Mr Skeptic

Well, it also matters how the population is distributed. Canada for example, has a rather small population in a large area, but most of the population is in huge cities. So really most of the people are in a small area.

Not so, it is just hidden because food is so abundant in our society. But hunger will nerf the sex drive like nothing else (no having kids during a famine), it just doesn't happen in our society. On the other hand, sex is hard to get.

Well, generally things with less total electrons "behave" themselves better. Carbon only has 6 electrons, and two of them are pretty much dedicated to the 1s shell (ask Helium). So it won't be making any permanent 5th bonds. Transient I dunno, it would have to be quite transient.

I highly advise avoiding perpetual motion machines in the search for renewable energy.

Well, both are in Houston. That's probably close enough for you if you find a place for yourself in Houston, right?

Oh, were you a Christian before? Because according to many Christians there is no reward for doing good works: salvation is a gift from god, all sins will be forgiven, and no one deserves any of that. It is certainly not only atheists who believe they won't be punished for bad things they do nor receive extra reward for good they do. So, you only do good because you want a reward, and only avoid bad because you fear punishment. Suit yourself. If you want one reason I do good, it is simply because it makes me feel good to do so. It may seem a small thing, but then consider whether people eat icecream or candy for its nutrition value of for another reason.

Is it just an issue of wording then, needimprovement? How about this: "The preponderance of evidence shows that an omnibenevolant omnipotent being does not exist, due to unnecessary suffering in the world." or "There are large categories of suffering with no apparent benefit to them, and alternative systems with less suffering are easy to think up of, so that the only reasonable conclusion is that there is unnecessary suffering" How about this one: "Heaven does not show the goodness nor mercy of God because there might be a lot of suffering that is the direct result of heaven" "There really isn't any evidence that God is good, because his acts could have evil intentions and evil consequences that are not easily seen by us limited mortals"

It is not just that. Mating opportunity is a resource (a very valuable resource at that) and access is restricted by various of the animals: 1) the female restricts mating to the best males she can find 2) males compete with other males for access to the females 2a) either trying to impress the female 2b) or to form a harem. In the case of the harem, he will try to prevent other males from mating with "his" females, and also to prevent the females from mating with others. Such "illicit" mating still happens, but in secret.

Well, the first thing to do is find out where he's going. If he doesn't know where he's going it probably isn't a good idea to go (how would he get there?). He needs to ask whoever is planning his trip where he's going.

Yes, the species problem is yet more evidence against Intelligent Design and in favor of evolution. A designer would have probably made life so that it only reproduces after its kind, with clear categories distinguishing one from the other. Whereas what we actually see, is that there are no such categories and the artificial categories we create blend into each other, as necessitated by evolution.

What makes you think it was a small volume? It could also have been an infinitely large volume, as far as I know. Only if our universe is finite would it have been a finite volume. In any case, it is the density that we know more about, and the density which seems to be your question. Very high densities are hard to achieve, but it would have been very energetic like the collisions in our particle colliders which also have high density.

Something like that. In any case, the atmospheric pressure will drop more quickly than gravity does as you go higher up, and could depend on the quantity, composition, and temperature of the atmosphere as well as the gravity. A pretty good example is the moon, which does not have 1/7th the atmosphere of earth, because it lost almost all its atmosphere.

Well if you're getting a PhD in it you'd better be very familiar with it. However, it doesn't hurt to browse the wikipedia article for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy Has a nice neat list of various renewable energy types, with links for more detailed information. More importantly for you, it also has a huge references section. The wiki articles about a specific form of renewable energy will have more links for that type.

Not so much an antidote, but http://www.rxlist.com/haldol-drug.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine

Good, the first step is always recognizing you have a problem.

Yeah, it was very very hot, the sort of energy levels you can only reach/approach with our best particle colliders (which is why some reporters confuse those with recreating the Big Bang).

Some places just have more atmosphere. It's like going 10 ft below water vs 20 ft below water. Gravity is essentially just as strong, there's just twice the water above you resulting in twice the pressure. For atmosphere extra pressure translates to extra density as well.

Well, most staining kills the cells, so that's a disadvantage. Now you just need to figure out what an advantage of staining might be.

Yes and yes. Incidentally, a temporary thing can be worth more than an infinite one. For example, if I offered you a billion dollars today, or 1 cent per year for the rest of eternity (assume that were possible), then you are still by far better off choosing the billion. After all, you can invest it and gain far more than 1 cent per year. The same is true of most everything, for example a scientific advance now is worth more than one later. So are you suggesting that Christians are evil and only do good because they fear divine punishment, whereas the atheists are simply good people and do good even without expecting a reward? No, there's plenty of other reasons to do good.

Without evidence? How about meteorology, biology, chemistry, geology, and every single other field of science? All of them explained materialistically, not one explained supernaturally -- despite them all having had multiple gods to "explain" them as the predominant belief for thousands of years. Everything so far remains either unexplained or explained materialistically. Is it such a stretch to expect the rest of the unexplained ones to likewise be explained materialistically?

Sex is restricted in the rest of the animal kingdom too.

The chat mods will have a @ next to their name, if you log on to chat. They're different from the forum mods.

Well there's the problem then. You can't extrapolate data on humans to the entire animal kingdom.

The word ephebophilia would denote a preference for post-pubescent teenagers (15-19), hebephilia for pubescent (~11-14), and pedophilia for pre-pubescent ( <14 ), although the specific age varies. Also to officially be a pedophile someone has to be 16 years old or older and interested in people at least 5 years younger. Also it has to be a preference for, not just attraction to or acts with. According to wikipedia, pedophilia is related to various mental issues, but also there seems to be a genetic component. However what Marat is talking about seems to be pederasty:

Well skin cancers would be deep within your skin, not on the surface. And yeah, it can kill a melanoma like a flamethrower can.