Moontanman

Another returned to life thread for sure but I can remember things from about the age of two or so for sure, possibly some other flashes that occurred earlier, I remember being breast fed at least once although my mom says she didn't breast feed which is rather disturbing. i agree that those memories are more of flashes than the type of memories I have now.

I cannot understand how anyone would want to get rid of nature and substitute the maximum number of humans possible even if it was feasible to do so. I love to hike in the wild, camp, and just take in wild areas, it is good for the mind to see nature at it's finest. I like to imagine orbiting habitats but in my wildest dreams I never leave out a huge area of what would appear to be a very diverse natural section in the habitat, in my imagination this section would have to be much larger than the space occupied by humans. A wild and diverse nature is part of who we are, to deny this denies our humanity, we are not separate from nature we are part of it. I hope humans never get to the point that they can do with out nature, to live your entire life in an artificial habitat with nothing but humans would be my idea of hell.

So, singing is what they call that now days?

Thanks for the link Monster from the ID, lots of misrepresentations, fabrications and out right lies there but that is par for the course from creationist supporter. Now i know who you are and what you are, my conscious will not bother me if i don't get caught up in this debate because like all creationists i doubt you are looking for knowledge, more likely you are looking to ask a question that cannot be answered so I'll give you one, who created God? So far all you have done is obfuscate the issue with straw men and meaningless analogies, your island analogy fails due to the nature of the premise of isolated islands, no organism or chemical in solution is isolated, the very nature of biology is that organisms interact with each other, they mate, pass on genes with inherited variation. For your analogy to work the islands would have to be able to reproduce and come into contact with each, I also thing that virus's have a big role to play in life's very early evolution but that is another line of reasoning. If you continue to obfuscate the discussion by invoking things like ID and using links that suggest not only a total misunderstanding of evolution and spread out right lies I see no reason to take you seriously. From your link: This quote is a classic, a number of scientists are openly questioning the sacred status of evolution, quite the misrepresentation there isn't it? The insinuation that evolution is sacred in some way? Or that scientists are divided in some significant way on the theory of evolution? Are you gonna tell us it's just a theory next? Ahh the smell can't you smell that smell? The link you provided is a creationist link to a guy with a medical degree not a science degree and he is using his MD to try and sell his male bovine excrement (for $12.95) and that is worse than sad, it's wrong, and he is wrong or more accurately lying.

The idea that evolution is something like wondering through a maze is totally off base, if you must use that analogy then it should be a group of people who explore the maze over many generations and tell each succeeding generation about the false turns so they won't make the same mistakes, reproduction with inherited variation is not like one individual doing anything. I read 800 words a minute give some links to read so I at least know where the stuff you are saying is coming from... right now it seems to be coming from your rectum....

Being eaten by salt water crocs would seem to be a bit of a minus I could walk less than a mile and see some wild alligators but they almost never bother humans but don't salt water crocs infest large areas of salt water swamps? I would miss fishing and not having to worry about being eaten... Oh yeah, they don't allow the importation of many aquarium fish either and I would miss that I remember seeing a movie a long time ago about a group of people in Australia who lived in a rather large crater or something like that and they made their living shooting kangaroos and turning them into dog food, i can't remember the name, good movie. I like beer...

It's also quite true that humans carry around more bacterial cells than human cells by quite a large factor, you are more bacteria than human Almost all if not all animals require quite a large number of comensual bacteria to survive, even some intestinal parasites have positive effects, worms that are parasitical in the human gut give us some protection from allergies, people who do not have them are far more likely to suffer from sever allergies than people who do not. Is it just me or does google Chrome spell checker suck whale shit from the bottom of the ocean? This is called the rare Earth theory and to me it would indicate that every species is all the more precious due to the idea that say wolves are only found one place in the entire universe, here and to kill them off or any other complex life form is to destroy something that is irreplaceable in any way much less directly. I often wonder if they will be able to recreate things like woolly mammoths or woolly rhinos and if they do what would they do with them? Stick them in a zoo and let people gawk at them? It seems to be fundamentally flawed idea in many respects. I am a member of an organization that would not support the "rewilding" of America for many reasons but disease and parasites is probably at the top of the list most of the scientists and researchers I know. The main reason things like wolves are extinct in most highly populated areas has little to with them being dangerous to humans more about us competition for the same food supply which is far less true now than when the wolves were common. In WV where I am from coyotes have been "reintroduced" into the mountains to cure the over population of deer but domestic pets are far easier prey and are suffering badly and the deer continue to prosper. It is rumored that Rattle snakes are being dropped from hellecopters too but that is yet another conspiricy theory I'm not sure how many species it would take but it would take lots of time, probably hundreds of thousands of years if not millions to prepare a lifeless planet to be habitable by any complex life forms like those on the earth and what it would take is lots of bacteria of many greatly diverse forms to even provide oxygen and clear out the noxious chemicals of a lifeless world, being habitable requires a hugely complex ecosystem of just bacteria, complex life is the thinnest top layer of tremendous depth of life on earth.

So far all you have done is give inappropriate denials from the stance of you simply denying it can happen, the idea that the flagellum is useless if you knock out a protein at random is not evidence of IC, the flagellum was built from simplicity to complexity, obviously if you eliminate part of the flagellum it will not operate, or depending on what part not operate as efficiently, but it is easy to see from the video how it evolved, evolution is not randomly trying solutions, that is a straw man argument. It has nothing to do with randomly trying solutions to a problem as you would in making your way through a maze. As I said before give us some evidence, not claims made from a river in Egypt. And yes IC is intimately connected with ID, you claiming it is not is the river in Egypt again. Show me evidence that something cannot evolve because it is too complex, not that something is so complex that if one part is randomly taken away it will not function that is not how evolution works, i suggest you do a little bit of research into evolution somewhere besides Conservative-pedia or what ever that pack of lies and misrepresentations is called. So far I am not impressed by your models and I am very disappointed you have provided no evidence other than your disbelief... BTW... Yes it is a reason to start sounding negative early on, what you are doing is trying to obfuscate the issue by simply dancing all around it but not addressing it, there is no need to soften us all up by a lengthy introduction, get to the point, most of us are very familiar with all the concepts you seem to be intent on explaining to us as though we are grade school children. Lets see some direct evidence of IC, it would be nice to see how you can separate out IC from ID but I fear that would only be an excuse for you to further delay the discussion by obfuscation again.

Marat, do you have a link to the source of this, i am interested in knowing more.

I don't know where you live but in the USA, especially the south it's called the culture wars and the creationists are gaining ground every day, mega churches dot the landscape and religion is slowly but surely being inserted into everything. They want the country to be a Christian country with Christian values and science and rational thought are being discouraged. i am loosing friends because I will not mindlessly go along. It is very scary looking out from the inside of this movement.

It's quite true that a coal power plant releases more radioactivity into the environment than a nuclear power plant does, a coal power plant just spreads it out over a larger area. As for renewables, they will and should play a large part in future energy needs but they will not be able to support all energy needs and the nuclear power we now use is not exactly the most optimal type of nuclear power, what we use was first started because it produced material to make nuclear weapons, the uranium plutonium cycle we use today is not as environmentally friendly as the thorium uranium cycle which is very difficult to use to make weapons grade material and produces far more energy from less material and leaves behind only a tiny percentage of the waste the Uranium plutonium cycle does and that waste is very short lived compared to the uranium plutonium cycle we use today. see this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57861-the-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor/

Early on? What are you waiting for the second coming of Jesus Christ? IC of a machine does not equate with the idea of IC in a reproducing biological system with inherited variation. I am not upset, i would be fine if you just conceded the point and went on but simply dragging your argument out with nothing but the equivalent of he said she said and no evidence is not only annoying I am pretty sure it's against the rules here. You have claimed evidence of IC, if you have it, lets see it, put up or shut up is my motto. The very idea of IC is saying god did it so there is no need to question any further and to say that scientists have faith in science is just silly, I was referring to the fact that faith has no place in science, it is not allowed in science. a scientist can have faith in anything he wants but if he asserts that faith as proof of anything then he is out of line and will be called on it by other scientists. Most scientists have some sort of religious faith but they are smart enough to understand that science is not based on or in faith in anything supernatural, only evidence counts and unlike religion which is indeed what IC is just like ID, science looks at the evidence and follows it where it leads, IC/ID looks at a conclusion and tries to shoe horn evidence to prove it. that is not how our First world civilization came to be and if we adopt the ID/IC method our First world civilization will stop progressing and digress into another dark age of superstition and ignorance. Now if you do have have the means to show us wrong quite trying to lube us up and show it. The suspense is killing me I have about an hour before i start my day, go for it. But of course you cannot, you know it and I know it, so this is just a silly little dance that evidently amuses you in some way. IC/ID supposes a designer of some sort that very idea is totally unsupportable as the idea of a flat earth supported by a huge turtle, what supports the turtle? Well is it turtles all the way down? down to where? It make no sense what so ever...

I am going to be busy most of the day Monster but so far all you have done is talk, no back up what so ever, just talk and deny, talk and deny, I'll be back later in the day, try to actually back up your arguments instead of just deny and talk. So far you have shown us nothing and your assertions about the flagellum is totally off base and i can provide evidence to show you are not refuting anything, the video pointed out very well the usefulness of the partial flagellum. you remind me of Andy of golden crocoduck fame. You get an answer and instead of digesting the answer you simply ignore the answer and ask the same questions again. That doesn't cut it here.

That is so false i hesitate to even continue our debate, there is no point in time where you can point and show that humans became humans, none. It i s also doubtful that this ever happened as well, all human migrations were gradual not sudden and the animals and plants a fungi from area pretty much gradually grade inot the next as well. Again this is based on a totally false idea. Again, a totally false assumption Because as they evolved they already knew which mushrooms to eat to get high and which one would kill, it was knowledge passed down from each generation to the next, this information was obtained way before humans became "humans" do you think an ape suddenly gave birth to a human and he had to go out into the world totally ignorant? Then why do you argue against rational thought and science? yes you do, your idea of god is totally unfalsifiable, it is totally untestable. While i agree that theists or for that matter any superstion is dangerous I totally challenge that as well, no rationalist worth his salt would ever accept or even consider your evidence as proof of any god like deity or even telepathy. Then why do you assert something you cannot prove? Then what is it? How can we measue it? How is it any different than any other concept of god? So asserting unverifiable anecdotal evidence is going to convince a theist he is wrong, even I have more respect for theists than that. I happen to agree with that but you are simply using the idea to assert an agenda that is no better than the ones you are supposedly trying to challenge. BS back to you, how can we measure what you assert, again how is it any different than Thor or Aphrodite or Zeus or Yahweh or Jesus?

Christian principles by definition would require everyone to be Christians wouldn't it? Let see what we would have to loose if the government was actively pro Christian. Freedom of speech would go immediately, no taking the lords name in vain for sure, criticizing the church would probably be out of the question as well, I'm sure there is much the Church would not allow anyone to say or assert. Reveling clothing of any kind pagans would be in trouble, would we roast em or just throw em in jail and make them listen to pat Robinson tapes over and over for years? What do we do with Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah wittinesses, is the government based on Catholicism or protestantism? Do we kill gays and adulterers and unruly children or do we just put them in jail? How about atheists? maybe we could just do like many other theocracies do and just tax the crap out of anyone who is not an active Christian? The taxes could be used to support the church, it's already been done before so it wouldn't be a big leap. Oh! Porn would have to go for sure, all those saucy half nekked women on the beach too. No more scientific method for sure, teach creationism in schools would we require people to go to church on Sunday? (it has been in a democracy before) Does everything shut down on Sunday (blue laws) it has been done before Do we have to take away the rights of women? It seems inevitable in a male orientated religion where woman must submit to their masters oh sorry I mean husbands, remember rule of thumb?... That might be fun till i went to sleep, then it would be rule of aluminum ball bat Racism, have to stop all that intermingling of blacks and whites, can't have that, some "Christian" universities already do this. Can you think of anything else we would have to change if the government was based in Christian principles and actively promoted Christianity? O O O! We could have slaves! Any non Christians could be slaves! BTW if a mod could make a separate thread about this it would be nice so GIA can concentrate on his own thread.

I could but because you have already started out with a straw man argument that ignores most of what modern evolutionary theory really says i will just let you keep digging that hole. lets see an example of it, I bet you are incorrect. So sad, i thought you were really going to tell me something new, that one is old,. easily debunked and has been for quite some time. If you want I can provide you with a video that illustrates this quite well. Ah! Here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_360544&v=SdwTwNPyR9w&feature=iv Well I got tired of my Mr Know it all avatar, it scared away the marks It has the potential to exist but an internal combustion engine is very poor example, they do not reproduce, mutate nor are they natural, so far no example of IC has been found in biological systems, decades ago some of the stuff seemed that way but fortunately we ignore the nay sayers and went on investigating instead of say god did it and that settles it... I'm still waitign for an example of IC, got any? You don't understand biology or evolution. Science never takes anything on faith, faith is not part of the scientific process...

This is so totally false i have to think you have no idea how science works nor do you understand evolution, and either you didn't watch the entire video or you didn't pay attention, no human ever popped into existence and thought, wow lets see what I can or cannot eat, that is just false and science doesn't 't simply use trail and error to find things out, as I said before that would make astrology or alchemy science, they were not. BTW, in the beginning of what? Then why do you argue against rational thought and science? While i agree that theists or for that matter any superstion is dangerous I totally challenge that as well, no rationalist worth his salt would ever accept or even consider your evidence as proof of any god like deity or even telepathy. So asserting unverifiable anecdotal evidence is going to convince a theist he is wrong, even I have more respect for theists than that. I happen to agree with that but you are simply using the idea to assert an agenda that is no better than the ones you are supposedly trying to challenge.

I question that you have no agenda or dogma to sell, at least metaphorically. You seem to be doing exactly that I absolutely call you on that one, evidently you have no idea what the scientific method is, one thing it is not is trial and error, I have a difficult time believing you even asserted that one. I suggest you watch this short video and then get back to me on trail and error and the scientific method. http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/50/zcavPAFiG14

I am familiar with potholer54's stuff he is awesome, I often watch his stuff just for entertainment, He is on my play lists.

Here is an interesting take on this. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tortoises-to-the-rescue&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_EVO_20110627

Dude, please try to use the quote function, it is confusing to try and sort out what you are saying from what others you are quoting. but to getting back to what you said, can you really think that a court of law would recognize mental telepathy because you and your wife talked to god? I mean really? Most people who would stand up in court saying they hear god end up in psychiatric care, what you are saying is not even hearsay, it is just a totally unsupported claim, it might be true and so might the UFO film in another thread in this forum but I have my doubts... Well the way you look at it is wrong, the ancients used trail and error, it does work for simple things but real science is accomplished through the scientific method, once this was established science began to progress at a startling rate. Nope, not science by any definition of the word dude.... if that is science then so is astrology and alchemy and counting the bumps on your head, not science, just groping in the dark for low hanging fruit... I thought he had already reveled himself to you, when can i expect the heavenly phone call? Or are you just special? Ok brainteaserfan, I'd like to discuss this concept of a Christian democracy, we should probably start a new thread so as to not hijack GIA's thread but I would like to understand what you mean by a Christian democracy, lets try to discuss it as accurately. fairly and civilly as possible, are you game? Or maybe they were trying to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority? I am sorry what has this got to do with anything? I know many witches, very nice people, very family orientated law abiding citizens. Have I missed something here? I honestly do not want to dissuade you from your religion but i strongly recommend you read the bible, not in bits an pieces picked out by some pastor trying to make a point but read it, word for word and see what it says, it's the best defense against religion getting out of hand I know if, to really know what it says.

Thanks swansont, i am going to just quit posting news and read your stuff... no just kidding, it was misleading thanks for pointing it out.

New alloy converts heat directly into electricity By Ben Coxworth The heat given off by electronics, automobile engines, factories and other sources is a potentially huge source of energy, and various technologies are being developed in order to capture that heat, and then convert it into electricity. Thanks to an alloy that was recently developed at the University of Minnesota, however, a step in that process could be saved - the new material is able to convert heat directly into electricity. http://www.gizmag.com/alloy-converts-heat-into-electricity/19025/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=8b45e8a4ee-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

I have apologized for misreading your statement but I will not allow you to use that to assert i am wrong, i have asserted nothing that I cannot back up with evidence, if you feel i have in anyway gottin out of hand I suggest you report me to the moderators, i assure they will be just as quick to shoot me down as they would anyone else, as for brainteaser, leave him to me, he has been just as disrespectful and i will not allow his assertions to go unanswered. sorry i am not as subtle as you or he would prefer, it gets old fast refuting the same old tired crap over and over while your opponent never makes any assertions that can be backed up by anyone but people who have a bias. to assert that any secular information cannot be neutral suggest that secularism is based in the same type of belief that religion is, this is demonstrably wrong can and if not could be easily refuted by you are anyone else but so far I have seen no refutation what so ever, just assertions that mythology stand on the same ground as rationalism, you can claim that until the cows come home but it will never be true by mere assertion. You are welcome to believe in any fairy tales you choose due to secular laws, not any god's laws, if you can refute that feel free to do so or as you say, go outa here, it is sad you cannot refute any of my assertions of secular law or the reason it is so important to us all, from religious to the atheist or anyone who is anywhere in between. I feel very strongly that the religious people of our country need to understand that freedom of religion protects us all from the abuses of religion unleashed. it is easy to show evidence of what happens when religion is allowed to dictate reality, people die, often horribly for simply believing the "wrong" way. Even if I was a devout "religionist" i would be able to see how separation of church and state is important to us all. It truly saddens me to see the very people who are protected by law denouncing that very law. No you cannot, it might start out that way but it has never ended up that, never ever.... Umm, just a wild guess here but because it is the truth? is the truth so hard for religious people to understand? rationalists do not deny reality no matter if it agrees with them or not. Religionists on the other hand consistently claim to have the absolute truth but it is never backed up by anything but lies and misinformation and the insistence that bronze age mythology is the absolute truth, religious apologetics is all you ever get from them, it is a fact that the 'Christian religion as we know it has asserted from the very beginning that lying to preserve religion is ok, in fact it is required, any evidence of anything that disagrees with the Christian religion has to be denied. Look it up, i am tired of looking up stuff. i would start with the guy who started the entire protestant movement and go from there, Martin Luther is his i name I think, admirably the catholic church does not (at least anymore) assert dogma over reality but protestants not so much... Which Scriptures were taken out of context, please be specific. Not obviosly biased? Research? so Thomas Jefferson was ok except for his critique of Christianity? seriously, not biased, the entire site is biased toward Christianity and the fact is that at that time it was near impossible to live in the US and not at least give lip service to Christianity in some way, if they were so Christian why did they suggest such a strong separation of church and state? if they really believed it why did they geld it? But even if they were indeed devout Christians I can and still have demonstrated very well that our civilization is not based in any religion but our first world civilization is indeed based in rationalism, take that away and we are back to square one, burning witches, hanging catholics or who ever happens to disagree with you and you don't get to feed clothe and heal the billions of people on the earth who need it because the support for those things would never have been invented with out rationalism, secularism is why you can have the debate of which religion you want to take over to begin with....

As much as I would like to believe, and I really would, I am going to require a bit more than lights in the sky, I bet Industrial Light and Magic could do that in a New York minute....