ydoaPs

Oh yeah, we also have ion exchangers which mechanically filter as well as replace ions with H+ and OH-. This is done after the distillations, obviously.

You're saying that the most accurately and extensively tested theories we have are full of uncertainty? o.O

Did you even read his paper, or are you strawmanning?

Perhaps that's because no abiogenesis theory claims 'life by chance alone'. Why would they provide an estimate of a strawman?

Or blatant denial of reality.

Well, in the Navy, we have distilling units. We pass the water through several stages. In each stage, the water is flashed to steam and then condensed. If I deciphered your OP correctly, this is pretty much what you asked.

What would be better to accelerate constantly?

How many times do I have to say this? Agnosticism is not a middle ground. It is a modifier of both theism and atheism; there are agnostic theists and there are agnostic atheists. It is a true dichotomy. You are either a theist or your are that which is not a theist; it is that simple. Atheism is an umbrella term that encompasses a gradient of positions. Atheism is just a response to theism. Theists say "One or more deities exist". And atheism is just people saying "I don't believe you." This can take on varying degrees of forcefulness(ranging from Weak Atheism: "I don't believe deities exist" to Strong Atheism:"I believe that no deities exist.") Weak Atheism(the core of atheism) obviously requires no faith and as such is often blatantly ignored by theists. Strong Atheism, on the other hand, requires just as much faith as theism. All that defines an atheist is that they do not answer "yes" when asked "Do you believe in the existence of one or more deities?". "Agnostic" is a term that is misused as nausium. I suspect that it is mostly due to the social stigma(which is thankfully somewhat receding) of the term Atheist. Agnostic is a modifier of the terms Theist and Atheist, and as such cannot stand on it's own. You either believe in the existence of one or more deities, or you don't; there is no middle ground. Atheism and Theism are the only options. Agnosticism is just one flavour of the choices. "Agnostic" means that one believes that one cannot know whether or not deities exist. Thus, one can be an Agnostic Theist(believe one or more deities exist, but it is impossible to know for a fact that this is the truth) or one can be an Agnostic Atheist(lack a belief in deities, but also believe it is impossible to know whether or not deities exist), but one cannot JUST be an Agnostic. There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief; you either believe or you lack belief. As for myself, I am an Ignostic Agnostic Weak Atheist.

You're an agnostic what? 'Agnostic' is a modifier for both theism AND atheism. You might mean 'weak atheist.' Again, we cannot assess the issue without examples.

Hm.....I'm not sure it's beyond current technological capability to design a rocket capable of accelerating the ants and associated equipment at 1g constantly, though, I'm not really aware of the current technological status of humanity in this area.

Could you please provide some examples for discussion and analyzation? So, does mass murder committed by group A nullify the child molestation committed by group B? If both groups are in the wrong, then both groups are in the wrong(tautology ftw). However, selectively picking the data as to justify one's own position is a bit intellectually dishonest. In fact, it seems that you are both condemning and perpetrating such a thing. I could be wrong here, though. Feel free to point out any misunderstanding. Also relevant:

Fighting atmosphere and gravity, right? Isn't the point of Ion Engines that they produce a small constant acceleration rather than a short lived large one such as with chemical rockets?

I am Spartucus! Err, I took it as well.

Could we not have a round trip vessel with a constant acceleration of 1g? Send it out(takes about a year to approach the speed of light at constant 1g, iirc) and count the number of generations when it returns?

That does not follow. Extremists on all sides may 'display hatred and venom.' It's not as though all theists are extremists, you know.

What does one group's extremists' actions have to do with whether or not another group's extremists are angry?

I think you'll find that there is quite a bit on venom from all extremists regardless of religious persuasion. The fresh apostate, however, presents an interesting case, imo. Someone who was deeply religious, but is de-converting or has recently de-converted may go through what looks an awful lot like the 5 stages of grieving. It really shouldn't be too surprising; just look at the situation from their view. Their closest friend-the only one to know their inner most thoughts and feeling and love them regardless-is now gone. It reminds me of the psychiatric hospital scene in A Beautiful Mind: "Imagine if you suddenly learned that the people, the places, the moments most important to you were not gone, not dead, but worse, had never been. What kind of hell would that be?"-Dr.Rosen(A Beautiful Mind) That's not necessarily true. 'Soul' is a rather vague concept. As such, depending upon how one define's said concept, there is room for a naturalistic 'soul'. "Yes, we have a soul, but it's made of thousands of tiny robots"-Giulio Giorelli Knowing how something works does not make it illusory. Removing the magic merely turns your skyhook into a crane.

So, [math]\frac{1}{1000000}\times1000000\neq1[/math]?

Quite so, but I'm not sure this really applies to the post you quoted. Unless I read it incorrectly, he was just asking that you be consistent with the god-definition in use or at least announce when a change is made. If that is what he is saying, then that is a totally reasonable request; any discussion on the merits of the 'floofloogan hypothesis' is going to be fruitless unless the two parties can come to an agreement on what 'floofloogan' is taken to mean. If that's not what he meant, then I withdraw my comment. You don't necessarily need to debate for the deity in whose existence you believe, but you should keep it consistent. It's somewhat intellectually dishonest to switch it up in the middle of the discussion. If you do feel the compulsion to change deities, this needs to be known as the discussion will need to backtrack some. If they switch it up in the middle of the discussion unannounced, then they're in the wrong as well.

AIDS starting with homosexuals. Oil spills. If you're determined enough, you can rationalize anything.

No. That was easy! For realzies, though, most scholars agree that Revelation was social commentary.

Not at all. I'm going to go ahead and quote myself a bit as I already discussed this in this very thread. Scienceis the only known method of obtaining knowledge of the world. It is basically checking your answer. PS1->TT1->EE1->PS2 Given a Problem Situation(PS), we come up with Tentative Theories(TT)[tentative theories can range from hypotheses to actual theories] which we then subject to Error Elimination(EE) via testing predictions. How do we test predictions? We can't do it by proving the positive: If P, then Q Q, therefore P Is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. The reason that it works is that there could be any number of reasons for Q aside from P. If we see Q exemplified, it could be because P is true, but it could also be due to a different reason and P happens to be false. We test our tentative theories by proving the negative. If P, then Q Not Q, therefore not P We perform our Error Elimination testing by setting up situations P, based on predictions produced by our Tentative Theory, and observe to see whether or not Q is exemplified. If Q is not exemplified, then we know our TT is wrong or at least not entirely correct; it needs replaces or refined. How do we know if it it needs replaced or refined? Well, many sciences have the great fortune of having a very precise mathematical underpinning such that we can predict Q accurately(and with a known allowable margin of error for the TT) based on the P from the TT. We can quantitatively see if we are close or orders of magnitude off the mark. This one test alone, however, is not sufficient to provide absolute validity for our TT as there is no viable method of induction; we must continue to test or TT and eliminate options to raise our confidence in our TT. There's vast difference between a constantly tested and never falsified theory and a wild guess; suggesting otherwise is extremely intellectually dishonest. Theories such as Evolution and Relativity have been so accurately and exhaustively tested that it is absurd to think that they are flat out wrong. However, there's always room for refinement. Now let's look at creationism as a TT and we're going to perform EE. If the universe is only 6000 years old, then the farthest we can see out is 6000 light years. We can see mind bogglingly farther than 6000 light years. Therefore, creationism is falsified. Creationism has been falsified extensively. In fact, for it to be true, pretty much every single area of science must be wrong. If evolution is wrong, how do you explain the results of the Lenski experiment.? Spotting Pseudoscience Pseudoscience for the Responsible Why Has My Post Been Moved to Speculations? Welcome, Creationists, to ScienceForums.Net All of which are found stickied in the pseudoscience board. In addition, we have Forum Rules and Forum Etiquette Guidelines. If you have any issues or questions, you can also Contact A Staff Member.

Your sock smells, puppet.

Odd that you would pick things with evidence and predictive power as your comparison.

I suggest that you back up your claims about me. Thanks.