Moontanman

Yup, you missed something...

I like mine better....

The key here are the words "in my view" your view is so heavily influenced by religion it has become nothing but a religious view.... you are a excellent example of being blinded by the light, you are so blind you can't see anything other than the light. Theories change, the idea of the big bang has been a problem for many scientist from day one, it asserts a singularity, a sign to some that a theory has problems. many people are working ways to avoid that singularity. You attraction to it is because it conforms to the religious idea of creation, this feeling of it having to be right due to creation is just a religious bias, nothing more.... My ego? You are arguing that the big bang has to be right, what do you base that on other than your own desperate need for confirmation of your own religious views.... Why because it helps you proselytize? Why should anyone be willing to admit anything to support religion other than the people who believe? Why should anyone stick their neck out for religion when religion is so reluctant to support anything that does not support it... Finally a link to support your point.... of course it is a link to a site that grossly distorts and down plays the role of the church in suppressing new idea and tries to show that a geocentric universe is just as good as the sun being at the center of the solar system and tries to smooth over the the conflict between the two systems. One made real sense the other was a complex bunch of excuses arbitrarily put together to try and keep the idea of a stationary Earth in place..... fail.... No it asserts your point by grossly distorting the reality of the message.... Typical for religion No, i am saying exactly what you said in your last sentence, you are trying to distort what i said to support your idea of religious truth being better than science. Establishing a religious perception by using science is a mistake, trying to assert a religious reality is dangerous because for religion to change it's mind people often have to die, all it takes for science to change is better evidence.... Yeah, the anti Catholics laboring to distort the facts, got any evidence of this? I didn't mention anything about Nazis or slavery did I? I was thinking more about the violent suppression of non Christian religions across Europe and the complete destruction of the cultures of central and South America even down to destroying all written records and histories of those cultures. yes those terrible anti catholics got what they deserved I am sure.... This has occurred where ever Catholics have encountered other cultures.... especially primitive cultures...

Here is a new video of the paddlefish in the new 75 gallon tank.

Needimprovement, you are a little bit obsessed with stumping science aren't you? There will always be new questions, new knowledge brings new questions, the great thing is that science can deal with the new and change the old if nesesarry, science is flexable, it grows and changes as new evidence comes in.

It's very scary but i think a great many of them do "believe" they also believe that god will forgive them no matter what they do if they just ask. Even when they are doing something terrible, if they think they are doing it in the name of god they are going to be ok. it's very scary to me these people think that God forgives all and that anything done in the name of god is ok...

Lets fill up Death Valley, refill the Great Salt Lake, bring back Lake Bonneville would it make any difference and would we really want to remove water from the Earth even if we could?

Planning on knocking out one of those car stereos that rolls through your neighborhood at night like an earth quake? Let me know if you succeed, I might want one, heh heh heh...

The idea that there actually are questions science cannot answer assumes that science is limited in some way to what we know now. Science is always advancing, not long ago the idea that a machine could actually show what you are thinking was ludicrous now it's reality and getting better all the time. 100 years ago the things people were sure science could not answer was much longer list than it is now, the list grows shorter daily. to suggest anything is beyond science is a huge assumption that will eventually be shown to be incorrect...

I think the very premise of this question is not only flawed but is disingenuous as well. Love stems from God? and all rules stem from this love? This is simply a lie meant to cover up what religion is the real source of, hatred, cruelty, arrogance, dominance and control. Religion, especially the monotheistic Christian, Islamic, Jewish tradition is a fount of these things, this fountain of hate is directed both inwardly and externally. Inward toward anyone who does not worship the correct way within the religion and outwardly toward any other religious tradition. These religious traditions are full hate for people who are different, whole cultures have been killed at the direction of god, women are often the brunt of this hatred, any woman who does not submit is often labeled a whore or prostitute and the bible asserts they should be stoned to death, as are homosexuals, pagans, or pretty much anyone who does not submit totally to the fear mongers of these religious traditions. Then you have internally driven hatred, often shown as arrogance of "I'm going to heaven because i speak in tongues or fall on the floor and twitch or handle snakes or drink poison and you are going to burn in hell because you don't. Many sects within the from work of various denominations have this idea of superiority due to specific differences in the way they worship, even Catholics have divisions with their ranks of various groups that feel this arrogance toward each other. The really sad thing is that no religion has any reason to hate or to destroy, kill or suppress other cultures other than this message of superiority. From Catholics to Muslims to Protestants, to Mormons to no religion has any proof of their own superiority except for their own assertions of correctness. All of them owe their own success as religions to being willing to suppress the other people who do not worship correctly, often in terrible ways including death and torture. Then they sit back on their smug behinds and try to assert that other less successful religions are nothing but superstitions, the beliefs of silly gullible people who don't know any better. old timey beliefs that are outdated by the truth of the big three monotheistic religions. Being the biggest bastard on the street does not make you correct, it just makes you the biggest bastard on the block, respect is earned not taken and the idea that the any of the big three are more deserving than the Celtic beliefs, Nordic beliefs, Pagan beliefs, Hindus or any other religious beliefs is just more dominance posturing, nothing more...

So cipher, you want to be a mad scientist? Looks like you are already half way there, Cool site, looks like dangerous fun at the very least..... I wonder if he does anti gravity....

Mice and cheese is an old wives tale, they will eat it but prefer seeds and grain, but I see your point and yes the basic instincts would be similar, while animals do have basic instincts learned behavior is also important and mammals especially can and do learn new behaviors in novel situations. There have been species of elephants isolated on islands that evolved to the size of small ponies and there are, or have been, 200 lb rodents. A saw a woman who had a Capybara as a pet, for all practical purposes is it a 100 lb Guinea pig. large dogs like Great Danes suffer from being so big, they are easily hurt and live short lives due to simply being too big for their body plan, rodents seem to be a bit more flexible but large species of rodents are not just scaled up mice.... I would predict that it would be easier to scale down an animal than scale it up, the tiny miniature horses (and other livestock) are a case in point...

If you took a skeleton of an elephant and made an exact copy but scaled it down to the size of a mouse, or vice versa, you would see striking differences in the skeleton, as you would the muscles and all other parts of the body. There were dinosaurs much bigger than elephants but they were not made the same as an elephant. Once you get past a certain point you would have to radically redesign the creature to make it bigger. Take for instance a human being, lets say he is 6' tall and give him plenty of muscles, athletic, he weighs 200 lbs, make him 12 feet tall and his feet would have four times the surface area but he would weigh 1600 lbs. His lungs would be four times as big but they would have to ventilate 8 times as much flesh, only completely new design would even allow him to move around... As elephants evolved from small animals their body plans changed radically and still an elephant is not as active or maneuverable as his tiny ancestors. I'm not going to claim arthropods could not evolve into large animals but doing so would take such a huge redesign of the way their bodies work they would not resemble what we think of as arthropods now, everything from the way they breath to the way they walk to the tiniest details would be radically different. Creatures with endo-skeletons wiped out the large land arthropods and have suppressed any development in that direction ever since... Creatures with exoskeletons didn't get a chance to evolve very far in the large size direction. If endo-skeleton land animals had never evolved we might see some large, even active exoskeleton animals, but it's difficult to imagine them having no examples to work from...

As has been said before needimprovemnt, the idea of a singularity is loosing ground to other theories that do not require it. It's why hanging your religious ideas of science is often a mistake, First it was the idea of a flat earth, then Catholic church hung it's hat on the geocentric universe with crystal spheres, each time the Church had to back away when reality was shown to be drastically different and people were jailed, tortured and even killed as the Church tried to suppress the correct information in favor of the view the church supported. Trying to say science supports a particular religious view is always a mistake.... The Church has gotten to where it's at by suppressing, often violently, other religions, not because of some basic truth....

No but you have said that any god but yours is not real... with no proof what so ever... Do you have anything to back up that assertion? This is in no way proof of anything other than you believe it to be true and there are others who are just as sure your belief system is not true... Try going back and showing some evidence of your assertions that any other religion is nothing but superstition and old timey beliefs by gullible persons...

The breathing apparatus of arthropods limits how big they get as well, back when there were 6' long centipedes the oxygen content of the atmosphere is thought to have been close to 35% I think the inefficient breathing apparatus limits their size more than having an exoskeleton but both do limit the size of those animals...

Now if you made an artificial habitat on the moon you might get really big spiders, give them a very high oxygen atmosphere, low gravity and in many thousands of generations you just might get really big spiders.... The ones in my back yard are big enough.. like writing spiders but about twice as big.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephila_clavipes

Ummm, why? Really large spiders are not possible, the square cube law tells us that animals with exoskeletons have size limits and really large spiders would be at a distinct disadvantage to both other creatures and us... OIC a nature lover, humans need a predator species that preys on us??? Not cool at all unless of course it was you being eaten, alive.

Well your nurse friend is incorrect in her assertion that it can wait, i have an aggressive form of the disease, i cannot wait and i certainly cannot afford to go to Mexico and have something done my insurance, such that it is, will not cover.... Also drawing conclusions based on anecdotal evidence is often misleading, i have talked to many men who had the surgery done, and robotic assisted is the best way, and they have no problems at all long term.... A few weeks with a catheter seems like a small price to pay for life....

What is 333 implying by alkalize or die? Some sort of therapy?

333, the extreme side effects you speak of are possible with all the treatments for prostrate cancer, with complete removal you don't have to worry about the cancer coming back, with the rest of them there is the possibility of the cancer coming back. And not having your "cream" is a side effect I'd like to avoid, not every one thinks of ejaculation as messy, but not at the risk of dying. BTW the blood vessels inside the prostrate have nothing to do with an erection, it's nerve damage that causes erectile dysfunction and the High Intensity Focused Ultrasound therapy you are touting is close to the same as radiation and can destroy the nerves of the penis that control erection as well. The High Intensity Focused Ultrasound heating of the prostrate might be better than radiation or at least similar but robotic assist prostratectomy has less or at least similar long term side effects than any other method and the cancer cannot return if it was confined to the prostrate... I have prostrate cancer and I am looking to find the best therapy with minimal side effects, so far robotic assisted laproscopic surgery seems to be the best possibility long term for someone as young as me... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/152901.php

I'm not sure you can say Jupiter's atmosphere has a height in the same way Earth's does, I'm not sure how you would measure it.... From the same link as above

Then it would appear I owe Severian an apology, it's real and I hope Severain will accept it, I think I stated my feelings about miracles in post #54, it would also appear that my frustration in trying to engage needimprovemnt has caused me to step outside the rules of respectful behavior as well, I apologize for that as well. It would seem I need to leave needimprovement alone and let him proselytize his way on in the world...

333, you state Does your husband still ejaculate when he orgasms?

I'm going to have to take sides here, while Inow might have been abrasive needimprovement has pretty much shit all over the rules and the very idea of what this site is about from day one. He seems to have no concept of evidence nor does he refrain from constant proselytizing. He makes shamelessly unsupported claims, over and over as though repeating them is sufficient to make them true and he has asserted things like killing a liberal is something no one would notice and he has asserted his religious views are the only views that should be respected while demeaning any other religions as "old timey" ways believed by the superstitious and gullible. he is very frustrating to debate and slippery as an eel to pin down some semblance of meaning to his posts. He ignores all attempts to get him to abide by any rules but his own religious derived rules. If one of us did what he does we would be called down immediately, the OP of this very thread is nothing but a straw man argument meant to allow him to proselytize. The question could have just as easily been asked "Why are so many uneducated people theists?" and it would have been just as arrogant a question as the OP....