You people are so far off base... The earth is revolving around the sun. The whole solar system is moving through space. Exactly 1 minute ago, what was exactly where you are standing or sitting right now? Nothing. It was empty space. It was filled momentarily by the earth. Then the earth moved on, and at a very rapid pace, I might add. If you go back in time, or ahead in time, to exactly the spot you are standing on now, nobody knows what you will find... because everything moves around in space. Since space is mostly empty, you probably will find nothing. The thing you need along with your time machine, or in place of it, is a temporal adjuster (not JAVA). This is a thing that can move you to any place that the time machine can find a time for. This way you won't wind up in the airlessness of space, which is what most of the universe is made out of, and which almost certainly would destroy your time machine, and your life.  |
|
|
|
Science is perfect as far as it goes. This doesn't mean that some scientists, politicians, the media, and people imitating scientists are perfect. For example. A science theory is an idea that has some good, science fact behind it. Yet, it is not know to be fact. Big Bang Theory is an example. Yet simply look at some threads in this forum to see how many people think that BB has been proven to be truth. Check the links found here https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html to see how NASA people state that evolution is truth (Note that not every link has something about Big Bang in it). You can Google "Big Bang Theory" to find many sites that tell you it is factual. But it is just a theory. This means that it is not known to be factual. One of the greatest theories to be expressed as truth is Evolution Theory. Not only is evolution not proven to be factual, but it has been proven over and over to not even be worth calling it a theory, because it is impossible. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.0 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. All this shows you is that there is science, and there are those that want to use science for political purposes, to twist people into their agenda, even if they have to lie to do it. |
|
|
|
There has been no definite evidence to prove these theories at all. Shouldn't all monkeys have evolved to being man by now.
Man evolved from a species of monkeys which for some reason felt the need to get down from the trees and walk the earth. Everything else was triggered by this. The rest of the monkeys didn't need to get down to the ground and you can see most of them living happily up there in the tree tops to this day. It was probably some circumstance specific to where the proto-humans lived and which wasn't present anywhere else. Just the same way as there are amazonian tribes who still haven't set foot into the 11th, let alone the 21th century. My poop evolved to become a horse. That's true. I can't show it to you but I have evidence: You see, it took a lot of time to evolve. How in the world old are you?  There's poop and horses in the world so they must have evolved from each other. I don't know how and it doesn't make sense but Richard Dawkins told me so so it must be true because he is famous scientist or something  Dawkins - Politician disguised as a scientist. It seems you are not very intelligent, unlike me because I believe what Dawkins says, By the way, he is very popular. And you are hurting my feelings and my ego is under a threat by your claims. I must use my secret weapon to discredit you: YOU MUST BE A CREATIONIST! Now since I said that, you can't win. Every scientific thing that Dawkins says in favor of evolution is provably false. No! Stop triggering me! I saw this image in schoolbook when I was 7 years old:  That image clearly proves evolution is true. And I already used magic word 'creationist' so I already won And I told you I'm very intelligent. But they are different in Hawaii.  Hey stop! That makes me emotional and I can't find it from The Greatest Show on Earth. What show are you talking about? CNN news? Click the picture. It's a link. |
|
|
|
I nor said yes or no. It's more complicated.
To make it short I think this is absolutely stupid to believe in the biblical god while we live in an era with full access to information and knowledge. This is unforgivable to still have faith in those tales.
HOWEVER, I'm highly spiritual and deeply think that first the Universe, and then Life, didn't came to existence by pure coincidence. Some sort of higher power ? maybe. Jesus ,allah and so on ? Definitly not.
But we don't live in an era with full access to information and knowledge. For example. Choose a leaf on the tree. Look at how it twists and turns in the summer breeze. Can you track even one of the molecules or air that helps it to twist and turn? But if you could track it, how far?... as it moves around the world? And can you selectively measure its relationship in distance to any of the other molecules of air surrounding it? Yet God knows it all, perfectly. We are so behind God that we will never catch up, even if we try. |
|
|
|
Really ? people are really believing 9gag memes nowadays ? that is just unreal for real guess get some self education and do not follow trends like sheeps to the slaughter.
ok bye This time? You're really leaving us this time?  |
|
|
|
That's what I get for asking 3 questions in the same paragraph. |
|
|
|
Today (May 25) Bitcoin peaked above $2750 in the morning (Bitstamp record at https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg2ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv). Then it dumped as low as $2300. Now it is back up to as high as $2500 in the last hour or so. What are we seeing? Is this the beginning of a big profit taking? Or is it merely a "re-grouping" where Bitcoin will go higher still? |
|
|
|
|
23311
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: NSA, CIA, IRS, DHS, ATF, FBI, GCHQ, Federal Reserve, ISIS are Terrorists
|
on: May 25, 2017, 09:38:49 PM
|
Don't End the Fed, Ignore the Fed: How to Distance Yourself From a Collapse I like mom and pop family owned restaurants, and local craft breweries, two businesses that are currently doing great in America.
Giant corporations, on the other hand, are legally bound to the government, which causes most of the corruption in the corporate and government world. They end up taking advantage of people and bludgeoning their competitors using the government.
The United States of America is a giant corporation that is entering its dinosaur phase. Do you remember what happened to the dinosaurs? Their extinction paved the way for mammals to be the top species on earth. And in the same way, the collapse of the American financial system will pave the way for better smaller governments, and governance.
The collapse does not have to be apocalyptic and full of death and destruction. If people start taking action now, they can arrange their local and regional governments, as well as their own independent finances, as a cushion. People are already poised to reject monopolistic corporations (the USA being the largest of these), and currency should reflect these values. Read more at http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/dont-end-the-fed-ignore-the-fed-how-to-distance-yourself-from-a-collapse/.
All this stuff goes hand-in-hand with the things that Karl Lentz talks about. Peruse "The 4 Secrets of the Legal Industry?" at http://voidjudgments.com/. Also look at Karl's site at http://www.broadmind.org/.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I believe in God. Or rather the gods. In my religion there are a lot of them and everyone helps people in a certain sphere of life. All the good that is in my life is the consequences of the care of the gods
If there were many Gods, nature would fail. Why? They couldn't act together in every way to make something as complex as nature work. There is One God. |
|
|
|
...
Note: The Hammonds are ranchers like the Bundys, but in a different location. Ammon Bundy is trying to help the Hammonds in their government induced plight.
There is a very significant differences. - Bundy want to use land which is owned by the Fed to run his cattle on. Hammond owned his land. Ownership cuts both ways. I personally feel that the Federal govt should own little or no property in the U.S. (and nor should any multi-national corporation) but the Bundy charade(s) are exactly the wrong way to go about achieving this. All the 'operations' achieved was to gain datapoints on individuals, and add weight to the strongly conditioned idea that gun owners and patriots in the U.S. are crazy and dangerous. I've little doubt that the operation was designed to do exactly this and carefully so. The truth is that we don't know what is really going on. If the Government made a deal with the Bundys to let them graze their cattle, and if the Government changed the deal after they made it, the Government may be in the wrong, no matter whose land it is. We don't know the nitty-gritty... or do we? However... The Government is not suppose to hold lands, and if the Bundys knew what they were doing, they could make the Government pay. Actually it is fairly clear what is going on with Bundy. And with Hammond for that matter. Bundy leased grazing rights from the Federal Govt who, constitutionally or otherwise, holds title to the land. Bundy considers himself the owner on constitutional grounds and because his great grandmother was one of the wives of his great-grandfather who were Mormons. Bundy didn't even start running cattle until the 1950's or some such, but he did so with full cooperation of the owners and under a lease. There are ecological arguments that ruminants are not suitable for this type of land. Some of them are bullshit because of corrupt politicians, multi-national resource acquisitions, eco-fundamentalists, etc, and some are probably not. In any case, the owner gets to make the call when the lease is up. Bundy did develop water resources under a well prescribed set of laws. Water is valuable in this area, and the rights are more-so. If the leases are not to be renewed or are changed to make ranching non-economical, Bundy should be generously compensated for his water rights whether or not people now feel that the rights should never have been granted. They were. Hammond, not the government, owned the Hammond ranch-land. He's problems seem to stem from the same basic snake-pit that Bundy's did: corrupt politicians, multi-national resource acquisitions, eco-fundamentalists, etc. And, importantly, the tangled relationships between these groups. The Government case fails for many reasons. Even if the Bundy's had contract with Government, the Government's case fails in court for many reasons. One of the reasons is the jury, as was the Government failure in the Oregon Bundy trials. The second reason is harm or damage. What harm or damage to man or woman was evidenced - none. In addition, the Government must get on the stand and speak the damage into the record. Government can't do this, because Government is simply paperwork... if the Bundy's invoke their own common law court of record right inside the Government's case. The Bundy's simply didn't use their rights and the law. To see how strong the Bundy's could have been, and still can be, see: http://voidjudgments.com/http://voidjudgments.com/detailsvoid.htmhttp://voidjudgments.com/suedc/MoreOnSMJ2.pdfhttp://voidjudgments.com/22reasons.htmhttp://voidjudgments.com/details4.htmBut they can't use this stuff if they don't know it exists. And it is extremely difficult to use if they are represented by an attorney or even if they represent themselves. They must stand present, not represented, to use it. If they represent themselves, they need to know about their "persons" from the 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.An intriguing point about all this stuff is, if a man or woman staked off a piece of completely unused public land, and recorded the staked-off claim as his/her own land, nobody in Government could win in a case against this man or woman... if the man or woman knew the law listed in the the links, above, and used it. |
|
|
|
^^^ troll circle-jerk ^^^
Target: BoobLawblaw's sloped forehead.
The flat Earth theory is a cult for mongs, like you dummbass. Can't even understand the difference between sarcasm and trolling, that clearly shows the lack of intelligence. Don't worry flattard, it's not only your fault. It's also because of the failure of your education system. Good luck with your life, and with your cleaning job in the Walmart, looks like someone is destined for doing that work. Didn't know he was a Walmart funny farm guy. Which WM funny farm is he living at? |
|
|
|
A whole lot older, but mostly wiser. |
|
|
|
Religion is not dying. Rather it is changing. For example. Evolution theory has been proven false in may ways. The fact that it is theory rather than law shows that there always has been question about it. Yet, people still believe that it is true, and there are many people going around trying to trick others into believing it. And many people fall for the scam. This is the way religious cults work. So, religion is simply changing, often from believing in God, to believing in evolution, or maybe, believing in science. Faith in God will remain forever, but religion can disappear or become a tradition. Faith and religious currents are the difference of the concept and believe in the existence of a pusher is possible without religion. From #6 at the definition of religion in Dictionary.com: something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice. This means that whatever you believe in is religion for you, be it God, or be it science. It also shows that people can't get away from religion in their lives. |
|
|
|
...
Note: The Hammonds are ranchers like the Bundys, but in a different location. Ammon Bundy is trying to help the Hammonds in their government induced plight.
There is a very significant differences. - Bundy want to use land which is owned by the Fed to run his cattle on. Hammond owned his land. Ownership cuts both ways. I personally feel that the Federal govt should own little or no property in the U.S. (and nor should any multi-national corporation) but the Bundy charade(s) are exactly the wrong way to go about achieving this. All the 'operations' achieved was to gain datapoints on individuals, and add weight to the strongly conditioned idea that gun owners and patriots in the U.S. are crazy and dangerous. I've little doubt that the operation was designed to do exactly this and carefully so. The truth is that we don't know what is really going on. If the Government made a deal with the Bundys to let them graze their cattle, and if the Government changed the deal after they made it, the Government may be in the wrong, no matter whose land it is. We don't know the nitty-gritty... or do we? However... The Government is not suppose to hold lands, and if the Bundys knew what they were doing, they could make the Government pay. |
|
|
|
Not nearly as ridiculous as "we live in a snow globe".. With giant spot lights and painted stars. A grand conspiracy dating back to beginning of time. Sounds like a Doctor Who episode. Yeah, the NASA made Dr. Who, just do decept the people. Every country's government and every single TV stations and every scientists are run by NASA, thank God we have some brave and clever youtubers those revealed the truth. Yes. It's about time that we change the deception. It used to be NASA. Now let it be flat earth. |
|
|
|
Religion is not dying. Rather it is changing. For example. Evolution theory has been proven false in may ways. The fact that it is theory rather than law shows that there always has been question about it. Yet, people still believe that it is true, and there are many people going around trying to trick others into believing it. And many people fall for the scam. This is the way religious cults work. So, religion is simply changing, often from believing in God, to believing in evolution, or maybe, believing in science. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
