I may have asked this before so I'll apologize in advance if I have. I
am pretty
good with back end CF/PHP work. What I need help with is front end stuff.
What book would you all recommend to learn front end work?
Thanks, Bruce
~~~
No, there are not. Not in the scientific theory.
On Jan 2, 2014 4:14 PM, "LRS Scout" wrote:
>
> There are gaps. Well known ones.
> On Jan 2, 2014 4:13 PM, "GMoney" wrote:
>
> >
> > If evolution is not a proven fact to you, then facts cannot be proven to
> > you.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014
There are gaps. Well known ones.
On Jan 2, 2014 4:13 PM, "GMoney" wrote:
>
> If evolution is not a proven fact to you, then facts cannot be proven to
> you.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Timothy Heald >wrote:
>
> >
> > Or that you don't.
> >
> > Simply put it's not a proven fact.
> > O
Ok, so are you saying that your questions are about human evolution?
There is a big high level question of "Did humans evolve from a prior
species". If you accept the prior notion that species are created due to
heritable variation and differential survival due to natural selection
then...well...
If evolution is not a proven fact to you, then facts cannot be proven to
you.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Timothy Heald wrote:
>
> Or that you don't.
>
> Simply put it's not a proven fact.
> On Jan 2, 2014 3:22 PM, "Scott Stroz" wrote:
>
> >
> > Saying it is 'just a theory' might lead some
I don't disagree with anything you wrote.
The questions for me are more about the middle species and missing link.
On Jan 2, 2014 4:01 PM, "Judah McAuley" wrote:
>
> Which parts of evolution do you consider not proven facts? One of the big
> problems with the word "evolution" is that many peop
And if he's a nasty sort, its obvious that time wounds all heels.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:52 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Luckily for him, time heals all wounds.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Judah McAuley
> wrote:
>
> >
> > If I recall, he had to cancel the first lecture because he broke h
Which parts of evolution do you consider not proven facts? One of the big
problems with the word "evolution" is that many people mean different
things when they use the word, so I never know what someone thinks has or
has not been proven.
I'll go for a fairly simple definition of evolution, star
Or that you don't.
Simply put it's not a proven fact.
On Jan 2, 2014 3:22 PM, "Scott Stroz" wrote:
>
> Saying it is 'just a theory' might lead some to believe that you do not
> understand scientific theories.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Timothy Heald >wrote:
>
> >
> > Evolution is st
Saying it is 'just a theory' might lead some to believe that you do not
understand scientific theories.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Timothy Heald wrote:
>
> Evolution is still a theory, one which I accept, but not a law.
> On Jan 2, 2014 9:01 AM, "Larry C. Lyons" wrote:
>
> >
> > the point
Luckily for him, time heals all wounds.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> If I recall, he had to cancel the first lecture because he broke his arm,
> thus perhaps proving the connection between gravity and time.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Larry C. Lyons >wro
If I recall, he had to cancel the first lecture because he broke his arm,
thus perhaps proving the connection between gravity and time.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Maybe he simply didn't have the time.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:35 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> >
> >
Maybe he simply didn't have the time.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:35 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> If you are going to give a lecture questioning the reality of timeand
> you have to reschedule that lecture for...another time.
>
> Well, maybe there's your answer :)
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:
If you are going to give a lecture questioning the reality of timeand
you have to reschedule that lecture for...another time.
Well, maybe there's your answer :)
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> By the by, here is the lecture that I am hoping to catch. Lee Smoli
By the by, here is the lecture that I am hoping to catch. Lee Smolin, who
seems an interesting dude.
http://www.isepp.org/Pages/13-14%20Pages/Smolin.html
I saw a talk by Eric Drexler in this lecture series recently. It was a
fascinating combination of quite good and quite bad. Loved some of the
The standard view, as I understand it, is that time isn't a real thing. A
useful concept, but not a real thing. However, there are some intriguing
theories out there that say that time may, in fact, be a real thing and
that that then has some fascinating consequences. I do not understand
these th
It appears that several of the "laws" we take for granted don't seem to
hold true at the subatomic level. Even, perhaps, time itself.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> There are many ways you explain that observation, Newton's theory on
> gravitational attraction is but
There are many ways you explain that observation, Newton's theory on
gravitational attraction is but one of them. Newton's theory had a heck of
a run, no doubt, but it was found to not hold at scale, either very large
(relativistic) or very small (quantum). Einstein helped out a lot with
relativit
I'm confused, the more educated group chose evolution. So how did they find
so many Republicans that didn't. If we remember the stats from the last
election, high school and less or PHD+ voted Obama, all else voted Romney.
.
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> http://www
The comments are spot on.
.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
>
> http://www.twcc.com/articles/2013/12/04/1/12-days-of-idiocy-the-dozen-most-jaw-dropping-assertions-in-sarah-palin-s-new-book?cid=twcc:0002
>
> presented without comment.
>
>
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Vivec wrote:
> 1. Billion. Dollars.
> Wow.
>
How much was paid to "Systematic Arguments of Misinformation"?
-Cameron
...
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Ad
I dropped my pen.
Law validated.
On Jan 2, 2014 9:39 AM, "Larry C. Lyons" wrote:
>
> BTW which particular theory of evolution. What is argued now are the fine
> detailed mechanisms, only cranks and crackpots dispute its existence. I
> don't think that even the "Law" of Gravity is as validated.
BTW which particular theory of evolution. What is argued now are the fine
detailed mechanisms, only cranks and crackpots dispute its existence. I
don't think that even the "Law" of Gravity is as validated.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Timothy Heald wrote:
>
> Evolution is still a theory, one
Evolution is still a theory, one which I accept, but not a law.
On Jan 2, 2014 9:01 AM, "Larry C. Lyons" wrote:
>
> the point being is that not accepting the laws of evolution will have the
> same consequences as not accepting the laws of gravity. Same consequences
> only a bit slower.
>
>
> On
the point being is that not accepting the laws of evolution will have the
same consequences as not accepting the laws of gravity. Same consequences
only a bit slower.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Timothy Heald wrote:
>
> So one guy said that, cool, figured it wasn't their nom de gurre.
>
>
http://news.yahoo.com/jindal-gop-must-stop-being-stupid-party-014220693--election.html
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Timothy Heald wrote:
>
> Really, they call themselves that?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Larry C. Lyons >wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-
26 matches
Mail list logo
