Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 301 of 457 (708395)
10-09-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2013 3:07 PM


Re: WTF indeed
Catholic Scientist writes:
WTF is wrong with these people?
The pinnacle of their logic is, "I know you are but what am I?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 302 of 457 (708396)
10-09-2013 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
10-08-2013 5:14 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about which words they are allowed to use
Faith writes:
But it doesn't matter to me how a creationist uses or misuses the word "Triassic", he's wrong to use it at all.
If you were wrong, how would you know?
quote:
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 5:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 303 of 457 (708397)
10-09-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Faith
10-08-2013 4:47 PM


Re: WTF indeed
Aw, I can't personalize "evolution" I have to say "evolutionists" huh?
Meh, even "evolutionists" is a silly word. How about: "people who aren't intellectually crippled by religious fanaticism". 'Cause that's really the only people who doubt evolution.
Gee, the pedantry can be awful thick and suffocating around here.
You reap what you sow.
You imagine into existence great eras of time that cannot be proved; you imagine into existence genetic descent among dead things that cannot be proved; you imagine into existence mutations as responsible for creating all the alleles that underlie all traits, which cannot be proved; you are free to interpret anything at all in accordance with the ToE because any particular such interpretation cannot be disproved; mere interpretations are imagined into fact on a regular basis if they are crammable into the theory.
No, that's not true at all. That's just your defense mechanism trying to bring your opponents down to a manageable level. You're better off, in your own mind, if all those people who know that you're wrong are just a bunch of dummies making up stuff.
In reality, though, we have have objective verifiable evidence that leads to those conclusions.
Unfortunately for you, you have this whole flimsy religion-based scenario that requires you to downplay these kinds of conclusions, if you don't just turn a blind eye to them altogether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 4:47 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Diomedes, posted 10-09-2013 4:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 304 of 457 (708408)
10-09-2013 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by New Cat's Eye
10-09-2013 12:29 PM


Re: WTF indeed
Faith writes:
Aw, I can't personalize "evolution" I have to say "evolutionists" huh?
Meh, even "evolutionists" is a silly word. How about: "people who aren't intellectually crippled by religious fanaticism".
For me, I just simplify it and say 'rationalist'. That essentially encompasses evolutionist, darwinist, einsteinist, farady-ist, maxwell-ist, bohr-ist, and any other 'ist' they may want to ascribe to me. And all it essentially stipulates is that I rely on data and facts to draw my conclusions as opposed to hocus-pocus, gut feelings, little devils & angels on your shoulders, or books written in ancient times by people who would think an iPad was dark magic.

"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2013 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Tangle, posted 10-09-2013 5:05 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 305 of 457 (708409)
10-09-2013 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Diomedes
10-09-2013 4:45 PM


Re: WTF indeed
"Evolutionist" = Biologist. It's a tautology

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Diomedes, posted 10-09-2013 4:45 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 306 of 457 (708410)
10-09-2013 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Percy
10-09-2013 8:03 AM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
What you are calling errors are of course not errors, they reflect another way of looking at these things than evolutionists do. I cannot see how an increase in vegetation could "exert" any kind of "pressure" of any sort on a lizard population, sorry. Unless they lacked other food, as I said.
It seems that for you even the simplest concepts are difficult. Environments exert selection pressures. Environments that remain largely the same will exert consistent selection pressures that tend to keep species unchanged. Any change in the environment changes the selection pressures, and species will change in response to those different pressures. There are no types of environmental change that do not influence selection pressures. Both increases and decreases in food sources will change selection pressures.
In the case of the lizards of Pod Mrcaru, the greater availability of vegetation as a food source provided a survival and a reproductive advantage to those individuals best able to consume and digest vegetation, and they would contribute the most offspring to the next generation. Their offspring would have the same advantage, or even a greater advantage to the degree that any morphological changes better enabled them to consume and digest vegetation.
Again you give me a generalization or an article of faith rather than evidence, just a statement of the evolutionist creed about how these things work, all an interpretation which cannot be proved. Which is OK because all we have in such cases IS interpretation. But then you can't treat it as ironclad fact as you do, and my interpretation holds up just as well.
Again I acknowledge that Natural Selection must sometimes operate, and again I'll say I don't see any reason to think it was operating in the case of the large-headed lizards. There is no reason to think the small-headed type suffered from reproductive disadvantage and eventually died out because they couldn't eat the vegetation as well as the large-headed type; they died out because they were the older generation and their allele frequencies combined so that their offspring all eventually inherited the large head and jaw. It's all genetics-driven in my scenario. It can be regarded as an alternative viewpoint or interpretation, and there's nothing really about yours that is more reasonable than mine.
You do not have merely "another way of looking at these things." You have a way of closing your eyes to even the most obvious facts.
What you are calling "facts" are just the evolutionist theory of how these things occur; it's all interpretation, not facts. Nobody KNOWS that the vegetation had anything to do with the emergence of the large headed lizards, it's all a matter of "faith" in what the ToE says.
They have to inbreed for a number of generations in reproductive isolation to bring out their peculiar shared traits, and the larger the original number of individuals the longer it's going to take to produce a group identity as it were...Pets are not normally allowed to breed...
It seems you can't even get facts about daily life right. You do realize that many people keep hamsters or mice or gerbils for generations and generations, right? Don't you think it would have been noticed centuries ago that if you breed a small group for generations that they become different?
Yes I think it would have occurred, but perhaps not have been noticed, and there may be good reasons for that. Perhaps the differences aren't of particular interest to their owners who are more interested in the individual differences perhaps, the character of each pet, and certainly aren't interested in creating a new variety. Perhaps they do select individuals for breeding too, because they like a certain look, and that would interfere with the random mixing that would occur in the wild. Evolutionist teaching is that migration is one of the "mechanisms of change," and surely the isolation of a family of pets can be likened to migration away from the mother population, so change ought to be expected if breeding patterns that occur in the wild are allowed to occur in domesticity as well, for whatever number of generations it takes.
Don't you think that if all one had to do to get unique phenotypes was buy a couple hamsters at the pet shop and breed them for 20 generations without selection that it would be one of the most common science fair experiments out there?
Not necessarily, because people aren't normally thinking in these terms. It MIGHT become such an experiment if it interested someone to try it. I'd recommend it myself. But normally I'd expect that people really can't keep themselves from preferring and selecting and favoring certain types so I'd expect them to keep interfering. And again they wouldn't have any interest in finding out what nature would produce from the random mixing of the allele frequencies, they are interested in raising PETS and they like individual differences. I would myself. But it would be nice if someone WOULD do such an experiment.
Don't you think that if what you claim were what really happens that it would be a popular family activity to buy a couple gerbils when the kids are young and see how different the descendants become by the time the kids graduate college?
If they thought of it, they might, but what would make them think of it? it would take a few generations just to bring out the new range of traits and then more generations to let them inbreed until there's a characteristic trait picture. People are going to get bored and interfere before there's a real test. Unless they have this idea in mind and are looking for it. But I'm not even sure it could happen in most domestic environments anyway. We're talking a LOT of animals over those twenty or so years.
But no one ever observes anything like you claim.
Even if they did it wouldn't interest them or carry any significance for them so they wouldn't make an issue of it. But in reality it probably hasn't been given a real test.
Again, if a random process such as migration is a "mechanism of change" the isolation of ANY subpopulation ought eventually to demonstrate the change.
...and breeders simply don't LET their animals breed randomly among themselves.
That's right, because it doesn't work.
It won't produce the particular changes that interest them so in that sense it doesn't "work" and that's why it wouldn't occur to them to try it. But if they DID try it eventually they would get change of some sort over many generations because that IS what happens in the wild, with all the random ways subpopulations get isolated and inbreed among themselves.
But breeders have no motivation to do this. They are always looking to maximize particular traits and minimize others of their own choosing. Nature's random methods aren't too likely to produce what they happen to like.
Breeders use selection because long before we knew anything at all about genetics the secrets of how to breed effectively were already known: mate pairs who most possess the qualities desired.
Exactly. Nature isn't going to do that, it's going to allow matings of all kinds of individuals inbreeding within a particular subpopulation and what eventually emerges will be change because of the different allele frequencies from the population that they came from, but not the particular changes breeders have in mind.
If isolating a small population were all it really took to generate new phenotypes then breeders would have discovered it long ago, and in the hope of generating new and useful phenotypes they would allocate a portion of their efforts in this direction.
But breeders aren't INTERESTED in generating just any random set of new phenotypes, they have particular phenotypes they want to promote. The only way anyone would do such a thing is on the basis of an interest in what nature does left to its own devices, and as far as I know there's been no reason for anybody to have such an interest.
But breeders don't do that. Because the world doesn't work that way.
See above.
Faith, buy a couple gerbils and prove this to yourself. They breed once a month, it won't take long.
Many times I've wished I were in a position to do such an experiment but I'm too old, have too many other things on my mind, don't have the proper space and I'd be a terrible owner of animals since I couldn't give them the best environment for their needs.
And it would take a few years at least to see the kind of results I expect. Besides which, I wouldn't do this to a mere couple of gerbils anyway as it would maximize in their offspring whatever diseases they are prone to. It would have to be started with oh at least ten individuals, and that would take more time to play out, though not beyond a young person's expectable future. Besides which I just read up a bit on gerbils since you made this suggestion and found that they can be a bit cranky and hard to manage. Not the best animal for me to experiment with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Percy, posted 10-09-2013 8:03 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Percy, posted 10-09-2013 8:14 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 10-09-2013 8:32 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(5)
Message 307 of 457 (708416)
10-09-2013 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Faith
10-09-2013 5:08 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Hi Faith,
The denials are getting longer and more detailed while making less and less sense. There seems no position so ridiculous that you won't adopt and defend it. Responding doesn't seem to help when you're in this mode, so I won't waste my time.
The more interesting question is why you're doing this. Your views are not only unsupported by any evidence, they don't even make sense. It doesn't seem to matter to you that you're not convincing anyone, not even your fellow creationists. It looks like some combination of desperation and delusion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 5:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 308 of 457 (708417)
10-09-2013 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Faith
10-09-2013 5:08 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Hi Faith,
This thread is more about the mindset of people who are in denial about reality than it is about evolution, so maybe it would be helpful to take discussion back in that direction. This picture was posted to the humor thread:
Does it make sense to you that T. rex was a vegetarian? Is it evidence that convinces you or something else?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 5:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 8:56 PM Percy has replied
 Message 310 by Coyote, posted 10-09-2013 8:56 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 309 of 457 (708419)
10-09-2013 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Percy
10-09-2013 8:32 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
I try to stick to concepts I've thought about and feel I understand well enough to argue them, I don't have an opinion about T Rex.
I think it ought to be considered on topic to try to answer the accusation that macroevolution is continuous with microevolution.
And I think I did a pretty good job on that post you are answering by suggesting we should just go back to calling creationists idiots.
The only thing I would add to it is that among the reasons I wouldn't expect people to be interested in experimenting to demonstrate how population splits bring about new varieties is that most people believe that change in nature takes a very very long time, which they've all learned from the ToE.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 10-09-2013 8:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Percy, posted 10-09-2013 9:28 PM Faith has replied
 Message 312 by PaulK, posted 10-10-2013 1:40 AM Faith has replied
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 10-10-2013 1:43 PM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 310 of 457 (708420)
10-09-2013 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Percy
10-09-2013 8:32 PM


On evidence -- again
Is it evidence that convinces you or something else?
It can't be evidence.
A lot of us have posted evidence to this, and other, threads.
It has been like water off a duck's back. The evidence has either been denied, obfuscated, misrepresented, misunderstood, or, if those failed, simply ignored.
It doesn't matter how well-settled within science that evidence might be, if it is inconvenient to a creationist's beliefs it receives the above treatment. But any idea that pops into a creationist's head that supports those beliefs is accepted without any evidence--and usually in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!
The whole exercise boils down to this: all creationists need to do is find any "what-if" that might just barely allow them to question established science in their own minds, and that's enough to reinforce their beliefs. That's enough to negate all of mainstream science. This is a pattern that we have seen over and over.
So, no. It can't be evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 10-09-2013 8:32 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 311 of 457 (708421)
10-09-2013 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Faith
10-09-2013 8:56 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Faith writes:
I try to stick to concepts I've thought about and feel I understand well enough to argue them...
Well, as Ringo keeps asking, since the only person you're willing to listen to is you, how do you tell when you're wrong? So far the only person here who thinks you understand anything is you. Even worse, you have a wildly irrational way of supporting your views that involves denying or ignoring the real evidence while speculating that if people tested your claims they would validate them, despite that some of the evidence you're ignoring is that your claims have already been tested and found wrong.
I think it ought to be considered on topic to try to answer the accusation that macroevolution is continuous with microevolution.
I'm not moderating this thread, just expressing an opinion. Talk about anything you like.
And I think I did a pretty good job on that post you are answering by suggesting we should just go back to calling creationists idiots.
Well of course you think you did a good job, but it's already been firmly established that your beliefs have no rational foundation. You do have a good imagination, though, since I never in any way proposed name calling. Faith, find some facts, figure out what they mean, and argue that. Stop making things up.
The only thing I would add to it is that among the reasons I wouldn't expect people to be interested in experimenting to demonstrate how population splits bring about new varieties is that most people believe that change in nature takes a very very long time, which they've all learned from the ToE.
Are you daft? Have you given this even a moment's thought? Reductions in genetic diversity happen all the time, both naturally and artificially, no one has ever observed new phenotypes emerging in the absence of selection pressures, and this doesn't even give you pause. You just continue blithely on repeating your claims over and over and over again. What is wrong with you?
The way to convince someone is to provide enough data so that if they come over to your side they can defend their new position. What you've provided so far is just an invitation to ridicule.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 8:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:26 AM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 312 of 457 (708426)
10-10-2013 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Faith
10-09-2013 8:56 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
quote:
I try to stick to concepts I've thought about and feel I understand well enough to argue them, I don't have an opinion about T Rex
We've seen some pretty clear failures in this thread.
While we're on the topic it's interesting that so many creationists either assume that all other creationists agree with them or should agree with them, even when it is pretty easy to see that isn't the case.
quote:
I think it ought to be considered on topic to try to answer the accusation that macroevolution is continuous with microevolution.
The topic is "what's wrong with creationists". Evolutionary theory would seem to be altogether outside it. Besides that's clearly a topic you don't understand.
To add to the ACTUAL topic, Faith's attitude to macroevolution really shows a problem. Back then she said that she believed in speciation and I pointed out - quite truthfully - that she believed in macroevolution as it was scientifically defined. (This may be why she now claims NOT to believe in speciation as such). And we got the usual angry rants because Faith just can't believe in macroevolution - as if the word itself mattered more than the meaning. We've seen related issues with "mutation" recently and not just in this thread. Irrational hate for words, a hate that doesn't consider the meaning (or even attacks a simple and correct description of the meaning!) isn't rational or wholly sane,
quote:
And I think I did a pretty good job on that post you are answering by suggesting we should just go back to calling creationists idiots.
You haven't really touched on that topic. The question is whether additional processes - beyond the mutation, natural selection and drift of microevolution - are involved in the formation of species and larger taxonomic groups. You insist that it's all selection and drift so you're mostly agreeing with the position that microevolution does add up to macroevolution.
quote:
And I think I did a pretty good job on that post you are answering by suggesting we should just go back to calling creationists idiots.
Having checked both posts I can say that you are in error on both points. Especially as Percy's post was clearly an attempt to return to the topic (how can you judge whether a point is on-topic or not if you don't know what the topic IS ?)
quote:
The only thing I would add to it is that among the reasons I wouldn't expect people to be interested in experimenting to demonstrate how population splits bring about new varieties is that most people believe that change in nature takes a very very long time, which they've all learned from the ToE.
You won't try an experiment to support your views BECAUSE most other people disagree with you ? How is that at all rational ?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 8:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:28 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 313 of 457 (708427)
10-10-2013 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Percy
10-09-2013 9:28 PM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
Are you daft? Have you given this even a moment's thought? Reductions in genetic diversity happen all the time, both naturally and artificially,
"All the time?" What ARE you talking about? By what means? Seems to me there is only one way this is brought about and that is the reproductive isolation of a small subpopulation from a larger one, which includes bottlenecks. "All the time?" What ARE you talking about? I think you're just blowing hot air now.
...no one has ever observed new phenotypes emerging in the absence of selection pressures, and this doesn't even give you pause. You just continue blithely on repeating your claims over and over and over again. What is wrong with you?
Oh well, so now I'm daft. Well I guess if you're aggressive enough about asserting your opinion, I have to yield, don't I, even if you're wrong. I've been making a decent case here, it seems to me, but oh well, whatever.
According to Berkeley's Evolution 101 site,
Mechanisms: the processes of evolution - Understanding Evolution
Mechanisms: the processes of evolution - Understanding Evolution
change -- in the phenotype I must assume, what else? -- emerges from what they call MECHANISMS OF CHANGE, of which SELECTION is ONLY ONE. Mutation, migration and genetic drift are others. I'd add more to the list myself and I think of migration as migration AWAY from the mother population, which is different from their version, but anyway, where's the *selection* in the latter three? Yet they are regarded as Mechanisms of Change, which I read as: they bring about new phenotypes.
What I've done with these basic concepts, with the exception of mutation, is boil them all down to what they have in common, which is the reproductive isolation of the changing subpopulation, which produces new allele frequencies in that subpopulation. That is the overarching "mechanism" of change it seems to me. That is what brings about the emergence of new phenotypes. Selection is only one, and not even the most common one, of the ways this happens. And selection hasn't exactly been "observed" either, as I pointed out with respect to the lizard example, it's ASSUMED.
Yes, I'm repeating myself, in case a sane person comes along and can see that your accusation is bizarre.
Selection is only one of the ways reproductive isolation is brought about. So what on earth do you mean that NOBODY HAS EVER OBSERVED new phenotypes emerging except under selection pressure?
Never mind, I'm not asking, it would appear this conversation is now closed, or should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Percy, posted 10-09-2013 9:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Tangle, posted 10-10-2013 4:53 AM Faith has replied
 Message 320 by Percy, posted 10-10-2013 8:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 314 of 457 (708428)
10-10-2013 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by PaulK
10-10-2013 1:40 AM


Re: Environment-driven evolution
You won't try an experiment to support your views BECAUSE most other people disagree with you ? How is that at all rational ?
How fitting, a totally off-the-wall mega-bizarre misreading to end the discussion.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by PaulK, posted 10-10-2013 1:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by PaulK, posted 10-10-2013 2:52 AM Faith has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(1)
Message 315 of 457 (708429)
10-10-2013 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2013 10:10 AM


Re: What's wrong!
Yeah... what's wrong with them?
Its ignorance and arrogance. They're too dumb to realize they're wrong and too cocky to even begin to doubt themselves. It stems from the Bible-Believing part. They think they already have the answers and that they've been given to them by supernatural means. That, is what's wrong with them.
I agree with you 100 %. I really wonder if the same people are as willing to go and tell scientists from other fields how to do their job? It seems that cretins think they are experts somehow instinctively - or is it that they are just "experts" on fields that most shake their fragile faith?
Gravity is way less explained than evolution yet I do not see cretins offering Intelligent Descent as a solution.
___________________________________________________
"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."
Isaac Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024