<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/abc" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Remote World - a Spinuzzi's blog</title>
	<link>http://www.remote-world.com</link>
	<description>Discussions on Truth, Common Sense, and, sometimes, Idiocy</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:26:23 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on I get a bra just when I need one the most. by wicho</title>
		<link>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-57</link>
		<dc:creator>wicho</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-57</guid>
		<description>Steve, where you the one that wrote the story?  I was wondering if you guys completed the whole trainning?  Where you guys cadets? what were the requirements to get accepted and to join Los Kaibiles?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve, where you the one that wrote the story?  I was wondering if you guys completed the whole trainning?  Where you guys cadets? what were the requirements to get accepted and to join Los Kaibiles?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Can someone here tell me how the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution? by admin</title>
		<link>http://www.remote-world.com/2007/04/18/second-law-of-thermodynamics-disproves-evolution/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.remote-world.com/2007/04/18/second-law-of-thermodynamics-disproves-evolution/#comment-53</guid>
		<description>As our science gets more refined (by the increase of data we can verify) evolution as an explanation of how life came about and how we ended up with the organs and species we have is being discredited - not the reverse. Certainly the mathematical probability of a successful evolutionary change is so small that any successful changes would most likely be negated by some other disadvantageous change or simply by extinction of that genetic line by predators, cataclysm, climate change, etc. The chances of the process of evolution "creating" the diversity and organs we see in nature is so small that to believe in such a process one must have much more faith in the process having occurred than is required by the belief in intelligent design. Science is not a force or a person, it is the study of our universe - and so far that study does not support a rational evolutionary theory as the explanation for said universe - especially when evolutionary theory must ignore the laws of physics to 'work'. This does not seem to keep people from rather believing in evolution as a faith, which is what it is.  It denies common sense.

&lt;strong&gt;To get a sense of the probabilities involved&lt;/strong&gt; read "&lt;a href="http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.&lt;/a&gt;"
  Here is an excerpt:

&lt;blockquote&gt;"The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (that's the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion light years square (about 1 x 10^150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a "room" full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10^180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our "room" full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!"&lt;/blockquote&gt;

BTW, facepalm, science &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; validate the Intelligent Design theory, as much as it can, being "inside the box".  If &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; would do some "real" research you will discover the absolute impossibility of the earth's biodiversity - and, indeed, life itself - having it's origin through evolution alone. There had to be design and energy added to the equation. What you are spewing here is the kind of propaganda we are fighting. I fear you will soon be in the embarrassing position of finding yourself discredited, kind of like Al Gore...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As our science gets more refined (by the increase of data we can verify) evolution as an explanation of how life came about and how we ended up with the organs and species we have is being discredited - not the reverse. Certainly the mathematical probability of a successful evolutionary change is so small that any successful changes would most likely be negated by some other disadvantageous change or simply by extinction of that genetic line by predators, cataclysm, climate change, etc. The chances of the process of evolution &#8220;creating&#8221; the diversity and organs we see in nature is so small that to believe in such a process one must have much more faith in the process having occurred than is required by the belief in intelligent design. Science is not a force or a person, it is the study of our universe - and so far that study does not support a rational evolutionary theory as the explanation for said universe - especially when evolutionary theory must ignore the laws of physics to &#8216;work&#8217;. This does not seem to keep people from rather believing in evolution as a faith, which is what it is.  It denies common sense.</p>
<p><strong>To get a sense of the probabilities involved</strong> read &#8220;<a href="http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html" rel="nofollow">Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!<br />
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.</a>&#8221;<br />
  Here is an excerpt:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (that&#8217;s the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion light years square (about 1 x 10^150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a &#8220;room&#8221; full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10^180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our &#8220;room&#8221; full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>BTW, facepalm, science <em>does</em> validate the Intelligent Design theory, as much as it can, being &#8220;inside the box&#8221;.  If <em>you</em> would do some &#8220;real&#8221; research you will discover the absolute impossibility of the earth&#8217;s biodiversity - and, indeed, life itself - having it&#8217;s origin through evolution alone. There had to be design and energy added to the equation. What you are spewing here is the kind of propaganda we are fighting. I fear you will soon be in the embarrassing position of finding yourself discredited, kind of like Al Gore&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Can someone here tell me how the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution? by facepalm</title>
		<link>http://www.remote-world.com/2007/04/18/second-law-of-thermodynamics-disproves-evolution/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>facepalm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:22:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.remote-world.com/2007/04/18/second-law-of-thermodynamics-disproves-evolution/#comment-51</guid>
		<description>The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").  Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation  in a specific case) has indeed been has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.

The criticism is rejected by the scientific community, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution as used in mainstream science relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community. While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic. The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".

For more information do some real research rather than just going to a creationist propaganda website.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The term &#8220;macroevolution&#8221; frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species (&#8221;microevolution&#8221;), but deny that one species can evolve into another (&#8221;macroevolution&#8221;).  Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (&#8221;macroevolution&#8221;, i.e. speciation  in a specific case) has indeed been has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.</p>
<p>The criticism is rejected by the scientific community, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution as used in mainstream science relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as &#8220;microevolution&#8221; and denying that &#8220;macroevolution&#8221; takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth&#8217;s biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community. While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the &#8220;fact of evolution&#8221;.</p>
<p>Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using &#8220;strategically elastic&#8221; definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic. The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is &#8220;any change at the species level or above&#8221; (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is &#8220;any change below the level of species.&#8221; Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as &#8220;just microevolution&#8221;.</p>
<p>For more information do some real research rather than just going to a creationist propaganda website.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Pain&#8230; and the best laid plans of men (this man) -updated by Nicole</title>
		<link>http://www.remote-world.com/2010/02/23/pain-and-the-best-laid-plans-of-men/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Nicole</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:12:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.remote-world.com/2010/02/23/pain-and-the-best-laid-plans-of-men/#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Hi John,

Remember me? You came to my office and while you did a great job updating our computer equipment, you were most memorable for your great attitude; it was alot of fun talking with you. 

I'm sorry to hear that your back is keeping you down right now, I have a similar recurring injury in my back. It hasn't flared up for several years now, but the pain is no less memorable.  

Hope you get better soon! 

Nicole</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi John,</p>
<p>Remember me? You came to my office and while you did a great job updating our computer equipment, you were most memorable for your great attitude; it was alot of fun talking with you. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m sorry to hear that your back is keeping you down right now, I have a similar recurring injury in my back. It hasn&#8217;t flared up for several years now, but the pain is no less memorable.  </p>
<p>Hope you get better soon! </p>
<p>Nicole</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I get a bra just when I need one the most. by lee garner</title>
		<link>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>lee garner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:16:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-49</guid>
		<description>pick you up and snap you like twigs</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>pick you up and snap you like twigs</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I get a bra just when I need one the most. by lee garner</title>
		<link>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator>lee garner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-48</guid>
		<description>who you calling fat arse you short whimp</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>who you calling fat arse you short whimp</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I get a bra just when I need one the most. by Steve Place</title>
		<link>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Place</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-47</guid>
		<description>Up top in the formation photo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Up top in the formation photo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I get a bra just when I need one the most. by Steve Place</title>
		<link>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-46</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Place</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:20:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-46</guid>
		<description>Isn't that that old guy with the messed up ribs to your actual right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#8217;t that that old guy with the messed up ribs to your actual right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I get a bra just when I need one the most. by Steve Place</title>
		<link>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-45</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Place</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-45</guid>
		<description>April 1991, that is.  

Also, Dwayne Convirs was there, too.  He's got the largest paintball game in the U.S. in Wyandot, Oklahoma.. 918-666 ????.   is his phone number.   "The Bunker" is his place.

Capt. Rodriguez was still alive...so was Mike for that matter.

Steve</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>April 1991, that is.  </p>
<p>Also, Dwayne Convirs was there, too.  He&#8217;s got the largest paintball game in the U.S. in Wyandot, Oklahoma.. 918-666 ????.   is his phone number.   &#8220;The Bunker&#8221; is his place.</p>
<p>Capt. Rodriguez was still alive&#8230;so was Mike for that matter.</p>
<p>Steve</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I get a bra just when I need one the most. by Steve Place</title>
		<link>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Place</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:16:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.remote-world.com/2009/08/23/i-get-a-bra-just-when-i-need-one-the-most/#comment-44</guid>
		<description>I was there in April with Clint, Rusty, Doc Coffee, Stefano, Frode and that fat-assed Lee Garner!   

 Who is this?

Steve "Ocho"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was there in April with Clint, Rusty, Doc Coffee, Stefano, Frode and that fat-assed Lee Garner!   </p>
<p> Who is this?</p>
<p>Steve &#8220;Ocho&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
