Search results

You stole my thunder :(

Perhaps, but it's not a definition in wide scientific use. All stars are magnetic, a neutron star is a neutron star, and in the context he was using, "magnetic star" meant absolutely nothing.

Wasn't that in, like, 1200 CE? :rolleyes:

Once again, with feeling. All stars are magnetic.

You're going to argue with a guy published in Nature? Because you know so much more about the Earth's magnetic field than him.

"Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better. " Uh. Yeah.

A neutron star. You didn't actually read the article past the crappy newspaper headline, did you? :rolleyes:

There is no such thing as a specific 'magnetic star'. All stars have multiple magnetic poles, and associated magnetic fields. I'm going to go ahead and assume you meant a "neutron" star, in which case, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Why do they require initiation of existence? The nature of particles themselves (for example) dictates the laws governing them. A law is not a thing.

CD701: Decay of Earth's magnetic field

Yeah, and if you'd actually looked at that data rather than relying on other people's interpretation/crap, you'd notice that the Earth's magnetic field fluctuates, "stronger" and "weaker" and flipping poles and lots of interesting activity.

You're a lot more complex than a unicellular organism. Stop being deliberately obtuse; it doesn't help your case.

Wouldn't that imply that the ultimate "complex being", God, would himself require a creator? Well, obviously evolution doesn't have much to do with star formation :rolleyes: You've got it the wrong way around. The universe came into existence the way it is because of those laws; the laws...

Uh, what the frak? What creationist bullshit is this? The Earth is closer to 5 billion years old (the age of our sun; they were formed close together), and its magnetic field has not been "decreasing at a decreasing rate". Also, wtf is a magnetic star?

So you haven't got time to learn and educate yourself. See, this is why I not bothering. Er, yes? How else would you explain how incorporation of another individual's DNA would begin? I don't see why this is a problem. It's a hypothesis, but a sound one. Convenient, huh?

Why? It's also important to note that evolution is not necessarily random. Mutations are random, but the preservation of useful mutations that lead to complex structures certainly isn't.

Arguments from design? I don't know about you, but studying biology and geology and associated crap makes me see the world as pretty damned chaotic. EDIT: And that wasn't as much of a non sequiter as it sounded. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning "end" or...

Okay, apparently I didn't make myself clear the first time, I'm not even going to try. I'm not a teacher. Read this. Evolutionary history of life And what's with your obsession with ammonia?

Yeah, I respect it. But that doesn't mean it's better than western civilisation. IDK, I'd personally take western science and medicine and literature - progression, yes.

Well, given axolotls are totally aquatic whereas tuataras are only semi-aquatic (if that), probably.