Syntho-sis

What technology do we have that must take this into account?

You would benefit from reading about Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and his thought experiment on simultaneous lightning strikes.

How do we "know" it expands? Here you are doing exactly what you condemned me for.

That you are even asking this question shows how little you know about cosmology.

Please visit for more information:

Why is the sky dark at night?

Hubble's Law

Redshift

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but this is a very weak argument against Evolution in the sense that:

There will always be missing transitional species no matter how many are presented. Imagine two cups on a table top. Each one represents a separate species and if you link these two species with a transitional form what are you left with? You create two more missing links/cups. So you link those. Now you have four missing links. It goes on and on.

Eventually you realize how foolish this argument is when the Concepts of gradualist evolution are juxtaposed into this format.

I hope that makes sense, I'm half asleep.

quantum entanglement is not superluminal.

Why? Could you elaborate?

Don't confuse "not knowing the cause" with "having no cause", yes?

 

While god is often claimed to not have a cause by definition, that's not the case with the big bang.

I never said anything about that. I just assumed that the universe has always operated on causality. You go back far enough (starting from what we know about the universe) you run into infinite regress.

Merged post follows:

^ -no matter what

It would be so gratifying to have someone with these anti-evolution views actually have the intellectual honesty to study the evidence at talkorigins.org instead of just listening to the anti-evolution side. How can anyone remain so adamant when they won't study both sides? Is it simply because creationism is quicker to study than the mounds of studies on evolution?

Probably, I've noticed most people are either not intellectually capable of understanding the ideas or they're just lazy.

As evidenced by browsing through any piece of creationist literature.

Merged post follows:

Then why not the big bang? If you say the big bang must have a cause, but God doesn't need to require a cause, then you are special pleading.

 

BTW, I don't mean to open a theological argument.. some people claim God is above the laws of nature (which, btw, makes her absolutely irrelevant as a scientific subject, even if possibly relevant for moral/subjective arguments) in which case special pleading is obvious -- god's outside of space and time (and therefore outside of physics) which is why god is special. That's a special pleading with a reason (that turns it non-scientific discussion), but it's still special pleading.

Well I think that we can all agree that the BB did have a cause...Right?

Hello?

if anything it'd just be stretched out, there wouldn't be any extra detail capable of being resolved on it. if anything its going to be less as the sensors are more dispersed. not thtat the size of eyball is significantly different from anyone elses

Okay then. I had read something on wiki and I must have misinterpreted it.

no. and that would not allow the retina to determine more detail either.

That doesn't make sense to me. Why would the retina be the same size? It's tissue like anything else, if the eyeball is longer than wouldn't there be more retinal tissue?

its not a problem with the retina that causes myopia, it is a problem with the lense structure. the focal point of the light happens before the retina. it is not an increased resolution of the retina at all, there is absolutely no difference between the retina of a shortsighted, normal sighted or far sighted person.

For one, there is more than one type of structural defect that can cause myopia. Secondly, Since the eyeball is longer in some cases, wouldn't the retina be longer as well?

I'm horribly near-sighted and everyone in my family has to have me read very small print. I'm sure it's a fairly common by-product.

If I'm correct, with myopia the retina is larger than normal and thus light at a distance doesn't get focused correctly. So I assume the closer one is too the source of reflection the better the eye can focus. Since the retina is bigger there's probably more cone cells and thus more detail.

It's not all that great trying to read something 15 feet away.

What was their primary concern at that point in time?

What were they trying to do?

So both religions suck. All the more reason to dump them.

 

The old Testament is full of violence and hatred on non Jews.

Isn't that a bit naive?

Why have a religion if the deity/deities you worship can't be truthful and coherent in the first place?

Acts 15 for the most part says that Gentiles (non-Jews) are not bound by those commands that were given to the Jews, other than 4 things which they decided they would do well to avoid.

 

Moving back on topic, the Qur'an has some violent passages, but most Muslims consider theirs a religion of peace. Do they have a justification for this considering those passages?

Hmm...That's odd.

So what you're telling me is that those verses are in direct contrast with the book of James?

And I thought we were just discussing taking verses out of context and whatnot?

Merged post follows:

Matthew 15:10-20 repeals the old practices of certain foods being "ritually unclean". I'll look further; I recall there being other places as well.

Every single concordance I could find says the otherwise. The message was about eating foods with unwashed hands. Not about clean and unclean foods. The Pharisees had a strict practice of washing hands before every meal which was not according to the old covenant law. They were adding to the law thus adding to the burden.

Merged post follows:

Acts 15 for the most part says that Gentiles (non-Jews) are not bound by those commands that were given to the Jews, other than 4 things which they decided they would do well to avoid.

Yes and apparently you didn't finish the book of Acts.

In the context the topic was of referring to people as Jews and Gentiles. Showing partiality to only the Jews was wrong.

Read the rest of the book, from a scholarly approach it it quite clear.

 

As I said, they are interpreted as obsolete by most Christians. Much of the reason for that is the "new covenant" that Jesus made. Note that Paul, the most prolific writer of the New Testament, rejected these laws -- specifically, circumcision and food ones, claiming that Gentiles (non-Jews) should not be burdened with them. Peter drew together a council of the Apostles and they agreed.

Where does it say he made certain practices obsolete?

I would really like to see a thread specifically pointed towards alternative renewable resources. Development in this field encompasses chemistry, biology, geology and many other subjects.

This is probably the largest problem scientists will be facing in the near future. I also would like to learn more about potential sources of renewable energy.

Summary:

 

ALL food produces metabolic water.

 

Humans, however, constantly leak out water, and the best way to conserve it is to reduce your metabolic rate via voluntary starvation.

 

The survivalists were over-simplifying, either to convey the information simply or because they simply didn't understand the underlying physiology.

Well that makes sense. My only question is, does the water that is produced from metabolizing the food products excreted or is it reused by the body?

I don't disagree that that's good advice. But the act of chewing does not magically make water turn into something else. So if "food" is a "anything that involves chewing," then the statement is not - cannot be - technically accurate.

I pulled that definition out of the air.. Here's a more coherent one:

Food: Any substance eaten to provide nutritional support for the body.

Back on the wilderness survival note: I would like to mention that there have been reported instances of desert nomads surviving for periods without drinking water by ingesting camel's blood. I don't have any records to provide on that but it does make since imo. A camel's blood cell is oval shaped which helps it retain water and flow a lot easier.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel

I thought that was interesting.

Merged post follows:

when fat tissue is digested by the body it PRODUCES water. it doesn't give a net deficit.

 

this is because the oxygen you breath in reacts with the molecules and specifically the hydrogens to form water.

 

to say that it requires water is just wrong.

So if my diet primarily consisted of fat then I wouldn't need any water to compensate my nutritional needs (Digestion)?

What you're saying doesn't really make sense from a practical standpoint.

Or maybe, just maybe, they're telling you what you need to know, rather than 100% medically accurate information. Especially inasmuch as there apparently isn't even a technical definition of "food" vs. "drink." You should remember to drink water in a survival situation, because it's easy to get dehydrated before you realize it. But "you can't survive on just food" is not just inaccurate, it's technically meaningless.

I've studied alot into wilderness survival techniques. I even helped teach a class on this very subject. Most of the experts agree that unless you have an adequate supply of FRESH, CLEAN water then you should not ingest anything type of food whatsoever. When I say food, I'm talking about anything that requires you to put it in your mouth and chew. Essentially anything in solid form that would require you to have water to break it down. Such as muscle and fat tissue.

Not only that, but generally in the wilderness you are much more physically active than you would be otherwise. Expending a huge amount of calories and drinking upwards of maybe 2 gallons of waters a day. You lose alot of water thru sweat and respiration.

Under these conditions, no matter what type of food you were eating (coconuts, berries, oranges) you would still need a regular supply of water to stay properly hydrated.

Whether or not you can survive indefinitely without water, I have no idea. But the consensus amongst most wilderness survivalists is that water should ALWAYS be you primary concern. Right after surviving of course

I'm sure someone has written in a journal on this very subject.

I get dehydrated very easily. I drink at least a gallon of water a day. That may or may not have something to do with my heavy resistance training and the high-caloric diet that I need in order to train properly.

Under normal circumstances I still drink quite a bite of water. I don't think most people get enough water. The rule of thumb is if you feel thirsty, then you are already dehydrated.

If they are hired directly by a foreign military then yes, I'd say they qualify as soldiers.

 

Does that apply to any of the individuals being tried in New York?

I'm not sure. What organizations were they associated with?

A group of civilians receiving money under the table from a foreign government is still a group of civilians. It doesn't magically turn them into soldiers for no apparent reason, especially if they aren't even citizens of Iran.

What about Mercs?

That makes them part of Iran's military all of the sudden?

I don't know. Maybe Hamas was originally headed by Iranian operatives. I strongly believe Iran is deeply involved in Terrorism...

So they're civilians, not military.

 

It also seems jackson33 was colluding the term "enemy combatant" into "military combatant".

What if they are being supported by certain leaders within a state (i.e. Iran?)

Whether it be financially or ideologically? But they are not directly involved with the military. Are they still considered Civilian Combatants?