Moontanman

The first thing that comes to mind is that the Bering Strait isn't the only source of warm water that enters the Arctic Ocean, to completely control this you would also have to dam up both sides of Greenland at least. Blocking off the water flow might preserve the ice but it would also threaten the lives of all the animals that need to migrate from the Pacific Ocean or the North Atlantic Ocean to the Arctic Ocean and this would cause at as least bad if not worse problems for wild life... You might save a few polar bears but you would loose seals, walruses, whales, fish, krill... the list goes on and on... Dams are always a bad idea for wild life...

Shocking revelation: Former Air Force personnel disclose UFO, alien-related threats http://www.necn.com/09/27/10/Shocking-revelation-Former-Air-Force-per/landing.html?blockID=319245&feedID=4213 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okMQq5gJ77E

I think it's important to ask "Can we say an event has no cause?" How can we know an event has no cause?

I'm not so sure Marat's reasoning is warped, parents can insist on making their kids do some pretty shitty things, dangerous mind destroying things but sex is somehow worse than worse. Sex seems to have a special place in the hearts of most people, quite low on some even though they enjoy it themselves they cannot recommend it for anyone else. Sex has often been termed the "fate worse than death" for much of even the twentieth century the idea of sex as worse than death was the popular gestalt. Any woman who gave into sex outside of marriage was fatally flawed but men who managed to play around was a "real man" sex has never been realistically interpreted or portrayed, even masturbation is often condemned as harmful in some way. Sex occupies a special place in our society and the harm it does is blown far out of any reasonable proportion to any realistic harm it could do... i am quite sure there are many things it is legal and even thought to be good for kids that are far more harmful than sex. if society says it's ok to work kids in the mines because they are small and can fit in the small holes then it becomes ok to do so but suggest sex and you will be automatically a pariah, you can do some wild stuff to kids and get by with it, from mental abuse to turning them into psychopaths, you can teach them to hate, to be racist, to despise anyone who believes different than you. You can program your kids to do almost anything but have sex, you can teach them that sex is a fate worse than death, you can teach them that homosexuals are worthless pieces of shit that deserve to be killed. you can teach them to be Nazi's but sex is out of the question. just try to teach your kids that masturbation is a good thing and let them tell their teacher and see what happens. if you are lucky you will not quite loose custody but count on visits from the child services...

Back off? I never back away from the truth...

First of all the idea that it has to be genes just shows your own misunderstanding of the issue, this is not an on off switch, it is not black and white, right or wrong, sexuality is a range of things, most people fall somewhere in the gray zone, very few people are exclusively homosexual or heterosexual. Most human beings can and will respond sexually to the same sex or opposite sex, some of the effects are hormonal changes that happen in the womb and have nothing to do with genes, some of the effects are genetic but have a hormonal component as well. it didn't take me long to find link to this... http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/comingoutadvice/a/Causes.htm Your interpretation of the twins research is flawed, here is the real indications... So you think that a religious paper is going to have info that might unseat their own world view? the very substance of the article is misleading, the idea of a gay gene that causes homosexuality is just an extension of the on off idea I told you about earlier. There is no specific gay gene, there are many human characteristics that have no single gene, there doesn't not have to be "a gay gene" for it to be something that is not a choice nor does it have to be over whelming, and I ask you why,m if it was a choice then why would anyone choose to be gay, to be treated like shit your whole life by people who have no clue, to be denied Gods love, to be hated by society in general? You and your defending link make no sense.. http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155 No both articles did not support genetics as the cause, i suggest you read them again... Your personal life has no bearing in this discussion , you could be a flaming homosexual and still be wrong in this case... One anecdotal data point does not a bell curve make... Yes you did, you equated homosexuality and smoking in this post... As are many heterosexuals, especially those involved in religion and in making sure gays do not have the same rights as others... being promoters of an agenda does not mean they cannot put that agenda aside when necessary ... what would be your point? Totally anecdotal, not only does the vast majority of research disagree with you i have never had a homosexual person tell me they chose to be homosexual... I doubt you even know what that means... Why would allowing gays to serve in the military with out hiding it but making them stick to the same rules as everyone else make them any more of an organized movement than the people trying to keep them from serving?

Where I live you can't dig down more than a few feet with out hitting ground water. I am betting that your dig will encounter ground water way before you hit 100 feet much less 1000 feet. Getting rid of ground water is a problem in almost all digging projects. So some really powerful pumps to get rid of ground water will be a must for sure...

In the past most cases of SHC were thought to be supernatural or inexplicable in some way, most cases were not investigated throughly simply because no one could fathom a way the fire could have done what it does. This resulted in all the cases being less than well investigated. How ever it is possible for this to happen by accident, the idea of homicide and the mechanism by which this works has given a new dimension to SHC . I am quite sure that there are some cases that are simply accidental but it is now known that it isn't some sort of mysterious process outside the normal nature of fire and flesh, it can be replicated, and that it can be and has been shown to be homicide. Once this has been shown to be homicide then all other cases become suspect.. Just because all the cases touted in the literature about the mysterious SHC seem to have no motive doesn't mean none have or than even the classic ones didn't have some motive. It was assumed at the time that it was impossible for the fire to have been set by humans, the fire was thought to be impossible and have no possible explanation, now we know better and this moves it back into the realm of real life and real life fires generally have a cause. In many cases the most probable cause is homicide, accident is also possible but mysterious it is not...

I got it from you, you stated the comparision in the other thread... Again i ask you, what makes you think the military would be turned into a gay bar if homosexuals were officially allowed in the military, you made the assertion, now back it up or shut up... Your homophobic world view might make it look this way but that not how it happens, the idea that homosexuality is learned behavior has been shown to be false over and over, only in your mind does it explain homosexuality... BTW you have written quite a bit on this subject every time it comes up, never anything but your homophobic opinions but still quite a bit of it... Well you are welcome to your opinion but your opinion is not supported by evidence, can you really say you were not told what you wanted to hear by the people involved? Well you covered them all for sure, sad you don't have clue... Why do you think that Charlie will be making out with his bunk mate? As I have stated before sex on base should be against the rules, heterosexual or homosexual or is coming home finding Charlie fucking a female service member not as bad? Yes i noticed that you have no problem with homosexuals as long as they keep and know their small place in society, mighty white of you Jackson, mighty white of you... Then why did you bring it up as a reason not to allow gays in the military? Yes skin color and sexual orientation do have something in common, you are born that way, end of discussion! Again i ask what does that have to do with gays in the military? I am not talking about opinions here Jackson, real science, real scientific studies not some small talk in a bar. No i am not offering personal opinions, real science has studied these things, I have offered proof in other threads, you on the other hand only have your opinions, anecdotal evidence at best, you are making the claims about gays lets see you back up your assertions with something other than "IMO"

Marat, can you say homicide? Homicide is at least suspected in many cases, the idea is that ethanol (liquor) is used as an accelerant and the victim is unconscious. Most of the people who are involved are black out drunks. Now this can also happen without the accelerant but many cases are now thought to be attempts to cover up murder and the accelerant just makes it easier. This has been documented, people have woke up on fire, it doesn't work all the time but it is good to cover up murder. The person you want to get rid of, usually an elderly relative who is a drunk, you kill them in some way, pour a little bit of liquor on them to make sure it works, set them on fire and leave. Several hours later someone finds a partially burn up corpse. The perfect homicide, or at least it used to be, now they consider it homicide and investigate things a little bit further than they used to but if the body is burnt up bad enough and the police force is less than CSI Las Vegas you might get away with it... It will work without an accelerant but liquor is one of the few things it's difficult to detect as an accelerant, especially since the person is already drunk to begin with... and no an autopsy of ashes will not tell if the person was killed a few minutes before you set them on fire...

Actually it's the clothing that allows the wick effect to work but yes once started it burns until it runs out of fuel, the fat of the body... it should be pointed out it is very slow, low temperature burn, in the few cases where the flame as been observed it is described a low yellow flame, almost like a very large candle with a very sooty greasy flame...

The wick effect has been shown to explain almost all modern examples of so called spontaneous human combustion. In many cases homicide is thought to be the main cause of these cases of human burning up. The wick effect has been shown to work on animals as well as people and can be reproduced by wrapping a pig in a cloth and dousing the cloth with ethanol and lighting it up. It results in the same sort of very slow burning and burn injuries said to be mysterious in the human combustion cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion

I just read "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" trilogy, great read... Im getting ready to read, "The Years Best Science Fiction" 27th Annual edition... but mean time I'm reading "Season of the Spellsong" by Alen Dean Foster... just to keep busy...

Actually no, rivers carry water that is slightly salty, generally not salt enough for us to taste it but salty enough for us to measure it but it varies widely, The Colorado river is very saline, the Amazon is generally very soft, it should be noted there are other chemicals we are talking about besides sodium chloride, everything that makes sea water "sea water" is carried to the sea by erosion. Most people can tell the difference between sea water and water that is just salted to the same concentration with pure sodium chloride. Fish certainly can and pure salt water does not support ocean life... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater

Jackson33, so far you have equated Homosexuality with smoking as though second hand homosexuality is passed on through contact. (please expand on this idea) Fear of turning the military into a gay bar (please explain) Fear of Homosexuals imposing their preference on every one else (please explain) Asserted that homosexuality is learned behavior (this has been shown over and over on these forums to be false, either stop asserting it or show some proof other than "you talked to someone who is gay") Asserted that signing up to be in the military some how says you do not have to deal with homosexuals in any way (please explain why the military should be the last bastion of society where a man can hide from homosexuals) Asserted that having gay soldiers would piss off the enemy if they believe homosexuality is immoral (please explain, do gay soldiers wear pink uniforms? ) Then you showed how easy social change in the military is easy, Eisenhower just integrated by saying that was the way it would done... If it can be done for black people then why can't it be done for gay people? So far i have seen no one who asserts that overt gay behavior should be allowed any more than overt sexual behavior between heterosexuals should be allowed. Can you back up any of this stuff ?

It should be pointed out that the salts in sea water are recycled by plate tectonics as well, ocean water follows the ocean floor as it is subducted, this ocean water is what makes the subducted rack and debris melt at lower temps allowing magma to form and exit in volcanoes. Subducted rock saturated with sea water is one of the things that allow plate tectonics to work...

Why would we assume the planet is habitable to begin with ? Being the correct distance from it's star does not a habitable planet make....

Why does the idea that humans are apes bother you so much? There are several species of apes, they are all just as different from each other as humans are from each of them. An ape is not a species of animal, gorillas are apes, as are chimps, orangutans, and humans... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

An insanity plea would be a bit late at this point which is the main reason I have a problem with the death penalty. It's so... final...

The whole playing doctor thing is how kids seduce each other it is not the end it is the means to the end which can be sexuality just as intense as the sex between adults, i was there i did that. That is not true, dogs that taste blood are not ruined, nor do they seek out blood there after, this analogy simply does not hold up. But I agree that a child is not equipped to handle a bad adult/child sexual experience. I don't see how any of this has anything to do with what we are discussing. This i agree with totally. I'm not sure how you would go about allowing sexual contact between a child and an adult, i am a Dad, i tried to make sure my children did not fall victim to sexual predators. I know for sure that any adult i had found having sex with my children would have come to a bad end. It's really a crazy situation, i sought out sex as a child but not all children have sexual feelings, i would think that most do not, but who would have sex with children if they were allowed to have sex? Does some adult man ask my 6 year old out on a date? The entire thing is crazy from six different directions. I feel like i was lucky i didn't fall victim to a "bad adult" when I was a child. i see no reason to react like a crazy person if a child has sex with another child but the idea of trusting an adult to have sex with my child and not harm them in some way is just not acceptable.... not acceptable....

Ok Marat, how do you decide between sexual contact that is harmful and sexual contact that is not. It is obvious that some adult/child sexual contact is harmful, has to be if for no other reason than some adult/adult sexual contact is harmful. Where do you draw the line? A 3 year old girl who enjoyed cunnilingus, would that be allowed? If this slope is not slippery there has never been one for sure...

I agree, it is far too likely the child will be taken advantage of for it to really be allowed. I had sex as a child, pretty much continuously from the age of 6, i had some sexual contact from the age of three, i enjoyed it immensely, orgasms and all but I consider myself lucky in that i wasn't forced to do anything by a true predator type person. There was very much mutual pleasure... and desire, very strong desire on my part... Nope the sexual desire was quite real....

Yes, I agree, you have hit the nail directly on the head, invincible ignorance fallacy is exactly what you have been using. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

This makes no sense what so ever, cars are far more simple than living organisms and who said it precluded intelegent design? Again you are making a claim that makes no sense, the idea that corn and wheat do not cross pollinate supports evolution, the idea that Chinese peasants can interbreed again supports evolution, you are trying to straw man the argument and not doing a very good job. Chinese peasants are the same species, human beings, none of them are separated genetically far enough to be different species, why would you even suggest such a thing. Corn and wheat have been separate many millions and years and cannot cross pollinate because they are not closely related, exactly what evolution would predict, both of the situations you suggest support evolution. Needimprovement you have demonstrated many times you are an intelligent man and then you make such a ridiculous assertion, i am sure you can do better than this. Um maybe because those are all very closely related? Plants are often easier to cross breed than animals but closely related animals can also often cross breed. Are you seriously asking this question... again? You say "It is perfectly believable that species evolved," then you say "How did very different species evolve?" make up your mind, is it believable that species evolve or isn't it? While we cannot say for sure the exact route that life took from non life we have many routes to choose from and most think that a synergy of many different routes that produced life. life evolved from chemicals, these chemicals eventually produced single celled life forms we would recognize as life. These single cells evolved into the complex life forms we see today. No IDer needed so why require one? The idea of irreducible complexity has been shown to invalid so many times on this forum i will not go through the trouble of doing it again. The eye exists in every form from a simple spot that detects light to eyes that are far better than human eyes and every degree in between. if you are going to challenge evolution you need to try something else... The evidence we have shows that animals evolved, it does not show they were created, yes it does matter if ID exists if he exists then he has gone far out of his way to plant misleading evidence and to lie to us about how things happen by making everything look like he doesn't exist. This is simply not true, the idea that the platypus is some how a special case and that is has developed from several different animals is false. the platypus the one of the last remnants of of a line of primitive mammals evolved from animals that split off from mammals millions of years ago, before the time of the dinosaurs. the platypus is not a combination of several non related animals that is an old wives tale used to explain the platypus to children.

Actually no you cannot use the idea of G to predict the atmospheric pressure, Titan has far less than one G but more than 50% higher pressure and more density than the Earth and actually a more massive atmosphere. I would have to say no, the internal heat of the star would prevent this and the gravity of the star would compress it's substance to far greater density with a cut off just like we see in our sun... Oxygen would not be found as anything other than compounds and them only if the temp was low enough. Now is possible for gas to accumulate in a ring around a star or planet (see Larry Niven's book, "The Integral Trees" as a fictional example) Hydrogen and Helium make up almost all of Jupiter, the other elements are diluted to the point of being trace elements. Jupiter is made up mostly of liquid metallic hydrogen not hydrogen gas. Gasses like oxygen would never be found in their molecular form, they are always found as compounds. Earth like pressure could only be found high in Jupiter's atmosphere not deep inside it...