JokerzWyld
New member
KTULU IS BACK;1977228 said:
Stars are made from a collection of gases. All that is missing is the heat to light it. Much like an egg needs the sperm to create life.
Last edited:
Stars are made from a collection of gases. All that is missing is the heat to light it. Much like an egg needs the sperm to create life.
KTULU IS BACK
New member
JokerzWyld;1981696 said:
the ignition happens because of the density produced by gravity
there's no life analogy at all, y'all are just new agey faggots who need to believe in magic because you're mental children
Last edited:
perspective@100
New member
KTULU IS BACK;1983381 said:
And you are a prophetic scientologist. The magic is how dumb you really are compared to how smart you think you are.
Last edited:
KTULU IS BACK
New member
Young-Ice;1984116 said:
bah gawd king!
stellar ignition is caused by the big red machine, KANE!
Last edited:
perspective@100
New member
b*braze;1986020 said:
Listen, I'm not here to argue with anyone, but I'm not here to be called a moron either. Ya'll got me fu*ked up.
You ask me what makes the facts bullshit? They are not logical. Life from no life makes no sense and criteria for life is always under scrutiny. So I ask you, why accept these "facts"? All of the responses I get are scientific. I understand science but how about people start thinking for themselves for a change. Come up with an idea. Dare to be different. Talking to people about "science" is like talking to a bunch of sheep. "Science says this, science says that" well no need for anybody to make there own conclusions lets just see what science has to say. Science is a study of trying to understand. I can try and understand myself and not be scientific. Why cant I try and understand nature and not be scientific? There are no difinitive rules in nature that says everything must be understood scientifically or it does not apply. Those rules of science are only from our society. It seems we as a society have gone from believing these rediculous stories told in the bible to being pawns for these scientific nerds who try and confuse you with enormous words and extremely complex math equations.
Sorry I just don't buy it. Ever since I was young I have always been true to myself and spoke my mind. I have come to realize people are actually not blind to the truth but they are deaf, dumb, and blind to it. Not only that, they will refuse to be subject to anything that takes them out of their comfort zone. So while you think people like me are morons or what not, how do you think I view you? (no offense) I sit back and watch a society of sheep. Shopping when the economy tells you to shop- X-mas, and other holidays. Eating foods that will kill you- the food pyramids that have been given to us over the years. Doctors who don't cure anything and perscribe medicines that do more harm than good. Politicians who are hypocrites and do nothing for the masses while blatently lying to your face. Scientist who can discover a galaxy 100 trillion years away but cant cure cancer. Wtf, If these "facts" you speak of come from these people, you can have them!
The "facts" are not bullshit because I say so. The facts are bullshit because they are not facts at all. They are collections of data with similar results. Those are "scientific facts" and yes sometimes they are wrong, and that is a "FACT".
Last edited:
_Ozymandias_
New member
while i don't necessarily agree with the t/s. i understand what he's trying to say.
what is accepted as scientific understanding today, may not be considered scientific understanding tomorrow.
and the only way to get to truth is by first asking questions and challenging the accepted "truth". that's the whole foundation of scientific discovery.
5th grade science classes teaches that the scientifc method starts with "asking a question". we wouldn't have progressed to the understanding of the universe today if someone in the past hadn't questioned "accepted theories" or "common knowledge".
so just by opening the dialouge the t/s is furthering scientific exploration. and who knows a thousand years from now his premise may be the accepted understanding of what life is.
what is accepted as scientific understanding today, may not be considered scientific understanding tomorrow.
and the only way to get to truth is by first asking questions and challenging the accepted "truth". that's the whole foundation of scientific discovery.
5th grade science classes teaches that the scientifc method starts with "asking a question". we wouldn't have progressed to the understanding of the universe today if someone in the past hadn't questioned "accepted theories" or "common knowledge".
so just by opening the dialouge the t/s is furthering scientific exploration. and who knows a thousand years from now his premise may be the accepted understanding of what life is.
Last edited:
perspective@100
New member
@_Ozymandias_
Its kind of ironic is it not?
Its kind of ironic is it not?
Last edited:
_Ozymandias_
New member
perspective@100;1987142 said:
very much so
Last edited:
fiat_money
New member
This is the part I like about the scientific method: What you've done is said that the previous assumptions of what constitutes life are wrong. You've also asserted that your ideas of what constitutes life are correct. The premise of your argument being that, "everything that contained or underwent a chemical/nuclear reaction" constitutes life. However, you've failed to substantiate or bolster this premise by anything other than your own conjecture; which can be applied to all matter. For this reason, your opinion is merely just that, an "opinion".perspective@100;1981044 said:
You're not the first to make baseless inferences about that which is observed, neither are you the first do disbelieve that which has been proven through the scientific method. In fact, there are many who "don't believe in" biological evolution; but that doesn't "disprove" the fact that organisms evolve.
What separates the bullshit from the plausible theories here, is the ability to support/test it. Without which, your claim that "The Sun is alive." will remain bullshit.
Last edited:
fiat_money
New member
Using the same flawed reasoning from which you claim "The Sun is alive", the following arguments can also be made:fiat_money;1987246 said:
If thought is based in electricity, then anything with electrical charge(s) is able to think. Thus all atoms are able to think, and everything is thinking.
If life is possible because of matter, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed; then nothing is able to die. Thus there is no such thing as "death" and nothing can die.
If emotions are caused by chemicals, then anything with chemicals has emotions. Thus all elements and chemical substances have emotions, and everything is emotional.
If sight is a result of reflection/refraction of electromagnetic radiation, then all forms of electromagnetic radiation have sight. Thus all electromagnetic radiation is able to see, and anything with electric/magnetic fields that functions in a wavelike manner is able to see.
^^All consist of the same reasoning, "If X is a result of a process/processes involving Y, then all Y are able to X.".
Last edited:
melanated khemist
New member
fiat_money;1987309 said:
if you switch think and see with consciousness, you finally will be saying something right.
Last edited:
perspective@100
New member
fiat_money;1987309 said:
Actually I would never say thought is based in electricity. I would say the brain uses electricity in a conduit because it is extremely fast and efficient.
I would then say anything that uses electricity will be extremely fast and efficient if controlled properly. Hmm, electric cars.
So, all atoms have an electric charge? They must be efficient in structure... This must be why matter is able to form solid structures because of the sturdiness and efficiency of the atom.
If life is possible because of the electricity that keeps matter together then death must be from the matter no longer being able to sustain an efficient eletrical charge per atom in said organism. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed it may be possible for an organism to survive in a pure energetic form... Maybe thats a soul?
Whats an emotion? Just how you feel? Some chemicals cause you to feel a certain way. Maybe these chemicals do something to the electrical impulses and charges inside the body? Then I would look for specifically what part of the body is altered by whatever chemical and examine the electric current involved. (scientific note) When chemicals join or break down there charges often change
If sight is a result of reflection/refraction of electromagnetic then all forms of electromagnetic radiation can be seen. Somehow anyway.
Thus all electromagnetic radiation is able to be seen.
Your starting to think now, just not like me, but its a good start anyway.
Last edited:
perspective@100
New member
fiat_money;1987246 said:
Where to start? First, you sound like a lawyer.(no offense) Substantiate, conjecture? I'm just saying things I think about. They have base. I observe the life force of the sun has penetrated everything on Planet Earth and went from there. As for test, I'm not a scientist so nope all I can do is think it through. As I do, I see the current science is in direct conflict with my thought process because of its classifications and "requirements" that leave too much information in question. With My thought process it all makes sense.
Last edited:
fiat_money
New member
Just as thought is a result of electrical processes, life is a result of chemical/nuclear processes. So, if the Sun is alive because it is a result of chemical/nuclear processes and chemical/nuclear processes happen within it; then, by the same reasoning, atoms would be thinking since atoms are a result of some form of electricity and atoms have some form of electricity within them.perspective@100;1987424 said:
Your reasoning can be applied to simpler things as well: "If pork sandwiches require pork, then anything that has pork is a pork sandwich. Thus all pigs are pork sandwiches."
Just by replacing "life" with "pork sandwiches", and replacing "chemical/nuclear processes" with "pork".
The rest of your post lacks relevance, as it neither substantiates your claims/reasoning, in addition to the parts that are baseless conjecture.
^^Also baseless conjecture.melanated khemist;1987360 said:
Last edited:
fiat_money
New member
So, you've observed something and have formed a theory about that something; this process is textbook conjecture. "Conjecture: a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork."perspective@100;1987489 said:
Additionally, you are unable to test/prove your theories; this means they are unsubstantiated. "Substantiate: to establish by proof or competent evidence"
Last edited:
perspective@100
New member
fiat_money;1987527 said:
LOL, since when has being a thinker and expressing thoughts been a bad thing? I blame science for this. Please just stop haha
Damn, in medieval times people couldn't speak out against the church now science. What a world!
fiat_money;1987503 said:
I soon fear you will need the scientific method to make every decision in your life. I hope you dont look down on everyone because they speak with baseless conjectures and choose not to use the scientific method when talking about something that they can experience first hand "Life". You seem to think that thinking is something only humans can do. You also seem to think if its not in a science book or stated by some sort of professional its just non-sense. And yes, if it has pork as the main ingredient I would say its a pork sandwhich but dont forget the bread. Put bread on top of a pig and on the bottom and it would be a pork sandwhich technically, I cant disagree with that.
I think the major thing you have a problem grasping is that life can possibly exist in a form that we are not yet able to comprehend. Perhaps there is life that can't think. It does not eat. It only "is".
Last edited:
fiat_money
New member
Where did I say conjecture or lack of substantiation was a "bad thing"? There's nothing wrong with unsubstantiated conjecture, it just can't be used to disprove facts. For that, substantiation would be needed.perspective@100;1987577 said:
Interesting. So you're saying that just because pork is a required component of a pork sandwich, that fact alone isn't enough to declare all things that contain pork (such as pigs) as pork sandwiches?perspective@100;1987577 said:
That's kind of like how I've been saying that just because chemical/nuclear processes are a required component of life, that fact alone isn't enough to declare all things that contain chemical/nuclear processes (such as the Sun) as life.
Just by replacing "pork sandwiches" with "life", "pork" with "chemical/nuclear processes", and "pigs" with "the Sun".
Last edited:
perspective@100
New member
fiat_money;1987644 said:
And I m saying these facts are not solidified in stone. I should not have to disprove them. And its ok if I don't believe them. And even without sufficient evidence I should be able to make my own presumptuous claims.
fiat_money;1987644 said:
No, I was assuming it was already a sandwhich. Your statement confused me a bit. Let me examine that premise again.
If a pork sandwhich requires pork or has pork in it then everything that has pork is a pork sandwhich? Is that what you stated?
Hmmm, thats not a true comparison since your using the "Sandwhich" which needs a combination of things when I'm saying the sun is alive as one single thing.
You keep stating these chemical/nuclear reactions and in my haste I have never corrected you. I dont believe the chemicals or the nuclear reactions are the cause of life at all. I'm stating the energy itself, is alive. We have a different view of the sun. I see energy and you see explanations made by scientist.
Last edited:
The Prime Minister
New member
KTULU IS BACK;1977115 said:
Word......................
Last edited:
Members online
No members online now.