quote:The replacement process is supposed to involve calcium in skeletal material being replaced, atom by atom, by silica, calcite, pyrite, dolomite, etc., over a long period of time. This goes against the natural law of increasing disorder, entropy. How are all these dead atoms intelligent enough to know what to do and where to go to produce the finished fossil?
This is dedicated to all the people out there who think that their disproof of all known science is enhanced by their use of colored fonts.
Lines In Purple Ink
E Pur Si Mauve
When Galileo first discerned the cosmic secrets, and he yearned to tell a baffled world it turned, he said: "They won't believe what I reveal, unless, to show them that it's true, I write in ink of rainbow hue: of amber, crimson, yellow, blue and violet, viridian and teal."
When Newton, that unequalled sage, revealed his knowledge to his age, he wrote it in magenta, beige and turquoise, for he said "They won't suppose my insight can be very keen unless I tell them what I mean in russet, indigo and green, and lavender and burgundy and rose."
When Darwin wanted to defend the notion that we all descend from monkeys, then he wisely penned his words in tones of olive, plum and puce; for as he very sagely said: "To prove I've not gone off my head, I'll write in cyan, mauve and red, so folks won't think my theory is obtuse."
They say when Albert Einstein dared disturb the Universe, and shared the news concerning mc2 he worried they might think him just a loon. To prove that he could really think, he wrote his arguments in pink, vermillion and purple ink, and terracotta, orange and maroon.
So if you also wish to reach their shade of eminence, then teach in hues of lilac, cobalt, peach and scarlet, so that people know you're right. My friend, I'd think it just too bad if folks decided you were mad, but if your thesis looks like plaid, they'll see your theory's plain as black and white.
Fractal Wrongness : The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.
If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet--in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums--your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.