151
Off Topic / Re: Confused
« on: February 19, 2010, 04:43:25 PM »It must just aroused me of VH, I dont think im Bi..just naked pics arouse me, I think Im straight.Sorry, this picture is too heavy. I'll just leave it here for a while.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It must just aroused me of VH, I dont think im Bi..just naked pics arouse me, I think Im straight.Sorry, this picture is too heavy. I'll just leave it here for a while.
Have we prooved our points yet?No.
Tomtes (word for a santa that isn't Santa Clause) never were red in the beginning. Maybe they would happen to have a red hat, but it could be brown, green or grey aswell. They mostly wear grey and are smaller than hobbits. They use to do stuff for you, make sure the animals are well while you are away etc.Coca Cola made him red.
I wonder if the last intelligent life form though of the same thing before gravity killed them.Well, we don't quite know what happens with black holes. The Milky Way has a supermassive one though. Fun fun fun. :D
What I mean is, gravity weakens when the Universe stretches out according to string theory, when supposedly the big crunch happens gravity becomes stronger.
Life music, the further you are the harder it is to hear.
Yeah, how do you know there were any, eh? This is stupid.
We don't, but he specified "this one" because there may be others. (Assuming commander has not kept me misinformed of inverted's meaning.)A theory is that the universe cycles between Big Bangs and Big Crunches, when it accrues enough central gravity (via black holes) to pull everything back in or something, I forget specifics. Someone post the theory if you like.
Christianity taught everyone to love each other through the soul, not through love. I think that's what he was trying to say.Spelling fix'd.
Wait, what?We cannot describe previous Big Bangs, if there were indeed any.
If he started banning people there would be an uproar. Religion wars are a prime source of entertainment for a lot of people on the forum.Its quite an engaging topic in points, and lots of science too.
It wouldn't be able to sustain life as we know it. Who are you to say a different kind of life wouldn't arise?Why do you keep interjecting when he has said that he has finished with you?
Read up on the anthropic principle.
Since all position is relative to other points in space, this is irrelevant.Well, that's if the explosion was uniform.
why are we suddenly talking about the universeWe are talking about the critical moment of creation that we know of.
I know that. He's including the fact that the earth is in this exact part of our galaxy in his calculation of how difficult it would be for this to happen. Which means that when all particles pass where the earth should be on their way back, there are no other chances. I was saying that the earth didn't necessarily have to be made in this exact part of the universe. As long as a planet contained all factors necessary for survival, that planet could have been earth.Well, its a possibility, but then you just change the numbers, based on debris patterns, etc. I don't have those figures, and they'd be huge, anyway. :P
did it quickierWhat the forget?
gahahaha
Oh I see. You take the concept of "For the earth to be made in THIS EXACT SPOT, theres a low probability"
From your aspect of thinking, yes it is very improbable. But I was thinking more along the lines of the universe had many chances to create a planet able to sustain life, which would eventually have intelligent life. Though the chances of earth being where it is right now are relatively low, the exact position of earth and many other seemingly irrelevant factors should also be taken into account with that sort of logic. Like, the amount of sand on every beach on earth, and the amount of trees in every forest.
If earth wasn't in this exact spot, if it was even a relatively small distance from where it was now, it wouldn't be able to sustain life. There are so many factors involved in creating a life-sustaining planet such as ours that it is a statistical impossibility to happen like you describe.Exactly.
[img][/img] tags, put the direct image url inside..
And where are you getting this concept of "love", anyways? Oh right, you stole it from Christianity.Note that he defined sin to begin with.
How can there be love, and how can there be hate, if everything is relative and has no meaning? Why should anyone love anyone? What's in it for them? Does love give some benefit in the survival of the fittest realm? How did love evolve?
All of this besides that what you said was wrong anyways.
Hate of self, no, hate of sin, yes. Love of Christ for redeeming you in spite of your sin, yes.
"Though, who says it's a limited amount of time? Aside from duck. (That isn't rhetorical.)Oh that.
Just for clarification; "it" is "the amount of time the earth had to be created.""