evolution unravled

[Ophiolite]

Welcome to the forum False_Peace. Allow me to address several of your points.

I find it rather ridiculous that many people on these forums think that poking fun at comments and posts made by others is an acceptable way to conduct oneself in a constructive argument?

Well, it is arguably rude. I grant you that. I'm not too sure why you find it ridiculous, but that's probably neither here, nor there.

Now, Jesus Freak is not offering a constructive argument. I have already been officially censured for calling him a retard, so here I'll just restrict myself to calling his supposed arguments retarded. If he was offering valid, substantiated, objective observations, ideally backed up by citations to peer reviewed research literature, or even outlining a philosophical, or religious position that was cognisant of great philosophers and religious thinkers of the past, then he would be entitled to a mature and thoughtful response.
Since he was talking juvenile crap and spouting immature drivel he was a fair target for any concatenation of ridicule, insult and dismissal that came his way.

Does this mean you can belittle the author of the post and act like an intellectual bully behind your computer screen…?

If someone chooses, wholly of their own volition, to come onto a science forum and reveal the profound depth of their ignorance and the dire condition of their intellectual capacity, they should not be surprised if they are dealt with contemptuously. (Speaking as left wing liberal greenie, with strong socialist tendencies, I'd have to say hangings to good for them.)

And in passing, I'm certainly not hiding behind my computer screen. I am perfectly willing to tell Jesus Freak to his face that I believe him to be a retard.

And since when did the age of an author validate or invalidate an argument?

I have no idea who went down this line, but probably they are suffering the after effects of their lobotomy.

The truth of the matter is that JesusFreak points to perfectly legitimate arguments against evolution. …

Dream on sonny.

For all you people out there that are still hanging on to Evolution as your justification to shun creationism and the rules, morality and accountability that go along with it (Christianity as an example), I have news for you:

Now you could start to annoy me. Now you are becoming not only ignorant, but offensive. Your self righteousness reeks to high heavens. So high that I am confident God will throw you into purgatory for a few millenia until the smell has worn off. Disgusting!!

1. Missing links? The amount of evidence used to prove that missing links to man and any other species on the entire planet can fit into a box the size of a coffin with room to spare… In reality, missing links should be fossilized everywhere on the planet… sadly none have been found.

Oops. I should have read this first. I didn't realise you were another retard. Only a retard could fail to have been unaware of the vast volume of data and fossils relating to missing links. The depth of your ignorance is appalling. If you paid for your education, demand an immediate refund. I shall be happy to appear on your behalf as a character witness.

 

[spidergoat]

No way man...you'll see... evolution will be overturned by popular decree in a couple years! It's going down, man! Game over!

 

[electrafixtion]

Nah - environmental factors are 100% responsible - all data so far points to that conclusion - remember that when discussing the environment that includes both abiotic and biotic factors.

Give us an example of evolution being shaped by something other than environment - or factors other than evnvironment playing even a small role

That's not fair. All of a sudden by your definition the environment contains internal and external influences simply because we can connect the organism to it. That's far too general.

How can the environment "guide" anything? It's not mutating or directly acting on anything. The guide is within that which is mutating. The guide is that which adjusts and directs each independent organisms mutation. Whether that mutation be a reaction or a quirk. Albinos are not a result of the "environment" unless you start including within the "environment" that which shouldn't be, like food for instance. Mutation is an internally motivated act based on the host, not the host's environment.

This is where I run into serious problems with a self contained system of evolution. (I mean a system that is completely facilitated with a a fully inter dependent means) Genetics are based on a code like configuration. Since we are becoming more and more familiar with understanding this complex coding process, does it not make logical sense that a means of genetically programming such a code would be far and away necessary for such a vast array of dynamic responses to successfully attune themselves to?


Please explain to me how the Platypus's environment was responsible for it's evolution.

In fact, you can pretty much take the sum total of Madagascar and Australia and apply these same curiosities to them.

*junk*How about the warm blooded "reptile like" creature known as the Tuatara? What is that, unguided evolution in reverse sideways?*junk*

Big Edit Here and I'm fessin' up:

How about the cold blooded "warm blooded like" reptile critter known as the Tuatara? What is that, unguided evolution in reverse sideways?

So many questions. Unguided evolution thus far has supplied few solid answers to specific curiosities, although it does a damn fine job at basic process.

 

[Bishadi]

I find it rather ridiculous that many people on these forums think that poking fun at comments and posts made by others is an acceptable way to conduct oneself in a constructive argument? Not everyone agrees with your views….so what? Does this mean you can belittle the author of the post and act like an intellectual bully behind your computer screen…?

take is first hand; the complacent are often bound to a complacent acceptance; the religious do it and the business of knowledge imposes it.

The only item that breaks the chain of ignorance is honesty.

for example: every human child EVER born came from women, not man (Male)

and in biology most can see when a cell divides it is giving a portion of itself (adams rib analogy)

and in the sciences, they live by the 2nd law of thermodynamics but convey the 'evolution of life' came from a single celled critter, such that life, since then is still alive, just evolved; which is a simple example to STATE the 2LoT is wrong

The truth of the matter is that JesusFreak points to perfectly legitimate arguments against evolution.

not neccessarily

he is using worded questions that have been around for a long time and they are not created to assist in developing knowledge but to maintain a divide between the disciplines

people pick and choose what they like, such that if the sciences were not at least 2000 years beyond the religions, then that keyboard you are tapping into would be the devols... and evil, and bad, and why are you even here reading.........!?!??

For all you people out there that are still hanging on to Evolution as your justification to shun creationism

Magic does not exists and since mankind could never define how existence came to be, then man began suggesting God created and even said it was in 7 days etc....

(which would mean dinosaur bones were put into the ground simply to reduce unemployment)

and the rules,

name a bishop, pope, religious leader, etc.... that follows the rules?

morality

i suppose what is happening in the middle east was a moral obligation?

perhaps the crusifixion was a moral obligation?

i suppose teaching the children to believe in fibs is a moral obligation

and accountability

what is accountability when someone can just say 'praise the name of ''''''''''''''''' and be forgiven?

most do not realize if that be the case then Charles manson just might be bunked up next to you in heaven.... (but facts show, nothing is UNDONE)

Evolution as a theory to the origin of man or any life form for that matter falls so entirely and pitifully short, it’s almost comical…

evolution is a word to define the progression noted in origins of species.

Seems there is more validity in what was described and what every person on earth can go see for themselves, than most religious interpretations (most all of them are short of defining, as a witness, that can be confirmed by anyone alive............ pretty much every religious idea of magic is a cop out to the unknown)

1. Missing links? The amount of evidence used to prove that missing links to man and any other species on the entire planet can fit into a box the size of a coffin with room to spare…

an irresponsible comment......... you were talking about perhaps ONE high school

but simply to see that a monkey has a huge amount of the human genes shares, a direct lineage but since the current sciences do not observe it this way does not mean the current sciences are correct either

what it shares is that often interpretations are what causes and create the divide

In reality, missing links should be fossilized everywhere on the planet… sadly none have been found.

ooops... that is like stating God only gave one religion the correct knowledge

or perhaps, 'we the people' are looking in the wrong places

maybe God is a blue Kid named krishna and became a god because he services 16000 women; how many guys here have that record?

how many guys would call ANY man who could do that a GOD?

2. Mutations?

is that the same as schism?

divided and changing over time based on the environment...?!?

3. Radiocarbon Dating?

I know that one just bugs me too

carbon 14....

we all of carbon 12

chemically speaking 6 electrons 6 protons and 6 neutrons

God knows we all based on the carbon 12 and have 666 all thoughout our living bodies.........

(ever had your head branded before?) welcome to the party

for all of you evolutionists out there who are still being spoon fed lies by scientists w/o a shred of evidence…..I feel really sorry for you…

knowledge as a whole has evolved (be honest, feel the truth)

and it is within GOD (existence) that evolution continues.

nothing will change what existence does

but either the honest will evolve with knowledge or anyone can go back into history to see, either evolve or be extinct!



It is the OLD ways the ill regard for truth that has maintained this divide;

be certain the children will judge, with such a vengence most religious will wish they were not born!


ie.... you want to build the divide, then guess who will lose from that simple creation

 

[electrafixtion]

Welcome to the forum False_Peace. Allow me to address several of your points.
Well, it is arguably rude. I grant you that. I'm not too sure why you find it ridiculous, but that's probably neither here, nor there.

Now, Jesus Freak is not offering a constructive argument. I have already been officially censured for calling him a retard, so here I'll just restrict myself to calling his supposed arguments retarded. If he was offering valid, substantiated, objective observations, ideally backed up by citations to peer reviewed research literature, or even outlining a philosophical, or religious position that was cognisant of great philosophers and religious thinkers of the past, then he would be entitled to a mature and thoughtful response.
Since he was talking juvenile crap and spouting immature drivel he was a fair target for any concatenation of ridicule, insult and dismissal that came his way.

If someone chooses, wholly of their own volition, to come onto a science forum and reveal the profound depth of their ignorance and the dire condition of their intellectual capacity, they should not be surprised if they are dealt with contemptuously. (Speaking as left wing liberal greenie, with strong socialist tendencies, I'd have to say hangings to good for them.)

And in passing, I'm certainly not hiding behind my computer screen. I am perfectly willing to tell Jesus Freak to his face that I believe him to be a retard.
I have no idea who went down this line, but probably they are suffering the after effects of their lobotomy.

Dream on sonny.

Now you could start to annoy me. Now you are becoming not only ignorant, but offensive. Your self righteousness reeks to high heavens. So high that I am confident God will throw you into purgatory for a few millenia until the smell has worn off. Disgusting!!

Oops. I should have read this first. I didn't realise you were another retard. Only a retard could fail to have been unaware of the vast volume of data and fossils relating to missing links. The depth of your ignorance is appalling. If you paid for your education, demand an immediate refund. I shall be happy to appear on your behalf as a character witness.

Sir, you are a shame to this community. There is POSITIVELY NO CALL for your childish pompous parade of pious pissyness. Can you do any justice to this forum or is this just a place for you to vent yourself?

 

[Ophiolite]

Sir, you are a shame to this community. There is POSITIVELY NO CALL for your childish pompous parade of pious pissyness. Can you do any justice to this forum or is this just a place for you to vent yourself?

Yes, yes and I love you too.

Listen carefully starchild.

Evolution is just about the best documented fact on the planet. Those who choose to ignore its reality are deserving of nothing but the utmost contempt and condemnation. By rejecting the use of their intellects, by turning away from the power of reason and logic, by failing to passionately embrace the wonders revealed by science, they turn their backs on their humanity. While I truly pity them, I am under no obligation to treat them with anything other than disdain.

If they wish to wallow in their putrefying ignorance in solitude, let them. If they wish to parade their stupidity in public they should not be surprised to be castigated.

Now go away and play with your imaginary alien friends.

 

[electrafixtion]

Yes, yes and I love you too.

Listen carefully starchild.

Evolution is just about the best documented fact on the planet. Those who choose to ignore its reality are deserving of nothing but the utmost contempt and condemnation. By rejecting the use of their intellects, by turning away from the power of reason and logic, by failing to passionately embrace the wonders revealed by science, they turn their backs on their humanity. While I truly pity them, I am under no obligation to treat them with anything other than disdain.

If they wish to wallow in their putrefying ignorance in solitude, let them. If they wish to parade their stupidity in public they should not be surprised to be castigated.

Now go away and play with your imaginary alien friends.

Good God! (proverbially of course) I just started watching this movie staring who else...that's right! Ophiolite. I LOVE it! It's called Ghost Town and the guy that dies having a rectal exam (not a spoiler as it's in the first 5 minutes of the movie) is a PERFECT match for our very own Ophiolite. I had no idea you were this talented old boy.

Please, do yourselves all a huge favor, go rent this movie and watch it knowing you are about to receive the laugh of life time.

Thank you Ophiolite! Like they say, "laughter *is* the best medicine"

 

[JesusFreak]

You said,
"or a good example of some of the lies they are telling in the link you provided, they state that turbulent waters promote high plankton growth - this is a lie - the answer is the opposite (remember I'm a marine biologist so I know this stuff inside out) for plankton to bloom a stable water column is essential."

Ok, my point was that turbulent water(floods) can produce the required conditions for plankton growth. You actually stated, "they stated turbulent waters promote high plankton growth." So, I showed you proof that floods can stimulate plankton blooms!

Before I continue let me be more specific so you will not be tempted to resort to an ad hominem fallacy again. And for your pleasure I'll cite Wiki for the definition for upwelling.

"An Upwelling is an oceanographic phenomenon that involves wind-driven motion of dense, cooler, and usually nutrient-rich water towards the ocean surface, replacing the warmer, usually nutrient-depleted surface water. There are at least five types of upwelling: coastal upwelling, large-scale wind-driven upwelling in the ocean interior, upwelling associated with eddies, topographically-associated upwelling, and broad-diffusive upwelling in the ocean interior."



Ok, is that considered stable water? I ask because one definition of stable is: So placed as to resist forces tending to cause motion; of such structure as to resist distortion or molecular or chemical disturbance; -- said of any body or substance.

I gave that definition because my next citation is from the BBC:

Upwelling boosts phytoplankton productivity and gives rise to blooms, which can be seen as increased concentrations of chlorophyll, specifically, the type called chlorophyll-a.

The grinding of plate tectonics essentially couples the temperature of the land with that of the ocean, creating the conditions for plankton to thrive.

My whole point is that your claims are questionable. Yet, you play on ambiguities to insult people. I hope you feel better about yourself.

 

[JesusFreak]

No scientist will tell you that evolution is a fact. No scientist will tell you the theory has been proven. You do not prove theories; you try to falsify them. Claiming that variations and adaptations is the same as molecules to man evolution is deceitful. Creationist believe in adaptations and variations but we do not believe that this leads to new, more complex species. There is no evidence for this and never been observed. The fossil record refutes evolution Despite the presence of a few putative transitional forms in the fossil record, transitions are rare (Darwin expected them to be everywhere). The invertebrate fossil record is virtually devoid of any transitional forms (BTW, invertebrates comprise around 90% of the fossil record) .
The fossil record demonstrates stasis not a gradual process of origin for new forms.
Superficial similarities do not imply genetic relationship.
"There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."
- Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record

 

[(Q)]

No scientist will tell you that evolution is a fact.

Here's one:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[JesusFreak]

no need for insults

Show me the quote from NASA which purportedly states this. No honest scientist claims that existence popped up out of nothing. They say the universe as we know it began at the Big Bang, that's all. The universe in this case is all of that which we can see and measure, and doesn't necessarily comprise all of existence itself.

When we say nothing we mean no space, time matter or energy. If there was none of these things prior to the big bang what is left? So when we say nothing it simply means nothing we currently know to be in existence existed before the appearance of the singularity.

"Einstein's theory of general relativity, our premier theory of how gravity works, tells us that in the cosmological setting, the concepts of time and space did not exist before the Big Bang. The Big Bang is seen as the defining event that CREATED space, time, matter, energy and gravity."

When you attack people and comment on their intelligence it undermines your argument. It clearly shows you have not received any training in logic or debating.:bugeye:

Wikipedia science articles tend to be highly reliable, especially the ones pertaining to fields where there are many knowledgeable researchers. Most of the articles are peer reviewed on a regular basis to monitor quality, and they tend to be written by knowledgeable people since the fields of study are already highly specialized. Perhaps articles about obscure math theorems are less reliable when only a handful of people in the world understand them, but anything understandable at a beginner level like yours is going to be thoroughly reviewed and edited by the scientific community. In any case, I only use the Wikipedia links because they contain references to more advanced and authoritative sources you can always check. I learned much about these sciences at a higher level of detail, from authoritative sources in the field, and I can vouch for the articles I cite.

I gave the reasons why wiki is not a reliable source and not excepted by college professors as a source. You may not like it but it is the truth. And you cannot always check their references, and there is no guarantee what you quoted will be there next time you check it. Argue all you want but you are still wrong.

In your complaint about Wikipedia above, you were attempting to dismiss the cosmological evidence for the age of the universe being roughly 13 billion years. The article I cited merely scratches the surface on discussing the abundant evidence, but I recommend you actually read it if you want to be informed. I can refer you to standard university textbooks that discuss these matters in more detail, but before you could understand them properly you'd have to first attain a proper background in basic math and physics. Are you up to the challenge? I recommend you do make an effort over the next several years to learn this stuff, then you can see how little your religious "educators" actually know about science when they attempt to dismiss it.

Many of these dates are based on presupposed bias about the universe. There is evidence in our universe for a younger age. Even non-creation scientists admit these e.g. our escaping moon! I am in college and I get my information from my textbooks, creation and non-creation scientists. Many of these creation-scientists have a Ph.d. and are from prestigious colleges. How much time have you spent in research and in school? What right or authority do you have to insult and attack their intelligence and credentials?

 

[(Q)]

"There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."
- Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record

This quote is from a letter from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland. The next few sentences are:

"... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_patterson2.html

 

[JesusFreak]

That is hilarious.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact."
"Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth . . ."

I guess fact can also mean fiction too.

 

[JesusFreak]

This quote is from a letter from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland. The next few sentences are:

"... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_patterson2.html

Thanks for helping me prove my point!

 

[JesusFreak]

Thank you - everyone. I do not have all the answers and I am always trying to learn more. Iron sharpens iron. I have learned much from these posts and it is time for me to move on. I will keep researching both Christian and non Christian material to get both sides of the story. This is the reason why I came in here. I do not know anything for certain - I am perpetually questioning everything. All I know is that I had a life changing encounter with Jesus Christ - the rest of it I am trying to figure out!

 

[synthesizer-patel]

That's not fair. All of a sudden by your definition the environment contains internal and external influences simply because we can connect the organism to it. That's far too general.[/quote

well that's how a biologist views the environment - a combination of physical and biological factors - sorry you don't like it but that's the way it is.

How can the environment "guide" anything? It's not mutating or directly acting on anything.

Yes it is - it is acting upon mutations - it determines which mutations are neutral, deleterious or positive. For example - consider an environment that undergoes climate change and becomes colder - those individuals that have pre-existing adaptations (resulting from mutations) to cope better with the cold ( more body fat, antifreeze blood glycoproteins, thicker fur etc etc) will be more reproductively succesful and eventually dominate that population to the extent that the previous genotype will dissappear.

The guide is within that which is mutating. The guide is that which adjusts and directs each independent organisms mutation. Whether that mutation be a reaction or a quirk. Albinos are not a result of the "environment" unless you start including within the "environment" that which shouldn't be, like food for instance. Mutation is an internally motivated act based on the host, not the host's environment.

albinioism (is that a word?) is extremely rare - why? because it is generally selected out of the population - as albinos generally are much more easily spotted by predators - so the environment determines the success of this mutation - the only reason why we have them at all is that its a recessive charateristic so the gene is protected against selection in most cases.
So again its the environment that determines its success.

This is where I run into serious problems with a self contained system of evolution. (I mean a system that is completely facilitated with a a fully inter dependent means) Genetics are based on a code like configuration. Since we are becoming more and more familiar with understanding this complex coding process, does it not make logical sense that a means of genetically programming such a code would be far and away necessary for such a vast array of dynamic responses to successfully attune themselves to?

not sure what you are trying to say here - if itsa a logical step forward from the last 2 paragraphs which - as I have now clearly demonstrated to you - are a misrepresentaion of what evolutionary theory is then we can forget about it - if its an important point please elaborate

Please explain to me how the Platypus's environment was responsible for it's evolution.

In terms of what?
morphology? physiology?
It's advanced features such as it's "beak" (its not actually a beak - its leathery) is used for electroreception to find small cryptic prey in murky waters - doubtless that aspect of the environment was responsible for the selection of the mutations that led to that. Its primitive features such as egg laying and primitive mammary glands are a result of australia breaking off froma larger landmass (pangea?) before placental mammals evolved - so it was able to eviolve in isolation from them and not subject to competition with them - that mutation passed the monotremes and marsupials by. (which again would make no sense if you think that mutation is ther guide of evolution rather than ther environment)

How about the cold blooded "warm blooded like" reptile critter known as the Tuatara? What is that, unguided evolution in reverse sideways?

evolution has no direction - if you can get over that then its a step forward to understanding the process better.

There's plenty of evolutionary curios in humans - ever wondered why so many of us suffer from back pain when we get older? its because the bone structure and musculature of our lower backs is that of a quadriped - walking on 2 legs puts a great deal of strain on this area - we still got some evolving to do.
Humans and other apes are the only mammals that need Vitamin C is out diets - all other mammals have a gene which makes it for them - ours is damaged - although it does serve as proof of our descent from other species of ape.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

JF - in relation to plankton growth you need to understand some thing called crtitical depth and stratification.

Basically this is the depth at which an algal cell's photosynthesis exceeds its mean respiration - in other words its living beyond basic survival and can get enough energy to reproduce - as water attenuates sunlight very rapidly, and as plankton move up and down the water column, there needs to be a process by which the plankton is prevented from sinking too deep for too long.
So what needs to take place for a bloom to happen is a process called stratification - this is where a density layer forms in the water - (usually a thermocline or halocline) and this acts as a barrier which the algae cannot sink beneath - so they stay in the light surface waters (the photic zone) and reproduce rapidly.
However if the water is too rough, this stratification breaks down, and the bloom will stop.
Upwelling systems do not produce particularly strong currents so stratification can still take place - in fact they encourage it as upwelling water masses are usually very cold, very saline, and very dense in comparison to surface waters.

 

[JesusFreak]

Yeah, I read something about that but they called it critical depth and turbulence. Needless to say I learned much about plankton lol. I think I am going to try an experiment to see if it can grow plankton in turbulent water if certain conditions are satisfied. I wonder if it is even feasible to do such an experiment. BTW - I reread what they said about flood and I have conceded that their language does suggest it was during the flood, and not post flood as the waters were receding. My point, however, was that flooding can create the conditions necessary for plankton bloom. I do believe in the bible, but I am skeptical of my understanding of it and of all scientific theories.

 

[JesusFreak]

Am I reading this right?

Algal models used as tools in the management of algal blooms may be inaccurate because representation of mixing processes is often oversimplified. A testable 3-D algal model for prediction of algal growth in turbulent surface waters was developed based on the Eulerian water quality model, HYDRO-3D. Out-door mesocosm experiments on the growth of the diatom Skeletonema costatum showed no evidence that diatom growth is significantly affected by light/dark fluctuations brought about by turbulent mixing, and no direct effects of turbulence on phytoplankton physiology were required in the algal model. The algal model was successfully calibrated and validated against mesocosm data and field data from Poplar Dock, London Docklands. Application of the model gave credible results for the hypothetical growth of S. costatum in Poplar Dock under a wide range of wind speeds and surface irradiances. However, differences between the results of a full 3-D simulation and a simplified 1-D representation of Poplar Dock were minimal, and no clear conclusions could be drawn on the superiority of 3-D models over 1-D models for simulation of complex flows in natural water bodies.

 

[JesusFreak]

who knows

Phytoplankton—tiny surface-dwelling ocean plants—thrive in cool waters that are rich in nutrients. Turbulent waters often provide the best environment for producing phytoplankton blooms by supplying a mix waters with differing temperatures and salinities.

NASA image by Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, Goddard Space Flight Center. Text by Michon Scott.


Bah- They may have been a little to ambiguous in their descriptions but far from out right lying