Indeed. That is what we mean by 'absolute temperature'. To quote someone even more famous, "Doh!"
I'm sure most Northern Irelanders are thankful for that. The murder rates in North Texas would scare them.
Fortunately for you, irrelevant and/or inane statements don't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.