666...the Devils Moving Average

"Carbo 14 is what you are basing this on and this alone?????

How reliable is carbon 14 testing??????? "

No...and VERY.


"'prankster' would have had to know that Kodak was going to invent a camera in 500 years"

Non-sequitor.

"NASA has a piece right now...the problem is the each want to take a chunk ( I inch by I inch).....this is a sacred garment and how many chunks are going to be taken.??"


Hoaxes are not sacred.

The church already called it a hoax and has a confession. Did you forget that part?

The confession date matches the carbon 14 date. Did you forget that?


I wager NASA will uncover more evidence of bullshit. Then what will happen?

They will scurry around making more silly EXCUSES.


Those articles on the website make a LOT of claims without evidence, and without stating WHO made the claim or what their credentials are.

It is NOT hard science.

The hard science has already been done and the conclusion has been draw. HOAX.

The church even already agreed. :D

Now they are back pedaling. LOL. :D

What would it take for you to believe it is a hoax?

There is already way too much evidence that it IS a hoax to believe that this is true.

peace

axeman
 
"Have you ever seen a million dollars?????? do you accept it exists?"

Yes I've seen a million dollars. I can prove it exists in many ways.

"We have countless case after case of Science being wrong......yet even if you saw something with your own eyes ....you want to rely on flawed science to tell you what to believe"

Flawed science? Empty assertion.
I could very well do my OWN experiment with Blaine. Thats not the point. I don't think I could get Blaines permission as a nobody to do this, but Im sure someone like Randi could. That is the only reason I said this.
Yes science is wrong along the way to achieving knowledge. Can you deny all the great discoveries of science?
Science, however is self correcting.
If you are implying that we should not believe a system such as science, because it is wrong sometimes, then you have serious serious issues.
You must ALSO reject the church's teaching because they have obviously been wrong.

In fact... you must reject ALL knowledge, because NO knowledge has EVER come from ANYONE who has ALWAYS been right :D

Your implication is quite absurd and boils down to poisoning the well. It is irrelevant that science is occasionally wrong along it's path to truth.

I challenge you to NAME a better system of discovery. Then prove that this system is superior to science and why all modern scientists should switch to it as THE method of discovery.



"......seems to me like you have a God of your own but don't even know it... "

False. You have not proven this.


"you follow blindly what 'Science ' tells you....."


False. I require research and evidence.
Even from science.

"you could see and touch and know the truth your self, but as you said you would wait until the team of Scientists told you it was true....."

Contextual error. Seeing is NOT believing at a magic show. It is NOT enough. This is an error. If you believe that seeing is believing, then you have discovered your own flaw.


"Thats very similar to our religion....Jesus once said Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.....see you in church on sunday Axe???:D "

A worthless statement from a fictonal character. It is possible to prove what cannot be seen. It is possible to prove what can be seen. It is possible to disprove what can be seen. It is possible to disprove what can't be seen. So what does jesus's statement tell us? Not a thing.


"well this has been great and you all put forth super arguments but im off for a little Biz trip to Ft. Lauderdale....don't let me down Axe...Im expecting to come back on Friday and see a well thought out and insiteful response to my last post:) "

Already done :D


peace

axeman
 
Quote from axeman:

The normal person?

I've NEVER had a supernatural experience, I must be very abnormal. In fact, none of my closest friends have made such claims either. Hmmmmmm..

By your logic, if many experience something, it must be true.

I guess magicians can really fly, and make the statue of liberty disappear because a BUNCH of people witnessed it?

Your WAY off base here.

You need to go back and reread my post. I ACTIVELY sought out the supernatural in my lifetime, and probably far more than the average person. I studied it for several years and ran actual experiments.

I found NADA. If it is SOOOO common, why could I not easily prove it?

Because what people BELIEVE they saw, or happened, is not necessarily what ACTUALLY happened.

I will explain a failed ouji board experiment if you wish.

I know I can convince MOST people that ouji boards really work. Then I can convince them why they are not supernatural.
More...

Okay, we're getting nowhere here.

But at least I know where you're coming from. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion of course. I just still find it a bit on the arrogant side that you think that billions of people on planet earth are self-deceived through brain stimulation, etc. and you alone have the correct perspective.

Anyway, I'm still digging for some common ground here. Let me try this instead. Here's a question for you. I'm going to go back to the near death experiences.

Let's don't argue for a second as to whether or not they are real, etc. Instead, let's examine what the human brain does in these cases.

When a person has an NDE, they have a fantastic sensory experience that blows away the most sophisticated simulation experiences that man has concoted in a laboratory, movie theatre, etc.

Now we know if we added up the moving and non-moving parts in a projector and movie theatre, it would run into 1000's of components.

And so we can reasonably expect that the human brain is composed of tens of thousands of components and 10,000's more chemical and elecrical processes intricately intertwined.

A previous thread on this board even proposed that the brain may be fantastically more complex than we can even imagine, halographic in nature..

Now, here's my question for you? Do you really believe that tens and tens of thousands of mutations could have occurred in the right sequence to create this sort of Super Cray computer housed in our craniums in just a 100 million years or less? I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't believe that anyone who knows probabiility and stats at even a base level could believe that. This is doubly true considering that any mutation must be a "positive", spread within the species to a certain extent, suvive of course, and must be properly sequenced. (Many of the mustations have to happen in a serial fashion.)

I'm asking this seriously: has anybody ever tried to map how this could possibly happen in the EXTREMELY short time frames that we have here on planet earth?
 
I will skip many points of contention in your post and jump to the meat of it.

"Now, here's my question for you? Do you really believe that tens and tens of thousands of mutations could have occurred in the right sequence to create this sort of Super Cray computer housed in our craniums in just a 100 million years or less? I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't believe that anyone who knows probabiility and stats at even a base level could believe that. "


This is just another version of finding a watch on the beach.
We have been through this before. You have NO idea what the probability is period. You are CLAIMING that it is very low, but have zero evidence to support this notion.



"I'm asking this seriously: has anybody ever tried to map how this could possibly happen in the EXTREMELY short time frames that we have here on planet earth? "

Short by who's measure? You are asserting this is not enough time for this happen, but again without any supporting evidence.
This is like hearing the 1 in a trillion lotto ticket winner say that its statistically impossible to win within a humans life time. Yet he DID win.


Now this REALLY begs the question. I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet. Here is the BIG hole in this line of reasoning.

Your basic argument is this:


Anything complex MUST have a creator
Man is complex
--------------------------------------------
Therefore: There must be a creator, for man


Now this begs the question.

The creator you are claiming is even MORE complex than any human. So WHO created your creator???

And who created your creators creator? And so on..and so on.
Your argument of complexity goes into an infinite loop.
It has serious problems.

To be more formal, it looks like this:

Anything complex MUST have a creator
The creator is EXTREMELY complex
--------------------------------------------
Therefore: There must be a creator, for the creator


This is your exact logic. So I ask you.... do you believe your creator
has a creator? And what about his?
Do you believe in an infinite number of creators?


peace

axeman
 
Quote from crackhead:

Went short today at the' 666' SMA resistance level on Thursdays close in the E-mini. Sold 3 cars on a March 04 at 1035.35......I've already sold my soul to him so I will be re-paid in due course.............................The Devil owns the Market.............Trust me on this.......666 is also a serious fib level........................................................................................................................
More...

Reading some of the posts on this thread it is clear that religious debates evoke a lot of emotion on all sides.

Even if you are on the side of believing in God and\or satan, I would quote Mark Ritchie from New Market Wizards, "God is not a market manipulator."

I would add, Satan isn't either. Just because the S&P happened to randomly touch a 666 sma, doesn't mean anything. None of the other market indicies were even close. I'm not seeing a lot of divergence between the S&P and the dow, naz, nyse, amex, etc.

I would like to say though, that God hates a countertrend trader. I do know this from the times I entered a trade countertrend, and started praying, He never answered my prayers. (LOL - see my second paragraph, above.)
 
This is your exact logic. So I ask you.... do you believe your creator
has a creator? And what about his?
Do you believe in an infinite number of creators?


peace

axeman
_____________________________________________

No, No, and No.
I believe that there are possibly different kinds of creators for different levels of creation.
The computer has one type of creator.
(To make something out of something else.)
To make something out of nothing takes a different kind of creator. To start life from no-life is probably this level.
The creation of something that could create life or something out of nothing is a whole different level of creation which we probably can't comprehend.
Since there is such a vast difference between the levels of creation it doesn't logically follow that the higher level would necessarily be the same on up the line. At least to our finite minds. We start to lose our understanding above the first level, obviously or 93% of those atheist scientist would have already created life or something out of nothing.
 
Fallacy: Circular reasoning.

You are using attributes of this "higher creator" to prove/imply that he does not need to be created.

But you haven't proven he exists in the first place.

In other words....You are using the unproven to prove the unproven.

Try again.



peace

axeman




Quote from Doubter:

This is your exact logic. So I ask you.... do you believe your creator
has a creator? And what about his?
Do you believe in an infinite number of creators?


peace

axeman
_____________________________________________

No, No, and No.
I believe that there are possibly different kinds of creators for different levels of creation.
The computer has one type of creator.
(To make something out of something else.)
To make something out of nothing takes a different kind of creator. To start life from no-life is probably this level.
The creation of something that could create life or something out of nothing is a whole different level of creation which we probably can't comprehend.
Since there is such a vast difference between the levels of creation it doesn't logically follow that the higher level would necessarily be the same on up the line. At least to our finite minds. We start to lose our understanding above the first level, obviously or 93% of those atheist scientist would have already created life or something out of nothing.
More...
 
science and logic provide answers for the HOW. do you ever ask yourselves WHY ?? why are you alive, et al. HOW is of no consequence to me ( or you if you analyse it)--- i seek to know WHY . i am wired to want to know WHY, apparently axe, gg, etc. are simply wired to ask HOW. different brains, different wiring---one cannot fully comprehend the other.

best,

surfer
 
Quote from crackhead:

Went short today at the' 666' SMA resistance level on Thursdays close in the E-mini. Sold 3 cars on a March 04 at 1035.35......I've already sold my soul to him so I will be re-paid in due course.............................The Devil owns the Market.............Trust me on this.......666 is also a serious fib level........................................................................................................................
More...



doesn't WAXIE own the freaking market ??

LOL !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top