Moontanman

It would appear there is some support for the idea that evolution drives toward complexity. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080317171027.htm

Are you trying to be dismissive or can you tell me what that term means and why is it important in this conversation?

Since for the sake of this question we do not need to know if they are here and since instantaneous transcendental teleportation is not necessary or for that matter what does the term "instantaneous transcendental teleportation" mean? The idea is to understand how such a thing could be possible given real world possibilities and to see that which possibilities are more likely. To me the slow boat theory of a civilization that has already colonized the entire galaxy and are already here is the most likely scenario. Colonizing the entire galaxy shouldn't take more than a few million years at most so if they do exist it's quite possible they are already here. So if they are already here why wouldn't they have taken over the earth would be my next question. I've given many reasons why they would not want the earth but then the next question is why would they be here if not for the earth. The resources of the solar system or any other star system such as asteroids and comets or Kuiper belt objects would be my best guess. Actually if you give this much in the way of credence then stars that do not have planets but have extensive asteroid or Kuiper belt type objects should be high on the list of stars to look around for alien civilizations. The idea (for me) is that no god like super technology is necessary for aliens to be here.

What is a QuauQ? A google search turned up nothing pertaining to subatomic particles. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Aren't quarks more strongly attracted to each other the further apart they are?

The point here is not are we being visited, but "if" we are being visited where do they come from, an exercise in logic I think.

I think there is a school of thought that asserts that many sightings of unusual things is caused by magnetic fields distorted by tectonic stress, piezoelectric effects, the two ideas could account for at least some sightings of glowing objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

I saw ball lightning once, it was an extraordinary event but it lasted only a few seconds. I saw a film from a security camera once that showed a ball of white light coming in from off camera, it swirled around a metal lamp poll, it was night and the lamp was lit, the glowing ball wasn't as bright as the lamp. The ball of light continued off cam with no further interaction with the metal lamp post. It was claimed to be a UFO but it looked like a classic example of ball lightning. Of course ball lightning is as unknown as UFOs and using one unexplained mystery to explain another one is a bit of a stretch.

How could the universe have an end? No matter where you go... you're there!

I'd be in big trouble, my family has little to no facial hair, I'm glad I live here where i can be a heretic in so many ways and be ignored equally.

I would like to see some evidence for this idea, I know there is huge amount of evidence that says that it is impossible for this to have happened. Do we have to trot all that out yet again? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged These mountains have been in place for many many millions of years, this is a non starter. How did echinoderms manage to survive this deluge of rain? If you can explain that I have a great many other species that could not have survived such a deluge. All I can say is no there is no evidence of anything like this happening at all ever. Again what is your evidence for this?

Well they tried concrete.

I think it's quite possible that at the temps and pressures at that depth liquid nitrogen would come rather close to being a liquid already. I'm not sure it would have the impact you are looking for.

Well at 55 it would appear I've got all of the facial hair I'll ever have.

This is very interesting, I am of native American ancestry and I have almost no beard, none at all at my temples a tiny bit on my chin and sparse mustache. What little bit of facial hair I have is quite clear and has to be quite long to even been noticed. My grandfather who was Cherokee had even less beard than me, he could "shave" with a pair of tweezers, just yank out a few hairs that grew around his moles he was clean shaven! I guess the next question is how would these religious groups deal with men who had no facial hair?

That would be how humans dressed up the story so it matched their own preconceptions. The fact remains that the shiny naked humans were the linage down through which humanity was passed. In the bible it would have just been the Jewish people but at the time I thought the bible was a larger story than just the Jewish people, a larger story that took place many tens or even hundreds of thousands of years ago not just 6000 years. It turns out there is not much to my young theory but there are a few amazing match ups or so i recall thinking at the time. Although the one above is the best I remember. Much of the stuff is obviously stories from other religions or times earlier than the Jewish religion. Sorry this is way off topic, if we want to continue to discuss this King a new thread should be made.

In certain religious sects having lots of facial hair in the form of a thick flowing beard is necessary or is indicated as being necessary to being a man. What if you were a male with very little facial hair. Could you still be a member? I'm just curious because I have very little facial hair but all the Taliban seem to have long full beards, is this religious or cultural or both? Americans who work closely with people from Afghanistan all wear the full beards to gain the mens trust. It occurred to me I would stand out like a sore thumb! So what is the real status of the beard thing?

Then your take on this would be even more important to me. I remember the first time i heard this story, I was about 12 years old. i immediately looked it up in the bible and the thought occurred to me that this could be an analogy of when humans took the world from Neanderthals. At the time I was convinced the bible was a text on the way the earth and man had evolved but primitive humans had not the scope of or the idea of science and they interpreted the words of God in a completely different context than they were meant to be understood.

Oh boy, where I live a tropical depression formed just off shore last week, very early for this. We got some wind and rain, nothing bad...yet. Most people seem to think, and the news concentrates on this, that hurricanes form off the coast of Africa and then come across the Atlantic to hit North and Central America but they also form just off the shore of South Eastern USA in the Gulf Stream as well. It's been several years since we had a major storm, let's hope NOAA is wrong

No, hollow wise sounding bite type analogies only serve to impress those who are not experienced enough to know it's nothing but physco babble. From my point of view your analogy is nothing more than a lie to cover up yet another lie, the lie being the existence of god to begin with. Don't try to baffle me with BS, I've heard it all in dozens of small fundamentalist Christian churches to large more secular churches, your analogy falls flat. Tell it like it is, don't try to cover up a lack of real knowledge by babbling sound bites that sound wise simply because they are unclear and confusing. Of course he didn't get fired, how could he fire himself? DrDNA I've heard those confusing analogies all my life, i stopped being impressed by them way before puberty. if you truly have something to say that is indeed wise don't try to cover it up by being obscure and trying to confuse the issue with false superiority. if you think you have wisdom i think we are all capable to judging that sans the obfuscation.

I've often thought the idea of Sapiens and Neanderthal mating was interesting, i see no reason to think that Neanderthals were inferior to us mentally but they were definitely different, their culture shows almost no sign of trading or commerce between distant places and Sapiens was all about trading for resources between distant places. This trading by it's self would have given Sapiens a leg up simply due to being able to get the materials for tools in trade rather than having to find sources of tool making materials close by to survive. I think this idea of commerce is what separated us and them and led to their decline and extinction. King you like to look to the Bible for historical data, I can't recall the scripture but at once point the a man had two sons, one was hairy and was a great hunter the other was not so hairy and was a farmer. the father favored the hairy wild son but his farmer son connived to take the harry brothers blessing from his dying father. it resulted in the farmer brother taking the birth right of the hairy wild brother. This has always reminded me of the Sapiens vs Neanderthal and how they first encountered each other in the land now call Palestine. Could this story have been an explanation of how Sapiens stole the birth right of the Neanderthals? Also Esau was covered in red hair and Neanderthals were though to be redheaded to some extent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esau

Sure no problemo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

I think it's a positive step leader coming from the ground that has been cut off from both the ground and the clouds. In other words a ball of positive plasma. Or remote control alien drones...

No I would not agree, a forest is wild and the trees are all unique, if all the trees are alike it's a tree farm. Lots of them around here. No moss, it's not a forest to start with, as i said a forest is a wild ecosystem with out all it's parts it's just a group of trees. Your questions make no sense to me in the context we are discussing.

המשיח הוא פשוט דרך אחרת לדת לשלוט ההמונים עבור אנשים שרוצים לשלוט I can use google translate too.

I have been told, by seriously religious people, that the bible is absolute truth, every word, and that to question is in any way is blasphemy, the same as calling god a lier. The idea that Gods word could be translated wrong, as in God would not allow this, is also blasphemy. If the texts differ it is because God wanted them to differ and wants the translation to be the way it is. To me this is crazy but to these people who truly believe it's the word of god exactly as God wants it to be. These seriously religious people take this concept very seriously. God cannot be wrong so if old documents are changed or destroyed it's because god wanted it that way. it's why only the Gospels we have now survived to be included as parts of the new testament and why we should not even try to look back and see what was because what is in the bible now is what god wants. Scary stuff for sure.