toastywombel

I think this is a really novel idea.

Well I can't disagree with you there. I don't think it would be ethical to institutionalize anyone, let alone a clone. Do you think it would be ethical to clone embryos for harvesting organs, of course assuming that one would have all the scientific know how to successfully do this.

There is no scientific evidence to support that Jupiter and Saturn being aligned with the sun would disrupt the orbits of the planets enough to cause such an event or that the alignment would cause their gravitational forces to be increased in such a way.

Institutionalize the clone maybe.

I would hardly consider Joe Lieberman a Noble statesmen, just my personal opinion, but other than that, I am inclined to agree with that the other members of the list you provided are not too bad.

I don't think so, also the article seems to imply that the environment is constantly changing, so a berry that is safe one day could be dangerous the next or the safe berries or no longer located where they previously were.

I would disagree, copying code written by an innovative person implies that you did not create the code, and there is no innovation in that.

Yes, but how do the birds differentiate between good performance and poor performance on navigation?

Well to some degree it was copying code because the actions were not displayed as visual they were displayed as mathematical code.

I think the point is bascule is at least attempting to make his point that the Republicans attempt to rile up the masses more often than the Democrats and backing it up with examples. Also, bascule not being a Republican is not contradictory to his claim. He may be a socialist, he may be a libertarian, he may be a communist. Just because he is not a member of the Republican party does not mean he is a member of the Democratic party. So you cannot jump to the conclusion that he is a member of the Democratic party riling up the masses, and then site that as a contradiction. Just a small note Jryan, it is more likely for your arguments to be taken seriously if you use the correct wording. (weighed not wade). Unless of course you meant that bascule was walking through shallow water on his way across a stream or river while commenting on this thread.

I apologize for misunderstanding your posts. I attempted to skim through a little to fast. On a totally unrelated small note though, I think it important to point out that the orbit of the Earth is not approximately a circle.

Yeah, I read through that. On that page it seems to imply there is plenty of Uranium left for a long time. But I have seen other educated people on this forum imply otherwise, and I was wondering why.

String Theory doesn't dispense the concept of space-time. That is simply not true. And actually many of the equations are derived assuming the exact opposite, that the normal laws of physics do not operate inside a black hole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

It is a rather bold statement to say the entire physics community is behind the idea that objects are lines. Furthermore, I looked at your links and they don't imply that. I think you are making the jump in believing that the past tangibly exists somewhere, when in reality all we see is the light that has reflected off of what once was.

I have heard this commented on before, that we do not have much uranium left in the world. This topic may already have a thread. I tried searching for it to no avail, so I apologize in advance if it does. Anyway could someone elaborate on this?

If you read my previous posts I cited three sources from wikipedia. But since you didn't read the whole thread before commenting I will reiterate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter Also a two megaton device is not as destructive as many small devices that yield a total of two megatons.

Well I expected most of the answers but the tone was quite pleasurable. Also the last answer was totally unexpected by me at least. Really probably one of the few times (maybe the only time) I would say that I can agree with nearly everything Ray Comfort said in consecutive paragraphs. I of course don't attest to his beliefs on evolution, but this response, and this last answer specifically, has lead me to have much more respect for Mr. Comfort. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThank you ydoaps for setting this up.

Good points, maybe better programmers could program unique actions more successfully. And yeah I would think unique actions are easier to come about and produce using a human brain and body, as opposed to coding it into a computer.

Is an animal not having mitochondrial dna a first as well?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/57997/title/Pigeons_usually_let_best_navigator_take_the_lead This article just blows me away, and begs the question, how do the members of the flock know what bird has the best navigational skills. This must imply some level of communication and/or observation amongst the birds that is then remembered.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58095/title/Copycats_prevail_in_computerized_survival_game Pretty interesting little article, here is a peak, I wanted to know what you guys think. Does this study accurately reflect nature? On another point. I am guessing the independent thinkers, however, do play a necessary role in the game, despite the copycats being more successful. The reason I say this, is because someone has to break the ice initially and try something. However beneficial or detrimental the actions of a bold individual are serves as a lesson to the other individuals in the environment. Even though the risk takers/individuals may have a greater chance of dying or making a mistake, if it was not for their initial mistakes/success the copycats would have nothing to copy or not copy for that manner.

How?

If you read my post I never said one nuclear bomb could kill us all. I was citing studies that a nuclear war yielding around 2 megatons could cause a global catastrophe. I was also making a point that it is much cheaper and easier to defend against bioweapons than it is to defend against nukes. However, it seems we were debating the danger of bioweapons compared to nuclear weapons. And in reality you are right, they are both terrible weapons, but it seems we do have common ground on the overall opinion of WMDs. I apologize as well for this thread going off-topic. And It also seems we agree on the original topic of the thread. Should the United States use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. I also would like to note I share you beliefs on one day hopefully we have a world without such weapons.

Space expanded with the Big Bang, it was not there before the big bang.

Space in physics can be referred to as the fabric of our universe. More appropriately it can even be referred to as Spacetime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime