tvashtarkatena

If you take standard security precautions, what do you have to lose? 470 miles is a bit of a practical difficulty, though. But what the hell; if you don't like him, chop him up with a machete and feed him to a wood chipper.

As I've already clearly stated, my prediction that we will someday be able to create life from scratch, which, being a prediction, is not conveyed with 100% certainty, is just that. No dictionary in the world would equate that with religious faith, or absolute, certain belief in something without observable evidence, and, after all, we are bound to argue in our native tongue. I would suggest you look up the the definition of 'faith', in a religious sense (yes, it has other non religious definitions which are not equivalent). I don't really feel the need to hold your hand on this one. There is no magic spark. It is a continuum. Simple, self replicating entities are nothing more than micromachines (look at them under a microscope, and you'll see what I mean). If you assemble the machine, it works. No divine 'jump start' or 'spark' required. It doesn't matter whether man or nature does the assembly. The object in question doesn't care. A virus is a relatively simple molecular package with a shape that fits with certain cellular membranes that allows it to inject its relatively simple genetic material into the cell to coopt the cell's more complex reproductive machinery to manufacture more viruses. Assemble the virus, and it works, because whatever energy is required for it to function is embodied in its molecular bonds; the same kinds of molecular bonds found in rocks, ice, and other inanimate materials. Is a virus alive? Kind of, but not really. It's organic, but it doesn't respirate, eat, or metabolize. It's nothing more than a crystal which, unlike 'more alive' organisms, could lie dormant under the right conditions pretty much indefinitely without any inputs, (just like a rock) and become viable again once exposed to the proper host. It's more inert Lego building block than organism. And there are simpler self replicating organic systems than viruses. More complex organisms, such as cells, operate using the same kinds of molecular bonds; aborbing, releasing energy to fabricate or destroy more molecules. What 'spark' are we talking about, exactly? If and when man makes life, that in itself will prove, by definition, that this 'low probability' event has a probability greater than zero. I do believe that, except that we aren't necessarily stepping stones to anything; it is much more likely (given the finite histories of past species) that we are just another evolutionary dead end, slated for extinction. You may find this depressing, but I find it keeps my ego in check. Also, I tend to focus more on the time scale of my own life, rather than what will occur millions of years from now. Unless we migrate to other star systems, a formidable task in the extreme, our final end is a certainty.

Good spot.

That's tricky; who is this entity that is letting go of the desire? And is it letting go in order to gain something- to gain the state of non-desire? Which the current being sees as desirable? The amount of matter and energy in our universe is fixed, as far as we know. Exchanges occur. Of course, we don't even know how many universes there are, so take it with a grain of salt. As far as the acceleration of universal expansion, that was only discovered 4 or so years ago, so no one has any idea where it's going to end up.

What was factual was that, due to altitude induced hypoxia, I had the sensation of being disconnected from my body. If you believe this experience constitutes proof of the soul, then, by the same logic, you would have to say that hallucinations of giant wombats induced by drugs or fatigue are caused by the fact that there were actually giant wombats flying around at the time. Since our consciousness is imprisoned by our brain and informed by our senses, both of which can malfunction in all kinds of ways to produce a phantasmagoria of tricks and illusions, I would say it's more likely that my experience falls under this category than that my soul actually drifted out of my body.

Even matter may not be permanent, if the mysterious repulsive force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe eventually tears matter itself apart. A soul embodies the desire for permanent being. Buddhism teaches the letting go of such desire. Personally, I think they're closer to the mark.

You might preface your statements about the soul, etc, with "I believe", thus avoiding a factual argument about beliefs than cannot be proved.

The only thing that comes close for me was an out of body experience while hauling a big pack over some neve penetente at altitude in Bolivia. It did feel a bit strange to have your consciousness seemingly separated from your physcical body, which continued to function normally 'without' me. It seems as though the conscious and subconscious are capable of producing just about any state imaginable.

"Pinko Puke"? That is so Jet Age.

I've had several near death encounters and I felt only the great indifference of the world around me regarding my potential passing. It's not necessarily a negative thing to realize that the best (or only) friend you've got in a tight spot is you.

Faith is a belief in something without requiring observable evidence. I don't have anything remotely like that regarding the progress of science. Regarding humans making life, that is a prediction, not a mantra, based on the observable scientific progress which humans have made so far (and which I follow very closely). If the Easter Bunny's involved, that would be a surprise, but surprises do happen occasionally. And humans could re-create the conditions for creating the spark of life by cosmic accident. We've recreated the conditions in interstellar space to successfully grow organic molecules (the building blocks of life) from scratch in amorphous ice, which can only exist at those crygenic temperatures. We've proven that such molecules can survive a comet impact, and therefore be delivered to earth. We've observed self replicating systems of organic molecules that are not technically 'alive'. Through genetic analysis, we've pieced together much about the evolution of the earliest organisms that later become the organelles of our cells. Given such a systematice unveiling of this mystery, is it so much of a stretch to imagine that one day we'll finally get to the juicy center of this puzzle? Does the fact that intelligent beings recreated the cosmic experiment somehow illegitamize our discovery of how it unfolds without our influence? If that is true, then much of our knowledge is, by definition, meaningless.

A strong American military presence in a friendly Middle Eastern country has been our foriegn policy since Nixon. Originally, the primary purposes were to counter possible Soviet aggression in the region and secure our oil supply. The policy began in earnest with the Shah. When Iran blew up, we floundered for a bit with 'rapid deployment' ideas, etc, eventually drifting towards Iraq and Saddam as our next proxy. We encouraged their war with Iran to reduce the latter's regional influence. Further east, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan resulted in our unholy matrimony with Pakistan. Years before the USSR desintigrated, Paul Wolfowitz wrote up a scenario for countering military aggression by an Arab country; a alternate way for the region to be destabilized. He picked Iraq for this study. It was his study, after some modification, that became the war plan for Desert Storm. Grenada, Desert Storm, Panama, these were all tests uses of American military power after Vietnam. The public was either all for these operations, or didn't react to them at all. This public reaction, or lack thereof, basically provided W with a political green light to move forward with the more aggressive strategy of direct occupation in Iraq. The problem, of course, is that the result of our 35 year involvement in the Middle East has been the destabilization of the region; exactly what we'd hoped to avoid. Like Vietnam, it has produced yet another expensive failure. I believe those who supported the 2003 invasion, and who believe that, had we done things 'differently', we would have succeeded in producing a stable Iraq are wrong in their thinking. The plan was a failure in concept as well as execution. Wholesale invasions unavoidably destroy institutions, infrastructure, and the social fabric. Add to this that Iraq is a fractured country with a downtrodden majority and a priveledged, deposed minority who would inevitably fight each other over the oil money. Any invasion plan, no matter how well thought out, would have produced the strong insurgency and a stronger, more belligerant Iran that we see today. Not disbanding the military might have prolonged our honeymoon period slightly (the only recommendation I've heard that would have made any difference whatsoever...the rest we tried), but it would not have addressed to two fundamental issues above. Invasion was simply a bad idea from the start, which is why those with the most experience in Middle Eastern affairs (Wolfie excepted) tried to caution the administration against it. Unfortunately, as in the case of Vietnam, when faced with an untenable situation a president often does more of the same and gets us in deeper. Attack Iran? At this point, unfortunately, it seems increasingly likely. Anyone wonder why we're accreting 92,000 more troops for 'combat' readiness? Combat readiness where, exactly?

Swimming might also increase the risk of trauma to the arms and legs.

The two are not mathematically equivalent, if one compares the body of evidence for each. The body of verifiable, observable evidence for cosmic accident is continually growing as our knowledge base rapidly approaches a complete understanding of how life evolved from atoms to us. The body of evidence using the same criteria for a creator, on the other hand, is zero. When we can create our own custom life forms from scratch, a day which is probably not far off, then the argument for the necessity of a creator will become wholly personal, as it should be.

Wow, Jay, how do you continually come up with these priceless and informative revelations? You mean we don't have to stick a thermometer into the sun to postulate its core temperature? A stunning concept; secondary...primary...I'm confused already! Were you born gifted, or raised in a utopian commune of genuii? You really need a blog. The world needs to know this stuff. You are your own parody.

OMG! Plate tectonics demystified! Source? Hey, who needs one! I can't feel anything moving! I might mention that some plates are moving around at the very observable rate of well over 1 mm per year. But of course, you knew that.

Hhmmm. Cuba's got a) the most prestine coral reefs b) some of the best music c) THE best mohitos d) pretty much the best weather, and and e) definitely the some of the hottest women on the planet. No, you're right. The place blows.

Evolution is agnostic about atheism.

What if there was a picture of the Grand Canyon that was older than the canyon itself? Did you ever think about that? I didn't think so.

Hey, that's just being a hooman. Things go in and out of style, and fads happen, even in (and perhaps especially in) science. String theory, anyone? Having said that, there are times when an older theory suddenly gains widespread public acceptance, like global warming. It doesn't mean its a fad or theory de jour (climate scientists have known about it for decades), it just means that media, politics, and word of mouth has finally turned a corner on the issue, based on the evidence, and accepted it as valid.

Control it. Bite your wrist, anything. We need to get ride of that empty ballsack, and the only way to do it is to show zero love, tough or otherwise. Or a vindictive god could banninate him.

I would say that faith in a particular theory can become like a religion. Many scientists, including Einstein, have clung to theories that proved to be wrong. Faith in science, however, is well placed. After all, it is the process which has brought us a mindboggling and continually accelerating technological prowess and knowledge base. It's key component is that, whenever a new theory is presented, it is immediately dissected by the originators scientific peers in every way imaginable for flaws. As long as everyone involved acts relatively ethically, the system will continue to work to expand our knowledge of how nature works. That's not to say science will solve any of our problems. That's a political and social decision, not a scientific one.

You're right, but it's a bit annoying how many christians who've obviously never cracked a science book (or googled anything scientific, for that matter) present themselves as expert critics of the scientific process. They get their talking points spoon fed to them by their pet websites and they're off to the races ready for the 'debate', completely unaware that much of anything has occured in the past 100 years. Whatever happened to doing your homework before giving the lecture?

Yawn. You really need to get out more. I can't believe I'm reading the 'missing link' argument in 2007. You can observe evolution directly in the lab using any population that breeds fast enough and in large enough numbers within a short enough time scale. Like bacteria, yo. Your talking hours or days to observe evolution in action. It's also been observed directly in the field in larger creatures populating new environments, such as the anoles lizard in the Caribbean. DNA analysis provides the generation roadmap for tracking. Duh. It's been done a bazillion times. No fossils required.

The descent looks even more hazardous, particularly if plunge stepping in slippers. It's pretty carpeted, and a summit safety meeting might increase the perceived exposure. You'll want to keep your weight well forward. I noted the sideways aspect of the first photo. I'd recommend not burning through your supply of 40s until you're at least to camp I.