Evolution Review Worksheet: Fill & Download for Free

Is that possible ?Yes it is..... since you have mentioned that you want to know the Basics of Everything.....How ?About.comDo you want to know the basics of Chemistry ?http://chemistry.about.com/Physics ?About Physics: Resource for Physical Theories and LawsArchaeology ?About Archaeology - The Study of Human HistoryDinosaurs ?Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life at About.comBiology ?About Biology: Human Anatomy, Genetics, and QuizzesEvolution ?About Evolution — Your Guide to the Theory of EvolutionAnimals ?About Animals: Your Guide to the World's WildlifeAstrology ?About Astrology: Zodiac Signs, Love Matches, and Birth ChartsMoney ?http://www.about.com/money/History ?19th Century History: People and Events of the 1800s20th Century History: Events and People of the 1900sAfrican History on About.comAsian History from About.comLearn American History on About.comEuropean History: Your Resource to Europe’s PastArts and Literature ?About Art History: Art Basics, Movements, and MoreAbout Classic Literature: Reviews, Lists, and MoreContemporary Literature: Book Reviews, Author RecommendationsShakespeare Resource Site for Students and TeachersAbout Poetry: Guide to the World's Poems and PoetsPlays and Drama: Information, Ideas, InspirationReligion ?http://www.about.com/religion/About Buddhism: History, Teachings, and MoreAbout Hinduism: Hindu Beliefs, Practices, and CultureAbout.com IslamAbout Christianity and Living the Christian LifeAbout Sikhism: Your Guide to Sikh Religion BeliefsCatholicism and the Catholic Church (Articles and Resources)Drawing/Sketching ?How to Draw – For Beginner to Advanced ArtistsGrammar ?English Grammar & Composition: Tips, Terms, ExamplesPsychology ?Psychology: Theories, Experiments, and QuizzesSociology ?About Sociology: Research, Theories and NewsFamous People ?An A to Z List of the Most Famous People of the 20th Century100 Famous African-American Men and Women of the 20th CenturyFamous Quotes ?History in its Own Words: A Collection of Famous QuotesTIME's Man of the Year ?Who's Made the List for TIME's Man of the Year?Hellen Keller ?Everything You Need to Know About Helen KellerMahatma Gandhi ?Who Was Gandhi, and How Did He Change History?Princess Diana ?Everything You Need to Know About Princess DianaWinston ChurchillSir Winston Churchill's Life, Career, and LeadershipWorld War I ?Everything You Need to Know About WWIHolocaust ?Check Out These Resources About the HolocaustDisasters and Tragedies ?Disasters and Tragedy in the 20th CenturyCrimes and Scandals ?Crime and Scandal in the 20th CenturyAcademy Awards ?History of the Academy AwardsBest Picture ?Every Oscar Best Picture Winner Since 1927Olympic Games ?How Did the Olympic Games Evolve Over Time?History of the OlympicsChewing gum ?How Chewing Gum Got InventedRubik's Cube ?Who Created the Rubik's Cube?The Great Depression ?Are We at Risk For Another Great Depression?Adolf Hitler ?HitlerCollection of photographs ?Take a Visual Tour of the 20th CenturyImportant Events ?1900s Events You Should Know About20th Century Decade by DecadeHistory of sports ?What's the History of Sports?Who invented Soccer ?The Ancient Origins of SoccerInventors ?World of Famous Inventors and InventionsHistory of Computer ?The History of ComputersInvesting ?Investing for Beginners by Joshua KennonHealth ?About HealthMathematics ?About Mathematics: Worksheets, Formulas, TutorialsSex ?A Guide to Sexuality and Sexual HealthEconomics ?Your Guide to Economics at About.comParanormal ?Paranormal Phenomena on About.comGeography ?About Geography: World Maps, Country Facts, and Quizzes

What is empirical evidence? And more importantly, what is the serious flaw when the acceptance, or rejection of empirical evidence is applied to the theories of creation?Please let me know in the comments of this answer where you believe I’m in error of my understanding….using published sources, and not just your opinion. I will take the time to read your sources, but not to argue about your opinion.This is my understanding of empirical evidence, and the point of the question I asked.The original question was changed at the request of a moderator, or readers of the question who didn’t like the way it was worded.Because of the change requests I got, I changed my question to the following:Why do scientists accept evolution to explain creation, but they reject an Intelligent Creator, to explain it, even though scientists did not witness either? Wouldn't both theories require faith that something happened when it wasn't witnessed?The reason I asked the above question is because I'm working on a psychology project. I would like to co-author a therapy plan, using the Bible as evidence.I’m using the scientific method to work out the details. I'm in the phase of this model, "Gather data."My mission is to find out if the Bible can be used as evidence in the creation of a therapy plan, and will the American Psychological Association (APA) accept the therapy plan as an evidence-based plan?In addition to this, will insurance companies view the plan as a valid therapy plan should people opt to select this therapy plan over other plans?I have been asking a series of questions in order to gather data. If you would like to follow along with the project, or contribute to it, please check out 'My Scientific Method Worksheet' in my Quora space Learning PsychologyAll of you have given me a lot of information to read, and I will eventually get through each of your answers, follow the suggested links, and incorporate your understanding of the topic in my research. I greatly appreciate all feedback. I have been reading and commenting, but you have given me so much information that I haven’t been through all of it yet.For the time being, The information in this answer/post is summarized from the Bible and from Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? 2000, 2008 United Church of God. Life’s Ultimate Question: Does God Exist?And from Wikipedia in reference to empirical evidence.MY JOURNEYThere are clearly multiple views of how we came into existence. But let me be clear about my understanding of what can or can not be considered evidence.None of us existed millions or billions of years ago. No one witnessed the initial creation of the human being; which could later begin recording observations.I find it interesting that the scientific method consists of observations, and yet no human was able to observe how they came into existence. So, with that said, can the APA come to the conclusion that the Bible can be used to create an evidence-based therapy plan? That is, the evidence in 'evidence-based' will be the Bible and it's many verses that discuss the renewal of the mind.Can we agree that psychology is the study of thoughts and behavior, and that they promote the renewal of the mind, through various types of methods?Part of my research will involve evidence-based therapy plans that are already accepted by the mainstream psychology industry, but right now, I'm working on gathering evidence concerning creation.The reason this data collection is valuable to my project is because we are talking about the manipulation of a person’s mindset, to be conformed to the methodologies of psychology. Wouldn’t it be valuable information to know how the mind was created in the first place?So, it seems that my question is extremely valid for my data gathering and journey to determine what can be considered evidence-based therapy.The two leading theories (Creation by an Intelligent Being vs. Creation through evolution) have created strongholds for both camps. Neither camp is going to party with the other camp and sing Kumbaya. I get that. It isn't my goal to unite the two camps.My goal is to determine if the Bible can be used as evidence in a psychology project.Each camp holds fast to what they believe.I'm in the camp of an Intelligent Being as being the creator. Whether you call him a figment of my imagination, or you call Him God, or Father, or YHWH, or however you refer to Him, I believe He is the one that created everything."In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1It takes faith for people to believe in a theory that billions of years ago, there was a single cell organism, and life evolved from that.Equally, it takes faith for people to believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.Why is it faith in both camps? Because none of us were there to witness the initial creation. All we are doing is studying what was already created. Mankind is manipulating DNA to create new species, and observe how things mutate and "evolve" but has any scientist created their own DNA yet, without using anything that already exists?Are scientists witnessing true evolution or are they experimenting with organisms to see what happens?There are those who go beyond studying, and they are manipulating, in an effort to create new species and modifications of existing species. This is possible by manipulating the intelligent language found in DNA.Why does one camp despise the theory that God created everything?Perhaps the answer lies within their own hearts. They don't want to be accountable to someone who has rules to follow.And yet, they will create rules for the acceptance of evidence, or rejection of it. And now we are getting into a serious flaw of their rules for empirical evidence. That is, observation.Meanwhile, I am on a mission to determine if the Bible is evidence; and can the Bible be used for the creation of a therapy plan that is considered an evidence-based plan?EVIDENCEScientific evidence: Used to support OR COUNTER a scientific theory or hypothesis. (emphasis mine)In general, scientists have adopted the Darwinian hypothesis that evolution had occurred, and that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.Their idea is that a single cell organism existed millions (or billions) of years ago, and yet, they have no proof of that. It's a theory. An "educated guess" because, if they decided no human existed back then, then who was there to witness that single cell organism or it's evolution or mutations?So, we have two forms of evidence at play; neither of which are primary evidence.1. The writings of many people that were later bound in a book now called 'The Bible' and,2. The writings of someone (Charles Darwin) who lived between 1809-1882, and determined that all species of organisms were developed through evolution and natural selection.Isn't it interesting that mainstream scientists will gladly adopt the writings of one person as truth, and reject the writings of many people, whose separate accounts tell the same story over a period of several generations? The Bible was not created by these writers. Their letters were later assembled and bound in a book known as the Bible.Both of these forms of evidence (the Bible, and the writings of Darwin) meet the same criteria:1. They support a scientific theory or hypothesis.2. They both assert there is a single ancestor that humans derived from.a. The collection of letters and other accounts in the Bible conclude that we descended from Adam and Eve.b. Darwin's account is that we descended from a single cell organism.3. Both forms of evidence lack an important component of empirical evidence.Observation.THE FLAWSpecifically, neither forms of evidence had a human eye witness to the initial creation of humans. Therefore, since there was no one to observe the creation of humans, both theories and forms of evidence require faith to believe in one theory over the other.Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth. Now, we are going to run into a problem with both camps."In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community." (Wikipedia)Which scientist(s) in the scientific community, regardless of the generation, witnessed the initial creation of the human being?And yet, here we are! We all know we exist. But how did our existence become a reality?And therein lies the problem of what should be accepted as evidence, or rejected. The Bible stakes its claim as explaining creation. Darwin stakes his claim explaining creation. And yet, no one in either camp, throughout all generations, witnessed the actual creation.Therefore, creation is based on faith, and what you are willing to accept as to the explanation of how you were created.Since no one existed to observe the initial creation, that leaves us with two theories that are impossible for us to prove."Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation, in the form of recorded data, which may be the subject of analysis (e.g. by scientists). This is the primary source of empirical evidence.Secondary sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research." (Wikipedia)The primary source of empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation...No one observed the initial creation of the human being.…in the form of recorded data, which may be the subject of analysis….We have the recorded data of many people, bound in a collection of the data and called the Bible vs. the recorded data of Darwin. Neither of which observed the initial creation of a human being.So, the primary evidence would have been the observation of the initial creation of a human being.Would it now be fair to say that since NO ONE witnessed the initial creation of a human being, that ALL sources of empirical evidence now have to be considered secondary sources?Which secondary source do you have faith in?THEORY 1: DARWINIAN EVOLUTIONAll living beings evolved by natural processes (mutation and natural selection)THEORY 2: AN INTELLIGENT CREATORIn 1953, James Watson and Francil Crick discovered the language in DNA.DNA molecule consists of an exquisite language made up of genetic letters. (Approximately equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopedia Britannica)Biologist, Michael Denton, puts the information inside DNA in perspective. A teaspoon of DNA could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, with "enough room left over for all the information in every book ever written. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334)This information in the DNA has been miniaturized into something that is only two millionths of a millimeter thick!Does the information in DNA have the qualifications to be a language?1. It must contain an alphabet or coding system.2. It must have correct spelling.3. It must have correct grammar, proper arrangement of words.4. It must have meaning and intended purpose."The coding regions of DNA have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language." (Dr. Stephen Meyer) (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 237)"DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised." Bill GatesDNA Language vs. DNA MoleculeThe DNA molecule carries the DNA language. (The molecule is the vehicle for the language.)"The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the mecium, it's not the message" (quoted by Philip Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 70)Pages 36 and 37 in Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? further discusses how the language in the DNA can not possibly have been the results of "evolution" and requires intelligence to have created DNA."Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working...I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theraories" Dr. Stephen Myer(quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

Amogha J did a good job summarizing the article Evolution of Word Processors however they both missed a few good points and mostly centered on the PC based software. Having lived through the inception of word processors, including the Wang dynasty of products, I thought I would chime in with some of the less discussed history.The first commercial word processors were a specialized set of products from Wang. This involved a central mini-mainframe with common printers and networked terminal input devices.MultiMate was a word processor developed by Multimate International for IBM PC MS-DOS computers in the early 1980s. This product was responsible for WordPro’s, and some others, industry demise because it was the first product with a “good” WYSIWYG interface where you saw the printed page (more or less) as it would appear on the printed page and was similar in many ways to the Wang word processing interface. MultiMate was also the product that transitioned much of the Wang user-base over to the personal computer platform. Gone was the need for a centralized, and very expensive, mini-mainframe for word processing. This left Wang to shoot for the mainframe market with its new VS product line, competing with the well established IBM, DEC, Honeywell and Burroughs manufacturers.Later, when Microsoft began bundling its applications into a single suite of products, one of their biggest word processor competitors was Lotus Word Pro – Windows. Lotus continued the competition with MS by bundling its offering set into a suite called Lotus Symphony. In my opinion, Lotus had issues making the individual applications play nice together because they were from acquisitions rather than in-house development. Prior to this, their forte was the worksheet application Lotus 1–2–3, which was the industry standard for many years. Because of the slow start of the suite of products working together, they lost their chance to blow MS away since they already had a huge portion of the worksheet, and some database, share of the market space.An interesting side note:For a short time IBM and Microsoft collaborated to create one of the most stable operating systems to date: OS/2. The problem was that they did not make the development space open, and cheap enough, for applications to be developed for this new operating system. The collaboration didn’t last and the lack of office application software killed OS/2 pretty quickly.When the union broke up and MS went back to hawking its suite, IBM bought out Lotus and tried to make a go with competing with its former partner using the Symphony line, now known as IBM Lotus Symphony. Being late to the ring, IBM could not unseat MS because it had already made a huge dent in the industry/commercial client/server space. Again my personal opinion, IBM “added insult to injury” during this transition period by trying to IBM-ize the whole product line, which really slowed down the integration processes and caused its own set of issues. This left a bad taste in the commercial consumer’s collective mouths.Now, you may ask why I believe OS/2 to have been the most stable operating system ever. A very short version of the story: a mandated hardware review was undertaken. One old OS/2 machine, found to still be on the network, could not be physically located. It was finally found in a back room of a vacated part of one of the large buildings, long forgotten about. It had been running telemetry monitoring programs untouched, no hiccups and never rebooted for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 265 days a year for five and a half years, according to the logs. Try that with a Mac or a Windows machine!