zapatos

Since your grandpa has type 2 he likely has the ability to test your blood sugar. At least then you will have some actual data.

Remember that you are only moving slower relative to a specific reference point, such as the earth if that is where you began your high speed journey. But relative to something else you may have no apparent change at all, for example from a spacecraft that is traveling along side you. If hibernation becomes possible when traveling near light speed, you can test it out right now, because you are right now traveling near light speed relative to something. As it turns out, you are at the point of origin right now. The Big Bang began everywhere at once. Therefore where you are now, and everywhere else that exists, is at the point of origin.

I think that we should seriously consider making that illegal.

What does that mean? Here is a pretty good explanation: http://www.digipro.com/Trials/moon.html Making it impossible to harness for electricity. And that gets to my original point. Energy has to come from somewhere if you want to harvest it. Energy is not coming from gravity itself. Gravity is allowing you to harvest rotational energy in the case of tides, and gravity is allowing you to harvest solar energy in the case of electrical dams. But once those energy sources run out (the sun going cold or the rotation of the earth ceasing), gravity has nothing left to harvest.

The moon is tidally locked to the earth, not the sun. We always see the same side of the moon. The moon does not have a side that is in permanent darkness. It rotates once for each revolution around the earth. Eventually the earth will be tidally locked to the moon, always showing the moon the same face, and at that time there will no longer be tides.

Sorry but I am not clear on your position regarding the following questions: Are you saying that tidal locking between the earth and moon will not occur? Are you suggesting that in the absence of the sun it will keep raining on earth and rivers will keep flowing? Are you suggesting that stars will 'burn' indefinitely? And a new question: Are you suggesting that the earth will never cool due to its own gravity?

But the earth and moon will eventually experience tidal lock. Every time we have a tide, some of the rotation energy is transferred to the tides from which you propose to generate energy. Unless you add energy, eventually you will no longer have tides an you will not be able to harness them. Unless you are saying that tidal locking does not occur... I don't understand your point. Different environments respond differently to sunlight. Why is that significant? Are you suggesting that in the absence of the sun it will keep raining on earth and rivers will keep flowing? Are you suggesting that stars will 'burn' indefinitely? I'm not sure what you mean by that. But to be pedantic, orbiting stars are orbiting the system's center of mass. The stars in the Milky Way are orbiting the center of mass of the galaxy and the sub-system they are a part of.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but how do you utilize gravity for generating energy without adding energy to the system? For example, it takes energy to raise water, a rock, whatever, so that thing can then be pulled down by gravity. Without ever adding energy to raise something, how do you get to utilize gravity to harness energy? It sounds like you are not reducing the force of gravity, but gravity cannot be used to generate energy (say, via a dam), unless the energy from the sun is put into the system. Cut off the sun and water will quickly stop running downhill. This really sounds no different than my Honda generator. It can generate electricity, but only if a source of energy (fuel) enters the system (gas tank). I wouldn't say my generator is a source of new energy. It is just the tool used to convert energy from one form to another.

I assume you were taught that stealing is wrong. Is it safe to assume then that you only believe stealing is wrong because someone else told you that was so?

Right, but you pointed out the type of evidence you required. I was just indicating that type of evidence was not possible for a supernatural being. Of course. Same thing for the NSA satellites. Although I admit God talking to us seems equally absurd.

Well sure, but that is science. You cannot expect to get scientific evidence when the question is about God. Similarly I will not get scientific evidence to my belief that vanilla is the finest of the flavors. Either he made it clear, or I found out by speaking to the holy men who know those things. For all you know it is not an aneurism. The CIA could be surreptitiously messing with your medical records.

But we also believe things that we have come up with on our own. The best ice cream flavor. Human rights. Murder is wrong. There is someone out there for everybody. If I believe God has spoken to me, it is not really that difficult to independently verify that God does speak to people. All I have to do is ask around. And if I'm just your run of the mill believer and not a priest, I would have to rely on theologians to know their stuff. And if I choose I can ask another, and another, and another. If they all start telling me the same thing, I find that lends credence to the claim. Faith of course is not the only reason to believe. Being 'touched' by God, experiencing a miracle, etc., don't require faith. I agree completely.

But they don't decide to actively believe in self-evidently ludicrous things. They believe in things that are self-evidently true, or at least self-evidently possible. None of them are basing their beliefs on what is self-evident to you, they are basing their beliefs on what is self-evident to them. If a theist were to evaluate you based on what is self-evident to them, I imagine they would conclude you were broken.

And how did you come to know that they believe it only because someone else told them so?

So is John a barnacle, or a blue whale? From my favorite science journal: http://www.maxim.com/funny/the-10-biggest-dicks-the-animal-kingdom

No, but the same can be said for every single thread that is started on this site. People have their say because they enjoy it, not because they are changing the world.

So how far away does the 'surface onto which the shadow is cast' have to be from the object blocking the light? Is it a shadow if it is cast on the moon? How about if it is cast on the ISS? What if it is cast onto my face? It seems to me that anything above the surface of the earth is cast in shadow.

There may be nothing at the center of gravity. For example, the center of gravity of a sitting person is in front of that person. Weightless relative to that mass, yes. No, there is plenty of gravity, but at that point gravity pulling from all directions is equal.

Are you trying to make a point about the topic at hand? If so I missed it.

I don't recall my parents being particularly afraid of snakes. My sister used to own a couple of snakes when she was living with my parents but I had moved out by then. I don't recall being as fearful of them when I was younger as I am now, but I never liked them. Much to the surprise of anyone who knows me I let both my kids keep snakes in aquariums in their rooms. I mean, why not? One was a baby corn snake and the other was some type of boa. And on occasion when they were handling them I would ask to hold them too. I was a little nervous taking them but it would wrap around my wrist and just look around. THEN, it would aim its little head at me and slowly move toward my face. HOLY CRAP! I really had to hold back my impulse to throw it on the ground to get it away from me. One of the kids would jump up and take it from me and I'd be really shook up for about 10 minutes. It gives me the heebie jeebies just typing it now. I have no other irrational fears. I took on two pit bulls once that were attacking a puppy and while my adrenaline was up I wasn't terribly frightened. I'll squish spiders, and I watched the doctor do a c section on my wife. It seems really weird to me that snakes cause such a reaction in me. I can logically tell m self there is nothing to fear, and I can get myself to hold one on occasion (even though I'm ill at ease), but if it does ANYTHING that seems 'snake like' while I'm holding it, I just about lose it.

Really? You've decided to go down that road?

But of course your thread is titled "People who believe in God are "NOT" broken". I thought that was the assertion we were trying to settle. Are we also trying to settle whether or not ALL people are broken? Because if so, I think that is far from settled.

So it's settled. People who believe in God are broken But that is not really the question. The question is, is a belief in God indicative of a break in one's ability to reason and understand the world. Whether or not people are broken in other ways was not what the original thread was addressing.

Yes, I'm sure. I was using normal as in: adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. ...and uncommon as in: adjective. unusual - rare - extraordinary - exceptional - infrequent

Well, it may be uncommon, but that doesn't make it any less normal. Yeah, I wasn't defending those statements, only the statement that deliberate self deception does happen. I'm not quite sure what he meant by 'a sign of humanity'. If he meant it was 'normal', I agree. If he meant it was 'found in a majority of the population', I have my doubts.