First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Are Atheists Empty
Posted 6/6/09

spensaur wrote:


Droodika wrote:



I find this funny. Do you know how many "holy wars" and "religion based wars" there have been over time? I think religion is a good way to make money. In all honesty, a lot of religion seems based off of bullshit hypocritical lies. Just my opinion though.


Conforming to the I hate religion fad of pop culture is also something I would call BS. Religion isn't all bad, you can't simply paint something with such a wide brush without revealing yourself to be small minded.



Where in that statement did i say i HATE religion and religious people? If you read my above statement, i have many religious friends and i respect that. I don't hate it, i just don't agree with their ways. But hey, everything has it's good and it's bad.


like the religion "born again" (sub division of Christianity)
they ask everyone in church to send money to their "pastor" (Apollo C. Quiboloy) and say that if you do, he will help the poor and you will be "rewarded" by God.
-_-
hell no -_- he buys sports cars, travels to different countries (for fun), makes EXPENSIVE private school using the money on the which "his people" send.

(My aunte is a born again and she's happy -_-. she graduated college (nurse or something) but instead, she "devoted her life to God" and instead, sells food (from their church) door to door only giving that money to their pastor while he enjoys it)
1360 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Earth, dnt bother...
Offline
Posted 6/6/09
I think Atheism is not a religion. In every religion there is a belief of how everything began, how this world was created and so on. Atheist people dont believe in any god. I think i would feel very empty if i was athiest. Think about it, when you die where will you go? If you think that there is no god then who created the heavens and the earth? Who brought you to life?
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/7/09 , edited 6/7/09

3mmi wrote:

I think Atheism is not a religion. In every religion there is a belief of how everything began, how this world was created and so on. Atheist people dont believe in any god. I think i would feel very empty if i was athiest. Think about it, when you die where will you go? If you think that there is no god then who created the heavens and the earth? Who brought you to life?


1. My life has never felt empty. I never need someone overlord like asshole looking over me to feel like My life had meaning I give my self a meaning.
2, After you die there is nothing, your brain stops working so you just not be anymore.
3. No one created Heaven for there is no heaven. There is zero evidence for a heaven. As for who created earth, gravity did, and to be more to the point the sun created the earth, just like all stars do. Open a text book its 5th grade science back in my day. should be about 4rth or 3rd grade science by now. Shit I forgot most of you are from America and there far less active in school wen it comes to Science, Art and Math.
4. Life. My mother gave birth to me, just like your mother gave birth to you. 'There is no life spark or soul. Even life can be explained using Simple jr. Highschool science science. Ontop of that you can even create the building blocks to life in a highschool lab using only what was found on early earth. So even life on this planet was not that unlikely at that there being no life ever to pop up would have been a lot less likely.
1360 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Earth, dnt bother...
Offline
Posted 6/7/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


3mmi wrote:

I think Atheism is not a religion. In every religion there is a belief of how everything began, how this world was created and so on. Atheist people dont believe in any god. I think i would feel very empty if i was athiest. Think about it, when you die where will you go? If you think that there is no god then who created the heavens and the earth? Who brought you to life?


1. My life has never felt empty. I never need someone overlord like asshole looking over me to feel like My life had meaning I give my self a meaning.
2, After you die there is nothing, your brain stops working so you just not be anymore.
3. No one created Heaven for there is no heaven. There is zero evidence for a heaven. As for who created earth, gravity did, and to be more to the point the sun created the earth, just like all stars do. Open a text book its 5th grade science back in my day. should be about 4rth or 3rd grade science by now. Shit I forgot most of you are from America and there far less active in school wen it comes to Science, Art and Math.
4. Life. My mother gave birth to me, just like your mother gave birth to you. 'There is no life spark or soul. Even life can be explained using Simple jr. Highschool science science. Ontop of that you can even create the building blocks to life in a highschool lab using only what was found on early earth. So even life on this planet was not that unlikely at that there being no life ever to pop up would have been a lot less likely.


i see. Looks like you dnt want to believe....in gods. And im not American and one of my fav subjects is science. But i dnt believe that this world was created by gravity..if it was then who created gravity..? and, your point on life...your mother gave birth to you, your mothers mother gave birth to her, your grandmothers mum gave birth to her...and when this keeps on going there has to be one man left. That man did not pop out of no where, he was created by god.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/7/09

3mmi wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


3mmi wrote:

I think Atheism is not a religion. In every religion there is a belief of how everything began, how this world was created and so on. Atheist people dont believe in any god. I think i would feel very empty if i was athiest. Think about it, when you die where will you go? If you think that there is no god then who created the heavens and the earth? Who brought you to life?


1. My life has never felt empty. I never need someone overlord like asshole looking over me to feel like My life had meaning I give my self a meaning.
2, After you die there is nothing, your brain stops working so you just not be anymore.
3. No one created Heaven for there is no heaven. There is zero evidence for a heaven. As for who created earth, gravity did, and to be more to the point the sun created the earth, just like all stars do. Open a text book its 5th grade science back in my day. should be about 4rth or 3rd grade science by now. Shit I forgot most of you are from America and there far less active in school wen it comes to Science, Art and Math.
4. Life. My mother gave birth to me, just like your mother gave birth to you. 'There is no life spark or soul. Even life can be explained using Simple jr. Highschool science science. Ontop of that you can even create the building blocks to life in a highschool lab using only what was found on early earth. So even life on this planet was not that unlikely at that there being no life ever to pop up would have been a lot less likely.


i see. Looks like you dnt want to believe....in gods. And im not American and one of my fav subjects is science. But i dnt believe that this world was created by gravity..if it was then who created gravity..? and, your point on life...your mother gave birth to you, your mothers mother gave birth to her, your grandmothers mum gave birth to her...and when this keeps on going there has to be one man left. That man did not pop out of no where, he was created by god.




'All Matter even light it self has some form of mass and all mass no matter the size create gravity.'


We exist here because some of the material of the nebula that the solar system was born from collapsed gravitationally and formed a planet in the golidlocks zone of the newly forming star that we know as Sol (the sun), its a rather common occurance actually, there are lots of planets in the goldilocks zone (the range where liquid water can exist, thus life as well) of their star. earth is just one of many planets in the galaxy that formed at the right distance from its star for liquid water to be able to exist, we know of at least 2 other planets that have the same conditions earth do, and thus are able to support life. so there very well might be life on those planets. Earth is nothing special. There are tons of other Earths in other solar systems in the galaxy and universe, Earths are rather common in the universe. Thus life is more then likely incredibly common in the universe as well. So earth and humans are nothing special, just yet another planet with life on it if you look at the universe as a whole.



Evolution Defined and Explained: Evolution can be a difficult concept for people to come to terms with, especially if they do not have much experience with life sciences. Is evolution a fact or a theory? Does evolution explain the origin of life or not? These are important questions which people need to be able to understand and answer. Evolution is not a minor matter - it is, in fact, the cornerstone of all modern biology.



Evolution can be a confusing term because it is used in more than one way. Many people in the general population have developed an incorrect understanding of evolution for a number of reasons. One is the misinformation spread by creationists - by misrepresenting evolution, they may hope that it will be easier to get people to disregard it. Another is simple ignorance of the topic itself and the specific ways in which science uses certain terminology.

There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is 'just a theory' rather than a fact, as if that were supposed to demonstrate that it shouldn't be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.
In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. Even most (although not all, unfortunately) creationists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

Another way the term evolution is used in biology is to refer to the idea of “common descent,” that all species alive today and which have ever existed descend from a single ancestor which existed at some time in the past. Obviously this process of descent has not been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

So, what does it mean to say that evolution is also a theory? For scientists, evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs — this is an important distinction lost upon creationists. There are different theories of evolution which can contradict or compete with each other in various ways and there can be strong and sometimes quite acrimonious disagreement between evolutionary scientists regarding their ideas.


There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.
Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.






For a good look at the Tree of life.
" http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg "





Ardipithecus ramidus = Australopithecus anamensis = Australopithecus afarensis = Homo habilis = Homo ergaster = Homo heidelbergensis = Homo sapiens.

As you can see Neanderthals split off at Homo Heidelbergenis becoming there own race.




-- Homo habilis (2.6 M BC - 1.9 M BC)
-- Homo erectus (1.9 M BC - 0.4 M BC)
-- Homo heidelbergensis (0.8 M BC - 0.2 M BC)

All species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct. Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, died out 24,000 years ago. Fact....!



This is the first Race to have the word Homo infront of the name.. Homo is greek for Human.






For a better understanding of Evolution facts and Theory one should look up the name Stephen Jay Gould who is the leading expert in explaining Science facts and theories.






what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens)

The Invisible and the Non-existent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)

Religion is just mind control. (George Carlin)

Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to chruch we are just making him Madder! (Homer Simpson)

Religions are all alike, founded upon fables and Mythologies. (Thomas Jefferson)

Faith is believing something you know ain't true! (Mark Twain)

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. (Napoleon Bonaparte)

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches. (Benjamin Franklin)

Religious leaders will always avail themselves of public ignorance for there own purpose. (Thomas Jefferson)

The way to see by faith is to shut the eyes to reason. (Benjamin Franklin)

It is only by dispelling the clouds of phantoms of religion that we shall discover truth, reason, and morality. (Baron D'Holbach)



1360 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Earth, dnt bother...
Offline
Posted 6/7/09 , edited 6/7/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


3mmi wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


3mmi wrote:

I think Atheism is not a religion. In every religion there is a belief of how everything began, how this world was created and so on. Atheist people dont believe in any god. I think i would feel very empty if i was athiest. Think about it, when you die where will you go? If you think that there is no god then who created the heavens and the earth? Who brought you to life?


1. My life has never felt empty. I never need someone overlord like asshole looking over me to feel like My life had meaning I give my self a meaning.
2, After you die there is nothing, your brain stops working so you just not be anymore.
3. No one created Heaven for there is no heaven. There is zero evidence for a heaven. As for who created earth, gravity did, and to be more to the point the sun created the earth, just like all stars do. Open a text book its 5th grade science back in my day. should be about 4rth or 3rd grade science by now. Shit I forgot most of you are from America and there far less active in school wen it comes to Science, Art and Math.
4. Life. My mother gave birth to me, just like your mother gave birth to you. 'There is no life spark or soul. Even life can be explained using Simple jr. Highschool science science. Ontop of that you can even create the building blocks to life in a highschool lab using only what was found on early earth. So even life on this planet was not that unlikely at that there being no life ever to pop up would have been a lot less likely.


i see. Looks like you dnt want to believe....in gods. And im not American and one of my fav subjects is science. But i dnt believe that this world was created by gravity..if it was then who created gravity..? and, your point on life...your mother gave birth to you, your mothers mother gave birth to her, your grandmothers mum gave birth to her...and when this keeps on going there has to be one man left. That man did not pop out of no where, he was created by god.




'All Matter even light it self has some form of mass and all mass no matter the size create gravity.'


We exist here because some of the material of the nebula that the solar system was born from collapsed gravitationally and formed a planet in the golidlocks zone of the newly forming star that we know as Sol (the sun), its a rather common occurance actually, there are lots of planets in the goldilocks zone (the range where liquid water can exist, thus life as well) of their star. earth is just one of many planets in the galaxy that formed at the right distance from its star for liquid water to be able to exist, we know of at least 2 other planets that have the same conditions earth do, and thus are able to support life. so there very well might be life on those planets. Earth is nothing special. There are tons of other Earths in other solar systems in the galaxy and universe, Earths are rather common in the universe. Thus life is more then likely incredibly common in the universe as well. So earth and humans are nothing special, just yet another planet with life on it if you look at the universe as a whole.



Evolution Defined and Explained: Evolution can be a difficult concept for people to come to terms with, especially if they do not have much experience with life sciences. Is evolution a fact or a theory? Does evolution explain the origin of life or not? These are important questions which people need to be able to understand and answer. Evolution is not a minor matter - it is, in fact, the cornerstone of all modern biology.



Evolution can be a confusing term because it is used in more than one way. Many people in the general population have developed an incorrect understanding of evolution for a number of reasons. One is the misinformation spread by creationists - by misrepresenting evolution, they may hope that it will be easier to get people to disregard it. Another is simple ignorance of the topic itself and the specific ways in which science uses certain terminology.

There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is 'just a theory' rather than a fact, as if that were supposed to demonstrate that it shouldn't be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.
In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. Even most (although not all, unfortunately) creationists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

Another way the term evolution is used in biology is to refer to the idea of “common descent,” that all species alive today and which have ever existed descend from a single ancestor which existed at some time in the past. Obviously this process of descent has not been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

So, what does it mean to say that evolution is also a theory? For scientists, evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs — this is an important distinction lost upon creationists. There are different theories of evolution which can contradict or compete with each other in various ways and there can be strong and sometimes quite acrimonious disagreement between evolutionary scientists regarding their ideas.


There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.
Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.






For a good look at the Tree of life.
" http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg "





Ardipithecus ramidus = Australopithecus anamensis = Australopithecus afarensis = Homo habilis = Homo ergaster = Homo heidelbergensis = Homo sapiens.

As you can see Neanderthals split off at Homo Heidelbergenis becoming there own race.




-- Homo habilis (2.6 M BC - 1.9 M BC)
-- Homo erectus (1.9 M BC - 0.4 M BC)
-- Homo heidelbergensis (0.8 M BC - 0.2 M BC)

All species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct. Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, died out 24,000 years ago. Fact....!



This is the first Race to have the word Homo infront of the name.. Homo is greek for Human.






For a better understanding of Evolution facts and Theory one should look up the name Stephen Jay Gould who is the leading expert in explaining Science facts and theories.






what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens)

The Invisible and the Non-existent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)

Religion is just mind control. (George Carlin)

Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to chruch we are just making him Madder! (Homer Simpson)

Religions are all alike, founded upon fables and Mythologies. (Thomas Jefferson)

Faith is believing something you know ain't true! (Mark Twain)

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. (Napoleon Bonaparte)

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches. (Benjamin Franklin)

Religious leaders will always avail themselves of public ignorance for there own purpose. (Thomas Jefferson)

The way to see by faith is to shut the eyes to reason. (Benjamin Franklin)

It is only by dispelling the clouds of phantoms of religion that we shall discover truth, reason, and morality. (Baron D'Holbach)






Are you saying that us humans evolved from monkeys? ( if we eveolved from monkeys then god must have created monkeys)!

Posted 6/8/09 , edited 6/8/09
Yet another religion discussion..................


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'All Matter even light it self has some form of mass and all mass no matter the size create gravity.'


http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/light_mass.html <-- No. (very long post you have there, btw.)

Regardless people should just stop bashing each other with their beliefs/denials. Don't force your beliefs on others, I say.
7895 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / ~_
Offline
Posted 6/8/09
dont think so...
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
'All Matter even light it self has some form of mass and all mass no matter the size create gravity.'


What’s with the iridescent posts? I’ve been seeing that a lot lately and really bugs me. Not attacking anybody or anything, there’s nothing wrong with it, but for some reason I can’t bring myself to read large posts when it feels like the poster is digitally coloring pictures at me. It gets a Picasso effect and my eyes start glazing in search of some vague approximation of the human face.

On topic, the very thing that makes light so spectacular is the fact that it does –not- have mass. Items with mass are not able to move at the speed of light.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/8/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
'All Matter even light it self has some form of mass and all mass no matter the size create gravity.'


What’s with the iridescent posts? I’ve been seeing that a lot lately and really bugs me. Not attacking anybody or anything, there’s nothing wrong with it, but for some reason I can’t bring myself to read large posts when it feels like the poster is digitally coloring pictures at me. It gets a Picasso effect and my eyes start glazing in search of some vague approximation of the human face.

On topic, the very thing that makes light so spectacular is the fact that it does –not- have mass. Items with mass are not able to move at the speed of light.


If that was the case than light it self would not be affected by a black hole.
An the fact is Light is bent by the gravitational force of a black hole is it not.
'Would you like to show the evidence for your Ideals On light speed for it seems flawed to me. I like to see it and its research before I can accept that. Anyhow I only pointed out the facts. I did not add in any Opinion based things. So How can you call it a attack in any way.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/8/09

static_moe wrote:

Yet another religion discussion..................


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'All Matter even light it self has some form of mass and all mass no matter the size create gravity.'


http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/light_mass.html <-- No. (very long post you have there, btw.)

Regardless people should just stop bashing each other with their beliefs/denials. Don't force your beliefs on others, I say.


Pointing out facts is not attacking someones beliefs, only there baseless Opinions.
In my onpinion Religion should be placed at the same level as everything else. If there is no evidence for it, than it should be dismissed just like every thing else. Religion should not be treated any different.

Posted 6/8/09
don't really care, everyone is different when you refer to being empty =T
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
'All Matter even light it self has some form of mass and all mass no matter the size create gravity.'


What’s with the iridescent posts? I’ve been seeing that a lot lately and really bugs me. Not attacking anybody or anything, there’s nothing wrong with it, but for some reason I can’t bring myself to read large posts when it feels like the poster is digitally coloring pictures at me. It gets a Picasso effect and my eyes start glazing in search of some vague approximation of the human face.

On topic, the very thing that makes light so spectacular is the fact that it does –not- have mass. Items with mass are not able to move at the speed of light.


If that was the case than light it self would not be affected by a black hole.
An the fact is Light is bent by the gravitational force of a black hole is it not.
'Would you like to show the evidence for your Ideals On light speed for it seems flawed to me. I like to see it and its research before I can accept that. Anyhow I only pointed out the facts. I did not add in any Opinion based things. So How can you call it a attack in any way.



Wait, huh, what? Where did I call it an attack? Anyway, go ahead and read Steven Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time,” I’m pretty sure that’s where I first read this but i may be mistaken...
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/8/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
'All Matter even light it self has some form of mass and all mass no matter the size create gravity.'


What’s with the iridescent posts? I’ve been seeing that a lot lately and really bugs me. Not attacking anybody or anything, there’s nothing wrong with it, but for some reason I can’t bring myself to read large posts when it feels like the poster is digitally coloring pictures at me. It gets a Picasso effect and my eyes start glazing in search of some vague approximation of the human face.

On topic, the very thing that makes light so spectacular is the fact that it does –not- have mass. Items with mass are not able to move at the speed of light.


If that was the case than light it self would not be affected by a black hole.
An the fact is Light is bent by the gravitational force of a black hole is it not.
'Would you like to show the evidence for your Ideals On light speed for it seems flawed to me. I like to see it and its research before I can accept that. Anyhow I only pointed out the facts. I did not add in any Opinion based things. So How can you call it a attack in any way.



Wait, huh, what? Where did I call it an attack? Anyway, go ahead and read Steven Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time,” I’m pretty sure that’s where I first read this but i may be mistaken...


No, your right the photon is a massless particle, but a massless particle still has relativistic mass, they just don't have invariant mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Posted 6/8/09
lol, and now we're arguing about light... someone make a new thread for it
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.