This argument...
4. The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.
...asserts that if X is the speed of the fall of an object in air, then a building collapse should be X - Y speed. Where Y is resistance by the part of the building below the section falling on it.
This argument is flawed in it's premises, it's approach, and in it's conclusion.
The "free fall speed" is V = 32 ft * time^2/seconds.
Roughly in the first second, an object moves 32 feet. In the second second, 64 feet, and so on.
I'm not seeing support for #4 either in the video of the towers collapse, the seismic records, or in the math and structural stuff.....
Nor are you taking into account many other factors that show that buildings like these can not fall in free fall style as they did, without some critically timed detonations going off inside to make them fall that way. If we wanted to use odds, it couldn't happen with one building. Three buildings in the same day equals demolition equals an inside job.  |
|
|
|
The US space agency has just announced the discovery of the new "exoplanets" which are considered as similar to Earth due to their distance from the star they orbit. Timothy Morton, associate research scholar at Princeton University in New Jersey, said: "We have discovered 1,284 new planets - the most explanets ever announced at one time." It more than doubles the previous amount of exoplanets found by the Kepler Telescope, taking the total number to 2,325. It comes after NASA said they now also believe every star in space has at least one planet orbiting it, further increasing the chance of life evolving somewhere. Paul Hertz, Astrophysics Division director at NASA Headquarters in Washington, said: "The Kepler specialist telescope is the first capable of detecting call rocky planets in the habitable zone of their parent star. "When launched we did not know if exoplanets or rocky exoplanets were rare and we now know they are extremely common and most stars have at least one planet orbiting. "Our research is on just a fraction of possible exoplanets and knowing this is the first step in answering the question if we are alone in the universe." Among the new discoveries are also a further 100 grade A rocky exoplanets which are the most likely for life to begin just like Earth. And of these 24 were found to be of a similar size to Earth and distance from their stars in the so-called Goldilocks habitable zone, making them the most likelyy candidates for life. Combined with 12 already found by Kepler researchers, there are now 36 of the Earth-like planets and a further 12 possible ones awaiting verification. It was previously believed that many stars were out there alone, meaning the odds of other Earth-like planets with the right conditions for life to start are much higher than ever believed. The information has come from astronomers researching swathes of data from the Kepler Telescope mission. Initially more than 4,600 possible exoplanets were found and the 2,325 are those which have now been confirmed as definite exoplanets. NASA made the major announcement about the latest findings from the Kepler research at a press conference which started at 6pm. A NASA spokesman said: "When Kepler was launched in March 2009, scientists did not know how common planets were outside our solar system. "Thanks to Kepler’s treasure trove of discoveries, astronomers now believe there may be at least one planet orbiting every star in the sky." Kepler completed its prime mission in 2012, and collected data for an additional year in an extended mission. In 2014, the spacecraft began a new extended mission called K2. K2 continues the search for exoplanets while introducing new research opportunities to study young stars, supernovae and other cosmic phenomena. http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/668945/NASA-Chance-of-life-being-out-there-boosted-as-every-star-has-at-least-one-planet-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Somewhere, an alien is wondering what we are up to... anyone who is intelligent enough knows that there can be a life similar to earth on other planets. because everyone knows a little bit about universe. nobody convinces me that earth is the only planet which has life.. definitely agreed.. human kind cannot be the only living creature on the whole universe but mankind must be the dumbest of all for sure .. we are ruining a wonderful planet named earth. Except for one thing. There is no proof that there is any life on other planets. There isn't even any evidence. There is only question and hope. The idea that there is life on other planets comes from the idea of evolution. Evolution is impossible mathematically. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0. The idea of aliens on planets is simply another religion, or a branch of the evolution religion, which is a branch of the atheism religion. Study it, and you will see that I am right. Am I saying that there are no aliens, or that there is no life on any other planet? No. I am only saying we have no evidence for such, and therefore no odds that can suggest that it might be a fact that there are. |
|
|
|
An interesting post but it is more of an argument against the traditional mechanism of Darwinian evolution where evolution is felt to be driven by random mutation combined with natural selection then an argument that there is no evolution. Right in the first line you quoted it says: Apostolou establishes that parental choice is primary in human evolutionary history: ... Note that it says, "human evolutionary history." It doesn't specify the history of human family tradition. Then later it refers to evolutionary history again: Therefore human evolutionary history has left modern individuals, in a world where parental choice and control has been all-but eliminated from mainstream life, woefully ill-equipped to manage their sexual lives. Is this really talking about human traditions when it says "evolutionary history?" Personally, I understand to mean that family traditions are controlled by the process of evolution, which has to do with random selection, which is mathematically impossible in the extreme by any known process. Garbage in garbage out. Henry M. Morris have degrees in civil engeneering and not evolution or mathematics. It's obvious to anyone that know alittle about the evolution theory that he don't have a clue what he talks about Perhaps about Morris. But you don't know how to do the math or you would see that Morris is right in this area. Morris went easy on the evolutionists in two ways. First, he assumed a evolutionary stance of every other mutation being a beneficial mutation... something that would never happen in nature even once. Second, he didn't take into account all of nature that would have destroyed any mutation, good or bad, had a mutation even happened. The point is that evolution is not only impossible, but it is so extremely impossible that any scientist that looks into evolution should be embarrassed beyond blushing that he is considered part of the scientific community. Since impossible evolution is believed among so many, it is a religion, hands down. |
|
|
|
Can't you see how beautiful His creation?
How can you see the beauty without seeing the ugly too? Did your all-loving god create HIV, cancer, smallpox, floods, drought, malaria, flesh-eating bacteria, leukemia, and poisonous snakes (to name a few)? A reasonably powerful enemy did this. So... you're saying... it went more like this? High Stakes Intelligent Designinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_G9awnDCmgand this? The King of Kings' Speech [Bible slavery]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDgCnoCMf9kIt went like this: All power is God's. God gave power and freedom to some angels, for His and their joy and glory. Satan, one of the angels, was given great authority for caring for people. Satan, in his freedom, turned evil and went against God and man. Man was tricked by Satan into becoming evil. God prepared a plan to root evil out of everything. This plan included: - New Heavens and New Earth; - Destruction for the Old (this one); - The right to freely be destroyed with the Old or join Him in the New. Satan and many of the angels decided to buck God's plan, have lost in their bucking effort, and will be destroyed with the old. The offering still stands for mankind. The interesting thing is that Satan and his demons are now locked in to their position. They asked for it this way, and God gave it to them. Most living people who do not understand God are not locked in to their future position. Those who are saved virtually are locked in to the New. A few of the knowledgeable unsaved are locked in to the Old and destruction. How about you? Are you so completely adamant in your direction against God that you can never be changed? Or is there still some slight hope for you. Change, before you are locked into your way of destruction along with this Old Universe. |
|
|
|
yes %0
no %100
The results are far better than i imagined. Bitcointalk.org users ain't sheep at all it seems!
Governments are become too complicated beings. You can't expect them to be fully innocent even if you voted for them.
I almost voted Yes. Because NSA. LOL Too late, they already know you, and for quite a while now.  |
|
|
|
anyone who is intelligent enough knows that there can be a life similar to earth on other planets. because everyone knows a little bit about universe.
nobody convinces me that earth is the only planet which has life..
Anyone who is intelligent realizes that it is only a guess that there is life out there. |
|
|
|
Can't you see how beautiful His creation?
How can you see the beauty without seeing the ugly too? Did your all-loving god create HIV, cancer, smallpox, floods, drought, malaria, flesh-eating bacteria, leukemia, and poisonous snakes (to name a few)? A reasonably powerful enemy did this. God is correcting it with the New Heavens and the New Earth. Jesus work on the cross did two things: 1. It kept this universe from being destroyed for a time, so that we would have time to live; 2. It opened the option for those who accept salvation to go to the New Place. Since everything operates on principle, you need to believe in the salvation to get to the New Place. |
|
|
|
An interesting post but it is more of an argument against the traditional mechanism of Darwinian evolution where evolution is felt to be driven by random mutation combined with natural selection then an argument that there is no evolution. Right in the first line you quoted it says: Apostolou establishes that parental choice is primary in human evolutionary history: ... Note that it says, "human evolutionary history." It doesn't specify the history of human family tradition. Then later it refers to evolutionary history again: Therefore human evolutionary history has left modern individuals, in a world where parental choice and control has been all-but eliminated from mainstream life, woefully ill-equipped to manage their sexual lives. Is this really talking about human traditions when it says "evolutionary history?" Personally, I understand to mean that family traditions are controlled by the process of evolution, which has to do with random selection, which is mathematically impossible in the extreme by any known process. |
|
|
|
I think we should take the best out of all religions.
I think we should take the worst out of all religions... throw it in the trash, and forget about that nonsense I agree with you Moloch better to take the worst of all religions and remove it to the list. The ones that doesn't even do good. Atheism. |
|
|
|
The demographics of atheism and religiosity have some puzzling issues. The differences between Europe and the US, countries with similar economic development are striking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#United_StatesThere seems to be a trend on the United States for an increase of non-religious people, but religiosity on the United States is way over the one on Europe. There is more than one explanation: 1) State religions on Europe reduced competition and allowed some dominant churches to keep defending absurd positions. 2) There was on European eastern countries a state police against religion under communism (still today, eastern Germany is the most atheist region on the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Germany). But many of European churches' ideas are not more crazy than the American ones. And some of the top atheist countries (like the Scandinavians) never had any state police against religion. So, the reasons are not obvious. Anyway, the numbers are not completely favorable to atheism. Basically, atheist have much lower birth rates than religious people. Some of the reasons for this low birth rate are cultural. Statistics say that atheist have higher levels of education ( http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/05/7-facts-about-atheists/). Well, around the world, educated people seem to be actively investing on their own extinction. Some other are economical. Atheism is predominant on developed countries, where there are (were?) strong social security systems. Having kids is a bad deal, because they are expensive (no more child work) and they aren't needed to assure patrimonial security on old age. Of course, since social security is going to explode because of these low birth rates and longer life expectation, this will change soon. Some other reasons are religious: religious people do take seriously the command to multiply themselves. That's because Europe is a lot older than America. There was a time when Europe was young and carefree. Then God slapped them for their disobedience; they became somewhat obedient again. America is simply on her way towards being slapped. |
|
|
|
Sexual selection under parental choice, by Menelaos Apostolou (Review by Bruce Charlton)http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-science-of-sex-most-important.htmlApostolou establishes that parental choice is primary in human evolutionary history: for many hundreds of generations of our ancestors it was primarily parents who chose and controlled who their children would marry and reproduce-with; and the individual sexual preferences of both men and women were relegated to a secondary role. This means that it was mainly parent choice that shaped human mating preferences - and personal choice would have been relegated to a subordinate role within and after marriage (e.g. infidelity choices; and the choice to end marriage - e.g. when to divorce). Most of this book is taken up by the collection and discussion of a mass of empirical data - hundreds of references, and the detailed working-through of the implications; but the take home message is relatively simple and clear. Apostolou shows that in most societies in human history, and continuing in most modern societies outside of The West, individual men and women had very little choice of their mates - and that this choice was nearly always made by their parents. In other words, marriages were arranged by the parents of the husband and wife - especially the daughter's marriage, and usually by their fathers more than their mothers. Parents preferences for a marriage partner differ from those of their offspring. In general, parents (relatively to their children, especially daughter) prefer delaying sexual relationships until an early marriage with early onset of child-bearing and little or no extra-marital sex. And parents have been generally hostile to divorce. The characteristics parents prefer (compared with individual preferences) include good character, ability to provide resources (especially men), coming from a 'good family' - with high status and wealth, and pre-marital chastity (especially in women). The characteristics individuals prefer (compared with their parents) include beauty and good looks (hair, face, figure etc. in a woman; muscular physique in a man), a charming and entertaining personality, the ability to provide sexual excitement and so on. The system of parental sexual choice seems to be unique to humans - which makes it a matter of exceptional biological interest: we may be the only species that has not evolved to choose our own mates. More exactly, the ancestral system was probably (to simplify) that two sets of parents controlled who their children married - the individual preferences of the prospective husband and wife may or may not have been consulted. Individual choice was probably important mostly after marriage - since there was the possibility of extra-marital liaisons (although Apostolou documents that these were extremely risky, and generally very harshly punished, up to and including death - especially for women). But all the ancestral societies permitted divorce (while strongly discouraging it - since this undermined parental decisions) - although mainly in a context where one of the spouses turned out to be unsatisfactory from the point of view of providing grandchildren (eg. men who did not provide sufficient resources - due to their behaviour or from illness or injury, or women who were barren). Probably since women are more controlled in arranging marriage, it is mainly women who initiate divorces. Apostolou summarizes this as: Parents decide who gets married, children decide whether they stay married. Another way of describing this is that parents screen or filter prospective spouses - and individual preferences only work within this pre-screened and filtered population. Consequently, modern men and women are not adapted to select a partner from an unscreened population - and not equipped with the proper instincts to assist their choice; so they are vulnerable to deception and exploitation. Therefore human evolutionary history has left modern individuals, in a world where parental choice and control has been all-but eliminated from mainstream life, woefully ill-equipped to manage their sexual lives. This affects both men and women adversely - but in partly different ways. men and women share a common problem of not being worried-enough about the problem of finding suitable long-term mates, marrying and having children - precisely because this whole business was managed for them by parents through hundreds of preceding human generations. Women delay and delay marriage and child-bearing, and seem unconcerned about their genetic extinction - because their deep inbuilt expectation is that these matters will be arranged for-them. men worry too much about attaining high status among men, and becoming a good provider - when these were selected for in a world where prospective in-laws wanted these attributes from men; but in the modern world they are an ineffectual strategy for getting a mate. In sum (and in terms of their biological fitness) modern men are too worried about working hard, and not worried enough about meeting and impressing individual women. So men and women who are apparently, in biological and historical terms, extremely well-qualified as potential husbands and wives, remain unmarried and childless in large and increasing numbers. Modern single people therefore are much too happy about their living in a state of unattached childlessness, than is good for their reproductive success. And this (biologically) foolish happiness is at least partly a consequence of evolutionary history: people are behaving as if mating and marriage will be sorted-out by parents - but it isn't. However, as is usual in works of evolutionary psychology - in a subject where the professionals are almost 100 percent atheists (and militant atheists at that!), in this book there is a too brief and conceptually inadequate consideration of the role of religion. The subject gets about three pages, and religion is treated as merely a trumped-up rationalization for enforcing biological imperatives. However, it is not mentioned that in modern societies it is only among the religious that we can find biologically viable patterns of mating, marriage and family - and indeed only among some particular religions that are traditionalist in ethics and patriarchal in structure: which fits exactly with the evolutionary predictions. My point is that religion needs to be regarded as a cause, not merely a consequence, of sexual behaviour and selection pressure; in sum, religion (more exactly, some specific religions) is the only known antidote to the pattern of maladaptive modern sexuality which is trending towards extinction.Another omission is the role of intoxication by alcohol and drugs. Much of modern sexual behaviour is initiated in parties, bars and nightclubs; and occurs more-or-less under the influence of intoxicants - and this in itself deranges delicate brain functioning and destroys the benefits of behavioural adaptations that may have taken centuries or millennia to evolve. An intoxicated person is maladaptive. So, from a biological perspective, I would contend that there is no reason to suppose we can solve the biological problems of modernity outwith religion (especially since the social system of religion has in practice been replaced by... the mass media - see my book Addicted to Distraction). Biological knowledge can diagnose the problem - but science cannot provide a solution nor the motivation to implement it; since humans are not evolved to structure their sexuality according to biological principles. We are 'set-up' to seek our own gratification and try to avoid suffering with reproductive success as a by-product - we do not seek directly to achieve optimal personal/ or tribal/ or national/ or species-level reproductive fitness. Such omissions and other imperfections do not detract from the exceptional originality and importance of this book and the empirical research and theoretical discussion which it summarizes. In a world where actual scientific achievement was the primary determinant of professional success; Menelaos Apostolou would be among the most prestigious, most cited, and most intellectually influential people in evolutionary psychology. I hope that this deserved outcome will, sooner or later, come to pass. Maybe I'll read this later. But it starts out with irrelevance. There wasn't any evolution. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0. |
|
|
|
Hope the judgement for your sins will come soon.
Best regards.
So when all is said and done you've just effectively just said "Moloch, I hope you die sooner rather than later, for no other reason than simply because you don't believe in my "loving" religious cult." Care to remind us all which "loving" religious cult you're a member of again? That way I can mentally make a note of it, so I can AVOID it. Best regards. Yes. It is such a hard question. Should you and Moloch die sooner or later, since everybody dies? Here's what I mean. If your religion is right, a bunch of people in my religion simply miss out on some fun in life. Of course, they may feel a lot more comfortable at times. If my religion is right, a bunch of people go to Heaven, and a bunch to Hell... when they die. If you live longer and my religion is right, there is more time for you to be saved (even though there is more time for you to sin, making your Hell punishment greater if you aren't saved). If you live shorter time - and my religion is right - you have less time to dissuade others from my religion, thereby causing fewer people to go to Hell. If your religion is right and you live either longer or shorter, what does it matter? A hundred years or less (usually) and it is all gone forever, anyway. This probably means that you guys should die young just in case my religion is right, so that you don't drag a bunch of others off to Hell with you; 'cause your religion says that nothing really matters at all, anyway; 'cause everybody dies, and is simply gone and forgotten, anyway. Using similar BADlogic... If you died right now, you'd go to heaven, which is undoubtedly better than life on Earth... If you lived longer, you would only prolong your suffering... why not kill yourself and enjoy heaven today? Why don't you kill yourself? It's the most logical thing to do... if you want to be happy... in heaven... you should kill yourself right now! You are so good, except that you missed the whole thing. If my last act on earth was killing myself, it wouldn't be repentance for sinning. Rather, it would be sinning. This means that I would lose Heaven. You really need to repent for even suggesting this, so that if you die right now, say from a stroke, you can still get Heaven as your eternal home. I have found away you can kill yourself and your god will let you in heaven.. Find children who need kidneys or lungs..Give your body to sick kids so they can live longer..God will love you for it the ultimate sacrifice.. REMEMBER JESUS DONE IT FOR YOU.. NOW GO KILL YOURSELF  You better hope I don't follow your recommendation. Why? I and my words here might just be the only chance you have for salvation. |
|
|
|
Hope the judgement for your sins will come soon.
Best regards.
So when all is said and done you've just effectively just said "Moloch, I hope you die sooner rather than later, for no other reason than simply because you don't believe in my "loving" religious cult." Care to remind us all which "loving" religious cult you're a member of again? That way I can mentally make a note of it, so I can AVOID it. Best regards. Yes. It is such a hard question. Should you and Moloch die sooner or later, since everybody dies? Here's what I mean. If your religion is right, a bunch of people in my religion simply miss out on some fun in life. Of course, they may feel a lot more comfortable at times. If my religion is right, a bunch of people go to Heaven, and a bunch to Hell... when they die. If you live longer and my religion is right, there is more time for you to be saved (even though there is more time for you to sin, making your Hell punishment greater if you aren't saved). If you live shorter time - and my religion is right - you have less time to dissuade others from my religion, thereby causing fewer people to go to Hell. If your religion is right and you live either longer or shorter, what does it matter? A hundred years or less (usually) and it is all gone forever, anyway. This probably means that you guys should die young just in case my religion is right, so that you don't drag a bunch of others off to Hell with you; 'cause your religion says that nothing really matters at all, anyway; 'cause everybody dies, and is simply gone and forgotten, anyway. Using similar BADlogic... If you died right now, you'd go to heaven, which is undoubtedly better than life on Earth... If you lived longer, you would only prolong your suffering... why not kill yourself and enjoy heaven today? Why don't you kill yourself? It's the most logical thing to do... if you want to be happy... in heaven... you should kill yourself right now! You are so good, except that you missed the whole thing. If my last act on earth was killing myself, it wouldn't be repentance for sinning. Rather, it would be sinning. This means that I would lose Heaven. You really need to repent for even suggesting this, so that if you die right now, say from a stroke, you can still get Heaven as your eternal home. Which religion believes that you lose heaven because of suicide? Catholics used to believe that you went to hell for suicide, but they no longer believe in hell... sooo... at worst its just a sin like any other... as Jesus said, all sins are equal I was raised as a protestant, and while they did not encourage suicide (which would obviously be counterproductive), they didn't preach anything about suicide keeping a person from heaven Yabut, you went to school for all those years and studied religion. From 1 John 3:15b: ... and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. Have you figured out which religion yet? Isn't it Bible religion? |
|
|
|
You could always change the topic title to, "I'm in love, but I'm throwing in the towel!" |
|
|
|
No! People lie all the time, lying is simply part of social interaction.
Try being honest to everybody: "you stink, your kids are ugly, what's wrong with your hair, I want to have sex with your girlfriend, etc. etc." ... Many people don't appreciate honesty, because honesty is often just plain rude.
So we lie. Kids learn it at a young age, the trick is to teach them when it is okay and when it isn't okay.
Um... if someone stinks then tell him or not. No lie needed. I would kick anyone out who lies clearly to me on such matter. So in practice say it if you are near him or don't mention it. No lie needed. With ugly kids... why say something at all? He can't change anything with it. And if he asks then say something diplomatic... like "That child has nice hair" or whatever. If you can't find anything say that you don't want to answer, do as you did not hear the question and speak about something different or say something like that there are prettier ones at worst. No need to lie. In fact I would assume a parent would know the truth and such question would be a test about your character. Brownnose or honest person. Your girlfriend should be happy if you ask her what she did with your hair and there are so many ways to say something that you won't offend. I wonder why this black white view is seen by some on that topic.This is a good question. Even black and white screens show gray, which she will be in a few years. Or is she a liar by coloring her hair? |
|
|
|
Glad too see bit-coiners have some gray matter between their eyes.
Still not sure why some educated people would even consider following these ancient books that preach nonsense.
I guess their brain can compartmentalize the nonsense so they can separate it from the reality.
Somehow they manage to reconcile all the nonsense with the reality around them.
Our human brains are truly amazing.
Intelligence has been affected by entropy like everything else. That's why people have forgotten that they need the ancient religion of God, the Christian religion, backed by Judaism. |
|
|
|
Hindu Sena asks gods to help Donald Trump win US election
I like the 3rd eye they gave him. (Hindi: बिंदी, from Sanskrit bindu, meaning "point, drop, dot or small particle") is a red dot worn on the center of the forehead, commonly by Hindu and Jain women. The word Bindu dates back to the hymn of creation known as Nasadiya Sukta in Rig Veda[1] Bindu is considered the point at which creation begins and may become unity. It is also described as "the sacred symbol of the cosmos in its unmanifested state".[2][3] Bindi is a bright dot of red colour applied in the center of the forehead close to the eyebrow worn in Indian Subcontinent (particularly amongst Hindus in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka)[2] and Southeast Asia among Bali and Javanese Hindus. Bindi in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism is associated with Ajna Chakra and Bindu[4] is known as the third eye chakra and is linked to the pineal gland[clarification needed] which may inform a model of its envisioning.[4] Bindu is the point or dot around which the mandala is created, representing the universe.[3][5] Bindi has historical and cultural presence in the region of Greater India.[6][7] All right! The Trump religion! |
|
|
|
I hate religion because I'm an intelligent liberal person and it hurts my feelings.
If you would find a better religion than your intellectual liberal religion, your feelings wouldn't get so hurt over nothing. Hillary will ban religion and religious opinion criminals will be jailed. Then we can finally have freedom. That's a lie, just like the gun control thing. Her religion of banning religion is only a control-freak thing. |
|
|
|
Believe we need to drink grape Kool aid when the next comet comes by so we can catch a ride through the cosmos.
Anyone else pumped or what?
The exploration of space seems inevitable now maybe not in any current generation alive but very soon.
And nike shoes... Of course, there are always the Phoenix asteroids... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luaRtGn2tsI#t=5m52s. |
|
|
|
I hate religion because I'm an intelligent liberal person and it hurts my feelings.
If you would find a better religion than your intellectual liberal religion, your feelings wouldn't get so hurt over nothing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
