Futurama

Hi,

Does anyone know why there was no new FUT this weekend??

Because we went to war with a planet filled with balls. Don't you watch CNN? FOX had full coverage from the front line.

Can you explain what yoy mean?

"Alex Cain" wrote in message news:[email]...

"*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote:

No, he can't.

"*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote:

FOX is weird that way. Their whole lineup was repeats the 15th. Plus since they pinned down the rest of the schedule for this season: 4/22 - Bendin' in the Wind (3ACV13) 4/29 - PRE-EMPTED for Phantom Menace 5/6 - Time Keeps On Slippin' (3ACV14) 5/13 - I Dated A Robot (3ACV15) 5/20 - SEASON FINALE - Anthology of Interest II (3ACV18) I guess they felt they would re-run the episodes that got screwed up due to Football in some markets last fall and that way have more holdover episodes for next Fall/Winter since they made such a small 4th production run order (18 episodes).

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:36:28 GMT, Mike Zaite wrote:

Apparently, some religious sect was having a holiday of some sort.

--Larry

"Larry F" wrote in message news:[email]...

Damn those zealots.

"James Hammer" wrote in message news:Ac3D6.1566$[email]...

No kidding, pagan fertility festivals suck.

F those pagans! The only holiday this week is on the 20th!

YAY! IV:XX

Sweepings Fist : It's not just a noun, it's a verb.

*Please note* -- I have a tendency to post while stoned. Apologies in advance.

On 18 Apr 2001 02:28:18 GMT, [email] (Hung like a tuna can) wrote:

That must be Good Phriday.

--Larry

So?? And that means no entertainment??

Who cares about some guy being strung up on a cross 2000 years ago??

Thousands of people have been hung on crosses before and after this Jesus-guy.......

"Larry F" wrote in message news:[email]...

Yabbut, none of them claimed to be the son of a god.

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

|

Oh, I'm sure alot of them did *claim* to be the sons of various and sundry deities.

Famous qoute: "Who is this God-person anyway"

Do you know who wrote that?

BTW I totally agree...

/Henning

--- Wanna make money? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

"*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote:

I'm going on 1/2 a memory, but was it Douglas Adams?

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

|

|

I believe it was one of Oolon Kaloophit's(sp?) trilogy of philosophical blockbusters.

LooseChanj wrote:

Who is a figment of Douglas Adams imagination.

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

Hey, no need for name calling.

Yup. And you don't have to read to far in to find it, it's on page 2.

"...Not only is it [HHG] a wholly remarkable book, it is also a highly successful one - more popular then the 'Celestial Home Care Omnibus', better selling than 'Fifty-three More Things to Do in Zero Gravity', and more controversial than OOlon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters, 'Where God Went Wrong', 'Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes', and 'Who Is This God Person Anyway?'

BTW, I have a copy of HHGTTG in Windows Help file format. It's indexed and fully searchable. If anyone's interested, let me know. It's big though, over 3mb zipped.

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

Sounds like a job for alt.binaries.e-books, or maybe a.b.m.f since you brought it up here.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:19:21 -0400, Dave wrote:

Perhaps you could post it in alt.binaries.multimedia.futurama. I'd definitely downloaded it.

--Larry

Larry F wrote:

Alas, my provider doesn't offer a.b.m.f. How about a.b.m.repost? I get that one.

Dave

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:04:46 -0400, Dave wrote:

That'd work fine for me as well. Please post a notice here if / when it gets posted.

--Larry

Okay. I'll post it tonight.

Dave wrote:

Well, I tried. Twice, got NNTP posting errors both times. The file must be too big for my crappy provider.

I'll e-mail it to you if you like. I've already sent it out through mail with no problem.

Dave

Your memory serves you correct.

/Henning

--- Wanna make money? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

death

match.

chick

[email] (Larry F) writes:

Why can't they belong to some mainstream religion, like Oprahism or Voodoo?

Og Atheism...

The only true religion.. Ahm.. Is it a religion?? *LOL*

/Henning

--- Wanna make money? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"Steve VanDevender" wrote in message news:[email]...

522902969C0A7EE8

"*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote:

That's a very deceptively simple question you know.

Well.. You could argue, that beleiving that NO devine (or other supernatural powers) exist is a religion...

Well I don't know.. I just know that, there are no devine powers...

/Henning

--- Wanna make money? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

death

match.

chick

If there is no God, why were there Studebakers?

If there is no Devil, then why did they quit making them?

DGH

doug holverson wrote:

Because people drive cars, not God's.

Poor Business sense after the war?

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

Heh. I'm paraphrasing here, but it's so damn funny I gotta spread the joy:

"Grammar rule for the 21st century: An apostrophe does not mean 'LOOK OUT! Letter S on the way!'"

And a Studebaker is WHAT?

/Henning

--- Wanna make money? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"doug holverson" wrote in message news:B7059AEF.5DC5D%[email]...

supernatural

A great lost American car company that closed shop in the US in 1963 and in Canada in 1966. Made a lot of stuff that was ahead of its time regarding economy, styling, space efficiency, and aerodynamics. Sort of was the Apple of cars.

I own a 1941 Commander Landcruiser, 1947 Champion, and 1957 Silver Hawk. (Also a beige G3 and an ancient Mac Plus....)

DGH

Depends on your working definition of 'religion'. Webster's has a number of definitions, using some Atheism is a religion, using others, it doesn't.

You can't really know that, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that favors your hypothesis, there's still one chance in a billion that Jerry Falwell is right.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:12:44 -0400, Dave wrote:

It is possible to believe in a higher consciousness, cosmic awareness, astral plane etc but no central "god" character. This would certainly be a religious belief, but since there it no "god", it is atheistic.

The American Atheists were very orthodox. If you wanted to belong, you had to believe without question in the absolute non-existance of god. If you had any belief in anything beyond pure physical existence, you would end up excommunicated as a heretic.

--Larry

Beleiving in some higher level of consciouness, but not it have to be a god has a name also..

That's what the Agnostics beleive in....

/Henning

--- Wanna make money? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"Larry F" wrote in message news:[email]...

Well... Not one single part in the bible can be proved... But most of it have been proven to be directly false..

E.g. Adam and Eve was the first 2 people... That was approx 10.000 years ago.. Hmmmm...Why have we found thousands of "homo xxxxx" (xxxx = Sapiens, Neandertalis, Erectus, etc) skeletons dating up to half a million years old?

E.g. God (how is that Gos-person anyway) created the Universe.. Hmm... How??

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, *Dr�mmeFyren* stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Actually, some of the stuff that directly corresponds with archaeological evidence can be proven. Most of the rest is pure BS though.

"*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote in message news:9btjlf$ktd$[email]...

old?

What's funny is looking at the criteria for differentiating one subset of the homo xxxx from another. Using them, one could come up with dozens (if not hundreds) of separate species within what is generally termed "human".

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 05:35:11 +0200, "*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote:

o. k. we understand the bible word-by-word and treat it as a science-book. marvellous

how did the universe? ;-) no, serious, that�s why he is the ALMIGHTY. he don�tt need nothing to create all of us.

seth? sem?

these names are to be taken as symbols. not as persons.

"david e. g. meijer" wrote:

There are fundamentalists out there who believe just that. That the bible is an entirely accurate history textbook. These people scare me.

BTW, I'd like to thank Noah and his family for harboring the many disease causing virii and bacteria we have today. I'd estimate each family member must have been infected with at least several thousand of them in order for them all to survive the flood. That was most noble.

Science - proof Religion - faith

Bottom line, I'm too smart (and far too cynical) to be duped by 'religion'.

Actually, they each took their turns impregnating Mary.

The 'first family' was almost exculsively incestuous.

Dave

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:00:48 -0400, Dave wrote:

me too. but please do not blame the bible for these people.

as long as you do not think, every religious person is not as smart as you, stay cynical, i like it. (it actually means "like a dog")

?

Many religious people are very intelligent, far more than I in fact, just not in the area in question. As Jordan mentioned, religion is not the domain of intelligence.

To the ancient Greeks, yeah, but in 21st century America it generally refers to a condescending disbelief. And the feeling gets more acute when I see people like Benny Hinn and Billy Graham hawking 'god' for immense personal gain.

If *I* was a god, and someone amassed a fortune at the expense of my followers by lying about his relationship with me, I'd strike him down "with great vengeance and furious anger" to be sure.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:38:32 -0400, Dave wrote:

I think most people believe that they too smart and too cynical to be 'duped' by religion. Each person feels they believe only what makes sense to them and it's everyone else who's been duped. If there is nothing higher then physical existence then everyone with any higher belief has been duped to some degree. If it turns out that there is a god in our image (or we're in god's image), then it's the atheists who've been duped.

Although atheism does tend to attract the "full of themselves" intellectuals, they are not necessarily more intelligent. Many of them use their religion to look down their noses at other people in the same way other sects do. In the end, they were every bit as annoying as the rest of the "I'm right therefore you are wrong church of <insert your god here>".

--Larry

You might want to replace Billy Graham in that sentence with Jim Bakker or one of the other corrupt televangelists. If you've ever seen or heard Billy Graham, you would realize that he is one of the most sincere and genuine Christians on Earth.

You mean like Jim Bakker?

Paul

Bobbie said that Katie said that Susie said that her mommy told her that Dave said this on Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:00:48 -0400:

"Smart" being measured in terms of the physical accuracy of one's accepted beliefs, obviously. This must be the only correct way to measure "intelligence" -- the harboring of one's spiritual instinct, for example, or one's overall moral integrity are far inferior measurements of "intelligence." Why? Because science is more important than religion. Everyone knows that: it's been scientifically proven. Physical accuracy involves mental agility and logic. The other stuff is just fluff, and require no mental agility or logic. Duh.

The first step to a religious experience is accepting that you're not as smart as you think. Coincidentally, that's also the first step to scientific discovery.

Are you just saying that intelligence is a measurement of scienctific acuity while faith is a measurement of religious acuity? What if I had used a phrase like "too much of a free thinker" instead of "too smart" in the comment above?

But you just explained (I think) how intelligence has nothing to do with religion. Me, I think religious experiences are born from a denial of intellect. Suspension of disbelief and all that.

Deep. But I'm okay with it as long as discovery eventually does take place.

Bobbie said that Katie said that Susie said that her mommy told her that Dave said this on Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:39:19 -0400:

I wasn't saying anything directly ... and certainly not that ... but I should mention that I have not drawn a line between spirituality and organized religion, and neither in particular was referred to when I said "religion". In any case, I'd be uncomfortable associating atheism with "free thinking".

No, I didn't mean that. I'm sorry if it didn't sound sarcastic.

Religious experiences can be born from the acceptance of things other than intellect. Even more to the point, almost all experiences are born from the casting aside of "priorities" which the mind likes to attach to abstract concepts such as "love" or "intelligence" or "truth" or "evil" or "life".

Virii and bacteria have very short lifespans and evolve much more quickly.

It takes a lot of faith to believe science. Especially when evry new discovery invalidates what was previously widely held belief. Proof only exists in mathematics.

I'm smart and cynical, as well. I choose to believe what makes sense to me. I don't like religion, but I believe in God. I also believe quite a lot of scientific theory, although that takes a lot of faith as well.

Paul

it was Easter

So??

/Henning

--- Wanna make money?? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"petben" wrote in message news:B70308B8.4DA7%[email]...

"*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote:

So America is run by various sects of the Christian Cult. What can ya do?

Educate people...

Can anyone tell me just ONE good thing about religion?

The worst thing about religion is definately war... More than 95% of all wars are based on religion, thus making extremely evil..

/Henning

--- Wanna make money?? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

"*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote:

Ummm... uhhh... oh!!!! oh no that's Taco Bell not religion.....ummm. hmmm. Well it's good for controlling large populations of week willed people with incentives of post mortem reward for living a shallow dominated life. And umm...uhhh...

Yea like look at Israel. I say a group of non-aligned business men (maybe Texans or Japanese their both terribly eclectic) buy up the whole country and turn it into a parking lot or something. That will teach people around the world that fighting over land on religious grounds when land is much more important then religious beliefs.

And with this we can conclude: Religion is BAAAAD!!!

It should be outlawed, not supported by various governments (including my own)

Henning

--- Wanna make money?? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

with

to

With you all the way

/Kristian

"*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote in message news:9bor0u$2tep$[email]...

hmmm.

all

(maybe

country

around

monkey

pants

"*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote:

Supported and integrated in government? No. Outlawed? Yes sir Mr. Stalin!!

Well...

Do you have a thing against comunism?

In a lot of ways it's actually a good way of thinking...

It's extremely good to rebuild a country with... Try looking at the east block, how fast they recovered from WWII, compared to the west block..

No.. I'm not saying that it's good for administrating an existing country.. It's not something that will work, once, a country starts to get some influence.. I'm only saying that each form of politics have it's strengths and weaknesses

/Henning

--- Wanna make money? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

my

death

match.

chick

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 05:40:37 +0200, "*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote:

i hope so.

i do not know, where you get this from. the eastern part has NOT recovered till now. that was mainly because the ussr woul not allow them to benefit from the marshall plan, but the fact remains

Why do you HOPE Mike has a thing against comunism? Think about it... Most of western Europe has a left orientated govenrment.... Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, France (atleast I think they still do)... Is that also bad??

I'm not talking about how the east block looks TODAY.... I'm talking about the last part of the 40's and in the 50's

/Henning

--- Wanna make money? Click here: http://www.desktopdollars.com/gateway_click.asp?id=Fuxie

"david e. g. meijer" wrote in message news:[email]...

compared

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:40:37 +0200, "*Dr�mmeFyren*" wrote:

because it is a system that has nothing human. the theory does not take the human being into their considerations, so it cannot work like it is shown my some people. on the other hand, it did work in the ussr, till the end, and caused much pain and suffering.

that�s something different than communist. although, i do not like them much.

they are quite far away from communism. and the scandinavian left is a "sui generis"model.

and germany, well, they are what you call "thrid way" or neue mitte (new middle), they are hardly left,

here you have even communists, they are VERY bad,

well, they NEVER recovered the way the west did. and even after the wall broke down, they need more time.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 08:01:54 GMT, [email] (david e. g. meijer) wrote:

I do. It's an economic theory and it failed because there was no money in it. Plus, their newsletters are always poorly xeroxed.

But, the good thinking is all based on a false set of assumptions about human nature. People don't work harder for the common good then they would for themselves. Lacking the incentives and competition of a free market, people tend to be unmotivated. So a threat of punishment replaces the promise of a reward as a primary motivator.

Much of the 'recovery' was powered by the use of slave labor camps. People were arrested for expressing a wrong opinion or to meet a quota. Most were sentenced to 5 to 10 years of forced labor. Generally it was in sub zero conditions (1). In one prison, inmates were forced to work in a gold mine when the outside temp was -90F. The death rate was 35% per year (2).

Then there was cheap electrical power. You can save a bundle on a nuclear power plant by leaving off the expensive containment buildings. Also, you can skip a few layers of redundant safety systems, mediate the core with cheap flammable carbon and top it all off with an undertrained staff (3). Shall I even discuss radioactive waste disposal disasters? No.

On top of all that, as the previous post pointed out, the east still hasn't recovered. They made bold claims about their internal economy, but outsiders were only allowed to see select areas that were kept prosperous for show. The USSR's military expenditure averaged 12% of their GDP compared to 6% for the US. Still they were spending about the same amount of money because their economy was about 50% of America's (4).

Farm collectivization caused mass starvation. Although millions died, Stalin refused to ask for outside help while claiming to have record harvests (4). Entire families lived in apartments that were small for college dormitories in the US during the best of times.

and so on.

--Larry

(1) Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (2) The History Channel, The Most, "The Worlds Coldest Prison" (3) Chernobyl, It was in all the papers. (4) The History Channel, various programs.

I have also spoken with Russians traveling in the US in the early 1980's and later with family members who have traveled in Russia. Some of my information on living conditions comes from them.

Most wars in the name of religion are really based in money and land. Matter of fact, most wars are said to be fought in the name of some "moral cause" when really it's all about money. The Gulf War is the most recent that comes to mind. Do you think the US would have done anything to save Kuwait had they not had all of that oil?

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:08:40 -0700, petben wrote:

the us told kuwait to provoke the war actually, because of oil.

Why would this help the US?

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:32:22 -0700, petben wrote:

they prom ised iraq to keep quiet in case they would take kuwait. when the un said NO, they had weakened iraq, and got kuwait for good.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:32:22 -0700, petben wrote:

Iraq was working on atomic bombs and huge siege guns built into a hill permanently aimed at Israel's major cities. The CIA was watching them very closely and they figured they would have both finished within a year. Plus they were rebuilding land forces etc.

The rest of this is based on a lot of conspiracy theory and speculation.

The figuring was, Iraq would either nuke Israel then start shelling. Or Nuke Iran first, then attack Israel. They were running short of cash which was slowing them down. The US provoke the attack on Kuwait to give us an excuse to go in and destroy their military. If we waited, we would have ended up fighting a country with long range rockets and nukes.

Iraq's long term goal was to unite the arab world into a giant union/nation. Led of course by Iraq. They would be the only arab country with nuclear bombs. Of course, Israel has accurate missile and a small stock pile of nukes. The whole thing would have gotten very ugly very fast.

When all this was planned, Iraq was depending on the USSR to back them up. In exchange, Iraq would sell the region's oil to the USSR and shift the world economy from west to east. Since the USSR was fast going broke, they would jump at the chance to rival the US and Western Europe's economies. The Soviet's waning power put a lot of pressure on them to move quickly and the US exploited the timing.

I can't prove most of this, and frankly I don't know how much of it is true. However, that's the theory as I know it.

--Larry

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:32:44 GMT, [email] (Larry F) wrote:

snip>

i could not have put it better. remember: on a poll on arabia.com you have one wish: unite the arab world, declare war on israel, be a millionaire. more than 50% were for 1, but almost a third on 2.

petben wrote:

Uhh since when was Religion an issue with Kuwait? It was all about oil. Nobody on either side pretended it was about anything else.

And of course "Religious wars" are all about land and money. But Religion helps inflame the populations (the people who mostly want to just live and be happy) and force them to do your fighting for you.

Watch it. It's Comrade Stalin.

Ostap Bender wrote:

Thank you comrade, you saved me from the gulag there.;)

[Long select pieces of information snipped]

True, but it's not like capitalism has no problems. While its current implementation hasn't failed yet as that of communism did, it is heavily pushing its limitation and failing in many respects (if you watch Futurama you might be familiar with some of them). It's holding up now, but later on - who knows?

So the current incarnation of communism might've failed, but the idea is far from dead.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:56:02 -0400, Ostap Bender wrote:

might be right on that

as i said, there is no other way for communism to "work" than it did. that be a barbarian way, so it is to fail.

You have no actual way of knowing that. It's just a hypothetic claim based on a line of reasoning each part of which is arguable.

After all, capitalism also makes incorrect assumptions about human nature - such as that people would want to compete freely and fairly. Yet it works.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 12:46:18 -0400, Ostap Bender wrote:

no. i just look at the theory.

that is no assumption of capitalism.

discovery

That's not true, actually. Discoveries that invalidate widely accepted theories come along very rarely. One might argue that it hasn't happened since the ancient times of alchemy and such. Modern discoveries make amendements to and expand existing theories rather than overthrow them.

But that's beside the point. The only thing to be taken on faith in science is the basics of scientific discovery. The rest is game. Nothing else in science needs to be "believed in".

You choose to believe what you were programmed to believe? :-).

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:06:59 -0400, Ostap Bender wrote:

Theories, even popular ones, come and go frequently. The Lamarche's (sp?) theory of evolution stated that giraffes got long necks because each generation stretched it's neck a bit. If you lift weights, your children will be naturally stronger.

The fact that science routinely changes to include new discoveries and more important, dumps outdated theories, makes it far more believable. Religion, on the other hand, holds on to 2000+ year old fables as proven facts.

Science is a body of knowledge, some right some wrong. More important, it is the process by which that knowledge was obtained and new knowledge is added.

Most of the time that is correct, however there are always new theories coming into popularity. Just a few years ago some crackpot came up with the idea that a comet or asteroid killed the dinosaurs. Today that is the dominant theory.

One very important part of the scientific process is "reproducibility". If a paper is written properly, any other trained researcher should be able to produce the same results with the same experiment. Of course that's assuming you have an electron microscope, a Hubble space telescope, and plenty of those little test tubes with the ground glass fittings and the stoppers that go with them . . .

I can believe that.

I have worked with scientists, generally evolutionary biologists in college, and most of them did have a belief in some form of "higher power", but not organized religion. There is a huge difference between looking out into the universe and feel a sense of cosmic awareness, a commonality of all things or a sense of eternity within us all, and "this book is the absolute word of god and every word must be taken as indisputable fact or you will suffer eternal torment"

I also hung out with some atheists in college, but they were way too religious for me.

--Larry

Bobbie said that Katie said that Susie said that her mommy told her that [email] (Larry F) said this on Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:54:10 GMT:

"Religion" does that?

Larry F wrote:

Yea they are. I used to call my self Atheist until I came to realize how organized people using that moniker acted. Now I call myself (or would If people asked) a Light Anthropic (I Think it's Anthropic) Biased on the Light Anthropic principal.(Again I *think* It's Anthropic. It's been a while since I read "Brief History Of Time" Please correct me if I have the name wrong.) Things are the way they are in the universe because if they were different we wouldn't know they were. So any order apparent in the universe is mere coincidence and not a part of any "plan". But that's me I'm insane so a belief system like that works out for me.

In article ,

Perhaps not invalidate. I guess more to the point, we discover new theories that show that previously accepted theorues were just special cases. For example, we know that acceleration due to gravity is about 32 feet per second, per second. However, once scientists looked beyond Earth, it was found that acceleration due to gravity was actually a gravitational constant times mass of both objects divided by the square of the distance between the two. Imagine what our space program would have been like if we took on faith that acceleration due to gravity was also 32 fett per second per second on the moon.

I choose to believe what makes the most sense to me after 30some years of investigation. I don't believe in religion per se, because religion is more the process of worshipping a God, and the process usually becomes more important than the God, from my observation. This is what Jesus was on about when he said that the Pharisees honored tradition above God.

Paul

Paul Tomko wrote:

Apollo 8 would be somewhere near Jupiter right now.

Those minor things are more like hypotheses rather than theories. Anyhow, I didn't mean to imply science is stagnant. Simply the founding theories of many scientific fields are forged by years of trial and error, verification and reverification that little chance exists of them getting completely invalidated. However, the "outer layer" of developing subtheories/hypotheses does change all the time.

Even big discoveries, like relativistic theory, did not overthrow the previous foundation of classic theories. It expanded them.

Well, I wouldn't call it a theory. It's more of a hypothesis. It can't really be conclusively rejected or confirmed.

Yep, that's one of those basics.

That doesn't work that well in practice, though :-). Scientific experiment is still a bit of black art.

Yeah, that seems to be the thing with biologists. But I would have to agree that it is hard to accept that the complicated molecular level operations that take place in living organisms could've self-organized spontaneously, without some directing influence.