IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 1st March 2021, 03:21 PM   #41
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,504
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
She might have meant what you think, I can't tell. It could also be directed panspermia where some aliens created/adapted life forms (or spores, or whatever) and spread them through the galaxy.


ETA: Maybe Vixen can clarify was she meant.
Whatever she meant, what she actually said is unreasonable on its face.

Even if we stipulated that human intelligence emerged from evolutionary processes that were started by panspermic intelligent designers, that's not what she said. Her suggestion is that human intelligence is the alien intelligence. Again, that's not evolution. It's not even compatible with evolution as we understand it.

You seem to have a lot of patience for a vague and apparently nonsensical claim, for which no clarification or defense has been forthcoming. Why? Is there something about panspermia + intelligent design that you think isn't being given a fair chance, here?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 04:03 PM   #42
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,948
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You seem to have a lot of patience for a vague and apparently nonsensical claim, for which no clarification or defense has been forthcoming.
???

You seem confused in multiple ways.

It's only been two hours since you told me what point you had an issue with, a point which I had not responded to since I didn't even know what she meant by those words nor did that part catch my interest.
Her not being back in those two hours to clarify what she means is not a relevant issue. If you have some prior issue with her not clarifying for you then take it up with her.

I'm not sure how I could be demonstrating patience for a point that I hadn't spoken about never-mind that I hadn't even bothered to think about it since I didn't understand what she meant in that passage. Not even sure if I read that post until you quoted it.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why? Is there something about panspermia + intelligent design that you think isn't being given a fair chance, here?
There is no "why" since I'm not demonstrating any patience by not commenting on a portion of the thread I wasn't even paying attention to. And I have absolutely no reason to even think about whether an issue I wasn't even interested in is being treated fairly in this thread.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 04:17 PM   #43
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,152
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
We know that such a thing did not happen since it is extremely unlikely that there is any sort of life form which could survive a trip through empty space for thousands years, or even millions of years, and then somehow survive being adjacent to many mega-ton explosion, and yet still be intact enough to produce other life forms on this planet.
https://www.newscientist.com/article...vive-in-space/

https://www.newscientist.com/article...-space-vacuum/

https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/...vive-in-space/

And remember, that is actual life they are talking about. Meanwhile, complex organic molecules, the type that are give rise to life, seem to exist throughout the universe

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1026143721.htm
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2021, 06:52 AM   #44
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,462
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
And yet small, oxygen breathing mammals did survive and eventually became us. (by "small" mean, for example, the Eoconodon, the size of an average large dog)
Wrong extinction. I was discussing the P-T extinction.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

For any new form of life arriving on earth via, say, a meteor impact to arise and survive, it would need to be immediately better adapted to life on earth, and therefore a survival threat to the incumbent life.. that is extremely unlikely.
Exactly. Once life started on the early earth, even under the best possible conditions, new life from space has basically zero chance to compete against existing terrestrial organisms.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2021, 07:26 AM   #45
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,691
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This logic is somewhat like going down to the beach, scooping up a thimblefull of water from the sea, looking at it, and coming to the conclusion that all the talk about the danger of sharks at this beach must be wrong.
I think that is looking at the wrong end of things. Life -as we know it so the only life we can be certain can exist in this universe seems rather unadapted to the universe as a whole. Life seems to be only able to exist in a volume so small it is beyond being statistically insignificant!

Therefore there is no life in the universe!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 2nd March 2021 at 07:28 AM. Reason: Be or not to be. - well be of course
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2021, 06:35 PM   #46
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
All life on earth started as a soup. Darwinism. Not woo.
Sure. A soup that requires water as a fundamental ingredient. You're going to find it very difficult to get life working without water.

Quote:
So, if we have adapted over the millions of years of evolution to earth, we could do the same on another planet in theory.
That doesn't follow.

"If I can fit my clothes into that luggage, I can fit them into a teacup, in theory". Nope.

If there's nothing special about the environment of the Earth that makes t particularly amenable to life, you might ask yourself why it is that we don't see life on the moon, or mars, or the sun, or in interplanetary space? And with the same abundance as on the earth? If there's nothing special about this environment, why is it so abundant here but not elsewhere?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Last edited by Roboramma; 2nd March 2021 at 06:38 PM. Reason: Edited because I misread a "can't" as a "can"
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2021, 06:53 PM   #47
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Is there some missing context from the split? People seem to be reacting to things you aren't saying.

Your ideas, as stated, seem fine. Are you, though, trying to argue that humans from Earth could evolve to live on Mars? That's not plausible because evolution requires a lot of time for adaptations. Evolving on a slowly changing planet is one thing. An abrupt simultaneous adoption of many large adaptions as required by humans living on Mars would not be in the cards.

On the other hand, it is possible that life once existing on Mars and that it adapted to whatever Mars was.
I have no problem with the idea of panspermia. It seems quite consistent with what we know about the universe and life that something like that could happen and even may be the way in which life originated on the earth.

Vixen said something about not needing water or oxygen. I find the latter quite reasonable, but the former very unlikely, at least for early stages of life.

As you said I also don't think that the implications Vixen draws for humans adapting to other environments follow. We're already adapted to the earth, and some environments are probably more difficult for life to adapt to than is the earth.

There is certainly some truth in the idea: earth-life is very well adapted to the earth. Some of that is because it evolved to be so. In another environment it would have evolved in different ways with different adaptations. But to some extent it seems like the earth really is more hospitable to life in general than are most planets out there. Water/carbon based life really does seem to be maybe the best way to do complex nano-machines capable of self-replication, and the Earth is a pretty good environment for that.

Life may have evolved on Mars. I wouldn't even be that surprised if there's still some there. But if it did or is, Earth sure seems like a better environment for life than Mars is. The climate is more stable, there's more water, there's more free energy. And when we look there's certainly a lot more biomass and total energy use by life over here. I may misunderstand Vixen, but he seems to think that Earth and Mars are equally hospitable.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2021, 06:53 PM   #48
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,504
Seems to me that life requires two things.

The first is an environment where complex chemical reactions can happen, and complex chemical compounds can stably exist.

The second is an energy gradient of sufficient slope. Which is to say, a surplus of energy at one end, that can be diverted into complex chemistry, before reducing to heat energy at the other end.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2021, 09:21 PM   #49
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,621
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Sure. A soup that requires water as a fundamental ingredient. You're going to find it very difficult to get life working without water.



That doesn't follow.

"If I can fit my clothes into that luggage, I can fit them into a teacup, in theory". Nope.

If there's nothing special about the environment of the Earth that makes t particularly amenable to life, you might ask yourself why it is that we don't see life on the moon, or mars, or the sun, or in interplanetary space? And with the same abundance as on the earth? If there's nothing special about this environment, why is it so abundant here but not elsewhere?
Your logic is seriously flawed. In early Mars, water flowed. So it must have had a reasonable temperature. Plus everything else that life requires. Now a rock is ejected from Mars and ends up on early Earth. This is Earth where there was no life, but conditions were marginally suitable for life. Any life in the rock that could survive on Earth would do so. If the conditions were not ideal then it would evolve quickly to become ideal. Remember it had NO competition from life on Earth and it would only be a very basic form of life. Then it would spread and evolve into many different forms of life.

So in other words it is not trying to fit clothes into a teapot, but a different suitcase of the same volume.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2021, 10:41 PM   #50
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Your logic is seriously flawed. In early Mars, water flowed. So it must have had a reasonable temperature. Plus everything else that life requires. Now a rock is ejected from Mars and ends up on early Earth. This is Earth where there was no life, but conditions were marginally suitable for life. Any life in the rock that could survive on Earth would do so. If the conditions were not ideal then it would evolve quickly to become ideal. Remember it had NO competition from life on Earth and it would only be a very basic form of life. Then it would spread and evolve into many different forms of life.

So in other words it is not trying to fit clothes into a teapot, but a different suitcase of the same volume.
? You didn't contradict anything I said. Where is my logic flawed?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 10:39 AM   #51
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 21,521
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Sure. A soup that requires water as a fundamental ingredient. You're going to find it very difficult to get life working without water.
Post hoc ergo proptor hoc. Having observed that life forms on earth need water, your erroneous conclusion is that water is a must for life on other planets. What about viruses? They don't need water.


Quote:
That doesn't follow.

"If I can fit my clothes into that luggage, I can fit them into a teacup, in theory". Nope.

If there's nothing special about the environment of the Earth that makes t particularly amenable to life, you might ask yourself why it is that we don't see life on the moon, or mars, or the sun, or in interplanetary space? And with the same abundance as on the earth? If there's nothing special about this environment, why is it so abundant here but not elsewhere?
Maybe what we call life is different from what 'they' call life.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 10:42 AM   #52
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 21,521
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I have no problem with the idea of panspermia. It seems quite consistent with what we know about the universe and life that something like that could happen and even may be the way in which life originated on the earth.

Vixen said something about not needing water or oxygen. I find the latter quite reasonable, but the former very unlikely, at least for early stages of life.

As you said I also don't think that the implications Vixen draws for humans adapting to other environments follow. We're already adapted to the earth, and some environments are probably more difficult for life to adapt to than is the earth.

There is certainly some truth in the idea: earth-life is very well adapted to the earth. Some of that is because it evolved to be so. In another environment it would have evolved in different ways with different adaptations. But to some extent it seems like the earth really is more hospitable to life in general than are most planets out there. Water/carbon based life really does seem to be maybe the best way to do complex nano-machines capable of self-replication, and the Earth is a pretty good environment for that.

Life may have evolved on Mars. I wouldn't even be that surprised if there's still some there. But if it did or is, Earth sure seems like a better environment for life than Mars is. The climate is more stable, there's more water, there's more free energy. And when we look there's certainly a lot more biomass and total energy use by life over here. I may misunderstand Vixen, but he seems to think that Earth and Mars are equally hospitable.
Mars is not habitable for us as of now, or maybe ever. However, it doesn't follow 'there are no and never have been and never will be life on Mars'. If life forms are found, such as dead bacteria, then that implies they had some kind of moisture in the past. Maybe Mars has the type of life form that is not dependent on water as we know it.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 10:46 AM   #53
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,948
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Post hoc ergo proptor hoc. Having observed that life forms on earth need water, your erroneous conclusion is that water is a must for life on other planets. What about viruses? They don't need water.
Can you name a virus with a life cycle that never involves water? It's already debatable whether viruses are a life form or not, but in the absence of hosts (made with water) to carry out the reproduction of viruses they wouldn't have a life cycle.


Having said that I have to wonder about other fluids such as liquid methane.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 11:44 AM   #54
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 21,521
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Can you name a virus with a life cycle that never involves water? It's already debatable whether viruses are a life form or not, but in the absence of hosts (made with water) to carry out the reproduction of viruses they wouldn't have a life cycle.


Having said that I have to wonder about other fluids such as liquid methane.
According to Nature, there are three theories as to the nature of virii:

Quote:
Where Did Viruses Come From?
There is much debate among virologists about this question. Three main hypotheses have been articulated: 1. The progressive, or escape, hypothesis states that viruses arose from genetic elements that gained the ability to move between cells; 2. the regressive, or reduction, hypothesis asserts that viruses are remnants of cellular organisms; and 3. the virus-first hypothesis states that viruses predate or coevolved with their current cellular hosts.

According the latter, virus elements came before life:

Quote:
The progressive and regressive hypotheses both assume that cells existed before viruses. What if viruses existed first? Recently, several investigators proposed that viruses may have been the first replicating entities. Koonin and Martin (2005) postulated that viruses existed in a precellular world as self-replicating units. Over time these units, they argue, became more organized and more complex. Eventually, enzymes for the synthesis of membranes and cell walls evolved, resulting in the formation of cells. Viruses, then, may have existed before bacteria, archaea, or eukaryotes (Figure 4; Prangishvili et al. 2006).
ibid
Attached Images
File Type: jpg prang_nrmicro1527-i1_3_0.jpg (2.9 KB, 46 views)
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 06:20 PM   #55
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Post hoc ergo proptor hoc. Having observed that life forms on earth need water, your erroneous conclusion is that water is a must for life on other planets. What about viruses? They don't need water.
I'm not basing the need for water on the observation that earth-life requires water. I'm basing it on the fact that life requires complex chemistry and a medium for interaction. If there's some other way to do it than with water then great, but it's hard to imagine.

Viruses require water in so much as they use the water in the bodies of their hosts.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 06:24 PM   #56
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Mars is not habitable for us as of now, or maybe ever. However, it doesn't follow 'there are no and never have been and never will be life on Mars'.
Absolutely.
Quote:
If life forms are found, such as dead bacteria, then that implies they had some kind of moisture in the past.
Yep. Also, as I understand it, we already know that there was liquid water on the surface of Mars in the past.

Quote:
Maybe Mars has the type of life form that is not dependent on water as we know it.
Do you have a candidate for for something other than water that would take the place of its function in Martian lifeforms?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 06:26 PM   #57
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Having said that I have to wonder about other fluids such as liquid methane.
I think that's valid, we can't completely rule out life based on other liquid media, like liquid methane.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 07:33 PM   #58
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 28,193
What I've never understood about panspermia and similar ideas that life originated elsewhere, is why anyone thinks it would have been different for life to originate elsewhere. What would make such a planet better than this one, and what evidence exists that such a planet ever existed?

It seems backwards. If we cant quite figure out how life originated here, what mystery is solved by imagining an unknown planet and imagining how it originated there? It seems a little like another version of a god of the gaps. Assign all that we don't know to a hypothetical agent we can't know.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 07:38 PM   #59
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,948
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
What I've never understood about panspermia and similar ideas that life originated elsewhere, is why anyone thinks it would have been different for life to originate elsewhere.
Odd phrasing. Your statement implies you know how life originated here.

ETA: I had to look up panspermia again since it's seems to be used in such odd ways in this conversation. What "planet" are you talking about??

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 6th March 2021 at 07:40 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 08:40 PM   #60
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
What I've never understood about panspermia and similar ideas that life originated elsewhere, is why anyone thinks it would have been different for life to originate elsewhere. What would make such a planet better than this one, and what evidence exists that such a planet ever existed?

It seems backwards. If we cant quite figure out how life originated here, what mystery is solved by imagining an unknown planet and imagining how it originated there? It seems a little like another version of a god of the gaps. Assign all that we don't know to a hypothetical agent we can't know.
It doesn't seem that hard to understand: life could have originated here or it could have originated somewhere else and then come here. You seem to be saying that because we don't know which, we should assume that we know (that it started here). That doesn't make sense. The fact that we don't know which of those is the case means only that we don't know. I don't see the problem with admitting our ignorance.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2021, 11:34 PM   #61
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,145
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
If we cant quite figure out how life originated here, what mystery is solved by imagining an unknown planet and imagining how it originated there?
The questions of where and how life originated are independent. Even if there was a plausible and well understood mechanism for how it could have originated on earth, that would not rule the possibility that it originated elsewhere and was seeded here before that happened.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.