Moontanman

Citation?

I think it's called the cube square law, there are real limits to how big an organism can get before it requires a radical change in it's form. Think of it this way, if a 2 meter man weighs in at 200lbs a 4 meter man of the same proportions would weigh in at around 1600 lbs but he would only have 4 times the surface area. Scaling up something results in real problems, this is even true for non living things. A piece of granite has a practical limit to how big it can be before it collapses under it's own weight. On islands reptiles tend to get bigger while mammals that are normally large get smaller. Examples would be komodo dragons and pygmy elephants..

I guess a working definition of superior is needed...

Are trying to say that order cannot arise spontaneously?

I'm not sure I follow you, you said "If you mean a being superior to us, then yes" How does technology mean superior?

Superior technology doesn't mean superior beings. We have technology that humans 5000 years ago couldn't even conceive of and yet they were still humans and only our technology sets us apart...

None of this gets you to a god much less the Abrahamic god or Jesus... Before you postulate Jesus you have to show evidence for gods in general. So far you nor anyone else has shown any empirical evidence for a god. Feelies do not a god make... BTW WLC is a dishonest sack of steaming monkey excrement...

So far you have not asserted anything science based...

I don't think Oceania was ever a continent in the same way that north america is a continent... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania It would seem the term continent is a bit arbitrary after all... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

Can you supply a link to that assertion? I've kept a lot of octopus in my day and the only thing hard in them is their beak...

Is this what you are alluding to? http://www.livescience.com/57927-new-zealand-part-of-eighth-continent.html

He is just another ignorant troll who thinks that asserting something often enough make it true...

Why would you expect tools to be left laying around and what kind of tools are you talking about?

No, it is your responsibility to back up your assertions. I would suggest you read the rules of the forum.. Do you really think that link backs up your baseless assertions? I would suggest you list the passages that support your assertions..

I disagree you keep on making all sorts of assertions but so far all the evidence you have presented is nil. I looked up the word and my usage is correct.

That is quite an assertion, I think it needs to be backed up with some evidence...

Eons and Eons? Really? In science an Eon is a billion years so you start your premise out by claiming something that is not true..

Yes but the conditions in Antarctica are far better than the conditions on the Moon or Mars. Yet no one is really interested in homesteading at the south pole... If we do colonise space it makes far more sense to build colonies orbiting the sun in and around the asteroid belt or even in the Kuiper belt. Rotation of cylinders and torus type structures to generate a feeling of gravity. They can be made quite large and cab be moved around the solar system as you wish on very slow time scales. Great video discussing the topic:

A few people being rotated in and out on a regular basis is not a colony...

It would easier to colonise Antarctica than the Moon or Mars...

So you buy into the super being paradigm?

Even if they are extra careful it doesn't answer the question. I would assume a trash dump orbiting in the asteroid belt would be evidence. I would look out in space to find the junk they leave behind. Considering how much energy it takes to move "stuff" from star to star I would imagine lots of things would be left behind. Of course they could drop them into the Sun or Jupiter but just balling them up and leaving them in orbit would be the easiest route. Leaving the stuff in the asteroid belt would be easy and make it difficult to find as well...

Call it Neon Wind...

Hey Jimmy look! Pownies!