Community > Posts By > LaMuerte

 
LaMuerte's photo
Fri 01/08/10 11:27 PM




Does anyone here believe that the world will REALLY end in 2012? I'm curious to know...I personally don't, but it would be nice to hear other opinions.
actually its 2102


slaphead It's not ending then either...:laughing:
2201? come on help me out herelaugh drinker

The world ended in 1022. Didn't you get the memo???

LaMuerte's photo
Fri 01/08/10 11:26 PM
So, Duffy, what you have effectively done is cover your ears and eyes to the evidence and sit there shouting "NAH NAH CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

You haven't provided a single cogent point. All you have done is say that you don't care what anyone else thinks, that a fetus is alive, and then had the sheer arrogance to call your personal opinions (I might add that I see them as silly and irrelevant) "facts."

Plus, you claimed that the fetus starts kicking at 3 months, then changed your figure to 4 months one post later. Are you using ANY facts to form your arguments?

LaMuerte's photo
Tue 01/05/10 09:58 PM

the question was "have u ever had an abortion"?????

if u have, you know that it is the taking of a life. end of story.
i am not appealing to anything. i am stating a fact.

Facts are independently verifiable. You are stating an opinion, and using an argument that relies on two logical fallacies. Your position is invalid because of this.

I can use your line of reasoning to say that since you have never seen under the hood of my car, you cannot possibly claim that it is not powered by magical pixies. Therefore, it is a fact that my car is powered by magical pixies.

LaMuerte's photo
Tue 01/05/10 12:37 PM

Until you begin to question how they're powering such travel. Antimatter? Nuclear Fusion? Either way you have to consider just how much energy is required to accelerate such a mass for so long. Then you have to remember that there is no friction in space, so the deceleration as well as acceleration (yes I'm aware that 'deceleration' isn't a real term in science) would require JUST AS MUCH energy in the opposite direction. Would such visits even be plausible when nothing useful has been gained on Earth, and no apparent result has been achieved on either end?


Perhaps:

Long distance space travel is accomplished by bending space. (Like wormholes)

But that would negate the idea of this whole situation. They would have to accelerate constantly for thousands of years (relative to a motionless bystander). The question is where they would acquire such quantities of energy, not how they would travel vast distances. The travel would necessarily take a very long time.

LaMuerte's photo
Tue 01/05/10 12:34 PM

Of course though, you aren't debating anymore the topic, which discusses how even You or Me wouldn't age even if we could go somewhere, but you are just refuting that nobody came here anyway so why talk about it?

Actually, I was just asking a question. I was making no argument for or against. You judged my question as a challenge to the proposition.

LaMuerte's photo
Tue 01/05/10 12:32 PM


Everything is alive according to my definition of life. If a sperm or an egg do not have 'life' they would not create an embryo when they are joined.

So it depends on your definition of "life."

If I define "life" to require something to be purple, my definition would be worthy of disregard by everyone else on earth. Your definition, and mine, are irrelevant. In biology, for something to be alive it must grow and be capable of reproducing on its own. Sperm can do neither of the above. They are not alive. They act via chemical reaction, much like EVERYTHING ELSE. This does not mean they are alive. Prions cause disease, but they're nothing but protein ions. Do you consider them to be alive as well?



I consider everything to be alive and part of a living universe.



According to your definition, nothing can die, so murder is not a crime, as it does not exist. Where are you going with this?

LaMuerte's photo
Tue 01/05/10 12:31 PM

well have u ever had an abortion?
if u have had one, then u know what having a fetus taken from your body is about.
it is murder.

This is both an appeal to emotion and an appeal to authority. Both are logical fallacies. You cannot make objective judgments about something you yourself are biased towards.

LaMuerte's photo
Sun 01/03/10 12:13 AM
What do you mean by "no achievement"?

I didn't say "no achievement." I said, quite specifically, "no apparent result." We have no plausible evidence that there ever has been a visit from such beings, and if we have been, there certainly haven't been any notable differences in our world as a result.

That, in a nutshell, was what I meant.

LaMuerte's photo
Sun 01/03/10 12:08 AM
Everything is alive according to my definition of life. If a sperm or an egg do not have 'life' they would not create an embryo when they are joined.

So it depends on your definition of "life."

If I define "life" to require something to be purple, my definition would be worthy of disregard by everyone else on earth. Your definition, and mine, are irrelevant. In biology, for something to be alive it must grow and be capable of reproducing on its own. Sperm can do neither of the above. They are not alive. They act via chemical reaction, much like EVERYTHING ELSE. This does not mean they are alive. Prions cause disease, but they're nothing but protein ions. Do you consider them to be alive as well?

LaMuerte's photo
Fri 01/01/10 11:39 PM
What do you consider to be the qualifications for something to be alive? Your cells are alive. A sperm is not, nor is an ovum. By the same qualifications, neither is a virus. We have the medical technology to create a new person from any cell in your body, so you're committing genocide when you itch yourself. Does that make you a murderer? No. A zygote is not a person. A blastocyst is not a person. I wouldn't consider an embryo a person either. A few hundred to a few thousand cells is not even self-aware.

Arguments about spirit are unfounded, as there is no empirical evidence to even suggest that it exists. Speculation about when it enters a conceived child is akin to speculation on the color of the Loch Ness Monster.

All of this being said, life technically begins when a cell becomes capable of reproducing itself. This happens at or around the time of conception. Does this really hold any significance?

LaMuerte's photo
Fri 01/01/10 11:22 PM

Ok, this is nothing but a theory, so don't get carried away.

Let's assume that Earth has been visited by beings from another planet, light years away from Earth.

Let's say these beings share the same characteristics as humans as far as aging, possibly they are humanoids.

So....Time and space is (what we know so far) applies everywhere and from the theories we know, that speed and energy can manipulate time.

Let's say that some "Gods" visited 3000BC and according to religious texts they revisited in 1000BC. Let's say the whatever prophet or "saint" writes about the same exact figures, which makes them look like they live a "long life".

That's when most people would immediately dismiss the entire story, since that's too much science fiction or "religion" about "Gods" or "God" that lives "forever".


Ok, I'm gonna show you something interesting.

Let's say, they travel with a spaceship, that continuously is speeding up (so there is no constant same "cruise speed") and then during the approach of a planet, it slows down.

Let's say they go with the G (Gauss) in which 1 G = 9.81m/s² (that's meter/second squared) since we are talking about acceleration.

So basically a spacecraft leaves, and starts speeding up 1G, 2G, 3G
(multiply 9.81 x2 , x3, x4..and so on)

How does time and speed effect the passengers of the ship, vs. the planet they leave behind?

Here is where the calculations lead:


Space travelers time--------vs---------planet inhabitant (Earth)
(years)--------------------=-----------------years
1---------------------------------------------1
2---------------------------------------------2.1
5---------------------------------------------6.5
10--------------------------------------------24
15--------------------------------------------80
20--------------------------------------------270
25--------------------------------------------920
30--------------------------------------------3100
35 -------------------------------------------10,600
40--------------------------------------------36,000
45--------------------------------------------121,000
50--------------------------------------------420,000

Amazing, isn't it?

So, let's say 3100BC, there was an extraterrestrial visit on Earth.
The stone tablets wrote about it, describing a figure to a certain detail.

Then, in 2,180BC, there was another visit, the the same exact extraterrestial being - same name, same person came again. although possibly he was 25 years older, let's say he was 35yrs old at his first visit and now he was 60) while on Earth we had 920 years just past, roughly almost an entire century!!!


Now, the farther they came from and the more they have to accelerate continuously, then slow down ....and spend more time in acceleration and deceleration, the more time would pass on the originating planet.

So if they came from a place, that took them 45 years traveling in space, we have an astonishing 121,000 years passed on Earth!


So, if we assume that Moses or Ezekiel met extraterrestrial beings, and they weren't too old at the time, it is quite possible to meet the same exact alien, who has talked to Ezekiel prophet who lived in 600BC , perhaps 23-24 years older today!

Isn't that just mind blowing? :smile:



Until you begin to question how they're powering such travel. Antimatter? Nuclear Fusion? Either way you have to consider just how much energy is required to accelerate such a mass for so long. Then you have to remember that there is no friction in space, so the deceleration as well as acceleration (yes I'm aware that 'deceleration' isn't a real term in science) would require JUST AS MUCH energy in the opposite direction. Would such visits even be plausible when nothing useful has been gained on Earth, and no apparent result has been achieved on either end?

LaMuerte's photo
Sat 12/26/09 06:55 AM
DMT is N,N-dimethyltryptamine. Tryptamines range from neuroregulators to neurotransmitters to sleep hormones to psychedelics. All of them are related in how they affect the brain. To suggest that it has some spiritual properties seems to me a bit nonsensical. Ecstasy causes intense, unmatched euphoria; datura, salvia, DXM, and psilocybin cause intense, reality-bending trips, yet none of these are as seriously considered to be spiritual drugs. Not to the degree that DMT is paraded as one. Losing ones sense of reality does not in any way indicate that what they are seeing is not entirely make-believe. Datura, for example, creates a "false reality", if you would. It often causes one to experience a dream world indistinguishable from the real world around them (for example: while you think you're standing in line at the grocery store, you're actually standing in your closet).

LaMuerte's photo
Sat 12/26/09 06:37 AM

There are some who feel that Jesus came to bring hope to mankind... That his purpose was to be the fulfillment and manifestation of all those who preceded him. The repeated mythology was a prelude to his coming...and he came when the time was right and the world was ready for him.

This concept is not my belief, it is of people I know who have expressed such thoughts

...When the time was right? Christianity didn't latch on until a few hundred years after the supposed crucifixion, and isn't it a bit odd to them that no secular historian of the time mentions the dead walking the streets or the temple rock being split (something like that)? Not to mention the "savior" taught nothing new (religions the world across have held the same beliefs of non-violence and forgiveness long before Jesus), and was crucified for treason. That is, if an acceptable real-world parallel to Jesus ever existed...

LaMuerte's photo
Wed 12/23/09 07:11 PM
...they believed they had captured dark matter in a defunct iron ore mine half a mile underground.

My original interpretation was that they had physically captured dark matter on earth. Then it occurred to me that there is a lab in an old iron mine for said purpose. Have they repaired that lab in Japan yet? The one that lost hundreds of water tubes a few years back? They were working on detection of neutrinos or some such.

LaMuerte's photo
Sat 12/05/09 06:55 PM

Many of you guys need to learn the basics about evolution because many of you are way off. Natural selection is only one part of evolution. You could completely remove it and animals would still evolve.

Genetic Drift?

LaMuerte's photo
Wed 12/02/09 07:08 PM
Edited by LaMuerte on Wed 12/02/09 07:09 PM


I've been called an atheist but for me that paints a picture of a non-spiritual person. I am definitely not that.

I believe in "God" and I define "God" as "That which is."

I exist, therefore my closest experience of "God" is myself.

I believe in myself therefore I believe in "God" by that definition.

Yes, I am God.

So why do people mistake me for an atheist?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
atheist are people who believe that they were born from 2 rocks smashing into each oter . thats why we have the term rock heads . what you are discribing is a goddest

Just what in the Holy High Hell are you blathering on about?

LaMuerte's photo
Tue 12/01/09 10:11 PM


Isn't CO the location of an Air Force base where they essentially recruit "Soldiers for God"? I swear, sometimes I wish the South would secede from the Union and take the Midwest with it.


Peterson AFB is a strange place in my opinion. I never heard of any recruiting for "soldiers for God" though.

I saw a feature on it. Might have been a segment in a documentary, might have been part of an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh!t. I'm not sure. It was a little scary, though.

LaMuerte's photo
Tue 12/01/09 05:14 PM




If they are drawn to liking you they become suspicious of you luring them into an evil trap as they have been taught that Satan practices deceit and can appear as an angel of light.

As Daniel Dennett put it (roughly), the more amiable you are, and the more convincing your arguments, the more certain they should be that they are talking to Satan.


Exactly! You know what I'm talking about.

rofl rofl rofl


I spent two years in the Bible Belt. Most of which time I was in a rural area. LOTS of ignorant, stupid people like that. lol.


The town I live in now (SE Colorado) is a Bible Belt. And yet there are a lot of drug use here I have heard. I lived in Dothan Alabama for a year. Seemed like there was a church on every third block if not more than that. Everyone had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and there was not a lot of crime.

Isn't CO the location of an Air Force base where they essentially recruit "Soldiers for God"? I swear, sometimes I wish the South would secede from the Union and take the Midwest with it.

LaMuerte's photo
Tue 12/01/09 05:36 AM


If they are drawn to liking you they become suspicious of you luring them into an evil trap as they have been taught that Satan practices deceit and can appear as an angel of light.

As Daniel Dennett put it (roughly), the more amiable you are, and the more convincing your arguments, the more certain they should be that they are talking to Satan.


Exactly! You know what I'm talking about.

rofl rofl rofl


I spent two years in the Bible Belt. Most of which time I was in a rural area. LOTS of ignorant, stupid people like that. lol.

LaMuerte's photo
Mon 11/30/09 10:16 PM
If they are drawn to liking you they become suspicious of you luring them into an evil trap as they have been taught that Satan practices deceit and can appear as an angel of light.

As Daniel Dennett put it (roughly), the more amiable you are, and the more convincing your arguments, the more certain they should be that they are talking to Satan.

Previous 1 3 4 5