The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
only 1 outcome is possible at a time. this specific time is wot im getting at in this specific universe, changes are still apart of the 1 specific outcome as only 1 set of changes can occur wotever path it may take, and wot ever odds it may defy. u cant have 2 realitys of same measurement occupying the 1 space. and nibiru have been observed thro SOHO as a winged disk. just like the ancients claimed, and just like the giant owl represents
I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow you. I'm saying that perhaps from that infinitely dense spot, there was a big bang. Perhaps things were unstable and it collapsed in on itself again. This could have happened an arbitrary amount of times until a stable universe was formed.
Are you saying that if this were the case, only one result is possible each time and there can be no variation, or did you think I was talking about some kind of alternate reality hypothesis?
Oh and for a planet that big, we should be able to observe it and its effects, instead of supposedly being able to spy it once or twice. Particularly when it's orbit interferes with our own. Wasn't it meant to be visible on May 15th 2009? I didn't hear anything about a big red planet being viewed.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow you. I'm saying that perhaps from that infinitely dense spot, there was a big bang. Perhaps things were unstable and it collapsed in on itself again. This could have happened an arbitrary amount of times until a stable universe was formed.
Are you saying that if this were the case, only one result is possible each time and there can be no variation, or did you think I was talking about some kind of alternate reality hypothesis?
no i didnt mean 1 repetitive outcome, althot i believe theres a theory that demonstrates that. wen i said 1 shot, it wasnt clear sorry.
as for may 15th, i think that was just fabricated. and as for 2012. thats according to the mayan calender which was close, but not precise to the lunar orbit. so its safe to say it wud be wrong baout 2012. and thats to say that the planet x's orbit is possible, and is precisely 3600 years. coz it may pass the cosmic pass wen we are enduring summer causing no effect
its funny tho how nasa's south pole telescopes have just reopened over the past few years, and the vatican hav also been very active on astrology recently. also if the planet eris was an icey dwarf planet almost as near to the twin sun as to ours it wud still be possible for some decent pictures from the hubble. but soho raises doubts in nasa's reports anyway
just to add more to all this crap that i never mentioned before, the bohemian club. they worship a god called moloch that in the annunaki culture is believed to be enlil (jehovah, allah, yahweh). the man hater who wanted us to remain in spiritual bounds and keep us enslaved and caused the great flood (btw any1 got a scientific theory to the great flood? i hav no knowledge) and it was enki (who is known as satan, or more uncommonly the Lord) who wanted to liberate mankind told noah (zuisudra) how to construct an ark, aka a ship, maybe a flying ship. also we also know that jesus said that we shud stamp on the serpent people. but a mistranslation of sumerians, serpent people actually means pro-human. (an interesting concept no? )
also the god baal who sacrificed children (well known) is trhought to be associated with or as 'god'. "If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted." and also the 1st born in jerusalam were slaughtered. and baal is also thought to be moloch, the god that our world leaders worship and sacrifice to
may i also add that george bush made satrted the war in iraq. which was also know as sumer (sumerians), the 1st culture known to man, where christianity derived from, as other religions. damn christians must hate me as i cud argue religion is bullshit, and it if were true there beliefs are still bullshit lol
there are a couple of events that that could of been behind the story of the great flood - called mega floods. these involve water behind ice dams, and the nature of this is that it fails catastrophically.
also the volume of water has been truly immense, so large in fact that the tell tale ripples - like the one seen in the sand on the beach caused by the water washing over it, were so huge no one conceived thats what they were.
volumes of water far greater than the largest lakes in the world were involved, released almost instantly, and from multiple layers of sediment they were actually repetitive events.
the biggest of which is the scab-lands. although i suspect this is controversial. there is also some limited evidence of such mega floods closer to where the religious stories originate.
some wood remains were found up a mountain which were claimed might be the ark, but there was a political problem with access.
the above was all from the discovery channel which is probably verifiable on Wiki etc.
tried to watch something on youtube about mega floods, but damn it was boring dunno how my brother can sutdy geology, bloody weirdo. this ws a bit more interesting. black sea, near jesus's house ^^
thats because that video probably has nothing that resembles any reference to any real facts about real mega floods. I didn't watch it for long either - I'm afraid my brain revolts against such stories being put across as fact. It is a lovely story though, with the animals going in 2 by 2 the sort of thing thats quite suitable for young children.
its interesting that the ripples I mentioned are only really noticeable that they are similar to ripples on the beach when you look at them from a satellite, that indicates how mega the flood must of been.
conversely I found it wonderful looking this up because there are some stunning pictures like this one,,,
No no no no no,there is no purpose to the universe, there isnt a "plan."
You can use comparitive physiology, as it is a part of the evolutionary story. Unfortunately those who do not understand evolution and its mechanisms always cling onto a few pieces to try and prove either a) a diety created life or b) intelligent design, which basically means a deity created life.
There are far mor mechanisms at work than just survival of the fittest. There are many factors to evolution.
If you look at survival of the fittest it gives you an idea as to how a species might evolve over time in a given area, then if you input geography it narrows evolution to "island" life, or if you look at climate it also forces evolution into a certain path, look at RNA mutation, then DNA mutation, look also at climate, geology, geogropahy, TIME, energy resources, island or continental forces, look also at plate tectonics, cyclical variation in hot and cold climates and you get to some basic understanding as to how evolution works.
It is far too often that many people see evolution as only that described by Darwin. Darwin opened our eyes into looking at life in a different way, he has never claimed to be the authority on how evolution works, indeed in his papers he states how hard it is to reconcile his observation and evidence with that which is still unexplained.
The good thing is, that over the past 200yrs or so that theory of evolution (and please do not mistake Theory as the literal "idea" meaning of the word, as in science it means much more than that) has not beem able to be proved wrong.
There is no "design" in the human body otherwise it would look very different, women would not have their waste parts connected through their reproductive system, our tonsils would actually give us some benefit, there are a host of other bad designs in the human body which serves little or no purpose to negate the idea that it was designed.
Indeed looking at the human genome you can see that DNA is in three states, active, (that which makes us, us; Inactive, the parts of the DNS strand which is turned off; and dormant, that part of DNA which is no longer used but can sometimes switch back on, (see mexican werewolf kids, or people with tails).
Our RNA and DNA structures can be traced back and have found to be linked to eastern africans approximately 2-3million yrs ago just about to when the first "exodus" occurred. We can trace our DNA heritage right back to a common ancestor to about 100 or so families to that time.
There are arguments for micro and macro evolution, and while arguments persist about macro evolution the evidence is stacking up.
Intelligent design has been utterly refuted and shown to be nothing more than a poor attempt at involving a deity into life.
You all do realise that the main proof for ID is the bacterial flagella? Do you know what the definition of intelligent design is? The definition as stated by Behe is that an organism is irreducibly complex, where the parts cannot be reduced further without making a system function, Behe used the bacterial flagella as his prime example.
It has been proved that the flagella will work without 80% of its parts, so therefore the bacteria cannot be seen as a machine and cannot be irreducibly complex and therefore cannot be designed.
The other good thing about the theory of evolution is that anyone can look at the evidence, unlike any other theory of life it can be tested, observed, verified. More information continues to be provided, indeed it is because of the theory of evolution that so many genetic therapies are being developed for cures such as colorectal cancer and other cancers. Even some insurance companies are taking an interest in DNA strings to predict the health of people.
While i would admit that the theory of evolution is not complete, I would also say that it could never be, as any scientific explanation of anything, by definition.
We all know that (general) gravity works, but until we have explored every single centimetre of the universe we cant say for sure.
Why is it that people who believe in ID and a god are able to accept gravity and indeed pretty much anything else they have access to (computers, radio, tv, x-ray scanners, cat scans, medical instruments, accountants, ipods, wii, gps systems, wireless internet) and choose not to believe things like radiometric dating, and that humans evolved through time.
One last point. for every single fossil you find or see, it is a transitional fossil, end of, there is no such thing as a non-transitional fossil, every one of them IS a missing link. For everyone found it does NOT mean there are two more gaps open up. A crockuduck simply never existed and nor will it through evolution.
Stunning pic there Meow, and one i can appreciate cos i used to be an avid mountain climber / rambler.
Just as a side note, it's interesting that the mountains and wildlands of scotland were all created about 10,000yrs ago in the last ice age even though the rocks are up to 3Ga yr old. That is what i find wonderful about the planet and will never cease to amaze me.
meow the 1st video i watched was about the scablands. 1st theory was as u said, glaciers, that cut thro and made the canyons, and glacier damns filled it up rapidly.
As a student of geology and evolution and post grad i think i have a basic understanding of how it works.
The unfortunate understanding of an ID proponent is the complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (please see theory in the proper scientific definition).
For a very, very basic introduction into evolution, look at the selection of sheep, cattle, dogs, cats, and any other domesticated animal as an example of forced evolution. Then apply it to natural selection. I think you will see that evolution is more probably not influenced by a plan or diety.
If you require more evidence I would be happy to supply more examples, many of which you could replicate.
As a student of geology and evolution and post grad i think i have a basic understanding of how it works.
The unfortunate understanding of an ID proponent is the complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (please see theory in the proper scientific definition).
For a very, very basic introduction into evolution, look at the selection of sheep, cattle, dogs, cats, and any other domesticated animal as an example of forced evolution. Then apply it to natural selection. I think you will see that evolution is more probably not influenced by a plan or diety.
If you require more evidence I would be happy to supply more examples, many of which you could replicate.
Im surprised you only say its more probable,, the 'no no no' sounded rather definate, or maybe wasnt refering to that exactly.
do you beleive that the universe is deterministic ? if so this implies that it may have been designed to turn out this way right from the start, although this sounds implausible, so does actually creating a universe in the first place anyway.
if it isnt deterministic then this leaves open the possibility of a some entity controlling events to some degree.
this was a topic that einstein spoke about at some point, when confronted with the non deterministic nature of quantum theory.
or maybe there is a third way ?
surprisingly some people who beleive in ID do understand evolution extremly well, to the point that they are able to argue in favour of ID down to incredible detail. fortunatly they dont seem to be taken credibly.
)
Linear Mode
