Is there one going on?

Something I'm unaware of?

It sure seems like someone is out for the Number 1 slot.


Once it's said " I'm Spiritual .. not Religious".... anything goes ;)

Is there one going on?

Something I'm unaware of?

It sure seems like someone is out for the Number 1 slot.


Once it's said " I'm Spiritual .. not Religious".... anything goes ;)

When you hang out in the Religion form, this is what happens.

Actually, you should feel lucky. Lori's insane ramblings are nothing compared to some of the stuff I've seen on here in the past. Recent past, as well. Don't you remember Sandy? CheskiChips? Baron Freakin' Max? Those folks were the genuine article.

Jdawg.. it's not just here .

It seems to be everywhere.

Is it some kind of warm up time for 12-21-12 ;)

When you hang out in the Religion form, this is what happens.

Actually, you should feel lucky. Lori's insane ramblings are nothing compared to some of the stuff I've seen on here in the past. Recent past, as well. Don't you remember Sandy? CheskiChips? Baron Freakin' Max? Those folks were the genuine article.

How about Pronatalist and OilIsMastery ? Talk about woo woo..

How about Pronatalist and OilIsMastery ? Talk about woo woo..

Oh, I forgot about Oil! Wowza.

Also, let us not forget the one-man sock puppet-fest that was Norval...

it's not too late...OMG Jefferson Starship too

http://www.roswellufofestival.com/

3:30-5:00pm Lecture in Library : Ronnie McMullen – “Is There Anything Spiritual to the UFO Agenda?”

9:30-11am Lecture in Video Room : Stanton Friedman – “The UFO Why Questions”

one of my favorite woo woo... candidate for #1

http://www.ufo.se/ufofiles/images1/friedman/friedman.jpg

We have mild woo here. Check this thread out...read just a few of the posts by Bruce Voigt. (warning..be sure to wear a level 5 biohazard suit when reading..or you will be exposed to toxic levels of woo.)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145048

His posts start around post #25. We're talking lifetime achievement award for woo.

Jdawg.. it's not just here .

It seems to be everywhere.

gotta love it, eh?




Is it some kind of warm up time for 12-21-12 ;)

122112.... is that binary code from some antiquated belief?

maybe its the aztez rendition of the 'yin and yang' transition? (mass to energy and back; the process)????

reality is, to find that all over the world the people are waking up

truth 'rules' and will win

not beliefs, not the powers at be, not the goofs with magic wands

'we the people' (mankind) are getting ready for a fireworks show.

buy popcorn and lots of suntan lotion!

p/s.... when you come across some quack that suggests each discipline of the sciences, religions and theologies can be combined; perhaps ask a question or a few (perhaps try and figure it out, or simply make a fool of em; can go either way and what fun, each can have doing it)

i will bet, he be the prick this whole taco stand had written about (in them theologies)!

funny part is, by now, be certain, he knows it!


an easy monkey to find just by watching the trail;

i think the statement that keeps coming up is;


If existence only operates ONE way: then the math is the 'name' to know.

(If existence only operates ONE way) the philosophical approach

(then the math is the 'name' to know) science and religion; combined

the answer is; the name of the boss (mother nature) (the math defining the process)

then what is that other item that is just a catch-all make sense:

oh yea:

Is existence defining itself? (words are all within existence; created by mankind to define what it can experience) (words transcend time, as the comprehension continues to evolve)


and the other:


Life: abuses entropy! (basic common sense when observing 'evolution'; but just a bomb to the sciences; as it will 'seem like a reversal of nature')

what occurs by comprehending each of them line items, (and each who does), will be capable of understanding life; the ultimate quest of mankind.

basically, what the religions, sciences and philosophies have been trying to do since the beginning of time (within the evolution of knowledge)

i don't know about you, but to comprehend reality, to me, is far more important than any single pursuit any life could ever wish to find.

let me know if you all bump into the punk!

Speaking of woo woo's...Hey, Bishadi! What be the hap, my brotha?

Speaking of woo woo's...Hey, Bishadi! What be the hap, my brotha?


i am not sure sex is all about Love

and we in fore-play......... smooch!

you know what i think is woo woo? insecure, close-minded, egomaniacal people who are threatened by anyone who attests to different experiences, opinions, and beliefs than their own, and respond to their fear by dishing out hateful and degrading rhetoric. THAT is woo woo.

you know what i think is woo woo? insecure, close-minded, egomaniacal people who are threatened by anyone who attests to different experiences, opinions, and beliefs than their own, and respond to their fear by dishing out hateful and degrading rhetoric. THAT is woo woo.

And that's why we're including you on the list, Lori. All you've done since anyone even raised an eyebrow in doubt to your experience is lash out with personal insutls. Go back and read the threads. You've been hostile to anyone who doubts you.

9:30-11am Lecture in Video Room : Stanton Friedman – “The UFO Why Questions”

one of my favorite woo woo... candidate for #1

http://www.ufo.se/ufofiles/images1/friedman/friedman.jpg


Strange, for a "woo woo" I bet you couldn't successfully counter one claim he's made.

Didn't they call Galileo a woo woo or the equivalent at the time ?

He was one of many so before stones are thrown maybe we should consider what our own houses are made of.

Strange, for a "woo woo" I bet you couldn't successfully counter one claim he's made.


I kind of like him. Maybe I need to get on down to Roswell for the ufo festival. Maybe I can kiss his ring :rolleyes:

I kind of like him. Maybe I need to get on down to Roswell for the ufo festival. Maybe I can kiss his ring :rolleyes:


Point is, he's NOT a woo woo. Not in the least. He is without question one of the most credible and scientifically discerning Ufologists currently active.

This isn't about worship or being a fanboy, it's about reality. The man's no woo woo.

Didn't he work on the bomb ?

Point is, he's NOT a woo woo. Not in the least. He is without question one of the most credible and scientifically discerning Ufologists currently active.

This isn't about worship or being a fanboy, it's about reality. The man's no woo woo.

this 'woo woo' stuff is fun and even the idea of the UFO foo foo

in the real world, how many have really seen an object not from this earth, controlled by a life, not of this earth? (martian stuff)

any tangible evidence? Roswell is outside of a testing facility; not even a credible location. (most everything they do is supposed to be 'unidentified'....dahhhhhhhh)

Then on this earth, how many other locations of evidence? Eg.... how many billions of years has this earth been here? (show me a landing, ship, evidence)

IN the old writings, how many entries of 'other world' visitors?

In conscious experience, whether mystical, magical, perceived or even to you, real; how many see this things, martians, ships?

Rock formations made by humans, to be seen from space (aerial) is not talking to 'utter' planets or martians; them ideas are interpretations. (maybe they saw the stars as 'utter' people doing the same thing)

My point is unless there is credible evidence, without 'woo woo' acceptance, don't you think it is fair to leave the UFo foo foo's to speculation and the movies?

I have been all thru Roswell, and the streets full of kiddie-land play grounds but as people, can any of you say YOU experienced a martian?

p/s ..... Lori dear, i knew once you jumped up and began saying you 'talked to god'......... that not much was going to change what you have running thru your head. Enjoy the ride but perhaps quit sharing it, you shot yourself in the foot.

in the real world, how many have really seen an object not from this earth, controlled by a life, not of this earth? (martian stuff)

You might find this interesting. This guy is no slouch, considering he was instrumental in developing the SR71 and other top secret aircraft including director of the entire program for a while. But he must be a woo woo now :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10pk_aNsvSw

Friedman graduated from the University of Chicago, earning a Bachelor of Science (1955) and Master of Science (1956) degree in nuclear physics.

can you say old school ;

Friedman was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist for such companies as General Electric, General Motors, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas where he worked on advanced, classified programs on nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and compact nuclear power plants for space applications

Not quite the Labs,.... Nuclear welfare program recipient



In 1970 Friedman departed full-time employment as a physicist to pursue the scientific investigation of UFO..

Choked on his day job.. fortunately there were enough other woo-woos to buy his B...

Books


Stanton Friedman is the original civilian investigator of the Roswell UFO incident and supports the hypothesis that it was a genuine crash of an extraterrestrial spacecraft

UFO believers are loathe to compare the predictable effect that leaps in technology from outside cultures rapidly trigger, transforming isolated ones. Had there been something real to the enthralling fantasies of interstellar ET vehicles in human hands, then we would have all witnessed a technology explosion/quantum leaps that would have suddenly and shockingly put to shame every human innovation of the past century combined. It would be like providing a prehistoric clan with some of the vehicles and possessions of a wealthy dynasty of our times- Lives and technology would change in a very perceptible way, and the technology would always spread conspicuously. UFO believers are all woo-shippers of Woo.

You might find this interesting. This guy is no slouch, considering he was instrumental in developing the SR71 George Bush was pres of the US

what does that have to do with YOUR experience with the foo foo Ufoo?



and other top secret aircraft including director of the entire program for a while. But he must be a woo woo now :rolleyes:

argue with them about the guy

seems to me, them with the bigger box, are the ones that will fib to keep it

meaning if he is so credible, then he should be able to provide evidence; himself.

talk is cheap as far as over head but can make some a fortune; when selling BS

"[Stanton Friedman] is no slouch, considering he was instrumental in developing the SR71"

Um, no. That was Kelly Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Johnson).

UFO believers are loathe to compare the predictable effect that leaps in technology from outside cultures rapidly trigger, transforming isolated ones. Had there been something real to the enthralling fantasies of interstellar ET vehicles in human hands, then we would have all witnessed a technology explosion/quantum leaps that would have suddenly and shockingly put to shame every human innovation of the past century combined. It would be like providing a prehistoric clan with some of the vehicles and possessions of a wealthy dynasty of our times- Lives and technology would change in a very perceptible way, and the technology would always spread conspicuously. UFO believers are all woo-shippers of Woo.


now anyone can see how 'thinking' means 'using your head'

It's the best use for one, anyway.

http://www.unarius.org/images/uriel01.jpg

all aboard the woo woo train
http://www.unarius.org/bio.html

While ufology does not represent an academic field of research :rolleyes:

Friedman was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist for such companies as General Electric, General Motors, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas where he worked on advanced, classified programs on nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and compact nuclear power plants for space applications

How many of you have this kind of resume yet were throwing stones at him. That's comedy.

"[Stanton Friedman] is no slouch, considering he was instrumental in developing the SR71"

Um, no. That was Kelly Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Johnson).

You didn't open the link. That wasn't Stanton that is Don Phillips, appointed by Kelly Johnson.

Kind of resume.. your joking right..

he was just one of many in the Nuclear welfare program hosted by the government during the cold war....

dime a dozen

George Bush was pres of the US

what does that have to do with YOUR experience with the foo foo Ufoo?



argue with them about the guy

seems to me, them with the bigger box, are the ones that will fib to keep it

meaning if he is so credible, then he should be able to provide evidence; himself.

talk is cheap as far as over head but can make some a fortune; when selling BS

You asked how many of us, I assumed you were referring to all of us as in humans on the earth.

Me, I have never seen one that I would consider interesting or out of this world.

Is he asking for money ?, I mean he ran the program and other similar programs and was obviously very well respected.

However, it does make a difference to me as well. If he is using his position to sell books on the idea then I would question his motives.

Does not appear to be the case, I don't see him asking for a dime on the subject.

I see way more risk to him by coming forward with the information.

Look at your reaction.

dime a dozen

Right, that's funny.

http://www.evdaniken.com/e/themepark.htm

der woo woo park and fun center :)

Right, that's funny.

I don't see anything funny in how the government squandered so much money on pointless projects..

what you saying you think he is some magical being because he had a 50's degree in Nuclear Science .. not exactly real cutting edge

UFO believers are loathe to compare the predictable effect that leaps in technology from outside cultures rapidly trigger, transforming isolated ones. Had there been something real to the enthralling fantasies of interstellar ET vehicles in human hands, then we would have all witnessed a technology explosion/quantum leaps that would have suddenly and shockingly put to shame every human innovation of the past century combined. It would be like providing a prehistoric clan with some of the vehicles and possessions of a wealthy dynasty of our times- Lives and technology would change in a very perceptible way, and the technology would always spread conspicuously. UFO believers are all woo-shippers of Woo.


Nonsense.

The financial powers that be have not only too much to lose if we don't continue to use oil and non-renewable resources but there would be a very difficult shift to make.

You make it sound so simple. But yet here we are still struggling to invest and make the changes we need to advance even with known alternatives.

What makes you think that they would want to give up their hold on us with all of the money they can make.

Again, I am not advocating anyones ideas or positions, I am merely pointing out that there are logical reasons to keep things the way there are.

Not only from a financial standpoint, but also the effect it would have on religions. Since most people in the world are religious in would obviously have a massive impact.

If we were to find another species 500 years from now on some other planet who happened to be a thousand years behind us. Would we land and make ourselves known ?

I don't see anything funny in how the government squandered so much money on pointless projects..

what you saying you think he is some magical being because he had a 50's degree in Nuclear Science .. not exactly real cutting edge

No you said that. I haven't assigned him any magical qualities at all, in fact he may be nuts for all I know.

My only point is that we tend to throw people under the bus as soon as we don't agree with their opinion on something, even though we really don't know any better ourselves. Just because the opinion or maybe the experience is beyond what we will accept as mainstream does not make it wrong or a lie.

All we can do is question the information, look for the truth. Questioning motives is understandable of course.

There have many who advocated "crazy" ideas in the past that eventually turned out correct.

yeah... Freidman is down at Roswell for his peer reviews of the papers he's putting out

here's the review board....:rolleyes:

http://www.ufofestivalroswell.com/ufo/images/gallery/trio.jpg

There have many who advocated "crazy" ideas in the past that eventually turned out correct.
Not forgetting that there have been far more who have advocated crazy ideas that eventually turned out to be incorrect.

meaning if he is so credible, then he should be able to provide evidence; himself.
How "interesting" that you should espouse that viewpoint.
Do as I say not as I do, perhaps?

yeah... Freidman is down at Roswell for his peer reviews of the papers he's putting out

here's the review board....:rolleyes:

http://www.ufofestivalroswell.com/ufo/images/gallery/trio.jpg

Yep, there are a lot of freaks in the world.

Not forgetting that there have been far more who have advocated crazy ideas that eventually turned out to be incorrect.

100% agreed.

Lots of snake oil salesmen and a sucker born every minute to buy what their selling.

He became interested in Bible Prophecy after he had a headon collision with Jesus Christ in 1988

Jesus drives a Chevy Nova Btw... wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0109/abductions-stopped.html


yeah.. they're not woowoos... just free thinkers ;)

He became interested in Bible Prophecy after he had a headon collision with Jesus Christ in 1988

Jesus drives a Chevy Nova Btw... wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0109/abductions-stopped.html


yeah.. they're not woowoos... just free thinkers ;)

Thats not Stanton Friedman, that's a guy name Stephen Yulish.

But maybe this is just another candidate you are presenting.

Re Friedman:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2274578&postcount=15

Thats not Stanton Friedman, that's a guy name Stephen Yulish.

But maybe this is just another candidate you are presenting.


you caught that one pretty quick ;0


it's just another example of the crowd Freidman runs with.

Roswell isn't far .. I really should go sometime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEvJIE8_c3w

now...anyone comes close to this?

http://www.celebritysmackblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/mm.jpg

And another appropriate candidate enters the woo woo thread.

surprised you not down in Roswell Dragon... you might be able to fit in... probably even get a date ... one you don't have to blow up first

now...anyone comes close to this?

http://www.celebritysmackblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/mm.jpg

Yea there are plenty in the entertainment crowd that would apply.

I would let that guy watch my pet fish.

Pie,


it's just another example of the crowd Freidman runs with.

So your saying that this guy and Stanton are friends or acquantices ?

If not, it's like saying that David Duke and John McCain are the same.

Who's John McCain ;)

Who's John McCain ;)

Where is Chaney's ...di...errr...genitals :rolleyes: shot accidently over at operation FREEDOM in Halliburtion Mansion Iraq

http://jerseychaser.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dick-chaney-heater.jpg

No what I'm saying is Freidman and his cronies runs in tight circle... sort of a woo woo cult.

why... because no real scientific fellowship would have nothing to do with them.

You also have your "Jesus was a alien" camp. No Mainstream Church will have nothing to do with them either... Just like no one wants anything to do with Fred Phelps.
Is Phelps and Duke a fair enough comparison ;)

And another appropriate candidate enters the woo woo thread.


Do you say Bingo over there?..... well..Bingo ;)

Re Friedman:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2274578&postcount=15

I read your response to his column and don't disagree at all.

As you stated, both sides are guilty in leaving out pertinent information to make their side sound more plausible. Which is just disengenious. And he does that.

Those that do that lose credibility with me. In his case the fact that he is peddling books and speeches makes me question his motives and that is another problem.

Is Phelps and Duke a fair enough comparison

Isn't Phelps the one who claimed our soldiers died because of gays in the US ?

Who would you rather spend the night in a tent with.

Fred Phelps and David Duke or

Stanton Friedman and Stephen Yulish

Who would you rather spend the night in a tent with.

Fred Phelps and David Duke or

Stanton Friedman and Stephen Yulish

it's dark in a tent right?


http://www.roswellufofestival.com/ufofestival111.jpg

Who would you rather spend the night in a tent with.

Fred Phelps and David Duke or

Stanton Friedman and Stephen Yulish

it's dark in a tent right?


http://www.roswellufofestival.com/ufofestival111.jpg

Damn, I would definetly rather spend the night with her for sure.

Yes it's dark in the tent, you would be given a flashlight but the battery will run out before sun up.

122112.... is that binary code from some antiquated belief?

There are 10 kinds of people...those who know binary and those who don't.

most credible and scientifically discerning Ufologists currently active.

Now that is a classic.

And he could well be.

http://www.rael.org/rael_content/index.php because there is more to aliens than anal probes.

UFO believers are loathe to compare the predictable effect that leaps in technology from outside cultures rapidly trigger, transforming isolated ones. Had there been something real to the enthralling fantasies of interstellar ET vehicles in human hands, then we would have all witnessed a technology explosion/quantum leaps that would have suddenly and shockingly put to shame every human innovation of the past century combined. It would be like providing a prehistoric clan with some of the vehicles and possessions of a wealthy dynasty of our times- Lives and technology would change in a very perceptible way, and the technology would always spread conspicuously. UFO believers are all woo-shippers of Woo.


Talk about a "woo woo"...man, I thought you were going start going on about "passing the plate"

Instead of pretending to know something you don't have a clue about, why not try and back up your perspective with something akin to solid fact instead of just more, you guessed it, pseudo woo verbiage.

George Bush was pres of the US

what does that have to do with YOUR experience with the foo foo Ufoo?



argue with them about the guy

seems to me, them with the bigger box, are the ones that will fib to keep it

meaning if he is so credible, then he should be able to provide evidence; himself.

talk is cheap as far as over head but can make some a fortune; when selling BS

ah...so you admit to being a sock in a swami's clothing. Game over, NEXT!

Re Friedman:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2274578&postcount=15


That was a very dignified and respectable reply Oli, but it HONESTLY in no way accredited Stanton as a "woo woo". I don't really believe for a second that you honestly think of the man as a woo woo.

Woo Woo's are fruit cakes and Friedman is NO fruit cake.

Not forgetting that there have been far more who have advocated crazy ideas that eventually turned out to be incorrect.


And of course in turn, relatively speaking, the few that were correct were some of the most course altering and important scientific revelations of all time.

you know what i think is woo woo? insecure, close-minded, egomaniacal people who are threatened by anyone who attests to different experiences, opinions, and beliefs than their own, and respond to their fear by dishing out hateful and degrading rhetoric. THAT is woo woo.

and THAT is the whole point and basis of this assinine thread.



And that's why we're including you on the list, Lori. All you've done since anyone even raised an eyebrow in doubt to your experience is lash out with personal insutls. Go back and read the threads. You've been hostile to anyone who doubts you.

i have read the threads, and as i wrote the posts, i know that this is an outright lie. i've addressed the topics at hand, and i've answered people's questions to the best of my ability and honestly. i didn't come out here, read one of your posts, and respond by hurling insults at you. you did that to me. i came out here and talked about MY experiences, MY opinions, and MY beliefs, none of which have anything to do with you. i was actually criticized for talking about myself so much, remember? i have expressed an appreciation for freedom of opinion and belief, realizing an appreciation for the fact that we all have different experiences to draw from and different paths. i don't expect you to understand or even agree with my beliefs since you haven't walked in my shoes. you seem to think you have that obligation anyway because you're egotistical. and because you disagree with my beliefs and you don't understand or believe my experiences, you see that as a license to call me a liar, delusional, mentally ill, and to even go so far as to diagnose me via a few posts on a discussion forum, suggesting that i'm either on drugs, or need to be. my personal life up for judgement with the suggestion that i believe in god because i'm not cohabitating (fucking) someone. genius. you guys are worse than any religious people i've ever met. hypocrits. you're modern day cavemen. in the dark, practicing your little circle jerks, and when interacting with someone outside your group, display sociopathic behaviors reminiscent of lord of the flies. there's a move of the holy spirit on this earth right now that is unprecedented. and when the shit goes down, you guy's will be so terrified you'll piss your pants. and as that warm sensation is making it's way down your leg just remember...that i'll be out there somewhere in the world laughing my ass off at you.

i have read the threads, and as i wrote the posts, i know that this is an outright lie. i've addressed the topics at hand, and i've answered people's questions to the best of my ability and honestly. i didn't come out here, read one of your posts, and respond by hurling insults at you. you did that to me. i came out here and talked about MY experiences, MY opinions, and MY beliefs, none of which have anything to do with you. i was actually criticized for talking about myself so much, remember? i have expressed an appreciation for freedom of opinion and belief, realizing an appreciation for the fact that we all have different experiences to draw from and different paths. i don't expect you to understand or even agree with my beliefs since you haven't walked in my shoes. you seem to think you have that obligation anyway because you're egotistical. and because you disagree with my beliefs and you don't understand or believe my experiences, you see that as a license to call me a liar, delusional, mentally ill, and to even go so far as to diagnose me via a few posts on a discussion forum, suggesting that i'm either on drugs, or need to be. my personal life up for judgement with the suggestion that i believe in god because i'm not cohabitating (fucking) someone. genius. you guys are worse than any religious people i've ever met. hypocrits. you're modern day cavemen. in the dark, practicing your little circle jerks, and when interacting with someone outside your group, display sociopathic behaviors reminiscent of lord of the flies. there's a move of the holy spirit on this earth right now that is unprecedented. and when the shit goes down, you guy's will be so terrified you'll piss your pants. and as that warm sensation is making it's way down your leg just remember...that i'll be out there somewhere in the world laughing my ass off at you.

And here we go again with the ridiculous ramblings that do not address the topic.

You do say a couple of things that stick out, however, and I'll address them.

First, you say that you appreciate freedom of expression and opinion. This is clearly lip service. You have demonstrated in this thread and others that this is simply not the case. You make wild claims, and when someone says "Uh, what?" you freak out.

Yes, you've had your sanity questioned. I personally think that someone who makes the claims you make has some mental stability issues. You aren't the norm. I know devout Christians who do not say the things you say.

I'm sorry that you had your sex life or your ability to maintain an intimate relationship questioned. I, as you should be aware, did not take that path. I never questioned your ability to maintain a relationship with another adult, primarily because it's none of my business. You were not offering advice on relationships or sex, so they weren't on-topic. However, you were being rude long before anyone made any of those accusations.

And also, let's take a look at what you say here: " there's a move of the holy spirit on this earth right now that is unprecedented. and when the shit goes down, you guy's will be so terrified you'll piss your pants." How do you expect people to react to such a comment? Are we supposed to say "Well, that's what she thinks, so we might as well agree with it"?

No, obviously not.

What has become apparent, Lori, is that the only freedom of expression and opinion you are interested in is your own. You don't seem to understand that such freedoms include MINE to state that YOU are a nutjob. That's how it works. I'm free to express myself in that manner. Again, I'm not commenting on your love life or your sex life, because you didn't put those out there; you DID put your sanity on the line, however, when you started saying that you reasoned your way to God, and that God communicates personally with you. You even anthropomorphized this god.

Damn, I would definetly rather spend the night with her for sure.

Yes it's dark in the tent, you would be given a flashlight but the battery will run out before sun up.

I want to see the art form style underneath her garments :rolleyes: so yeah flashlight battery will run out.

I'm sorry that you had your sex life or your ability to maintain an intimate relationship questioned.

Nobody questioned her sex life, that's just Lori being dramatic and stuffing a straw man.

Whether she had a stable relationship with a partner is relevant however, because I wonder whether losing a previous partner has pushed her towards religion, and it is filling a void.

stuffing a straw man.


...thats stuffing a straw woman.

you're egotistical.

Then you prove it's you with the ego when you say;


there's a move of the holy spirit on this earth right now that is unprecedented. and when the shit goes down, you guy's will be so terrified you'll piss your pants. and as that warm sensation is making it's way down your leg just remember...that i'll be out there somewhere in the world laughing my ass off at you.

Yes Lori, you are so special. Care to make an 'End Times' prediction? Is the end of the world, nigh? Go on, you have the word of God in your head. Tell us the date, so the day after you can realise your folly and look at seeking help.

...thats stuffing a straw woman.

Idiot.

Nobody questioned her sex life, that's just Lori being dramatic and stuffing a straw man.

Whether she had a stable relationship with a partner is relevant however, because I wonder whether losing a previous partner has pushed her towards religion, and it is filling a void.

the only thing that ever pushed me towards religion was my holy roller grandma when i was a kid. and because of what i experienced of it, by the time i was a preteen, i was entirely turned off to it, and have been ever since.

Then you prove it's you with the ego when you say;



Yes Lori, you are so special. Care to make an 'End Times' prediction? Is the end of the world, nigh? Go on, you have the word of God in your head. Tell us the date, so the day after you can realise your folly and look at seeking help.

i don't know the date, and everyone is special in their own way.

Nobody questioned her sex life, that's just Lori being dramatic and stuffing a straw man.

Whether she had a stable relationship with a partner is relevant however, because I wonder whether losing a previous partner has pushed her towards religion, and it is filling a void.

would that be a sex partner that you're referring to phlog?

I want to nominate Dan Akroyd for this contest....

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=18289ACACEFBF07B&search_query=dan+akroyd+ufo

would that be a sex partner that you're referring to phlog?

Why are you so hung up on sex? I said 'life', someone you share your life, and experiences with, another adult (not a relation) that you have found common ground with, developed a bond with, a fondness for, and whose company you enjoy.

But you already knew that, and are merely being obtuse.

i don't know the date, and everyone is special in their own way.

Please ask God for us. We need to know.

And no, not everyone is special, that completely devalues the word.

How many of you have this kind of resume yet were throwing stones at him. That's comedy.

like i said, George was pres!

did you not see the point?

credentials (accepted by 'community' ) don't make someone good; some think moses was infallible

some think osama bin laden is a saint

heck the chief of staff in the white house, rahm emanuel, his daddy; not even a generation between them, was a terrorist (bonafide)

does that make any of them definitive on any subject?

you can't put up someones "work record" and say; "what he says, i believe"

then whine about it like a 'woo woo'

The biggest woo-woo ever at sciforums was, without a doubt, Happeh.
"masturbation is the leading cause of death due to AIDS"

Here he is from our own encyclopedia (http://http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Happeh) and youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTjKHkv56Zs) and his own web site (http://www.happehtheory.com/)

I'm not sure if I should be scared or very amused.

Please ask God for us. We need to know.

why? what difference would that possibly make?


And no, not everyone is special, that completely devalues the word.

i think you've made it pretty clear that you have no appreciation for individuality. :)

Bishadi,


credentials (accepted by 'community' )

Exactly, his wasn't accepted by community, he was hired by these companies not elected to office by a populace with a less than stellar record.


you can't put up someones "work record" and say; "what he says, i believe"

then whine about it like a 'woo woo'

First of all I am not whining about it Ass.

Secondly, I never said I agreed with his views, just pointing out that we tend to hold these people in high regard until they make a claim that is outside of our comfort zone. Then we throw them under the bus often without even examining the claims.

Next time you have a comment to direct at me do it with the same respect I have given you, thank you.

why? what difference would that possibly make?

It would be something that could be tested. You talk to God, he tells us when the world ends, it doesn't end , and then just maybe you'll question what you are being told. I'm sure God will tell you a new date, and we can repeat, and the world will not end at any given predicted date. Eventually, you will not co-operate and provide dates, because you will see constant failures to predict accurately will start eroding your faith, and cognitive dissonance will kick in, and you will be in denial.

But, you could try and prove me wrong.

you know what i think is woo woo? insecure, close-minded, egomaniacal people who are threatened by anyone who attests to different experiences, opinions, and beliefs than their own, and respond to their fear by dishing out hateful and degrading rhetoric. THAT is woo woo.

Usually, when people claim to talk with gods, or 8 foot rabbits, they are told to seek professional help. The Pope would probably make the same recommendation if someone told him they talk with gods.

The person who is making the claim that would react as you do is in denial.

there is no such thing as woo woos..only a minority intelligent enough to give the cornered majority a hard time..

in order for woo woos to be aknowledged and "exist" you need two things
1- ignorance from the majority towards what the woo woos build their POV upon..then they are like two goats smashing each other..with -of corse- the goat with the bigger ram winning.

2-rudness and ill manners enough to tell the otherside they are woo woos even though of the previous point.. (even though you don't see the matter through their pigeon hole)

3-if you did reach the point where you can see things from their eyes (understand their POV as if it was yours), then there is no need to call them woo woos..just put their POV as shared ground from where you will start off and show them where they are mistaken..

4-if you did (#3) many times and still no positive results (one of you adopting the others' view)..then you have the right to secretly think of them as stupid..but out loud leave it at being different...if you go about calling them woo woos then you have entitled them the right to do the same to you.. BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS.

---------------------

if a selected correct few have been banished by the sheep majority because they are actually the ones cornering them......thn there should be no need for these selected few to woo wooize any body because they themselves have been woo wooized for being right..

the fact that even the woo wooized (originally) are woo wooizing others means nothing except that the woo wooers and the woo wooizd are the same..neither of them is special..and both of them are somewhere wrong..they are two halfs (in a manner of speaking, because it's more of a tenth and a nine tenths) of the same body..a body of logic and illogic..

what has happenned is that the part aknowledging both logic and illogic has rightfully kicked out a cancerized part which goes with only logic...remember: it's IN A BODY OF BOTH LOGIC AND ILLOGIC..(if you object then let me slap you with this; where is the logic in love?)

bottom line is:

theists are woo woos in sciforums community.
atheists are woo woos in earth community.

sciforums community is a woo woo in earth community.

being called a woo woo in a woo woo community means you're normal.

anyone feels more comfortable admitting he's a woo woo now?

:D:D:D

there is no such thing as woo woos..only a minority intelligent enough to give the cornered majority a hard time.....


LOL, you sir have obviously never read the Happeh Theory

there is no such thing as woo woos..only a minority intelligent enough to give the cornered majority a hard time..
Or someone so completely deluded they believe that their view, which contradicts everything known, is some how absolutely correct and that every single scientist in history (or whoever) was wrong/ lying.


in order for woo woos to be aknowledged and "exist" you need two things
1- ignorance from the majority towards what the woo woos build their POV upon..then they are like two goats smashing each other..with -of corse- the goat with the bigger ram winning.
Nope, in order for a woo woo to exist in requires merely that that person goes against the accumulated knowledge of humankind with no supporting evidence (or at least a complete misinterpretation of the evidence).


2-rudness and ill manners enough to tell the otherside they are woo woos even though of the previous point.. (even though you don't see the matter through their pigeon hole)
Or the arrogance to say "Hey EVERYBODY ELSE is wrong and always has been, I alone know the real truth".

the fact that even the woo wooized (originally) are woo wooizing others means nothing except that the woo wooers and the woo wooizd are the same


what has happenned is that the part aknowledging both logic and illogic has rightfully kicked out a cancerized part which goes with only logic...

:jawdrop::runaway:

Or someone so completely deluded they believe that their view, which contradicts everything known, is some how absolutely correct and that every single scientist in history (or whoever) was wrong/ lying.

Like Galileo.:rolleyes:

Like Galileo.:rolleyes:

Oh pish.
Who declared him a woo woo (ever)?
His "crime" was going against the scriptures, not being a woo woo. Most of the church (at least those at the top) agreed with his analysis, but it undermined the "authority" of the bible: that was why he was "tried" and kept under house arrest.

Orly's right - Happeh wins hands down.

There's a Happeh channel on youtube. (http://www.youtube.com/user/happeh)

...I still have the nightmares.

Oh pish.
Who declared him a woo woo (ever)?

The entire scientific community of his time, thats who. He never could be bothered to back up his theories with evidence, which he never did collect since he was too arrogant to open up Keplers book for the entire time it lay collecting dust on his shelves. Then there was Mendel, who was treated with contempt for his woo woo theories during his lifetime.

The entire scientific community of his time, thats who. He never could be bothered to back up his theories with evidence, which he never did collect since he was too arrogant to open up Keplers book for the entire time it lay collecting dust on his shelves. Then there was Mendel, who was treated with contempt for his woo woo theories during his lifetime.

Wasn't it a bit worse than calling him a woo woo ?

He was used to the rest of it. [The poverty and unemployment]. It was the woo woo stuff he could not get used to.

Entire community?
Never backed up his theories?
Er, published quite a bit didn't he?

Yeah, unfortunately, he was considered a woo woo and hence his profligate publications were only of interest to the church, which provided him with the funds to make them possible. But Galileo was not without woowooism

When Kepler suggested that the the tides may be due to the moon, he dismissed it as an "occult fantasy" :p

The entire scientific community of his time, thats who. He (Galileo) never could be bothered to back up his theories with evidence, which he never did collect since he was too arrogant to open up Keplers book for the entire time it lay collecting dust on his shelves.

While the church refused to look through Galileo's telescope, other people did, and began realizing the universe was not some unchanging thing, but instead revealed of many things everyone was completely unaware. Serious doubt was cast on the credibility of Aristotle and Ptolemy.

Indeed, the bright minds of that day were most certainly impressed with Galileo's evidence and his theories, it was Galileo's challenging of the church that got him in trouble.

Huh? Really? When did the scientific community reject the Aristotelian model? Based on what? Was it the mathematics of Kepler that swayed them? The observational studies of Galileo? Were they convinced by Galileos defense of the epicycloids of Copernicus? Or was it Keplers defense of Gilbert's magnetic force theory? What role did Descartes' play in it?

We await your wise words

All of your questions and doubts are answered here: Let's all go to the Creation Museum (http://creationmuseum.org/)! Yay!:bravo::runaway::fright:

Oh, hypey, you big Christianophobe. Tsk tsk.

They're only a tiny minority- we've tightened our Bible Belt to only a half-dozen States now. Soon we'll whoop these isolated fanatics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/state-of-the-nation), just like in Helmand Province.

http://www.rael.org/rael_content/index.php because there is more to aliens than anal probes.


Raelians rule

http://rael.org/e107_themes/rael.org_2005/images/firstpage_bg_lrg.jpg

“From now on we must ask all the nations of Earth for the authorization and extraterritoriality necessary for construction of the embassy.

http://www.elohimembassy.org/

They're only a tiny minority- we've tightened our Bible Belt to only a half-dozen States now. Soon we'll whoop these isolated fanatics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/state-of-the-nation), just like in Helmand Province.

That's disgusting B.S. I don't support creationism, but on the 4th of July, when we are celebrating "freedom," it just reminds me, this hate crimes legistlation is criminal

It's disgusting. This guy has the right to believe and say what ever he wants. If he wants to say homosexuality is disgusting and wrong, or if he wants to be a racial, ethnic bigot, that should be his prerogative. . . this USED to be a free country. :mad:

They're only a tiny minority- we've tightened our Bible Belt to only a half-dozen States now. Soon we'll whoop these isolated fanatics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/state-of-the-nation), just like in Helmand Province.

Yes. Dreadful.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/05/newsweek_lutefi.html

Or someone so completely deluded they believe that their view, which contradicts everything known, is some how absolutely correct and that every single scientist in history (or whoever) was wrong/ lying.


Nope, in order for a woo woo to exist in requires merely that that person goes against the accumulated knowledge of humankind with no supporting evidence (or at least a complete misinterpretation of the evidence).


Or the arrogance to say "Hey EVERYBODY ELSE is wrong and always has been, I alone know the real truth".
:D
reread your reply putting in mind that atheists are woo woos in real life.

:jawdrop::runaway:
no contradiction, you're both wrong..in this stage at least..when one of you stops being a woo woo and down right evil, then kicking him is ok.


LOL, you sir have obviously never read the Happeh Theory
haha now i'm interested..does it have much to do with cats?
i checked the youtube thingy but the guy seems to be a conspiracy nut..might be right in his claims as i didn't see any of his videos..

reread your reply putting in mind that atheists are woo woos in real life.
Actually that's not even close to being accurate: a woo woo invents answers where none exist and ignores actual evidence.

Actually that's not even close to being accurate: a woo woo invents answers where none exist and ignores actual evidence.

(sight)

like Neanderthals?

or how a cat might not be in a closed box just because it's there when we open it?

or...

the list is endless..

the evidence ignored and the evidence invented are only subjective.. leading to the term woo woo

(sight)Sight or Sigh?


like Neanderthals? All dead?


or how a cat might not be in a closed box just because it's there when we open it?
I think you've misunderstood the premise (and application) of Schrödinger's gedankenexperiment.
http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/schrodinger_miscalc2.JPG


or...
the list is endless..
the evidence ignored and the evidence invented are only subjective.. leading to the term woo woo
Really? Please present unequivocal evidence.

Sci,


the fact that even the woo wooized (originally) are woo wooizing others means nothing except that the woo wooers and the woo wooizd are the same ”

“ what has happenned is that the part aknowledging both logic and illogic has rightfully kicked out a cancerized part which goes with only logic...


Here are your statements. Please re-write them so that they actually make sense.

Makes sense to me, but more seriously- "Woo-woo" calls recall a certain certainly certain bird who woos from WackyLand, with cammiewoos in Mark Fiore (http://www.markfiore.com/) too. So for advanced devotions in classic woo-ism:


http://www.dodo.blog.br/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/porky_wackyland7.jpg

Wackyland.flv (http://blip.tv/file/get/Singedtentacle-LooneyTunesPorkyInWackyland633.flv)

Sight or Sigh?

thanks for the correction:)


All dead?

you mean like dragons?

I think you've misunderstood the premise (and application) of Schrödinger's gedankenexperiment.
http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/schrodinger_miscalc2.JPG

true, i'm not familiar with even the name..but i think it simply speaks about how existence is perception..so can a thing exist if it can't be perceived..

whatever science used to prove that (or whatever other similar theory) contradicts common sense, although it's built upon it..the more theory you have, the bigger margin of error..



Really? Please present unequivocal evidence.
as i said before..if a guy puts a cat in a box and closes it..

some guy will bring a quantum mechanics phone book and say it isn't in the box..

another will smack him in the face saying he saw it go in there less than a minute ago..

thanks for the correction:)
It was a question. I'm still at somewhat of a loss as to what you meant.


you mean like dragons?
Nope, you can't be dead if you never actually existed.


true, i'm not familiar with even the name..but i think it simply speaks about how existence is perception..so can a thing exist if it can't be perceived..
That's the question.
And a deeper questions is: if it can't be perceived does it matter whether it exists or not?


whatever science used to prove that (or whatever other similar theory) contradicts common sense, although it's built upon it..the more theory you have, the bigger margin of error..
Ah, now I see the problem.
If science contradicts common sense you're assuming that science is in error. Quite the contrary, science shows us through such conflicts that we have limited perceptions and cannot (with our everyday experiences) understand intuitively how the universe works.
In other words it's common sense that is wrong.


as i said before..if a guy puts a cat in a box and closes it..
some guy will bring a quantum mechanics phone book and say it isn't in the box..
another will smack him in the face saying he saw it go in there less than a minute ago..
You may have missed the thread where Superluminal and I actually arrived at the definitive answer to Schrödinger, but only as a side-issue to a rather more important question.
Try reading this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56140) for enlightenment.

It was a question. I'm still at somewhat of a loss as to what you meant.
i meant sigh, how would sight make sense in the given context?



Nope, you can't be dead if you never actually existed.
that's why neanderthals didn't die:D


That's the question.
And a deeper questions is: if it can't be perceived does it matter whether it exists or not?

:bravo:
exacto, that indeed is the more important question that should be used as a shortcut through many hard-to-answer questions of the first type..

so if we're having a hard time discussing our perception of something..we should check first it's actual existence's meaningfulness...


Ah, now I see the problem.
If science contradicts common sense you're assuming that science is in error. Quite the contrary, science shows us through such conflicts that we have limited perceptions and cannot (with our everyday experiences) understand intuitively how the universe works.
In other words it's common sense that is wrong.
very interesting...never saw it that way..

can you give me an example?



You may have missed the thread where Superluminal and I actually arrived at the definitive answer to Schrödinger, but only as a side-issue to a rather more important question.
Try reading this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56140) for enlightenment.
lol, so did sam fund you or not?:D

i meant sigh, how would sight make sense in the given context?
Good question.
But I'm used to coming across posts that don't make sense (contextually or otherwise :p)


that's why neanderthals didn't die
Ah. Er....


so if we're having a hard time discussing our perception of something..we should check first it's actual existence's meaningfulness...
Nope, we should check if the concept has any meaning, which is NOT the same thing as verifying its existence.


very interesting...never saw it that way..
can you give me an example?
Well the obvious ones are quantum physics, but the easiest one to illustrate is: does the sun go round the Earth or vice versa? Common sense says that the sun moves and the Earth doesn't because we can't feel it moving...
Or relativity and the constancy of the speed of light. Common sense would say that if you're moving at half of light speed and shine a torch then the beam of light should be moving at 1.5 times light speed. But that's not true.


lol, so did sam fund you or not?:D
No, and I never did find out if cats teleport.
And I didn't get the free chilli/ cognac/ Guinness either. :D

Ah. Er....

HA HA!!:yay:
MOMENT OF TRIUMPH!!


Nope, we should check if the concept has any meaning, which is NOT the same thing as verifying its existence.
:confused:
example?


Well the obvious ones are quantum physics, but the easiest one to illustrate is: does the sun go round the Earth or vice versa? Common sense says that the sun moves and the Earth doesn't because we can't feel it moving...
Or relativity and the constancy of the speed of light. Common sense would say that if you're moving at half of light speed and shine a torch then the beam of light should be moving at 1.5 times light speed. But that's not true.
perfectly proves my woo-woo theory..

i don't know what yo're talking about..

if what you're saying makes one of us stupid..

then i'm a woo-woo if most people are with you(understand it)
or you're a woo woo, if most people are like me(don't have a clue)


No, and I never did find out if cats teleport.

BUT THEY DO!!
i was walking home once swinging my camera in my hand and accidentally pressed the shutter button, and what do you know:
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/funny-pictures-teleportation-machine-needs-some-work.jpg

HA HA!! MOMENT OF TRIUMPH!!
I knew you'd see it that way.
Nope, the "Er," was because you seem to be ignoring all of the evidence for Neanderthal's reality and claiming they're mythological.


:confused:
example?
Well, the concept of god can be useful, as a concept (for example my mother's taken to going to church since my father died), but that doesn't provide any evidence of the reality or not.


perfectly proves my woo-woo theory..
i don't know what yo're talking about..
if what you're saying makes one of us stupid..
Or just uneducated in physics.


then i'm a woo-woo if most people are with you(understand it)
or you're a woo woo, if most people are like me(don't have a clue)
Depends what you mean by "most people".
I stated verified science that contradicts common sense.


BUT THEY DO!!
i was walking home once swinging my camera in my hand and accidentally pressed the shutter button, and what do you know:
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/funny-pictures-teleportation-machine-needs-some-work.jpg
Yeah, but more research is need.
Critics would claim that's been photoshopped. ;)

I knew you'd see it that way.
Nope, the "Er," was because you seem to be ignoring all of the evidence for Neanderthal's reality and claiming they're mythological.
excellent, i say the same about god.

neanderthals are science fiction (loool, first time that's literal)

you say the same about god, we both claim to have evidence..

we woo-wooize each other..biggest number wins.



Well, the concept of god can be useful, as a concept (for example my mother's taken to going to church since my father died), but that doesn't provide any evidence of the reality or not.
but then does it matter if it is or not?


Or just uneducated in physics.
making me a woo woo, this is supposedly a science forum..

go to a teenager or soccer forum and see what you get, woo woo:p



Depends what you mean by "most people".
I stated verified science that contradicts common sense.
others may state common sense that contradicts "verified science"

who is forced to suck it up and get bashed is a woo woo..
that's what i mean by "most people"

excellent, i say the same about god.
neanderthals are science fiction (loool, first time that's literal)
No, we have physical evidence of Neanderthals.


you say the same about god, we both claim to have evidence..
No physical evidence of god.


we woo-wooize each other..biggest number wins.
Another mistake.


making me a woo woo, this is supposedly a science forum..
Exactly: what scientific evidence is there of "god"?

others may state common sense that contradicts "verified science"

who is forced to suck it up and get bashed is a woo woo..
that's what i mean by "most people"

now that is honesty!

physics don't rule mother nature; we the people created the physics to describe mother nature; mom's the boss (per freud; as i believe the summary can be said of his opinion...............'it's mom's fault")

We have mild woo here. Check this thread out...read just a few of the posts by Bruce Voigt. (warning..be sure to wear a level 5 biohazard suit when reading..or you will be exposed to toxic levels of woo.)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145048

His posts start around post #25. We're talking lifetime achievement award for woo.

Some random guy at a bar was trying to tell me about chemtrails, and the fact that there was some sort of huge govt conspiracy afoot. To make things worse, he would pile more and more absurd nonsense on top of it to defend it's validity.
It was a Friday afternoon - I just wanted to relax, drink my beer, and eat my calamari in peace.

chemtrails....omg

http://www.carnicom.com/newspray.htm

physics don't rule mother nature; we the people created the physics to describe mother nature; mom's the boss (per freud; as i believe the summary can be said of his opinion...............'it's mom's fault")

i have to agree..

if science aims to explain nature, then it can't contradict it..

that is where the conflict lies..

each side claims they represent nature..

and so, the term "woo woo" comes into existence, with the aid of bigotry and ill manners.

i have to agree..

if science aims to explain nature, then it can't contradict it..

that is where the conflict lies..

each side claims they represent nature..

and so, the term "woo woo" comes into existence, with the aid of bigotry and ill manners.

don't forget if you do present a quality argument that is literally "common sense"; the bigots may call you a "strawman"



if science aims to explain nature, then it can't contradict it..

and with no uncertainty!

Some random guy at a bar was trying to tell me about chemtrails, and the fact that there was some sort of huge govt conspiracy afoot. To make things worse, he would pile more and more absurd nonsense on top of it to defend it's validity.
It was a Friday afternoon - I just wanted to relax, drink my beer, and eat my calamari in peace.

Just look at him friendly, then go blank and say in a deeper voice "damn it I think we are getting feedback on..." then cut back to your smile as if nothing happened.

Practice a couple times in the mirror. ;)

i have to agree..

if science aims to explain nature, then it can't contradict it..

that is where the conflict lies..

each side claims they represent nature..

and so, the term "woo woo" comes into existence, with the aid of bigotry and ill manners.

How exactly can science "contradict nature"?

Furthermore, pointing out the failings of fools has nothing to do with bigotry.

How exactly can science "contradict nature"?


WOW!

chemical reductions versus evolution

2LoT imposes a direction (macro analogy imposed to atomic scale; greatest error in physics)

WOW!

I bet there is just no scientific theory to explain it.

I bet there is just no scientific theory to explain it.

Oh gosh it must be wrong then, science hasnt found it! :rolleyes:
Contrary to what most people believe here, things do exist and happen without a scientific theory explaining it.
Its only after an idea has been accepted that the science behind it is also accepted.

Of course things happen without a scientific theory! We haven't got time to run around having theories for every little thing that occurs. It's just that if you're proposing an anaturalistic explanation for things, you need to have some proof.

If you or Bishadi could lay down some better explanation of his "chemical reductions versus evolution" argument, I'd be much obliged. Exactly what is the conflict?

WOW!

I bet there is just no scientific theory to explain it.

bad bet (


eg.... see schroedingers work (What is life) (notice the term neg-entropy)


life: abuses entropy (nothing theoretical about it; fact)

there are more renditions to fix the errors of today's paradigm than the good offered within QM

eg.............. the whole of physics is about to change!

they left out the 'missing link' (the entanglement of energy between mass.)

i.e...... that entanglement is your dark energy/gravity and has been verified as a real potential (nothing psuedo about it, except to them of the old school that forget to leave room for the next generation of change)

eg....ptolemy had the handle on the math of the solar system for almost 1500 yrs and within the last 100 most all the rules have changed

be certain, the last chapter changes most of what mankind has accepted; once again!

If you or Bishadi could lay down some better explanation of his "chemical reductions versus evolution" argument, I'd be much obliged. Exactly what is the conflict?

planck incorporated entropy into the math of the quanta/qubit

see his 1901 pub

h is the key constant created that has practically ruined physics

life not abuse entropy

life absorb energy from high-energy node into closed system

Confucious say "He who bets with train does not get to work on time after all."

(notice the term neg-entropy)
Which is NOTHING to do with what you're saying it is.


life: abuses entropy (nothing theoretical about it; fact)
No, that's simply your ill-informed misunderstanding.


eg.............. the whole of physics is about to change!
Only for the crackpots.


i.e...... that entanglement is your dark energy/gravity
Wrong.


eg....ptolemy had the handle on the math of the solar system for almost 1500 yrs and within the last 100 most all the rules have changed
Last 100?


be certain, the last chapter changes most of what mankind has accepted; once again!
One thing we are certain of: you're wrong on nearly every count.

All right. Well, despite the best efforts of Bishadi (and a laudable shot from half-court by IceAgeCivilizations, in that long-ago time), Happeh still, still wins, hands down, as the Smack of Whack.

I'd like to thank all the contestants for their contributions, and wish them better luck next year. I'm sure we'll be seeing the usual round of spirited attempts to claim the title, ohh, somewhere in the next five or six threads.

Best regards,

Geoff

life not abuse entropy

life absorb energy from high-energy node into closed system

Confucious say "He who bets with train does not get to work on time after all."

Too intelligible :D

The blossom spins down
Settles on the tepid rock
And is washed away

The blossom spins down
Settles on the tepid rock
And is washed away

Who are you talking about ? :D

Oh, you're right. I guess that should be "Then is washed away." Sorry.

The monkey rises
Scratches, stretches, spies the sun
Then hurls poop again

OK, ok. It's just a metaphor for the forum.

OK, ok. It's just a metaphor for the forum.

Oh I thought the first one was about someone that had fulfilled his/her purpose.

It was an ode to Bishadi, kind of. About how someone can touch on the truth - the rock, the sun - and then get swept away (the river) or just resume the usual mindless routine (hurling poo).

It was an ode to Bishadi, kind of. About how someone can touch on the truth - the rock, the sun - and then get swept away (the river) or just resume the usual mindless routine (hurling poo).

Hrm do you have links to posts in which he touched on the truth ?

Well he knew what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was, you see, but didn't really grasp how it doesn't work for his point.

Well he knew what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was, you see, but didn't really grasp how it doesn't work for his point.

How is knowing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 'touching on the truth' ?

Well, isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics true?

He didn't at least run around claiming we were made out of sand in seven days.

Ok, I agree. But it's hardly worth mentioning.

Well, it's like that momentary pause of the blossom petal on the half-submerged rock, or the monkey reflecting on the sun before going back to flinging dung.

It's...it's like SciForums. But with less dung-flinging.

life not abuse entropy

life absorb energy from high-energy node into closed system

what 'high energy node' absorbtion is putting on a jacket, when cold?

or finding food?

living things often move out of the heat or into the sun to keep cool/warm up.

these are from the 'life' itself, not random adjustments or even the idea of 'high-energy nodes'...............




Confucious say "He who bets with train does not get to work on time after all." perhaps the train is running out of track; even if it appears to be going to the right place

seems in the story, the turtle won the race

Which is NOTHING to do with what you're saying it is. so when schroadinger wrote the book "What is Life" and practically coined the term Neg-entropy to define living structures, it has nothing to do with what i'm saying?

perhaps read a bit more





No, that's simply your ill-informed misunderstanding.


Only for the crackpots.


Wrong.


Last 100?


One thing we are certain of: you're wrong on nearly every count.

find me wrong on one line and then you have a case

otherwise, i can see you really do not understand

don't blame me

Originally Posted by GeoffP
life not abuse entropy

life absorb energy from high-energy node into closed system

Confucious say "He who bets with train does not get to work on time after all Too intelligible :D

now that is humor;
someone who actually wrote non-sense and you praise it because of one reason; it maintains the current acceptances (but is blatantly some of the most horrid english on the forum)

so when schroadinger wrote the book "What is Life" and practically coined the term Neg-entropy to define living structures, it has nothing to do with what i'm saying?
That's right: you're completely misconstruing the term.


find me wrong on one line and then you have a case
Your errors are constantly being pointed out to you, but you're incapable of realising they are errors since you persist in lying to yourself (and us).
Life does NOT abuse entropy.

Well he knew what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was, you see, but didn't really grasp how it doesn't work for his point.


the 2nd is a rule that incorporates a direction to d/t to the physics of the 'standard model'

hence when you hear the idea of 'well that can't happen, it goes against the law of physics, be certain the 2LoT is the primary one underlying the claim.

IN 1901 planck maintained the second in his calculations in which that direction was imposed to the base unit of energy

To understand this absolute fact and how angular momentum removed the ability to combine like 'f' of energy within like systems, removed the ability to calculate the total power of the 2 systems.

ie..... if 2 men can each lift a maximum individually; the total weight the 2 can lift together is often greater than the sum of the 2 individual maximums.

(the current math cannot account for the increase or total potential of the combining systems) (that is why they created dark matter/energy to correct the errors between what hubble observed and what the current math predicted)

what has happened on this forum is that people are contesting what i say because they personally do not know the actual publications, math and evidence nor have any intent of looking into it before commenting.

the same MO i have deal with since 16 yrs old when writing on the enchange of energy between neurons (it's light, not electrons)

to really dig deep enough to comprehend what is being said why not just look at plancks pub and see for yourslf before commenting?

when a single person on this site can show me where i am lying, bsing or have not clue what i am saying; then i will leave!

but be fair, because for every item a person posts, they must present evidence that can withstand

as welll must observe evidence and answer the questions in rebuttal

what a few of you fail is to understand YOU ARE A PEER TOO........ So that common sense must apply to you rather than just what the book told you (science is no theologically based; the law (2nd) is not the last word, either)

but from the gays to the mods to the mathematicians, physicist and even the from the pig headed deceivers; for some funny reason, they can't over come the truth of matters:

why, because i have dealt with this shit for too long (since 83), have reviewed and observed more material then most even know exists and to this day, will be looking into more.


ps... i have an error to claim: the paper Photo Neuron Conduction (PNC Theory) was not written in 82, it was 83................... (damn i love being human)

That's right: you're completely misconstruing the term.


Your errors are constantly being pointed out to you, but you're incapable of realising they are errors since you persist in lying to yourself (and us).
Life does NOT abuse entropy.




what ever floats your boat

if you think what you eat is randomly consumed and you are completely uncertain within your chaotic mind; then you just enjoy yourself


the problem is people believe before they comprehend and why i say often the most ignorant are often the most educated

when a single person on this site can show me where i am lying, bsing or have not clue what i am saying; then i will leave!
That in itself is a lie, since you HAVE been shown, many times, and you are still here.


but be fair, because for every item a person posts, they must present evidence that can withstand
So why does this "rule" not apply to you?


but from the gays to the mods to the mathematicians, physicist and even the from the pig headed deceivers; for some funny reason, they can't over come the truth of matters:
Gays?
So you're not only deluded but bigoted too?

That in itself is a lie, since you HAVE been shown, many times, and you are still here.

from the main mod of this site, to the best math guys, and even the philosophies and religions; not a one!



So why does this "rule" not apply to you? it does

ie... to comprehend what 'evolution' is and how it works proves entropy is a joke

just for you putting on a jacket when you are cold, proves entropy is a joke (the problem is, you perhaps don't know enough math or retain enough self imposed integrity to just observe the reality over the acceptances of others opinions)





Gays?
So you're not only deluded but bigoted too?

you missed the thread on how gays are the "bigots" themselves, not the majority of mankind (meaning; the self centered are not the people to observe over the total of mankind) (if a gay, likes being gay; that is their choice but the majority are not to change for what the few enjoy as a pastime)

reality check: more people are born with a cleft palet than gay; what do the people do? they assist the few in need, not cut up everybody elses lip to make the few 'happy'.


that subject is dead

from the main mod of this site, to the best math guys, and even the philosophies and religions; not a one!
You see?
You're incapable of recognising reality.


it does
But you don't adhere to it.


ie... to comprehend what 'evolution' is and how it works proves entropy is a joke
No, that proves conclusively that you have no idea what you're talking about.


you missed the thread on how gays are the "bigots" themselves, not the majority of mankind (meaning; the self centered are not the people to observe over the total of mankind) (if a gay, likes being gay; that is their choice but the majority are not to change for what the few enjoy as a pastime)
No I didn't.
All that thread showed is that you have no clue whatsoever on that topic either.
I wonder if you're a pre-cursor of a new "skill set"?
Multi-non-talented.
Incompetent in many fields.


that subject is dead
Like your brain?

what 'high energy node' absorbtion is putting on a jacket, when cold?

You maintain homeostasis by catabolism of chemical energy. Some of catabolism comes out as heat. This does not contradict the 2LoT. If you could generate your own heat by magic, this would contradict the 2LoT.

For crying out loud.


or finding food?

What, are you serious?

The food didn't get there by magic, you know, Bishadi. The plants hatched from seeds produced by plants which got their energy from the sun. The sun is the large glowing ball of fire in the sky that undergoes a complete circumference of the sky every 24 hours. (In fact, we're actually circling it, but let's leave that aside for now.) The plants collect this energy in a process called photosynthesis. This process involves the transformation of solar energy into chemical energy by plants. This ecological level is sometimes termed primary production. When herbivores eat the plants, they are termed primary consumers. In the transit of energy from production to primary consumption, much of it is actually lost as heat energy, which has the advantage of keeping homeotherms like deer and cows alive. Secondary consumers - predators - consume primary consumers for the chemical energy stored in their somatic tissue. Again, much of this energy is lost as heat. The ability to forage - to find food - is motivated and supported by energy stores: fat, essentially. We use stored fat as an energy reserve in times of plenty to allow us to continue to function even without direct energy transfer.

I can only pray this makes sense.


living things often move out of the heat or into the sun to keep cool/warm up.

Essay question: where is the heat coming from? (Hint: it's in your answer above.)


these are from the 'life' itself, not random adjustments or even the idea of 'high-energy nodes'...............

Define "the life".


seems in the story, the turtle won the race

You'll notice he didn't log into AOL and troll up the internet immediately afterward.

now that is humor;
someone who actually wrote non-sense and you praise it because of one reason; it maintains the current acceptances (but is blatantly some of the most horrid english on the forum)

Oh? Then how about:

The monkey rises
Scratches, stretches, spies the sun
Then hurls poop again

(but is blatantly some of the most horrid english on the forum)
Didn't recognise your own barely-literate style?
GeoffP's post was written in the manner of your posts.

Destroy Bishadi, my minions! Destroy him! Convert him into energy to fuel our armies!

BWAHAHAHA!

Seriously, Bish: what's the hubbub, bub?

pretty sure there is a winner in the woo woo contest