Duke Nukem 3D Episode 1 Level 2
https://youtu.be/2XBQ0zi9fbg

Spent a lot of my time on this planet living and dying in that world.

Ronin--superb car chase.
Also, a personal favorite, the scenes from "To Live and Die in LA"

Not all of them, only the ones that are able to take advantage of the situation, to adapt. Many live and die miserable anyway.

I was thinking more in the line of what does one do to be successful? If luck is so important is the most effective path to just wait for luck? Obviously not.

You have to prepare yourself to be able to take advantage of opportunities in life and/or adapt to disasters.

Not true really, we may have used to live in a world where everybody was born, lived and died in the same town and made holidays like that easy but we don't live in that world anymore.
Here's the part of that heartwarming little piece of crass commercialism they didn't show you. After the kids get put to bed the adults all sit gramps down and tell him that as much as they love him, if he ever pulls another stunt like that again we will bury you ourselves.

capitalism only really functions well (with regulation) in a world where resources are limited and a lot of manpower is needed to get things done. Thanks to technology, it's only a matter of time before resources are so easy to come by and manufacture into needed things that the supply and demand model will be obsolete.

I suspect that within 100 years, if not sooner, manual labor will be a thing of the past...unless you're an artist or something. Robots will be able to do virtually everything..and better than humans are capable of.

The only people who will still need to have jobs are engineers and maybe technicians, but even then, eventually robots will be able to repair themselves so maybe not even technicians will be needed. Hell, given enough time, nurses and many health care jobs won't be needed anymore because basic healthcare could be delegated to robots.

It's just a matter of time. We're already starting to see the effects of automation in the workforce, we just don't need as many people to get things done. Hell even technical jobs aren't safe because as computers get better and better, They'll be able to analyze certain things better than humans.

The question just becomes what do you do about it? A whole new economic model will be needed. Because we'll eventually be living in the world where unless you're in the academic top tier, you're just not going to be needed in the workforce. At the same time, again, because of technology, we're going to have the ability to feed and clothe AND shelter you for a minimal amount of effort so the prospect of being able to being born, living, and dying without ever NEEDING to work is a real possibility in the not so distant future.

Isn't that what you would call...a utopia? You want freedom? there it is. You'll be able to spend your time doing what you WANT to do instead of what you HAVE to do just to survive. I suspect at some point, there will have to be SOME procreation laws put into place to keep the population growth in check. But hell, even that won't be so bad once we have the ability to colonize other planets.

People will still work, they'll just do it because they want to do it, but they'll be jobs where they're not a necessity or anything. even in an age where a replicator can make all your food, people will still want to cook, or do other artisan style jobs.

But hey, we'll still need defense, gotta blow up or deflect any stray asteroid that comes near us. or just send a bunch of robots up to mine the rock to smitherines so we can use the resources to build our mighty space fleet and our other grand works That Dyson Sphere won't build itself after all

In other words, the human race....has won. isn't that a good thing?

Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

That's incorrect. We have radio telescope images of the galactic center which is 26000 light years away. Second, the estimates are based not on what we can't see, but the percentage that we can see and then averaging for the rest.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars. The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe. That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe. Only after that will we see a supernova form.

Actually, O3 type stars can go nova in about 3 million years time, according to that model.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy. You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.” That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole. So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

You can't argue that the galaxy is that old because the stars are that old, when that is the thing in dispute. The argument is intending to prove the stars couldn't be that old in the first place, thus proving the galaxy is not that old.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid: Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years. What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy? Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200! We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is."

According to

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/snrfab.html

"Obviously, Davies never went SNR hunting in a galactic environment, but I have. For one thing, an SNR becomes essentially invisible, even in a non-crowded environment, within 1,000,000 year tops, maybe less, depending on the specifics of the supernova and environment. But in practice they become essentially invisible long before."

So, they can be visible up to 1,000,000 years, yet we don't find even one at the maximum range of expansion that we are able to detect (or anywhere near it). We should be seeing the entire range of the spectrum, but the biggest we can find (according to their model), is 20000 years old. So this evidence doesn't hold up and the point remains.

Old hat.

"We cannot observe supernova remnants across our entire galaxy – basically nebulae. Supernova events we can see across the visible universe, but the actual gaseous remnants are much fainter because they are more diffuse. Because of dust and gas in the way, we cannot see all the objects in our own Galaxy. Probably the farthest we can see into the galaxy is maybe to a distance of 10,000 light-years. The galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across. Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

So now, we need to multiply our 10,000 years by 25, giving us 250,000 years for the age of the galaxy.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars. The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe. That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe. Only after that will we see a supernova form.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy. You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.” That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole. So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid: Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years. What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy? Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200! We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is."

Thanks I'd actually completely forgotten about sending you that link! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
In reply to this comment by evil_disco_man:
*promote

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
This is similar to some you've sifted, you may like:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Avett-Brothers-Live-and-Die-Live


Good song, and the banjo picking starting at 3:38 clinched it for me.

This is similar to some you've sifted, you may like:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Avett-Brothers-Live-and-Die-Live

You mentioned a bunch of metaphysical rules of the universe above. I'm assuming that since God created the universe and everything and everything, that he created both the physical rules and these metaphysical rules too.

* "sin" --> Rule: Sin exists and is defined by a particular set of actions/thoughts/etc.

Sin is defined as disobedience to Gods commands

* "death" --> Rule: Death exists

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

* "Their sin brought death into the world." --> Rule: When the first person sins, death will come to everyone.

This isn't a rule, it is simply a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

* "He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life." --> Rule: For humans to be forgiven for our sins and be released from death, someone had to be sacrificed.

There is a story about a King who decreed that anyone who committed the crime of adultery would have their eyes put out. This was enforced in the land for some time, until one day the prince of the kingdom was caught in the act. The King then was faced with a dilemma. On one hand He desired to be merciful to the prince, his son, but on the other hand he had to maintain his standard of justice to maintain the integrity of his authority in the kingdom. Therefore, to solve this conflict between justice and mercy, he put one of the princes eyes, and one of his own.

This story is similar to the reasons why God sent His Son to the cross. It was the solution to the conflict between His justice and His mercy.

* "What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God" --> Rule: The sacrifice had to be a perfect human to be effective.

The law was given because of sin, and the law couldn't make anyone perfect. What the law did was serve as a mirror unto man to show him what sin is. What was required was someone to perfectly fulfill that law so man could be reconciled back to God. Until that point, man had been spiritually separated from God because of sin. It took a sinless person to build that bridge and restore mans fellowship with God. That is why Jesus serves as a bridge between man and God, because it is only through His righteousness that we can reach God. Our good works are not good enough; they are like filthy rags before a Holy God.

So, why did God invent these particular rules? Why did he invent the concept of sin in the first place?

Why did your parents tell you not to play in traffic or take candy from strangers? For your protection.

Why not let us rut around like the other animals doing whatever occurs to us without the need for judgement?

Because we're not animals, and because we know better. He created us in His image and gave us a conscience to know right from wrong. We are set apart for His purposes.

Why did he invent death if he loved us so much?

Death was a punishment for sin. However, it was also a tender mercy. If mankind was immortal, we would be eternally separated from God.

Why did he create the rule that when one person sinned, the whole of creation would die (especially after he created humans such that they would sin all the bloody time)?

It wasn't a rule, but simply a consequence. When He created human beings, they were not made such that they would sin all of the time. It is when man chose to sin that his nature became corrupted. It's like how traits are passed down from their parents genetically..we inherited their sinful nature.

Why did God create such a horrible place as Hell? Why not just love Satan and Satan's angels (all his creations) enough so that they would be good again as he expects from you and me?

We don't know whether there was an offer of reconciliation to Satan or not. What we do know is that today they all stand condemned. Salvation is not "God loving us enough so we'll be good again".

Why would God create such an impossible condition for the forgiveness of sins that he would have to create and send his son to be killed by his fallen creation?

I gave an explanation for this earlier. I will say that His standard for goodness is moral perfection; that is inherent to His nature.

This all sounds like plot-driving fantasy writing to me (Rule: the one ring can only be destroyed by being dropped into the fires of Mount Doom; Rule: Fairy dust and happy thoughts will give you the ability to fly; Rule: Walking into the special closet without thinking about it will put you in Narnia), and that's why I think the Bible is fiction too. They're such random rules of cause and effect (not to mention some of the random rules of sin itself) that they can only lead to disaster and disappointment... unless they're just plot devices that lead to a bunch of awesome fantasy stories. And that's what I currently believe.

As you learn more I hope you will begin to make the connections between what we have been talking about for the past year or so. Although you are developing a more in depth understanding of the gospel, it is still on a superficial level and you have many misconceptions. If you want to understand it, then instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it. There is nothing logically contradictory about the gospel. It is internally consistent in every respect, and its depths are inexhaustible.

If God doesn't want to send us to Hell, why did he invent rules so that he would? Can't God just change or break his own rules and stop sending us to Hell?

Let's say you have a perfectly well behaved son, but one day he starts doing meth on your kitchen table and bringing hookers into his room every night. Are you going to compromise your standards and say that is okay or are you going to lay down the law and give him an ultimatum? You don't want to do anything that would harm your son, because you love him, but neither are you going to approve of his behavior, or endanger the well being of the rest of the household. You are going to let him know there are very real consequences to his behavior and enforce the rules.

God is Holy and just.

By who's definition? What can those human words of judgement possibly mean when applied to a god? And if we are following the human meaning of "just", how is it just to create the concept of sin, create death, create rules where if you sin you die, create hell as the punishment for sin, and then create humans such that we would definitely sin? That's not just in the least. And yes, you say that you and I have the chance to redeem ourselves, but what about those of us who lived and died before we had that chance? Why should they all have to suffer? They will never have the chance to accept Jesus as saviour.

God has given us progressive revelation. As I've said before, you don't go to hell for what you didn't know, you go to hell for what you do know and reject. Everyone prior to the cross was saved according the amount of revelation God had given them. For the gentiles, it would on the basis of their conscience. For the jews, it was on the basis to their adherance to the law.

The words holy and just wouldn't mean anything if God hadn't give us revelation about Himself. They mean something because of who He is. It is without Him that they would become meaningless. Essentially, it is all to say that God is perfect. Or as they say in philosophical circles, that He is a maximally great being, possessing every possible perfection.

We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

That's a new one for me. Can you give me a quote? I was pretty sure heaven was up in the sky somewhere, even according to the Bible. Didn't Jesus "rise" into heaven?

Revelation 21:2-5

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

If my fine is paid in full and I've been given eternal life, why am I praying for anything?

For the same reason that if you wish to enter a door you must first walk through it.

>> ^messenger

@shinyblurry

You mentioned a bunch of metaphysical rules of the universe above. I'm assuming that since God created the universe and everything and everything, that he created both the physical rules and these metaphysical rules too.

Here are the ones you mentioned --> with my paraphrasing of the metaphysical "rule" as I understand it:
* "sin" --> Rule: Sin exists and is defined by a particular set of actions/thoughts/etc.
* "death" --> Rule: Death exists
* "He created [Hell] for the devil and his angels" --> Rule: Hell exists and has those properties.
* "Their sin brought death into the world." --> Rule: When the first person sins, death will come to everyone.
* "He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life." --> Rule: For humans to be forgiven for our sins and be released from death, someone had to be sacrificed.
* "What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God" --> Rule: The sacrifice had to be a perfect human to be effective.

The fact that these rules exist means that God decided they should exist, right? So, why did God invent these particular rules? Why did he invent the concept of sin in the first place? Why not let us rut around like the other animals doing whatever occurs to us without the need for judgement? Why did he invent death if he loved us so much? Why did he create the rule that when one person sinned, the whole of creation would die (especially after he created humans such that they would sin all the bloody time)? Why did God create such a horrible place as Hell? Why not just love Satan and Satan's angels (all his creations) enough so that they would be good again as he expects from you and me? Why would God create such an impossible condition for the forgiveness of sins that he would have to create and send his son to be killed by his fallen creation?

This all sounds like plot-driving fantasy writing to me (Rule: the one ring can only be destroyed by being dropped into the fires of Mount Doom; Rule: Fairy dust and happy thoughts will give you the ability to fly; Rule: Walking into the special closet without thinking about it will put you in Narnia), and that's why I think the Bible is fiction too. They're such random rules of cause and effect (not to mention some of the random rules of sin itself) that they can only lead to disaster and disappointment... unless they're just plot devices that lead to a bunch of awesome fantasy stories. And that's what I currently believe.

People are not sent to hell for doubting the love of God. They are sent to hell for their sins. ... God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He created it for the devil and his angels, not human beings. He loves us, which is why God sent His only Son to bear the punishment for our sins, in our place, so we wouldn't have to go to hell. He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross, and died in our place.

If God doesn't want to send us to Hell, why did he invent rules so that he would? Can't God just change or break his own rules and stop sending us to Hell?

God is Holy and just.

By who's definition? What can those human words of judgement possibly mean when applied to a god? And if we are following the human meaning of "just", how is it just to create the concept of sin, create death, create rules where if you sin you die, create hell as the punishment for sin, and then create humans such that we would definitely sin? That's not just in the least. And yes, you say that you and I have the chance to redeem ourselves, but what about those of us who lived and died before we had that chance? Why should they all have to suffer? They will never have the chance to accept Jesus as saviour.

We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

That's a new one for me. Can you give me a quote? I was pretty sure heaven was up in the sky somewhere, even according to the Bible. Didn't Jesus "rise" into heaven?

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

If my fine is paid in full and I've been given eternal life, why am I praying for anything?

Again, there is no scientific consensus on seeing past the big bang. There just isn't. Stephen Hawking might have an idea - actually he has had a few contradictory different opinions on things over the years and he's honestly not universally respected at this point - but he's not "science" and US Today is not a great place to learn about science.

How quickly your commentary changes. I guess that's scientific, right? Before it was "NO ONE IS SAYING SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING STUPID!" Now it's that there is no concensus.

To be clear, I'm not making the opposite assumption. If Hawking said the Universe came from nothing, for all I know he's right. Maybe one day that will become part of established theory. Right now it isn't - in any way, shape or form - and it's not part of the general Big Bang theory; it's just the speculation, possibly not even terribly serious speculation, of a famous physicist.

Ahh, more science here..before you said, that something comes from nothing makes no sense. Now it's, a scientist said it so I can believe its true. Hah!

Science doesn't have the full picture. People will try to figure out more, but until then Science is OK with not knowing everything.

Science doesn't know anything about origins, whether it is the origin of the Universe, or life itself. It doesn't have a clue, and it is plainly obvious when one of the foremost scientists in the world is positing that something came from nothing and everyone is nodding sagely. The emperor has no clothes.

But now I'm curious, about your full picture. How old is the Earth? How long ago were Adam and Eve (assuming you believe in a literal Adam and Eve)? Was there a worldwide flood? Why does it really, really look like there wasn't? Were there dinosaurs? When did they live and die? Was there pre-human human like beings (Cromagnons and what not)? If not, what are all those skeletons, artifacts and history? Why is it the further we dig the less complex the fossils are? Did all humans once speak the same language? Was there a tower of Babel where the languages split? Is the universe expanding?

I don't want to lose the thread here. If you want to discuss all of these things, message me.

Overall, is science right about pretty much everything, other than the few places it contradicts your scripture? Isn't that an odd coincidence? Or do you think science is wrong about a bunch of other stuff too?

Science gets a lot right but overall it is blind. I appreciate science, and I have nothing against it. I am just against things which aren't science, such as macro evolution.

>> ^jmzero:
@shinyblurry
You never explained anything but rather offered your amatuer opinion. Here is the opinion of an expert:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
Congrats, you can use Google - but no, that isn't much of a link (I'm very surprised you couldn't find something better than that, really). Hell, the story doesn't even support the headline. But even if Stephen Hawking swears on his life that the Universe came from nothing, it wouldn't mean us "followers of Scientism" would believe that. Science doesn't work like that.
Again, there is no scientific consensus on seeing past the big bang. There just isn't. Stephen Hawking might have an idea - actually he has had a few contradictory different opinions on things over the years and he's honestly not universally respected at this point - but he's not "science" and US Today is not a great place to learn about science.
And did I explain it before? Yes, I did. I just checked. So did a couple other VS posters. And you commented on the Tyson Big Bang video. Did you watch it before writing your stupid comment (oh, and it was stupid)? In there, he explicitly says that the Big Bang theory doesn't explain what happened before a certain threshold. As Tyson says around 31 minutes, we need a new theory to get us before that.
That's the current scientific consensus. His talk is simple and easy to understand, and you pretended to watch it. Do you think he's lying about the current state of knowledge? Do you think he's wrong? Or do you think some new secret scientific consensus has maybe emerged since that video? Hint: it hasn't.
To be clear, I'm not making the opposite assumption. If Hawking said the Universe came from nothing, for all I know he's right. Maybe one day that will become part of established theory. Right now it isn't - in any way, shape or form - and it's not part of the general Big Bang theory; it's just the speculation, possibly not even terribly serious speculation, of a famous physicist.
To learn about what is the Big Bang theory, try the Wikipedia article - which, as I quoted before, does represent more or less the current consensus. (Hint: when you want to learn about scientific theory at a "popular" level, try Wikipedia before USA Today). As it says, science doesn't have a consensus on seeing past the Big Bang. You can see some other speculative theories at the end of that article.
Science doesn't have the full picture. People will try to figure out more, but until then Science is OK with not knowing everything.
But now I'm curious, about your full picture. How old is the Earth? How long ago were Adam and Eve (assuming you believe in a literal Adam and Eve)? Was there a worldwide flood? Why does it really, really look like there wasn't? Were there dinosaurs? When did they live and die? Was there pre-human human like beings (Cromagnons and what not)? If not, what are all those skeletons, artifacts and history? Why is it the further we dig the less complex the fossils are? Did all humans once speak the same language? Was there a tower of Babel where the languages split? Is the universe expanding?
Overall, is science right about pretty much everything, other than the few places it contradicts your scripture? Isn't that an odd coincidence? Or do you think science is wrong about a bunch of other stuff too?

@shinyblurry

You never explained anything but rather offered your amatuer opinion. Here is the opinion of an expert:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm


Congrats, you can use Google - but no, that isn't much of a link (I'm very surprised you couldn't find something better than that, really). Hell, the story doesn't even support the headline. But even if Stephen Hawking swears on his life that the Universe came from nothing, it wouldn't mean us "followers of Scientism" would believe that. Science doesn't work like that.

Again, there is no scientific consensus on seeing past the big bang. There just isn't. Stephen Hawking might have an idea - actually he has had a few contradictory different opinions on things over the years and he's honestly not universally respected at this point - but he's not "science" and US Today is not a great place to learn about science.

And did I explain it before? Yes, I did. I just checked. So did a couple other VS posters. And you commented on the Tyson Big Bang video. Did you watch it before writing your stupid comment (oh, and it was stupid)? In there, he explicitly says that the Big Bang theory doesn't explain what happened before a certain threshold. As Tyson says around 31 minutes, we need a new theory to get us before that.

That's the current scientific consensus. His talk is simple and easy to understand, and you pretended to watch it. Do you think he's lying about the current state of knowledge? Do you think he's wrong? Or do you think some new secret scientific consensus has maybe emerged since that video? Hint: it hasn't.

To be clear, I'm not making the opposite assumption. If Hawking said the Universe came from nothing, for all I know he's right. Maybe one day that will become part of established theory. Right now it isn't - in any way, shape or form - and it's not part of the general Big Bang theory; it's just the speculation, possibly not even terribly serious speculation, of a famous physicist.

To learn about what is the Big Bang theory, try the Wikipedia article - which, as I quoted before, does represent more or less the current consensus. (Hint: when you want to learn about scientific theory at a "popular" level, try Wikipedia before USA Today). As it says, science doesn't have a consensus on seeing past the Big Bang. You can see some other speculative theories at the end of that article.

Science doesn't have the full picture. People will try to figure out more, but until then Science is OK with not knowing everything.

But now I'm curious, about your full picture. How old is the Earth? How long ago were Adam and Eve (assuming you believe in a literal Adam and Eve)? Was there a worldwide flood? Why does it really, really look like there wasn't? Were there dinosaurs? When did they live and die? Was there pre-human human like beings (Cromagnons and what not)? If not, what are all those skeletons, artifacts and history? Why is it the further we dig the less complex the fossils are? Did all humans once speak the same language? Was there a tower of Babel where the languages split? Is the universe expanding?

Overall, is science right about pretty much everything, other than the few places it contradicts your scripture? Isn't that an odd coincidence? Or do you think science is wrong about a bunch of other stuff too?