To the point as usual, Mr Biggs :) I suspect they believe in us, its just that they can't comprehend how much they wind everybody up! And... you can't have a god complex without someone to hold dominion over.... ha... there, I have proven not only the existence of Americans, but also of myself! Patrick
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Simon Biggs <[email protected]> wrote: > But how many Americans believe in the rest of the world? > > Simon Biggs > Research Professor > edinburgh college of art > [email protected] > www.eca.ac.uk > www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ > > [email protected] > www.littlepig.org.uk > AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *patrick simons <[email protected]> > *Reply-To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:29:35 +0100 > *To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [NetBehaviour] [stuff-it] FW: Only 33 per cent of Americans > believe in evolution > > how about only 33% of the rest of the world believe in Americans? > Patrick > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Geert Dekkers <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually, what I found most interesting in the article was that while 33% > of Americans don't "believe" in evolution, 57% consider science important > (or was it "extremely" important?) And I'd add, even the most fanatical > creationists rely om the internal combustion engine to get to their > meetings, showing that being religious and (at least) the use of scientic > achievements don't rule each other out. > > Geert > > On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > > There are healthy debates about some of the details but there are no > serious scientific theories that are alternatives to evolution by natural > selection. If there were they would replace evolution as experiments and > studies confirmed them. That's the beauty of science when it works. > > Science doesn't require faith, just one less philosophical assumption than > religion. The practice of science requires personal drive and curiosity, and > is subject to social pressures, but it is the least worst means we have of > acquiring knowledge about the world. Art is a complement to it but religion > has declared itself a rival. > > - rob. > > > On Jul 13, 2009 9:47 AM, "Olga" <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is a very interesting discussion but I was hoping to hear some > alternative scientific theories. For what I know, and I know very > little on the subject, there are alternative scientific theories that > challenge the theory of evolution as we know it. Can anyone give me a > bit more information on those? > > And also, I think science involves big amounts of faith as well... > > -- > Olga > http://www.ungravitational.net > http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com > > > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list > netbehavi...@netbehaviour.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number > SC009201 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
