Sayonara

WORST. ARGUMENT. EVER.

BTW I still want to know what a "meateor" is. Sounds tasty.

Argh. Again, I blame the early morning :braindead:

It's early in the morning and I'm at work. :argh:

Metric with Imperial, not "US". Only 1/3 of all probes and landers sent to Mars succeed, for one reason or another. That includes American probes.

Beagle 2 is on Mars.

Longer?

"Living people have heads."

I'd be reluctant to tell a woman what to do with her body (or how to think) too, especially not knowing the specifics of the situation.

Indeed it is.

It's just gone midnight here. I'm not typing out creationist doctrine when you can google for the same things as me (I'll be off to bed soon as it happens.) Can I ask what religious denomination you fall under (I'm just assuming you are religious of course, but you can hardly blame me.) [edit] As far as the actual question goes, I consider creationism to be hedonistic and self-satisfying because it allows one to lean back into a happy, unchanging, built-to-order world that requires no explanation, adaptation, or accountability - this is clearly not how the universe works.

Warm-blooded animals keeping their body temperature steady is an example of homeostasis, but not the only example. So mainly right.

You'd be on more stable ground with the anti-abortion argument, to be honest.

A bit of both I think you're an interesting poster. A bit misled in some areas (which is most likely not your fault - I suspect creationists might have been whispering in your ear while you sleep), but still interesting. Plus nothing else is going on really.

Homeostasis literally translates to "keeping the same", so any organism that can regulate itself in at least one fashion is homeostatic.

I can't think of many instances where happiness inevitably goes unpunished. Personally, I'd consider myself to be wasting this precious life if I did not learn and adapt constantly. Creationism is fairly self-indulgent and hedonistic in this respect. Just like Sodom and Gomorrah. Makes you think.

I didn't actually assume anything. Although I had guessed what the "answer" would be, but that was because I knew the poster's MO, not because I had the same opinion. God is best left out of medicine. He takes up more space than is safe.

Not everyone is that enraptured by God. Pregnant women also need to face practical issues. God isn't going to feed an extra mouth, put clothes on an extra child, or send it to school.

Can we even detect light at that extremity?

He means "at a rate which allowed the face to change from our perspective".

With creationism you will never learn anything new, and you won't be able to adapt to an ever-changing universe. That's probably its biggest flaw actually.

I was thinking there can't be a pressure differential, since null cannot have a volume.

Is the "not the universe yet" thing a vacuum in the current model? I thought it was "null".

As far as races go, I agree. At least for humans, anyway. In other species it is very clear that different cultivars and breeds can be evolutionarily fitter than others. As for individual people, of course there are superior and inferior examples. Just the very existence of things like the Olympic Games are a pretty good indicator of this.

The idea of science is to apply reason free from passion, much like the Aristotlean view of Law (which could be considered one of the parents of modern science in a roundabout way). Biology doesn't need to account for political correctness.