Moontanman

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 old timey beliefs that are outdated by the truth of the big three monotheistic religions.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....

It's not personal needimprovment, it has nothing to do with me disliking you or your posts, it has to do with not liking how you makes baseless assertions then proceed to back them up with more baseless assertions then even more baseless assertions often followed by insulting attempts at humor. Proved some evidence to back your self up other than more baseless claims and we'll get along fine...

Surely there are other ancient reports that sound like descriptions of technology?

You're making a huge assumption based on that assumption agreeing with your religious views, the idea that the big bang came from a singularity is loosing ground in favor of other theories. Hanging your religious hat on a scientific theory is a bad idea because science goes where the evidence points and just because it points to something that agrees with your ideas of creation in a flash can and often is a mistake. It's a big complex universe and some think our theories that show things like singularities will be over turned for better theories that do not require infinite densities.... or infinities in general... Science is not dogma, science changes as the evidence changes.. Religion tends to stay stuck in dogma.... Are you a Catholic priest? Or is one talking through you? I know several Catholics and none of them are as "religious" as you....

Possibly liquid methane or ethane would be better for silicon life... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry Possibly H2SO4 could be used as solvent for silicone experiments? but what chemicals would you start out with ? The reason i brought up boron compounds for the Urey-Miller experiment is due to Boron forming long chain polymers and rings as well as Bucky balls, carbon forming Bucky balls shows how well it creates large molecules, the fact that boron does the same thing is suggestive that boron might share more of carbons properties...

This is off topic but there are many threads on this forum that explain that very thing, check them out....

Most claims of miracles are just a misinterpretation of what happened, when someone recovers from what was thought to be terminal cancer it is often called a miracle when in reality there are many explanations that do not require intervention by a supreme being on any level. people have fallen out of airplanes are 25,000 feet with no parachute and survived and this is hailed as a miracle but closer inspection shows other wise. the are things that i would see as a miracle but I would have to keep the possibility of technology at hand too. If Venus and Mars were to suddenly exchange places in orbit around the sun for no apparent reason it would be difficult not to think miracle but any reasonable person would have to admit technology of some kind could be at the root of the exchange. Not understanding why something happened does not make it a miracle, nor does understanding mean a supreme being wasn't involved. The whole idea of something being miraculous is disingenuous to me... using something not understood to prove or disprove anything is also wrong...

Oh I do, needimprovement is on a mission to prove god is real and proselytize the message of the bible, nothing less.... I'd like to see some evidence to back up his constant claims other than just his assertions....

The literal problems with the bible in general and the story of Moses in particular has nothing to do with the number of slaves he saved or the accurate accounts in the bible of people places and events. It has to do with the claimed miracles God preformed, the story claims he parted the red sea, rescuing slaves is entirely possible but the claim of parting the red sea and other miracles is where the story runs into trouble. The bible has many accurate descriptions of events, cities and and even individual people, morality plays based on the morals of that time and place. But this does not mean it is a message from god nor does it show any evidence of the existence of god or the over all truth of the story of the bible. I could write a book about aliens invading New York City, I could use the names of real people and real places describe real events, I could describe the moral choices the people of that city would have to make and the results of those choices, slanted to my own sense of morality and much of it would be accurate, I could describe many miraculous things the aliens could do but the premise of the book, alien invasion would be false. The fact that the bible contains accuracies doesn't mean it is true or that God is real, it is just a work of fiction used by the priest class to gain control over their people, to suggest it is something more requires evidence you have thus far been unable to provide in even a tiny amount....

What would you use for a working fluid? Silanes react violently with water and silicones are not soluble in water.