Jump to content

Gpa

Members
  • Posts

    522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by Gpa

  1. Is an earthquake somewhere along the New Madrid fault zone possible in 2015? Of course it is. Psychics predict one every year so, if it does happen, they can take credit for predicting it. Will it destroy a nuclear power facility... I don't see any power plants close enough to expect them to be severely damaged. There are some fairly smart people that "consider that" in advance of the construction. Of course, there are no guarantees. ...and lead to the fall of the US government? That's just more, "what a bull drops on the barn floor", to try to make Johnny Boy relevant. An earthquake happened in 1812 that caused the Mighty Mississippi to run backward for a few hours but, the US government somehow survived it. I don't see it suffering a change in the status quo, at least not until November 8th 2016... then I sure hope it does. "esoteric... food for thought." Maybe,... those reasons are "meant for only the select few who", aren't already too sick, for anymore "thoughtful consumption".
  2. What did I say... http://timetravelinstitute.com/threads/so-john-titor-was-a-hoax.10391/page-6#post-90116
  3. I'm still gonna say, most likely a drone. From ground level at Seward Park, looking south there are several other open areas where someone could have been flying a drone and it would be hard to tell what its elevation could be. The ceiling for hobby drones is about 400 feet, so a drone around a half mile from you would appear as high as or higher than the Sears Tower (Yea I still call it that). There is a park at Chicago Ave. that would be in just the right spot to appear as this light did. Also, someone could have been flying a drone from the roof tops of any of several buildings south from where you saw it. Obviously, being there, you would have the better field of view but, from the video, I sense it is between you and the tower. It just seems closer and lower. As far as the light, LED's can be seen from a great distance.
  4. What might it be? With everyone and their brother getting drones nowadays, that's where I'd put my money. They have LED lights that can definitely be seen at great distance and be green or red or both. It's very hard to determine size, distance, or altitude at night and even harder from a video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vHNC2oXGvQ
  5. I agree the Laws of physics "have" to be a force in evolution. They are here, life is here, they simply must coincide. Where I still wonder is; England states; "We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environments external drives on the way to getting there," This is certainly stated by a physicist, not a biologist. A biologist might say, "...are going to be the ones...that best utilized the energy... from the environments external drives on the way to getting there, " A rock absorbs and dissipates energy from it's surroundings. It is not alive nor evolving. "This means clumps of atoms surrounded by a bath at some temperature, like the atmosphere or the ocean, should tend over time to arrange themselves to resonate better and better with the sources of mechanical, electromagnetic or chemical work in their environments," We know quite well that there are bond angles and resonate frequencies associated with everything and that these will "harmonize" with their surroundings...given enough time. From his statement, I suppose one could also conclude the ocean should become a single entity. It is entropy that "prevents" this, not encourages it. (maybe I'm seeing this in the wrong way, I don't know) " A great way of dissipating more is to make more copies of yourself." I don't see how that follows. Any additional copies must also dissipate "their" energy. It appears to be a net gain, not a loss. "Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize. This tendency could account for the internal order of living things and of many inanimate structures as well. Snowflakes, sand dunes and turbulent vortices all have in common that they are strikingly patterned structures that emerge in many-particle systems driven by some dissipative process, he said. Condensation, wind and viscous drag are the relevant processes in these particular cases." " Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize." This is the weakest statement in the entire article. It goes on to compare the idea with "known and understood" phenomena. Spontaneity implies, without external force or stimuli. If this were at work, the world should be a far more difficult place to maneuver through. What with, everything trying to self-organize all the time. Macro or micro makes little difference. Entropy doesn't discriminate. I know I'm being a little fast and loose with this but, I don't think entropy is going to be THE source for life on this planet. Like all the other laws, it is propitious. Or... Why isn't the Volvox walking (or rolling) among us? After all, they have about 199.99 million years of entropic development on us.
  6. I find this presentation pretty good myself. Not to mention, Katherine Heigl is not hard to look at. The Twilight Zone (2002) Season 1 Episode 5: "Cradle of Darkness". Katherine Heigl is chosen to "stop" Hitler. “What if you had a chance to go back in time, to save millions of lives by killing one man? Andrea Collins will soon discover this mission to be more difficult than she ever imagined, as she takes a one-way trip into The Twilight Zone.” (opening narration)
  7. We're not all cut from the same cloth as P.T. Barnum, and that's a "good thing".
  8. Another senseless drive-by Titoring. :eek: Luckily, no one was injured. ?
  9. In 1912 there were 8.7 million telephones in american homes or businesses, and more being added daily. As I pointed out. 25 January 1915: The first transcontinental (coast-to-coast) telephone call (3600 miles), I imagine people read the news papers in 1915 and this news would have been widely dispersed in the public community... not just the scientific community.
  10. Nicolas... Feel free to do your own. Unless what follows is it. I covered every post except the two that were posted as I was writing my post. Have you "never" had a real conversation? It begins with one person saying they heard there really were pink elephants. The next person says, "Dude, I got so drunk one time I thought I saw them." Then someone adds, "You wanna compare drinking stories, listen to this..." And on it goes. Conversations flow... but IMO... this one has pretty much stayed on topic. The topic has been viewed from different angles, but has stayed on track. Been covered... I admitted it was a poor choice of words. What "hasn't been covered is my evidence "against" your position. It was ET's telling "us"... well evolutionists... I though it was humorous. That was a 6th "grader". Yes... as stated above, where's your response to my evidence demonstrating it has been? Completely relevant when taken in context. The first one to "correct" the grammar or syntax or etymology of another... was you. Post #15 of this thread. In fact, you didn't just correct an error on my part, you proceeded to "lecture" me on it. I still haven't "corrected" you about it, let alone lecture you about it. I haven't even pointed to exactly what the error was. I suggested, it might not be an error as far as your "translating" from Portuguese to English. Portuguese is similar to Spanish and Mexican. When I read in the Mexican language, it reads backwards to me. I was not denigrating you in any way. While you appear to have a very good grasp on English, we may be having a problem on comprehension. Don't take that wrong. There are people, born and raised in this country, who have little reading comprehension. Too many. I have never, since I have been here, made it a pissing contest on who's degree was more advanced or had Latin phrases on it. I have never formed the basis of, correct or incorrect, on a piece of paper. I have suggested, more education could be a benefit to better understanding. See above on conversation... and... It hasn't. Lol, this reminds me a lot of some arguments I had with my stepson. He's 14. He used to do this more when he was younger though. Such a great kid. Yet somehow, it was fine for you to speak so condescendingly to me. Since they don't really teach us how to discriminate in English where I study, I would ask you exactly what you meant by that statement as it's not clear to me. But, I'm afraid this will generate 15 other posts on lunar evolution of milipides in Mars... Nope; Einstein already got it. I already answered this above.
  11. :( It's no use. Every Doctor knows there are some that can not be saved, move to the next patient. I have no more comment for the conspiracy forum. :speechless:
  12. You could talk about the phone and extend that to the internet. Even though today many use wifi to connect a computer or cell to the internet, the internet is still "wired" like the phone was. 25 January 1915: The first transcontinental (coast-to-coast) telephone call (3600 miles), with Thomas Augustus Watson at 333 Grant Avenue in San Francisco receiving a call from Alexander Graham Bell at 15 Dey Street in New York City, facilitated by a newly invented vacuum tube amplifier.[23] 21 October 1915: First transmission of speech across the Atlantic Ocean by radiotelephone from Arlington, VA to Paris, France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_telephone
  13. Proof of what? If the watch is fake. If the story is a hoax. If the alleged tomb and Si Qing don't actually exist, (I can't find any evidence it or he does exist.) . Then the only proof is, the whole story is not real. I can't see why anyone twists things into showing something they are not. A. The watch is not real. B. But it says Swiss on the back so that proves they knew about Swiss in the past. It looks like a common watch does today, so they knew about common watches. A. The tomb is not real. (as far as I can determine) B. ??? A. The story is false, fake, a hoax, not true, made up, etc. B. Still, you never know.
  14. ellajanelle; Did someone tell you it could not be be fixed? If you want an independent opinion I might be able to help. If you want, please tell me the make and model and what it's doing or what it won't do and if you noticed anything just prior to the failure. If I can help, I will... it's free.
  15. This is the kind of ignorance that I could get into trouble over, so I'm going to maximize my restraint here. With little to NO understanding of history some people can be lead to believe almost anything. No, that's wrong... They will be convinced of anything. Regardless, you might think if someone looked at the real world and tried to use their "own" brain... and think... It should be easy to see that the US has NOT taken over the oil of ANY country. To see that reality and still make comments like I have seen here, is something well beyond ignorance. Knowing of a possible attack but, not knowing when, is far different than "they did not attempt to prevent it." Such a comment is highly offensive to many people and I am one of them. If I have to be temporally banned or even permanently, so be it. I can not let such ignorant statements go unchallenged.
  16. My glass is half full. Most times is completely full.
  17. Maybe, she's just been really busy interviewing time travelers and hasn't had time to post? Maybe. :unsure: Or not... :lol:
  18. Yes, just Google Baciu Forest and click images. I'll give you a little guess on the crooked trees. They were bent as saplings and forced to grow like that. You can do it at home too. It just takes a few years. If someone "wanted" to make an "interesting forest", they could.
  19. No one ever showed this to be a "real" watch. A working watch this thin does not exist yet today. Did it come from an even further future? Why is there no information to the "discovery" of the tomb... only about the alleged watch?
  20. Really... Well, we were there... where's ALL THE FRICKIN OIL. I don't often use the term, but that is sxxxxd! (I censored myself somewhat because I don't want to violate the terms here. That word might. I don't know for sure, but it fits.)
  21. They knew what worked, they just didn't know the science behind it. Exactly as we might expect in most myths. That doesn't automatically make them unreal.
  22. It would take one hell of a set of brakes. Although the movie Click(2006) was pretty fun.
  23. It's ONLY 100 years. This is proof that History is no longer taught in schools. Probably just liberal revisionist history. 100 years ago...it was Bush's fault. Maybe I have less difficulty relating to it because it's less than 40 years for me. I am familiar with the period because of stories told by my father, aunt, and grandparents who "lived it". How would you youngsters feel about going back to 1975. Maybe not so bad then?
  24. Yes, but from the TT'er's prospective, proofs would have been shown in 2015, so he would not think to offer them. If he knew the exact date the proofs were evident and that corrisponded to the dates he was traveling to, he should suspect that "he" was "going to be" the source of the proof. Then we are stuck with the (I think it's the right one) "Bootstrap" paradox. Unless, it was someone from "his " future that presented it from it's discovery, in the TT'ers future.
  25. Thank you RainmanTime and Thank you Cosmo. Fine job. Ok, are we ready to play? Let's review. 1st. Thomas pendrake made an innocent enough comment; and goes on to describe what bad science is; Interesting choice of words; "deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias". That's the same perception, some actual real scientists, as opposed to "our largely ignorant ancestors?", see when they look at the "deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias" DATA ,used as proof of AGW/ACC but, that's another argument. 3rd. Thomas pendrake presented "Kurt Godel's ontological proof." 4th. Nicolas made what could be considered a "smart ass" comment. Nicolas said it was irony in his post 15. Let the reader decide. lol, you wish. 5th. While replying to a reference by Milo.X. about weather; I asked Nicolas, an acknowledged atheist; 6th. Thomas pendrake acknowledged my comment; 7th. Nicolas responded to my query; "Have you read Genesis?" He quotes passages (in part) from Genesis chapter 1:11-24. Then, IMO, in a condescending manner, presented some of the standard atheist talking points for discussions involving religious belief. For brevity, I will only quote his closing statements. I suppose here, I could give a lesson on grammar, since I received one on scientific theory but, I doubt it's necessary. Perhaps he sees his mistake. I wonder, what are your qualifications to make the determination of "what it really is"? I'll be referring to these a little later. 8th. I posted, the first 10 passages from Genesis he left out so I could point out that the "light" he insisted must come before plants, came before plants. (Let me take a moment for an apparently needed biology lesson. The "first land plants" did not use "photosynthesis". If you want more in depth information than that, go get a more in depth education in biology.) It was created on the first day. On the fourth day, when you claim it was created, it was given a designation. (RainmanTime has already pointed this out with evidence,) 9th. Nicolas delved into semantics. 10th. I tried to explain my position. Tried to use a little sarcasm, which used an improper allusion, on which I was called out and given a lecture on scientific theory. Tried to use humor (unsuccessfully it would seem.) Pointed out that the Bible can not be taken in a literal form because compared to It's initial writhing, it is now out of context and has intentional misinterpretations brought about by both Church and Kings. 11th. Nicolas chastised me for not presenting my reasoning, evidence, proof, whatever, while dismissing the reasoning I "had" offered. This is also where I received a lecture on "learning something new today"... even though I understood it 30 years before he was born but, whatever. I didn't point out that he stated Boyle's Law incorrectly. A little more semantics and a closing statement indicating that pretty much, nothing I say is acceptable proof...to him. You keep saying that, but never actually point it out. What is this reasonable similarity? Really, what is it? Is it the fact that they divided the creation in seven steps? The fact that they "figured out" everything happened step-by-step and not one single event? Is this the similarity to evolution? I can see this making sense. It does have the faintest connection with evolution, if you really force it. This single phrase could have easily made the case for you before and spared you from that lecture. :D This is it right? This is actually it! I think just developed a way to debate myself. o_O ...Unacceptable. 14th. I explained "Why" he was confused and would not understand it no matter how I explained it. Reaffirmed my position ,creation accounts were NOT EXACT". 15th.Thomas pendrake expressed his amazement that this was so hard to understand and pointed out how "he" had never intended it was a literal description. 16th. I pointed out that I had not presented certain scriptures as proof, but that Nicolas had already done so, I could only have been redundant and he would only restate the disagreement he already had with the Biblical accounts. 17th. Nicolas chose semantics as a way to claim I had denigrated "him" along with ALL atheists. 18th. I responded semantically to his points as well and pointed out his misconceptions. 19th. Finally, RainmanTime entered the conversation with his, Part 1, of well founded information. Information I had suggested earlier, but through lack of knowledge on the subject, was unable to inject. 20th. Thomas pendrake pointed out that we had still not entered into consideration of the ontological proof by Godel. (I admit I can't because I'm not that familiar with it.) 21st. kimberlyd asked about the weather. 22nd Milo.X. asked for clarification on part of RainmanTime's information. 23rd. RainmanTime answered Milo.X. and offered Part 2 of his information. 24th. I thanked RainmanTime. 25th. aboleth_lich engaged in ontological discussion on the subject. 26th. I stated I found aboleth_lich's post to be verbose. Well, It is. I stated that I felt his logic was invalid and suggested, as an exercise in learning, he find it himself. It is possible "I" am incorrect, but I can't see his logic as it's worded. There is someone here that might be more qualified to decide that. 27th. Thomas pendrake again discussed Godel's proof and wondered about aboleth_lich's understanding of physics. 28th. aboleth_lich wondered why I didn't just tell him what his mistake might be. Pointed out that he felt Thomas pendrake and I were "mean" (I deduced that from the original five adjectives). Defended his education and finished with something along the line of, he didn't like how we played so he was going home. 29th. I replied to his criticism of my behavior by pointing out "Sheldon" and I were apparently similar in our inability to properly use sarcasm or be aware when we are being condescending toward someone. Kinda like maybe the lines just above these. 30th. Milo.X. continued his discussion with RainmanTime on the "plurality" of God. 31st. thomas pendrake "complimented" aboleth_lich on his education, but still wondered how he missed some important facts. He discussed "notable" scientists that he knew or believed were NOT atheists, and offered a suggestion to Milo.X. on the plurality question. 32nd. Darby admonished aboleth_lich and thomas pendrake for lowering themselves to engage in trivial arguments when "some" still wondered about the Earth being at the center of the solar system. (I can't help but like Darby. He's "to the point". I have been corrected by him and I respect his opinions.) 33rd. Nicolas woke up and began by indicating he still does not understand ad hominem and apparently, does not recognize the grammatical mistake I referred to earlier, which I suggested he might figure out on his own. Although, he may be correct... in Brazil. He says he has seen a group of Christians surround a group of atheists and vehemently attack and denigrate them for their "non-belief". Eh.. maybe. There are idiots on both sides. He includes himself as having been attacked. I wonder if he considers this, one of those times? He makes comparisons where no prior mention exists. He tries to slide around the information RainmanTime has presented even though the information presented by RainmanTime, " translation, multiple interpretations, aligning verses" is exactly what is required to understand this argument. We'll get back to this post.* 34th. RainmanTime responds to Nicolas' "dodge" with more valid understanding of the "original" text. 35th. Cosmo splits this discussion off from the "wrong" thread we took off track. I apologize to Milo.X. 36th. There are a few more posts, but following this review, I intend to start another new direction. Maybe tomorrow. *Back to Nicolas' post Oh yeah it is. Specially because labeling me as this or that, had nothing to do with the original argument. We steered away from it because we couldn't kill it in the first few posts, which could've been easily done. Instead, we lost time establishing I'm the atheist that lacks all sort of skills to understand what a christian has to say about his faith. "You" labeled yourself an atheist. I commented on what I have seen atheists do on numerous occasions. If it doesn't "fit you" why worry about it? Well. Nicolas, as you have said to me, with no antecedent, I say to you, with justification; "It's all right sir... I'm not that Christian that once hurt you." No atheists... I repeat NO atheists, have ever hurt me in any way. I didn't ask you to prove to me your belief in Jesus, the Bible or God. I'll repeat, in my opinion, this is all irrelevant for what was being questioned here. In all of those quotes from me that you posted, I was asking for an explanation of how you came to the original conclusion. I just wanted to understand what you were saying. Not questioning your beliefs. My post was concerning "you" asking me to prove/show/or whatever, why I believe "my position on Genesis". You keep inserting Jesus, God, and the Bible, not I. Very early on I said; My comment... ... is rhetorical. Well, that was disappointing. For more context; I understand your disappointment. The rest is for RainmanTime and he has already responded to it.
×
×
  • Create New...