Moontanman

Does anyone have any more info about the two boys that were supposedly killed by the snake dropping out of the ceiling?

Not defined words? How do you know that? Just because we don't under stand them doesn't mean they are not the same as our own words which to them are just grunts... Post #2 of this thread is about dolphins having specific whistles that are their names how is that not a defined word?

Evolution is a fact, what drives it might be in debate but evolution does indeed account for the biodiversity we see around us today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_communication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_monkey http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/elephant/cyclotis/language/language.html

I disagree, there are hypothesis that go beyond T=0, your logic of I can't explain it so it must be logically impossible is not logic at all, it is a strawman, yes a strawman, you are setting up a false analogy of what had to happen. I see no reason to assume the universe came from nothing just because we haven't worked it out at this time. At one time the same logic would have applied to the formation of the Earth but more information resulted in an explanation of how the Earth formed...

It would really depend on the circumstances, but I have seen them hop...

So it's turtles all the way down?

You do realize other animals have communication skills as well as humans right? Some actually have words/sounds that specify unique meanings, from monkeys to whales to birds animals have language...

Probably a muskrat, typical behavior and movements. I've trapped a great many of them along the Poca river..

Survival...

I have given it some thought and muskrat is the only animals native to WV that fits the bill..

Ok now you've gone and done it, do you hear the helicopters yet? What type of terrain was it on? Mountain top meadow or river bank?

I don't know is the only honest proposition, everything else is baseless speculation...

As it turns out the image was neither photo shop or fake but a sculpture.. go figure...

Yes, plants evolved just like everything else that is alive. Yes, evolution does continue but how wonderful anything may or may not be is subjective. I'me not sure that has an answer at this time so "I don't know" is as honest as i can be. no problem...

First of all I question your assertion of flawed logic, all you have is assertion as though your inability to grasp any other possibility is law. The idea that the universe came from something else is not flawed logic, that the universe came from magic is flawed but the idea that the universe came from something we do not know is not flawed logic.

First my assertion that aliens wouldn't want planets is based in reality, we keep talking about planets that have life being colonized but to do so would require a planet that is quite a bit more than life friendly. So far no planet we have found out of the several hundred to a thousand or so planets we have found could support humans, a handful might have life but if you give it some thought a planet would have to be far more than just the right temp. I see no reason to assume a "Goldilocks" planet would be inhabitable, gravity that was much beyond earth normal's would be a problem but not insurmountable, I am sure there are reasonably close sized habitable planets, air pressure could be a problem as well as could ratio of atmospheric gasses, I am sure there are others not the least of which is our planet rife with heavy metals? Even a slight difference in the abundance of mercury would make a planet uninhabitable to humans. My point is that once you realize just how perfectly we are evolved to the earth it becomes apparent that a "drake -esque" calculation must go much further than a planet be the right temp for liquid water, the variable are tremendous in number and there is no reason to expect "Earth like" to mean habitable. In fact so far the "Earth Like" planets we have found are super earths, high gravity and thick atmospheres, I know the sampling method is skewed due to smaller planets being harder to find but the variables are far more complex than temps and size. The reason I suggest orbiting habitats would pursue the resources of places like the ort cloud or Kuiper belt is that while you are correct that they are mostly ice that doesn't mean they are all ice and if you live permanently on your space ship/home world the distances between the individual objects become less important since you only visit them when you need more water or metals or helium 3, deuterium, or maybe trace elements that are difficult to recycle or are slowly lost due to leakage from the habitat... And yes those objects are mostly ice but they contain enough rocks and metals to be useful and rocks and metals would be a very minor component of your colony, I think advanced civilizations would be more likely to construct things out of Carbon fibers and various other non metals than use large amounts of metals. The main endeavor after survival of the colony would be to make another colony, no need to visit the dangerous radiation zone near a star and if my scenario has any validity we should be looking at stars with large amounts of material orbiting them not looking for sun light stars. The type of colonies could utilize the environment around any star not just sun like stars... Fomalhaut and Vega come to mind but this approach could mean we are looking in the wrong places for life.

If they employ technologies we have no way to detect and they live in artificial habitats how would you detect them, in my scenario such colonies would roam the galaxy ignoring planets...

Or civilizations fall and rise and we just happen to be in an area of the galaxy that is fallow at the moment, or technology quickly rises above our level and negates low tech civilizations like ours detecting them..

For what ever it's worth, I meant to say "real or photo shop" but I was in a hurry...

What do you guys think, it looks very suspicious to me...

An argument from incredulity?

It's a false dichotomy because you cannot establish with any certainty that those are the only two possibilities, it's a straw man because you want everyone else to argue your points that you have arbitrarily assigned as the only points and it's an argument from incredulity because you can't imagine how there could be any other choices so you assume there are none...

Which is of course a false dichotomy... Not to mention a straw man...