He probably has to store his own blood for just such a need. I have a friend whose daughter has to do this.

He was using it "literally".

I have not stated my beliefs. All I have done is state that the evidence does not support the No Designer conclusion. Modern science assumes No Designer from the outset, so it cannot validly conclude No Designer as an outcome. That's basic logic.

The most you can show through statistical analysis is that something is NOT random. And if natural selection is NOT random, if natural selection has some sort of imposed order, then what?

No, because we cannot determine whether natural selection is actually random, or purposeful. We assume it is random. But we cannot logically conclude that it is random from observations made under that assumption, because that is circular reasoning.

I would prefer that people don't claim conclusions that the evidence doesn't support. If P then Q says nothing about Q if P is false. We can find all the shaggy-haired, unkempt woolly mammoths we want. It doesn't prove that there wasn't a hair stylist.

From birth of parent to birth of child. 20 years is a nice round average-ish kind of number.

Reminds me of this.

Yes, we can sit there and observe how a new organism is produced from the parents. We can sit there and observe how this produces new things for natural selection to test, and we can set there and observe that the less successful ones don't get to breed. And yes, we can sit there and observe that in not breeding their genes become less likely to be present in the following generations, and that the following generations develop general traits based on the above.

However, none of that is evidence that it is not designed.

By keeping them in-country we are lessening the damage they can do. Over there he could receive real training, and be capable of wreaking havoc if he returned.

To woo women?

I already admitted you trolled me. My ability to cite example is clearly no match for your ability to spout contradictory nonsense. No point in continuing the conversation.

I put my car in the summer sun all the time. It never gets that hot. Ever. You've had other people tell you the same thing. Website after website after website show temperatures levelling out at around 50C, yet you claim temperatures three times that. At first I thought you might be confusing Fahrenheit and Celsius, which is why I stressed on boiling water, but you persist.

You ask what latitude has to do with solar heating of a car. At noon on the spring equinox, the sun is going to be beating straight down on the roof of a car. On the same day at the North pole, the sunlight is going to be travelling horizontally straight through the car. Even at the peak of summer, the sun is only 23.5 degrees above the horizon. The bulk of the sun's rays are going to travel straight through the car. Latitude is crucial to how much energy the car can absorb.

You say that the air temperature is irrelevant to the heat inside the car. This is clearly false. Cars are not perfect insulators. Heat flows out of them, and the rate at which the heat flows out is proportional to the temperature difference between the inside and the outside temperatures. So, in the cold of the arctic, the heat is going to flow out faster than it would in the Arizona desert.

You claim Siberia in the summer is one of the hottest places on Earth. You ask if the dash implies the outside of the vehicle. You claim that the windows of a car are always perpendicular to the sun.

I can come to only one conclusion...


I have been trolled.

Exactly. Tanks containing men? I thought they were all ROVs and UGVs these days.

No, if they had technical skills they would be playing on a linux or BSD box, with an arduino project on the side. FTFY