- Post
- #87003
- Topic
- Laptops
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/87003/action/topic#87003
- Time
Chilly_Willy
- User Group
- Members
- Join date
- 12-Dec-2004
- Last activity
- 3-Feb-2005
- Posts
- 9
Post History
- Post
- #86999
- Topic
- Sin city
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/86999/action/topic#86999
- Time
- Post
- #86873
- Topic
- Sin city
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/86873/action/topic#86873
- Time
- Post
- #82860
- Topic
- Myths
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/82860/action/topic#82860
- Time
- Post
- #82146
- Topic
- Myths
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/82146/action/topic#82146
- Time
Consider the quotes:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
and
"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Looking at both of these I would imagine that at around the time Jesus, it was particularly difficlt to get into Heaven. Also, assuming that entrance requirements do not change that much over time, all preceding applicants to Heaven must have also found it equally difficult. Now consider this. Jesus gives his life on the crossn forgiving everyone's sins and so paving the way for all people to enter Heaven. The previous rate was probably something equivalent to one of every 100,000 souls due to the high moral standards required. So the rate at the time of Jesus' death likely increased something on the order of 100,000 times. Even in an infinite space, this is quite an increase. We are also forced to assume that there is either only one entrance to Heaven or more than one Saint Peter. Since there is only one Saint Peter, it would seem that there are now 100,000 times as many people he must interview. However, the entrance rerquirements being negligible, he can allow most of then to pass without much more as a "Welcome to Heaven! Here is a map of Heaven and also a brochure mentioning some of the best places to shop and dine. And remember, they don't call it Heaven for nothing!".
Also, in addition to this new influx, all the souls in limbo that didn't make the original cut into Heaven, enter Heaven at the moment of Jesus' death. Considering the sheer number of people that didn't make it into Heaven before and the fact that humans have been intelligent/ possessed souls for well over 10,000 years, there is also likely almost 100 billion souls wanting enter Heaven all at once.
Still remembering that entrance time in negligible, the population of Heaven must have grown enormousely at the time of Jesus' death. This can be roughly compared to normal immigration. Still using previous values, there is approximately 100,000 times as many people immigrating to Heaven as there are already in heaven. This would likely cause enormous civil disorder and widespread unemployment all over Heaven. Th ensuing mass riots regarding broken promises consisting of billions of people would likely cause massive damage to the infrastructure of Heaven. These riots and cries for help would envariably ensue until God took some kind of affirmative action. People have now come to Heaven from limbo, now away from their families, jobs, affordable homes, and dogs, and are now forced to leave on the street or in cheap housing with no money to their name (Since Heaven should be infinitely better than limbo, it is likely that its economy is also infinitely better, thus making the limbo dollar completely worthless). And the influx of people would still continue at the new large rate.
Assuming that God is all-powerful, it is likely that he considered all possible solutions, and in three days he found the best one. Sending Jesus back. God realised his mistake in redeeming all sins so thought that maybe if Jesus went back the souls would too and he could get back to watching CSI:Miami (It's not that great but it makes you think). On discovering that this didn't work, God was forced to take his son back and began to fight off the riots by constructing more livable space in Heaven. It is likely that during this time of massive restructuring, individuals producing detour signs made a large fortune in the poverty stricken Kingdom of Heaven. Considering that it took God seven days to fully create the Earth and all people are promised their own perfect world, he would have to create at least 100 billion worlds and increase his rate of production by 100,000 times. Working at his normal rate this would take God approximately 2 billion years to simply meet the demand of those living in limbo. Just taking that into consideration and assuming that he halted entrance to Heaven as soon so the problems arose, God would either need to increase his production rate by a million times or increaes occupancy by a million for Heaven to be now as it was promised. This of course not taking into consideration the backlog of people now in limbo from when he shut off the gate. As it is unlikely that the immensely disatisfied immigrants would take a million times less than they were promised, Heaven is either still under construction or consists almost entirely of very poorly built structures (assuming a rate increase of a million would produce structures one millionth the quality). Also, anyone dying now would be forced to wait in limbo until heaven's capacity has inccreased to allow the new population. So just a tip to everyone, stay alive as long as you can. Cheers
- Post
- #81905
- Topic
- Myths
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81905/action/topic#81905
- Time
- Post
- #81618
- Topic
- Myths
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81618/action/topic#81618
- Time
- Post
- #81287
- Topic
- Myths
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81287/action/topic#81287
- Time
It claims "some gasses had a reaction that made a gigantic bang". Gasses that had to pre-date the big bang.
Where did you get this? I have never heard this before. Current Scientific Theory admits that it does not know what existed before the Big Bang and leaves it open to pure speculation. I've never heard anyone say that it required gasses to predate it. Hell it could have been some giant energy matrix that collapsed in on itself due to fluctuations and formed matter. Or a a set of strings may have begun vibrating in harmonics and formed a field disturbance appearing as matter. Or perhaps two empty universes collided with each other and the resulting collision and the energy with it produced matter. All these are current accepted possibilities but the Big Bang says nothing about what happned before. You keep trying to strengthen your point by saying the Big Bang fails or saying what came before but It never even tried. Also I'd like to know why you feel the crunch bang theory is soooo wrong. It has been recently contested due to the fact that the expansionof the universe actually seems to be speeding up so it may turn out to be quite wrong. However, for the sake of giving me something to argue, try to make a point and not just say soemthing is wrong. Just because you claim soemthing is wrong does not help convince me of your position.
And Gluons are not theorized. They have been seen. All those wonderful particle curves shown in science centres, on close inspection reveal gluons. In addition to being right where evryone said they would be, they do what everyone said they should do. The only currently contested force carrier particle out there is the graviton which is a fairly recent addition to the bunch upon that gravity is truly a quantum force.
Indeed, though like I said, it is all inexplicable. Even if you point out that "quarks are (believed to be) the building blocks of all matter". We still don't know what light is, how it works - or why it reacts with other particles. Why is the question not answerable. "Why do quarks obey laws?"
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Currently quarks and leptons are believed to be fundamental particles. The key word here is currently. If it turns out they aren't then so what. But the point I was trying to make is that science acknowledges the complexity of matter and works very hard to understand it. Then you threw light in there for some reason. And what question are you posing exactly. Light is understood to a fairly strong degree and quarks don't really obey any laws anyone's been able to make up. Particle decays have momentum, colour charge, spin, and charge conservation but that's about it. It seems that when particles become very small they act more like waves than particles. In advanced physics this becomes easy to understand and in fact is a very predictable behavior. However, they do not obey newtonian laws at all and seem to adhere to a world of probabilities. They also exist in ten dimensions so they're actions are somewhat difficult to predict.
I am curious to know what your views on the origin of the universe and the origin of species is. You are vehemently fighting soem of mine so I would like to know what you think.
- Post
- #81274
- Topic
- Myths
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81274/action/topic#81274
- Time
It would seem to be a similar case for evolution. In our world there are many varied and diverse species. Science has been insofar unable to properly determine the origin of life but it's workin on it. While it is true that a properly diverse species will eventually tend towards a very homogenous single genetic group, certain things must be taken ito consideration. This will only happen if interbreeding is encouraged, possible, and done consistently. In today's society of near racial equality and acceptance, our society will likely tend towards a single race species. However, in the past races have infrequently interbred and when it comes to animals or past species, often times one kind will be wiped out, or isolated, or simply can't reproduce properly. This leads to isolated unique groupings which can no longer move towards a homogenous species. looking at the diversity of animals on the earth, it is hard to believe chance situations of separation and difficulty of reproduction could really cause it but this is a huge timeframe were talking about here.
Now Daniel, I have to say I'm not liking the random bits of uncoordinated information you keep using. Let me just put up a couple things that pissed me off about your post
1) Gluons- You seem to think that gluons are imaginary fudge factors invented by particle physicists to explain things that fucked with their theories. I'd like to tell you a story of something called "The Ether".When Einstein first started toying with electro-magnetic radiation (light) who couldn't understand how a wave could travel ina vaccuum. So he proposed something called the ether. The ether was an undetectable medium permiating the entire universe and what light propagated through. This was another example of a fudge factor. However, a few simple tests were later conducted which disproved the existence of the ether and that was that. Einstein claimed it was his greatest blunder and moved on. See no Gluons are kinda the same with one major difference. Some really smart people began playing around with particle accelerators to see if they existed and low and behold some gluons started showing up all over the place. So I'm not entirely sure wher you got the whole there's no evidence thing, unless yur posting from around the mid-seventies, which would actually explain alot of the hideousely wrong information you keep gabbing about.
2)Particles aren't complex?- Why you think this I have no idea. As far as fundamental particles go, there are 12 quarks, 12 leptons and all their anti-particles. So that leaves 48 fundamental particles floating around which we have to assume must be doing something other than posting dumbass facts on a forum. And these guys don't even obey normal laws. I mean these things are ten-dimensional string particles, they're up to cool shit all the time. Entire branches of science are dedicated to the study of the complexities of particles so why do you say this.
3)Viruses aren't alive-Granted life is a bit of a tricky thing to define but currently I'd have to say viruses fit the definition. They replicate, react, consume, and adapt. And viruses are one of the best and most successful forms of life out there. They adapt to new environments almost instantaneousely and some kinds can be self sustaining. So while I am forced to assume you are an intelligent person, I must also assume that you don't really think viruses aren't alive. I think what you really mean is that viruses aren't intelligent. And if this is true, I am forced to agree. I often find myself wanting more from a conversation with a virus, I've never been beaten by one at chess, and all the ones I know never made the entrance avgs to university so granted they are dumbfucks. But they're still alive, I mean people work on ways to kill viruses all the time and it's hard to kill something that was never alive.
4) Daniel shoots himself in the foot - belive it or not I feel this phrase embodies your use of moths. For one, you seem to think that industrial evolutionists used this example to prove this theory. No no no. They created this example so that simple-minded folk who didn't understand complex science could understand what they were talking about. It's like schrodinger and his cat. It's a thought experiment, designed to give a more tangible understanding to a difficult concept. Interestingly enough, schrodinger used his cat to make fun of quantum mechanics and the fact that it was used as a dumbed down example of it pissed the hell out of him. And the point of the moths is to limit the options so it's easy to understand. There were of course some grey moths around at the time and this all goes back to the evolution thing that I really don't want to go into again. I hope your ealize that you tried to use a well-thought of example of evolution to disprove it. Not the best of ideas really.
And now I'm tired of this. When you post in response or even when you post next. Please for the love of whatever god you feel supports your beliefs, try to only use information you are sure of. talking about things you don't understand makes you look like a dumbass and makes me have to redefine my definition of blatent ignorance (you're lowering the bar btw). toodle-pip