BF2S Forums Claim anything, I'll prove it wrong

you cant play video games without a source of power
hmmm hmm?

<^0|7h3-64m3|^0> wrote:

After the day it comes the night/after the night it comes the day

Not on the moon!

A day/night; a 24 hour time period; is something non-existent from a Moon perspective. Also completely forget about that scenario for anything or any matter contained within a black-hole.

Mushroomcar wrote:

I can't fly.
I can't run faster than the light.
Humans are not able to take up solarpower with their hands.
Everyone will die sometime.

You’re not serious - right?

(1) Of course you can fly:
Jetpack
Hang-glider
Cessna
Commercial Airliner
Etc.

Oh, maybe it goes against your religious values? Anyways you can fly.

(2) Of course you can run faster than a light, for Christ sake most lights are stationary to begin with! Shit, the light on my desk never moves unless I move it!

(3) Humans absorb (take up; up-take; whatever) solar power all the time (head, hands, back, buttocks, etc); we just don’t do much with it - being that we lack chloroplasts.

(4) Everyone already certainly dead, will not die, that would imply the dead dying again. Not gonna happen.

Pw.Sultan wrote:

you cant play video games without a source of power - hmmm hmm?

Depends I guess, I know Christians who claim God is the source of all power. I know Atheists who say that is simply proof-less conjecture, so it might simply not exist.

Christians who believe in a God power source - play video games.
Atheist without a God power source - play video games.

This simple proof that you can play a video game (do something) without a spiritual “power source” (or belief in one) can, of course, be extended to anything else - you do.

thareaper254 wrote:

To have sex you have to use a penis.

A lesbian doesn’t have a-penis (0-penis sex). And homosexuals do (2-penis sex). So it can involve a-penis(1), 0, 2, or even more dependent upon the situation. But, it does not have to be limited to 1, and might involve 0.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-30 11:42:35)

Thank you Topal, I was just about to start answering but you did it for me.

Masterstyle wrote:

You see and are reading this sentence and will not reply to this post if you dont see or read this sentence.

Well 'are reading' is an infinite perspective, I won't be reading for my whole life so then your sentence will be proven wrong

daddyofdeath wrote:

I am using a keyboard to type my reply on this topic. On the Internet.

A keyboard on the internet???

Nope, you are using a keyboard to type your reply on this topic. On Your desk/table/whatever you are writing on.

surgeon_bond wrote:

you have never spoken/typed/said/commented at al in the #bf2s irc channel on irc.gamesurge.net

Yes I have.

You failed in that sentence

DeathUnlimited wrote:

surgeon_bond wrote:

you have never spoken/typed/said/commented at al in the #bf2s irc channel on irc.gamesurge.net

Yes I have.

You failed in that sentence

shit

An isolated region of the observed universe appears surprisingly hospitable to the emergence of life that can make such an observation - only in such a fine-tuned universe can such living observers exist.

ever heard about the anthropic principle? you got me wrong, maybe because i'm no native english speaker. go figure.

nothing to do with that. it's more like: some people say: wow, everything just seems to be fitting perfectly in this part of universe to bring up life, so there must be a creator... the anthropic principle states that only because it is shaped in such way there can be an observer, get it?

Last edited by I{endo (2007-03-30 13:00:58)

I{endo wrote:

nothing to do with that. it's more like: some people say: wow, everything just seems to be fitting perfectly in this part of universe to bring up life, so there must be a creator... the anthropic principle states that only because it is shaped in such way there can be an observer, get it?

edited version

I{endo wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

But if it is shaped perfectly, that means there must be a creator. If things just happen, they happen pretty much randomly, they don't make perfect shapes.

i prove you wrong on this one: if you have let's say a billion apes typing on a billion typewriters for a billion of billion of years: there will be a typed a <perfect> edition of a bible sometime. ask a physician.

no. apes won't focus on that for that long time.

You should have said: If you randomize an infinite number of letters on a billion billion computers, then you might have a bible.

Never use living creatures as examples, they are too unreliable.

Also the fact that something perfect appears, doesn't stop billions of billions of total random SHIT to appear aswell

Tehremos wrote:

topal63 wrote:

thareaper254 wrote:

To have sex you have to use a penis.

A lesbian doesn’t have a-penis (0-penis sex). And homosexuals do (2-penis sex). So it can involve a-penis(1), 0, 2, or even more dependent upon the situation. But, it does not have to be limited to 1, and might involve 0.

technically when two lesbians involve themselves in a sexual activity, it is not classed as sex
(my lesbian teacher told me that)

so i believe you have been beaten there

LOL, someone told you a sexual act isn't sex, if it isn’t reproductive-procreation or doesn't involve what: semen or sperm? Nope you’re wrong, big time, so we will examine your errant rebuttal from another perspective then - OK.

Sex (in Biology) refers to the male and female duality of organisms and reproduction. Unlike organisms that only have the ability to reproduce asexually, sexed male and female pairs have the ability to produce offspring through meiosis and fertilization. The two sexes attract one another and communicate their readiness to procreate through differences (sexual dimorphism) in their biology.

Anyways, this is just ONE definition of sex: male/female dimorphism, which is not the (or a) sexual act itself, which is another definition of sex (having sex; engaging in a sexual act; etc). And, a eunuch a castrated male, without a penis, is still male, and therefore (have) has his sex(-uality) he has NOT changed into a female, he is still male irregardless of the penis (or any procreation) issue.

In sex terms - he is still dimorphicly male; his sex is male; without a penis (0-penis).

Also if you are referring to this ONE definition of sex: your so-called teacher told you, she is wrong. Procreation as sex, reproduction (meiosis and fertilization) does not require that you use a "penis" it requires that you use what comes out: "semen/sperm." It does not matter in a modern world how you (or people) do it:

Freeze it - use it later.
Masturbate - place in dish, give to lesbian, place on dildo - ENJOY!
Etc and whatever.

About Eunuchs: http://www.allaboutturkey.com/harem.htm

The Ottoman Empire:

There were several different varieties of eunuchs:
Sandali, or clean-shaven: The parts are swept off by a single cut of a razor, a tube (tin or wooden) is set in the urethra, the wound is cauterized with boiling oil, and the patient is planted in a fresh dung-hill. His diet is milk, and if under puberty he often survives.

The eunuch whose penis is removed: He retains all the power of copulation and procreation without the wherewithal; and this, since the discovery of caoutchouc, has often been supplied.

The eunuch, or classical thlibias and semivir, who has been rendered sexless by the removing of the testicles..., or by their being bruised..., twisted, seared or bandaged.

Also Coral’s reproduce; engage in sex (the procreative aspect); and have nothing that remotely resembles your penis (ZERO penises here).

Corals can reproduce either asexually by budding or sexually by releasing gametes (sperm and eggs). Budding is the replication of new individuals and is the method by which coral colonies grow. Other individuals are the product of sexual reproduction.

A coral polyp's reproductive organs are contained inside the body cavity and lie on the mesenteries (or septa). Fertilization of the mature eggs by male sperm may take place within the female coral polyp (internal fertilization) or may be external, occurring in the water column. These are two major contrasting modes of reproduction and have many implications in reproductive ecology.  A coral that releases all of its gametes into the water so that fertilization occurs externally is known as a broadcaster.  Internal fertilization is achieved by only the male gametes of the species being liberated from the polyps. These mature sperm swim through the water and find a polyp of the same species that has ripe eggs within it. The sperm then enter the polyp via the mouth to fertilize the eggs internally. A coral adopting this strategy is known as a brooder.  (An example of the approximately 15% of corals that use this reproductive mode are Porites spp.)

Final Note:

Tehremos wrote:

topal63 wrote:

thareaper254 wrote:

To have sex you have to use a penis.

A lesbian doesn’t have a-penis (0-penis sex). And homosexuals do (2-penis sex). So it can involve a-penis(1), 0, 2, or even more dependent upon the situation. But, it does not have to be limited to 1, and might involve 0.

technically when two lesbians involve themselves in a sexual activity, it is not classed as sex
(my lesbian teacher told me that) so i believe you have been beaten there

You also failed to negate, or take notice of, my multiple penis (non-lesbian) scenario. This of course does not involve “a-penis” (1 penis) it could potentially involve many.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-30 13:53:10)

I{endo wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

You should have said: If you randomize an infinite number of letters on a billion billion computers, then you might have a bible.

the ape stands as a symbolic picture this case... lol, but you are quite right.

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Also the fact that something perfect appears, doesn't stop billions of billions of total random SHIT to appear aswell

exactly. and thats the background for the anthropic principle. i was mistaken to use the term <perfect> in the first place, it sure was confusing - but well, oh so human. let's not discuss about what is <perfect> or not. cough.

if some part in this universe is shaped in such way to bring out humans, it can be observed and judged by humans - if it's <random shit>: there will be no observer to whine and praise. that was the topic- principle to be proven wrong. well, stephen hawking kinda did already, so don't get confused too much m8. nice thread anyway.

okay thanks, I can't say very much more about that, because I am not an expert on that case, but it's always a pleasure to have a good "fight"/conversation

I{endo wrote:

An isolated region of the observed universe appears surprisingly hospitable to the emergence of life that can make such an observation - only in such a fine-tuned universe can such living observers exist.

This particular (anthropic) statement - is riddled with ERRORS, not yours of course, as you are not the originator of the idea.

1.) To gage the validity of the statement; you would at a minimum need to be able to examine the other non-plasma-bodies; regions of space (the 1% of matter) that are not governed by the plasma-state (99% of the matter in the Universe exists in this state). Even though it is 1% that exists in this state - that is a massive amount of area to survey and that is entirely beyond the scope of science at this moment in subjective time.

You cannot claim that this (or any other) isolated region of space appears “surprisingly” hospitable to life, or hospitable to the emergence of life. It is a meaningless statement when considering you cannot statistically calculate what other isolated regions are hospitable or to what degree.

2.) Anthropically to say that the Universe is being explained by man (anthropos) is also a meaningless statement. Of course our science and explanations of the Universe are being delivered in human terms by humans (man: anthropos).

3.) The “fine-tuned” physical constants is an error of logic - it is a misconception. The physical-constants are not “fine-tuned” by anything other than human being(s) who created the scientific formulas. The 20+ physical constants are inserted into equations with a specific (human tuned) value as to make the equations work; because they (we) lack an underlying scientific theory to explain their existence. In a sense they are “fudge-factors,” a portion of the Universe yet explained (they represent incomplete scientific understanding), they make observation match mathematical prediction, but they are certainly not explanatory. There is no such thing as a “fine-tuned” Universe. That is mere ignorant word-play.

4.) Also you would expect that this Universe, at a minimum, at least be hospitable to the emergence of life somewhere, else we would not exist and would not be describing the Universe in human (anthropos:man’s) terms - that humans can understand. Such statements are utterly mundane, simple and for all intensive purposes meaningless.

5.) Considering string-theory (P-branes) parallel Universes; Universes beyond this so-called Space-Time Expansion, the possibility of this Universe (the energy herein) being a chain of other preceding events. One cannot say, or calculate, what the likely-hood is of life arising in this, or any other Universe, if in multiple other Universes there is no-life whatsoever. Or the opposite life is common to Universes. Who has surveyed the other Universes? Who even knows if they are (exist); or are not?

6.) All terms like: "surprisingly", "hospitable", "fine-tuned", "appears", etc, or others like this: are NOT objective explanatory terms; they are “weasel-words” - subjective terms. As subjective terms they are being abused in a way to suggest meaning/explanation - where there is none. And of course we all know who (what) the illogical conclusion to the subjective “fine-tuned” argument is: some sort of higher being as transcendent creator (God). Of course objectively, without subjective proof-less belief, no such thing is being indicated by science (or by as-now incomplete-science) or by the human-tuned constants that are inserted into human-mathematical formulas.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-30 14:57:18)