Moontanman

Sadly naturally occurring magnets cannot do any of the things you desire. Magnetism was indeed discovered before the steam engine, they were indeed revolutionary, magnets changed the world, they were used to make compasses...

Thomas Kelly, I live in a hurricane zone, we've already had two tropical storms, your question is nonsensical. No one ever just suddenly claims a hurricane is coming, the very idea of such an unsupported claim is ridiculous. Many days before the storm you get weather reports, satellite images, radar images of the approaching storm, you can measure the slow drop in atmospheric pressure, the increasing surf, the incessant wind that comes from only one quarter. Hurricanes have real physical evidence of their coming and going, the New Testament is just some tales the Catholic church put together by popular vote about 1600 years ago. How can you possibly compare the reality of an approaching hurricane to a book about myths?

You should try NC legislators... dumb as stumps... hateful as a grizzly bear with syphilis... seriously, some of the political ads I've seen lately are better than SNL comedy routines... except they are seriously scary...

It's not evidence for what the book asserts or says.

i am getting read to go to a movie and dinner with my wife but when i get back I'll be glad to provide you with some really good science around the origin of life... Lets not derail iNow's thread any more than we have already , start an origin of life thread and we can discuss this when I get back.

Appolinaria, you are quite mistaken and i am disappointed in your line of argument here. I've seen you do quite a bit better in these discussions. You seem to be insisting on clinging to things that are simply not true, strawmen at best. And these hypotheses about the origin of life have been discussed in other threads in great detail. First of all there is no spark of life, the idea of some sort of special thing called "spark of life" was discredited centuries ago. There is nothing special about life that cannot be explained by chemistry. 50 years ago you could have accurately said that the beginning of life was mysterious but even then we had some pretty good hypothesis. Now we have some very good science that describes what we think the beginning of life was and how it happened. This idea that Science has no idea about the beginning of life is absolutely false. The beginning of life cannot be described as accurately as the diversification of life has been explained but the beginning of life is no longer even close to being a complete mystery. I don't want to throw this thread of topic but saying that the beginning of life is somehow a huge impenetrable mystery is simply not true...

Come on dude, I know when something is above my pay grade, that's why i asked, you suggested that Mars would form a magnetic field if it had an denser atmosphere then you gave links but the links didn't support your opinion at all, in fact never mentioned it. Why would you expect mars to generate a magnetic field if it had a substantial atmosphere? I could see how spinning the moon, if it still has a molten core might generate a magnetic field, but why would mars?

More on that http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051031/elephant.html Sorry , no intent to go off topic.

I would have to agree, elephants are the first species to come to mind. They do have some sense of their own mortality even going as far as identifying the bones of not just other elephants but those they knew as friends and or members of their own family groups. They have a language and communicate to each other using infra sound as well as sound within the range of human hearing. . http://www.elephantvoices.org/elephant-communication/acoustic-communication.html

More word games Thomas? So far everyone here has treated you honorably, to suggest otherwise with no reason other than he doesn't agree with you is a bit disingenuous don't you think? Again, your assertion is the positive one, i simply see no reason to believe, no evidence of god, no belief in god, I do not claim there is no god, i say there is no evidence for god. So far you have shown no evidence for god, only in your belief in your particular god myth. If there is no evidence something exists the default position is that it does not exist. Evidence that stood up to skeptical inquiry would immediately change that stance but the writings of men about god are not evidence of the existence of god. If you insist they are then you have to show why the writings of your particular god are true and all the others are not. I suggest you quite making childish threats no one is interested in and do some research into reality...

pantheory, i see nothing in either of those links to support this assertion (sentence in bold)

All that exists is simply evidence of all that exists not evidence of some imaginary deity. You cannot even show that any deity or deities exist at all much less the one you are claiming to have evidence of, you have to understand that your particular Holy book or books are not evidence of anything other than what the humans who wrote them thought, imagined, copied, or lied about to use to control others and give themselves stature they didn't deserve. Why is your god or idea of god any better than Zeus, Thor, Odin, Ra, Adriana, or any of the millions of other gods or goddesses everyone is an atheist of far as they are concerned?

Which ones?

Thomas Kelly, you need to understand what evidence is before you start asserting you have some... I'm guessing preaching, it's definitely not discussing...

Then again maybe not... In this context broken is referring to believing in something with no evidence, using faith to make decisions about reality. What does any of these things have to do with the existence of Evil or contradictions in the bible? Of course I do, when they've earned my trust. No it is not, to prove such a thing you would have to have god like knowledge. If a scientist had proof of the existence or non existence of god they would indeed publish this evidence. Do like arguing against strawmen? To be an atheist does not mean you have evidence god does not exist, it means you see no evidence that god does exist. To be a scientist does not mean you do not believe in god, you seriously need to do some research, so far you have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of your own assertions. Asserting something is not evidence it is correct. Simply claiming or asserting something is not evidence it is true. Such an assertion is easily falsified... I see no evidence of any god or gods existing, not just the myths of the Holy bible. The bible is a book about mythology, tales about what bronze age men though god was. because it's fiction and fiction can say anything you want? The god described in the Holy Bible is a pathological monster... Maybe all of it is. And some people have neither. I can show much of the bible to be false, can you show any of it to be true? The bible is not proof of anything it is full of things that either could not possibly have happened and things that paint a picture of a horrible god that does and demands horrific things. you asked a question in the thread, anyone can post and answer...

No, obviously not everyone, but I do... I think it's self evident, few if any people would believe anything with the same lack of skepticism they use when believing religion. That's not the way science works, you make a positive assertion that god exists, then you have to provide evidence of that. Proving that a god or gods do not exist is like proving leprechauns do not exist. For leprechauns to be taken seriously you must show they do exist, proving they do not exist is not possible. Again see the above, but yes if you had bothered to look around the site you would have see evidence to support that god is illogical and cannot exist as described in the bible. I looked, it made for a very poor argument. I am sure you will find this much to your own surprise but many people around here are very well versed in religious texts including your Holy Bible and the arguments used by apologists to justify those texts... Small instances like the ones you point out are insignificant when compared to things like Noah's flood, genesis, rape, murder, genocide, child rape, slavery, sexual slavery, killing of children, the bible is full of this stuff. If you use the bible as evidence of god then god is a psychopathic monster... No they use them to attract peoples attention, something not necessary when posting in threads.

This is a good one...

I think it could be said that humans and dogs have evolved together. I have always loved dogs, the ability to bond with them is higher in some humans that others but over the course of my life dogs have saved me from at least bodily harm at least 4 times and protected my children several times as well. For the last 35 years they've all been basset hounds. Dogs are really great companions, protectors, and family members. I am certain that the relationship has molded dogs to understand us quite possibly even think as we do, they certainly know how to read us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88lmVxvRaXU

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Resource Animal" No resources will ever be transferred to the Earth From Mars, no significant number of people will ever be taken there. Please elaborate.

I am not sure I can agree with this, while I think Terra forming is probably not going to happen for many reasons the continued exploration and eventual exploitation of the solar system beyond the earth is going to pay off for everyone in the long term. New technologies, raw materials maybe manufactured goods as well. If we can build colony type artificial habitats orbiting the sun and utilizing the solar system as raw materials I can see reason to continue space travel, bringing things to the earth is much easier than taking them away. If we just gave up warfare we could do both at the same time...

I agree the big object would be dooms day but would the lions share of the debris orbit the moon or the earth? Could a moon form around our Moon? I think the 16 kilomter object would slowly degrade the environment over time as the debris made it's way slowly to the earth, if most of the debris stayed with the moon it might just be a few decades of super meteor showers and less solar radiation but if most of it came our way then a constant rain of rocks from the sky as objects too small to make it to the earth exploded and the resulting debris was slowed down the the atmosphere and fist sized rocks rained down on average of several per square mile per day, possibly over decades? I'm not sure there'd be enough mass ejected for that level of bombardment.

I was going to suggest a few more accurate parameters but the site I use http://www.johnbray.org.uk/planetdesigner/ is down. i was hoping for some ball park guesses, my vague guess is the lions share of material would be transferred to Earth orbit and eventually the surface of the Earth, over time scales we would notice... probably in both scenarios

I was thinking about what would it be like to see and what would happen if a really large body, like an mostly iron core asteroid hit the moon. First if the asteroid was in the few tens of miles range would it just be a fireworks show with nothing to worry about or would it be an earth shattering event? Would the debris impact the earth I guess is the question. Feel free to give your ideas but I also wonder if the debris cloud would orbit the moon like a ring or would it go immediately into orbit of the earth or impact the earth? Also if a really large object hit the moon, 750 miles in diameter, mostly iron, like a tiny mercury but with a thin rock / "ice" crust several miles thick (seems reasonable to assume), and it hit the moon could the debris form a new moon that orbits the old moon? (Similar to the process that is thought to have formed earths moon.) or would the debris form in orbit around the earth as a new moon? I would have to assume in the case of the larger moon impact the Earth would be messed up pretty bad no matter what? Just an idle question.... or two

Judging the evidence via empirical reality and being able to show others how to obtain the empirically real evidence would be the standard.