Christ slave

IMHO This is quite a stupid thread, let us remain realistic lest we waste our lives.

I actually posed an argument to this claim, suggesting that time speeds up the faster one moves--whereas time for everyone else is going relatively slower for that person. Likewise, I turned the present assertion that one gets younger the faster they move around by suggesting that one actually gets older the faster they move. If a person is moving faster than something else, then time outside of them moving slower in relation to their time and movement would mean that in relation to the the outward time, the person moving faster would be experiencing time moving quicker for their self in comparison to those moving slower. It makes sense to me, and is that why you asked this question? If that is why, consider reading this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10878

Human parents don't create their human children.

Yes.

If you're quoting my original post, then you deny the theory of relativity? I did not come here to discuss whether or not you believe it, so take it to another thread.

They go hand-in-hand. No, I said they are present day proof of the stars' relevancy. I firmly doubt that the stars had went unnoticed since the beginning of time until recent times when humans took more considerable notice in them. Any event affected by any star, be it a dinosaur noticing it, the light eminated at night, and so on is absolutely relevant. No, I think it's just ignorant that you constantly argue against astrology as a means of refuting me, when in reailty astrology is only a fraction of my point. I never used astrology to back myself up entirely, but I have the right to include it. Where do you think creativity comes from? Most/all of it is from analogies--which I believe goes to the root of the soul, in terms of the expression, but let's not go there right now. The conditions of life at specific times are absolutely affected by the stars. You can keep rambling on about how miniscule the light is, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there and it's been there for, assumed, billions of years. Without, life would notice it's missing something. A different environment denotes different paths. Astrology and the human activity is not the only time it began, I've even been saying this, although you seem to have argued it anyhow as if I made no attempt to prevent you from doing so. So, let me argue it again anyhow: The stars' reality does not only begin with recent astrology, astronomy, and sofourth. You can be quite clever in your attempts at getting your way, however, you are still wrong, and don't call my posting whining, I am simply tired of your poor, malicious half-truths as arguments. You even went ahead and argued what I attempted to stop you from arguing, and I assume you do this a lot, which is one reason why you probably claim I am "whining", because instead of respecting me, you went ahead and rebelliously (and dishonestly, by the way) decided to argue some points I had already attempted to prevent you from bringing up by clarifying my point and view. Yet, it appears you ignored them...but I am not too surprised.

No, I think you fail to see the implications of their presence--the implications of their very appearance, even--and just how much they affect and have to do with life. The question I propose, however, is, do you think the changes in the seasons of such affect life similar to the more obvious, short-term seasons?

Perhaps that is wise.

His analogy of a "petry dish" is absolutely accurate. Our petry dish may be much primitive and vastly different from the larger "petry dish", and the "guy" is much more advanced and capable of doing just about anything (just as we are much more powerful than a dog in this world of physics, and a dog much more advanced than a ladybug, and a ladybug more advanced than a leg, and a leg than a cell, a cell than a single protein, and a protein than an atom, and atom than a neutron, and so on). There exists, at some level of Evolution, a point where human capability becomes godlike--the merging or maturity of the spirit. In the spirit, the vast differences, such as of a human to a maggot are seen--whereby you recognize that God to a human is so incredibly unrealistic to attempt to explain, because we too are pathetic "maggots" or "ladybugs" to a much-powerful "human-being". The question is, what, at the top of this hierarchical "game" of Evolution, does a being eminate? Well, God eminates love. And, to go pointing out references to movies or "science-fiction" is hardly to your own credit.

Well, I figure we're all going through time slower. So, picture the earth traveling through space (time), and if somebody is going faster than the earth, then they are aging faster while the earth itself is still far behind...so, if the earth is slow in catching up, then a person can go zooming ahead to their death before the earth ever gets there. At least that's my interpretation...it's like a car going faster than another car. The slower car is still far behind in its speed (its time/aging), whereby the faster one is experiencing age and whatnot quicker (which is why it corresponds with physics).

Stop flattering yourself to appear right. The culture itself has such a profound relevance in modern-day life that it's undeniable to suggest the stars have an effect. In fact, every person on earth practically knows about the stars in one form or another, and we see them and they affect our consciousness and our lives...be it spending energy and time to look at them, to wonder at them, to learn about them, to become an astronomer, etc. In fact, pyramids were built which take a role in shaping people's lives today as well as an echo/ripple effect of the entire civilization and their lives when they were building the pyramids up until this moment and forever forward in the future. Existence (or, Evolution) has been changed/shaped by it, and the stars hardly lose their relevance there. People study the stars, teach about them, discuss them, paint pictures of them, refer to them and use them in analogies, some people are called "stars" if they're famous, the stars give us light as night and when a pretty sky is visible, people plan their lives and time around it to get some good views of them that night, their light shines on us and give us reference points in the sky, they teach us about the universe, and so much more. In fact, if their light did not shine on us, our bodies would be much different, wouldn't they? Our night-time vision (and this is such a relevant aspect of life that you don't even have to consider a ripple or "Butterfly Effect", because it's obviously so well engraved in the bodies of many species), the events of the past, and much more. I only assume their light has in someway affected plant life and Evolution, as well. But at any rate, the changing of the seasons are now so obviously affecting Evolution in their effects on society. If the constellations weren't in different times because of the equinoxes, then astrology and likewise the culture, consciousness, observation, knowledge (the learning and understanding), etc. would not be so drastically altered by it. Our very communication, reference, etc. is absolutely evolving and changing over these past 2,000 years because 2,000 years ago we'd be seeing things in a "different light"--or, a different time sequence, angle, perspective, etc. I just want to help to open your mind to realizing what I am saying here...there is no change that doesn't affect the future.

T.V. doesn't tell anyone what is normal behavior. To tell people to follow this trend of logic would be along the same lines of Nazis following other Nazis and Hitler. In essence, T.V. creates stupid, lie-filled shows which limit the expression of a child if indulged too much. A lot of shows make up false humor, using laugh-tracks to trick people into following their train of thought and make it appear as if other people should laugh at the stupid things that the creators want to be funny. It's brainwash and mind-control, and, also, using scripted shows and movies for entertainment is also illusionary and deceitful. When one watches T.V. truthfully, by recognizing that the performers and things are scripted and it's all just a job, you find that T.V. shows are in the entertaining sense nothing more than watching someone on the job--unless you want to become a performer, I wouldn't advise indulging in illusions. Lots of these shows are why children are afraid of the dark, why people are afraid to go outside, why people act abnormal, why people are confused, etc. It's like contrasting a desert to a tropical forest...why would anyone learn how to live in a desert unless they're attempting to go to the desert or get involved in that desert in productive ways? Likewise, people must be educated before using a T.V., I believe--teach them to understand that they're a camera man moving the camera around, that there are several cameras, that the people on the T.V. are doing a job, that they are following the cameras around because they get paid to do it, not because it's a normal thing to be the center of attention and a show-off, etc. The time-frames are all mixedup as well, and there's lots of editing. T.V. can really do damage to people's psyches if they simply use it to feed them like gluttonous pigs. It's an interactive experience whereby the viewer must truly stick to the truth and not allow theirselves to be swept away by the programming. A lot of people may appear "lazy" simply because they have a false/illusionary view on life--they believe the lies T.V. spits out (be it the entire programming or the message it sends). It's hardly even entertaining when somebody realizes just how fake most of it is...and it's truly a business, as well. Children grow up respecting actors and actresses, believing the whole fake, painted-pretty face routines and all the "quality" of T.V., as it's a pick and choose world...and, if you analyse that sentence, it's clear to see just why unless you're watching something educational and not meant to be overly-entertaining, it's more or less destructive to allow anyone to fall into the illusionary world. It's scripted junk and speciail effects...and a lot of it is meant to control and manipulate people in order to put food on the creators' tables.

NASA and the obvious cultural effects and their relevance into Evolution, earth, and life is irrefutable based on a field-view. If you can't accept it, leave. It is undeniable to assert the stars play a role in Evolution, using simple logic and reason. You obviously appear to disagree with me, and I cannot control your opinion, however, it would be stupid for me to have to defend the obvious. Are you a child?

It only seems to make sense to me that if time slows down the faster you move, then time, for you, is moving faster...and this goes along with physics, as well, whereby frozen particles moving slowly last longer (a frozen person can last a long time and then be unthawed) and quicker things (hotter things) burn up. So if time is moving faster for me, I am aging quicker, right? Whereby the earth itself is still aging slower--because its time is moving slower. It's like traveling in a faster car than someone else--they're still going slower, I am going faster. Likewise, if I'm 5 times faster than them, it takes them 5 times as much time to age as me...so, traveling at the speed of light makes you older than something traveling slower, right? I'd like to see my failed logic here if I am wrong...I simply disagree with some of the present beliefs and notions on this matter and I think they are wrong.

Do you believe the theory of relativity? Essentially, time itself is not too distant from space. It's like the environment...depending on the space something is born in, that is its environment and it immediately (well, continuously and always) is adapting, growing, conforming, and being shaped by it...be it a tree in a certain yard with another tree, or grass in another yard, or a plant in a field as opposed to a plant in a forest, etc. Likewise, Einstein's theory of relativity and how space and time go hand-in-hand basically proves astrology, however, one's teachings on astrology can vary, depending on their skill (just as one's teaching on how to raise your children, grow a plant, etc. can vary). A good astrological website I've seen (good scientific teachers) is astro.com, and it's a free website with comprehensive information and services. Just as one may be a better psychologist than someone else (or, more skilled and accurate, more helpful), so astrology must be taken seriously if you want to understand it--don't just look at astrology as something like, "Oh, I'm a Virgo I am meant to be like this." Rather, astrology is a forecast, and the more it ties into science, the more people will be able to use it as a tool and not as leader (just as we look at the weatherman to know what to expect, although we do not simply agree he is always right or that the weather cannot take a change or that there are varying degrees of weather and we do not worship the weather forecast nor the weatherman). Essentially, people can use astrology to "stay inside when it rains"--or to know when to "carry an umbrella". Time is relative, and time is actually like the wind...if you see the wind blowing on the trees, you can see the shapes and varying movements of the wind across those trees (or, for a better visual if you do not know what I mean, picture fields of wheat, barley, or corn stalks). You can see the wind blowing on these bodies, and they are affected by the wind. The stronger the tree, the less likely the wind (or, time) is to blow it around. The more evolved or mature the tree, the stronger it is and more resistant...or, the more elastic and flexible it is. Surely time itself, being relative, is like the weather? However, I am not here to go into arguments about the relativity of time, I have better things to do than pretend to be up-to-date on what will make people happy and convinced in terms of arguing my case. However, I think people should truly understand that time is motion--time is movement. Time can be forecast, but this capability comes with study and learning. Primitively species can understand dark clouds forecast rain, it's only essential that we grow and begin to incorporate other observations to forecasting time (astrology)--such as psychology and whatnot. Just as a tree growing in a specific area is likely to be relative to the tree in that area (and likewise weather can be forecast to it in that area), so our lives and whatnot can be forecast by time, because time itself is like a yard. Depending on the "yards" or "flower-beds" of time, this affects something. However, I guess this is dependent on whether or not you agree time is relative and if you believe Einstein's theories. If you do not, then oh well...but like I said, I am not here to debate Einstein's theories, so don't attempt to force me to "support" those claims. Likewise, babies born in the same place at the same time can be physical twins, so exist astrological twins. Do you think twins only exist in the physical sense? You're wrong, there's a big spectrum of everything...including twins. It uses numerology and other sorts of things. However, it is hard for some people, obviously, to grasp the relevance and reality of time, since so many of you seem to be disagreeing.

Actually, you asserting a placebo-effect is very much in warrant of my support. And, it's ridiculous for anyone to assert that my reference to even the cultural significance of the stars and the profound effects of NASA on society are not shaping, and very much a part of, Evolution. Evolution is like God, it takes no break. So, if somebody wants to assert that I have provided no support, you are absolutely ignorant and in fact I question your motive and intent...malicious, ruthless attempts at winning arguments are very much poor and an aspect of the self and ego (or, "rich" in the sense that it is truly fueld by the ego). Oh ruthless and lying generation, how long will I put up with your garbage that I am a nin-compoop without any fragment of logic, rationality, reason, or support to my claims? How long will I put up with your stubborn idiocy? Do you honestly assert NASA is somehow exempt from Evolution, life, death, and the like? Do you honestly assert that the stars, apart from the obvious effects it has on our consciousness (and likewise choices, our actions, our entire Evolution), only have an effect when a human-being notices them? You are wrong. If there were no stars, then the behaviors of all of us would be so much more differently...vastly different, and perhaps there would be no human-beings. They affect the amount of light one sees, and with the considerable amount of less light in the event of no stars would truly affect Evolution...perhaps the eyesight, and over millions of years, these "tiny" facts echo an enormous effect (a ripple). Perhaps a dinosaur, blinded by no stars, would have been eaten by another dinosaur. We are on the grounds of the past. To allow a ditch to be created (an alteration the past) would mean that the entire village may in fact be utilizing this newly formed ditch and this echoes infinitely the effect it has on life simply because of its existence. Don't you see? With or without a certain house, the world knows it and is Evolving to it. With or without a hill, with or without a tree, with or without whatever...it effects the entire world, be it the course of the wind, the sunlight, the rainfall, etc. Sure, it may be so very miniscule to you, but reason cannot deny the ripple it has. So, to assert that the stars have little to no effect is foolish...and even if it was true that they had "little" effect, in millions or even 10 years, this ripple gets bigger, doesn't it? Why? Because Evolution is piling up on the past. Throw a pear in a pile and a pile over the pear, the pear helps create that pile. Regardless if you want to assert it has no effect...perhaps someone will see that pile and then they have this memory and event with them forever which affects their lifetime. Their life then affects everything, be it now and the longrun. Perhaps this pile, a milimeter or an inch larger, casts a shadow and then throughout time everything is evolving to the existence of this pile. Everything has it effect. I for one claim the stars are just as relevant as everything--as relevant as an atom dropping into the ocean and then throughout time this atom is affecting every atom in the sea and likewise every creature, every speck of sunlight, every shore, every animal, every cloud--everything! Everything affects Evolution.

Actually, where does reality begin then? Looking on the past? Nah. You have to realize that at some point reality and the present takes place. To constantly equate reality to the past and look at the present as some sort of "craze" or "New Age" that will simply blow over is abnormal. You have to, at some point, realize that the present is very much a part of the past. I will agree, however, that a lot of people take things to the extreme and revolve their lives around the astrological teachings, however, for those who are not fanatics and don't get swept away by the current, it's a useful and real tool. You cannot deny truth for an imbalanced exception, because exceptions are often too much or too little--somewhere a balance exists. Culture is just as real as the culture of the first plants or dinosaurs, or even microorganisms, that appeared on earth. It's culture that helps shape the path things take, and if you let the culture become murderous, the future will look back on the effects the murderous, enraging culture took on their Evolution--like an abused child. Did the culture become more loving or hateful because of those effects? Did monkeys evolve fingers for climbing trees to get away from a predator, or did they evolve claws for digging holes? The stars' effects extend beyond an indulgent branch of culture. Stand up and refuse those extremists, those deluded, and refuse them the right to possess the truth as a hostage--such as studying the stars and astrology--just because they may make someone feel wary or insecure (skeptical) of entering into those areas because of their delusions. I don't stop eating food because someone might stuff their face to the brim with it and become unhealthily fat...no, one must keep a healthy balance and sanity on things.

I think you're being shallow in your estimations. I honestly believe they have such a huge effect on Evolution...apart from this solar system, what else does life have that is constant? Outside of this solar system...and, I'm pretty certain the biology of things are wired to the stars--heck, society has already been influenced just in gazing upon them, the way they talk about them, etc. I guess I equate the actions of people (naming constellations, astronomy, NASA, etc.) as an advanced manifestation of the stars--whereby, as they greatly influence us as people and a society, one must attempt to discover what types of relevance they have to things like flowers, animals, the planet as a whole, the sun, etc. Heck, society itself in its observation is evolving to the stars...and, in our space exploration. You seem to be missing the point that the present is just as relevant as the past. Do you think stars are just some big New Age, chaotic, worthless craze? They've obviously helped shape society in this obvious regard, it's only logical to assert that it extends far deeper to the very origins of life itself. Every single moment the stars are beating down upon life and earth, and every single moment a star is being seen. And you don't think this is a manifestation of the stars? These have some profoundly enormous effects--I somehow doubt the stars only influence in star-gazing. I think this is one thing that gets a lot of people into trouble--it's like a Christian denying the evidence of Evolution as being an illusion or a lie. Stars' effects don't begin only in star-gazing and space exploration, this is a manifestation of it.

Essentially he's arguing a vacuum of outerspace and his argument can be challenged to other things that we know to be true, at least this is what I interpreted it. Perhaps I do not understand what he meant? Elaborate for me, then, please. Thank you.

Don't you see or know? Life is an expression of the environment. The stars are not aliens to us--they shine in our skies just about always until something happens to them. Life must have taken into account their placements and whatnot when evolving...and, I'm quite positive life still does and IS AT THIS MOMENT and always will take these into account and notice them. Now, if you have gigantic stars out there in this universe surrounding a certain planet and then life is evolving to these conditions and then slowly these bodies begin to shift in their time (the time by which they appear in the sky) so that 13,000 years from now the times of the constellations in the sky/placements are actually reversed (180 degrees) and evolution is constantly evolving and living under these same stars and world, don't you think that somewhere for some reason these astronomically relevant bodies do indeed take their toll on the life itself and helping to shape/form it? Surely a species noticing these changing conditions is going to have some sort of biological reaction to them...or, conscious or spiritual reaction. If a pear tree blooms every other year and somehow calculates and takes the years into effect, the changing of the seasons effect the weather patterns, there has got to be some sort of effect caused to earth by the stars...afterall, we do see their light, so it's not like they're complete isolated islands out there, their light does touch us--a star's light actually touches your eye even if you look up at one. Don't you think there's some sort of evolved mechanism/reaction to these changes? They must have some sort of effect, and I think it's foolish to take one of the most important aspects to earth out of the equation.

Time is determined by the movement of the earth and the astrological changes therein. That is precisely my point, you see? Because the scenario has played out so many times, Evolution must have been shaped by it in some way.Thanks for posting this information, by the way, and saving me time. I do appreciate it. Hardly. We all know how much other events have on the earth, I think it's ignorant not to consider the effects on the chemicals (and our consciousness) because of the changes in the astrological bodies. I'd think Evolution has noticed these effects so much that it has evolved to conform to these events...likewise, like other events such as the seasonal changes, changes in the years, the moon, eclipses, planets, night and day, weather, and just about anything, I absolutely would see no reason why changes in the stars have no direct effects/correlations on life itself.