Actually, why wouldn't that work? Thermodynamics' Second Law only applies to closed systems. If this worked, it wouldn't be breaking the Law, as it would actually be powered by gravity (which also generates buoyancy).
I'm not saying it does work, just that the Second Law doesn't appear to apply here, seeing where all the energy would actually be coming from. Things like hydroelectric come to mind. Hydroelectric doesn't violate any laws, and it's perpetual--aside from things like maintenance;-)
Did you know you'd get the typical responses pertaining to the failure to spell-check and the lack of properly educated posters in the system? Yeah, it's scary, all right.
(You've got some interesting points, but if you want to be taken seriously, take your words seriously, okay?)
Looks like someone can't tell where this is happening. FTA:
BERLIN -- When the Austrian government passed a law this year allowing police to install closed-circuit surveillance cameras in public spaces without a court order, the Austrian civil liberties group Quintessenz vowed to watch the watchers.
Okay, so how is this about "Berlin technology users"? Or am I missing something?
Good question. My guess is that they'd both impact with the same force at 1 foot from the muzzle, assuming that they both have the same amount of powder (which means power) behind them; however, the lighter one would lose speed (and energy) more quickly because of its having lower density, but the same aerodynamic cross-section, so the heavier one would be more effective at long range.
Your point about velocity is taken, though, since delivering the same number of Joules in less time can make a difference in how well the impactee material holds up.
This type of thing is highly underrated in the news. I mean, when the government pulls some kind of stunt like this on possible terrorists (as bad that sometimes is), it makes news at least some of the time. But companies? Come on.
either a slick film pirate or an unwitting victim of someone who fits that description
Which is of course why these kinds of tactics don't, and won't, work in the long run. All the unwitting victims just net you bad publicity, while the slick file pirates just sit and laugh.
Columbus and all his men knew quite well the Earth's shape.
I beg to differ. As I recall, historical accounts of what happened say that his ships were within an inch of mutiny because his sailors were afraid of falling off the edge of the earth. Thus, If that land hadn't been there, Columbus and his crew would have turned back and headed for home. It is said that Chris actually made a deal at one point that if they didn't see land in X more days, they would turn back; they were within one or two days of that deadline when land was spotted.
It's a bit bizarre that Columbus [believed the earth was smaller.]
He refused, not necessarily to believe he hadn't reached the West Indies, but to let on that he hadn't reached it. Whatever he actually believed, all the money and ships he had managed to get (his reputation and career, even) was dependent on finding another way to the West Indies; if anybody was to find out he hadn't, his idea about the earth's shape might have been shown to be true, but he'd be ruined financially. Incidentally, that's why bell, jalapeno, and cayenne peppers are called peppers. They're not at all related to the true pepper (basically the chief reason for going over there in the first place), but he couldn't let on that he hadn't found any pepper, or, again, he'd be ruined.
if we take into consideration the time and space available, at a minimum, then it would be the lack of such development which would then seem improbable...Confusing improbable and impossible is an error
Interesting point. How about obstacles? Let's examine one: the formation of amino acids. Firstly, as Stanley Miller and a co-worker noted (and they should know), "The synthesis of compounds of biological interest [including amino acids] takes place only under reducing conditions", that is to say, conditions without any free oxygen present. Other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. So, you have the dilemma expressed by Francis Hitching: "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acids would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays" and/or UV. As you correctly state, there's improbable, and then there's impossible. Nature doesn't care how long you leave it there, amino acids won't form. Compare this to trying to walk to space: it's highly unlikely that you can get enough speed to run up a mountain into space, but it's even more unlikely that you'll walk up to space over time.
Once that step successfully occurs...
...then you've only got, what, about umpteen-forty-leven-hunderd more obstacles like that in the way? For example, say you intentionally put a bunch of amino acids into the primitive ocean, where they'll be protected from the destructive radiation. Now you've got another problem. As Hitching further explains: "Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules." (emphasis mine)
So, then, once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it. But if they do, they again face destructive radiation in the atmosphere just waiting to disassemble them. Now let's talk about odds!
Remember, there are over 100 different amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life. Remember also that amino acids can be left-handed or right-handed (this refers to the actual structure of the molecules). If they just form at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, they tend to form in roughly equal parts lefties and righties. There is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Still, out of those 20 amino acids used in life's proteins, all of them are left-handed. We could liken it to having a huge, well-mixed pile of red beans and white beans. There are over 100 kinds of beans, in each color. Now, if you grab a scoop of beans, what do you think you'd get? To get the basic components of a protein, you have to get only red beans. Your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of proteins, one mistake in any of these requirements nets you a protein that won't function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical pile give us the right combination? No. So how would it be possible in the hypothetical organic soup?
The proteins required for life are extremely complex proteins indeed. What are the odds of having even a simple protein form at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists (not I) estimate it to be 1 in 10^113. That's one in 10...trillion...googols!!! Anything that has one chance in 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. To give you an idea of the odds we're talking about here: 10^113 is more than the estimated number of atoms in the entire universe.
So, then, we can certainly see that a non-infinite negative probability can be so high as to be impossible, even over long periods of time.
Facts are contingent on what is or is not the case in the material world, not what someone would like to believe *must* be true
And that is why evolutionism is considered, even by many evolutionists, a faith like any other. You can't just say that it happened. You have to have faith that, somehow, life overcame the impossibilities and came into existence.
I assume by that you mean intelligent direction or "design"
Indeed; however, I have grown a great disdain for the mainstream idea of ID(tm), as it shows incredible disrespect not only for scientific evidence, but also for the very bible its followers claim to believe in. (Email me if you want to know more.)
Natural processes are frequently incremental (instead of one great leap from state A to state Z...)
And therein lies the problem. You see, contrary to popular opinion, the evidence (yes, the fossil record) does not show creatures changing gradually from one kind into another. We find fossils of this kind, and of that kind, and of many hundreds and thousands of kinds, but we don't see them changing into other kinds. We even see fake fossils that still don't show that. (And don't even get me started on punctuated equilibrium. About like ID(tm), that one is.)
For the record, I looked at Protista and Volvocines. Volvocines form slightly fancy colonies, it seems. Nothing really resembling a true multi-celled individual. And Protista is not even a species, but a whole "junk drawer" (their name for it, not mine) of things. Heck, it's a whole kingdom, for crying out loud. That sweeping category is comprised of critters so different from one another, it's a real stretch to believe they came from the same common ancestor even for evolutionists that know much about them. Further, they couldn't have come from the same ancestors as anyone from the other kingdoms, even if you believe that life started up without intelligent help. Face it, if you believe that (no offense), you also must believe that life started up by itself several times independently of one another. If you ever sat down and looked at the astronomical odds (I've got some very interesting scientific references for you on that) against even one protocell's ever forming from non-living matter, now you must contemplate the odds of repeating the same process at least three more times, with each one sufficiently different that they are all incompatible with one another, but at the same time close enough that each one could serve as food for all the others. I could go on and on. And by the way, the Protista that are multi-celled are also basically nothing more than fancy colonies, are not all that similar to the single-celled models, and, debatably, are not multi-celled individuals.
we are not certain of the first conditions...there are gaps in our current knowledge of details between certain steps
And that is why I want to puke whenever I hear evolution 'fundie-types' talk about their beliefs as though they were Gospel Fact.
Actually, that's just about what I thought of: electro-fabric skin substitutes for prostheses. Although properly communicating such complex information to the brain might not be so cheap...
pigs or rats are unexpectedly close to us in some genetic traits: no....They are useful in the lab because of physiological traits not held in common.
They are more useful because they breed quickly, etc., but the real reasons they are used for testing out drugs, treatments, germs, chemicals, etc. is because they are very close to use in some genetic traits. Read up on it and then talk to me.
As for that link, I've read through some like it, and laughed all the way through (read part of that one just to make sure). One of my favorites is the whole 'common descent' thing and some of the 'evidences' they proffer. Well, it was a nice try, anyway.
Oh, by the way, you talk of the banana/human thing as though it was wrong, but I see you were honest enough not to call it false (it is one of the smaller issues, though). And it does provide some falsification; that's why evolutionists hate it so much, and generally try to avoid it at all costs. I think you may be more open-minded than most.
For instance, we share a great deal of so-called 'junk DNA' with rats, more than with nearly any other animal. Our immune systems are extremely similar. Their pain perception is very much like ours. Cancer mechanisms, growth as well as other hormones. Humans and rats are social omnivores. Both overpopulate too easily and quickly overuse the land they live on, and in both species, homosexual behavior quickly develops among males kept in a confined area isolated from females. Won't find those similarities in too many animals, and again, evolution does not predict nearly so much similarity between such 'distant relatives'.
I'm in no position to state whether pigs have more in common with us than chimps, as I haven't been able to locate a study that directly compares the two. But answer me this: which animal more frequently serves as an organ donor? Bonus points for numbers on both.
Yeah, I should probably have been more specific: the 'ideas' I was talking about pretty much boils down to one idea -- the idea that life spontaneously arose, which of course has no scientific basis at all (and which a minority of scientists actually do not believe). By extension, I was referring to the idea that one kind of life form could spontaneously (and without any sort of direction at all) acquire the ability to change, not just into a completely different life form (the DNA instructions for which it did not possess), but a much more complex one. (As you surely know, if you've taken biology, there is a gaping gulf between even the most complex single-celled organism and the simplest multi-celled organism.) This idea, contrary to popular belief, actually has a very small amount (possibly none, after hoaxes) of hard evidence supporting it, and again, a number of scientists who therefore refuse to take it as fact.
To avoid unnecessary duplication, I'll just provide you with links to my earlierposts.
the origin of life is not included in the theory of evolution.
Never said it was. Next!
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" except in the perverted mind of a christo-facist.
Why, I think that's just a *dandy* name for you! Opposite of creationist == evolutionist. I don't know why you'd think it insulting, as it is just about as far as you can get from creationist.
As for those christo-facists, I have no idea what they think. They're always going on about Christ's face, and they just give me funny looks when I walk by.
Read a book other than the bible for once.
I've read a great many books other than the bible, which of course why I can discuss these things. Your highly defensive reaction shows I must have said something you know to be true in the back of your mind, but don't want to face, much less admit.
You ARE a fundie. You talk, think and act like one. I call em like I see em.
*/me rereads parent to your post*
Nope, that looks just like scientific commentary on a scientific subject for which there is no scientific evidence. I made no commentary on 'how life changed once it got here'. You'll be hard pressed to find fundies that speak as I have. As for thinking and acting like one, I can only conclude that you used spiritistic methods to find my thoughts and actions, since we've never met in person. And yes, I'd definitely know if I'd met you. */me stifles giggle*
Actually, they don't always. In today's corrupt society (you don't really believe the scientific community is immune, do you?), bad (though profitable) ideas get tossed only when it is (a) in one's financial interests to do so; (b) absolutely impossible not just to ignore the evidence but also to keep it secret.
Remember, scientists don't get money by saying things the scientific community doesn't like, whether true or not (how ya gonna get published, son?).
Remember, also, that most scientists get their money from governments and corporations, and we all know how *they* feel about always telling the truth, even if you don't like what it says.
you're religious, right? You seem to think that an idea, once stated, must last forever and ever, amen.
Religious or not, surely you agree that the truth is the truth, and it doesn't cease to be true just because someone who makes a lot of money says so (witness firstly all the conflicting religious teachings floating about, some of them completely contradicting one another; witness secondly all the conflicting scientific findings floating about (hoaxes, too!), with the scientific community in general keeping hushed those findings that contradict the Ideas Favored by Those with Credentials). Most fundamentalists seem to think that a Certain Weekly Idea, once stated, must last forever and ever, amen. On the other hand, most scientists seem to think that a Certain Secularist Idea, once stated, must last forever and ever, amen.
You'll find that many (most?) evolutionists think Darwin's ideas as a really rough alpha release, at best; modern evolutionism is generally considered to be version 5 or 6 by now. People hear about Darwin and think 'how quaint! We're so much more enlightened now!'
And, by the way, the origin of life is taken by most of them as a given, as in "these dogs all came from central dog ancestor, so all life must have come from common life ancestor, so life could only have come from non-living matter. POOF! Life came from nothing all by itself!" Most won't talk about the origin of life, but everyone knows that's the basic idea; few are even willing to discuss it, much less give 'alternative ideas', even when the evidence is clearly in favor of them.
I'm not so sure about that, seeing as how most finds are spun by scientists/media to support the life from nothing idea.
Besides, how different is the idea of life arising from primordial crap from the idea of super-complex life arising from super simple life?
You'll find that most evolutionists (whom I referenced in my earlier post) think of both ideas as one and the same, or at least, different manifestations of the same.
And that's why you are dumb.
You just make yourself look dumb by resorting to such immaturity. But, maybe I'm being trolled, and if I'm responding to a troll, I guess that might make me not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Regardless of the (questionable) reliability of such dating methods, just how large a portion of fossils are dated that way? Not enough to really be sure. (Very expensive.)
Well done. Now then, do you know how many things rats and humans have in common that are not generally found in other organisms? Hint: the number is so high that rats are practically irreplaceable when it comes to doing 'human-oriented' tests on animals. About the only other animal with so many shared 'rare' characteristics is the pig -- not what the hypothesis of evolution predicts.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, why wouldn't that work? Thermodynamics' Second Law only applies to closed systems. If this worked, it wouldn't be breaking the Law, as it would actually be powered by gravity (which also generates buoyancy).
;-)
I'm not saying it does work, just that the Second Law doesn't appear to apply here, seeing where all the energy would actually be coming from. Things like hydroelectric come to mind. Hydroelectric doesn't violate any laws, and it's perpetual--aside from things like maintenance
Did you know you'd get the typical responses pertaining to the failure to spell-check and the lack of properly educated posters in the system? Yeah, it's scary, all right.
(You've got some interesting points, but if you want to be taken seriously, take your words seriously, okay?)
Looks like someone can't tell where this is happening. FTA:
BERLIN -- When the Austrian government passed a law this year allowing police to install closed-circuit surveillance cameras in public spaces without a court order, the Austrian civil liberties group Quintessenz vowed to watch the watchers.
Okay, so how is this about "Berlin technology users"? Or am I missing something?
Good question. My guess is that they'd both impact with the same force at 1 foot from the muzzle, assuming that they both have the same amount of powder (which means power) behind them; however, the lighter one would lose speed (and energy) more quickly because of its having lower density, but the same aerodynamic cross-section, so the heavier one would be more effective at long range.
Your point about velocity is taken, though, since delivering the same number of Joules in less time can make a difference in how well the impactee material holds up.
Well, bullets made of the same stuff wouldn't be very heavy, so maybe you mean bullets coated with it...still, an interesting question.
This type of thing is highly underrated in the news. I mean, when the government pulls some kind of stunt like this on possible terrorists (as bad that sometimes is), it makes news at least some of the time. But companies? Come on.
See post above :)
either a slick film pirate or an unwitting victim of someone who fits that description
Which is of course why these kinds of tactics don't, and won't, work in the long run. All the unwitting victims just net you bad publicity, while the slick file pirates just sit and laugh.
Columbus and all his men knew quite well the Earth's shape.
I beg to differ. As I recall, historical accounts of what happened say that his ships were within an inch of mutiny because his sailors were afraid of falling off the edge of the earth. Thus, If that land hadn't been there, Columbus and his crew would have turned back and headed for home. It is said that Chris actually made a deal at one point that if they didn't see land in X more days, they would turn back; they were within one or two days of that deadline when land was spotted.
It's a bit bizarre that Columbus [believed the earth was smaller.]
He refused, not necessarily to believe he hadn't reached the West Indies, but to let on that he hadn't reached it. Whatever he actually believed, all the money and ships he had managed to get (his reputation and career, even) was dependent on finding another way to the West Indies; if anybody was to find out he hadn't, his idea about the earth's shape might have been shown to be true, but he'd be ruined financially. Incidentally, that's why bell, jalapeno, and cayenne peppers are called peppers. They're not at all related to the true pepper (basically the chief reason for going over there in the first place), but he couldn't let on that he hadn't found any pepper, or, again, he'd be ruined.
if we take into consideration the time and space available, at a minimum, then it would be the lack of such development which would then seem improbable...Confusing improbable and impossible is an error
Interesting point. How about obstacles? Let's examine one: the formation of amino acids. Firstly, as Stanley Miller and a co-worker noted (and they should know), "The synthesis of compounds of biological interest [including amino acids] takes place only under reducing conditions", that is to say, conditions without any free oxygen present. Other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. So, you have the dilemma expressed by Francis Hitching: "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acids would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays" and/or UV. As you correctly state, there's improbable, and then there's impossible. Nature doesn't care how long you leave it there, amino acids won't form. Compare this to trying to walk to space: it's highly unlikely that you can get enough speed to run up a mountain into space, but it's even more unlikely that you'll walk up to space over time.
Once that step successfully occurs...
...then you've only got, what, about umpteen-forty-leven-hunderd more obstacles like that in the way? For example, say you intentionally put a bunch of amino acids into the primitive ocean, where they'll be protected from the destructive radiation. Now you've got another problem. As Hitching further explains: "Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules." (emphasis mine)
So, then, once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it. But if they do, they again face destructive radiation in the atmosphere just waiting to disassemble them. Now let's talk about odds!
Remember, there are over 100 different amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life. Remember also that amino acids can be left-handed or right-handed (this refers to the actual structure of the molecules). If they just form at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, they tend to form in roughly equal parts lefties and righties. There is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Still, out of those 20 amino acids used in life's proteins, all of them are left-handed. We could liken it to having a huge, well-mixed pile of red beans and white beans. There are over 100 kinds of beans, in each color. Now, if you grab a scoop of beans, what do you think you'd get? To get the basic components of a protein, you have to get only red beans. Your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of proteins, one mistake in any of these requirements nets you a protein that won't function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical pile give us the right combination? No. So how would it be possible in the hypothetical organic soup?
The proteins required for life are extremely complex proteins indeed. What are the odds of having even a simple protein form at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists (not I) estimate it to be 1 in 10^113. That's one in 10...trillion...googols!!! Anything that has one chance in 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. To give you an idea of the odds we're talking about here: 10^113 is more than the estimated number of atoms in the entire universe.
So, then, we can certainly see that a non-infinite negative probability can be so high as to be impossible, even over long periods of time.
Facts are contingent on what is or is not the case in the material world, not what someone would like to believe *must* be true
And that is why evolutionism is considered, even by many evolutionists, a faith like any other. You can't just say that it happened. You have to have faith that, somehow, life overcame the impossibilities and came into existence.
I assume by that you mean intelligent direction or "design"
Indeed; however, I have grown a great disdain for the mainstream idea of ID(tm), as it shows incredible disrespect not only for scientific evidence, but also for the very bible its followers claim to believe in. (Email me if you want to know more.)
Natural processes are frequently incremental (instead of one great leap from state A to state Z...)
And therein lies the problem. You see, contrary to popular opinion, the evidence (yes, the fossil record) does not show creatures changing gradually from one kind into another. We find fossils of this kind, and of that kind, and of many hundreds and thousands of kinds, but we don't see them changing into other kinds. We even see fake fossils that still don't show that. (And don't even get me started on punctuated equilibrium. About like ID(tm), that one is.)
For the record, I looked at Protista and Volvocines. Volvocines form slightly fancy colonies, it seems. Nothing really resembling a true multi-celled individual. And Protista is not even a species, but a whole "junk drawer" (their name for it, not mine) of things. Heck, it's a whole kingdom, for crying out loud. That sweeping category is comprised of critters so different from one another, it's a real stretch to believe they came from the same common ancestor even for evolutionists that know much about them. Further, they couldn't have come from the same ancestors as anyone from the other kingdoms, even if you believe that life started up without intelligent help. Face it, if you believe that (no offense), you also must believe that life started up by itself several times independently of one another. If you ever sat down and looked at the astronomical odds (I've got some very interesting scientific references for you on that) against even one protocell's ever forming from non-living matter, now you must contemplate the odds of repeating the same process at least three more times, with each one sufficiently different that they are all incompatible with one another, but at the same time close enough that each one could serve as food for all the others. I could go on and on. And by the way, the Protista that are multi-celled are also basically nothing more than fancy colonies, are not all that similar to the single-celled models, and, debatably, are not multi-celled individuals.
we are not certain of the first conditions...there are gaps in our current knowledge of details between certain steps
And that is why I want to puke whenever I hear evolution 'fundie-types' talk about their beliefs as though they were Gospel Fact.
one can easily see that there's a horizon, implying that the surface does have a slight curvature.
Or, as Guy Clark once said: "it's so flat you can see the curvature of the earth."
Prairie Home Companion -- Country for intelligent people.
I second the notion! I call tentative BS until we get better proof.
Actually, that's just about what I thought of: electro-fabric skin substitutes for prostheses. Although properly communicating such complex information to the brain might not be so cheap...
And thank you for such a fittingly immature copout.
pigs or rats are unexpectedly close to us in some genetic traits: no....They are useful in the lab because of physiological traits not held in common.
They are more useful because they breed quickly, etc., but the real reasons they are used for testing out drugs, treatments, germs, chemicals, etc. is because they are very close to use in some genetic traits. Read up on it and then talk to me.
As for that link, I've read through some like it, and laughed all the way through (read part of that one just to make sure). One of my favorites is the whole 'common descent' thing and some of the 'evidences' they proffer. Well, it was a nice try, anyway.
Oh, by the way, you talk of the banana/human thing as though it was wrong, but I see you were honest enough not to call it false (it is one of the smaller issues, though). And it does provide some falsification; that's why evolutionists hate it so much, and generally try to avoid it at all costs. I think you may be more open-minded than most.
For instance, we share a great deal of so-called 'junk DNA' with rats, more than with nearly any other animal. Our immune systems are extremely similar. Their pain perception is very much like ours. Cancer mechanisms, growth as well as other hormones. Humans and rats are social omnivores. Both overpopulate too easily and quickly overuse the land they live on, and in both species, homosexual behavior quickly develops among males kept in a confined area isolated from females. Won't find those similarities in too many animals, and again, evolution does not predict nearly so much similarity between such 'distant relatives'.
I'm in no position to state whether pigs have more in common with us than chimps, as I haven't been able to locate a study that directly compares the two. But answer me this: which animal more frequently serves as an organ donor? Bonus points for numbers on both.
Yeah, I should probably have been more specific: the 'ideas' I was talking about pretty much boils down to one idea -- the idea that life spontaneously arose, which of course has no scientific basis at all (and which a minority of scientists actually do not believe). By extension, I was referring to the idea that one kind of life form could spontaneously (and without any sort of direction at all) acquire the ability to change, not just into a completely different life form (the DNA instructions for which it did not possess), but a much more complex one. (As you surely know, if you've taken biology, there is a gaping gulf between even the most complex single-celled organism and the simplest multi-celled organism.) This idea, contrary to popular belief, actually has a very small amount (possibly none, after hoaxes) of hard evidence supporting it, and again, a number of scientists who therefore refuse to take it as fact.
Like it or not, these are two logically distinct ideas.
Absolutely. If you read the post through, you'd see that I was trying to make the point that
most evolutionists (whom I referenced in my earlier post) think of both ideas as one and the same, or at least, different manifestations of the same.
To avoid unnecessary duplication, I'll just provide you with links to my earlier posts.
the origin of life is not included in the theory of evolution.
Never said it was. Next!
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" except in the perverted mind of a christo-facist.
Why, I think that's just a *dandy* name for you! Opposite of creationist == evolutionist. I don't know why you'd think it insulting, as it is just about as far as you can get from creationist.
As for those christo-facists, I have no idea what they think. They're always going on about Christ's face, and they just give me funny looks when I walk by.
Read a book other than the bible for once.
I've read a great many books other than the bible, which of course why I can discuss these things. Your highly defensive reaction shows I must have said something you know to be true in the back of your mind, but don't want to face, much less admit.
You ARE a fundie. You talk, think and act like one. I call em like I see em.
*/me rereads parent to your post*
Nope, that looks just like scientific commentary on a scientific subject for which there is no scientific evidence. I made no commentary on 'how life changed once it got here'. You'll be hard pressed to find fundies that speak as I have. As for thinking and acting like one, I can only conclude that you used spiritistic methods to find my thoughts and actions, since we've never met in person. And yes, I'd definitely know if I'd met you. */me stifles giggle*
Actually, they don't always. In today's corrupt society (you don't really believe the scientific community is immune, do you?), bad (though profitable) ideas get tossed only when it is (a) in one's financial interests to do so; (b) absolutely impossible not just to ignore the evidence but also to keep it secret.
Remember, scientists don't get money by saying things the scientific community doesn't like, whether true or not (how ya gonna get published, son?).
Remember, also, that most scientists get their money from governments and corporations, and we all know how *they* feel about always telling the truth, even if you don't like what it says.
you're religious, right? You seem to think that an idea, once stated, must last forever and ever, amen.
Religious or not, surely you agree that the truth is the truth, and it doesn't cease to be true just because someone who makes a lot of money says so (witness firstly all the conflicting religious teachings floating about, some of them completely contradicting one another; witness secondly all the conflicting scientific findings floating about (hoaxes, too!), with the scientific community in general keeping hushed those findings that contradict the Ideas Favored by Those with Credentials). Most fundamentalists seem to think that a Certain Weekly Idea, once stated, must last forever and ever, amen. On the other hand, most scientists seem to think that a Certain Secularist Idea, once stated, must last forever and ever, amen.
I can't stand people of either group.
You'll find that many (most?) evolutionists think Darwin's ideas as a really rough alpha release, at best; modern evolutionism is generally considered to be version 5 or 6 by now. People hear about Darwin and think 'how quaint! We're so much more enlightened now!'
And, by the way, the origin of life is taken by most of them as a given, as in "these dogs all came from central dog ancestor, so all life must have come from common life ancestor, so life could only have come from non-living matter. POOF! Life came from nothing all by itself!" Most won't talk about the origin of life, but everyone knows that's the basic idea; few are even willing to discuss it, much less give 'alternative ideas', even when the evidence is clearly in favor of them.
I'm not so sure about that, seeing as how most finds are spun by scientists/media to support the life from nothing idea.
Besides, how different is the idea of life arising from primordial crap from the idea of super-complex life arising from super simple life?
You'll find that most evolutionists (whom I referenced in my earlier post) think of both ideas as one and the same, or at least, different manifestations of the same.
And that's why you are dumb.
You just make yourself look dumb by resorting to such immaturity. But, maybe I'm being trolled, and if I'm responding to a troll, I guess that might make me not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Regardless of the (questionable) reliability of such dating methods, just how large a portion of fossils are dated that way? Not enough to really be sure. (Very expensive.)
Oh, and the fossil evidence: not all that grand (pg. 1-2).
Well done. Now then, do you know how many things rats and humans have in common that are not generally found in other organisms? Hint: the number is so high that rats are practically irreplaceable when it comes to doing 'human-oriented' tests on animals. About the only other animal with so many shared 'rare' characteristics is the pig -- not what the hypothesis of evolution predicts.