zapatos

Have you considered the possibility that this site is not a miraculous collection of lemmings who readily give up their moral founding to some anonymous evil moderators ? But that perhaps it is you who simply cannot grasp the meaning behind interactions on a science forum? What do you think the chances are that out of all the people on this site, YOU are the only one who 'gets it'?

I think you are confusing 'morals' and 'rules'.

Straw man. I never said that is 'proof that religion is good'. I said it was evidence that your statement claiming "Religion doesn't help society at all" is false. You've been making these types of statements throughout this thread. What exactly does "creation was taken from real life" mean, and how did you come to that conclusion? It certainly implies that there was 'life' before 'creation'.

In addition to being a deist you also seem to have a bigoted attitude toward religion. I can't imagine that you can support that statement. Following is an example of what I think shows religion helping society. Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center Our MissionThrough our exceptional health care services, we reveal the healing presence of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Glennon_Children%27s_Hospital

Do scientists do that? I haven't seen them doing that in this thread except in those instances where that belief in things happening before the BB includes wisdom or imagination.

Can you please explain how it is healthier? I would assume that the cost of mined salt versus the cost of sea salt has something to do with the cost of extraction, and not just its health benefits.

Maybe, but it is used that way because there are so many gods out there. Here is a list of only the Native American gods. You can follow the link to see the rest of those identified. Also keep in mind that 'god' is in the eye of the beholder. Ask any 10 Christians to describe 'god' and you will probably get 10 different answers. http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them

I was trying to make a distinction between the metric expansion of space inherent in the Big Bang theory, which accounts for the expansion of space, and Dark Energy, which accounts for the acceleration of the expansion of space. Space would be stretching without Dark Energy.

Dark energy is what is responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

I think we are simply misunderstanding how each of us is using the word 'purpose'. What you describe as the purpose of gravity as 'to hold things in place', I would have called a description of its behavior. To me, purpose implies some sort of design or conscious effort that affected how something like gravity would behave. Such as the purpose of a bridge is to allow the easy movement of traffic across a river, and someone designed and built it for that very reason.

What is the purpose of gravity? Or rocks? Or erosion?

You really don't know or are you trying to make a joke? And that is why I didn't say you were a theist.

Of course it is. In fact, 'wisdom behind creation' sounds suspiciously like 'intelligent design'. We are not going to get anywhere if you insist on redefining commonly used terms.

I wasn't trying to 'imply' anything. I was trying to 'say' that you are a deist, and that the way you use the term 'god' is somewhat different than the way most people use the term 'god', hence leading to your inability to fully engage everyone in the direction you wish this discussion to proceed. Can you please explain what that means? Right. You believe in 'wisdom behind creation'. Which in case you haven't noticed is exactly what deists and theists believe in.

@s1eep -- After reading your posts I have to conclude that you are essentially a deist as the term is commonly used. The only difference is that you use the phrase 'purpose-driven consciousness' where everyone else uses the term 'god'. Deists don't believe in supernatural events, worship, or prophets. They do however believe they can understand the origin of the universe through rationalism. You can call yourself an 'atheist' all you want, but I don't think you'll convince many people as long as you claim there was 'wisdom' behind the genesis of the universe.

The wording you use suggests that you believe there is a reason or goal of diversity. There is not. Diversity is simply something that naturally occurs due to the way the universe works. You may as well ask the tactic behind rain falling to the earth instead of to the sky. It falls simply because that is the nature of the universe. (other than the fact there is no 'tactic') That is exactly right. The anteater is part of the ant's environment. An ant that happens be less visible to the anteater is more likely to survive and reproduce, thus passing on its reduced visibility to its offspring. And once that reduced visibility ant exists in sufficient numbers, the anteater that happens to have senses that allow it to find the less visible ant will be more likely to survive and reproduce, thus passing on its better senses to its offspring. And on and on... It does not matter how stable the environment is, there will always be conditions that allow one being a better chance at survival than another. Correct. There is no real purpose or point. But it happens nonetheless.

As chadn737 said, mutation and natural selection. No. There is no 'seeking' and there is no 'perfection'. There is diversity because a tree that thrives in a swamp is unlikely to thrive in the desert.

I remember learning that one in school. I showed it to my kids a couple of months ago. It's pretty cool.

Most of the 'shooting stars' on earth occur in the mesosphere, which runs from about 30 - 60 miles above the surface of the earth. Therefore I would expect that small incoming meteors would burn up in Mars' atmosphere just as they would in Earth's atmosphere, only much closer to the surface of Mars.

My understanding is that lying flat on the ground is a bad idea, as a close strike on the ground will more easily be conducted through the wet earth into your body. Better to squat (and sob quietly).

Please define what you mean by 'how fast is the universe moving'. Until you do that you will not get an answer that satisfies you.

Can you define what you mean by 'how fast the universe is moving'? Are you talking about individual components of the universe? If so, which components and moving relative to what? Are you talking about the universe as a whole? If so, I don't believe there is anything the universe can be moving 'relative to', and so don't know how you could measure its velocity.

Yes, I think this is a major cause of the problem. People put too much emphasis on 'position'. If a car in front of them drives slightly slower and they get to their destination five seconds later because of it, no one give it a second thought. But if a car gets in front of them that they felt should have been behind them, and it causes them to get to their destination the same five seconds later, they take it personally.

I find it amusing how many people decide that the merge set up by the highway department (clearly identified by the 'merge' sign) is not appropriate, but that the merge envisioned and enforced by these individuals (unknown to others and varied by the person who is enforcing these rules) is the appropriate merge. It is probably unethical of me, but I admit to occasionally taking great pleasure in getting in front of these people and enforcing what I have decided is the appropriate speed limit.

The shoot apical meristem in trees is generally considered 'immortal'. This is the portion of the plant at the end of stems, which controls longitudinal growth. The plant as a whole is not immortal, and therefore the apical meristem dies when something critical happens, such as the tree falling over. But as you said it is theoretically possible to take cuttings indefinitely from the shoots without deterioration of cells.