Sayonara

I don't think the "despite" works in there. They could probably crush your economy now tbh. Don't forget America has been conditioned to believe "Communism = failure" for at least half a century, when it clearly isn't true.

I have been quite restrained so far, but to this I can only reply "**** off troll". No, I mean that whether you agree with creationism or not, a creationist web site is not in any way an objective source. Nobody should ever under any circumstances use geocities homepages as sources. At no point did I claim the alleged fossils do not exist. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. Perhaps you should read the link I posted, what with TalkOrigins being about the only objective and unbiased source you will be able to find. See, what you're doing here is assuming that because you called it a fossil, it's a fossil, despite the evidence to the contrary that comes even from noted creationist biologists. How unscientific of you. What the great flying yellow rubbery **** are you talking about? Your understanding of what science is and how it is progressed is seriously distorted.

Yes, but they usually have invested interests.

How is that an oxymoron?

Have you been watching me?

Aren't we forgetting something?

Funniest. Post. Ever.

Not so much problems as "sorry, nobody has written a driver for that yet". If you know your stuff it's often fixable though, apparently.

As a species we might survive, but our civilisation would be over. Not to mention the fact that we'd be looking at about 99.5% mortality in the first year. Hopefully we'll have migrated outwards by then.

I don't relax.

Kallen is deliberately talking crap. Or he was, until he was suspended.

While they have properties in common, glass is not a crystal - crystals have long range order. It's also important to note that all glasses are amorphous, but not all amorphous substances are glasses. Linerally paraphrased from: Feltz, A. (1993) Amorphous Inorganic Materials and Glasses. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Weinheim/VCH Publishers, New York, 446 pp. ISBN 3527284214/1560812125. This is most useful: http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/windowpane.html

All the other explanations I have seen (incl. the link swansont posted) make out that glass being an amorphous solid - and its particular properties - make the "glass is a liquid" claim an urban myth, particularly since it doesn't actually flow. Amorphous in this context simply means that there is no long-range order in the structure, not that there is no fixed shape.

That'll teach you to buy laptops

Also, we now accept that chimpanzees share certain characteristics with humans because of the mounds of research that have been done since then, not because we just suddenly decided en masse to change our minds. That doesn't mean that you can take any random feature of any random animal and assume that there are similar processes behind it just because it looks a bit like a human response.

That'll teach you to buy integrated components

No, the twins paradox is - perhaps not surprisingly - called the Twins Paradox. It relates to special relativity. The Grandfather Paradox is ONLY to do with time travel.

The reason you as a country take a lot of flak is that your actions have massive consequences for everyone else. The reason you as a people don't hear the vast majority of everyone else's accusations against (and complaining about) each other is that you tend not to care. American media is the most insular I've ever seen (well, unless you count NK). On behalf of the world, I hope that clears things up.

A crime against nature? What exactly is that supposed to mean? (Given that a biologist is going to expect that which is found in nature to be inherently natural, but not really expect nature to include any concepts of crime, judgement or acceptance). If you think there are no homosexuals (men or women) who don't have the same reproductive desires/drives as straight people despite their sexual orientation, you've obviously not conversed with many gay people or taken any interest in what they had to say, for which you can blame no one but yourself. Even if they didn't, saying "It is natural instinc to reproduce" would be a red herring if you were talking about a group whose biology imposes no such natural instinct. If random archaic instincts that are the remnants of non-sentient animal biologies dictate to you how you believe the planet's only self-aware, cogniscient species "ought to" exist, then presumably you also oppose modern medicines, invasive surgery, any form of body art or piercing, birth by caesarian section, baby incubators, monogamous relationships, trade regulations, legal recourse, contraception, writings or archives of any kind, and the entire world of non-primary technologies. 1) I don't know what planet you spend your time on but here on Earth gay people contribute massively to society. 2) Even so, linking "accomplish[ing] nothing" to being "under the natural selection" is tenuous at best. Provide a causal route or don't commit yourself to such bizarre statements. 3) Selection doesn't "pick winners". Both untrue (even assuming there is a critical genetic component to homosexuality). Many gay people have children, and therefore pass on their genetic material. Even if the cause is fully genetic, which it almost certainly is not, selection can't strip homosexuality out of any species because there is no pressure on sexuality. "Some" meaning "a few of the very small number of species that have such hierarchies"? How helpful. Reducing all of homosexuality to a single sexual act - and then considering that to be a form of dominance over another individual in animals - is a form of reverse anthropomorphisation (is there an actual word for that?). It only goes to show how malformed your information is, and the lengths you will go to to try and twist logic into the same shape as your opinions. That's the most ignorant thing you have ever said on here - you have missing information which you could easily go out and get, but won't, and have substituted it with bigotry.

I hope you realise that the butterfly effect was only an illustration of chaos theory, and butterflies in Taipei didn't actually launch a wind attack on Florida.

I have never used one, so I don't know. I gather they work quite well but as usual it's a matter of finding the right tool for your particular job. LuTze has probably used most of the big ones. Yes.

Don't bother - most of the search results are creationist sites that vaguely mention the print and offer it as ultimate proof against evolution. The rest are geocities. Here is the talkOrigins article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

He may have done in the argument with Aeschylus. Frankly it didn't matter what was in those posts, or the intervening responses from other members - the obscenities and expletives guaranteed their fate.

When I see Egypt on tv it really doesn't make me feel like I have experienced the Valley of the Kings.