Moontanman

Zolar, why do you assume a large carcass? Humans often prey on small animals. A human is quite capable of eating a small animal raw, even skinning it with your teeth. a rabbit is easy to skin and eat, not very tasty raw but edible. A cooking fire makes any meat easily torn from a carcass, throw a deer carcass on a fire and meat becomes easily torn from the carcass, your whole idea of human teeth and jaws being too weak to function with out modern food processing is just dead wrong. Small animals make a large portion of the diet of primitive humans now, why not then? I think it's more likely that fire allowed the human jaw to evolve into the form it is today by making food softer and easier to eat. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No zolar, not if the human jaw isn't evolving over that time span, troll am i? Report me for trolling then, go for it.

First i happen to be trained in statistical analysis, you are dead wrong, at best you source is cherry picking data, you need to provide the source for this outrageous claim, the human jaw bone has pretty much been the way it is for more than 100,000 years, 3,000 years isn't enough to say we had to have modern cutlery to live. 3,000 years ago humans already had plenty of tools to cut up grind and other wise process food. As we did 100,000 years ago, even before the modern jaw bone hominids had tools to cut up and grind their food. You are not making sense when you argue differently. Of course you're not, it disproves your idea completely. Again 3,000 years has seen no appreciable change i the human jaw bone. 3,000 years ago humans were identical to humans today, why do you keep bringing this up? Neanderthals evolved from a common ancestor with humans, both species had tools more than 150,000 years ago they also had jaw bones that were really not suited to ripping flesh from carcasses. Yes were are discussing the use of tools because you said we have to have them to eat. AGAIN, i say 3,000 years ago we were just as human as today, so what is your point?

Yes I merely provided a link, I looked it up because I had no idea what it meant, but it doesn't look promising to me.

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

Yes we do Zolar if you were told stone tools only date back 5,000 years you were grossly misinformed. No human teeth are quite tough and capable of ripping flesh from bones but we prefer to do it with knives. Stone knives can be sharper than modern surgical instruments. Quite possibly "your dad" had weak teeth, old people would have more difficulty but the point is moot, stone tools were available for humans for hundreds of thousands of years. Again stone tools are more than adequate for cutting up carcases. Grinding grain, roots and tubers. I suggest you back up this outrageous claim, flint is available in many areas where volcanoes were extinct for millions of years and often washed down rivers far away from volcanoes. Obsidian was the favorite stone tool of choice but even quartz can be used to make stone tools. Why would they be limited to shale, that makes no sense what so ever. Even shards of bone can be used to cut flesh. You implication is dead wrong.

He said the distance between the earth and the moon was reducing, a blatant untruth. The moon formed very close to the earth from a collision with a mars sized planet, the moon has been moving steadily away since then, the rate of movement has slowed down as the moon gets further away but the distance is not reducing by any interpretation of the data. The earths spin has been reduced drastically since then, fossilized imprints of tidal movements show this. I am quite sure he doesn't care to see his "god" shown to be wrong anyway.

Zolar you are making some pretty wild assumptions here, humans can and do eat raw meat from carcases, (haven't you ever eaten raw steak by gnawing it off the bone?) it's rare in modern times but it can be done. Stone tools are more than adequate to cut flesh from bones to bite sized chunks if you insist on bite sized chunks. Humans were cutting up their food way before Roman times and cooking makes meat that is too rotted to eat raw eatable. Your basic premise is totally flawed, humans have been wielding super sharp stone tools and cooking for more than 75,000 years maybe 150,000 years.

I've been shocked by an electric fence, it's not something I would do for recreation for sure. It hurts! I saw a pig killed by an electric fence, but it had been modified to give a huge shock by the owner because the pig had learned to resist the effects of the fence and consistently got out. he didn't get out anymore, he didn't go anywhere else again it dropped him like a sack of potatoes but that was 42 years ago, I am sure they have fails safes now to prevent that from being done.

Well there is the school of thought that suggests life on earth was started by microbes from someplace else. Until we go someplace else it will be difficult to know if life everywhere is similar to life on Earth or if all life is unique or even if there is other life. There is the possibility that a species could develop technology with no real intelligence, why not an Ant or Termite type species that develops technology but not intelligence and manages to travel to other planets? Colonial insects do many of the things we equate with technology, farming, livestock, building. Could star travel develop this way?

You are 100% correct species-jumping microorganisms do indeed exist but all life on Earth is related, we all share the same basic genetic codes. All of Earths infectious microorganisms have evolved to infect Earths life forms by using this similarity to their advantage. Life forms who share no history what so ever with us would be very unlikely to infect Earthly life forms. I once heard it described as us being infected by alfalfa wilt but many times more unlikely.

I see no reason to assume star traveling aliens would have magical god like technology. An enclosed space habitat could make the rip from one star to another in a few hundred years and with technology quite conceivable by us at the very least. Such a society would simply make use of native materials to make more habitats, eventually sending out more colony habitats to "infect" other star systems. No planets needed and maybe stars with huge debris fields instead of planets would be more desirable than stars with planets. A society that has made such a trip in a enclosed habitat might not even like the idea of a planet, having lived for generations inside what is basically a mega city a planet would seem a strange and dangerous s place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat What resources could the Earth have that wouldn't be easier to get from asteroids and comet like materials? You've been reading Heinlein I'm not sure about the idea of disease being transmitted between totally isolated ecosystems, Life on another planet may not even be based on the same nucleic acids as Earth's, or even the same Chirality. I think that debate is fodder for another thread. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged All the Asteroids together make up about 4% of the mass of the Earth's moon, still a huge mass, and that doesn't count Jupiter's Trojan asteroids, comets or other asteroid like bodies outside the main belt.

First i think you have to consider how very few people actually traveled to the "new world" compared to how many stayed behind. Then there is the issue of how easy it was to live in the new world. Notice how Antarctica was never actually colonized, a new planet would be a very hostile, even an Earth like planet would be unlikely to be as livable as North America and even North American colonies failed. A strange ecosystem, lack of important trace elements or too much of poisonous trace elements, no friendly natives to help out (my ancestors were Native Americans) extreme logistical problems. Colonizing another star system via it's planets seems to be the hardest way to me. A small difference in mercury or arsenic could make a planet virtually uninhabitable to us. Lack of other trace elements could mean the same thing in the long term. A star with a huge asteroid belt instead of planets would seem to be the place to find star fairing aliens. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Just a small group of asteroids such as the Trojan asteroids around Jupiter represent enough material to build habitats for billions of individuals. breaking up a planet and all the bits going off in wild orbits seems to be a bit messy and maybe showy to be realistic to me.

I have no clue but it's a pretty good question. Would all attractive forces become repulsive? Positive repel negative? Interesting.

Moving entire populations to a newly build habitat would be far more practical than moving entire populations to another planet in another star system. But for the most part populations in space habitats would move slowly as habitats were build, not in mass. We will never be able to move a significant number of people off the face of the earth. We have babies far faster than any possible number of space craft could move them off the earth much less to another planet. But orbiting colonies or space habitats built from the easily obtained resources of space could be built almost like cookies laying on top of each other in a stack, a never ending construction project. each stack of colonies could contribute to other stacks and populations could move among them freely. the population on the earth could contribute to the populations in space but billions or even millions of people could never be moved off planet in periods of time short enough affect the earth's own population.

Why would aliens even want a planet? Artificial space habitats make much more sense than trying to colonies hostile planets. Gravity wells would be something a space faring species would avoid. Asteroid type belts would be much more of a target, materials to build more colonies and easy to move around, not like launching a space craft from a planet.

The block of aluminum in the vacuum of space would cool down much slower than a block in side the space station due to the air carrying away the heat. It's the principle of the a vacuum bottle.

No Zolar you just make the claims and act like you are the word of god and move on. so far you have done nothing but make claims. You made the obvious claim of deaths in the USA now you say you meant something else but neither on is supportable anywhere but in your mind.

Zolar you are the one who made the claim, not me, you need to defend it. So far all you have done is try to wiggle out of it when asked to substantiate your claim. You clearly made the claim that thousands of people were dieing of hunger in the USA, now you need to back this up or withdraw it. If you withdraw it all your other claims come into disrepute. You started with with fear mongering, typical of people who have an ax to grind but little or no evidence to back up their claims.

No zolar, this is what you said. You were clearly saying the people dying were in the USA, if you make a contention and cannot support it you should admit to it not try to squirm out of it. This is disingenuous and counterproductive to this or any discussion. If your contention cannot be supported by facts and figures maybe you should regroup and think of a new assertion to draw attention to your cause.

It's just the properties of UV, in space even a grain of sand is enough to protect spores from being killed by UV.

No, UV cannot penetrate deep into the Earth or to the bottom of the oceans. UV of sterilizing wave lengths is stopped in just a few feet of water and just millimeters of soil and or rocks.

Some might say that certain catalysts are live as well. Not to mention Clay crystals.

Zolar, so your faith allows you to make wild speculaive claims that are clearly not true to make your point? Thousands of people die every day due to hunger in the USA? If you cannot support this claim everything else you say is in grave doubt as well.

Zolar, hundreds or thousands of people dying in the USA due to hunger? I am a US citizen and even though on person dying due to lack of money to buy food is unacceptable I doubt your figures are even close to being true. Can you back that up with any evidence what so ever? Again, please provide evidence of all these people dying, Your basic premise depends on numbers that you need to back up.

I have to ask, what would rubies have to do with organisms that live in a cave? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW, when you say crystals do you count basalt crystals? They have six sides and about as big as telephone poles. They have been used make buildings almost like log houses. Then there are emeralds as big as railroad cross ties. Not gem quality to be sure but emeralds none the less.