Conquer Club

9 off topic posts in a row...how will this topic ever reach a conclusion with so much crap in between

Mrs,

Animals starve to death when they outgrow their environment, I'm merely observing and making use of the fact to encourage the environment to thrive.

You talked about harvesting ducks.

hotfire wrote:9 off topic posts in a row...how will this topic ever reach a conclusion with so much crap in between

Excuse me, that's God's crap in between which grants us the energy to produce more crap.

_sabotage_ wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

_sabotage_ wrote:Mets,

The sun is absorbed by the plant, which is eaten by the animal, which other animals eat. God is in all these things and this is how he transfers energy to sustain life. In all things, He is the teacher. If we observe him closely, then we will excel, but that is the stumbling block because the profits are in control of scarcity and man has his own desires.

You are supposed to be an environmentalist(?), whose environment are you saving, the playground for the rich or the home of mankind?

So, definition of God:

He is in the sun, plants, herbivores, and carnivores.
He transfers life-sustaining energy.
He is a teacher (certificate unknown).


What about the "supreme being" of Hinduism? That's pretty much everywhere as well.

1. How can you tell if you're praising a Hindu concept or a Judeo-Christian/sabotagian concept?

2. I transferred life-sustaining potential energy to the plants outside (compost). Am I God? or am I one-third God?

2b. I forget my random lecture on how the human body breaks down food in order to create energy, (I think ATP is involved--hory shit, it is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... y/atp.html).

Therefore, ATP is God, or two-thirds God, right?

3. Being a teacher doesn't really make one God--unless you want to apply that to all teachers, or specify how exactly GOd, the teacher, is different from the other teachers.

Then there's: "is God teaching, or are you imposing your beliefs on a process, which you then label as, "ah, God is teaching me." Aren't you just teaching yourself, or learning from everyday happenings?

For example, reading about ATP has taught me much. ATP is a teacher; therefore, ATP is God--except in the Sun. That's the ATP-God off-limits zone.

God is all energy. All matter is composed of energy and will revert to energy.

God is your vessel and your soul can sense every vibration of God when you praise him. You know when you have acted against God whatever your religion.

Your body and without and within are God, your soul is yours. You are deciding to compost, and are enabled through the tools of God to do so.

The energy that creates the food, creates the environment for it, creates your ability to acquire it so that your soul may have a room in God's mansion are all God's. It's your choice to recognize his room or denounce it as someone else's.

God allows us to learn through example. Do I have to to do the Bruce Lee is Chinese, my wife is Chinese therefore my wife is Bruce Lee to answer this question?

God is the best teacher as he allowed his energy to burst forth in an ordered way. Follow the order and it will work for you, work against it and it will topple when it fails to obey the laws.

Therefore, God = Hindu Supreme Being = ATP.

I don't understand your definition of God, given its implications.

Maybe this will help

E=mc2

_sabotage_ wrote:That with my unobserved imagined God I am to respect life and not harm it; with your big bangs, it is necessary to struggle to survive and ensure your survival at the expense of others.

Edit: and for the record, my God is everything and therefore omnipresent and extremely observable, and that the science that you claim to cling to, is just the study of God, and you have let the facts be misinterpreted.

Which is irrelevant to the TRUTH of the god hypothesis.Things don't become true 'cos they lead you to respect life and not harm it,or untrue 'cos the opposite.More gobbledegook......

BigBallinStalin wrote:

hotfire wrote:9 off topic posts in a row...how will this topic ever reach a conclusion with so much crap in between

Excuse me, that's God's crap in between which grants us the energy to produce more crap.

i wonder if God's crap leaves a trail on the ocean floor

_sabotage_ wrote:Maybe this will help

E=mc2

If God equals that equation, then much of the Bible's definition of God is incorrect. I guess you're fine with this; if not, then there's a contradiction.

So, how do we know God is that equation?

None of this contradicts the Bible. E=mc2 is just a small segment of God which may help you answer you own question of how much God composes your body. If all matter comes from energy, and all energy came from the Big Bang, then your matter is composed of God's energy.

If God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then he is the universe and we may represent him with the physical laws that quantify aspects of him but do not represent his totality.

So, the Bible said that God is E = mc^2?

The om-om-om assumption can't be taken seriously because it has yet to surmount its criticisms.

So, we're left with "god is everything," which fails to separate it from the "supreme being" and "the universe." Only one of those is observable (hint: it rhymes with 'nurse'). It takes a leap of faith to say, "universe = god," which goes beyond the scientific.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

_sabotage_ wrote:Maybe this will help

E=mc2

If God equals that equation, then much of the Bible's definition of God is incorrect. I guess you're fine with this; if not, then there's a contradiction.

So, how do we know God is that equation?

'Cos Sab says so and things become automatically true when he wants them to.Or maybe he's just making it up as he goes,not sure

But it takes a leap of greater faith to suggest multiple universes popping out of nothing with no supporting evidence to generate even the remote possibility of life by other means. Which goes beyond the scientific.

You, sir, you, have come to the end of my post.

_sabotage_ wrote:But it takes a leap of greater faith to suggest multiple universes popping out of nothing with no supporting evidence to generate even the remote possibility of life by other means. Which goes beyond the scientific.

Why do you believe that it is impossible to find evidence for the existence of these other universes? It may yet prove to be possible to see the signal of them in light from the Big Bang. We can't know for sure, yet, but we can't rule it out. Have faith.

hotfire wrote:9 off topic posts in a row...how will this topic ever reach a conclusion with so much crap in between

What makes you think anyone wants it to reach a conclusion?

_sabotage_ wrote:But it takes a leap of greater faith to suggest multiple universes popping out of nothing with no supporting evidence to generate even the remote possibility of life by other means. Which goes beyond the scientific.

You, sir, you, have come to the end of my post.

Not a greater leap but an equal one,that's the whole point,one absurd,beyond the scientific,idea is as good or bad as another.

hotfire wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

hotfire wrote:9 off topic posts in a row...how will this topic ever reach a conclusion with so much crap in between

Excuse me, that's God's crap in between which grants us the energy to produce more crap.

i wonder if God's crap leaves a trail on the ocean floor

Hotfire wins the last few pages of the topic. Maybe the entire topic. It's pretty close.


--Andy

_sabotage_ wrote:But it takes a leap of greater faith to suggest multiple universes popping out of nothing with no supporting evidence to generate even the remote possibility of life by other means. Which goes beyond the scientific.

You, sir, you, have come to the end of my post.

You don't understand. There's "making hypotheses" (e.g. the multiverse hypothesis), and then there's "claiming X because the Bible/I said so" or "the multiverse hypothesis is definitely true."

The former is scientific; the latter is not.

Also, the Bible doesn't support your E=mc^2 position, but don't let that stop you. Just keep picking and choosing to satisfy yourself to your heart's content.

If you feel the Bible does not maintain that God is omnipresent, feel free to illustrate it.

I am not using the Bible to back up my point, I'm only presenting what the opponents of intelligent design propose. If you wish me to corroborate it with Biblical evidence, I think I would be overstepping my welcome far beyond what I have already done in this thread and should take it elsewhere.

Chang, it is not an equal leap of faith because we cannot observe multiple universes. Therefore it comes done to chance. I'm betting on the only horse in the race, your betting on one of all known electrons.

If the theory of multiple universes is viable, it still doesn't answer the essential question of why are we here, it just moves it to how are those universes being created. Which is the question we have been asking all along.

_sabotage_ wrote:If you feel the Bible does not maintain that God is omnipresent, feel free to illustrate it.

I am not using the Bible to back up my point, I'm only presenting what the opponents of intelligent design propose. If you wish me to corroborate it with Biblical evidence, I think I would be overstepping my welcome far beyond what I have already done in this thread and should take it elsewhere.

Chang, it is not an equal leap of faith because we cannot observe multiple universes. Therefore it comes done to chance. I'm betting on the only horse in the race, your betting on one of all known electrons.

If the theory of multiple universes is viable, it still doesn't answer the essential question of why are we here, it just moves it to how are those universes being created. Which is the question we have been asking all along.

And why would you imagine we are remotely capable of answering such a question,assuming it even has an answer?

_sabotage_ wrote:Chang, it is not an equal leap of faith because we cannot observe multiple universes. Therefore it comes done to chance. I'm betting on the only horse in the race, your betting on one of all known electrons.

Actually, some scientists think we can:

http://sgandhi.tumblr.com/post/11591374 ... ating-dark

Turok and Steinhardt were inspired by a lecture given by Burt Ovrut who imagined two branes, universes like ours, separated by a tiny gap as tiny as 10-32 meters. There would be no communictaion between the two universes except for our parallel sister universe’s gravitational pull, which could cross the tiny gap.

Orvut’s theory could explain the effect of dark matter where areas of the universe are heavier than they should be given everything that’s present.

Afaik (I don't keep up too well with that level of physics because it's beyond my understanding) it's still at the hypothesis stage, a lot of work still needs to be done on that side of things, but there is potentially an observable effect of another universe that has real explanatory power about phenomena in this one.

hotfire wrote:why should there be a trail of sediment across the ocean floor? continents dont float on top of water dumping sediment over their edge onto the ocean floor like an overfilled dumptruck would leak a dirt trail while it drove down the road...

I understand the use of comical language to make my contentions seem childish and unscientific, but Continents do dump sediment over their edge onto the ocean floor. The mechanism is called rivers. Every continent has rivers. Yes even Antarctica has a river of ice. And each river deposits sediment (from the continent) onto the ocean floor.
Therefore, since there is no trail of sediment on the ocean floor from the Mid-Atlantic ridge to current mouths of rivers, then there are two viable options:
A. The continents had zero rivers and therefore no mechanism to deposit sediment for a trail. Not likely.
B. The continents moved quicker in the beginning of the break up of Pangea and the age of the break up of Pangea is not 120 million years ago but roughly 4,500 years ago around the time of Noah's flood.

So ask yourself, since you didn't know that Continents dump sediment over their edge onto the ocean floor, maybe there are other things you may not know, but believe just because someone told you. Check it out for yourself. Look at maps of the ocean floor and maps of river deltas, and ponder the lack of sediment deposit at the deltas. And ask yourself is it possible that the continents moved quickly at the break up of Pangea? Yes, it's possible and this explains the lack of a sediment trail from MidAtlantic ridge to the Amazon and also explains why rivers around the globe don't have enough sediment deposited at the deltas to support 120 million year old continents.

This hypothesis is not only possible, but plausible.
The observable evidence: The amount of sediment rivers deposit, the amount of deposit that only supports 4500 years and the lack of trail deposit on the ocean floor..
The testability: The rate of deposit/amount of deposited sediment equals rough estimate of 4500 years

I can't stand schiro's avatar.

Ever searched for 'chiro' on urbandictionary.com?

_sabotage_ wrote: If the theory of multiple universes is viable, it still doesn't answer the essential question of why are we here, it just moves it to how are those universes being created. Which is the question we have been asking all along.

Do you think your creator hypothesis does explain why we are here? I don't think it does. It just moves it to who created the creator.