including a wicked pair of 1980's Brittania bellbottoms which I still have in my closet. I should try them on, I bet they still fit.
Where is the "-1 Fashion Crime" mod when you need it? (or enough Southern Comfort to pickle our brains like when we originally thought bell-bottoms were "cool":-).
No, no problems with cooling or physical shock or a power surge in my 4-box system. As a matter of fact, my box runs barely over room temp, with no hot spots, and the drives are hardly warm to the touch after being on for a couple of days.
Hard drives fail. Same as anything else mechanical.
I'll never use raid. I swore off it a couple of years ago, after 4 drives failed in one week. My former boss thought it was great, and then HE had 2 drives fail on a 6-drive box. Near-simultaneous multiple-drive failures are a fact of life.
As for your question of what happens if/home fails again? "/xhome" is still on a spare partition on another drive - which will be copied to the new "/home" drive today, and then the contents copied to my laptop (which has twin 320gig hds, so I'm not crying for space to make multiple redundant backups. Buy a 17" or larger laptop and you not only get a full-sized keyboard and a bigger screen, but room for a second internal drive:-). Unlike raid, I can tolerate 4 of the 6 drives failing between the two machines and still recover. Can you say that? (I also get better performance than with raid, since each hd disk cache is only caching files related to its own unique content, so reads AND writes go quicker than if the same drives were deployed as a 4-drive raid),
I don't believe in raid. The original reason for raid was because hard drives were too small individually. For most purposes, that's no longer the case. When your raid fails, there's a VERY good chance that you'll have a second failure before you get a chance to completely rebuild - I've seen it happen. It only makes sense - after all, the drives are all the same age, and same usage pattern. buying from different suppliers doesn't mean anything - I bought 4 drives from 2 different suppliers in two different cities, and they all turned out to be from the same batch (and they ALL died within a week, so raid would have been a total fail).
If you have TWO spares, use the failure of the drive holding the OS as an excuse to do a system update, the failure of the drive holding your data as an excuse to clean up the junk that has accumulated (if you're doing the OS on drive 0, data on drive 1 scenario).
If th failures happen every year or two, then first failure, swap the drives and put the working old one as your new backup while the defective drive is sent out for replacement. Second failure, repeat. Third failure, it was time to replace the machine anyway - it's 3 to 6 years old now, so swap one last time and start building a replacement.
Modifying the genes in the offspring is what EVERY act of sxual reproduction does. No animal or plant that uses sexual reproduction ends up with offspring with genes identical to the parents. That's one of the benefits of sexual reproduction - mixing of genes in new combinations. Sometimes this gives rise to new traits, new behaviours; given long enough time spans and large enough populations with less-than-100% homogenity, entirely new species are not only possible, but inevitable.
Just a note - when building a box, always leave at least one extra drive. Then the hardware portion of "fixing" a failed drive can be as simple as removing the dead drive, plugging in the spare drive, and powering up.
Send the dead drive out at your leisure for in-warranty replacement, and when it comes back, it becomes the new "spare".
Note: the box I'm typing this on had one drive go down Christmas morning. Fortunately, of the 4 drives, the drive that was mounted as "/bak" is now "/home". When the old "/home" comes back, I'll throw it in and load it up. In the meantime, one of the drives in my laptop is now also "/bak"...
Some time next year, the whole box will probably become a backup machine, and a new 4-drive box will become "/", "/home", "/srv", "/bak"
At under $100 a drive, it's cheap "good enough" computing. "But you're wasting a terabyte of space!!!" So what - the trade-off in speed alone is worth it - 4 disk caches beat one any day of the week
I think the GP poster was trying to say that a good provider will try to prevent problems for everyone by proactively looking for problems, such as a customer account showing unusually high activity and lots of traffic to/from botnetmastercontrol.ru or some such, and that if they're snooping in your box, it's not because they give a crap about the contents per se.
Why didn't he just say "I'll copy the log files to this account - here's the user name and password."? A couple of minutes work with ssh, cat, fgrep and chown would have done it, and made everyone happy.
It's very frustrating when you're trying to help someone and they make it harder.
Also, we as a species are able to migrate A LOT better than other animals.
That is why a death of half a million annually from flu goes by unnoticed and has little to no effect on improving our immunity as species
I fhuman migration were to stop, the death toll from flu would be in the hundreds, not the hundreds of thousands. The places that escaped the "Great Influenza Pandemic" had effective blockades - nobody was allowed to land on shore.
I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism, but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people
It's not as though we haven't heard Creationists' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error...
And it makes me laugh every time. What stronger evolutionary pressure could there be than not producing healthy offspring? That's bound to proliferate genes that provide redundancy or abort unviable mutations and provide stability. It's not like every generation must or should be a wild genetic experiment, survial comes first and slight adaptation comes second, mostly climate changes are slow processes too
Muppets Labs News Flash: Every generation IS a genetic experiment, because every generation produces a new combination of genes that has never been seen before, in every individual (except for twins, etc., and the 1-in-a-billion occurence of human parthenogenesis).
In contrast, according to your theory, the world should be populated by healthy offspring. Nobody should get the flu any more. After all, previous generations were exposed to it, and should now produce only healthy offspring.
Here's an interesting stat about God the Abortionist for all you "Intelligent Design" idiots out there: 20% of all human pregnancies terminate in the first month, before the woman is even awae she's pregnant, because either the fetus or the host is not viable. This culling is part of the process, and necessary because diseases and external predators also evolve - some fast, some slow. If this is "Intelligent Design", your "Designer" has a very high initial FAIL rate, and has caused more abortions than anyone in this world.
And this shows the poor understanding of biology as taught today. EVERY generation that comes about via sexual reproduction (probably not applicable to most on slashdot:-) is the product of modified genes and dna. You're not a clone of your great-grand-parents. You don't have the exact same genes.
If you make a product people like and don't piss off people while making them want to use something else... they'll use your product?
STOP THE PRESSES!
Of course stop the presses - they're quickly going obsolete.
Just as Google will also go obsolete within 20 years as technology evolves to the point where we don't need centralized "gate-keepers" to tell us what we should be downloading. The network then WILL be the computer, and the computer will be the network. Content producers will communicate directly with content consumers, without rent-seekers and tollways imposed by intermediaries who try to insert themselves in the process.
We've already seen this to some extent in the media, and it's going to get worse. Google has an advantage right now, but technology changes, and the tendency has always been to cut out middlemen. One day Google will be the middleman, and then it will be in the same position traditional media are in, as others find ways to cut Google out of the loop.
Well, you're always welcome to come back when you have some real answers. I'll certainly be willing to look at sientific, objective proof that can be tested by reproducible experimentation that god actually exists. Anything less than that is in the realm of supposition, superstition, or fantasy.
And I say your have failed to prove god. "Logic" doesn't do it. "Logic" supposedly "proved" bumblebees can't fly. Proof is that which can be produced and reproduced. Nobody has ever produced any proof that god exists. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to substitute faith for proof.
In scientific use the term empirical refers to the gathering of data using only evidence that is observable by the senses or in some cases using calibrated scientific instruments. What early philosophers described as empiricist and empirical research have in common is the dependence on observable data to formulate and test theories and come to conclusions.
The researcher attempts to describe accurately the interaction between the instrument (or the human senses) and the entity being observed. If instrumentation is involved, the researcher is expected to calibrate his/her instrument by applying it to known standard objects and documenting the results before applying it to unknown objects.
In other words, you can't scientifically prove that what "experience" is "God" - it may be self-delusion, it may be gas, it may be a brain tumour... but you can't say that you have "empirically exprienced god" unless you have some physically detectable proof, not only that you experienced *something* (subjective) but that it had a specific cause (objective proof).
You are the one who is being closed-minded by refusing to acknowledge the many points I've brought up where you fail. You point to a dozen people who died for their cause 2,000 years ago and say "how could they have been wrong?" I point to thousands who die for their cause - are they all right? Obviously not, since some believe in contradictory things - so your argument is shown to be of no probative value, and yet you still cling to it, saying it "proves" something, when it clearly does not. This is not closed-mined so much as intellectually dishonest.
although we can test some of his works - miracles
Really? Show one that proves indisputably that it is the working of a miracle by god. Remember - just because we can't explain something does not mean it's a miracle, any more than a cave man could have explained radio. You've made a claim, now please back it up.
We could feel the effect of this interaction, but there's no reason why we should be able to test it.
In other words, you have no objective proof, and you believe none is possible. It's just a "feeling."
So, why should anyone believe *your* "feeling" or anyone else's subjective opinion, rather than hard evidence? Or *my* feeling? Or anyone else's "feeling?"
You're trying to assert again that there is some "right" for homosexuals to marry. Yet, you have not disputed my argument that there are no valid basis for such a union (since the foundations of the institution are clear)
Sure I've disputed your argument. There's no such thing as "fornication" in nature. There's no "birds and bees afornicatin'". There's no such thing as sin. Again, that's a human construct. Just like there's no such thing in nature as "evil" or "good" - it is what it is. The "foundations of the union", as I've pointed out, have very little to do with "procreation" - and have *never* been limited, even by the church, to only those who can procreate.
Homosexual tendencies are intrinsically disordered,
You have no proof whatsoever of that, and those of who insist on proof rather than bible references find such attitudes offensive, same as previous generations used the bible to justify slavery. As I've pointed out, same-sex activity is widespread in nature, it's definitely not something that will ever be "naturally selected out of the human genome" for the simple reason that other species that have been around far longer than the expected duration of humanity still do it.
Gays and lesbians have the same rights to marry as anyone else. It's not up to the church to say otherwise - they should refrain from sticking their noses in other peoples businesses, unless they want other people to do the same - which would probably end up with the banning ALL forms of marriage as discriminatory and interfering with a person's freedom of association.
Look, religion is on the decline for a reason... it doesn't meet peoples needs, its unrealistic, and it is increasingly divergent from reality. Atheists are the fastest-growing "religious preference" in North America, and outnumber Baptists. Within 50 years (more likely 25, because atheism now has the critical mass and the momentum, and social norms are on our side), the majority of the population will be atheists, and that will pretty much end that. If the various churches insists on continuing to slander and libel people by labeling them as sinners or disordered, a few more lawsuits should bankrupt them all, and that will end that.
Not everyone agrees with your view that same-sex relationships are "deviant." Next you'll be saying that gays and lesbians "choose" to be the way they are, that transsexuals are perverts, and that "getting right with god through prayer and fasting" will "heal them of their sin."
Ask yourself this - did YOU choose your sexual orientation or gender identity? Or did you just accept how you found yourself naturally leaning?
They don't say you're "sinning" or deviant for being straight - why are you not showing the same courtesy? Your religious beliefs *have* given rise to a judgmental attitude that is very offensive to many of us, who believe that discrimination based on sex, sexual identity, sexual preference, gender, or gender identity is not only ignorant and unconstitutional, but actively promotes hatred and intolerance.
If god interacts with the universe, then the existence of god *can* be put to an experiment, or we should be able to see evidence - today - of this interaction, same as we see evidence of people, planets, gravity, etc.
Even the bible warns against placing faith in tradition:-) and no, it is not miraculous in itself.
Also, where is your proof that it is a "disorder" when many species engage in it?
Because it has no natural, procreative purpose.
Neither do many activities that species engage in. How many things did you do this week that had nothing to do with bringing kids into the world?
... and my counter-point was that it happens all the time. See "terrorists".
They don't *know* it's a lie, they're convinced otherwise. Gospel writers and apostles would know if what they wrote about living with a miraculous Man was a lie.
And the gospel writers had plenty of incentive to lie. In addition, we've seen how people can whip themselves into a state where they believe they see things that just aren't true - weeping statues, etc.
Physical proof of the existence of god. If god is not part of the universe, and doesn't interact with it, then god is of no effect, and can safely be ignored.
Also, we don't have proof that the shroud is contemporaneous with Jesus. Stop putting your faith in filthy rags. That's certainly not the definition of faith.
Seriously, even if 99.44% is still garbage, that leaves some good stuff. It's like literature - there's a lot that comes in on the slush pile, but that doesn't mean that it's *all* slush.
Anyway, it'll all be moot in the next couple of decades, as it gets to the point where software-generated 3d movies and pro-quality music will be able to be generated by anyone in their own home with consumer-grade hardware and software.
YouTube wants to beat you over the head with a clue-by-four until you come to your senses.
Shroud of Turin was not "disproved" and the burden of proof to prove otherwise would fall on you. But there is no conclusive evidence that it is not as old as claimed.
No, Carl Sagan's baloney detector makes it clear that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims lies with you, the person making the claim.
But reason and logic prove His existence. And I have mentioned one of the logical proofs.
But the logical "proofs" you offered fail in the face of facts. Just as the "proof" you claim about natural selection vis. same-sex activity fails in the face of evidence that it's STILL HERE. Why hasn't it been weeded out?
Homosexuality is not genetic, and this isn't a baseless opinion.
[citation needed]
As you now write:
Evolution weeds out undesirable traits, some quicker than others. But those pertaining to sexual inability - the quickest. Homosexuality would classify as one if it was indeed genetic. It is not, and noone is claiming this anymore but you for who knows what reason. Homosexuality is a non-genetic, non-inherited disorder.
You haven't kept up with the latest advances in genetics, that show that the expression of the xx or xy chromosome is not exclusively capable of determining either sex or gender. Also, where is your proof that it is a "disorder" when many species engage in it? It must have SOME advantage if its found in so many diverse species. Or all these species "disordered" when they behave naturally? Which begs the question, if it's natural behaviour, how is it a disorder? In other words, your claim to it being a disorder is entirely subjective.
I implied God's personal involvement with humanity since its beginnings
The egyptians who worshiped Rah would beg to differ with you as to which god.
My point was why would someone lie, and then die for a lie
... and my counter-point was that it happens all the time. See "terrorists".
the age of the shroud of Turin is immaterial if it cannot be established that it was Jesus' burial shroud, same as the age of a cup is immaterial if it can't be established that it was THE chalice. Same age means nothing whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the "-1 Fashion Crime" mod when you need it? (or enough Southern Comfort to pickle our brains like when we originally thought bell-bottoms were "cool" :-).
No, no problems with cooling or physical shock or a power surge in my 4-box system. As a matter of fact, my box runs barely over room temp, with no hot spots, and the drives are hardly warm to the touch after being on for a couple of days.
Hard drives fail. Same as anything else mechanical.
After all, it's not like they even earned it. And if they say stealing is okay, why not let them live by the consequences?
While we're at it, why not kidnap this priest and see what sort of money you can get for him on eBay.
Seriously, someone should take this moron aside and tell him two wrongs don't make a right.
I'll never use raid. I swore off it a couple of years ago, after 4 drives failed in one week. My former boss thought it was great, and then HE had 2 drives fail on a 6-drive box. Near-simultaneous multiple-drive failures are a fact of life.
As for your question of what happens if /home fails again? "/xhome" is still on a spare partition on another drive - which will be copied to the new "/home" drive today, and then the contents copied to my laptop (which has twin 320gig hds, so I'm not crying for space to make multiple redundant backups. Buy a 17" or larger laptop and you not only get a full-sized keyboard and a bigger screen, but room for a second internal drive :-). Unlike raid, I can tolerate 4 of the 6 drives failing between the two machines and still recover. Can you say that? (I also get better performance than with raid, since each hd disk cache is only caching files related to its own unique content, so reads AND writes go quicker than if the same drives were deployed as a 4-drive raid),
RAID? Never again. Too risky.
I don't believe in raid. The original reason for raid was because hard drives were too small individually. For most purposes, that's no longer the case. When your raid fails, there's a VERY good chance that you'll have a second failure before you get a chance to completely rebuild - I've seen it happen. It only makes sense - after all, the drives are all the same age, and same usage pattern. buying from different suppliers doesn't mean anything - I bought 4 drives from 2 different suppliers in two different cities, and they all turned out to be from the same batch (and they ALL died within a week, so raid would have been a total fail).
If you have TWO spares, use the failure of the drive holding the OS as an excuse to do a system update, the failure of the drive holding your data as an excuse to clean up the junk that has accumulated (if you're doing the OS on drive 0, data on drive 1 scenario).
If th failures happen every year or two, then first failure, swap the drives and put the working old one as your new backup while the defective drive is sent out for replacement. Second failure, repeat. Third failure, it was time to replace the machine anyway - it's 3 to 6 years old now, so swap one last time and start building a replacement.
Modifying the genes in the offspring is what EVERY act of sxual reproduction does. No animal or plant that uses sexual reproduction ends up with offspring with genes identical to the parents. That's one of the benefits of sexual reproduction - mixing of genes in new combinations. Sometimes this gives rise to new traits, new behaviours; given long enough time spans and large enough populations with less-than-100% homogenity, entirely new species are not only possible, but inevitable.
Just a note - when building a box, always leave at least one extra drive. Then the hardware portion of "fixing" a failed drive can be as simple as removing the dead drive, plugging in the spare drive, and powering up.
Send the dead drive out at your leisure for in-warranty replacement, and when it comes back, it becomes the new "spare".
Note: the box I'm typing this on had one drive go down Christmas morning. Fortunately, of the 4 drives, the drive that was mounted as "/bak" is now "/home". When the old "/home" comes back, I'll throw it in and load it up. In the meantime, one of the drives in my laptop is now also "/bak" ...
Some time next year, the whole box will probably become a backup machine, and a new 4-drive box will become "/", "/home", "/srv", "/bak"
At under $100 a drive, it's cheap "good enough" computing. "But you're wasting a terabyte of space!!!" So what - the trade-off in speed alone is worth it - 4 disk caches beat one any day of the week
I think the GP poster was trying to say that a good provider will try to prevent problems for everyone by proactively looking for problems, such as a customer account showing unusually high activity and lots of traffic to/from botnetmastercontrol.ru or some such, and that if they're snooping in your box, it's not because they give a crap about the contents per se.
Why didn't he just say "I'll copy the log files to this account - here's the user name and password."? A couple of minutes work with ssh, cat, fgrep and chown would have done it, and made everyone happy.
It's very frustrating when you're trying to help someone and they make it harder.
One of the passers-by took out a gun and shot the marine dead. As the marine lay dying, his la gasp was a question - "How dare you defy God?"
The passer-by said "Darwin was busy, so he sent me!"
I fhuman migration were to stop, the death toll from flu would be in the hundreds, not the hundreds of thousands. The places that escaped the "Great Influenza Pandemic" had effective blockades - nobody was allowed to land on shore.
Muppets Labs News Flash: Every generation IS a genetic experiment, because every generation produces a new combination of genes that has never been seen before, in every individual (except for twins, etc., and the 1-in-a-billion occurence of human parthenogenesis).
In contrast, according to your theory, the world should be populated by healthy offspring. Nobody should get the flu any more. After all, previous generations were exposed to it, and should now produce only healthy offspring.
Here's an interesting stat about God the Abortionist for all you "Intelligent Design" idiots out there: 20% of all human pregnancies terminate in the first month, before the woman is even awae she's pregnant, because either the fetus or the host is not viable. This culling is part of the process, and necessary because diseases and external predators also evolve - some fast, some slow. If this is "Intelligent Design", your "Designer" has a very high initial FAIL rate, and has caused more abortions than anyone in this world.
If you don't think it's a valid method, why don't you try it with an UN-gloved hand and report back to us? :-)
If you've worked with big dogs (not those little under-100-pound "pretend-dogs"), you'll *know* when you've been bit.
And this shows the poor understanding of biology as taught today. EVERY generation that comes about via sexual reproduction (probably not applicable to most on slashdot :-) is the product of modified genes and dna. You're not a clone of your great-grand-parents. You don't have the exact same genes.
Of course stop the presses - they're quickly going obsolete.
Just as Google will also go obsolete within 20 years as technology evolves to the point where we don't need centralized "gate-keepers" to tell us what we should be downloading. The network then WILL be the computer, and the computer will be the network. Content producers will communicate directly with content consumers, without rent-seekers and tollways imposed by intermediaries who try to insert themselves in the process.
We've already seen this to some extent in the media, and it's going to get worse. Google has an advantage right now, but technology changes, and the tendency has always been to cut out middlemen. One day Google will be the middleman, and then it will be in the same position traditional media are in, as others find ways to cut Google out of the loop.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.
Well, you're always welcome to come back when you have some real answers. I'll certainly be willing to look at sientific, objective proof that can be tested by reproducible experimentation that god actually exists. Anything less than that is in the realm of supposition, superstition, or fantasy.
And I say your have failed to prove god. "Logic" doesn't do it. "Logic" supposedly "proved" bumblebees can't fly. Proof is that which can be produced and reproduced. Nobody has ever produced any proof that god exists. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to substitute faith for proof.
You use that word ("empirically") but you don't know what it means.
In other words, you can't scientifically prove that what "experience" is "God" - it may be self-delusion, it may be gas, it may be a brain tumour ... but you can't say that you have "empirically exprienced god" unless you have some physically detectable proof, not only that you experienced *something* (subjective) but that it had a specific cause (objective proof).
You are the one who is being closed-minded by refusing to acknowledge the many points I've brought up where you fail. You point to a dozen people who died for their cause 2,000 years ago and say "how could they have been wrong?" I point to thousands who die for their cause - are they all right? Obviously not, since some believe in contradictory things - so your argument is shown to be of no probative value, and yet you still cling to it, saying it "proves" something, when it clearly does not. This is not closed-mined so much as intellectually dishonest.
Really? Show one that proves indisputably that it is the working of a miracle by god. Remember - just because we can't explain something does not mean it's a miracle, any more than a cave man could have explained radio. You've made a claim, now please back it up.
In other words, you have no objective proof, and you believe none is possible. It's just a "feeling."
So, why should anyone believe *your* "feeling" or anyone else's subjective opinion, rather than hard evidence? Or *my* feeling? Or anyone else's "feeling?"
Sure I've disputed your argument. There's no such thing as "fornication" in nature. There's no "birds and bees afornicatin'". There's no such thing as sin. Again, that's a human construct. Just like there's no such thing in nature as "evil" or "good" - it is what it is. The "foundations of the union", as I've pointed out, have very little to do with "procreation" - and have *never* been limited, even by the church, to only those who can procreate.
You have no proof whatsoever of that, and those of who insist on proof rather than bible references find such attitudes offensive, same as previous generations used the bible to justify slavery. As I've pointed out, same-sex activity is widespread in nature, it's definitely not something that will ever be "naturally selected out of the human genome" for the simple reason that other species that have been around far longer than the expected duration of humanity still do it.
Gays and lesbians have the same rights to marry as anyone else. It's not up to the church to say otherwise - they should refrain from sticking their noses in other peoples businesses, unless they want other people to do the same - which would probably end up with the banning ALL forms of marriage as discriminatory and interfering with a person's freedom of association.
Look, religion is on the decline for a reason ... it doesn't meet peoples needs, its unrealistic, and it is increasingly divergent from reality. Atheists are the fastest-growing "religious preference" in North America, and outnumber Baptists. Within 50 years (more likely 25, because atheism now has the critical mass and the momentum, and social norms are on our side), the majority of the population will be atheists, and that will pretty much end that. If the various churches insists on continuing to slander and libel people by labeling them as sinners or disordered, a few more lawsuits should bankrupt them all, and that will end that.
Happy holidays! :-)
Not everyone agrees with your view that same-sex relationships are "deviant." Next you'll be saying that gays and lesbians "choose" to be the way they are, that transsexuals are perverts, and that "getting right with god through prayer and fasting" will "heal them of their sin."
Ask yourself this - did YOU choose your sexual orientation or gender identity? Or did you just accept how you found yourself naturally leaning?
They don't say you're "sinning" or deviant for being straight - why are you not showing the same courtesy? Your religious beliefs *have* given rise to a judgmental attitude that is very offensive to many of us, who believe that discrimination based on sex, sexual identity, sexual preference, gender, or gender identity is not only ignorant and unconstitutional, but actively promotes hatred and intolerance.
If god interacts with the universe, then the existence of god *can* be put to an experiment, or we should be able to see evidence - today - of this interaction, same as we see evidence of people, planets, gravity, etc.
BTW - Merry Christmas.
Even the bible warns against placing faith in tradition :-) and no, it is not miraculous in itself.
Neither do many activities that species engage in. How many things did you do this week that had nothing to do with bringing kids into the world?
And the gospel writers had plenty of incentive to lie. In addition, we've seen how people can whip themselves into a state where they believe they see things that just aren't true - weeping statues, etc.
Physical proof of the existence of god. If god is not part of the universe, and doesn't interact with it, then god is of no effect, and can safely be ignored.
Also, we don't have proof that the shroud is contemporaneous with Jesus. Stop putting your faith in filthy rags. That's certainly not the definition of faith.
This is Christmas, so I'll overlook the tiny mistake :-)
Try http://www.starwreck.com/
Seriously, even if 99.44% is still garbage, that leaves some good stuff. It's like literature - there's a lot that comes in on the slush pile, but that doesn't mean that it's *all* slush.
I *did* say "a couple of decades".
BTW, why not participate in the end-fo-year unzombie contest?
No, Carl Sagan's baloney detector makes it clear that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims lies with you, the person making the claim.
But the logical "proofs" you offered fail in the face of facts. Just as the "proof" you claim about natural selection vis. same-sex activity fails in the face of evidence that it's STILL HERE. Why hasn't it been weeded out?
[citation needed]
As you now write:
You haven't kept up with the latest advances in genetics, that show that the expression of the xx or xy chromosome is not exclusively capable of determining either sex or gender. Also, where is your proof that it is a "disorder" when many species engage in it? It must have SOME advantage if its found in so many diverse species. Or all these species "disordered" when they behave naturally? Which begs the question, if it's natural behaviour, how is it a disorder? In other words, your claim to it being a disorder is entirely subjective.
The egyptians who worshiped Rah would beg to differ with you as to which god.
the age of the shroud of Turin is immaterial if it cannot be established that it was Jesus' burial shroud, same as the age of a cup is immaterial if it can't be established that it was THE chalice. Same age means nothing whatsoever.