Moontanman

None the less, his now is still now, he is not moving in time to another now any more than you are and when he stops moving his now will still be now.

Rigney, you can't pump anything to an absolute negative pressure, just like there is no temp below absolute zero. You cannot pump the vacuum out of anything, it genuinely doesn't make sense... I understand that you are asking what is a vacuum and i think it's a viable question but you can't pump out the vacuum, at least not in the context of modern physics. The question of what is the vacuum is a reasonable question, a recent article in Discover magazine show casing the works of Julian Barbour has some interesting ideas about Space and what it is. He is trying to overturn Einstein, his ideas are interesting but way beyond me mathematically but the concepts are not impossible to grasp. If I understand them correctly he doesn't even think the concept of space time is correct, no 4th dimension and space is just ... space... http://platonia.com/papers.html

Lets get this straight, Queen of Wands, talks like a deist, quotes scripture from the Holy Bible and has a pagan symbol as it's avatar... interesting...

Pretend there is evidence... IMHO think this discussion has run it's course...

Reading about it or hearing about it most certainly doesn't make it true and there are many religious texts of religions other than yours, about many gods and pantheons of gods other than yours, how do you decide which one is real?

If that is the case then what about other ancient religious texts? Some of them are far older and more complex than the holy bible. Do you give them the same credence as you do the bible?

No, there are real limits to depth and pressure tolerance but the limits are very extreme, at some point the gases you would be breathing would be so dense your lungs couldn't physically handle them. This time limit has more to do with the decompression needed and the toxicity of nitrogen than a physical intolerance to the pressure. Mixed gasses like helium oxygen mixtures avoid this toxicity of nitrogen and make decompression easier.

I have my doubts about that, smoking quality cannabis is no more grown from seeds that are scattered and just happen to come up anymore than corn is grown that way. Seeds are intentionally grown in small sets and transferred to the fields to insure high quality plants in a way that is very similar to the way tomatoes are grown.

I applaud you for checking, so many people assume anything that is written down must be true.

yeah he's the anti Christ...

I figured that out, i genuinely look forward to seeing that evidence... You do understand that your's is a positive assertion, i have never said i can prove god is not real, but in the lack of positive evidence for god the default position is "there are no gods" To actually prove there is no god would require god like powers of knowing everything there is to know. I do not contend that god is impossible or that i can show there is no god, i simply do not see any positive evidence of the existence of god or gods... I do remain open to the possibility of gods but i see no evidence of them and not being able to explain something about the natural world is not positive evidence for god or gods...

njaohnt, let make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. You are saying that the fact that such a complex manuscript was written and copied so many times, so long ago, and that the effort of doing so was so great that this is reason to suspect it's true?

I agree that a pack of animals would be more effective than a one on one encounter i think it would take more than two to take down a tiger. A tiger is an incredibly powerful predator, it could kill a great dane or any other dog with what would amount to just a light tap compared to his full power. I tiger can kill an ox with one swipe to the head, he would carve a great dane in half. On top of that a tiger is outrageously fast compared to a dog. Lions, which would have to be the close to the equivalent of a tiger in a one on one fight can and often do kill hyena's which are far more powerful predators than any dog. No hyena would even attempt to take on a lion without many of the pack members present. I think a tiger could easily handle several great danes...

I have to ask this, so every time njaohnt drags out his "crap", and I might add the same "crap" every time, we have to go through it point by point to point out how his "crap" isn't evidence? That doesn't seem quite right to me...

Repeating that stuff doesn't make it true njaohnt, the flaws in all of it have already been pointed out to you many times.

the point of this thread is to let njaohnt roll out more of his horse feathers, I for one am tired of him just repeating religious assertions that have no support over and over again...

I honestly can't figure a way around the cube square law, it's the same reason you can't scale a six foot human up to twelve feet tall. I could see a possible combination organism with a sessile asexual stage that stores energy then gives to it's sexual stage which is motile but doesn't produce it's own energy. The sessile stage could be a tree like organism that has a human sized (more or less, probably a little less) sexual stage that feeds from it's parent stage but that is just food chain that is non predatory...

You are forgetting the cube square law. A tiny phytoplankton is much easier to power than something as big as a human being. a single microorganism has surface to volume ratio several orders of magnitude different than a human being. a human sized creature just can't carry around enough surface area to make it's energy from sunlight... Also it's necessary to point out that phytoplankton drift with the currents, much if not most of their movement is simply drifting along with the current not actively moving around like a fish and many of them can eat other organisms if they get the chance as well. it's just not a viable comparison...

What does this reply mean njaohnt?

Good grief is right, i can't believe anyone actually took this thread seriously, i didn't for sure...

Now this is something I would really like to know about, care to share the specifics of this information?

Yes, but belief cannot define reality with out evidence to confirm that belief...

You get the same thing I do when you die, nothing... If you have evidence you most certainly have not posted it i this thread, i suggest you do so... I asked for clarification, you have already stated your stance, why do you feel that way? God didn't create the earth? That I would have to agree with...

Please clarify this, you don't think the formation of the earth has anything to do with religion? Maybe because you share the god delusion?