Animal minds Just For Fun

Fri nite frite: Accused man-eating tigers released back to wild

Spread the love

Diplomatically called “conflict tigers.”

Not to worry. They have all joined Man-eaters Anonymous and are said to be diligently working through the Twelve-Stealth Program, trusting in their Overpower.

Sleep tite.

7 Replies to “Fri nite frite: Accused man-eating tigers released back to wild

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    As someone who is somewhat not quite a man, should I be worried?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: new video upload from Inspiring Philosophy:

    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....i7t6wfpg8g

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Hold the phones, scrap those “on-the-backs-of crystals”, “in the hot steaming mud”, “blazing meteorite”, “underwater thermal vent”, “alien panspermia” and “lightning strikes the pond” explanations….
    We’ve finally got it nailed it down. This time for real….

    Earth’s first life may have sprung up in ice – 01 November 2013
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....nReDZzD_IW

  4. 4
    Mung says:

    Pieces of RNA have been made that can copy RNA strands longer than themselves…

    So? Were they designed?

    …supporting the idea that the first life was based on self-replicating RNA, not DNA.

    How so?

    DNA doesn’t copy itself any more than RNA copies itself.

    Let’s assume that they mean that DNA requires proteins in order to make copies of DNA. Let’s further assume that they mean that RNA can make copies of RNA without the need for any proteins. Assume that this distinction is the basis for the claim that the first life was based on self-replicating RNA, not DNA.

    How so?

    But this is an interesting example of “inference to the best explanation.”

    We have no uniform and repeated experience of self-replicating RNA being the basis of the first life.

    We likewise have no uniform and repeated experience of self-replicating DNA being the basis of the first life.

    But for some reason we are asked to accept “self-replicating RNA” as a better explanation.

    So what happens when both “explanations” are pure BS?

    What’s more, they work best in the cold, hinting that life began on ice.

    ORLY?

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Showdown between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics:

    Physicists Eye Quantum-Gravity Interface -Oct. 31, 2013
    Excerpt: Gravity curves space and time around massive objects. What happens when such objects are put in quantum superpositions, causing space-time to curve in two different ways?,,,
    Markus Aspelmeyer, a professor of physics at the University of Vienna, is equally optimistic. His group is developing three separate experiments at the quantum-gravity interface — two for the lab and one for an orbiting satellite.,,
    Many physicists expect quantum theory to prevail. They believe the ball on a spring should, in principle, be able to exist in two places at once, just as a photon can. The ball’s gravitational field should be able to interfere with itself in a quantum superposition, just as the photon’s electromagnetic field does. “I don’t see why these concepts of quantum theory that have proven to be right for the case of light should fail for the case of gravity,” Aspelmeyer said.
    But the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics itself suggests that gravity might behave differently.
    https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20131031-physicists-eye-quantum-gravity-interface/

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Michael Medved Show Featuring Dr. Paul Nelson on Artificial Life – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_29-07_00

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

Leave a Reply