Durakken

...

That is a quote mine that is from someone that is Framing the line wrong which you are carrying over... So you got the reality of the article, but not the reality of what was said.

Smith had an idea which is to have a reality show with the people that patron his comic shop which is a dynamic that has formed over 20 years or so... AMC told them to get a female in there for some gender equality, but then later realized that that wasn't "right" and then went another direction. The "God Bless" line Smith saying that "It is a good thing that they realized that a new person threw off the dynamic of who they were and thus wasn't the reality of the shop" ie "not reality" is referring to his shop, not shops in general.

I would also point out that the phrasing seems forced and altered to make it not read properly...

"But the reality of the comic book stores is that these are the people who work in them. There’s not a woman among them."

Smith doesn't speak quite like that. If he were going to say what the author says he is saying he would have phrased it...

"But the reality of comic book stores is that these are the people who work in them. There’s not a woman among them,"

and to me it seems more likely that he actually said

"But the reality of the comic book store is that these are the people who work in them. There’s not a woman among them,"

OR he said what was in the article, but meant a certain group of stores and not all stores.



At least that is what it looks like and reads to me.

Which is a reason to point out which sites, if any are doing good. What's offered and what is the best deals...

I'm thinking about getting Amazon Prime as that sounds like an awesome deal... $80/year for access to their library, but I don't know quite what that means. Is it all their stuff they have that they can stream or just a fraction.

I did not say that I cannot accept that you are a Young Earth Creationist. On the contrary I said the things you are saying are not aligning with such a belief. Which means you are not that or you have a vastly skewed version of things. Which isn't all that surprising given how that crowd has been trying to use science to justify their crazy since forever... which is funny because why do that when you believe in literal magic...

But whatever. If you don't wish to actually engage in discussion or thought so be it. I has cats to play with!

So fire Bay and keep Optimus Prime...

In the case of bay 1 was too many...

Considering i paraphrased the wiki article to say that the cracked article is closer to what it said when the cracked article focused on the very last little part and exaggerated it it is really quite amazing that you believe that.

Considering I pointed out he actually got funded by the board and got more than the prize and that the clock wasn't tested properly...the board was in the right, not the wrong, but that's not to say Harrison wasn't in the right as well, but rather both were right and it just ended up sucking.

As far as the worked on the watch for 60 years... it specifically states that the watch that was made AFTER the testing took 60 years to make in the cracked article. Harrison started in 1737 and petitioned and won the money 1773... the second watched took 3 years to make and started being made in 1769ish while the previous watch was made in the 1750s and previous to that for those 13+ years he was making clocks that ultimately didn't work... so the entire process took 36 years and the bit that cracked is exaggerating took maybe 16.


You do realize that Plate tectonics was not accepted based on what the bible says right? The earth moving and such means it's not a firmament thus if the earth moves the bible is wrong and that's not right so Plate tectonics is wrong. That was the main argument and to this day it still is for a number of nutters...


Yes. Crick and his partner didn't just go looking for things they didn't think existed. Like all science it is build upon previous work and it was a combination of a few theories made the break through... It's kinda like how Evolution has been around for a very long time, but it wasn't until Darwin pointed out how it works that the picture came together. Same thing happened in a number of fields over the last 100 or so years and will likely continue to do so more at an increasingly rapid pace over the next hundred years.

What you are reading as Science turning a blind eye to things is Science pointing out the flaws in the propositions that makes Scientists come up with the answers to how those flaws are not flaws or come up with a corrected version.



I wasn't doubting it happening. I was pointing out that it's not a good way to prove that the bacteria is the cause in some cases. What likely really happened is that it got someone's attention that thought it was interesting that he intentionally caused something to occur who then went and did the real science and showed that the bacteria did in fact cause it. Basically saying "Dude's a nutjob but maybe he's onto something."


[quote]
I take offense because I AM a biblical creationist. If you refuse to listen because of that, then I thank you for summarily proving throughout these posts that you are fallacious via the genetic fallacy (ad hominem, in particular) and circular reasoning (biblical creationists are wrong because they're biblical creationsists), myopic, offensive, discriminatory, hostile, intellectually dishonest both to yourself and others, dismissive, existentially tunnel-visioned, un-empathetic, and self-unaware.
[quote]

I'm trying to think of a way to say this... When someone believes something so utterly wrong and backwards it brings into question everything else they think and believe and say because it cannot be trusted, especially when they hold two contradicting views. I would suggest READING the bible and thinking about what it is that it says that you believe.

Look up a user channel on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/paulchartley

He has a video series on reading Genesis. Dismantling Kent Hovind's Doctoral Thesis and explains how nutty something like Noah's ark really is. He is pretty funny so if nothing else you'll get a chuckle, especially for the horribly dull begat sections.

It's not a matter of I think you're crazy because you're a creationist. It's a matter of creationists are crazy because they believe stuff that is completely contradictory to reality and for you personally... it's contradictory to other beliefs you have. This is pretty obvious, so when you say something it is questionable as you aren't able or see where you are contradicting yourself.

See how you filled in the "covered in tar" part in the second premise? That's your problem. I specifically said "You eat pizza" without the "covered in tar" part because that is what you are doing... pretty much.

And i gotta point out that as you get mad and insulted at me calling creationists insane let me just state that I don't think you really are a creationist as most people really are not. They have been told they are and compartmentalize their brains as well as don't read what they say they believe. It is pretty clear to me from your posts you are pretty far from being a creationist at least in the way that is the mind blowingly insane version that is associated with that label. So I would suggest reading the Bible, thinking about it, and then realize you don't believe the stuff that it says because snakes don't talk, carnivores exist, evolution exists, people don't like to 900, Earth isn't as big as Neptune, That's not how genetics work, Egypt exists, Nazareth did not exist, Donkey's don't talk, and I could keep going but I think that's more than enough.

Pi is not an axiom. A Circle and various other geometric shapes are and will always be the shapes they are and have the same proofs and such that they have.

The only way that what you are talking about could even remotely happen is a distortion in space that caused things to look a certain way... funny thing that nature is, that couldn't ever really happen though, because evolution would compensate for it

i suppose it is possible that space could bend after/before a certain point for sentients so they always live in a funky looking thing that made it impossible for parallel lines to exist via some sorta of localized curved space thing, but even then the best you could do is calculate the weirdness that would be occurring and compensate for it resulting in a secondary calculation on top of geometric figures...

But as far as what you're talking about...that is incredibly laughable with Ellie. A message written in a different base that appears only after trillions of digits and only when the person arranges it in a certain way... That sounds more like a weird pattern that can occur naturally that someone is applying their own meaning to it. You do know that there are patterns that exist in Pi right? They're there but they don't repeated endlessly. That's what that base 11 message sounds like to me.

Cracked even remotely used as a source is a joke...
Wikipedia on the other hand while not 100% accurate is still a very good source of information, has sources, and is generally maintained by fanatics of a particular field so is generally a pretty good source of information for quick reference.

I actually think there needs to be a new rule for sources with wiki, which is basically you list wiki if you used the wiki article as the primary source of your understanding, even if you read the other sources... and use the sources that it links to if you are pulling from there rather than wiki.

I hate that wiki is looked down upon so much scholarly because it's such a better reference than several other sources which are perfectly acceptable sources... like an Encyclopedia that often doesn't cite sources.

I don't know since I haven't read Contact. Only seen the movie. The idea of there being a "message" in Pi is nonsensical and can mean only one of 2 things. Either there is no message and it's just that we coincidentally see it OR there is a message and we live in an irrational universe where there is but one element of the universe that is irrational... I choose the former despite believing the universe is ultimately illogical.

I would take that the alien is messing with me if it said that, because it is illogical on the level that it isn't possible to do, and also on the level that it is a universal message, and it would take either the most insane individual or a pretty advanced civilization to find it...which means only the insane or eminently godlike beings could find it.

As far as "Some people won't believe you," you do realize that we believe things based on evidence and various rules of logic. I would bet that that was brought up to placate theists especially since to read it any other way doesn't fit with the story that I know of, because the story is that she goes back, noone believes her but she has evidence of the journey via the camera that can't be explained any other way... And obviously people aren't going to believe her because people don't believe a lot of things that we know as fact.

Also, as I know you look to look up things, look up The Euthyphro Dilemma. It's a discussion on morality and the gods by Plato in a part of the Death of Socrates. The basic question is... modified for this discussion... Is it a Circle because intelligent beings made it so, or do intelligent beings call it a Circle because it is a Circle.

Pi is Pi because everywhere Pi is Pi. Even nowhere Pi is Pi. Kinda like a Square will always be 4 equilateral lines connected at 90 degree angles. The only way that isn't the case is if we live in an illogical universe and if that is the case then everything is true and there is just as much chance that if a message was to be found in pi that it came from nowhere and every where at once and you've lost all coherency then.

I'm pretty sure the nanobots came from TNG as the injection thing i think was in TNG... maybe it wasn't stated till first contact? but the idea was there long before... also Picard's transformation was different as Picard was meant to be Locutus and not a random borg.

Daleks were originally imprisoned in a single building on rails more or less...


Also... I don't think this qualifies to most people as an "official" crossover as "official" in geekdom generally means it happened in a primary canon source for the medium and happens in a story considered canon... I don't think the comic is accepted as either... Just saying.

So if you read the Cracked article which you are using as a source...which should give you a clue you are likely not using a good source... Han Solo took 30 years to build his first clock, starting at the age of 20ish, which was rejected and then he took another 60 years to build the second. So let's do the math on Johnny and we get that his age was 110 years old. Clue that it might be BS popping up yet?

If you look at wikipedia... for giggle let's point out that he was born in 1693 and died in 1776 at the age of 83... apparently he worked as a Zombie for 30 years and noone was bothered by it... moving on... He started working on the clock in around 1730, presented the idea to a friend on that council and got got loans from people and it took 5 to make and in 1736 in was the first clock to be tested...

oooh did I forget to mention that the whole idea that everyone knew the answer to the problem? That a better clock was the answer, but that they just didn't know how to make a clock that kept time out in ocean due to waves an swaying and such? yeah...

Anyways he was awarded 500 pounds to make a better clock. war broke out and the clock was considered too important to let fall into the hands of the enemy (yeah the clock was the nuke of day apparently) and so the committee shelved the idea until the end of the war while at the same time Harrison found flaw in his design. The committee awarded him another 500 pounds when the war was over to make a 3rd clock...which he stopped working on for unknown purposed.

In the 1650s events conspired to give Harrison a eureka moment in which he realized that he'd pretty much invented the thing that he was trying to make decades ago and it just needed refinement which lead to him inventing the first Sea Watch.

When it was completed and tested a new method had arisen and the board attributed the accuracy to luck but not enough to keep them from offering him money and a "we'll pay after we've tested the design by letting others make it and see if it can be replicated" which Harrison declined... Though to be fair on both sides it is understandable... 2 full tests isn't enough imo so that was extremely generous likewise asking that it be proven that it can be replicated, especially in a time without manufacturing, is also a necessity, especially considering Harrison's advanced age.

A third test was conducted that should be tossed out because his rival was in charge and then Harrison had had enough, constructed a new watch and had the king test it personally, in not the most scientific way >.>, which he did and then told him to petition Parliament for moneys.

Now you're proposition is "scientists" held this back and to some degree that was true, but in all reality it wasn't. It was business men and practical thinkers, and war, and several other things that slowed the process by a few, as in 2 or 3, years... but then the watch was never tested properly and doing so would have taken those years if not more anyways considering voyages to test took months or years to take. Further more he wasn't conned out of the money either. They had given him 23,065 pounds which is 3,065 pounds more than the prize was. Yes it was over his life time, but then the watch/clock wasn't being worked on for several of those years and they had nothing that said they had to give him money. They gave it to him as an investment and such, in our world, the watch didn't even belong to him in the first place so yeah >.>


Yes like many other theories this was actually thought up by someone else and it wasn't until evidence was provided that took into account all the other things that made other theories more likely to be the case. Up until that time, even though i'm not looking this up right now, that the presiding hypothesis at the time was the Expanding Earth hypothesis where the earth was a lot smaller at some point and it has grown since then which accounted for the jigsaw thing and some of the other stuff.

DNA wasn't found until Francis Crick and his partner actually found it in the 1950s and thus not accepted until then. This is not a case of being held back either. It's a case of lack of evidence.

If someone actually did that I wouldn't be swayed at all as it would be likely that the stress of being infected with something and it working, or the stress of it not working and me being shown to be an idiot would combine and create a stress ulcer...

interestingly enough, Ulcers can apparently be caused by stress in itself, as well as the bacteria... Of course it's also known that "stress" in itself can cause many things such as shorter life span, and again this how is this an example of being held back?

You seem to be under the misconception that science always comes up with the right answer right away and when the right answer is proposed that the wrong answer is just tossed away regardless of evidence or proof. Sorry, doesn't work that way. No matter if the right answer is right in front of your nose and you know it in and out and all of what it would mean and all that... it needs to be backed by evidence and the hypothesis/theory that is backed the most is the one that taken as right at that time.

As far as your article is concerned I bet it mistakenly takes that when scientists correct and modify a hypothesis/theory that it means they were "wrong" which isn't the case. According to that then Newton was wrong because Einstein's math "corrects" Newton's by placing Newton's equations inside his own, thus adding to it, and showing that you have to show how the previous was able to work within the new model.


If you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old you have no credibility what-so-ever and that is all that really needs to be said. And no it's not a misunderstanding about anything I said and I personally view those people as parasitical scum as they are the only people to have ever not just stopped progress but reversed it and made humanity regress. And just to be clear if you are not a Young Earther, I'm probably not talking about the group you're in...

As a side note: You seem to take offense at a group being derided because of a label that you share. More often than not people are not talking about the majority of the group that have that label. I think you're all insane but there is a difference between "I think there is a groovy dude up in the sky watching me" and "The groovy dude up in the sky wants me to stab you in the face and then terrorize your family" or "No, it's a universal (as in the whole universe is in on it) conspiracy to make you not believe in the groovy dude in the sky." Most people fall into the benign groovy dude in the sky watching category... And while there are problems with that I'm not going to discuss them here.

Here's a example... People who like pizza covered in tar are insane. I like pizza therefor you are saying I'm insane... See how that's a pretty ludicrous thing to jump to? It's actually a fallacy, but I can't think of the name of it.

They do. They're called Tongue Depressors >.>

But honestly it is a lot easier for some cases. I almost always use it in jest or because I know it doesn't matter whether i explain it or not. In most cases if you actually answer the question people will zone out on you so it becomes pointless.

I'm not using magic properly as magic is by definition non-natural... I'm using it more in the way that most media today use it... There are laws and such that govern what is happening but either I don't understand them or we don't know them.

The best way to explain how most people view "magic" in most media is more akin to Gravity and Space-time... Gravity is a force that occurs that we can describe and know roughly if i do this then it will do that, but until the idea of Space-Time came about we didn't understand the why... most media views magic as gravity before Space-Time... This is incorrect usage as magic has no laws or rules. In other words... a break in the chain of cause and effect. ^.^

The other way is a synonym for "illusion" "mis-direction" or "lack of understanding" which is used when we're talking about "Magic shows" We know there is something behind David Copperfield floating around, but we don't understand what it is so we just call it magic to make it easier or to express a category of things that are meant to appear to fool our brains.

So yeah...in rebuttal... I'm not using magic the same way you're thinking...

it's sorta like Louis C.K.'s bit where his daughter is asking him questions...

Daughter: Daddy, does the Earth go around the sun?
Louis: Yeah
D: Does it do it all the time?
L: Yeah
D: Will the Earth always go around the sun forever?
L: Well no, at some point the Sun's going to explode.
D: Starts to cry
L: Oh, Honey, This isn't going to happen for a very long time until you and everyone you know has been dead for a very long time.


In this situation it's best to just say "yeah" and lie... even though you are being a "poor" teacher.

But if you want to have fun with yourself... mentally... Ask yourself how you see things. If you want to be thorough and cover every little thing you pretty much have to cover biology, psychology, physics, metaphysics, optometrics and that's off the top of my head. At some point you pretty much have to go "It's magic"

Let's see... major things "science" has said isn't the case and it turned out it was...

The world is a Globe... save for when it when it was flat. Only, the fact is the world being a globe was discovered around 2000 years before and it was held as such by most of academia since... it was only the masses catching up...which was caused by a organization that will be left unnamed.

The Earth not the center of the universe... well somewhat correct >.> The Earth is... as is every other point in the universe, but what you're really looking at is geocentrists vs solarcentrists... and to a degree this is true, but for a very important reason. Solarcentrists that lived thousands of years ago had no proof and all the evidence point towards geocentrism. It wasn't until much later that we figured out how certain things occurred that made it look geocentrical and again... the people that held out weren't scientists when the evidence lead them to solarcentrism.

Ahhh but then we discovered that we're in a vast expanse of stars and our star must be in the center of that... which scientists quickly discovered we weren't and not only that we weren't but that there are other galaxies out there and that those galaxies form structures and those structures form structures and the center of our structure is somewhere far off and the biggest most central thing we've found is billions of light years away... and strangely, as odd as this sounds scientists have accepted this pretty quickly, and that other organization that always tries to stop progress remained silent.

Science at one time said that the earth was really young, but then we found dinosaurs, and tectonic plates, and so many other things...but you know scientists still held out because there is no way the sun could burn for that long. You see back in the day the process for how matter and energy worked wasn't known and so we guessed at what could possibly fuel the sun...with all of our theories and resources all coming back with ludicrous numbers of scale either on size or time and for a time we knew that the sun would die soon because it couldn't sustain it's fires for a few hundred or thousand more years... Strangely we learned the answer a few short years later with Einstein proposing e=mc^2 and suddenly the numbers made sense and corroborated each other and we all accepted it...save for that unname organization that still believes the world is ~6,000 years old

This has largely focused on cosmology, but we could do the same for just about any scientific field out there. I can't think of any point where scientists were like "No. That's impossible" and then suddenly it was. Scientists have said "that idea right there at you are think in the way you are thinking it is impossible" For example FTL... Scientists have said FTL is "impossible" because when you think of FTL you are thinking of conventional speed where in you accelerate through space, but we were lucky to live in a world where sci-fi introduced all these concepts to us about how to get around that and noone has ever said those are "impossible"

For tech people it's kinda the same as trying to explain a computer to someone... and eventually you start using short hand non-explaining explainers that get them to do what you want them to do but they don't really understand what it is that that they are doing and you just start calling it magic because it is a lot easier to explain... and quickly accepted as "you're not going to understand the words that are about to come out of my mouth if i actually explain this to you so let's skip that and not waste both of our times since you're not really wanting to know any of that any ways."

No, because I can think of dozens and dozens of ways for zombies to be real and what sort of agency exists behind that because this is something that we don't know everything about and the things we do know suggest that is possible to create zombies. Plus it's a physical thing that is there.

Pi on the other hand is a concept that is represented by other concepts that mean specific things that can not change even in the slightest. A circle, square, or triangle are all themselves no matter in what universe or where you are because they mean a specific concept and the math around them mean a specific thing and they can't be changed. So my reaction to someone telling me there is a "message" in Pi would be, "Dear sit, you are an idiot, but that is an interesting phenomena"

And then you're trying to say well Occam's razor says you should beg the question well let's do the whole Occam's razor thing... Is it more likely that an unchangable (from any place in the 11 dimensional construct) law math is creating a pattern that seems like a message to a being that is a patter seeker that tries to attribute agency to things when it's not there OR is there a some unknown super-being that can alter math impossibly to leave a message.

Hrmmmm that's a tough one... I'll go ask the Bible Decoders what they think.

I agree with you... That scene being changed ultimately lowers the quality of the films over all because of what you said... I should remind you all that I don't care for the SW trilogy in general and even I can see that.

I personally hate the people who keep saying stuff like "it doesn't matter" in reference to stories and such, because as pointed out in other threads...yeah so? but also it devalues so many people, from the writer to the viewer, that it makes you sound like an *** in my opinion.

though it should be pointed out... Han being faster than light is pretty badass