Tremulous Forum
Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: Anansi-Sama on April 17, 2007, 08:55:32 pm
-
It's self explanatory. I'm just posting this to say that the U.S. kicks extreme ass. 8) 8)
-
(http://triptronix.net/ishbadiddle/images/FLAMEWAR.gif)
-
yes, u can have ur war hungry bush and other crap politics, dont be a bloody lamer..
-
will you post some pics of extreme asses?
-
i watched a stand up once. quite funny, his words not mine (more or less):
-"usa says it always is trying to unite the world, well they have"
-"really, whats it called?"
-"the rest of the world"
-"hu..."
-"yea, we even have our own flag"
-"really, wats it look like"
-"oh, its the same as yours... but, on fire"
-"oh..."
dont think he ment to be insulting or any thing, but quite funny (more funny if you see it)
-
Why should there be flames? Only children play with fire. God Bless America indeed, and Canada, and Brittain, and ...
-
i watched a stand up once. quite funny, his words not mine (more or less):
-"usa says it always is trying to unite the world, well they have"
-"really, whats it called?"
-"the rest of the world"
-"hu..."
-"yea, we even have our own flag"
-"really, wats it look like"
-"oh, its the same as yours... but, on fire"
-"oh..."
dont think he ment to be insulting or any thing, but quite funny (more funny if you see it)
I like it :P
-
It's self explanatory. I'm just posting this to say that the U.S. kicks extreme ass. 8) 8)
Now, economically, indeed. However, please don't tell me you are laughing over the thousands of lives lost just because the USA is "kicking ass". That would be terrible desensitization.
-
I love my country and all, but don't bring your fucking god into the discussion; cause no one likes a freak who talks about his imaginary friend all the time.
-
It's self explanatory. I'm just posting this to say that the U.S. kicks extreme ass. 8) 8)
Now, economically, indeed. However, please don't tell me you are laughing over the thousands of lives lost just because the USA is "kicking ass". That would be terrible desensitization.
Economically, the governments debt is at 8.8 trillion (now that's some fucking money, no?) and continues to rise. Manufacturing continues to shifts to countries with cheaper production, and buyouts from oversea's companies are threatening the stability (if that can be applied here, more like hanging-on-the-cliff-edge fragility) of the US producers. Exports are low, imports very high. The day that the US has to pay a call loan to a major American lender, such as Japan, you guys are fucked.
-
Economically, the governments debt is at 8.8 trillion (now that's some fucking money, no?) and continues to rise. Manufacturing continues to shifts to countries with cheaper production, and buyouts from oversea's companies are threatening the stability (if that can be applied here, more like hanging-on-the-cliff-edge fragility) of the US producers. Exports are low, imports very high. The day that the US has to pay a call loan to a major American lender, such as Japan, you guys are fucked.
So wrong. I don't want to get too involved in this discussion, because I think it's so laughable. I am, however, inclined to correct a few errors here and there.
Plague, are you familiar with the term "stocks and bonds?" Take any economics class, and you will become intimately familiar with the term. The United States debt is almost entirely a debt to their own people. (And corporations.)
Pretty sure we don't owe Japan anything. (except for maybe Nagasaki and Hiroshima... :D )
-
I like how that thread can be found very close to that other one:
http://www.tremulous.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4386&start=30&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
Interesting don't you think? 8)
-
I love my country and all, but don't bring your fucking god into the discussion; cause no one likes a freak who talks about his imaginary friend all the time.
Ah, an atheist. Now I could spend my precious time arguing with you about the existence of God, but since His existence must be taken on faith, that would be pointless. Allow to just say this. When I die, if I am wrong, I will simply cease to exist. I have lost nothing by believing in God and Heaven and Hell, because according to atheism, I am merely an accidental collection of chemicals and electricity anyway. But when you die, when you are proven wrong, you are still going to have to bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Then you will go to hell and burn forever.
To sum it up for you, if I'm wrong, I lose nothing. If you're wrong, you lose everything. I think my side of the bet is actually less risky in the long run, even though it means I have to run into assholes like you whilst in the world of the living. 8)
-
Btw, wouldn't using the name of a major african god make you burn in hell later ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anansi Just asking ;)
And when you have the time, the Neil Gaimannovel Anansi boys is very good, read it.
-
Btw, wouldn't using the name of a major african god make you burn in hell later ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anansi Just asking ;)
And when you have the time, the Neil Gaiman novel Anansi boys is very good, read it.
No, using the name won't send me to hell. And Anansi Boys is really good. :D Actually the name Anansi is my pen name because of my Ashanti heritage. It's pretty gnifty. My mom's name is the same as a popular children's book's protagonist, Charlotte the Spider. She uses the spider as her symbol when she's marking books that she's lending to her friends and stuff. So that makes me "son of a spider". Anansi is a spider. Cool connection there, huh? Then my mom has always said she is probably Ashanti, from the limited information she has about her heritage. Where do Anansi legends originate? The Ashanti. I'm a storyteller, and Anansi is Keeper of the Stories. I figured that there was no more fitting a pseudonym for me than Anansi.
Also, it is debated whether Anansi is actually an African god in their mythos, or if he is a character similar to Hercules- son of a god, so just a man, but with unnatural abilities. He is the son of the sky god Nyame, according to the stories, and he was such a pain in the ass :wink: that Nyame turned him into a spider. But good question anyway. I was waiting for someone to bring that up. Neil Gaiman is a genius, is he not?
-
i watched a stand up once. quite funny, his words not mine (more or less):
-"usa says it always is trying to unite the world, well they have"
-"really, whats it called?"
-"the rest of the world"
-"hu..."
-"yea, we even have our own flag"
-"really, wats it look like"
-"oh, its the same as yours... but, on fire"
-"oh..."
dont think he ment to be insulting or any thing, but quite funny (more funny if you see it)
I may not agree, but that's worthy of a few chuckles. I clap.
-
But when you die, when you are proven wrong, you are still going to have to bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Then you will go to hell and burn forever.
I would rather burn in hell then serve a vindictive god who punishes those he creates for not being capable of knowing his existence. And as a bonus, hell does not exit, god does not exist, and Jesus was a man who died, so I ain't got a lick off a pixie stick to worry about.
-
I would rather burn in hell then serve a vindictive god who punishes those he creates for not being capable of knowing his existence. And as a bonus, hell does not exit, god does not exist, and Jesus was a man who died, so I ain't got a lick off a pixie stick to worry about.
Don't worry son, god still forgives you.
P.S. = If you die and find out that hell really exists and you're going there, meet me by the front gate ;)
-
Atheism is a religion in its own.
Kinda.
NiTRoX, if I see you there, I will thouroughly kick your ass.
I am an athiest, to a degree; I do not follow any religion, I follow my own god, not your god. I do believe in spirits and the like, I should say demons, and I do believe in a god, just no god written in any bible or text.
-
atheist:
one who believes that there is no God. (atheism)
religion:
a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.
atheism != religion
-
Waited till I post to contradict what I said, huh?
I'll say it again, bastard.
sleekslacker,
You call us immature, yet you continue to personally attack us and ridicule us, what is your problem? You say this sin't slander, but infact it is.
You must be at the mental age of a preschooler.
Hypocryte, stubborn, bullheaded, and biased are all words that could be used to describe you.
For the last time, fuck off.
For those of you who do not know what I am talking about, I am referring to his signature. That is a publicly posted portion of a private message. The key word in "private message" is "private". You and NiTRoX apparently do not have the capasity to understand that.
You're about to get gang-banged, my suggestion: don't come back.
-
Let's all flame the US gun laws.
Americans, you have the freedom to shoot each other!
-
Btw, wouldn't using the name of a major african god make you burn in hell later ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anansi Just asking ;)
And when you have the time, the Neil Gaiman novel Anansi boys is very good, read it.
No, using the name won't send me to hell. And Anansi Boys is really good. :D Actually the name Anansi is my pen name because of my Ashanti heritage. It's pretty gnifty. My mom's name is the same as a popular children's book's protagonist, Charlotte the Spider. She uses the spider as her symbol when she's marking books that she's lending to her friends and stuff. So that makes me "son of a spider". Anansi is a spider. Cool connection there, huh? Then my mom has always said she is probably Ashanti, from the limited information she has about her heritage. Where do Anansi legends originate? The Ashanti. I'm a storyteller, and Anansi is Keeper of the Stories. I figured that there was no more fitting a pseudonym for me than Anansi.
Also, it is debated whether Anansi is actually an African god in their mythos, or if he is a character similar to Hercules- son of a god, so just a man, but with unnatural abilities. He is the son of the sky god Nyame, according to the stories, and he was such a pain in the ass :wink: that Nyame turned him into a spider. But good question anyway. I was waiting for someone to bring that up. Neil Gaiman is a genius, is he not?
He he, good pseudo choice indeed. Well, watch out for the birds then ;)
-
Atheism is a religion in its own.
Kinda.
NiTRoX, if I see you there, I will thouroughly kick your ass.
I am an athiest, to a degree; I do not follow any religion, I follow my own god, not your god. I do believe in spirits and the like, I should say demons, and I do believe in a god, just no god written in any bible or text.
Doesn't that make you more of an agnostic?
-
Economically, the governments debt is at 8.8 trillion (now that's some fucking money, no?) and continues to rise. Manufacturing continues to shifts to countries with cheaper production, and buyouts from oversea's companies are threatening the stability (if that can be applied here, more like hanging-on-the-cliff-edge fragility) of the US producers. Exports are low, imports very high. The day that the US has to pay a call loan to a major American lender, such as Japan, you guys are fucked.
So wrong. I don't want to get too involved in this discussion, because I think it's so laughable. I am, however, inclined to correct a few errors here and there.
Plague, are you familiar with the term "stocks and bonds?" Take any economics class, and you will become intimately familiar with the term. The United States debt is almost entirely a debt to their own people. (And corporations.)
Pretty sure we don't owe Japan anything. (except for maybe Nagasaki and Hiroshima... :D )
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2265
http://www.house.gov/tanner/press108-101.htm
And, something I think even you will be able to read and comprehend;
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/
-
Actually the US of A owes China the biggest debt. Can't remember the figure.
-
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2265
http://www.house.gov/tanner/press108-101.htm
And, something I think even you will be able to read and comprehend;
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/
The first link is a year old and quotes a church... I'm sure they have lots of insight into our national debt... :roll:
The second is even 3 years older than the first, and is an estimate for the debt from 2003.
And the third? Once again, old news posted by a noncredible source.
I will agree with you, however, that the recent war in Iraq HAS caused us to up our spending, and thus our debt. It is, however, (and I restate myself again) much more a debt to individuals and corporations inside the US than a debt to foreign countries.
For the future I suggest citing current books written by authors with sufficient knowlege on the topic, rather than just cruising google looking for ammo.
-
Actually the US of A owes China the biggest debt. Can't remember the figure.
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt :P
-
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt :P
Half of those numbers are decreasing, if you'd take the time to actually look at the site. And with a little over half a trillion as our largest foreign debt, it hardly proves a point.
-
Hmm you're right there :). Fact: USA has trillions of debt.
-
Hmm you're right there :). Fact: USA has trillions of debt.
Mhmm. 2 trillion to foreign powers, and 6 trillion to interests inside it's borders. Who was right?
*cough* I believe it was me. Thanx for the unexpected backup, Plague.
-
Pretty sure we don't owe Japan anything. (except for maybe Nagasaki and Hiroshima... :D )
You believe it was you ? :D
You have no right to brag about that.
-
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt :P
Half of those numbers are decreasing, if you'd take the time to actually look at the site. And with a little over half a trillion as our largest foreign debt, it hardly proves a point.
Umm, if you had bothered to look at the Grand Total, you would have noticed that the amount of foreign holders of Treasury Securities has increased by $70 billion. Now that number doesn't seem like a lot, but that's just the amount of debt that foreign nations control, that doesn't include debt in the US.
As for 'hardly proving a point', wait until a foreign debt holder decides to recall their loans. Uh oh. American dollar drops, stocks and assets drop, jobs are lost, government spending on things such as education, medicine, even National Security, all drops.
-
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt :P
Half of those numbers are decreasing, if you'd take the time to actually look at the site. And with a little over half a trillion as our largest foreign debt, it hardly proves a point.
Umm, if you had bothered to look at the Grand Total, you would have noticed that the amount of foreign holders of Treasury Securities has increased by $70 billion. Now that number doesn't seem like a lot, but that's just the amount of debt that foreign nations control, that doesn't include debt in the US.
As for 'hardly proving a point', wait until a foreign debt holder decides to recall their loans. Uh oh. American dollar drops, stocks and assets drop, jobs are lost, government spending on things such as education, medicine, even National Security, all drops.
You are forgetting the trillions of dollars spent on military presence in Europe, during the rebuilding period after WWII. The U.S. has for than paid back her debt to Europe in the time she spent rebuilding all their ungrateful asses (after saving half of them, and kicking the asses of the other half). Wierd how people forget that it was the nice, strong, U.S. dollar that rebuilt Germany and brought it to its current stability. The nice strong U.S. dollar that was only spent in Germany because America was being "World Police" over there.
And about a foreign lender calling back their debts? What about the debts that foreign countries owe to us? You'll find that pretty much everyone in the world except I believe Poland, and a few other countries, owes everybody else.
that doesn't include debt in the US
Duh. Most of the United States debt is to herself. So why does everybody keep citing this as a valid point? The U.S. government owes the people a whole pissload of money. And yet the people are some of the most well off in the world. Often times people cite these debts as one big lump sum, forgetting that the National Debt is composed of thousands of transactions that happen all the time. The debt will eventually be paid off. Until then, the high American standard of living isn't going to suffer.
-
If we are in 8 whatever trillion dollars of debt, then why do we still have the most stable economy in the world? Remember the Depression came because other countries didn't pay back our debt, so really it's your fault.
BTW, the Government is in that much debt, not the general economy. They are not connected in any way. I think if we got rid of those spend-happy Democrooks we wouldn't be in this much debt.
US does rock. I believe in God personally, but I guess you're entitled to your piece of hell if you want it.
______________
Floodbud
-
If we are in 8 whatever trillion dollars of debt, then why do we still have the most stable economy in the world? Remember the Depression came because other countries didn't pay back our debt, so really it's your fault.
BTW, the Government is in that much debt, not the general economy. They are not connected in any way. I think if we got rid of those spend-happy Democrooks we wouldn't be in this much debt.
US does rock. I believe in God personally, but I guess you're entitled to your piece of hell if you want it.
______________
Floodbud
I frickin' love you.
-
Oh this thread is so funny. Forgetting that the economy will crash soon, forgetting that we are losing allies I still want to leave as soon as possible. Consider that in a nuclear war no one has time to figure out who is attacking who so everyone launches at who they think may attack them. That means just about anyone will be launching at least a few missiles at the US. of course all the other mainlands will be glassed slag heaps but the US will be little better. If you want to live to see the year 3000 move to a small island in the pacific.
-
Oh this thread is so funny. Forgetting that the economy will crash soon, forgetting that we are losing allies I still want to leave as soon as possible. Consider that in a nuclear war no one has time to figure out who is attacking who so everyone launches at who they think may attack them. That means just about anyone will be launching at least a few missiles at the US. of course all the other mainlands will be glassed slag heaps but the US will be little better. If you want to live to see the year 3000 move to a small island in the pacific.
*Cough* Um, if you're voting age, may I venture to guess from your highly unamerican attitude and your godless name that you are an aforementioned "Demcrook?"
And if, by some odd chance you aren't voting age... why the fuck are you even posting here? And do you smoke weed? Because that's bad for your health...
-
*Cough* Um, if you're voting age, may I venture to guess from your highly unamerican attitude and your godless name that you are an aforementioned "Demcrook?"
And if, by some odd chance you aren't voting age... why the fuck are you even posting here? And do you smoke weed? Because that's bad for your health...
I find it odd that a name which means "bringer of light" that was given to an angel would be godless. On politics I don't vote for either on one side you have people trying to screw you over and on the other people who manage to do it out of incompetence. And with the current american attitude I am glad not to have it. Also coughing so loud is bad for your health, don't you know you could throw a lung or something?[/quote]
-
Side Point: Its nice to know that there are level headed non-libs on this forum.
Anyways, the few trillion dollars we owe isnt really a lot. We could pay it off in 4 years, max, if we tried. But the government is debting itself for one reason: To increase foreign economies.
If you are posting in here about budget, and yet you yourself have never handled a job, or you yourself have never held down a sturdy budget system, please, speak no more. If you're unsuccessful in your own budget, who are you to speak?
-
How many people really nowadays thinks that GOD is gonna save us? Oh pleaZe, step up from your primitive thought patterns already...
-
IF GOD DIDNT SAEV HIS SON Y WUD H3 SAEV US??!??!??! HA DOASNT INTERVAN3 NOBS!!1!1 OMG WTF
-
32 Murders a day in the US
-
11,000 + gun deaths a year
-
IF GOD DIDNT SAEV HIS SON Y WUD H3 SAEV US??!??!??! HA DOASNT INTERVAN3 NOBS!!1!1 OMG WTF
God saved us by not saving his son. I don't think God will step in on our economy more than necessary (I do believe in miracles). We could get out of debt if we wanted to, but then the rest of the world would have a Gynormous Depression. So we won't, we're too nice. And we can blow you up if we want to (see the Canada vs. USA thread).
God save the president.
_____________________
Floodbud
-
If we are in 8 whatever trillion dollars of debt, then why do we still have the most stable economy in the world? Remember the Depression came because other countries didn't pay back our debt, so really it's your fault.
BTW, the Government is in that much debt, not the general economy. They are not connected in any way. I think if we got rid of those spend-happy Democrooks we wouldn't be in this much debt.
US does rock. I believe in God personally, but I guess you're entitled to your piece of hell if you want it.
______________
Floodbud
I frickin' love you.
We could use a little love around here... :[
_______________
Floodbud
-
I have never seen so much ignorance, and general stupidity contained in one thread, outside of the billion noob pl0x impersonator spam threads.
I'm flaming all of you, and myself for having posted here.
-
How many people really nowadays thinks that GOD is gonna save us? Oh pleaZe, step up from your primitive thought patterns already...
Of course i'm not going to save anyone.
-
i love how everyone's flaming liberals for emptying the treasury, even though the debt started during a republican congress with a republican president. makes you wonder why people are so surprised that america is falling behind in education
ps. there is no god, get over it
-
i love how everyone's flaming liberals for emptying the treasury, even though the debt started during a republican congress with a republican president. makes you wonder why people are so surprised that america is falling behind in education
ps. there is no god, get over it
Wait, wait... don't tell me. You and Al Franken are butt-buddies, right?
-
i love how everyone's flaming liberals for emptying the treasury, even though the debt started during a republican congress with a republican president. makes you wonder why people are so surprised that america is falling behind in education
ps. there is no god, get over it
Just because you don't want to be responsible for your actions, doesn't mean you can walk around saying n00bish stuff like "there is no God"...if no God, how was the Earth created? And if you say the big bang, I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for energy to spontaneously appear (out of nowhere?!) and for no reason expand, and then for no reason turn into matter. There must be a God.
And liberals suck, so there.
______________________
Floodbud
-
i love how everyone's flaming liberals for emptying the treasury, even though the debt started during a republican congress with a republican president. makes you wonder why people are so surprised that america is falling behind in education
ps. there is no god, get over it
Just because you don't want to be responsible for your actions, doesn't mean you can walk around saying n00bish stuff like "there is no God"...if no God, how was the Earth created? And if you say the big bang, I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for energy to spontaneously appear (out of nowhere?!) and for no reason expand, and then for no reason turn into matter. There must be a God.
And liberals suck, so there.
______________________
Floodbud
Please stay off the internet until you have at least experienced life until the ripe age of 25. Saying there is no God is not "noob"; arguing that there is a God by way of a circular argument is. Also, just because you don't personally know a shit licks worth of physics, quantum mechanics, or have never read a single dissertation on string theory, doesn't mean that Joe Schmoe Atheist is as ignorant as you. Please, do not talk about things you do not understand. Read, learn, take a logical falacy class, and then come back and we'll argue about morality, the existence of God, et. al.
Seriously. Get. The. Fuck. Out.
-
I think if we got rid of those spend-happy Democrooks we wouldn't be in this much debt.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Aside from the fact that all the politicians are guilty of it, the greatest increase in government debt has been from Reagan, Bush and Bush, the last of whom was under a Repub controlled congress!
Nice job towing the company line though.
-
To AAaameerica!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUZDsovp5E0)
-
The dow hit 13,000 today.
However much debt your in, your economy is still better than ever before.
-
What the hell is with everyone being so serious about this topic, it was made by a silicon arsonist for morons to fan the flames.
-
i love how everyone's flaming liberals for emptying the treasury, even though the debt started during a republican congress with a republican president. makes you wonder why people are so surprised that america is falling behind in education
ps. there is no god, get over it
Just because you don't want to be responsible for your actions, doesn't mean you can walk around saying n00bish stuff like "there is no God"...if no God, how was the Earth created? And if you say the big bang, I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for energy to spontaneously appear (out of nowhere?!) and for no reason expand, and then for no reason turn into matter. There must be a God.
And liberals suck, so there.
______________________
Floodbud
Please stay off the internet until you have at least experienced life until the ripe age of 25. Saying there is no God is not "noob"; arguing that there is a God by way of a circular argument is. Also, just because you don't personally know a shit licks worth of physics, quantum mechanics, or have never read a single dissertation on string theory, doesn't mean that Joe Schmoe Atheist is as ignorant as you. Please, do not talk about things you do not understand. Read, learn, take a logical falacy class, and then come back and we'll argue about morality, the existence of God, et. al.
Seriously. Get. The. Fuck. Out.
So you're a child molester, then?
circular arguments, where?
It really doesn't matter what you think, God's watching you and guess how happy he must be about you saying he doesn't exist?
And who sez I'm not 25?
___________________________
Floodbud
-
Just because you don't want to be responsible for your actions, doesn't mean you can walk around saying n00bish stuff like "there is no God"...if no God, how was the Earth created? And if you say the big bang, I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for energy to spontaneously appear (out of nowhere?!) and for no reason expand, and then for no reason turn into matter. There must be a God.
I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for a spiritual being to exist and create matter.
-
Please stay off the internet until you have at least experienced life until the ripe age of 25. Saying there is no God is not "noob"; arguing that there is a God by way of a circular argument is. Also, just because you don't personally know a shit licks worth of physics, quantum mechanics, or have never read a single dissertation on string theory, doesn't mean that Joe Schmoe Atheist is as ignorant as you. Please, do not talk about things you do not understand. Read, learn, take a logical falacy class, and then come back and we'll argue about morality, the existence of God, et. al.
Seriously. Get. The. Fuck. Out.
Wow, 100+ words in that post and you didn't prove anything. Lemme see... you flamed him because you think you're older and therefore smarter than he is, you flamed him for his religious beliefs, you flamed him for not being a rocket scientist (Also, just because you don't personally know a shit licks worth of physics, quantum mechanics, or have never read a single dissertation on string theory), you flamed him for NOT SHARING your beliefs (doesn't mean that Joe Schmoe Atheist is as ignorant as you. Please, do not talk about things you do not understand.), and then you put the finishing touches on it by asking him not to even reply (Seriously. Get. The. Fuck. Out.)
Ok, I think I got most of it pretty well summed up. And he's the ignorant one here?
At least he makes an argument for what he believes, and tries to back it up. I'd like to see you make a few claims that are backed up with some form of fact or evidence...
-
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Aside from the fact that all the politicians are guilty of it, the greatest increase in government debt has been from Reagan, Bush and Bush, the last of whom was under a Repub controlled congress!
Nice job towing the company line though.
Hmmm, maybe you should visit the library of congress sometime, take any form of US history class, or at least watch the history channel for God's sake. Does the name "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" ring a bell?
Google it, and then come back here and post your findings on what political party he belonged to, and what the national debt was before and after his presidency.
-
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Aside from the fact that all the politicians are guilty of it, the greatest increase in government debt has been from Reagan, Bush and Bush, the last of whom was under a Repub controlled congress!
Nice job towing the company line though.
Hmmm, maybe you should visit the library of congress sometime, take any form of US history class, or at least watch the history channel for God's sake. Does the name "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" ring a bell?
Google it, and then come back here and post your findings on what political party he belonged to, and what the national debt was before and after his presidency.
Considering he was President during the largest war in history, that is a very weak statement.
-
Considering he was President during the largest war in history, that is a very weak statement.
Take the war out of the equation and he was still the most fiscally irresponsible president in United States history. He took advantage of the Great Depression to push through a lot of crappy legislation and pork spending at the expense of our country.
As for World Wars, FDR should be shot for treasonous crimes. He was told repeatedly about Alger Hiss being a Russian spy, and rather than inprison him, he promoted him. He gave Stalin a firm grasp on Eastern Europe, and is personally responsible for the Cold War (by allowing Stalin so many concessions and not prosecuting spies that were passing nuclear secrets along to the Russians.)
-
So you're a child molester, then?
No, I'm not catholic.
/I'll be here all night folks!
-
Does the name "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" ring a bell?
Google it,
Ok, I googled it. I have found that you had to go back +60 years to tow the party line. Good job.
Hmm, now that I think about it, his Presidency was through the depression, ending in 1945. Just so you know, my grandfather won't eat oatmeal to this day due to the fact that there was NOTHING else to eat for months on end during the depression. I wonder if anything sickeningly expensive occurred at the end of his presidency? Something that may require buying tanks, ships, planes, and shipping a good portion of the male population halfway across the world.
KobraKaine, you should take your own advice and read some history books.
edit: It's really easy to criticize someone, republican or democrat, 60 years later when you are NOT starving!
-
What is this I hear?
I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for a spiritual being to exist and create matter.
He isn't a spiritual being, God has a body of flesh and blood like you and me. He knows more science than I could even begin to comprehend, and he has an incredible amount of knowledge about how to manipulate energy and matter. He didn't create matter - that's impossible. He just brought it from somewhere else to create Earth and all the other worlds.
Might seem like weird beliefs, but they fit in perfectly with the laws of science and matter, and are the only really sensible ideas. I do belong to a religion, but if I said which one you might all laugh at me. My religion is generally considered a "sect" even though it is independent and absolutely not a sect.
Anyways, go get on your knees for half an hour, and if you have a little faith in me (though it sounds strange, supernatural, off the wall, etc) you will get some personal revelation from the Big Man himself.
______________________
Floodbud
-
Wait so now you are saying there is an alien up in space in his ship that made all this stuff just for us and is talking into the heads of his followers for their benefit.
Either
1) This is the biggest cosmic joke ever
2) That is one bored alien
3) You are crazy
4) All of the above
-
No, he brought it here.
-
I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for a spiritual being to exist and create matter.
Well before I answer that question, I need you to tell me how all organisms on Earth came to existence. Don't tell me hydrogen met carbon and then later they found some fancy protein to attach to, and then they became aware of their existance complete with survival instinct. Because that's bullshit. There must have been some order put into the system, because entrophy doesn't allow this thing to happen. Who put that order in ?
-
What put that order in would be the better question.
And if your 'gods' do exist, how were they created?
Oh, and about my question you incorrectly quoted,
[quote="Plague Bringer]
I'll have to ask you to prove that it is even possible for a spiritual being to exist and create matter.
[/quote]
Don't tell me that some mystical being just magically created two people and -continue bible stories here-. Because that's bullshit.
-
Well before I answer that question, I need you to tell me how all organisms on Earth came to existence. Don't tell me hydrogen met carbon and then later they found some fancy protein to attach to, and then they became aware of their existance complete with survival instinct. Because that's bullshit. There must have been some order put into the system, because entrophy doesn't allow this thing to happen. Who put that order in ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
edit: Not just sleekslacker though, this thread is full of it
Attempting a logical argument on an unprovable concept is silly :roll:
-
You made a wrong conclusion there.
What I am saying is that entities that cannot think, decide and adapt to a changing environment, cannot survive. A protein produced by colliding molecules is just an improbable, even impossible occurance. It's only logical to think next that there is/was an entity that is able to think, decide and take action to have made effect so that organisms can exist on earth.
I'm not saying what the bible saying is true. Hell I'm not even a christian. What I'm thinking is:
1) An entity that is not
- non-living things (because they can't make decision and adapt to the environment)
- living things (they didn't exist before some point in time)
has created living things. This entity can think, make decision and take action on its own.
2) That entity existed even before time itself. Something that started living after some point in time needs a creator ( according to point #1). So who is at the end of the line of creators ?
I'll leave who that is to your imagination.
-
You made a wrong conclusion there.
What I am saying is that entities that cannot think, decide and adapt to a changing environment, cannot survive. A protein produced by colliding molecules is just an improbable, even impossible occurance. It's only logical to think next that there is/was an entity that is able to think, decide and take action to have made effect so that organisms can exist on earth.
I'm not saying what the bible saying is true. Hell I'm not even a christian. What I'm thinking is:
1) An entity that is not
- non-living things (because they can't make decision and adapt to the environment)
- living things (they didn't exist before some point in time)
has created living things. This entity can think, make decision and take action on its own.
2) That entity existed even before time itself. Something that started living after some point in time needs a creator ( according to point #1). So who is at the end of the line of creators ?
I'll leave who that is to your imagination.
I can put a few names for your entity. The names are randomness and patience.
Randomness because there is only one chance on a million for life to emerge out of the primal constituents of a nascent world. Patience because you only need to repeat the experience enouth times ( universe is big and there are probably millions of nascent worlds everywhere ) and waiting long enouth for it to succeed.
-
Entropy doesn't work that way. The state of disorder always increases, but only when there is an interaction. Randomness and patience can produce results only when there is something they can work on. So before everything existed, what can they work on ?
According to the big bang theory, the universe expanded from a point mass with certain critical density. Now what created this point mass ? Interaction between quantum particles. How were the quantum particles created ? Some other things interacted with another thing.
You see the pattern. Everything in the universe is always created by interactions by something else. The root of this line of creations must be an entity whose existence cannot be explained in a normal way. When we say existance, usually it refers to an entity who came to exist. The existence I'm referring to above is absolute existence, where the entity has always existed, never came to exist, and will never cease to exist.
Energy fits this criteria, but it always need an external interaction to do work. Without interaction with particles, energy doesn't do anything. When there is nothing but pure homogeneous energy, nothing will happen. But when an entity produces a fluke in the energy, then all kind of things can happen.
-
You see the pattern. Everything in the universe is always created by interactions by something else. The root of this line of creations must be an entity whose existence cannot be explained in a normal way. When we say existance, usually it refers to an entity who came to exist. The existence I'm referring to above is absolute existence, where the entity has always existed, never came to exist, and will never cease to exist.
Sou you are saying something exists before existence, which in itself is such a fallacy of causality. If something exists there is existence, you can't say it exists out of existence because in effect you are not applying the same rules to it as to the rest of existence.
And when you say cannot be explained in a normal way then I doubt it has a good base. Why are people always concerned with the fact that science doesn't have all the answers. Humanity is filling the gaps slowly, and while ,due to probability, we can never understand everything, the knowledge increase has been exponential since we have started gathering knowledge.
Some people however say that all knowledge from holy books like the bible, quran etc, even knowledge that has been proven wrong, is right yet dismiss people who are willing to admit they are still working on understanding it all. And when someone claims they understand it all, but it doesn't coincide with what they think is right they ridicule and attack them as well.
Humanity consists of a whole lot of hypocrisy. And you can state your ideas, but make sure that rules that apply to one thing apply to all things, because otherwise your argument becomes void due to causality.
-
The problem if what came first is only a problem if you consider time to be a straight line. It could along with the other dimensions actually be a very large circle or even more confusing multi dimensional shape such that the end makes the beginning, at that point causality has no basis as any point is both after and before any other point. There was no making or beginning or prime mover it just was there, will be there, and is there.
Also you misunderstand entropy, if you take all matter and energy everywhere there will always be a decrease in order. However if you only look at the objects that are currently interacting this may not be true.
-
Sou you are saying something exists before existence, which in itself is such a fallacy of causality. If something exists there is existence, you can't say it exists out of existence because in effect you are not applying the same rules to it as to the rest of existence.
No. What I said was before something that has a temporary existence like us existed ( We came to existence, we exist, we will cease to exist when we die ), there exists an entity with an absolute existence. It didn't came to exist, it has always existed, and will never cease to exist.
And when you say cannot be explained in a normal way then I doubt it has a good base. Why are people always concerned with the fact that science doesn't have all the answers. Humanity is filling the gaps slowly, and while ,due to probability, we can never understand everything, the knowledge increase has been exponential since we have started gathering knowledge.
What I was saying about that cannot be explained in a normal way was the meaning of existence. We are so used to something that had a beginning that we apply it to existence most of the time.
Science cannot answer nor do everything. Not now, not in the future. We'll never travel in time ( In fact time is our concept to describe the spatial properties of matter as it moves. The concept of time fails when everything stays static and dead). Teleportation of living organisms will never work. You cannot resurrect the dead.
This is not to say science is not useful, it is. To me it is the ultimate tool which we can use to make our life more interesting and easier, but at the same time the tool is limited in what it can do. Although the range and scale of things that it can achieve is vast, it doesn't achieve everything.
Some people however say that all knowledge from holy books like the bible, quran etc, even knowledge that has been proven wrong, is right yet dismiss people who are willing to admit they are still working on understanding it all. And when someone claims they understand it all, but it doesn't coincide with what they think is right they ridicule and attack them as well.
I don't know much about the books and how true they are. I only read one continuously, there is a lot of truths in it, but there are also a few concepts that I find hard to accept. Yes, I am still working on understanding my existence. I've looked at bible, but it contradicted itself after 10 minutes of reading and I considered it rubbish material.
Humanity consists of a whole lot of hypocrisy. And you can state your ideas, but make sure that rules that apply to one thing apply to all things, because otherwise your argument becomes void due to causality.
Be reminded that 'everything' is relative to who you are. Human are limited in what they can do. We can only see electromagnetic radiation of a certain range. What we can measure is also limited. Who knows whatever else existed when we never have the means to detect their existence. If I say there is a possibility that a certain zeta-ray exists, can you deny that it doesn't exist ?
Science starts to fall apart when you present findings of a normal person to a deaf & blind one. He cannot replicate the findings and come to the same conclusion. Now regard us human as the partially blind entity, who will never come to the same conclusion to the perfect truth, because we're limited in what we can sense. Science is a tool, and limited at that. It's not the be all and all.
-
stop talking in double negatives it confuses me. :roll:
-
Funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFuWaJKraBM)
-
Sou you are saying something exists before existence, which in itself is such a fallacy of causality. If something exists there is existence, you can't say it exists out of existence because in effect you are not applying the same rules to it as to the rest of existence.
No. What I said was before something that has a temporary existence like us existed ( We came to existence, we exist, we will cease to exist when we die ), there exists an entity with an absolute existence. It didn't came to exist, it has always existed, and will never cease to exist.
It isn't an entity. It simply is. If anything exists there is existence. Existence cannot create a first existence since it would be the first existence. This is why discussing the origin of existence is out of our grasp atm. We can only deal in negatives, not positives.
And when you say cannot be explained in a normal way then I doubt it has a good base. Why are people always concerned with the fact that science doesn't have all the answers. Humanity is filling the gaps slowly, and while ,due to probability, we can never understand everything, the knowledge increase has been exponential since we have started gathering knowledge.
What I was saying about that cannot be explained in a normal way was the meaning of existence. We are so used to something that had a beginning that we apply it to existence most of the time.
Science cannot answer nor do everything. Not now, not in the future. We'll never travel in time ( In fact time is our concept to describe the spatial properties of matter as it moves. The concept of time fails when everything stays static and dead). Teleportation of living organisms will never work. You cannot resurrect the dead.
This is not to say science is not useful, it is. To me it is the ultimate tool which we can use to make our life more interesting and easier, but at the same time the tool is limited in what it can do. Although the range and scale of things that it can achieve is vast, it doesn't achieve everything.
I do not apply a start to an existence. Nor an end. See first statement for the reason.
Teleportation theoretically might work. Time travel is such a load of philosophy atm that i agree with you.
I'm worried with your last sentence though. You are seeking something to fill a void, but what void. What does it not achieve? A complete understanding? No single being, machine or force can understand or achieve everything if it not is everything.
Some people however say that all knowledge from holy books like the bible, quran etc, even knowledge that has been proven wrong, is right yet dismiss people who are willing to admit they are still working on understanding it all. And when someone claims they understand it all, but it doesn't coincide with what they think is right they ridicule and attack them as well.
I don't know much about the books and how true they are. I only read one continuously, there is a lot of truths in it, but there are also a few concepts that I find hard to accept. Yes, I am still working on understanding my existence. I've looked at bible, but it contradicted itself after 10 minutes of reading and I considered it rubbish material.
Which one do you read? Might have a look at it.
Humanity consists of a whole lot of hypocrisy. And you can state your ideas, but make sure that rules that apply to one thing apply to all things, because otherwise your argument becomes void due to causality.
Be reminded that 'everything' is relative to who you are. Human are limited in what they can do. We can only see electromagnetic radiation of a certain range. What we can measure is also limited. Who knows whatever else existed when we never have the means to detect their existence. If I say there is a possibility that a certain zeta-ray exists, can you deny that it doesn't exist ?
Science starts to fall apart when you present findings of a normal person to a deaf & blind one. He cannot replicate the findings and come to the same conclusion. Now regard us human as the partially blind entity, who will never come to the same conclusion to the perfect truth, because we're limited in what we can sense. Science is a tool, and limited at that. It's not the be all and all.
I cannot deny that it exists, but neither can you prove it. As such it is not worth discussing. If you have a lead, not proof then it might be worth discussing.
If you state it like that anything can exist, and since anything can exist there would be no single entity which could not have been created by a higher entity etc.
But you are stating as a 'blind' person that there must be a higher entity. You are saying because you cannot comprehend it it must be true. That directly opposes responsibility for your statement.
-
Fine then, about your 'god', I cannot deny that it exists, but neither can you prove it. I cannot deny that it exists, but neither can you prove it. So let's stop this discussion.
-
You take all my toys away don't you plague :(
-
Have heard also that there will be 'god' as long as human are not all knowing. When we will be advanced enough, we have no need for 'god'. God only explain things which we cannot explain with faith. And needless to say, those who live only with hope, usually ends up with miserable life, praying that higher power comes and saves them. And what is the usual what happens? Some priest comes and says, 'god has a mysterious ways'.....
You see the irony?
-
You take all my toys away don't you plague :(
Hey, I sent you a map to compile. ;D
-
Which one do you read? Might have a look at it.
I read the Koran. There are a few things I'm not too sure about in it, but there are many science and wonderful subject it talks about. Among other things you can find the description of the planetary system, the meetup between hot water and cold water bodies in the sea and the process in human birth, from a sperm into a complete form. There is a lot of scientifically proven things in it, and I would be surprised and completely awed if the book was really written by recording the ranting of a mad man.
Now I can go back on the topic regarding the Koran/Islam religion and it's hate-hate relationship with the US (Moslem == Terrorists). There are many statements in the Koran ordering the believers to attack the enemies all the way they can. However, it turns out that they are only allowed to draw blood if 1) the enemy chose to draw blood first, 2) the enemy attacked your homeland.
And looking back in history, the USA and UK started this terrorist war themselves. If they had not created any disturbance in Palestine by displacing the Arabs there, nobody would have touched them. Read the history of Israel. It's full of blood and involvements from the big guns. All the peace talk have mostly involved Israel getting a bigger piece of land from the Arabs. I'm not surprised they started bombing the US & UK. You touched their pride, you started the fight. Of course, you can argue that this is strategic in perspective of the US position. But don't blame somebody else when you're the one who started the war.
-
How did we get to freedom fighting/terrorism?
-
This is how the topic derailed:
US-> US economy -> don't fucking bring god into the discussion -> atheism -> will god help US economy if he existed ? -> more talk about god owns all -> someone asking a proof for god existance -> proof of a timeless entity, existence bla bla bla > arguments etc etc -> somebody brought the topic back on US : terrorists.
Hey at least I helped bringing this thread on topic :P. Or I tried.
-
This is how the topic derailed:
US-> US economy -> don't fucking bring god into the discussion -> atheism -> will god help US economy if he existed ? -> more talk about god owns all -> someone asking a proof for god existance -> proof of a timeless entity, existence bla bla bla > arguments etc etc -> somebody brought the topic back on US : terrorists.
Hey at least I helped bringing this thread on topic :P. Or I tried.
There aws no hard core evidence afaik, there wasn't even softcore evidence.
-
We'll never travel in time ( In fact time is our concept to describe the spatial properties of matter as it moves. The concept of time fails when everything stays static and dead). Teleportation of living organisms will never work. You cannot resurrect the dead.
wrong, my good friend. the most famous physics equasion of all time, E=mc^2 (energy=mass times the speed of light squared) along with the theory of relativity, states that time is relative to the space your in, AKA time isn't a constant, it changes just like matter. if you travel close or faster (traveling faster is impossible except through multidimensinal means and rifts in the space-time continum) time will slow down or move backwards, because light travels at a set speed(the fastest of anything), so if you outrun it, you outrun time, and any interactions in the past will alter your time (no crap, thank you countless sci-fi movies and tv shows).
didn't think i was smart, eh?
-
(http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1318/waveusahp5.gif)
-
No. If you travel close to light speed, relative to you everything else will become very slow. The most you can do is stop time, not turn it backward. You outrun time <-- time is actually relative to the person viewing it. You only outrun other's time, which means your time pass slower compared to others. Thus you get space travellers finding their friends and relatives older than they're supposed to be when they return.
You can never outrun your own time, which means you can never go back and meet your younger self. Meeting your younger self in the same time frame means some atoms in your current body exist twice.. which is just... impossible.
Slow down time, yes it can be done. Put time at a halt, maybe it can be done, but this is only relative to you. Other people continue living within their own timeframe. Make time goes backward, no way. That would mean moving all existence in the universe back to the way it was, and then adding some other atoms to create the current you in it. Conservation Law not obeyed here, since energy will be needed to create the current you, while maintaining the same past amount of energy.
Lastly, we are all time travellers, only that we are always travelling forward. Imagine yourself in a car on a highway full of other cars, moving in one direction. Now your car starts going so fast that all other cars appear to be moving backward. Now the reality is the other cars are still moving forward, they only appear to be going backward. The other fact is that your car has went forward, and your past position is now filled with a different car. Now imagine if the highway is a loop, and you drive so fast until you meet the same cars several times in your way ( you went 5 round, and the others still haven't finished 1 round). But you'll never meet your car.
:)
-
Again you are assuming time is a linear function. If you go faster than the speed of light all the things you say cannot happen will happen. Conservation is held because of the huge amounts of energy used in the past of your time frame to essentially create energy in the past of everyone else's time frame, including your old self. The huge amounts of energy is the real stumbling block, by current theory this would not just be a large but infinite amount. Impossible, but not long ago so was going to space, and not long before that flying.
-
you would burn before reaching the speed of light :D
-
Again you are assuming time is a linear function. If you go faster than the speed of light all the things you say cannot happen will happen. Conservation is held because of the huge amounts of energy used in the past of your time frame to essentially create energy in the past of everyone else's time frame, including your old self. The huge amounts of energy is the real stumbling block, by current theory this would not just be a large but infinite amount. Impossible, but not long ago so was going to space, and not long before that flying.
Look, you use that energy to create the past again, but the amount of energy in the past must be the same as the amount of energy in present. You will only have the exact amount of energy to create the past, but you cannot accomodate your time travel ship, yourself, or even your spirit (if that even exist). Energy is not conserved when you create the past, and put a spectator mode for your current self. Even if you destroy your past self and put the current you in the past world, the history already changes because what you are now is not what you are later. Maybe you come to the past and poof, you land right in front of the car instead of crossing the road to safety. Energy must be conserved. Infinite or not, that's not relevant.
There is a lot of misconceptions about FTL speed and relativity theory. Among other things people read about the possiblity of time travel and get so fascinated they forgot to read the actual conclusion of relativity:
Nothing can move faster than light except massless objects.
-
Again you are assuming time is a linear function. If you go faster than the speed of light all the things you say cannot happen will happen. Conservation is held because of the huge amounts of energy used in the past of your time frame to essentially create energy in the past of everyone else's time frame, including your old self. The huge amounts of energy is the real stumbling block, by current theory this would not just be a large but infinite amount. Impossible, but not long ago so was going to space, and not long before that flying.
Look, you use that energy to create the past again, but the amount of energy in the past must be the same as the amount of energy in present. You will only have the exact amount of energy to create the past, but you cannot accomodate your time travel ship, yourself, or even your spirit (if that even exist). Energy is not conserved when you create the past, and put a spectator mode for your current self. Even if you destroy your past self and put the current you in the past world, the history already changes because what you are now is not what you are later. Maybe you come to the past and poof, you land right in front of the car instead of crossing the road to safety. Energy must be conserved. Infinite or not, that's not relevant.
There is a lot of misconceptions about FTL speed and relativity theory. Among other things people read about the possiblity of time travel and get so fascinated they forgot to read the actual conclusion of relativity:
Nothing can move faster than light except massless objects.
Massless objects, huh. Cool. Gonna have to look that shiyat up. But a theory that I find intriguing is that of Quantum Foam. The way super-small scale particles can be created and destroyed is kinda nifty. It brings in a whole new realm of rules. Even the law of gravity doesn't quite apply there.
-
Good question:
If you are driving a car at the speed of light and you turn your head lights on, what happens?
:-?
The light from your head lights should go twice the speed of light, which Einstein said is impossible...
To avoid questions like this,
Nothing can go the speed of light, except light, everything else would disintegrate before it even got close.
This is the direction the thread is going...and time is indefinable considering that we can't touch it, smell it, see it, voluntarily speed or slow our passage through it, etc. We have things like black holes (which apparently bend space-time), and subatomic gravitrons (which do not experience the passage of time)...but nothing provable. Fun to think about...impossible to conclude.
______________________
Floodbud
-
Infinite or not, that's not relevant.
If the energy is infinite, how can you conserve it. It's impossible to waste an infinite amount of energy as it never is reduced. That fact is completely relevant.[/quote]
-
you would burn before reaching the speed of light :D
ummm, no air in space, and thus no friction applying to your craft lol
If the energy is infinite, how can you conserve it. It's impossible to waste an infinite amount of energy as it never is reduced. That fact is completely relevant.
right, you cannot destroy energy, only convert it into other forms
The light from your head lights should go twice the speed of light, which Einstein said is impossible...
how would you drive your car at the speed of light?
edit: on further time to consider how to dispose of this morony, light travels at a set speed and is not effected by the speed of it's scource, only the angle that it is released at, and thus you phail, sir
Look, you use that energy to create the past again, but the amount of energy in the past must be the same as the amount of energy in present. You will only have the exact amount of energy to create the past, but you cannot accomodate your time travel ship, yourself, or even your spirit (if that even exist). Energy is not conserved when you create the past, and put a spectator mode for your current self. Even if you destroy your past self and put the current you in the past world, the history already changes because what you are now is not what you are later. Maybe you come to the past and poof, you land right in front of the car instead of crossing the road to safety. Energy must be conserved. Infinite or not, that's not relevant.
actually, the energy would be in another form. there would be less dark energy in the past, which expands the universe (the universe has been expanding due to the big bang) so that you could use the energy to recreate yourself/whatever
light cannot be measured as a wave when it behaves like one, and cannot be measured as a particle when it behaves as one
i've always wanted to say that in a somewhat related conversation!
-
First off I never said it was possible, it is not. The infinite amount of energy required keeps it that way.
Creating the past wtf? The past is still the same you are only moving mass backwards in the time dimension just like you move stuff around in other dimensions, it is just infinitely harder. Don't get confused about "oh no those are the same particles existing at the same time can't happen." They are not the same particles, just as one piece of steel is not made from the same particles as any other piece. A second later those particles are essentially different particles there is nothing special about them that would keep you from shoving them into the past.
And no conservation does not come up with the current theory as since you need to use an infinite amount of energy you would have to use *all* energy. EVERYWHERE. And even after that you would not have enough to make it work. At that level of return I think it is very conservational.
-
If you have infinite amount of energy in the past, then you will also have infinite amount of energy in the future. Now if someone could tell me they can harness infinite amount of energy and use that to recreate the future, then maybe I will believe in time travel. But if that happens, I would be using that infinite energy for something else really.
If you drive your car at the speed of light btw, your headlight doesn't go at twice the speed of light. Light is massless, is not affected by atomic forces, doesn't have momentum, and thus isn't pushed forward by massless objects. This is what I said earlier, if you move at the speed of light, and your car doesn't change from atoms to photons ( or into some other massless quantum particles. it will, trust me ), only one same photon can be seen by you at that speed. Thus, your time has stopped. But not the others. And your brain will probably stop working at that time ( the brain utilizes electron which may change based on the EMR properties ).
Moving mass backwards IS creating the past. You cannot create something from nothing, unless you use some magic (even magic needs its ingredients heh ). And something that is infinitely hard IS impossible. lol
If the energy is infinite, how can you conserve it. It's impossible to waste an infinite amount of energy as it never is reduced. That fact is completely relevant.
First comes the solid Law of Conservation: energy cannot be destroyed, energy cannot be created, energy must be conserved.
Second comes a comment from a random person i don't know on the internet: energy is infinite.
Now if energy is infinite, it cannot be conserved ( as you said). But if energy has to be conserved, it cannot be infinite. I choose the first solid law proven many times already. So infinite or not, it's not relevant. :) I am happy to answer this again if you don't understand.
Infinite is relative to who you are btw.. A retarded person maybe cannot count more than 3.. so anything more than 3 is infinite to him. It is used to describe an amount which is impossible to occur.
-
The light from your head lights should go twice the speed of light, which Einstein said is impossible...
how would you drive your car at the speed of light?
edit: on further time to consider how to dispose of this morony, light travels at a set speed and is not effected by the speed of it's scource, only the angle that it is released at, and thus you phail, sir
Actually, light would travel at a speed relative to its source. The speed of the source would be "relative zero" to the light, and thus its speed would be c plus the speed of the source. Elementary Physics right there.
-
I think I'm not alone when I'm trying to pretend that this isn't way over my head.
_____________________
Floodbud
-
I <3 everybody, i cant agree/disagree with you. i dont want to go the speed of light in my car-too fast for me.
-
Actually, light would travel at a speed relative to its source. The speed of the source would be "relative zero" to the light, and thus its speed would be c plus the speed of the source. Elementary Physics right there.
Elementary Physics do not apply to near light speeds. Hell, elementary psychics aren't a truly accurate representation of even 'normal' speeds. But they work good enough to be used.
Something along the lines of 20 decimals of pi being good enough to calculate most circles but if you want to be definitive you are missing a whole other level.
Edit: we do not understand the nature of time yet, it's pointless debating about relativistic time passing, let alone true time travel.
-
time is pear shaped
-
I love my country and all, but don't bring your fucking god into the discussion; cause no one likes a freak who talks about his imaginary friend all the time.
Ah, an atheist. Now I could spend my precious time arguing with you about the existence of God, but since His existence must be taken on faith, that would be pointless. Allow to just say this. When I die, if I am wrong, I will simply cease to exist. I have lost nothing by believing in God and Heaven and Hell, because according to atheism, I am merely an accidental collection of chemicals and electricity anyway. But when you die, when you are proven wrong, you are still going to have to bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Then you will go to hell and burn forever.
To sum it up for you, if I'm wrong, I lose nothing. If you're wrong, you lose everything. I think my side of the bet is actually less risky in the long run, even though it means I have to run into assholes like you whilst in the world of the living. 8)
a mathematician, can't remember his name my 10th grade math teacher showed us the article, in about 1500 said those who believe in god and try to be like him when they die if they are wrong nothing bad happens they have just left behind a well and respected life and very unlikely one that others hated them for. Someone who denies god and spends their life sinning when they die if they are wrong they are ruined and spend an eternity in hell. Even in scientifical and mathimatical reasoning its smarter to believe than to deny.
-
I love my country and all, but don't bring your fucking god into the discussion; cause no one likes a freak who talks about his imaginary friend all the time.
Ah, an atheist. Now I could spend my precious time arguing with you about the existence of God, but since His existence must be taken on faith, that would be pointless. Allow to just say this. When I die, if I am wrong, I will simply cease to exist. I have lost nothing by believing in God and Heaven and Hell, because according to atheism, I am merely an accidental collection of chemicals and electricity anyway. But when you die, when you are proven wrong, you are still going to have to bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Then you will go to hell and burn forever.
To sum it up for you, if I'm wrong, I lose nothing. If you're wrong, you lose everything. I think my side of the bet is actually less risky in the long run, even though it means I have to run into assholes like you whilst in the world of the living. 8)
a mathematician, can't remember his name my 10th grade math teacher showed us the article, in about 1500 said those who believe in god and try to be like him when they die if they are wrong nothing bad happens they have just left behind a well and respected life and very unlikely one that others hated them for. Someone who denies god and spends their life sinning when they die if they are wrong they are ruined and spend an eternity in hell. Even in scientifical and mathimatical reasoning its smarter to believe than to deny.
So? It is more logical to deny then to believe. I stick to my logic.
.||_// Live long and prosper.
( ^ THAT IS TEH HAND SIGNAL)
-
Live long and prosper.
Die wrong and burn...
-
Live long and prosper.
Die wrong and burn...
+1
_________________________
Floodbud
-
Live long and prosper.
Die wrong and burn...
+1
_________________________
Floodbud
Heh, I appreciate the support, guys 8) but this dude will never believe by our words, so we might as well leave well enough alone. God will reach him. Or he won't. Either way, no skin off our noses.
-
The reason you cant move faster than the speed of light where your time stops is because your mass increases as you approach the speed of light and reaches an infinite amount at the speed of light thereby requiring an infinite amount of energy to accelerate further. As there is a finite amount of energy this cannot be done. However theoretically if you have an infinite amount of energy and accelerate beyond the speed of light you will move backwards in time. For someone just off the flight path they would see two ships one flying backwards slightly faster and one moving forwards slightly slower than the speed of light and they would crash together at the transition point but leave no derbies. Now what exactly something moving just faster than the speed of light would look like I have no clue.
On the better to disbelieve than believe issue, I say disbelieve. My reasoning for this is that I know what I do is good otherwise I would not do it, so there is no need for someone else to tell me what to do. Also it would probably be the wrong thing by the time it got down through the church and god is not and never did tell me directly. If he exists and wants to send a good person to hell for not believing in him then I would hate his heaven and have more fun in hell anyway :P
-
The reason you cant move faster than the speed of light where your time stops is because your mass increases as you approach the speed of light and reaches an infinite amount at the speed of light thereby requiring an infinite amount of energy to accelerate further. As there is a finite amount of energy this cannot be done. However theoretically if you have an infinite amount of energy and accelerate beyond the speed of light you will move backwards in time. For someone just off the flight path they would see two ships one flying backwards slightly faster and one moving forwards slightly slower than the speed of light and they would crash together at the transition point but leave no derbies. Now what exactly something moving just faster than the speed of light would look like I have no clue.
On the better to disbelieve than believe issue, I say disbelieve. My reasoning for this is that I know what I do is good otherwise I would not do it, so there is no need for someone else to tell me what to do. Also it would probably be the wrong thing by the time it got down through the church and god is not and never did tell me directly. If he exists and wants to send a good person to hell for not believing in him then I would hate his heaven and have more fun in hell anyway :P
kudos for your understanding of science...but do you really believe it is better to be bad all around and die a criminal, or to be good all around because you want to please God, and subsequently die as someone everyone loves. I know God exists, but even if I didn't, it would make more sense for me to try to live a good life.
_________________________
Floodbud
-
Do you accept the possibility of living good while denying god?
-
The reason you cant move faster than the speed of light where your time stops is because your mass increases as you approach the speed of light and reaches an infinite amount at the speed of light thereby requiring an infinite amount of energy to accelerate further.
Absolute nonsense. Where did you get this idea from ? Mass increases with speed ?
-
Do you accept the possibility of living good while denying god?
Yes, I accept the possibility, but I have never seen it happen effectively. A fear of God, in the long run, is the only thing that will keep you good. Or it does the best job anyway. I know that without my religion I would be so bad right now.
___________________
Floodbud
-
Do you accept the possibility of living good while denying god?
Yes, I accept the possibility, but I have never seen it happen effectively. A fear of God, in the long run, is the only thing that will keep you good. Or it does the best job anyway. I know that without my religion I would be so bad right now.
___________________
Floodbud
So in essence you are saying you are a weak-minded individual incapable of self control. It's probably good you've got religion. You're too stupid to be an atheist.
/my flamer's set on high.
-
Do you accept the possibility of living good while denying god?
Yes, I accept the possibility, but I have never seen it happen effectively. A fear of God, in the long run, is the only thing that will keep you good. Or it does the best job anyway. I know that without my religion I would be so bad right now.
___________________
Floodbud
So in essence you are saying you are a weak-minded individual incapable of self control. It's probably good you've got religion. You're too stupid to be an atheist.
/my flamer's set on high.
Then I hope you can handle the heat. Prepare to be burned.
-
What, are you gonna send zombie Jesus with a blowtorch after me?
-
What, are you gonna send zombie Jesus with a blowtorch after me?
Not burned by me, you misunderstood. That's a pretty egotistical thing to do... calling 9/10ths of the world's population stupid for holding religious beliefs. You think that somehow you are wiser or more intelligent than the rest of the world due to the fact that you view yourself as a god?
Your approach to the entire issue is tactless at best, suicidal at worst.
-
kudos for your understanding of science...but do you really believe it is better to be bad all around and die a criminal, or to be good all around because you want to please God, and subsequently die as someone everyone loves. I know God exists, but even if I didn't, it would make more sense for me to try to live a good life.
_________________________
Floodbud
No, you don't. There is no fucking proof that he exists, and just because there is no proof against his exsistance doesn't mean there is a god. I hate people like you, with a passion. Those people being close minded people who 'know' that whatever they believe is right, and everyone else is wrong. People who are amazingly stubborn and stuck-up.
No, I'm not being hypocrytical, I am open minded and I do believe in spirits, the supernatural, and etc., but I do not believe that a god created this world and everything on it. If someone proves it, I'll consider it. If someone comes up with a shred of evidence, (and there is a helluva lot more then a shred of evidence towards the theory of evolution) then I'll consider it. Untill then, no. Again, I'm not being hypocrytical, I'll be open minded when someone shows some proof, however, for you anti-atheists, there is evidence of the theory of evolution, and you are completely ignoring it. Idiocy will get you nowhere in life.
-
Tell me... according to evolutionary theory, how old is the world?
-
A theory is a helluva lot more believable then a bunch of here-say from people who believe in a supernatural being because they need to feel love, and an inner strength.
According to this theory, the world is approxomately four-point-five billion years of age. What's your point?
-
How do you know it's that old?
-
evolutionary theory does not determine age of this hunk o rock. Carbon dating does.
Also while you emphasize theory the atheists may emphasize belief. And while it is said that a theory may be wrong present time a belief is usually founded on uncheckable factlike treated hearsay from ages ago.
-
I'm glad you mention carbon dating. No check that, ecstatic that you mentioned it.
Carbon dating is only accurate up to 5000 years. It only works if you have something of equal or greater age to compare to. The oldest things on earth that we can be relatively sure of (their) age would be trees.
Beyond 5000 years, carbon dating is little more than wild guesswork.
-
Well, that's all good and nice, but would you mind mentioning how the age of this earth has any relevance to the theory of evolution or whether or not god is real.
Oh, wait. I get it. You're going to back up the point that carbon dating is only valid for a few thousand years, then argue that our evolution could not have happened in such a short period of time, so a 'god' must have put us here, right?
Sorry, bud, but that's not going to work. Although the age of the earth is not a perfect estimate, it is largely agreed on, and you would have no ground for stating that it is much younger, therefore, you have no ground to state that the theory of evolution is flawed in it's timeline.
-
I'm just pointing out that a fundamental part of Evolutionary theory is fatally flawed.
The only reason it hasn't been ditched yet is because no athiest scientist has developed a less-implausible theory to date. Evolution was disproved long ago. Still clinging to an illogical belief in it puts you in the exact same boat as the "illogical" religious believers.
-
So first you mistakingly apply the age of earth with evolution and now you are saying carbon dating is only accurate TO 5000 years. Ever heard of extrapolation?
The problem is that religious debates allow science to the point where it supports religion, any science used in defence of true science becomes mere guesswork.
The fact that we can take a carbon measurement, apply the known formulas concerning it and predict the amount which it will have 10 years in the future, and being correct in that since we can check that timespan allows us to also extrapolate it backwards. But we cannot do that in your view since you think it doesn't work that way.
I give you #1 (http://www.physics.arizona.edu/physics/public/beck-citizen.html)
Carbon dating has been proven to be very accurate up to 45.000 years, 3 times further than previously confirmed and 7,5 times further than the bible says earth even existed.
This is the very accurate part.
When extrapolating obviously the margin of error increases, but when you are looking a million years back what is +- 50.000 years in our discussion.
Now this is only to prove we are well over that wonderful 6000 year bible limit.
The true dating was done through radiometric measurements and pointed towards 4 something billion years. But the fact is new methods only make earth older. Not younger.
-
Once again, the oldest things that we KNOW for 100% certainty the age of are trees. The oldest was dated somewhere in mid-BC. (You count the rings...)
Outside of that it's just a lot of mathmatic equations and unverifiable speculation.
As for the Bible, it allows for up to 10,000 years for the earth's age... There are a few gaps in the geneologies.
-
I'm just pointing out that a fundamental part of Evolutionary theory is fatally flawed.
The only reason it hasn't been ditched yet is because no athiest scientist has developed a less-implausible theory to date. Evolution was disproved long ago. Still clinging to an illogical belief in it puts you in the exact same boat as the "illogical" religious believers.
What was disproven? Point me to it.
Because we must prove we are right, yet the religious people only need to point to a piece of paper and say, look it says so here, written by god, (edited , translated , lost, partially refound, corrected, adapted by humans), but by god this is totally accurate.
If we wrote down our findings now, and had them discovered in 3000 years would they be more true? Or would the religious people from then say, our belief is older so it must be true. Because when we follow that line we should all believe the older living tribes, which are aboriginal beliefs or african ones or south american ones. Or even greek ones to be more close to home.
-
The age of earth wasn't determined using carbon dating. That's nonsense. But we do use radiometric dating. Carbon is not the only element that has isotopes with long half-lives.
Meteorites were found to be of the same age. If we assume that the earth was formed around the same time meteorites formed ( that is when materials in space started to accumulate and aggregate ), then 4.5 - 4.9 Billion years is an acceptable estimate.
Please stop trying to win the argument using pseudo-facts and your own imagination.
-
...unverifiable speculation.
=
the Bible...
-
Give him a chance to respond; debates are pointless when one side owns the other for a few posts.
-
I'm just pointing out that a fundamental part of Evolutionary theory is fatally flawed.
The only reason it hasn't been ditched yet is because no athiest scientist has developed a less-implausible theory to date. Evolution was disproved long ago. Still clinging to an illogical belief in it puts you in the exact same boat as the "illogical" religious believers.
Your father mated with your mother. They got you. Now you inherit some traits from your father, and some traits from your mother. Now extend this little concept a little bit. Some animals of different species can mate and produce offsprings. These have traits of both parent animals. Some can further reproduce, some cannot. This is evolution. You don't need prove. It's an observation already made.
-
Physics got off track a bit there. But yes it mass increases with speed and time slows. This has been proven using instruments placed on satellites and on the ground and comparing the two readings. Even at those speeds the increase is so small as to barely be readable, much less mater. You have to get around half the speed of light for there to be a significant effect.
-
I'm just pointing out that a fundamental part of Evolutionary theory is fatally flawed.
Carbon dating is only accurate till 50,000 year back, therefor god exists.
-
Physics got off track a bit there. But yes it mass increases with speed and time slows. This has been proven using instruments placed on satellites and on the ground and comparing the two readings. Even at those speeds the increase is so small as to barely be readable, much less mater. You have to get around half the speed of light for there to be a significant effect.
Where's the scientific paper ? Give me the title of the paper and maybe I'll read it and confirm this. "Mass increasing with speed, and it being measured using satellites.." sounds like a lot of bullshit to me. If we can measure mass with satellites, then we wouldn't need image processing in remote sensing. Quack science if you ask me.
-
I have no clue what you just said but it is not detected directly. The radio signal from a satellite in geo stationary orbit is compared to the signal from a satellite that is moving. After compensating for doppler shift there is still a very small shift left in the signal, this is caused by the increases pull from the satellite. This effect is implied by relativity. I may have caused some confusion by not stating that I was referring to relativistic mass. And here is a page on that http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
-
Physics got off track a bit there.
You mean that "God Bless the USA" got off track? :P
Your father mated with your mother. They got you. Now you inherit some traits from your father, and some traits from your mother. Now extend this little concept a little bit. Some animals of different species can mate and produce offsprings. These have traits of both parent animals. Some can further reproduce, some cannot. This is evolution. You don't need prove. It's an observation already made.
Show me one interspecies mating that isn't fertile (mules cannot reproduce).
Meteorites were found to be of the same age. If we assume that the earth was formed around the same time meteorites formed ( that is when materials in space started to accumulate and aggregate ), then 4.5 - 4.9 Billion years is an acceptable estimate..
:) HAHAHAHAHA, you're joking, right? We know so very little about space as it is, that we have no idea what kinds of artificial aging and outside forces have been working on space rocks. Anyway, how would space debris floating around in our galaxy or others have ANY connection with how old the earth is? Your statement is completely ridiculous. It's so far removed from scientific theory that it can barely even be called speculation. Absurd.
-
Your father mated with your mother. They got you. Now you inherit some traits from your father, and some traits from your mother. Now extend this little concept a little bit. Some animals of different species can mate and produce offsprings. These have traits of both parent animals. Some can further reproduce, some cannot. This is evolution. You don't need prove. It's an observation already made.
Show me one interspecies mating that isn't fertile (mules cannot reproduce).
You answered your own question.
But if you meant 'isn't infertile' then dogs. Any breed of dogs. Saint bernard's with Poodles. Chiuauas with german shepherds. And any dog can intermate with wolves, but since they prefer to keep to their own species only with human involvement. And these can produce offspring of themselves which also have viable reproducement systems.
Meteorites were found to be of the same age. If we assume that the earth was formed around the same time meteorites formed ( that is when materials in space started to accumulate and aggregate ), then 4.5 - 4.9 Billion years is an acceptable estimate..
:) HAHAHAHAHA, you're joking, right? We know so very little about space as it is, that we have no idea what kinds of artificial aging and outside forces have been working on space rocks. Anyway, how would space debris floating around in our galaxy or others have ANY connection with how old the earth is? Your statement is completely ridiculous. It's so far removed from scientific theory that it can barely even be called speculation. Absurd.
I'll point to the damn bible again to show hypocrisy in source warping. You do have a point that there is no true relation between the age of meteorites and that of earth.
Tbh i haven't seen you respond to what I posted about the bible.
-
Your father mated with your mother. They got you. Now you inherit some traits from your father, and some traits from your mother. Now extend this little concept a little bit. Some animals of different species can mate and produce offsprings. These have traits of both parent animals. Some can further reproduce, some cannot. This is evolution. You don't need prove. It's an observation already made.
Show me one interspecies mating that isn't fertile (mules cannot reproduce).[/quote]
IIRC, there have been a few cases.
But anyway, everybody knows that earth, the universe and all life was create by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm
-
there is only "inheritance and natural selection" nothing else
edit: never argue with dogmatists
-
Any breed of dogs. Saint bernard's with Poodles. Chiuauas with german shepherds. And any dog can intermate with wolves, but since they prefer to keep to their own species only with human involvement. And these can produce offspring of themselves which also have viable reproducement systems.
They're the same species, lol. Dogs are nothing more than domesticated "wild dogs." (a wolf being an undomesticated "wild dog")
Tbh i haven't seen you respond to what I posted about the bible.
I actually spent 2 hours a few days ago typing up a post proving the validity of the bible, and the falacies in the Qu'ran, but the computer died (I was at the library, some kid hit the power cord with his foot) before I could finish it.
I'll get to it again sometime this weekend.
-
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
So interspecies breeding only exists so long as the taxonomy branch doesn't catch on. But for all intents and purposes this is what you meant since dogs haven't been classed as a subspecies of wolf for that long.
Also evolution is not only built on purely genes. Differences in environment, food, chance etc determines the outcome. The classic example being darwin's birds. They came over as a single species and over time started to differ so much they could no longer reproduce with the original species. This happened several times due to the islands having a very different environment.
-
What makes you think that earlier organisms couldn't mate interspecies ? After all we thought they were simpler in form. I just don't believe in organisms sprouting from random atoms in space. Natural selection is somewhat involved in evolution.
-
The classic example being darwin's birds. They came over as a single species and over time started to differ so much they could no longer reproduce with the original species. This happened several times due to the islands having a very different environment.
You refer to microevolution. This is something entirely seperate from the fallacy of Evolutionary Theory.
This happens all the time. We see it everywhere... humans growing resistant to diseases over time, the differences between black people and white people, differing beak sizes in a family of birds.
This kind of evolution actually exists. It is superficial changes to a plant or animal. It has not ever, nor will it ever account for major changes in the makeup of a creature. For example, humans will never grow fins, no matter how many generations spend a large portion of their time in the oceans and pools of this world.
As for mutations, only a very small percentage are actually beneficial. They are flukes, genetic errors, and they are not passed on to the next generation.
-
Macroevolution is microevolution over an even longer timeperiod. Why? Because big changes are actually a lot of small changes.
Mutations exist, and true most don't matter. But why don't most mutations matter? Because all the truly bad ones have already died. Albino's are an example. They have perfectly functioning organs and thought. But they don't blend in the scenery when hunting for example. So they could happily live their days in a zoo while getting eaten or dying of starvation within a week in the wild. You can consider humans the same way. An flimsy accountant may make a very good living in the current world, but throw him back in a forest and he is weak. Mutations benefit's are all dependant on circumstances.
It is not that suddenly people would develop fins if they spent a lot of time in the water. If people could no longer provide for food on land and would have to swim to get reach a viable foodsource those people who were best suited to swimming would survive and procreate. Since some people are actually born with small 'fins' between their toes and/or fingers (a mutation) they might be better at reaching that food. If this would be so, which it most likely isn't since a big lungful of air would be more important than the minor speed/agility increase, people would start developing fins. What is more likely is that the people would develop larger lungs over time. When these people reach their max lung capacity the advantage would have to come from another angle, possibly this time the 'fingerfins', but still more likely a change in the legmuscle build due to a mutation.
I could go on but the fact is there are many paths, and the path taken depends on the circumstances and chance of having the right mutation during those circumstances.
Many species die off as an evolutionary deadend due to some other species outperforming them. Either someone is better at getting the food they need as well so the supply for them dwindles, or a virus/bacteria finds a loophole to which there has not been/could not be a profitable mutation.
This is the concept of evolution, in which many more species die off than succeed. And it all depends on the circumstances. As long as the changes are not lifethreatening/promoting they will remain superficial as you say and remain simply as diversity and not as deciding factor, but once they do come important as in this example certain things would follow evolution, and change stacked upon change would eventually produce a species incompatible with a species which descended from the same parentspecies in other circumstances.
The finches is actually a perfect example of this due to their small area, small timespan. So i don't know why you disregard it.
-
A theory is a helluva lot more believable then a bunch of here-say from people who believe in a supernatural being because they need to feel love, and an inner strength.
According to this theory, the world is approxomately four-point-five billion years of age. What's your point?
Since by God's very nature, God is omnipotent, he could have created the world yesterday, and you wouldn't be able to know the difference. The reason we can't prove God's existence is that our efforts are those of three or four dimensional beings trying to perceive beyond the fifth. Here's an illustration. Let's say you have created a world of two dimensional people called "Flatties", on a sheet of paper. The Flatties can percieve direction sideways, but there is no up or down for them. They can't perceive the third dimension. They can sometimes hear you speak, but there is no concrete way for them to prove you exist, since they can't look up out of their paper and see you. That doesn't mean that you aren't there though. You can see them, you can affect them, you can speak to them. But no one will ever see you, unless you touch the paper. Even then, they will only be able to perceive one single plane of your entire being. The same holds true to God, only on a more complicated scale. We exist in three dimensions, four if you count time as the fourth dimension. God exists so far beyond our perception that we could not prove he was there, even if we worked a thousand years trying. The only reason we can believe in him is because sometimes he speaks to us. The truth of faith is bound up in its name. It's belief without proof. It's a higher calling to a purpose that not everyone else can see, but that still exists.
If you have been bound, blindfolded and gagged and are lying on the railroad tracks, denying that a train will eventually come because you can't see it won't make a difference. And if someone who has the power to save you is there, and you can't see them, wouldn't you rather take a leap of faith, and in total helplessness, ask for their help? Or would you rather take your chances with the train?
[and bringer, I say this with no disrespect. just a thought. take it for what it's worth]
-
Macroevolution is microevolution over an even longer timeperiod. Why? Because big changes are actually a lot of small changes.
Mutations exist, and true most don't matter. But why don't most mutations matter? Because all the truly bad ones have already died. Albino's are an example. They have perfectly functioning organs and thought. But they don't blend in the scenery when hunting for example. So they could happily live their days in a zoo while getting eaten or dying of starvation within a week in the wild. You can consider humans the same way. An flimsy accountant may make a very good living in the current world, but throw him back in a forest and he is weak. Mutations benefit's are all dependant on circumstances.
It is not that suddenly people would develop fins if they spent a lot of time in the water. If people could no longer provide for food on land and would have to swim to get reach a viable foodsource those people who were best suited to swimming would survive and procreate. Since some people are actually born with small 'fins' between their toes and/or fingers (a mutation) they might be better at reaching that food. If this would be so, which it most likely isn't since a big lungful of air would be more important than the minor speed/agility increase, people would start developing fins. What is more likely is that the people would develop larger lungs over time. When these people reach their max lung capacity the advantage would have to come from another angle, possibly this time the 'fingerfins', but still more likely a change in the legmuscle build due to a mutation.
I could go on but the fact is there are many paths, and the path taken depends on the circumstances and chance of having the right mutation during those circumstances.
Many species die off as an evolutionary deadend due to some other species outperforming them. Either someone is better at getting the food they need as well so the supply for them dwindles, or a virus/bacteria finds a loophole to which there has not been/could not be a profitable mutation.
This is the concept of evolution, in which many more species die off than succeed. And it all depends on the circumstances. As long as the changes are not lifethreatening/promoting they will remain superficial as you say and remain simply as diversity and not as deciding factor, but once they do come important as in this example certain things would follow evolution, and change stacked upon change would eventually produce a species incompatible with a species which descended from the same parentspecies in other circumstances.
The finches is actually a perfect example of this due to their small area, small timespan. So i don't know why you disregard it.
As I've shown, the world isn't old enough for Macroevolution to take place. Anyway, lungs are a muscle and can be expanded simply through exercise. Swimmers do it all the time. It wouldn't be genetically coded to people, but I agree that in a water-based culture most everyone would have more expansive lungs, simply due to the fact that they started swimming at a younger age and their lungs got a lot more use.
As for natural selection, does this mean that you are against having an endangered species list, and are against trying to stop "global warming?"
Because according to evolutionary theory, we should just let it happen, and let endangered species die.
-
Can I please ask what this railroad track is you mention? Is it for example a disease or are you referring to the divine judgment upon death (heaven or hell).
-
As I've shown, the world isn't old enough for Macroevolution to take place. Anyway, lungs are a muscle and can be expanded simply through exercise. Swimmers do it all the time. It wouldn't be genetically coded to people, but I agree that in a water-based culture most everyone would have more expansive lungs, simply due to the fact that they started swimming at a younger age and their lungs got a lot more use.
As for natural selection, does this mean that you are against having an endangered species list, and are against trying to stop "global warming?"
Because according to evolutionary theory, we should just let it happen, and let endangered species die.
You have shown me nothing about the world not being old enough. And saying 'It's in the Bible' means nothing until you prove the bible is right.
And your lung example is not one of evolution but exercise and adaptation in a single lifetime, that's not how evolution works.
The endangered species list is indeed against evolution in its natural form. But for us to maintain the balance with us at the top I can understand why it would be handy to not interrupt the current foodchain. But if we did, and we went down accordingly, that would be evolution in its finest form. The fact is humans have placed themselves partly outside of 'natural' evolution, see the accountant example. Morally I'm for saving species since we don't need to kill them off but for convenience we do (we are responsible, directly (tigerskins etc) or indirectly (removing their habitat or foodsource) for most of them), but we're talking logically here.
-
evolutionary theory does not determine age of this hunk o rock. Carbon dating does.
True story, on the news:
A lady made a bust (stone sculpture)...not modeled after anyone in particular. Then she went out and hid it in the forest, nobody knows why. Scientists found it and carbon dated it, finding it to be many thousand years old.
Here comes the lady, she correctly identifies the bust without any doubt that she knows what it looks like, and she made it just a few weeks ago.
Carbon dating is a load of BS.
___________
Floodbud
-
link it please.
-
Lungs are muscles ? You make science cat cry :,(
-
Can I please ask what this railroad track is you mention? Is it for example a disease or are you referring to the divine judgment upon death (heaven or hell).
I refer to eternal death, a.k.a. Hell. Thanks, I forgot to clarify.
-
And your lung example is not one of evolution but exercise and adaptation in a single lifetime, that's not how evolution works.
Exactly my point. You can't use it as proof of evolutionary theory.
-
And your lung example is not one of evolution but exercise and adaptation in a single lifetime, that's not how evolution works.
Exactly my point. You can't use it as proof of evolutionary theory.
Lung capacity would be evolution in the water world where it would be an advantage passed on to the children. Lung capacity increase in a single life would not.
-
A theory is a helluva lot more believable then a bunch of here-say from people who believe in a supernatural being because they need to feel love, and an inner strength.
According to this theory, the world is approxomately four-point-five billion years of age. What's your point?
Since by God's very nature, God is omnipotent, he could have created the world yesterday, and you wouldn't be able to know the difference. The reason we can't prove God's existence is that our efforts are those of three or four dimensional beings trying to perceive beyond the fifth. Here's an illustration. Let's say you have created a world of two dimensional people called "Flatties", on a sheet of paper. The Flatties can percieve direction sideways, but there is no up or down for them. They can't perceive the third dimension. They can sometimes hear you speak, but there is no concrete way for them to prove you exist, since they can't look up out of their paper and see you. That doesn't mean that you aren't there though. You can see them, you can affect them, you can speak to them. But no one will ever see you, unless you touch the paper. Even then, they will only be able to perceive one single plane of your entire being. The same holds true to God, only on a more complicated scale. We exist in three dimensions, four if you count time as the fourth dimension. God exists so far beyond our perception that we could not prove he was there, even if we worked a thousand years trying. The only reason we can believe in him is because sometimes he speaks to us. The truth of faith is bound up in its name. It's belief without proof. It's a higher calling to a purpose that not everyone else can see, but that still exists.
If you have been bound, blindfolded and gagged and are lying on the railroad tracks, denying that a train will eventually come because you can't see it won't make a difference. And if someone who has the power to save you is there, and you can't see them, wouldn't you rather take a leap of faith, and in total helplessness, ask for their help? Or would you rather take your chances with the train?
[and bringer, I say this with no disrespect. just a thought. take it for what it's worth]
You insist that god is real, people who are high on, say, magic mushrooms, say that their hallusinations(sp) are real. You look to your higher power when you are in need of help because you are too weak to accept that you are on your own and there is no god to hold your hand. Although that is harsh, it is what I believe. God cannot exist, for if he did, do you believe there would be thousands of children dying every day? Thousands of homeless in every city begging for change on cold, winter nights? The terrorism, the war, do you really think that if there was a god he would let this happen?
I believe in a spirits and the supernatural, I just dont go to extremes, I know that this earth was created naturally as were we. I know that if I pray some bullshit higher power isn't going to come and help me. That's a load of shit. There's nothing out there, untill I witness a miracle, there will be nothing out there for me.
Also, I would ask for help, but know that it wasn't god, because god doesn't exist. That's a bad example, anyway, I would never be bound to railway tracks, and if I was, there would be no prince charming to come save me. You believe in these fairy tales because you have nothing else to believe in, you are tied to your so-called god and that's stopping you from living. You go to church to hear people speak to you for god when they're just there talking bullshit.
Tell me, if I said I had found a book that was written by the devel, would you believe there was a devil? There is no reason to believe in god, it's in your head. Shake it off, get real, accept that you're alone, and grow up.
[[Although harsh, this is honest, and it's a valid argument, I expect flames, I expect counter arguments, but please do not feed me "when you die god'll be pissed and send ya down" shit, I don't want to hear it untill you prove, or even find a bit of evidence, that the big man in the sky exists]]
-
Can I please ask what this railroad track is you mention? Is it for example a disease or are you referring to the divine judgment upon death (heaven or hell).
I refer to eternal death, a.k.a. Hell. Thanks, I forgot to clarify.
In that case I'd think the following.
(Assuming he exists) He's the one who put me on the track, and if I should beg him to help me off it I'd rather die proud than satisfy the sadistical bastard.
If you have been bound, blindfolded and gagged and are lying on the railroad tracks, denying that a train will eventually come because you can't see it won't make a difference. And if someone who has the power to save you is there, and you can't see them, wouldn't you rather take a leap of faith, and in total helplessness, ask for their help? Or would you rather take your chances with the train?
Also this is not true faith. This is "I'll believe because I don't know for certain if he exists, but if he exists I'd better be believing or he will send me to hell." True fearmongering, upon which most religions are based.
-
If you have been bound, blindfolded and gagged and are lying on the railroad tracks, denying that a train will eventually come because you can't see it won't make a difference. And if someone who has the power to save you is there, and you can't see them, wouldn't you rather take a leap of faith, and in total helplessness, ask for their help? Or would you rather take your chances with the train?
Also this is not true faith. This is "I'll believe because I don't know for certain if he exists, but if he exists I'd better be believing or he will send me to hell." True fearmongering, upon which most religions are based.
{clarification} That's one of the points I was trying to make, alot of religions say 'believe or you will go to hell', and you guys are so easy, you succumb too quickly without proof, that isn't faith, that's fear.
-
what can I say ignorance is bliss. I placed bible in my list of assumptions. I neglect scientific facts. I create my own degenerated scientific facts.
they all make a happy man. I don't need to use my brain because bible does it for me.
-
I know I'm going to regret responding to you, but you (for once) have made a good point. Now trash your account and stop while you're ahead.
-
I know I'm going to regret responding to you, but you (for once) have made a good point. Now trash your account and stop while you're ahead.
haha what a loser
-
if god exists, what gives him the right to judge people like this (heaven/hell)? after all, doesn't he say not to judge, lest ye be judged? and yet because of his supposed power, we call him the ultimate good so that we get on his good side, and go to heaven out of greed? shouldn't he send suck ups like that to hell as greed is a sin? should god send himself to hell, but wouldn't that make him evil?
-partial reasons why the bible is crap
@floodbud
link? proof? until then, it's like the bible.
@kobrakane
lung capacity? a bunch of bs. you clearly don't understand the theory of evolution enough to argue agianst it, and if you did, you'd be convinced that it was true.
i'll give you an example
there is a competiton between the manatee and a reed it likes to eat. the reeds contain silica, which grind down manatee teeth. therefore, the reeds with more silica survive, because without teeth the manatees can't eat and die off. sound correct, right? cant argue against that, right? therefore, the manatees with thicker teeth survive, because they can eat. the reeds keep getting more silica and the manatees keep getting thicker teeth because the reeds with more silica and the thicker teeth manatees survive more often. that is evolution.
@kobrakane
endangered species and global warming are two of the stupidest, most ignorant things brought up against evolution. you say that we should keep destroying the environment because that's what evolution makes us do. you think that people could of evolved to have a natrual species extinction gene sequence, or a fossil fuel burning gene? that is just plain stupidity. you think that evolution could have made that? give me backup that there would be a possible environment that encourages that sort of thing, and i'll believe you
@a heck of a lot of people I can't be bothered to name
you say that you should believe, because it's a win-win situation, when in many cases, believing actually obstructs nessicary and/or vital research or experinents, so that by believing, your hindering, not helping
we may seem to be getting extremely flamey, but that's because your getting extremely stupid. excuse us educated people.
in concluision: http://www.xkcd.com/c154.html
-
I agree with Anotu on his point that you seem to be changing the topic in an attempt to replace the pressure of explaining why the bible is fact.
-
Well, a large change in lung capacity is called Variation.
If this person successfully mates, it will most likely be passed down to their children, and it most probably will continue if there is a need for it.
If the nature and nurture encourage it, then it will be so.
-
Whoops, double post.
My Bad. Actually it was the forum's fault.
-
we may seem to be getting extremely flamey, but that's because your getting extremely stupid. excuse us educated people.
That, just denied any value of your opinion.
-
How-so? He makes a point. You are running in blind faith for no reason. That's being stupid.
-
Have you seen how an atoms looks like ? No ? Then how come you believe that the world consists of atoms ? You are no different from the religious group, believing in something you have not witnessed yourself. Calling people stupid while being ignorant doesn't help getting the others to agree with your view.
-
I believe it because there is a shitload of evidence behind it. The only evidence behind god is the bible, and that's not very good evidence.
-
You have seen neither god nor atom. I don't think you understand the evidences behind them either.
-
I understand that science is not proven, but as I have said, there's a shitload of scientific evidence. You really think they're feeding us crap?
Convince me that your argument is correct, you haven't been doing any of that for a while.
I don't think you understand how debates work.
-
Have you seen how an atoms looks like ? No ? Then how come you believe that the world consists of atoms ? You are no different from the religious group, believing in something you have not witnessed yourself. Calling people stupid while being ignorant doesn't help getting the others to agree with your view.
actually, we have seen what atoms look like. sillicon atoms to be precise
edit: ...this thread's kinda slow lately
-
link it please.
What the heck, if you're interested Google it. I saw it, I don't need to prove it (but it did happen, i swear)
_______________
Floodbud
-
If you are not willing to source your claims, you should not make them.
I swear
We don't know you, so this means nothing. No offense, the same goes the other way I realize.
-
link it please.
What the heck, if you're interested Google it. I saw it, I don't need to prove it (but it did happen, i swear)
_______________
Floodbud
If you wish to convince other people link it. If it's just for your own belief don't mention it in a discussion with people who expect deduction and not hearsay.
-
speaking of linking, if anyone wants the picture of the silicone atom, contact me. i'd be happy to scan it in my computer and email it
-
I understand that science is not proven, but as I have said, there's a shitload of scientific evidence. You really think they're feeding us crap?
You have not seen the evidence. You have heard of the evidence. Until you repeat the experiments yourself and see the evidence with your own eyes, you can't blame the religious for believing in god after hearing a damn awesome miraculous story. You are talking about popularity, I am talking about the truth. Try to open your mind a bit. Maybe you will notice what actually define science.
Convince me that your argument is correct, you haven't been doing any of that for a while.
I don't think you understand how debates work.
Because debating with somebody with all the wrong kind of information & conclusions is pointless. You can only put the facts in their face and see if they know what you are talking about.
actually, we have seen what atoms look like. sillicon atoms to be precise
You too. Have you heard of Theory of Knowledge ? That's the most basic class you should take to understand about Philosophy and Knowledge.
If you can believe that atoms exist because there is a picture of them in your school book, why not believe that god exists ? I could draw the bible into a pictured story book and you might damn well believe it's true.
-
Proof.
Proof.
Evidence.
Give them to us, we will then, and only then, open our minds.
Perhaps you make a valid point, perhaps we are being illogical, but, come on, you're not?
-
Have you heard of Theory of Knowledge ?
I love Epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't consider it the most basic class. You should study basic logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) first, as epistemology will seem quite confused if you don't have a firm grasp of logic, a subject many people think they grasp but really don't (myself included :) ). A good, and more fun start would be to study logical falacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies), the method of finding idiots, even the idiot in you! :P
-
By the way on the point of the Earth's age, the assumption of the Earth's age being the same as the age of meteorites was made based on the Big Bang Theory ( which was based on the Doppler shift observation made on stars ). After the explosion, masses were microscopic in size and isolated. Gravitational force then started to accumulate nearby bodies together, forming meteorites and then planets. Note that the meteorites being dated were not of the age of the universe, but of our Solar System.
It's a fair assumption, nevertheless was proven a possible event after 70 separate meteorites were dated and found to be of about the same age. This also happened to match with the age of the oldest rock found on the Earth's crust (3.5 ~ Ga).
Of course, this is just another story that happens to coincide with our logic. Unless you repeat the measurements and find out yourself, it's just another story you heard and believed. To those who fancy the conspiracy theory, yes it's another conspiracy :evil:. Just pointing out that you are no different than the people who listened to stories and believed. Hence, stop calling yourselves idiots.
-
We may have not seen it with our own eyes but they provide proof, logic, and a method to their reasonings that can be replicated. If we wanted too we could all go out and double check their work but then nothing would get done. Scientists are constantly checking each other and doing new experiments that most of the time confirm old knowledge. If the experiment disproves the old knowledge they will then say the old knowledge is false. It is not that all science is true but that it is constantly seeking the truth by looking at the real world and making sure things match up. Religion on the other hand says, "We have a book that says god is real and it was inspired by god so it must be right." In the end it all comes down to that circular argument of god is al powerful so god must exist because he could fix it all to look anyway he wants if he did.