SH3RL0CK

I think the idea is that if you don't believe the complete message of the Bible, you're "creating" a different version of God to worship, rather than the true God as revealed in the Bible.

 

What is the "complete message" of the Bible? How do I know that his thoughts on this are correct or if someone elses is? Theologians have disagreed on the finer points (such as is this) for centuries without resolution. Its much better to respect differing viewpoints in light of the fact that on these fine points we cannot really know which view is most correct.

 

I understand he takes Gen 1 very literally, but I take it more allegorically (not saying there couldn't be a blend of both in the Gen. 1 account). I guess I feel (perhaps incorrectly...which is one reason I would love a followup by him) that he believes he doesn't consider the possibility that my view (or that of Theodosius Dobzhansky) is actually correct instead of his own.

First of all thanks to everyone who set this up and for Mr. Comfort for answering the questions. I do have an issue with the following part:

Well, the questions have been sent, and Mr. Comfort has sent back his answers in record time.

 

4. What do you make of Christians who nevertheless believe in evolution, such as the famous biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky? He specifically wrote "I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation."

 

True, Theodosius Dobzhansky believed in God. It’s hard not to in the face of this amazing creation. After all, the most intelligent of us can’t create a grain of sand, a frog, a bird, or the simplest flower, from nothing. We don’t know how to do it. So how intellectually dishonest is it to say that there was no intelligent and eternal Creator? So one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to believe in the existence of God. All we need is good old common sense, and that’s what Professor Dobzhansky had--common sense, and there are plenty of other intelligent people who believe in evolution and in God’s existence.

 

However, those who believe in God and evolution have to throw out Holy Scripture, because the Bible tells us that God created male and female in every kind of animal, and then He gave them the ability to reproduce after their own kind (see Genesis 1). We are told in Scripture that there is one kind of flesh and man, and one kind of flesh of beasts. So the god of evolution and the God of the Bible are incompatible. Evolution didn’t “create” anything. It doesn’t have any genesis, and its explanation as to why there are male and female within every animal is ridiculously nebulous.

 

Those who choose to believe in any other god are guilty of violation of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments--something called “idolatry”--making a god in our own imagination, and that was the professor’s problem.

(emphasis mine)

 

I consider myself a christian and I have no issue with the concept of evolution. I do take issue with the part where he states that to believe in the evolution means we must throw out the scriptures. It is my opinion that he is reading more into Genisis 1 than is really there both in regards to its intent and content and he is disregarding the possibility of any allegorical intent for this part of the bible (which is very clearly used elsewhere in the scriptures).

 

Why is it inconceivable to him that God could use evolution to create the different animals that exist? God must have used some mechanism to do this, why not evolution? Does he also dispute gravity as the mechanism as to how God keeps the planets and stars in their proper places?

 

I also think he is appealing to ridicule a bit.

 

And why is this belief necessarily idolatry? I also believe by applying sufficient heat and oxygen to a fuel source I can create a beneficial chemical reaction (a fire) which I can then use to warm myself, cook food and do other useful things. That doesn't mean I worship the fire I just made.

 

That said, I enjoyed his answers and greatly appreciate his time to respond. I would love it if he would reply to some of the further questions on this thread, but I understand he is probably quite busy and his time is limited.

I strongly doubt bioweapons are capable of unintentionally killing most of the world population. ... humanity has strong defenses against disease. Humans have diverse immune systems. The CDC exists. The WHO exists. And for that matter, "superviruses" like Ebola Zaire exist. But that doesn't really matter because of the former.

 

 

Well, unintentional is less likely, IMO than intentional. Consider the following scenario:

 

As per my previous postings, smallpox killed 95% of the population on three continents, it arose spontaneously (i.e. not "manufacturered")and was for the most part, unintentionally spread. So what do you think happens if a "manufacturered" agent (perhaps genetically modified smallpox plus virus) were deliberately spread to infect virtually the entire world at the same time (excepting the nation/terrorist cell that developed the agent which also immediately goes into self-quarantine)? Couldn't it do the same on all six continents?

 

Do you really think the CDC and WHO would be capable of developing and distributing a vaccine in time? Or set up an adequate quarantine for the areas which happened to not (yet) be infected? A vaccine isn't possible in this short timeframe.

 

Keep in mind, by the time this agent is identified (i.e. people dropping dead) it is already too late to set up a quarantine because most people (including the staff at the CDC, WHO, etc.) would already be infected/dying.

 

N. Korea is already in a sort of self-quarantine and has been for over 50 years. Any other nation could possibly point to the very first cases and claim "we saw this coming, and we are glad we took the prudent response". And if the president, the cabinet, and all but 5 senators are deathly ill/dying, would the USA have sufficient poise to even investigate the source of the infection or mount a proper response?

 

I still think you overestimate the "strong defenses against disease" that humanity has. The part you are missing is that the immunity Europeans had to smallpox evolved/was naturally selected over many generations of exposure to the agent. This was probably aided by exposure to cowpox (a similar virus which was used to develop the vaccine) which was not deadly but imparted a resistance to the disease. Given todays travel patterns and/or a deliberate intentional delivery system, humanity would not have many generations to respond. We might not have even a month.

 

I admire your optimism, but where am I mistaken in my logic here?

And my point is this sort of argument exists entirely in the realm of hypotheticals. If you're talking about practical means of wreaking mass destruction, all the way to the level of annihilating the entire human population of earth, nuclear weapons would far and away be #1 on my list.

 

 

Well, we know nuclear weapons work, and that they do have the capability to essentially destroy humanity (thanks Cap'n Refsmmat!). I'll grant these are more developed and "proven" as a weapon. And that this potential DOES currently exist in the form of a nuclear winter.

 

We also know infectious disease can essentially destroy humanity (as smallpox, the black palgue, etc. showed is possible). However, you are very correct that weaponizing such is hypothetical and less "proven" as a weapon.

 

As such, I'll conceed it is entirely valid to consider nukes as more of a threat than bio-weapons. My point is to not understimate the potential dangers of biological and chemical weaponry.

How is this even relevant? Obama simply stated he wouldn't use nukes on countries without nukes. Rather than giving up a valuable tool, he has brilliantly maneuvered the US into a strong but compassionate stance. In a single stroke, he not only lets much of the world breathe a sigh of relief, he also warns smaller countries not to pursue nuclear weapon technology.

 

Oh, I'm not particularly criticising Obama's decision, you have pointed out the upside. Others have already pointed out the downside. I am actually neutral on this change as I don't think it will have either the desired positive affect or the feared negative ramifications.

 

However, I think it is important to understand that massive destruction on the level of, or even exceeding atomic weapons, can be obtained without the use of nuclear weapons. And that our only response in kind (if that would be an appropriate response) would be nukes as say we do not have a chemical or biological arsenal. I don't think everyone here understand this (or believes this, hey I could be wrong here but I think I am correct) which colors their judgement regarding this action. As such, the upside of this action is less than it is being claimed while the downside is greater.

I seem to recall that, in fact, the nuclear nations of the world have enough weapons to destroy most of the earth several times over.

 

 

Can you provide a link to verify this? I'm somewhat skeptical as this sounds like a political talking point or a catch phrase.

 

And, what is meant by "destroy"? Does that mean return of society back to the 1800's due to no more electricity? Or does it mean a return to the stone age due to no more metals? Or does it mean the death of 95% of the population (which might be the same thing as a return to the stone age)?

You're talking about native populations in the 19th century. I'm talking about... America in the 21st century. Among other things we have modern immunology and the CDC. There's no comparison here.

 

You are correct there is no comparison, with modern travel patterns (indeed, with a deliberate widespread delivery) the infectious disease would spread so rapidly, the CDC could not possibly develop a vaccine or quarantine in time. I doubt they would even have time to identify the infectious agent before the individuals who worked there perished. At least the native populations in the far corners of the continents of the 18th and 19th centuries had a couple hundred years to prepare (though they were likely unaware of the threat until too late).

 

I strongly doubt any biological agent exists today which can wreak the same havoc as a thermonuclear ICBM.

 

Apples to Oranges.

 

How many thermonuclear ICBMs would be required to kill 95% of the population, evenly dispersed BTW, of three continents? Is there even enough uranium on the earth to do this?

Within just a few generations the smallpox took its toll on the Native Americans. In about twenty minutes we could destroy practically our whole civilization with nuclear weapons. That is the difference between biological/chemical agents and Nuclear Weapons. And while biological agents linger in an environment, radiation from a nuclear blast doesn't?

 

I'm not trying to minimize the potential of nukes. But to demonstrate the potential of biological weapons. With the same delivery system utilized as nuclear missiles (see the link in my earlier post) it is possible to contaminate the entire world just as easily (actually easier, see DH's previous post) in the same amount of time.

 

 

Furthermore, you can prevent infection from biological agents, hell you may even be able to find cures to biological agents. You cannot prevent radiation from passing through your body.

would you have time to do so? We've been trying to find a cure for AIDS for decades now without any real sucess.

With a biological/chemical weapon at least it is possible for humanity to survive is my point. Nuclear bombs in mass can block out the sun, destroy our cities, knock out our electrical grid, contaminate water supplies, cause radiation poisoning all within a few minutes. Biological/ Chemical weapons simply cannot deliver that kind of damage in that short of time.

 

People have survived a surprisingly close distance to the epicenters of nuclear blasts (Hiroshima, Nagasaki), and the corresponding fallout. Both cities are today still in existence, and their electrical grids work quite well (or so I've been told). Their water is not contaminated today either. I get your point, but don't overstate your case, it would take a very large number of nuclear weapons to essentially destroy everyone (up to 95% of the population) across a large geographical area.

 

Biological weapons are potentially more destructive than nuclear weapons as they HAVE already delivered an equivalent (though different) amount of damage and could (in principle) be utilized in an equivalent timeframe.

 

I've looked at your points and am not pursuaded. I've presented my case, but you apparently are not pursuaded. So I'd guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Can you point out a similar scenario with chemical or biological weapons that exists today? Sure, you can dream up hypothetical scenarios like grey goo converting the entire earth to a big silver ball. But that can't happen today. Global thermonuclear war can.

 

My earlier reference indicated that the Native population of North America was decimated by smallpox and similar diseases. I've seen estimates exceeding a 90% reduction in population due to these diseases.

 

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

 

Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas.

 

This corresponds to the eyewitness accounts of various early European explorers to the continent. This was, at least primarily, unintentional on the part of the Europeans.

 

Do you doubt that an intentional effort, perhaps augmented by genetic manipulation, cannot do something similar? Do you thinkthat with the global travel that happens today that an infection can be regionally contained, especially as there could be animal carriers? We haven't contained bird flu or SARS from a global spread.

 

I really cannot believe the response to this thread. I do not think any of you who are equating chemical and biological agents to nuclear weapons have really thought through what you're saying.

If the potential destruction of humanity is equivalent (i.e. everyone) why should they not be considered equivalent?

Not only is the destructive potential of nuclear weapons far greater

but the potenial from nuclear is not greater, it is less than that of biological weapons...

, but are you forgetting about fallout?

and cannot biological agents linger in the environment for years? Certainly these can exist within the populations of host animals for essentially forever.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a chemical weapon which can emit such a destructive substance into the air en masse that occurs after the detonation of a thermonuclear weapon.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find enough plutonium to kill 95% of the inhabitants of an entire continent whereas the Europeans were able to do so without even trying (at least not very hard) in the 18th century.

 

EDIT: Actually the human death toll from smallpox was over 90% of two continents both N. America and S. America as well as an unknown percentage of the inhabitants of a third continent (Australia, New Zealand)... One biological agent already HAS decimated half (3 of 6 populated continents) of the globe.

... Chemical and Biological weapons don't cause as many casualties as Nuclear Weapons if you go pound for pound... The idea of using nuclear weapons in defense is like using a grenade to defend yourself against someone who is ten feet away...

 

I think you overestimate the potential of nuclear weapons and underestimate that of biological.

IIRC, it has been determined the theoreticalpotential of biological weapons greatly exceeds that of nuclear weapons.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare

 

This area of contamination:

Around 1950 the Chemical Corps also initiated a program to weaponize tularemia (UL). Shortly after the E61/N failed to make standardization, tularemia was standardized in the 3.4" M143 bursting spherical bomblet. This was intended for delivery by the MGM-29 Sergeant missile warhead and could produce 50% infection over a 7-square-mile (18 km2) area.[citation needed

is certainly at least comparable to a nuclear blast. Certainly it is possible to develop as many of these missiles as it is for nuclear warheads.

 

I can imagine worse, for example:

The Native American population was decimated after contact with the Old World due to the introduction of many different fatal diseases.[8] There are two documented cases of alleged and attempted germ warfare. The first, during a parley at Fort Pitt on June 24, 1763, Ecuyer gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief that had been exposed to smallpox, hoping to spread the disease to the Natives in order to end the siege.[9] William Trent, the militia commander, left records that clearly indicated that the purpose of giving the blankets was "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians."[10]

 

Again, a nuclear response might be inadequate to a similar attempt, perhaps from a genetically modified smallpox.

What? You think the use of a chemical or biological weapon against the US justifies using a nuclear weapon in response? I don't see how you can just lump chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons into the same category as if they're the same thing. They're certainly not.

 

yes, these are different types of weapons. However, in terms of destruction, chemical and biological agents have the potential to inflict as much, if not more, harm as nuclear weapons. As such, a nuclear response might be considered insufficient...

 

I am hopeful that these types of weapons would not be ever developed (though this policy encourages their development, IMO); or if developed would be practically useless. It is encouraging that during WWI, it was found that chemical weapons were insufficient to create a meaningful tactical advantage. Though this doesn't really apply to the assymetrical warfare that is common today. If we are lucky, perhaps biological and chemical weaponry will always be simply too unpredictable and impractical to use by anyone capable of developing them.

There's mention made of an RPG, in position to fire on friendlies. (Presumably it's one of those high tech fancy spy RPGs that fit inside a camera)

that, or the RPG isn't shown on camera.

 

The pilot got very nervous after that.

which indicates there was, at the least, a perceived threat (to state the obvious).

Of course, we do not know the full circumstances: what happened off camera, before the filming started, what was edited out, etc...

 

Because I don't think any mainstream media (esp. Fox) does a very good job, I'd really like it if other mainstream media outlets picked it up. This would, in my opinion, lend credence to these claims. That it hasn't received much other attention makes me think there really is nothing to see. The whole exchange probably looks a lot different when presented in context.

Even when performed under proper anasthesia, with painkillers provided and good standards of care?

Yes. Any medical procedure beyond what is reasonable to ensure the health of a prisoner is considered torture.

 

all I have to do is put an electronic helmet on the guy? (Or electrodes applied to, er, "strategic" locations.)

 

Hmmm...I'm getting images of the pictures from Abu Gharib here.

How can any unnecessary, unwanted (by the prisoner) surgery on a prisoner not be considered torture regardless of the other details you mentioned?

My theory is that what is happening is that the addition of water is affecting the stovetop flame. It cools the flame down, resulting in the color going from blue to orange. And it can cool it down such that parts of the burning area is extenguished, only to be reignited once the methane has migrated (hence the 8 inch flame).

 

No need to invoke strange chemical reactions for an explaination.

Picard is the Best Captain, hands down.

 

But I voted for Captain Kirk, because he cheats and therefore will come out on top, even in situations where he shouldn't.

I don't understand why you are asking these questions here. A forum works great for complex issues without a defined answer. But for simple questions such as these a forum is not the best source of information. Why not simply look up these questions elsewhere (Google, Wikipedia, etc.) for an immediate, and more likely correct, answer rather than asking it here and then waiting for the (hopefully) correct answer?

You guys make it sound so simple.

 

I explicitly said it would be a difficult task, it would not be simple at all. But the ocean floor is still easier than the moon for the reasons already discussed.

 

OK I admit that i'm certainly no expert on this but isn't the reason we have very little knowledge of the deep ocean due to the fact we have only a handful of submarines that can withstand the pressure?

But we have logged considerably more research time on the ocean floor than we have on the moon. It just seems different because the lunar probes (and the Apollo program) gets much more publicity. I would also submit that we possibly know more about the ocean floor than we know about the moon...it just seems the other way around because there is additionally much more unknown about the deep ocean than the moon.

 

Even if we were to build in shallower waters, a structure large enough to function as a permanent residence would still need to be able to withstand an incredible amount of pressure; How do we just "drop" something like that from the ocean surface and wouldn't it need to be anchored?

If it sinks to the bottom, where else will it go? But even still, its a relatively easy task to anchor the structure. How do we anchor the offshore oil rigs, for example?

 

In space the pressure problem is reversed as atmosphere inside the structure is only pushing on a small surface area to get out (rather than being sucked out) and I imagine isn't as much of a problem to get around as having a 1000 or so atmospheres crushing down on a large surface area.

yes. But likewise you aren't limited by how much you can deliver there. This is an engineering problem with obvious solutions, not a fundamental physics problem. For example, I'm sure we could make the structure out of meters thick stainless steel for less than the cost it would take to send a minimal structure to the moon.

 

I know there is technology to somehow extract oxygen from surrounding water (not sure if it uses electrolysis or not, I don't think so but the name of the technology evades me right now) and would be suited to providing an underwater outpost with oxygen, but aren't there such things as Co2 scrubbers already in the ISS and space shuttle?

At a worst case, any scrubber used in space (indeed any of the systems except for solar power*) could also be used in the underwater facility. But any system to extract oxygen from the ocean water is useless on the moon. The ocean bottom has much more resources that could be used, but its not imperative that they must be used.

 

*Edit: Solar power could actually be used with floating solar panels with cables to the bottom...

Building and maintaining a permanently manned base on the moon, or the same for a permanently manned base on the ocean floor?

 

Both would be difficult tasks. However, the ocean floor would be far easier as to put anything there (even gigantic items) only requires releasing them from a ship. Putting anything on the moon (even very small items) requires an enormous amount of energy. This differential means it is far more affordable to build and maintain living quarters in many ways. You could, for example, simply pipe fresh air down to the ocean floor if necessary. But on the moon you must recycle what little air you bring with you.

...if we really focus on tightening the belt and curtailing spending.

 

What are the odds of this happening? Given the past history of our leaders being unable to curtail spending and the recent history lessons of European nations (Greece for example) I'm not encouraged.

I have no doubt that supernovas create some very high atomic number elements. The higher elements created either in a supernova or in the lab still have very short half lives. As such, we can detect these atoms in the lab because they were just made. However the supernova(s) which created the elements used in the earth was many billions of years ago.

 

Therefore, all the elements with an atomic number higher than uranium (or plutonium)have decayed away during this time. Or at least enough of them have so that they cannot be detected in the earths crust.

 

To the original poster: Please define what exactly you mean by armaggedon. That will help us to state our opinion on whether or not we believe it is real.

No, I do not plan on participating.

well to you, that is. I'm sorry if I'm not persuasive enough, but frankly I don't care what you believe, because I won't be sad if people like you (that don't this kender thing) buy the electricity my house will generate.

I look forward to the day my house will generate all the electricity I need. But it won't be from a Kender engine, I am sure.

 

it isn't black magic, its just simple physics, and just because you don't see how it works or whatnot, it does work

We are still waiting for Kender to prove this device actually does work. Even if it could work in theory (which has been shown by others here that it cannot), it might still not work in practice. To do this they should send prototypes to some credible skeptics for independent verification of their claims (of course, I am sure they must simply wait until the patent application is completed, or perhaps some other minor details first). I won't be holding my breath.

 

, if I were to invent a scam then I would come up with something far simpler than the kender engine, because then everyone, including you, would understand it.

if a scam were easy to understand, wouldn't it then be much more difficult to convince people to part with their hard-earned money? IMO, a good scam always sounds credible enough for people to "invest" in it, but has just enough complexity so that the catch isn't readily observable to these people. Coincidentally, this also seems to me to be the situation regarding the claims of the Kender engine...but then I am probably just overly cynical.

 

I've had enough of this for today. I'll just remind myself that I have put an order in for "a few", so that I can have heating-cables in the driveway during winter and have a year-round heated pool etc, in Norway. if you're all too sceptic to do the same then so be it, keep paying the power-companies. (I dont have to hand over any money until I see it actually working with my own two eyes, you don't either, so it would be a terribly ineffective scam if it ever were one. lots of people, including me, have allready earned enough to pay for a few units just by buying some of their stocks ).

 

Glad to know you have a vested interest in this; you have pre-ordered units and you are a shareholder. Hope you read all the fine print regarding the pre-order very carefully. And just remember, the stock values aren't realized until, and unless, you sell the stocks. But of course, I'm sure you know all this also.

 

I wish you great sucess in your investments.

 

if the air you filled in your tire was gas-form nitrogen at 83 kelvins you'd only need a fraction of what you fill your car-tyres with at 293 kelvin or whatever the temperature is around where you live and you really misunderstand things, x + 200 kelvin = 10x you spanner, I figured you'd understand it with logic...

 

So, then, we are in agreement that PV=nRT is valid? Then you must also agree that in a closed system, there is no energy gain. Where, then, does the free energy you keep refering to come from?

 

It seems to me this idea does not work and there is no energy gained by any contraption built to work in this manner. Your arguments in favor of the idea are not pursuasive to me.

 

you know what, my hypothesis, is that sherlock, shflssl or whatever, and sceptic, all consider yourself quite conservative, am I correct?

 

What would political leanings have to do with your idea? Nothing at all.