Moontanman

That is a man made scarcity. No, actually they produce less waste that has to kept stored for much less time than regular reactors and they operate with elements than cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, think thorium, and they use up the stuff that can be used to make nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you actually think that hydroelectric or nuclear uses water that somehow vanishes after it makes electricity? Some sort of population control will eventually happen... Again quite thinking about U235 and the tiny amount of it available to us and think thorium, U238, plutonium, and fast breeder reactors, while not limitless nuclear is quite capable of sustaining our entire civilization if we wanted it to and for a very long time.

I'm going to have to go with the law on this one, if you were speeding then pay the fine and go on with your life. I was clocked as going in excess of 125 mph once on my Motorcycle (I was really going well over 135, not a lot of time at that speed to really keep track of your speed) when I saw the glint of chrome on the side of the road, way up ahead, that warned me some one was sitting under the over pass i was about to go through, I grabbed the brakes just as I was in range but I was doing 128mph by the time I was close enough to register on his radar. I just pulled over and stopped. got off my bike and waited on him to come and get to me. He just cited me for 69 in a 55 to keep me from loosing my license, 15mph over the speed limit was automatic revocation of your drivers license where I was caught at the time, (he said he could have taken me to jail right then) but since I didn't make him chase me (and he rode bikes too) he cut me a break, if he cited you for speeding and you were speeding don't quibble about a few mph and pay the fine and the insurance costs and be more "attentive" to the speed limits from now on or at least until the ticket drops off your record. You are likely to be spending more money to fight the ticket than you will gain by beating it and the cop has a difficult and necessary job keep idiots like me from killing themselves.... or others... But I do agree that local courts (often anyway) should have a kangaroo as a mascot.... But if you weren't actually speeding and have the time and money to do it then fight the good fight, never give up! (the court system needs your money)

While the question wasn't personal in the sense I really didn't want to know how much it would take to prostitute your self you gave the only rational answer anyone could give. We all prostitute ourselves in some manner for money or power or what ever we desire. Pornography, or at least being paid to make it is no different than any other form of exchanging work for our own benefit. Few people seem to see there is no real difference between sexual prostitution and any other kind other than what we learn culturally. I think the most threatening thing about prostitution is not that it's immoral or some how "more wrong" than digging a ditch but it's certainly more profitable when you compare the effort involved and I think there in lies the rub for most people. It takes power away from men and our ability to make money "honestly" and allows women to make money easier and faster than the "honest labor" of a man who would take care of them through his "honest" labor. I think this is more threatening to men than women in general but the rub is always that it's too easy to do (I question this) and that only the lazy or immoral would do such a low thing to make money. Of course the idea that sex is "low" is religious in it's origin and only fallen women would do such a thing. While I wouldn't recommend a woman take up sexual prostitution (say because she is so pretty men would pay highly for her favors) as a way to live i wouldn't recommend ditch digging to some guy just because he is large and strong either, but any judgment on the moral standing of either profession is artificial. Almost anything, in our society, that takes power away from men is seen as threatening to the morals of our society. This was much worse in the past when about the only honest job for a woman was as a school teacher and her only other choices was to marry a man who could take care of her or be a whore....

I think i could agree on some level there is an organizing force in the universe, it is demonstrably true that order does arise from chaos but i see no sign of creativity or intellegence....

Lemur, I asked you a question a few posts back that you did not answer, it was not rhetorical, what you would do for money? If you have limits, why are those limits more important than other limits? I'll expand on this if you will answer my question. How much money would it take for you to "prostitute" your self?

Deep-Earth devil worms A newly identified species of nematode lives miles deep in the tight, hot crevices of the Earth's crust Halicephalobus mephisto Property of the University Ghent, Belgium - Gaetan Borgonie Scientists have identified a new species of microscopic worms living in the ground below South African mines, isolated from fracture water gushing up from miles below the Earth's surface. It is the first multicellular organism to be found at such depths. The discovery of the tiny nematode (named Halicephalobus mesphisto after Mephistopheles, a literary nickname for the Devil), published in this week's issue of Nature, challenges the assumption that deep subsurface ecosystems cannot support multicellular life and may have implications in the search for life on other planets. Read more: Deep-Earth devil worms - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58187/#ixzz1O92kgkxm

I understand exactly what you are saying light storm, you trying to insinuate that if it's more complex than we currently understand then it must be inexplicable. Just because we didn't know what genetics was didn't stop it from controlling life as we know it but it didn't make it unknowable either even though it controlled us. You seem to be insistent on suggesting that something must be above what we know or no matter what we know there must be a higher level of complexity above which we can know. I see no reason to believe this to be true.

DrmDoc, are you saying lower animals like fish and reptiles do not show emotions? They certainly show behaviors that are consistent with emotions both with each other and toward humans. I've been keeping aquarium fish and some reptiles for almost 50 years now and fish do indeed display emotions as do reptiles or at least the behaviors we would associate with emotions...

Bruce Lee is way cooler than Chuck, Bruce is dead and his body is at ambient temps below ground, probably less than 60f Chuck is closer to 98.8f most of the time....

Does anyone really think that cartoons today are more violent than cartoons of 40 years ago or 50 years ago? Tom and Jerry are not violent? They consistently fight, hit smash, shoot, each other, then you have the Road Runner, Daffy Duck, tweety bird, Elmer Fud, Bugs Bunny, Marvin Martian, Rocky and Bullwinkle, the list of constant violence in cartoons goes on and on and it is not getting more violent if anything they tone it down in modern cartoons.

Actually creationism is not restricted to any one religion, there are more Muslim creationists than Christian creationists then you have Sikhs, Hindus, and Zoroastrians, all of them have the same theme, the world was created according to the words in a book and science is totally wrong and they want everyone else to believe that as well, by force if necessary. Having no human rights unless you were a royal or priest comes to mind, the horrible living conditions and the total lack of freedom to do anything not allowed by religion comes to mind as well not to mention religion dictating reality like a flat earth, and everything going around the flat earth and the crystal dome that covered it. The torture and killing of anyone who disagrees would seem to be a down side as well. Um no, our western values were not set by the church, the church fought them kicking and screaming and the creationists are still doing it, rationalists and other intellectuals are the people who gelded the power of the church and set up our western ideas of human rights. So far you have yet to show any real connection between the things you claim, the Greeks and Romans you are so enthralled with held personal freedoms in very low regard for any one but the ruling class, the slaves would not have agreed with your assertions i am sure but this is not part of this discussion, I don't want this discussion to fall into the black hole of your idea of God because were are talking about creationists here, not people who believe in freedom of speech or anything else their idea of religion does not allow and from what I understand of your idea your idea of religion would require... Creationism is an intellectual black hole, originally Islam was the light of reason and science but they were sucked into the intellectual black hole of worshiping the words in a book as absolute truth and yet to emerge form it. Actually it's more the right to restrict the way of life of people that is under attack, not their actual way of life. Sadly that is not what creationists want, they want to indoctrinate all children in thier religion via public schools by claiming that science is not the truth and that they have the absolute truth. I've seen those as well, i doubt they had any real positive impact for the cause they were trying to promote. No, i disagree, there is no controversy that evolution is somehow not explaining nor is there a conspiracy to hide the "truth' in the bible by 'evolutionists', creationism is nothing but a blatant attempt to roll back knowledge by lies and propaganda, nothing less.

Being a nudist pretty much falsifies this quite easily, children of nudists do not turn out any different than children of non nudists other than being more likely to be nudists as well. BTW, of all things that require clothing of some sort, swimming would seem to be the most silly of them all....

I'm stubborn? Genes are what decides what species of frog the tadpole will be, no mysterious force, that is demonstrably true Carol. Giving birth to a child is no more a show of creative force than the tadpoles, and the regrowth in the spring is not creation by any definition i am aware of, if you feel it is give us some evidence, child birth is the result of sex, genes and the drive to reproduce that is part of the genetics of organisms, not some mysterious force. What do you mean by creation? or creative force? Define it at least. As interesting as Lemurs assertion is it is not even suggestive of a creative force much less proof of it. Please elaborate on this assertion. Actually we do understand the programming code running in the back round, it's called genetics, as for running the movie in reverse that was the idea the big bang came from... and as far as we can tell there is not enough matter in the universe to make it "recycle" or make the "big crunch" happen but the laws of thermodynamics would suggest this would not go one forever and would be limited to the number of crunches and bangs that could happen.

Do the so called culture wars really amount to a real war being fought with propaganda and and suicide bombers? Is our western civilization basically at war with fundamentalist religions, often called creationism? They are trying to not just inject their religious ideas into our civilization but to use those religious ideas to indoctrinate everyone into their beliefs and there by changing civilization back to something resembling the dark ages of our not so distant past. Their stated goals are to oppose science and it's methods by the use of lies and misrepresentations and substitute their (magical) thinking in place of the scientific method. And to change our own values to limit any criticisms of their religion or goals by using censorship political correctness, and hate crime laws on anyone who opposes them. They want to indoctrinate our children in school with their religious beliefs, use political correctness and hate crime laws to limit what adults can can say in opposition to them.

I would have to have some more detailed photos of the crab and know exactly where it was collected to even field a good guess. Some pics of the underside and pics of the crab on a neutral background it doesn't blend into so well would be necessary as well.

In a word, no, this is an urban legend that has been bouncing back and forth for along time now and all it has done is hurt the wild gecko population and allow some totally immoral people to make large sums of money.

Yeah, it is amazing, Bush was so soft spoken and humble, never taking credit for anything, the POS did what Bush couldn't do and and no where in that speech do I read him taking responsibility for anything but directing his people to get Bin Laden, I guess our current POS should have flown to the aircraft carrier and under a huge banner of Mission completed told the Nation the mission of killing Bin Laden was finished, wearing a navy seal unifrom while Bin Ladin's body was dumped over board, yeah, that would have been the way to go, take full responsibility in a outragous fashion instead of simply stating the facts of how it went down... oh and interrupting the guy with the dead squirrel on his head when the POS announced that Bin ladin had been killed....

If you google this you will find lots of links to the harm cannabis does and it's addictive properties, you will also find lots of links telling you the opposite. To be honest I tend to side with the people who see pot as, if not harmful, one of the lest harmful recreational drugs we use. Pot cannot be good for you due to the main way of using it, smoking, it would be quite easy to argue the point effectively from either direction which tells me that there is something odd about the research going on, in other words both sides of the debate seem to have an ax to grind. I recommend you google it to see both sides of the argument, one thing is certain pot does far less harm to society than alcohol and nicotine.

This is your strange claim earthling, not mine and as such it's up to you to support it, not for me to search the net to check to see if your claims are real or nothing but male bovine excrement.

You are actually going to offer a reference to an article in the "popular press", (not the article it's self by the way or even a link to it) with cherry picked "quotes" from no specific scientist as a scientific source?

Simple answer, there is no evidence for a creative organizing force, or against a creative organizing force either for that matter, as for the second question, no one really knows....

There are also fish that feed their young a milk like substance as well, I'm not sure there is one thing you can point to and say this makes a dolphin a mammal and not a fish because no fish does this but no fish has all the mammalian characteristics a dolphin does nor does a dolphin have all the characteristics a fish does. On a necropsy table the mammal-ness becomes obvious as does the fishiness of a fish, also it should be trivial to show that dolphins are mammals genetically by comparing their genomes. Just like it is possible to show that Humans are genetically mammals and not reptiles it should be possible to show that dolphins are genetically mammals and not fish.

Decorator crab? There are, many species.

It's obviously the underwear gnomes, they have branched out in an effort to diversify and drive even more people crazy....

What do you base this assertion on? It is quite true that if everyone suddenly dispensed with clothing under any circumstances that allowed it would have a significant impact on the world economy.