Recent posts by somebody613 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: GemCraft Labyrinth / How can i level up faster?

Dunno, I lost my save and had to rebuild from scratch (obviously except knowledge) – and still immediately switched to DUAL Lime/Yellow TOWER.
Well, it’s MY strategy…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Hell Exists

Who needs Hell?
We have REAL LIFE!

Anyways, a really philosophical parable for OP.
A guy gets a tourist visa to both Paradise and Hell.
He visits Hell first.
He comes in and sees a crowd of people around a humongous pot with something cooking there.
Each person has a 2m-long spoon and tries to eat with it.
And obviously fails, cause it’s too long.
Everyone is frustrated, angry and hungry – not a single happy face around.
The guide says: This is Hell.
Then they teleport to Paradise.
The guy is astounded – the very same sight: a crowd, a pot with food and people with 2m-long spoons.
One slight difference – people are coming to the pot in pairs, and each one uses one’s spoon to feed the other.
They eat, talk and smile – not a single unhappy face in the whole crowd.
The guide says: This is Paradise.
MORAL:
When we help each other – it’s Paradise.
When we only think about ourselves – it’s Hell.
(This is a very serious thought which too many of us fail to focus on.)
And it’s quite on AX as well – there’s no Hell or Paradise, except the one we choose to make ourselves.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

Speaking of horses:
“You can bring the horse to the river, but you can’t force it to drink.” ©
Fits this site very nicely.
You’re too much in your reins to even assume you might be eating oats…
Bray on, my friend, you’re FREE to do so actually.
I see no use in talking to horses.
(That wasn’t an insult, merely stating the scientific fact that stubborn individuals tend to find excuses for everything. Oh, and I’m not the one NOT understanding the other. I do. I simply disagree with what you consider true. To me, it’s a mere excuse. Sorry. NOT.)
BYE.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

epr
Sorry?
Wasn’t either of you who constantly tell that “spirituality can’t be scientific”, though you did say that I should clarify more, which I did try, by using the MATTER=>ENERGY=>SPIRITUALITY transition.
I AM saying that spirituality is a part of OUR world, but it’s just even “deeper” than energy is.
It took us a few thousand years to break MATTER into ENERGY, but I’m expecting the same very thing to happen with ENERGY=>SPIRITUALITY.
Cause, again, the process of Creation is going this way, from spiritual realms into eventually our material one, but it still “is” here, the same way energy is in all matter, even the most “material” one.
This is just yet another step deeper into the substance of reality.
I can make a wild guess, that the problem here is that you all define spirituality as something inherently unreachable from materiality, cause you haven’t read that detailed explanation of HOW exactly materiality came to be to begin with.
Would you actually like me to look for some simplified essay on that, so you can understand my point better?
I do think this is the main cause of your misunderstanding.

A couple of useful links (requires serious attitude and a bit of your time to understand):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_Hishtalshelut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum
I hope after reading those, you will understand my point better, how spirituality is HERE, while it’s “not here” at the same time – and why I’m expecting us to eventually find it from within our world by actual scientific methods.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

vika
“Current” is exactly the KEY word.
Also, by ATOM, I meant the very term, INDIVISIBLE.
For a very long time it was thought to BE that SOLID block of MATTER, while it’s very far from being so.
NOW we know it, but until there was any suspicion of it, nobody ever thought it MIGHT be not SOLID (or can you prove otherwise, quoting pre-atom-splitting scientists that PREDICTED atom being splittable – can you?), the same way you NOW think that ENERGY is unsplittable as well.
I merely assume the possibility of such a thing, I definitely don’t claim we KNOW about HOW to reach there.
But you simply deny the idea, the same way the subatomic particles idea would be laughed at in the pre-atom-splitting era.
Also, it is KNOWN, in a way (what you call “religious”, which in this case isn’t UN-scientific as in “false”, merely, inexpressable in the current scientific terms) – except it’s not YET expressed in “scientific terms” (mainly due to it not yet being DISCOVERED, mind you).

We CAN and DO feel our consciousness (and we pretty much can feel it’s not exactly matter-based as well, though it IS “installed” through our material brain) – probably the best example of how we CAN feel spirituality through our actual senses (in a way, cause basically our conscience IS a sense of itself).

As of “biasing the DATA”, you are now biasing the mere assumption of such data ever appearing, BEFORE anyone even claims so.
It’s the typical “it can’t be and if you say it is, I’ll troll you by saying it’s still impossible”.
Or that’s how I truly feel from your (general YOU) responses…

epr
Sure, sure.
I know full well (from lengthy “discussions” HERE), how BIASED science works.
See above my last paragraph, it’s exactly what I’m talking about: “can’t be and won’t be, cause I say so”.
Until someone actually proves YOU wrong. :D

Also, does MATTER exist at all?
In a way, we can easily say it DOESN’T (and we would be right in a way, cause all MATTER is equally ENERGY – thus no MATTER exists, only ENERGY in different forms).
So, the same way we will eventually come to say that even ENERGY also doesn’t exist in exactly the same manner that MATTER doesn’t – cause it’s merely a form of existence of a another substance, be it ENERGY for MATTER, or SPIRITUALITY for ENERGY.
It makes perfect sense when it comes to deciphering the ways MATERIALITY comes from SPIRITUALITY.

I don’t see your consciousness, thus it doesn’t exist.
Prove me wrong, please.
SCIENTIFICALLY! :DDD

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

To all above:
Exactly my point – you keep insisting that “there’s no unexpected substance that can be unexpectedly discovered by science, unless we already know it now”, which in this case translates into “spirituality will never be discovered through scientific means, cause it’s not physical”.
Again, sorry, but ATOM.
It wasn’t ever thought of, until it WAS.
And you completely misunderstand what exactly I mean by spirituality in this case – for you it sounds like something “mythical” or “separated from materiality in a sense of being unreachable”.
While for me, it’s basically “breaking apart ENERGY the same way we already broke apart MATTER (and found ENERGY in there)” – and I mean exactly THAT: delving deeper into what we see as ENERGY, and finding what I mean by SPIRITUALITY.
It’s not something detached from this world, it’s rather something deeply submerged in it, the same way ENERGY happened to be submerged in MATTER.
If you still don’t get this analogy (a very precise one, cause that’s exactly what I mean and what it is), I won’t blame you, but please refrain from flaming me as well.
Scientific pioneers were often laughed at as well – and in this case, I’m talking from a very scientific standpoint of seeing spirituality IN materiality.
(Again, I HAVE read a detailed explanation on HOW all of this works, except it’s obviously not formulated in modern scientific terms, so I can’t explain it easily to you, nor I understand it fully myself – but it does explain that SPIRITUALITY is to MATERIALITY almost the same as what ENERGY is to MATTER. We just need to discover means to dig deeper into ENERGY to see SPIRITUALITY in there.)
To sum up:
Nothing to do with beliefs, pure science – except on a very pioneer scale that takes a belief to BEGIN researching.

I’ll yet again explain the core idea by a comparison.
We found out subatomic particles by experimenting, thus it went from ATOM to PARTICLE, the LATTER being a “surprise” each time.
But what if we already EXPECTED particles to exist (and had a detailed theory on all of them), but simply had no way to actually discover them, until some sudden invention helped us to do the breakthrough?
We wouldn’t be surprised, cause we were already expecting the results, yet it would still be something NEW.
The same goes about my idea – what if we first EXPECT to end up discovering spirituality-in-materiality, and only later on we actually do find it?
That’s exactly like predicting subatomic particles based on “non-scientific” sources (or even guesses) – and then actually finding them.
The only difference between these two examples would be, that the particles were first FOUND and only later EXPLAINED, while in my example spirituality would be first EXPLAINED and only later FOUND.
Both examples still being perfectly SCIENTIFIC.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

EPR
Cause I’ve read a thorough explanation on how the actual creation process works, from a religious POV.
And despite it not being scientific, it had a lot of points that led me to perfectly assume that science is capable of eventually unlocking the point where spirituality and materiality meet – cause there is one, for example where our conscience combines the spirituality of the soul with the materiality of the brain.
This obviously applies to any matter as well, and since energy is the least “material” form of physicality, I’m conclusively assuming that the convergence point lies beyond energy, somehow.
And “we don’t know” is precisely that narrow-minded replacement for “we don’t want to accept”.
Cause when we’re ready to ACCEPT, eventually we’ll also KNOW.
Again, that’s what happened countless times in the known science as well, just with less world-shattering topics.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

No.
I’m saying that we CAN find out HOW He does it, from OUR side of the mirror.
Well, eventually and/or potentially.
I’m not saying we WILL, only that we CAN.
To assume otherwise is akin to assuming the ATOM.

End of discussion, you may proceed with your arrogance further.
I’m happy you aren’t the world’s leading scientists, though…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

vika
You only speak of NOW.
But the very word ATOM implies INDIVISIBLE, which was assumed to be so by the SCIENTISTS of the olden days (ancients, whatever).
Now, who’s to say that our “modern” science won’t eventually be considered equally “ancient” in exactly that aspect that you so vehemently defend – the inability to delve into spirituality from materiality.
Technically speaking, there are forces (literally) in the subatomic world that don’t have analogies in the macroscopic world, so the very same might be true in the “physicospiritual” world as well – we won’t know until we discover them, but who’s to say we NEVER will?
That’s exactly the narrow-mindedness that I pointed out – you assume that only those factors that we know presently, exist.
Maybe it’s only a small fraction of what science is gonna find out eventually, which would be mind-boggling for the most advanced today’s scientist, but every school-child of the 40th century would be aware of?
How can you know it to be so sure of it?
To be honest, you can’t.
You just assume stuff.
The exact same way the ATOM was called INDIVISIBLE and later proven to really be far from it.
Less narrow-mindedness might speed up the actual progress…

Did that Pichu call me American?
Funny, I’m very much NOT.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

vika
Exactly.
So who’s to say we won’t be able to “tame the spirit” the same way we managed to “tame the atom”?
Until the way was discovered, the subatomic world was equally BEYOND our reach as the spiritual world is right now.
You see, the problem lies in thinking that spiritual and material don’t have a point of convergence, which it obviously does.
And that’s where the Creation of our material world happens (it’s an ongoing process, which is exactly my reason of assuming we can reach that point from our side as well, EVENTUALLY).
The “quality change” from spiritual into material is of the same idea like the “quality change” from energy to matter – and that one already was discovered.
You’re just basing your negative answer on the NARROW-minded assumption that spiritual CAN’T be reached from within material – while I’m sure it CAN, based on the very description of the creation process that I’ve read in some sources (not gonna expand on that here, the point is: there is a logical explanation to how material comes to be from spiritual, so we can reach that point eventually).
We only need to decipher it, but the ability to do so is there already.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

vika
Look, you are speaking EXACTLY like the type of “skeptics” I mentioned.
Their problem is that they are SURE it won’t happen ever.
Which leads them to mock anyone actually thinking it being possible.
That’s science-based fanaticism in its worst.
Which also includes ignoring the immense progress that happened in scientific thought in the last century or so.
Quite many things that were considered axiomatic, were shown to be wrong or misunderstood, the nature of matter being one of them.
Before Einstein (and his colleagues on this topic), we were SURE: there’s MATTER and there’s ENERGY – not interchangeable at all.
The simple equation (and some very complicated scientific thoughts behind it) showed how WRONG this idea was.
Also, we keep finding out ever smaller sub-particles, starting with atoms and getting much deeper into the quark world – who’s to say it’s the end?
You simply misunderstand the idea of ORIGIN.
It doesn’t necessarily mean something BEYOND nature, rather something that REFLECTS and HINTS at that something that still lies BEYOND.
To make it short:
We don’t know what else will be discovered, but we can safely assume something MIGHT be discovered eventually.
Based on simply the actual history of science itself.

Oh, the NOTHING isn’t NOTHING in the primitive sense – rather similar to the way the vacuum is EMPTY.
(Hint: It isn’t, but it also is. There simply happen “strange” processes that result in it “being empty”, yet strictly speaking it isn’t at any given moment.)
That is exactly my point:
Creation from NOTHING actually means Creation from Spirituality into Materiality – a feat that Materiality is unable to do ever, but not necessarily that it can’t be SEEN from it.
I’m pretty sure that science will one day enable us to see how Spirituality turns into Materiality, the same way it enabled us to see how Energy turns into Matter.
Cause, really, there’s no difference between those two examples – it all depends on the progress of our knowledge.
Cheers.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

What exactly “no”? Be more specific. Also, just saying, but when I mentioned a book (that of Newton) – I actually bothered to find READING links, so you wouldn’t need to search for it yourself.
So, if you think that book is important – do find a link for me to read it, cause I’m not gonna search for it myself.
Though, your last comment safely puts you into that exact category of “skeptics”, so dunno whether I should even respond at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

The more science delves into the SECRETS of the Nature, the easier it comes to see BEHIND it.
To say a primitive example:
We already know that all matter is actually energy (in a way) – the next step is to see that energy’s ORIGIN.
It would still BE scientific, but we’ll be able to trace BEYOND materiality.
If we can’t now, who’s to say we won’t be able tomorrow?
That’s where true science clashes with prejudice and bias: people simply choose to BELIEVE that there’s nothing BEYOND – but TRUE science is getting us THERE.
Maybe not tomorrow or in the next decade (or maybe YES, how can we know NOW?) – but definitely EVENTUALLY.
THAT is one of the meanings of “discovering Spirituality in Materiality” – to SCIENTIFICALLY discover the fact of Creation.
Yes, I mean exactly THAT.
Thus, those who skeptically demand to limit us to materiality TODAY – will be laughed at TOMORROW, remember my words.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God really real?

Lasagna
To tell you the astonishing truth:
The greater our true scientific progress goes, the closer we are to actually seeing true G-dliness INSIDE our world.
Quite a few scientists agree with this already.
The others still need more progress.
“G-d isn’t Nature. But Nature is G-dly.”
:D

 
Flag Post

Topic: GemCraft Labyrinth / How to find save file on Win 7

I lost a few MONTHS’ worth of gameplay…
Something is stupid, either Opera or Windows or the game.

 
Flag Post

Topic: GemCraft Labyrinth / WHA..?!?

Well, I’ll replay it pretty quick, hopefully, cause I won’t waste my time on unneeded tactics.
But still – very angry at Opera’s stupidity…

 
Flag Post

Topic: GemCraft Labyrinth / WHA..?!?

0. Thanks.
1. I didn’t, UNLESS Opera did it itself. I do have to often re-sign-in to some sites…
2. It’s the first time it ever happened.
3. Like I said, I had TWO separate saves, one ON-line, one OFF-line. I thought they were separate enough.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

I just came back one more time to say:
Bye. :DDD
I think we all have more important stuff to do in REAL LIFE, that I definitely agree with.
I’m gonna play some Civ. C2C rulez! :DDDDD

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

“Valid historical sources” are VALIDWHY?
How do YOU know which is more VALID?
Oh, let me guess – you CHOOSE which to BELIEVE, ain’t I right? :DDD
And I’m all eyes and ears for a Biblical Times NEWSPAPER..! Even in Greek or Babylonian!
Or King Solomon’s DIARY. Or that Queen friend’s of his?
Or maybe a LETTER by Moses. Or maybe that time’s Pharaoh?
Can you provide EITHER?
And can you DATE-PROOF it as well?
HOW? (Without basing the date of document #1 on document #2 of the SAME “reliability”.)
(Family trees? Interesting, ever heard the term Cohen? Kinda a self-supporting pedigree, always up-to-date for technical purposes. Definitely more PROBABLE and RELIABLE than some thousand-years-ago-DEAD Pharaonic dynasty. But it’s up to YOU which to BELIEVE, of course.)
Who am I kidding – this is pointless: you won’t change your BELIEFS.
You guys are the worst FANATICS ever, you just deny it so well…
Bye.
For real.
I’m stupid to forget how idiotic this site was…

 
Flag Post

Topic: GemCraft Labyrinth / WHA..?!?

Is it MY computer or what?
Both my ON-line and OFF-line saves disappeared!
And those were different ones to begin with!
The HFIL?!?

 
Flag Post

Topic: GemCraft Labyrinth / gemcraft 2

Yeah…
When you come to defeating actual full endurances, you MUST rely on Yellow-Lime (with a POSSIBLE Orange, I managed without it, or rather got utterly bored by POOL-BUILDING beyond few MILLIONS).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

JBG
Hi.
Bye.
Not worth my time.
I don’t care about yours. :)))

Ung
So, when we HAVE a document that tells it HAPPENED and we DON’T HAVE a document that tells it DIDN’T HAPPEN – it’s “LOGICAL” to ASSUME that it DIDN’T HAPPEN, cause we have a THEORY (that CAN’T be experimented on in this context) that “proves” it?
I don’t see how THAT can be called “being serious”…
OK, there never was a Napoleon.
I mean, there’s no documents that tell us he never existed, thus it MUST BE that he NEVER EXISTED.
I can conjure you a whole list of “proofs” that “support” a “theory” on how Napoleon was INVENTED by Russians, when their soldiers got killed by a rampaging circus bear, but they wanted it to sound “HEROIC”, so they MADE UP the whole war with France.
I can even dig up some bear bones (REAL ones even, from the right period) and “discover” some obscure references to that Mr. Beer (no misprint) in the Russian Annals.
I’ll also claim that ALL documents that mention Napoleon are FAKES, written either much later or at the right time but by Russian conspiracy agents.
With NO WAY to check it DIRECTLY, you’d have NO WAY to actually COUNTER my THEORY in a REALISTIC way.
Cause, you know, conspiracies ARE POSSIBLE, it’s a FACT.
(Pretty much the same amount of “logic” in denying biblical documents, honestly.)
Oh, and more.
Before you mention other religions being a documented contradiction – a question:
What other religion has a dating system that counts back to CREATION as its BASIC calendar?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

livingrival
Um, NEWTON (a WORLD-FAMOUS SCIENTIST) debunked THAT by assuming (quite believably) that ancients were guilty for making up “virtual dynasties that lasted centuries” – so it might be FAKE as well.
I doubt you have any MORE RELIABLE sources than the ones he debunked.
Like I said:
The problem with evaluating the dating is rooted in the inability to actually DATE anything OBJECTIVELY (as in, so that no one can argue against it) – cause SUBJECTIVE sources might be FALSE.
Newton is a good example of such a POSSIBLE debunking.
Who says there won’t come up MORE one day?
Wouldn’t you feel STUPID then?

EPR
Long time no see. :D
Not quite.
I reject it being ASSUMED to be the ONLY RIGHT way of dating (not THAT method specifically, rather ANY method based on THEORY and not DOCUMENTED TESTIMONY that CAN be traced back).
I simply have a reasonable doubt (only strengthened by reading the Newton’s book) that it MIGHT be WRONG.
And yes, I do know of some “hints” that there MIGHT have been NATURAL changes in what we ASSUME being “unchangeable laws of nature” – and we are UNABLE to actually trace them based on our CURRENT “natural laws”.
It’s an ASSUMPTION, but the “unchangeability of natural laws” is EQUALLY an ASSUMPTION.
At least until we invent a time machine and check ourselves.
Seriously, ALL the undocumented historical science is merely creating “virtual worlds” that SEEM perfectly in-tune with the THEORIES they are actually CREATED on.
This proves nothing about what REALLY happened, whether you like it or not.
Only the possibility of a personal witnessing CAN be considered a real PROOF – the rest is mere ASSUMPTIONS, regardless of which one looks more “scientific” to YOU.
Again, YOU dismiss “other options” as “unscientific” – while I merely point out that “scientific” DOES NOT equal “real”.
Oh, but it DOESN’T rely on TRULY EMPIRICAL data (the HUMAN-based one).
(I do recall arguing about this, no need to start it again.)
And Occam’s Razor DOESN’T truly make you find out the TRUTH (simply cause the TRUTH might require MORE “assumptions” than you currently ALLOW for – which still doesn’t make YOUR version more TRUE).
THAT is my SINGLE assumption, go Razor THAT. :D

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

Coming back to the dating topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
(Just to show you that I’ve READ about it.)
If you really read ito it, you’ll easily see how it always has to be “fixed” to “fit in” with numerous previously-unaccounted distortions, one good example being the (geologically) recent bombings.
Now, yet again, we have no way to KNOW whether there WEREN’T any similar (or worse) distortions earlier – which would make all of the measurements prior to Day X – WORTHLESS due to being distorted to unknown amounts.
Why am I saying this?
Cause there are many derived hints from the Flood event, that there WERE additional global cataclysms, some of which COULD affect something in the whole nature to the extent of making all dating prior to that moment – INVALID.
Do we have a way to trace that? No!
We don’t know the details to begin with – maybe it was something we wouldn’t think of at all, yet it did happen and rendered ALL those measurements FALSE.
THAT is my main point – ALL those nice dating systems are based on ASSUMING nothing of the sorts happened.
But do we KNOW it DIDN’T?
Really? HOW?
I see no way to KNOW it, if there was no way for someone to send this info to our time (btw, the Flood story IS such a “message” from the past – and you have no “scientific” ones to contradict it, only non-document-based THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS).
That’s why even “crazy” assumptions like “aliens buried the bones” are equally INVALID simply for being non-document-based.
Science is making literal virtual worlds out of the past, when it comes to non-documented events and periods.
And by virtual worlds, I do mean something that LOOKS like a perfect system, but is merely something built by US, not actually HAPPENED.
We might be RIGHT, but we might be WRONG as well, in creating such virtual worlds about the undocumented past.
We have no way to KNOW it for REAL.
The problem starts with assuming we MUST be RIGHT

PS. I’d like to see a link to a DOCUMENT that contradict the Flood event.
Not a TODAY’s THEORY – a DOCUMENT from THAT time period, which contradicts it in a direct way, whatever way exactly.
Please, do give me a SERIOUS answer – trolling is demeaning YOURSELF in the first place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

1. Whatever.
2. Whatever.
3. …
4. Doesn’t make you NOR science RIGHT, though. Do you even care about that?
5. IDIOT. Empirical is exactly based on human experience. A lot of science ISN’T. Most historical assumptions typically are based on theories that also aren’t based on actual experience.
6. Whatever. Keep being an idiot.
7. Oh, theoretically (as in, MAYBE, one day, who knows, etc). Nice. NOT. (Not in REAL LIFE, I mean.)
8. Disagree. Or not unless you have ample empirical examples that by some “lucky” chance could hint you about it. Not a very reliable source, though.
9. “Personally” by ANYONE. Doesn’t mean YOU as in YOU-and-only-you. Does mean anyone-living-today.
10. Like I said, a lot of historical evidence is UNRELIABLE, when not backed up by ample contextual sources. Finding a single book in a city is no evidence that the whole city’s citizens were literate. Nor is it evidence otherwise, btw. It’s a BLANK evidence, with quite a range of possible actual conclusions able to be drawn from it.
11. I know what science is. I also know what human nature is. Bias is a good example of the latter.
12. Still, you can’t KNOW that it workED that whole time. Additional assumptions or not, you still don’t KNOW, only “reasonably assume”. Why not call it the REAL name then, instead of pretending to have “true knowledge”?
13. …
14. That’s where we disagree. Or rather, even science has a lot of examples, where “no actual data” still led to great inventions. You just have to be OPEN to that POSSIBILITY.
15. …
16. No, but whatever.
17. Do we really? It’s not empirical in the sense of “some human experienced it and was able to extend that knowledge to others”. The rest isn’t truly empirical in the human sense. It’s just yet more assumptions.
18. We have ASSUMED “evidence” from both. None of it truly empirical. The stars we “see”, might be nonexistent for YEARS.
19. That Vika is very polite (in her dreams maybe).
20. Nothing to do with using theories. Everything to do with getting ready results that can’t be compared to any other sources in MOST of the cases. Or at least makes THOSE cases unreliable, UNLESS you extrapolate (which again ends up ASSUMING stuff).
21. Aha, and another team WON’T use the SAME math to “check” it, right? It’s NOT my MATH that is unreliable – it’s the FORMULA itself. And THAT can’t be disproved or checked.
22. WHEN you get, it’s fine. DO YOU, is THE question.
23. And all 999 of them watched the wrong channel to begin with (or LIED to you). Way to go and AGREE with me. :)
24. I AM no scientist. I still am a human being that uses logic. Which leads me to disbelieve the human-experience-unbased unprovable part of science. Nice meeting you. :)
25. ASSUMPTIONS, my dear. You don’t KNOW that or otherwise. “Extremely unlikely” is precisely a way to ASSUME, not KNOW. KNOWLEDGE doesn’t work with PROBABILITIES, only REALITY. Which is 100% REAL (and without possible other versions).
26. I don’t AGREE with YOUR definition of evidence. Don’t tweak my words into your meanings.
27. What if that was a REAL question, not just an example? How much do we REALLY know about the guy? Or any other historical guy? Not much, honestly. The majority of it still is assumed.
28. True. But science (or rather “science fanatics”, the ones I have beef with) too often tries usurping positions it wasn’t meant for to begin with. Like “knowing the TRUTH”. :)
29. What about Proxima Centaur? Or Sirius? Do we KNOW anything about either? Maybe they don’t exist anymore for eons already – and we just see the left-over light that travels in space? Would you call that “knowledge”? I – wouldn’t.
30. Way to go into a moron phase. you did understand me, or you ARE a moron.
31. Me and 99.999% of world’s population. Which means that 99.999% of world’s population DOESN’T “prove” science, but MUST rely on a small group of the CHOSEN ones. How’s that NOT a BELIEF?
32. Moron again, way to go.
33. No. It means you LIED about “science being accessible to anyone for EXPERIMENTATION”. Not that it was NEW to me, of course.