npts2020

u tell me I can't because I don't understand the basis for virtually all of your claims others have raised unanswered objections to.

What if you believe not ALL of "existence" is alive?

For me Marx is simply the method of critiquing things from a specific point of view. Whether one agrees or not with the underlying assumptions will pretty much predict if one is a supporter or opponent of the ideology, I think

Oil companies will drill for as long as they can make a dime off the last barrel extracted but the writing is on the wall and those that don't adapt will get government bailouts and subsidies until they finally go out of business. As to the OP I'm with Exchemist on this in that I feel a lot of unproven assumptions are being made about stability and safety of capture enclosures, especially in places where fracking has been allowed. For about the same cost or not much more (all mostly way less over time tho), sources that don't require carbon storage could be installed.

In the USofA, we don't know what Marxism is but we hate it, doncha know. 🤪

This is but one example of how you do not even understand what science actually is. No scientist I know talks about any theory (such as evolution) as "truth", it is simply the current best explanation that agrees with all of the evidence for a given phenomenon. Sure, but it should be more than sufficient to get the gist of what is written and decide whether it is worthwhile to become a student of something. The first time I read the bible cover to cover, I was 12 and an acolyte at our local church. At that time I didn't really have knowledge to critique what it contained from a scientific point of view but there are more than enough contradictions (an eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek for example) to have gotten me to consider perhaps it was not an infallible document. The next time, I was 20 and an engineer on a nuclear vessel by which time it seemed to me that scientists agree with and trust each other FAR more than do religious proponents (ever hear of even a threatened war over competing TOE theories?). The reason for this is that scientists have to adhere to rigorous rules of discovery and fit their debate within the confines of what is knowable in order to construct a theory and this applies to every discipline, whereas every proponent of religion I have ever met will evade answering contradictions or try to overcome them with magic.

Then you have to decide which parts of the bible you want to pick and choose to take literally or not. Personally, there isn't much, if anything, I would take literally from that book. Leaving aside Phi's argument (with which I completely agree), do you have any idea of how much space a years worth of food for an elephant would occupy? (hint; an African elephant consumes 4-6% of its body weight in plant matter on a daily basis) And that is just one species...

I suppose. That is, if you want to call televangelists, anti-abortionists Christian nationalists and the like---politicians.

The bible also says every species in the world was jammed into a boat with about 100,000 square feet of cargo space for 40 days. Just between reptiles and mammals, there is approximately 20,000 known species. Leaving aside the fact that scientists discover new species all the time, making it highly unlikely that anyone from Noah's age would be able to collect them all, that only gives you around a 2 1/4 foot square for each pair of animals. Then you have more than a million species of insects and arachnids...

What makes you think creation is even possible? I have yet to see an example of anyone creating anything from "nothing".

My biggest problem with religions is when the practitioners want impose their own beliefs (which almost none of them follow 100% of the time, anyway) on others.

No, not so much. Opinions are subjective. That which is objective is not opinion. No, the e.g. results of an experiment are available for all to see, and (in principle) recreate. Even as far as religious discussions go, it would be in the form of documents everyone could read. To expand on this a bit, in science it isn't just "someone else's" opinion, it's everyone else who has performed the same experiment and come up with the same results opinion. I am certain if someone comes up with a method (other than dying) of testing for a soul, there will be no shortage of people attempting to do so.

Doesn't it make sense, though, that as the Earth warms and ice on land melts and flows into oceans the shift in weight distribution will cause tectonic plates to move more than the would otherwise, causing things like more severe and frequent earthquakes and volcanoes?

Seems to me, the likelihood is that solving whatever problem is necessitating a move will be far easier than actually moving the planet, which may also have unanticipated consequences.

Doesn't that depend on the kind of forest you are trying to establish and doesn't that have to take into account? local conditions?

Yes. The time and effort by the moderators in keeping this site free of all kinds of garbage (even beyond spam) is very much appreciated.

Apparently, I have survived the rapture/end of the world around 60-80 times. This time seemed pretty much the same as most of the others...

Regardless of the equipment or its configuration, you are talking about a machine that is >100% efficient. I have seen more than a few propositions for such a thing but the "extra" energy always comes from somewhere outside of the proposed model. Understanding thermodynamics is usually enough to easily see why.

Question for an administrator or moderator; Is it better for you if we flag as many as possible or just one or two?

I understand deterrence perfectly. It works fine so long as both sides are afraid of the results but what happens when one side loses that fear and embraces mass destruction in the cause of "bringing on the rapture" or some similar delusion?

Seems obvious to me. The one initially chosen has a 33 1/3 % chance of being the correct choice. The one left has a 50% chance of being correct.

Gee, I have only ever played Yahtzee with dice. Not sure how you could substitute squirrels.... ;)

I know a few scientists but AFAIK none are trying to prove that. Perhaps you could list one or two and give a summary of what they have to say about it. (pretty sure we are just being trolled, tho)

There was a school shooting the same day with 2 students in critical condition (thankfully surviving) and the shooter killing himslf but that was barely mentioned in the news and seemingly not at all elsewhere. The shooter was a fellow student supposedly inspired by white nationalists. Nobody seems to know how he got the pistol used, which he reloaded at least a couple of times.

That's the usual method of predicting efficiency. Again, all of the suggested motors would easily handle the load but not be nearly as efficient as one rated slightly higher than that expected load. Apologies for not being clearer.