apples and oranges. here he or she was arguing a "slippery slope" deal.
your example is perfectly valid but is about something else.
quite a jump there, from analyzing code to irradiating people..
if true, even if not definitive would provide useful leads.
here's the thing. evidence doesn't need someone's approval. you needn't "present it to someone".
facts, evidence, reproducible experiment are not up for debate, they're there, full stop.
if evidence is legit, legit scientists _will_ notice.
> Biology needs an Einstein.
that may be true, but, unlike religion, science will seek out a better theory and adopt it as soon as it proves out to be a better explanation of observed evidence.
if that happens with theory of evolution, fine. there's no scientist who will resist that kind of revision. in fact it has happened many many times.
> According to darwinists, our bodies mutated slowly for millions of years one at a time, so that our genome could have parts that look exactly like viral code from previous infections, because that is the only possible explanation. They were planted there by "evolution" to toy with us.
darwin's theory of evolution says nothing of this kind.
here's what it does say (exactly this and nothing more):
given any system that provides for:
there will be evolution.
and, lastly, you don't "believe" in evolution, or any theories of science for that matter. thats what separates science from religion, belief is neither required nor desired.
USSR exterminated all religions but one, communism-leninism. Same with Cambodia.
Same deal as most other religions, it demanded that people accepted its teachings on insufficient or absent evidence.
There going to be situations when lethal force is the only choice. Thats that that.
Vast majority of situations don't need to be.
And the only way to improve odds of non-violent conflict resolution is training the cops that want to do that right thing and weeding out those that don't.
This isn't an overnight panacea but i'm afraid there simply isn't one.
detectable? yes, but just barely. pictures of "curvature" from that hight are taken with "fisheye" lens and don't represent what a human eye would see.
Alan Shephard flew nearly twice that height and that didn't count as a space flight.. If it did USA probably wouldn't have gone to the moon.
All the training that goes into sending someone to 80K flight indeed does qualify them to be an astronaut but thats still not a space flight. It just isn't.
the flight takes you up to about 110 km, which is barely enough to see curvature of the earth.
what virgin are doing is going to make for a spectacular flight but space flight it is not.
and let it be..
> With regard to 'investors'- fuck off
good luck with that one
> There are plenty of other revenue producing platforms than Apple's scheme. It's ridiculous to buy into the Apple Hype.
plenty? name top three.
made you click..
After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson