Moontanman

How do they do what?

It would take energy input to produce oxygen from ferric oxide, where would this energy come from? Photosynthesis uses sunlight to produce carbohydrates, oxygen is a waste product produced in the presence of sunlight, in the dark, plants use oxygen just like animals. Without a surplus of energy how would any martian microbes produce oxygen? Doing so would use more energy than they are getting from the chemicals like an over unity energy machine. For chemo-synthetic microbes energy is already bound up in the chemicals.

I am an atheist and I do not get my morals from god but I see the whole sex with a coma patient as fundamentally wrong on every level I can possibly conceive of, and just how deeply does your wife sleep skeptic? I am skeptical any one could have sex and not wake up. I thought my wife was a heavy sleeper

No, the vast majority of chemo-synthetic organisms are poisoned by free oxygen and would do quite well if it were to disappear.

It's no more implausible than nuclear detonations or hydrogen fusion. As for a flying Chernobyl you really should read the article and it's take on risk mitigation. Having made my living at one time at Du Pont and being part of a very successful "risk mitigation" team you should know there is a big difference between the unexpected accident and the expected accident. As is quoted in the article one hydrogen bomb detonation released many times the radioactive debris of Chernobyl and no one died, Chernobyl is not a reasonable example of risk mitigation by any sense of the word and using it as such is nothing more than fear mongering.

I'm not so sure, a space elevator implies an orbit that allows the anchor of the elevator to be stationary over the surface of the object it rises from, a 28 day orbit would mean a very tall, much taller than from the earth, elevator. And why would that be? Risk mitigation can deal with any risks involved.

Building gaseous fission nuclear powered rockets would be much easier and cheaper than a space elevator.

Possibly you missed the link I provided?

Since I am not religious or wealthy I had to send my boys to public schools, they were not bad, they provided students who wanted an education with a very good one, good enough to get my boys in good universities. So now we have at least three points of view.

I'm curious, project Orion which used nuclear detonations to launch a space craft into orbit is being considered as usable technology but the idea of gaseous fusion (nuclear light bulb variant) which could, with relative ease, lift 1000 tons into orbit and return under power one stage, reusable, ground to orbit and back, is not even considered? That's 1000 tons payload by the way. http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx

I've tried to look for some studies but the subject is so full of people with agendas I suspect a truly neutral study is non existent. As with most anecdotal evidence, your mileage will vary depending on your own point of view

I'll admit it is a personal issue with lots of emotions and assumptions, i was heavily criticized by some for sending my boys to an inner city type school but they both managed to get both a quality education and lots of life long friends. Fear of public schools can be just as real or imagined as fear of home schooling. I have always said the involvement of the parents is more important than who the kids go to school with.

I guess what bothers me the most is what religion represents, I think this God in the pledge thing is a very good example of why religion cannot be allowed to have free reign. I would be the first to agree that if you want to believe your religion is reality then fine believe it, go to your place of worship, make the walls rattle, invoke your god to do what ever it is he or she wants to do. But in public institutions like government and education do not expect your ideas about god to be accepted as the truth nor should you expect to try and teach everyone else your concept of religion anyplace but your own church. Conversely I can see not asserting the idea of atheism either but to these people anything that disagrees with them is asserting another religion. They talk about free speech and tolerance but it's only of if your speech agrees with them do they tolerate you. The idea of neutrality is not in their mind set, everything is us and them or black and white or right and wrong. there is no room for anyone who does not agree except in a subservient role as people to be converted. Give them an inch they want a mile, give them a mile they want it all. i wish you could just coast along and say to each his own, go your own way, but that attitude plays into the religious plan to control everything and every one. Do what you want in your own church, I'll even put up with all the annoying proselytizing from bill boards to door to door, but leave religion out of places that every one much share. Religion has no place in schools or government. I see the religious proselytizing at the university my son goes to they actually accost people and do their best to stop passers by, they do all sorts of outrageous stunts to get peoples attention, often this is disruptive in the extreme. To me it's sad, if religion is so great why do they have to practically yell it in your ear and slap you in the head with it? If you want religion go to church, there is an awful lot of them, if you want to teach religion as reality, do it in church, stop expecting the government to back you up in your endeavor. God knows you get enough money already and you don't have to account for it or pay taxes on it, what more do you want? The main perversion of religion is the idea that they must convert everyone else, by hook or crook they do everything possible to convert the godless heathens so they can get their money and use them to convert more. God in the pledge is just another example of government supported proselytizing.

I was abused as a child, for most of my life i wished I could forget, but it is a apart of me and at least partly makes me who i am so to forget it would mean forgetting at least part of who i am. i came to grips with it a long time ago but the idea of not knowing abuse or knowing is an interesting concept but the abuser is still immoral whether the abuse is remembered or not.

Some times i wonder if it is really possible to be an atheist in our society or in any society. I think virtually everyone has the idea of some sort of higher power inserted by society they have to at least deny. I think the take my Pagan friends have is interesting, the call Catholicism pagan light, the same multiple gods but with no bonfires no sex or nudity. I think of my self as a atheist but when i stub my toe I still call on God to curse the rock my toe hit.

I know it from being in the middle of it for years, listening to preachers say that public schools are trolling grounds for homosexual teachers, immoral behavior being taught, how black people were using public schools to seduce our daughters this stuff just went on and on often into insane ravings. To be honest it was very disturbing. Now I have to admit this was 20+ years ago but I still hear bits and pieces of it from home school parents and it's still disturbing. Religion is often quite disturbing, I remember the "Rod Of God" ministries from the mid 80's black churches can be just as nuts although i never felt uncomfortable in one (other than the Rod Of God place) Snake handlers, speaking in tongues, slain by the spirit, if you think your local church is quirky I have a few places you should visit. To be honest I just turned away Jehovah's Wittinesses about 10 minutes ago, took me by surprise, usually they show up on alternate Sundays, must be the end of the world! But to answer your question, i have no documented proof, I would be surprised to find any. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That is a good point, quite possibly we are all in an impossible situation and doomed to fail even if we succeed Religion is an argument that defies reason, feeds on tolerance, and destroys free will. Religion will always take advantage of any avenue that allows them to control reality to suit their needs, they care not for what is right, only for what is written in their book.

There are few seeds that will grow out of the fruit that contains them, most require an initial drying at least. Being spread in the excrement of animals is a common method of seed dispersal. Digestive juices allow the husk of the seeds to be penetrated by the embryo. Some fruits with large seeds were at one time undoubtedly spread by larger animals. Swallowing a mango seed would require a rather large animal. I often hunt for dewberry vines in the spring by looking for areas where birds roost. The vines almost always grow under areas where birds rest after eating the berries. Under power lines are a common place for dewberries to grow, one side of the road will be bare but the side under power lines will be over grown with the vines.

You misunderstand me, i don't give a rats ass about Jefferson or whether or not he was instrumental in whatever. What I am concerned about is teaching reality based on something other than demonstrable evidence. We can argue all day long who is the most important figure in the formation of the USA and no matter who we decide that is the things that are happening around us will not change. We can fight all day long about trivial details that got us here but when it comes down to one group dictating reality because of ideology or religion because they have that power flags go up in my mind immediately. I know it's a slippery slope argument and normally I would not give it much credence but I feel that indeed once ideology begins to dictate reality it can indeed become a slope that tends to snow ball into a night mare of evidence meaning nothing unless the powers that be agree with it. The woman who is a big part of this trend of ideology dictating reality also thinks creationism is science, a 6,000 year old earth and so on. Do we really give these people such power with out a fight? Do you really think that a spherical Earth was taught just because someone thought it would be better if we taught it? A spherical Earth is an easily demonstrable fact yet that point of view held sway for hundreds if not thousands of years after it was known to be true. If you are ok putting reality in the hands of people who care for nothing other than being in power then you are part of the problem.

So who ever has the most members is correct? In other words "eat shit, a billion flies can't be wrong"? If enough people decided the earth was flat we should allow it to be taught? The sun revolves around the Earth? Lets take a vote! Your label, Liberal or Conservative, should not dictate reality, your beliefs or lack there of should not dictate reality. The truth should be as close as we are able to ascertain, not fluid depending on who is in control or who has the most influence.

So truth is what you want it to be ParanoiA? I may be more Liberal than Conservative but i do not want what is taught to children to be edited due to politics or religion, can you really say that reality is what ever the majority wants it to be? I guess Japan should be able to teach their kids an alternate history of WW2? Or possibly Germany? I thought that was what the dreaded communist hordes did, so now it's ok for us to do so? BULLSHIT The truth may not always be known in it's entirity but to puposely distort the truth to suit your own personal agenda is SIMPLY WRONG

What boggles the mind is not if they make money or if they don't make money, what boggles the mind is that a text book sold in Texas would be different than a text book sold in Maine or California. So history is different depending on where you are? Is biology different in Texas? Did humans coexist with dinosaurs in Utah? Is Math different In NC? It's crazy that text books are changed to reflect local thinking and bias, the very thought of it pisses me off greatly. I don't really care if they can do it and make a profit or not the very act of it is simply WRONG

It's a pretty geode, but I do not see any reason it would be significantly more valuable than any other geode.

The idea of home schooling is worrisome, if indeed you can show that public schools do not provide access to a good education in your area you might have a leg to stand on but from what I've seen that is a white whale of immense proportions. In my area nearly all home schooled children are white, middle to high income families, almost always very religious. The idea most of them claim is their motive is a quality education but the education they give their children is often nothing but an extreme religious slant on reality, not too different than the so called Muslim schools where only religion is taught. In many cases the only thing that keeps this from happening is the need to pass standardized tests on various subjects. I say there is a lot more to school than passing standardized tests. My children went to public schools and yes, oh my god! with people who were different from them, some of them were actually negro yes there were conflicts, distractions, the occasional fight but they went on to the UNC university system and did or are doing quite well, still OMFG! going to school with people who are not WASPS! I have to admit my boys might have had ahead start of the racial issues because many of our family and family friends were people of color and my children were used to seeing black people, socializing with them and just being around people who were not WASPS. Looking back my main concern was not exposing them to more of their Native American heritage but it is what it is, too late now to second guess. Then as now I think it is a mistake to concentrate too much on heritage and ignore the here and now. Most of the reason people home school their children is fear, fear whipped up by the media, but mostly the local churches due to the fear the kids might be exposed to real science, fear that their little white kids might have to share a room or a buss with someone of a different color or religious persuasion. My sons often commented on these kids when they were occasionally thrust back into the public system due to family problems that keep their parents from continuing their home schooling. My sons said these kids acted like aliens, totally unprepared to the real world. I felt a little sorry for those kids, they had no clue of reality, very little social skills, almost totally unable to deal with the social and sexual tensions middle and high schools are full of and deathly afraid of people of color. I spent lots of time in school programs helping kids, simply being a part of my children's life and helping those who's parents couldn't be there. from visits to museums to band concerts to trips to New York City, to scuba camps. But one thing i i am quite sure of, the parents who isolated their children from reality did them no favors. The idea that Home Schooling is reason to allow someone to immigrate to the US is very disturbing, many people are persecuted for their beliefs or politics but I don't see Germany being that way by any stretch of the imagination.

Why is it ok for a person to cripple their children by giving them an education that is made up of lies and disinformation? What if your religion said you had to pluck out on eye of your child for them to get to heaven or cut off a hand or beat them unmercifully every day. Almost any kind of abuse can be based in some religion from physical to sexual, I doubt society would put up with these things so why does religion make it ok to teach your kids a substandard education?

Yes, if that is generally the gist of what home schooling is teaching then it needs to be illegal here as well.