EdgedThesis

just a thought on this assuming that to be true, that would strongly support the rubber band theory along with the thought that the universe has/will undergo an infinite series of big bangs forming expanding universes that eventually slow down retract into a single point which causes the next big bang and so on? Would it? How so? I'm not so hot on the cyclic big bang model ever since I heard that the the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, i.e. it doesn't look like it's going to retract into any kind of crunch. I need to read more about it though. I haven't read up on it, but a possibility is that the outer elements of our galaxy are in constant revolution around the center, even as they accelerate outwards. Well, at least i think it is. That way, when two elements (Galaxies, I guess. Or superclusters. I dunno.) of our Universe collide in their revolution, it could start a gravitational chain reaction that makes it crunch. I just made this up, don't put too much stock in it.

We don't have to bow down to the will of nature's random evolution anymore. We now have the ability to restructure our own genetic code. We have the potential to increase our abilities right now-- we don't have to wait.

Yeah, before I came back to this topic I read a comment that said something about her 'being an hero.' That kind of gave it away. That, and that there is no professional reporting on it.

Skeptical. If it's true though, then damn. Nobody's lifespan should be cut short by that much. Unless I hate them. No, scratch that. Go with the first one.

A couple of friends and I had a serious obsession with fire a while ago. So basically, we were a bunch of insane idiots looking for fun. We stole some turpentine from a construction site (like I told you, we were... obsessed), and set it up near a fenced-off highway. We were going to hide it for later use, but someone accidentally kicked it open and it lay on it's side, leaking it's flammable contents. Being obsessed, like I've told you before, we did not want to waste it. So we threw a match into the puddle of turpentine, and ran our [wagon] off. A trail of flame leapt up from the ground and into this huge barrel, and almost in slow motion, I saw two portions of it rip apart. The metal was somehow roughly jagged and soft at the same time, and the two halves of the barrel resembled dragon's teeth: a huge plume of flame lifted into the air. We looked at eachother for a brief second, and ran in separate directions. Minutes later, we heard sirens.

I think he assigned such a low 'existence factor' on it because of what he was saying earlier, everything that happens we can explain. Now, that doesn't rule out God lurking in between dimensions and influencing 'chance', but it's a very low possibility, thus the low percentage. When you get to the entire 'how the universe was created' question, that percentage rises to 50% because that is one of the questions we can't answer. But in everyday life, it's low.

^agreed. I know that if I ever get kicked in the balls, I'm going to pulverize yours. By sheer force of anger I'd suck it up and slam a brick down there. And good--most fights end up on the floor anyway. Real fights, I mean. Spars are all quickness and dodging, but in reality someone is going to get tackled. I'm getting a man-shaped 150 pound punching bag that I'll just practice throws on. Yes, this is a hobby. Not into stamps, much.

Haha, I'm not going to lie-- memories of that movie is what sparked this topic. But in Fight Club, people took out their anger on the outside world on each other. After wiping the grime from their faces and mopping up their own blood and sweat, they shook hands and went back to work. But I hope we have an organizer/leader that isn't-- Never mind. Spoilers.

I remember way back when I lived in America, there was a group of people who'd just get together and kick the crap out of each other. Not sure if it was the same people every time though, may have just been a place where people took their problems. I like the idea where if you have a problem with someone in school, and it gets physical, you can wait it out, go somewhere isolated, get rid of all the anger by venting it through your arms, and get back to normal. Of course, it'd be crazy hard to regulate and people might get killed. So scratch that. Its a bad idea.

If you're really agile, you can always just end the fight extremely quick by rotating around the guy, smacking his kidneys, or punching him in the back of the head. Or anything that comes to your head. Just make sure your fists connect with something soft and vital. Usually, it's best to end a fight extremely quick. Even for very good fighters, if you take time to prance around and rub your opponent's weakness into their faces, they might find a way to take you down and make you feel like an [wagon].

Haha, I was thinking more like fist-fights.

Ah, combat. To me, this word doesn't signify just running of blood on the pavement or cracked skulls, but the ultimate test of your reflexes and instinct. And best of all--it vents your anger. Your mind and body are being tested against your opponent's, and there is no thrill like it. I'd like to break it down into a science, but that would be pretty impossible. You have no time to think when fists and feet are flying, you have to trust in the memory of your muscles and the speed of impulses that run down your spine and into your limbs. However, this topic isn't just about how good it feels to be in a competition with another person where the tables can turn on a second-by-second basis, it's how you prepare, as well as a medium to tell of what a fight was like in detail. Prep: I, personally, practice punching and kicking to ingrain memory into my limbs. The next time I do it, it'll be faster. I'll be more used to it. I use standard forms that are used in Martial Arts, but I know these are imperfect, and use them only to practice. I practice individual components of fighting, so that I can be ready to adapt in a real fight, and stay unpredictable. If your movements are static, your opponent will read into you and destroy you. You can't stick to a rigid set. Actual fights: Sadly, nobody has ever picked a fight with me. I reduce myself to spars in underground gyms and health clubs. I have a reputation as a good fighter, even though nobody has seen me fight. I guess people put too much stock into appearance. So, go ahead. Fill these pages with your fondest bloody memories, and tips on how to stay strong in a ring. Or street. Or anywhere, really.

I'm pretty sure black isn't a color. A black cube is absorbing light in every possible wavelength. It's like a hole in the middle of a well lighted room, sucking up (not really) light. Since there is no light being reflected off of it, you see nothing. Just blackness. Absence of light. Nada. A white cube is the exact opposite. Light from every possible wavelength bounces off of it and into your eyes. You are seeing all the colors of the visible light spectrum simultaneously. Black= Absence of color. Blind people can't see color, they see only blackness. White= Presence of all colors.

I kind of understand why it would be dark, but not completely. Why is space dark? It's black every color being reflected, thus space should be white? What? Sorry, I didn't understand you. I'd think it'd be dark because it's an absence of all things. All light,all color. Absence of a color is black, right?

I don't think they do. I'm not really a big fisherman but I think the reason they try to escape is survival instinct and not pain. Its the same thing. The mechanism that allows animals to escape what hurts them is pain. That is the only purpose for pain. Without pain, you wouldn't jerk your hand away from a steaming hot kettle or an electric fence. You'd just let it do its damage.

I've thought about this, my explanation can only be described as a honeycomb. Each of the hexagons of this honeycomb is the same universe. So if we (theoretically) hit the edge of the universe, we'd be at the opposite side of that universe. I've always thought it to be empty space. Completely dark, as no light has gotten to it yet. Just infinite blackness is what is beyond our Universe. As soon as light reaches this vacuum, it becomes a part of our Universe, since our Universe is just all matter and energy existent. So I also think that the Universe will just expand forever.

I like Created/Accelerated Evolution. That God made it or sped it up or something along those lines. Yeah, it's my own theory. Don't exactly understand why everyone but monotheistic folks can believe in it. I don't believe in that "humans just popped up of nowhere". Come one, humans aren't a supreme race, altho we act like one. Why would we be created from a god, who thinks that the human-kind is supreme. If we were to be supreme, then we'd been gifted with a far better brain. Seeing all the troubles going on today, i would never believe (i won't anyways) that another lifre-form created us. People have different believes, i accept that. But i'm not gonna swing with the god theory just because of that. Don't be so quick to turn this into a religious argument. I can already see people trying to rebut you by saying that we are being tested. This is more of an education for people who don't understand the fundamentals of evolution. Because, as someone has said before, there is nothing to 'believe'. For all intents and purposes, this 'theory' is basically 'fact'. This is an informative topic. For example, I never knew about that moth adaptation--and now I'm just a little bit more enlightened.

Because wimminz are just objects for our enjoyment and incubators for our offspring. Way to go man, way to go. LMFAO. That is all. Just playing: To the Zox guy; no, we aren't really animals. We enjoy our ability to choose who we decide to have sex with, man. That's why there are so many people making the action seem sacred--because to us, it IS.

Probably more along the lines of 4%. Although I wouldn't be surprised if 40% didn't exactly understand it. Not that anybody really does. Stupid Space Odyssey is making me think some cosmic visitors gave us a helping hand. I don't think we'd be able to evolve that fast into us humans. Well, there's no constant time-frame for evolution. It's all based off of random mutations, which can happen, well, randomly. Million years or 1000 years. Though the latter is unlikely, It's plausible. 'Specially in animals with really short lifespans. Cosmic visitors would've been cool. Just because I have a small hope at the back of my head that they'll show up again and we'd get a jump in tech.

Nobody. Everybody accepts evolution. Because if they didn't, they wouldn't believe in the very cornerstone of Biology. I doubt people would dare to undermine the science that's aiding the Earth in its recovery--as well as individual humans. Hmm, I came off as an [wagon] there. But hey, whatever gets the point across.

Yeah, I agree with you there. There's no arguing the existence of a being that exists outside of our universe. We can't use logic on something we can't observe, right? Oh, I was just saying that I viewed our thought processes as supreme, in terms of technique. Sure, there might be beings out there that can use it in higher magnitudes, for example at greater speed (or, an even greater leap, if they could observe the world in higher dimensions). But even if these beings could observe time as a whole (4d-vision, woot), they'd be using the same techniques. If they have electrical signals ripping through their brain at a higher rate than ours, they'd still be using the same techniques. Mice and animals have specific types of info they can learn. Like, they tend to associate things with other things. They don't understand that correlation doesn't equal causation, like humans. That is why a harmless animal can remain safe if colored the same as a toxic animal. They have even different types of learning that is based off of their genetic code. It's nothing like how we think. If you look at animal behavior, you begin to realize they are kind of like organic machines. Our ability to think isn't really hardwired, and our processes, like our brains themselves, are adaptive. Optimal.

Quick question, how can logic be fallible? It's adaptive. Logic isn't our body of knowledge, it is how we acquire it. Even in a completely different universe with different laws, logic would be used to ascertain those laws. I think that when we reach a point where we are self aware, and can analyze and mold the path our species takes as a whole, that's the peak of intellect. I think higher beings would only be separate in the magnitude in which they can use the tool of logic. Of course, this conclusion was brought to you by conventional human thought processes... and there's no way I can ever disprove your belief. Because I am human.

I was plotting the evolution of humankind. Went something along the lines of: " Alrighty, so people don't judge husbands and wives specifically because of physical traits anymore. That'd be 'shallow', of course. But how bout career choices and intelligence? Artisan skills? Hmm, so we have the skilled and intelligent breaking off, and all of a sudden you're left will the human residue. I wonder, should they be institutionally released from the gene pool? Mass sterilization? Oh crap, I forgot. We're not robots. We have personalities that dictate pairs too. Ah well, maybe next random few minutes of contemplation."

Calm down. The very definition of faith you provided is what they are attacking. They are calling to attention the feeble ground that you stand on--one supported by faith. They aren't asking for a scientific breakdown of what drives you to believe in God, they are asking you if you know how ridiculous the concept of faith is. The people asking for evidence are just trying to get you to know (and you already do, so meh) that all you have is your faith. It seems like you both understand this, yet keep going at it for no reason. You have to agree to disagree--there's no winning this debate.

Faith and love are the two that come to my mind. Logic doesn't tell us to help the less fortunate and be kinder to others. If anything, logic tells us to leave those behind. Logic brings several people the conclusion that there is no God. Logic brings several people to the conclusion that without an afterlife, all human knowledge and memory will be wiped out if we all die. The atheist wishes to keep other intellectuals alive. Other humans alive. Logic dictates that we keep our species going.