Creationism - My first post in SFN

[-Demosthenes-]

My first post:

My Creation Thoery: Evidents of evolution only exists because this planet was created using parts of other planets, which contained the animal remains that are similar to these ones. Which would create the illusion that animals had changed over time. Why are the animals on the other planets similar? Because they were all created too! Changing of a moths color through evolution has happened, but the change non-living goo to a one celled organism is completely implausible, much less the change to inteligent human beings.

 

I think I was 15, and I spelled "intelligent" wrong.

[ecoli]

lol... great post. So, which planet bits is our earth made from?

[ydoaPs]

I have too many posts....I can't locate my first. I'm sure it is rubbish, though.

[-Demosthenes-]

lol... great post. So, which planet bits is our earth made from?

 

You'll have to ask my 15 year old self, because I have no idea.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4749 your first thread yourdad?

[ydoaPs]

Now, I feel retarded for not being able to find it. That may have been my first thread, but I don't think that was my first post. I don't know why.

[Gilded]

I think in my first post I asked something about explosives and YT told me it's wrong or something and now I'm a happy person with nothing to do with energetic materials whatsoever.

[-Demosthenes-]

When you search for all the posts by someone it only goes back 500, so you can't get to the first on that way (for us older members anyway). But most of us have less than 500 threads so you can find anyone's first thread pretty easily. It's the first post that's hard.

 

I think my first thread was also my first post (not sure), so mine is easier to find.

[bascule]

Here's my equally silly first thread, from April 2005:

 

M-theory, the global consciousness, psychic powers, and the psychedelic experience

 

That was way back when back I saw something to the Global Consciousness Project (which I implicitly trusted because it had Princeton's name on it), and, for that matter, had just read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos and was all into the idea of M-theory.

 

Well, soon I learned that while the Global Consciousness Project claimed their "eggs" use quantum random event generators (quantum!!!), many were in fact using the standard entropy harvesting mechanisms of the Linux kernel for random number generation, and therefore whatver statistical correlation between the "eggs" and world events existed could easily be explained by differing input patterns into computers following massive worldwide events like 9/11. 9/11 changed human behavior which changed how humans interacted with computers which changed the data the eggs harvested. I convinced myself if they were demonstrating anything, it was the weakness of using interrupt patterns as a source of truly random numbers.

 

Later, I discovered the Global Consciousness Project was a subproject of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) center, and that their analysis of GCP data was rife with bad math. The group had been searching for scientific evidence of the paranormal for decades, and turned up jack. This was all a pretty good lesson in appeal to authority... just because something has Princeton's name on it does not make it credible. Princeton's PEAR program is run by total whack jobs.

 

I still believe metaconsciousness is emerging on the Internet, especially when I see collective intelligence harvesting systems like digg, reddit, and Google Trends which let you see what "the Internet" is "thinking" about. They're just taking place within the environment of information systems, no crazy quantum quackery required.

[bascule]

When you search for all the posts by someone it only goes back 500, so you can't get to the first on that way (for us older members anyway). But most of us have less than 500 threads so you can find anyone's first thread pretty easily. It's the first post that's hard.

 

It's really easy, actually.

 

Hit Search

 

Put your user name into the "Search by User Name" field

 

Look at the "Sort Results by" box and change "in Descending Order" to "in Ascending Order"

 

Hit "Search Now"

 

I chose the first thread I started, rather than my very first post which was a rather boring response to someone else's thread

[ecoli]

My first post:http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=113086&postcount=37

 

I was so naive back then

[-Demosthenes-]

It's really easy, actually.

 

Hit Search

 

Put your user name into the "Search by User Name" field

 

Look at the "Sort Results by" box and change "in Descending Order" to "in Ascending Order"

 

Hit "Search Now"

 

Ah, it was my first post (as well as thread). Back before I changed my name to -Demosthenes-. I used to be "EinsteinTheory".

[GutZ]

My first post:http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=113086&postcount=37

 

I was so naive back then

 

Don't give up! There is still hope my friend!

 

My first one post wasn't interesting, but my second on the otherhand was I think a reply to Phi for all. He was so obviously jealous of my cool alias!

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=280251#post280251

 

I realize I don't take much seriously.

 

p.s. I've made my dumbest mistake yet. If anyone is wondering why ttfn sfn thread was revived...I was trying to copy multiple things at once but without losing the original copies...forgot I was in an old thread...sorry.

[Rexus]

My first post was a thread that's basically a "help me out" topic. And it did help out. >.<

[In My Memory]

My first post was a "lolz I'm new" post from January 2005:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=126836#post126836

 

Hello!

 

I am very nerdy' date=' and I like science (especially the kinds that I cant quite wrap my mind around). Although I have to admit my passions are really in religion and philosophy.

 

I live in the US, people know me for having one of those very eccentric personalities, and I really admire the work of people who debunk quack medicine and other kinds of pseudoscience.

 

All the best [/quote']

 

My first "real" post:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=127135#post127135

 

Although it is probably inappropriate for governments to legislate morality' date=' I think any kind of debate on whether certain actions amount to [i']rights violations[/i] inevitably makes it very hard to seperate law from morality. On abortion, because the situation involves conflicting types of self-determination between mother and unborn child, I dont find it inappropriate to make abortion illegal because it is percieved as unethical.

 

I have a tendency to swing back and forth on how I feel about abortion. For now, I would be interested to hear what others think is the basis to consider abortion unethical?

 

In order to keep from prosecuting every woman who unintentionally endangers the fetus she is carrying (or even intentionally, since smoking while pregnant is not advisable but not currently illegal), the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the unborn child to a certain extent. Without this distinction, every woman who does anything that could possibly put her fetus in danger would be guilty of reckless endangerment at the least and manslaughter or even murder if it resulted in a miscarriage. While the legal profession might rub its hands in glee over the possibilities, the courts could never handle all the cases.

Hmmm...

 

In America, our president has pushed forward a bill called the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (bills like this have been around for a while).

 

There is a great deal of concern about prosecuting women for what would otherwise be non-crimes. I came across this quote from House Rep Conyers who debated the 1999 version of this bill:

She could be held liable for any behavior during her pregnancy having potential adverse effects on her fetus, including failing to eat properly or using prescriptions or illegal drugs, smoking, drinking, exposing herself to infectious disease or to work place hazards, or even using general anesthetic or drugs to induce rapid labor during delivery. Indeed, we have already seen some of these measures introduced at the State level, and if the trend continues, pregnant women will live in fear that any accident or error in judgment could be deemed unacceptable and become the basis for a criminal prosecution.

w00t, I was so modest then

[insane_alien]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=172418&postcount=15

 

mine was remarkably boring. damn. why the hell did i come to this forum anyways?more to the point why am i still here?

[YT2095]

my very First post (of Many) here was:

 

Add your 70% nitric to more 98% sulphuric and redistil it, you`ll get your 98% nitric but not higher as it forms an azeotrope with water. the addition of Urea will absorb any NOx radicals too, leaving a near pure product

If your trying to make some "energetic material" I can think of only one that requires that conc of Nitric, and beleive me you DON`T want to play around with RDX!

[blackhole123]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18839

 

I have a question about black holes. I dont know much about them but I was thinking about it the other day and couldnt figure something out.

 

From what I understand, black holes are stars that have collapsed on themselves and now have gravity so powerful that light cannot even escape it. My question is this. When the star collapses all it does is become more dense (or so i would assume from the word "collapse"). So that means the original star had the same amount of mass as the black hole. So then why wouldnt the original star have the same amount of gravity that the black hole has? Why wouldnt regular stars trap light?

 

My first, wasn't that long ago actually.

[Heretic]

My first post:http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=113086&postcount=37

 

I was so naive back then

 

That is too funny.

 

Here's mine, not too long ago.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=279664&postcount=3

 

Unlike the rest of you I appear to be getting more and more stupid.

[Reaper]

Here's my first post at SFN: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=347651#post347651

 

Thought I put that there before it disappears forever, because after a while you can't go back to your first post.

 

Mine was just a lame introduction one.....

[Sayonara]

Now, I feel retarded for not being able to find it. That may have been my first thread, but I don't think that was my first post. I don't know why.

 

Perhaps the lack of searching ability is some sort of defence mechanism.

 

My first post began with the historic line "That would be a long way to go to fill your balloons."

[Realitycheck]

Well look at me, a "natural".

 

First post, never even taken a physics class.

 

It seems to me that the only reason time travel is not possible is because time recorded in one frame of reference is solely affected by its velocity, in relation to a comparative frame of reference, and that any discrepancies in time between two frames can only be compared in the future. There is no going backwards. One object may travel faster in time than another, but the comparison can only be recorded in the future. The difference is just a matter of record-keeping.

[Klaynos]

My very first post was a quote from IRC... lol

 

My first ones where on vacuum, and my uni's chemistry dept closing...

 

and you can go back and find your oldest post if you're smart about it

 

Oh and my introduction:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=110822#post110822

[Severian]

It's really easy, actually.

 

Hit Search

 

Put your user name into the "Search by User Name" field

 

Look at the "Sort Results by" box and change "in Descending Order" to "in Ascending Order"

 

Hit "Search Now"

 

I chose the first thread I started, rather than my very first post which was a rather boring response to someone else's thread

 

That doesn't work if you have more than 1000 posts since the search results only show 1000 entries.

[Klaynos]

That doesn't work if you have more than 1000 posts since the search results only show 1000 entries.

 

I managed it

[Sayonara]

That doesn't work if you have more than 1000 posts since the search results only show 1000 entries.

It does work, because the sort by part of the query is processed before the limit.

 

IOW, it orders all the search results in the set before it selects and returns the first 1,000 of that set.