Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Summary (Score 1) 224

So to sum up the summary, global warming is causing cooling that is reducing gravity and making satellites more efficient.

"Global warming" has "a cooling effect" that is "reducing the pull that Earth's atmosphere has" and "exerting less drag on satellites."

What great news!

Comment Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 1) 1152

I am saying that you do not have to see the initial stage of something to start the scientific process, which you implied. You can look at life today and want to work backwards, and it is just an valid.

From observation today, we see life. We also see extinction. Tens of thousands of species go extinct each year. We have not observed any new species evolving. That leads to a downward trend, not the upward the evolution implies and requires.

Let's just take mammals so that we can deal with understandable numbers. There are approximately 5000 known species of mammals alive today. In the past 400 years, 89 species have gone extinct. No new species have evolved. From this observation we can work backwards and see that there used to be more species of mammals alive, not less as evolution states. If evolution were true, we would constantly see new life, an upward trend. The facts show that the opposite is true.

Comment Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 1) 1152

I see your problem, you dont even understand science. You assume it has to be an observation of the life being created, if that was the case there would be no science at all in this world.

Science does require observation, but it can be anywhere in the link. If it starts in the beginning, great, if not then we have to sides we work on, one going backwards to the origin, and one going outward to the conclusions.

So you're saying that by our observation that there is life, evolution is true? What observation are you referring to that we are using to work sidewards, backwards, and outwards?

Comment Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 0) 1152

Wow, name calling and broken links. I assume you do not have any arguments or facts at this point. As far as abiogenesis, let's take the Miller–Urey experiment, the first example used in the Wikipedia article. 1) It used an oxygen depleted environment that contained methane. Methane does not exist for very long by itself when exposed to UV rays, which with no oxygen or ozone (O3) would allow for quite a bit of UV rays to hit the earth. Typically methane is produced by a biological process under anaerobic conditions. Since we don't have life yet, from where did the methane come? Currently scientists do not believe the atmosphere used in this experiment (methane, hydrogen, ammonia) is similar to the atmosphere of the early earth (carbon dioxide, nitrogen). 2) It produced mainly soot. In this soot was trace amounts of 22 amino acids. These same amino acids have been found meteorites. They are fairly common molecules. Amino acids are a long ways from self replicating life and soot is even further. I understand the ignorance, but please stop the insults and use some facts and reasoning in response.

Comment Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 0) 1152

Not trying to setup a straw man, but correct me if I'm wrong. The leading theory as best I know it is that the combination of rain and rock turned into a primordial soup of proteins that turned into the first life. As far as I know, nobody has ever observed this happening. Experiments have been conducted trying to reproduce this and all have failed. Doesn't sound like science to me, but more like a religion. Science typically starts with an observation.

Comment Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 1) 1152

I find it insulting. I have thoroughly studied evolution and that is what led me to believe in creation. The thought that a rock created life is absurd. If you just give that rock enough time it will create life, right? What a bunch of BS. You've got to have a lot of faith to believe a rock created all the life on this planet.

Comment Re:Oh yeah?? (Score 1) 1052

But but, Steve Jesus Jobs said "3.5 inch was the MOST PERFECT EVAAAR phone size"... and all you fanbois were falling over each other bashing Samsung and Android for large screen size. whatever happened to that????

This changes everything.

Comment Re:Good facial recognition (Score 1) 194

This seriously can't be a patent. It may be time to get rid of software patents entirely. This is rediculous. Does someone have a patent on clicking a button to login? What about pressing enter? How about a finger print or using a password. Maybe we could patent a swipe or a pin. How about a graphical pattern. Or we could patent combinations of those. Maybe patent restrictions on passwords...requiring at least 1 capital leter and one number, or a symbol and at least 8 characters. How about clicking to follow links, or storing text as 16 bit characters.

Comment Re:A change in the way we talk about this is neede (Score 1, Funny) 1218

Specifically, the term "creationism" is inadequate. What we really mean here is "Christian creationism." That puts a finer point on it, and lets everyone in the conversation know exactly what we mean. I think it even exposes the proponents of it to some enlightenment on what they're really saying.

I think an argument has more weight when you say, "Do you mean to tell me that you want Christian creationism taught instead of evolution? Do you think other religions' creationist ideologies should be taught as well?"

From now on, every time I get caught up in this argument, I will use the term, "Christian creationism," and not just "creationism."

The term "evolution" is inadequate. What we really mean here is "atheist evolution." Now we can see the argument is really, "Do you mean to tell me that you want creationism taught instead of atheist evolution? Do you think aetheism should be established as the national religion?"

Comment Atlanta Weather (Score 1) 422

From Kirk Mellish, the only weatherman I have ever known to have any sort of accuracy, speaking about weather in metro Atlanta when the heat wave hit:

Fortunately this does not mean the whole summer will be hot. Remember in May when it turned unseasonably hot and everyone was saying "OMG its gonna be killer hot from here to fall" and I said history does not support that. Well, until now June has been cooler than normal! After this heat wave, the rest of the summer will be closer to normal but with both more heat waves and some spells of below-normal temperatures expected through August. So relax, hot spells happen in summer in the south. We won't know what kind of summer it was until September!

Comment Re:Bullwinkle never knew (Score 1) 235

Instinctual behaviors are not considered planned behaviors. This is a unique display from the chimp in question that other chimps don't do, so it is not instinctual. Previous questions were if it was perhaps a learned behavior or that the initial gathering and stockpiling was unrelated to the use of the rocks to throw at zoo visitors. The fact that he seems to have recognized that he has a better chance of successfully attacking the visitors by portraying peaceful action and concealing his weapons gives much more evidence that this chimp is capable of advanced thought and planning.

...and too much beer.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Working...