Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Darn tootin'. We seem to be implementing an American version of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere.

Is he moving the sphere or is the sphere moving him?

That's sort of my point. These people were working in their own cities, organizing other people, having meetings and rallies. Organizing events for Martin Luther King to come speak at. Or getting protests together to put pressure on politicians. They're specific to each city in which they were working.

My point is, everyone can make a difference in their own sphere of influence to effect huge change. We're not taught that in History class, because why would they teach us how we can challenge power?

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Considering that this is the same thing as the paddle traveling at 900 mph towards a stationary ball, I'm surprised it wasn't the ball that exploded, but I suppose this has to do with the strength of domes/spheres.

He stated (@ about 0:19) that the "beads" are bionicle zamor spheres (http://bionicle.wikia.com/wiki/Zamor_Sphere) which are indeed lego parts.

@00Scud00 Agreed, I want to relive the inner sphere conflict as a member of the various houses, or as a clansman. The Battletech universe was so richly fleshed out, it's just a shame to turn it into FFA deathmatch.

Sigh. Orbiting earth is also hard, and there are hundreds of problems with it, which is why mankind went thousands of years without doing it. But long before we actually managed to do it, we knew that it should be possible, because we knew the earth was a sphere. I can imagine there was lots of heated discussions on how to do it, that would be little comfort to a flat-earther. "See! You cant put things in orbit, earth must be flat!" Like thats how stupid you sound when you go "Horizon problem! The universe must be 6000 years old!"

Why do you even bother reading about things like the Horizon problem? Are you seriously suggesting that this makes your case?

What I am suggesting is that both Creationists and secular scientists have an imperfect understanding of the problem, but Creationists do have a plausible explanation with evidence to back it up.

Whether the universe is six thousand or 13.72 billion years old is not in scientific dispute, ok? we might have to finetune it give or take a few million years, but there is no doubt about the general size of the number. If everybody has fucked up completely the last 100 years, then perhaps one could imagine the number needs to be trippled or cut in half or whatever (I really doubt it because we now have correlating data from so many fields) but 6000 years? Thats a JOKE. Its complete and utter nonsense, It's balls-out-clownshoes-and-two-fucking-trouts-on-your-head-barking-wackaloony-insane-babble-from-crazyland-wrong to the nth degree.

The correlating data you are looking at is a hall of mirrors. Radiometric data is based on uniformitarian assumptions. The light travel time is based on similar assumptions. Embedded in all of the estimations of an old age are unprovable assumptions that have no empirical evidence to prove they are true. They are in fact unknowable.

It's really not important to me to prove to you how old the Earth is. It's your worldview that the Earth is very old and it's intrinsic to how you view reality, and to try to excise that from your mind would be like trying to separate conjoined twins. All I really want you to know is that there is a God out there who loves you, and His name is Jesus Christ.

me: The earth is definately NOT ten thousand years young.

@shinyblurry Have you ever heard of the horizon problem?

Sigh. Orbiting earth is also hard, and there are hundreds of problems with it, which is why mankind went thousands of years without doing it. But long before we actually managed to do it, we knew that it should be possible, because we knew the earth was a sphere. I can imagine there was lots of heated discussions on how to do it, that would be little comfort to a flat-earther. "See! You cant put things in orbit, earth must be flat!" Like thats how stupid you sound when you go "Horizon problem! The universe must be 6000 years old!"

Why do you even bother reading about things like the Horizon problem? Are you seriously suggesting that this makes your case?

Whether the universe is six thousand or 13.72 billion years old is not in scientific dispute, ok? we might have to finetune it give or take a few million years, but there is no doubt about the general size of the number. If everybody has fucked up completely the last 100 years, then perhaps one could imagine the number needs to be trippled or cut in half or whatever (I really doubt it because we now have correlating data from so many fields) but 6000 years? Thats a JOKE. Its complete and utter nonsense, It's balls-out-clownshoes-and-two-fucking-trouts-on-your-head-barking-wackaloony-insane-babble-from-crazyland-wrong to the nth degree.

@Drachen_Jager

Do you think this concept could be adapted to be useful? Perhaps if it was a wide cylinder instead of a sphere it could sweep, for example, a 3 meter stripe instead of just a meandering deer trail.

That's it... I like the circular one as well...

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^RFlagg:
I saw a flag on Reddit that used a sphere/circle shape (the star in the center was slightly larger which might create issues).
Something like this?
edit: Also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_historical_flags-United
_States_of_America.jpg
I rather like the circular canton.

>> ^RFlagg:

I saw a flag on Reddit that used a sphere/circle shape (the star in the center was slightly larger which might create issues).

Something like this?

edit: Also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_historical_flags-United_States_of_America.jpg

I rather like the circular canton.

So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

The topic of the video is what academics think about God. And when they're talking about God, they are really talking about the Christian God, so it is relevant to the conversation.

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.

I don't have any problem with science. I think the exploration of the creation reveals the glory of the Creator, which is something I highly esteem. I only take issue with the hubris of men who exalt mans position in the Universe over God. It's kins of like that joke..

"God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to
Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally
figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other
words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and
form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and
starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.""

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

What's different in the world? 30 thousand people starving to death every day in a world that has a 70 trillion dollar GDP. The inequity in the world today is greater than at any other time. Most people aren't aware, and don't really care about anything which is happening outside their limited sphere of interest. There is no actual difference between the man of yesterday and the man of today. If anything, he is even more corrupt than ever.

As far as infant morality rates, God didn't create the world like this. It became this way because of sin.

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

It doesn't really matter if you hate religion, it's whether you love Jesus that is important. Did you?

Newton gave the credit to God, and said all of his inspiration came from Him. The value of his faith in God was very tangible to him, and the fruit it bore benefited all humankind.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions.

What scientific inquiry will answer them?

There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The vast majority of Christians have agreement on all of the core teachings of the bible, going back to the early church.

I don't expect you to agree with me that they are important; you of course have your own ideas about what is important. However, God did put you here for a reason, and you can only find that reason out from Him. If there is no God, there is no purpose, truth or meaning for anything. Did you catch this video?:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-about-Atheism

I notice that you put the word truth in quotation marks. Do you know what truth is? Without truth, you are living in a world of uncertainty. You are staring down a hall of mirrors, not knowing which is the true reflection.

There are only two routes to know what truth is. One is that you're omnipotent. Two, is that you are given revelation of the truth by an omnipotent being. I am claiming the second option; that's the only way I know what the truth is. What is your route to the truth?

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

These are rational beliefs until you are given revelation by God, and then you throw these theories out the window and start over. That's where I was at before I was saved, because I didn't grow up in a Christian home like you did. I grew up in a secular home without religion, and I thought along these same lines, and I was equally skeptical about all supernatural claims. It's only because God had mercy on me and showed me He is there that I know that He is.

The way it works is, God gives you enough information/revelation to know that He is, and then He puts the onus on you to seek Him out. You probably believe you are rejecting God for intellectual reasons, but you're really not when it comes down to it. You are rejecting God because of the sin in your life, because sin is what separates us from God. Sin corrupts your intellect and twists your logic just enough to keep you from seeing reality. If you honestly want to know the truth, and are willing to give up everything in your life to have it, then you will find it:

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the truth. Those who are seeking the truth end up on his doorstep. The way you know God is true is when God reveals Himself to you through personal revelation. Would you give up everything in your life to know the truth?

A Christian is someone who has surrendered their life to Christ. It sounds like you, like many others I've spoken to, grew up in a Christian home and were never taught how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You had your parents faith and didn't really understand why you believed. When you encountered the skepticism of the world, you found you couldn't justify your belief to yourself and fell away. Does that sound about right?

You don't become a Christian through osmosis from your parents; you need to be born again. Without the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, you won't have any reason to believe. You have nothing to stand on if your entire experience of Christianity is is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. Why would you do any of it if you didn't experience the tangible presence of God? To know God is to know Him personally, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

Now this is interesting, what you're saying here, when you mention "incorruptible knowledge". I'd like to explore this, but before we do, could you answer two simple questions?:

Tell me one thing you know for certain, and how you know it.

Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible?

A bit more details (like which 5 states lose Reps):
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_2/tsc_22_2_poston_farris.shtml

I would guess that like when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, the number or Reps would go up for one term, then the states that are losing Reps would redistrict the next election cycle.

Issues as I understand it right now is that their new governor isn't a pro statehood governor, and the vote was non-binding so it is a question of if they would ask in the first place. While the House is in control of the Republicans, they might see it as a nice chance to help say to the Hispanic community, see, we can be on your side, even though PR would probably be Democrat. I think if they apply it would be done, though on what sort of timeline remains in question... the flag he showed is more or less the flag we would probably have as it fits the traditional model, though I saw a flag on Reddit that used a sphere/circle shape (the star in the center was slightly larger which might create issues).

EDIT: Also this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/puerto-rico-votes-on-whether-to-change-relationship-with-us-elects-governor-and-legislators/2012/11/06/d87278ae
-288b-11e2-aaa5-ac786110c486_story.html

I imagine it's a result of various forces and circumstances (I don't think it's a coincidence that the droplets were soapy water which would increase it's surface tension/bubble strength).

Also keep in mind that a droplets surface would be a mesh of the outermost water molecules held together by their polar attraction. As the sphere bounces and moves its surface would have mini waves and ripples along it that would push against and then move away from the molecules on the water surface below it as the kinetic and polar forces acted.

If you imagine that every sphere of water had portions of its surface moving away from the water surface below and then oscillating back towards the surface while the molecules on the spheres surface that had been touching the water surface below would begin to oscillate back into the sphere.

This would create many points of contact oscillating against and away from the water surface below and thus there might not be enough contact/pressure between the 2 surfaces for it to coalesce at any given time. Imagine bugs whose feet are tiny enough for them to "stand" on water due to surface tension and the principle would be the same. It'd be like an infinite number of these bugs legs jumping up and down on the water at a microscopic level.

Also I'm not familiar enough with how water molecules align themselves while at the surface of something so perhaps the alignment of their atoms helps as well?

Thats all a guess though I'm sure you could google the real answer.