Moontanman

Did you check out those paintings in the link I provided? Some of them are really impossible to explain and the connection between them and religion has to be more than coincidence!

I really need a high speed connection!

I've often wondered why i get so much pleasure out of being a Dom. My submissive gets off on being submissive as well but if I were to accidentally really harm her it would take away all the pleasure for me. Why does the domination have to both pretend and the sub has to be willing for me to enjoy it? Really forcing someone or hurting them would destroy me but the pretend is very erotic.

If the medieval art showed men with wings I'd say you have a good point but the depictions would seem to show advanced technology where none should have existed. Why would these people think of flying saucers or other depictions of what looks much like technology?

Any way you look at it there is better evidence than creation myths. http://dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/art.html

While It's impossible to know for sure Kings idea is not as silly as easter eggs. Aliens if they exist almost certainly come from another star (this ignores the idea of inter dimensional travel or time travel) if aliens interacted with humans and caused some of our notions about gods, demons, fairies, or other beings, then the question becomes where did they come from and why do they have anything to do with us at all? I'll enter this hypothesis, Aliens are here in our solar system, they have been here for thousands if not millions of years. we can make some suggestions about them, if they exist. They came here by slow boat technology, no FTL star ships, if they can do that there is no reason for them to be here or interact with us to begin with. They do not colonize planets or at least our planet for what ever reasons but they do use the resources in our solar system. They inhabit artificial habitats they build using the resources in our solar system. The reason they do study us and manipulate us on occasion is because they are concerned about our progress and how that might effect them. This explains lots of things that other wise have no explanation. UFOs, if alien space ships do visit the Earth the main reason often asked is why? Why travel light years to pick up some redneck on a back road and do an anal probe on him or her? It would make no possible sense if they had to travel light years to visit the earth (unless star travel is even easier than on Star trek, lol) If star travel is even a fraction as hard as we think it is then there is not reason for UFOs to visit us. I know most everyone things UFOs are totally bullshit lights in the sky crap but not all are, some are really inexplicable even with a huge amount of data. Not all are he said she said type events. This could also explain some historical things that suggest UFOs as real, everything from cave painting to medieval art depicting UFOs. Some of that stuff is really difficult to explain. Some religious writings, as King suggested, do suggest some contact with unusual beings. The real question has always been why. Why would aliens, even from the nearest star, come here and seemingly do nothing but **** with our heads? If they are inhabitants of our solar system and not particularly comfortable with wiping us out (as we might think really advanced beings would not be) and have no real interest in our planet they might study us because they suspect that eventually we will be out in space and avoiding us will become increasingly harder to do. They can easily avoid us detecting their transmissions by using many technologies even we use. So the question is, if the evidence of aliens is real then why, and the why is they are here but colonizing the asteroids or other small bodies in our solar system by building their own artificial colonies. And their interest is us is their own self interest. If the evidence of aliens is real the only other possible explanation is the Earth has unbeknown to us spawned another civilization in the distant past and they are still here in colonies around the solar system. I know, lots of ifs and assumes but it is a place to start. Ok, I stuck my neck out, now chop it off.... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes but the culture that originated it has spread it around, it was at one time an isolated school of thought.

This a pretty big assumption considering how different even very similar biologies could be. If the other planet had even a small difference food would be an unlikely thing to get from the planet. On the earth there are organisms that use arsenic in place of phosphorus, unusual on the earth but if it was turned around on the other planet all "food" would be deadly to us. Chirality is another possibility, reverse that and no food. Lots of possibilities for failure so planets would be an unlikely source of food and any other supplies would be easier to get from asteroids or kuiper belt like objects. Accelerating at one G would be great but with current or even predicted technology this is highly unlikely.

Hydrogenosomes do produce ATP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenosome

I'll stop equating conservative and republicans as soon as you stop equating liberal and democrats. The bill was proposed by the republican administration.

From your wiki link Dinosaurs were specialized reptiles, Archosaurs, similar but significantly different from other reptiles. Much like mammals being divided into placental and marsupials and even egg laying monotremes. these groups of mammals are quite different from each other, at least as different as archosaurs were from common lizards. Crocodilians are the closest animal alive today to the non avian archosaurs. Warm bloodedness is common in mammals but not all mammals are equally warm blooded and some reptiles, sharks and fish are warm blooded even now. warm blood or cold blood is not a prerequisite to be any particular type of vertebrate.

What? The conservatives led by the Bush administration are the people who championed amnesty for illegal aliens not the liberals.

Here in the US we believe it's more important to scare young girls into sexual abstinence by telling them they will die of cancer if they see a penis... cheaper too...

Isn't more important to determine the basis for the vaccine than who profits from it? The vaccine for polio no doubt made money but did that make it unnecessary? Guardasil protects people from a very bad virus that can have terrible consequences. If the vaccine is effective why shouldn't it be mandatory? At some point the elimination of the disease is more important than some one who believes their kids can avoid the disease by abstinence. BTW, can you give a real example of a mandatory vaccine that protects from something no worse than the sniffles. Our world would be a very different place with out vaccines, to denigrate the idea of vaccines this way is questionable to say the lest.

You'd have a great point if those animals were dinosaurs but they are not they are marine reptiles not archosaurs. If you had read the link i provided you would have seen the quote Edit, they were never considered dinosaurs, they were not archosaurs, popular press had lumped them into the group.

I'm not going to say it's impossible but i know of no evidence that points in that direction.

How do you know any assertions about god are true? Even the simple assertion of gods existence is nothing but an unsupported assertion. I can say God is made of green cheese and it is as supportable as any other assertion.

I honestly don't know what to tell you, the link i provided shows it has been done but chlorine is so reactive not many things are gonna hold up long.

Exactly what do you want sources for? Warm blooded dinosaurs? Dinosaurs lived in polar regions and other cool to cold habitats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur Swamps being important habitat for dinosaurs? Spinosaurus is the only dinosaur thought to semi aquatic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinosauridae Most dinosaurs were dry land animals, the early depictions of huge dinosaurs hiding from predators in swamps is now thought to be unrealistic due to the body forms of almost all dinosaurs being adapted to upland habitats. Aquatic dinosaurs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

Chlorine should be just as conductive as neon, the gas has to be ionized to conduct electricity, even neon has to be done this way. the electrical current ionizes the gas. Nobel gasses like neon are used because they are inert and do not corrode electrodes or the glass like other gasses would. You should be able to get the chlorine to glow for a short while until it corroded the electrodes, long enough to see what color it was. if you need to to work for longer platinum electrodes should work for a while. How long do you need the light to work? a metal that corrodes in chlorine the way aluminum does in oxygen should work. Does this link help? http://www.springerlink.com/content/717847j4481306r8/

It's not hard to find the religious tone in the opposition to rights of Native Americans, (even the genocide of native peoples), abolition of slavery, and womens suffrage. Religion, specifically the Christian religion but others as well, is used by both sides of many moral issues. Religion is often at the forefront of movements to stifle progressive thinking on many issues. It's often only in hindsight we see these progressive issues as the moral high ground.

Yes warm blooded, most authorities think that most dinosaurs were indeed warm blooded, especially the theropod dinosaurs. BTW the article says dinosaurs that lived in shallow seas and swamps. the idea of the swamp dinosaurs is totally outdated and there were no known aquatic dinosaurs.

Look here for info about hydrgenosomes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenosome

First of all the idea that aliens would somehow be compelled to visit the Earth if they were in our solar system is assuming a lot. Are we really that interesting? There is every reason to think that aliens would avoid gravity wells and use resources in space like asteroids and comets to construct artificial space colonies. No need to visit the Earth at all, any aliens who traveled from even the nearest star would be used to living in artificial habitats for many generations and probably have no use for planets and the possibility of infectious organisms and the difficulty of negotiating gravity wells. The Lagrange points of Jupiter could be swarming with millions of aliens. So assuming aliens would even want to visit the earth is as they say "ass u me" I think that star traveling aliens would have long ago lost any need for planets. BTW Mokele assuming that any rocks blasted off Mars or Venus would necessarily be in space for millions of years before they landed on the Earth is ignoring statistics, while most would never hit the Earth, and many would be in space for millions of years, statistically a very few could be in space a very short period of time before they hit the Earth. There are always data points points outside the bell curve, lots of rocks have been blasted from Mars, Venus, and the Earth, to assume all of them are in space for millions of years is unreasonable. Bacteria buried deep in a rock could survive as spores for quite some time and some would almost certainly find their way to another planet in amazingly short periods of time. i agree that brine shrimp eggs or water bears are unlikely but they are not impossible. i think that if UFOs are real aliens, they are most likely colonizers that are living in space and their only interest in the Earth is "what if we get into space and contest their claims to those resources" i am of course assuming no FTL super aliens

I can remember a time when the police couldn't put up a road block and stop people to check for their ID just to be checking ID's. They actually needed probable cause to stop citizens and demand an ID. Now days the police can indeed stop every car on any road and demand an ID for no reason other than curiosity. Maybe it's just me but this doesn't strike me as progress. On the other hand why do so many conservatives seem to think it's a good idea to give amnesty to illegals just because they have been here for a period of time? If I kidnap someone and keep them for a certain period of time does this mean i should have amnesty? The law is the law, if we are going to give amnesty to illegals why should the amount of time they are here matter? Why do i feel that Conservatives want illegals here so they can exploit them by paying them low wages? I am more or less liberal but not extreme as a matter of fact i have some very Conservative values but i do not want people to come here illegally, I see no reason to allow it other than of course if I had a construction business and needed some cheap quick labor. i often walk around my neighborhood with no ID, sweat pants have no pockets, if i am stopped and have no ID does this make me a criminal? I honestly hate the slippery slop argument but in this case I've watched the slope get ever more slippery, do we live in a free society or not? Where does it end? do they eventually break down my door and demand an ID on the off chance there might be someone there with no ID? If I am just unlucky enough to be dark or Asian or maybe my English is not quite as the same as everyone else's do i need to keep my ID on me all the time? I just don't see how anyone can say that citizens should have to provide "papers" at all times. Conservatives talk about how Liberals are leaning toward communism but if i remember correctly this is the way most communist countries treat their citizens.

I think that what we are talking about is not strictly anaerobic, using hydrogen in this way is more akin to aerobic respiration than anaerobic. We or i am talking about hypothetical complex organisms that store photosynthesis as oxidizers instead of carbohydrates. Anaerobic simple organisms store very little carbohydrates either. Also anaerobic respiration covers a huge field, many different chemicals used for respiration, some more energetic than others. On earth of all the respiration possibilities the one that is powered by oxygen that is also brought about by the most energy surplus of all energy synthesis, photosynthesis. Most organisms use some sort of energy derived from chemical reactions or radiation as a way to obtain hydrogen, there are organisms that use hydrogen directly to make food. Yes but we are talking about complex plants not microbes (no anaerobic complex plants) and the one animal that operates via anaerobic respiration is quite tiny and descended from aerobic organisms, it is a very specialized aerobic animal. The idea, to me at least, is that complex life uses solar power, (so far chemo-synthesis has not developed any complex life forms but if it did i bet it would follow the same energy storage idea's set forth there)) and it also has to be able to store that solar power for later use as part of it's body structure. In a hydrogen atmosphere that energy would have to be stored as oxidizers of some sort for the energy to be released. if the energy storage is not possible then i see no way for large complex life forms to develop, plant or animal. Now would that stored energy be able to make a fire when released? that is also a good question