running watches academy image
Confused
I have been watching yahoo answers for a few months, but just made a account so I could ask, what is the proof for and against evolution?
I see many in here say there is tons of proof for it and none against, and others say there is tone against it and none for. The can not both be true, and I'm confused.
I will post this in science, and in religion.
To the evolutionists, what proof is there?
To the creationists, what proof is there?
Answer
As you will notice from the other answers so far, the word "proof" is your first problem.
In science it's really important to understand the difference between *evidence* and "proof." Evidence accumulates. Proof is absolute. In other words, evidence is based on observation piled on observation ... no one of which "proves" something, but all of which considered *together* makes it more and more likely. "Proof" is absolute ... once proved, it can never be "unproved" ... it is proved by logic alone (not on observations which are dependent on the accuracy of our senses).
So anybody who claims to have "proof" for or against evolution, is either using the word "proof" to mean *evidence* ... or is utterly confused about science.
Second, as you listen to arguments from both sides ... consider the *SOURCE*. Look at the web-sites they refer you to.
Web sites that *support* evolution will either be major science organizations (like the National Academy of Sciences), or major Universities (look for the .edu in the web path, instead of .com). If it's not one of those, then look at the bottom of these sites for a list of *references*. Supporters of evolution will always be able to point to papers, publications, journals, books, and other sources in the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. (E.g. even wikipedia, which is attacked by Creationists for being "biased", has a substantial "References" section at the bottom of every single page, backing every claim made on the page.)
Web sites that claim to *disprove* evolution will never, ever be major science sites, or major universities. They will primarily be religious sites (even though many of them try to disguise this fact ... as in the way the site 'allaboutscience.org' is run by organization 'allaboutGOD.com'). Or they will use formal sounding names like "The Discovery Institute", even though they are not affiliated with any scientific organization or university at all. They will NEVER list references to actual *scientific* papers, other than to refute them, or to quote something out of context that contradicts what the scientist actually said.
So with that in mind ... here is a site published by the University of California:
"What is the evidence for evolution?"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search
/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
And here is one of its pages (again from the University of California):
"Lines of evidence: The science of evolution"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
And finally, here's a well-known site dedicated to the scientific evidence for evolution. Again, notice the References section at the bottom backing all the claims made on the page. That's what gives the site credibility:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
As you will notice from the other answers so far, the word "proof" is your first problem.
In science it's really important to understand the difference between *evidence* and "proof." Evidence accumulates. Proof is absolute. In other words, evidence is based on observation piled on observation ... no one of which "proves" something, but all of which considered *together* makes it more and more likely. "Proof" is absolute ... once proved, it can never be "unproved" ... it is proved by logic alone (not on observations which are dependent on the accuracy of our senses).
So anybody who claims to have "proof" for or against evolution, is either using the word "proof" to mean *evidence* ... or is utterly confused about science.
Second, as you listen to arguments from both sides ... consider the *SOURCE*. Look at the web-sites they refer you to.
Web sites that *support* evolution will either be major science organizations (like the National Academy of Sciences), or major Universities (look for the .edu in the web path, instead of .com). If it's not one of those, then look at the bottom of these sites for a list of *references*. Supporters of evolution will always be able to point to papers, publications, journals, books, and other sources in the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. (E.g. even wikipedia, which is attacked by Creationists for being "biased", has a substantial "References" section at the bottom of every single page, backing every claim made on the page.)
Web sites that claim to *disprove* evolution will never, ever be major science sites, or major universities. They will primarily be religious sites (even though many of them try to disguise this fact ... as in the way the site 'allaboutscience.org' is run by organization 'allaboutGOD.com'). Or they will use formal sounding names like "The Discovery Institute", even though they are not affiliated with any scientific organization or university at all. They will NEVER list references to actual *scientific* papers, other than to refute them, or to quote something out of context that contradicts what the scientist actually said.
So with that in mind ... here is a site published by the University of California:
"What is the evidence for evolution?"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search
/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
And here is one of its pages (again from the University of California):
"Lines of evidence: The science of evolution"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
And finally, here's a well-known site dedicated to the scientific evidence for evolution. Again, notice the References section at the bottom backing all the claims made on the page. That's what gives the site credibility:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
How good is the new Red Jacket Firearms KMP 5.56mm Semiautomatic Rifle sold at Academy Sports and Outdoors?
Kyle
I am stuck between buying one of the new RJF ARs being sold at Academy Sports and the Windham Weaponry AR, anyone have any insight or suggestions?? Thanks
Answer
I have been shooting AR's in military long distance shootng, NRA Highpower Rifle Competition and hunting Alaska since the late 1970's.
I would not be caught dead with a RJF firearm unless it was personally given to me by Will's daughter and signed by her. That might be ok. Because anyone who saw me with it - would assume I am some brain dead gungeek who's fallen for the latest show on TV.
Way, way too many people are buying RJF guns to simply be 'taticool' with their buddies who dont know squat about guns but love to watch the show. They are no different than the 6 year old girls who run out an demand Barbie stuff from Mom and Dad after watching the Barbie commercials on TV.
If you dont know the difference between one gun and another - dont buy it. Just because it has a cool logo does not mean it will fit you, or, suit your purpose. It simply boggles my mind that people will spend hours trying on $12 shoes but wont take ten minutes to get a little trigger time on something they will be plucking down $1,000 or so on. Makes no sense.
I wont pay $300 for a pair of Nike sneakers that do the exact same thing as a $40 pair. But I will pay that for a pair of high quality outdoor boots that are warmer, more waterproof, and offer better protection to the ankle than a $40 pair.
You should visit the RJF web site and make an informed decison on what features their rifles offer that the other WW AR does not. You are going to need to know this sh!t - because on the shooting range you are gonna be treated like a brain dead mom's basement living person who buys what ever the TV tells them to - so - you better know your stuff........ or enjoy being ignored and not taken seriously.
Example. Back 8 years ago I wanted a new 45 CCW pistol. I spent 4 hours pawing all the S&W, Sigs, Glocks, and a new gun made by Springfield Armory they had just put in the case the morning - the XD in 45acp. I liked it had no thumb safety to interfer with a panic draw like the 1911's, had a loaded chamber indicator, and, hammer back indicator. I bought it. Three months later it received tons of awards, got Pistol of the Year - and everyone who saw it, gave me sh!t about buying it only because it was on the cover of all the magazines. They only shut up when I told them how I choose it before the thing got famous. You get that RJF gun and dont do your homework - expect the same treatment the whole time you own the gun and show it in public.
I have been shooting AR's in military long distance shootng, NRA Highpower Rifle Competition and hunting Alaska since the late 1970's.
I would not be caught dead with a RJF firearm unless it was personally given to me by Will's daughter and signed by her. That might be ok. Because anyone who saw me with it - would assume I am some brain dead gungeek who's fallen for the latest show on TV.
Way, way too many people are buying RJF guns to simply be 'taticool' with their buddies who dont know squat about guns but love to watch the show. They are no different than the 6 year old girls who run out an demand Barbie stuff from Mom and Dad after watching the Barbie commercials on TV.
If you dont know the difference between one gun and another - dont buy it. Just because it has a cool logo does not mean it will fit you, or, suit your purpose. It simply boggles my mind that people will spend hours trying on $12 shoes but wont take ten minutes to get a little trigger time on something they will be plucking down $1,000 or so on. Makes no sense.
I wont pay $300 for a pair of Nike sneakers that do the exact same thing as a $40 pair. But I will pay that for a pair of high quality outdoor boots that are warmer, more waterproof, and offer better protection to the ankle than a $40 pair.
You should visit the RJF web site and make an informed decison on what features their rifles offer that the other WW AR does not. You are going to need to know this sh!t - because on the shooting range you are gonna be treated like a brain dead mom's basement living person who buys what ever the TV tells them to - so - you better know your stuff........ or enjoy being ignored and not taken seriously.
Example. Back 8 years ago I wanted a new 45 CCW pistol. I spent 4 hours pawing all the S&W, Sigs, Glocks, and a new gun made by Springfield Armory they had just put in the case the morning - the XD in 45acp. I liked it had no thumb safety to interfer with a panic draw like the 1911's, had a loaded chamber indicator, and, hammer back indicator. I bought it. Three months later it received tons of awards, got Pistol of the Year - and everyone who saw it, gave me sh!t about buying it only because it was on the cover of all the magazines. They only shut up when I told them how I choose it before the thing got famous. You get that RJF gun and dont do your homework - expect the same treatment the whole time you own the gun and show it in public.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment