doG

apples and oranges....

The links I provided were at wikipedia... You specifically said someone here made the claim that hydro plants would deplete the sun. Please point out that claim or withdraw your lie. Wrong analogy. A more correct analogy would be that the ocean is already a battery charger depleting the Earth's rotational kinetic energy through tidal acceleration. Now you want to connect an additional load to that battery and hasten the consumption of that kinetic energy. Gravity is a force, not energy. Please go back and start over at physics 101...

Wow.......just wow. You've been provided with links to learn and understand the physics behind this and you've still got a misunderstanding that has everything all mixed up. Where has anyone made any claims that hydro plants will burn up the sun? Please quote the post so the rest of us can see where you got that from. I'll bet you can't find it yet somehow you've got it in your head that someone said that. Go ahead, reread the thread and see if you can find it. You want people to believe you're right and everyone else is wrong even though you post examples like this of your incomprehension of the physics involved. Back to tidal energy. Imagine the situation as this. You have a large spinning ball that has an initial amount of kinetic energy that drives the its rotation. Will it spin longer if you leave it alone OR if you extract some of that energy for other uses?

Not exactly. When you ask scientists what caused the big bang or evolution they answer 'we don't know'. Scientists freely admit there's lots of thing we don't know. Science draws no conclusion on any cause of the things we've yet to understand. What it objects to is those who want to declare a made up answer like 'god did it' when there is zero evidence to support any such conclusion. Not only do such people want to declare some unsupported made up answer as the answer they want everyone to think it is some unquestionable truth as they do. The only real truth to many of these questions is 'we don't know' and rational thinkers realize this. The irrational accept made up answers to fill in the blanks without question and they are fooling no one but themselves with their delusion.

Ummmmmmmmm...NO! There is no evidence for god. If there were any real evidence for god there would be no debate.

Theists don't get to define the meaning of evidence, it's in the dictionary. Yes, theists want you to accept things like the bible as evidence even though the whole book is nothing but hearsay and wouldn't be allowed as evidence in a court of law. For them, evidence is whatever they say it is regardless if it is speculation or not. They need to find a new word because 'evidence' isn't it, it's already taken and it means something other than what they want. Not at all. Theism is about the belief in one or more deities. It is not about knowing they exist, just about believing. That belief is based purely on faith, not knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. Agnostics believe that mankind can never know the absolute truth about things like the supernatural. Most theists that believe in a supernatural deity are agnostic theists in that their belief in a deity is based on faith while believing at the same time that their deity is beyond the realm of knowledge. Contrast them with gnostic theists whom claim to know there is a god. Perhaps you'll enjoy this post from the past.

Evidence is only evidence if it is unquestionable, not speculative. Theism is the belief that one or more deities exist, not a theory that they might exist. Theists with doubt are not-theists, i.e. atheists. Yes there are agnostic theists. As theists they belief that the existence of deities is a fact and as agnostics they also believe that man can never know the absolute truth.

I see no difference in the lack of evidence for the existence of deities or unicorns and no reason to treat beliefs in them differently. Unicorns could be labeled supernatural just as some beliefs in deities but that doesn't make the belief in either any more rational. I'll additionally point out that it is one thing to theorize that maybe the supernatural could exist and that maybe that there are deities that are supernatural but that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about the declaration as fact that deities do exist without any evidence and that is what's irrational, including any claims that their existence is a fact but we can't prove it because they're supernatural. In fact I see that as even more irrational since it's a claim that the supernatural exists without evidence. That's using one unsupported claim to support another unsupported claim.

Now you're trying to equate opinions with beliefs. There is no doubt that democrats, republicans, Israelis and Palestinians exist. We know they are real. Our opinions on their ideologies vary but that has no bearing on their existence. OTOH, there is zero evidence to support as fact the existence of deities, leprechuans, unicorns, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. It is understandable that misled children believe in these things but adults should know better and their ability to think rationally should be questioned if they believe any of these things are real.

When someone tries to substitute a belief in morals that is taught to bolster support for the belief in mystical beings I see it as an evasive attempt to steer the debate elsewhere in order to claim that the belief in mystical beings is valid because a belief in morals is. There is no comparison whatsoever in telling kids that stealing is wrong and telling them that gods or Santa Claus is real. Some are taught to be skeptics, to question everything, others are not. Not only are many children told they need to believe in God, they are also told that they are not to question that belief. They are taught that the existence of God is a fact even though there is zero evidence to support such a conclusion.

Strawman!!! Anyone that learns what it is like to be stolen from can easily learn from experience how it is to those they would steal from. Lets take the strawman out of it and compare apples with apples. Should all of the children of the world that are taught that Santa Claus is real continue believing that for life without question just because the were told Santa Claus is real? If you don't want to use Santa feel free to substitute the tooth fairy, leprechuans, unicorns or any other mythical being children are misled about.

No, your response further demonstrates your lack of understanding. The Earth has a certain amount of kinetic energy stored in it's mass long ago that causes it to rotate just like a spinning top. It will continue spinning for the longest time as long as you don't introduce any additional friction, just like the top. If you do introduce additional friction of any kind you will reduce the total amount of time the it would spin naturally. Adding drag to the water currents caused by the tides is adding friction to the process and will result in slowing down the Earth's rotation in the long term. It may not be on a scale that you would notice in a lifetime but it will effect the long term environment of humanity as it increases the length of a day and night. FWIW, I'm not going to spend any more time trying to explain this to some arrogant know-it-all that wants to declare their knowledge as superior to the physicists writing books on orbital mechanics.

No, using radiated energy from the sun does not accelerate the sun's processes. Do you really want the rest of us to think you believe such a thing?

They have a bite that hurts but is not medically significant. I took a bite from an usumbara once and it felt like getting stung by 10 wasps at once in the same place. Aside from the horrendous pain I suffered no other effects except some leg cramps.

Thank you for stating clearly that you don't understand orbital mechanics and that you think you understand them better than the people that have studied orbital mechanics.Do us a favor and pick up a book. The Earth's tides are caused by the moon's gravity but the energy that drives them comes from the Earth's kinetic rotational energy. As the Earth spins under the moons gravity it cause the tides to go up and down dissipating that energy and slowing down the Earth's rotation. Tapping that energy will accelerate that process. It's like an electrical generator with no load connected. Give it a spin and it coasts for a while but connect a load and it will come to a halt quickly if you don't put in the energy you're taking out.

Like this?

It is a finite amount that will eventually run out when full tidal locking occurs and utilizing energy from the process in the meantime will only speed up that process.

It has nothing to do with running out of gravity. The moon's mass is constant and so is it's mass. Over time tidal forces between rotating bodies dissipate their rotational kinetic energy eventually leading to tidal locking. As this occurs the smaller of the two bodies recedes from the larger. Maybe you should try reading some physics....

I see no reason to believe they were born believing in any god and everyone I've ever met that was a theist believed so because that's what they were taught. Most of them were also taught that the bible itself is factual evidence of god. It's part of growing up in the southern baptist bible belt, propagation of faith over rationality

Huntsman....not dangerous.

But they are. They believe something only because someone else told them so. Something there is no evidence for. Something on faith with no skepticism. Their rationality is fractured.

I take it that you expect England's english to follow the evolution of American english even though it was the first that was the origin of the latter? How arrogant....

It's called tidal acceleration...

Actually: Ummmmmmmm......NO! As an example:

Yes, it's irrational. To theorize that there could be intelligence behind it would be scientific, to conclude there is intelligence behind it is unscientific. There is no evidence to conclude that deities are a fact.