I was referring to Newtonian physics as a situation wherby it seemed a very good explanation of the observed facts but it didn't stop people looking for more answers and that finally came up with a better theory and I suspect that will be superceded in the future as we see closer and deeper into the atomic world. Evolution is currently a very broad church in that it has so many new ideas and approaches it is certainly a theory in transition (scientists haven't closed the book and gone to bed - there are still loads of ideas being tested and added to the canon) and it does a very good job of explaining observed data but as Tetro. said if creation could explain the observed facts better than evolution then evo would head the same way as newtonian physics - a very useful set of rules but not actually what is happening. Creation is also an evolving set of ideas (ah that sentence is just cool)as new thinking approaches the subject. Just as a final point - Terry sometimes you don't have to overanalyse the words just give peple the benefit of the doubt as I'm sure you do when talking face to face.
EF yes I did get my butt tanned hence a return to the books. Interestingly despite all the excellent work I'm still reading the observed facts different. Ah well there's always one.
I am trying to avoid attacking evo or any other theory just to list some things that I would expect to see and that could be tested scientifically if we looked at creation (not just ID because I actually wanted to look at the point of life actually becoming well alive!)
Creation does make some assumptions (the biggie is the precense of that intelligence but since we are intelligent and we will become godlike if technology keeps progressing it seems a bit presumptious that in the billions of years this universe has had that some planet didn't have life more advanced technologically than ours ergo 'I think therefore they are'..) If you saw stonehenge for the first time you would be able to suggest that an intelligence created it without seeing those first builders - I see stonehenges in all life. Maybe one day we'll find the barcode and made in alpha centurai tags on dna when we get good enough microscopes :) Assumptions that are big, bold and sometimes unprovable using current tech are the basis of many theorectical sciences and its the cleverness of the experiments that suggest the truth of assumption. If we didn't believe in life elsewhere what are we doing spending money on ET programs? I think creation is a valid assumption - all we have to look for is the facts that would show the indelible toolmarks of intelligence on life (the chisel marks on stonehenge.)
One request however (Tertapod thanks for avoiding this) please remember that I'm a person and derogatory comments about me and my intellect do not enhance your arguements - the main reason I abandoned previous threads is because of people drawing me into more than just friendly banter. I don't want to fall into the trap below (benford's law) and I don't feel qualified to discuss evolution on every scientific point. This thread is to see what would creation evidences be not is evolution correct.
Benford's Law: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. (Gregory Benford)
Posts by Qcmbr
-
43Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!
by Qcmbr ini've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.
some premises - .
evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.
-
-
Qcmbr
-
43
Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!
by Qcmbr ini've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.
some premises - .
evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.
-
-
Qcmbr
I've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - I've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.
Some premises -
1/. evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.
2/. Clearly species adapt, clearly we can breed animals to select traits etc.. this is not evolution (in fact breeding is intelligent design on a micro level - a fairly provable and testable scientific area of study).
3/. For the sake of clarity I'll remove the God agenda as long as those who will respond against remove their anti-God agenda. This is purely a look at what creationism would expect to see from the evidence.
4/. I'll try to avoid straw men on the understanding that nobody feels that they should expose their brilliance by reinterpreting what I say into what they think I believe (ie point 3.)
OK now for some observations:
Creation postulates that an intelligent force is required to create life and to continue this process to account for the proliferation of species. Creation is not, in this case the ark, Vishnu, 6 x 24 hour periods of creation. Creation must play on the level field that evolution claims - no impossible time limits and huge amounts of material and energy to play with. Creation suggests that species cannot change from one species to another - this rule must hold for at least one species (ie even if one organism is shown to have not adapted from another that would be a proof for creation at least for that species.).
OK what would I expect to see:
1/ Fossil records that contain the same species from beginning to end of the gelogical period in question.
2/ Without suggesting causes for extinction (or that there have been any mass extinctions) there would need to be species appearing in multiple layers seperated by millions of years apart that had not changed. As an additional bonus : finding species alive for which fossil records exist millions of years ago would suggest that as expected - adaptation had not altered the species into a new one.
3/ In the fossil record there should be no clear species that are clearly changing from one form into another.It should be well nigh impossible to find transitional stages in the same fossil layer that show the eradication of species by adaptation into species found in the next geological layer (or even the same one) - assuming two adjacent gelogical time periods of deposition.
4/ Species must appear suddenly without precursor stages and either disappear just as suddenly or continue the same.
5/ It must be impossible to create life by recreating the conditions of this earth and then mixing, adding etc.. but not engineering. IE students in the classroom/lab should be able to put together experiment after experiment using sterile conditions and apply any conditions they think may have existed in the earth and all must fail to initiate life. This experiment must be allowed to scale as allowed by finance etc.. They must still fail. Life must not spontaneously generate. The odds must be stacked in favour of generation in that all basic building blocks of life can be added to the mix as long as they themselves are not alive. Self replicating organic compounds can also be allowed as long as they can be shown to exist/be made in isloation of actual living orgnisms. Time is not to be considered a factor and the more experiments running simultaneously the better.
6/ Mutations should rarely if ever be beneficial. In fact mutation should be increasingly less beneficial the larger it is. Statistics should be compiled to show beneficial mutations against non-beneficial. Fruit flies can provide evidence - with enough experiments there should soon be a species of fruit fly that is not bred but gains a mutation that is beneficial enough within its limited environment to supercede all other fruit flies and so replace those fruit flies as the dominant fly. This fly should probably not be released into the wild:) Should these experiments fail to produce not only beneficial mutations but also the propagation of that genetic alteration must be enough to survive and must not disappear after a few generations.
7/ Mutations should rarely happen in complementary groups suggesting that complementary systems in life are more likely planned than random and suggesting that benficial mutations would probably need complimentary mutations to be really effective.
8/ Irreducible complexity. Some systems should be complex enough to have no viable precursor stage.
9/ It must be possible to engineer the building blocks of life. It must be possible to create species that are mixtures of other species and that are viable and can produce offspring. Genetic engineering must be achievable using intelligent processes.
10/ It must be possible to show how ecosystems can be planned and engineerable. This must be tied to the ability to disperse any life forms across planet boundaries. Creation must have a provable dispersal system.
11/ The addition of genetic information must be almost impossibly difficult to do by natural mechanistic approaches. While genetic mutation can occur creation would expect that mutation process to struggle to add new material.
12/ Mobile species that are not isolated should be just as biodiverse as isolated populations.
13/ Reproductivity and reproductive length must have no effect upon the complexity of the species. Complex species could potentially have very long reproductive lengths and very low relative reproductivity. The following must be found false: the shorter the reproductive cycle coupled with higher reproductivity must consistently be shown to be an inverse relationship with the complexity of the species (ie most complex have had the most generations)
14/ Life must be able to adapt back to traits that have been lost. Brown moths from mixed colour species must be able to revert when conditions change. Adaptation should be seen to work backwards. Genetic traits must be recessive and dominant to allow limited adaptation and the reoccurence of previous traits.
15/ Incremental changes would rarely if ever be seen to produce any distinct major changes to an organism. The addition of large scale beneficial elements to a lifeform would be so unusual as to be astounding. The appearance of new organs in complex species - organs that actively work and solve some problem so confering an advantage must be almost never seen - if ever (time is irrelevant since the number of complex species effectively running individual experiments is so enormous.) It must be seen that all additional elements are merely mutations of existing information (ie extra body parts such as additional appendages must already exist - just in a different place) - no new information must be observed entering the gentic code to produce a large scale change.
Remember the above are not attacks on evolution these are merely things as a rank amateur creationist I would expect to see. I would also expect to be able to scientifically test these hypotheses.
Ahhh bedtime. Congrats to Liverpool! -
24
Know any Victims of MORE than One Cult?
by GetBusyLiving inever heard of anyone leaving the jw's and becoming, say, a scientologist?
or a morman?
or a member of any other crazy cultish org?
-
-
Qcmbr
I baptised a couple of JWs - he was an elder..
-
21
Quickbuilds
by JW83 inthere is a quickbuild going on in our area this weekend.
i drove past today & it made me sad - they were the best part of being a dub.
i used to go with friends, & it was cruzey - checking out guys & socialising & working hard.
-
-
Qcmbr
We used to build our own until we realised it cost far more to do a botch job with unskilled labour than it was to build it properly with trained builders. However, we still do some shocking sound system work - the amount of wasted cash and silly decisions does my nut in.
-
41
Can you solve this paradox?
by Rod P inyou have a bow and arrow.
you shoot the arrow with the bow from point a to point b.. but the arrow will never reach point b, it's destination.
before the arrow can reach point b, it must first travel half way (let's call that point c).. but before the arrow can reach point c, it must first travel half way (let's call that point d).. but before the arrow can reach point d, it must first travel half way (let's call that point e).. do you see the problem?
-
-
Qcmbr
Actually the paradox as far as I understand is purely linguistic in that it relies on the arrow being at a fixed point at a fixed time and it yet there is no such thing as a fixed time or a fixed point - they are approximations of reality. Just to explain further you can not fix a definite location because logically you could always split your fixed location into further points ergo you still haven't defined the location. What actually happens is a little easier to understand from a zen perspective - the arrow is not separate from its surroundings its movement is merely an interaction between all the elements - same wy it is impossible to define the part of a river you have stepped in since the water flows on, the point of measurement can never be measured the same again.
I'm off for a lie down. -
70
Will humanity EVER outgrow God?
by nicolaou infirstly let me say that i am not trying to offend believers - i was one for most of my life.
nor is this a discussion about whether god/religion is a 'good' or 'bad' thing, that argument will rage forever.
what i'm asking is really a simple question;.
-
-
Qcmbr
Doogie - did you listen to what I was saying - I see a trend - in my life in my real world experience . That isn't sitting on some convenient internet site for me to spool out to you.
Since you seem to want to play let me give you some sites that offer some statistical points - you could have found these - though I don't see how they would affect what my or your personal experience is.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/press_release.html
http://www.wfs.org/trendnd02.htm
http://www.accident-compensation-solicitor-uk.co.uk/html/Personal%20Injury%20News14.aspxData Chart CO3.1 Victimisation in the year preceding the survey, percentage of victimised once or more All crimes car theft theft from car car vandalism motorcycle theft bicycle theft burglary attempted burglary robbery personal theft sexual incidents assaults and threats Australia 1989 26.1 2.3 6.9 8.8 0.3 1.9 4.4 3.8 0.9 5.0 7.3 5.2 1992 28.6 3.1 6.6 9.5 0.3 2.1 3.7 3.8 1.3 6.5 3.5 4.7 2000 30.0 1.9 6.8 9.2 0.1 2.0 3.9 3.3 1.2 6.5 4.0 6.4 Austria 1996 18.8 0.1 1.6 6.7 0.0 3.3 0.9 0.5 0.2 5.0 3.8 2.1 Belgium 1989 17.7 0.8 2.7 6.6 0.4 2.7 2.3 2.3 1.0 4.0 1.3 2.1 1992 19.3 1.0 3.9 6.1 1.1 2.8 2.1 1.6 1.0 3.1 1.4 1.8 2000 21.4 0.7 3.6 6.1 0.3 3.5 2.0 2.8 1.0 4.1 1.1 3.2 Canada 1989 28.1 0.8 7.2 9.8 0.4 3.4 3.0 2.7 1.1 5.5 4.0 3.9 1992 28.4 1.3 7.3 8.5 0.2 3.7 3.4 2.7 1.2 5.5 3.8 4.8 1996 25.2 1.5 6.2 6.2 0.1 3.3 3.4 2.8 1.2 5.7 2.7 4.0 2000 23.8 1.4 5.4 5.5 0.1 3.5 2.3 2.3 0.9 4.7 2.1 5.3 Denmark 2000 23.0 1.1 3.4 3.8 0.7 6.7 3.1 1.5 0.7 4.1 2.5 3.6 England and Wales 1989 19.4 1.8 5.6 6.8 0.1 1.0 2.1 1.7 0.7 3.1 1.1 1.9 1992 30.2 3.7 8.6 10.6 0.4 3.0 3.0 2.9 1.1 4.2 2.1 3.8 1996 30.9 2.5 8.1 10.4 0.2 3.5 3.0 3.4 1.4 5.0 2.0 5.9 2000 26.4 2.1 6.4 8.8 0.4 2.4 2.8 2.8 1.2 4.6 2.7 6.1 Finland 1989 15.9 0.4 2.7 4.0 0.0 3.1 0.6 0.4 0.7 4.3 0.5 2.9 1992 21.2 0.7 2.9 5.6 0.3 5.0 0.6 0.6 1.0 3.4 3.7 4.4 1996 18.9 0.4 2.9 4.3 0.2 5.1 0.6 0.7 0.5 3.2 2.5 4.1 2000 19.1 0.4 2.9 3.7 0.1 4.9 0.3 1.0 0.6 3.3 3.7 4.2 France 1989 19.4 2.4 6.0 6.4 0.6 1.4 2.4 2.3 0.4 3.6 1.1 2.0 1996 25.3 1.6 7.2 8.3 0.8 2.8 2.3 2.2 1.0 4.0 0.9 3.9 2000 21.4 1.7 5.5 8.2 0.3 1.8 1.0 1.3 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.2 West Germany 1989 21.9 0.4 4.7 8.7 0.2 3.3 1.3 1.8 0.8 4.0 2.8 3.1 Italy 1992 24.6 2.7 7.0 7.6 1.5 2.3 2.4 1.7 1.3 3.6 1.7 0.8 Japan 1989 8.5 0.2 0.7 2.5 0.2 3.5 0.7 0.2 .. 0.2 1.0 0.7 1992 .. 1.1 2.3 .. 3.2 9.6 1.1 .. .. 1.3 1.8 0.5 2000 15.2 0.1 1.6 4.4 1.0 6.6 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.4 Netherlands 1989 26.8 0.3 5.2 8.2 0.4 7.5 2.4 2.6 0.8 4.4 2.6 3.3 1992 31.3 0.5 6.8 9.6 1.0 10.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.6 2.2 4.0 1996 31.5 0.4 5.4 9.9 0.7 9.5 2.6 3.3 0.6 6.8 3.6 4.0 2000 25.2 0.4 3.9 8.9 0.6 7.0 1.9 2.7 0.8 4.7 3.0 3.4 New Zealand 1992 29.4 2.7 6.9 7.9 0.3 4.4 4.3 3.6 0.7 5.3 2.7 5.7 Northern Ireland 1989 14.9 1.6 4.0 4.4 0.1 1.6 1.1 0.9 0.5 2.2 1.9 1.8 1996 16.8 1.6 3.1 6.7 0.0 1.2 1.5 1.1 0.5 2.5 1.2 1.7 2000 15.0 1.2 2.7 4.5 0.0 1.4 1.7 0.9 0.1 2.2 0.6 3.0 Norway 1989 16.4 1.1 2.8 4.6 0.3 2.8 0.7 0.4 0.5 3.2 2.2 3.0 Poland 1992 27.0 0.7 5.3 4.7 1.0 4.2 2.1 2.3 1.7 8.1 3.6 4.2 1996 22.9 0.9 5.7 5.4 0.3 3.2 2.0 1.8 1.8 5.6 1.5 3.7 2000 22.7 1.0 5.5 7.0 0.1 3.6 2.0 1.3 1.8 5.3 0.5 2.8 Portugal 2000 15.5 0.9 4.9 6.3 0.3 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.9 0.6 0.9 Scotland 1989 18.6 0.8 5.4 6.5 0.3 1.0 2.0 2.1 0.5 2.6 1.2 1.8 1996 25.6 1.7 6.6 9.8 0.1 1.9 1.5 2.4 0.8 4.5 1.3 4.2 2000 23.2 0.7 4.2 9.0 0.1 2.0 1.5 1.9 0.7 4.6 1.1 6.1 Spain 1989 24.8 1.4 9.6 6.6 0.8 1.1 1.6 2.1 3.1 5.2 2.3 3.1 Sweden 1992 21.5 1.7 3.9 4.5 0.6 7.0 1.4 0.8 0.3 4.2 0.9 2.7 1996 24.0 1.2 4.9 4.6 0.5 8.8 1.3 1.1 0.5 4.6 2.9 4.5 2000 24.7 1.3 5.3 4.6 0.4 7.2 1.7 0.7 0.9 5.8 2.6 3.8 Switzerland 1989 15.6 0.0 1.9 4.1 1.2 3.2 1.0 0.2 0.5 4.5 1.7 1.2 1996 26.7 0.1 3.0 7.1 1.4 7.0 1.3 1.1 0.9 5.7 4.6 3.1 2000 18.2 0.3 1.7 3.9 0.2 4.7 1.1 1.8 0.7 4.4 2.1 2.4 United States 1989 28.9 2.1 9.2 8.9 0.1 3.0 3.8 5.4 1.9 4.5 4.5 5.4 1992 26.1 2.6 7.0 8.0 0.4 2.9 3.1 3.9 1.5 5.3 2.3 4.7 1996 24.2 1.9 7.5 6.7 0.2 3.3 2.6 3.0 1.3 3.9 2.5 5.7 2000 21.1 0.5 6.4 7.2 0.3 2.1 1.8 2.7 0.6 4.9 1.5 3.4 Source: International Crime Victims Surveys, March 2002. See http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/key2000i/app4.pdf Data Charts C06.1 C06.2 Convicted adults admitted to prisons Rates per 100 000 people Rates per 100 000 people 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Australia 133.48 149.60 160.64 147.99 133.21 85.42 86.81 89.31 91.05 96.48 93.38 Australia Austria 56.11 52.57 57.97 55.63 62.02 .. .. .. .. .. .. Austria Belgium 30.58 27.62 35.20 37.51 37.21 .. .. .. .. .. .. Belgium Czech Republic 38.15 69.09 75.73 82.78 94.64 109.58 124.36 132.54 143.49 155.29 150.11 Czech Republic Denmark 45.18 48.39 44.66 46.31 49.64 48.53 44.60 44.89 42.69 44.46 42.86 Denmark England and Wales .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 89.67 88.11 90.15 England and Wales Finland 55.94 54.91 56.56 52.25 49.24 56.07 47.63 46.32 47.89 46.41 49.55 Finland Germany .. .. .. .. .. 50.88 53.30 55.93 61.25 64.02 64.97 Germany Greece 34.02 32.43 38.22 44.20 36.21 34.12 31.22 .. .. .. .. Greece Hungary 80.85 94.05 105.80 87.06 83.32 85.24 91.55 97.65 103.69 109.00 Hungary Iceland 35.45 36.67 32.35 31.02 29.55 22.06 Iceland Ireland 51.23 52.78 52.18 52.00 51.86 52.89 59.05 .. .. .. Ireland Italy 19.36 24.57 34.55 39.18 44.36 45.16 46.47 46.59 46.30 48.96 50.77 Italy Japan 32.30 30.50 30.00 29.87 29.97 30.79 32.08 33.11 34.31 35.70 39.25 Japan Korea 67.68 70.56 72.14 75.57 75.82 71.05 69.76 71.68 75.92 79.69 78.58 Korea Luxembourg 68.08 71.82 65.48 73.35 75.04 .. .. .. .. .. .. Luxembourg Mexico 44.37 47.66 50.41 51.34 50.20 .. .. .. 78.26 84.22 92.90 Mexico Netherlands .. .. .. .. .. 42.95 48.01 46.63 39.40 38.52 34.81 Netherlands New Zealand .. .. .. .. .. 115.03 .. 131.21 128.00 127.98 132.27 New Zealand Norway .. .. .. .. .. 36.12 35.20 31.95 29.78 .. .. Norway Poland 81.63 104.10 114.91 114.63 113.25 .. .. .. .. .. .. Poland Portugal 61.64 46.35 58.54 67.62 62.13 72.12 85.81 96.92 100.64 85.23 85.42 Portugal Slovak Republic 52.22 85.73 91.79 97.17 99.90 108.91 110.03 104.44 90.88 90.17 91.58 Slovak Republic Spain .. .. .. .. .. 84.15 77.52 77.05 107.39 108.42 110.66 Spain Sweden 49.30 49.02 50.68 53.75 58.54 50.45 47.99 41.29 .. .. .. Sweden Switzerland 55.39 56.32 56.54 60.49 63.41 60.13 59.05 58.54 45.44 45.74 48.38 Switzerland Turkey 51.26 18.47 21.84 25.39 33.53 41.92 49.77 55.44 58.17 61.91 33.81 Turkey United States 143.23 .. 159.97 .. .. .. .. .. 452.87 469.09 468.49 United States Data Chart & Table CO5.1 Teenage births, income inequality and school drop-out, 1998 Teenage birth rates Income inequality index - Gini coefficient Percentage of 15-19 years-olds not in education Teenage birth rates Income inequality index - Gini coefficient Percentage of 15-19 years-olds not in education Korea 2.9 .. 21.4 Germany 13.1 28.2 11.7 Japan 4.6 .. .. Austria 14.0 26.1 23.8 Switzerland 5.5 26.9 15.9 Czech Republic 16.4 .. 25.1 Netherlands 6.2 25.5 14.0 Australia 18.4 30.5 18.4 Sweden 6.5 23.0 13.9 Ireland 18.7 32.4 19.3 Italy 6.6 34.5 30.2 Poland 18.7 .. 18.6 Spain 7.9 .. 23.5 Canada 20.2 28.5 22.0 Denmark 8.1 21.7 19.9 Portugal 21.2 .. 23.8 Finland 9.2 22.8 17.0 Iceland 24.7 .. 20.3 France 9.3 27.8 12.2 Hungary 26.5 28.3 24.6 Luxembourg 9.7 .. .. Slovak Republic 26.9 .. .. Belgium 9.9 27.2 13.9 New Zealand 29.8 .. 28.3 Greece 11.8 33.6 22.4 United Kingdom 30.8 32.4 30.5 Norway 12.4 25.6 13.6 United States 52.1 34.4 25.8 Note: Countries are ranked in ascending order of teenage birth rate. Sources: UNICEF (2001), "A league table of teenage births in rich nations", Innocenti Report Card, Issue n°3, July 2001 ; OECD (2000), Education at a Glance ; Förster M. (2000), Trends and Driving Factors in Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD area, Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Paper, No 42, Paris. Data Chart GE5.3: Divorces per 100 marriages and mean (years of) duration at divorce Données Graphique GE5.3: Nombre de divorces pour 100 mariages et durée moyenne (en années) du mariage au moment du divorce Number of divorces per 100 marriages 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Nombre de divorces pour 100 mariages 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Australia Australie 11.0 57.5 36.4 34.3 36.4 45.4 46.5 46.0 44.0 53.6 n.a Austria Autriche 19.6 23.1 28.7 34.5 36.0 42.4 45.7 46.9 49.8 60.2 53.6 Belgium Belgique 8.7 15.3 21.8 32.0 31.5 68.1 59.7 59.8 59.8 69.6 75.7 Canada Canada 15.8 25.6 32.5 33.7 41.8 48.4 45.2 45.5 45.2 48.5 47.5 Czech Republic Republique czech 23.7 26.9 34.7 37.8 35.2 56.7 58.8 44.2 53.7 60.3 60.2 Denmark Danemark 26.2 41.7 51.4 49.1 43.6 37.4 37.8 38.2 37.5 39.9 41.1 Finland Finlande 14.8 29.7 32.2 35.2 52.6 59.1 57.6 57.8 53.2 54.6 49.4 France France 9.9 14.4 24.3 39.9 36.9 46.8 42.9 40.8 n.a 39.1 n.a Germany Allemagne 18.1 28.1 28.4 36.1 30.0 39.4 46.1 44.3 46.4 50.7 n.a Greece Grèce 5.2 4.9 10.7 11.9 10.2 17.2 14.1 15.7 22.7 20.2 n.a Hungary Hongrie 23.6 25.1 34.6 40.0 37.5 46.5 57.4 56.3 49.9 56.0 55.4 Iceland Islande 15.5 23.5 33.8 42.1 41.5 38.1 31.7 30.3 30.7 37.1 32.4 Ireland Irlande n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a n.a n.a 13.7 14.7 n.a Italy Italie n.a. 2.8 3.7 5.2 8.7 9.3 12.0 12.3 13.2 15.4 n.a Japan Japon 9.3 12.7 18.3 22.6 21.8 25.1 31.0 32.9 33.1 35.7 38.3 Korea Corée 3.9 5.8 5.9 10.3 11.4 17.1 31.1 32.5 35.9 42.2 47.4 Luxembourg Luxembourg 10.1 9.4 27.1 33.9 32.9 35.1 49.9 49.9 48.0 51.8 54.0 Mexico Mexique 8.7 n.a. 4.4 n.a. 7.2 n.a n.a 6.6 7.4 8.6 9.8 Netherlands Pays-Bas 8.3 20.1 28.5 41.1 29.7 41.9 37.3 37.5 39.3 46.6 40.1 New Zealand Nouvelle-Zélande 12.1 19.4 28.3 34.9 38.7 46.8 50.0 47.1 47.0 48.5 49.7 Norway Norvège 11.7 21.5 29.8 40.6 46.4 47.8 40.0 38.9 39.6 44.9 n.a Poland Pologne 12.3 12.5 13.0 18.4 16.6 18.4 21.6 19.2 20.3 23.2 23.7 Portugal Portugal 0.6 1.5 8.1 13.1 12.9 18.7 22.9 25.7 30.0 32.3 47.4 Slovak Republic République slovaque 9.5 14.0 16.8 20.0 21.9 32.7 33.9 35.3 35.8 41.3 43.4 Spain Espagne n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.2 10.5 16.5 n.a n.a 18.0 18.2 n.a Sweden Suède 29.9 57.6 52.9 51.6 47.8 67.0 65.7 58.9 53.9 58.8 56.1 Switzerland Suisse 13.7 25.3 30.5 29.4 28.3 38.5 46.2 51.1 26.4 43.8 40.7 Turkey Turquie n.a. n.a. 4.3 5.1 5.6 6.2 6.6 6.6 7.6 11.1 11.4 United Kingdom Royaume-Uni 13.4 30.0 38.2 44.6 44.1 52.8 52.5 52.7 50.5 54.8 55.0 Marriage Rates number of marriages per 100 000
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001 Austria Autriche 7.1 6.4 7.6 6.5 6.5 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.3 7.4 6.1 5.9 6.1 10.1 4.7 5.6 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.3 AUT Belgium Belgique 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.7 6.0 6.4 6.5 6.1 5.8 5.4 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.1 BEL Czech Republic Republique czech 9.2 9.3 9.7 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.4 9.1 8.8 8.2 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.8 8.8 7.0 7.2 6.4 5.7 5.3 5.2 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 CZE Denmark Danemark 7.4 6.6 6.2 6.1 6.6 6.3 6.2 6.3 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 5.3 5.6 5.7 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.2 6.1 6.8 6.6 6.8 6.5 6.6 6.7 7.2 6.8 DEN Finland Finlande 8.8 8.2 7.6 7.5 7.4 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.7 5.1 4.8 FIN France France 7.8 7.9 8.1 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.1 6.9 6.6 6.4 6.2 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.0 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.9 5.1 4.9 FRA Germany Allemagne 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.7 6.5 6.7 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.6 6.7 6.9 6.7 6.5 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.3 5.1 4.7 DEU Greece Grèce 7.7 8.3 6.8 8.3 7.6 8.5 6.9 8.2 7.7 8.3 6.5 7.3 6.9 7.2 5.5 6.4 5.8 6.6 4.8 6.1 5.8 6.4 4.7 5.9 5.4 6.0 4.2 5.6 5.1 5.6 4.5 5.2 GRC Hungary Hongrie 9.4 9.1 9.4 9.8 9.6 9.9 9.5 9.1 8.7 8.2 7.5 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.4 5.9 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.3 HUN Iceland Islande 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.3 8.8 7.8 7.5 7.1 7.1 6.4 5.7 5.9 5.6 5.9 5.9 5.2 5.1 4.7 5.2 4.7 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.9 4.6 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.6 6.3 5.2 ISL Ireland Irlande 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.3 6.7 6.4 6.1 6.4 6.2 6.4 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.3 4.5 4.3 .. 4.9 5.0 5.0 IRL Italy Italie 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.3 6.7 6.4 6.2 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.1 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.5 ITA Japan Japon 10.0 10.5 10.4 9.9 9.1 8.5 7.8 7.2 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.4 6.4 JPN Korea Corée 9.2 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.3 9.3 9.4 10.6 9.4 9.2 9.2 8.9 9.2 9.2 9.1 9.2 9.4 9.3 9.6 9.6 9.0 8.7 8.7 9.4 8.4 8.0 7.7 7.0 6.7 KOR Luxembourg Luxembourg 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.0 6.2 6.8 6.2 6.2 5.9 5.8 5.9 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.7 6.4 6.0 5.8 5.1 5.1 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.5 LUX Netherlands Pays-Bas 9.5 9.3 8.8 8.0 8.1 7.3 7.1 6.7 6.4 6.1 6.4 6.0 5.8 5.5 5.7 5.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.3 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.5 5.0 NLD New Zealand Nouvelle-Zélande 9.2 9.5 9.3 8.9 8.4 8.0 7.8 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.6 8.1 7.7 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.2 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.4 5.1 NZL Norway Norvège 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.1 6.9 6.5 6.3 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.2 4.9 5.2 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.7 5.1 NOR Poland Pologne 8.6 8.9 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.7 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.1 8.6 9.0 8.7 8.4 7.7 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.1 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.1 POL Portugal Portugal 9.4 9.7 9.0 9.8 9.3 11.3 10.9 9.7 8.5 8.3 7.4 7.7 7.4 7.5 7.0 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.1 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.8 6.2 5.7 PRT Slovak Republic République slovaque 7.9 8.4 8.7 9.0 9.0 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.0 8.6 8.0 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.1 6.9 7.7 6.2 6.4 5.8 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 4.8 4.4 SVK Spain Espagne 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.2 7.0 6.6 5.9 5.4 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.1 ESP Sweden Suède 5.4 4.9 4.8 4.7 5.5 5.4 5.5 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.9 5.2 .. 4.7 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 4.0 4.5 4.0 SWE Switzerland Suisse 7.6 7.2 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.6 5.1 5.3 5.1 5.4 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.9 7.0 6.6 6.2 6.1 5.8 5.8 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.0 CHE Turkey Turquie .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8.3 8.6 6.9 6.4 6.9 7.3 7.5 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.2 8.0 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.7 8.1 7.4 7.2 6.8 6.6 TUR United Kingdom Royaume-Uni 8.5 8.2 8.6 8.1 7.8 7.7 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.1 6.9 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.1 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.1 .. GBR Data Chart SS6.1 Net incomes of social assistance recipients in percent equivalent of median household income, in 2001 Données Graphique SS6.1 Revenus nets des bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale, en pourcentage équivalent au revenu médian des ménages, en 2001 Couple with 2 children Couple marié, 2 enfants No housing-related benefits With housing-related benefits (rent=20% APW) Sans allocations liées au logement Avec allocations liées au logement
(loyer=20% SOM)Poland POL 54.5 54.5 POL Czech Republic CZE 52.8 52.8 CZE Australia AUS 52.4 58.3 AUS Denmark DNK 46.1 51.6 DNK New Zealand NZL 44.9 51.0 NZL Belgium BEL 43.3 43.3 BEL Austria AUT 40.1 49.7 AUT Norway NOR 39.7 39.7 NOR Canada CAN 37.0 37.0 CAN Netherlands NLD 36.9 42.6 NLD Finland FIN 36.8 51.5 FIN Ireland IRL 36.4 48.6 IRL Portugal PRT 35.7 35.7 PRT United Kingdom GBR 34.3 49.9 GBR SS4 Working mothers Data Chart SS4.1 Données Graphique SS4.1 Employment rates for mothers with youngest child aged under 6 a , 1990 b and 2002 c Taux d'emploi des mères dont le plus jeune enfant a moins de 6 ans a , 1990 b and 2002 c 2002 1990 PRT 79.2 67.4 SWE 77.5 85.0 AUT 74.6 50.8 DNK 74.3 .. NLD 71.2 37.0 BEL 68.8 64.4 LUX 66.7 40.9 FRA 64.7 61.3 CAN 62.7 56.9 SWI 61.0 33.5 USA 59.5 54.0 OECD-20 59.2 48.5 DEU 57.1 41.4 GBR 57.0 42.5 Data Chart CO3.2: Proportion of respondents who are active or inactive group members by type of group Données Graphique CO3.1: Proportion des personnes déclarant être membre actif ou inactif d'une association, par type d'association Church - Religious Sport - Cultural Political - Unions Église - Réligion Sport - Culture Politique - Syndicale Australia Australie 47.4 64.3 44.0 Austria Autriche 25.4 31.5 30.0 Belgium Belgique 11.9 37.2 29.7 Canada Canada 29.5 39.2 35.5 Czech Republic République tchèque 6.6 28.9 20.1 Denmark Danemark 11.9 41.7 62.3 Finland Finlande 47.0 33.1 39.4 France France 4.4 21.5 9.5 Germany Allemagne 13.5 32.1 13.9 United Kingdom Royaume-Uni 5.0 12.0 13.2
-
70
Will humanity EVER outgrow God?
by nicolaou infirstly let me say that i am not trying to offend believers - i was one for most of my life.
nor is this a discussion about whether god/religion is a 'good' or 'bad' thing, that argument will rage forever.
what i'm asking is really a simple question;.
-
-
Qcmbr
..I 'm rereading all my posts to find these swathes of humanity I'm supposed to be dissing- I mentioned communists in reference to the Russian experiment in godless society (apologies to any marxists) but unless you just mean I'm attacking non-believers (shrugs - not really) then I haven't 'attacked' swathes of anything - if you want let me rephrase - society - the blob that is the sum of us all - is rejecting God (ie more people are rejecting God than accepting Him than in previous times - granted a few centuries ago you could be beaten / burnt or badly mistreated if you just missed church in the good old medieval western world) and is becoming more polarised (more extreme rejection or acceptance)- this drift from God is lauded by many but I happen to think its a disaster - it may be diffeent in the US but here in the UK traditional churches are seeing falling attendances with the exception of the Muslims, LDS, BAs and other smaller groups. At the same time I see the following UK society trends..
1 - less love for neighbours - far more isolation from each other.
2 - reliance on debt as a life style choice coupled with reduction in work ethic amongst many
3 - the rise of the irresponsible - it wasn't my fault culture.
4 - the rise of it was your fault culture - where's my lawyer
5 - lack of care about family - so few are even bothered by the idea of family break up as its so normal - until it happens to them.
6 - Increasing numbers of kids with multiple transient fathers and substitute dads (latest cohabiting partner) -
70
Will humanity EVER outgrow God?
by nicolaou infirstly let me say that i am not trying to offend believers - i was one for most of my life.
nor is this a discussion about whether god/religion is a 'good' or 'bad' thing, that argument will rage forever.
what i'm asking is really a simple question;.
-
-
Qcmbr
wow Abb.. I really pressed your buttons.. chill
-
70
Will humanity EVER outgrow God?
by nicolaou infirstly let me say that i am not trying to offend believers - i was one for most of my life.
nor is this a discussion about whether god/religion is a 'good' or 'bad' thing, that argument will rage forever.
what i'm asking is really a simple question;.
-
-
Qcmbr
...OK since you decided to make this personal and say how evil and I am and how my 'faith' is unloving then bite this.
1 - Funny how some people think someones post needs a point by point rebuttal as though they are some moral arbiter and are right - guess that's the JW training kicking in (just so noone gets offended JW training probably rocks)
2 - Pretty bizarre moral balance when its OK for the personal comments trashing a person but its not OK to make generalised statements that are not aimed at any particular person. Hmm maybe I should throw a hissy fit everytime someone whinges about people who still have a belief in God.
3 - Unbelievable that double standards are the norm - yes if someone makes statements about what they believe in IF disagreed with some people require a factual, referenced arguement but of course they rarely follow such a rule themselves. If you want a factual essay with neat explanatory refs at the bottom of every comment I make you can wait all day mates. As for my character at the moment I feel it incumbent upon me to find out facts for myself when I get hit with opposing views - right now I am reading Almost Like A Whale (updated Origin of Species), The Two Mile Time Machine (Ice Cores), Contempory Physical Geography and Basic Paleontology. For those who are really desperate to see the cr*p up our increasingly secular society is making of families then use the internet and look at some statistics - here's one for free http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1044
4 - Just for the record if you read my posts you'll find in general I'm much happier joking and larking about but that there are some things I take seriously my family, God and my core beliefs. If I want to stand up and make my point of view heard then I will (until such a time as Simon sees to scratch me out). In this case the thread has lots of voices agreeing with it and I personally disagree - the fact that I pointed out the logical end of evolution (your just a smart ape) and put it in stark emotional terms is to try and make people think from a different viewpoint - if you can't see that and you actually think that I am advocating these things then I misjudged you. I've seen lots of the evidence of outgrowing God. On the balance religion , in my experience, has been much much more positive for peoples quality of life than atheism. I saw my aunt broken by the death of her husband because she believes that's it he is gone and what they had is gone - so broken she ended up going a tad loopy. I've met a couple of humanists (nice people) but they have nothing to offer me - being kind and charitable is drummed home from my pulpit as much as it is from theirs. I've met plenty of aethists however who are living 'life to the full' which seems to involve several destructive behaviours that are probably going to lose them much of the quality of life they seem to live for.
5 - I look constantly for the good in all people (hmm religious training probably) but the strongest media voices seem to be so hollow and empty with reagrd to quality, responsibility, long term satbility etc... Science gives answers about observed events but not how to live life, political systems give answers about how to live life but not what the purpose of the life is -IMHO - aethiests are often as religious as God botherers and they can preach their own doctrine just as forcefully except they aren't even required to be nice.
6 - Last moan. I really dislike people who see a need to identify themselves as martyrs - such and such a person doesn't like that so therefore I need to identify with what they are attacking, turn it into a personal attack, wo is me and get all shirty about it. Religious people are great at it - so are some people in this forum. When I get up on my little high horse , unless I state otherwise, I am always talking from my heart and my standpoint not on some moral crusade for teh poorly wronged mongoloian squirrels that such and such a poster has soooo inconsiderately mentioned.
Ahhh that felt good. No hard feelings:)
-
38
Why are men so bad?
by Qcmbr insometimes i'm so ashamed of being male - .
why are men responsible for most rapes, paedophilia, pornography, abuse, criminal behaviour, war, bullying etc..?
if women (on average) were as physically strong as men would they be responsible for 50% of the above or is it something to do with men?
-
-
Qcmbr
I was watching the 100 best war movies - a countdown of to the 'best' one - I happened to also be reading some of the posts about abuse on this site and I cannot escape from the fact that although there are some women who are capable of 'evil' acts most of the women I know wouldn't even be inclined to whereas it seems a lot of men are only a step away from doing really bad things. I think power corrupts but is that enough of a reason to answer why most rapists etc.. are men? Watching some of these movies , even just the snippets was quite harrowing and it was quite plain - it was women and children suffering more than men (ie they were also getting raped and tortured in addition to the death and destruction.)
Even if you don't believe in God - any reckoning up of the crimes against humanity will show it is men who perform most of the crimes against women and children - not the other way round.
Rod - no disrespect but Imelda and Maggie don't come close to Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis etc..
Sith - there are great men - of course there are.