QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 30 2010, 02:21 AM)
dopEduh
1. you state Mallards cannot dive.
2. everyone shows you irrefutable evidence that Mallards do, indeed, dive.
3. you are wrong.
4. instead of admitting you were wrong, you still insist Mallards can not dive.
To me it's far more dishonest to say that Mallards can dive and chase fish, than it is to say that they can not since they can't. Some water birds can dive and chase fish. Mallards are not one of them, so I tell people Mallards are not one of them. Other people prefer to be dishonest about it, which is how stupid false beliefs get started. This was just an experiment to see how much effort you people would put into promoting a false impression, and though I expected dishonesty I was surprised to see so much of it. We are participating in an example of how stupid false beliefs get put into circulation, you promoting them and me pointing them out. It's what I do.
How many examples of Mallards diving were people able to find btw? I only recall the one example in one marina in which one duck in one dive out of hundreds for shellfish came back with a fish that must have been sick, injured or dead.
1. you state Mallards cannot dive.
2. everyone shows you irrefutable evidence that Mallards do, indeed, dive.
3. you are wrong.
4. instead of admitting you were wrong, you still insist Mallards can not dive.
To me it's far more dishonest to say that Mallards can dive and chase fish, than it is to say that they can not since they can't. Some water birds can dive and chase fish. Mallards are not one of them, so I tell people Mallards are not one of them. Other people prefer to be dishonest about it, which is how stupid false beliefs get started. This was just an experiment to see how much effort you people would put into promoting a false impression, and though I expected dishonesty I was surprised to see so much of it. We are participating in an example of how stupid false beliefs get put into circulation, you promoting them and me pointing them out. It's what I do.
How many examples of Mallards diving were people able to find btw? I only recall the one example in one marina in which one duck in one dive out of hundreds for shellfish came back with a fish that must have been sick, injured or dead.
QUOTE (Faery+Apr 30 2010, 02:45 PM)
I would like to post what i think.
In the big picture life has no meaning at all.
Their is no standard meaning to why we live. We just do.
It's not possible for you to know that. It's just your guess which is no better than anyone else's. If God does not exist then there's nothing to give life more meaning than whatever we get out of it, but if he does then there certainly could be.
**I know I can't be the only one who recognizes nopeda's goal is to consistently engage people in his useless flights of foolery that reduces the rest of us to explaining that 2+2=4 - we're not supposed to be explaining this; and he gets what he wants when he posts outright lies, then sits back comfortably while we again STUPIDLY EXPLAIN ONCE AGAIN 2+2=4, only to get slurred for it by him.
Does anyone understand that an obnoxious kid is manipulating this waste of time, and knows exactly what he is doing? You cannot correct his pathology unless you are his psychotherapist. His posting history and the numerous responses to them have negated any further need to protect other posters, new or not, from his ignorance. He needs to be ignored. Have I covered the main points in this now?
In the big picture life has no meaning at all.
Their is no standard meaning to why we live. We just do.
It's not possible for you to know that. It's just your guess which is no better than anyone else's. If God does not exist then there's nothing to give life more meaning than whatever we get out of it, but if he does then there certainly could be.
QUOTE (Faery+Apr 30 2010, 02:45 PM)
You should never refuse a scientific explanation thats backed up by
experiment and observation
Like what did you have in mind?
experiment and observation
Like what did you have in mind?
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 30 2010, 12:03 AM)
But you were implying that I had.
If you're trying to create the impression that Mallards can dive and chase fish you should be ashamed.
If you're trying to create the impression that Mallards can dive and chase fish you should be ashamed.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 2 2010, 02:50 PM)
How many examples of Mallards diving were people able to find btw? I only recall the one example in one marina in which one duck in one dive out of hundreds for shellfish came back with a fish that must have been sick, injured or dead.
We came up with many examples, including several videos, and in the reference where the mallard was seen to catch a fish, there was NO mention of hundreds of dives or that the fish was in any way incapacitated.
That's just you MAKING STUFF UP.
More LYING.
As usual.
Artur
We came up with many examples, including several videos, and in the reference where the mallard was seen to catch a fish, there was NO mention of hundreds of dives or that the fish was in any way incapacitated.
That's just you MAKING STUFF UP.
More LYING.
As usual.
Artur
QUOTE
If you're trying to create the impression that Mallards can dive and chase fish you should be ashamed.
This is an example of a comment that should not be directly replied to; neither should this poster. If this can be accomplished, by every one of us, the result would be a body of useless unnecessary unproductive unreplied-to posts that poke fun at scientific fact as well as those that attempt to teach it. Unlike the 9/11 threads ie, the posts from nopeda are not addressing a complex potpourri of data; they are directly refuting proven singular scientific properties/observations and slurring those that explain them. This should be accepted grounds for banning from a science forum, especially in concurrence with the wholesale ignoring of such posts. Replying to nopeda legitimizes him, since it implies that another poster is attempting to educate, which supports keeping the scientifically offending poster on board. We have only the political process to prevail against him; it starts with Discommodation.**I know I can't be the only one who recognizes nopeda's goal is to consistently engage people in his useless flights of foolery that reduces the rest of us to explaining that 2+2=4 - we're not supposed to be explaining this; and he gets what he wants when he posts outright lies, then sits back comfortably while we again STUPIDLY EXPLAIN ONCE AGAIN 2+2=4, only to get slurred for it by him.
Does anyone understand that an obnoxious kid is manipulating this waste of time, and knows exactly what he is doing? You cannot correct his pathology unless you are his psychotherapist. His posting history and the numerous responses to them have negated any further need to protect other posters, new or not, from his ignorance. He needs to be ignored. Have I covered the main points in this now?
QUOTE (adoucette+May 3 2010, 01:31 AM)
We came up with many examples, including several videos, and in the reference where the mallard was seen to catch a fish, there was NO mention of hundreds of dives
Try providing some reason(s) for me to believe you if you think there are any.
Try providing some reason(s) for me to believe you if you think there are any.
You've been shown photos, you've been shown videos, you've been show articles.
You have decided not to believe anything you're shown, so why ask for more?
idiot
You have decided not to believe anything you're shown, so why ask for more?
idiot
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 3 2010, 05:32 PM)
the posts from nopeda are not addressing a complex potpourri of data; they are directly refuting proven singular scientific properties/observations and slurring those that explain them.
I've learned from many hours spent around them that Mallard ducks can not dive and chase fish successfully enough that it's honest to say they can do so. The fact that they are known as surface feeding ducks is more evidence of the fact, of course.
People in this forum have been dishonestly trying to create the impression that Mallards can dive and chase fish successfully enough that it's honest to say they can.
The thing that began people's attempts to create the false impression, was my telling the truth to begin with. At the time I told it I also correctly predicted the possibility of the dishonesty.
I've learned from many hours spent around them that Mallard ducks can not dive and chase fish successfully enough that it's honest to say they can do so. The fact that they are known as surface feeding ducks is more evidence of the fact, of course.
People in this forum have been dishonestly trying to create the impression that Mallards can dive and chase fish successfully enough that it's honest to say they can.
The thing that began people's attempts to create the false impression, was my telling the truth to begin with. At the time I told it I also correctly predicted the possibility of the dishonesty.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 3 2010, 08:20 PM)
I've learned from many hours spent around them that Mallard ducks can not dive and chase fish successfully enough that it's honest to say they can do so. The fact that they are known as surface feeding ducks is more evidence of the fact, of course.
People in this forum have been dishonestly trying to create the impression that Mallards can dive and chase fish successfully enough that it's honest to say they can.
The thing that began people's attempts to create the false impression, was my telling the truth to begin with. At the time I told it I also correctly predicted the possibility of the dishonesty.
I don't think you have said if you have considered that the population of mallards you have observed is typical or not.
People in this forum have been dishonestly trying to create the impression that Mallards can dive and chase fish successfully enough that it's honest to say they can.
The thing that began people's attempts to create the false impression, was my telling the truth to begin with. At the time I told it I also correctly predicted the possibility of the dishonesty.
I don't think you have said if you have considered that the population of mallards you have observed is typical or not.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 3 2010, 03:20 PM)
I've learned from many hours spent around them that Mallard ducks can not dive and chase fish successfully enough that it's honest to say they can do so. The fact that they are known as surface feeding ducks is more evidence of the fact, of course.
Yes, we have other examples of what you claimed to have LEARNED
Does anyone understand that an obnoxious kid is manipulating this waste of time, and knows exactly what he is doing?
Good try. I wish it worked.
The answer must be "No."
Yes, we have other examples of what you claimed to have LEARNED
QUOTE (nopEda+)
That's because I'm around Mallard ducks a lot and know from personal experience around them that they can't dive and chase fish. They can't even dive down and grab a piece of bread that sinks beyond their reach. When they do "dive" they have to be moving as fast as they can and then sort of angle down using the momentum. I've never seen an adult do it or even attempt it, but I did see a duckling do it one time when it was being chased by a kayak. They can't dive and chase fish though, like I said.
Of course the article about them diving down and grabbing mollusks off the bottom of the lake showed that you were WRONG in your belief that they couldn't dive down and grab a piece of bread that sinks beyond their reach, and the XXX video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQWEP-FYtBk showed that you were also WRONG in that they didn't have to be moving as fast as they can to dive, and in fact were pretty good divers and could do so easily.
So clearly instead of learning, you just JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS based on a very LIMITED set of observations of a very LIMITED set of Mallards.
On the other hand, our research clearly provided many examples of them diving and doing so to depth and staying under for long periods of time and maneuvering underwater and even catching fish.
Which clearly makes your contention that Mallards are incapable of diving and chasing fish WRONG.
Nor can you change the argument that people are erroneously claiming that this diving is typical Mallard behavior.
Indeed the research has shown that they are generally surface feeding ducks and generally they do prefer to just dabble in shallow water.
BUT
As our examples show, that doesn't mean they are incapable of diving and catching fish when the opportunity/desire presents itself, or that they are bad at it.
Arthur
Of course the article about them diving down and grabbing mollusks off the bottom of the lake showed that you were WRONG in your belief that they couldn't dive down and grab a piece of bread that sinks beyond their reach, and the XXX video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQWEP-FYtBk showed that you were also WRONG in that they didn't have to be moving as fast as they can to dive, and in fact were pretty good divers and could do so easily.
So clearly instead of learning, you just JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS based on a very LIMITED set of observations of a very LIMITED set of Mallards.
On the other hand, our research clearly provided many examples of them diving and doing so to depth and staying under for long periods of time and maneuvering underwater and even catching fish.
Which clearly makes your contention that Mallards are incapable of diving and chasing fish WRONG.
Nor can you change the argument that people are erroneously claiming that this diving is typical Mallard behavior.
Indeed the research has shown that they are generally surface feeding ducks and generally they do prefer to just dabble in shallow water.
BUT
As our examples show, that doesn't mean they are incapable of diving and catching fish when the opportunity/desire presents itself, or that they are bad at it.
Arthur
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 3 2010, 01:32 PM)
Does anyone understand that an obnoxious kid is manipulating this waste of time, and knows exactly what he is doing?
Good try. I wish it worked.
The answer must be "No."
QUOTE (adoucette+May 4 2010, 02:34 AM)
clearly instead of learning, you just JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS based on a very LIMITED set of observations of a very LIMITED set of Mallards.
Why are Mallards in general known as surface feeders if they regularly dive and chase fish? Why haven't you been able to find ANY!!! examples of a number of them diving and catching fish if it's something they do and do regularly? Why was a man in one of the articles astonished to see them diving for shellfish, if they regularly dive and chase fish?
So far it appears clear that YOU are doing exactly what you very dishonestly are accusing me of doing, while I am not doing what you dishonestly accuse me of. In order to change that appearance you will need to present a number of examples of Mallards diving, chasing and CATCHING fish. Not just one example. Not just two or three, but in order for it to appear that you may be correct you will need to present at least six different examples of Mallards diving and catching fish. I feel it's very safe to predict that you can NOT!
Why are Mallards in general known as surface feeders if they regularly dive and chase fish? Why haven't you been able to find ANY!!! examples of a number of them diving and catching fish if it's something they do and do regularly? Why was a man in one of the articles astonished to see them diving for shellfish, if they regularly dive and chase fish?
So far it appears clear that YOU are doing exactly what you very dishonestly are accusing me of doing, while I am not doing what you dishonestly accuse me of. In order to change that appearance you will need to present a number of examples of Mallards diving, chasing and CATCHING fish. Not just one example. Not just two or three, but in order for it to appear that you may be correct you will need to present at least six different examples of Mallards diving and catching fish. I feel it's very safe to predict that you can NOT!
QUOTE (nopEda+May 4 2010, 02:10 PM)
Why are Mallards in general known as surface feeders if they regularly dive and chase fish? Why haven't you been able to find ANY!!! examples of a number of them diving and catching fish if it's something they do and do regularly? Why was a man in one of the articles astonished to see them diving for shellfish, if they regularly dive and chase fish?
So far it appears clear that YOU are doing exactly what you very dishonestly are accusing me of doing, while I am not doing what you dishonestly accuse me of. In order to change that appearance you will need to present a number of examples of Mallards diving, chasing and CATCHING fish. Not just one example. Not just two or three, but in order for it to appear that you may be correct you will need to present at least six different examples of Mallards diving and catching fish. I feel it's very safe to predict that you can NOT!
Why are Humans in general known as surface feeders if they regularly climb trees and pick apples? Why haven't you been able to find ANY!!! examples of a number of them climbing and picking apples if it's something they do and do regularly? Why was a man in one of the articles astonished to see them climbing for avocados, if they regularly climb trees and pick apples?
So far it appears clear that YOU are doing exactly what you very dishonestly are accusing me of doing, while I am not doing what you dishonestly accuse me of. In order to change that appearance you will need to present a number of examples of Humans climbing and PICKING apples. Not just one example. Not just two or three, but in order for it to appear that you may be correct you will need to present at least six different examples of Humans climbing and picking apples. I feel it's very safe to predict that you can NOT!
There is a difference between "can't" and "won't."
So far it appears clear that YOU are doing exactly what you very dishonestly are accusing me of doing, while I am not doing what you dishonestly accuse me of. In order to change that appearance you will need to present a number of examples of Mallards diving, chasing and CATCHING fish. Not just one example. Not just two or three, but in order for it to appear that you may be correct you will need to present at least six different examples of Mallards diving and catching fish. I feel it's very safe to predict that you can NOT!
Why are Humans in general known as surface feeders if they regularly climb trees and pick apples? Why haven't you been able to find ANY!!! examples of a number of them climbing and picking apples if it's something they do and do regularly? Why was a man in one of the articles astonished to see them climbing for avocados, if they regularly climb trees and pick apples?
So far it appears clear that YOU are doing exactly what you very dishonestly are accusing me of doing, while I am not doing what you dishonestly accuse me of. In order to change that appearance you will need to present a number of examples of Humans climbing and PICKING apples. Not just one example. Not just two or three, but in order for it to appear that you may be correct you will need to present at least six different examples of Humans climbing and picking apples. I feel it's very safe to predict that you can NOT!
There is a difference between "can't" and "won't."
QUOTE (buttershug+May 3 2010, 08:35 PM)
I don't think you have said if you have considered that the population of mallards you have observed is typical or not.
It seems strange to me that you could consider the possibility that the ones I'm familiar with are unusual, even though Mallards are known as surface feeders and one of the guys in one of the few articles about Mallards diving was astonished to see them diving for shellfish. Could you honestly be unaware that it's very unusual for Mallards to ever dive for food of any kind? And/or that none of you have presented a single example of Mallards diving and catching fish? I always end up wondering if you people are really as clueless as you portray yourselves, or if you're being deliberately dishonest about it. I'm left to conclude that it must be a mixture of the two.
It seems strange to me that you could consider the possibility that the ones I'm familiar with are unusual, even though Mallards are known as surface feeders and one of the guys in one of the few articles about Mallards diving was astonished to see them diving for shellfish. Could you honestly be unaware that it's very unusual for Mallards to ever dive for food of any kind? And/or that none of you have presented a single example of Mallards diving and catching fish? I always end up wondering if you people are really as clueless as you portray yourselves, or if you're being deliberately dishonest about it. I'm left to conclude that it must be a mixture of the two.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 4 2010, 06:17 PM)
Why are Humans in general known as surface feeders
Try providing some evidence that they are.
Try providing some evidence that they are.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 4 2010, 06:17 PM)
It seems strange to me that you could consider the possibility that the ones I'm familiar with are unusual, even though Mallards are known as surface feeders and one of the guys in one of the few articles about Mallards diving was astonished to see them diving for shellfish. Could you honestly be unaware that it's very unusual for Mallards to ever dive for food of any kind? And/or that none of you have presented a single example of Mallards diving and catching fish? I always end up wondering if you people are really as clueless as you portray yourselves, or if you're being deliberately dishonest about it. I'm left to conclude that it must be a mixture of the two.
You switched from "can't" to "very unusual".
Have you considered that yours can't but others can but don't usually.
And I try to consider everything.
Including God existing or not existing, and time existing or not existing.
You only consider half of those four possibilities.
And my reaching any given conclusion does not mean that I did not consider the opposite before reaching a conclusion.
You switched from "can't" to "very unusual".
Have you considered that yours can't but others can but don't usually.
And I try to consider everything.
Including God existing or not existing, and time existing or not existing.
You only consider half of those four possibilities.
And my reaching any given conclusion does not mean that I did not consider the opposite before reaching a conclusion.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 4 2010, 01:17 PM)
It seems strange to me that you could consider the possibility that the ones I'm familiar with are unusual, even though Mallards are known as surface feeders and one of the guys in one of the few articles about Mallards diving was astonished to see them diving for shellfish. Could you honestly be unaware that it's very unusual for Mallards to ever dive for food of any kind? And/or that none of you have presented a single example of Mallards diving and catching fish? I always end up wondering if you people are really as clueless as you portray yourselves, or if you're being deliberately dishonest about it. I'm left to conclude that it must be a mixture of the two.
This is another example of "troll".
This is another example of "troll".
QUOTE (nopEda+May 4 2010, 01:10 PM)
Why are Mallards in general known as surface feeders if they regularly dive and chase fish?
Again, no one is saying that this is their REGULAR behavior.
But that was NOT the issue you raised.
You simply claimed that Mallards CAN'T dive and chase fish.
But they CAN.
Doesn't matter if they don't do it very often because we provided evidence that they CAN do it.
The rest of this is just you trying to rationalize the fact that you were WRONG.
Oh, and here is another study of Mallard behavior that shows that they DIVE for food.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/mnpair/index.htm
Arthur
Again, no one is saying that this is their REGULAR behavior.
But that was NOT the issue you raised.
You simply claimed that Mallards CAN'T dive and chase fish.
But they CAN.
Doesn't matter if they don't do it very often because we provided evidence that they CAN do it.
The rest of this is just you trying to rationalize the fact that you were WRONG.
Oh, and here is another study of Mallard behavior that shows that they DIVE for food.
QUOTE
To analyse types of feeding behaviour, we separated feeding into categories of immersion: dip (feeding at the water surface, immersing no more than the bill and face), dunk (immersing head or head and neck), tip up (immersing upper body), dive (full body immersion), and other (gleaning off vegetation, pecking off ground, snapping from the air).
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/mnpair/index.htm
Arthur
I find it hard to understand why anyone is still involved in any kind of discussion with noFeet.
He is a dishonest, lying troll. Everyone knows that by now. Why post to him as though he were a reasonable human being? He's not.
He is a dishonest, lying troll. Everyone knows that by now. Why post to him as though he were a reasonable human being? He's not.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 4 2010, 06:58 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Could you honestly be unaware that it's very unusual for Mallards to ever dive for food of any kind? And/or that none of you have presented a single example of Mallards diving and catching fish?
You switched from "can't" to "very unusual".
Have you considered that yours can't but others can but don't usually.
It's unusual for them to dive for food at all, and they can't dive and chase fish.
If you were really trying to go about this in an honest way you would have accepted and acknowledge that long before this, and would be thinking about the unusual circumstances that cause Mallards to dive for shellfish and whatever else some few have been observed diving for.
Have you considered that yours can't but others can but don't usually.
It's unusual for them to dive for food at all, and they can't dive and chase fish.
If you were really trying to go about this in an honest way you would have accepted and acknowledge that long before this, and would be thinking about the unusual circumstances that cause Mallards to dive for shellfish and whatever else some few have been observed diving for.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 4 2010, 06:58 PM)
And I try to consider everything.
Including God existing or not existing, and time existing or not existing.
You only consider half of those four possibilities.
And my reaching any given conclusion does not mean that I did not consider the opposite before reaching a conclusion.
You've given no indication that you consider the possibility of God's existence. I consider that, but not the existence of time. After you have reached a conclusion you don't have the freedom to consider things you did before reaching it, which may in large part be why it's referred to as a conclusion.
Including God existing or not existing, and time existing or not existing.
You only consider half of those four possibilities.
And my reaching any given conclusion does not mean that I did not consider the opposite before reaching a conclusion.
You've given no indication that you consider the possibility of God's existence. I consider that, but not the existence of time. After you have reached a conclusion you don't have the freedom to consider things you did before reaching it, which may in large part be why it's referred to as a conclusion.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 4 2010, 07:49 PM)
Again, no one is saying that this is their REGULAR behavior.
But that was NOT the issue you raised.
You simply claimed that Mallards CAN'T dive and chase fish.
But they CAN.
Doesn't matter if they don't do it very often because we provided evidence that they CAN do it.
As yet I've seen nothing to indicate that they can. Your claims that they can count as nothing, btw.
But that was NOT the issue you raised.
You simply claimed that Mallards CAN'T dive and chase fish.
But they CAN.
Doesn't matter if they don't do it very often because we provided evidence that they CAN do it.
As yet I've seen nothing to indicate that they can. Your claims that they can count as nothing, btw.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 5 2010, 02:52 PM)
As yet I've seen nothing to indicate that they can. Your claims that they can count as nothing, btw.
Well I'm going to trust Bill Evans, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, report that they CAN dive and catch fish, over you any day of the week since you are both an idiot and a compulsive liar.
Arthur
Well I'm going to trust Bill Evans, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, report that they CAN dive and catch fish, over you any day of the week since you are both an idiot and a compulsive liar.
Arthur
dopEduh
Yes, they not only can but do. You are just an idiot.
Yes, they not only can but do. You are just an idiot.
I consider that, but not the existence of time. After you have reached a conclusion you don't have the freedom to consider things you did before reaching it, which may in large part be why it's referred to as a conclusion.
In your case it is called crap-headed stupidity. Conclusions are based on facts, not simple mindedness.
Grumpy
QUOTE
It's unusual for them to dive for food at all, and they can't dive and chase fish.
Yes, they not only can but do. You are just an idiot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's unusual for them to dive for food at all, and they can't dive and chase fish. |
Yes, they not only can but do. You are just an idiot.
I consider that, but not the existence of time. After you have reached a conclusion you don't have the freedom to consider things you did before reaching it, which may in large part be why it's referred to as a conclusion.
In your case it is called crap-headed stupidity. Conclusions are based on facts, not simple mindedness.
Grumpy
nopEda,
It's only fair to let you know about a rumor that was going around the forum a few years ago.
The rumor was that Pysforum has a very secretive department that owns a satellite with a laser. The department monitors feedback scores and when someone reaches -200 the laser targets that person and ZAP! nothing but carbon left. The reasoning is that the person with that kind of score is completely unteachable and should be prevented from reproducing.
If you don't believe the rumor check around to find how many -200 scores there are.
See what I mean?
At -167 you may be leader of the pack and should start being careful.
Just a heads up.
It's only fair to let you know about a rumor that was going around the forum a few years ago.
The rumor was that Pysforum has a very secretive department that owns a satellite with a laser. The department monitors feedback scores and when someone reaches -200 the laser targets that person and ZAP! nothing but carbon left. The reasoning is that the person with that kind of score is completely unteachable and should be prevented from reproducing.
If you don't believe the rumor check around to find how many -200 scores there are.
See what I mean?
At -167 you may be leader of the pack and should start being careful.
Just a heads up.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 5 2010, 08:00 PM)
Well I'm going to trust Bill Evans, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, report that they CAN dive and catch fish
I'd like to see that report. Do you have a quote and a link?
I'd like to see that report. Do you have a quote and a link?
QUOTE (orestis+May 5 2010, 09:03 PM)
nopEda,
It's only fair to let you know about a rumor that was going around the forum a few years ago.
The rumor was that Pysforum has a very secretive department that owns a satellite with a laser. The department monitors feedback scores and when someone reaches -200 the laser targets that person and ZAP! nothing but carbon left.
That would solve a number of problems for me.
It's only fair to let you know about a rumor that was going around the forum a few years ago.
The rumor was that Pysforum has a very secretive department that owns a satellite with a laser. The department monitors feedback scores and when someone reaches -200 the laser targets that person and ZAP! nothing but carbon left.
That would solve a number of problems for me.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 6 2010, 04:41 PM)
I'd like to see that report. Do you have a quote and a link?
It's not worth the trouble for me to look it up once more since it's been posted 3 or 4 times and quoted several other times already.
Bill Evans is the Orthinologist who saw the mallard dive and come up with a 4-5 inch fish.
I'm not doing this again with you since you've proven yourself to be not only LAZY but a LIAR.
Arthur
It's not worth the trouble for me to look it up once more since it's been posted 3 or 4 times and quoted several other times already.
Bill Evans is the Orthinologist who saw the mallard dive and come up with a 4-5 inch fish.
I'm not doing this again with you since you've proven yourself to be not only LAZY but a LIAR.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 6 2010, 10:12 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I'd like to see that report. Do you have a quote and a link?
It's not worth the trouble for me to look it up once more since it's been posted 3 or 4 times and quoted several other times already.
Bill Evans is the Orthinologist who saw the mallard dive and come up with a 4-5 inch fish.
I'm not doing this again with you since you've proven yourself to be not only LAZY but a LIAR.
You showed me to be correct. You act like you yourself are too lazy to go back and find the examples you claim to be referring to, but all that does is show you would rather be revealed as lazy than as dishonest. What seems to clearly be the case is that you went back and looked at the info, found I was correct, and now you're trying to squirm out of it without looking so dishonest
by trying to dishonestly shift the lameness onto me.
I've told you people from the start this is an example of you people trying to promote an idea that IS NOT TRUE!!! It was a little test from my position to see how dishonest you people are, and it turns out you're even more so than I expected to begin with. I only expected a little bit, but then by nature I unfortunately tend to overestimate people.
It's not worth the trouble for me to look it up once more since it's been posted 3 or 4 times and quoted several other times already.
Bill Evans is the Orthinologist who saw the mallard dive and come up with a 4-5 inch fish.
I'm not doing this again with you since you've proven yourself to be not only LAZY but a LIAR.
You showed me to be correct. You act like you yourself are too lazy to go back and find the examples you claim to be referring to, but all that does is show you would rather be revealed as lazy than as dishonest. What seems to clearly be the case is that you went back and looked at the info, found I was correct, and now you're trying to squirm out of it without looking so dishonest
by trying to dishonestly shift the lameness onto me.I've told you people from the start this is an example of you people trying to promote an idea that IS NOT TRUE!!! It was a little test from my position to see how dishonest you people are, and it turns out you're even more so than I expected to begin with. I only expected a little bit, but then by nature I unfortunately tend to overestimate people.
Lying sack of sh*t.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 9 2010, 05:24 PM)
Lying sack of sh*t.
_________________________________________________________
http://birding.about.com/od/birdingglossar...abblingduck.htm
Dabbling Duck
By Melissa Mayntz, About.com Guide
Filed In:Birding Glossary
Dabbling ducks "tip up" to feed underwater.
JackieDefinition:
(noun) A type of shallow water duck that feeds primarily along the surface of the water or by tipping headfirst into the water to graze on aquatic plants and vegetation. These ducks are infrequent divers and are usually found in small ponds, rivers and other shallow waterways. Dabbling ducks also forage on land for seeds and insects. Physically, they have flat, broad bills and float high on the water while swimming and they tend to be very vocal birds.
Species of dabbling ducks include mallards, northern shovelers, American wigeons, American black ducks, gadwalls and cinnamon teal.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
http://birding.about.com/od/birdingglossary/g/divingduck.htm
Diving Duck
By Melissa Mayntz, About.com Guide
Filed In:Birding Glossary
Definition:
(noun) A type of duck that dives deeply and swims underwater to feed on aquatic vegetation, insects and occasionally small fish. These ducks are strong swimmers and will dive for protection, but they are uncertain and awkward on land.
Diving ducks are found on large, open bodies of water such as lakes, bays and estuaries, as well as in coastal areas. Species of diving ducks include buffleheads, lesser and greater scaups, canvasbacks, redheads, common goldeneyes and ruddy ducks.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
http://birding.about.com/od/birdingglossar...abblingduck.htm
Dabbling Duck
By Melissa Mayntz, About.com Guide
Filed In:Birding Glossary
Dabbling ducks "tip up" to feed underwater.
JackieDefinition:
(noun) A type of shallow water duck that feeds primarily along the surface of the water or by tipping headfirst into the water to graze on aquatic plants and vegetation. These ducks are infrequent divers and are usually found in small ponds, rivers and other shallow waterways. Dabbling ducks also forage on land for seeds and insects. Physically, they have flat, broad bills and float high on the water while swimming and they tend to be very vocal birds.
Species of dabbling ducks include mallards, northern shovelers, American wigeons, American black ducks, gadwalls and cinnamon teal.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
http://birding.about.com/od/birdingglossary/g/divingduck.htm
Diving Duck
By Melissa Mayntz, About.com Guide
Filed In:Birding Glossary
Definition:
(noun) A type of duck that dives deeply and swims underwater to feed on aquatic vegetation, insects and occasionally small fish. These ducks are strong swimmers and will dive for protection, but they are uncertain and awkward on land.
Diving ducks are found on large, open bodies of water such as lakes, bays and estuaries, as well as in coastal areas. Species of diving ducks include buffleheads, lesser and greater scaups, canvasbacks, redheads, common goldeneyes and ruddy ducks.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
dopEduh
Why do you like being thought of as a fool? An idiot? A *****? A little slow? A short bus rider? A few bricks short of a hob? Of limited intellect? As dumb as a sack of hammers?
Also, since when have the inmates at your institution been allowed to play on the computers? 
Grumpy
Why do you like being thought of as a fool? An idiot? A *****? A little slow? A short bus rider? A few bricks short of a hob? Of limited intellect? As dumb as a sack of hammers?
Also, since when have the inmates at your institution been allowed to play on the computers?
Grumpy
From your source:
Infrequent is NOT the same as CAN'T.
Which is why you are wrong about Mallards not being able to dive and catch fish.
Of course you want to change the argument into "are Mallards considered diving ducks?" but that WASN'T your original assertion.
In fact you claimed they couldn't even dive to the bottom to retrieve bread, which the story on the ducks that dove for mollusks clearly showed that you were WRONG.
In fact you claimed that they could only dive down by going full speed and angling down, but the xxx video and the description of them staying down for 12 seconds showed that AGAIN your were WRONG.
And
Finally, the ornithologists account of a diving duck catching a fish showed that INDEED, they CAN dive and catch fish, showing you were WRONG in every assertion you made.
Arthur
QUOTE
Dabbliing ducks:
These ducks are infrequent divers
These ducks are infrequent divers
Infrequent is NOT the same as CAN'T.
Which is why you are wrong about Mallards not being able to dive and catch fish.
Of course you want to change the argument into "are Mallards considered diving ducks?" but that WASN'T your original assertion.
In fact you claimed they couldn't even dive to the bottom to retrieve bread, which the story on the ducks that dove for mollusks clearly showed that you were WRONG.
In fact you claimed that they could only dive down by going full speed and angling down, but the xxx video and the description of them staying down for 12 seconds showed that AGAIN your were WRONG.
And
Finally, the ornithologists account of a diving duck catching a fish showed that INDEED, they CAN dive and catch fish, showing you were WRONG in every assertion you made.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 9 2010, 10:40 PM)
the ornithologists account of a diving duck catching a fish showed that INDEED, they CAN dive and catch fish
So far we have seen NO examples of Mallards diving and chasing fish. Not one. Provide three and I'll consider the possibility that you're right. When you can't, I will of course remain convinced you're just being dishonest by trying to create the impression that they can. This is a clear example of people like you trying to create a false impression. It's people like yourself who began the lie that cats can "suck the life out of" babies, for example.
So far we have seen NO examples of Mallards diving and chasing fish. Not one. Provide three and I'll consider the possibility that you're right. When you can't, I will of course remain convinced you're just being dishonest by trying to create the impression that they can. This is a clear example of people like you trying to create a false impression. It's people like yourself who began the lie that cats can "suck the life out of" babies, for example.
Why is anyone arguing with this as$hole?
QUOTE (AlexG+May 9 2010, 09:45 PM)
Why is anyone arguing with this as$hole?
Good point.
I put a Balkan curse on anyone who responds to the duck flucker.
May your cars not start. May your computers crash.
Good point.
I put a Balkan curse on anyone who responds to the duck flucker.
May your cars not start. May your computers crash.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 10 2010, 01:45 AM)
Why is anyone arguing with this as$hole?
Because they enjoy lying obviously. It was a test to see who would participate in promoting dishonesty, and we see that several people were eager to promote it.
But out of all of the attempting we have not one example of Mallards diving and chasing fish.
Because they enjoy lying obviously. It was a test to see who would participate in promoting dishonesty, and we see that several people were eager to promote it.
But out of all of the attempting we have not one example of Mallards diving and chasing fish.
QUOTE (orestis+May 10 2010, 02:07 AM)
I put a Balkan curse on anyone who responds to the duck flucker.
Now that you people have been challenged to present three examples of Mallards diving and chasing fish, and you can't present any, it's time for you to give up. Not confess the truth of course, but just give up.
Now that you people have been challenged to present three examples of Mallards diving and chasing fish, and you can't present any, it's time for you to give up. Not confess the truth of course, but just give up.
Damned fool.
You're right. We should give up at trying to teach you anything, for sure.
We will never give up fighting your garbage posts, however, for the fear that someone might mistake your total crap for reason or fact.
You're right. We should give up at trying to teach you anything, for sure.
We will never give up fighting your garbage posts, however, for the fear that someone might mistake your total crap for reason or fact.
QUOTE (Granouille+May 10 2010, 07:08 PM)
Damned fool.
You're right. We should give up at trying to teach you anything, for sure.
We will never give up fighting your garbage posts, however, for the fear that someone might mistake your total crap for reason or fact.
I started out by pointing out that God almost certainly would not be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior
native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years, if he does exist. People insulted me for that, though they could not explain how they want anyone to think he possibly could be.
Then I suggested that time does not exist, and was insulted for believing that it does and also that it does not.
Then I questioned FTL relative to what??? and have gotten a variety of answers but never anything satisfactory. People have said that light adjusts itself and alters its velocity so that it arrives at all objects in the universe at the same velocity relative to THEMSELVES, but no one has been able to explain how it does so nor why it doesn't also adjust its frequency in the same way(s) it supposedly adjusts its velocity.
Then I pointed out that Mallards can't dive and chase fish, so people have been trying to create the FALSE impression that Mallards CAN dive and chase fish...a classic example of people tying to promote disinformation or worse.
The "worst" I've done so far imo is to antagonise people a little like they have done to me, and to sort of goad people into trying to create a false impression about Mallard ducks, which they did.
You're right. We should give up at trying to teach you anything, for sure.
We will never give up fighting your garbage posts, however, for the fear that someone might mistake your total crap for reason or fact.
I started out by pointing out that God almost certainly would not be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior
native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years, if he does exist. People insulted me for that, though they could not explain how they want anyone to think he possibly could be.Then I suggested that time does not exist, and was insulted for believing that it does and also that it does not.
Then I questioned FTL relative to what??? and have gotten a variety of answers but never anything satisfactory. People have said that light adjusts itself and alters its velocity so that it arrives at all objects in the universe at the same velocity relative to THEMSELVES, but no one has been able to explain how it does so nor why it doesn't also adjust its frequency in the same way(s) it supposedly adjusts its velocity.
Then I pointed out that Mallards can't dive and chase fish, so people have been trying to create the FALSE impression that Mallards CAN dive and chase fish...a classic example of people tying to promote disinformation or worse.
The "worst" I've done so far imo is to antagonise people a little like they have done to me, and to sort of goad people into trying to create a false impression about Mallard ducks, which they did.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 11 2010, 09:16 AM)
Then I questioned FTL relative to what??? and have gotten a variety of answers but never anything satisfactory.
The fact that you don't understand the answer does not make it wrong.
I seriously suggest reading a book or two on relativity. Einstein for Dummies is pretty good.
The fact that you don't understand the answer does not make it wrong.
I seriously suggest reading a book or two on relativity. Einstein for Dummies is pretty good.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+May 11 2010, 02:23 PM)
The fact that you don't understand the answer does not make it wrong.
I got various answers. Which one(s) do you like and why?
I got various answers. Which one(s) do you like and why?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+May 11 2010, 02:23 PM)
I seriously suggest reading a book or two on relativity. Einstein for Dummies is pretty good.
I guess in the time I've spent trying to dig it out of this forum I could have read a couple of books. Then again if people in the forum could have answered the questions I wouldn't need to read books. I have read some books anyway, which is how I'm even aware that red and blue shifting occur. It's for sure no one in this forum taught me about that, and no one even said anything about it until I brought it up. It seems the way things are today people should be able to present things that support their argument from info online, which is what I've been hoping for, but there hasn't been anything useful there either. One person posted a quote from Einstein that reinforced my belief he did NOT believe light arrives at all objects in the universe at the same velocity relative to each individual object since he specified that it does for objects at rest or moving uniform to each other, suggesting he believed it's not the same in different situations. Since I believe that and also that it's what Einstein was getting at, I'm disinclined to go read books trying to prove myself wrong.
I guess in the time I've spent trying to dig it out of this forum I could have read a couple of books. Then again if people in the forum could have answered the questions I wouldn't need to read books. I have read some books anyway, which is how I'm even aware that red and blue shifting occur. It's for sure no one in this forum taught me about that, and no one even said anything about it until I brought it up. It seems the way things are today people should be able to present things that support their argument from info online, which is what I've been hoping for, but there hasn't been anything useful there either. One person posted a quote from Einstein that reinforced my belief he did NOT believe light arrives at all objects in the universe at the same velocity relative to each individual object since he specified that it does for objects at rest or moving uniform to each other, suggesting he believed it's not the same in different situations. Since I believe that and also that it's what Einstein was getting at, I'm disinclined to go read books trying to prove myself wrong.
dopEy
Yeah m@r@ns are prone to do just that.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I'm disinclined to go read books trying to prove myself wrong
Yeah m@r@ns are prone to do just that.
Grumpy
QUOTE (nopEda+May 11 2010, 10:54 AM)
I got various answers. Which one(s) do you like and why?
You don't trust me to begin with. So no point in me telling you.
So you are more afraid of being wrong than you are of learning the truth. That's sad.
You don't trust me to begin with. So no point in me telling you.
QUOTE
I'm disinclined to go read books trying to prove myself wrong.
So you are more afraid of being wrong than you are of learning the truth. That's sad.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+May 11 2010, 04:58 PM)
You don't trust me to begin with. So no point in me telling you.
I've been taught to distrust people in this forum. People tell me things I can't believe, and can't answer significant questions about their claims. That sort of behavior encourages a lack of trust.
I've been taught to distrust people in this forum. People tell me things I can't believe, and can't answer significant questions about their claims. That sort of behavior encourages a lack of trust.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 11 2010, 04:02 PM)
I've been taught to distrust people in this forum. People tell me things I can't believe, and can't answer significant questions about their claims. That sort of behavior encourages a lack of trust.
So:
Go to a library.
Check out a book on relativity.
Read it.
So:
Go to a library.
Check out a book on relativity.
Read it.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+May 11 2010, 09:07 PM)
So:
Go to a library.
Check out a book on relativity.
Read it.
Maybe. If I really get interested in some of these answers I can try to find more helpful discussion groups too. You guys are more interested in flaming than anything else, which is okay, but it doesn't get anywhere.
Go to a library.
Check out a book on relativity.
Read it.
Maybe. If I really get interested in some of these answers I can try to find more helpful discussion groups too. You guys are more interested in flaming than anything else, which is okay, but it doesn't get anywhere.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 13 2010, 03:43 PM)
Maybe. If I really get interested in some of these answers I can try to find more helpful discussion groups too. You guys are more interested in flaming than anything else, which is okay, but it doesn't get anywhere.
I suspect your willfull ignorance and arrogant assholiness will get you flamed just about anywhere you go. Personally I would've banned you ages ago, but apparently the management here likes drama queens.
I suspect your willfull ignorance and arrogant assholiness will get you flamed just about anywhere you go. Personally I would've banned you ages ago, but apparently the management here likes drama queens.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+May 13 2010, 05:41 PM)
I suspect your willfull ignorance and arrogant assholiness will get you flamed just about anywhere you go. Personally I would've banned you ages ago, but apparently the management here likes drama queens.
not excluding u? wannabee egglayer?= aint seen u say much i can learn from hen errrrrrrr i mean hon!
not excluding u? wannabee egglayer?= aint seen u say much i can learn from hen errrrrrrr i mean hon!
QUOTE (enord+May 13 2010, 06:16 PM)
not excluding u? wannabee egglayer?= aint seen u say much i can learn from hen errrrrrrr i mean hon!
I'm here to learn.
But I must admit to taking pleasure in taunting the painfully stupid. I know, it's a character flaw. But we all have our cross we must bear.
I'm here to learn.
But I must admit to taking pleasure in taunting the painfully stupid. I know, it's a character flaw. But we all have our cross we must bear.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
But we all have our cross we must bear.
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:21-26)
Goofus: The cross is a place of execution. It's a place where one is hung by a sin-crazed mob of Satanically inspired God haters. You haven't even come close to that. I realize that you just meant it as a figure of speech, but I thought that I'd just remind you how far this figure of speech has been removed from its original intent. I also thought that I'd remind you of the cost of discipleship...a cost that none of you are willing to pay. Take care.
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:21-26)
Goofus: The cross is a place of execution. It's a place where one is hung by a sin-crazed mob of Satanically inspired God haters. You haven't even come close to that. I realize that you just meant it as a figure of speech, but I thought that I'd just remind you how far this figure of speech has been removed from its original intent. I also thought that I'd remind you of the cost of discipleship...a cost that none of you are willing to pay. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+May 14 2010, 06:22 AM)
The cross is a place of execution. It's a place where one is hung by a sin-crazed mob of Satanically inspired God haters.
In the story of the suicide of Jesus, the cross was a stage where a god played the part of a man who manipulated the local citizenry into preforming what was essentially a mock execution. The irony of the story is that if Jesus is a god, then the act of being crucified involves no sacrifice, thus nullifying the stated goal of the act. If Jesus is a man, then his claim of divinity is a lie, he is guilty of blasphemy, and was deserving of his sentence on the cross.
QUOTE (Capracus+May 14 2010, 07:22 PM)
In the story of the suicide of Jesus, the cross was a stage where a god played the part of a man who manipulated the local citizenry into preforming what was essentially a mock execution. The irony of the story is that if Jesus is a god, then the act of being crucified involves no sacrifice, thus nullifying the stated goal of the act. If Jesus is a man, then his claim of divinity is a lie, he is guilty of blasphemy, and was deserving of his sentence on the cross.
Very well put.
Life Of Brian comes to mind..
Very well put.
Life Of Brian
comes to mind..
QUOTE (Capracus+May 14 2010, 04:22 AM)
The irony of the story is that if Jesus is a god, then the act of being crucified involves no sacrifice, thus nullifying the stated goal of the act. If Jesus is a man, then his claim of divinity is a lie, he is guilty of blasphemy, and was deserving of his sentence on the cross.
Well he does have to suffer the horrible pain of being crucified and doesn't Jesus have to have faith that there is a God?
Though I guess the miracles he performs would make that much less of a stretch for Jesus then for those of us who haven't walked on water, fed thousands with a few fish and loaves of bread, healed the lepers etc.
Arthur
Well he does have to suffer the horrible pain of being crucified and doesn't Jesus have to have faith that there is a God?
Though I guess the miracles he performs would make that much less of a stretch for Jesus then for those of us who haven't walked on water, fed thousands with a few fish and loaves of bread, healed the lepers etc.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 14 2010, 08:12 PM)
Well he does have to suffer the horrible pain of being crucified and doesn't Jesus have to have faith that there is a God?
Many throughout history have endured greater pain and suffering, only unlike the character Jesus, they had no instant remedy for it.
If only this guy had been like Jesus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGGCVE2lKY
According to the purported biographers of the event, Jesus himself claimed to be divine, so faith wasn't an issue where he was concerned.
If only this guy had been like Jesus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGGCVE2lKY
According to the purported biographers of the event, Jesus himself claimed to be divine, so faith wasn't an issue where he was concerned.
QUOTE (Mark chapter 14 verses 60 to 64.+)
Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you? But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?
I am, said Jesus, And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.
The high priest tore his clothes. Why do we need any more witnesses? he asked, You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?
They all condemned him as worthy of death.
I am, said Jesus, And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.
The high priest tore his clothes. Why do we need any more witnesses? he asked, You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?
They all condemned him as worthy of death.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 14 2010, 08:12 PM)
Well he does have to suffer the horrible pain of being crucified and doesn't Jesus have to have faith that there is a God?
Though I guess the miracles he performs would make that much less of a stretch for Jesus then for those of us who haven't walked on water, fed thousands with a few fish and loaves of bread, healed the lepers etc.
We all suffer to whatever extent from the knowledge that we will die. If it's for real then Jesus did have an advantage in knowing about life beyond this one, but he also may have suffered more than most from knowing he would die such a horrible death. Most people don't like going to the doctor or dentist on a good day, so it's safe enough to believe he suffered mentally from the knowledge that he would endure such agony. It would have taken a huge amount of generosity, as well as more balls than anyone we know of, to willingly do what he did.
Though I guess the miracles he performs would make that much less of a stretch for Jesus then for those of us who haven't walked on water, fed thousands with a few fish and loaves of bread, healed the lepers etc.
We all suffer to whatever extent from the knowledge that we will die. If it's for real then Jesus did have an advantage in knowing about life beyond this one, but he also may have suffered more than most from knowing he would die such a horrible death. Most people don't like going to the doctor or dentist on a good day, so it's safe enough to believe he suffered mentally from the knowledge that he would endure such agony. It would have taken a huge amount of generosity, as well as more balls than anyone we know of, to willingly do what he did.
knobHead
This makes no sense.
According to your book, Jesus said, unambiguously, that he was divine. He performed miracles, that is, he changed the laws of physics to do something no one else could. One could argue that, if Jesus could do what he did, he was just toying with humanity because there is no difference between a 'small' miracle and a 'large' one. If he could feed a crowd, he could feed the world. If he could cure one leper, he could cure ALL disease forever. As he didn't, failing to do so is an act of cruelty, betraying the very people he was asking to trust him.
Any purported suffering or death Jesus was supposed to have suffered was not real anyway. If you have the power of life and death, being crucified is a 'doddle'. Crucifixion is a death by asphyxiation; the chest cannot take enough air to breath. Sure, it isn't nice for a normal human being but for the 'son of god', it would hold no fear. Why would it, Jesus was supernatural. He knew the future and went ahead anyway. To act out a death, and that is all that could have happened (if you believe the fairy story), was a decision Jesus made thereby duping his followers into thinking there was something noble in his act of deception.
What worries me is that you can't see the deception.
Physfan
QUOTE
We all suffer to whatever extent from the knowledge that we will die. If it's for real then Jesus did have an advantage in knowing about life beyond this one, but he also may have suffered more than most from knowing he would die such a horrible death. Most people don't like going to the doctor or dentist on a good day, so it's safe enough to believe he suffered mentally from the knowledge that he would endure such agony. It would have taken a huge amount of generosity, as well as more balls than anyone we know of, to willingly do what he did.
This makes no sense.
According to your book, Jesus said, unambiguously, that he was divine. He performed miracles, that is, he changed the laws of physics to do something no one else could. One could argue that, if Jesus could do what he did, he was just toying with humanity because there is no difference between a 'small' miracle and a 'large' one. If he could feed a crowd, he could feed the world. If he could cure one leper, he could cure ALL disease forever. As he didn't, failing to do so is an act of cruelty, betraying the very people he was asking to trust him.
Any purported suffering or death Jesus was supposed to have suffered was not real anyway. If you have the power of life and death, being crucified is a 'doddle'. Crucifixion is a death by asphyxiation; the chest cannot take enough air to breath. Sure, it isn't nice for a normal human being but for the 'son of god', it would hold no fear. Why would it, Jesus was supernatural. He knew the future and went ahead anyway. To act out a death, and that is all that could have happened (if you believe the fairy story), was a decision Jesus made thereby duping his followers into thinking there was something noble in his act of deception.
What worries me is that you can't see the deception.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+May 16 2010, 11:45 PM)
knobHead
This makes no sense.
According to your book, Jesus said, unambiguously, that he was divine. He performed miracles, that is, he changed the laws of physics to do something no one else could. One could argue that, if Jesus could do what he did, he was just toying with humanity because there is no difference between a 'small' miracle and a 'large' one. If he could feed a crowd, he could feed the world. If he could cure one leper, he could cure ALL disease forever. As he didn't, failing to do so is an act of cruelty, betraying the very people he was asking to trust him.
Any purported suffering or death Jesus was supposed to have suffered was not real anyway. If you have the power of life and death, being crucified is a 'doddle'. Crucifixion is a death by asphyxiation; the chest cannot take enough air to breath. Sure, it isn't nice for a normal human being but for the 'son of god', it would hold no fear. Why would it, Jesus was supernatural. He knew the future and went ahead anyway. To act out a death, and that is all that could have happened (if you believe the fairy story), was a decision Jesus made thereby duping his followers into thinking there was something noble in his act of deception.
What worries me is that you can't see the deception.
Physfan
If Jesus cured all disease and death then it would be horrible to live on this planet by now. That much is easy and obvious. Other things are less obvious. Apparently you can't appreciate some of the most obvious things about all this, preventing you from thinking about it realistically. Hopefully for you it's more because you won't let yourself than because you're mentally incapable, I guess, but if you never let yourself what's the difference?
You can poo poo crucifixion all you like, but I would have to see you willingly have your own self nailed to a cross for an hour or two and see what you have to say about it then before I could believe you. Until you do that and I see it, and see you mock Jesus as you willingly continue to hang by the nails through your hands and feet because you know you'll be taken down and be just fine as you're saying is the case with him...until I see you do that I'll have to conclude that you think unrealisticly about that part too.
What should worry you is not that I can't see the deception, but more that you can't see things for the way they actually are. A question you really should ask yourself is:
Is it that you mentally can not, or that you deliberately refuse to try?
This makes no sense.
According to your book, Jesus said, unambiguously, that he was divine. He performed miracles, that is, he changed the laws of physics to do something no one else could. One could argue that, if Jesus could do what he did, he was just toying with humanity because there is no difference between a 'small' miracle and a 'large' one. If he could feed a crowd, he could feed the world. If he could cure one leper, he could cure ALL disease forever. As he didn't, failing to do so is an act of cruelty, betraying the very people he was asking to trust him.
Any purported suffering or death Jesus was supposed to have suffered was not real anyway. If you have the power of life and death, being crucified is a 'doddle'. Crucifixion is a death by asphyxiation; the chest cannot take enough air to breath. Sure, it isn't nice for a normal human being but for the 'son of god', it would hold no fear. Why would it, Jesus was supernatural. He knew the future and went ahead anyway. To act out a death, and that is all that could have happened (if you believe the fairy story), was a decision Jesus made thereby duping his followers into thinking there was something noble in his act of deception.
What worries me is that you can't see the deception.
Physfan
If Jesus cured all disease and death then it would be horrible to live on this planet by now. That much is easy and obvious. Other things are less obvious. Apparently you can't appreciate some of the most obvious things about all this, preventing you from thinking about it realistically. Hopefully for you it's more because you won't let yourself than because you're mentally incapable, I guess, but if you never let yourself what's the difference?
You can poo poo crucifixion all you like, but I would have to see you willingly have your own self nailed to a cross for an hour or two and see what you have to say about it then before I could believe you. Until you do that and I see it, and see you mock Jesus as you willingly continue to hang by the nails through your hands and feet because you know you'll be taken down and be just fine as you're saying is the case with him...until I see you do that I'll have to conclude that you think unrealisticly about that part too.
What should worry you is not that I can't see the deception, but more that you can't see things for the way they actually are. A question you really should ask yourself is:
Is it that you mentally can not, or that you deliberately refuse to try?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2010, 09:37 AM)
Apparently you can't appreciate some of the most obvious things about all this, preventing you from thinking about it realistically.
Ohhh, I see. For you, "thinking realistically" means making things up based on your opinions and biases.
Let's see how that's worked out for you:
Every thinks you're an idiot.
You have failed to master ANY level of higher education.
You have failed to master high school-level mathematics and physics.
Ohhh, I see. For you, "thinking realistically" means making things up based on your opinions and biases.
Let's see how that's worked out for you:
Every thinks you're an idiot.
You have failed to master ANY level of higher education.
You have failed to master high school-level mathematics and physics.
knobHead,
You continue to twist statements and turn logic on its head.
I didn't say anything about death, only disease. How does having no disease make life "horrible", unless you are a masochist?
If Jesus could do anything, and changing the laws of the universe is as powerful as you can get, then being crucified, actually volunteering to do it, is acting out a deceit. Creating something out of nothing (fishes and loaves), walking on water (defying gravity) and curing disease (killing viruses and reversing the progression of disease) aren't party tricks. They symbolise omnipotence and such a being can do anything including not feeling pain. Instead of being crucified, Jesus could have flown around the skies or made lightning strike but no, instead he was a liar and a cheat by pretending to be hurt.
I didn't say anything about death, only disease. How does having no disease make life "horrible", unless you are a masochist?
If Jesus could do anything, and changing the laws of the universe is as powerful as you can get, then being crucified, actually volunteering to do it, is acting out a deceit. Creating something out of nothing (fishes and loaves), walking on water (defying gravity) and curing disease (killing viruses and reversing the progression of disease) aren't party tricks. They symbolise omnipotence and such a being can do anything including not feeling pain. Instead of being crucified, Jesus could have flown around the skies or made lightning strike but no, instead he was a liar and a cheat by pretending to be hurt.
What should worry you is not that I can't see the deception, but more that you can't see things for the way they actually are. A question you really should ask yourself is:
Is it that you mentally can not, or that you deliberately refuse to try?
I can't make sense of it because there isn't any. None of it withstands logical scrutiny. It does, however, require believing in something without critical thinking.
Physfan
You continue to twist statements and turn logic on its head.
QUOTE
If Jesus cured all disease and death then it would be horrible to live on this planet by now. That much is easy and obvious.
I didn't say anything about death, only disease. How does having no disease make life "horrible", unless you are a masochist?
If Jesus could do anything, and changing the laws of the universe is as powerful as you can get, then being crucified, actually volunteering to do it, is acting out a deceit. Creating something out of nothing (fishes and loaves), walking on water (defying gravity) and curing disease (killing viruses and reversing the progression of disease) aren't party tricks. They symbolise omnipotence and such a being can do anything including not feeling pain. Instead of being crucified, Jesus could have flown around the skies or made lightning strike but no, instead he was a liar and a cheat by pretending to be hurt.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If Jesus cured all disease and death then it would be horrible to live on this planet by now. That much is easy and obvious. |
I didn't say anything about death, only disease. How does having no disease make life "horrible", unless you are a masochist?
If Jesus could do anything, and changing the laws of the universe is as powerful as you can get, then being crucified, actually volunteering to do it, is acting out a deceit. Creating something out of nothing (fishes and loaves), walking on water (defying gravity) and curing disease (killing viruses and reversing the progression of disease) aren't party tricks. They symbolise omnipotence and such a being can do anything including not feeling pain. Instead of being crucified, Jesus could have flown around the skies or made lightning strike but no, instead he was a liar and a cheat by pretending to be hurt.
What should worry you is not that I can't see the deception, but more that you can't see things for the way they actually are. A question you really should ask yourself is:
Is it that you mentally can not, or that you deliberately refuse to try?
I can't make sense of it because there isn't any. None of it withstands logical scrutiny. It does, however, require believing in something without critical thinking.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+May 17 2010, 11:34 PM)
knobHead,
You continue to twist statements and turn logic on its head.
I didn't say anything about death, only disease. How does having no disease make life "horrible", unless you are a masochist?
If Jesus could do anything, and changing the laws of the universe is as powerful as you can get, then being crucified, actually volunteering to do it, is acting out a deceit. Creating something out of nothing (fishes and loaves), walking on water (defying gravity) and curing disease (killing viruses and reversing the progression of disease) aren't party tricks. They symbolise omnipotence
No they don't.
You continue to twist statements and turn logic on its head.
I didn't say anything about death, only disease. How does having no disease make life "horrible", unless you are a masochist?
If Jesus could do anything, and changing the laws of the universe is as powerful as you can get, then being crucified, actually volunteering to do it, is acting out a deceit. Creating something out of nothing (fishes and loaves), walking on water (defying gravity) and curing disease (killing viruses and reversing the progression of disease) aren't party tricks. They symbolise omnipotence
No they don't.
QUOTE (Physfan+May 17 2010, 11:34 PM)
and such a being can do anything including not feeling pain. Instead of being crucified, Jesus could have flown around the skies or made lightning strike but no, instead he was a liar and a cheat by pretending to be hurt.
You are incapable of thinking about it in a realistic way...apparently in ANY realstic way at all. From my pov you are like a small child insisting that brown cows give chocolate milk.
You are incapable of thinking about it in a realistic way...apparently in ANY realstic way at all. From my pov you are like a small child insisting that brown cows give chocolate milk.
knobHead,
Gee, that is convincing retort. So you are saying that creating matter out of nothing is something anyone can do? Fair dinkum (an Australian expression to indicate exasperation), please tell me just how powerful Jesus was? Where on the scale of man to god (using a 1 for man and 10 for god)does Jesus sit? Does creating matter give him a 2, for example or a more powerful 7 or 8, maybe a 9?
What about killing all viruses in a human body selectively while not killing of the person's own cells and then reversing the effects of the disease? Is that a 6 or 7, maybe 8?
Come on, put money where your mouth is!
Gee, that is convincing retort. So you are saying that creating matter out of nothing is something anyone can do? Fair dinkum (an Australian expression to indicate exasperation), please tell me just how powerful Jesus was? Where on the scale of man to god (using a 1 for man and 10 for god)does Jesus sit? Does creating matter give him a 2, for example or a more powerful 7 or 8, maybe a 9?
What about killing all viruses in a human body selectively while not killing of the person's own cells and then reversing the effects of the disease? Is that a 6 or 7, maybe 8?
Come on, put money where your mouth is!
You are incapable of thinking about it in a realistic way...apparently in ANY realstic way at all. From my pov you are like a small child insisting that brown cows give chocolate milk.
God has given us all the knowledge of Himself. We have this knowledge from the very existence of the universe itself.
How so?
It is possible for the Universe to exist without God.
So the Universe existing does not mean that God exists.
And how do you know that God sent his son?
The only book talking about only has hearsay.
QUOTE
No they don't.
Gee, that is convincing retort. So you are saying that creating matter out of nothing is something anyone can do? Fair dinkum (an Australian expression to indicate exasperation), please tell me just how powerful Jesus was? Where on the scale of man to god (using a 1 for man and 10 for god)does Jesus sit? Does creating matter give him a 2, for example or a more powerful 7 or 8, maybe a 9?
What about killing all viruses in a human body selectively while not killing of the person's own cells and then reversing the effects of the disease? Is that a 6 or 7, maybe 8?
Come on, put money where your mouth is!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No they don't. |
Gee, that is convincing retort. So you are saying that creating matter out of nothing is something anyone can do? Fair dinkum (an Australian expression to indicate exasperation), please tell me just how powerful Jesus was? Where on the scale of man to god (using a 1 for man and 10 for god)does Jesus sit? Does creating matter give him a 2, for example or a more powerful 7 or 8, maybe a 9?
What about killing all viruses in a human body selectively while not killing of the person's own cells and then reversing the effects of the disease? Is that a 6 or 7, maybe 8?
Come on, put money where your mouth is!
You are incapable of thinking about it in a realistic way...apparently in ANY realstic way at all. From my pov you are like a small child insisting that brown cows give chocolate milk.
By realistic, I assume you mean thinking like you. Unlike you, I don't believe in any of the fairies or goblins anymore; not the fairy at the bottom of the garden, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, Jesus, Allah or your own version of the fairy-in-the-sky. I grew up.
Physfan
Physfan
Physfan how sad it is to see you and others on here choose everlasting death of eternal pain. To see you throw away eternal companionship with God for the sake of pride brings sadness to me.
You can not see how foolish you are is demanding that God meet your expectations of what and who God is. You are unable to see your place in all that exists. You try an put yourself equal to God. God that created all that exists. God that raises your value above mud by making you in His image and likeness. God the source of all life.
It is clear that you have no concept of the intent of God. Try asking first why you exist, of what purpose are you?
In case you have not noticed there is order and design in the universe. Order and design only exist for purpose. What is your purpose in this order and design.
You can not see how foolish you are is demanding that God meet your expectations of what and who God is. You are unable to see your place in all that exists. You try an put yourself equal to God. God that created all that exists. God that raises your value above mud by making you in His image and likeness. God the source of all life.
It is clear that you have no concept of the intent of God. Try asking first why you exist, of what purpose are you?
In case you have not noticed there is order and design in the universe. Order and design only exist for purpose. What is your purpose in this order and design.
Hi!
I happened to be talking with this Pastor, he brought up the
nature of the composition of his church. Like many
others in the area and across around here, it has some very
faithful members, but it really seems to lack the youth
and young adult component.
With this guy, Id say he connects very well to others
our age. Hes "up" on things and has embraced computers, blogs,
websites, and other new things like that. I wont comment too
much more on the church overall, but IMHO he is driven and
there are very clear indications for the better taking place
over time or so thats what he says.
We got to discussing the lack of youth and young adults. Which
brings me to this post,is there clear evidence that
todays more educated modern youth is way better equiped for
making decisions like this?
I happened to be talking with this Pastor, he brought up the
nature of the composition of his church. Like many
others in the area and across around here, it has some very
faithful members, but it really seems to lack the youth
and young adult component.
With this guy, Id say he connects very well to others
our age. Hes "up" on things and has embraced computers, blogs,
websites, and other new things like that. I wont comment too
much more on the church overall, but IMHO he is driven and
there are very clear indications for the better taking place
over time or so thats what he says.
We got to discussing the lack of youth and young adults. Which
brings me to this post,is there clear evidence that
todays more educated modern youth is way better equiped for
making decisions like this?
QUOTE (tlocity+May 19 2010, 05:23 AM)
You can not see how foolish you are is demanding that God meet your expectations of what and who God is. You are unable to see your place in all that exists. You try an put yourself equal to God. God that created all that exists. God that raises your value above mud by making you in His image and likeness. God the source of all life.
Is it too much to ask that your god to speak for itself? Why does this god have to speak through the likes of Sarah Palin, Osama bin Laden and tlocity? Can't it get a press agent, make a video recording, or a post a message on the web?
Capracus it is too much to ask. God is looking for those that wish to love Him to share in His love for all eternity. Love can only be by freewill choice. Love is the denying of yourself for another.
God has given us all the knowledge of Himself. We have this knowledge from the very existence of the universe itself. We have knowledge and the nature of God in the order and design of the universe. He has given us many stories about Himself. God sent Himself in human form to teach us of Himself and of the way to achieve a love that makes us suitable eternal companions of Him.
The choice to love God can only take place where there is the ability to choose. That place must have both good and bad otherwise there is nothing to choose.
You are saying to God, i will love you if you give me all the things i want. In case you can not see that this is not the love of another it is the love of self.
Our love must be perfect to share perfection with God. Only through God can we become perfect in love.
What is interesting, if you seek that love you will find it and you will also see that God has always been talking to you and telling you about Himself.
God has given us all the knowledge of Himself. We have this knowledge from the very existence of the universe itself. We have knowledge and the nature of God in the order and design of the universe. He has given us many stories about Himself. God sent Himself in human form to teach us of Himself and of the way to achieve a love that makes us suitable eternal companions of Him.
The choice to love God can only take place where there is the ability to choose. That place must have both good and bad otherwise there is nothing to choose.
You are saying to God, i will love you if you give me all the things i want. In case you can not see that this is not the love of another it is the love of self.
Our love must be perfect to share perfection with God. Only through God can we become perfect in love.
What is interesting, if you seek that love you will find it and you will also see that God has always been talking to you and telling you about Himself.
QUOTE (tlocity+May 19 2010, 11:17 AM)
Capracus it is too much to ask. God is looking for those that wish to love Him to share in His love for all eternity. Love can only be by freewill choice. Love is the denying of yourself for another.
God has given us all the knowledge of Himself. We have this knowledge from the very existence of the universe itself. We have knowledge and the nature of God in the order and design of the universe. He has given us many stories about Himself. God sent Himself in human form to teach us of Himself and of the way to achieve a love that makes us suitable eternal companions of Him.
The choice to love God can only take place where there is the ability to choose. That place must have both good and bad otherwise there is nothing to choose.
You are saying to God, i will love you if you give me all the things i want. In case you can not see that this is not the love of another it is the love of self.
Our love must be perfect to share perfection with God. Only through God can we become perfect in love.
What is interesting, if you seek that love you will find it and you will also see that God has always been talking to you and telling you about Himself.
Tlocity, I'm not asking any more from your god than I ask from you. If you can communicate with me on the most basic levels, then why can't your god? Can you imagine trying to relate your personal ideas to your fellow human beings through cryptic writings and imagined signs in nature? Is that how your father dealt with you, or you with your children? What kind of authority figure would be so irresponsible as to not express their intentions as clearly and directly as possible? Why should any child show love for a derelict father?
God has given us all the knowledge of Himself. We have this knowledge from the very existence of the universe itself. We have knowledge and the nature of God in the order and design of the universe. He has given us many stories about Himself. God sent Himself in human form to teach us of Himself and of the way to achieve a love that makes us suitable eternal companions of Him.
The choice to love God can only take place where there is the ability to choose. That place must have both good and bad otherwise there is nothing to choose.
You are saying to God, i will love you if you give me all the things i want. In case you can not see that this is not the love of another it is the love of self.
Our love must be perfect to share perfection with God. Only through God can we become perfect in love.
What is interesting, if you seek that love you will find it and you will also see that God has always been talking to you and telling you about Himself.
Tlocity, I'm not asking any more from your god than I ask from you. If you can communicate with me on the most basic levels, then why can't your god? Can you imagine trying to relate your personal ideas to your fellow human beings through cryptic writings and imagined signs in nature? Is that how your father dealt with you, or you with your children? What kind of authority figure would be so irresponsible as to not express their intentions as clearly and directly as possible? Why should any child show love for a derelict father?
QUOTE (tlocity+May 19 2010, 11:17 AM)
God has given us all the knowledge of Himself. We have this knowledge from the very existence of the universe itself.
How so?
It is possible for the Universe to exist without God.
So the Universe existing does not mean that God exists.
And how do you know that God sent his son?
The only book talking about only has hearsay.
QUOTE (Physfan+May 19 2010, 04:03 AM)
By realistic, I assume you mean thinking like you. Unlike you, I don't believe in any of the fairies or goblins anymore; not the fairy at the bottom of the garden, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, Jesus, Allah or your own version of the fairy-in-the-sky. I grew up.
Physfan
So you can't think about the possibility realistically. Can't now, and most likely never could at all. If you ever could you probably would still be doing it. Why wouldn't you? You never could think about it realistically and at some point you somehow learned the truth of that. But instead of correcting your mistake and trying to think more realistically you put your faith in the possibility that he does not exist instead, never having thought about it realistically in your life.
Physfan
So you can't think about the possibility realistically. Can't now, and most likely never could at all. If you ever could you probably would still be doing it. Why wouldn't you? You never could think about it realistically and at some point you somehow learned the truth of that. But instead of correcting your mistake and trying to think more realistically you put your faith in the possibility that he does not exist instead, never having thought about it realistically in your life.
In noPeda's unique vocabulary, 'realistic' means 'agree with noPeda'.
QUOTE (Capracus+May 19 2010, 10:28 AM)
Is it too much to ask that your god to speak for itself? Why does this god have to speak through the likes of Sarah Palin, Osama bin Laden and tlocity? Can't it get a press agent, make a video recording
Check out number 4.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he could not provide proof of his existence because doing so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since believing God does not exist is a form of belief, the degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became gods.
14. If gods exist it seems unlikely that they would be restricted to any particular form or gender.
15. If God exists it seems obvious that he makes use of evolutionary methods of creation.
Check out number 4.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he could not provide proof of his existence because doing so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since believing God does not exist is a form of belief, the degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became gods.
14. If gods exist it seems unlikely that they would be restricted to any particular form or gender.
15. If God exists it seems obvious that he makes use of evolutionary methods of creation.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2010, 07:43 PM)
Check out number 4.
Too bad that dang ole' "If" invalidates it as an answer to what Capracus is talking about.
Find a way to make that "if" unneeded and you will have an answer for him.
Edit @ Capracus, do I have it right that Nopeda's answer doesn't address your question?
I mean that "if statement" simply adds another layer to the issue not answers it.
Why would God want things such that there is no evidence of his existence?
Too bad that dang ole' "If" invalidates it as an answer to what Capracus is talking about.
Find a way to make that "if" unneeded and you will have an answer for him.
Edit @ Capracus, do I have it right that Nopeda's answer doesn't address your question?
I mean that "if statement" simply adds another layer to the issue not answers it.
Why would God want things such that there is no evidence of his existence?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2010, 07:43 PM)
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he could not provide proof of his existence because doing so would change things too much.
Are we talking about the god of the Bible or your postulated alien god? If its the Biblical god, then it professes to want to be known and understood. In the case of an unknown alien god I guess anything is possible, but without evidence of such a god, speculation as to its intent or existence relegates it to this category:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
12. Gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc encouraged by other people--however absurd.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2010, 01:13 AM)
Check out number 4.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he could not provide proof of his existence because doing so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since believing God does not exist is a form of belief, the degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became gods.
14. If gods exist it seems unlikely that they would be restricted to any particular form or gender.
15. If God exists it seems obvious that he makes use of evolutionary methods of creation.
*yawn*
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he could not provide proof of his existence because doing so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since believing God does not exist is a form of belief, the degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became gods.
14. If gods exist it seems unlikely that they would be restricted to any particular form or gender.
15. If God exists it seems obvious that he makes use of evolutionary methods of creation.
*yawn*
tlocity,
Que? Where in this tortuously circular nonsense is the point you are trying to make? Is that your fairy created me with the capacity to question it but I should not? Is it that your fairy gives me a purpose but I don't know what it is? Is it that your fairy wants me to fawn over it like a little child and ignore any intellect it gave me?
As the knights in the castle said to King Arthur, "I fart in your general direction!".
Physfan
QUOTE
Physfan how sad it is to see you and others on here choose everlasting death of eternal pain. To see you throw away eternal companionship with God for the sake of pride brings sadness to me.
You can not see how foolish you are is demanding that God meet your expectations of what and who God is. You are unable to see your place in all that exists. You try an put yourself equal to God. God that created all that exists. God that raises your value above mud by making you in His image and likeness. God the source of all life.
It is clear that you have no concept of the intent of God. Try asking first why you exist, of what purpose are you?
In case you have not noticed there is order and design in the universe. Order and design only exist for purpose. What is your purpose in this order and design.
You can not see how foolish you are is demanding that God meet your expectations of what and who God is. You are unable to see your place in all that exists. You try an put yourself equal to God. God that created all that exists. God that raises your value above mud by making you in His image and likeness. God the source of all life.
It is clear that you have no concept of the intent of God. Try asking first why you exist, of what purpose are you?
In case you have not noticed there is order and design in the universe. Order and design only exist for purpose. What is your purpose in this order and design.
Que? Where in this tortuously circular nonsense is the point you are trying to make? Is that your fairy created me with the capacity to question it but I should not? Is it that your fairy gives me a purpose but I don't know what it is? Is it that your fairy wants me to fawn over it like a little child and ignore any intellect it gave me?
As the knights in the castle said to King Arthur, "I fart in your general direction!".
Physfan
knobHead,
Au contraire, I have but arrived at the conclusion your fairy cannot exist. Russell made the point with his analogy of the orbiting teapot. (Bertrand Russell, but you probably knew that. (Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw.))
Physfan
QUOTE
So you can't think about the possibility realistically. Can't now, and most likely never could at all. If you ever could you probably would still be doing it. Why wouldn't you? You never could think about it realistically and at some point you somehow learned the truth of that. But instead of correcting your mistake and trying to think more realistically you put your faith in the possibility that he does not exist instead, never having thought about it realistically in your life.
Au contraire, I have but arrived at the conclusion your fairy cannot exist. Russell made the point with his analogy of the orbiting teapot. (Bertrand Russell, but you probably knew that. (Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw.))
Physfan
QUOTE (Capracus+May 19 2010, 10:56 PM)
Are we talking about the god of the Bible or your postulated alien god? If its the Biblical god, then it professes to want to be known and understood. In the case of an unknown alien god I guess anything is possible, but without evidence of such a god, speculation as to its intent or existence relegates it to this category:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
12. Gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc encouraged by other people--however absurd.
To me one of the most basic aspects of it all is that if God exists he could not be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years. So far I don't believe anyone else in this forum has been able to get even that far yet. That being the case I guess it's no surprise people can't think in detail beyond that either, but to me it's still very surprising no one here can get to step one since I haven't met anyone in person who had a problem believing God is not native to Earth.
To me one of the most basic aspects of it all is that if God exists he could not be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior
native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years. So far I don't believe anyone else in this forum has been able to get even that far yet. That being the case I guess it's no surprise people can't think in detail beyond that either, but to me it's still very surprising no one here can get to step one since I haven't met anyone in person who had a problem believing God is not native to Earth.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2010, 11:35 AM)
To me one of the most basic aspects of it all is that if God exists he could not be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years. So far I don't believe anyone else in this forum has been able to get even that far yet. That being the case I guess it's no surprise people can't think in detail beyond that either, but to me it's still very surprising no one here can get to step one since I haven't met anyone in person who had a problem believing God is not native to Earth.
nopeda, stop masturbating. You'll grow warts.
native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years. So far I don't believe anyone else in this forum has been able to get even that far yet. That being the case I guess it's no surprise people can't think in detail beyond that either, but to me it's still very surprising no one here can get to step one since I haven't met anyone in person who had a problem believing God is not native to Earth. nopeda, stop masturbating. You'll grow warts.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 19 2010, 08:11 PM)
Why would God want things such that there is no evidence of his existence?
So some of us have the freedom to question. You don't apparently, but some of us do. Why would he want us to have that freedom? I believe one reason would be so we don't become his slaves any more than necessary. There are probably more, but even more likely is that you can not and could not appreciate any. If you can then do it...let's see you have a go at your own question.
So some of us have the freedom to question. You don't apparently, but some of us do. Why would he want us to have that freedom? I believe one reason would be so we don't become his slaves any more than necessary. There are probably more, but even more likely is that you can not and could not appreciate any. If you can then do it...let's see you have a go at your own question.
QUOTE (Physfan+May 20 2010, 10:05 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
you put your faith in the possibility that he does not exist instead, never having thought about it realistically in your life.
knobHead,
Au contraire, I have but arrived at the conclusion your fairy cannot exist.
Then obviously you did NOT think about it realistically. You thought about God as being a fairy which is about the most childlike and stupid way of thinking that I've heard. Contrary to what your stifled mind tells you however, your thinking was NOT realistic as I pointed out to begin with.
So it was not, and it certain IS NOT now. It never was. Will it ever be? Are you even mentally capable 
? Almost certainly not 
it appears.
Au contraire, I have but arrived at the conclusion your fairy cannot exist.
Then obviously you did NOT think about it realistically. You thought about God as being a fairy
which is about the most childlike and stupid way of thinking that I've heard. Contrary to what your stifled mind tells you however, your thinking was NOT realistic as I pointed out to begin with. So it was not, and it certain IS NOT now. It never was. Will it ever be?
Are you even mentally capable ? Almost certainly not it appears.QUOTE (Physfan+May 20 2010, 10:05 AM)
[Russell made the point with his analogy of the orbiting teapot. (Bertrand Russell, but you probably knew that. (Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw.))
I haven't seen that yet but I imagine it's safe to predict it's not the least bit realistic.
I haven't seen that yet but I imagine it's safe to predict it's not the least bit realistic.
QUOTE (Physfan+May 20 2010, 10:00 AM)
Is that your fairy created me with the capacity to question
If so you have not only failed completely and totally and earned a 0, but you haven't even shown up to attempt the test.
If so you have not only failed completely and totally and earned a 0, but you haven't even shown up to attempt the test.
Is everyone having fun arguing with the nutcase?
QUOTE (AlexG+May 20 2010, 02:07 PM)
Is everyone having fun arguing with the nutcase?
Not anymore.
When I see one of his typical arrogant statements like
It just makes me think of NopEda's theme song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6EaWO-wbYE&feature=related
Arthur
Not anymore.
When I see one of his typical arrogant statements like
QUOTE
I don't believe anyone else in this forum has been able to get even that far
It just makes me think of NopEda's theme song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6EaWO-wbYE&feature=related
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 20 2010, 09:14 PM)
When I see one of his typical arrogant statements like
QUOTE (nopEda+)
To me one of the most basic aspects of it all is that if God exists he could not be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years. So far I don't believe anyone else in this forum has been able to get even that far yet.
It just makes me think of NopEda's theme song.
So you can't "get even that far" as I pointed out to begin with, and you just confirmed. What I said isn't arrogant. It's just an observation of a general lameness among the majority of participants in this forum. Nothing arrogant about that.
But he is always lying.
native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years. So far I don't believe anyone else in this forum has been able to get even that far yet.It just makes me think of NopEda's theme song.
So you can't "get even that far" as I pointed out to begin with, and you just confirmed. What I said isn't arrogant. It's just an observation of a general lameness among the majority of participants in this forum. Nothing arrogant about that.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2010, 03:35 PM)
To me one of the most basic aspects of it all is that if God exists he could not be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years. So far I don't believe anyone else in this forum has been able to get even that far yet. That being the case I guess it's no surprise people can't think in detail beyond that either, but to me it's still very surprising no one here can get to step one since I haven't met anyone in person who had a problem believing God is not native to Earth.
silly, silly man
native of a planet that he created after he had already existed for billions of years. So far I don't believe anyone else in this forum has been able to get even that far yet. That being the case I guess it's no surprise people can't think in detail beyond that either, but to me it's still very surprising no one here can get to step one since I haven't met anyone in person who had a problem believing God is not native to Earth.silly, silly man
QUOTE (adoucette+May 20 2010, 09:14 PM)
Not anymore.
When I see one of his typical arrogant statements like
It just makes me think of NopEda's theme song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6EaWO-wbYE&feature=related
Arthur
There was one thread where Ihad a faint glimmer of hope that he might learn something.
He was trying to understand probability and told a story of being in church and getting a yellow ticket that meant he had a chance at winning money. He didn't win but thought his getting a yellow ticket was significant.
When I see one of his typical arrogant statements like
It just makes me think of NopEda's theme song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6EaWO-wbYE&feature=related
Arthur
There was one thread where Ihad a faint glimmer of hope that he might learn something.
He was trying to understand probability and told a story of being in church and getting a yellow ticket that meant he had a chance at winning money. He didn't win but thought his getting a yellow ticket was significant.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 20 2010, 09:27 PM)
There was one thread where Ihad a faint glimmer of hope that he might learn something.
There's no hope.
I no longer engage him, unless it's point out that he's lying.
Mostly I just ignore the stupidity that pours out of him though, like when he recently referred to the Earth being 60 Billion years old.
It's not worth the effort to correct that level of ignorance.
Arthur
There's no hope.
I no longer engage him, unless it's point out that he's lying.
Mostly I just ignore the stupidity that pours out of him though, like when he recently referred to the Earth being 60 Billion years old.
It's not worth the effort to correct that level of ignorance.
Arthur
QUOTE
I no longer engage him, unless it's point out that he's lying.
But he is always lying.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 21 2010, 02:27 AM)
There was one thread where Ihad a faint glimmer of hope that he might learn something.
He was trying to understand probability and told a story of being in church and getting a yellow ticket that meant he had a chance at winning money. He didn't win but thought his getting a yellow ticket was significant.
The fact that I consider it might not be is what gave you "hope". But considering that it might not is farther than you can take it, for a very obvious reason. Do you know what that reason is? If you can figure it out, are you able to acknowledge what it is? Probably not. In this particular example what you're trying to get me to "learn" is something I know more about than you do, and most likely ever will.
And remember that you could not apply the birthday trick to the possibility of God's existence, the possibility of any gods anywhere in the universe, or even to the possibility of intelligent life on any other planets in the universe. Here's an idea for you, and it might be one that you're possibly even capable of pulling off:
Try using the birthday trick to figure out how likely it is that God could be native to a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
He was trying to understand probability and told a story of being in church and getting a yellow ticket that meant he had a chance at winning money. He didn't win but thought his getting a yellow ticket was significant.
The fact that I consider it might not be is what gave you "hope". But considering that it might not is farther than you can take it, for a very obvious reason. Do you know what that reason is? If you can figure it out, are you able to acknowledge what it is? Probably not. In this particular example what you're trying to get me to "learn" is something I know more about than you do, and most likely ever will.
And remember that you could not apply the birthday trick to the possibility of God's existence, the possibility of any gods anywhere in the universe, or even to the possibility of intelligent life on any other planets in the universe. Here's an idea for you, and it might be one that you're possibly even capable of pulling off:
Try using the birthday trick to figure out how likely it is that God could be native to a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
QUOTE (sockpuppet+May 20 2010, 10:11 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I haven't met anyone in person who had a problem believing God is not native to Earth.
silly, silly man
Maybe it does seem silly to you, but no one I've discussed it with has had a problem with it. I get the feeling some of them don't like referring to him as an alien, but I haven't met any who were as opposed to and upset by it as people in this forum.
silly, silly man
Maybe it does seem silly to you, but no one I've discussed it with has had a problem with it. I get the feeling some of them don't like referring to him as an alien, but I haven't met any who were as opposed to and upset by it as people in this forum.
[playing with the nutcase]
Since according to you, time does not exist, of course it could.
[/playing]
QUOTE
after he had already existed for billions of years.
Since according to you, time does not exist, of course it could.
[/playing]
QUOTE (adoucette+May 21 2010, 02:40 AM)
I no longer engage him, unless it's point out that he's lying.
AFAWK I haven't lied about anything. Why would I? To make friends ?
So that people will agree with me, and like me ?
No, I have no reason to lie. In contrast to that, you apparently do.
You are an astoundingly ignorant person.
The fact that I consider it might not be is what gave you "hope". But considering that it might not is farther than you can take it, for a very obvious reason. Do you know what that reason is? If you can figure it out, are you able to acknowledge what it is? Probably not. In this particular example what you're trying to get me to "learn" is something I know more about than you do, and most likely ever will.
And remember that you could not apply the birthday trick to the possibility of God's existence, the possibility of any gods anywhere in the universe, or even to the possibility of intelligent life on any other planets in the universe. Here's an idea for you, and it might be one that you're possibly even capable of pulling off:
Try using the birthday trick to figure out how likely it is that God could be native to a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
it was a test.
You failed it
It was not meant to be applied.
It was meant to gauge your level of understanding.
It was extremely low.
And it wasn't a trick.
AFAWK I haven't lied about anything. Why would I? To make friends
?So that people will agree with me, and like me
?No, I have no reason to lie. In contrast to that, you apparently do.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 21 2010, 02:40 AM)
Mostly I just ignore the stupidity that pours out of him though, like when he recently referred to the Earth being 60 Billion years old.
I didn't go back and re-read it and I feel sure I said something like 60 OR WHATEVER, which if so you very dishonestly snipped. Also that seemed long to me though I don't claim to have a good concept of how old Earth is supposed to be. Thinking back I would guess under 20 billion like 13-14, so I thought that if whatever I read said something about 60 billion it would probably be referring to something regarding the matter that became the Earth but before the Earth was completely formed, or that I was wrong about how many billion was being referred to, or... Since you brought it up, how many billion were referred to in this particular example?
I didn't go back and re-read it and I feel sure I said something like 60 OR WHATEVER, which if so you very dishonestly snipped. Also that seemed long to me though I don't claim to have a good concept of how old Earth is supposed to be. Thinking back I would guess under 20 billion like 13-14, so I thought that if whatever I read said something about 60 billion it would probably be referring to something regarding the matter that became the Earth but before the Earth was completely formed, or that I was wrong about how many billion was being referred to, or... Since you brought it up, how many billion were referred to in this particular example?
QUOTE
Also that seemed long to me though I don't claim to have a good concept of how old Earth is supposed to be. Thinking back I would guess under 20 billion like 13-14, so I thought that if whatever I read said something about 60 billion it would probably be referring to something regarding the matter that became the Earth but before the Earth was completely formed, or that I was wrong about how many billion was being referred to,
You are an astoundingly ignorant person.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2010, 04:54 PM)
The fact that I consider it might not be is what gave you "hope". But considering that it might not is farther than you can take it, for a very obvious reason. Do you know what that reason is? If you can figure it out, are you able to acknowledge what it is? Probably not. In this particular example what you're trying to get me to "learn" is something I know more about than you do, and most likely ever will.
And remember that you could not apply the birthday trick to the possibility of God's existence, the possibility of any gods anywhere in the universe, or even to the possibility of intelligent life on any other planets in the universe. Here's an idea for you, and it might be one that you're possibly even capable of pulling off:
Try using the birthday trick to figure out how likely it is that God could be native to a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
it was a test.
You failed it
It was not meant to be applied.
It was meant to gauge your level of understanding.
It was extremely low.
And it wasn't a trick.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2010, 12:17 PM)
I didn't go back and re-read it and I feel sure I said something like 60 OR WHATEVER, which if so you very dishonestly snipped.
Adding "whatever" doesn't make you any less stupid.
You said:
Adding "whatever" doesn't make you any less stupid.
You said:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
As for the Earth being in an overall cooling mode for 60 billion years or whatever, I believe it was molten entirely to begin with which is why it's round, and has been cooling since its origin.
It was a stupid comment on so many levels that it didn't warrant trying to explain it to you.
The original post was claiming the earth's CLIMATE has been cooling for 60 MILLION years.
FYI, Earth is thought to be ~4.5 billion years old.
Arthur
It was a stupid comment on so many levels that it didn't warrant trying to explain it to you.
The original post was claiming the earth's CLIMATE has been cooling for 60 MILLION years.
FYI, Earth is thought to be ~4.5 billion years old.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 23 2010, 05:42 PM)
The original post was claiming the earth's CLIMATE has been cooling for 60 MILLION years.
FYI, Earth is thought to be ~4.5 billion years old.
Thanks. Why should we think the Earth's climate was hotter 60 million years ago than it was when it was molten?
FYI, Earth is thought to be ~4.5 billion years old.
Thanks. Why should we think the Earth's climate was hotter 60 million years ago than it was when it was molten?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2010, 02:14 PM)
Thanks. Why should we think the Earth's climate was hotter 60 million years ago than it was when it was molten?
idiot.
When it was molten, there was no climate.
The statement was that the climate has been cooling for 60 million years.
Where from that do you get anyone saying that it was hotter 60 million years ago than it was 4.5 billion years ago?
idiot.
When it was molten, there was no climate.
The statement was that the climate has been cooling for 60 million years.
Where from that do you get anyone saying that it was hotter 60 million years ago than it was 4.5 billion years ago?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2010, 02:14 PM)
Thanks. Why should we think the Earth's climate was hotter 60 million years ago than it was when it was molten?
And who could ask for a more succinct example of why having any kind of discourse with you is entirely pointless.
ROTFLMAO.
You take arguing with STRAWMEN to such unimaginable levels that it makes your duplicity friggin amazing.
Arthur
And who could ask for a more succinct example of why having any kind of discourse with you is entirely pointless.
ROTFLMAO.
You take arguing with STRAWMEN to such unimaginable levels that it makes your duplicity friggin amazing.
Arthur
QUOTE (AlexG+May 20 2010, 03:07 PM)
Is everyone having fun arguing with the nutcase?
That's the only reasonable thing to do.
nopeda- It looks like the curses didn't work. But instead of admitting defeat lets put a spin on it, a little English.
It was a test on the efficacy of curses. There is proof now that curses are a myth, like mallards not being able to dive.
But they are fun to say. Here is a good one.
nopeda, you should stop arguing. If you don't, then when you are old enough to legally hold a credit card may it be rejected in a crowded restaurant, on a first date.
That's the only reasonable thing to do.
nopeda- It looks like the curses didn't work. But instead of admitting defeat lets put a spin on it, a little English.
It was a test on the efficacy of curses. There is proof now that curses are a myth, like mallards not being able to dive.
But they are fun to say. Here is a good one.
nopeda, you should stop arguing. If you don't, then when you are old enough to legally hold a credit card may it be rejected in a crowded restaurant, on a first date.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 23 2010, 07:17 PM)
idiot.
When it was molten, there was no climate.
The statement was that the climate has been cooling for 60 million years.
Where from that do you get anyone saying that it was hotter 60 million years ago than it was 4.5 billion years ago?
It has been cooling since it was at its hottest point, climate or no climate. If that point was before 60 million years ago then overall it has been cooling since that point. And even with all your great teachings you imagine you have shared on the subject, it still seems to me that it was hotter when it was molten than it was 60 million years ago. If the atmosphere has been cooling for 60 million years, then that must be when the atmosphere was hottest...
When it was molten, there was no climate.
The statement was that the climate has been cooling for 60 million years.
Where from that do you get anyone saying that it was hotter 60 million years ago than it was 4.5 billion years ago?
It has been cooling since it was at its hottest point, climate or no climate. If that point was before 60 million years ago then overall it has been cooling since that point. And even with all your great teachings you imagine you have shared on the subject, it still seems to me that it was hotter when it was molten than it was 60 million years ago. If the atmosphere has been cooling for 60 million years, then that must be when the atmosphere was hottest...
dopEda
Damn, You really are that stupid, this isn't an act!
Grumpy
QUOTE
It has been cooling since it was at its hottest point, climate or no climate. If that point was before 60 million years ago then overall it has been cooling since that point. And even with all your great teachings you imagine you have shared on the subject, it still seems to me that it was hotter when it was molten than it was 60 million years ago. If the atmosphere has been cooling for 60 million years, then that must be when the atmosphere was hottest...
Damn, You really are that stupid, this isn't an act!
Grumpy
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.