Moontanman

Ok, I'll stay out of it, I do know some good old southern fried crow recipes if you need em It's not God I have a problem with, it's his fan club that pisses me off

The idea that science is based on belief is simply not true, while I might not personally be able to confirm all of science there are parts of it I can indeed confirm. Religious belief cannot be confirmed and no two religions, even denominations, or often even two people can agree on the correct belief. I have lots of friends who are pagans, many of the Abrahamic belief system would have them killed for their beliefs if given the power to do so. Why is their beliefs not given the same respect that Joe blow down the street who talks in tongues and wiggles on the floor while being possessed by the spirit of god does. Why does he have to be handled with kid gloves to keep from hurting his precious feelings? (actually this goes to the heart of it, so many different beliefs, who is right?) God, any ones God, from Thor to Jesus, or to the Moon Goddess to the Great Spirit or the flying spaghetti monster or unicorns or brownies or the alien spirits of Scientology are all just beliefs made up by some one who wanted to control someone else for his own reasons for the good of others. No way to confirm even the tiniest part of it. it has to be accepted on faith or belief. It is all nonsense in the realest form of the word, i generally give them the same respect they give anyone else who does not share their own beliefs, in other words NONE I can say the pagans are the most respectful of others beliefs and the least likely to proselytize that I've found but their beliefs are based one the same foundation, belief, no empirical tests can show any part of religion to be true. While I see no reason to stand on street corners holding signs that say religion is wrong and that it condemns us to the eternal damnation of global warming, religion on the other hand is somewhat less than respectful of my ideas on reality. We are all bombarded daily often many times a day on how religion is truth and how science is lies. The very basis of Abraham religions and their need to convert the world is disrespectful of anyone who disagrees with them, the fact they so often call each other down on the "truth" of each others claims and total lack of respect for each other should indeed show us they do not respect us and this lack of respect resonates through out society. I think the idea of a religious forum inside this forum that requires us to give them what they never give each other or us is bound to result in either good people being banned or science being lambasted continuously by believers who seek only to disrespect science and everything this forum is supposed to be about. if they need to discuss religion I suggest they go to a religious forum and discuss it. i have visited them, they are not exactly bastions of respect for each other much less anyone who even suggests science be given a thought much less respect. Oh yeah, religion and logic? Really? REALLY? REALLY?

Do we need to be just as nice to astrology as we do to religion? Can I say astrology is bullshit or that anyone who believes in astrology is not playing with a full deck? Astrology is no better than religion nor is it any worse.

I can see not calling a religious person an idiot or moron, but not being able to say that religion is nonsense is border line. Religion is nonsensical, most of the religious take any concessions to their point of view as weakness to be exploited. Technically religion is nonsense, just like some one who is not knowledgeable about something is technically ignorant. To say someone is ignorant is not insulting, to say they are stupid is how ever insulting. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity implies something that cannot be changed due to a real defect in the person or that the person refuses to learn. If the rules say I cannot say religion is nonsense i hope the religious will be held to the same standard at the very least.

Yes, but why would dinosaurs in the past be any different than dinosaurs today? If they worked then why would Michel think they might not work now?

What do you mean? Why would dinosaurs not be able to walk around on the earth today? Has gravity changed in 65 million years? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Microbes do have internal structures, Eukaryotes are bigger than bacteria and protests are the biggest single celled creatures, Their internal support structures that allow them to be much larger than simple bacteria.

A shark is aware of you long before you are aware of him, in pitch darkness with zero visibility he knows where you are, he can sense the electrical emissions of your heart beat. I never said sharks had poor eyesight, I said they can feed with out their eyesight very effectively. I would advise you to avoid situations where sharks would be likely to attack, don't drag dead fish around with you, stay away from areas where big sharks are known to feed, stay out of poor visibility water conditions (I know thats a little unreasonable, I like to night dive) if the water is clear enough for you to see the shark he will most likely avoid you, most shark attacks occur in water with poor visibility where the shark cannot get a good idea of what you are or how big you are. If the shark is big enough to just come out of no where and bite you in half your bang stick is not going to help you, a laser is not going to help you, just not being there is about the only real defense. BTW, you are just stirring up a tempest in a tea pot, how many divers a year are really attacked by sharks? you almost as likely to be hit by a meteorite.

I guess the whole sharks sense of smell and them feeding at night kinda tipped me off, a blind shark is just as dangerous as one that can see. A great many experiments that covered sharks eyes up with opaque disks showed they can feed quite effectively when totally blind. Give it a whirl, maybe he will like it. So you think you're gonna be able to target an attacking sharks eyes? I'd rather have a bang stick or better yet just not attract the shark to start with.

A parasite that increased the libido and took away inhibitions should do the trick, ummm, that sounds a bit like alcohol!

I knew I shouldn't have filled out the forms with my real location!

Considering that sharks do not depend on their eyesight to a great extent and that they have a opaque membrane that covers their eyes automatically when they bite and that many shark attacks occur in water that is somewhat less than clear (even in black water) I think you might just piss him off with the laser.

Yeah, doing the right thing is a bitch, just wrap up the suitcase and it's contents and ship it to me, I'll do the right thing, no, really i will!

The reason pressure is an issue for humans or mammals or any animal with hollow spaces inside is indeed the hollow spaces. As long as there are no hollow spaces to compress or as long as the internal pressure is equal to the external pressure the pressure is not an issue. (there is some ways pressure can change the shape of some very complex molecules but life has adapted to that in our oceans depths) So it's not correct to think of the pressure being sustained or resisted, the pressure is simply the same inside as out. When a human scuba dives we have to breath air that is compressed to the same pressure as the outside water, if the pressure wasn't equal we would be crushed as would any animal, even a whales lungs compress when it dives. The issue is gravity and weight not pressure. yes, the cube square law covers that.

This is totally untested at best and totally bogus at worst, I doubt a shark would be impressed by a laser underwater unless it was shown directly in it's eyes up close, even then i am skeptical to say the least. The link says this is not a viable way to prevent a shark attack,

Historically, the religion with the most power and followers is right or at least gets to lay claim to being right.

I scuba dived for many years, when I first started I was "concerned" with the problem of sharks, but after many years and many hours of dive time the sight of a shark is more of thrill than a scare. I think I've seen a shark maybe a dozen times over the years, good training and safety habits will keep you alive far better than all the bang sticks and shark repellents in the world. Sharks almost always ignore divers, it's why dive charters to see sharks have to attract them, if sharks were looking to eat people scuba diving would be suicide.

Underwater or in a very dense atmosphere neither size or mass matter as much as in (standard) air, and yes deep sea animals can be quite large, generally speaking the food supply keeps deep sea animals smaller, giant tube worms, large clams and huge colonies of other creatures around black smokers where the food supply is large is a good example of large deep sea animals. Huge salps, free swimming worms, giant squids, gigantic jellyfish, many large animals live deep in the sea, whales are an example of how a supporting medium allows large size. There are also very large sharks that live only in very deep water, the amount of food that drifts down from above is what limits the size of deep sea animals not the pressure. Gravity limits the size of animals in a very primary way, the higher the gravity the smaller animals will tend to be unless there is some way around the cube square law. Internal skeletons is one way around the cube square law compared to external skeletons but gravity is still the primary reason land animals are smaller than oceanic animals in general. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW the Hadalpelagic Zone is a very small part of the ocean and the pressure there is far more than the pressure at the surface of Venus. But none the less the primary impediment to life there is lack of food.

It is indeed the primary reason, that does not imply it would be the only reason. Even on a planet with a small food supply large creatures would be physically possible. The cube square law is the primary reason the food supply would be secondary.

If it were true that deep sea animals are smaller you would have a point but the fact is that deep sea animals are often quite large, food supply being the limiting factor in size not pressure.

I actually designed something similar to that 30 or so years ago, sadly I never developed it but it would seem someone else has perfected it. http://www.shark.co.za/repel.htm

No, the atmospheric pressure would not make larger creatures more difficult any more than deep sea animals are smaller due to pressure. Gravitational pull at the surface would be the primary impediment to size, greater air pressure might, if it was great enough, allow larger animals via being supportive much like water does in the oceans of the earth.

To be honest the gun is the real kicker here, the money I could probably see keeping, the pot might be kept or thrown away depending on the individual but the gun presents some real problems. Keeping the gun is unthinkable, a gun could be traced back to crimes unknown and implicate you if you had the gun in your possession. Just leaving the gun is equally untenable, a small child could pick it up and kill themselves or some one else. Destroying the gun could absolve you of any connection to it but the gun could be key piece of evidence in one or more crimes that could very well prevent more crimes if the police got the gun. Turning in the suitcase and it's contents is the only course of action acceptable to my own sense of morality.

I live in a medium sized town in the southern USA, assaults of any type are quite rare. I feel free to walk pretty much anywhere, a few small areas would best be avoided at night but I would assume that is true for any city.

Why Atheism? Why not Atheism?

aaah, what suitcase?