Comments

Sure metals can be recycled but there is something to be said for saving the energy it would take to heat 5650 lbs of titanium to 3000F+ to melt it down.

"But they can't shoot back. There is NO HONOR in that." You want to talk about honor? These guys were setting up IED's meant to kill a few unsuspecting soldiers probably on a fuel supply mission. FYI you can't shoot back when a roadside bomb goes off. As you can see the bomb could have killed anybody, maybe a bunch of kids walking to school. Also, when somebody IS shooting at you, you are not concerned that you are in a fair fight. This is not some dumb video game where you respawn in 10 seconds. If you actually listen to the video you would realize that target acquisition and actually firing is not even done by the same people that guide the missile to the target. That is a long cry from everybody's perception of robots going rogue and killing us. If you really think every vehicle in a war zone needs to have a human driver then step right up and enlist.

The unit in the article is tonnes or metric tons, not cubic tons, so that should make more sense. Don't feel like doing the math but I saw somewhere that a person would need about a coffee mug of regolith per day to be converted to oxygen.

I'm sorry but you both missed my point. I never implied that evolution is as universally obvious as gravity or that I have personally observed and repeated what creationists call macroevolution. What I will stand by is that there is scientific evidence that evolution has occurred and is occurring. Does that mean that it is absolutely correct? No. Does that mean it shouldn't be taught? Of course not. Many people here have taken the technically accurate stance that things can only be disproved, but that doesn't mean we completely abandon trying to learn anything. If you take that same technical stance, both evolution and creation will never be proven. But as of right now, only evolution has scientific evidence to support it. This scientific evidence stands on a framework of observation, not faith. You both make the mistake of believing that "an assumption is an assumption is an assumption". Assuming that something you have observed your whole life to be true, and that everyone else in history can and has observed to be true, is true, is not much of an assumption at all. Assuming that something is true that you and most if not all people have never observed is quite a large assumption. That is as basic an argument as I can make.

@Bagpipes Look up religion and science in a dictionary. I'm sure what you will find will easily substitute for my definition. @wcbpolish Hahaha it did end up being a little longer than planned. I was late but so was everyone else because of rain. Holyman would claim this was the big guy in the sky looking out for me. I'll chalk it up to the weather. To everyone that is so intent on poking holes in evolution, you shouldn't throw rocks when you attend a glass church. I'm sure there are some minor disagreements in the scientific community over the details of evolution. These squabbles by the way are far more specific ideas than what you would learn in your typical science class. The disagreements in religion are immense. Cultures have gone to war because of disagreements as simple as Isaac or Ishmael. WAR. When we see scientists taking up arms to decide their disagreements over the finer points of evolution in battle I will admit that maybe evolution should be dropped from the science curriculum until things are worked out. Since the religion of choice in this discussion seems to be Christianity, look at the differences in different brands of Christianity. Do all the Christians here besides holyman (I know he does), believe that they are 100% right? How do you explain the church that says you are only 95% right? What about the mosque or temple that says you are only 50% right and 50% wrong? What about the polytheist that says you are 99% wrong? If your own affairs were in order, you would have less trouble from former deists like myself, who find it hard to believe in something, when even the most devoted can't agree on what to believe. I am not rabidly anti-religious. I am not going to cry about the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance or on public monuments. I won't even hop over to popreli.com and defend science's incursion into the church. Religion is not necessarily the sworn enemy of science, but it can be. Look at the Muslim world which used to be the most technologically advanced. Real quick, name an important technological advance or scientific finding to come from the modern Muslim world. (I know holyman, it's because Islam isn't the one true religion or whatever) Do I think that the same thing will happen to the U.S.? No. However the easiest way to prevent anything similar even on a much smaller scale is to keep religion out of science class.