adriantc

It would be possible to transmit electricity on great distances without wires, but that would be highly inefficient. Converting it to radio waves would be inefficient in the first place not to mention that transporting it through the air would also be highly inefficient. Wires are also inefficient until you reach high voltages and amps. That is why electricity is first amplified then transported through the wires and then lowered to a standard voltage and amp. Transporting standard electricity would be cost inefficient... much of it would be simply lost in thin air... I remember that my grandparents live near a high powered radio transmitter (AM transmitter I think)... It is extremely powerful since it sends radio signals for hundreds of kilometers. They are not exactly near, but around 5 kilometers away. A neighbor of them could power a light bulb or a radio with only a wire hanging out of the house. That is wireless electricity. But that transmitter probably uses huge amounts of power and only a very tiny fraction can be received. Not to mention there are some health consequences to living even closer to it.Maybe transmitting through space, where there is no air (but there is still background noise) could be more efficient. There was another idea for transmitting energy for some distant human mission which kind of resembles your idea. It wouldn't send energy in form of electricity, but something more primitive... light. Sun's lights would be reflected and concentrated and sent through space to some distant space station where, by the forms of future solar panels, would be converted into electricity. The advantage would be that light would take less punishment from background noise. There is a theory that states that all our radio transmission never reach very far as they are quickly covered by background noise (the background noise of the universe). That is pretty sad considering that millions and millions of years from now the only thing that may remain of humanity are slowly fading radio waves...

That is indeed good news. Although morally The Pirate Bay is not really that clean technically they are full proof. This in not the first and surely not the last court action they'll have to endure. Being a global tracker it attracts unwanted attention from all the big studios, software companies, etc. If you ask me, instead of wasting huge amounts of money and time in court they could attack piracy at it's roots by lowering the prices of their products. I would happily buy a movie for 2-3$ instead of well ... getting it from other sources. And for good movies I do pay for a DVD or a movie ticket (although that is also very expensive). There is no way to kill or even limit the piracy since once they shut down a tracker another one or even more appear. Piracy is like a a dragon growing more heads once you cut one. But how on Earth was the prosecution expecting to win when they has technical flaws in their case. Why would you spend all that money knowing your "proof" can be rejected. Maybe they really wanted was to stir some media attention. Legally the torrent system is extremely well constructed!And I don't really think media price is really an issue when you consider the prices of movies, games, software... Compared to what they ask in $ the price of the media is well the fraction of a fraction. I agree there where days when CDs and DVDs where expensive, but that is not the case today. Consider how much you advantage dual layer DVD costs near you (3$ tops) and the fact that since they buy huge quantities they probably get them somewhere below 1$. And still once they go on the shelf they get 10 times more expensive. I know it's a movie, but 10 times.... I'm sure they would sell 10 times more DVD's if they would but the price in half. Lower price = more people buying = more money for them = less piracy = everybody is happy!

I've heard about this incident a few days ago. As far as I know they have traced the attackers to a few IP's in my country (Romania). But they where "professional" hackers, wanting not material gains, but to become famous. I know that after they've discovered the security problem they've written to Kaspersky and gave them an hour to fix the vulnerability and when they didn't get a reply they did the hacking. But nothing vital was compromised - like personal information, credit card information, etc. At least that's what Kaspersky's said... Anyway it's not good for their imagine, as a security company, to get their website hacked by (I'm sure) some students with a lot of spare time. They should hire those guys!

I'm not a supporter of Iran or of their cause in general but I simply cannot understand why some countries are allowed to have nuclear capability and satellites while other are banned simply because others don't like them. I know they are not exactly democratic regimes, but it's their right to have all that. As long as you have exactly the things you want to ban what's the point... Where is the justice? Where is the power of example? You have no moral right to say "You shouldn't have nuclear missiles or satellites!" as long as you sit on thousands of nukes, a fleat of nuclear submarines and god knows how many military satellites. You can even imagine some kind of satellite with nukes on orbit. If Israel has nukes, why should Iran be banned?Israel is the military power in the region and a recent example is the conflict in Gaza when in the name of a few hundred dead they bombed and killed many hundreds more. They have no defense since everybody can see the United Nations has no real power. So maybe an equilibrium shall be reached where they will be more willing to sit down and talk when both are on the same line.This thing with Iran is pure American propaganda. Most don't like to see that, but America has a powerful propaganda machine. It's even more powerful then that of the USSR, because they where stupid enough to make it visible... American propaganda is a lot more covert in documentaries, news, etc. all giving the apparency of normality.

If I could travel in time I wouldn't go forward a day or two or ten or twenty years! I would go 100 years or 200 years into the feature. Maybe even a thousand years. I would like to see not my future, but everybodies future. I would like to see what happens to mankind and to this planet. I would go for the long run... That would really be interesting, not my "tomorrow" future. I will live to see tomorrow, but I won't live a thousand years... Maybe I would go forward even more then a thousand years - like in "The Time Machine" - to see how we will evolve or who will replace us as a species.

It's hard to NOT imagine a use for time travel. The main use would be to change history. Pick a point in time, a point where things started to go wrong and fix them. Kill Hitler before the got to power or even before he was born. Or why not make sure there are is Dark Age. The problem is that fixing one problem might generate another, even one bigger then the first. Some may call that unchangeable destiny. See the movie The Butterfly Effect for details! Another one would be history research. You wouldn't need to actually change the time line, just watch history as it happens. Imagine watching the life of Alexander The Great and finally deciding is he was killed of not or finding our where his body is. Imagine watching Jesus on the cross and finding out if he really is the Son of God. Or imagine seeing Napoleon at Waterloo in flesh and bones. Or finally discovering the truth behind 9/11. Imagine the countless mysteries of history finally unraveled. The possibilities are truly endless! Imagine what great power we would have, far beyond our current nuclear power. If it would be possible controlling time would surely be an epic point in our evolution. And just like with nuclear power, it may also turn out that time travel can be used as a weapon.

As far as I know faster-then-light travel is already possible. From Wikipedia Speed Of Light article [here] : And I do remember an experiment where they accelerated a particle (I think) beyond the speed of light. A particle without mass maybe. I know about this theory and as far as I have heard it's more then a theory. For an astronaut in orbit time passed differently (slowly) then for people on Earth. The difference is very very small - less then thousands of a second - a difference only theoretical not measurable in practice.And there are also the wormholes which allow faster then light travel. It's faster than light to an external observer, but slower than light locally. Everything is relative! I wouldn't look to the speed of light as a constant forever. Science has a habit of making old theories obsolete. Maybe in 100 years somebody smarter then Einstein will find another theory which will completely change our point of view over the speed of light.

But what exactly could he have in an office and he can't have at home. It's all about the substances he uses... and how steady his hand is. It's not like he forced people to do treatment. I think the problem is financial because he doesn't pay taxes as someone registered should. Of course he should have got a license. Thats why I blame him, not for the fact the office=home.

I do believe someday we will be able to travel back in time, but not in the hollywoodian sense. Hollywood gives a very romantic view of time travel, a very optimistic view. Press a button, change history, make everything better. If time travel is possible I don't think you can change it in the classic fashion. I think time is like a tree with branches. When you go back in time you create a new branch. That also resolves the "grandfather paradox" as when you go back to your time it's not actually the same timeline.More probable is the time travel in the view-only sense. You can see the past, but not change it! That would still be great as history will have no secrets anymore. And in some way that is easy to do. The only thing we have to do is travel faster then light. If you send a beam of light into space and then travel faster then light and overtake the beam of light you actually see the past. It's not time travel as you only see a reflection of things that happen. In fact we can travel back in time every day when we look to the starts. It takes so much time for the light to get here that what we actually see is what happened millions of years ago. Of course it's not time travel, but the result is still exciting.

I am on negative again... for the third time. This change is quickly becoming a fiasco! I know it's for the better and I acknowledge it is a good idea, but maybe it should have been in beta testing for an year or so. maybe work in same time with the old system. It doesn't mean much for me, for I have more then enough credits for 2 years, but there are some who don't have enough credits for a month. And this problems may deter new users from joining!

I don't think a license means very much for poor people with a bad toothache. I'm sure that if they had the option they would have gone to a dentist with license. But they are not cheap. I think it is better to get low quality treatment then no treatment at all. And it's not like he forced anybody to his "office".What I don't understand what does the "office in home" has to do with the way he does the job. It doesn't take much to be a dentist. OK, the basic part is the chair (which he had) with all the instruments. Maybe you can blame him for the lack of pain relief, but where he does his job shouldn't influence the quality of the treatment. If he had a separate office he would have needed to pay extra bills which of course would mean higher prices. It's not a normal situation, but poor people need affordable treatment!

It's hard to imagine killing someone by accident with a knife. You have to apply some pressure in order to penetrate the skin. Even if it is easier to penetrate the skin "parallel to a direction of greater skin tension than when perpendicular" if you do apply the pressure then you do want to kill. It's easier to fall into a knife then killing somebody with it by mistake. Of course you can cut somebody by accident with a knife, but to kill somebody it is really hard.So I think that when people plead "no guilty" it's extremely probable that they lie. It's one thing to harm somebody with a knife by mistake and another to kill him. What excuse will he give? The victim fell into my knife? Knives don't kill people - people kill people!

[1]. That only proves what I keep saying. You God has a double standard. Whatever law, moral, etc. can be applied to us, it cannot be applied to Him. But then, if there is no standard for behavior, how do we know He is good if there is no good as standard for Him. In his point of view the Devil is just as good as God. [2]. What I wanted to show is that the Bible does not state any general scientific facts. It doesn't say "Water boils at 100C!"; it may state it metaphorically so somebody looking to find that statement will eventually twist the meaning of a line or two and end up having "Water boils at 100C!". It doesn't mean the Bible is true or false it just means it was created specifically to be unclear. Starting from that point I said it was done so that people from whatever point in time can find it just as true as the day it was written. That doesn't mean it's not true, what it means is that we shouldn't look in it for any proof. [3]. If a theory is proved correct it will never become incorrect. What will happen in time is that the now proven theory becomes part of a larger theory (more general) which may state things differently. Or the old theory may even be an exception of the new theory. But that doesn't make it incorrect. The scientists never change their mind. So what does change in a theory is it's generality. What scientists thought could be universal they could discover is only locally correct and they require a new "more" general theory. What history shows is that, to the church, science is something of a forbidden territory. In my language the word science is derived from the verb "to know". Why did the church consider science so bad for so many centuries? It may make some of us think that whatever science has to discover it wouldn't help their cause? In other words, and it's the second time I ask you this, if the church is right and God exists and science can only prove that why would they forbid science for such a long time. If they were right science could only increase their power! [4]. You mean blaming them for not trying! Because it is immoral to have such power (at least financially) and don't do anything to help those in need. And as much as you try to double standard God, that also applies to him. I find it troubling that you try to justify inactivity. Isn't the cornerstone of Christianity (and any other religion) to help your brother. What kind of example gives God? But of course He, in His great power and knowledge, in His infinite wisdom, is above us and his actions cannot be subject to our reasoning. Do you think your reasoning is good enough for those in Gaza and in Israel? Is the "Chosen People" not so well chosen. Is Allah just as passive as our God is when it comes to falling bombs? Do you blame those people: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ [5]. Where you see miracle I see coincidence. It's that easy! If you didn't know about the Sun and the Earth you would think seasons are also a miracle. Given enough knowledge nothing is a miracle, it is just the sum of some factors. Everything, and I do mean everything, can be explained sooner or later. If you rather want to believe it is a miracle and not investigate it is just as I said... There is not much room for curiosity... [6]. I don't know what you think, but the article on the Inquisition on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) makes it pretty clear. You simply don't want to admit it... It is a well known fact that the church (at least before the 19th century) was totally against scientific knowledge making all those who knew something that contradicted them heretics. Not only that, but ending their careers sharply and in some cases even their life. How can you not admit that? [9]. You are right. We are all believers in some form or another. But while I am ready to change my belief based on evidence, you are not ready (able) to do that. The evidence part is what separates all of us!

I can't say I agree with the trail, but those giving help must remember to think before they act. And most important act only if you know what you are doing. There are situations where you can do more damage. I haven't taken many emergency care lessons, but every time I was remembered not to act if I don't know what to do. It's better to standby and let someone else who knows what he should do. There is a moral issue here. How can the "Good Samaritan" live with what he/she has done. He/She could blame themselves for the rest of the life. It's a nightmare to live with a guilty conscious. We must remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions! The "Good Samaritan" may dearly regret what he/she has done. I know it's hard to stand by and watch and if it ends tragically you could also blame yourself for not doing anything, but if you do something and you don't do it right you might end up ruining 2 people... you (psychological) and the victim (both psychological and physical). Now that is a general lesson.In this particular situation the story is kind of strange. It sounds like she only wants the money of the women that helped her. The "Good Samaritan" must have been really stupid to try to move a victim of a car accidents. It a well known fact that in this kind of accidents the spine can be injured and any move could damage it further.

[1]. Is he can see the suffering and still doesn't do anything he is not a good God! You are trying to excuse him by saying that if he does nothing he is not necessarily a bad God. But I have to ask you... If you see a hungry child and you have the ability to feed him and you don't do anything can you be considered a good person? Or if you see somebody innocent being threatened with a gun and you simply watch as he gets killed even though you have the power to stop the bullet. Are you a good person? Are the millionaires that enjoy a life of luxury and never did anything to help the world around them good persons? Of course not! Why is God not subjected to this reasoning? Why is He permitted to stay there and enjoy the freak show? You will say He tries to teach us to be good, but at what expense... It seems that life has no meaning for your God and isn't that the main point of Christianity? There is no way you can excuse his no-intervention policy. Or maybe He is the God the deists say... A God who does not care who lives or dies - He is just the Prime Mover. He put everything in motion and doesn't give a damn for the Universe or it's outcome. If there is a God I'm sure this is the kind of God - a God who only created the Universe and then watches his cosmic show. [2]. You do realize that the Bible is an easily interpretable book. If you wish to find something in there you will find it. Why does God speak in riddles and metaphors? Why doesn't he say.... I created the Universe, billions and billions of years later I created the planets and a few more billion years later I created planets and animals - after which by evolution man appeared. Why doesn't he just teach us that. Why does he use the days of the week to tell us of such a magnificent achievement. Wouldn't a fact based story convince us that the one dictating it would be a God or at least somebody possessing the knowledge of one. Wouldn't such an account amaze us so much that we would obey the word of the Bible a lot more? On the other hand wouldn't somebody inventing the Bible choose to make it easily interpretable? If he would say something that would later prove false it would weaken the words of that book. So of course he would choose something so general that would really include all (later) possibilities - so that even in a thousand years it would be just as true as it was in the day it was written. Doesn't it make a lot more sense? Isn't that theory a lot more logical? How can I prove the Bible is easily interpretable? Because from one line you can easily make a whole story. From the few pages of the Genesis you can explain the story of the Universe, but with different words. None of the words from the Bible are used in their usual way. Once you twist every word you get what you want. And that's exactly what you do! Take a series of words from the Bible and understand what you wish from them - and you twist the meaning of the words until they become useful to explain what you need. If you take the Bible seriously, not figuratively, if you do not twist the words and their meanings it won't be such a powerful book anymore... it will simply be just like any other good book. [3]. I can accept the fact that an endless Universe in time and space does not necessarily mean there is no God. What is does is to make it a less plausible theory. As for the Big Bang and (a possible) Bug Crunch they are all still work-in-progress theories. There are still a lot of things to be discovered (the key word is "discovery" not "revelation"). [4]. Such a way of thinking does not lead to progress. We know everything... why bother?!? [5]. Should I remind you that God created us just as faulty as we are? Greedy, insensible, etc. Inaction makes him just as guilty as the ones with tons of money not doing anything. What is the difference between your God with unlimited power and Bill Gates with unlimited financial power. With his 50 billion $ did he fix the problems of the world. Did any of the billionaires of the world really make a difference. Do you blame them? Wouldn't you blame him as well? Yet they still suffer no matter how cares or not. I think, I hope, that with God's power I would be better then God himself.... [6]. So you question why the environment changes? What determines that change? You think behind the change there is the hand of God? No - there is no hand of God. There is only randomness. Besides the environment of (on) Earth is determined by the position on Earth in space. In other words a giant billiard game influences the environment. A meteor is not the hand of God, merely a giant rock traveling through space... it can change the environment so much as to extinct species while giving opportunities to others waiting in the shadows. Isn't this story familiar? Couldn't our existence be merely the chance that a piece of rock was in the right place on the right time? Is it that hard to believe? [7]. I didn't say we had knowledge during the Dark Ages. They were Dark because there was no knowledge. Because the church did not want to discover things, it did not want for science to grow. A bunch of ignorant people was (is) much easier to control and rule. Do you think that if people knew there is no such thing as magic they would still burn witches on stakes? Do you think it is because we had too much knowledge that the best cure to the plaque was to burn the bodies? Religion has power as long as people remain ignorant, ready to believe what the Pope, the church tells them... It has been shown over and over again what a great tool it is if you want to control lots and lots of ignorant people. [9]. So basically - no matter what I say and do, whatever science discovers in our life time you will still believe in your God. He is above everything we do so there is no way we can ever disprove it. Unfortunately there is not much I can do to change that... I can only wonder why a God existing on a such superior plane of existence, a plane which we cannot even perceive trouble his cosmic existence with building this world, this Universe, running it like a movie (without intervention) and then handing our punishments or rewards. As I closing I will use Plato's allegory of the cave from The Republic: (from Wikipedia) Also in relation to point [9] my usual quote:

I'm not sure it's for this problem, but yesterday Microsoft released a security patch. It's good they fixed it but I am wondering why it took so much time to find it. Since all versions are exposed to this vulnerability a huge amount of people may have been unknowing victims. And why is it so specifically used to steal game passwords?It's a long time since I switched to Firefox and I'm glad I sticked with it. Microsoft can never compete with the power of an open source community!

[1] I don't want to prove anything with that... I merely what to show that one of us is right. There is no middle. What we see in society is a pseudo-middle. The middle is composed of those who know there is no God, but are afraid to admit it (for some reason or another). Afraid of the others that may consider them weird, or even afraid of that "eternal damnation". Just like children are afraid of the dark some people are afraid of the idea of hell. Once again I can only marvel of how earthly this punishment seems to be. The carrot or the stick. Everything is so down to Earth, there is nothing divine in that... And since I have quoted that... You haven't answered why your God enjoys useless suffering so much. If I didn't know any better I could say he is the biggest sadist (force or whatever you want to call him) of the universe. He does enjoy suffering, especially on those innocent and not able to protect themselves. Yeah... what a wonderful God that is! I sure do what to believe in someone with such low morals. If you ask me He is in no place to teach us anything. Unlimited power and still no intervention. I'm sure that the bearded fellow is on a giant cloud watching a giant plasma TV with non-stop transmission of suffering. I'm sure up there he has Hunger TV, War Channel, Disease TV... and they all have non stop coverage. Painting that picture I could start blaming you for believing in such a horrible, horrible God. [2] Yeah... sure! The Bible clearly states about life in the Universe. That's next to the chapter... "what to do if the others find out something not written here!". The church hasn't admitted anything... they are opened to the possibility. They are always open to possibilities as their knowledge is not given by a All-Knowing God. And who could blame them... The Bible doesn't help anyone discover anything about the world. It may be a moral guide (another discussion required), but it doesn't contain any scientific stuff in it. What a church does is something like this: "Evolution! Wow! That might be true. I'm sure on page 254 God said something about that... What? Also life on other planets? How probable is that? So probable! Wow. I remember reading about that somewhere in here!" If you put it like that the Bible is never wrong for it adapts to the current knowledge. [3] & [8] If theologists can accept infinite why do they have to enter God in the Universe equation. It is the main "proof" (if it can be called that). Why do they need the Prime Mover? Why can't the Universe just be, why can't it be infinite in both space and time. You wouldn't need a Prime Mover then would you? And so goes all their authority! There is no shame in questioning everything! I can only be proud. Questioning everything is a thing theologists never do because they know everything. I'm proud to be one of those realizing we know very little! [4] So I guess the people in Africa are starving because they don't believe in the bearded fellow. The millions dying there, the children, they are all atheists or satanists. They sure they don't deserve food for they don't believe: If he gives food and help only to those how believe he is even worse then I thought. That's one evil God! People are bad, and they are not bad because they don't believe! It's their nature - our animal side (just as it is expected as a result of evolution). Give me God's power for a day, for an hour, for a minute and the world will be a better place... But there is no power, we can only help ourselves. We don't need no God to give them food. The billions of dollars spend on useless stuff could be just the power needed. And the Pope could live in less luxury just to help those in need. Why spend money on useless ceremonies when you could use those money to do good. But no one cares... believer or not we are just the same. You just like to advertise one side. [5] Of course not! Religion adapts to anything and everything. Just like a virus adapts to medicine... [6] & [7] What's metaphysical about natural selection? There is no one pulling the strings... some bad mutations happen; individuals die. But on the long run the species adapts and survives, getting better and better. The mile you are talking about means 50 or 100 million years. You are welcome to stay to watch evolution as it happens. We can only study the remains... And still we have a lot more proof then theologists have... [10] You keep telling me I contradict myself... Please do explain where I contradict myself? From what I understand you are trying to say the Dark Age were not so Dark. That's what I understand. Am I right? [11] It's needless to remind (I'm sorry for my previous mistake... I relay on the spell checker too much for all my typos) you that God created this world with all this "small" "natural" problems. So he can be blamed for what happens. Anyway... he can also be blamed for not doing anything! Read [1] for details! And since you are such a believer I'd like to ask you something. If God appeared in front of the White House and made snow in the middle of the summer I would be forced to believe - and I will believe. So I have a hypothetical situation where I would believe. There is certain situation where I could be shown wrong. But is there a situation where you could be shown wrong? Can you imagine a situation/discovery/anything that can make you change your mind regarding the existence of God. Because as I see it the God hypothesis does not require proof and such is permanently true, regardless of real life. I fail to see a situation where you could be convinced there is no God. And while you can prove me wrong, I can't. As such, your theory, becomes a lot less plausible. I'm sure you will say... God does not subject Himself to human laws... Here comes my quote for this post:

Yes! I think that could be the future of transportation. As far as I magnetic levitation is one of the most efficient ways to transport people and cargo. Since there is no friction involved there is little or no energy lost. And also no friction means speed, great speeds. This technology or it's applications are almost limitless. There is an idea of building a tube with no air in it (as the speed grows so foes the drag caused by air limiting it's potential... no air - no problems) and trains could possibly get to 3000-4000 km/h using magnetic levitation. It's hard to emphasis the importance of the fact that there is no friction involved between any of the parts of the train and the rail. Not only the efficiency and the speed, but it also means that there are no parts that deteriorate over time - wheels or railway.Plus only the part of the rail on which the train is will be turned on. Another huge efficiency advantage... Plus there is no pollution involved and it is totally silent. And since everything works on electricity, it is ready for a future where electricity can be produced so cheaply it will almost become free. It is by all standards a technology for the (near) future.

I have tried Google Chrome too, but I uninstalled it very quickly. It's much faster then Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer, but for me it has 1 giant minus. Lack of plugin support. I've got used to having an email notifier, mouse gestures and bookmark synchronization. Even if it were only one of those plugins I wouldn't change... Maybe Google can adapt their browser to receive Firefox's plugin or at least make similar plugins. I will take Google Chrome in consideration once it has plugin support.And I agree xpress... online installation really sucks. Just like with Yahoo! Messenger - at least there if you know where to look you can save the installation package. Google should drop that fast!

I have just got my first 2 cents from the new shared revenue system... ... Just 9998 to go until cashout :)This new system is great as an incentive to post. Even for those with no hosting. Congratulations for this idea!

[2]. I can do that. It's not like the example I gave you. God exists or not is a 0 or 1 possibility. There is no middle or both combination. It's enough to prove one and you automatically reject the second. It's that easy. If it's not 0 then it's 1. If it's not 1 then it's 0.You, Christians and theologists alike, are very egocentric. Everything is about us. The Earth was created for us, the Universe was created for us. Everything revolves around us. The truth is that we are insignificant in the scheme of the Universe - our life is but a 100000000000000000th of a second from that of the Universe. Our little planet is but a grain on a beach covered with sand. Chances are the Universe is full of life. You don't want to see that we are not so special - our being is merely the result of a combination of factors. There is nothing special about it. Either we deal with that or we continue to fool ourselves that we are God's pets. I can only wonder what the church will say if one day we will discover life (not necessary intelligent) on other planets? I'm sure that they will start to decode the Bible once more to discover where God created the others. There may have been a Big Bang or one is a long series of Big Bangs... One that has no beginning and no end. That's another thing theologies find hard to believe. Something endless... infinite! There has to be a beginning and an end. There has to be limits! False! Simply because our minds cannot imagine such a timeline it doesn't mean it's not. Try to picture and infinite Universe... It's really hard for our minds cannot grasp the idea of infinite. Just like we cannot imagine an object in more dimensions then 3 (or 4 if you put time) we cannot imagine infinite. We know the concept, but we cannot put it to practice. It does not mean it's not possible. It's it convenient that there are no remains to be studied... There is a monster in my room, but no one can see it! Isn't that so convenient... And we all know who accurate history books are... If Hitler would have won the 2nd World War he would have been a Messiah by now. History is written to serve the one in control. Just like the Bible was written to serve those who needed power... the church. But what kind of God would let people starve to death, what kind of God would let innocent people die in wars and natural disasters. What if I start playing God... I want take care of my fish or my turtles... Let them take care of themselves. Would you find me a good God once they start dieing from hunger or dirty water? If there is a God he sure doesn't give a dime for a civilization so meaningless in an infinite Universe. Any conceivable pseudo-God only set the things in motion, but he does not care about the outcome. And sure a power cannot be called God, but a mere law or force... [3], [4] & [5]. Evolution is one proof. In fact it is the cornerstone of the atheist movement since it proves creationism is wrong (the cornerstone of the God theory). You are so wrong about the micro and macro levels. You have not understood what Darwin said. Let me make it clear for you. The evolution theory DOES NOT state that changes (any, on any level) are beneficial. NO CHANGES (ON ANY LEVEL) ARE BENEFICIAL. THEY ARE ONLY CHANGES Changes (also called mutations) happen pretty often (on a million year timescale). Some are useful, others are not. That is where natural selection comes in. If a specific mutation is good it will help the individual with the mutation have offspring and thus sending it's genes into the future generations. Another individual with a mutation that does not help him (or even proves to be a disadvantage) dies young or does not have offspring; so his gene does not go on. So on a large timescale only those mutations that help the individual survive go on and improve the species. In other words - there are no beneficial mutation. It becomes beneficial when it helps the individual and the species survive. It's easy, logical, but hard to accept since it's does not require someone polling the strings... And while we are here how come you don't have human fossils dating 100 million years ago? If only one would be found and confirmed Darwin would be useless. And even though there are thousands trying (hoping) to find it they didn't. There is no CONCRETE evidence to show we all were created in the same timeframe... On the other side there is tons of evidence, not philosophy, that shows that everything that lives today gradually became what it is. It didn't happen over night... [6] & [8]. I still have to ask you. Who created God? You can't simply say... "Hey, stop! This is the creator" when you find it convenient. I think the existence of God is a psychological issue. Some people refuse to believe that there is no one helping them or st least watching them. Some people need to believe it on order to keep there hopes up. A person with a strong mind does not need God to help him get better when sick, it needs doctors. [7]. I don't believe in signs or supernatural things. I don't believe 13 is unlucky or that a black cat crossing the street influences my luck. In fact here is NO LUCK there is only mathematical probability. There are chances and coincidences. There is no luck or bad luck. We find all things around us because we mentally need it to be there. Something turns out right and we find a lucky charm. It's all in our mind. 99% of them. There are some things that we call supernatural that are simply natural things, unexplained yet. I have to remained you the quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." [10]. Where do I contradict myself? People burning on stakes, the plague, science as heresy, endless religions wars, etc. etc. Was that a Golden Age? An age of prosperity? Maybe the fact that (at least) 1 in 3 people died in Europe because of misery and lack of medicine can be called a Golden Age. Maybe the fact that only theologies (those in control) knew to read and write makes it a Great Age for mankind. I simply cannot understand how you can say it wasn't? For then 10th time I have to tell you - humanity lost a millennium (1000 years) of it's time because it put religion in front of reason, because it put faith in front of proof, because it put the Bible in front of the science book. Because only on his death bed Galileo could say "E pur si muove"! 1000 years lost because of blind belief. I can only imagine where we would be now... [11] I find it funny that someone that just risen from the dead recommended doctors to sick people. Why can't he just make a miracle and cure us all. And while he does that why doesn't he gives food to those who die daily of hunger. Why doesn't he save people in earthquakes and tsunamis? Because there is no God. Frightening as it may be... we have to take care of ourselves. To show you I have a religion I shall quote someone:

I am sure there is tons and tons of scientific proof in the Bible... thousands of year ahead of its time! And it is all coded... if you read the 2nd letter of every word in the Bible you will find our the meaning of life. One thing is for sure.... God has a sense of humor. Instead saying: "And God created the Earth round...". All is coded... Why does he need codes. Can't he simply tell us in a sentence something that we would understand once we know enough. But of course God speaks in codes. If you really believe in something and you want something to be you will end up convincing it is as you wish. If I say an apple is blue and I believe enough that the apple is blue it will look blue to me!

There should be no mercy for this kind of people. If you do it consciously then you should get the maximum penalty... and that is life. I know people say it's brutal and not civilized, but society shouldn't be forced to feed this people in prison. They should earn all their living.Anyhow... I am glad it is finally over - it was becoming a soap opera!

I like to ask you, truefusion, if there is a God and his teachings are universal why does the church fear(ed) science. If there is a God and they are sure of it then science can only prove it's existence and such improve the authority of the church. So why did the church block science and reason systematically for a thousand year if they knew all they where going to do is prove what the church said. Doesn't it make you think they fear science because they know ultimately it will unravel the biggest hoax of all time?And why if God is all knowing didn't he put more specific things into the Bible. Something above the knowledge of the time. Why didn't he say anything about the Sun or the planets or the universe. Something to show that he is indeed all powerful. Why is the Bible so general? Is it because it's made up?

@OpaQue... I have to admit the new system sounds a lot better then the old one, but from my experience it is a lot harder to get 1 day of hosting. For a post I did on the old system I would have gotten points for at least a month and a half or two. On the new system I got points for a little more then half a month. Is it something planned? Because is sure making life a lot more difficult.What hits me is the fact that if you double the size of a post you don't get double the amount of points - which kind of promotes spaming. I make one maybe 2 very long posts on a weekly basis so this system really disadvantages me.PS: I have to admit I got ~24 $ right from the beginning for I am a very old member with quite a few posts. But once those will be out (in a year or so) I will have a very difficult time to keep my hosting.