Wow, that means all my scientific papers I submitted which are not yet accepted are rejected too then? Come to think of it, also the ones I am still writing and may write in the future! Ouch. Bizarre comment.
No soup for you! Just Kidding...
In Science it's not accepted until proven... And even then... Remember Schools TODAY still teach creationism and I'm pretty sure that's been proven false. So says the 10k year old Mammoth in ice, the neanderthal...
I'm not aware of any scientific journals that follow this particular practice.
However, this is a nearly perfect analogy. What often happens is that one's paper may not be accepted or rejected outright, but that reviewers will suggest (read: require) changes, additions or deletions to the content of the paper for it to be accepted. Sometimes the researcher will make those changes, sometimes they may refuse to make the suggested changes because they feel it compromises the validity of their work, and sometimes it may be impractical for them to carry out the necessary work required by the suggested changes.
Right, exactly. So, "rejected in its current form. Please feel free to submit a new version"
You can. Jailbreak it. Of course that goes against Apple's TOS that you agreed to. BUT YOU DO HAVE THE CHOICE. But since you did it your way don't ask for help, because in doing the JB you have TAKEN CONTROL as you stated on a device you bought.
If I purchase a weed whacker and convert it to a blender (have done) and it breaks should that be covered under warranty? NO. It's mine and I did what I wanted to with it but in doing so I broke the terms of the warranty. Same Thing.
So yea, your right and have the right to jailbreak it. But in doing so don't ask for help when it breaks.
EDIT: Sorry, just re-read it and it sounds like I'm raggin the poster. I'm not so don't take it that way. I'm just adding to the argument.
Yes, you could do a j/b, for now. Apple is actively trying to prevent this, though both legal and technical impediments. Whether you have the right to jail break it would depend on whom you speak to. I would say you do, or at least should.
Right there with ya. You can Jailbreak the iPhone and install the Google Voice app right now. It's out there.
No you cannot.
Maybe you are confused and actually mean you can jail break and install one of the third party apps that supported Google Voice. Certainly, if you mean the actual Google Voice app that Google submitted to Apple, you are wrong....unless someone that had a beta copy of the actual GV app and put it on Cydia, but that would be a very recent development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva
In releasing it that way Apple may decide Google is a rouge company in their eyes. But hey, it's their eyes.
Damn good thing for Google, then, that the didn't do as you claim. GV Mobile and Sean Kovaks may have screwed themselves though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva
You don't see Dell's in an Apple store... It's their store, it's their decision. You don't like it? Release with another company offering their own App store for the iPhone.
No, but then you could walk down to BestBuy and see both. There is an alternative to the store itself.
In Science it's not accepted until proven... And even then... Remember Schools TODAY still teach creationism and I'm pretty sure that's been proven false.
Really? Care to point to anything that states this?
Quote:
So says the 10k year old Mammoth in ice, the neanderthal...
So why is it still called the "Theory of Evolution"?
Well, you know what they say, simple things for simple minds. It doesn't much to impress them. Not that I am calling you simple.
What would impress me would be a continuation of the positions you have put forward about google as a company and how they could have any bearing on any decision Apple has made regarding GV. You've been dodging for some time now, resorting to tangents and other evasions when pressed.
Saying silly things like
Quote:
"The fact is, the biggest reason there is no privacy on the Internet is because of Google."
Quote:
"Arrogance and greed will push them to use that information for whatever purposes enhance their power and increase their revenues."
Quote:
"However, I have repeatedly stated that Google's intent is to undermine Apple's (and Microsoft's) platforms as places where people maintain, and go to for, information, for the purpose of gaining control over that information themselves, and the process of accessing it."
All of which might be true or might be paranoid delusions. You had yet to put together an intelligent reason that these might have contributed to the GV app not being approved. The best you have come up with so far is:
Quote:
"Their services trivialize other platforms for the benefit of Google, and to the detriment of Apple (and Microsoft, and individuals' privacy and control of their own information and access to other information) and it is absolutely not in Apple's interest to allow that to happen. Which is exactly why Apple has a strong interest in not allowing GV on the iPhone as long as it is in a form that undermines, or trivalizes, the iPhone platform, and, thus, threatens Apple's long-term viability and financial health."
So, how exactly does not approving the GV app assist Apple in avoiding the great google threat you speak of? How does it help protect our privacy? If it does help protect our privacy, how does this benefit Apple? How does it undermine or trivialize the iPhone as a platform, given that it would be an optional install and that even when installed the original functionality would exist? And given the functionality would be available without a native app, how does not approving the app provide any addition protection for us or Apple?
It has been a long wait for an intelligent response from you. I hope you will try to avoid evading, but am not very hopeful of this. Perhaps I should go and watch Loose Change again to get in the right mindset.
It has been a long wait for an intelligent response from you.
HAHAHA! Are you still waiting? Sorry, I deliberately misled you. I have no intention of wasting intelligent responses on you. Mostly I'm just toying with you now.
HAHAHA! Are you still waiting? Sorry, I deliberately misled you. I have no intention of wasting intelligent responses on you. Mostly I'm just toying with you now.
Yep, still waiting. I was really hoping that you weren't just another of those posters that post statements without actually understanding what they are writing. That perhaps you had the sense to be able to back up your claims. That you had the ability to do more than post empty accusations or paranoid conspiracy theories unrelated to the discussion at hand.
I suppose it is my fault for having too much hope for you.
Your inability to back up your positions puts you in good stead. You join the hallowed ranks of those that think Google will rootkit you and does; those that believe Google Voice on the iPhone secretly sends all of your data to the Google masters. Those that believe Apple can never be wrong. Your own tinfoil hat theories were really always a part of this group anyway.
I just really hoped to see you try to formulate an intelligent response. Can't squeeze water from a rock, I guess.
It is not now as in , just beginning to be called that.
It has always been only a theory since it was published in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" by Charles Darwin, 1859.
Since it has never been scientifically proven, it is still a theory.
Sadly, this point about whether it is "proven" or not is based on semantic confusion, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
That it is now the accepted (which it was not always) theory of the origins and diversity of life indicates that it has strong predicative power and a high level of confirmation, and that it outperforms competing hypotheses in this regard. (Funny how natural selection also applies to science, isn't it?) With the addition that a scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable (Otherwise, if it's not possible that it can be contradicted by observation, it's not science.), that's the meaning of "theory" in science. That's not the meaning of "theory" in ordinary discourse where it means something closer to "unconfirmed hypothesis" or even "conjecture".
The argument about it being, "only a theory," is quite simply, based on a confusion of two different meanings of the word "theory", and, furthermore, on a basic confusion surrounding the concept of "proven".
In the ordinary sense of the word "proven", one would certainly say that the Theory of Evolution has been "proven". It has certainly been "proven" far beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard that constitutes proof in a court of law. It has been "proven" to the extent that there are no know contradicting facts that cast doubt on it in its main points.
But, scientists are a persnickety bunch, and since they always keep open the possibility, no matter how remote, that some observation could lead to the falsification of a theory, they are loathe to say that any theory is "proven", regardless of the degree of confirmation it may have. So, when a scientist says that something is a theory, that it is not "proven", it means something very different from what most people suppose it to mean. In fact, in this sense, your phrase "scientifically proven" is oxymoronic because if it's scientific, by the very definition of science, it will not be considered ever "proven" regardless of the amount of evidence in it's favor.
If you are actually interested in learning about this, and not just here to make religious points, I suggest Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations as an excellent starting point for understanding the how science works and what it means for something to be a theory.
Sadly, this point about whether it is "proven" or not is based on semantic confusion, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
That it is now the accepted (which it was not always) theory of the origins and diversity of life indicates that it has strong predicative power and a high level of confirmation, and that it outperforms competing hypotheses in this regard. (Funny how natural selection also applies to science, isn't it?) With the addition that a scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable (Otherwise, if it's not possible that it can be contradicted by observation, it's not science.), that's the meaning of "theory" in science. That's not the meaning of "theory" in ordinary discourse where it means something closer to "unconfirmed hypothesis" or even "conjecture".
The argument about it being, "only a theory," is quite simply, based on a confusion of two different meanings of the word "theory", and, furthermore, on a basic confusion surrounding the concept of "proven".
In the ordinary sense of the word "proven", one would certainly say that the Theory of Evolution has been "proven". It has certainly been "proven" far beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard that constitutes proof in a court of law. It has been "proven" to the extent that there are no know contradicting facts that cast doubt on it in its main points.
But, scientists are a persnickety bunch, and since they always keep open the possibility, no matter how remote, that some observation could lead to the falsification of a theory, they are loathe to say that any theory is "proven", regardless of the degree of confirmation it may have. So, when a scientist says that something is a theory, that it is not "proven", it means something very different from what most people suppose it to mean. In fact, in this sense, your phrase "scientifically proven" is oxymoronic because if it's scientific, by the very definition of science, it will not be considered ever "proven" regardless of the amount of evidence in it's favor.
If you are actually interested in learning about this, and not just here to make religious points, I suggest Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations as an excellent starting point for understanding the how science works and what it means for something to be a theory.
I completely agree with you.
Otherwise, according to those religious nuts, we should be teaching our kids in junior high that parallel lines can intersect in non-euclidean geometry. It's been proven that Einstein is correct that space is curved where there is matter. You shine a pair of parallel laser beams near the space around the sun where the space is actually curved --- the parallel laser beams will intersect each other.
There are a million other examples like that in basic math and science --- where we deliberately teach kids the wrong thing. The atom is not the smallest thing on earth. The internal angles of triangles don't have to be 180 degrees (in non-euclidean geometry).
That it is now the accepted (which it was not always) theory
Being the most accepted and plausible (according the scientific community) theory does not make it less of a theory and more "proven" (or whatever word you choose to use).
Quote:
In the ordinary sense of the word "proven", one would certainly say that the Theory of Evolution has been "proven". It has certainly been "proven" far beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard that constitutes proof in a court of law. It has been "proven" to the extent that there are no know contradicting facts that cast doubt on it in its main points.
And? Here's a poll of "ordinary" people U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution showing 40% accept evolution and 39% reject evolution. (Yes you could easily find different numbers. First one I found at google. Others were similar.)
And (Darwin's) evolution and creationism are not (necessarily) mutually exclusive though the general public will generally think of evolution as "stuff" combing and eventually crawling out of the ocean, ad nauseum, until here we are today.
But my post was in response to xwiredtva;
Quote:
Remember Schools TODAY still teach creationism and I'm pretty sure that's been proven false.
It hasn't been proven false. Not being proven and being proven false are not the same.
But this topic is not about religion. It's about Google/Apple/FCC.
Being the most accepted and plausible (according the scientific community) theory does not make it less of a theory and more "proven" (or whatever word you choose to use).
It's unfortunate that you are unable or unwilling to come to an understanding of what science is and is not and what it means for something to be a scientific theory.
Being the most accepted and plausible (according the scientific community) theory does not make it less of a theory and more "proven" (or whatever word you choose to use).
And? Here's a poll of "ordinary" people U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution showing 40% accept evolution and 39% reject evolution. (Yes you could easily find different numbers. First one I found at google. Others were similar.)
And (Darwin's) evolution and creationism are not (necessarily) mutually exclusive though the general public will generally think of evolution as "stuff" combing and eventually crawling out of the ocean, ad nauseum, until here we are today.
But my post was in response to xwiredtva;
It hasn't been proven false. Not being proven and being proven false are not the same.
But this topic is not about religion. It's about Google/Apple/FCC.
Next stop...
Nazis!
It's been proven false because with just Adam and Eve they would have needed to have a baby every 1.2 days or something like that to match the current population (exponentially). SO unless the religions can substantiate that fact there's no case.... And Pope John back in 2000 admitted Darwin was probably correct but they will hold to the religious teaching (not a bad thing) but stop pushing the other. His admittance was based on the Junior High students math on the subject of the 5000 year thing, Adam and Eve thing and current population.
Nazi's... Someone wanna post that click from Family guy when Brian and Stewie goto the UK...
Right, exactly. So, "rejected in its current form. Please feel free to submit a new version"
Thanks for the clarification.
'Rejected' in the scientific world means: forget it, go to another scientific journal. As soon as major or minor revisions are required, the manuscript requires some tweaking or some extra experiments, and, impotantly, objections from reviewers are open to discussion; I personally consider a request for major or minor revisions as an 'almost accepted'. YMMV.
Comments
Wow, that means all my scientific papers I submitted which are not yet accepted are rejected too then? Come to think of it, also the ones I am still writing and may write in the future! Ouch. Bizarre comment.
No soup for you! Just Kidding...
In Science it's not accepted until proven... And even then... Remember Schools TODAY still teach creationism and I'm pretty sure that's been proven false. So says the 10k year old Mammoth in ice, the neanderthal...
I'm not aware of any scientific journals that follow this particular practice.
However, this is a nearly perfect analogy. What often happens is that one's paper may not be accepted or rejected outright, but that reviewers will suggest (read: require) changes, additions or deletions to the content of the paper for it to be accepted. Sometimes the researcher will make those changes, sometimes they may refuse to make the suggested changes because they feel it compromises the validity of their work, and sometimes it may be impractical for them to carry out the necessary work required by the suggested changes.
Right, exactly. So, "rejected in its current form. Please feel free to submit a new version"
Thanks for the clarification.
You can. Jailbreak it. Of course that goes against Apple's TOS that you agreed to. BUT YOU DO HAVE THE CHOICE. But since you did it your way don't ask for help, because in doing the JB you have TAKEN CONTROL as you stated on a device you bought.
If I purchase a weed whacker and convert it to a blender (have done) and it breaks should that be covered under warranty? NO. It's mine and I did what I wanted to with it but in doing so I broke the terms of the warranty. Same Thing.
So yea, your right and have the right to jailbreak it. But in doing so don't ask for help when it breaks.
EDIT: Sorry, just re-read it and it sounds like I'm raggin the poster. I'm not so don't take it that way. I'm just adding to the argument.
Yes, you could do a j/b, for now. Apple is actively trying to prevent this, though both legal and technical impediments. Whether you have the right to jail break it would depend on whom you speak to. I would say you do, or at least should.
Right, exactly. So, "rejected in its current form. Please feel free to submit a new version"
Thanks for the clarification.
Well, you have to be capable of nuanced thought to understand the distinction, of course.
Right there with ya. You can Jailbreak the iPhone and install the Google Voice app right now. It's out there.
No you cannot.
Maybe you are confused and actually mean you can jail break and install one of the third party apps that supported Google Voice. Certainly, if you mean the actual Google Voice app that Google submitted to Apple, you are wrong....unless someone that had a beta copy of the actual GV app and put it on Cydia, but that would be a very recent development.
In releasing it that way Apple may decide Google is a rouge company in their eyes. But hey, it's their eyes.
Damn good thing for Google, then, that the didn't do as you claim. GV Mobile and Sean Kovaks may have screwed themselves though.
You don't see Dell's in an Apple store... It's their store, it's their decision. You don't like it? Release with another company offering their own App store for the iPhone.
No, but then you could walk down to BestBuy and see both. There is an alternative to the store itself.
Period, the END.
Yup.
In Science it's not accepted until proven... And even then... Remember Schools TODAY still teach creationism and I'm pretty sure that's been proven false.
Really? Care to point to anything that states this?
So says the 10k year old Mammoth in ice, the neanderthal...
So why is it still called the "Theory of Evolution"?
Well, you have to be capable of nuanced thought to understand the distinction, of course.
Or just gullible enough to fool yourself to think otherwise.
So why is it still called the "Theory of Evolution"?
Actually, the correct question is: Why is it now called the "Theory of Evolution"?
Or just gullible enough to fool yourself to think otherwise.
A very insightful introspection. I'm impressed!
A very insightful introspection. I'm impressed!
Well, you know what they say, simple things for simple minds. It doesn't much to impress them. Not that I am calling you simple.
What would impress me would be a continuation of the positions you have put forward about google as a company and how they could have any bearing on any decision Apple has made regarding GV. You've been dodging for some time now, resorting to tangents and other evasions when pressed.
Saying silly things like
"The fact is, the biggest reason there is no privacy on the Internet is because of Google."
"Arrogance and greed will push them to use that information for whatever purposes enhance their power and increase their revenues."
"However, I have repeatedly stated that Google's intent is to undermine Apple's (and Microsoft's) platforms as places where people maintain, and go to for, information, for the purpose of gaining control over that information themselves, and the process of accessing it."
All of which might be true or might be paranoid delusions. You had yet to put together an intelligent reason that these might have contributed to the GV app not being approved. The best you have come up with so far is:
"Their services trivialize other platforms for the benefit of Google, and to the detriment of Apple (and Microsoft, and individuals' privacy and control of their own information and access to other information) and it is absolutely not in Apple's interest to allow that to happen. Which is exactly why Apple has a strong interest in not allowing GV on the iPhone as long as it is in a form that undermines, or trivalizes, the iPhone platform, and, thus, threatens Apple's long-term viability and financial health."
So, how exactly does not approving the GV app assist Apple in avoiding the great google threat you speak of? How does it help protect our privacy? If it does help protect our privacy, how does this benefit Apple? How does it undermine or trivialize the iPhone as a platform, given that it would be an optional install and that even when installed the original functionality would exist? And given the functionality would be available without a native app, how does not approving the app provide any addition protection for us or Apple?
It has been a long wait for an intelligent response from you. I hope you will try to avoid evading, but am not very hopeful of this. Perhaps I should go and watch Loose Change again to get in the right mindset.
It has been a long wait for an intelligent response from you.
HAHAHA! Are you still waiting? Sorry, I deliberately misled you. I have no intention of wasting intelligent responses on you. Mostly I'm just toying with you now.
HAHAHA! Are you still waiting? Sorry, I deliberately misled you. I have no intention of wasting intelligent responses on you. Mostly I'm just toying with you now.
Yep, still waiting. I was really hoping that you weren't just another of those posters that post statements without actually understanding what they are writing. That perhaps you had the sense to be able to back up your claims. That you had the ability to do more than post empty accusations or paranoid conspiracy theories unrelated to the discussion at hand.
I suppose it is my fault for having too much hope for you.
Your inability to back up your positions puts you in good stead. You join the hallowed ranks of those that think Google will rootkit you and does; those that believe Google Voice on the iPhone secretly sends all of your data to the Google masters. Those that believe Apple can never be wrong. Your own tinfoil hat theories were really always a part of this group anyway.
I just really hoped to see you try to formulate an intelligent response. Can't squeeze water from a rock, I guess.
Actually, the correct question is: Why is it now called the "Theory of Evolution"?
It is not now , as in "just beginning", to be called that.
It has always been only a theory since it was published in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" by Charles Darwin, 1859.
Since it has never been scientifically proven, it is still a theory.
It is not now as in , just beginning to be called that.
It has always been only a theory since it was published in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" by Charles Darwin, 1859.
Since it has never been scientifically proven, it is still a theory.
Sadly, this point about whether it is "proven" or not is based on semantic confusion, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
That it is now the accepted (which it was not always) theory of the origins and diversity of life indicates that it has strong predicative power and a high level of confirmation, and that it outperforms competing hypotheses in this regard. (Funny how natural selection also applies to science, isn't it?) With the addition that a scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable (Otherwise, if it's not possible that it can be contradicted by observation, it's not science.), that's the meaning of "theory" in science. That's not the meaning of "theory" in ordinary discourse where it means something closer to "unconfirmed hypothesis" or even "conjecture".
The argument about it being, "only a theory," is quite simply, based on a confusion of two different meanings of the word "theory", and, furthermore, on a basic confusion surrounding the concept of "proven".
In the ordinary sense of the word "proven", one would certainly say that the Theory of Evolution has been "proven". It has certainly been "proven" far beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard that constitutes proof in a court of law. It has been "proven" to the extent that there are no know contradicting facts that cast doubt on it in its main points.
But, scientists are a persnickety bunch, and since they always keep open the possibility, no matter how remote, that some observation could lead to the falsification of a theory, they are loathe to say that any theory is "proven", regardless of the degree of confirmation it may have. So, when a scientist says that something is a theory, that it is not "proven", it means something very different from what most people suppose it to mean. In fact, in this sense, your phrase "scientifically proven" is oxymoronic because if it's scientific, by the very definition of science, it will not be considered ever "proven" regardless of the amount of evidence in it's favor.
If you are actually interested in learning about this, and not just here to make religious points, I suggest Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations as an excellent starting point for understanding the how science works and what it means for something to be a theory.
Sadly, this point about whether it is "proven" or not is based on semantic confusion, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
That it is now the accepted (which it was not always) theory of the origins and diversity of life indicates that it has strong predicative power and a high level of confirmation, and that it outperforms competing hypotheses in this regard. (Funny how natural selection also applies to science, isn't it?) With the addition that a scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable (Otherwise, if it's not possible that it can be contradicted by observation, it's not science.), that's the meaning of "theory" in science. That's not the meaning of "theory" in ordinary discourse where it means something closer to "unconfirmed hypothesis" or even "conjecture".
The argument about it being, "only a theory," is quite simply, based on a confusion of two different meanings of the word "theory", and, furthermore, on a basic confusion surrounding the concept of "proven".
In the ordinary sense of the word "proven", one would certainly say that the Theory of Evolution has been "proven". It has certainly been "proven" far beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard that constitutes proof in a court of law. It has been "proven" to the extent that there are no know contradicting facts that cast doubt on it in its main points.
But, scientists are a persnickety bunch, and since they always keep open the possibility, no matter how remote, that some observation could lead to the falsification of a theory, they are loathe to say that any theory is "proven", regardless of the degree of confirmation it may have. So, when a scientist says that something is a theory, that it is not "proven", it means something very different from what most people suppose it to mean. In fact, in this sense, your phrase "scientifically proven" is oxymoronic because if it's scientific, by the very definition of science, it will not be considered ever "proven" regardless of the amount of evidence in it's favor.
If you are actually interested in learning about this, and not just here to make religious points, I suggest Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations as an excellent starting point for understanding the how science works and what it means for something to be a theory.
I completely agree with you.
Otherwise, according to those religious nuts, we should be teaching our kids in junior high that parallel lines can intersect in non-euclidean geometry. It's been proven that Einstein is correct that space is curved where there is matter. You shine a pair of parallel laser beams near the space around the sun where the space is actually curved --- the parallel laser beams will intersect each other.
There are a million other examples like that in basic math and science --- where we deliberately teach kids the wrong thing. The atom is not the smallest thing on earth. The internal angles of triangles don't have to be 180 degrees (in non-euclidean geometry).
That it is now the accepted (which it was not always) theory
Being the most accepted and plausible (according the scientific community) theory does not make it less of a theory and more "proven" (or whatever word you choose to use).
In the ordinary sense of the word "proven", one would certainly say that the Theory of Evolution has been "proven". It has certainly been "proven" far beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard that constitutes proof in a court of law. It has been "proven" to the extent that there are no know contradicting facts that cast doubt on it in its main points.
And? Here's a poll of "ordinary" people U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution showing 40% accept evolution and 39% reject evolution. (Yes you could easily find different numbers. First one I found at google. Others were similar.)
And (Darwin's) evolution and creationism are not (necessarily) mutually exclusive though the general public will generally think of evolution as "stuff" combing and eventually crawling out of the ocean, ad nauseum, until here we are today.
But my post was in response to xwiredtva;
Remember Schools TODAY still teach creationism and I'm pretty sure that's been proven false.
It hasn't been proven false. Not being proven and being proven false are not the same.
But this topic is not about religion. It's about Google/Apple/FCC.
Next stop...
Nazis!
Being the most accepted and plausible (according the scientific community) theory does not make it less of a theory and more "proven" (or whatever word you choose to use).
It's unfortunate that you are unable or unwilling to come to an understanding of what science is and is not and what it means for something to be a scientific theory.
Regardless of any religious point...
Being the most accepted and plausible (according the scientific community) theory does not make it less of a theory and more "proven" (or whatever word you choose to use).
And? Here's a poll of "ordinary" people U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution showing 40% accept evolution and 39% reject evolution. (Yes you could easily find different numbers. First one I found at google. Others were similar.)
And (Darwin's) evolution and creationism are not (necessarily) mutually exclusive though the general public will generally think of evolution as "stuff" combing and eventually crawling out of the ocean, ad nauseum, until here we are today.
But my post was in response to xwiredtva;
It hasn't been proven false. Not being proven and being proven false are not the same.
But this topic is not about religion. It's about Google/Apple/FCC.
Next stop...
Nazis!
It's been proven false because with just Adam and Eve they would have needed to have a baby every 1.2 days or something like that to match the current population (exponentially). SO unless the religions can substantiate that fact there's no case.... And Pope John back in 2000 admitted Darwin was probably correct but they will hold to the religious teaching (not a bad thing) but stop pushing the other. His admittance was based on the Junior High students math on the subject of the 5000 year thing, Adam and Eve thing and current population.
Nazi's... Someone wanna post that click from Family guy when Brian and Stewie goto the UK...
Agree to disagree and leave it be.
Ok, The End.
Right, exactly. So, "rejected in its current form. Please feel free to submit a new version"
Thanks for the clarification.
'Rejected' in the scientific world means: forget it, go to another scientific journal. As soon as major or minor revisions are required, the manuscript requires some tweaking or some extra experiments, and, impotantly, objections from reviewers are open to discussion; I personally consider a request for major or minor revisions as an 'almost accepted'. YMMV.