please, please do not equate conservatives to religious fundamentalist wackos.

there are many of one in the other, but they are not the same across the board.

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 2:19 PM. Reason : *]

8/10/2005 2:18:37 PM

we always get equated with hippies, I'd almost rather be mixed up with the fundies than them

8/10/2005 2:25:19 PM

Has anyone ever noticed that the critics of evolution don't even understand the theory?

8/10/2005 2:48:08 PM

the theory of evolution is a fact.

facts are not immutable.

do you understand that GrumpyGOP?

relativity is NOT immutable. but its supported by so much evidence, like evolution, that it represents truth as we know it.

facts represent our best understanding, WE KNOW THAT SOMETIMES FACTS ARE WRONG




so even saying evolution is a "fact" doesnt mean it will never be proven false -- it simply that its incredibly incredibly unlikely given how much we know about it







so, your argument about what evolution should be called, a 'theoyr' vs a 'fact' -- is essentially invalid and nonsensical based on the scientific and dictionary definitions of those words





[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 2:59 PM. Reason : -]

8/10/2005 2:56:57 PM

Quote :

"All I ask -- and what several of my opponents here have deemed reasonable -- is that it be taught as the prevailing scientific theory, that it be explained fairly (possible inconsistencies or shortcomings not swept under the rug), and that it NOT be displayed as uncontestable fact. "

Differences aside, you and I are arguing for the same result from opposing viewpoints. If science teachers are presenting controversial theories as facts, they're wrong and ought not to be teaching.

My point, however, is that a significant portion of "evolution" theory is not controversial. What parts of evolution were taught as fact that shouldn't have? Plate techtonic records are pretty uncontroversial (and back by fossil records). After googling around science traces the fist one-celled organisms back X billion years ago, not much controversy there. My classroom in particular went over the fossil record and excavated evidence showing the progression of primitive hominids to modern humans, but it was clear some of the progression was guesswork. The list goes on....

In short, I'm willing to give teachers the benefit of the doubt, and you aren't. We can agree though that the more controversial macroevolution concepts need to be taken with a grain of salt. The microevolution stuff is off limits....

8/10/2005 3:49:55 PM

why do people keep saying evolution is controversial.

there is NO controversy. almost all biologists believe it happened.


SHOW ME THE CONTROVERSY

8/10/2005 3:52:46 PM

well, you have educated people who don't believe in the tooth fairy for evolution vs. stupid inbred morons who can't believe what isn't in the bible for creationism.

8/10/2005 3:58:42 PM

since creationism is controversial too, i think in sunday school it should be mandatory that it be thought as just a theory

8/10/2005 4:04:50 PM

in the interest of fair play, sure.

8/10/2005 4:20:44 PM

Quote :

"why do people keep saying evolution is controversial. there is NO controversy. almost all biologists believe it happened. SHOW ME THE CONTROVERSY "

The controversy exists in the media and politics, which is all that matters to these people, and all that needs to matter. It helps the politicians concocting this craziness swing some votes their way.

8/10/2005 4:28:12 PM

Quote :

"That disclaimer is implied."

Educated people known that because they have been taught it. Kids in freshman high school biology don't know it because they haven't.

Quote :

"Your heart stopping for a moment is not the same thing as dying."

It is frequently recognized as such.

Quote :

"The government isn't forcing them to abandon their religion"

When taught improperly, it forces kids to discuss and describe something as fact in order to get a grade.

Quote :

"So if a student were to ask a science teacher, "Can a man walk on water?" or "Can it ever rain frogs?", should the science teacher refuse to answer with the correct answer simply because it goes agianst what some of the students might believe?"

I have had answered questions exactly like this from you on several occasions here, I shant do it.

Quote :

"the theory of evolution is a fact."

You clearly have trouble with dictionary definitions, as clearly demonstrated by your lack of understanding of what "controversial" and "fact" mean.

8/10/2005 5:00:22 PM

Quote :

"Educated people known that because they have been taught it. Kids in freshman high school biology don't know it because they haven't."

They know it.

Quote :

"It is frequently recognized as such."

So the dead walk the earth? That's stupid. And it's not recognized as such, that's simply someone who's heart stopped for a second. Death by definition is permenant.

Quote :

"When taught improperly, it forces kids to discuss and describe something as fact in order to get a grade."

It is a fact.

Quote :

"I have had answered questions exactly like this from you on several occasions here, I shant do it."

No you haven't, you brushed it off and started talking about something else.

8/10/2005 5:15:33 PM

Sounds good to me. They still teach matter and grammer and those are pretty useless too.

da kat id on da matt

8/10/2005 5:18:54 PM

Quote :

"You clearly have trouble with dictionary definitions, as clearly demonstrated by your lack of understanding of what "controversial" and "fact" mean"

my definitions are from the dictionary. where are yours?

8/10/2005 5:40:17 PM

The general idea that things evolved can practically be considered a fact (the only other way would really HAVE to be a god, but no religion has any beliefs that coincide with the things we KNOW about the universe), but the specific mechanisms of evolution are not really known well enough to consider the facts. Even in HS, we were taught there were competing theories like punctuated equilibrium, or slow gradual change.

8/10/2005 5:44:46 PM

8/10/2005 8:36:41 PM

Quote :

"They know it."

So these kids are too dumb to believe that evolution is accurate and that literal Creationism is kinda dumb, but they're smart enough to understand the finer philosophical points of how nothing is known for certain.

Riiiiight.

Quote :

"It is a fact."

It is a fact that it is a theory, yes. That's about all you've got.

Look, maybe if you teach a different definition of "fact" to kids in school you can do this, but right now the distinction between "fact" and "something that is definitely true" seems a little unclear to a lot of the population.

Quote :

"No you haven't, you brushed it off and started talking about something else."

Sigh...this look familiar?

Quote :

"the fact that people don't come back to life nowadays doesn't necessarily conflict with the idea that Christ or Lazarus did. We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that those people came back from the dead, and that's fine, you can say as much, but you can't say, "Nobody has ever come back from the dead.""

You can replace the whole "coming back from the dead" thing with "walking on water" or "raining frogs" and you get the exact same response.

Quote :

"my definitions are from the dictionary. where are yours?"

Let's see 'em.

8/10/2005 8:52:25 PM

Quote :

"but they're smart enough to understand the finer philosophical points of how nothing is known for certain"

It's not philosophy, it's just knowing that science doesn't explain everything, which any child knows.

Quote :

"It is a fact that it is a theory, yes. That's about all you've got."

No, it's a fact we evolved from monkeys, it's the exact mechanism that isn't quite completely understood, that causes it to be known as a theory. Much like the theory of gravity or relativity. We know that dropping something will cause it to fall to the floor, what we don't know exactly is how the earth's gravitational pull acts on an object, but it's a fact it will hit the floor.

Quote :

"You can replace the whole "coming back from the dead" thing with "walking on water" or "raining frogs" and you get the exact same response."

Well why can't we say nobody has ever come back from the dead? No one ever has.

Quote :

"Let's see 'em."

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fact&x=0&y=0
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 10:09 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2005 10:09:07 PM

8/11/2005 12:15:46 AM

I don't recall any of the "scientific theories" having any real evidence either. Intelligent Design is just as probable as evolution or the "big bang." that being said, just because you believe it's all about religion, doesn't mean that it is. It is a realistic THEORY, just like the others and should be given the same consideration when it comes to expanding the minds of our children.

8/11/2005 12:59:34 AM

Quote :

"I don't recall any of the "scientific theories" having any real evidence either."

Really? None?

Damn boy, you dumb.

Quote :

"Intelligent Design is just as probable as evolution or the "big bang.""

I'd like to see you explain that to stephen hawking

8/11/2005 1:02:53 AM

Quote :

"No, it's a fact we evolved from monkeys"

We didn't evolve from monkeys... monkeys and humans share a common ancestor, that probably wasn't a monkey or a human, but something in between.

8/11/2005 1:12:41 AM

^^^

I am personally tired of this sorry talking point.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is NOT an alternative to Evolution, as a theory or otherwise. Evolution quite plainly is the theory of how the randomness inherent to genetic processes affects life; it is NOT in and of itself a theory of how man came to be.

Even if we consider Intelligent Design, intellectual honesty (and practical biology) STILL demands that we address the question of how randomness affects genetic processes over a long period of time. Intelligent Design DOES NOT address that question, ALL it addresses is the creation of man, the Universe, et al.

The intellectual dishonesty inherent to this debate is not a philosophical difference based on religion vs. science. It is the inability of all parties involved politically to understand what the theory of evolution actually IS, as it is narrowly defined, and to see how ALL the phenomena it explains are NOT explained by Intelligent Design.

Instead of discrediting evolution as "just a theory," the science classes that consider it should simply remain within a narrower context and avoid the general question of "creation" when evolution is discussed. Clearly "creation" is a broader topic than genetic processes, and it logically includes branches of study other than biology, such as cosmology, theology, etc.

But to say that evolution is "just a theory" and that Intelligent Design is somehow directly relevant to it, is just plain disgraceful. The whole "debate" is disgraceful. And Americans should be wary of letting the backwater, anti- and pseudo-intellectual interests control the tone and context of our public debates.

[Edited on August 11, 2005 at 1:16 AM. Reason : foo]

8/11/2005 1:16:17 AM

Quote :

"We didn't evolve from monkeys... monkeys and humans share a common ancestor, that probably wasn't a monkey or a human, but something in between."

Hi, I'm the point, have we met?

8/11/2005 1:32:41 AM

Quote :

"And Americans should be wary of letting the backwater, anti- and pseudo-intellectual interests control the tone and context of our public debates. "

Is there a public debate that isnt controlled by the backwater, anti intellectual interests? I dont think there would be much to politics without them.

8/11/2005 1:44:05 AM

Quote :

"Intelligent Design is just as probable as evolution or the "big bang.""

I'm not going to say anything, I just want to make sure everybody knows what a dumb whore this girl is.

8/11/2005 1:49:43 AM

Evolution is technically a theory. Its a process that depends on an immeasurable number of variables and takes far too long to be actually modeled in a controlled environment. This is why it is a theory, and why newtons laws are theories.

The plausibility of evolution is not an issue. I think the only issue here is whether or not it should be taught in school. It is an integral part of ecology, and a relevant topic to be taught if one is to know how life works on this planet. Should such a significant area of science be ignored in the interest of protecting religion?

If evolution, as a theory, denounced religion itself then I would be inclined to agree. But here we are talking about a conflict with one of the weaker beliefs of one particular religion. Because of that I would say no. That and the bad precendent it sets.

PS - ID does not belong in public schools. Better to omit the chapter on evolution than to actually suggest (let alone promote) to children in a public school classroom that supernatural powers exist.

[Edited on August 11, 2005 at 1:58 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2005 1:54:40 AM

Quote :

"Hi, I'm the point, have we met? "

Not as much as i'd like, but you're misrepresenting evolution, which just makes us all look bad.

8/11/2005 2:06:07 AM

Quote :

"It's not philosophy, it's just knowing that science doesn't explain everything, which any child knows."

Any child, eh? That's a mighty bold statement. But I'll ignore that for a moment and say that while many children might now that science does not explain everything, such hardly implies that any children to speak of think that what science does purport is fact is anything but fact.

Quote :

"No, it's a fact we evolved from monkeys"

No, it isn't, as both your definitions of fact seem to clearly demonstrate.

Quote :

"Well why can't we say nobody has ever come back from the dead? No one ever has."

We can tell them straight up that we have no evidence that anyone has ever come back from the dead, which is true. You can say that it is extremely unlikely, given the evidence, that such a thing has ever occured. That does not extrapolate into, "That has never ever happened, ever."

8/11/2005 5:42:20 AM

Quote :

"Not as much as i'd like, but you're misrepresenting evolution, which just makes us all look bad."

Well it was only done in the name of laziness.

Quote :

"But I'll ignore that for a moment and say that while many children might now that science does not explain everything, such hardly implies that any children to speak of think that what science does purport is fact is anything but fact."

The kids we are discussing here are in middle school. They are fully aware of the level of uncertainty in the physical world.

Quote :

"No, it isn't, as both your definitions of fact seem to clearly demonstrate."

Let's look at one.
"Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed"

We know that evolution exists, we have fossil records to prove it. We are able to see bacteria evolve immunities with our own eyes. The precise ways in which the system functions are still not fully understood, punctuated equilibria and phyletic gradualism for example, but that not understanding how it works does not make the system not exist.

Quote :

"That does not extrapolate into, "That has never ever happened, ever.""

Perhaps not in some cases, but we can be certain that no one has ever come back from the dead because it is physically impossible. It's like I can say that no man has ever magically turned into a unicorn and flew all the way to the moon. It's physically impossible.

8/11/2005 11:22:31 AM

Quote :

"Let's look at one. "Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed""

We know things in the fossil record to exist and we know what we have now. We don't know how we got from point A to point B. We know what scenarios are most likely, and that's it.

Quote :

"They are fully aware of the level of uncertainty in the physical world."

That does not translate into a healthily inquisitive mind that doesn't just accept what's fed it. I mean, they do believe in Creationism, after all.

Quote :

"Perhaps not in some cases, but we can be certain that no one has ever come back from the dead because it is physically impossible"

No, it isn't. Once again you're trying to make the leap from very very high possibility to complete certainty, and that's unacceptable.

8/11/2005 1:44:40 PM

Quote :

"We know things in the fossil record to exist and we know what we have now. We don't know how we got from point A to point B."

Actually you can observe natural selection in bacteria colonies. It's been done before. Then we have the huge amount of evidence in genetics and all sorts of other places.

Quote :

"That does not translate into a healthily inquisitive mind that doesn't just accept what's fed it."

Most any child in middle school knows the difference between truth and untruth. They also understand the physical limitations of science. These are extremely basic concepts of science.

Quote :

"No, it isn't."

It is. If you have any evidence that shows that people can come back from the dead, I'd like to see it.

Quote :

"Once again you're trying to make the leap from very very high possibility to complete certainty, and that's unacceptable."

It is acceptable. I can prove this mathematically.

That chance is so small it is meaningless.

8/11/2005 2:03:29 PM

Quote :

""Intelligent Design is just as probable as evolution or the "big bang."""

thats the most counterproductive statement ive ever heard.

8/11/2005 2:33:00 PM

maybe intelligent design is "just as probable" as big band theory or evolution simply because they're all wrong and we'll never know EXACTLY how everything works. that aside, there is evidence to support big bang and evolution. even though it might not be exactly right, it is probably close to the truth. even if it is not, it IS based on physical evidence; thus making it scientific.

8/11/2005 2:35:39 PM

Quote :

"It is acceptable. I can prove this mathematically. That chance is so small it is meaningless."

no

8/11/2005 2:39:03 PM

Quote :

"I don't recall any of the "scientific theories" having any real evidence either. Intelligent Design is just as probable as evolution or the "big bang." that being said, just because you believe it's all about religion, doesn't mean that it is. It is a realistic THEORY, just like the others and should be given the same consideration when it comes to expanding the minds of our children. "

how the hell does someone like this get into college?!?!

8/11/2005 2:41:08 PM

why stop at creationism?

lets teach everything in the bible that modern 'science' has contradicted.

???????????????


why not?

8/11/2005 2:44:41 PM

it's possible earth is resting on the back of a giant turtle. i haven't seen with my own eyes anything to the contrary. therefore it must be taught in public schools in science class.

8/11/2005 2:45:39 PM

evolution means christianity is false!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


isnt that right GrumpGOP?

8/11/2005 2:48:29 PM

^No. Were it certainly true, it would mean that certain branches of Christianity and other religions are false.

^^I'm only going to bother long enough to point out how little I'm going to bother.

Quote :

"Most any child in middle school knows the difference between truth and untruth. They also understand the physical limitations of science."

I'm pretty much with you on the first statement, but I think that the second is a gross overstatement of the intellectual capabilities of many adults, let alone middle schoolers.

Quote :

"Actually you can observe natural selection in bacteria colonies."

Yeah, you can, and based on that you can surmise that the process is almost certainly how we got from Point A to Point B. "Almost" is a big deal here, though.

Quote :

"If you have any evidence that shows that people can come back from the dead, I'd like to see it."

But, Kris...

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Quote :

"It is acceptable. I can prove this mathematically."

Well, given that you pulled 1/infinity out of your ass baselessly, I'd say not so much.

8/11/2005 4:56:20 PM

poopypants

8/11/2005 8:15:29 PM

Quote :

"We know things in the fossil record to exist and we know what we have now. We don't know how we got from point A to point B. We know what scenarios are most likely, and that's it."

As anyone in a life science knows the fossil record is merely a convenient piece of evidence for evolutions. The mounds of other things such as phenotypic relationships, vestigial structures, and genetic evidence outway the need for fossil record for evolution to be probably.

These coversations about ID versus evolution are also ignorant on both sides as pointed out by Smoker4.

8/11/2005 9:31:50 PM

Quote :

"As anyone in a life science knows the fossil record is merely a convenient piece of evidence for evolutions. The mounds of other things such as phenotypic relationships, vestigial structures, and genetic evidence outway the need for fossil record for evolution to be probably."

True, but not of great importance to the argument. Regardless of what else you bring into play, evolution is, at best, the overwhelmingly most likely explanation for the development of life on earth; it does not make that jump, however miniscule, to certainty.

8/12/2005 12:53:49 AM

Quote :

"but I think that the second is a gross overstatement of the intellectual capabilities of many adults, let alone middle schoolers."

It might sound complex to you, but it is one of the first things you learn when dealing with science, a teacher really doesn't even have to teach it, a child learns it in the application of science to the real world, which they all do. It is a very basic concept.

Quote :

"Yeah, you can, and based on that you can surmise that the process is almost certainly how we got from Point A to Point B. "Almost" is a big deal here, though."

What's the other possibility? God came down there and gave the bacteria an immunity? What conjecture can you pose to that observation, as it is a very strong peice of evidence for evolution.

Quote :

"Well, given that you pulled 1/infinity out of your ass baselessly, I'd say not so much."

I was going to type out the explaination but I thought you could see it, but I suppose it was a harder jump to make and I should have explained it. It's actually a limit with 1/x as x->infinity.

Suppose we have a high possibility and this possiblity is ever-increasing. The chance of this possibility is represented by the sequence n/(n+1) as n->infinity, this comes out to one. Now that might have been hard to follow, but the inverse of this will make more sense, so we'll apply that to the problem. The inverse of this, we have a small possibility that is ever deminishing (the chance that you will come back to life). This possibility is represented by the sequence 1/n as n->infinity. This can also be applied as we have one guy who we'll assume came back to life. This guy was one out of a very large number of people who haven't came back to life (1/big), the number of people who haven't came back to life is increasing by the second and approaching infinity. Thus we have 1/infinity which is zero. It's often refered to as the drop in the ocean effect, and graphically it is represented by the asymtope.

Or I could end it through semantics as death by definition is permenant.

8/12/2005 1:55:49 AM

Quote :

"It might sound complex to you"

It doesn't, to me. But it's the sort of thing I've seen go way over the heads of plenty of adults in my day.

Quote :

"What's the other possibility?"

I don't know and I don't have to know. At various points throughout history man has only known one possible explanation for a given thing, and then an alternative suddenly dawned on some of their brighter number.

Quote :

"This can also be applied as we have one guy who we'll assume came back to life. This guy was one out of a very large number of people who haven't came back to life (1/big), the number of people who haven't came back to life is increasing by the second and approaching infinity. Thus we have 1/infinity which is zero."

I hate this sort of math for this very reason. If one man has come back to life then he didn't and nobody ever can.

Up until the twentieth century no man had ever flown. Up until half a century ago no man had ever been in space. Meaning that, by the reasoning we are here presented, it was impossible for them to do so.

8/12/2005 2:08:12 AM

Quote :

"But it's the sort of thing I've seen go way over the heads of plenty of adults in my day."

I bet if you asked them if science can explain everything they'd give you the right answer. I'd make the same wager on middle school children.

Quote :

"I don't know and I don't have to know."

Well in order for you to have any arguement other than "you're wrong" you'd have to explain what we could possibly be overlooking.

Quote :

"At various points throughout history man has only known one possible explanation for a given thing, and then an alternative suddenly dawned on some of their brighter number."

And at those points scientists were overlooking something, can you tell us what the massive amount of anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, zoologists, and microbiologists are completely ignoring? You can't? Then you can't really argue agianst it. I could say that teaching that water freezes is wrong simply because it has the possibility of being wrong. Thus everything in the world is wrong because it has the possibility of being wrong. This is akin to the debate I was having with aaronburro, where he believed that because obvservations have the possibility of being untrue that science itself is untrue.

Quote :

"I hate this sort of math for this very reason. If one man has come back to life then he didn't and nobody ever can."

Calculus is a bitch, but it works.

Quote :

"Up until the twentieth century no man had ever flown. Up until half a century ago no man had ever been in space. Meaning that, by the reasoning we are here presented, it was impossible for them to do so."

The point that the problem shows is that even if you assume your stance to be true, it is meaningless because it's unobservable.

This is different from the development of technology because these things were part of a developing trend. Basically the chances for flight weren't decreasing like the chances of spontanious reccesitation. Thus it does not fit into that problem.

[Edited on August 12, 2005 at 2:23 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2005 2:19:27 AM

Yknow we been hearin a lot lately about how Intelligent Design's not real science. Well that's just crazy talk! Ever since we got scientific evidence of the existence of God everybody down at the Faflab has been buildin off this cuttin edge field to come up with latest scientological developments.

-Physics-
By observing the mating of Galapagos finches with high-precision godometers, Designmatologists have discovered the existence of the Godtrino - the subatomic particle that God is made of! Theoretical Godmologists have believed that evolution was caused by the presence of Godtrinos for years but this is our first concrete proof. And think of the practical applications once we manage to harness the power of mass Godtrino production! Turnin water into wine, smiting, more smiting, Gomorrorah burning, Jesus resuscitation. The possibilities are endless!

-Biology-
Intelligent Design has lead to the discovery of several exciting new species like gene fairies, DNA demons, and evolution angels! Intelligent Designologicologists carefully tag and release these specimens to study their migratory patterns as they travel from earth to heaven to alter our genetic code according to God's precise instructions.

We also keep em in our brand new family adventure park, Wild Angel Jungle Safari! Feed the cherubim in our heavenly petting zoo, watch the four o' clock angel-an-walrus watershow spectacular, an buy some seraphim jerky at the gift shop! In conjunction with Faflabs, Gibco is proud to introduce the Angel Gun. What better way to show your appreciation of these beautiful an fascinatin creatures than by shootin a cherub an stickin it in a pickle jar on your coffee table!

-Space-
Now we know God exists, it's time for deep space God exploration! Intelligent Designostronomers have located him in orbit around the moon and believe the first Godstonauts could make a manned God landing as early as 2012. God's surface is rich in deposits of wine and communion wafers which could support the beginnings of a God colony, where advanced mining techniques could extract the omnipotence America could use to supply its energy needs for the next coupla years! The sky's the limit! Til we hit God. Then God's the limit.

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/creation-science-creation-technology.html

8/12/2005 9:01:04 AM

http://www.venganza.org



[Edited on August 12, 2005 at 9:26 AM. Reason : Touched by his Noodly Appendage]

8/12/2005 9:22:17 AM

Fuck Bush. Just ride out this wave of Jackasster Politricks. We are young. One day the people who are retarded enough to fuck up society will be dead. Then we will get a newgroup of these other jackasses trying to control everything.

8/12/2005 10:10:29 AM

Quote :

"We are young. One day the people who are retarded enough to fuck up society will be dead. "

YES

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOUNG COLLEGE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MORE LIBERAL THAN OLD ONES

AND SURELY DROVES OF US WILL NOT CONVERT TO CONSERVATISM LATER IN LIFE

Quote :

"Well in order for you to have any arguement other than "you're wrong" you'd have to explain what we could possibly be overlooking."

My argument has never revolved around, "You're wrong," it's been, "You're probably right." And again, I don't have to know what we could be overlooking, because man has collectively not known such things many times in the past until they found it.

Quote :

"Then you can't really argue agianst it."

That's convenient, because I'm not trying to argue against it.

Quote :

" Basically the chances for flight weren't decreasing like the chances of spontanious reccesitation."

How are the chances decreasing? We're becoming less likely to run into this and not just staying at the same level of unlikelihood?

8/12/2005 12:50:16 PM