It is currently Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:02 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Life in the Universe 
Author Message
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 3696
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Ops, sorry guys, could not get back in in time to edit the pic, Mod, please delete it

_________________
.
Live for ever or die trying


Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:41 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4582
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Why ? it exemplifies your point perfectly/


Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:39 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 3696
Post Re: Life in the Universe
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
Why ? it exemplifies your point perfectly/


:D

_________________
.
Live for ever or die trying


Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:48 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4582
Post Re: Life in the Universe
I think it a tad sexist that Israeli Eurovision entrants don't get to mate very often but I reckon it's best for the species.



Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:07 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4582
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Being flippant I posted that last one, but listening to it it wasn't a bad song at all. This is part of the problem, preconceived ideas. I saught that video on line to add to the thread but I realise that I have just learnt something ... only in a free society can a woman grow whiskers, for that alone we are in Israel's debt.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:17 pm
Profile E-mail
International Player

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:24 pm
Posts: 879
Post Re: Life in the Universe
soap wrote:
Either you mis read or miss understood what I wrote.

The man, what ever his description or age is only relevant in that he enables the best possible conditions for the woman.
It does not even matter if it is his sperm or a passing young stranger with a thong, it is all about the woman.

The important part is that a particular type of woman you are wrongly extrapolating a minority of cases
rather than considering the large majority that is and has been the norm for 100s of millennia.

is attractive to a man who can provide for her to rise the prodigy in the best survival conditions.
That the man is short fat and bald You've wandered away from the subject - how a man's age affects how attractive he is
to a women and baldness being one indicator of age is what we've been discussing
is not relevant at all, the relevant part is that the woman lacks facial hair,
and is more likely to be chosen than a woman with a handlebar moustache.


I'm losing patience with your p1ss poor logic.
Women have for thousands of years had the ability to shave or pluck their facial hair. Here's a secret for you they still do!
So if a man decides that a woman is hairless enough for him to mate with it's no guarantee that his daughters won't grow
"handlebar moustaches". If you think about that maybe you'll see why you're barking up the wrong tree.

You are fixated on insisting that it is the human male that calls the shots. Maybe you are lucky enough to be an Adonis
who sweats sex pheromones that young women find impossible to resist. However if you invest a Saturday evening
people watching those on the pull it should give you an idea of how the world works for the rest of us.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:24 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4582
Post Re: Life in the Universe
I like a woman who smells nice and don't get up my nose. I don't mind hair in my teeth but I sure as hell don't like a deep voice, I prefer my gal's singing soprano.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:14 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 3696
Post Re: Life in the Universe
eog wrote:
soap wrote:
Either you mis read or miss understood what I wrote.

The man, what ever his description or age is only relevant in that he enables the best possible conditions for the woman.
It does not even matter if it is his sperm or a passing young stranger with a thong, it is all about the woman.

The important part is that a particular type of woman you are wrongly extrapolating a minority of cases
rather than considering the large majority that is and has been the norm for 100s of millennia.

is attractive to a man who can provide for her to rise the prodigy in the best survival conditions.
That the man is short fat and bald You've wandered away from the subject - how a man's age affects how attractive he is
to a women and baldness being one indicator of age is what we've been discussing
is not relevant at all, the relevant part is that the woman lacks facial hair,
and is more likely to be chosen than a woman with a handlebar moustache.


I'm losing patience with your p1ss poor logic.
Women have for thousands of years had the ability to shave or pluck their facial hair. Here's a secret for you they still do!
So if a man decides that a woman is hairless enough for him to mate with it's no guarantee that his daughters won't grow
"handlebar moustaches". If you think about that maybe you'll see why you're barking up the wrong tree.

You are fixated on insisting that it is the human male that calls the shots. Maybe you are lucky enough to be an Adonis
who sweats sex pheromones that young women find impossible to resist. However if you invest a Saturday evening
people watching those on the pull it should give you an idea of how the world works for the rest of us.



OK. on your way son. Enough is enough

_________________
.
Live for ever or die trying


Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:43 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 16656
Location: Vancouver Island BC Canada
Post Re: Life in the Universe
soap wrote:
eog wrote:
soap wrote:
Either you mis read or miss understood what I wrote.

The man, what ever his description or age is only relevant in that he enables the best possible conditions for the woman.
It does not even matter if it is his sperm or a passing young stranger with a thong, it is all about the woman.

The important part is that a particular type of woman you are wrongly extrapolating a minority of cases
rather than considering the large majority that is and has been the norm for 100s of millennia.

is attractive to a man who can provide for her to rise the prodigy in the best survival conditions.
That the man is short fat and bald You've wandered away from the subject - how a man's age affects how attractive he is
to a women and baldness being one indicator of age is what we've been discussing
is not relevant at all, the relevant part is that the woman lacks facial hair,
and is more likely to be chosen than a woman with a handlebar moustache.


I'm losing patience with your p1ss poor logic.
Women have for thousands of years had the ability to shave or pluck their facial hair. Here's a secret for you they still do!
So if a man decides that a woman is hairless enough for him to mate with it's no guarantee that his daughters won't grow
"handlebar moustaches". If you think about that maybe you'll see why you're barking up the wrong tree.

You are fixated on insisting that it is the human male that calls the shots. Maybe you are lucky enough to be an Adonis
who sweats sex pheromones that young women find impossible to resist.
However if you invest a Saturday evening
people watching those on the pull it should give you an idea of how the world works for the rest of us.



OK. on your way son. Enough is enough


Leave me out of this fellers!! :D

_________________
"I have to say, I find that offensive toward (insert cause/belief)"

Bit of tough luck for you then, old chap. I really don't give a toss about your perceived sensibilities!!


Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:24 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 3696
Post Re: Life in the Universe
No problem at all with disagreement. I am in the wrong far more often than I like, but there is. No point in doing it if we can not keep it civil

It is passing that point now

_________________
.
Live for ever or die trying


Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:04 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 6702
Post Re: Life in the Universe
This is good.

BBC Radio 4, In our Time. Abiut Extremophiles and their survival.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05zl3v2


Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:47 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 6702
Post Re: Life in the Universe
There is a reading list in the link. I haven't read any of them but slme look interesting.

READING LIST:

Lewis Dartnell, Life in the Universe (Oneworld Publications, 2007)

Cindy Lee Van Dover, The Ecology of Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents (Princeton University Press, 2000)

Franklin M. Harold, In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life's Building Blocks (University of Chicago Press, 2014)

Andrew H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Evolution on Earth (Princeton University Press, 2003)

Nick Lane, The Vital Question: Why is life the way it is? (Profile Books, 2015)

Woodruff T. Sullivan and John A. Baross (eds.), Planets and Life: The Emerging Science of Astrobiology (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

David A. Wharton, Life at the Limits: Organisms in Extreme Environments (Cambridge University Press, 2002)


Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:48 pm
Profile E-mail
thread ruining clique
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:26 pm
Posts: 17439
Location: Dinbych
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Was watching a Neil deGrass Tyson lecture last night, and he made a very interesting point about this topic.

Life began on Earth over 4 billion years ago. Pretty much as soon as it was possible for life to appear, it did so.
And yet, when we trace back the tree of life, it all goes back to one single shared ancestor.
So how come, with four billion years years of life, is there only one starting point? How come there weren't five different starting points?
If life came on a comet, then there was only one comet carrying life to hit Earth, otherwise there would be more beginnings. If life happened spontaneously, it happened in only one place on Earth, despite having four billion years to find those conditions a second time.
Why?
There is no answer to this question, as yet, but it's an interesting point.

_________________
Can't you see? It all makes perfect sense.
Expressed in dollars and cents, pounds shillings and pence.


Sat Jan 21, 2017 5:00 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 6702
Post Re: Life in the Universe
spinbreath wrote:
Was watching a Neil deGrass Tyson lecture last night, and he made a very interesting point about this topic.

Life began on Earth over 4 billion years ago. Pretty much as soon as it was possible for life to appear, it did so.
And yet, when we trace back the tree of life, it all goes back to one single shared ancestor.
So how come, with four billion years years of life, is there only one starting point? How come there weren't five different starting points?
If life came on a comet, then there was only one comet carrying life to hit Earth, otherwise there would be more beginnings. If life happened spontaneously, it happened in only one place on Earth, despite having four billion years to find those conditions a second time.
Why?
There is no answer to this question, as yet, but it's an interesting point.


Not sure if you listened to the link I left above, but I would seriously recommend having a listen, they look into this question

One of the answers is that there may have been numerous forms of life which became extinct but once one became established it limired the ability of others to suceed.

The show is very interesting and probably gives the best summary of where credible science is at the moment in this area.


Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:30 pm
Profile E-mail
Regional Player

Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 2:38 pm
Posts: 633
Post Re: Life in the Universe
The flat earth theory??
Anyone had a look at this? Just got my attention leading up to Christmas, I looked at it with an open mind, a lot of it makes perfect sense.
They say the earth is flat and round like a disc, with the North Pole at the center, and Antarctica all round the edge. Having looked at it in depth from both sides, the flat earth theory seems a lot more credible than the ball earth theory we are all brought up with.
A stationary flat earth as opposed to an earth that spins at 1040 mph, and rotates around the sun at 67,000 mph, while the sun travels 500,000 mph around the milky way, and then the milky way is said to be travelling at 670,000,000 mph through the universe, mind boggling numbers and very hard to believe.


Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: