Moontanman

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.

I disagree, your ability to perceive this created the idea of a negative, it didn't exist until you perceived it. Actually this is not true, Neanderthals are now thought to have been our equals in most ways and possibly superior in some areas, the idea they were mentally inferior is an out dated concept that come from the idea of human superiority over all other creatures, Neanderthals were human, they did the same things we did, made similar tools and toward the end of their existence they made jewelry and fancy tools just like humans did, no reason to think they couldn't perceive the absence of something. Again, not true, many animals can count and know the difference between the numbers of objects in their environments.

I am currently cornering the market on knee pads, these aliens are little short gray guys and they can't stand for their slaves to look down on them so we will have to walk on our knees in their presence. Knee pads will be in big demand! I'll be the richest slave of all! hehehe, rings hands...

This is, I think, pertinent to this thread. While pornography is different things to different people this study indicates it is not bad for society. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/

Yes water exists on the moon, in the form of ice inside craters that are in perpetual shadow. No liquid water can exist on the moon. Further more the temps on the moon, due to the long day night cycle, are so extreme that the idea of very low pressure liquid water would still not work. Day temps can rise above the boiling point of water at the pressure of the Earth surface and night time temps dip far below zero. it would take more than the minimum pressure to insure liquid water on the moon. The "trillion" tons of CO2 would not provide enough pressure for water to exist as a liquid on the moon...

Yes, the air goes in and out the same holes, the holes connect to a network of air passages inside the insects body. Some insects are passive breathers others actively pump air in and out of their bodies through the spiracles.

CO2 pressure is relevant for water because the moon has no atmosphere, on the moon water cannot be a liquid, it is either frozen or a gas. if you are adding an atmosphere (in this case we are proposing an atmosphere of CO2 removed from the earth) unless the pressure of this CO2 atmosphere is high enough water will still not be able to be a liquid at the temps on the surface of the moon. The trillion tons of CO2 is not enough to raise the gas pressure on the moon to a point where water could be a liquid at the temps on the moon.

That is exactly what i am saying, my example of the beach is true, it actually happened, the waves not only created the heart shaped pieces of brick it sorted them out by shape. I have seen this with many other shapes of particles on the beach and in rivers but the surf is better than a river at shaping and sorting objects. The heart shape caught my eye that day but the beach had both created and sorted out lots of other shapes as well, the surf blindly creates the shapes this way, it orders and arranges them by shape, size and density, it does it ever day of every week of every year from dust sized particles to boulders, 24/7/365 the surf never stops the processes it drives. I could take you to any beach any place on the planet and show you examples of this process. You need to read Freeman Dyson's book Origins of Life, short sweet and to the point, your objections not only fail they make no sense at all...

Exactly what do you mean by deterministic processes? It seems to mean anything you want so far in this discussion. Your "challenge" has changed more than a cuttlefish on LSD! You are using the concept of information entropy totally out of context, you have not even established the reality of information entropy, in the context you are suggesting. order can arise out of disorder by the input of energy, this applies to both shells on the beach and complex chemicals. Your constant obfuscation of the issue does not change the facts.

Wouldn't depend on how it was introduced?

As usual needimprovement your religious agenda has written checks it cannot cash. There are two versions of creation in the bible neither of which corresponds to the way science says the evidence suggests the Earth developed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

At first blush it looks like a piece of bone, possibly carved, but I see no reason from the pics to assume it's not a natural bone fragment shaped by natural forces.

There used to be a site I could go to that would let me pug in the variables and give me the half life of an atmosphere on a given object. But that site is long gone, here is the best info i could find. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=r37125q1mx351t60&size=largest http://www.geoffreylandis.com/moonair.html

Agreed, it takes far too much energy to make it practical. How many tons of CO2 would it take to provide atmospheric pressure great enough to allow water to be a liquid? I'm betting far more CO2 than the earth has in it's atmosphere. And where would that oxygen be? Locked up in the rocks of the moon? Good luck with extracting enough of that oxygen fast enough to maintain a partial pressure large enough to allow plants to grow. If you could somehow provide the moon with an instant atmosphere the same as the earths, it would last a million years or so but providing that instant atmosphere would be difficult I would think... Do you have some way of estimating the energy needed to shoot a trillion tons of anything to the moon vs the energy output of the gulf stream vs the environmental damage disrupting the gulf stream would do?

Only compared to humans, radiation will indeed kill cockroaches too. None, a trillion tons of CO2 would not provide enough pressure on the moon to allow water to be a liquid.

Cypress, your constant denial of the ability of random processes to cause apparent order does not make the denial correct, we have given you several examples of how this works and you keep moving the goal posts. It is a synergy of the energy input and the differences between the particles. and yes I can see an energy input sorting things by color, mechanical energy like wave action would not do this nor would, i think, chemical energy, but EM radiation could do so. Color is an actual property of an object unlike a arbitrary number invented by a human. No energy input no sorting, no differences between the particles no sorting, it doesn't matter what the particles are and no one has to direct the rise in order... Some where on Saturn's moon Titan, right now, there are streams that are sorting out rock hard pieces of ice the same way rivers here on earth do it with rocks, no design or intelligent input required.