|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 01, 2013 04:32 AM |
|
|
"Evolutionary biologist" usually means "biologist who studies evolution", not "biologist who believes in evolution". Because the latter description is almost redundant.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 09:05 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
JJ:
An extra dimension can be modeled if it has some influence on what we can perceive. If it has no observable influence on our world, then it might as well not exist - to us, there is no difference between a world in which no extra dimension exists and a world in which one exists, but has no influence on anything observable. You might as well say that there are fairies floating all around us, but they don't affect or influence anything, and there's absolutely no way to detect them.
But that's what a large part of science is about: to "find" and observe what is currently unobservable.
"Observe" is just another word for "registering information".
"Observing" started with the sense of sight, but it took some time until it was clear that the information gathered via that sense would be garnered from the visible spectrum of the EMWs, and that the actual spectrum would consist of much much more (and consequently transport a lot more information), while their EFFECT was there, but could be explained otherwise or was not registered.
It may be of note also that the nature of such waves cannot be described in what I would call a "satisfactory way in a linear sense": some behaviour is explained by a wave function, other by assuming a particle - what does that tell us?
Maybe it tells us that our understanding of the reality we live in is (still) fundamentally flawed because we are missing the big picture - we do have a lot of information about the reality we live in, but we can't fit the pieces to a picture that makes sense (also see "Dark Matter/Energy").
So science has been and still is also a fight against the limits of what is observable, and we've pushed those limits a lot - who's to say that we can't push them any farther? Just because we can't register something NOW doesn't mean there cannot exist "more" - we may register it in 10 or 100 or 1000 years.
Which means, we should be careful with predictions about what canNOT be known or observed.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 12:27 PM |
|
|
Nice post JJ.
They say there is enough religion in the world to make man hate one another, but not enough to make them love.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 12:39 PM |
|
|
2 - Design screams Designer. 1 + 1 = 2, it's as scientific as that. Information theory is scientific. It's observed, repeated and tested every day. It's as simple as saying that everything ever programmed traces back to an programmer, to an intelligence. Even Bill Gates admits this: "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.". So when you say this is unscientific you're basicly saying this: "A computer program requires a programmer, we see that all the time happening in technology. But the DNA ,which is the most complicated and complex code ever, does not.". Who's the unscientific one? Who's abandoning causality and logic here?
Either you say that the DNA molecule is not designed and therefore everything less than that can't be proof of design (reduction at absurdum, since we know program codes are designed but far less complex), or you admit that DNA is proof of design in the same way a program code is, and therefore requires a Designer. Anything else than that doesn't follow the law of causality or elementary logic.
Can't put it more simple than that even if I wanted.
3 - Still man made.
4 - Quote:
People detect intelligent design all the time. For example, if we find arrowheads on a desert island, we can assume they were made by someone, even if we cannot see the designer.
There is an obvious difference between writing by an intelligent person, e.g. Shakespeare's plays, and a random letter sequence like WDLMNLTDTJBKWIRZREZLMQCOP. There is also an obvious difference between Shakespeare and a repetitive sequence like ABCDABCDABCD. The latter is an example of order, which must be distinguished from Shakespeare, which is an example of specified complexity.
We can also tell the difference between messages written in sand and the results of wave and wind action. The carved heads of the U.S. presidents on Mt Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features. Again, this is specified complexity. Erosion produces either irregular shapes or highly ordered shapes like sand dunes, but not presidents' heads or writing.
Another example is the SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). This would be pointless if there was no way of determining whether a certain type of signal from outer space would be proof of an intelligent sender. The criterion is, again, a signal with a high level of specified complexity-this would prove that there was an intelligent sender, even if we had no other idea of the sender's nature. But neither a random nor a repetitive sequence would be proof. Natural processes produce radio noise from outer space, while pulsars produce regular signals. Actually, pulsars were first mistaken for signals by people eager to believe in extraterrestrials, but this is because they mistook order for complexity. So evolutionists (as are nearly all SETI proponents) are prepared to use high specified complexity as proof of intelligence, when it suits their ideology. This shows once more how one's biases and assumptions affect one's interpretations of any data.
Wishful thinking would be to say otherwise.
5 - The only thing I would disagree with an evolutionary biologist is evolution, not biology. No, evolution is not biology nor vice-versa. Biology is simply the mechanic of the body. Evolution tries to explain "where it comes from", not "how it works". History of the past, not operational science. Again and again and again...
6 - So basically they date the fossils acording to the layers they find them in... How do they know how old are the layers?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 01:40 PM |
|
|
So your argument is something like "Bill gates says.... therefore Intelligent Design."
This is what passes for a scientific deduction for you?
Quote:
5 - The only thing I would disagree with an evolutionary biologist is evolution, not biology. No, evolution is not biology nor vice-versa. Biology is simply the mechanic of the body. Evolution tries to explain "where it comes from", not "how it works". History of the past, not operational science. Again and again and again...
Evolution is not about understanding origins. It's about understanding change. This is a fundamental misconception of people who criticize the theory without knowing the first thing about it.
Quote:
6 - So basically they date the fossils acording to the layers they find them in... How do they know how old are the layers?
There are lots of scientific ways. Do you really want to know, or is this just rhetoric? I'm happy to explain the science behind it, but if you're just going to be sticking your fingers in your ears while I'm talking, I think I'll pass.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 03:17 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 15:19, 01 Nov 2013.
|
Corribus said:
So your argument is something like "Bill gates says.... therefore Intelligent Design."
This is what passes for a scientific deduction for you?
Yea, you definetly got it.
For the last time (doubtfully) I don't care who what says! I care about arguments and evidence! It's because you people are so fond of Ph.D's and specialists that I gave you a Bill Gates quote. But even if a 2 year old said that it wouldn't be any less true.
I began that reply with the argument being the first phrase: Design screams Designer! How could you have missed that it escapes me...
Corribus said:
Evolution is not about understanding origins. It's about understanding change. This is a fundamental misconception of people who criticize the theory without knowing the first thing about it.
Not about origins? That's actually true   because origins are assumed dogmatically, not evidentially. Evolution starts its explaining AFTER you got a cell. I guess all of us know about abiogenesis here right? And that the probability of a self-replicating cell asembling itself is astronomical... Oh, and so you might not get the wrong idea and think you got a good reply, I know that abiogenesis is not evolution, yet I know evolution assumes abiogenesis 
Just a funny fact: Darwin's named his book "The ORIGIN of Species by Means of Natural Selection or Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", yet he doesn't talk about that at all  All he talks about is change via natural selection as you fairly stated.
Corribus said:
Quote:
6 - So basically they date the fossils acording to the layers they find them in... How do they know how old are the layers?
There are lots of scientific ways. Do you really want to know, or is this just rhetoric? I'm happy to explain the science behind it, but if you're just going to be sticking your fingers in your ears while I'm talking, I think I'll pass.
Well, I actually know all about this (not in an exhaustive way - I'm not omniscient, but in a "how does this work" way, by analizing the logic of it), I don't throw myself into debates that I can't handle or lack critical info about. I do this all the time, at university, with my friends, even with my family (some of them really believe in evolution).
I know about the radiometric dating methods, I know about C14, I know about equilibrium and constant decay rate and all other assumptions that don't stand to scrutiny. I know about the fact that before radiometric dating even existed evolutionists used circular reasoning to date the fossils after the layers and the layers after the fossils... I know about all that.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 03:37 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 15:38, 01 Nov 2013.
|
DoubleDeck said:
They say there is enough religion in the world to make man hate one another, but not enough to make them love.
That is very biased. I'm not the only one on this planet that actually cares about love ruling all actions.
Sorry but it's that old narrow refrain, as if men are not hating each other because of money, WAR, politics, land, power, opinion, race, looks, past losses-like battles, girlfriends or arguments on everything under the sun.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 04:49 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:59, 01 Nov 2013.
|
Quote:
I don't throw myself into debates that I can't handle or lack critical info about.
Well, the sad truth is you are doing just that but you lack proper formation about the subject so you are unable to realize when you are refuted. "Design screams designer, that's scientific" is not even a valid argument, it's YOU who says there is a design, not science or evidence. Like it or not, science says things CAN be explained without a designer. Your "a car needs an engineer" rhetoric is quite popular here too, (only, this time used by conservative Muslims to suggest Quran is the eternal truth), yet living organisms are not analogous in every aspect to industrial products. There are many unused, unnecessary parts in the human body and there are also many "flawed designs" which puts an omnipotent creator very unlikely even at a philosophical angle.
There are books written by biologists directly answering to your -now chewed up- objections. But let's be frank here, this is not about finding out the best explanation to you, it's about not giving up your religion. So, all those explanations goes in from one ear and leaves out from the other without taking a stop on your brain. And that's why you can't understand that it's not about the PHD's (not that they don't matter), it's first of all about this, your "hypothesis" of design lacks the proper quality to be considered scientific, there is no valid reason to accept it other than wanting to. Evolution itself is enough to explain how complex organisms came into being (and as I said, this has also been proven as a statistical probability with simulation programs, that's math). You can clearly realize this even if you only watch the PBS special I linked on the Doc thread. Evolution is not faith, biologists do not stand by it because their soul belongs to some Darwinist ideal (whatever you imagine that is). It's an explanation brilliant in its simplicity that is backed up by evidence from many branches of science and the most important part is all this data from different branches fits like a glove. Paleontologists come up with a tree of life, then with new technology, we are able to detect the level of genetic kinship between species and both trees of life fit. That's like hitting the bullseye twice in o row, a dart stuck on the previous dart. Btw, you are -again- wrong about every little detail also, how life started is not a question of dogma, it's the study field of abiogenesis, not that it matters but Bill Gates is an agnostic, and different branches of science trading information on data to make things clearer is not circular logic.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 05:04 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Right, but first you need to find that there is an influence (i.e. observe it), and then try to explain it somehow. If you don't observe any effect, then, as far as you know, the extra dimension isn't causing one, so why assume one exists?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 05:19 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
JJ:
Right, but first you need to find that there is an influence (i.e. observe it), and then try to explain it somehow. If you don't observe any effect, then, as far as you know, the extra dimension isn't causing one, so why assume one exists?
Exactly.
Quote:
For me there is no way you can explain the whole of what exists - the universe or multiverse or whatever you call everything that exists OBSERVABLY - without something like an "immaterial" layer of existence behind it. "Immaterial" not aiming to ghosts or spiritual or such things, but meaning something like BEYOND matter.
Why?
Btw, is this "thing" which is beyond matter omniscient and omnipotent? Because if it's not, you're rather speculating about an advanced alien life form which lives in an undefined dimension. It's kind of more like sci-fi than God.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 05:32 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Design screams Designer!
Of course not. If it were true then we could assume that everything in this world was made by human (and by everything I mean: EVERYTHING) since we are the only confirmed intelligent beings on this planet by now. After all someone had to design all of this - why not us? 
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2013 11:43 PM |
|
|
artu said:
mvassilev said:
JJ:
Right, but first you need to find that there is an influence (i.e. observe it), and then try to explain it somehow. If you don't observe any effect, then, as far as you know, the extra dimension isn't causing one, so why assume one exists?
Exactly.
Dark matter/energy is such an assumption. Observational effect -> assumption of existence of something that cannot be observed, measured or otherwise be evidenced positively - and it would meake 96% of the known universe (matter making only 4%). What's that, then?
Quote:
Quote:
For me there is no way you can explain the whole of what exists - the universe or multiverse or whatever you call everything that exists OBSERVABLY - without something like an "immaterial" layer of existence behind it. "Immaterial" not aiming to ghosts or spiritual or such things, but meaning something like BEYOND matter.
Why?
Because that would mean the material universe made itself - however matter cannot create matter out of nothing.
Quote:
Btw, is this "thing" which is beyond matter omniscient and omnipotent? Because if it's not, you're rather speculating about an advanced alien life form which lives in an undefined dimension. It's kind of more like sci-fi than God.
I'm not talking about the Christian God or any other specific God, and if a different layer of reality would indeed exist, "Omni" would get a different meaning anyway. Mathematics know that not all "infinites" are alike and some infinites are more infinite than others.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 02, 2013 12:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Because that would mean the material universe made itself - however matter cannot create matter out of nothing.
And immaterial unknown stuff can? And it has consciousness? We know that our mind exists of chemical interaction between matter, the only type of mind(s) we know, human or animal, exist because matter exists. On what basis do you find a mind that operates without material embodiment possible? You specifically say it's not some kind of a ghost, what else exactly can it be? Remember, even if not in this one, this mind had to evolve "somewhere." But locations wont exist and an eternal mind always existing is much more far fetched then matter somehow coming to existence by some quantum flux or whatever.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 02, 2013 12:43 AM |
|
|
Stevie said:
I know about the radiometric dating methods, I know about C14, I know about equilibrium and constant decay rate and all other assumptions that don't stand to scrutiny. I know about the fact that before radiometric dating even existed evolutionists used circular reasoning to date the fossils after the layers and the layers after the fossils... I know about all that.
So, uninformed rhetoric. I guess I'm not surprised.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2013 01:01 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
matter cannot create matter out of nothing
Matter can't create matter out of nothing, but something else can? Something that hasn't ever been observed? Isn't it more sensible to suggest that matter hasn't been created?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 02, 2013 01:32 AM |
|
|
Isn't that only on a macroscopic scale? At the quantum level, matter fluctuates in and out of existence as far as I know.
I'm not very familiar with the circumstances of the Big Bang, but the idea of the universe being more or less pressed into one single point does not sound like a place where one can easily apply experiences from the macroscopic world we live in.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2013 01:45 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 01:49, 02 Nov 2013.
|
Quote:
"Design screams designer, that's scientific" is not even a valid argument, it's YOU who says there is a design, not science or evidence.
"It's YOU who says that a software requires a software maker! It's you who says that programs require a programmer! It's YOU who says that, not science or evidence" - For the sake of humanity someone ought to shoot me!
Quote:
Like it or not, science says things CAN be explained without a designer.
Then please explain me in naturalistic terms the origin of information within the DNA... If by any chance you think about replying "mutations and natural selection" consider that these operate on pre-existing information, and do not in any way explain how the information got there in the first place.
Quote:
There are many unused, unnecessary parts in the human body
Name them for me please.
Quote:
and there are also many "flawed designs" which puts an omnipotent creator very unlikely even at a philosophical angle.
Bad design criticism, saying that a broken watch does not account for a watchmaker because it's broken.
Quote:
Evolution itself is enough to explain how complex organisms came into being (and as I said, this has also been proven as a statistical probability with simulation programs, that's math).
Wrong, Evolution attempts to explain life AFTER you got a self-replicating cell by means of mutations and natural selection. Abiogenesis tries to explain how that cell got into existence. And the mathematical probability of that happening by chance and time (even given the bazillions of years proposed as the age of the universe) is still astronomical. But I'd rather see your source on this. Or at least your argument. If it's the 32
Quote:
Paleontologists come up with a tree of life
No, Darwin did, and his grade was in Theology, not paleontology.
Quote:
we are able to detect the level of genetic kinship between species and both trees of life fit.
If by kinship you mean genetic similarity then indeed, the latest evidence (that I know of) shows that our human DNA is 90% similar to baboon's DNA. But they also show that human DNA is 75% similar to a nematode's DNA, and even more astonishing, that our DNA is 50% similar to a banana's DNA.
I don't feel 90% baboon at all. Nor 75% a nematode, nor 50% a banana. Do you?
Quote:
Quote:
Btw, you are -again- wrong about every little detail also, how life started is not a question of dogma, it's the study field of abiogenesis
Oh, and so you might not get the wrong idea and think you got a good reply, I know that abiogenesis is not evolution, yet I know evolution assumes abiogenesis
That was 1 post above, yet you never cease to amaze me
Quote:
and different branches of science trading information on data to make things clearer is not circular logic.
Using layers to date the fossils then the fossils to date the layers IS circular reasoning. And no "branches" and "trading" babble is gonna make it less than that.
By the way, you should check your beloved Wikipedia for "biostratigraphy" and see that it actually IS "one branch"... /facepalm
And just to cut off some of your enthusiasm about your simulations:
Quote:
Scientific American alludes to computer 'simulations' of evolution, although these are based on assumptions that do not parallel real life:
Quote:
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence 'TOBEORNOTTOBE.' Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2,613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s, Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days. [SA 81-82]
These computer programs have been widely popularized by the atheist Richard Dawkins, but are a lot of bluff. Such simulations, which Dawkins and, now, Scientific American propose as 'simulations' of evolution, work toward a known goal, so they are far from a parallel to real evolution, which has no foresight, hence a 'Blind Watchmaker.' The simulations also use 'organisms' with high reproductive rates (producing many offspring), high mutation rates, a large probability of a beneficial mutation, and a selection coefficient of 1 (perfect selection) instead of 0.01 (or less), which parallels real life more accurately. The 'organisms' have tiny 'genomes' with minute information content, so they are less prone to error catastrophe, and they are not affected by the chemical and thermodynamic constraints of a real organism.
@ Hobbit
Hobbit said:
Stevie said:
Design screams Designer!
Of course not.
Well, that actually is a tautology, and in logic tautologies are self-evident truths.
Quote:
If it were true then we could assume that everything in this world was made by human (and by everything I mean: EVERYTHING) since we are the only confirmed intelligent beings on this planet by now. After all someone had to design all of this - why not us?
Not EVERYTHING is designed. For a thing to be considered as designed it must show specified complexity. Information theory is based on the same principle, since a program code or a software is indeed proof of a code-writer.
And why not us? Because it's anacronichal (cells existed before us and not us before the cells that we could engineer them) and this kind nanotechnology greatly surpasses our current technology, so how could we engineer something that we're not even able to fully comprehend?
@ JJ
JollyJoker said:
artu said:
mvassilev said:
JJ:
Right, but first you need to find that there is an influence (i.e. observe it), and then try to explain it somehow. If you don't observe any effect, then, as far as you know, the extra dimension isn't causing one, so why assume one exists?
Exactly.
Dark matter/energy is such an assumption. Observational effect -> assumption of existence of something that cannot be observed, measured or otherwise be evidenced positively - and it would meake 96% of the known universe (matter making only 4%). What's that, then?
Home Run! Great job mate, that was brilliant, honestly
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 02, 2013 02:26 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 02:36, 02 Nov 2013.
|
Quote:
"It's YOU who says that a software requires a software maker! It's you who says that programs require a programmer! It's YOU who says that, not science or evidence" - For the sake of humanity someone ought to shoot me!
I just might. I already told you the analogy between living organisms and industrial products is flawed and why it is flawed.
Quote:
Then please explain me in naturalistic terms the origin of information within the DNA... If by any chance you think about replying "mutations and natural selection" consider that these operate on pre-existing information, and do not in any way explain how the information got there in the first place.
Information here is a figure of speech, you are not talking about information as in "French Revolution is in 1789" or "8x2=16", you are talking about genes, genes are matter, they are made of molecules.
Quote:
Name them for me please.
Vestigiality. One very famous example is a muscle in our feet, the ancestral use of this muscle is to grab with feet (as most primates do), we still have it, but it evolved into an idle muscle, it has no function in our feet and we can't use it.
Quote:
Bad design criticism, saying that a broken watch does not account for a watchmaker because it's broken.
They are not broken. They are flawed to begin with.
Quote:
Wrong, Evolution attempts to explain life AFTER you got a self-replicating cell by means of mutations and natural selection. Abiogenesis tries to explain how that cell got into existence
That is not contradictory to what I said which is "Evolution itself is enough to explain how complex organisms came into being." So there's nothing wrong.
Quote:
That was 1 post above, yet you never cease to amaze me
Since abiogenesis is not dogma and you said "origins are assumed dogmatically" you should be amazed at yourself for such a high score on self-contradiction.
Quote:
Using layers to date the fossils then the fossils to date the layers IS circular reasoning
No, it is not because it's not the only technique they are dated, it is just a validation. I guess you found your little "quote" from some apologetic site...
Quote:
No, Darwin did, and his grade was in Theology, not paleontology.
Darwin had a tree of life, yes. That doesn't stop paleontology from having one also, though. One that is constantly being worked on by paleontologists.
Quote:
If by kinship you mean genetic similarity then indeed, the latest evidence (that I know of) shows that our human DNA is 90% similar to baboon's DNA. But they also show that human DNA is 75% similar to a nematode's DNA, and even more astonishing, that our DNA is 50% similar to a banana's DNA.
I don't feel 90% baboon at all. Nor 75% a nematode, nor 50% a banana. Do you?
Not similarity, kinship, we are relatives. And you are not aware of it but you just supported the common ancestor theory. The ratios you present are the closeness level of genetic kinship with those species. Although, I'm not sure if somebody who asks a question such as "you don't feel 50 percent banana do you?" has the capacity to understand that.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2013 10:45 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
JollyJoker said:
matter cannot create matter out of nothing
Matter can't create matter out of nothing, but something else can? Something that hasn't ever been observed? Isn't it more sensible to suggest that matter hasn't been created?
Only, if the universe in itself was static, which it isn't
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2013 12:23 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 13:04, 02 Nov 2013.
|
Quote:
Not EVERYTHING is designed.
Maybe you should specify what do you mean by "designed" then. And "certain complexity" doesn't mean anything, because everything is complex.
And about software and a code-writer - I'm pretty sure that if you were shown a file with only digits and single words, you couldn't tell if it was made by a human or by a computer. Game save files are pretty complex, if you ask me.
Quote:
And why not us? Because it's anacronichal (cells existed before us and not us before the cells that we could engineer them) and this kind nanotechnology greatly surpasses our current technology, so how could we engineer something that we're not even able to fully comprehend?
Magic that we don't remember. I call that "Forgotten Magic Theory". You can't prove it's wrong and it makes perfect sense, so it has to be true, right?
Quote:
Only, if the universe in itself was static, which it isn't
Actually it is. Physics "laws" haven't changed yet, only their definitions have.
Or you mean that it expands? Well, okay. But what does it prove?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
