JohnB

I was looking for figures for Olympic and Downfall, there is some very interesting reading out there. Anyway I came across this article by Richard B. Frank. Not really germane to the debate but if his book is as interesting, then it would be a good read.

Firstly, let me apologise for the "cheap seats" comment. I'm crook at the moment and I'm afraid "fingers were engaged before brain was in gear". Secondly, I agree with about the fire bombing, I don't think it would have had as much effect. I seem to remember that some 200,000 died in the first raid on Tokyo, so if you add up the number of cities that would have had to burn, the death toll would have been horrendous. Add to that that while this wearing down was going on, fighting was continuing on the various islands. An extra six months of jungle warfare would have killed many Allied and Japanese troops needlessly. You realise the option of blockading the Japanese Isalands was also considered? Starving them into submission. This was veiwed as too horrible to really contemplate. Yes it is. Look carefully at what I said. "The enemies ability to wage war." The peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq were never the "enemy". The enemy in both these cases were the ruling regimes, not the peoples of those two nations, hence waging war on the people would be generally counterproductive. The average Iraqi was not willing to support the regime, this being the case then attacking the general populace would have brought people out to defend their homes and families. WW2 was nation against nation, people against people, a different war which required different tactics. So the USA has no nuclear warheads aimed at any city on the planet? I don't think so. If it came down to it, we do do that. Any other idea is a fantasy. If your Grandfather was a prisoner then I truly feel for him. Please remember that we were fighting the Japs long before the yanks got their act together. The whole thing is very personal for many Australians. You only mention one family member, many of us lost more than that to the Pacific War. Even the survivors are changed.

I read a number of years ago the estimated Allied casualties from the invasion of Japan would be some 800,000 in the first wave. It was estimated that the invasion would take about 2 years and cost some 10-15 million lives. To put it gently, bulldust. The job of a Commanding General during conflict is to end the war victoriously for his side. To do this he must inflict maximum casualties to the enemy with minimum casualties to his own. He must destroy the enemies ability to wage war. Don't like it? Tough, that is how the game must be played if you intend to win. With all due respect, I suggest you ask some people who were bloody there what they think of the idea of taking the "high road" and having the war drag on for an extra year or two. You are assuming a cultural relevence that didn't exist. In their eyes, it would not have shown we were better, it would have demonstrated we were weaker. That we did not have the will to do what must be done to win the war. I believe in the US you call this sort of discussion "armchair quarterbacking"? We just ask if the view is good from the cheap seats.

AP, I think you're already in hot water already, "divine glory of the grapefruit"? I don't remember any grapefruit mentioned in the FSM creation story.

No, but if you didn't know it drew power from the other place, it would appear to be perpetual motion, or an "over unity device". It isn't, as it is drawing power from elsewhere, but if we assume this Universe is a closed system, then it would look like it. The Law of Conservation of Energy would only apply if this Universe (the visible one) is in fact a closed system. If there are other universes that we can interact with, then ours cannot be a closed system. If that is the case, then energy can pass from one to the other. Thus the total energy of this universe would increase or decrease depending on the interaction. Energy would appear to be being created and destroyed and would appear to contradict the rules. It isn't of course, the rules just work in a larger framework. See what I'm getting at? Once again, I'm not suggesting that any PM device, or any device for that matter works this way, but one day one might and be dismissed because it appears impossible. [edit] Anyone ever read "Waldo" by Heinlein? That sort of idea.[/edit]

And get stuck in a cage as "Ancient Human, Exhibit 1" Danny there is a beautiful world out there, at 17 you haven't seen enough of it for a full opinion. It may sound trite, but remember that the sky is always blue, it just that you sometimes can't see it for the clouds. Cheer up mate. Immortality? No thanks. All I can think of is "Yes, everything dies, now." :- Lorien.

Maybe it works differently in other nations, but down here that is actually the biggest reason some people have against it. As various groups are encouraged to "stick to their own kind" it fragments the society into little groups, usually along ethnic lines. This is generally quite divisive and allows the groups to played off against one another by politicians. For 10 points; Which city was known as "The shining jewel in the crown of Multiculturalism" when it hosted a Winter Olympics?

Reading a "Perpetual Motion" thread made me think. Can the "Conservation of Energy" Law be misapplied? PM will not work in a closed system because the energy has to come from somewhere, it can't spontaneously generate. Anybody with a basic knowledge must be aware of this. But what about this scenario? If there are other Universes, Dimensions, call them what you will and if we could in some way interact with them, what if a device drew power from one of them? From the POV of the total collection of all Universes, no law is broken as the energy merely moved from one area to another. However, from the POV of the "recieving" Universe energy would appear to be coming out of thin air and thereby impossible. I'm in no way suggesting that any of the PM devices yet tried work on this principle (or work at all for that matter. ) but if such a device were made it would appear impossible due to a misapplication of principles. Consequently, if there are other Universes and we can interact in some way with them, it may be unwise to dismiss PM out of hand without finding out the principles involved first. Thoughts?

Bugger, I missed it, must have slept in that day.

if life hadn't arose? I was thinking about it earlier, does anyone have any ideas? A warmer, wetter version of Mars with a really poisonous ocean? Any suggestions for further reading would be welcomed.

Pangloss, why is it that every time I see your avatar, all I can think of is "Mine!"?

I have to buy into this, I'm white and it came across as bloody insulting. Firstly lets take traditional aboriginal art. This is in no way primitive, to say that only shows a lack of knowledge of the art. If we take the image of a kangaroo that most people can think of. The colours and stripe/dot pattern show which parts of the animal are safe to eat and in what direction to cut the meat. One picture is an entire anatomy lesson and cookbook. That would be the first time I've ever heard the Boomerang or Woomera called "primitive". There is some debate about exactly when they arrived. It is thought that it may have been as recent as 12-14,000 years ago during the last Ice Age. The land bridge to Indonesia was almost complete at that time. Added to facts that the much earlier rock art is of a very different nature to the more recent and the Aboriginals have legends of a much older people that they displaced. The issue as the exact time of arrival is still in doubt. No, they didn't invent farming. There were two main reasons for this; 1. Hunter gathering worked quite well. And 2. Most of the land is bloody poor. For crying out loud the white settlers with their far more advanced techniques had a hard job of it. Note for non Aussies, whereas you might graze 20 sheep per acre, in many areas we graze 20 acres to the sheep. As to the physical appearence of the Australian Aboriginal, it is perfectly in keeping with the hot dry climate found in many areas of Australia. Nothing unusual at all. Phi, there is indeed evidence that they killed off the the larger animals, but it is highly unlikely that these creatures could ever have been domesticated. Monitor lizards some 10 metres long, carnivorous kangaroos 3 metres high? The Marsupial Lion was more than a match for the African Lion. The Australian megafauna was the most vicious the world had at that time. There were simply no animals of the required size that could be domesticated with the technology of the time. Even a herd of the everyday herbivorous Kangaroo would require a paddock with a 5 metre high fence around it to keep them in. They need a fair amount of grazing space and if they have that they can get up speed and go straight over a 3 metres high fence. Don't think "Skippy" here. We don't show visitors the big ones at the tourist attractions. I've shot some of these suckers that are nearly 7 feet tall. They are big, mean and very dangerous.

I vote yes. Life arose here out of basic elements. These same elements are present on all planets. If given the right temperature some sort of primordial soup should occur on other worlds. So life should begin elsewhere in the same fashion as it did here. Intelligent life is another matter, but I view it as probable.

Yes, I think it was. When compared to the manpower and money used for the first NASA manned shots. Sort of like a backyard builder making a 12 seater passenger plane. Not very impressive compared to a Jumbo, but quite an achievement in it's own right.

It is time to reveal the secret of my shameful past to this community. I once *sob* sold insurance. Oh God, the shame. A few things to know about insurance; 1. It is based entirely on statistics. 2. The stats go back a looooong time and are cross referenced. 3. Most of the insurance companies don't carry their own risk. Dealing with point 3 first. A company will buy insurance from a reinsurer (a very large multi national company) at $x per $1000 insured, they will put a mark up on the $x and then sell it to you, the consumer. What this means is that when you make a claim, they make a claim from the reinsurer. The reinsurer is the one who really uses the stats to set the prices. Or your own insurer if they carry their own risk. For cars the insurance stats go back to the first "horseless carraiges" and even to the horse and buggy. (Life Insurance stats go back some 400 years. Seriously.) From the statistics, they cannot tell if you, Bobby Joe will have a claimable accident next week. They can tell that of the group you are in (age 20 next birthday cross indexed with the value and type of car you drive [plus if they want to the suburb you live in]) 4 per thousand will have an accident with an average claimable value of $1234.56. (Figures for illustrative purposes only. ) And that sets the premium. One of the reasons for premium varience is that a reinsurer is carrying the risk over a number of nations whereas a local insurer is carrying the risk for one nation or state. So the reinsurer's risk factor may be only 3.9 accidents per thousand when spread over the USA, England, Germany and Australia. ( I said they were very big international companies. ) Recent statistics show that young women especially are now driving more and instead of a "girl's car" are driving faster, more powerful cars. Hence the number of claimable accidents for women are increasing as is the average claimable value. So their premiums are increasing. Does this mean that women are worse drivers than men? No. All it means is that in the past women were a better "insuance risk" than men and they are now approaching equality. For example, in the past you may have had only a 30% chance of having an accident with a woman, now it is more like a 45% chance. So why are mens premiums increasing too? Because even if the male accident rate stays steady, the female accident rate is increasing (more and faster cars, more aggressive driving techniques) so the total number of accidents is increasing. Couple this with the increase in the cost of repairing cars and everbody has to pay more. (Remember when you used to buy a headlight for $50 and now it's a "headlight assembly" for $200? Or the blinker cover plastic for $10 which is now an "assembly" for $90?)

Not a diversion at all, simply that I view it as unreasonable to draw final conclusions from insufficient data. Exactly, but "more respect" != "total respect" and "less respect != "no respect" and that is all I've been saying. As I said much earlier, it is not the topic itself but the thought processes between the two sides that I find interesting. The debate doesn't have to be about abiogenesis, it could just as easily be about whether dinosaurs were grey and brown or brightly coloured like birds. The point cannot be finally proven either way, so I find it interesting that opposite sides defend their conclusions so passionately. It's a very human thing and I find humans and their thoughts and opinions interesting. [edit]Yourdad, are these fairies related to the little man in the fridge who turns the light on? [/edit]

I just saw this one. Still chuckling. Why is it creationists bring out the best quotes?

I'll see if I can find the figures or the report. The University of Queensland did a series of tests at one of our driving ranges. They literally had people do the obstacle course while legally drunk or talking on a mobile. Hands free phones were tested as well. IIRC the results were that driving while talking was equivalent to driving with a blood alcohol content above .08. A hands free kit did not significantly alter the results. Recently there have been tests on texting while driving. The worst part of the result was that the driver spent 12 out of every 20 seconds looking at their phone rather than the road. Now that's scary. NB. In this case a "driving range" is not a place for people with an innate desire to abuse small white balls with a club, but a large paved area for teaching advanced motoring techniques.

Thanks for the response Sayo. I wonder if you still misunderstand my point though. I wasn't trying to "bump up" creationism or make abiogenesis seem less likely as you suggest. I was just calling it as I see it. As I see it, "credibility" is in the eye of the beholder. Evidence that is credible to one person is not to another. Whether evidence is credible or not is a function of a persons belief system. To you, of the two sets of evidence one is credible, one is not. There are people who look at it the other way. For the dispassionate observer, how are they to judge whos belief system is right? I'm merely trying to be impartial and dispassionate. As I said, I believe in abiogenesis, I view it to be the most probable explanation. (By a long chalk ) It's just that since there is no final proof I'm not willing to say the creationist are wrong. I will say that it's extremely unlikely that they are right.

I was thinking about this thread as I was driving to work. I realised I should have put things differently. Sayo hit it on the head. With the current evidence, which I fully accept it is far more likely that abiogenesis is the correct method for the beginnings of life. As I said earlier in this thread, I lean that way myself. (Almost to the point of falling over in fact.) As there is no direct evidence (and without a time machine there probably never will be. ) then all there is is circumstantial evidence. That's just how it is. Circumstantial evidence may make a good case, but it is "legally low" compared to direct evidence. This is not some desperate measure, just a statement as to the situation. If you have any direct evidence, then do tell, otherwise my statement stands. Which is exactly what I do conclude. Looking at the question dispassionately, it is at least a million times more likely that abiogenesis occurred rather than creation, but this does not rule out creation. (It is just very, very unlikely.) Taking the middle ground, looking at both sides. Can either side offer direct evidence? No, they both offer circumstantial evidence. Is the circumstantial evidence of one side stronger than the other? Bloody Oath it is. But the only thing that a reasonable and unbiased person can conclude from the evidence is that abiogenesis is (possibly infinately) far more likely to be the cause of life. "Far more likely" is not "is". And that, sir, is all I'm trying to say.

Sorry to come back late. Thank you Mokele, I was referring only to the abiogenesis of life on Earth. Swansont, sorry if I gave another impression, I shall have to be clearer next time. Aardvark, I'm not confusing two issues at all. To be very clear, there is a process called evolution that occurred after the beginning of life on Earth, that I believe there more than sufficient evidence to conclude that the process is as described. (The theory will no doubt be revised over time to incorporate new evidence, but the basic mechanics of it will remain as they are sound.) There is also a particular event. The abiogenesis of life on Earth. This is a totally different question and is in no way connected to the evolutionary process athat occurs after life has begun. (There is perhaps the argument that abiogenesis is part of the evolutionary process, but it would be hard to apply evolutionary pressures to chemicals.) Perhaps it is the way I look at things, but all I'm saying is that if it came down to a court case, there is no "proof" either way. There is indicative evidence, which if you think about it is on the same level as circumstantial evidence in a court case. This is the lowest form of proof in the legal profession because it allows for individual interpretation. My point about the two sides is that neither can offer concrete proof, only indicitive evidence. Just that and nothing more.

Thank you sir, that was what I was hoping to hear. Agreed, once the process is shown, then the onus would be on a detractor to show why it wouldn't hold true. I thought it may have been observed in fruit flys or similar, but I didn't know. I was sure you would though. Thanks. True. I think his main point was that since there is no evidence either way, it is perhaps unreasonable to rule out any of the possible explanations. Personally I don't have a particular problem with either of the two competing ideas about the origin of life on Earth. Creator or random chance, I don't think it really matters. (I lean toward the random chance thing though) I'm more interested in the thought processes of the protagonists. We have two competing ideas, neither with any evidence to prove them correct. As you say, a study of the clays of the time show that it *could* have happened one way, but it also *might* have happened the other. Consequently when we choose a side it's for no better reason than we prefer that idea. I find it interesting that both sides are actually in the position of having a belief without proof whilst arguing that the other side's beliefs are wrong because they have no proof. As Spock would say "Fascinating".

Dak, I could only get the abstract. How do you use that data base? Also I was looking for Australian stats as I'm from Brisbane. What I find interesting is the Auditor Generals Report. Even though there is greater flouridation in Victoria than Queensland (only about 5% of Q'landers recieve flouridated water) Victoria has twice the incidence of missing teeth than the national average. The report shows a statistical advantage to flouridation when comparing flouridated to non flouridated Victorian communities, but brushes off the fact that flouridated areas of Victoria still have a higher incidence of caries than non flouridated Queensland. The mere fact that after 60 odd years of flouridation, there is still no compelling and clear evidence for an advantage to flouridation shows it to be of little benefit.

I did read something on this subject a number of years ago and it appears to be a drug. The effect is to slow heart rate and respiration to a virtually nonexistent state and the person appears dead. A secondary effect is to depress the willpower/mind in the victim, once "resurrected" they are for all intents and purposes a living robot. The drug is constantly readministered in a lesser dosage to keep them in that state. The thing I found interesting is that the victims must not be fed salt as it will almost instantly counteract the drug. Combined in food is okay, but give the victim a sprinkle of the white crystals by themselves and he/she will recover. Basically, it was used for creating a slave force that could never rebel.

I must admit to being disappointed. BobbyJoeCool is definately more of an "Intelligent Designer" than a "creationist". The main point he brought up was not addressed, nor even responded to. (And he was being polite the whole time.) The simple, inescapable fact is that there is actually no way to prove whether life first originated in the bowl of soup by accident or by design. As it cannot be proven either way, then any view is only an opinion and the last I heard, opinion is not science. And how is the idea of life spontaneously generating out of the "soup" falsifiable? If that is your criteria, then you are in just as much trouble as the creationists, aren't you? This was the point he was trying to get across. For the record, I am in no way a creationist. I view that since there is no proof either way, then to be dogmatic in either view is intellectually dishonest. I would also point out that of the original list, personal attacks and flames were first used in this thread by the "evolutionists". Mokele, as an aside, and I'm asking this as I really don't know, but I'm bloody sure you do. While modification has been observed within a species, has there ever been enough divergence observed to justify the offspring being named as a new species? I would expect not due to lack of observation time and lack of sufficient evolutionary pressures, but have you heard of it being observed?