Mars Farms: Newsletter Challenge (September 2015)

You nailed the logic of the settlers. You even indicated the basis of why they were probably wrong - the total insolation through the summer is higher in the southern hemisphere than in the north, so you would lose more in growth-rate than you would gain in duration.

And this is assuming that the settlers can build insulated greenhouses that maintain the plants at similar growth conditions - if there is a temperature difference, the southern hemisphere would be even more attractive.

There's only one possible reason: the day-period of the mars rotation is !equal! to the year period of the mars rotation around the sun (like moon to earth) and the Northpol of mars looks toward the sun!

Agriculture in Mars is very expensive,keep soil,water & air clean in our planet and live happily. Forget politics and think of mankind's survival.

"mankind's survival" is precisely why it is important to learn how to survive on Mars. There is no guarantee that we (without catastrophic events) will be able to control the population here on Earth. There is considerable room for debate on what the sustainable population may be, but there is definitely a limit. Whatever that limit may be, if we exceed it, the Earth will, sooner or later, become uninhabitable, or at the very least, nature will limit the population one way or another, and that is not likely to be a pleasant occurrence.

Thank you for the reminder! I have marked all of the political commentary in this thread as off topic. Please, let's stick to the original question from here on out.

(And if you still want to talk politics, try the Break Room.)

this will happen too if mankind (not only one or two people) starts yourney to mars!

the rockets will be needed kill the earth sooner than living without a yourney to mars - be sure that is the reality!!!

"Mankind's survival?"

I think everyone should know by now that no one gets out of (or off of) this Earth alive! If man was predestined to live on another planet, some would have been born there with the type of body to be able to survive and thrive in the atmosphere and it's conditions.

Besides, it is not man who is in charge of sustaining life on Earth. We did not get ourselves here, nor are we responsible for making sure we stay here, or that we survive elsewhere. We are just tenants on borrowed land, and time.

The Earth was designed to support all who will ever live here. It always has, and it always will for as long as it has been determined. We (man) have no part, or say about any of these things. It's like a tenant who rents a house to live in. They do not have the authority to tell the Landlord how many people can live in said house over time, or how long that house shall remain in existence. It is not their decision. They are just there as a tenant. Someone who is passing through.

Oh, I'm sorry, you want the Church, not an Engineering forum. It's just down the road a bit, big building with lots of stained glass windows.

Not at all, lets just look at the facts. When in the history of the Earth has it ever been over populated without enough resources? And it has been around for how many years? If the dinosaurs didn't eat everything up millions of years ago and it is still providing for the almost 7 billion people today, why would someone even begin to think that that it isn't going to continue to provide for all who are here? Who can walk out of their house today and not plant something in the ground to grow in the right season? People with this mentality are people without hope, and neglect to look at the facts of truth. The evidence written in the book of nature itself. We do have people who are starving in this world, but that's not because there isn't enough food, or because they can't get it to grow. But rather, it's because of oppressive governments who keep their people down.

Also, we must realize that discussions sometimes takes us down roads into subjects that are side bars, but very much part of the main topic. There are many, many different angles of this topic, which in and of itself is on the very edge of engineering, if at all. No different than the one I responded to originally.

Your trolling has been duly noted and duly reported.

Thank you. If your going to ask the 'out of this Earth' questions, then you need to be prepared, and realize that your probably going to have the 'out of the Earth' answers. If you blog something down with such a strong negative opinion, then you open the door for people to question it, and reply. If you think that is trolling then you are as single minded as the one who writes about a hopeless end to the dying world.

Narrow-mindedness and single-mindedness are two completely different (and probably diametrically opposed) things.

Cosmology, religion, etc. is a really touchy subject when all we want to do is go "pollute" another planet in order to facilitate our invasion of the planet. Not scary stuff, unless one reversed the perspective to an invasion of our home planet by another species of being that does not thrive on our current system of air and water and sunlight.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

Do you have any idea of the significance of an exponential curve (or even what an exponential curve is)?

It took millions of years for the population of the Earth to reach 1 billion people, just before 1800. It took roughly 130 years to reach 2 Billion just before 1930, then it took only 30 years to reach 3 billion people in 1960, 14 years to reach 4 billion around 1974, another 14 years to reach 5 billion around 1988, 11 years to reach 6 billion in 1999, and around 12 years to reach 7 billion in late 2011 or early 2012.

Fortunately, the growth rate has dropped, mostly due to education, but sooner or later, it must reach zero.

As I said in an earlier post, there is plenty of room for argument about what the limit should be, (mostly dependent on what quality of life we are willing to accept and our ability to grow food on increasingly depleted soils), but there IS a limit.

Of course nature will take care of it! ...through famine, disease, pestilence, weather, war, etc. And yes, war IS part of nature!

The limiting process will be much less catastrophic if we do our part now.

I do know what an exponential curve is, and although you can estimate what the growth rate of the population may be at some point in time, you cannot calculate what Earth will, or will not put out as far as resources go. You impose that there is a limit as to what Earth can produce. How can you prove it? An exponential growth curve formula will not calculate it because it is an immeasurable variable. No one can claim they know, or can prove in any way, what the maximum output of resources the Earth can produce really is. The only thing that can be stated is we are around 7 billion in population and the Earth is still going strong.

Everything else about a "limit" to what Earth can put out to support a maximum number of people to have a certain "quality of life" is conceived out of racist ideologies and is nothing short of Nazi propaganda. Especially when there is no proof of need for the Earth to put out more resources than what it already does.

Besides that, you say "'nature' will take care of it" as if nature is a cognitive sovereign being with with absolute control for sustaining the Earth. If nature has a plan, then would not nature know it's own resources, and how much to produce? Unless nature is also racist.

As I stated before, we are only borrowing land and time for a very short time. We have no authority, or have never been given knowledge to make such decisions about controlling the Earth in such manors. The only thing we can do is take the knowledge that has been given to us and use it wisely to make the best of our situation on this planet. Everything else is out of our control. If our knowledge grants us the technology to farm on a distant planet, I seriously doubt it would be for the survival of the human race.

GA! You just saved me a good bit of time. I'd have said pretty much the same, using a different set of words.

You see, you have brought what I said the first time to a full circle. That is, no one gets out of, or off of this planet alive. It's as simple as that. We may one day be able to travel to distance planets, but I can pretty much promise you that we will never be colonizing them. It will never be like what you see in the movies. All anyone has to do is just look at our history, and look at what happened at the tower of Babel. Anything else we do on another planet (if at all) is nothing more than science exploration. When this planet ends, it's over! For everyone and everything.

The expression "it's raining cats and dogs" is an idiom, where the expression has a valid meaning to describe something that is actually taking place, but not assumed from the actual words used to describe it. Where as the phrase "nature will take care of it" is an assumption of nature acting as if it has a cognitive brain in which makes this statement more of a metaphor.

Because this planet is living, it does not mean that it can think and control itself. But because it is living, and things are continually growing, we cannot calculate how much it will continue to produce. You may be able to do the math to calculate the actual size of land to maybe see how much food could be grown at any given time. But you cannot determine how many times that will happen. Simply because we do not know how long this Earth will be here.

In fact, we don't even know exactly how much oil is left. Or even if we have found all it. The same goes for gold, or any other resource that earth has produced. All anyone can ever do is hypothesis about these things.

You say "if we could convert the whole planet into 'resources,'" the limit could be calculated. Would that not defeat the whole purpose? Then we would need to find a place to live, and one big enough to also store all of those resources.

"All anyone has to do is just look at our history, and look at what happened at the tower of Babel."

And it appears it's happening again. We are both speaking, but it appears as if we are losing the ability to understand what each other is saying.

Namaste.

Is that like when certain politician's mouths move, and you can't hear anything for the lies being spoken? Just saying.

As far as it all goes, I hope we manage to colonize other worlds, and that they are just as comfy (if not better than) good old Mother Earth. Right now, she is our only mother, we it is not nice to fool around with Mother Nature. She might bite back.

As far as this planet being alive, sometimes it symbolically has some of the characteristics of a living thing, but really, a planet does not meet all of the criteria for being a living (reproducing) organism. That is all I have to say about that.

I saw something the other day about NASA rebooting their innovation program(s) a few years back, and this has begun to really pay off. I sure wish them Godspeed ahead in taking unmanned exploration and manned exploration where it needs to go - to boldly go where no man has gone before.

"- to boldly go where no man ONE has gone before"

Damn it, Jim! That is just not how they said it on Star Trek. You take that back! Be alright with me if most loud mouthed women (and men) would leave to go into outer space, as long as they don't scream into the radio while they are out there.

..and to boldly split every infinitive we find.

Then again, as Engineers, we NEED to split infinitives. there is a difference in instructing someone not to do something, and instructing them to NOT do something.

Don't just do something....stand there.

That's not hard to fathom.

You did indeed take the bait.

Nice. But for some reason a picture of you flogging a horse that has expired, comes to mind. Also... you're encouraging. "They" feed on that kind of energy. It makes them expand and bloat, in direct correlation to the amount of logic set forth. But still good stuff!

When you say "they," who are you referring to?

If that's not being a bigot, or a racist, I don't know what is.

Why all the hate? Nothing I have said can be proven wrong, or inconsistent with real empirical science.

You must be the Gladdys Kravitz of the forum. "Administrator, did you see that! He said something I don't understand, he must be trolling!"

Real logic is based on truth, not fantasy.

"Why all the hate? Nothing I have said can be proven wrong, or inconsistent with real empirical science."

And that's the real problem, you're making statements that can neither be proven right or wrong. They are 'unfalsifiable,' to use the technical term, untestible. If it cannot be tested, if there is no way to find out if it is right or wrong, then it is 'beyond the reach' of science, and belongs with the priests and philosophers.

You seek hate where there is none, except the hate you bring in with you. Nobody here has said you do not deserve to live or thrive, we have just been pointing out that you are not going to find the audience you want to spread your Good Word to here.

If you do not try to preach religion in our science class, we won't try to teach science in your chapel.

See post #35. That's hate talk. Hate isn't always angry, you know.

Have I said anything about religion? I don't see it. So please, show me where I have spoken of religion?

All I have done is pointed out the fact that the Earth's maximum resource limit cannot be calculated. And, that we have not been given the knowledge to know this. I say "given" because no one is born with knowledge about anything. Everything we know, has to be learned and is given to us by someone else.

So for someone to assume that the Earth is going to run out of resources because they don't like the way the world is heading. Or because they fear that their own quality of life may suffer because the world may be a little more crowded than what they would like it to be, is no different than the propaganda Hitler preached on the streets of Germany back in the late 1930's through mid 1940's. The Nazi's viewed the world the same way, and even went as far as trying to exterminate a whole race of people. They also spoke of creating colonies on the moon, and other planets to preserve their view of what the human race should be.

No one should try to determine how many people should live on Earth at any given time. It doesn't matter how it effects your quality of life, because no one has the right to make such decisions for other people. If you think you do than you are no different than the Nazi's.

Also, I stated that we are just living here on borrowed time & land, and that no one gets out of here alive. Do you know anyone who is immortal, or still living since the dawn of man? It is a fact, a 1:1 ratio, that everyone who has ever lived, has died. It's as simple as that. You come with nothing, you leave with nothing.

So, since you are going to die one day, leaving your land and everything behind, you are doing nothing more than borrowing your land. Someone else will be settling on the land you currently reside on now. That is unless you live on land that will one day be torn down and made into city dump, or some other piece of public property of some kind. You will never own it past your last breath.

If you think these are religious statements, then you definitely do not know anything about religion. Which would consist of statements using words like, God, the devil, Heaven, Hell, or what have you. Those are religious words leading to religious statements. Obviously you are reading something more into what I am am saying. Maybe that is your own conscience speaking to you.

[Quote]

"Mankind's survival?"

I think everyone should know by now that no one gets out of (or off of) this Earth alive! If man was predestined to live on another planet, some would have been born there with the type of body to be able to survive and thrive in the atmosphere and it's conditions.

Besides, it is not man who is in charge of sustaining life on Earth. We did not get ourselves here, nor are we responsible for making sure we stay here, or that we survive elsewhere. We are just tenants on borrowed land, and time.

The Earth was designed to support all who will ever live here. It always has, and it always will for as long as it has been determined. We (man) have no part, or say about any of these things. It's like a tenant who rents a house to live in. They do not have the authority to tell the Landlord how many people can live in said house over time, or how long that house shall remain in existence. It is not their decision. They are just there as a tenant. Someone who is passing through.

[End Quote]

Predestination; mankind is not in charge or responsible for his own survival; a 'designed' earth; 'for as long as it has been determined'; Capital-L Landlord. The fingerprints of your Holy Bible are all over your original post, you were just too close to see it, and your denial that there are religious overtones are like a child denying having stolen a cookie while unaware of the chocolate stains around his own mouth. I do not know which denomination you hail from, but your words show you to be of a Creationist, or possibly an Intelligent Designer mindset.

If you deny it, I won't press the issue and force you to repeat the Denial of Peter. Besides, I don't have a rooster handy to crow at the third denial.

And as to post #35, OoBE was playfully mocking *ME* for 'beating a dead horse,' and then paraphrasing the 'Don't feed the trolls' slogan that gets passed around the Internet all the time. The point of that is; there ARE NO 'Trolls,' one person or another may make an inflammatory remark or otherwise 'troll for attention' in the way a fisherman 'trolls for bait,' piloting his boat around trailing a bucket, which collects whatever small fish or drowning worm doesn't get out of the way in time, but nobody 'plays the troll' all the time. It's like the guy who makes the 'not funny man, too soon' joke at a social event, seldom the same guy twice, and during the course of their lives, everyone gets a chance or two to make a mistake and be 'that guy.' It happens, you have your slice of Humble Pie with a side order of Crow, and you move on.

What do Mars colonists eat? Is it Kosher? Just kidding....

First and foremost, no I don't deny it, and never have. But I do deny the fact that I came on here with agenda to spread the "good news." Because I didn't. Nor did I try to hide the fact of my beliefs. It was never asked, but only in smart-alec ways insinuated.

If your a female and my using "man" offended you, no disrespect was meant as that is the term given for our species when used in that context.

As far as "Landlord" goes, that is correct grammar. If I was trying to send a sublime message it would have been "landLord." Think man, think!

Everything else has been explained in my other recent post, and you can go ahead read that as if I was writing it to you also.

If this is not bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, and hate fueled comments, then I don't know what is. And for what? Because I believe in the Law of Cause and Effect and that the Cause has to be an Intelligent Being that is Omniscience, Omnipotent, and Omnipresence known as God, to have been able to create all of this. And because I don't believe that something can come from nothing (science fiction at it's best)? Or because I don't believe that my ancestors were dirty smelling apes?

My response in my original post, just as anyone who responds to a thread is rooted in what I believe, and what I have learned to be the Truth. But I did not respond to share my faith, only to the fact that not you, or anyone can claim that they can calculate the max limit of resources that the Earth can produce. Try to prove me wrong if you can.

In fact try to prove anything I said here not to be true. You can send me a p.m. if you like. I would be more than willing to listen to what you, or anyone else has to say. But if you honestly research any of it with an open mind to reality of what is, and what has to be, based only empirical science with real facts of evidence you find, and not because you have been brainwashed by some institution to look at things a certain way, you too will find the only plausible answer.

It's up to you and no one else.

It is easy to roll yourself up in a thick coat of lies and think you are well covered until you stand in front of 'the mirror' and realize you have only been fooling yourself all long. It will happen to you I promise.

"and your denial that there are religious overtones are like a child denying having stolen a cookie while unaware of the chocolate stains around his own mouth."

I LOVE a perfectly suited analogy!

"If that's not being a bigot, or a racist, I don't know what is."

A bigot is both steadfast in belief and intolerant of other beliefs. I've seen no indication of intolerance here. Even though I disagree with some of your beliefs, I'm quite willing to let you keep them, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me. In fact I'm always more than willing to change my current beliefs if you can show me proof (or even convincing evidence) that I'm mistaken.

I haven't noticed even an oblique reference to race anywhere in this thread.

As adreasler indicated, just because we disagree with you does not in any way indicate that we hate you, or anyone else.

"Real logic is based on truth, not fantasy." Absolutely! ...and you won't find that in those buildings with steeples and domes. Truth means something that can be repeatably proven/verified by anyone having the appropriate knowledge, equipment, and/or facts.

Clearly verifiable facts include that the Earth has a finite surface, a finite volume, and a finite energy source(s). A truth based on those few facts is that there IS a finite limit to the population (human or otherwise) the Earth is capable of supporting.

There is a BIG difference between a belief and a fact. 50 years ago, I thought the Earth was overpopulated, and I still hold that belief, but I can't prove it either then or now, so it remains a belief, not a fact or truth.

You don't see intolerance here?

Then you have chosen to ignore what is obviously right in front of your nose. As there is a lot of suggestive comments for me not to post here. But then again people a lot of people chose to see what they want to see.

So you have outlined and defined what Truth is. You say "Truth means something that can be repeatably proven/verified by anyone having the appropriate knowledge, equipment, and/or facts,"

That definition isn't the best, but we will use it.

Also, you say about Truth is that "...you won't find that in those buildings with steeples and domes."

"So you want the Truth, you can't handle the Truth!" I love that line. The funny thing about that line is that there is a lot of truth to it. People hate the truth. Why? Because it is absolute, and it is convicting, and points out everything else that is not true.

Let's just take a look at a couple of things and see how much truth there is in them, shall we?

What is one of the first things we learn about in science, if not thee first? Is it not the Laws of the Universe? Of those Laws which is the most important? Would that not be the Law of 'Cause and Effect?'

The Law of Cause and Effect states that for every effect there is a definite first cause.

Since you are referring to me as someone who is associated with "buildings with steeples and domes," than I'm going to assume you are someone who is not, correct? With that being the case, then you must be someone who believes that something comes from nothing, and that the whole Universe just popped into existence. Since that is not what they teach in "those buildings with steeples and domes."

If so, then this completely contradicts your definition of Truth. Does it not? If you don't believe in a first cause, then you have to believe that something comes from nothing, which completely defies the Law of Cause and Effect.

Then it is also safe to assume that you are someone who also holds to the belief that your ancestors dragged their knuckles on the ground and were of the hominoid species, or in plain and simple terms, an ape. Correct? If so, then again, this completely goes against your definition of Truth since the Cambrian Explosion completely evaporated Darwin's theory of evolution.

Because of the Cambrian Explosion, it is now proven in the fossil records (something that can be "repeatably proven/verified by anyone") that there has never been any transitions from one species to another of any kind at anytime.

Since the kind of "buildings with steeples and domes" that you are referring too don't teach that kind of science fiction/ fantasy, and you said "you won't find that in those buildings," with that meaning Truth, not fantasy, you have kind of put yourself at odds with the Truth wouldn't you say?

Keep in mind, I never once came on here to talk about religion, insinuate it, or force any kind of beliefs on anyone. I have never brought it up. But it has been insinuated by you and others that I was. Even without me ever even mentioning any religious phrases that would even point to it. But since the cat has been let out of the bag, and you cannot put it back in. I do believe in absolute Truth, that is rooted in evidence, and backed up by facts. What you, or anyone else cares to believe is completely up to you and I really don't care. We all will answer for ourselves. And just because you may not hold the same beliefs as me, that does not make me wrong and you right, or vice versa. But in the end if your right and I'm wrong, well I will have nothing to lose at all. But if I'm right, the Bible is right, and the Law of Cause and Effect is right, then you will have lost everything with great consequences.

It's Friday, it's near quitting time, and I don't have the time or energy to go after the inaccuracies and logical flaws here. It's someone else's turn to deal with this.

As for me, I think I will join the Discordian faith today, and partake joyously in a hot dog, thus offending five major religions:

• Cristianity (No meat on Friday)
• Hinduism (No meat)
• Judiasm (No pork)
• Islam (No pork)
• Discordia (No hot dog buns)

(And if you read the Pricipalia Discordia you will find, among many other useful/useless things, that, yes, a new convert to Discordianism is required to offend their OWN religion on the first Friday after converting.)

Wow, you are really ignorant to religions aren't you? I don't mean that in the negative slang way people use the word ignorant, but in it's true definition. And you posted it for the world to see. Heck, if I would have known that I wouldn't have wrote so many words prior and just said "Universe - Law - God." You wouldn't have known any better. So sad.

Just so you know:

• Cristianity (No meat on Friday) (no restrictions)
• Hinduism (No meat) (no beef, they worship cows)
• Judiasm (No pork) (only meat with no blood)
• Islam (No pork) (who knows)
• Discordia (No hot dog buns) (who cares)

First off, Discordianism is a Parody Religion, much like Pastafarians (who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster) or Frisbeetarians (who believe that upon death, one's soul ascends to the roof and gets stuck there, awaiting the Coming of the Man with the Tall Ladder), so that should have been a sign that I was going 'off into left field,' and not being serious anymore.

And you have shown your OWN ignorance with your 'corrections,' both Jewish laws on food (kosher) and Islamic laws on food (halal) consider the pig to be an 'unclean' animal, and unfit for human consumption. And while most Christian denominations limit the 'meatless Fridays' to Lent, some observe the dietary restriction year-round.

Fine, you know what, you win. This looked like it was going to be an interesting thread for discussion, but it's down to just arguing over things that shouldn't even be on this forum. You want this thread, you can have it, I'm outta here.

(Walks out, grabbing one last coffee for the road.)

<<unsubscribe>>

"so that should have been a sign that I was going 'off into left field,' and not being serious anymore."

I figured that much, and I was just poking some fun. Hence my "(who cares)" remark, as I am familiar with such lore's. It was Friday!

As far as meat restrictions for Christians, and Lent goes, that is only Catholics who do that. Most other Christian denominations do not believe in Lent as it is not even in the Bible. As far as food goes, Christ made all foods clean. So those who follow Christ have no restrictions whatsoever. There is no biblical bases for anyone who follows Christ to do that. I'll say one more thing about Christianity, true Christianity is not a religion. But rather, it is living by faith in Christ alone with no religious creed, or creeds at all other than the two commandments Christ gave us.

And yes, Jews have restrictions to pork, as it is an animal that has blood. I am not real familiar of Muslims beliefs on eating, but I am familiar with them not eating pork. My apologies for my "(who knows)" comments to any Muslims who may be reading this thread.

I respect other peoples religions, and belief's. I never came here to discuss these things. I have only responded about my faith because others were being intolerant and kept insinuating in an immature and insulting way, and ultimately asking me to either deny it, or not deny it (seriously?).

There is not a person alive who does not look at things in life, even forum questions and comments, through what they believe. If they don't then they are a liar. In fact, our belief in the origins of the Universe will determine how we live our lives, decisions we make, and the fundamental bases for our moral values. Someone who believes that they will have to answer to an ultimate Judge for all of their decisions and actions will not make the same decisions based on the same reasoning that someone who does not believe that they will have to answer to anyone for anything will.

It is not about who wins, or loses, because in truth, we all have lost on this one, and those who read this in the future will be thinking the same thing. Besides, the forum question was answered in the very first post!

I take exception to your supposed rule about Christianity not eating "meat" on Friday.

(1) the only denomination with a "rule" is the Roman Catholic Church - fish on Friday. (fish is still meat - and it is in remembrance of feeding the multitudes with a basket of five fish and five loaves of bread, also remembrance that Jesus after resurrection ate some fish from his campfire as the disciples returned to shore from fishing.

(2) I eat meat whenever I want to, and I don't discriminate species (much), although I draw the line at skunks, foxes, most possums, and squirrels, as I hate eating any creature that smells really bad, resembles an overgrown wharf rat, or rats with bushy tails.

(3) I refuse to eat camel or any part of a camel.

I noticed that the Oh-possum had the quantifier "most" in front of it. It's good to know you have some grey area regarding them.

Also... someone has to say it... No camel eating? Not even the toe?

Now we are pushing certain boundaries. It depends on the toe, and where it has been, I suppose.

OK ad, my turn.

"So you have outlined and defined what Truth is." The only reason I put a capital "T" on "Truth" was because it was the first letter of a new sentence. If you look, you'll see that I used the word several times with lower case "t".

I'll readily admit that my "definition" of truth was incomplete. Thanks for accepting it...

"What is one of the first things we learn about in science, if not thee first?" Now that is an interesting question! In fact, I first started learning science over 70 years ago, and no longer remember what I learned first. I'll accept your suggestion of "cause and effect".

"Since you are referring to me as someone who is associated with "buildings with steeples and domes," than I'm going to assume you are someone who is not, correct?" Your assumption is reasonably accurate, but...

"With that being the case, then you must be someone who believes that something comes from nothing, and that the whole Universe just popped into existence." Absolutely not! In fact, that statement is pretty much what I think of most religious people. They seem to believe that "God" created the universe (or at least the Earth) in a few days, or some other rather short period of time. Where did he/she/it get the raw materials? Where did he/she/it come from?

"...the Cambrian Explosion completely evaporated Darwin's theory of evolution." Please show me how the Cambrian Explosion (500+ million years ago) "evaporates" Darwin's theory of evolution. That was a period of rapid evolution, not contradictory to it. The scientific evidence (including some recent news out of South Africa) continues to indicate a gradual evolution of Hominids over a period of very roughly 10 million years.

"Because of the Cambrian Explosion, it is now proven in the fossil records (something that can be "repeatably proven/verified by anyone") that there has never been any transitions from one species to another of any kind at anytime." My word! What a twisted logic!

If you deny evolution, then how do you explain the development of new varieties of weeds resistant to Roundup, or new varieties of bacteria resistant to antibiotics that used to be effective?

"I do believe in absolute Truth, that is rooted in evidence, and backed up by facts." Since you capitalize "Truth", I have to assume that you are referring to religious truth. I have seen zero evidence, and zero facts, supporting religion.

I have lived, and continue to live, my life based on the Golden Rule. If all religions followed that simple logical rule, then there never would have been crusades, inquisitions, or ISIS. I was religious when I was young, because I didn't know any better. I've learned a great deal since then, and my current analysis is that religion is negative.

It is obvious that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. Good bye.

(turns to dk as he heads out of the thread)

Thank you, I- I just can't take it anymore from him. He's so frustrating, I can't even get the energy for sarcasm against him anymore. His single-minded belief in his own view of 'Truth' is even worse than giatechnician's clinging to fringe theories to explain generally well-understood principles.

Good luck, I'll keep the coffee warm for you.

"If you deny evolution, then how do you explain the development of new varieties of weeds resistant to Roundup, or new varieties of bacteria resistant to antibiotics that used to be effective?"

microevolution, because macroevolution cannot be supported by the fossil records.

Darwin had an excuse. In his day, fossil transitions were relatively scarce and the science of genetics had not yet evolved. As such, he speculated that bears might naturally evolve into whales.

"I have to assume that you are referring to religious truth. I have seen zero evidence, and zero facts, supporting religion."

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20)

"You did indeed take the bait."

Yeah, I know, guess it was just my turn to hold the Idiot Ball.

At least you are not holding the idiot ball while riding the shortbus.

dk: Do you suppose the actual growth curve is truly exponential? I did not plot your data to check, but many biological growth curves follow the familiar S-shaped Sigmoid curve where the rate increases to an inflection point, then the rate decreases beyond that and approaches zero asymptotically.

For example, in aqua-culture of algae, one would not want to begin harvesting at the point of near zero increase, but rather should continuously harvest the algae at a point coinciding with the maximum rate of new cells being produced, thus maximizing the mass of material recovered from culture. This also helps to maintain the culture in a more healthy state - less die-off, less putrid bacterial intrusion (unless one had a very good reason for wanting putrefaction to take place).

As to human culture continuing to maintain a growth rate, we shall see, but it appears that having reached the point in human understanding where the Fermi Paradox does apply (that we now have the ability of auto-eradication by use of nuclear weapons, or other mass destruction), and we apparently lack the will to stop mad-men from possessing such weapons, I consider that it is only a small passage of time until the heaven we know here on earth will become a hell of death, putrefaction (if indeed the bacteria can survive along with flies and maggots to spread them), and emptiness. What a waste of the good that either God or evolution, or evolution in the hands of God created.

This is one of the things that contributes to a general sadness in my heart for mankind - the inhumanity of man against man.

Sorry - I got sidetracked.

Since I said: "Fortunately, the growth rate has dropped, mostly due to education, but sooner or later, it must reach zero." (emphasis added), clearly the most recent part of the curve is no longer exponential. Also, there have been dips in the curve in the past, due to plague, famine, the little ice age, etc.

Much of what I said was based on this graph from Wikipedia:

It should be obvious that the curve can not continue to be exponential! The important questions are when will the point of inflection occur (or perhaps when did it occur), and which of the many possible causes will be the principal cause of that downturn. Based on quite a few years of observation, I seriously doubt if a sufficient fraction of the world's population will ever be sufficiently educated to allow mankind to make that decision. Thus whatever it is that does cause the significant bending of the curve downward is not likely to be a pleasant event.

I suspect the terminus of the curve will be a Delta Dirac function downward, a singularity, an end to all things human, and possibly otherwise for life on Earth.

As mentioned before we have definitely reached the point in time referred to as the Fermi Paradox. If God had dice, I think he would roll them now.

Now, getting back to farming Mars. We did that already, it is called West Texas, and riding the school bus (long version) through the morning sand storms with red sand blowing across the highway reminded me of a possibility of living on a red planet (not a read planet), and so I did, at least, imagine that me, my family, and all my neighbors did in fact live on Mars (or something similar), of course it was easier since there was ample air and back then, ample water.

If man lands in moon/mars he will pollute it like earth at the same time there will be border clashes between countries which land in moon/mars.Earth is our example.

Actually I believe one of the goals would be to pollute Mars with greenhouse gases to raise temperatures up to support liquid water. (Earth is our example).

I could agree with you more, and I could not disagree with pnanabanana more.

Indeed, and GA!