Kyrisch

Hmm. That's an interesting point. For each number n, there is a negative -n, whose sum is zero. But there are an infinite number of these pairs, so the answer would be [math]\infty * 0[/math] which is an indeterminate form.

So I was right after all xP

But if the sum of all positive integers is infinity, and the sum of all positive numbers which are multiples of tenths is infinity, and so on and so forth, the limit as the precision of the numbers included in the set goes to infinity should be the same, shouldn't it?

forty-two. But seriously, I guess it would be zero. [math]\infty - \infty = 0[/math]?

Wow. I meant this forum, not this thread. I've been playing that chronotron game too much xD.

I just edited a post of mine in this very thread, and the "save changes" button read "Vote now". It was strange.

Yeah, I got myself... Thanks though. Forgot about the whole [hide]jumping with box[/hide] thing.

Stuck on level 9... There must be something I'm missing...

Not that you can even calculate such a probability with any reasonable error, it still stands that there are, approximately, a billion billion planets. That's quite a few. Is it really that unlikely that such an event did occur on one single planet? And, obviously, if it is probable, then it is only rational to think that it must have occurred on our planet because, well, we're here.

Let me ask a direct question. Do you refuse to accept to possibility that a single self-replicating molecule could ever form spontaneously on early Earth?

Correct. You can't make a better car, if there is no car. It is similar to other questions one might ask you. If god created everything, where did god come from. Why did god decide to create everything? Do you consider that line of questions separate from the question of whether god created everything? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor extra fun, what was the first car? Could it really be called a car? What particular change made the difference between the early non-car designs and the first car design? Sione, Mr Skeptic is "on our side". He was pointing out that in scrappy's attempt to use a reductio-ad-absurdum-type proof, the statement he came up with is actually completely valid, and not nearly as absurd as scrappy might hope. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Wow... we are speaking in nuances, and it would do you well not to ignore them. Life as we know it WAS NOT, I will repeat for emphasis, MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT much like the first biotic matter. This simple stuff was easily and quickly outcompeted by the more advanced structures that evolved therefrom. I will repeat what has been said over again. All that is necessary for evolution to take place is an imperfect replicator. The event of abiogenesis is defined as the moment that a self-replicating molecule arose from non-self replicating molecules. Something that self-replicates has a crude function of heritability. Its "offspring" will resemble itself. This is where evolution began. In your words, this WAS the "protogene", keeping in mind, however, that we are still talking simply of a single self-replicating molecule.

But that definition itself becomes subjective because there is SOME evidence for Creation. Not the kind that would pass in science laboratories, but people are rational creatures -- blind faith is never actually completely blind. Whether it is a misinterpreted coincidence or, for the truly indoctrinated, delusion, people do not believe "for no reason". The principle of Occam's Razor, however, applies; and it sure as hell requires fewer assumptions to accept evolution as to accept creation. I still stand that a leap of faith is necessary. The size of that leap, however, is what distinguishes science from cracked-pottery.

Wow... The quote of iNow's that started all of this, (the one that D H stated was simply faith restated in an ungainly manner) is not a problem. I'd like to point out that faith is necessary in order to function in our society. There are a few things that everyone has faith in, including that the sun will come up tomorrow and that they will not fly off the earth or fall through the ground when they step out of the door. It is important to point out, however, that these types of faiths are built in the face of insurmountable evidence. Such is the case with evolution. It is accepted as fact the same way heliocentricity is accepted as fact because there has never been a shred of evidence found that runs contrary thereto. In this way, acceptance of evolution is indeed a belief, but one which requires a leap of faith infinitesimal in comparison with religious beliefs (to which many cling tenaciously, regardless and often even in spite of evidence).

Unfortunately, the properties of DNA to which scrappy continues to refer are true only of eukaryotic cells. What he fails to grasp is the simplicity of the structure at the point where the line blurred between life and non-life. The whole role of nucleic acid as a CODE for anything did not even come about until later. All evolution requires to begin is a self-replicating molecule (that can survive long enough to replicate). The theory of Abiogenesis explains how such a simple structure could very well have arisen spontaneously.

This has been thoroughly documented in biology as being the spinal cord and lower brain's job (the parts that don't contribute to conscious thinking, below the cerebrum). These parts are generally referred to as being part of the Autonomic Nervous System. The wikipedia article provides a pretty thorough overview.

The "Alien Implant" video makes some vague claims. "The tests showed that it was manufactured, and not naturally-occurring." From what kind of test can you conclude something like that? In fact, after some research, the sources (wikipedia, included) claim that Dr. Leir's work was never independently verified. The second video is even less convincing. Tens of thousands of people saw the sun spiral towards the earth in Fátima, Portugal in 1917. Eyewitness is notoriously unreliable.

I think that it would be a huge (because it is actually tangibly living) statement against the religious nonsense that has driven people to believe that all the skulls of protohumans we have are just human skulls mislabeled. Isn't it worth fighting religious ignorance?

I said carrot. That was really strange.

There is a difference between condemning homosexuality, accepting it as a natural part of a sexual society, and saying "it's good!" The argument is not "it's good!" the argument is "it's perfectly normal", therefore NOT and abomination.

"burn itself out"? You seem to fail to grasp the chemistry involved.

[math]F_g \propto \frac{1}{R^2}[/math] [math]V_{sphere} \propto R^3[/math] So, the force of gravity of each smaller sphere is proportional to [math]\frac{R^3}{R^2} = R[/math], hence the rough linearity. (Just some maths to clarify)

Not only do lipid bubbles form spontaneously in the proper environment, the primitive genetic material in the theories of abiogenesis could theoretically self-replicate without the aid of enzymes through nucleic acid base pairing (Adenine with Thyamine, Guanine with Cytosine).

Look, this is just ridiculous. There are several problems wrong with this approach: 1. Extant cells are incredibly complex, the protobionts of the theory of abiogenesis were analogous to genetic material in soap bubbles. 2. The components of cells have a natural affinity to each other. The same way nebula coalesce to form stars, biotic material coalesces to form a biotic system. 3. Where do these probabilities even come from in the first place? I mean, come on.

lol "SWISH" army knife! The horror! The name of course being the sound it makes as it kills you...

I am God. How do you know? Ask me, I will tell you so. Circular logic. Did I really just prove that I am God? You seem to have a misconception as to the definition of "circular logic". What you're referring to is the fact that we must, in order for any argument to be valid, make some assumptions. An excellent example of this is "What The Tortoise Said To Achilles" by Lewis Carroll. The basic gist is as follows. Consider: A: Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. B: The two sides of this triangle are equal to the same thing. Z (conclusion): The two sides of this triangle are equal to each other. The tortoise comments on the relationship between A, B, and Z. Anyone versed in logic in any sense will tell you that if A and B, therefore Z. However, the tortoise challenges, what if someone refused to agree to such a relationship? We can add an assumption: C: If A and B are true, then Z is true. But does this help? If the individual refuses to recognize the logic of A and B leading to Z, then why should this change anything? He could just as easily say, "but who says that if A, B, and C are true, Z is true?" Therefore we must add a fourth assumption: D: If A, B, and C are true, then Z is also true. And on and on. There must always be an initial assumption, but it does not render the logic that follows invalid.