It doesn't really; however individuals photons hit atoms and are absorbed and then remitted after a period of time later... so it seems as though the photon has taken longer to get through the material, or equivalently it is travelling at a slower speed.
Each individual photon still always travels at the speed of light.
Gah, every time I read one of these stories I'm rendered speechless by the hubris of these scientists who think that somehow they have a right to own part of the very building blocks of life. And appalled at a government that is happy to let people lock away such vital information for the sake of a few measly dollars in kickbacks, sorry I mean patent applications.
Now this guy comes along and you can be sure that even before he proves anything he'll have signed up for the 97% of the genome he's talking about, "just in case". And what can anyone else do about it? Nothing.
There should be no price on scientific advance. People who do this sort of things are not scientists, they are nothing more than minions of Satan out to prevent us from evolving and taking our rightful place at God's side.
Scientists are people too... and like all men, they are not perfect beings by any stretch of the imagination. They seek after false goals, make mistakes in their logic, and get attached to ideas that they should now better about.
Unfortunately as the article says in the world of "cosmology" these scientists are unconstrained by the things that has made science such as useful part of our everyday lives... the need for experimental verification and some kind of connection with the real world. Instead, pesudo-scientists like these can come up with pie in the sky theories about bangs, splats, inflation or whatever the latest piece of mumbo-jumbo is. As long as they can justify their next grant check by pointing to their latest chin-stroking piece of nonsense, they just don't seem to care whether it actually contributes anything to science
The field of cosmology is a bust, and is never likely to produce anything other than windy speculation and an endless source of free taxpayers money to pay for ivory tower academics who could be doing something far more useful instead. The government needs to realise this, and stop wasting our money on something for which no explaination is needed - we already now how the Universe came to be!
There is no justification for this kind of science. Without an end goal in sight, this field of "science" is as empty of meaning as advertising.
Because it has relied extensively on its advantage in intellectual capital and the assistance of its USian allies.
But as you said yourself, excessive regulation has lowered growth and profits, and as time goes on the One World-esque policy of the EU (or United States of Europe as one of its more honest proponents wants it to be called) will ensure more and more subsidies, regulations and red tape. Just look at the countries clamouring to sign up and receive their share of the EU cash pie!
Nope, as more and more poor countries join and we see massive wealth redistribution from richer countries to poorer, the EU will stagnate and eventually decay. Coupled with the rise of intellectual capital in places like India and China, this will signify a loss of the primacy Europe has held for centuries, turning it into little more than an overregulated backwater.
Hmmm. Well you as Mr. Top-Flight Consultant may have enough disposable income to provide for your own healthcare and retirement but that does not mean the rest of the working population does. These systems would not be in place if most people COULD provide these things for themselves.
No, these policies were put in place in order to secure votes from people who were unwilling to work, or unemployable. They certainly weren't done for any other reason.
I don't know why you think people exist for the benefit of the market.
We don't; it's the other way around. But for the market to serve us, it needs to be unfettered from all of the many restrictions and special cases that the Government has kept hitting us with over the last fifty years. Even though Bush has supposedly engaged in a vast program of deregularization, it's just a smokescreen for more special interest politics for his corporate masters.
As long as USian presidents keep spreading their ass cheeks for their corporate paymasters, we'll see this kind of economic irregularities... only when we see a truly free market will there be the opportunity for massive growth.
As a top-flight consultant who has been in the IT industry in one form or another for some fifteen years or so I see this current phase as being a departure from the normal boom and bust cycles that rule any kind of capitalist economic model. It's not going to go back to a time in which any two-bit Perl coder can earn a fat paycheck for knocking out e-commerce systems, because America is no longer a viable place to employ people.
Why? Because there are a dozen or so countries in which labor, even semi-skilled labor such as coding, is far, far cheaper to hire than it is here. There was a time when workers could be paid according to the dictates of the market, but since various socialist "innovations" introduced over the last twenty years have kicked in, companies just can't hire and fire people as and when they need to, and retaining staff is getting more and more expensive... not because of wages, but because of the increased burden of government mandated benefits these people are required to have, despite earning plenty enough to provide for themselves.
In the future I see outsourcing as becoming the number one way in which companies develop software. The only remaining market in the US for programmers will be a small number of inhouse maintainance programmers, and an even smaller number of researchers working for either small startups or large, established players like IBM and Microsoft.
The market is oversaturated, and there isn't going to be another boom, just a slow, steady decline.
Despite the expanding popularity of games like EverQuest and it's huge array of derivatives and competitors to suggest that the "economy" (and those quotes are deliberate; to suggest that any of these games has anything like a real economy is patently ludicrous) is in anyway comparable to that of real-world markets is... well, just wrong. Any Economic 101 student should be able to tell you that.
As such any talk of jurisdiction over these "new economies" is just a pipe dream by over-addicted players; there is quite simply no such new economy at all, merely players (and sad, cheap addicted ones at that) within the current economy, trading their resources for ever more ephemeral rewards.
Indeed it seems like such talk of new economies is nothing more than subliminal advertising; trying to talk up the game to make it more important than it is. After all, it certianly suits the makers of the game if it's seen to be more "real"... even this sort of "negative" publicity is good for it since the sort of person that has such a pathetic life they get addicted to online games seems to be craving a reality of sorts, preferably one where they can overcome the crippling social, mental and physical deficiencies that plague them in real life.
There is no genuine MMORPG economy. There's just a fringe of people who really need to get out more, trading within the regular economy on sites like EBay.
Well the amount of Hawking radiation a black hole emits is inversely proportional to its mass (and hence surface area). For even a black hole of a few solar masses the temperature from this radiation would be tiny; for one like this article is talking about it's something like billionths of a Kelvin above absolute zero, probably less. Since the temperature of the Universe is higher than this, even without any matter falling in there's a net influx just from the background radiation that exists everywhere.
Really small black holes (which may or may not exist) on the other hand would emit huge amounts of Hawking radiation and be very hot; they would quickly lose all of their mass and "evaporate" in a runaway process... the more the emit, the faster they emit more.
So the answer is that you don't see it, the effect is far, far too small to observe astronomically:) Hell, it might not even be true... it is just a theory. It does seem likely though.
The question people should be asking here is simply... do we need yet another hideously expensive combat aircraft? As Afghanistan and even the Gulf War showed, the role of traditional air combat is lessening and in its place we are seeing advances in so-called "smart weaponry" which allows tactical strikes without even the risk of sending a stealth plane in... just look at the one that got shot down several years ago.
But unfortunately the lumbering military-industrial complex of the United States seems unable to tear itself away from the idea of yet another project that will provide a steady stream of cash into the bank accounts of corporations and away from anywhere it might conceivably be of any use to Joe American. Just look at how much of our tax money is wasted each year in endless projects, half of which never come close to realization and yet still cost hundreds of billions of dollars!
The Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves to see this blatent abuse of power in providing corporate welfare in the name of national defense. Rather than any kind of true free market competition, these kind of jobs are farmed out between a small number of corporations who fall over themselves to provide kickbacks and bribes, knowing a successful contract will ensure fat profits for the next decade.
We don't need another stealth plane. What we need is to get our priorities right. It's a new millenium, and threats like that of China and India mean that we need to ensure that we remain ahead of the game, not chasing new toys and pumping our resources into waiting corporate mouths.
Well yes, but I don't see that that has anything to do with Hawking radiation... do you actually have an objection to the idea of black holes radiating?
The general theory of relativity predicts the formation of singularities, but when taken into consideration along with quantum theory as both Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have, they become astronomically unlikely(but not impossible). The formation of a black hole would require a mass at least as large as the one in the centre of our galaxy to form a true point singularity and it would have to compress in a mathematically exact symmetrical fashion.
Eh? Could you explain what you're talking about here? Because as far as I know, Hawking and Penrose's work has nothing to do with the likelihood of black holes forming. Indeed, one of the things about black hole formation in that no matter how unsymmetrical the initial state the end result is highly symmetrical, possessing no distinguishing features other than mass, charge and angular momentum... the "black holes have no hair" theorem.
Or are you talking about the recent results in M-theory proving Berkentstein's semi-classical formula for black hole entropy? If so, I'm still not sure what that's got to do with black hole formation... it strikes me you've got things confused...
Only from the perspective of someone outside the event horizon. From the perspective of someone (or something) falling into the black hole, they'd fall into it just as normal ie. pretty damn quickly:)
Yes, because gravitational effects are proportional to M/r^2 and so drop off over distance and increase with mass... but because the radius term is squared it plays a more important role in the strength of the effect.
As such with a larger black hole (large M, smaller 1/r^2) the difference in gravitational effects over the size of say a person is fairly small because r^2 doesn't change an awful lot. However with a small hole (small M, large 1/r^2) the difference in strength of the gravitational field over the size of a person is a lot larger and so there are tidal forces which tend to cause things to be ripped apart.
It depends on the angular momentum of the black hole (one of the three properties a black hole can have - size, charge and angular momentum). If it is spinning fast enough (and admittedly this is faster than is likely through natural causes) then the event horizon becomes flattened, and at fast enough speeds it becomes flat enough that a naked singularity may become visible.
Of course this is all based upon classical arguments, and without a theory of quantum gravity we can't be sure. However it hasn't stopped Hawking and Penrose arguing about "cosmic censorship principles":)
As an IT consultant I've pushed this point to many of my clients before; either you go for a solution supported by robust standards supported by accredited standards bodies, or you go for a de facto standard which while it may not have the cast-iron guarantees that say an ECMA-approved standard would, at least ensures that you're not going to get left behind your competitors.
For a group of people which rely on so many open standards (and indeed, complain when companies don't use them!) I've yet to see little progress here on ensuring XUL remains an open standard. Which is a pity, because otherwise it has little to recommend it, no matter how extensible it is.
Also, does anyone here know anything about performance issues? Visual Basic nowadays is fairly reasonable for certain aspects of enterprise solutions, but if this is anything like Mozilla I'm not sure I could recommend it as being a good platform for applications.
Yep. I dream of the day when food products no longer need to have those annoyingly informative nutritional labels upon them.
The fact is that in a free market such labels would already exist, because consumers would demand them! Instead we have the situation where consumers are lulled into a false sense of security by Big Brother socialism, and sheeplike, accept any and all measures designed to protect them from themselves, even when such measures are clearly less efficient than their free market alternatives!
Ask any Economics 101 student and he will tell you that a free, open service market will eventually become closed, and the barriers to entry then raised insurmountably high. At this point, you need the government to step in and free up the market.
Only if their department has been corrupted by the Chomskyist rantings of certain anticapitalist agitators. Time and time again it has been shown that a free market leads to the maximinally efficient allocation of resources in a free market. And America is perhaps the only place in the world that has had the sense to reject the yoke of socialism and implement such a system.
In case you weren't aware of it, in a free market there is this little thing called competition which ensures that different companies are able to compete on their merits and ensures that a closed market never forms. Only when socialism interferes do such monopoly situations arise; hence the rise of the monopoly in America since the great socialist takeover of the last 70 years.
I for one am glad that the Government, for whatever reason, was denied the opportunity to meddle in the affairs of business! The whole Microsoft lawsuit was nothing more than a ham-handed attempt by various Democrat cronies at making a name for themselves (as seen by Jackson's shameless publicity maneuvers) by attacking one of America's great success stories in the commercial world.
Government has no business interfering with the market! As any Economics 101 student, a free market is the most efficient way of allocating limited resources known to man, and every time the Government gets involved we end up with corruption and red tape which serve only to line the pockets of the beurocrats at the expense of honest taxpayers - that's you and me folks! Whether you like Microsoft's software or not, they are an important part of our economy responsible for the continued employment of thousands and an important driving force in the computer industry.
No, I'm glad that since George has come to power this ridiculous socialist attack on our economy has been derailed and things have gotten back to how they should be - a free market, not one in which the Government meddles in order to score points. Recognising the power of the free market is what has made America the economic powerhouse of the world, and those that choose to ignore this are little better than the liberals that decry our actions in Afghanistan.
Since when have Microsoft been alone in doing this? Let's face it, it was Netscape that started this trend of proprietory extensions with their additions to HTML, and companies like AOL and Freeserve that are happy to try and provide gated communities that leverage the strengths of the internet whilst keeping users locked into their domains.
At least Microsoft is for once doing the right thing with SOAP.
It's not like some kind of database where the Evil Goons at Microsoft can look up exactly what you were doing minute-by-minute every day of your life now is it?
Systems like this already exist in other areas - think of the loyalty cards that many shops now run for instance. In fact, loyalty cards store more detailed information than this system does.
I for one don't oppose the idea of having a TV that didn't show be some of the quite incredible amounts of crap that I would never want to watch. I don't much like adverts either, but if I have to watch them I'd rather see relevant ones than more pointless rubbish about stuff that I can't even use.
Yes. They imported tribesmen from the Amazon which had been displaced by logging efforts powered by American greed, and offered to resettle them in America as long as they followed the liberal's plan for collective guilt. Having no other options, these people agreed and were specially educated in their new "culture" before being send to the prepared reservations in America.
Most "native" Americans are unaware of this, as their children were taught the same lies as ours. Within another thirty years, nobody will be alive who was there when they arrived on American soil.
As usual, wheneve the issue of ancient history (where ancient mean "before last Friday"), the flaming Jesus freaks emerge from their self-flagellating to inflict their disgusting morals and creation myths on rational people.
Of course we do. Whenever nonsense like this is released from another liberal brainwashing centre, then it is the duty of all concerned Christians to fight back, to show to people that the Truth of history is already out there in bookshops, churches and missions across the world!
For any truly rational person, persuing wild theories about hairy elephants and "giant lizards" is a waste of time and energy, and playing directly into the hands of the anti-humanist liberals.
Let me give you a hint: Science works. I don't need proof of that.
See how you have been brainwashed! You attack me for not having proof (despite it sitting here on my desk at work!) and then go on and claim science doesn't need any. How hypocritical of you! But then again, the Bible does warn about the hypocrites. Thankfully, they will receive their just reward.
Religion is a mind-controlling device invented by a certain Jewish huckster named Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago. 2000 years!
If you believe that, you are even more profoundly ignorant than I had thought.
There is *no* proof for any facet of creationism. Not one.
As I said before, radio halos found in granite, the decay rate of planetary magentic fields, the amount of interplanetary dust and many more. But you obviously haven't taken the time to find out these things, sure in your smug liberal ideology.
Why doesn't he open his big mouth anymore, Jon?
Why should be have to? All the evidence is already there!
Slashdot Mirror
Cubase/Logic Audio. AutoCAD maybe. I'm sure there are plenty more.
Each individual photon still always travels at the speed of light.
Info here. He's right, XP does initialise hardware asynchronously.
Now this guy comes along and you can be sure that even before he proves anything he'll have signed up for the 97% of the genome he's talking about, "just in case". And what can anyone else do about it? Nothing.
There should be no price on scientific advance. People who do this sort of things are not scientists, they are nothing more than minions of Satan out to prevent us from evolving and taking our rightful place at God's side.
Unfortunately as the article says in the world of "cosmology" these scientists are unconstrained by the things that has made science such as useful part of our everyday lives... the need for experimental verification and some kind of connection with the real world. Instead, pesudo-scientists like these can come up with pie in the sky theories about bangs, splats, inflation or whatever the latest piece of mumbo-jumbo is. As long as they can justify their next grant check by pointing to their latest chin-stroking piece of nonsense, they just don't seem to care whether it actually contributes anything to science
The field of cosmology is a bust, and is never likely to produce anything other than windy speculation and an endless source of free taxpayers money to pay for ivory tower academics who could be doing something far more useful instead. The government needs to realise this, and stop wasting our money on something for which no explaination is needed - we already now how the Universe came to be!
There is no justification for this kind of science. Without an end goal in sight, this field of "science" is as empty of meaning as advertising.
But as you said yourself, excessive regulation has lowered growth and profits, and as time goes on the One World-esque policy of the EU (or United States of Europe as one of its more honest proponents wants it to be called) will ensure more and more subsidies, regulations and red tape. Just look at the countries clamouring to sign up and receive their share of the EU cash pie!
Nope, as more and more poor countries join and we see massive wealth redistribution from richer countries to poorer, the EU will stagnate and eventually decay. Coupled with the rise of intellectual capital in places like India and China, this will signify a loss of the primacy Europe has held for centuries, turning it into little more than an overregulated backwater.
No, these policies were put in place in order to secure votes from people who were unwilling to work, or unemployable. They certainly weren't done for any other reason.
I don't know why you think people exist for the benefit of the market.
We don't; it's the other way around. But for the market to serve us, it needs to be unfettered from all of the many restrictions and special cases that the Government has kept hitting us with over the last fifty years. Even though Bush has supposedly engaged in a vast program of deregularization, it's just a smokescreen for more special interest politics for his corporate masters.
As long as USian presidents keep spreading their ass cheeks for their corporate paymasters, we'll see this kind of economic irregularities... only when we see a truly free market will there be the opportunity for massive growth.
Why? Because there are a dozen or so countries in which labor, even semi-skilled labor such as coding, is far, far cheaper to hire than it is here. There was a time when workers could be paid according to the dictates of the market, but since various socialist "innovations" introduced over the last twenty years have kicked in, companies just can't hire and fire people as and when they need to, and retaining staff is getting more and more expensive... not because of wages, but because of the increased burden of government mandated benefits these people are required to have, despite earning plenty enough to provide for themselves.
In the future I see outsourcing as becoming the number one way in which companies develop software. The only remaining market in the US for programmers will be a small number of inhouse maintainance programmers, and an even smaller number of researchers working for either small startups or large, established players like IBM and Microsoft.
The market is oversaturated, and there isn't going to be another boom, just a slow, steady decline.
As such any talk of jurisdiction over these "new economies" is just a pipe dream by over-addicted players; there is quite simply no such new economy at all, merely players (and sad, cheap addicted ones at that) within the current economy, trading their resources for ever more ephemeral rewards.
Indeed it seems like such talk of new economies is nothing more than subliminal advertising; trying to talk up the game to make it more important than it is. After all, it certianly suits the makers of the game if it's seen to be more "real"... even this sort of "negative" publicity is good for it since the sort of person that has such a pathetic life they get addicted to online games seems to be craving a reality of sorts, preferably one where they can overcome the crippling social, mental and physical deficiencies that plague them in real life. There is no genuine MMORPG economy. There's just a fringe of people who really need to get out more, trading within the regular economy on sites like EBay.
Really small black holes (which may or may not exist) on the other hand would emit huge amounts of Hawking radiation and be very hot; they would quickly lose all of their mass and "evaporate" in a runaway process... the more the emit, the faster they emit more.
So the answer is that you don't see it, the effect is far, far too small to observe astronomically :) Hell, it might not even be true... it is just a theory. It does seem likely though.
But unfortunately the lumbering military-industrial complex of the United States seems unable to tear itself away from the idea of yet another project that will provide a steady stream of cash into the bank accounts of corporations and away from anywhere it might conceivably be of any use to Joe American. Just look at how much of our tax money is wasted each year in endless projects, half of which never come close to realization and yet still cost hundreds of billions of dollars!
The Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves to see this blatent abuse of power in providing corporate welfare in the name of national defense. Rather than any kind of true free market competition, these kind of jobs are farmed out between a small number of corporations who fall over themselves to provide kickbacks and bribes, knowing a successful contract will ensure fat profits for the next decade.
We don't need another stealth plane. What we need is to get our priorities right. It's a new millenium, and threats like that of China and India mean that we need to ensure that we remain ahead of the game, not chasing new toys and pumping our resources into waiting corporate mouths.
Well yes, but I don't see that that has anything to do with Hawking radiation... do you actually have an objection to the idea of black holes radiating?
Entropy is proportional to surface area, which is in turn proportional to the mass of the black hole.
Eh? Could you explain what you're talking about here? Because as far as I know, Hawking and Penrose's work has nothing to do with the likelihood of black holes forming. Indeed, one of the things about black hole formation in that no matter how unsymmetrical the initial state the end result is highly symmetrical, possessing no distinguishing features other than mass, charge and angular momentum... the "black holes have no hair" theorem.
Or are you talking about the recent results in M-theory proving Berkentstein's semi-classical formula for black hole entropy? If so, I'm still not sure what that's got to do with black hole formation... it strikes me you've got things confused...
Only from the perspective of someone outside the event horizon. From the perspective of someone (or something) falling into the black hole, they'd fall into it just as normal ie. pretty damn quickly :)
As such with a larger black hole (large M, smaller 1/r^2) the difference in gravitational effects over the size of say a person is fairly small because r^2 doesn't change an awful lot. However with a small hole (small M, large 1/r^2) the difference in strength of the gravitational field over the size of a person is a lot larger and so there are tidal forces which tend to cause things to be ripped apart.
Of course this is all based upon classical arguments, and without a theory of quantum gravity we can't be sure. However it hasn't stopped Hawking and Penrose arguing about "cosmic censorship principles" :)
For a group of people which rely on so many open standards (and indeed, complain when companies don't use them!) I've yet to see little progress here on ensuring XUL remains an open standard. Which is a pity, because otherwise it has little to recommend it, no matter how extensible it is.
Also, does anyone here know anything about performance issues? Visual Basic nowadays is fairly reasonable for certain aspects of enterprise solutions, but if this is anything like Mozilla I'm not sure I could recommend it as being a good platform for applications.
Yep. I dream of the day when food products no longer need to have those annoyingly informative nutritional labels upon them.
The fact is that in a free market such labels would already exist, because consumers would demand them! Instead we have the situation where consumers are lulled into a false sense of security by Big Brother socialism, and sheeplike, accept any and all measures designed to protect them from themselves, even when such measures are clearly less efficient than their free market alternatives!
Ask any Economics 101 student and he will tell you that a free, open service market will eventually become closed, and the barriers to entry then raised insurmountably high. At this point, you need the government to step in and free up the market.
Only if their department has been corrupted by the Chomskyist rantings of certain anticapitalist agitators. Time and time again it has been shown that a free market leads to the maximinally efficient allocation of resources in a free market. And America is perhaps the only place in the world that has had the sense to reject the yoke of socialism and implement such a system.
In case you weren't aware of it, in a free market there is this little thing called competition which ensures that different companies are able to compete on their merits and ensures that a closed market never forms. Only when socialism interferes do such monopoly situations arise; hence the rise of the monopoly in America since the great socialist takeover of the last 70 years.
I for one am glad that the Government, for whatever reason, was denied the opportunity to meddle in the affairs of business! The whole Microsoft lawsuit was nothing more than a ham-handed attempt by various Democrat cronies at making a name for themselves (as seen by Jackson's shameless publicity maneuvers) by attacking one of America's great success stories in the commercial world.
Government has no business interfering with the market! As any Economics 101 student, a free market is the most efficient way of allocating limited resources known to man, and every time the Government gets involved we end up with corruption and red tape which serve only to line the pockets of the beurocrats at the expense of honest taxpayers - that's you and me folks! Whether you like Microsoft's software or not, they are an important part of our economy responsible for the continued employment of thousands and an important driving force in the computer industry.
No, I'm glad that since George has come to power this ridiculous socialist attack on our economy has been derailed and things have gotten back to how they should be - a free market, not one in which the Government meddles in order to score points. Recognising the power of the free market is what has made America the economic powerhouse of the world, and those that choose to ignore this are little better than the liberals that decry our actions in Afghanistan.
Since when have Microsoft been alone in doing this? Let's face it, it was Netscape that started this trend of proprietory extensions with their additions to HTML, and companies like AOL and Freeserve that are happy to try and provide gated communities that leverage the strengths of the internet whilst keeping users locked into their domains.
At least Microsoft is for once doing the right thing with SOAP.
It's not like some kind of database where the Evil Goons at Microsoft can look up exactly what you were doing minute-by-minute every day of your life now is it?
Systems like this already exist in other areas - think of the loyalty cards that many shops now run for instance. In fact, loyalty cards store more detailed information than this system does.
I for one don't oppose the idea of having a TV that didn't show be some of the quite incredible amounts of crap that I would never want to watch. I don't much like adverts either, but if I have to watch them I'd rather see relevant ones than more pointless rubbish about stuff that I can't even use.
Yes. They imported tribesmen from the Amazon which had been displaced by logging efforts powered by American greed, and offered to resettle them in America as long as they followed the liberal's plan for collective guilt. Having no other options, these people agreed and were specially educated in their new "culture" before being send to the prepared reservations in America.
Most "native" Americans are unaware of this, as their children were taught the same lies as ours. Within another thirty years, nobody will be alive who was there when they arrived on American soil.
As usual, wheneve the issue of ancient history (where ancient mean "before last Friday"), the flaming Jesus freaks emerge from their self-flagellating to inflict their disgusting morals and creation myths on rational people.
Of course we do. Whenever nonsense like this is released from another liberal brainwashing centre, then it is the duty of all concerned Christians to fight back, to show to people that the Truth of history is already out there in bookshops, churches and missions across the world!
For any truly rational person, persuing wild theories about hairy elephants and "giant lizards" is a waste of time and energy, and playing directly into the hands of the anti-humanist liberals.
Let me give you a hint: Science works. I don't need proof of that.
See how you have been brainwashed! You attack me for not having proof (despite it sitting here on my desk at work!) and then go on and claim science doesn't need any. How hypocritical of you! But then again, the Bible does warn about the hypocrites. Thankfully, they will receive their just reward.
Religion is a mind-controlling device invented by a certain Jewish huckster named Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago. 2000 years!
If you believe that, you are even more profoundly ignorant than I had thought.
There is *no* proof for any facet of creationism. Not one.
As I said before, radio halos found in granite, the decay rate of planetary magentic fields, the amount of interplanetary dust and many more. But you obviously haven't taken the time to find out these things, sure in your smug liberal ideology.
Why doesn't he open his big mouth anymore, Jon?
Why should be have to? All the evidence is already there!