Moontanman

From your link How does that link support your idea? Why the emphasis on the moon, why would you assume a large moon is necessary for life? This one is just silly, why would a larger planet not be able to evolve complex life? More gravity? MBE for sure, The Earth may very well be just barely suitable for complex life, we really don't know and a curve cannot be made from one data point. Even if a complex life bearing planet is a one in a billion fluke there are still 100 complex life bearing planets just in our galaxy. The so called Goldilocks zone is quite a bit bigger than was originally thought, is assumes an earth like planet when actually many factors can make the Goldilocks zone much bigger than what the earth seems to indicate. Simply a thicker atmosphere extends this zone by a considerable margin. The Earth looks so perfect for complex life not because it is but because complex life has adapted to the conditions on the earth, it's quite easy to imagine a planet better suited for life, a bigger but less dense world with a vast deep atmosphere would be able to have liquid water way out past Mars, additionally life actually changes the conditions on the Earth to suit life. No accident, no game of chance. In fact for much of Earths existence the earth was not suitable for complex life and in a half a billion years or so it will no longer be suitable for complex life, luck is not what allowed the earth to have complex life. Totally off target, assuming all life is like Earth life is just plain silly, life on the earth has adapted to the earth, life would adapt to another planet in the same way and that planet appear to be perfect for that life... We have already discovered hundreds of planets around other stars and some of them do indeed orbit in the so called goldilocks zone and we have sampled only a small fraction of the stars in the Milkyway.... As i have pointed out this is a false assumption, you assume that only a planet exactly like the earth could support life, there is no reason to assume this. Poker is indeed a good analogy, you are just using it incorrectly, if a million people are playing poker, and i would assume that is not a large mumber of people considering the popularity of poker, then a royal flush would be quite likely to occur, if a billion people were playing poker then a royal flush would be quite common, you are assuming that only one game of poker is being played but in actuality billions of games of poker are being played at the rate of billions of hands a second on any newly formed planet, if the conditions are right then life will form, so royal flushes are occurring every second of every day. I have played lots of poker too, it's not a game of chance, and far more than one hand is being played, do you understand that the odds of drawing to an inside straight only apply if you are drawing only one, if you are drawing millions of them per second the odds get quite good, in fact they are inevitable. Yes life does cheat the odds, by the fact that there are not an unlimited number of ways organic molecules can come together, this one fact disputes your idea of "chance" add to that fact the number of hands being delt and the idea of chance being a problem is swept away completely. But if you are playing millions of hand per second, one of them will indeed win and all you need is one win and life starts, once started it can and will adapt to conditions as they change, life is capable of considerable adaptation to changing conditions. I don't see how this matters, are there planets that have been sterilized by disasters, i am sure there are but that doesn't mean they all will be before complex life can start. No you are incorrect in your analogy as I have pointed out. Imagine a billion handles being pulled, winners would be all over the place. Many books and DVDs have indeed been produced on this faulty assumption, doesn't make them any more correct. I applaud you for that but you are none the less incorrect... I think I know where he got the idea of poker and chance, can you say Bob Dutko?

The nonsensical nature of the two extremes is exactly what i was getting at, the reality must lie somewhere between the two. Population growth will have to be addressed even if technology allows us an infinite supply of what ever resource is limited. If there was an infinite supply of oil we would still have to find other ways of producing energy. Most of the doomsayers are referring to cheap supplies of the resource, prices go up and there will be more of the resource, technology will allow us to exploit ever less concentrated sources of resources but the bottom line is people, we cannot grow at the rate we always have, some sort of balance needs to be made, I'd like to see it happen before every one is living under third world conditions. Personally i think we will eventually have to make the leap to off planet to continue growth, once there we can continue to grow at extreme rates but that won't help the people left on the earth. People need to stop having huge families, factors that cause people to want huge families need to be addressed. This need to rein in reproduction will have to apply to all peoples, not just third world peoples, but i have my doubts this will ever happen, humans are too short sighted to allow this to happen so nature will make the adjustment for us eventually. i just hope we have made it to off world colonies way before that happens.

Drinking lots of water post alcohol binge is the best way to prevent hang overs, i haven't had a hang over since I figured this out, I like tequila and I will drink lots of it on occasion but I get no hang overs, i literally haven't had a hang over in 20 years or more. I feel fine the next day i get up fry eggs and potatoes and i am ready to go while everyone else is hung over too bad to enjoy anything (I usually do this on fishing/camping trips) kind of sad really hang overs are so easy to prevent. They even give this info out to college students.

So you are going to move the goal posts and then quote a guy who is 50 years out of date? I'll tell you again, chance doesn't figure into it, the molecules do not form by chance. I thought the video pointed that out quite well, if indeed it was by chance you would have a point but chance doesn't figure into it, the laws of chemistry have nothing to do with chance. The universe is full of organic molecules, carbon chemistry is very complex and complexity arises from chaos, it's well documented. http://www.space.com/1686-life-building-blocks-abundant-space.html Why is forming a protein molecule so important to your idea? Life doesn't have to have proteins, you are asking a complete modern cell to form spontaneously, that won't happen and is not what is thought to have happened, The first life was far more simple than modern life and contained no DNA the idea of a modern cell arising from a prebiotic earth spontaneously is a strawman argument to begin with. http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#p/a/0696457CAFD6D7C9/0/U6QYDdgP9eg

I always like to help when I can http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/100500E4C9404405/2/3H0RXDrfyZc This series can answer every question you asked, easy...

Chance was not a part of life developing on the earth. natural chemical reaction account for life on the earth quite nicely. A totally false anology. another false analogy Not true, explosions are often used to create order. Again not true, a lightning strike is an explosion and it is natural. Who says it is totally good luck? Life adapts, it changes and evolves, luck is not involved at all... Eventually an event will take place that will make the earth totally lifeless, just because it has not happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Not true the universe is very much an orderly place. Not true, order arises from chaos quite easily, see chaos theory, look it up on google. This doesn't make any sense what so ever, please elaborate. Something will eventually happen it's inevitable but not necessarily immediate. Again the game of poker is a false idea, life and the earth is not shear chance but a reasonable expectation of the laws of the universe, not chance. The earth never goes bust because life cheats, it changes the conditions to favor it's own existence, only by cheating at poker could you come close to showing it as a mirror of life. I think i see why you think this way, you think of life as the complex life you see around you but life on earth was quite simple for more than 3 billion years of it's existence, simple life is much harder to eradicate than complex life. Simple life can survive almost anything, there are life forms that live in ice and that live at temps far above the boiling point of water. complex life did not evolve until conditions on the earth had settled down quite a bit from the beginning. Your entire idea is based on a false premise, who is to say whether or not the universe came to be from chance? There could very well be an infinite number of universes such as ours and life did not come to be by chance but by natural chemical reactions of natural chemicals, life did not advance by chance either but by natural selection and Mars may or may not have life, we don't know but there is some evidence is still exists there as for the rest of the planets life if it exists there did not come about by chance either but via natural reactions due to chemistry. I don't understand where you get this idea that only by chance did life come into existence. You are constructing a strawman argument, science says no such thing even if some individual scientists might say it doesn't make them right. What are the odds of life? 100% of course, we are here! your claims are not even speculation they are totally wrong... It is now suspected that large planetary collisions are quite common in the beginning of planetary systems and large moons are not a billion to one event but probably quite common, all four of the inner planets show signs of giant impacts like the one that formed the moon, it just didn't form a moon on those bodies but had other results but forming a large moon is not as big an accident as you claim and once life started (that was after the large planetary impacts had stopped) it would take a huge impact of an object at least 300 miles in diameter to completely sterilize the earth, no such large objects still intersect with the orbit of the earth. You seem to imply such impacts happen routinely but they stopped nearly 4 billion years ago. so many strawmen in this discussion i cannot address them all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity The above links would seem to quantify the extremes of what is being debated here. One is that there are limits on humanity we will never be able to surpass The other is that humanity using science will be able to surpass all limits I do not think either idea is totally supportable by available data. The limits on resources as we see them today are real, there is no doubt at some point we will run out of something we cannot find a replacement for, it might be phosphorus or it might be hydrocarbons or some rare metal but the limits are real as is the march of technology that allows us to go past those limits. Every time we seem to approach a barrier that would seem impenetrable we find a way to penetrate it but the very technology that allows this might be the ultimate barrier to our progress. There is no way to know for sure but the technological singularity my very well be the "thing" we will not be able to get past, there is no reason to think that AI will want humans around once it becomes real, humans might be seen as a determent to it's own progress instead of finding ways for humans to continue to exist. As for resource barriers phosphorus is a good example of something we need that is in short supply and might very well disappear in reasonable amounts quite soon but there are lots of "assumes" in this line of reasoning as well. It assumes there will be no new deposits of reasonably high quality phosphates found and that no new technologies that would allow us to use deposits of lesser quality will be found or that no new ways of recycling phosphorus will be found as well. While lowering the impact of humans on the environment is always a good thing and the best way to do that is by having fewer humans I really don't think either extreme is likely to happen quite the way that is being assumed here. The best way to look at it is that by doing things like recycling available phosphorus and developing new technologies to do so while at the same time doing our best to make the lives of every one better through education will do more to solve our problems than by assuming doom before it happens, 100 years is a long time to assume there will be no better way to do this and some sources seem to indicate it will be several hundred instead of 100 years. Vernor Vinge, one of the first advocates of the technological singularity describes humanity near the singularity as one individual requiring the resources that during our time would support entire countries but such data curves are suspect in that they show nonsensical end points. The limited resource data would seem to show humanity dies out or at the very least becoming nothing more than a mass of staving people covering the land hip to hip as the end point of the resource limited school of thought this also seems to be nonsensical as well. I think that both technology and conservation hold the key to the survival of humanity as an intelligent species. We will have to use our intelligence to over come hurdles we come up against, not necessarily technological or non technological but a combination of both but assuming either curve's end point as inevitable is a huge assumption i do not think we have the data for.

So who says life occurred by chance and that only by chance has it been able to persist?

Microwaves Cap'n? Hmmm, I'd like to be able to EM Pulse those cars that sound like rolling earth quakes as they go by late at night, those things are just stupid and rude, I don't mind if you play the music loud but why do you need me to hear it, roll up your windows and act like you have a modicum of respect for those around you! ooops, OT, sorry, lol but if this catches on with rednecks, country music up that loud would be certain to drive me insane, well more insane, lol

TMI dude, TMI, lol, one thing to remember is that if you are losing weight that THC is being released into your body in detectable amounts, THC is stored in body fat so all the diuretic in the world will not remove that in fact it might make it worse. If you are losing weight while you are trying to get your THC levels down you will continue to shed THC from your fat cells for quite sometime. i would try to gain a few pounds while I was doing the other things for sure. Eat pizza! If they test your hair then you are screwed, shave your self bald every where just before you go in to be tested, I would take at least a month off before I tried to be tested and one question that comes to mind is that if you have a medical reason to smoke pot then why is it important to not test positive. If you were being tested for opiates and had a prescription for opiates all you have to do is show it and the opiates will be ignored in any testing regime I have ever heard of. I'm not sure about the visine thing, visine will kill you, it is poisonous and has been used to kill people. I doubt your beastly metabolism will figure into avoiding testing positive... If you just want to replace your urine with something use warm water, urine is often clear and many people fool the test by just using warm water as long as they are not being NAZI's about it, but time is the only thing that will reduce the level of THC in your urine if they are being NAZI's about it, then unless you give your self time, at least a month then you are screwed, who are you trying to fool? The CIA or just an employer? Common drug tests do not test to see if what is in the cup is urine they test it for drug metabolites, as long as you are cool and don't act like you are batshit crazy a common urine test is easy to fool but a really thurogh test is difficult to fool by any means...

I think it's demonstrable that more energy was produced since matter is such a small fraction of the over all substance of the universe.

Ok, I'm going to ask a stupid question, get the flame throwers ready... I have read recently, some place, that not only could our universe have formed from a black hole in another universe warping space time so much it tore out and the singularity expanded out into another dimension or reality or something and made our universe and that black holes in our universe could be doing the same thing and creating other universes. Not only that but universes that form black holes are likely to create more universes than universes that due to having laws of nature different from ours cannot form or form less numbers of black holes or less massive black holes that do not have the energy to tear out of singularity and expand into another dimension. What I want to know that if this can be shown to be mathematically "true" (that was the premise) where does the extra energy come from to make all the matter in a universe? if the mass of the black hole is the on,y source of energy this would seem to be a loosing proposition and each universe would be smaller than the next till they all fizzled out (at best) Does the mass of a black hole release more energy than it has by breaking this inter-dimensional barrier? Does breaking this barrier require a certain amount of mass, like a super black hole? or do even small black holes have the energy to break through and expand from a singularity and release an entire universe worth of energy by breaking this barrier? My own thoughts on this might be that when a black hole begins to collapse as it gets closer and closer to being a nothing but a point singularity, the impossibility of such a point singularity causes the rift/tear and allows the creation of a new space time this effect over comes this barrier and expands out by creating a whole new space time but I can't seem to understand where the energy comes from to create more mass than goes into a black hole. I have been rolling this concept around in my mind for a while now and i can't seem to get a grip on the idea where all the new energy/mass would come from or how the process would keep from running down like a battery running a motor and that turns a generator that charges the battery.... I think I like the colliding branes idea better.... lol

Humans are the only true evil, everything else is fantasy....

I think onstar or something like that is way ahead of you, they can unlock it, start it, and shut your car down for you remotely as well... The police can call and have your car shut down and nothing is tamper proof.... I think it's disturbing that someone can call and have your car shut down....

yes, take him to a doctor....

Well then you have a problem, ants do not reproduce fast, only one ant, the queen lays eggs and she only mates once in her life, none of the worker ants reproduce at all. Many experiments like you describe use fruit flies because they do reproduce fast. Google fruit fly research to see what I mean.

Caffeneisaddictivewhosayscaffenesiaddictiveiloveitinthemorningandatnightithasnoeffectonemewhatsoeverheyrefilmycupbequickaboutit....

Is that a fact? You're just baiting me right?

There is no doubt that many people get comfort from their religion but creationism is a lie fostered by people who are manipulating people into giving them huge sums of money, creationism depends on making everyone believe the bathwater is murky and pretending to look for the baby while their hands are in the pockets of the person who is doing the looking. It's just another way of muddying the water so you can't tell how deep it really is, but hey dive in, the water is fine..... I've spent quite a bit of time listening to Rays MBE, he is full of it and himself and makes his living from lying to people about religion, not to mention trying to make them believe that creationism is the one and only real religion and that any one who isn't a creationist has to be an atheist. I have zero respect for him and those like him... and there are a lot of them and show casing any of them just increases their power and fills their pockets, they need to be opposed at every turn by pointing out the facts of their deceit...

Ray comfort is an attention whore, he lives to spread his MBE and make money from it and while he wasn't paid for this i am sure it will indeed induce others to look him up on the net and eventually he will make more money off it. His MBE is so extensive it has become almost a religion all by it's self, he did of course win the Golden Crocoduck, in 2009 i think it was, for violating the 9th commandment in the name of his religion. I've been praying to ydoaPs for some time now, he always gives me what I ask for....

What sort of mutations are expecting to be able to induce? You can kill them with the agents you mentioned but I'm not certain where you intend to go with this.

I think it is arguable that there are only 3 senses in humans, taste and smell are the same thing, sensing chemicals, touch and hearing are the same thing, sensing vibrations of matter, then you have sight which is sensing electromagnetic radiation. Some animals can sense magnetic and electrical fields like Mormyrids (fish) and knife fishes, they generate their own elctromagnetic fields and actively use them to both communicate and navigate. Sharks as well can sense electromagnetic fields although it is passive detection, some birds have been shown to sense magnetic fields passively as well. For there to be a sense other than these you first have to have a mechanism for that sense. Brain waves are electro-chemical in nature but far too weak as far as anyone can tell to be sensed by another brain through air but Mormyrids do indeed connect with each other through electromagnetic fields because water conducts these fields much better than air.

So, you are saying that mammals in general are somehow less related to reptiles than birds are related to reptiles? Are you saying that mammals somehow appeared with no basil forms? Are you saying that mammal like reptiles are basil to achosaurs but not mammals? Mammal like reptiles were not basal to archosaurs by any definition of the idea. One group of reptiles evolved in one direction and another evolved in another direction (I am sure there were more groups that went no where in an evolutionary way and much more complexity but as you said earlier we are being crude here) Mammals as we know them did not spring into existence, they had precursors just like dinosaurs did. If not for the ecological pressures of dinosaurs the mammal like reptiles would never have given rise to the animals we see as mammals today. It's like you are trying to say humans are related to apes but not monkeys. (humans are both apes and monkeys by definition) Archosaurs, specifically dinosaurs dominated the mammal like reptiles not due to chance but do to real superior adaptations that the mammal like reptiles simply didn't have, like an upright stance, bipedal, better respiratory systems, the mammal like reptiles, even the more advanced ones we would have seen as more mammalian couldn't compete and were driven to extinction by the competition of dinosaurs. Only those mammal like reptiles that had evolved to fill the niches occupied by small creatures survived. This evolutionary pressure changed them drastically from their ancestors but the connection is still there. I honestly do not see how you can separate mammals from reptiles so completely when they obviously evolved from reptiles at some point in their evolutionary past as did archosaurs, yes most archosaurs do superficially resemble reptiles more than most mammals but that is due to the more reptilian mammals having been eliminated by competition with the dinosaurs. Can you honestly say that crocodiles are reptiles with no caveats? Compare a Komodo Dragon with a Crocodile, not the same type of creature, they only superficially resemble each other and their evolutionary connection is just as distant as the distance between a Komodo Dragon and a Lion. An alligator is no more a lizard than a bird is a lizard, some mammals not only lay eggs but lack both the upright stance of most mammals and also lack efficient thermo-regulatory systems. In our modern world none of the more basil mammals have survived, the three types of mammals that do survive are quite different from each other, some would say as different as crocodiles from dinosaurs at least. Either I am stupid which is of course entirely possible or we do not understand each other very well.

I view the tea party as the future of humanity, they possess the absolute truth as described in their revealed word of god, this absolute truth has so much weight with the people who believe, it will eventually create such a pull of absolute truth it will pull the entirety of human society into an intellectual black hole from which nothing intelligent will ever be able to return. that is what I think of the tea party... brainteaserfan, it was a joke, not a real suggestion of how run a government but the tea party is no joke and the danger it poses is no joke either....