I used 10,000,000 since it is a nice round number. Since we cannot, with any reak accuracy determine the true 'beginning or earth', I thoguht maybe we could at least agree that 10,000,000 years ago the earth had some resemblence to what we have now.
Its obvious I am not doign a very good job tryign to explain how I feel about it (or, you are extremely dense, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt). I am still waiting to hear about these thermonmeters we had thousands of years ago. > > > This is an asinine argument... why 10,000,000 years? What statistical > significance does 10,000,000 years hold? What questions in the scientific > debate require 10,000,000 years worth of data to solve? Why would you > condense the data to a daily scale? What purpose does that serve? > > You're just implying ignorance by building false comparisons and using that > to recommend complete inaction. > > How much data do we need to collect before any action can be taken in your > opinion? When are we allowed to extrapolate data to suggestions of action? > > Cancer has been killing things for millions of years... yet we have only a > paltry few decades of good data: should we wait until we have some magical > ratio of "existence v. research" to consider doing anything about that? > > Jim Davis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283412 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
