Sorcerer

Its fun putting wetas in sleeping bags.

spelt - gynocology or gynaecology. Thx btw I was eating.... mmmm red pasta sauce.

Yeah, funerals are for the family, not for you. I think it'd be cool to be fed to lions.

Well, considering most of the space occupied by atoms is the elctromagnetic (weak?) force I think that all that expands when space expands is the space between the particles (eg. electron and nucleus).... this would lead to atoms being unable to exist at some point of expansion because the weak force doesn't have a large enough range of influence to capture electrons..... I think the strong force would be lost first, so perhaps hydrogen will survive the longest. I'm not sure what your point on the expansion/contraction of space has to do with the original post though. I think too much star trek. Bad assumption, not wasting my brain speculating.

As in the case of schizophrenia, M is changed. Let me ask you, if you were blind would that mean that colours don't exist? It would be terribly hard to measure something like colour through experiment if you were a blind person, maybe you could describe varying frequencies of light through the sound they make..... or radiation by how much it burns your skin...... perhaps the example would be better with a deaf person trying to show sound exists. Perhaps we are hidden from things, however: If it has no effect on us, then why bother about its existence. Isn't that which cannot effect said to be non-existant - is this the separation between true non-existence and objective non-existence. You see this is why I don't beleive god exists.... others tell me he exists because they have experienced him, it seems objectively he doesn't exist, does this still leave a possibilty for his existence?

Do wetas, which survive under rocks frozen in water count as being "underwater"?? From what I can recall most frogs hibernate in mud, not underwater.

Oops I meant ornithodira: Its a problem that happens when you speed read.....for instance two words beggining with a capital N and then Z will read as New Zealand to me.... and they can be paragraphs ahead.... I don't even know why I do it, I was never taught it or anything.

Ahhhh found it......... pesudo science.

Did it infringe a copy right or something?? Or did you just not like the guy.... I actually wanted to see how he would reply to my questions.... I love f***ing with creationists heads.

They were or they are?? Where do you get this information from?

Hmmm we cant observe whats inside a singularity so does it exist in the universe? Isn't the only thing that exists which is part of a singularity the event horizon and the gravitational distortion of space?

lol, I tend to call myself human....... I think we evolved from creationists.

This could be tested by looking at how conserved introns are between species, if the introns are as conserved at the exons then the hypothesis would hold up.... I however doubt this will be the case, my personal favourite hypothesis is that they are buffer zones, which take the brunt of the mutations protecting the genes from deleterious mutations...... I think it might weak if agrued against properly though, I haven't thought about it much.

Makes you wonder if we are ever awake........

Look up androgen insensitivity, its a little scary for the homophobic.

Hmmm I could post a picture of Einstein and say it was me..... I don't think 5614's idea will actually help.

That depends if you consider a future to be 3 billion years.

Before I read the rebuttal I'll make a few points; Why? Is this assumed so because you assume that evolution is impossible, or are there other good reasons? Were the lungs of archaeopteryx preserved so you can provide proof of these claims..... basically this statement is lacking of evidence. Which latest studies? Even if it was a true flying "bird" why does this mean it isn't an ancestor of modern birds and how does this mean it couldn't be a descendant of dinosaurs? Just because an earlier claim was invalidated doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong, just that part of it, as I said, just because archaepteryx could fly doesn't mean it isn't a trasitional form. Australopithicines could walk upright, this doesn't mean they are not a "transitional form". What about the scaly neck and toothed beak, why hasn't the article even tried to explain these?? Could it be perhaps because it can't explain these away with weak half-assed arguments? How do you know that dinosaurs were cold blooded?

Hmmm so what does the local mass (in our hubble volume) have to do with the universal mass? Is the assumption that the universe is uniform? Isn't this assumption refuted by the fact matter has condensed into galaxies?

And the answer to the vauge question you asked would be...... what am I forgetting? Please enlighten me oh sarcastic one.

We must secure our future here on Earth before we consider a future in the stars.

Ummmmm, mitochondrial eve and Lucy are not the same, mitochondrial eve is a hypothetical woman whos existence is deduced by looking at the variation in peoples current day mitochodrial DNA. The assumptions made are that as time goes on mutations build up and DNA diverges from a common source, now IF there was one woman that was our fore-mother then they can deduce the time she lived, it is thought to be more like 150,000 years ago. The common mtDNA source could also be accounted for by a small band of women with nearly identical mitochondrial DNA. This evidence almost begs the question, since it assumes that there was a common source then it tries to deduce how long ago that source existed. However it is a reasonable assumption considering speciation is normally caused by a bottleneck effect, thus there should be a bottleneck sometime in our recent past. Lucy on the other hand was a Australopithecus aferensis skeleton which is about 3.5 million years old. Edit: heres a good link that might provide you with some more detailed information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve oh... heres another one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199