jerryskids

Nice

I believe there is lots of life on other planets, but I'm a little more skeptical about how advanced it is. The moon for instance, while not critical for the creation of life, keeps us at a 23 degree angle wrt the sun, which along with other things like our atmosphere, keeps our temperature remarkably constant. Also our planet is thought to be relatively old, and billions of years were spent with basically lichen as life on land. So we may be at the forefront of such developments throughout the universe. Speaking of lichen, I took a class yesterday on ground biota in the desert. Lichen is fascinating (a symbiotic/parasitic relationship between basically algae (photobiont) and fungus (mycobiont)) but not relevant for this. What is relevant is "rock varnish," this weird stuff that is very prevalent but we don't quite understand. It seems to come from very slow growing microbes which "eat" manganese and iron. Anyway, there are some photos of rocks on Mars which look a lot like rock varnish. The hope is eventually to get a sample back to earth. Scientists are not 100% sure that the microbes are required to generate it, but if they can reach that conclusion... that would prove life on Mars. This link calls it "earth varnish". https://earthsky.org/space/purple-rocks-mars-perseverance-rover-desert-varnish/

Fock off, doosh.

I'm currently listening to a Freakonomics podcast about Richard Feynman, who most would agree was a pretty smart guy. Mostly, I've learned, he was very inquisitive. From the transcript of the show: All that poking had proved fruitful for Richard Feynman. In 1965, he won a Nobel Prize for his work in quantum electrodynamics, which helped deepen our foundational understanding of how light and matter interact. Earlier in his career, he’d helped create the first nuclear weapons, as part of the Manhattan Project; he’d even made contributions to biology. His work intersected with the widespread embrace and application of scientific thinking over the course of the 20th century. But this also included a variety of practices that Feynman thought of as junk science. Things like faith healing and mind-reading, even some practices within psychology and psychiatry. But Feynman also believed in challenging assumptions, even his own — with data if possible, or at least intense observation. “First, I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism and mystic experiences,” he wrote. “I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of hallucinations … Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this kind of thought.” So Feynman began going to Esalen as something of a skeptic — but he had always been interested in just how flexible and versatile the human mind can be, if you just let it. I'm not putting myself anywhere near the level of Feynman, but this is how I feel about investigating this topic. Others, perhaps smarter than Feynman, know better than him it seems. This is the episode, which is #3 in the series. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-vanishing-mr-feynman/ You can back out and go to #1 if you want to listen to the whole thing (which doesn't talk about these topics).

I would ask you to go back and re-read the post you originally quoted, because I cannot see how you drew this conclusion from what I said. If anything, I told Horseman that he is (to summarize what you just said) viewing things through his world view, not some irrefutable facts.

I just sent @edjr$5 for the ace. That seems what we've concluded

Well, as I addressed if you bothered to read, there might be a middle ground between zero support and outfunding all of NATO. I don't get where you get this "cast aside" trope. And I'm not a big Trump fan. Otherwise, good post, good effort, typical for you.

Help me to understand how, in the extreme of Russia taking over all of Ukraine, a non-NATO country, that this benefits "American safety and prosperity" sufficiently for a nine-figure price tag? Keep in mind that I do not subscribe to your position, as you've said several times recently, that any amount of money is mice-nuts in our budget and thus essentially free$#@!

It's like you didn't read a word I said, quite impressive.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you explain?

@Pimpadeauxor @The Real timschochet, response?

I am an engineer and analytical, and my beliefs actually align closer to yours. I believe there is likely a scientific explanation for everything, we just don't know it. But that explanation might cross over into something we can label as God. An energy which we are a part of. I have faced death, and I find myself increasingly pursuing spirituality. Meditation, and prayer. Prayer is not asking for stuff, but opening your mind much like meditation, but instead of nothingness, it is an opening of the heart to positive energy, which some may call God. That's where I am, anyway. I hesitated to respond to you last time because I suspected you would dig your heels in and argue. I won't do that, because there is no winning in that. I will say however that the most "unscientific" thing you can do is presume you know the answers when you really don't. Your belief is a theory, strongly rooted in observation. But not a law or fact.

Regarding the existence of a creator: I'm looking at an ash tree blooming in my yard right now. Some might look at that and see the existence of God. Others, I presume yourself, would say "aha, that's not God, we understand how photosynthesis works!" Yet others may look at the process of photosynthesis and see in it the existence of God. And we can continue to dig down into molecular, atomic, quantum and wave levels, each with increasing knowledge. But none of that addresses... how is it all here? and perhaps, why is it all here? Let's give the answer to those questions a word: God. I'll start with that.

I think an interesting analogy is gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a law or fact: The greatest minds have to date failed to fit gravity into our understanding of how things work: So we can observe gravity, but we really don't know how or why it works. But we see its results, and we label it "gravity." You personally would never doubt gravity, because you experience it every day. Many, including some in this thread, have seen first hand how God works. Others have faith that the great minds before them have experienced God. None of this addresses the existence of Hell specifically, but rather the existence of God in general.

FWIW, I was addressing the assertion that it wasn't mentioned in the Bible.

Also I'm just googling this. There are more.

Mark 9:44-48 New International Version [44] [a] 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] [b] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’[c]

Matthew 25: 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

My googling says the speed of sound in salt water is about 1500 meters per second, which is 3345 miles per hour. I'm sure they mean it goes faster than the speed of sound in air.

I don't recall Toro hating MDC that much.

You guys may be in luck; Swifties think she'll break up with Kelce over his "toxic masculinity" at the SB: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/taylor-swift-fans-travis-kelce-174108323.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=0_00 Go get 'er, tigers!

I know you Lefties like to live at extremes and false dichotomies, but there is a middle ground between complete isolationism and giving more to Ukraine than the entire rest of NATO combined. Trump actually understood that NATO was living high on the hog off our benevolence, which is why he pushed them to meet their financial goals, and tossed out the possibility of leaving NATO so that they had an incentive to act. Your TDS will never allow you to see it, but that's on you. Feel free to look at my posting history; I have never advocated we completely disengage from Ukraine. I think we should support them. But this is happening in Europe, it is at its core a local issue, it's not the first step in Russia trying to take over the world. As such I think the EU should have more skin in the game, not take their typical stance to back off, let us do all of the heavy lifting, and then act superior because they give more money in entitlements to their people.

It seems wrong that in a thread where Wiff provides bad medical news, I feel the most sorry for Seafoam, because this V-Tach thing is probably treatable, but I don't think Seafoam's insufferability is.

Sheesh, when I first opened this thread there were no responses. Pretty busy for a Saturday.

We have good discussions... ya doosh. Let's talk Ukraine. To date, the US has given almost as much as the rest of NATO: The US has proposed another $60B as we know, coming to $135B. The EU has proposed another $20B: coming to $120B. My question: do you think the US should give more than the rest of NATO combined?