Tigra00

I hate people that read Dan Brown. Everything that's fake, they take as real, and everything real, they take as fake. He sucks, and I hope he dies. :P

Last I read, it would take 100 billion years and 100 quadrillion dollars to make 1 gram of anti-matter with the current methods and funding it's recieving...Not exactly "reasonable" yet. :P CERN created only several picograms of anti-matter and it cost $20 million to do so. That was in 2004.

You don't even know what a ricer is. The image he posted wasn't a ricer. That was most likely a sponsered race car of some sort. Ricer's just play pretend.

I made a fool of myself? Okay... You said "How is asking someone a question assertion? I'm asking him the question because he relayed information that would label him as suspect of being well...a ricer.", correct? Correct. You jsut answered your own question. How is it an assertion? It's an assertion because you stereotyped him on the CAR he drives, as being a ricer. You knew NOTHING about him, just the car he drove. A skyline, which, uhhh, so what? It's some stupid car made in Japan favoured by Import Enthusiasts...A "Ricer" couldn't afford a Skyline, anyways. Then you said "Sure, ask me if I'm a hick, I don't care, haha. I know I'm not, and will say exactly that. If someone would judge me on such a callous point, they're opinion is meaningless to me.", correct? Correct. What you just said is that you'd find someone's opinion meaningless if they judged you based on the type of car you drive. Which is exactly what you did the the guy above. And I'm the fool? 'Kay.

I saw like 5 seconds of it. The make-up they use apparently works well.

No, I said that there have been no medical successes from embryonic stem-cells and you countered by saying there had. If that is not what you meant then say that. I know that you changed your tune because you went from saying "there have been successes" to "there have been no successes because..." No, I said there have been successes. You said there have not because Time apparently said so, and I said no, what I'm sure they said was that it's been lacking compared to spinal-stem cells because of their condition - bad. I don't get why you do not understand this. It's a simple concept.

Since you seem to know so much about the Bible and how it can properly interpreted, please explain to me what the passage would mean. Be sure to give all your reasons why that show your understanding of not only the language it was written in and the context that it would have been in. Unless you have actual reasoning to reject it's literal translation (which many theologians could) you're just making something up. You're using Pseudo-Science to prove that God somehow gave this information, via prophets, to the world. And I'M making stuff up? Okay, bud. Interesting how "God" mentions only things humans could have known themselves at the time in the Bible. Nothing about Dinosaurs...Nothing about the Universe...Well, except that he apparently "made it" 6,000 years ago...*Cough*....Nothing about anything that humans couldn't have possibley known themselves. Could that be because the Bible was written by humans, who wrote what THEY thought down? Remember, the Bible does, afterall, say it's okay to have slaves, and to beat them, and that killing a whole mass of people for whatever reason is perfectly A-Okay. Yea, sounds like a human's idealogy to me, and if it weren't, your God is a 'tard. Why follow an ignorant God? Edit: I'll go read those passages, in the context they're in, when I get the chance today. I'll get back to you, I'm sure I could make up a whole story around them and make it seem like it says something completely different!

You said: As soon as sources were quoted, you changed your tune. I never said why medical benefits haven't been made - I just said they hadn't and you denied it. However, after I gave you a source to find and insane quoted a source for you - you changed your tune. And you still failed to respond to how I'm only giving one side of the "Jesus was a real person" argument. I wasn't in on the whole "Jesus was a real person" argument, and it wasn't what I was refering to. I never changed my tune, either. I said advances were made, you said they were not, I told you yes, they were, and you're obviously misquoting your source because what I'm sure they said, was that there haven't been as good of advances because of the state of the cells. Like I said, they're the same cells we get from our spinal fluid. There is no difference between the two. To say there is is to say that God has put some magical curse upon embryo's so they'd not work as well. Lawl.

Since you're apparently a Biblical scholar, please explain to me how those verses in context would mean something else. Let's start with the one that mentions the "winds blowing south then turning north." What, with you expertise in Biblical studies, do you suppose that means in context? @BlueLancer: Of course it's an assumption that it was insight from God. I figured that was obvious since not everyone believes in God. It could mean anything. There are thousands of metaphores in the Bible and even a Christian would say there is, and now all of a sudden, something fits your "point" and it's spoken in direct, unquestionable science-terms. Ooookie dokie. The Bible says lots of things. Most of it is completely reprehensible morally, to anyone, or it's just plain violent. But no no, you don't teach the children THAT stuff. Only that Jesus loves them and they won't burn for eternity if they love him back! If children were being taught what the Bible ACTUALLY said, there would be a couple billion psychopaths killing everyone for the littlest things we see as "nothing" today. What's that, Johnny? Your friend is a homo? Kill him then! Jesus loves you! <3 Give me a break. It's all a sham to steal your friggin' money. If there were truely a God with a heart as great as the stories say, he wouldn't allow most Christians to even live, because they're smearing his good name.

What is with all your posts recently where you talk about things "You're sure of" without actually looking anything up? "I'm pretty sure blah blah blah..." Who cares? Because everything you said has no evidence either? I find it hard to believe that it's a coincidence that everything you are against, as a person, has massive amounts of scientific research supporting your reason for being against it. Could it be that you're reading too much of your Christian partisan websites again? Yea. If sources like Time magazine are Christian partisan websites, then yes. Dude, Emyrotic stem cells are the exact same thing found in your spinal fluid. What "Time" PROBABLY said (I haven't seen this) was that they've found no evidence of it working because they haven't even been allowed to TRY IT. Christian zealots won't allow them to aquire embryo's that are usable. What they've BEEN using are frozen and old as crap...You could of course expect them to not work as well as they should... And to the above...The other guy...Don't admit defeat to GhostRanger. He only tells one side of the story. Use the other side of it and he'll stop posting. Works everytime! 1. Is there another side to the fact that Jesus was a real person? 2. I noticed you quit commenting about whether or not embryonic stem-cell researched has produced any results once a source was given. Isn't that what you just accused me of doing? 3. The Christian/Bush perspective is not generally to not allow people to conduct embryonic stem-cell research - but just not to use their tax dollars to fund something they think is morally reprehensible. Of course, the same argument could be made that people who don't agree with the death penalty are forced to fund it. There are plenty of groups conducting embryonic stem-cell research now, you would know that if you knew anything about this issue. I know it's being done. It's being done shabbily because it isn't being funded, plus it's being done with old, frozen cells. I never stopped commenting on embryotic research...You told me you read it in Time, and I told you they probably said there's been no success with it because of the current state of the cells they're using, which is to say, not good. Like I said, they're the SAME cells we get from our spinal fluid. Accept it.

My point 'sactly. Like I said, you can make the Bible say anything you want to, and people OFTEN do.

You'd think so logically. I'd have to read more into it, but what I posted was the example I heard, and I think it would apply here aswell.

Does embryonical stem cell research actually involvs aborting fetuses? Someone hit me with a source? So not a fetus, but pretty close. It's destroying that potential human anyways. The results? I'll respect your beliefs that it's "pretty close" to a fetus, but in actuality, it isn't. I understand your moral things, and when you think deep about it, it doesn't seem right, because eventually, it WOULD have been a human, but yea. 3 day old embryo's are made up of 150 cells. 150 Cells TOTAL. In comparison, there are over 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly alone. Everytime you swat a fly, you kill more cells than you do via destroying an embryo. I would guess that you destroy more cells when you scratch your nose, too. :P And remember, under the right circumstances, any cell in our bodies can potentially be a human given the right engineering and the like...So, no more nose-scratching holocausts, guys. :P I think people are just afraid of scientists. They think they're going to start growing babies in tubes and killing them off, and that's not what they're trying to do.

^^ I THINK, on the documentary I watched, it said something about not being able to go past the speed of light under any circumstances, even if an outside object (that you were "in" effectively) was moving at 1/4 the speed of light, and you went the other 3/4 + 1 MPS, you would still not be moving faster than the speed of light because the speed of light is constant. What I would guess that means is that you can't add the speed of the "object" you're "in" (the galaxy, whatever) and then add the speed of your..space ship. They gave an example: Albert Einstien and his twin brother were both in space ships that could go 1 MPS under the speed of light. Albert took off and got to full speed. His brother, Uhhh, Falbert(? :lol:) stayed behind and turned on his ultra-awesome high-powered headlights on his ship. One would ASSUME that when the light finally caught up to Albert, it would pass him slowly like a car passes another car on the highway. For a second, they appear to be going very slowly past you, even though they are going faster than you are. However, since the speed of light is constant, Albert Einstien theorized (and proved, apparently, however he did that, I forget...) that the light would appear to fly by the space ship at the speed of light to the driver (Albert) because the speed of it is constant. I don't know if the two are related 100%, but it would seem so.

What is with all your posts recently where you talk about things "You're sure of" without actually looking anything up? "I'm pretty sure blah blah blah..." Who cares? Because everything you said has no evidence either? I find it hard to believe that it's a coincidence that everything you are against, as a person, has massive amounts of scientific research supporting your reason for being against it. Could it be that you're reading too much of your Christian partisan websites again? Yea. If sources like Time magazine are Christian partisan websites, then yes. Dude, Emyrotic stem cells are the exact same thing found in your spinal fluid. What "Time" PROBABLY said (I haven't seen this) was that they've found no evidence of it working because they haven't even been allowed to TRY IT. Christian zealots won't allow them to aquire embryo's that are usable. What they've BEEN using are frozen and old as crap...You could of course expect them to not work as well as they should... And to the above...The other guy...Don't admit defeat to GhostRanger. He only tells one side of the story. Use the other side of it and he'll stop posting. Works everytime!

There is proof. Not only were the Jews meticulous about their record keeping (therefore, we have records of him existing) but we also have the crucification records that Romans keep from when he was crucified, and countless other documents from other non-Christian sources who referenced Jesus as a real person. No one argues about whether or not he was a real person, it is whether or not what he said was accurate. The more you post the more TIF is going to know how ignorant you really are. Once again, no one argues about his existence except the truly ignorant. The egyptians are said to have been the most maticulous record keepers of all time, and their records says nothing of any of the plagues, just for an example. It's nice that you conveniently only tell the side of the story that supports your beliefs. If you truely wanted to prove us all wrong, then tell us of something glorious that we cannot argue against at all. That'll show us.

What is with all your posts recently where you talk about things "You're sure of" without actually looking anything up? "I'm pretty sure blah blah blah..." Who cares? Because everything you said has no evidence either? I find it hard to believe that it's a coincidence that everything you are against, as a person, has massive amounts of scientific research supporting your reason for being against it. Could it be that you're reading too much of your Christian partisan websites again? Yea.

We don't NEED emryotic stem cells, but until abortion is illegal, we should use them. Why just throw them away? They died in vain then. One could argue they'd die in vain either way, but if they help save a life, then their life wasn't a waste. I'm sure emryotic stem cells have had success. The stem cells in emryo's and your spinal fluid are essentially the same as far as I know of. But no, we don't NEED them.

This is not how it works! (not meaning jesus and a bike ride.... :P ) Stemcell treatment is NOT full proof. It is still highly overrated, and by NO MEANS 100% successfull. 1% is more accurate I think. It is not a standart treatment, and only experimental clinical trials are running at the moment. In these trials, selected groups of patients are "recruited" to undergo this treatment. It is in NO way representable to "any person". Therefore, more research needs to be done. If left-over embyos are used for that (with donor approval) I'm pro! Also, these embryos are little more then a clump of cells (about <100 cells) so no chopping up of human beings is involved. A fetus is a FAR more matured unborn child, unlike an embryo. Dead embryos are per definition unusable, I mean come on, we can't bring stuff back from the dead! The material used in these studies are usually left over embryos from IVF treatments, NOT from abortions! But I'm in the PRO-camp....even making a living on it! :thumbsup: It's pretty darn close to 100%. Stem cells have been found to be able to create ANY cell in the human body. They have even fused the spinal cord of a lab rat and it was able to walk again. Pretty close, if you ask me.

I find it extremely hard to believe that scientists thought wind blew straight. If I go outside right now, I can witness leaves blowing around in a spiral anywhere I look. It isn't that hard to put two and two together, but whatever. You should really start getting information from an un-biased source, by the way. Everything you post as some kind of "proof" is always obviously from some Christian website bashing scientists. These are the same people who surely believe the Earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible sas nothing of anything happening before that time. None of them have stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, it says nothing about before that time because people knew nothing of it when they wrote the Bible. They know nothing of space, nothing of Dinosaurs, nothing of a lot of stuff we know now to be fact. I'm sorry, but a passage in the Bible saying something about the "stars in the sky" doesn't mean that God educated them on space. Anyone can look into the sky and see there are plenty of stars to be seen. Anyone writing something can also say that air has weight by use of metaphores and creative writing. When you run your hand through the air, you can feel it flowing over your hand, simulating that is has a resistance, and thus, weight. The other 'points' aren't worth touching on, they could mean anything, really. That's the wonderfully lame thing about the Bible, everything is in metaphores. You can make it say whatever you want, practically. Edit: I should say, though, that even the statement on Stars is wrong. There are far more than a billion stars, and weither that number was written in the Bible, or by some idiot who knows not what he's talking about, I guess is the point of consideration. :P I find it hard to believe, too, that science thought there were only 1200 stars. If you took the time, you could count far more in a very small patch in the sky.

Its "Ridiculous", and I never called him a ricer. I asked him if he was one, theres a big difference. I'm allowed my typo's and mispellings, Captain Grammar. You asserted that he's a ricer because of the car he drives. That is stereotyping. I believe you've said you drive a Camaro...Should I ask you if you are a backwards hick? Because most of them are stereotyped as driving Camaro's. How is asking someone a question assertion? I'm asking him the question because he relayed information that would label him as suspect of being well...a ricer. Sure, ask me if I'm a hick, I don't care, haha. I know I'm not, and will say exactly that. If someone would judge me on such a callous point, they're opinion is meaningless to me. Anyone with even a gram of brain matter will now understand why I am right. This man not only proved my point once in his statement, but twice. If you can't see how, you need help.

It seems a lot of people don't get it. The whole 0.2 seconds into the future thing? It's nothing more than the guy technically being ahead in time by 0.2 seconds. MAN-MADE time. Time is a subject MADE by man. The real time travel lies in traveling through Space-Time, which to me, makes NO logical sense because time is said to be linear. But who knows.

Um...No. Science does that job. Religion has yet to explain ANY natural phenomena.

Yes, I do believe Halo did achieve most of it's fame for good multiplayer, not single player.

I'm pretty sure Jesus had no stance on something he didn't know exsisted. That being stem cells, and the research of them.