Actually yeah--besides being the second most popular browser*--the new Chromium Edge is not bad. When Chrome started randomly getting unbearably slow on my machine and was freezing up from time to time, I tried the new Edge. I must say I like it, The Android version is decent too. This might be the first Microsoft browser I actually like. It also gives me the opportunity to spread my metadata thinner instead of having all of it in one place. ;-) https://www.techradar.com/news...

We also collectively keep forgetting that quarantine and social distancing are to "flatten the curve"--in other words to keep us from getting sick _all at once_. It won't keep any of us from getting sick (unless a cure or vaccine comes before they're lifted). Think about it: as soon as restrictions lift if even one person is still contagious we'll have patient-0 all over again spreading exponentially because we aren't immune, don't have natural defenses. We will eventually all get sick. Just not all at once. So just get used to the idea you will get corovavirus. If you're an essential person in an exposed position, I appreciate you. And you'll just get coronavirus before I do, and be immune and well sooner than the rest of us. So let's all be happy, get as strong and healthy as we can, and go on with life whether we're at home or in the workplace.

True. Too bad--knee-jerk reactions. I wish they were making decision based on looking at the actual settings available--perhaps while sitting down for 5 minutes with someone who understands the technology? I use Zoom as well with teens and was definitely concerned about preventing zoom bombing. I looked at the settings and saw several ways to mitigate the problem. And I applaud Zoom for changing the defaults to help those who couldn't be bothered to do anything other than click "start meeting" while wishing the world was a safe place.

Any mask will help keep you from touching your nose and mouth (which we frequently do voluntarily and involuntarily--up to 90x per day). Hand-to-face (mouth/nose) contact is one of the biggest vectors for viral infection like Coronavirus, so for that reason alone they're quite useful. But any mask will work for that, so might as well get one that wouldn't be used by a medical professional (dust mask, whatever) to save the real ones for those who really need them, and can use them properly. Be sure to wash your hands well after touching/removing your mask: they can collect all kinds of airborne pathogens!

I agree. Absolutely. That doesn't change anything I just said. :-)

I agree. Surveillance in a PUBLIC place like an airplane (that somehow feels private even though it isn't) would be helpful. Obviously no one's sitting there watching all 200 cameras. But being able to review security footage--and criminals and perverts knowing they're being recorded--would be a benefit and protection. And would assist prosecution of bad actors. Sadly these cameras are being removed, I would prefer it was extended throughout all cabins, whether in seatbacks, or overhead, or whatever (with modest, friendly notices posted that you are under surveillance). I believe knowing you're being watched tends to curb bad behavior.

Maybe they're using a Dvorak keyboard. N and R are both 4th finger, right hand. Top vs Home row. Very easy mistake there. :-)

Some evidence would be a good start--I mean evidence, not just assertions that "evidence" exists. Would you mind taking 5 or 6 minutes to link to perhaps 9 or 10 of the most compelling facts that you have based your conclusion on that demonstrate that humans are responsible? That would be awesome! Thanks. :-)

If it happened just once, who couldn't claim it was a supernatural occurrence? If cats started giving birth to chickens all the time everywhere I maintain that it would tend to falsify Biblical creation as it stands, given the fact that according to creationists if God created animals, He created them specifically to reproduce after their kind.

But ... on the other hand, rather than falsifying evolution, wouldn't it merely be an "evolution". Might that even tend to confirm it?!

To be fair to both sides, all those "steps in the sand" equally confirm creation and evolution. The steps don't falsify either philosophy. There may be no straying steps for either creationists or evolutionists.

And to add to your illustration, we have huge gaps, miles in length, where there are no steps. Honestly, some steps so faint you can't tell which direction they are going. We have steps running side-by-side making it difficult to follow a single path.

On one hand, creation is missing an observable God creating things today as we watch. That's a lot of missing steps.

On the other, evolution is entirely missing USELESS partially evolved hearts, eyes, livers, lungs, brains, and other essential organs--that I care a lot about (seeing that I need them to sustain my life). That's a LOT of missing steps.

The clear path only goes back so far, and then we're hunting for the next (previous) step, and making a lot of guesses, in all honesty.

The assertion that evolution "can be falsified" in the void of ways that it actually can be honestly falsified gives me no satisfaction. Most of the anemic ways given could be used to create equally anemic falsifications of creation.

(The ones that occur to me off the top of my head are creation's predictions that 1) animals will reproduce after their kind, 2) that there will be progressive degeneration and decay over time, 3) that there will be traits common throughout creation due to a single Designer--but that their will also be creative variation, 4) that there will be unexplainable mysteries that cannot be explained by humans 5) that there will be lots of fossilized animals in rock layers that were formed rapidly by water, all over the world, 6) that there will be strict laws and order throughout the universe. Having taken 10 minutes to think about this, these poorly worded off-the-top-of-my-head falsifiable statements rationally strike me as equally valid as any of the anemic falsifiable claims for evolution that I've been able to find so far.)

Yes but, very little (I can't think of any) of the science you refer to (the parts that have so little falsifiability) is taught with such assurance.(Pretty universally those parts of science are taught as a tenuous ideas with detailed time given to exposing the flaws and issues--certainly not as "fact" like evolution is).

The stunning lack of actual falsifiability of evolution (apes-to-man type) has blown me away--me in light of evolution's "strictly science" face.

Why give so much time to a single philosophy in a science classroom? That makes no sense to me. Frankly I have a hard time buying that either theory (when it comes to demonstrating where life came from) is scientific in the as-defined sense of the word.

Honestly, I can't see what would be wrong with leaving out the parts that are purely philosophical. If evolutionists want a platform to teach their philosophy, they should create it outside the secular science classroom. If creationists want a platform to teach their philosophy, they should use their churches and church schools. And if the earth-came-from-the-turtle group want their philosophy taught, they can create a place to teach that.

Thanks for a lively discussion. What more can be said?

This presumably easy question has been interesting. Aside from assertions that "evolution is falsifiable" and "creation isn't", I'm truly astonished how difficult this question is to answer.

I was previously unaware of how big a problem this is to evolution. It's not rational to support one unfalsifiable philosophy as scientific, while dissing another because it's unfalsifiable.

I have started to research this question--which was never taught me in school and am finding it interesting.

"Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. . . . Really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry." -- Karl Popper, 1976

I have no qualms with evolution (in the wolves to Chihuahuas sense) being taught in science class, but evolution (in the reptiles to birds sense) being so impossible to falsify, apparently belongs in a philosophy class with creation and other philosophies which can then be debated honestly without that requirement.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I will continue to research this elsewhere.

I would feel a lot better if we just taught solidly empirical honestly falsifiable science in science class, and leave the philosophy for elsewhere. That would be a far better solution to the issue in Louisiana and elsewhere than trying to add creation to the science classroom.

Yes because I'm looking for a solid argument in favor of teaching evolution as science.

My rational mind told me that a few moments in google would prove that there are completely unrelated people who are almost indistinguishable. It turns out that's true, making this example particularly unsatisfying. Physical similarities do not always indicate a shared ancestor, as is seen is many fields.

But wow, certainly with evolution held in the high esteem that it is by scientists, it is must be easily and clearly and obviously falsifiable.... right?

If not, why are we teaching it science classes as if it was a better thing than creation? As far as I can tell creationist scientists accept the same empirical data evolutionists do. They just make different assumptions about that data and come up with a different philosophy.

Why teach the philosophy parts at all?.

That's it? That's just as much proof of a common Designer as it is proof of a common ancestor. And just as falsifiable (not) as the other.

As a rational person, the idea that everything with multiple similarities descended from a common ancestor, goes against reason, statics, logic, and observable reality.

Anyone else want to weigh in with any other ways of how one could honestly and fairly falsify evolution?

With all respect, me looking at this as an issue of science vs philosophy this is exactly the same problem evolution has.

Suppose we see 36 different fossils that look similar, but are obviously from several different classes of organisms. That's the data.

Theory 1: They were Intelligently Designed to be similar.

Theory 2: They Evolved one from another.

Puzzled at how the evolutionary idea is more falsifiable seeing as we didn't observe either happen, and we've never observed--nor can ever observe (according to the theory of evolution due to the massive time scales required)--one class of organism turning into a different class.

Nope that's exactly what I'm looking for.

In all fairness, that would disprove Biblical creation too, because the Bible says animals were created to reproduce "after their kind".