Slashdot Mirror

It won't affect Carbon dating, because of dendrochronlogy. And, oh the usual creationist objections to dendrochronlogy have been refuted.

About half of what he stated is straight from the Documentary History of the Church, written by his followers who were with him who later followed Brigham Young, and the official history of the Mormon Church (as recognized by the church itself). For the stuff about what his contemporaries thought of him, I'd start here - there are lots and lots of references in this thread from that post onward. Also, here's a site with several (also referenced) FAQs; they're a biased group, but they document their claims quite well.

This issue has already been covered extensively over at EvC Forum.

Our "Junk" DNA is somewhat interesting in that it often contains functionality of our close (and sometimes even distant) relatives that is no longer active. You get neat atavisms when it reactivates.

Yeah, we all know that animals never change (new pics), but gravity is perfectly understood.

I'm sure the people over at EVC forum would love to chat with you about this. Here's a couple threads on the subject.

I'm sure the people over at EVC forum would love to chat with you about this. Here's a couple threads on the subject.

I'm sure the people over at EVC forum would love to chat with you about this. Here's a couple threads on the subject.

I'm sure the people over at EVC forum would love to chat with you about this. Here's a couple threads on the subject.

You can prove anything in a computer simulation. Whether it will happen or not is a totally different story, but for sure you can get funding if you tweak your variables properly. In geek terms, look at most video games where I can take a rocket blast and still survive, even though my hitpoints are lowered. Sure games are not true simulations, but neither are true simulations perfect, or often even close. It's a focus on one specific item with all the variables included to prove only that point. Believe the simulation worked; don't believe the simulation is correct.

All of a sudden some scientist picks something up, then a few more jump on the bandwagon, and then by the time we see the article, the whole theory is written in stone, even though the article contains very little fact -- for all we (the readers) know it could be pure speculation. The article makes bold statements and doesn't quote any proof. So take it with a huge grain of salt. How do we know that "Gauthier Hulot of the Paris Geophysical Institute" isn't regarded in his field with the same amount of controversy as the Drs. Igor and Grichka Bogdanov who are physicists that supposedly "don't know how to do physics" ?

And then the article mentions Hollywood!?! Yah, that sheds a lot of creditable light on the whole theory. Now are we are either: dealing with a Hollywood film house that picked up the idea from scientists, or scientists who want to ride on the tails of pop culture?

But we all love this dramatic stuff about the world ending, so it's no wonder that everybody -- whether scientist or check-out attendant, mathemetician or word perfect user -- jumps on the bandwagon. Enjoy your drama as we have all done here at slash/dot., but seek proof and fact before believing it will actually affect your real world. There are too many "important" people out there that believe they know what they are talking about or have agendas. It's hardly possible to spend all the needed time (as a reader outside the scientific fields) to gather the facts, proof, and knowledge needed in a world overloaded with information both true and false. Just find a couple articles from scientists that refute one another. That will help to provide a more balanced perspective. For example, read this message board for some real discussion about the theory at hand, instead of discussion about a newspaper article.
For example, you can get some real facts about Field Intensities During Polarity Transitions and Excursions linked from Message #15 in the discussion board.

The articles and theories are very important, but they still exist to be proven wrong, especially when they are relatively new.