Moontanman

Saudi Clerics Advocate Adult Breast-Feeding

 

(June 5) -- Women in Saudi Arabia should give their breast milk to male colleagues and acquaintances in order to avoid breaking strict Islamic law forbidding mixing between the sexes, two powerful Saudi clerics have said. They are at odds, however, over precisely how the milk should be conveyed.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/saudi-clerics-advocate-adult-breast-feeding/19504280?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fworld%2Farticle%2Fsaudi-clerics-advocate-adult-breast-feeding%2F19504280

I agree, the NASA release was very cautious, we really know very little about planetary chemistry at the temperatures on Titan. However if we were to find life so much different than earth life that it could develop and grow under the conditions on Titans surface it would say quite a bit about the prospects for wide spread life in the universe.

Complex life on Titan would be an outrageous discovery and would pretty much destroy most theories that assert life is rare or has to be "just like us" Not just a bomb shell type moment , more like another "big bang"

Does anyone really think it really matters what position you are in when you hit? However, in WW2 a bomber crew man jumped out of his bomber and fell from about 18,000 feet, he lived but he fell through a pine forest and very deep snow and slide down a hill, what are the odds of that happening again!

http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/carkeet.html

Think of Nick Alkemade, an RAF tailgunner who jumped from his flaming turret without a parachute and fell 18,000 feet. When he came to and saw stars overhead, he lit a cigarette. He would later describe the fall as "a pleasant experience." Nick's trick: fir trees, underbrush, and snow.

I'd honestly say the odds of surviving a fall from 7 kilometers would be 0 Hitting water at 210 KPH would force your legs up through your body and kill you on impact (if you hit feet first) the impact would shatter not only bones but cause massive internal bleeding, i doubt you be alive to drown.

I'm curious, why would you avoid spiders? Big spiders are said to taste like crab. I have my doubts about the insects vs steak thing but lost in the wilderness steaks are fairly hard to come by... Fish are fairly easy to catch and small fish like minnows can be eaten whole. Earth worms are a good bet for food but ants can contain formic acid and are difficult for humans to tolerate.

I've tried wood grubs, they taste like shrimp but are difficult to extract from wood with out an axe. Earth worms are nasty in consitancy but don't have much taste. Crayfish are good cooked in some way but are not good raw and can contain parisites. Shellfish are good and even deep inland freshwater clams are quite common and can be cooked in hot ashes. Not many creatures are truely inedible if you have...

In the wilderness being able to make fire is probably the most important thing, many things that are inedible or not worth eating raw can be a decent food source if cooked. The broth from boiled grass would be better than nothing. Learn to make fire from scratch would be my advice to any human being.

If you don't ask the question in the first place you won't find any evidence.

The only elements I could find are summarized in my first post. Evidentally not enough to make a claim. It is one of my few "theories" I use to keep in a drawer. Maybe some day it will find some support.

Your idea is not as far off the mark as you might think, it just can't account for the amount of folding and such as we see on the earth. An old theory held that mountain ranges and valleys were the result of the earth wrinkling as it cooled.

Plate tectonics is a much better description of what we see than a cooling shrinking earth. I like your idea of a much bigger earth having less gravity, this is counter intuitive to what most would think of a "bigger" earth. But if it had the same mass and was bigger the gravity would indeed be less at the surface.

BTW I am pretty sure that creationist ideas say the earth is expanding not shirnkign and that the dinosaurs were possible because the planet was much smaller and less massive then.

DRDNA, it's not what you said that was arrogant it's how you say it. Why didn't you just say "God's word is perfect, man's interpretation of it is where any imperfections come from" Why did you find it necessary to add insipid analogies that leave it up to the reader to figure out what you meant?

Your arrogance is displayed by your need to appear knowledgeable by obfuscating what you say so it sounds more profound than it really is. "God is perfect man is imperfect" is not a profound statement by any means and trying to make it sound like some special deep knowledge via analogies is insulting and shows you are really just trying to proselytize.

Moss is not a tree? Are you sure?

But, all trees are green therefore all things that are green are trees. And moss is green so.........oh never mind.

 

Anyhow,

I never said moss is a forest. I said that some trees have moss on them and the fact that they have moss or another imperfection does not exclude them from being part of the forest.

 

It might make more sense if you learned the meaning of a forest.

 

Websters = Main Entry: 1for·est

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin forestis (silva) unenclosed (woodland), from Latin foris outside — more at forum

Date: 13th century

1 : a dense growth of trees and underbrush covering a large tract

2 : a tract of wooded land in England formerly owned by the sovereign and used for game

3 : something resembling a forest especially in profusion or lushness <a forest of microphones> <a kelp forest>

 

Eg, a forest of microphones are all microphones....and a kelp forest is all kelp.

 

Ie, In a forest the trees do not necessarily need to be wild and the trees do not necessarily have to be different

 

My point was, the error is in man. Not in the tree or the seed (the divine inspiration).

This has nothing to do with imperfections, a forest is full of imperfections, those very imperfections is what makes it a real forest and not a artificial grove of trees. Yes, a real forest does indeed need to be wild, you have missed the point of forest completely in your need to construct a mysterious analogy to hide what you are really trying to say.

It might make sense if you weren't so arrogant you believe you have the absolute truth and are trying to share it with idiots. I said your analogy makes no sense in the context of our conversation, making such meaningless analogies to hide the fact you don't really know what you are saying is wrong. I've heard that arrogant crap all my life from the pulpit.

This has nothing to do with inperfections, a forest is full of imperfections, those very imperfections is what makes it a real forest and not a artificial grove of trees.

Say what you mean clearly, don't wrap it in an analogy so others have to figure it out. If what you say has real meaning it doesn't need to be obfuscated with analogies.

My point would be that any error is in the concept of a perfect god.

How did the women find out, it was in mens room, right? I've seen some weird things in mens rooms over the years but this is quite close to taking the cake. i was in a mens room on the Outer Banks of NC once and it was wall papered in Playboy Centerfolds. I guess it takes all kinds of weirdness to make the world go round!

Actually I saw a doco on this at one point.

The salmonella can get in there from lizards.

Lizards somehow lay an egg in the air sack end of the egg and this then contaminates the egg.

 

"Also, he thinks that this first of its kind discovery may also lead to some clue that may aid in explaining that occasional food poisoning in humans.

 

He said that the eggs sometimes contained salmonella, which is a potentially fatal food poisoning and is usually carried by other lizards.

 

“Maybe this happens all the time. Maybe geckos regularly crawl inside chickens for a feed. And this one was unlucky enough to get stuck in an egg,” he said. (ANI)"

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/lizard-found-inside-chicken-egg_10049925.html

No, lizards do not lay eggs in chicken eggs, both chickens and lizards have salmonella bacteria inside them much the same way that most mammals have E. coli inside their intestines.

Lizards have no way to lay an egg inside a chicken egg, geckos lay eggs that are small and leathery , marble size or so depending on the species, and no way could they lay eggs inside of chicken eggs.

I'm just waiting for someone to develop kittens and puppies that never grow up! Imagine having a cute little kitten or puppy for a dozen years? Peter Pan for animals.

hmmmm puppies forever, puddles and poop everywhere all the time, never ending.... i think I'll stick with my adult basset hounds, it too much time and effort to house train them.

I agree skeptic, they would freeze to death, along with size they would need some serious metabolic manipulation as well. However I suspect scaling animals down would be easier than scaling them up.

I think it's already been stated but if you had an image of the earth that was not exaggerated it would look like a cue ball. Possibly a thin coat of paint would allow details to be close to life size in thickness?

Evolution does not really drive towards more sophisticated or complex forms, except incidentally. The evolutionary pressure is entirely towards propagating one's genes in the most successful means possible in the present environment. Sometimes the efficiency of simplicity outweighs the advantages of complexity. Some of the simplest organisms are arguably the most "successful" of all.

It would appear there is some support for the idea that evolution drives toward complexity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080317171027.htm

First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

 

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2008) — Researchers have found evidence which suggests that evolution drives animals to become increasingly more complex.

If instantaneous transcendental teleportation is possible, would it really matter from whence they came?

Are you trying to be dismissive or can you tell me what that term means and why is it important in this conversation?

Since we really don't know for sure, it's a toss up! But, If instantaneous transcendental teleportation is possible, would it really matter from where they came?

Since for the sake of this question we do not need to know if they are here and since instantaneous transcendental teleportation is not necessary or for that matter what does the term "instantaneous transcendental teleportation" mean?

The idea is to understand how such a thing could be possible given real world possibilities and to see that which possibilities are more likely.

To me the slow boat theory of a civilization that has already colonized the entire galaxy and are already here is the most likely scenario. Colonizing the entire galaxy shouldn't take more than a few million years at most so if they do exist it's quite possible they are already here.

So if they are already here why wouldn't they have taken over the earth would be my next question. I've given many reasons why they would not want the earth but then the next question is why would they be here if not for the earth. The resources of the solar system or any other star system such as asteroids and comets or Kuiper belt objects would be my best guess.

Actually if you give this much in the way of credence then stars that do not have planets but have extensive asteroid or Kuiper belt type objects should be high on the list of stars to look around for alien civilizations.

The idea (for me) is that no god like super technology is necessary for aliens to be here.

Could it be possible that a quark may be the offspring of a "QuauQ"? You know, that elusive slice of bread with only one side? I ask this simply because I know absolutely nothing of physics, other than X-Laxs.

What is a QuauQ? A google search turned up nothing pertaining to subatomic particles.

Merged post follows:

yes, but only with other quarks, you can't get a quark on its own but they can come in bundles of 2 as well as three.

Aren't quarks more strongly attracted to each other the further apart they are?

QUOTE: Dr. Livingston, I presume? Supposidly quoth, Henry Stanley.

About a hundred and fifty years ago a guy from England by the name of David Livingston went to Africa as a Preacher or an Entrepreneur, looking for among other things, the source of the Nile River. I'm not exactly sure what his real purpose was? Anyway, back in those good old days, if the locals caught you, they'd usually put you in a big cook pot, toss in a few yams or sweet potatoes, a little Vino and "Voile" supper.

Honestly, not for a moment do I believe we've been visited by, "ALIENS"

The point here is not are we being visited, but "if" we are being visited where do they come from, an exercise in logic I think.

Not sure I completely agree with this idea, but it's nontheless interesting: http://www.universetoday.com/2010/05/17/is-ball-lightning-just-a-shared-hallucination/

I think there is a school of thought that asserts that many sightings of unusual things is caused by magnetic fields distorted by tectonic stress, piezoelectric effects, the two ideas could account for at least some sightings of glowing objects.

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

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

I saw ball lightning once, it was an extraordinary event but it lasted only a few seconds.

I saw a film from a security camera once that showed a ball of white light coming in from off camera, it swirled around a metal lamp poll, it was night and the lamp was lit, the glowing ball wasn't as bright as the lamp. The ball of light continued off cam with no further interaction with the metal lamp post.

It was claimed to be a UFO but it looked like a classic example of ball lightning. Of course ball lightning is as unknown as UFOs and using one unexplained mystery to explain another one is a bit of a stretch.

How could the universe have an end? No matter where you go... you're there!

I'd be in big trouble, my family has little to no facial hair, I'm glad I live here where i can be a heretic in so many ways and be ignored equally.

I would like to see some evidence for this idea, I know there is huge amount of evidence that says that it is impossible for this to have happened. Do we have to trot all that out yet again?

Merged post follows:

The earth is still shrinking just like it always has as it’s cooled, and was at the time of the great Noahic flood when it rained for forty days and forty nights for the waters to rise to a height of 15 cubits or 27 feet, and cover all the high hills. What this reveals is that before the flood, the earth’s crust was relatively very smooth. There was dry ground and “seas”, but that doesn’t mean they appeared anything like they do today. There was no Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, no Mt. McKinley, and no Alps.

These mountains have been in place for many many millions of years, this is a non starter.

With the falling deluge of water, which is a very efficient cooling agent, the earth’s crust would cool very rapidly. The very weight of the water, 23 million tons per square mile, would also place an extreme girthing force on the global integrity. Suddenly, the earth’s crust and mantle would begin to shrivel and fracture with globe shattering earthquakes. The breaking mantle would cause the release of the abundance of ground waters. The earth’s mantle would rupture in a rolling series of cataclysmic volcanic upheavals. A whole new world would begin to take shape. The newly forged topography would be contoured with extensive highlands and vast “ocean” beds.

How did echinoderms manage to survive this deluge of rain? If you can explain that I have a great many other species that could not have survived such a deluge.

Newly shaped continents would be formed from overlapping fractured mantle materials with towering mountains pushing up on massive volcanic bubbles under layers of broken mantle materials. Over a period of forty days while it rained, and another 200 days before it all settled into the newly forged oceans and underground aquifers, instead of an earth whose crust was so smooth that it only took 27 feet of water to cover it all, we had an earth with deep sea chasms fissured in the crust of vast ocean floors, and continents with mountain ranges like the Rockies, a Mt. Everest, and fissures like the Grand Canyon!

All I can say is no there is no evidence of anything like this happening at all ever.

It’s happening again, not with a flood this time, but with a cooling shrinking earth forcing the layered tectonic plates to slide over one another and fracture as the earth continues to crunch. It’s only going to get worse with more cataclysmic seismic activity in these closing days of time.

Again what is your evidence for this?

Well they tried concrete.

I think it's quite possible that at the temps and pressures at that depth liquid nitrogen would come rather close to being a liquid already. I'm not sure it would have the impact you are looking for.

Well at 55 it would appear I've got all of the facial hair I'll ever have.