AK350Z

Whens she due her P1? or is that something else.....

Arguably, this is mostly to do with the secularisation of the UK, and the greater underpinning of modern life by science. The universe did not come from "nothing". While speculation of what happened before the Big Bang (itself a theory of course, but again, it has evidence) will probably remain speculation for ever, all the matter in the universe was present at that time. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, thermodynamics is one of the few truths on which we can have absolute confidence. Not from nothing, see above. Theological debate. A classic example of moving the goalposts. Once the Creator is pushed back from the space around the earth, he merely pops up again beyond the edge of the observable universe! This doesn't advance the human condition one jot. He's right though. No one's in charge. It's all down to luck and circumstance, there might be another asteroid heading this way with our name on it. It has happened before. Fair enough, I think we all in agreement on this point. Asolutely not. It is in a different category precisely because it is developed by scientists. Creationism is a theory based in dialogue and symbolism, its shape and direction is progressed through art, discussion, and varying points of view. Evolution, like all scientific theories, is based in hypothesis and experimental evidence. We take observations and develop the rules and tools to understand the world around us. The main difference being that any normal person could, given the right tools and knowledge, come to the same conclusion by following the same processes. Beliefs require no evidence, that is why they are called beliefs. No, it is not my opinion. This is the difference. I look at the evidence on both sides and decide which is the more likely. Which better explains the way the world is? Saying that a creator wound up the clockwork and let the world spin away does not tell us anything about the observable universe or our place in it (except perhaps emotionally). You are assuming that creationism and evolution are theories that start on an equal footing, but that is simply not the case. What is the difference? Evidence. Are there holes in evolution? No real scientist would say no. But that's science's strength and its weekness, science acknowledges the holes and tries to fill them. It is self-effacing. Evolution has indeed turned out not quite as simple as the Tree of Life as Darwin has envisaged. There are dead ends, multiple starts, convergencies, sideways diversions, but that does not prevent the larger picture being seen. The development of DNA from RNA, it's all there, like pixels in a television. Isolated points of data on their own, but draw back and a picture starts to form. There are no half apes for the same reason there are no half elephants or half whales. Extinction, disease, ecological niches, fitness for purpose. Evolution is part selective, part luck. The present number of species is but a minutely tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever been. Modern apes haven't evolved because only one group of apes in sub-saharan Africa developed the mental ability to develop complex tool use and eventually, cruicially, give up the hunter-gatherer society for an agricultural one. There were late divergent steps; Neandathals. But they were out competed for resources and despite some interbreeding were eventually wiped out. If you want a better idea of what could have been, look at the Aboriginal people of Austrailia, seperated from the rest of the world for at least 30,000 years. But we do have empirical evidence for evolution, there is none for the exsistence of god or creationism. Yeah, pretty much. We have a complete taxonomic lineage at least. Its more logical than popping into exsistence out of the ether. Not yet. But we at least have theories, and they are testable. No doubt if it ever gets solved Creationists will move the goalposts back once again! Sex allows quicker adaption to enviromental conditions and is a prime driver of evolution. I would say that if you are arguing the side of creationism, you had better accept that it is a absolute truth, because if it isn't, it's no better that any other religious dogma or idea up for theological discussion! I need a lie down after all that!

I was quite worried about how this was going to turn out, but i think the Zeds shape takes it really well! It looks bloomin brilliant!

Well, I'm just trying to straighten the arguments out into their respective categories. The problem is that you have places like the Discovery Institute telling american schools to "Teach the Controversy". This argument of course pre-supposes that there is a controversy! Like the broccolli and gerbil video before, the teaching is that one could not have evolved from the other, but in reality they didn't have to; they both diverged from a primitive multicelled common ancestor tens of millions of years ago. Like a bomb disposal expert, science has to try to get it right at every step, if it doesn't - BOOM! Any chink in its armour can be exploited by spreading doubt and misleading what-ifs. Theorys such as creationism have no such vunerabilities, as they cannot be proven or disproven, or as previously mentioned, falsified (found to be false).

Love alfas! Wouldn't mind a 159 sportwagon at some point

I could say the same about evolution they are views of certain scientists trying to validate a theory but due to it not being an absolute truth just a theory it is therefor a belief or a hypothesis a speculation of what could of been. I could bring up many examples that science cant explain that my belief can, Please do... Not quite. Beliefs are, or may be, different for any particular viewer. The whole point is that science in general, is the same for all viewers. There maybe things that evolution hasn't got explained exactly yet, but creationism is not testable in any way! Why should we belive something that cannot be substantiated? Science has made the world the way it is in many aspects, religion and philiosophy may well be good for emotional and communal wellbeing, but it didn't form planets from the gravitational attraction of dust, or fly your holiday plane to Palma. P.S. I'm liking this debate, better that what colour someones Rays should be!

Hi Ak350z I appreciate what you are saying but to say that you have evidence to put forward that ape turned into man actually happened is within itself again trying to mark evolution as an absolute when it is not. You cannot say 100% that evolution actually happened, just like I cannot say from a scientific point of view that God created man. But it is our belief in evolution that exists due to the plethora of research made and our belief in creation due to the faith and personal experience gained giving us the answers to solve our own personal understanding on how we came into being. You cannot combine the arguments! 1) Evolution. Some people have evidence to the positive, some people have evidence to the negetive. Once statistical outliers and as-yet-undeveloped knowledge (ie bombadier beetle) are either removed or understood we can say with a high degree of probablity that it is true; in the scientific sense of the meaning. Science knows that any measurement cannot, due to quantum effects, ever be 100% true. but it stacks the cards in its favour until such time as all arguments against it are proved false. 2) God created man. You state this is not a scientific argument, so why arrange it against one? Your faith and personal beliefs are, as stated previously, not a matter of science. Your belief in God and his various teachings, such as creationism, are personal views, and as such have no bearing on the way the world actually works. Any alternative views must provide testable hypothesis, or they must remain in the theological debate. See first comment above. This is all part of the theological/philsophical debate. See what I'm saying? They are seperate arguments, It's like me saying the grass is green because of chlorofyl and the wavelength of the light reflected from it, and you saying that you belive it's green because God created it (or the physics of it) that way. I can't say you are wrong, but thats because a) it's a different argument, and unproveable one way or the other.

Fixed that for you! but: Science needs God? Who are we to say that? Veering into theology again...

Right, lets sort this one out. Nothing is fact? Bulls**t. Grass is green, night follows day (follows night etc) Facts. Stone cold Facts. Too many people here are confusing the scientific debate for the theological one. To say there is a "strong case" is slighly misleading. I would say Evolution is Fact. The whole of science is based on empirical evidence and the idea of falsifiable hypothesis - A theory or idea that can be tested and proved either true or false. Science is not subject to "opinion" and "belief". No-one ever really belived the earth was flat, it's a bit of an urban myth. Thousands of years ago people knew that you could sail/walk past and below the horizon and come back again. It wasn't a great leap beyond that to realise that a constantly curving surface eventually creates a circle! As for the atom, theory has always outpaced the observable. By the time the exsistance of the atom was inferred experimentally, other scientists had already be working on sub-atomic theory for some time. If at some point a scientist ever said it was the end of the road, others were certainly saying "Well it can't be because it doesn't explain such-and-such" Again, empirical evidence and experimental result continue to lead the way in answering questions and providing doors to new hypothesis. Creationism does not provide any falsifible hypothesis about the rise of animals and plants on the earth. I wouldn't bet money on anything without knowing the odds first! Again, the scientific and theological arguments are being confused. Seeing God is not falsifiable. Opinion and subjective experience are not science. Obviously no-one has "seen" an ape turn into a man, but that does not mean it didn't happen. And we have evidence to put forward that it did. Theology has no place in scientific discussion any more than science has a place in theological discussion - as your mates GF failed to realise. I'm not trying to be a hard-ass over this, but you need to realise that a seperation exsists between what people "believe" and what "Is". You may indeed say that "both our views have validity whether its accepted by all or not" But you are not having the same argument! Your views may have validity in the theological debate, but she is having a scientific one.

Just met George today and showed him what he was missing; a bluetooth adapter and cradle! A very nice gent to boot, hope to see you again at a meet soon

Thats true Dave, but did no one see the Private Eye cover from a couple of weeks ago:

Pretty much fact mate. Unlike beliving wether God exsists or not, evolution has a huge body of evidence now as it is directly observable in the real world. Take Viruses and Bacteria, some of the simplest forms of life. They adapt to changing conditions much faster than larger organisms because the reproduce much faster, and these adaptions, such as resistance to drugs and the ability to transfer across species, is one of the simplest forms of evolution. Obviously bigger species take a while longer. The Fossil Record is also very helpful, as not only can the progress of species be tracked across millions of years, but we understand the geographical processes of fossilisation and preservation. The World is not a static place, it is constantly changing and developing.

I would say. Is Aviation Legislation one of your outstanding modules by any chance? Nobody seems to be in a rush to take that one!

Hello mate, used to do a bit on the planes, are you a licenced tech?

I would imagine you can count the number of temper orange cars sold on a couple of hands. White will be slightly easier, and black an order of magnitude easier! One temper on ph though: http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1526713.htm You'll never see another on the road... maybe.

Our grandparents/parents didn't go through the War so people could vote for facists! The whole immigration thing isn't the immigrants fault, why do the government make it so easy for folks to claim money left, right, and center? That goes for all our very own british career scroungers too. We have nobbers voting BNP round here, and you'd have to perform a county manhunt to find a handfull of illegal immigrants.

Nice to see and end to it

Correct, and when the next government inevitably puts up VAT along with the fuel price escalator and the currency exchange effect of the deficit, it will all be immaterial!

Finally got round to ordering my new rears today, £164 each fitted FYI The old ones are right on the limit now, I have a guage to make sure I'm getting my moneys worth. Camskill couldn't get them from any of the usual suppliers and had to call Bridgestone direct, where they had, er... 3 in stock! Decided that with the rather pathetic supply quantities, I'd better whack the fronts on the order too, as they'll probably be due in another couple of months, especially with summer fun-time coming up So that will be another £300... Still, I've been unable to fault them, and they seem quite progressive when they (eventually) do break away, so to me it's money well spent. Don't suppose anyone wants my old ones for track tyres etc do they? You can have them for a few notes.

A Con!

Just recieved my two today. ordered on the 19th of april. I'll have to order an extra memory card or two now

Last one looks good RT, nice and compact.

Saffron? You could sell that name to Nissan, much better than Azlean!

Get well soon big phil is all I can say, If he gets better again he can keep the money for me!

Zed outline as above but with username in the middle instead of "www.350Z-uk.com"?