Greg H.

I don't think you understand the problem. If I made a "proper" pyramid, and put a new, sharp razor blade within it, I would fully expect it to remain sharp - because nothing is happening to change the state of the blade and dull it. I would expect the same thing if I had no pyramid. In fact, I observe the same thing when I open a box of razor blades from my closet, pull out a blade that has never been used, and discover - amazingly enough - that it's still sharp. So in reality, with or without the pyramid, the razor blade remains sharp. So remind me again what you were trying to prove? I think it's time this discussion got broken off and moved to speculations. Really - and in a desert how did that minuscule amount of humidity last for a few thousand years? Oh, wait - I forgot, the pyramid did it. He said reputable scientific journal. Not the pseudo-science equivalent of the National Enquirer.

Genuinely curious - what makes you say that?

This is really starting to get out of hand.

Evidence that a sharpened razor blade will stay sharp if you don't use it? That's normally referred to as "Taking a new one out of the box and putting it in the razor." Please feel free to conduct your own experiments to verify the findings. For the record, I am on the Mythbusters website right now. I am so pushing this idea for an episode.

Obviously you missed the part where I asked if you had a point. Thus far, I fail to see one.

Actually, what you said was: You mentioned a supreme entity specifically twice in the OP. That sounds a lot like God, not a reason. A supreme entity would certainly be a reason, but a reason is not necessarily a supreme entity.

Your posts are starting to degenerate into what appears to be random babbling and maniacal laughter. What was your point here?

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Here's a question that will get your head churning: What if we find out there is a God - but that He's not responsible for Creation? Why? Why does the answer to anything we don't yet understand have to be "'God' did it" (for some definition of the word God)?

Hey, he didn't make fun of your list, why are you disparaging his? Unless what you were really looking for was a bunch of people who agreed with you? 1. The chap who invented writing. 2. The guy who invented the 0. 3. Socrates 4. Hippocrates 5. Plato 6. The caveman who figured out to control fire. 7. The fellow who came up with the wheel. 8. The sailors who came up with navigation by stars. 9. Archimedes 10. The greeks and turks who came up with the idea of cement. 11. Oh, and let's know forget the chap who learned to forge iron. 12. Gutenberg

So if it's not all knowing and not all powerful, why refer to it as God, with all of the connotations that word carries? But why do we need to call that something God, especially if we're positing it's a natural, not supernatural source.

I was trying to figure out a way to say that. You did it much more succinctly that I could have.

But if we assume that our "God" entity is already all knowing, why would he need observations at all? Doesn't the idea of knowing everything already sort of preclude the need to make observations to learn something?

As I pointed out, knowledge is not necessarily the same as observation. On the human scale, one necessarily precedes the other (in my previous example someone had to go outside and check the temperature at some point), but for an individual, it is possible to know things that you haven't directly observed.

Here's my contention - if our theoretical God entity really is all knowing, he wouldn't need to observe the particles. Knowing is not the same as observing - not really. Consider the following scenario. You have spent your entire life in a window-less, door-less room that has the means to keep you alive to adulthood. Your only means of communication with the outside world is an intercom speaker through which people can speak to you but you cannot answer. If someone calls you on the intercom to tell you it's hot outside, then you know it's hot (for some definition of the word hot), without ever observing "outside" for yourself. (In fact, you have never even seen outside). Now, obviously, on a human scale, someone had to make the observation, but if we assume our entity really is omniscient, i.e. all knowing, then it should be possible that he would know without needing to make the observation. Perhaps he can observe the probability waves directly and determine the information from them (something we cannot, to my knowledge, do). In this way it is possible that he could be all knowing, and the uncertainty principle still hold true. Obviously this is just an opinion, as we have no way of testing these statements, but as a thought exercise, it may hold some value or some insight.

And I am sure we will all see them again.

Correct me if I am wrong (I am going somewhere with this), but according to the uncertainty principle, it is the actual measuring that causes the probability wave to collapse, and prevents you from accurately measuring the other property (for instance, if I measure position accurately, I cannot also measure velocity). Is that a correct summary?

This Psychology Today article may interest you - Dr. Nigel Nicholson discusses several reasons, from an evolutionary psychological basis, why humans engage in gossip. The New Word On Gossip, Psychology Today, May 2001 Edit to add: According to R.I.M. Dunbar of the University of Liverpool From the abstract of Gossip in Evolutionary Perspective, Review of General Psychology 2004, Vol. 8, No. 2, 100–110 So I think it's fair to say that yes, if not all, then certainly a large percentage of human beings engage in some form of gossip.

Click Multiquote from all of the posts you want to quote then hit the Add Reply button at the bottom of the page. This is important - do not click reply on any single post, or it will only quote that post. You must click the Add Reply button all the way at the bottom of the page for the Multiquote function to work.

Someone is finally picking up on the idea that maybe we should know about near Earth asteroids a little earlier than a few days to a month before they get here. You go B612. Telescope aims to head off asteroids' impact on Earth

The periodic table is useful for its intended purpose. Creating lifeforms is not that purpose.

It happens. And I apologize for the brusqueness of my post - I just realized it was rather rude sounding. That was not the intention.

When you're making a statement of fact, you're speaking as an authority on the subject. Specifically, I am referring to these two definitions of the word authority:

Um, not to put to fine a point on it, but that's a load of crap. Try more like 6 to 7 million years ago, if you date by the fossil evidence of the first hominids. 300 million would be the edge of the Carbiniferous/Permian eras, and we barely had reptiles, much less mammals. Primates don't appear in the fossil record until the Paleogene era, roughly 55 million years ago. Maybe you had an extra 0 in your number?