Moontanman

I don't think the brain would know the difference but the living nightmare of "user aware advertisements" would be par for the course, lol. Quite possibly the brain would be center of a fantasy landscape of anything you could imagine, live out any existence just like it was reality. I could be Captain of the Star Ship Enterprise and you could populate your universe with imaginary people who would seem real or maybe other people might want to populate your imaginary cyberscape much like TV shows have fans. So if your cyberscape is most popular you could get revenues from users wanting to live in your universe and that would at least imply advertisements of some sort Damn commercials ruin everything Of course there is no chance such technology would be used for virtual porn

There are several gasses that condense at different layers, pressures, and temps on Saturn, the deeper you go in Saturn the hotter it gets but there is no surface in the way the Earth has a surface. Internal heat and heat from the sun drives the storms along with Coriolis forces. The weather on Saturn is not driven the same way as the Earth's weather but similar forces create similar effects like wind and lightning. Internal heat on Saturn is created by helium rain deep within the metallic liquid hydrogen oceans of both Jupiter and Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are quite different internally (they are basically balls of high pressure high temperature ice) Jupiter and Saturn are gas giants and made up mostly of hydrogen in it's gaseous, liquid, and metallic states but the effects still create storm patterns similar to Earth and other planets with deep atmospheres.

Where is a devout believer when you need one?

Yes, it's called a laser, or light bulb, or microwave, or heater coil, or fire.... Humans generate photons, something like 100 watts worth.

Saturn has plenty of water but a storm is not necessarily dependent on water vapor, rising and sinking "air" (in the case of Saturn mostly hydrogen) and coriolis effects cause storms.

For the most part flying fish glide, they can get quite high out of the water often landing on the decks of boats, they can glide a considerable distance. I've head them actually hit me, they are good bait, lol. Flying fish are not uncommon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish They are also quite tasty. The shrimp i was thinking about is really an amphipod, it comes out at night and escapes predators by jumping a couple meters into the air, a breeze can carry them several feet at least. I love living near the ocean...

If flying fish fly then so do some types of shrimp.

Smells just like bull shit to me...

That is an interesting idea, I am betting that crustaceans haven't been a big enough part of the land ecosystem long enough to have evolved flying.

Already have them, there is even a holographic entertainer in Japan http://www.realestateradiousa.com/tag/hatsune-miku-holographic-singer/ I'm not sure what you mean by this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing

Runners high? Are you talking about physical exertion leaving you with a pleasant feeling that you have become addicted to?

I would agree that is the most likely explanation. Certain? I don't see how anyone can really be certain of that, 4.5 billion years is a long time... If you think there is no evidence then you have not looked very hard, the US Airforce used lies and deception to cover up quite a bit of evidence, the socalled studies they did were never meant to study anything. There are reports that are difficult to explain in anyway other than something not of our Earth but still not absolute proof. There is no reason to think there is not intellegent life elswhere either, md6536's response is spot on. As for our broad casts giving us away, new assessments of this indicate that it would be very difficult to detect our "leakage" from much more than one light year due to interstellar dust and debris absorbing the signals. A directed intentional broad cast could be detected quite far away but our leaking signals are not being watched by beings in another star system.

I think it's likely that crustaceans have the oceans dominated and insects have freshwater dominated but not to the extent that crustaceans have the oceans. Crustaceans have made inroads into freshwater and are quite common there, crustaceans have also taken up living on land but insects dominate the land similar to the way crustaceans dominate the oceans, insects in the ocean are rare but there are a few. Possibly crustaceans evolved in the sea and insects evolved in freshwater? http://cgi.unk.edu/hoback/marineinsects/home.html

I bit one bullet!

You are assuming the water is there to begin with, it is true that water can exist the way you suggest in pores deep within the moon but the key here is that the Moon is dry, there is no evidence of out gassing of water on the moon, only ice in craters that are always shaded. The absolute lack of organic materials on the moon is telling as well. A common nail contains a higher percentage of organic material than materials from the moon. Deep inside the moon, I'd say it's not impossible but we see nothing that would indicate water, organic material, or life... on or in the moon.

Atheists hold a metaphysical view of the world? Again i ask you cypress, name one thing about the natural world described more accurately by religion than science can provide. Name one actual thing of the natural world best described by religion. I will say it again, an accurate description of the natural world is not too much to ask of a God, I think it's regions insistence on being all knowing and all seeing that is destroying religion not science. Religion is obviously wrong about it's contention of having all the answers, when it comes to the natural world religion has no answers only claims of have faith and believe, asking for evidence is against the rules of religion, I think questioning God's answers is blasphemy, questioning the answers of science is how it works...

Thomas Gold proposed the idea of a deep hot biosphere existing on ten bodies in our own solar system, 5 of them are moons but not Earths moon. Earths moon shows little or no signs of water deep inside, no out gassing of steam. If the collision scenario of the Moons formation is true this would be the expected result, a dry world with no internal water to speak of. Ice frozen in dark craters would not be conductive to life. Now if the idea of a dry Moon interior is mistaken it might be possible for there to be a deep hot biosphere on the moon but it would be many miles down at least. See Gold's book "The Deep Hot Biosphere"

You got me ydoaPs, a very poor choice of words on my part, my mind was thinking but my hands did not get the message, I should have said was shown to be confirmed not testable, my fault... An accurate description of of the material world is in my mind not an unreasonable prerequisite for God, if the evidence of the world we perceive, the only world we can perceive is unfair evidence to use in a conversation about reality with a theist I'll stick to atheist... I am curious cypress, are you willing to put the veracity of religion on the line with the idea that religion predicted the universe had a beginning? Some theories are looking at the idea of no big bang and quite possibly no real beginning. If and i know this is a big if, if evidence was to turn up that indicated we were wrong and there was no "beginning" would you say "uh oh" my religion has been debunked? If not then it's not logical to hang religion on any point of science since they are all subject to change as new evidence comes in... This is basically what happened when the church hung it's hat on the earth as the center of the universe with everything orbiting the earth. All the "wise" men said it was the truth so the church confirmed it and wove it into the religion with the perfect spheres and unchanging stars but in the end it turned out to be unsupported by the evidence.

A singularity is a mathematical concept, not a real object, even Hawking no longer thinks of a singularity is a real object. Again i ask you to name one thing that religion describes in a testable verifiable way, just one thing, I can't think of any, can you? I am not surprised science is wrong occasionally but name something religion got right...

You guys are something else, i did not say a word about giving money to people nor did I say that capitalism is bad, i sad the "new pledge" is just more political bullshit, saying what people want to hear. Now if you guys really want to talk about giving money away to people who don't deserve it, of doing things against capitalism I'd be glad to point out many instances of this. The new pledge is just more bullshit from political extremists who want others to join them. It reminds me of an anemone, it protects certain fish while at the same time luring other fish to their doom. it's time for political bullshit to stop. We cannot aford to continue protect selfish bastards who only want our country to benifit them, (both sides are full of these assholes) it has to benifit everyone! Our country is and always has been a blend of capitalism and socialism, no purely capitalist or socialist society can survive, we need to decide what blend we need (not what we want) and it's time for both extremes to stop pointing fingers and shouting how bad the other side is while hiding their own dirt. Republicans give money away to the rich, Democrats give money away to the poor, it's such bullshit, neither side has an altruistic bone in their bodies, it's all ME ME ME ME! personally I'd like to see our country become great again and the polarization we see today is only driving us closer to the edge of disaster. neither side has impressed me in a very long time...

So the accuracy of a posters evidence is irrelevant to you and you will argue things that are not true just so you can oppose people who are correct but you don't like them personally? Typical... The truth should never be personal, the truth should be pursued at all costs but simply being stubborn and obtuse because you don't like the truth is the real problem here. To some people any disagreement is a personal attack, I like disagreement, only a true friend would tell you your argument is weak or incorrect, some one who agrees with you just because they want to be part of your posse' is insulting. Kind of like chatting up a girl you really don't like so she will have sex with you, it's dishonest and disgusting. Respect=truth, this requires that you disagree when it's necessary

This pledge is just more propaganda by extremist elements of the party trying to continue misinformation supporting their agenda. Most of the problems they claim to want to solve are problems created by that same party by deregulation and pandering to greedy immoral people who's life goal is to get rich at any cost with no regard to the lives of the people they ruin along the way. Simply put it's just more bullshit from extremest politicos to justify their grab for power.

It would be far more likely to down load a humans memories and personality into a computer and for that person to be able to continue his or her existence inside the computer as part of some sort of virtual reality. I see no reason to transport the real physical person into the computer, where would all the mass of the human go?

Cypress, name one thing that religion describes in a repeatable, verifiable way, better than science. Just name one thing, as far as i know religion does not describe any part of the natural world in an accurate manner. Religion never does anything but make claims, religion never backs up it's claims with anything but more unsubstantiated claims and threats of punishment if you don't believe. I think it's not that atheists and theists fight unfairly, the very comparison is totally unreasonable. It's like one side is saying apples are good and goes on to describe the various types of apples but the other side is saying some invisible totally unknown fruit is better and if you believe them you will agree they are telling the truth but you never get to see that fruit you have to have faith it exists, to demand proof of the existence of the fruit cannot be tolerated... In science to demand proof is part of the process, in religion it's blasphemy, in science new evidence can come in and refute the current theories in religion dogma rules, the contradictions can become so thick that only someone who is brain dead could ignore them but it remains true as far as religion is concerned, the two things are simply not comparable. BTW, someone said something about lightning being discovered as part of the natural world and not controlled by Zeus or God or what ever supernatural being you believed in at the time 3000 years ago. Actually that was more like 300 years ago and it caused quite an uproar. At first theists said it was sacrilegious to thwart gods retribution but later when it became apparent that anything with a lightning rod was protected from "gods wrath" but the bell towers of churches were still being blasted by lightning the Church gave in and started putting lightning rods on churches. Science always wins and religion always has to retreat away from it's stance that religion can explain the natural world. i expect this to continue as long as religion insists on trying to dictate the natural world.