Print

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

Hint:
Everything decays to LEAD.

interesting statement, given that its not true

and im not even arguing the semantics that "everything radioactive decays to lead" because thats not true either, for example, tritium, or hydrogen-3, decays into helium-3

oh, BTW, as for distinguishing small numbers of atoms, heres 35, count them yourself

[throwingks]

I saw it with my own eyes, in Disney World. Nostradamus, turned lead into gold right on stage in front of everybody. He even asked my brother to help. <--- True story.

My Paypal is in my sig.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Apr 2 2006, 10:13 PM)

interesting statement, given that its not true

and im not even arguing the semantics that "everything radioactive decays to lead" because thats not true either, for example, tritium, or hydrogen-3, decays into helium-3

oh, BTW, as for distinguishing small numbers of atoms, heres 35, count them yourself

You obviously arent a scientist, and they called me a troll.

I have only been exposed to nanothilthography in passing.

It took you 3 hours to find and present this. It has no real bearing on detector responce and the distiguishment of  of Xe atoms from Ld atoms. Now does it. Given the fact we are discussing an event from nearly 30 years ago now.

What real bearing does this microscope, are they Xenon atoms because thats what the caption says.

Let me guess the presenters already knew the answer befroe posing the question since they set up the experiment as well as the controls.

Are sure one isnt kryton or Rubidioum the 3rd one on the left kind of looks like Carbon to me.

[jha'dhur]

Actually this image is a trace of or a shadow of an atom. It doesnt resemble the scientificly accepted atomic structure. Bohr model or whatever the newes atom fad is.



The citizens of Nagaski and Hiroshima can atest to this. Film from ground zero had peculiar ghost traces on it very similiar to the image you posted. It was from the neutron and gamma pulse upon detonation.

Technially you are not looking at atoms more so than for lack of a beter term "xray" of film exposed and corresponding lack of exposure corresponding to their position.

@ Vader: Why cant you you see the electrons.



 
Dude, look up in the sky, is it a bird, no it is a plane.

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:36 PM)

You obviously arent a scientist, and they called me a troll.

I have only been exposed to nanothilthography in passing.

It took you 3 hours to find and present this. It has no real bearing on detector responce and the distiguishment of  of Xe atoms from Ld atoms. Now does it. Given the fact we are discussing an event from nearly 30 years ago now.

What real bearing does this microscope, are they Xenon atoms because thats what the caption says.

Let me guess the presenters already knew the answer befroe posing the question since they set up the experiment as well as the controls.

Are sure one isnt kryton or Rubidioum the 3rd one on the left kind of looks like Carbon to me.

im simply pointing out that is an STM can see individual atoms im sure there is more sensative equipment than a mass spectrometer

QUOTE

Funny, the particle accelerator I conducted experiments with took up the space of a small lab or maybe 2-3 offices.

funnier i have a few particle accelerators in my bedroom, but i think throwingks was referring to high-energy experimental accelerators like this one



of course only the "big boys" get to work with the big cyclotrons, lol

i think this is the most current atom model, or at least the one that replaced the bohr model while i was in high school (seems you arent much of a scientist either)

[throwingks]

QUOTE(damam @ Mar 31 2006, 02:25 PM)

So do you consider yourself to a jew?
I have a friend that is agnostic, but still conseders himself to jewish.  He actually left the states and moved to israel.

Sorry, I didn't answer your question before. Yes I do still consider myself to be a Jew. In the Old Testament there are too many things that are above human comprehension that some sort of more intelligent being had to of had a hand in creating it. Those same things do not apply in the New Testament, especially mathematically.

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:47 PM)

Dude, look up in the sky, is it a bird, no it is a plane.

That looks like what Ezekial described!!!

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 09:19 PM)

Seriously new guy...start a new thread....this is just damn annoying

I concur.

P.S. jha'dhur - Take it easy on Vader. I don't recall seeing him attack you personally yet. For being a Mod, I think he is being extremely patient with you. Just because he was helping correct your calculations does not mean he is against you. He may be now, but he wasn't then.

[_iffy]

*edit* withdrawn

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 2 2006, 11:29 PM)

Sorry, I didn't answer your question before. Yes I do still consider myself to be a Jew. In the Old Testament there are too many things that are above human comprehension that some sort of more intelligent being had to of had a hand in creating it. Those same things do not apply in the New Testament, especially mathematically.That looks like what Ezekial described!!!I concur.

P.S. jha'dhur - Take it easy on Vader. I don't recall seeing him attack you personally yet. For being a Mod, I think he is being extremely patient with you. Just because he was helping correct your calculations does not mean he is against you. He may be now, but he wasn't then.

You are arguing semantics like Puck, trying to put your own spin on a translation of a translation of a translation of a vey old document.

And maybe if Vader has something substance to add other than to just throw pebbles I could respect that even if he was wrong _iffy was just blatantly misconceptually wrong. Seabourg was mistaken, so was Vader. I have been mistaken because we are humans. But down through your BS up in the air an expect noone to take notice.

I guess bieing a "MOD" makes him infallable also, Seabourg as well.

I you, whoever should take note with skeptiscism of junk science. You all drummend out that Raelian FOOL.

@VADER what stake do you hve in this discourse, Puck you little dumb brother or something.

Teacher, you still havent answered my question wise one.  

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Apr 2 2006, 11:08 PM)

im simply pointing out that is an STM can see individual atoms im sure there is more sensative equipment than a mass spectrometer
funnier i have a few particle accelerators in my bedroom, but i think throwingks was referring to high-energy experimental accelerators like this one



of course only the "big boys" get to work with the big cyclotrons, lol

i think this is the most current atom model, or at least the one that replaced the bohr model while i was in high school (seems you arent much of a scientist either)

QUOTE

im simply pointing out that is an STM can see individual atoms im sure there is more sensative equipment

Actually you are just pulling shit out of your arse to save face. PRIDE....

GOOGLE built for morons.

What is high energy? Please define?  When you wish to demonstrate some understanding please let me know.

What element is that, you post a picture of?

[throwingks]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 04:11 AM)

You are arguing semantics like Puck, trying to put your own spin on a translation of a translation of a translation of a vey old document.

I am not the one who made this correlation. Do you have a better explanation of what he saw. Keep in mind the Bible was meant to be taken litterally. Or else, it is possible Mary wasn't a virgin. This is my point to this whole thread until you vultured it with your name calling and useless banter.

It seems to be that the people that resort to name calling are the ones who lack the confidence in their statements that they carry enough weight on their own. Is this the case now? Or are you so pissed off that someone out there in the world sees something different than you do? Honestly, I am gonna miss you when you are gone. You made this section enjoyable again, even if only for a little while.

QUOTE(slightly_damp @ Apr 3 2006, 07:47 AM)

Again, I concur.

[damam]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 03:21 PM)

 . . .
It is my contension, that you and DAMAN are wrong about the Jesus thing also. And you are going to spin it off an a side tangent as well.

QUOTE

Claim #1
I claim that there is a new testament story where Jesus presents an apostle with unclean meet, and he will not eat even after he has seen Jesus walk on water, and he is rebuked.

QUOTE

Claim #2
I do remember also a new testament story where Saul/Paul while accompanied by some of the apostles is beaten by a Greek soldier, he replied to the soldier that he was a "Greek" and that stop beating him

 
That is my recollection, The fact that I dont have my annotated personal bible is the only reason you can cling to the last straw of credibility that you have.

Claim #1
These are the stories of Jesus walking on water:
Mark 6:44-51
John 6:10-21
Matthew 14:17-34
I dont think there is anything in there that collaborates your claim.

Perhaps you are talking about Matthew 15:10-20?

QUOTE(NIV Matthew 15:10-20)

10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
 12Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"
 13He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.[a] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
 15Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
 16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

QUOTE(KJV Matthew 15:10-20)

10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
 11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
 12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
 13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
 14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
 15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
 16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
 17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
 18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
 19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
 20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

I guess you could argue that this is proof he was a proponent of eating unclean food.  But that certainlyis not my oppinion of this scripture.  And there is definitely nothing here about him praying over pork and then rebuking his apostles for refusting to eat it.

claim #2
I dont recall the story but if it is true that would not necessarily change anything since he was a helenistic jew.  He might have even been an official citizen of rome but I doubt it.

QUOTE(NIV Acts 23:6)

6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."

QUOTE(KJV Acts 23:6)

6But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Either he was a convert and that would make him a liar or he was a full fledged jew.  

Really claim #2 is trivial to me.  It makes no difference to my faith.  But claim #1 would alter my entire perception of christ.  If you really do think you can prove this, please post the book chapter and verses.


@Puck
are you sure that Paul was anti-mosaic law?  Or was he just anti forcing gentiles to follow the mosaic law?  
Acts 23:1
Acts 25:7-8
Acts 28:17
these seem to suggest that he did live by the law and traditions as well.  Really to maintain legitamacy within the pharisees and saducees they would have to live by the law and traditions.  Much of what they did were legal arguements and debates at the synagogue . . .

[damam]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 3 2006, 06:32 AM)

About Paul being anti-Mosaic law:

I dont believe that he personally violated Mosaic law, or that he kept Mosaic law for that matter....

I just think you can observe the early christian church, and their dismissal of Mosaic law, and you can point to paul.  I dont know if i can say it any other way.  I dont think he "had a hand in it".  I think he was just trying to be as open to the gentiles as possible, and in the process decided that if the new guys didnt want to follow Mosaic law then it was ok.  This attitude, in my opinion though, led to a complete dismissal of Mosaic law which we seen in modern christianity.

I agree with that . . .  it just sounded like you were saying that he was anti-mosaic law as in giving them the big FU and mooning the pharisees while he ate pork etc

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(damam @ Apr 3 2006, 12:23 PM)

That is my recollection, The fact that I dont have my annotated personal bible is the only reason you can cling to the last straw of credibility that you have.
Claim #1
These are the stories of Jesus walking on water:
Mark 6:44-51
John 6:10-21
Matthew 14:17-34
I dont think there is anything in there that collaborates your claim.

Perhaps you are talking about Matthew 15:10-20?
I guess you could argue that this is proof he was a proponent of eating unclean food.  But that certainlyis not my oppinion of this scripture.  And there is definitely nothing here about him praying over pork and then rebuking his apostles for refusting to eat it.

claim #2
I dont recall the story but if it is true that would not necessarily change anything since he was a helenistic jew.  He might have even been an official citizen of rome but I doubt it.
Either he was a convert and that would make him a liar or he was a full fledged jew.  

Really claim #2 is trivial to me.  It makes no difference to my faith.  But claim #1 would alter my entire perception of christ.  If you really do think you can prove this, please post the book chapter and verses.

Acts 10

QUOTE

Peter's Vision
 9) About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
 14) "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

 15) The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

 16) This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
 

 This is why you pray over your food of whatever preference before you consume it.

 I will not argue semantics like others and insist (Jesus =God). But it was Peter and not Saul the convert.


 P.S. My bible expert seems to recall claim #2 and is locating exact passasge.

[damam]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 11:13 AM)

Acts 10

This is why you pray over your food of whatever preference before you consume it.

 I will not argue semantics like others and insist (Jesus =God). But it was Peter and not Saul the convert.
 P.S. My bible expert seems to recall claim #2 and is locating exact passasge.

I am well aware of the verse.  I personally make a clear distinction between the living jesus (ie pre Crucifixion), and what has been revealed through revelation (like peters vision).  I am also aware that many of my fellow Christians dont (such as yourself?).  So on this point I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Thank you for posting it.

[damam]

QUOTE

Thats why I was asking him about his whole outlook.....

First for this belief to hold any truth....G_d=Jesus
Secondly, you have to believe that the "vision" of G-d is the same thing as Jesus in corporeal form to hold his claim....

I think I mentioned this passage when the whole argument broke out....

yeah you did.
I also make a distinction between revalations in which they say they saw jesus specifically. . .

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 3 2006, 12:05 PM)

I also do not understand how this scenario would extend to other Christians?
The animals that Peter saw had "come down from Heaven"....
Unless your food comes in a sheet from Heaven...I dont see how this is applicable to you

chyaaa, what ever dude.  I get all of my food in sheets descending from heaven.  Its one of the perks of being a christian  

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 3 2006, 06:05 PM)

Thats why I was asking him about his whole outlook.....

First for this belief to hold any truth....G_d=Jesus
Secondly, you have to believe that the "vision" of G-d is the same thing as Jesus in corporeal form to hold his claim....

I think I mentioned this passage when the whole argument broke out....
Plus...if you will notice...there is no mention of praying over the food...I dont know where you got that...
G_d didnt say that if you pray over it I will make it clean
G_d said that He had made it clean....

SEMANTICS..................