mooeypoo

That explains why Argentinians are so stupid, man, I knew it, it's all that Asado and beef they consume en mass.** The smartest people alive, in fact, are in India, it's a known fact. What's "body frequency" by the way, and how do I measure mine? Which year was this done? Or will be done? Interesting, too. Does this mean that in the future the human stomach stops breaking down enzymes in food? That's a cool option, I can't wait to be able to digest some cat DNA and go Catwoman. Meow, sign me up. That's good to know that there's no more problem of overfishing, I was worried about that for a while there. So how old do people get in the future? Is cancer still a problem? ~mooey -- ** I'm half Argentinian. I'm allowed to laugh at myself. No real harm intended, but we're too stupid and robot-like to get the insult anyways.

Another anecdotal piece of data. Do you have actual experiments and actual scientific data to support your claims? What you're proposing is a rather clear statement, and can be resolved with a fairly clear experiment. Do you have evidence? You're making a scientific claim, you should back it up with scientific evidence. Anecdotal data -- compelling as it may appear -- is not scientific evidence. And yet in this case we actually can give you medical research as evidence that medical treatment is more effective than no medical treatment. Your opinion on the issue doesn't matter, nor does your judgment of it -- evidence matters. What you bring forth is an anecdotal interpretation -- your own -- to explain something the data doesn't quite support. Bring up evidence, and we can discuss them. You're the one making this claim, and the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof *scientifically*. Scientific evidence, not interpretations, personal stories and anecdotes, as inspiring as they may be. The fact that psychological state helps in recovery is not in dispute -- there's also medical evidence for that from real experiments. What you're doing, though, is taking it as if that is the cure. There's no evidence for that, let alone evidence that would suggest we should *stop* medical intervention. You might be an exception, did you consider that? Are you really willing to risk millions of people's lives without proof that your method is *truly* effective? You only tested it on ONE person - you. Unfortunately for you, I know a good family friend who tested your method as well, and did not survive. He was the happiest and most positive person I knew despite his condition. It didn't help him much, seeing as he's not around today to be happy anymore. Anecdotal data is never a good source, and in this case you seem to want people to trust their lives on it. ~mooey

*Some* Christians. You know I'm mostly in agreement with you in those matters, but I insist we try our best not to generalize. SOME Christians are all over the place, as your quote proceeds with example about the literalists you seem to admit this yourself. For that matter, this isn't confined to christianity alone. The absolute most of any religious literalist has to adjust their beliefs, and is hence "all over the map". The problem with literalism is that the text (not just in christianity and judaism) is inconsistent most often than not. Literalists often find themselves stuck in the paradox of either adjusting their belief, nitpicking text or making judgments over twisty-logic. That's not to say all religious people do that; some do it more than others, maybe, but I know quite a number of religious people who have a very similar approach to mine in regards to the bible -- as an old book that's meant as inspiration rather than literal stories. Those people exist, we shouldn't just dismiss their existence (even if we disagree with them) just because others take the belief to extremes. As for Satan, etc -- it seems the majority of what you're giving out as examples comes from the New Testament, and I have little knowledge of that, so I will stand back and let better knowledgeable folk engage in this discussion. I just wanted to point out that the point of discussions in this science-minded forum are meant as philosophical and logical examinations. Literalists won't find many points of agreement here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine what the text says in light of common belief systems and analyze and discuss what we think of it. There's little doubt that there's no real proof or any scientific evidence in much of what is written, the point isn't so much to reiterate this fact (or preach it ) but to try and discuss things in an intellectual level. In this case, it seems to me the depiction of Satan in the OT is quite different than it is in the NT. ~mooey

! Moderator Note Do not hijack threads. Stick to your own thread, timetraveler, or you won't stick around in this forum. Read our rules. Quickly.

Very considerate of you. And very convinient, too. I'll take my chances. Worse case, I'll just be boggled in the third time dimension. Please, do, explain the basics of the universe. But if you do that, please attach formulas to your explanation. I might not be from your advanced timeline, but the way we do science in this current time is with math and physics. ~mooey

Amazon is not the source for mainstream science. Being in Speculation isn't "Limbo" and it's not a slight on your ego. You're proposing an idea that is not, at the moment, considered mainstream science. Maybe in the future you can prove it enough and publish proper science literature, making the entire community accept it and teach this in colleges and schools -- making it mainstream. At that point, we'll move the thread back to mainstream science. It's up to you if you want to participate in your own discussion or not, but we're not going to change our own rules just because you don't like them. ~mooey

According to Judaism, he didn't. According to the Old Testament there is only ONE god. He has messengers that do his bidding, and sometimes the stories use these messengers as a sounding-board for god to "discuss" and "consider" his course of action. Angels do not have superpowers, they do not have godly power, and they don't have free will. They do God's work because God himself rarely speaks to human beings directly. Can you supply the bit of text that literally says that Satan has rebelled against God, or is this a believe Christians have without actual biblical text? I don't intend this question as mockery, I'm asking because I really don't know. I always assumed there's some actual text in the new testament saying what Satan is... I'm not so sure anymore, though, and I'd like to see context. As far as I remember, there's no such sentence/statement in the old testament. ~mooey

What about mine. We're a science forum, traveler -- show us some science. Only fair. ~mooey Good to know the moon is redefined as a planet in your timeline, for you to include it in such definition. Then what's the purpose of exposing yourself to a group of random people online? If it's merely reconnaissance, aren't you putting yourself in jeopardy? What if you convince the wrong person and they call the government? What exactly is the astrophysics department missing? speak up, time traveler, tell us about the science. Dumb it down if you have to, but start somewhere. ~mooey

Well you have to do something, my friend, as you can see, we're not just skeptical, we're treating this as humor. May I remind you, oh advanced-temporal-being-that-is-you, that science demands the burden of proof be on you, not on us. Also, you came here and by that agreed to our rules. You can't possibly expect us to treat this seriously when it's clear you're either playing around or are unwilling to cooperate. ~mooey I am curious, though. Do you? What are those "three time dimensions" and why are there only three? How are they described mathematically? you already "exposed yourself" in this thread, so any attempt to tell us that you're afraid to "harm the timeline" would be ridiculous. You already have. Explain the physics, let's at least have ourselves some revelations. Or some amusement, I'm still not sure if you're just a playing a joke online; the alternative is somewhat disturbing.

The name of the person who's going to win will do just fine.

Did it occur to you that we call tumors that are cancerous "Malignant" because of the meaning of the word?

That's a strawman. That timespan has much more evidence for it than the existence of pebbles. For that matter, even if your statement is true that doesn't disprove the time-span. Excellent, so you cut through a pebble and you see evidence for your statement, and you published a paper explaining and showing this process. I'm sure you have done all this because you speak with such authority on the matter. All that's missing is sharing these evidence pieces with us. Geologists have actual evidence to prove their theory. Surely, you don't expect us to abandon factual theories without proper suitable facts that prove otherwise. I await your evidence eagerly. Again, even *if* your theory about the pebbles are true, it's far from disproving the whole timeline. You ahve some reading to do, my friend, the time line is hardly done because of pebbles, we use many many other geological phenomena to corroborate this timeline. Evidence. Evidence. Strawman; man did not "mould" from "monkey". Read what evolution *ACTUALLY* says before you dismiss what is convenient for you to dismiss. And, I repeat, your logic does not follow. Even if we do accept your pebble hypothesis it will not affect the geological timeline in the least. We have other evidence (a MOUNTAIN of evidence, pun intended) for that 'timeline'. We're not here to listen to preaching -- we are skeptical by nature, as scientists should be. We want to see actual evidence along with the explanation. Explanations alone are insufficient, not to mention yours can clearly be shown wrong by examining what we *do* have as evidence. Provide evidence, and separate the discussion of evolution and geology. You're not making a good enough argument to dismiss evolution even if you are right. ~mooey Funny, you dismiss science until you find a particular piece of scientific literature that might have something you can remotely relate to. First, read the article; it's about a unique phenomena in a specific place. It's not about all pebbles, so this doesn't help you much. The idea that some pebbles might be created a certain way does not mean all do. Perhaps, but they weren't created flat. Read the entire paper you're quoting, Christopher. Clearly, the pebbles became flat after they were transported to the beach, and that was done in 2 main stages (angular to round, round to flat) each stage affecting the transportation. They weren't always flat, and they weren't always there. This paper proves exactly the opposite of what you're saying. ~mooey

Duplicate. Closed.

If you're a time traveler, you should have no problems proving it within less than a week. Start giving us a list of events and facts about what's going to happen. Note, please that they should be accurate; guesses will not suffice, and vague statements are not sufficient. Then we can consider asking you more "deeper" questions. Since this -- and time travel in general -- is not a mainstream theory in physics (yet?) this is moved to "Speculations". ~mooey

Angels in the old testament are the messengers of god. They come to speak, they don't do miracles -- God does. They don't have "free will" because they're not human. Only human beings have free will. Even in Judges 6, if you keep reading, the speech turns from "And the angel told him [god says..]" to "and god told him". This is an abbreviation; Gideon speaks to the angel of god as a conduit to speaking to God. I'm not sure how this makes your point..? How is this an anti-christ or a 'god like prophet'? The text, at least in this case, is fairly clear. The angel speaks. When actions are done, they're done by god. Just read that chapter completely, and you can see. ~mooey

! Moderator Note Amanda, we're not here to trade suggested personal attacks and banters, we're here to discuss ideas and share our knowledge and opinions with one another. Stick to the topic, and please understand that when people ask you to clarify, they're not attacking you, they actually want to understand what your point is. Political discussions are hard enough in a scientific forum without these "jab" posts or subtle (and not so subtle) personal attacks. Enough.

I am still not quite there with your comparison, maybe your example about "if... then" was too specific/political and it drives my brain in the different direction than you mean? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Who, where, what type of equality, and in which society. Who's "We"? This is an international forum We have people from quite a diverse range of the world... you should be a bit more specific. Also, your question is very vague. What do you mean "are we equal?" in what? Obviously, we're not "all" equal biologically and there isn't any debate on it, either***. Are we socially equal? Debatable; if you ask this from a political point of view, you'd probably get a resounding "no", but with little agreement as to where,exactly, this inequality lies. I think you should be more specific. Is this a philosophical question about equality in general and what it means, or is this something more specific? ~mooey *** NOTE: Before you go all up in arms, ScienceForum readers, I just re-read myself and noticed this might come off differently than what I meant. This "biological inequality" I speak of has nothing to do with race; I was refering to the biological differences between men and women. Please don't take my words out of context also, sorry it might sound different than what I meant. Must clarify.

What? Says who? There are more "records" of "religious phenomena" than just the bible. Also, the OT at least has nothing against Gays, just the NT it seems. But that's for a different topic. In any case, let's please stick to the topic and avoid having a ridiculing attitude. We can discuss theism without deteriorating the discussion. ~moo

Yes, good of you to state the obvious the idea in this discussion is to state those explanation, discuss their merit and see if there are contradictions. That's why we do these somewhat theistic-themed discussions in a science-oriented forum. ~mooey

holding... myself... from answering.... too easy... too easy.... Wait, why do we assume angels have free will? I don't remember anywhere in the bible it saying that. The free will issue is given to *man*. Not to angels. In fact, if you've seen Dogma (GREAT movie, albeit hardly a good source), they are talking about how unfair that is. I might take issue on that as well, unless this is something I don't know of from the "New testament". In the old one, there are no real "demons"... if you have a quote in mind, please share it. I see where you're going with this, but your logic is flawed. The fact you don't know how god LOOKS like does not mean you can't know what he isn't. You know that I'm not God, even though you've never seen God and, for that matter, you've never seen me. You know that because I don't have God's qualities; I'm not omnipotent, for one. Clearly. So even without knowing what God looks like you know I'm not it. We could make the same judgment to other 'creatures' like the angels. That said, in the old testament the angels are "Seraphim"; they are described in the text, so we will not only know what they look like, we will know they are not god immediately by that statement alone. They also do not have special powers or anything like that, they can only "deliver god's words" and ask God to do his miracles. They are usually used as messengers. Even if we go by the text alone, we should be able to identify them and know they're not god. Where? Can you bring a quote? Taht'sa completely different question than the one you raise in the beginning of this post. Many believers seem to have a rather logical answer to it: Anyone who is not of my particular flavor of religion and my particular flavor of reading the bible, is being deceived by satan. You and I could point out that this makes things very hard to note who's right seeing as *everyone* claims the same thing -- but that doesn't mean the answer itself is not logical on its own. If, indeed, there is one God, and if, indeed, there is only ONE way of following that god, then, indeed, there is only ONE religion (and flavor of it) that is true, and everyone else is deceived. The fact no one can be sure in your view (and mine) doesn't mean that each of them ARE sure that THEY're right. It's insufficient to cause a major problem. You see the problem here? Whenever you say "scripture indicates", I will want a quote. I don't just say that to be annoying, I want to (a) see the context and (b) read the original hebrew in case it's the old testament. You'd be surprised how many of those "statements" are mistranslations or pre-interpreted translations. Why? This is a fallacy; there's no "white and black" in deception. Atheists can be deceived in their belief and still there won't be a god. For instance, if there is, in fact, a multitude of lesser demons and angels controlling the world without a central "God" authority, atheists would still be deceived, and yet there is still not God. That's more or less what Scientologists claim ("xenu" is no god), and scientologists are far from atheists. Logic is lovely. Same as above. Your statements are generalized and strict; too strict. There IS a middle ground here logically speaking. You're ignoring it. You're jumping to a completely different subject here, I'm not clear on how morals have to do with any of this. Let's try to stick to the topic you proposed initially. You can open another thread about questionable morality if you want (though I think we have a few of those). Not sure what that has anything to do with it either. Explain? Seems out of topic too. What? That makes no sense. Since when is the truth decided by "majority"? Since when does morality stated by majority? Even at the face of it, I disagree. This seems to be just a little "trap" you set to get people to say God is immoral. nice, but insufficient to what you claim. It's also not quite clear how it relates to Satan's deception at all..? I think you should explain it better, I'm a bit confused. ~mooey

The idea also is to prevent the feeling that people have to "suck up" to the staff to get on our good side. Also, moderators and experts were chosen because, supposedly, they already demonstrated some friendliness and expertise, so the idea is to see who *else* is out there that demonstrates such things. But it might be a good idea to have a separate category where you can put whoever (mods/experts/famous trolls, go wild). I already know I'm awesome, if you want to repeat it, who am I to stop you. <3 you all ~mooey You forgot the flogging. There should always be a flogging.

Cyclops needs to check why cyclops speaks about himself in the third tense, as if cyclops has multiple personality disorder.

! Moderator Note Go back on topic, guys.

Nah. We'll keep it as is. Alright, alright... One week is enough, or two?