Mr Skeptic

No no no, an negative apple times a negative apple is an apple squared. Whatever that means, but regardless it's the same as a positive apple times a positive apple. Are you upset because you can't understand negative numbers? A long time ago mathematicians felt the same way. Negative numbers have real meaning in the real world only when you find an appropriate analogy to them, same as with positive numbers. Fractions for example make no sense if you're talking about people, but make sense when talking about pies. Negative numbers make sense if you compare them to borrowing, for example, or in physics where it can mean "in the opposite direction". Numbers of any kind have nothing to do with the real world, be they positive negative or imaginary. We just use them as analogies, some more easily than others. As for words, we use them both for thinking and for communicating. Without words we'd be barbarians (actually, worse than barbarians). Also, without words you wouldn't be annoying.

Very nice. Be sure to remind us when the game is completed.

You can doubt all you like the abilities of a process beyond your comprehension, but there is undeniable evidence that evolution, or something very much like it, did indeed happen. Evidence that our "creator" is profoundly stupid and did their creating via copying and mutating. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, a relic we have from our fish ancestors, is a nerve that goes down into the thorax, loops around the aorta, and then goes back up the neck to they larynx. It made sense in fish, but was kept in mammals where it does not make sense. In fact, for the giraffe, that loop is several extra feet long. Another and more obvious relic is the presence of broken retrovirus fragments in our DNA and the DNA of our ancestors. We know that the DNA is of a retrovirus because said retrovirus was reconstructed and resurrected. In phone books and certain similar databases, the creators intentionally introduce certain mistakes. The presence of the same mistakes in other databases is nearly undeniable proof that they were copied from the original, as the chance of making the same mistakes in the same places is astronomically small. The same principle applies to DNA, only more so since there is so much more DNA. And regardless of whatever you may believe about the capabilities of evolution, the same algorithm was used to design several devices. Perhaps you're even using one of them. When used as a design algorithm it is called either an "evolutionary algorithm" or a "genetic algorithm". So not only do we know evolution works but there is evidence that can only be explained by evolution. It is about as certain as anything can be for those who do not have absolute faith that certain books are the words of omnipotent beings.

Genecks, pretty much all weeds are flowering plants, as are many trees. A pine forest is a different story; and also pines are adapted to a somewhat more arid environment.

I think the other point you're missing is that, just because someone does something wrong, doesn't mean they didn't know it's wrong. Do you seriously believe that the nephrologist in your story doesn't know that what he's doing is wrong? You'd think he'd notice what with the nurses blocking his exit. It's wrong and everyone knows it; the trouble is that their payment system is also wrong.

An interesting concept, but I don't think I want to be powered by a giant tank of compressed air. If you get into an accident, it might go "boom!"

There was no explosion in the Big Bang. More of a stretching.

I should think it would be extremely unethical for our military to act like a bunch of chickens, which could put our whole country at risk. On a similar note, even if North Korea does try to nuke them, they might fail due to their bomb being shot down or simply failing to detonate. But what would be the effect of a failed nuking?

2029 (or 2036 after that passes), due to the asteroid 99942 Apophis passing close to Earth. This one for once won't be based on nonsense, just on exaggerating a very slim chance. Only, I somehow doubt that end-of-the-worlders will have the patience to wait two decades, so they'll probably find one within this decade first.

Good thing evolution is not a random process then! (Hint: one of the parts that is not random is natural selection). Oh, and information is very easy to generate. What's harder is to generate useful information.

Because you're not reasoning. To reason you must give reasons, not gibberish. Clearly state your premises and work step by step towards your conclusion, with each of your steps necessarily having to be true (otherwise it's invalid). To learn more, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic They are in no way genetically opposite. In fact, they are nearly genetically identical. Chromosomes come in nearly identical pairs. In fact, the pairs can be identical, and those who are like this are called homozygous. Nearly everything has all of these, because they are defined as opposites. However, some things do not. A moebius strip, for example, has only one side, not a top or bottom, not a start and a finish, no left and no right, etc. Then you have the left side of your right hand, or the top of your bottom, etc. But you can have a left hand without a right hand, but the left hand will still have a right side.

Even if the Creator is something non-sentient defined by the laws of physics, like the branes of string theory?

I suspect the reason it shows up in nature is due to on of the properties it has: if you have a rectangle who's sides are the golden mean ratio, and you remove a square, you end up with a smaller rectangle again with the sides the golden mean ratio (same with adding a square). This would seem to me an important property for growth, although I don't really see how it would be important for non-rectangular beings.

Well give him some credit, you can hardly expect a perpetual motion machine maker to know all that much about links now can you?

Watch less trashy science fiction, read more physics textbooks. Oh, and I suggest you start on the part about cryogenics first. First try the freezing and thawing of humans, before trying the send them through time in a frozen state.

These are not the sort of thing we can help you with (we help you think, not feed answers). I suggest looking through the wikipedia articles. However, I must point out that the last question is a trick question. Electricity does not have a "function"; it is we humans who make things with functions. The main functions we use electricity for are to provide energy for our electrical appliances, and to transmit information.

It is extremely easy to divide zero. The result is zero. Dividing by zero, on the other hand, can't be done. You can divide by the absolute value of zero if you like; that gives you infinity (which isn't really a number). But you can't divide zero by zero, absolute values or no (the result is undefined).

If you look carefully, religion already has references to alien life, or to whatever new developments might happen. Whatever new developments there may be, they are simply more evidence for whatever religion you happen to believe in, because if you look closely and with unshakable faith, there's some sort of reference to it.

Because they, more than ever, replace importance and fact-checking with speed and sensationalism. There is no printing time to be waited for, to allow for fact-checking. The media makes emotional appeal and sensationalization much easier than it is to do in print. And, of course, the camera crews and TV timeslot cost more, so less money to spend on journalists. True enough, and I won't pretend it was any different earlier on. However, some do hold up that pretense so much better than others Still, I think there really are a few who are interested in unbiased and unsensationalized news, especially now with the internet available, but they never will become popular since we humans so like to have our beliefs confirmed.

I understand mosquitoes are also pollinators. Still, I won't be shedding any tears if they were gone.

Ah, well, you already know the correct course of action. You man up, and let her know you're interested. Before she gives up on you/someone else does first. I know the feeling and it is not a nice one. But, all you have to loose is a bit of pride and that portion of the fantasy world where you can pretend she is interested in you because you don't know she isn't. It will only get harder the longer you wait, since you have invested more time in her (well, wondering about her). You'll have to face the truth sooner or later, and in either case it is best to do it sooner. Unless you prefer an imaginary relationship than a chance at a real one. Hey, no one ever said that when you ask for advice that you will like it when it is given to you. Oh, and if you decide to go the hint route, consider whether you would consider her not following up on it to be a rejection or not having noticed. If she refuses several hints and you keep going after her because you are hoping she just didn't notice them, you could get in trouble. Or she could be as uncertain as you. If you're relying on hints you're hoping she's more "man" than you.

I already did define it further: these are not yes/no questions. It is obvious that "yes" is the answer to all those questions for just about any news show; the real question is the proportion. For example, if a news agency were to achieve the unattainable 100% on the first of these measures, there would be no question as to its reliability. Achieving 50% would make it worthless, even if you could honestly answer "yes" to the question. I seriously doubt that any TV news could make the cut. On TV there are many important aspects of journalism that are extremely impractical, and even more so if they are supposed to keep up the ratings. I'd honestly be surprised to see any TV news whose primary purpose is to provide unbiased, unsensationalized news.

Well, to fit that second definition requires a good reputation, something that is achieved via subjective means. Also, note that I did not say "bias" I said "excessive bias", and no, I did not qualify that. It is subjective, and rather complicated to try to measure. Some more objective measures from the wiki's description: 1) Does Fox publish a trustworthy description of events? 2) Does Fox have independent editorial policies? 3) Does Fox publish statements of opinion that are distinct from those of their proprietor? 4) Is it sold abroad? 5) Is it cited in scholarly publications? (The above are not intended as strict yes/no questions, but as a sort of measure) 6)I think another good measure would be whether people with the opposite bias as the publication still consider the facts depicted by it to be reliable. If people who don't like it still believe it, that's a very good sign.

I think most Christian sects view Mormons as somewhere between heretics and misguided. Some view them as worse, and some as better, than atheists. As Pangloss said though, in America there are only two sides to politics and in this they are on the same side.

Hm, it would be pretty hilarious to lug a couple tons of magnesium up to the peak of a mountain and light it on fire on an overcast night. Well, hilarious except for the fact that magnesium melts at 650 C and can burn at around 3,100 C, so you'd have a magnesium volcano which would be pretty destructive. That and you'd probably spend the rest of your life in prison. The autoignition temperature of magnesium is 630 C, not too hot, and you shouldn't need the temperature to reach that high if you have an ignition source (the autoignition temperature is the temperature at which it will spontaneously ignite in the atmosphere).