ydoaPs

I know there have been plant fossils found there, but have there been any animal fossils? If so, what kind of animals? I thought that since it is far away from everything, it must have been that way for a while(continents don't drift incredibly quickly) which means that when it was in a warmer spot, it definitely, could have still been so isolated making it such that the animals could not interbreed with others. This presents the possibility of quite unique life(somewhat like the case of Australia).

Yay! It works again! YT should be banned:cool:

New posts

"This forum requires that you wait 5 seconds between searches. Please try again in 13962 seconds."

An Index To Creationist Claims

F=ma Err, no. The centripetal force(which exists) points inward, whereas the fictitious centrifugal force points outward. The effect which is referred to as the centrifugal force is caused by the tendency of an object to move in a straight line. A container happens to keep this from happening. Ex. Water in a swinging bucket. The water is not drawn to the bottom of the bucket, but rather the corner.

I don't really care about global warming, as I have air conditioning

You still must overcome the inertia of the truck. There isn't one without anything holding the object in place.

There is land under the ice. Otherwise, the fossilized plants there would be far more spectacular.

The CENTRIFUGAL FORCE does not exist!! Sorry, it's a pet peeve.

Antarctica

From what other domain can we read it?

Why do humans have any more claim to it than chimps?

At that scale, I doubt any of us have screens big enough to have the nucleus be even one pixel if it were an atom.

Yes, I suck at life.But I am good at nuke school. I pwn all of you.

It's not supposed to be an atom?

Oh, the Haiku Thread... Phi has resurrected it... or attempted to.

The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of The Cosmos by Brian Greene are good. Penrose's Road to Reality is good as well. I can't remember the author, but The Physics of Star Trek and The Biology of Star Trek were good reads. Of course, you have A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell by Hawking. For the more adventurous reader, there is Gravitation by Thorne, Wheeler, and Misner.

"Today's Posts" link on home page gives me a 404.

In the top left, he atom doesn't reflect, but SFN does. Is it supposed to be like that?

Really? Let's look at the next line of your post. Gosh, it looks like that is EXACTLY what I claimed you said! Let's see. I'll requote this post. In case you missed it, this is you stating fundamentalists aren't Christians. And here is you saying Christians accept evolution. Let's see, fundamentalists don't accept evolution, ergo, you say they aren't Christian. It seems like a pretty standard True Scottsman Fallacy from here. Then why bring it up in a discussion about Evolution? You were talking about Christians and how they accept evolution. You did not say "some"; you said Christians, which implies "all Christians". When called on it, you spout some bollocks about your definitionof Christian being based on the Nicene Creed implying some connection to the acceptance of evolution and NOT explaining how fundamentalists do not apply to these standards. By that reasoning, everyone who does not kill their children for talking back is not a Christian.

JohnF, you are still analyzing the situation anachronistically.

You misunderstand. I said nothing about the possibility of time travel. I've not seen anything which rules out travel backward through time. I did say, however, that it is impossible to go back in time to kill your father before your conception. All one needs to do is analyze the situation chronologically. The "paradox" occurs when one follows the traveler instead of the timeline.

I don't think it did anything either way.

How about the very bottom of the page? That seems like a spot where nothing is located. You could have one on each side of the copywrite bollocks.