Slashdot Mirror
Lunar Polar Ice Not Present
pclark999 writes "The New Scientist reports that radar probes of the lunar polar region has disproved earlier theories regarding large sheets of polar ice in craters permanently in the shade. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Bruce Campbell
He's everywhere you want to be
Ice will go directly to a gaseous state. The moon has no atmosphere, btw.
Meaning if it were there it would have evaporated long ago.
no please mod parent up. besides manipulating and controlling the populace, these myths also serve to give weak-minded people a false sense of security and purpose in life. understandable, but still pathetic.
I can't prove the existence of God any more than you can prove we evolved from apes. That doesn't mean that my beliefs are wrong, merely that I believe other's beliefs are wrong. Others believe the exact opposite. I take it by faith that God exists while others take it by faith that we evolved from apes. Why can't we prove one or the other? Because the quantum probability of evolution is astronomical, and there's no real way to calculate the "chances" that a God exists because he'd be outside of our Universe.
To steal a quote from WarGames, "The only way to win is not to play the game."
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
> WE DID EVOLVE FROM APES! IT'S A PROVEN FACT!
Cripes. Another one of these. Hey, buddy, I've got a bridge to sell you. Real good deal. If you buy now, I'll even throw in some beach front property in Arizona.
> Christ, you're an idiot
Heh. I love this.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Cripes. Another one of these.
Yeah...darn those rational people who believe in something that's actually been proven. Forget evolution! Let's believe in something that was written down in some book a couple millenia ago instead a logical and factual model of life. You tell 'em. Preach on, brotha.
I, by no means, consider myself "weak-minded". As for "a false sense of security and purpose", if you think showing compassion and kindness to your fellow human being displays a false sense of purpose; what would be a true sense of purpose?
Even if my belief is God is wrong, I still will have had a positive impact on this world. If THAT is a false sense of purpose, I wish more people would have it.
Just my humble opinion,
SirLantos
The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
> Yeah...darn those rational people who believe in something that's actually been prove
How is it rational to believe something has been proven when it hasn't? Evolution is still a theory. And a theory with a lot of holes. Until someone reproduces it in a lab AND explains the missing geological record AND shows why the DNA is so different between "related" species AND explains why Vestige organs/DNA is missing AND fills in the thousands of other holes, evolution will continue to be nothing but a working theory. And you know what the best part about the evolutionary theory is? There are so many to choose from! Survival of the fittest, spontaneous mutation, long term adaption, etc. And we just keep chucking these theories out looking for one that will find why we can't find the necessary proof for the previous ones!
> Let's believe in something that was written down in some
> book a couple millenia ago instead a logical and factual
> model of life.
It's just as good as a random theory about evolution. At least that book contains verifiable history records.
Truth be told, you can believe what you want to believe. I am not stopping you or saying that you should convert to my belief. Passing theories off as proven fact tho, is completely out of whack. You know what frustrates me the most? If you do a search on the net for "Is evolution a theory or fact" you get the Christian side which attempts to poke holes in evolution and you get the Atheist side which attempts to use other theories (such as the Geologic column) to state that evolution is a theory based on facts. What you don't get, is a scientific discussion on the theory in general and what parts make sense, what parts are known, and what parts require other theories to be proven.
I submit that the entire Evolution vs. Creation is bad science and that NO progress will be made on determining the origins of life until people overcome their emotional attachments.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You say the big bang theory is completely random, I say you are full of it. It is based on verifiable observations that support it directly, for example red/blue shift.
You say that evolution is a random grasp theory basically. So what that DNA has linked us very closely with other primates? So what that the fossil record where intact also shows progressive physiological changes in similar groups of organisms throughout time? You speak of verifiable historical records? I say these verifiable historical records are recorded plain as day in the rocks surrounding all of us!
And, don't even get me started on the age of the Earth. Or on the whole Noah flood thing. Basically what I'm saying is what ever happened to rational thought based on factual data?
Project Steve
> Regardless of who was building what, the people of that
> time still had nowhere near the concept of time, space,
> physics that we do now.
My point is that you shouldn't be so sure about that. It wasn't until the 20th century that we caught up with the Romans and Greeks. Archimedes, for example, was far better at math than anyone prior to the 20th century. His revelations into geometry were the basis for modern geometry.
> However you *did* say that evolution is a random theory.
No, it's not a "random" theory. It's simply a theory that has evolved based on the original assumption that many animals are similar, therefore there must be a logical chain or "evolution" to the appearance of the species. That's a great theory, but until it can be proven, it's still a theory.
> However that interpretation is always constrained within
> bounds of rational thought. Ideas like "God snapped
> fingers and *POOF* these creatures appeared" and "a
> catastrophic flood created all the Earth's sedimentary
> rocks" are just ludicrous.
I'm not stating that "POOF, everything appeared". I'm simply stating that the scientific community is teaching a lot of theories as "fact" even though it hasn't been proven. This is BAD science! And as I stated before, the Earth may very well be older than 6000 years. My only statement is that I believe that MAN plus the modern life we see today, has only been around for 6000 years.
As for there being life before 6000 years ago, that is a possibility as well. Several Biblical scholars have been trying to puzzle together references to multiple worldwide floods. Their current conclusions state that there was a thriving Earth prior to our creation that was ruled by Lucifer. (The former Arch-Angel turned devil for those who know the Bible.) Thus we have "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Then you have the time frame which is irrelevant to us (as we didn't exist), the destruction of the Earth by flood, then "And the Earth was without form and void. And God moved upon the face of the waters." You know the rest.
> You see, that's the problem right there! Supporting an idea using unverifiable data.
You're confusing statements I make based on belief vs, statements I make on science. I *believe* that we humans today have only been around for 6000 years. That brings up the questions of, "Who were the Neandrathals? Were they apes, diseased humans, or some other form of life? Are they the Nephillim the Bible speaks of? Or perhaps they were our predecessor species that was wiped out in the previous theory." These are questions that are being theorized on. The creationist's theories are no less valid than the evolutionist's theories. Neither has been proven, so there's still a lot of room for HONEST debate.
> Substitute bible for internet in that statement, and it's the same.
The really amusing part is that most people miss the purpose of the Bible. It is not a science book or a "how to on everything". It is simply a recording of Jesus's lineage. That is its sole purpose. God threw a lot of extra clues in there to help us out in a scientific fashion, but he certainly didn't try to explain Quantum Physics to us.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade