Moontanman

Think of an asteroid strike in the ocean, the Tsunami would be epic, same thing for a nuke just on a slightly smaller scale..

You are assuming that the nuke was stolen, North Korea has done business with islamic terrorists in the past. Setting a bomb off in a harbor would multiply the effect somewhat more than setting one off at ground level on land. Underwater is even better but your point is taken...

Let me dance with the devil here. My main concern is not a missile attack from the NPRK, that is silly, "rocket man" is smarter than that, he enjoys poking the bear far to much to take the lock off the bear's cage. ISIS? That is problematic from many reasons but this maybe the most likely way such an attack could occur. ISIS would have to have three things to destroy a US city with nukes. A nuke, a delivery method, and lack of respect for their own lives. Wahabism has already shown they are willing to die to kill their enemies, a possible delivery system is an old diesel submarine, and of course a Nuke. Train a group of men to pilot a diesel sub who are willing to die for their cause and obtain a submarine and a bomb. I would imagine the submarine is the hardest thing to obtain in secrete and train men to operate it in secretly. But a moderate nuke detonated at some depth offshore of a US coastal city would be a disaster. A radioactive wave would surge inland do damage far outside the scope of a bomb smuggled into a city.

Nice song... I loved steppenwolf back in the day!

My point about definition is a lot like my definition of porn, I know it when I see it. Are we going by a human definition of sodomy? Sodomy in Fruit bats is actually necessary for them to reproduce. Is sodomy anything other than man on top get it over with quick? Does sodomy include oral sex? Mutual masterbation? Anal sex only? Who decides?

Even among hunting circles killing for fun, fun is defined as killing an animal but not using or having any use for the corpse/body. Even among experienced hunters this is often frowned on with extreme prejudice. Hunters often share the meat of the kill with everyone who participated, with soup kitchens, or with friends and family. I have a small store of venison in my freezer and I do not hunt. Fishing is a bit less clear due to the fact that fish can and often are released unharmed if they are not going to be cooked for food. Commercial fishing is a problem, due to bycatch and fact that bycatch is often killed by the nets and wasted...

I would conduct Miller–Urey experiment type experiment using chemicals other than the main ones used by Miller-Urey, Maybe Boron instead of carbon, ammonia instead of water, or methane replacing water...

Again we have failed to define sodomy, are we going by the old "I can't define it" but I know it when I see it" adage? Here is the dictionary definition: Dictionary sod·om·y ˈsädəmē/ noun sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation. Fruit bat females perform felletio on males to insure a successful mating. Male bull elephants often have anal intercourse among themselves, only the largest and strongest getting to mate with females. These are not isolated cases, this behavior in some form occurs all across the animal. When two female whip tailed lizards mimic mimic sex so they can lay eggs sodomy? There are no males in that species, so sexual contact between females is necessary. IMHO sodomy is archaic word that was made up by people who thought they had the right to say how people should sex. So far I have seen no data that would indicate sodomy is any more or less likely to transfer STDs...

Are we talking about survival, self defence or just for fun?

I am really beginning to like this new format! Great job "We've"!

Close enough for government work...

IMHO You would have to define sodomy a little more clearly before we can even talk about the subject. Again, let's define what is meant by sodomy and how they transfer disease more often than any other contact? Dogs have an infectious cancer that they can get from sniffing another dog's anus. does that count? Please define sodomy...

I answered you as well, I guess googling the clay assertion was a bit much to expect. I should have provided citations. I can provide you with two one hour videos by Jack Szostak but this one is shorter and gives you the idea and possibly some places to start searching.

In fiction Physicist Robert Forward has used this idea before. Possibly you can see how he did it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocheworld

Sexual selection is a very strong part of evolution, while i am not familiar with Bantus lip color sounds like on of those things that would be selected in that manner.

No Mike, you are asserting mythology as fact. Crowding is meaningless in the context you are using. Humans are social animals, we generally like to have lots of other humans around us and live longer healthier lives when we cooperate in groups. Some other animals are not social and live their lives alone. Using mythology to understand the past is not completely off the mark but to assume mythology describes anything but fantasy needs evidence. Mythology cannot all be true, but it all can be wrong assuming any of it is true just because people appeared to write about it as though it was real is like someone 5,000 years in the future going through the ruins of New York City assuming the New York Giants was a race of giant people whom the inhabitants of the city worshipped... We really don't have much more than that in our knowledge of people of the past...

I know I said I was out but Mike, what on Earth makes you willing to assert your beliefs as facts? A hierarchy, like the one you are proposing, would require a similar level of evidence that I have a invisible dragon in my basement. Why on Earth would anyone accept my dragon as real? Your hierarchy is much less believable, spirit beings? Really? Invoking baseless assertions to explain other baseless assertions? You really need to show there is a hierarchy not to mention that there are, what are for all practical purposes, super beings. I would like to see evidence that there are superbeings, then possibly we can talk about some sort of order and arrangement. My own take on this is there are no superbeings, super civilizations possibly, but made up of normal beings that would be just as helpless as us if dropped down in the jungle naked with no tools. Think of it like us taking an adult neanderthal from 75,000 years ago and trying to "uplift" him to our level. Then think of a neanderthal baby raised in our society, no reason to think he could not grow up to grasp our society as well as we do yet we are separate species separated by 75,000 years of time. A Being 75,000 years ahead of us could be inexplicable to us but if one of us was raised by them from a baby I'd bet we could stand among them as equals. Yet you want us to accept your claims as fact with no evidence whatsoever!

You have this bass ackwards, if you are asserting the universe is intelligently designed then the burden of proof is on you! Personally I really don't know, I do know that science has little to nothing to say about before the big bang. You however appear to be claiming knowledge no one else has. I am excited to hear your knowledge and the evidence that supports it..

Clay on the bottom of the ocean catalyse these large molecules..

I wash my hands of this thread, it makes no sense, is based on belief, and the OP despite numerous at attempts to explain how reality works and has turned into nothing but a blog for him to spout his beliefs and unsupported assumptions.

Well they were there. Yes, the jury thinks that homo sapiens might be a lot older, not younger. No, they were civilizations, quite advanced and predate the Abrahamic religions. You used the word "steeped" I was just trying to show many other civilizations has been steeped as well. No they do not, in fact other than oral tradition all they have is a couple holy books that do not accurately describe reality. In fact Jewish scholars have realized the Jews were never slaves in Egypt, there was no exodus and no one named Moses. It is all nothing but mythology. It's still wrong, there was no first human, no adam and eve and no garden. What on earth does the Higgs Boson have to do with this? You assume design where they isn't any. That is because God has no supporting evidence and there are so many! All cannot be correct but the all can be wrong.. Well the Bible says it was seven literal days, how did you come to the conclusion it was not? Complex life has been around for more than 500,000,000 years, it started out with nothing we would recognise today. Not proto rabbits, or lions, the earth would have appeared rto be an alien plane to us back then. Why do you consider these writings to be true Mike? You assert a high altitude canopy, simply not possible, and you have to ask where did all the water go? Killing all those people, babies included was morally wrong. No he could not, inside a fish's stomach is nothing but digestive juices, no air no oxygen and to suggest divine intervention brings us back the unsupported assertion there is a god. Again with the assumption of a god with no evidence to back it up. Slavery is morally wrong, in the Bible it says a man can beat his slaves as long as they don't die within a couple days. Slavery was not about making a living it was about owning humans like cattle and forcing people against their will to work for free all their lives. There is no reason to think any of that is true Mike...

Mike you do realize there was a civilization in north and south america at that time too... right? You do realize that evidence for the existence of homo sapiens goes back 150,000 years or more right? India had a civilization before the middle east, as did china. In fact many areas of the Earth is "steeped" in history, some much more than the ignorant goat herders whose word you seem to think are gods words. God is taking care of his people the Jews, he promised them land, the holy land, Palestine, which is about the only place in the middle east with no oil, that is really intelligent. You should really think about what you are saying Mike, Adam? There was never a first human, no evidence of a garden of eden either. God only fits because you want it to, BTW, which god is the real god and why? Of course a scientist can believe in god, many do, you can believe anything you want it's when you start asserting your belief as reality we have a problem... BTW Mike, do you believe a god created the heavens and the earth in seven days? Do you believe he created everything we see, animals and plants, as they are now? Do you believe a world wide flood drowned the Earth? Do you believe a man could be swallowed by a large fish or whale and live for several days? Do you think snakes can talk along with donkeys? Do you believe it's moral to own another human as property? Real questions Mike, think of the ramifications of these events compared to science...

You are incorrect we have no writings about Jesus that were contemporary, the first time he is mentioned is nothing more than his name and the first writings were decades after the death of Jesus and some cases centuries. The Romans keep quite good records yet Jesus was never mentioned, no record of a crucifixion, no record of hours of darkness, no record of an earthquake even close to the that time and certainly no record of the dead waking and walking the streets of Jerusalem. You say he is believed to be both god and man.. so what, belief is not knowledge. The character of god? You mean the monomaniacal monster that demanded genocide? The one that allowed sex slaves of young virgins as spoils of war? The one who sent bears to kill children because they called his prophet baldy? The one who not only allows slavery but details how you must go about it? The one is described in a book that is 100% wrong about anything it asserts that can be tested? The one who says he creates both good and evil? http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm A genie in lamp could be proven to exist. There is no evidence anyones prayers are answered any better than sheer chance. Because god allows good and bad to happen to everyone, good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. No evidence whatsoever for a god or gods.

And therein lies the problem, you are asserting things as part of reality there is no evidence of, no need for, and plenty of reasons not to believe. At no time in history has the supernatural ever shown science to be wrong... You feed them Mike, they associate you with food, my fish do the same thing... But my fish are wild caught, it takes a while for them to figure out I am not a threat. Some take longer than others but food is a powerful incentive. And BTW goldfish had their behavior altered by selected breeding to be bold.