Moontanman

You are correct, if indeed the law for sex with a child was limited that way it would indeed set up the possibility of abuse, and to continue in the vein of devils advocate, why is sex so treated? As long as it's not sexual i can pretty much teach my kids anything, I could make them worship Cthulhu, make them pray to him 5 times a day and teach them that anyone or anything that does not get on their knees five times a day and pound their foreheads on the ground in Cthulhu's name are doomed to burn in everlasting hell fire, I can teach them to hate and carry signs that claim everyone else is going to hell and make them march for Cthulhu's and all sort of other odd and mentally mentally damaging things but sex is somehow wrong? I do not support sex with children but to say it's because it might damage them is just ignoring the reality of the situation. As for sex, i can teach them sexually damaging things, like sex is bad, having sex is so wrong that only horrible criminals have sex, i can (in some countries) take away their ability to enjoy sex both physically and mentally, I can teach them all kinds of damaging things about sex or anything else, and if i call it religion I can have sex with underage girls and take several of them as wives, the idea that sex for children is limited because it might do them harm is not part of reality, something else is going on here.... i think it has a name....

neaner neaner neaner sorry i couldn't help myself.... Hate is a strong word, I'm not sure I really hate anything but creationists come pretty close to inciting that feeling in me....

I don't understand what you are saying here. Actually no it's not, but since you don't want to know anything that disagrees with your preconceptions i see no reason to guide you to explanations of abiogenesis which has nothing to do with evolution BTW. Although there are some pretty good hypothesis that involve evolutionary like processes. So what would you expect to see in a transitional fossil? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishapod Or is it Human evolution that bothers you so much? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution Again i respectfully suggest that if you are really interested in learning that you watch all of AronRa's videos on the subject. If indeed you do not like MR Ra's videos then i suggest you watch Potholer54's videos on the same subject, he is a bit less abrasive... http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/DB23537556D7AADB/8/MCayG4IIOEQ Potholer54 has an entire seris of "made easy" videos explaining everything from the beginning of the universe to abiogenesis to the scientific method, they are concise and easy to understand. http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/DB23537556D7AADB/3/v8nYTJf62sE

Actually there was some lithium made then or it is thought to have been made but not much, only a tiny amount but during the beginning of the "big bang" atoms could not exist and by the time atoms could exist the density dropped off too fast for heavy elements to form or at least that's my understanding of it. then there is the fact that older stars have few metals, the oldest we know of having almost none which agrees with theory quite well.

Ummm, no, the legal drinking age was not set back to 21, it had never been 21, in fact in the early part of the last century and the last of the 1800's puberty was pretty much the drinking age if there was any limits at all. In some countries it is 15 or 16 now but 21 was not the "original" drinking age by any means...

Actually AronRa is really his name and it's Nordic but hey who's counting...

If you had taken the time to actually watch the entire series with a critical mind you would have seen Mr. Ra explain in detail why the ideas he represents are indeed true not to mention the details why the creation myth cannot possibly be real. To me the most important reason is that science has indeed followed the religious agenda and found no support for it what so ever. Naturalistic causes on the other hand have an overwhelming amount of observable repeatable evidence to support them, and this data is not just accepted but is consistently tested and found to be demonstrably true, over and over, even today the details are being tested and found to be true and if not the the new data is added to what we know. Religion adds no new data to humanity, in fact it retards the growth of knowledge by arresting progress. I think it's quite telling that not only are their no faith healers in emergency rooms (if you or a loved on is inured or sick do you want a faith healer or a doctor) but that religious writing, the word of god, has not even added something simple like basic pain relief to help stop suffering to man kinds store of knowledge, not even simple hygiene. Science, on the other hand using the methodology of science has not only added to our total supply of knowledge but has created medicines that don't just relieve pain and suffering, science has eradicated disease, small pox is a good example, while creationism does nothing but exclaim loudly science is wrong, usually telling quite profound lies in the process. Science is what allows us to live lives of relative health and plenty, our entire first world culture is based in science, do you really want to go back to the standard of living of 1000 years ago? Watch the videos, then come back with specific questions and I'll do my best to answer them... or it might be because I'm a member of the scientific establishments conspiracy and if i don't support them they will come to my house and shoot me....

You obviously did not watch the entire video or any of the rest, i suggest you do, all of your assertions have been debunked so many times on this forum it's difficult to count them, i will not repeat them here for some one who would rather believe in lies over evidence no matter what. Glory in your ignorance, it's sad but I can't make you drink from the well of knowledge i can only show it to you... I should have known, why do i let myself get caught up in this male bovine excrement topic....

Deluxe, i know you will refuse to even consider it but you've been lied to, some one or a group of some ones have filled you with lies and misrepresented facts, I have no problem with ignorance, we are all ignorant of somethings, no one knows everything and even of the things we do know there are some errors but you have been grossly mislead. I suggest you watch this series of videos with a critical mind and see how badly you have been misused by the people who lied to you http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/0/KnJX68ELbAY I know I am probably wasting my time but i like to help anyone who is really seeking knowledge.

Don't forget the dinosaurs dude, everything from t-rex to velocoraptors and brachiosaurs, literally millions of species....

No they don't, where do you get this misinformation? Quite the contrary, science started out assuming the bible was literally true but absolutely nothing they found backed up anything in the bible... It's religion that lacks the evidence not science, you are so far off the mark, ape to human was indeed little steps, fossils are there. we have them and literally thousands of transitional fossils too. Absolutely false... So all of science, paleontology, history, physics, astronomy, chemistry, are all wrong and are just lies made up to discredit the bible? Are you looking for a Crocoduck? BTW, you'll find those almost humans in the fossil record, oh wait, that just a lie to discredit... well you know.... it would be so easy to totally bring down evolution, I mean so very easy, but so far no one has been able to do it, not even almost, can you image the fame the person who found a bunny rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would have?

Wouldn't the programmer be god in that system? Or would it be the creator of the programmer? To me any attempt at seriously discussing god is turtles all the way down.... Also a good article in Discovery Magazine, in a nut shell, if any forces exist other than the ones we know about they have little or no effect on the world or we would have detected them by now... same for god..... if there was one we would be able to see the effect of this being in some way as it effected the natural world.. or it's effect is negligible... BTW I wasn't trying to pick on mormons, I was just trying to show that the concept of god, even the Abrahamic god doesn't necessarily imply either of those three big words.... One more thing, you did say something about the evolution of god, or that god could be brought about by evolution, I think we are at least potentially quite capable of one day being able to make our own planets through technology, could god come about the same way, do we need god so bad we would create him or become him?

God would appear to be quite variable depending on how big a bite of horse feathers you can swallow, I see no reason to assume anything about god or even his or her existence. One religion which i will not mention the name of mormons seems to think God was once a mortal just like us and he became a god then made his own planet for his many children (it would seem he has lots of wives and sex) and if you believe in him and follow his teaching you get your own planet and wives (lots of sex I assume) to have lots of children to populate that planet so you can mess them up in the head like all of us are now... I bet I'd be excommunicated or something equally painful or difficult to spell if i said that sounded like evolution but maybe we will one day evolve into god and go back in time and rescue everyone from their sinful ways or something like that but my point is that god can be what ever you want as long as you don't require any evidence of his existence, debating his abilities is a bit like debating why purple unicorn farts smell like strawberries..... I think omnipresence and omniscience would require omnipotence.... and all of the three require abilities that are self contradictory...

I think the possibility that octopus, or their larger ancestors, there are giant octopus around even now, may have actually tried to arrange objects into an image of themselves to be quite interesting. Octopus are very unusual creatures, very intelligent, can you imagine how an intelligent being all alone (modern octopus at least) they are not communal creatures, they hate each other and do not come together except at mating time, but imagine how alone she would have been, sitting inside her underwater cave trying to make sense of a world that held only her mind and her own thoughts, never able to communicate her thoughts, so she made them come to life by crafting an image of herself.... Very speculative but also very compelling...

Are you suggesting I hang my self? this is the first two paragraphs from your link the first link went to this I think what we have is a failure to communicate, with in minutes at least meat begins to spoil, the amount of spoilage is what we are talking about, your definition of rotten is different from mine, in mine, cheese is rotten milk....

Biggest mystery... "Where is everybody?"

So who's definition of god are we using here or is it more of a idealized concept? Seriously, a great many "gods" do not have either of your proposed abilities....

Really? Bacterial action is not rotting? umm quite possibly they want to control the bacterial action (rotting) so they control the bacterial growth (rotting) by temperature manipulation.... Again, is this not just controlled bacterial digestion (rotting)? Your link was a dead end, aged beef is indeed rotten, it is allowed to hang for several days at specific temperatures to allow bacteria to soften the meat, if you go to a grocery store and buy out of date steaks you'll find them very tender and tasty, just par the greenish black parts off, the only reason the steaks you buy in the store are nice red and appear fresh is because they expose them to CO, makes the meat bright red, if not is would be brown or even black when you bought it , in many cultures meat is aged, some times for years as bacteria change it to a more edible form but it is still in essence rotting. If we were stranded out In the bush or what ever they call it where ever you live and we caught and killed a small animal like a rabbit or even managed to bring down a deer do you think it would poison us to eat it raw? Not hardly, now if we allowed it to rot a couple days or so in the heat it might (if we were used to eating raw rotten meat our internal bacterial fauna might give us the ability to eat it in a more rotten state) but while raw meat can indeed introduce parasites, most carnivores get these as well, we can digest it and get nutrition from it. Cooking just makes it easier to digest but we can digest raw meat.... most carnivores can eat it in a much more rotten state than we can due to adaptation and internal bacteria so... One thing to remember, rotten and raw are not the same thing....

And yet the unicellular biosphere under our feet, in our bodies, and universally present everywhere on Earth, masses more than all surface complex life put together and they could survive a 300 kilometer asteroid hit, could we? We live at the discretion of the bacteria on this planet, wipe them out and we (and by we I mean all of complex life) are history or fossils.... then there are the virus particles, quite possibly even more influential than unicellular life.

Great song, you should hear it on my Infinity 1.5's at 150 watts per channel..... I thought I was one of maybe 12 people on the planet who knew who Klaatu was and or listened to them I hope you are correct md but I keep thinking about that Mars probe, that buried it's self in the surface of Mars because some one saw meters per second but used feet per second...

Did a giant octopus really make art? I have kept many and they do indeed seem to be obsessed with objects and their placement in the shelters they build but could it have been art? http://www.world-science.net/othernews/111010_ichthyosaur

The age of a rock is usually judged by the time it became a rock, in lava it's when it cooled, in sedentary rock both the rock strata and the individual grains it's made of can often be dated but not always. Sometimes it's the relative age of layers of rock that are dated, when a rock is changed as in metamorphic rock it's the change that sets the dating mechanism. Sometimes several different methods are used to judge the age of rocks. So it usually depends on the type of rock as to the dating method.

Where is this assertion that humans cannot eat raw meat coming from? Can anyone support it with anything but "it's just common knowledge"? Raw meat can indeed be eaten by humans, ask a navy seal or some other "human" that has been trained in survival skills. yes it can make you sick so can cooked meat if it has sit too long. Humans even eat rotten meat, ever hear of Aged Basking shark? Even the beef we eat is aged (read rotten) to make it tender and better tasting. I don't understand where the idea that humans cannot eat raw meat is coming from.....

A profound video about human genetics.... everyone should watch this video...

Sorry, I should have included a link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria