Does any one know what's up with this? https://i.imgur.com/G2lGy9L.png?2 Even when trying to generate a short prefix like 1Tst, it always says something about a "delta" and restarts... I'm using oclvanitygen btw. The Radeon driver changed a year ago... use "-S" and it will work (albeit slower) Or you can search through this thread for a 3rd party who updated the code/driver (if you trust that sort of thing) |
|
|
|
Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.
Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.
When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.
Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically loses What makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything? Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible... You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway... Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works... Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit |
|
|
|
|
Good times...
I like Gavin Seim... I don't always agree with him, but fully support keeping police accountable
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you got ripped off...
Ask them where the other $179 went... obviously in their pocket...
If it is in their User Agreement/ToS, there really isn't much you can do about it(?), buyer beware...
Perhaps tell us which exchange is ripping you off so the rest of us can avoid it?
|
|
|
|
ben carson said something like this in the context of prison rape and was ridiculed by the left, but it makes sense, this could also help explain why 30% of paedophiles are also homosexuals
That is a huge under-estimation. Crimes against boys are heavily under-reported, when compared to those against the girls. IMO, a majority of the sex crimes against children are committed against the boys. And since more than 98% of the perpetrators are male, you can assume how many of them are gay or bisexual. Gays actually infest children to become gays by molesting them. That's one of the ways how homosexualism spreads. By keeping children away from homosexuals we can save them from becoming infested. i really hard to understand your mindset but i cant.. gay people never do such brutal things you've mentioned.. homosexualism has genetic source not spread by molesting.. The irony of homosexuality being genetic is... If you let them be gay, get gay married, and not spread their genes... the genes will disappear over time, making fewer homosexuals... But, if instead you harass and murder homosexuals... They will go into hiding, marry someone of the opposite sex, and pass their "gay genes" on to another generation... Basically, let them get gay married and there shouldn't be many gays left after a few generations... |
|
|
|
Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.
You mean like theory of gravity. LOL... The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is. If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down. This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts". Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law. The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct. Again, the force that we call gravity is a law. Why? Because there is no place where we do not see its force acting. The theory exists regarding how gravity works, and what it is made from, etc. Newton's law of gravitational force can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. When this article says that Newton's law of gravity was suspended by Einstein's theory of general relativity, this means that the law of gravity was suspended in the minds of a whole bunch of people (scientists) who would rather look at non-fact than fact. Theory, until proven factual, is fiction. Law is factual. The problem with many areas of science is that the scientists are accepting non-fact over fact. Thus, science itself is following a form of devolution, just like all of human-kind. No. Once again, the "Law of Gravity" is a theory. If some aspect of it is incorrect, that can be changed. I think rather than the law of gravity, you're thinking of the concept of gravity, the idea that, in our experience things tend to fall? You might have found some theory that is entitled "Law of Gravity," but that is not gravity. That is a theory about gravity. Gravity, itself, is a law. Why? Because we have not observed any place in the whole universe where gravity does not exist in one form or another. is an observed natural phenomenon... The only law of gravity is that objects with mass attract each other... even this "law" is subject to change as we discover exactly what gravity is and where it originates... Everything else falls under The Theory of Gravity... Essentially, the what, where, when, why & how of gravity... And, as previously stated, if some aspect is deemed incorrect, the theory will adapt to a better explanation of observed events using facts and evidence... Science does not accept the Argument from Authority (latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) of, "some guy wandering a desert 3000 years ago claimed God said so" Are you arguing from a position of authority? Unlike you, I am arguing the position of Consensus RealityScience operates by consensus... There is no such thing as an objective reality... Reality is subjective, and we come to a consensus on each aspect of it... Scientists state their claim and evidence thereof, while other scientists "peer review" their evidence, trying to find any problems with the hypothesis, data collected, methods utilized, or conclusion drawn This is a fundamental difference between science and religion |
|
|
|
Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.
You mean like theory of gravity. LOL... The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is. If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down. This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts". Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law. The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct. Again, the force that we call gravity is a law. Why? Because there is no place where we do not see its force acting. The theory exists regarding how gravity works, and what it is made from, etc. Newton's law of gravitational force can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. When this article says that Newton's law of gravity was suspended by Einstein's theory of general relativity, this means that the law of gravity was suspended in the minds of a whole bunch of people (scientists) who would rather look at non-fact than fact. Theory, until proven factual, is fiction. Law is factual. The problem with many areas of science is that the scientists are accepting non-fact over fact. Thus, science itself is following a form of devolution, just like all of human-kind. No. Once again, the "Law of Gravity" is a theory. If some aspect of it is incorrect, that can be changed. I think rather than the law of gravity, you're thinking of the concept of gravity, the idea that, in our experience things tend to fall? You might have found some theory that is entitled "Law of Gravity," but that is not gravity. That is a theory about gravity. Gravity, itself, is a law. Why? Because we have not observed any place in the whole universe where gravity does not exist in one form or another. is an observed natural phenomenon... The only law of gravity is that objects with mass attract each other... even this "law" is subject to change as we discover exactly what gravity is and where it originates... Everything else falls under The Theory of Gravity... Essentially, the what, where, when, why & how of gravity... And, as previously stated, if some aspect is deemed incorrect, the theory will adapt to a better explanation of observed events using facts and evidence... Science does not accept the Argument from Authority (latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) of, "some guy wandering a desert 3000 years ago claimed God said so" |
|
|
|
No proof? LOL! The Wikipedia article is 25+ pages long, citing 192 different sources... not much proof there... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descentTopics include: A) Genetics 1) Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns 2) DNA sequencing 3) Endogenous retroviruses 4) Proteins 5) Pseudogenes 6) Other mechanisms a) Specific examples 1) Chromosome 2 in humans 2) Cytochrome c and b 3) Recent African origin of modern humans B) Evidence from comparative anatomy 1) Atavisms 2) Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development 3) Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution 4) Nested hierarchies and classification 5) Vestigial structures C) Evidence from paleontology ... D) Evidence from geographic distribution ... E) Evidence from selection ... F) Evidence from speciation ... G) Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration ... Is that not enough for you? Read my lips. Theory of evolution. Not fact of evolution. Anybody can edit Wikipedia to say whatever he wants. You seem to be stuck on the misunderstanding of the word theory... theory does not mean hypothesishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheoryA theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.
A theory can be normative (or prescriptive), meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact Then again, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t says: theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural theories.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:
conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6. contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
Idioms
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.
All the definitions, even the ones you posted, have at least a factor of uncertainty in them. There is no uncertainty. There are 2 different common uses of the word theory... 1) A colloquial idiom meaning a guess, hypothesis Or2) A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. You are trying to imply "The Theory of Gravity" is just a guess... Which makes you look like a moron |
|
|
|
No proof? LOL! The Wikipedia article is 25+ pages long, citing 192 different sources... not much proof there... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descentTopics include: A) Genetics 1) Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns 2) DNA sequencing 3) Endogenous retroviruses 4) Proteins 5) Pseudogenes 6) Other mechanisms a) Specific examples 1) Chromosome 2 in humans 2) Cytochrome c and b 3) Recent African origin of modern humans B) Evidence from comparative anatomy 1) Atavisms 2) Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development 3) Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution 4) Nested hierarchies and classification 5) Vestigial structures C) Evidence from paleontology ... D) Evidence from geographic distribution ... E) Evidence from selection ... F) Evidence from speciation ... G) Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration ... Is that not enough for you? Read my lips. Theory of evolution. Not fact of evolution. Anybody can edit Wikipedia to say whatever he wants. You seem to be stuck on the misunderstanding of the word theory... theory does not mean hypothesishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheoryA theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.
A theory can be normative (or prescriptive), meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact |
|
|
|
...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.
There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...
That is why paying attention in biology class pays off. I have two questions for you: Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please? Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please? I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it. If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time. These are not necessarily yes or no questions. We are considered mammalian by many. Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given. No proof? LOL! The Wikipedia article is 25+ pages long, citing 192 different sources... not much proof there... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descentTopics include: A) Genetics 1) Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns 2) DNA sequencing 3) Endogenous retroviruses 4) Proteins 5) Pseudogenes 6) Other mechanisms a) Specific examples 1) Chromosome 2 in humans 2) Cytochrome c and b 3) Recent African origin of modern humans B) Evidence from comparative anatomy 1) Atavisms 2) Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development 3) Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution 4) Nested hierarchies and classification 5) Vestigial structures C) Evidence from paleontology ... D) Evidence from geographic distribution ... E) Evidence from selection ... F) Evidence from speciation ... G) Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration ... Is that not enough for you? |
|
|
|
A lot of the things that are claimed to happen are mostly just mushrooms taking effect. Bring back mushrooms in churches and I will come join.
Wow, you noticed the shroom thing in the bible too? I thought I was the only one... Manna = shrooms According to the bible, manna sprouts up overnight (just like shrooms)... mana resembles a small loaf of bread (like shrooms) "And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it" (Numbers 11:9) "And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground" (Exodus 16:14) "...and when the sun waxed hot it melted" (Exodus 16:21) "And the house of Israel called the name there of manna: and it was like coriander seed" (Exodus 16:31) The biggest evidence for manna = shrooms, is the effect it has... eat shrooms, see a burning bush and talk to God... |
|
|
|
Yeah sure, and energy is just some kind of color ><
Here is why you're wrong:
aejheifdle
a84ba84ba84ba84b
What is the more complex chain of character?
I'm not certain. What do you think? If the second line is encoded in hexadecimal, I'd say the first line is more complex because with a j,h,l, it can't be hex, or even bitcoins base_58... you're looking at ASCII, base 256... which is much more complex than base 16... If they are both encoded in ASCII, I'd say the second line is more complex because it has twice as many digits (larger number) You could also say the first is more complex because it uses 8 different characters, while the second line only uses 4 different characters... The second line also appears to be a repeating pattern, but the first does not repeat... so the first line is more complex... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6TQ7ljcsjkYou fool... You fell victim to one of the classic blunders...
The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia...
But, only slightly less well-known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!... Hahaha hahaha ha... ... ... ...
|
|
|
|
Because there is no evidence in any of the complexity in the universe, that it comes from something less complex, we know that complexity must come from something at least as complex.
This is a horrible argument... If nothing can come from something less complex, means that God must have created the universe... who created God?!? You just said you need something more complex to create complexity... You can't use this to justify God's existence without using it to exclude the possibility of God... This is known as the Infinite Regress fallacy We don't know enough about God to suggest that He needed creating - I'm talking from a scientific viewpoint. However, the standard suggestion would be that He doesn't need creating. Here's how it works. If you build a garage, you might be inside the garage part of the time that you are building it. Yet, you are never part of the garage (except if you accidentally nail your hand to a stud with the nail gun). Neither is God part of the universe He created. Even if God is within the universe, He is never part of it. Why should He have to follow the laws of the universe? If He followed universe laws, he might become part of the universe a little. But such wouldn't necessitate that He exist completely according the laws of the universe. While from a scientific standpoint, we might speculate that God might need a cause or reator, we have a long way to go to see if He does or not. Are you a robot? Are you Marco Rubiobot 3000? Nevermind... silly question... a robot would understand logic... |
|
|
|
Because there is no evidence in any of the complexity in the universe, that it comes from something less complex, we know that complexity must come from something at least as complex.
This is a horrible argument... If nothing can come from something less complex, means that God must have created the universe... who created God?!? You just said you need something more complex to create complexity... You can't use this to justify God's existence without using it to exclude the possibility of God... This is known as the Infinite Regress fallacy At least science proves the existence of God, so we know He is real.
You should really stop saying that since nobody on the planet agrees with this statement... not even other Christians If you state something as fact, and nobody agrees with your evidence or conclusion... You are wrong. Period. Full Stop. |
|
|
|
It's possible than a God exists but the religions are just be created for make money  What do you think? I think religion is more about thought control than money... the money is just a bonus... Gather 1000+ gullible people in a room, stand behind a pulpit, and they will believe/do anything you say... Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, defending their private jetsYou can't manage that today... This dope filled world... and get in a long tube with a bunch of demons... it's deadly, and it works on your heart... it really does... Basically... buy a preacher a private jet, and he will call you a demon... wtf? |
|
|
|
The OP likely misread something that is similar to the accusation he makes... It is true that many/most pedophiles were molested as children. It tends to be a repeating cycle  10-14 yr old kid gets molested, then does the same thing to some other kid when he is older... quite sad, but I don't think it has anything to do with being gay... perhaps the OP just assumed since he was molested and turned gay, that all gay kids were molested? |
|
|
|
Actually, people are just the same. We can tell, because we have paintings from the 1300s. We can compare what people looked like back then with what they look like now.
Since people are just the same, it stands to reason that many of them are simply changing their religion... just like many people did back in the 1300s. The minor difference is that now days we have the religion of science that people are turning to. The religion of atheism has been around for thousands of years.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude... You're actually saying that because people are physically the same (which is not true) they're all the same? This amount of stupidity starts bothering me, you sure you don't have a brain cancer or something like that? You checked?  Religion is a mental disorder... It causes you to think differently than sane people... religious people make poor choices because they abhor logic and reason Religion makes people do stupid things... like strap a bomb to your chest, or fly a plane into a building... Religious people should be committed into psychiatric care for their own safety |
|
|
|
The less you understand, the greater your faith...
I knew we'd get some truth out of you sooner or later! Basically, what you are saying is - the more you understand, the less you need faith... I agree completely... the more educated a person becomes, the less they believe silly superstitions... |
|
|
|
Atheists don't really hate religion. They are simply deeply envious of religious people. Why is this? Because they lover their atheism, and instinctively know that they are going to Hell because of it. They are jealous of the religious who are going to Heaven. So, it isn't hate. It is deep envy.
BTW, Atheists do not believe in any of it. Be it heaven, God, hell, evil spirits, angels etc. So stop saying we want to go to heaven. Good point here... I'm certainly not jealous of heaven... I don't understand how streets paved with gold is supposed to be tempting... if it's everywhere, it must be worthless, right? Also, gold is soft... it will develop ruts in no time... I'll probably be the guy who has to re-pave that shit every week... If you think the pope-mobile is ridiculous, wait til you see the Jesus-mobile try to stop on slippery gold streets... he'll cause a 20-angel pileup... Heaven sounds like it will need a lot of maintenance already, and I only know 1 "fact" about it... gold streets... |
|
|
|
Atheists don't really hate religion. They are simply deeply envious of religious people. Why is this? Because they lover their atheism, and instinctively know that they are going to Hell because of it. They are jealous of the religious who are going to Heaven. So, it isn't hate. It is deep envy.
You remind me of a scene from The Breakfast Club... Claire: Your friends wouldn't mind because they look up to us.Brian: You're so conceited, Claire. You're so conceited. You're so, like, full of yourself; why are you like that?Claire: [teary] I'm not saying that to be conceited! I hate it! I hate having to go along with everything my friends say!Brian: Well, then why do you do it?Claire: I don't know, I don't—you don't understand…you don't. You're not friends with the same kind of people that Andy and I are friends with! You know, you just don't understand the pressure that they can put on you!
hint: BADecker = Claire God is really all there is, and I am so full of God. You are certainly full of something... hint: it's not God |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
