evolutions science is very similar to physics science. Physics science is by no means nailed down 100% and there are competing theories that eventually may get confirmed or eliminated. I think you are trying to compare evolution science to pure mathematics, specifically that which can be proved based on a set of axioms.
If you want to compare evolution to police work then compare it to OJ Simpson, since we know he did it!
Sorry you lost your wife and son. I think experiences such as yours shows the background and reason why humans had to invent gods. Originally those gods were in the Sun, or Rocks or Trees or anything else mystical, and they gave comfort to humans. Which is fine, but let's not confuse that comfort with something that actually exists.
Sad, but he was 86. I am just not sure of the "News for Nerds" angle here...
You are probably correct. I think they are just saying that the target range could be larger than we assume. There are no guarantees.
Science doesn't seek to prove god doesn't exist but the learnings of science is that any god would be irrelevant, so might as well not exist
> With no real facts, intuition only,
Which sums up how religion works and fails when thinking about science.
There may not be intelligent life out there but looking for it does not cost much and exploring is not that expensive. So we might as well do it.
Though if this was true we would expect to see the boot up time much faster. Even our current terraforming ideas for Mars & Venus have much shorter timeframes than there was for life on earth. Even long lived civilisations would not wait billions of years, let alone millions.
> No one's going anywhere. Not me, not you, not now, not ever. And no one else is coming here either.
The power of positive thinking
A god botherer interested in proof? That makes a change but then again you only throw out those statements since you will not read any proof
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... "Complex, image-forming eyes evolved independently some 50 to 100 times"
>There were created numerous times by a single individual.
I thought your imaginary friend was a trinity? so shouldn't it be three individuals (i could never work out who the holy spook was though)
Interesting. Could the NSA have implicated John Edwards? Perhaps Hillary will be the best candidate as there is nothing she has done that has not been dragged over in the media, so there can't be much to reveal.
We have to stop subsidising oil and apply the true cost of carbon. Then the market will take care of it. Global warming will do more to wreck the economy than anything we do to oil.
Building more efficient cities takes time. Our cities are designed for oil and that is one big problem.
Yes, there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, just as there has been more oxygen. The planet will be fine, but there will be another big die off, and we will be part of that. The CO2 was accumulated in the earth over hundreds of millions of years. Releasing it all at once will cause major problems. We do not need it to prevent ice ages. We know how to warm the atmosphere, e don't know how to easily cool it.
adaption is fine for a century but there is no indication that the temperature will then stabilise. The CO2 is a problem in the upper atmosphere. Turning off CO2 production will not eliminate that CO2. It will hang around for hundreds of years. Even running low on oil is not going to solve the problem as we shift to oil sands and methane deposits. We have to get off the drug of oil, which requires reengineering work, home, transport and many things that can't be done overnight easily. Unfortunately we might have to do them overnight the hard way, that will be painful.
I think i have responded to you on this before and you repeat the same lie. The increase of sea ice in Antarctica is bad as it is due to melting of ice sheets around the continent, similarly this increases moisture in the air which has increased snow in parts of Antarctica. This is also a result of warming. The decrease of Polar ice in the North Sea is also due to warming. It is not complicated science yet i see this point being brought up again and again, which shows that some people are being deliberately obtuse and trying to spin it as no warming is occurring. If you need some links on the science, just ask or google them, they are easy to find.
a scam
Age of the earth; Personally I think a global flood story fits the geology better than reliance on gradual processes. Perhaps triggered by a huge asteroid bombardment that hit the entire solar system (my fathers pet theory that he has been researching and may write a book on). Most of the geological record is made of very clean flat sedimentary layers with no signs of habitation or erosion. I believe the Fossil record was mostly sorted by water, sinking based on size or density not age or biological complexity. All those dinosaurs died out quite quickly after the climate changed or humans decided to hunt them. I have yet to see any evidence that compels me to believe that evolutionary processes can create new cellular machines. Yet animals change in various ways and adapt to external selection pressures quite rapidly. Most evidence of adaptation seems to be achieved though tweaking the parameters of existing features, or the destruction of existing cellular machinery.
Read up on Strata Smith. Basically your theory is similar to the theories before he noted that fossils were increasing in complexity as they went up the layers, and he could identify the layers based on the fossils he found in them and he could successfully predict the next layers above and below. This made him money predicting where coal would be found, which was big money back in Victorian england. So basically your theory was disapproved over a hundred years ago, assuming you take into account the evidence. If you ignore the evidence, well then, basically any theory can be proved. That is how religion works.
Well you do need a naming system and Planet is a useful naming system. What is evil about that? There are only 8 planets so you don't really need to subdivide them more. And if the earth-moon is a binary then what are Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune? Pluto on the hand was relabelled by that evil committee not because it is also a binary, quaternary or whatever, simply because there are potentially thousands of dwarf planets, so calling them planets was not useful. That is usually the big complaint about that committee. I hadn't heard that people were unhappy about the Moon's status.
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
