Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
I am talking about the link to Darwin Day Celebration from the 2/12/07 edition of the Insider Daily Developer News. Is the Developer News section also open for theological issues? Please don't get me wrong, I am all for science; I just want to know how evolution qualifies as such and how it fits in a forum for Developers. Before replying with any dismissing ad-hominem argument pointing out my presumable ignorance on the subject, which I humbly admit to a certain extent even after spending several years studying it from the inside and then the outside, please consider how strictly we use the term 'science' for things that affect our everyday life, especially in this forum, but how loosely we are willing to play with the term when discussing evolution. Let's be consistent and apply the same strict process! Besides the fact that most people and intelligent scientists believe in it, can we honestly mention at least five (5) things about evolution that we KNOW FOR SURE! Why is it that we find the following a believable story: - Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there. - After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747) - Uniform matter then became diverse. How? - Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere. - Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions? - Some complex compounds started interacting with their environment and became complex living organisms. Not to mention that we really know what live is... don't we? - Strong organisms then survived while the weak perished. By the way, every time an organism survives we can conclude that it was stronger than the others; this might make it seem as if natural selection is not a falsifiable scientific principle, but don't think too much about it... just trust us on this one too! - At first, simple organs (yes, there is such a thing) developed with specific functions in the living organism. Even though in all known species these organs need the others to survive, like the heart needs the lungs and the lungs the heart, they just started to develop with the expectation of working later in h
-
I am talking about the link to Darwin Day Celebration from the 2/12/07 edition of the Insider Daily Developer News. Is the Developer News section also open for theological issues? Please don't get me wrong, I am all for science; I just want to know how evolution qualifies as such and how it fits in a forum for Developers. Before replying with any dismissing ad-hominem argument pointing out my presumable ignorance on the subject, which I humbly admit to a certain extent even after spending several years studying it from the inside and then the outside, please consider how strictly we use the term 'science' for things that affect our everyday life, especially in this forum, but how loosely we are willing to play with the term when discussing evolution. Let's be consistent and apply the same strict process! Besides the fact that most people and intelligent scientists believe in it, can we honestly mention at least five (5) things about evolution that we KNOW FOR SURE! Why is it that we find the following a believable story: - Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there. - After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747) - Uniform matter then became diverse. How? - Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere. - Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions? - Some complex compounds started interacting with their environment and became complex living organisms. Not to mention that we really know what live is... don't we? - Strong organisms then survived while the weak perished. By the way, every time an organism survives we can conclude that it was stronger than the others; this might make it seem as if natural selection is not a falsifiable scientific principle, but don't think too much about it... just trust us on this one too! - At first, simple organs (yes, there is such a thing) developed with specific functions in the living organism. Even though in all known species these organs need the others to survive, like the heart needs the lungs and the lungs the heart, they just started to develop with the expectation of working later in h
Just wondering, did you happen to follow the link in the developer news? Oh, for a first post, this may set a record for length and rating for moving to the Soapbox. But welcome aboard anyway. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
-
I am talking about the link to Darwin Day Celebration from the 2/12/07 edition of the Insider Daily Developer News. Is the Developer News section also open for theological issues? Please don't get me wrong, I am all for science; I just want to know how evolution qualifies as such and how it fits in a forum for Developers. Before replying with any dismissing ad-hominem argument pointing out my presumable ignorance on the subject, which I humbly admit to a certain extent even after spending several years studying it from the inside and then the outside, please consider how strictly we use the term 'science' for things that affect our everyday life, especially in this forum, but how loosely we are willing to play with the term when discussing evolution. Let's be consistent and apply the same strict process! Besides the fact that most people and intelligent scientists believe in it, can we honestly mention at least five (5) things about evolution that we KNOW FOR SURE! Why is it that we find the following a believable story: - Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there. - After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747) - Uniform matter then became diverse. How? - Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere. - Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions? - Some complex compounds started interacting with their environment and became complex living organisms. Not to mention that we really know what live is... don't we? - Strong organisms then survived while the weak perished. By the way, every time an organism survives we can conclude that it was stronger than the others; this might make it seem as if natural selection is not a falsifiable scientific principle, but don't think too much about it... just trust us on this one too! - At first, simple organs (yes, there is such a thing) developed with specific functions in the living organism. Even though in all known species these organs need the others to survive, like the heart needs the lungs and the lungs the heart, they just started to develop with the expectation of working later in h
i want to. but i know i shouldn't. so i won't. ok, maybe just a little: quite a lot of what you say here about evolution is either false, misconstrued or just wacky. i can't tell if it's trollbait or serious. but i'm not going to touch the specifics. just not gonna do it.
-
I am talking about the link to Darwin Day Celebration from the 2/12/07 edition of the Insider Daily Developer News. Is the Developer News section also open for theological issues? Please don't get me wrong, I am all for science; I just want to know how evolution qualifies as such and how it fits in a forum for Developers. Before replying with any dismissing ad-hominem argument pointing out my presumable ignorance on the subject, which I humbly admit to a certain extent even after spending several years studying it from the inside and then the outside, please consider how strictly we use the term 'science' for things that affect our everyday life, especially in this forum, but how loosely we are willing to play with the term when discussing evolution. Let's be consistent and apply the same strict process! Besides the fact that most people and intelligent scientists believe in it, can we honestly mention at least five (5) things about evolution that we KNOW FOR SURE! Why is it that we find the following a believable story: - Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there. - After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747) - Uniform matter then became diverse. How? - Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere. - Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions? - Some complex compounds started interacting with their environment and became complex living organisms. Not to mention that we really know what live is... don't we? - Strong organisms then survived while the weak perished. By the way, every time an organism survives we can conclude that it was stronger than the others; this might make it seem as if natural selection is not a falsifiable scientific principle, but don't think too much about it... just trust us on this one too! - At first, simple organs (yes, there is such a thing) developed with specific functions in the living organism. Even though in all known species these organs need the others to survive, like the heart needs the lungs and the lungs the heart, they just started to develop with the expectation of working later in h
I'm sitting with Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Beunos Aires Cafe. His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote." I raise my eyebrows. Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer. "The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo." Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket. "As you know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576." I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed. "Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Pro Favor by the same means; and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeous Gentilhomme; their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary; and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed to Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Osca
-
i want to. but i know i shouldn't. so i won't. ok, maybe just a little: quite a lot of what you say here about evolution is either false, misconstrued or just wacky. i can't tell if it's trollbait or serious. but i'm not going to touch the specifics. just not gonna do it.
Way to find your inner Zen Chris. :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
-
i want to. but i know i shouldn't. so i won't. ok, maybe just a little: quite a lot of what you say here about evolution is either false, misconstrued or just wacky. i can't tell if it's trollbait or serious. but i'm not going to touch the specifics. just not gonna do it.
-
Ilíon wrote:
I think I see your point
hmm. well, i'm afraid your's has eluded me.
-
I'm sitting with Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Beunos Aires Cafe. His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote." I raise my eyebrows. Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer. "The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo." Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket. "As you know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576." I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed. "Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Pro Favor by the same means; and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeous Gentilhomme; their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary; and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed to Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Osca
cute tale. it's too bad for Dembski and Berlinski that it proves nothing at all about evolution.
-
cute tale. it's too bad for Dembski and Berlinski that it proves nothing at all about evolution.
Chris Losinger wrote:
it proves nothing at all about evolution.
Which, I think, was part of the original poster's point - you can't prove anything about macro-evolution because no one has enough time to set up an experiment, predict the outcome, and observe the results. Therefore, since the hypothesis can't be tested, it doesn't qualify under the usual rules as "science".
-
I am talking about the link to Darwin Day Celebration from the 2/12/07 edition of the Insider Daily Developer News. Is the Developer News section also open for theological issues? Please don't get me wrong, I am all for science; I just want to know how evolution qualifies as such and how it fits in a forum for Developers. Before replying with any dismissing ad-hominem argument pointing out my presumable ignorance on the subject, which I humbly admit to a certain extent even after spending several years studying it from the inside and then the outside, please consider how strictly we use the term 'science' for things that affect our everyday life, especially in this forum, but how loosely we are willing to play with the term when discussing evolution. Let's be consistent and apply the same strict process! Besides the fact that most people and intelligent scientists believe in it, can we honestly mention at least five (5) things about evolution that we KNOW FOR SURE! Why is it that we find the following a believable story: - Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there. - After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747) - Uniform matter then became diverse. How? - Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere. - Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions? - Some complex compounds started interacting with their environment and became complex living organisms. Not to mention that we really know what live is... don't we? - Strong organisms then survived while the weak perished. By the way, every time an organism survives we can conclude that it was stronger than the others; this might make it seem as if natural selection is not a falsifiable scientific principle, but don't think too much about it... just trust us on this one too! - At first, simple organs (yes, there is such a thing) developed with specific functions in the living organism. Even though in all known species these organs need the others to survive, like the heart needs the lungs and the lungs the heart, they just started to develop with the expectation of working later in h
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
it proves nothing at all about evolution.
Which, I think, was part of the original poster's point - you can't prove anything about macro-evolution because no one has enough time to set up an experiment, predict the outcome, and observe the results. Therefore, since the hypothesis can't be tested, it doesn't qualify under the usual rules as "science".
The Grand Negus wrote:
Therefore, since the hypothesis can't be tested, it doesn't qualify under the usual rules as "science".
but it can be tested, and it is tested, all the time. you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time. no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves (at least not enough to satisfy those who say it's impossible. but someday we will - and the creationists will move the goalposts somewhere else). but we have more than ample evidence that it has happened in the past.
-- modified at 23:45 Friday 16th February, 2007
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Therefore, since the hypothesis can't be tested, it doesn't qualify under the usual rules as "science".
but it can be tested, and it is tested, all the time. you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time. no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves (at least not enough to satisfy those who say it's impossible. but someday we will - and the creationists will move the goalposts somewhere else). but we have more than ample evidence that it has happened in the past.
-- modified at 23:45 Friday 16th February, 2007
Chris Losinger wrote:
you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time.
Better check your data, Chris. If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis - to which he was driven by the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time.
Better check your data, Chris. If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis - to which he was driven by the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time.
Better check your data, Chris. If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis - to which he was driven by the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis
i suggest you go read what Gould actually wrote, not just selected out-of-context quotes. and when you're done with that, you'd do well to brush up on the science that's been done in the decades since Gould came up with that hypothesis - including work from Gould himself. and then you should work on the idea that Gould does not represent evolution as a whole, and for that matter, neither does Darwin, or Dawkins, or any of the other bogeymen you might want to quote.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis
i suggest you go read what Gould actually wrote, not just selected out-of-context quotes. and when you're done with that, you'd do well to brush up on the science that's been done in the decades since Gould came up with that hypothesis - including work from Gould himself. and then you should work on the idea that Gould does not represent evolution as a whole, and for that matter, neither does Darwin, or Dawkins, or any of the other bogeymen you might want to quote.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Do you really think Negus of all people is going to listen?
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
-
Do you really think Negus of all people is going to listen?
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
aodksiemnsignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aodksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (I'm working up a clever reply by changing letters at random. Bear with me.) aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk -- modified at 21:25 Friday 16th February, 2007 aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk -- modified at 21:27 Friday 16th February, 2007 bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (Y'know, I don't think this will ever work out. Ever.)
-
aodksiemnsignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aodksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (I'm working up a clever reply by changing letters at random. Bear with me.) aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk -- modified at 21:25 Friday 16th February, 2007 aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk -- modified at 21:27 Friday 16th February, 2007 bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (Y'know, I don't think this will ever work out. Ever.)
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Therefore, since the hypothesis can't be tested, it doesn't qualify under the usual rules as "science".
but it can be tested, and it is tested, all the time. you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time. no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves (at least not enough to satisfy those who say it's impossible. but someday we will - and the creationists will move the goalposts somewhere else). but we have more than ample evidence that it has happened in the past.
-- modified at 23:45 Friday 16th February, 2007
-
don't bother understanding him.... he's proof of non-intelligent design.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Maybe I'll just point out the irony of calling for skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence and using a huge "appeal to ridicule" fallacy against evolution science in the same post.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
Fisticuffs, Your point is well taken. I have to confess I get carried away with my sarcasm. That said, however, please note that my argument was not in the form: "this sounds ridiculous, therefore it is false". My appeal was for your scientific knowledge to provide some reasons why you believe these things happened and integrate them in a consistent worldview. Your quick and smart response makes me think you are capable of doing more than dismissing my question by pointing out my mistake. 0 reasons so far. - J
Juanfer