Realitycheck

What evidence do you have that the scientists didn't give you? They are infinitely more experienced, infinitely more qualified, infinitely more authoritative, and you would try to use their knowledge against them? I have no problem believing in a Higher Power and a grand design and all, but if you don't listen to what they're trying to tell you, you're only banging you're head against the wall. Holding up the Bible and trying to say it happened word for word just won't work. There's too much inefficiency in creation to really make that much of a deal out of it, but whatever floats your boat. If you want to believe in Bishop Usher's version of history, you can do that, at the expense of being very credible in the knowledgeable world. If you want, you can follow all of the pseudomysticists of the world today and be even further separated from reality. Laws are laws, devoid of any divine authority, unless mandated otherwise. In this nation, we chose to separate laws from divinity for a reason, because still, nobody has ever proven an ounce of divinity, despite your claims otherwise. Maybe you've just been looking too hard, seeing mirages and all. The only God I could ever believe in wouldn't want to have any power, to create brand new animals out of thin air or punish heathen nations or reward people for sacrificing animals or whatever. ... ... Now I see why many people tire of explaining every single detail whatsoever. We have Native Americans, Caucasians, Negroids, Orientals ... what were you trying to say? Just because we don't have men the size of giraffes doesn't really mean anything. Hummingbirds are all pretty much the same size. Just because we don't have men the size of giraffes doesn't really mean anything. Hummingbirds are all pretty much the same size. Ohh, and where all of the almost humans? They were mostly blended into the same group or died off because they were intellectually or physically inferior and unable to compete in a primitive, competitive world. Less able to run fast or shape flints or grow crops or whatever. If they could have communicated, they possibly could have caught on and maintained and blended into the surviving group, which happened, to an extent, but mostly they were dying in the cold, too far from substenance, while those nearer the equator flourished. Hence, we primarily came from Africa. Somewhere along the way, somebody figured out how to make a fire or skin a fur, you know, the usual basic stuff.

Despite the fact that you won't find any fossils of blondes more than 10,000 years old, or humans that are ten million years old, or dinosaurs that are 400 million years old, or eukaryotes that are a billion years old. They all just appeared out of nowhere, fell out of the sky? The chain of events is there. Little changes take time. An animal eats something toxic, happens all of the time. 999,999 times out of a million, it just makes them sick to their stomach, but once it barely alters their genetic code, because that's what toxins do. More likely is the chance that it alters the code subtly in a less meaningful way. And then one out of a million times that this happens, something beneficial happens, pretty rarely, as blonde hair really does't convey much genetic advantage, but nevertheless, it happened, and you can't deny it, otherwise 1/3 of the world's population would be blonde. And through this constant, gradual change, we have genetic diversity, which multiplies itself, gradually changing everything. After all 500 million years is a lot of seconds, minutes, weeks, and months.

...

...

Something else you would want to be cognizant of is that for such a sensitive organ, few matches would "fit". Think about machine shop precision, and if it doesn't fit perfectly, then you have some serious pain problems in the brain, trying to cram the new engine in the old block or whatever. You might be able to get around that, to an extent, by shaving shims out of sinuses and the skull, but space would be limited. Could I get a brain in size 34 68 56 48 21?

Well, this is second-hand information for me, but 12 miles would be the diameter of the singularity, or mass of neutrons and electrons fused together. And, in my mind, this would only pertain to stellar black holes. Somebody said that supermassive black holes would have about the same size singularities, which doesn't really make sense considering all of the extra mass, so I'm not really sure about that part of the theory. A neutron star wouldn't be contracted as much and would be about 15 miles across. A good way to double check it would be take all of the material in a collapsed star, collapse all of the protons into electrons, creating neutrons, add that to preexisting neutrons and leftover electrons, fuse them all together and calculate its diameter.

Basically, if the event horizon is larger than the object's surface, then it is considered a black hole. I believe that in the case of supermassive black holes at galactic cores, the event horizons are substantially larger than the singularities underneath them. This is what sets it apart from a neutron star, which doesn't have as much gravity to have that effect. If black holes (stellar) were infinitely dense, then the singularities would contract to a diameter infitely smaller than 12 miles, which defies logic, if you ask me. This is kind of a subject of debate right now, since most older theory considers a singularity to be an infinitely dense point, such as all of those neutrons and electrons compacted into a point much smaller than the sum of the diameters of all the particles, whereas Hawking has kind of broken from the pack and reclassified the black hole singularity as being finitely dense, essentially the sum that I just described. I believe this makes much more sense than the standard larger-than-life mythology of black holes of old.

I'm really skeptical of 3d printers being able to capture all of the detail. Just think of the variety of details and structures in a cubic millimeter. You've got blood cells, of course, and membranes, muscle, t cells, other types of immune cells, plasma, bone, or whatever, and I've barely even scratched the surface, all made of an infinitely more microscopic assortment of varieties of chemicals and structures. How's this printer going to know how to produce a vacuole of liquid inside a cell made out of another liquid without a firm needle injecting the liquid into an empty vacuole before placing that inside the cell full of cytoplasm. Just throwing strings of material in a big heap doesn't mean it's all going to function together like a complex ukaryote would. Star Trek, Fifth Element, I think that's just a little far out there. I think I'd actually be more trusting in the information detail of a transporter, but still doubt it would ever happen.

Here's a question. Why are teeth generally so symmetrical and even? A snaggle-toothed creature with lots of gaps in its teeth really doesn't bear much evolutionary advantage or disadvantage, but the norm in the animal kingdom is pretty much a full mouth of even teeth.

Think about how an electron's orbital diameter is about 1.06*10^-10m, or an angstrom, across and the size of a proton is about 1*10^-15m across. Now collapse the two into each other to where there's no space in between any of the particles and this thing which was the size of a star is now about 12 miles across. That's a black hole. It's not an infinitely dense point.

Relativity alone defies the existence of God, unless you're talking about a localized, planetary God. How is he going to hear your prayers 14 billion light years away or whatever and respond in due time? Any answer you give is impossible to prove.

God is essentially a set of laws which conveniently includes your local laws, but is no more provable than love as a metaphysical phenomenon. Seeing how the law upholds righteousness, as well as love, there really shouldn't be much difference, but I believe, that, in reality, it is rather superficial, though one could still hold up this little flag of constant progressive organization in the universe. It really is vastly different than the concept of the omnipotent Almighty.

So I did an analysis of Cain's 999 plan (which basically simplifies the tax code into 9% personal income tax, 9% corporate income tax, and 9% sales tax) to see what kind of effect it would have on personal and corporate taxation, as well other factors, and this is what I came up with, using 2008 numbers. Total personal income equalled about 12 trillion that year, which includes all forms of income, including respective flow-through income from S-Corps and Partnerships, and doesn't factor in things like 401(k) deferrals. Total tax levied that year equalled about 1.25 trillion dollars. Under Cain's plan, that would bump down a bit to 1.08 trillion, not a big change. In that year, total corporate income tax collected (not flow-throughs) was about 314 billion dollars, on net income of about 987 billion dollars. Notice how total receipts on that 987 billion in net income is a whopping 28 trillion dollars! So basically, on average, C-corporations in the U.S. operate with margins of about 4% net income. Almost sounds kind of fishy (will recheck, but I suppose there are lots of businesses which struggle or fail to offset the ones which succeed, not to mention the ones who puff up their expenses at every possible turn for tax purposes). Under Cain's plan, this would get reduced to 88.8 billion dollars. How fortunate for the bourgeosie C-Corps. Nationwide, total taxable sales for applicable sales taxes in 2008 was about 4.4 trillion dollars. 9% of this would be around 396 billion dollars. Since there is no precedent for this, there is nothing to compare it to. Of course, since many states and localities already charge 5 to 10% for sales taxes, this could make shopping a bit expensive, at times, but it has to come from somewhere. It seems like this could have a significant dampening effect on economic activity, especially when pronounced to this magnitude and according to the good ole conservative model that higher taxes dampen consumption. How anti-Republican of Cain. Starting to sound like more of a gimick. Lastly, what's significantly missing is 927 billion in payroll taxes, which would no longer be levied, as far as I can tell under this all-inclusive, simplified plan. So, at this point in time, I have tallied 2.491 trillion in taxes collected under our current plan, which doesn't include a few other small figures for simplification and 1.5648 trillion collected under Cain's plan. However, notice how that 927 billion in payroll taxes not described in the 999 plan kind of balances the plan out. So let's just call it an honest mistake in tax semantics and say that it was actually supposed to be the 9999 plan, or actually the 9997.65 if they haven't changed the payroll tax rates since the last time I checked. What now? Well, all I can say at this point is that it isn't exactly what has been advertised and has the potential to be his own big sore spot, not to mention the sales taxes levied which are already levied by the states, contributing to a double taxation effect. How un2epublican can you get? Maybe this is the real reason why people have left his staff. But that's just where I'm at now. I've resorted to a bit of speculation to answer a couple of issues.

Depends on what type of rock it was. Igneous rocks were lava and the sort. Sedimentary rocks were trees, soil, anything that settled into the earth. Metamorphic rocks were one type of rock, like sedimentary, that got transformed by heat and pressure, into a different rock.

You make all of these ridiculous claims asserting that the Jewish God was so bad, when you have raised zero evidence whatsoever to confirm the existence of God. To depict that God was evil, etc., you have to prove that God exists in the first place and was omnipotent to make all of this stuff happen. Otherwise, all of your ridiculous cries and accusations are just hot air. You sound just as far out as all those superstitious worrywarts of old, only crying out, "Something happened! It was God! He's so bad! What can I do?" If it really was God and he was so bad, then I wouldn't be so judgmental, but something tells me that your whole spiel is really part of some ridiculous, nonsensical farce. Obviously, with a screen name such as yours, you have got some ego issues that are unsettled. Maybe it was just a joke that you let get out of control. Trying to twist and distort the invention of a large number of people from thousands of years ago hardly gives you a lot of credibility, especially considering their education level. I can't say that I've ever seen anyone use the Bible as a source to cite, criticizing it at the same time, but whatever floats your boat.

What an absolute lie, taking the knowledge from the people who figured it out and trying to put it under your belt like string theorists. "It exists, therefore it is our knowledge!" What a crock. Any righteous, sensible man can see through your pointless subterfuge. And this talk of Lucifer speaking through the serpent is only your own testimony adding to the notion that the Jews were schizophrenic as a result of their experience with the tree of knowledge, seeing how that has been a hot topic in academic circles around Amsterdam in recent years. So we had hyper-superstitious Jews making up (or being instructed by God on, depending on your perspective) all manners on how to live in accordance with God's will in order to be in His favor, but it really just adds up to flimsy superstitious conclusions devised by the oldest men of the families. Back then, the laws governing drug use were substantially more relaxed and so long as you weren't practicing "magic", or should I say superstition, by another word, then you were alright, but let's face it "magic" or should I more appropriately call it superstition is really at the heart of Judaism and if all of the basic important tenets of Judaic religion is derived out of superstition, then why do we even give it the time of day? Because the ten commandments make sense. Don't kill, lie, steal, stare at your neighbor's wife, etc. All pretty succinct and sensible, but we have to say that God said it to really pack it with a punch, to drive it home and reduce chaos amongst the uncivilized monkeys who some how seem to live pretty much just as long as everybody else to the extent that cleaner, less magot infested flesh lengthens our lives(despite the fact that magot-infested diets tend to make our immune systems stronger and ready for just about anything. Lots of protein in insects. Just watch Man vs. Wild (Is he still alive after drinking camel bladders for the reconstituted water?) But that's not enough. So we have to lie about how long we live to really add that sizzle effect, to pack the whole system with the punch, despite the fact that we didn't actually care that much about having a whole bunch of kids to order around and farm the land, making life so much easier in our advanced years of 500, 600, 900! So skip ahead a few hundred years, when people have at least stopped lying about their ancestor's ages and everybody agrees that we have to have a savior, because the Jews have flip-flopped their way into oblivion, but the savior has to be the Jew's savior since they're the ones who invented responsible, God-fearing superstition. Since everybody wants a savior and the king is trying to kill all of the babies and prevent a savior, it only makes sense that some people are going to try to step up to the plate and try. I highly doubt that Jesus was completely oblivious to the fact that people were trying to have a savior, what with all of the other contestants in that day and age. So he just did his best, got lucky here and there, and the rest is history. Sometimes healing people is as easy as smiling at them and changing their attitude. He didn't have to lie. All of his followers planted the seeds, did everything for him and the rest is history, because everybody really wanted to have a savior. He just rubberstamped the Jews version of history because that's all any body knew, no different than Islam. Just be really good and get lucky. Trust me, this isn't my first rodeo. And what kind of medical professional was actually on the scene to pronounce him dead? If he actually did die forty days later, it sounds like it was a truly horrendous experience, but not totally unbelievable, even without modern medicine. But what is it really all about? People hearing voices coming from snake's mouths, sweet nothings that really don't add up to anything, whether it's coming from a snake's lips, or a lightning bolt jolting your conscience while you happened to be talking about something in particular, or a gust of air, or a plague, or whatever. Just give a reason to attach it to and it was history. If it just happened to make sense and be the right thing to do (which really isn't that hard to do given the accumulated wisdom of a few thousand years of human civilization), then you can say that God told you and contribute to the Bible or whatever. After a certain time, they quit taking submissions for improvements, but I hear that the Catholics are at least open to new ideas.

You can't forget insulin resistance issues and the likelihood that your body will burn muscle for energy over fat when you are eating these unhealthy foods which raise insulin resistance. Also, it would be greatly beneficial to employ something called nutrient partitioning, which basically stipulates that you should only eat certain foods at the proper time of the day, when your body utilizes the nutrients most optimally, such as grains and starches in the morning and lunch, when your body needs the energy, and slow-digesting greens and essential fatty acids at night, which are also slow-digesting. Moral of the story is that it makes no sense to carboload at night if you are going to sleep it all off and waste the energy, but you alluded to that, to an extent. Also, every teaspoon of sugar you eat throughout the day prevents your body from deriving energy from fat at all for a period of time and if your diet consists of ten deserts spread out throughout the day, then that pretty much short-circuits all your efforts. Also, if your entire body utilizes about 2,000 calories a day to function properly, think about how many bacteria it would take to dispose of a fraction of that. You're going to take a stomach full of bacteria, cram it into your small intestine just to digest one candy bar a day, while your body digests ten candy bars? These bacteria hardly sound up to the task. The bacteria that are there help with digestion but don't really compare in scope. Energy in, energy out. What function could these bacteria possibly have other than bloating up your digestive system to fantastic proportions in no time?

I thought she was just waiting around for someone to pick her up as a running mate at the Poli Sci Saloon, or maybe what is more appropriate is the Poli Sci Salon.

The one thing I'm gleaning out of this is that pseudo-socialistic policies are a good way to directly control unemployment levels. I don't really see how that does much good for people out of work because of dotcom or tech bubbles or whatever. Maybe they have a problem with taking a paycut changing industries or whatever. While I agree that there exists some income disparity in the world, I don't believe that it adds up to anything substantial, that it isn't the norm and doesn't merit a war being made over it. If one person can do the job for the price of ten others, just what would the other nine do, dust the shelves? The fact is that over thirty or forty years, incomes appreciate, due to new technologies, increased tuition, inflation, whatever, the world is always in flux, and generally everything grows, even minimum wage, by the same factor? I daresay yes. The problem is that the Koch's of the world don't want to create jobs under this president. They probably never wanted to have any benefits except for their executives and could care less if all of the underlings just die gradually into obscurity. Apathy is the biggest problem that exists in America. These people are out to make their own New Deal, the New Dilemma. Why? It makes no sense the depths that people will sink to in order to preserve their bottom line, even if it is just a factor of .25% of income. It's the principle with these people, save, save, save, like tunnel vision, all in order to preserve a guaranteed 30% net income, and nothing less, so they they can create more jobs when they deem fit, such as when the right president is in office. And yes, they really DON'T care if you can't afford to go the hospital or whatever. These people are out in the jungle laughing inwardly at the the poor souls who did all of the work handling the dangerous chemicals or lived downstream from a coal mine or whatever, turning the other cheek, at best.

I don't have to show anything. You're the one making all of the unverifiable claims. All of my beliefs are in accordance with generally accepted scientific principles. There's nothing preventing my beliefs from being the product of nothing more than circumstance, a filtered chain of events of simple cause and effect set back against a background of infinitely more undesirable, unfortunate, unimportant minutaie, unanswered prayers until the next best alternative comes along. I make no claims that the Bible is true word-for-word, in its entirety, holding up logic and facts over emotion and symbollism, fantasy even, that God saves people by any mechanism more than their ability to save themselves. I do not deny that a creator exists, unexplainable and unfathomable to all, just the version of events set forth. It's only your own law which keeps you from fixing it. It's not my law that forces me to believe in that which is improvable, setting myself up for failure. Most every prayer is answered to the extent that it is answerable, and even then, there's no guarantee. What guarantees that it was anything more than luck? Ask yourself, why doesn't it make sense? Why isn't it provable? It's a small consolation that 40% of the people in the world's most advanced country have come to realize. Or are we supposed to go back to burying our heads in the sand, ignoring the obvious facts of tested science and glorifying figments of our imagination and nonexistent parchment and stories told around the fire over the constant tried and true? I'll take reason over irrational any day.

Are you all trying to prove that the genetic line of Jesus was Jewish or something? I happened to read that the line of Eve was proven to be Jewish, which was something of a surprise, and since the line of the mother is all that matters in Jewish law, I guess that settles it. What's the big deal? Still doesn't explain talking serpents, living hundreds of years, the exact nature of God "supposedly" talking to them, parting waters, turning the Nile red, sticks to snakes, etc. If God made us in his image, he was made in our image? Who bore God? Where did he come from? And this man gave form to the heaven and earth, breathing life into it, etc? Doesn't really make sense compared to the other heavens and earths. But I'm listening. All of this geneological stuff is really off-topic and irrelevant to what drives people to believe in an omnipotent, yet invisible God. I guess the God of today bears little resemblance to that of old, but I guess with all of the different names and forms of the God of old, it's kind of hard to pin him down into one likeness.

Their pliability would be nowhere near that of living tissue, unless you used some type of stepped grid, but that would be more in the area of plain robotics.

Read up on the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences. Catholics are one of the ones somewhat keeping up with the times, regarding issues such as (a)biogenesis, etc.

What's the likelihood that the oil companies could set off a fracking chain reaction and cause earthquakes all across Canada and cause part of Canada to slide off into the ocean? Get it, fracking chain reaction?

Cardboard will likely be the only thing sturdy enough to use. Build makeshift gyroscope out of cardboard to place the egg in. Then place this "cockpit" inside fuselage of cardboard, about five feet long or so. Finish out with wings and tail for stability. Shouldn't be too hard to balance out the dimensions.