logo Sign In

DanielB

This user has been banned.

User Group
Banned Members
Join date
15-Jul-2004
Last activity
5-Oct-2005
Posts
594

Post History

Post
#81278
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81278/action/topic#81278
Time
"Ok, let's just one thing straight. The Big Bang Theory says nothing regarding what happened before the event itself."

It claims "some gasses had a reaction that made a gigantic bang". Gasses that had to pre-date the big bang.

"However, you seem to think that by disproving one you disprove both. This is of course ridiculous but whatever."

They both fail for the same reasons.

"Once again no one claims that matter had to exist before the Big Bang."

*Scratches head*, care to explain why the big bang theory needs gasses to pre-date the big bang then (without claiming that matter had to exist before the big bag)?

"I actually think that the current thought is that this the 8th or something iteration of our universe."

Shows what you "know". This is demonstratably wrong, there is no "big crunch" there never was, and there never will be. Some variant of the big bang theory theorized big crunch-big bang-big crunch-big bang, but it is completely wrong.

"So the Big Bang theory does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe at all, but merely it is an explanation for observable phenomenon in the current universe."

Thank you for agreeing with what I said.

"Gluons- You seem to think that gluons are imaginary fudge factors invented by particle physicists to explain things that fucked with their theories. (...) 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."

What I think you mean is that the existence of gluons is one possible explanation for the results they observed. There is hardly conclusive evidence, or even "strong" evidence.

"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."

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?"

"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."

There's always one. A virus is something that infects life, that's completely different to actually being alive. What does it do? "live independently in other living cells"? No, it doesn't. It infects a cell, then goes and infects another, because viruses do not perform the chemical actions/reactions of life. It can't move to a new "home", it must have a host cell. It is a useless functionless mass of non-living nucleic acid without one. And it relies on survival of the host living cell. If it dies, so does the virus. If the virus dies, the cell lives on.

Viruses are non-living microscopic particles that attack healthy cells within living things. They do not have the characteristics of living things and are not able to metabolize food. To metabolize means to change food energy into chemical energy that the body can use. Viruses are not alive, so they do not have a need for food like living oganisms. Viruses do not have an organized cell structure. They are so light that they can float in the air or water, be passed on to other organisims if touched, and fit anywhere. The virus injects its own DNA structure into healthy cells where new virus cells grow.

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212089/virus.htm?tqskip1=1

"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."

Well, not very well. There are no known antibiotics that kill viruses. That's why you get injected with (lesser) viruses intended to provoke your body to build antibodies compatible with fighting certain (greater-risk) viruses instead. In fact, to use your example of HIV - even sharing needles it is difficult to contract because it "survives" for a very short time while the blood is outside the body.
Post
#81267
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81267/action/topic#81267
Time
Yes the theory of evolution and the big bang a separate theories, however they are still both believed by the majority of who believe one. That is to say, if you believe one then you probably believe the other. Evolution assumes that life existed all along, which is a similar problem with the Big Bang, which assumes that stuff already exists. Logically, if you travel far enough back in time you'll come to a point where there is no past. This would be the beginning of the universe. It shouldn't even exist because it could not have created itself. Then matter comes along, where did it come from? It may have been there all along from the beginning. Anyhow, perhaps matter itself is as complex as life. I don't see scientists appreciate the complexity of particles - they just try to explain them. Trying to explain something they can't, something that really can't be explained, just theorized about. Gluons are a good example of simply bad science. They're something someone made up, nothing that has ever been observed, measured or tested ever showed their existence, or even hinted towards it.

They're a dream. A theory with no evidence whatsoever, simply put there by scientists to make more explainable something so complex. And comparing a virus to life is like comparing apples to oranges. Viruses infect living cells, they use the genetic code contained within those cells. It's futile to assume that a virus would be able to modify itself without the presence of living cells (since that is how it changes). Therefore it's also futile to assume it may have been the origin of life - a virus relies on living cells to infect! It does not even replicate without living cells. It's an artificial chicken-and-egg scenario. Viruses don't create life, they infect it, break it down and destroy it.

"on thing to say to you danielB NATURAL SELECTION IS EVOLUTION... again learn about what you are argueing b4 you argue and if this whole time you have been thinking that evolution relies on genes being created to coup with a change i am going to be very angy because it is the opposite of that. mutations occur and then if the enviroment that the creature lives in favor that mutation it will grow and become prodominat in the population."

Rubbish. Natural selection just uses the diversity of genes. Perhaps you've heard of the Moths of the Industrial Revolution which Evolutionists like to use to try and prove Evolution. You have a moth that has genes for white, and genes for black. The white moth was able to sit on the trees and not be seen, but when soot covered the trees they were seen and eaten. Instead it was the black moths who were out-living the white ones. And then, when the trees were white again we saw white moths being the ones to out-live, since they were the ones who could again camouflage on the tree trunks and branches.

Of course, the entire time both black and white moths of the particular species existed. About 95% were white, then about 95% were black (due to the white ones being seen and eaten by birds). Then the moth "evolved" again and 95% was, again, white. How you can confuse natural selection with evolution baffles even me. The genes existed all along. The moth didn't adapt to the new environment, it didn't mutate its genes to be more beneficial. Simply some died because they were the wrong colour.

And even if all the genes to create the white or black colour were destroyed - it doesn't prove evolution. Far from it. The very most that would prove is loss of genetic information. For evolution what you need to prove is generation of new genetic information. And from the sound of it, we are far more likely to experience and observe losing genetic information - we have never observed the reverse happening.
Post
#81160
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81160/action/topic#81160
Time
Of course creationism breaks scientific laws and theories. One is that matter cannot be destroyed, or created from void. The Big Bang theory requires space, time and matter all to exist at the same time. And what a gluons? Some scientists claim they hold the protons and neutrons together in atoms - but it's just another myth - a theory not even worth discussing. You will see neutrons decay into hydrogen atoms, but then you also see electrons and protons fuse to create neutrons. And even so - why are they magnetically charged? Why do they not allow each other to pass through the same space? Why is there are gravitational force between them? Science does not know the answer to any of those questions. Science has no explanation, whatsoever as to how space and time came into existence, let alone matter itself.

"While I feel the Big Bang is an adequate theory, it does not tell everything but what it's tying to explain is pretty fuckin complicatd so why should it."

As I said, the theory assumes space and time were in existence all along, and it assumes that at least some matter was also in existence. To date it has offered no explanation as to the origin of the universe (or the matter contained within), it just tries to explain "how that matter became spread out into galaxies". It's not a great theory.

"for example many forms of lucemia(Sp) are not resistant to Penicillin, this occured because some forms of the disease in the 1940s were resistant to the anti biotic because of a simple mutation."

Wrong. Natural selection. Those resistant were the ones to live on, and so (if anything) you are losing the genetic code that was not as beneficial. Again though, this is only based on natural selection, not evolution. They didn't evolve, they had the genes to resistance to penicillin all along, and those who had them lived on.

"there are many more examples of this look at HIV do you know why we cant cure it or create a vaccience for it, its cus the body virus mutates so much."

True, however a virus is not a living organism.

"look at the cattle industery do you know why we have some cows that produce milk like mad, its because since the 1700sman has been selectively breeding so the cow has evolved to produce more milk."

Natural selection, again using only genes that are originally present. That doesn't prove evolution, or even add supporting evidence.

"If God created the niverse, where the hell did God coem from."

Logically God exists outside the universe, where such rules and scientific laws are not only unknown, but incomprehensible. One thing you have to remember is that outside of the universe there is no time. Time is part of our universe.
Post
#80885
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80885/action/topic#80885
Time
How come no one wants to explain:

  • How seemingly irreducibly complex things could have evolved.
  • Why the only actual evidence of evolution shows loss of information, rather than generation of new information (where are the living specimens that are on their way to developing into something else, or developing some new organ?)
  • Why Fresnel had to design a lens that magically evolved by itself for fish.
  • How 65+ Million year old dinosaur blood and unfossilised bone could have been preserved that long.

Do you have any idea how many scientific laws have to be broken to allow the theory of evolution to float? Genetic mutations have never been observed to be beneficial. They're neutral at best, or they just loose the genetic information already present. Now Darwin tried to explain this with what he called "survival of the fittest". He theorised that the bad genetic mutations would die out and only the beneficial ones would live on. How come we haven't observed this? Usually when a genetic mutation occurs, good or bad, it eventually weeds its way through the entire species. If that observation is true, as it appears to be, than it means much more harm than good occurs from mutations, and so we shouldn't expect good results to flow.

IF the Earth was to remain in the "primordial soup" stage for 120 billion years, than it *might* have enough time to randomly assemble the genetic code for one cell of the simplest form of life. And even if it did, that code is required to lie there in a usable form, otherwise it is not going to do anything at all. Of course the universe is said to be 12 billion years old, the Earth 4.3ish billion years old, and of course in its primordial soup stage, a mere matter of a few thousand - or couple of million years, whatever you want to believe. The biggest problem is creating something from nothing. We all know the theory of the Big Bang relies on there being matter there all-along and does nothing to really explain the existence of matter, but just asserts to explain how the universe became like it is. What a completely useless theory! If matter was there all along, then why couldn't it have all started ordered like this?

Nevertheless, even if the theoretical origin of life does assemble itself, AND survive (I won't bother detailing the reasons why survival is blatantly impossible) - how is it going to replicate? Can it reproduce? No it can't. It can't grow, it can't create more-cells it can just live and sustain itself and that's about it. The theory of evolution requires reproduction - or it couldn't occur. So how did THAT evolve? Simply stated, it couldn't have. But let's say it did, and you've got your single-cell bacterium replicating itself, and re-arranging its genetic code to adapt to new environments and alike. Of course, it has to be able to adapt very quickly to climate changes as the Earth cools, but apparently it did. Now it's time to evolve into a higher form of life. Perhaps one where reproduction occurs between two different sex's of the same species. How is it going to do this? I mean it's happily been reproducing asexually, how is it going to rearrange its code to allow reproduction to occur between two different specimens of the species? What a load of rubbish!

But apparently it happened. Okay sure, why not? Maybe now it's simple useless floating around isn't doing much good anymore, and because it evolved into having different sex's it now needs to move around freely at will (or, it needs to move around freely at will because it intends to create different sex's). What does it need first? A Brain? A Heart? A Central Nervous System? Veins? Arteries? Blood? Kidney? Lungs? Stomach? Acid? Skin maybe? Which is it going to start with? If it evolved a heart, than it's a useless organ that's just taking up valuable space and resources. Darwin's theory of the fittest claims it dies out. What about blood? Well that's useless too without anything to use it with. So you see, life is so complex that it can't be reduced step-by-step. Heck we can't design cameras as advanced as the human eye. Sure we can magnify it, but that's about it. The brain stores information more reliably, and more solidly than any form of data-storage we've designed.
Post
#80842
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80842/action/topic#80842
Time
I read my way through this site yesterday:

http://www.reachingforchrist.org/apologetics/fallacies.php

Most of which I've heard before, there are some very good points made, though. Now I know that the big bang, the "spark of life" etc etc are not actually part of the theory of evolution, but it does depend on them to some extent. For instance, Evolutionists believe the Earth is billions of years old (despite the fact it doesn't look that old and various other problems that contradict their dating methods).

"It is also commonly asserted by evolutionists that it takes at least a hundred thousand years for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf. That is also patently false. Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. describe Sirius as red. Cicero, in 50 B.C. stated that Sirius is red. Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars. Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D. Today, Sirius is a white dwarf. (Paul Ackerman, It's A Young World)"

"Dr. Ernst Mayr, one of the world's leading evolutionists has stated in debate with Dr. Duane Gish that if it could be proven that humans and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously, the "theory" of evolution would have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN SCIENCE. Just recently (1997) over two hundred pounds of frozen, UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bones were found in Alaska and in some of these bones red blood cells, hemoglobin, and DNA were found. According to the evolutionary theory the last dinosaur lived about 62 million years ago. How could collagen, DNA, proteins, red blood cells, and hemoglobin be preserved for 65 million years?

...

"Svante Paabo has done extensive research on the decay of the DNA structure and has analyzed mitochondrial DNA in a "Neanderthal" skeleton. In Scientific American Mag. in an article entitled "Ancient DNA," Paablo has concluded that even without water and oxygen at all, background radiation would erase all traces of DNA in 50,000 years. Others give a figure of a 10,000 year survival rate for DNA. (Nature, August 1, 1991, Vol. 352, p.381) Still far less than the 65 million years that evolutionists need."


Upon further research it became apparent that there have been other cases of dinosaur bones found in the 90's that had not completely fossilized. That simple fact alone is enough to show the specimens are not millions of years old. You could also look at an article which targets only the dino issue:

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i8f.htm

Anyhow, as you can see there is no real explanation as to how red blood cells could be so old. The theory for evolutionists is perhaps they are not red blood cells at all (but that can't be proven), or perhaps they're foreign cells not from dino's. In either case, it would disprove the theory of radiometric dating altogether, for the simple fact that these specimens are either not the age they should be, or they have been demonstratably contaminated. That is to say if the red blood cells are foreign, than the samples are contaminated and thus disproves radiometric dating, and if they're not then the dinos are much younger than 65 millions years old - and again disproves radiometric dating.
Post
#80704
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80704/action/topic#80704
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Sort of off topic..

But by the 'logic' of evolution, then Luke blowing-up the Deathstar should produce a better deathstar in several million years.
Yes, but only because the death star is designed, and so can be deliberately re-designed. Darth Charta is right, carbon dating is a theory based on more than a dozen unprovable assumptions. Anyone who has faith in something like that really is blind. You're faced with so many contradicting facts. Carbon dating on freshly killed seals, and tree bark. Carbon dating fails miserably under certain known conditions, why should it be so reliable under unknown conditions? You're still left with the problem of the shrinking sun (then again there are some so-called scientists who claim the sun osculates shirking and expanding, back and forth and that it isn't really shrinking). The problem that "the world does not look old". As I mentioned before all life forms alive today, that by the timeline of evolution were alive millions of years ago, have not evolved. I even gave specific examples. When I hear evolution explain how fresnel lenses evolved into fish eye's millions of years ago (when, I might add it had to be invented, designed and created or we wouldn't have lighthouses today) - then perhaps it can hold water. However I know that fresnel lenses are way too complicated to have evolved in an eye. For the simple reason that the "in-between" life forms would not be able to see.
Post
#80447
Topic
GMail
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80447/action/topic#80447
Time
Since I just made a post about this on another forum, I thought I'd bring it here too. Now, if you want a free 1GB Email account then get it from Walla. Basically I said that GMail illegally scans the content of emails, and that this is privacy invasive. The reply was a simple "how can it be illegal if they tell you about it". Well the answer is that even if the customer did consent to the content of their own private emails being read by Google, unconsenting 3rd parties that send emails to GMail addresses, do not. Google is therefore illegally scanning the content of emails from 3rd parties.

Australian Privacy Foundation's letter

Here is the more important point:

Google has stated that the GMail system software will automatically scan the subject headers and contents of all these private emails to generate targeted advertisements relevant to the email content. Concerns have also been expressed that the scanning and automated content analysis will not only apply to GMail clients, but also to those with whom they correspond by email.

Discuss.
Post
#80299
Topic
Info: DanielB - Give capitalism a chance!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80299/action/topic#80299
Time
Originally posted by: Laserman
You'd like to be a film maker, so you know enough??

/Start stupid rant/

C'mon Daniel, stop wishing and start doing! Australia would have to be the easiest place in the world to be a film maker. I remember years and years ago, when I was stateside I saw Stephen King on set (I was a lowly grip) and one of the cameramen was talking to him saying 'I always wanted to be a writer', and SK turned to him and said something I never forgot.... "Writers write". That's all he said and walked away.
And it is so true, writers don't want to be writers, they write, and film makers don't want to be film makers, they make films.
I saved up my mowing money (for 7 months) when I was 11 to buy a 2nd hand Super 8 camera and a reel of film, and attempted a stop motion feature with my Star Wars figures. To my surprise it (kinda) worked, and I haven't stopped making films since. Talk to nearly any film maker and they have one thing in common - they actually make films, whether they get distributed or not, whether they are any good or not - that's what they do. And many of them hold down a 'normal' job and family at the same time.

You don't even seem to have the drive to do something that you supposedly feel passionate about - i.e. making an archival OT transfer - even though doing so would start to build some of the skills you would need to start doing films of your own.

If you really wanted to do any of this stuff, there would be no stopping you.

/End Stupid Rant/

Seriously, my offer is real of lending you the Laserdiscs, catpure card, software to make your own OT. I'll even lend you a burner. (I promise this is my last Daniel baiting)

Whew, OK now that I have offended everybody, I gotta go pack, I've got to supervise a shoot and will be away for about a week if all goes to plan. I'll check in here if I have time.
To everyone actually making a transfer, may your edits be glitch free, may your free space be plentiful and your laserdiscs be sparkle free.
The first thing I need to work on is writing a story (I already own a ton of gold original ideas). My friend who would apparantly be my partner in it however is lagging, so I have to wait unti he comes around. I'm not interested in transfering the LD's, even if I had access to all the needed stuff right now. There are other people working on it. If there weren't, maybe I would. Or maybe the PAL LD's and the german rip, I'd see what I could do with them. But then that would lagg me from filmmaking. You have to apply to the OFLC for a classification exemption to show it at film festivals, right?
Post
#80298
Topic
Info Wanted: German HDTV rip
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80298/action/topic#80298
Time
Originally posted by: INv8r_ZIM
Dude, YOU'RE the one who bitched about colour correction ....
No I didn't complain about colour correction. LD man yes I agree, however I think if you can restore the LD frames to the best possible quality then the drop in quality won't be too noticible. Try watching Manhunter the Restored Director's Cut. It doesn't take you out of the film.
Post
#80283
Topic
Info Wanted: German HDTV rip
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80283/action/topic#80283
Time
Anyway eDroj, my point simply remains that when you add additional stuff into a movie that was not in existence before, you are crating a new movie. Be it just one frame, or part of a frame - it is something new that you've inserted. Zion has agreed his version can't be called an "original trilogy", he also said he will be outlining the differences and that people who come by his set will be aware of these differences. And he said he will release an unaltered original trilogy - so he is doing the right thing. Zion also seemed to agree with my definition that you must use only material made prior to the theatrical release for it to be original.

MBJ refuses to acknowledge any of this. And he still doesn't want to admit that if he signed the petition to have the unaltered trilogy released then it is hypercritical of him to then not release the unaltered trilogy himself. That it is saying "Do as I say, not as I do" - and that he is like Lucas in that he wants to be able to make the changes he wants, and expects everyone else to be fine with it.

THAT is my argument. Forget the strawmen MBJ has come up with, that's all I've been arguing. I know there are people here who do agree with me. MBJ says, and continues to say that there are not. He is saying this to make my side seem stupid to believe in. Just like what happened to Pos and Fleischmann. Although anyone who actually listened to them knew that they didn't claim to have discovered cold fusion, and that they were simply commenting on their observations - "the other side" made up of people who experimented with multi-million dollar fusion equipment said they could not reproduce the results and that it was a fraud. They got the government on their side, and so who listened to Pons and Fleischmann?
Post
#80208
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80208/action/topic#80208
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Daniel B, do you actually believe that Armstrong didn't land on the moon?

I'd think we'd be smart enough to figure out if it was a matte painting.
Who said it was a painting? Maybe if Armstrong would even confirm that he did indeed walk the moon, but no. There's also Thomas Baron, he and his entire family died when their car was struck by a train, it was ruled as suicide. He was an important figure because after the Apollo 1 fire he'd reviewed the Apollo hardware and had written a full 500 page report (outlining various problems with it) - which the Judge had seen physically, and read part of. It was to be formally submitted, but since he died his report was never seen again. If it was suicide, he would have had no reason to destroy the report.
Post
#80192
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80192/action/topic#80192
Time
That does not count because some people can see Jupiter moons with their bare eyes (you need something like 80/20 vision, and to have lived away from artificial light your entire life). Can anyone see the remnants of the apollo missions with their bare eyes?
Post
#80172
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80172/action/topic#80172
Time
Sorry, I forgot to put evolution in there in the beginning. As for the moon landing, some more contradicting facts (I didn't hear anyone say) are:

Apollo 11 shows the decent blowing away all the dust on the surface. Yet Armstrong (who now suffers from a mental illness), who at the time weighed 30kg including his pack (yes, okay that was his moon-weight, he weighed significantly more on Earth), managed to make deep, distinct footprints? In some photos you can see footprints all around the landing pod! The other thing I find funny is just how close the horizon appears. In latter missions (I think it was 15 or 16+), they added hills to the backgrounds, which added much more depth (and once there were hills in the photos they never went back). Some people argue this is just because they were on a different part (a hilly part) of the moon.

Jack the Ripper and Cold Fusion I don't think count as conspiracy theories. The Ripper killed (probably) 4 prostitutes, not 5.