OBI-WAN KANOBI
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2014, 06:50 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 06:11 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(23-11-2014 03:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I'll give it another night. But if I come back here tomorrow night and this shit is still going, fair warning, I'm unleashing the ponies. I expect backup in the form of cheese, lolcats, and upside-down dogs.

You have your orders. Dismissed!

All I can guarantee is a detachment of 60's Spidermen, sir.

Accompanied by a Pony-squashing Space Marine, of course.

Obviously. I fully expected that from you and figured you didn't need the reminder.

(Post Hoc like a BOSS)

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
23-11-2014, 07:34 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 02:46 AM)Miss Suzanne Wrote:  *raises hand* Darlin', may I ask a curious sort of question? No, not on a particular aspect of your belief. I don't know much science and we got plenty of people here that can explain it better anyhow. Guess its more of your beliefs as a whole sort of question.

So here's my question: would you say you are Jediism spiked with Christianity? And by spiked, I might mean someone dropped an open Christian bottle in the Jediism punch bowl and said, "if I pretend I didn't see it, it did't happen," before whistling and walking away. To be honest, It don't know everything about Jediim to even know if it is usually intertwined with other beliefs. Haven't met anyone that practices it and only heard about it through my Star Wars obsessed cousin (he's Mormon but I figure he'd be part of the Jedi Church if he wasn't). I just thought Jediism because you mentioned the force and titled your thread "Obi Wan Kanobi." It's alright if you don't know or whatnot. Like I said, I'm just curious.

Also...did Han Solo shoot first? * loud booing* I'm sorry! I couldn't help it!

Anyone glancing this post by, yep, Jediism is a legit religion. Link to the Jedi Church for anyone curious. http://www.jedichurch.org/webapps/site/4.../page.html
The only thing jedyish is the title. Let the force be with you seemed appropriate, and Obi Wan was the one who said it. My opinions aren't Star wars. even tho you seem to think that is where I am going.

"I don't Debate, I Discuss" I offer my opinions, and listen to yours, I will not require proof of opinions, but I may ask for clarification or state that I reject your position and why, & if asked, I will further clarify mine --- However, I reject any requirement that I PROVE my position is accurate and proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 07:38 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 09:42 PM)doniston Wrote:  -I have read that section of the bible several times and only have found one story.

The order of creation in genesis 1 is heaven& earth, light, firmament, grasses, trees, sun, moon, stars, ocean life, land animals, man and woman. In that story the creator is referred to as 'god'.

In genesis 2 the story starts over but uses a different order: earth & heavens, plants, man, trees, land animals, woman. In that section the creator is called 'lord god' reflecting, even in the KJV, different terminology in the original language.

It is not a big jump to see that two different creation stories have been merged into the book of genesis. Neither order matches the order science shows and the second has woman being created as an afterthought after man wasn't happy with any of the other animals.

Even if you allow day to mean some undetermined period of time (despite it specifically equating it to "the evening and the morning" and being translated from terms that typically meant a normal 24-day), the sequence doesn't work.

How do you reconcile the different order of events in genesis 1 and 2? How do you match that to what science would say the sequence was?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 07:39 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 10:34 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So is the deist done circle jerking in public?
sir or madam, If you are referring to me, as I think you are, then your post is absolutely stupid. I am anything but a deist; If you had read my post you you would know that.

"I don't Debate, I Discuss" I offer my opinions, and listen to yours, I will not require proof of opinions, but I may ask for clarification or state that I reject your position and why, & if asked, I will further clarify mine --- However, I reject any requirement that I PROVE my position is accurate and proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 07:42 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 10:46 PM)pablo Wrote:  I find this one easy to ignore.
Not even interesting enough to be annoying.
but you comment. Strange!!!! just to have something to say????

"I don't Debate, I Discuss" I offer my opinions, and listen to yours, I will not require proof of opinions, but I may ask for clarification or state that I reject your position and why, & if asked, I will further clarify mine --- However, I reject any requirement that I PROVE my position is accurate and proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 07:56 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 06:41 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  if it wasn't for some presently unknown magnetic force,

Electrostatic repulsion.

You do know that your beliefs a re a bunch of unsubstantiated woo, right?
S89r I have never claimed that my beliefs were fact, and I really dislike your tome, but it is your right to read or not read, attempt to understand, or not, and pay attention to what I am posting or not. believe or not. It is your choice, but it is my choice to post them. like may others, you just make general comment which don't amount to a hill of beans. If you want specific answers, ASK

the one positive note,from your post, ---- I am aware of Electctro static repulsion, but it doesn't really answer the whole question. But thank you for your comment anyhow.

"I don't Debate, I Discuss" I offer my opinions, and listen to yours, I will not require proof of opinions, but I may ask for clarification or state that I reject your position and why, & if asked, I will further clarify mine --- However, I reject any requirement that I PROVE my position is accurate and proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 08:02 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
Quote:=house of Cantor


Cantor? or Candor???

"I don't Debate, I Discuss" I offer my opinions, and listen to yours, I will not require proof of opinions, but I may ask for clarification or state that I reject your position and why, & if asked, I will further clarify mine --- However, I reject any requirement that I PROVE my position is accurate and proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 08:14 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 10:34 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the solar system is like an atom. Solar systems have virtually no similarities to atoms, outside of the Bohr atomic model representation of a central point and orbitals:

I'm probably dating myself but I was originally taught that the atom consisted of a nucleus with electrons orbiting it and the solar system was used as a model. The nucleus was compared to the sun and the electrons to the planets. The main difference was that the electrons orbited in any plane while the planets orbit in the same plane (with pluto being a deviation until Neil deGrasse Tyson solved that by kicking it out of the family Big Grin).

It made sense as a way to picture it but it is obviously wrong. Electrons aren't point particles like planets, can share "orbits", can jump from one "orbit" to another, etc. It is still easier to visualize atoms as miniature solar systems in some ways but just doesn't match up well except at a very superficial level.

Quote:For one; it would make no account for the variation between systems which does not exist in atoms; for instance, it would not be able to account for binary systems; two stars (which would otherwise be comparable to the atomic nuclei) orbiting a common point between them has no comparison as atoms.

If the analogy held then that would have to map to a 2-atom molecule like O2. To take it further, other issues may be mappable if you are willing to stretch definitions beyond the breaking point and speculate wildly...

Quote:Or masses which orbit each other without a star? Why would many of the obritals themselves have orbitals?

Positronium ?

Quote:Why do stars explode where atomic nuclei typically don't?

Spontaneous fission?

Quote:How would the systems even function in a manner similar to atoms inside said supposed organism? They certainly cannot bind together to form chemical-like structures so how would such an organism even exist if the alleged components cannot function in the manner required?

They bind via gravity and dark energy instead of the strong & weak forces. Thumbsup

Quote:Solar systems simply do not act in a manner consistent of atoms, which makes it impossible for your supposed organism to exist as per your stipulation.

Yep, it's something to ponder while high but the analogy doesn't really hold up and there's certainly no reason to believe any of it is true.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 08:15 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2014 08:24 AM by doniston.)
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 07:38 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(22-11-2014 09:42 PM)doniston Wrote:  -I have read that section of the bible several times and only have found one story.

The order of creation in genesis 1 is heaven& earth, light, firmament, grasses, trees, sun, moon, stars, ocean life, land animals, man and woman. In that story the creator is referred to as 'god'.

In genesis 2 the story starts over but uses a different order: earth & heavens, plants, man, trees, land animals, woman. In that section the creator is called 'lord god' reflecting, even in the KJV, different terminology in the original language.

It is not a big jump to see that two different creation stories have been merged into the book of genesis. Neither order matches the order science shows and the second has woman being created as an afterthought after man wasn't happy with any of the other animals.

Even if you allow day to mean some undetermined period of time (despite it specifically equating it to "the evening and the morning" and being translated from terms that typically meant a normal 24-day), the sequence doesn't work.

How do you reconcile the different order of events in genesis 1 and 2? How do you match that to what science would say the sequence was?
You seem to think they are two stories, Ok, so I will condense them into one, and in rotation Heavens and stars, sun and earth, moon and waters, plants animals (including Dino) then man. that is also what evolution says. but just with different time elements. I am constructing a different type of senerio, which will be more in keeping with my beliefs but it will take time I dasn't make any errors, even minor ones, as some here will pounce on them immediately. That's a givin'

"I don't Debate, I Discuss" I offer my opinions, and listen to yours, I will not require proof of opinions, but I may ask for clarification or state that I reject your position and why, & if asked, I will further clarify mine --- However, I reject any requirement that I PROVE my position is accurate and proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 08:34 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2014 08:43 AM by doniston.)
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 08:14 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I'm probably dating myself but I was originally taught that the atom consisted of a nucleus with electrons orbiting it and the solar system was used as a model. The nucleus was compared to the sun and the electrons to the planets. The main difference was that the electrons orbited in any plane while the planets orbit in the same plane (with pluto being a deviation until Neil deGrasse Tyson solved that by kicking it out of the family Big Grin).

It made sense as a way to picture it but it is obviously wrong. Electrons aren't point particles like planets, can share "orbits", can jump from one "orbit" to another, etc. It is still easier to visualize atoms as miniature solar systems in some ways but just doesn't match up well except at a very superficial level.
Your are parroting what I was taught back in 1942


Quote:Or masses which orbit each other without a star? Why would many of the obritals themselves have orbitals?
or stars which orbit each other,



Quote:How would the systems even function in a manner similar to atoms inside said supposed organism? They certainly cannot bind together to form chemical-like structures so how would such an organism even exist if the alleged components cannot function in the manner required?
My question to him is assuming he knows that we are composed of atoms. how is that different. ?? And I wonder, does he think Stars "Typically explode?

"I don't Debate, I Discuss" I offer my opinions, and listen to yours, I will not require proof of opinions, but I may ask for clarification or state that I reject your position and why, & if asked, I will further clarify mine --- However, I reject any requirement that I PROVE my position is accurate and proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: