JustStuit

If you still have trouble, separate it out to [math]\sqrt{(25)(3)a^2b^2bc}[/math] and see if that helps.

The koala (koala bear is incorrect) adapted to eat eucalyptus leaves when Austraila changed from a rainforest to the current arid climate. Eucalyptus forests showed up at this time and it adapted a new digestive track to eat these leaves that no other animals do. They still eat other plants, just not as much.

The main advantage it gained was that the leaves contained enough water that it did not have to drink. Now it could stay up in trees and survive longer (until trees died) in droughts. It comes into less contact with predators this way.

Wikipedia:

The Koala lives almost entirely on eucalyptus leaves. This is likely to be an evolutionary adaptation that takes advantage of an otherwise unfilled ecological niche, since eucalyptus leaves are low in protein, high in indigestible substances, and contain phenolic and terpene compounds that are toxic to most species.

Also, the koala was brought to Kangaroo Island where it reached nuisance level with lack of predators.

It seems like it is pretty well off and the evolving helped it to me.

he never said the school gave them to him, he said he GOT them.....

That's what I was implying

And schools don't hand out test tubes or stands as they are expensive to underfunded schools....

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Supreme Court decisions

 

The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Everson also was the first case to interpret the Clause as imposing a restraint on the states as well as the federal government, based upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

In 1962, the Supreme Court banned from public schools all public prayers and religious readings done for religious purposes. The Supreme Court continued to allow private prayer. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs. Even "non-sectarian" teacher-led prayers are not allowed, e.g. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country," which was part of the prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the decision of the Warren Court in Engel v. Vitale.

 

The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America." [5]

 

As authorized by state law, the "Almighty God" prayer had followed the teacher-led pledge of allegiance to the flag, which consisted of the following: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The pledge did not contain the words "Under God" until 1954, when Congress added them to the pledge. While the Court banned the "Almighty God" prayer, whose purported purpose was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator," it did not deliberate upon the "Under God" pledge.

 

Religion expression as part of school concerts or plays was debated before a 1980 court ruling, Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, which was upheld by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling allows religious songs to be performed at school concerts as long as secular songs are also included. So "Silent Night" might be followed by something like "Frosty the Snowman" or "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer."

I think the clause has been come to be interprited seperation of state and church and is ruled accordingly.

Probably store mark-up, brand name, quality of production, and newegg buys in bulk. Not sure though.

The constatation says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" it does not say "we shall keep anything remotely religious away from public schools"

If you are in the US, then yes, there is a seperation of Church and State clause to the first ammendment! Research before you talk.

My assertion is a hypothetical situation, contemplating the aftermath of the discovery of such things, not saying that they have been already. Furthermore there are some who are of the opinion that God is not supernatural.

Re-read my text!

There can be no scientific evidense PROVING or DISPROVING god therefore it is not science.

Science rejects no things, it is the study of the world, if such a study leads to an intelligent designer, God, aliens, Larry King so be it!

Science does reject such things, theories MUST be testable and able to be proven wrong. Again, if you have no knowledge of the subject, research it FIRST. Get the FACTS straight. ID IS NOT, CANNOT, and NEVER will be science.

I see nothing about God being unobservable.

And how do suggest we observe god? Do you have any examples? It CANNOT be observed and therefore cannnot be science. ID can be regarded as religion or gooey mess but it is still not science. There is the seperation of church and state and therefore cannot be in schools.

1: An observable entity, willful force, or otherwise that could influence evolution is discovered.

What are you talking about? When was this force discovered? Hint : It wasn't.

2: There is evidence, measurable, observable, repeatable, that suggests said entity did influence evolution.

Care to back that up? I'll give you one hint - you CAN'T.

3: Alternative explanations fall short and all evidence is credible and validated.

Strawmanning, even if they did fall short that does NOT make ID correct or even plausible.

So I hope that I have cleared up any misinterpretations that I believe ID is a valid theory. I’m only saying that it could under the right circumstances.

So I hope that I have cleared up any musinterpretations of ID for you and how it is NOT and CANNOT be a theory. I'm only saying it can NEVER be science under any circumstances.

If you really want to have fun put on a lab coat and get a clipboard. Go through a parking lot with an important looking grim and lean down and search below each car. Scribble something down each time. After a while, preferably with people watching, look under a random car and run screaming away

Don't actually do that. It might freak people out. Explosions and fire can be very dangerous so be careful with what ever you do.

**loads anti-thread particle ray gun**

I don't care. You can look through and if you find anything you can disprove, choose that one. I doubt you will though.

Try using a reputable source.

Would you care to disprove talk orgins or are you going to be a hypocrite?

Remember you said:

Empty statement. Lets see you debunk it.

Empty statement. Lets see you prove it.

I would say Pictures is my all time favorite.

Citing a creationist site that has been debunked many times is not the brightest idea.

I would have to agree with ecoli in that Pictures at an Exhibition is a great piece. I also like Carmina Burana, Four Scottish Dances by Arnold, Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral by Wagner, Children's March by Grainger (great english horn stuff), and Enigma Variations among others.

Many people have tried and are trying to develope such a thing, so keep your options open.

Hah, my birthdays in may! Exactly double Phi's on the 26th.

As for AzurePhoenix, I give her another year of stress relieving torture on me. Not that she would have stopped anyway

Happy Birthday!

To sum it up for you, a theory must be testable and able to be proven wrong or right.

You can't apply a theory to an area it wasn't developed or tested in. You would have to prove that it also applies there.

Entropy refers to heat and such, not evolution. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution.

thanks AzurePhoenix now i understand' date=' and he( JustStuit) should have wrote:

Praise the Lord Almighty, Wow, very enlightening. Science is of satan and Your proof is substantial. Jesus forgives the Faithfull, very reputable.

 

 

and last but not least: ke mamon eres JustStuit.[/quote']

Well, did you not understand it? I do believe a five year old could understand that. And calling me a baby makes your "proof of god" true? Real mature....

What ever, make it better next time or leave it out.

If it was a joke you're in the wrong section.

I'm sorry we didn't arbitrarily pull the exact random number out of nowhere that you were thinking......