only kids watch cartoons

i dont find that funny at all, if it said tranny maybe...

people laugh at wierd things.

this.

awesome place to have a house (left hand side):

glacial cirques and hanging valleys get me hard.

Woohoo,

Check this site out: http://glcfapp.umiacs.umd.edu:8080/esdi/index.jsp

If you can get hold of some Open Source GIS or Image processing software you could even make you own satellite images by combing the different bands! (like below, a Landsat ETM+ false color composite of Nepal)
 
It's not 3d but it has ASTER and Landsat ETM+ which far exceeds the old Landsat TM imagery and Shuttle Radar Topography Mission data that guy is using. Cool site though

Alternatively, download Nasa Word Wind.

Hmm, didn't some dirty big asteroid hit Spain a long time ago? That would be about the location you'd need. Though i'm assuming that you don't take subduction (plate tectonics) into account, or do you think the asteroids exacerbate it's effects?

Great minds.

If you sincerely believe the universe was not created with humans in mind, why was Earth created? Why did it have every possible condition that is suitable for human life to live in, while no other planet seems to?  If you believe humans are not the only intelligent lifeform in the universe, what exactly other kind of lifeforms do you think would be out there in the universe?

Life and the environment found on Earth do not mesh by coincidence, and you have your causality reversed.

It is not the environment of earth that conforms to the needs of life, rather it is the function of life to conform to the features of the available environment. As a single example, if the Earth were too hot for the proteins currently present in our bodies, the organisms on earth would be composed of different proteins.

Life adapts to fit the niche, not the other way around.

Evolution is not the same thing as coincidence. Evolution is a process of incremental refinement of living systems measured against their successful interaction with their environment. After millions of generations, it is no surprise that this process of incremental refinement would result in organisms well suited to the environment of Earth.

Finally, the "Environment of Earth" is a vastly variable theatre in which life makes its way. There are organisms which function under terrestrial extremes of temperature, pressure, light and darkness that would easily kill organisms from other terrestrial environments.

A given living thing is not perfectly suited to life on the whole Earth - only in a very small subset of the Earth's environmental scope. Yet, the entire Earth, with the exception of the most hostile parts of it's core and the most rarefied heights of it's atmosphere, is home to life.

Also, The 'Goldilocks Proposition' is utter nonsense.
The Earth is not perfectly suited for life. Quite the reverse, life is perfectly suited to Earth.
At least, the kind of life found on Earth is; who knows what kind of life might be found on other planets in the universe? If there is any at all, it would have to be suited to that (or those) planet(s), and may well be totally unsuitable and so unable to survive on Earth.

And, from our perspective, our whole reality seems so "perfectly suited" for us to live. But, is it really? Would an intelligent designer create so much useless space? Why send comets and meteors to the Earth to wipe out millions of species if it's all so "perfectly suited?" Why have disease and painful death? Why does childbirth hurt? Why are our bodies so fragile? Why do some animals eat others? If I was designing a life-sustaining habitat, I would certainly make it more hospitable than this one.

You do that and live your life in ignorence you pillock.

Infact, after reading all your posts that is the only conclusion I can draw - you're simply not intectually equiped to deal with science.

Sweet...good luck, hope you've got good supervisors.
Where are you studying?
Ideas for your Ph.D?...continuing in geomorph?

yeah, just up in Auckland.

tectonics, orogens, glaciers, and drainage basins, catchment lithology - that kinda stuff.

bridge the gap between landscape and process based disciplines.

Did you even read what I said about the accuracy of surveys? They only survey a small amount of people Unless of course they get their results from the cencus or something. Only 32% don't have a religion? It's not much, and even then just because someone doesn't follow a religion doesn't mean they don't consider themselves spiritual and/or believe in God, take me for example - I'm not religious but I still believe in God, or atleast pretty damn convinced so far..

IT WAS A FUCKEN CENUS YOU IDIOT.

1/3 of the country think you are full of shit.

biye.

Really? So a survey, done in ONE country, in 1996, 12 years ago, is supposed to be evidence that belief in God is dying out?

Something newer and closer tome home then?

The latest census figures show the number of people who say they have no religion is significantly growing in New Zealand. If the current trend continues, New Zealand could officially become a majority non-Christian nation by the next census. The latest census figures show that over a quarter of a million more Kiwis now consider themselves to have no religion than did in the previous census, which equates to one in three New Zealanders.

Census figures from 2006 show 32% of New Zealanders now consider themselves to have no religion. The number of Christians dropped 5% to 2.1 million. Anglican numbers dropped by 30,000 and the number of Presbyterians dropped to less than one tenth of the population for the first time in a century.

If the current trend continues, New Zealand could officially become a majority non-christian nation by the next census.

But let me guess, you don't trust the government either?

And that's a only very small fraction of them. Would you like to see more?

please do.

So to you, the opinion of some first year students are more credible than that of some of the greatest scientific minds in modern and recent history?

Copernicus believed in the occult.

Newton believed that you could lead into gold.

Darwin was not religious, once again he was agnostic.

Einstein was agnostic, he did not share the concept of a personal 'god'

None of this matters? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Debating with people like you is like pissing into the breeze.

I don't know where you heard religion is dying, but it isn't - and a growing number of intelligent scientists around the world are starting to openly admit they believe in God or a  'Supreme and intelligible Creator'

The University of Michigan - "In general, the importance of religion has been declining in the developed world," says Inglehart, "whereas in countries experiencing economic stagnation and political uncertainty, religion has remained strong."

No, they're not.

According to a 1996 survey, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god.This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998. You can find similar studies in nature.

It's difficult for a scientists to openly admit that they believe in God, because it undermines their credibility in the eyes of the scientific community due to the stigma attached to it.

No, it isn't. Any noteworthy scientist(s) has his/her work per-reviewed. Religion has nothing to do with.

His book sucks aswell

Your opinion, it is subjective - flawed from the outset.

I addressed this concept in one of my earlier posts. I don't think many people believe God is ABSOLUTELY perfect (though I could be wrong), when you really think about it how can something be perfection? Something can always be improved in some way. But I'd say pretty damn close to perfection.

god isn't perfect? are you high? omni-present, omni-potent, omniscient.

Wow, a list. For starters Hawkins is agnostic.

Anyway, none of this matters - religion is slowly, but surely dying. Go into first year physics, chemistry, biology or geology class at University and ask who doesn't believe in evolution, who who thinks the earth is 4000 years old, who believes in god. You will get some people - but ultimately they will drop out, or just make shitty scientists and end up working at a council in a trivial role.

So if your god isn't omniscient and omnipotent what is he?

Sorry, I'm having problems following your logic.