Wait.

"two millenia ago, some guy once wrote..."

that's evidence?

LOL

EVOLUTION HAS EVIDENCE.

There is no other theory that does.

Unless you also want me to teach your children that science might also accept that Vishnu created the universe in his battle with the evil Brahama and that we might also accept that the Giant Tortoise of the south pacific spawned us from one of his eggs, all having roughly the same probability.

If you claim "creation science" as science, I claim that Zeus lives on Mt Olympus, but he is merely invisible to non-believers.

Clearly. Prove that he is not. Prove it!

Hah. Old thread, needs brief response.

I have no proof, nor does anyone else, as to whether a "creator" exists.

I do, however, have ample and sufficient reason to believe that if such a creator exists, he has no influence on the daily operation and events that unfold on Earth, or throughout the Universe, and no reason to think otherwise.

If you wish to believe that the Universe spawned from a loving creator, more power to you. However, the Universe *IS* 14.6 billion years old, the early *IS* 4.6 billion years old and life *DID* evolve from single-cellular organisms. I state this, scientifically, with what I regard as ample evidence. That is to say that it is sufficiently improbable that it is not true, that I can safely discount the tiny probability that it is not.

  Unless, of course, you believe in the "trickster god" theory that he created everything only to APPEAR old, simply to deceive us. If so, more power to you, go away and don't claim it as science.

Theory: The universe may have had a beginning at some point
Postulate: If it began at a single point, it would be expanding
Test: View distant objects and calculate their trajectory
Result: Distant objects are moving away from us
Conclusion: The universe is expanding.
Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way

Postulate: If the universe is expanding, there must have been a point at which it was very small
Test: Run simulations on expanding universe with existing theory of particle physics
Result: Simulation strongly agrees with existing observations of background radiation
Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way

Conclusion: The universe appears to have come from a single point
Postulate: This means it must have a set age
Test: Measure speed of expansion, age of stars, distribution of matter to determine absolute age.
Result: Many measurements seem to agree on a time period for the age of the universe
Conclusion: The universe has an age we can calculate (approx 14.6 billion years)
Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way

Theory: The earth is the center of the Solar System
Postulate: Everything rotates around the earth
Test: Calculate orbital trajectories to determine a consistent pattern of orbit
Result: Postulate does not match calculations or observations
Conclusion: The Earth is probably NOT the center of the solar system
Creationist Conclusion: Someone mistranslated the bible when it said that.

Theory: Dino fossils are old
Postulate: Measuring the age of things can be done with radiometric dating.
Test: Measure the amount of Argon-40 in rocks found very near fossils and calculate relative decay of Potassium-40 over the 1.2 billion year half-life.
Result: The amount of Argon-40 (which can only appear in-situ within rocks due to radioactive decay of Argon-40) consistently reveals an age of 35-2 billion years. Rocks found near fossils are frequently (more than 95% of the time) dated consistently with the particular rock layer they are found in and contain consistent specimens.
Conclusion: Fossils were laid down in a consistent way at dates consistent with them having various ages between 35 and 2 billion years
Young Earth Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way

Theory: Jesus was the son of God
Test: .....
Result: ?!
Scientific Conclusion: !?
Christian Conclusion: Jesus is the son of God

Theory: God created the earth in 7 days
Postulate: My God is and Awesome God!!!
Test: ... only 7?
Result: It was good.
Creationist Conclusion: God did it!!!!!
Scientific Conclusion: what?

Theory: The nature of the beginning of the universe is unknowable
Test: ?
Scientific Conclusion: We don't know, for sure
Creationist Conclusion: I have all the answers, it's in this old book.

Cars today are much better than they were in 1990 when they developed this system.

3-star ratings weren't uncommon back then.

http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/1990-2010+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=3098

There are still some cars that get 4-stars, but this particular model (RAV4) got several 4-star ratings, prompting newspaper articles about "failing" safety tests. People clearly expect perfect security and safety all the time at all costs. (See: Patriot Act)

http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/2011-Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=8143

Lots of cars ship with air suspension. Audi, Cadillac, BMW, Mercedes and others have shipped this.

I suspect the NTSB tests them in "worst case" configuration.

Considering the Tesla has similar air suspension to the Audi design, it's probably a solved problem that you're frothing about for no reason.

LOL.

+1 hillarious

The firewalling in the Model S is superb. The odds of a fire killing someone are extremely low because the batteries are surrounded by heat shields that will give someone 10-15 minutes to escape before they are actually burned.

I suspect that no fire deaths will ever occur in a Tesla (except, perhaps someone who is already unconscious from striking at tree at 100mph, or similar).

The CoG on the Tesla is already so low that the NTSB had to resort to "extreme measures" (using a ramp for one wheel) to even convince the car to roll during safety testing.

There are not too many non-racecars (Porche, Ferrari, etc) that have to have this measure taken.

There is very little risk of rolling a Model S.

That would be "HIGH END" luxury cars (Over $80k), FYI.

15%?

The Tesla Model S is the single highest selling luxury sedan in the US, beating out the Mersedez Benz S-Class.

It's fair to say that electric cars will be destroyed by fire at a slightly higher rate than brand new gasoline cars, but they are subject to destruction by other means less often.

The fires are contained and, as stated, were sufficiently contained to avoid burning the paper in the glove compartment, and the cabin suffered exactly zero damage, due to the well designed firewalls.

All I have to say is MEH.

That's not how statistics works....

Sorry, what does home heating have to do with cigarette smoking?

Analogy....

I claim eating cyanide is bad for you.

You counter by saying that cyanide is in the wood people use to make backyard decks and the they have dinner there...

Ha!!!

Still confused.

To be fair, TWO of those three people are on record saying they would buy again and don't think the fire was a big deal, given the type of impact.

People are really bad at understanding statistics.

The masses will believe that electric cars are dangerously subject to spontaneous burning as a result of this press coverage, despite the extraordinarily solid safety record of the Tesla cars.

This is (to me) substantially similar to those people who frequently call violent crime a "growing problem" and probably comes from the same lazy, sensationalist reporters.