Moontanman

Carol, I was very careful in my post to make sure I was not referencing any particular god or gods, please do not assume I am talking about a christian god because I am not. I was referring to the concept of god in general...

Careful there dude your ignorance is showing...

God gives us moral principles? Which ones? Do you really need god to know that hurting others is bad? Can't we do without all the horrific stuff gods have supposedly told us to do in their names? Animals do not use language? I think you need to support that one... Even insects communicate with each other...

Warp drive might be more feasible than we thought? A bench top lab experiment might shed some light on the possibility... http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html

You assuming that being homosexual is an on off condition when in fact humans, like most mammals are simply sexual, our culture conditions us to not be bisexual but it's plan that we are. Humans in prison are a prime example and something being what the majority of humans do doesn't make it right or wrong. As for the influence of hormones... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

Can you be a bit more clear as to what you are talking about?

Cannabis sativa has many uses, it is likely that it was used for fiber before it was used for anything else, cannabis produces high quality fibers which have many uses, rope and cloth being two of them. The seeds can be ground into flour and also pressed for oil. Boiling it and drinking the resulting fluid will not make you high as the active ingredients are not water soluble. I'm not sure where the idea of it getting you high came from originally, wild cannabis is not particularly intoxicating but humans being humans would have figured it out eventually... possibly eating the flowering tops or burning them as incense did the trick...

I have read my post several times, and if you got the impression I was equating homosexuality with a cleft palate then I failed. Homosexuality is one of many possibilities along a curve of human sexuality which is controlled by hormones and maybe genes and possibly a combination of both. I would never assert that being homosexual is a defect but it is IMHO controlled more by hormones in the womb and possibly to a lesser extent genes. Possibly the intersexed information should have been left out of my post. It is true that some homosexuals are effeminate or masculine but most do not show any outside signs. I don't know why most discussions about homosexuality seem to center on male homosexuality as though it is somehow more of a problem. I have no doubt that male and female homosexuality have both similar and different causes and i have no doubt that some individuals can indeed choose to go both ways, in fact i would be willing to assert that most can and I am sure that environmental influences can tweek a person in one direction or another... But to say it is a defect indicates the idea that it is somehow wrong and i honestly do not think it is wrong, in fact i think it is normal in the same way that being quite short is normal for some people and being quite tall is normal for others with most people being someplace in between. Both being short or tall is not within the control of the individual and are determined by factors outside the individuals control both genetic, hormonal, and environmental, but neither is a defect...

This is what happens when the ecology goes out of whack.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event I grow this stuff in my ponds, it grows at a rate that has to be seen to be believed but it can't stand cold... If the Earth was warm every standing body of fresh water would be covered by this stuff. If the Arctic ocean was covered by this stuff the earth would no white snow covered poles, but a huge emerald green expanse, the climate of the entire planet was changed by one simple fern. It's pretty much native to the entire earth, in the tropics larger floating plants grow over it but in the temperate zones nothing can compete with it. The good news is that species of carp love to eat it. It's absolutely humbling to think a fern and a fish might control the climate. When we eliminate even one species i think it can be asserted that the entire earth suffers in some way.

What "beautiful stuff"? Do you have any evidence there is anything but the "mud" shell?

Then I apologize.

This line confuses me: You seem to be using it to insinuate criticism of Obama in some fashion. if I am wrong then i apologize but I don't see how it is pertinent to this conversation.

So you blame Obama for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Rigney's position on this disturbs me not because he is ignorant or stupid but because I know he is intelligent, when someone who is intelligent disagrees so profoundly on a subject that appears to be so obvious it makes me wonder if i am missing something. My father in law is the same way, he hates Obama with a passion, so much passion he would believe almost anything as long as it is critical of Obama. We cannot hold a conversation on the subject due to his intense hatred of the man, it is weird as snake suspenders... This is not a reasonable stance, i do not hate Romney or Ryan but I do see the error of what they want to do, if for no other reason than it has been done for the last 30 years and it has failed miserably. Someone said the the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.... What the republicans are suggesting we do is the very definition of insanity and to suggest they are the party of fiscal conservatism is just simply not true... I want to understand... I really do... But i cannot help but think that much of the Republican hatred of Obama is based on race, pure and simple... I would also like to add that there appears to be a measure of not liking the messenger means the message is bogus as well...

This idea has been bandied about a bit, from being possible but impractical, to being both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive I wonder if it would violate causality.

Rigney's arguments are disturbing but the idea that "elderly" has something to do with it is also disturbing, in fact the mere mention of elderly being significant is scary. I see so many people in Rigney's age range that have the same stance, right wing nuts is a accurate description. I know of no elderly left wing nuts but what scares me the most is that i am at the ragged edge of elderly and I don't want to be a wing nut right or left. I have always prided myself on ignoring the "wings" in favor of real world evidence, if it's right wing and correct then it's correct, the same for left wing. Real world evidence is what everyone should base their decisions on not whether or not you like the candidate. Lies, spin and fear mongering should not be a factor in deciding the course of our country and it's policies but they seem to be the prime consideration these days. It may have always been that way but i don't remember it ever being as fierce as it is these days. Is this culture of lies, spin and fear mongering the result of lack of real world data or is it an intentional strategy designed to appeal to the part of the brain that has little or no intellectual capacity? or even more darkly could it be an appeal that is demonstrated to work on older people due to factors that are present in "elderly" people? Could all this really be one party simply taking advantage of our natural fear of the other... that which is different? The republicans consistently claim it's not a black white thing but "me thinks they do protest too much" could it be that simple? One thing I feel for sure is that using the word "elderly" to somehow denigrate Rigney's opinion is not right but in the real world I do see a pattern of older people flocking to the right wing nut position, of course we humans tend to see patterns even where none exist and it might be that this is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. None the less i can't see where Rigney is coming from at all and the fact that I know Rigney is an intelligent person makes this doubly disturbing.... but i think we should be careful in using the adjective "elderly" in this context... The bold is a mistake, after reading the post i realized that elderly was not being used to denigrate Rigneys opinion, Inow, I apologize...

I asked: You said: Then you said: So I'll ask again, in a different way, How do you tell if a religion is real and not false? Which religion do you think is more than a fairy tale?

Since you didn't answer swansonT I'll ask, this means you despise Romney and Ryan doesn't it? I agree that America would not bow to Sharia law, why do you think Obama has the power to bring us under Sharia law? Rigney, you are not making sense here, your video was nothing but quote mining of the worst type. Anyone can be made to say anything with quote mining. I know you are better than this Rigney, it's not honorable to use lies, or even assume something is true just because it is what you want to believe and bring it to a discussion about something so serious without some back up. I know you are an honorable man Rigney and I know you do not worship at the alter of lies. Why are you doing this? To rattle the lions cage because you are powerless to do anything else? That would be very sad Rigney, I think you are a better human being than that.

This probably needs to be in another thread, there is a Proof of God thread, but how do you know that Zeus is not god for instance? Which god can you demonstrate to be real? What is your evidence for this God?

The atmosphere would freeze out, I doubt it would go anyplace... The solar wind tends to tear gasses away from planets. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast08dec98_1/

If I may ask how do you decide which religions are fairy tales and which are real?

This will be my last Coffee with Claire but I hope you enjoy Chuck Norris as dim bulb of the week...

In a very real sense we are the descendants of Homo erectus, it's unlikely that homo sapiens will be here 10 million years in the future but some other species with us as it's ancestor might be. Could you discuss with out me having to join another site to read your text?