Search results

http://panspermia.org/ is a great site, thanks for posting it. that idea is, without question, a better explanation than the bible. if that shocks anyone here, get with the program. if you combine panspermia with what i said earlier, that the first real forms of life would probably not even...

season 3 starts tonight (10/28).

part 1 of this is on tonight (10/28). part 2 is 11/4. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ http://www.wgbh.org/schedules/daytv (24 is on tonight also, so i'm taping this)

24 http://www.fox.com/24 9 PM eastern it's the best show ever.

are you sure you can make all those claims with 100% certainty (that the first "living" thing needed all those 7 requirements)? those 7 requirements are probably necessary to define what a human considers life to be (at this point, anyway). are you telling me that something maybe millions of...

funny how all the probabilities seem so bad to you, but you can pretty much find life anywhere on earth. look just about anywhere and there's some type of plant. pick up a rock and there are 10 different bugs under it. look at just about anything in a microscope and you can find bacteria. birds...

sorry, but i just don't know (the ORIGIN of life). but i will say, when you think of the first living thing, humans are probably making a mistake by thinking of it as some sophisticated thing. i'm talking extremely more simple than an amoeba. but once the ball got rolling, after millions of...

with 50/50 win/loss and payoff 1:1, no amount of money management will make this make money.

this is not necessarily my belief, but... what if there are higher beings throwing comets around. sometimes they hit planets and start life. as an analogy, think of when you walk around your yard with a bag of grass seed and throw it around.

that is more believable than the bible's explanation--and i'm not kidding.

in defense of the moderators, i don't think being a moderator should hold you back from stating your honest opinions.

save the pathetic insults. the coin toss gives you the frequency of win/loss. the payoffs have not been defined. if the win:loss is 50:50 and the payoffs are equal, obviously this won't make money. however, if the win:loss is 50:50 and the average loss is 1 point and the average gain is 2...

bung, if you're going to take that position, what did bill clinton do? for the record, i'm not necessarily blaming clinton. it is RIDICULOUS for people to blame bush for 9/11 and/or a bad economy. all this stuff is CHAOTIC and beyond ANY one man's decision making.

where did he say the payoff was equal?? he didn't.

documentary http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/born_rich/

i like you already. :cool: dgabriel, i agree with you on some things, but not this.

come back to earth, man. you may be able to do a satisfactory return on your own (after wasting a few hours of your life), but are you taking advantage of everything you can? you could probably have 10 accountants do your taxes and get 10 different results. btw, the USA tax code is...

he's stating his viewpoint and wants people on ET to hear it. there's no need for you to be an ass, but it appears you just can't help it. :-/

i used to use TC2000, too. for its purpose and the price, it's great, imo.

http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/tek1/prefixes.htm