Moontanman

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

It would appear there is some support for the idea that evolution drives toward complexity. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080317171027.htm

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

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.

What is a QuauQ? A google search turned up nothing pertaining to subatomic particles. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Aren't quarks more strongly attracted to each other the further apart they are?

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.

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: Consecutive posts merged These mountains have been in place for many many millions of years, this is a non starter. 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. All I can say is no there is no evidence of anything like this happening at all ever. 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.

This is very interesting, I am of native American ancestry and I have almost no beard, none at all at my temples a tiny bit on my chin and sparse mustache. What little bit of facial hair I have is quite clear and has to be quite long to even been noticed. My grandfather who was Cherokee had even less beard than me, he could "shave" with a pair of tweezers, just yank out a few hairs that grew around his moles he was clean shaven! I guess the next question is how would these religious groups deal with men who had no facial hair?

That would be how humans dressed up the story so it matched their own preconceptions. The fact remains that the shiny naked humans were the linage down through which humanity was passed. In the bible it would have just been the Jewish people but at the time I thought the bible was a larger story than just the Jewish people, a larger story that took place many tens or even hundreds of thousands of years ago not just 6000 years. It turns out there is not much to my young theory but there are a few amazing match ups or so i recall thinking at the time. Although the one above is the best I remember. Much of the stuff is obviously stories from other religions or times earlier than the Jewish religion. Sorry this is way off topic, if we want to continue to discuss this King a new thread should be made.

In certain religious sects having lots of facial hair in the form of a thick flowing beard is necessary or is indicated as being necessary to being a man. What if you were a male with very little facial hair. Could you still be a member? I'm just curious because I have very little facial hair but all the Taliban seem to have long full beards, is this religious or cultural or both? Americans who work closely with people from Afghanistan all wear the full beards to gain the mens trust. It occurred to me I would stand out like a sore thumb! So what is the real status of the beard thing?

Then your take on this would be even more important to me. I remember the first time i heard this story, I was about 12 years old. i immediately looked it up in the bible and the thought occurred to me that this could be an analogy of when humans took the world from Neanderthals. At the time I was convinced the bible was a text on the way the earth and man had evolved but primitive humans had not the scope of or the idea of science and they interpreted the words of God in a completely different context than they were meant to be understood.