Vexer

Thank you, Paralith. It's interesting. What's a species, and what's not. Hm. (When I start a thread about this, and the Tribal Masters deem it a Creationist thread to be destroyed at all costs... I'll just grin and think of Monty Python).

CDarwin, my applogies. I didn't have anything positive to add. (I don't know enough). Was just trying to clarify what was *really* being talked about.

With regard to the OP; I’ve read it, and my immediate response, is, “so what?” There’s nothing in it that I hadn’t already thought (debated), by the time I was 20. On the other hand, not many have been allowed to say, what I thought, when I was twenty. But you should read the standard Christian rebuttal, “The Dawkins Delusion” for comparison.

"The integrity of Science... " What does that mean? Science has a wholeness? That must be protected? You mean, the integrity of the Truth as you see it. You mean, that people are doing things you don't approve of. Because of some Truth they've found. That isn't your Truth.

Two peer reviewed articles indicate that 'peer review' is almost no indication of quality. Scientifically, peer-review, according to peer-reviewed articles, has no value. (New thread, if you want to persue this. (I think I've read a whole lot more than you.)) Yes, I see the irony. And your rudeness.

Actually, the whole "interbreeding" thing is much more murky than one might suppose. Yesterday I heard how two different species of frog interbred. I though that 'species' are a definition of what can't interbreed?

Well most researchers are not what you define as 'proper' then. The study quote above is interesting, and may have major impacts on society. But needs More Study to confirm it's results.

No, actually no evidence at all And who are 'we'?

Quote: Something is probably bull if: 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. Many, (most?) 'discoverers' do this, in order to 'raise the profile'. The short news item always concludes with "more study is needed". The group is simply advertising (for more money.

If anything, seeding is going to deliver to worlds which might otherwise remain lifeless the chance to produce such a civilisation. That's a point. But only if life can 'seed' interstellar.

I know the Australian 'Aboriginals' had not 'hats'. Nor did the 'Indian' Patagonians. Nor did the 'American' Indians. The list goes on. I need some science to prove a hat is not more than a fashion thing.

I think you're missing the distinction between unknowable and unprovable The same thing.

"Glider" has said what I think. It started with '9/11' Lot's of 'relaxed' atheists were disturbed enough to be 'activated'. They started to see 'religion' as a 'real', current, in-their-town problem.

Seems to me there’s been a sudden surgency of pro-atheist 'science' books. My question is why? At this time? It's very unusual. I have a theory, but what’s yours?

I know you’re going to be annoyed: The point is that no formal logic system can be both consistent and complete. Godel proved that any system with the expressive power of basic (Peano) arithmetic is also expressive enough to contain unprovable statements. That’s what I said. Essentially, by definition, everything is essentially unknowable. Still seems ok by original statement, Mr Skeptic.

I think the dumbness of the ridiculous abuse allows me to ignore the idiots. So, there are *no* hunter-gather people, who had 'hats'.?

I heard a radio interview from the "letter to a Christian Nation" guy ('Sam Harris', Google says), and I have to say, I agreed with everything he said. He said it so well. It was weird to hear him so honestly and clearly respond to the (what I presumed) was a (hostile) Christian interviewer. Kinda things I think, but are not 'allowed' to say. He said them. "Some things are absurd. And we must be allowed to call them so." I'm guessing my above post will not be move or deleted. Unlike other of my posts, which did not meet the forum masters political requirements here For example, in the interests of evidence, I mentioned the book, "The Dawkins Delusion", but that post was immediately deleted. And me, warned. This is Strange Science. I have my own dedicated ridicule and abuse thread now, if you want to join in. Perhaps that will shut me up. Do you think.

Let me ask you this: Does the distinction between life originating on a planet or being seeded there from elsewhere have any effect on whether or not such life can eventually produce a communicating civilisation such as those which the Drake equation estimates? Yes. That’s my entire point. But I see yours. Ah… but I see yours. But my original point was that (the new idea of) ‘seeded’ life cuts down the Drake equation by orders of magnitude. You’re saying that ‘seeded’ worlds can up the Drake Number. I’m saying that the ‘seed’ idea downs the Drake number by some orders of magnitude. With regard to original genesis.

Ok, if I have to, I will go through it: yes it can. the sunlight dumps a lot of heat onto your head. especially if you have dark hair or are bald and have dark skin. Therefore you should never wear a hat when it’s cold. …a wooly hat would be best as it insulates.. N0… See above. ..in summer a hat that allows airflow around the head and provides a bit of shade is whats called for. How can wearing a hat allow more airflow than not wearing a hat? a hat(prefferably light coloured) will reflect a lot of this light. Surely some hair, is better. The right hat at the right time will work as they say it does but the wrong hat at the wrong time will just make you look silly. 95% of the time? All hats make the wearer look stupid.

Ok. Thanks all. My dumbness must be annoying. I'm sorry. That's what I said, Mr. Skeptic, are humans actually colony animals?

Well. ok. My sincere thanks to all those who tried to set me right.

(Well I would never would have believed you could start a fire with a ball of ice)

Nice post, NLN. Said a lot. I'm interested in the same thing. (If I ever have anything to add , I will...) But I will note that there's *humans* who won't pass a "Turing Test". And I think your protestants who say (in effect) an AI should be "perfect" are wrong. A.I. will 'think' like a 747 flys. Not like a sparrow. A 747 is not a perfect sparrow.

(Oh brother) Your alien irony is painful.

Is there any scientific evidence that any hats are more than a wank? (I can't think of any hunter-gatherer group that ever wore any kind of hat for environmental reasons. Eskimo hoods not-withstanding)