In Triplicate, Please!
- Thread starter RainmanTime
- Start date
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
Troll, your ongoing debate against Gd/Phi/GMS is getting rather old.
You may have a pretty gift for quotation, which is a serviceable substitute for wit. But please already... your conventional views serve to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
Troll, your ongoing debate against Gd/Phi/GMS is getting rather old.
You may have a pretty gift for quotation, which is a serviceable substitute for wit. But please already... your conventional views serve to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
creedo299
Epochal Historian
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
CAT' I have an idea.You send me a test tube with a stopper on it, of your saliva and I'll send you same or sterilized urine.
I'll say I love you and you say same and then we can tell everyone we said I love you and exchanged bodily fluids for one year.
p.s.Remember, don't drink the contents of the test tube.....?
oh' by the way, when I say I love you, you have to say I love you back and not the word, same.
Also don't send me a test tube with the word same, scribbled on paper within a stopped test tube.
You can't pass the word SAME, by ejaculation :oops:
CAT' I have an idea.You send me a test tube with a stopper on it, of your saliva and I'll send you same or sterilized urine.
I'll say I love you and you say same and then we can tell everyone we said I love you and exchanged bodily fluids for one year.
p.s.Remember, don't drink the contents of the test tube.....?
oh' by the way, when I say I love you, you have to say I love you back and not the word, same.
Also don't send me a test tube with the word same, scribbled on paper within a stopped test tube.
You can't pass the word SAME, by ejaculation :oops:
trollface
Quantum Scribe
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
Rainman is not God.
BTW, do you not wish to tell me why you write the name in the Jewish tradition? I really am curious why someone with an unorthodox view of God would use an extremely orthodox convention. If you don't want to tell me, why not?
Well, I'm not trying to be witty. I'm not trying to be pretty. And I don't think having the abilioty to type "quote" and "/quote" between square brackets and being able to hit "CTRL" and "C" simultaniously really counts as a "gift". But, er, thanks, I suppose.
97.5% of the population of the world believes in a deity or supreme being of some kind (cite). Yet not believeing in one is "conventional"? How so?
I'm not trying to protect anything. In my experience, people don't like questioning their views, and I note a lack of critical thinking with regards to the beliefs that a lot of people express on this site. You'll note, for example, that Rainman has still ignored the thread about the Celestine Prophecy, after I posted an alternate, scientific possible explaination for the basis of what was posted. You'll notice he got very antsy and aggressive when challenged about the Drake equation, and he ignored the alternate explaination for UFOs and Biblical prophecies sharing similarities which he had related to the equation.
These things, I'm supposed to believe, are part of the larger tapestry which proves the existence of God, yet we can't actually debate them dispassionately and objectively. I'm not convinced that there is a massive amount of critical objective thinking going on here, no.
Rainman is not God.
BTW, do you not wish to tell me why you write the name in the Jewish tradition? I really am curious why someone with an unorthodox view of God would use an extremely orthodox convention. If you don't want to tell me, why not?
Well, I'm not trying to be witty. I'm not trying to be pretty. And I don't think having the abilioty to type "quote" and "/quote" between square brackets and being able to hit "CTRL" and "C" simultaniously really counts as a "gift". But, er, thanks, I suppose.
97.5% of the population of the world believes in a deity or supreme being of some kind (cite). Yet not believeing in one is "conventional"? How so?
I'm not trying to protect anything. In my experience, people don't like questioning their views, and I note a lack of critical thinking with regards to the beliefs that a lot of people express on this site. You'll note, for example, that Rainman has still ignored the thread about the Celestine Prophecy, after I posted an alternate, scientific possible explaination for the basis of what was posted. You'll notice he got very antsy and aggressive when challenged about the Drake equation, and he ignored the alternate explaination for UFOs and Biblical prophecies sharing similarities which he had related to the equation.
These things, I'm supposed to believe, are part of the larger tapestry which proves the existence of God, yet we can't actually debate them dispassionately and objectively. I'm not convinced that there is a massive amount of critical objective thinking going on here, no.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
1) I am preparing for a weeklong vacation beginning Saturday, and that means lots of work (real work, not this nonesense) needs to get accomplished. Therefore, I will not be responding to lo your many branches of illustrious (but highly questionable) "logic", trollface.
2) What the hell is up with Creedo (again)? He seems to be in one of his sexually-focused moods again. Perhaps a sign of frustration in that area of life. I noticed he sidled-up to Sarah awhile back to. At least there is little evidence that Creedo is gay!
If you want to see how Phi shows up in BOTH the human body AND the DNA double helix, you should study the website CAT provided you. In fact, since you always seem to want other people to do your lesson work for you (were you this way in school as well?), I will even point you to the precise pages that exhibit how Phi shows up in both these natural structures:
http://goldennumber.net/dna.htm
and
http://goldennumber.net/body.htm
And to add to this last one: I think it is interesting that there is another place that Phi shows up in the human body architecture, and I have not yet found it on this site: What is the shape of the human embryo early in the specialization stage of development? Yes, it is a spiral shape.... a GMS to be precise.
Have fun with CAT, trollface. And don't forget to pay some attention to Creedo...I think he is crying for some of your kind of attention.
I'll be checking in for the rest of the week, but have nowhere near the time to kill that I have in the past weeks. Boating, beer, and jetskiing in Colorado is more important than pacifying a debunker who wants attention. (Now I know there will be whining from this statement!)
RainmanTime
1) I am preparing for a weeklong vacation beginning Saturday, and that means lots of work (real work, not this nonesense) needs to get accomplished. Therefore, I will not be responding to lo your many branches of illustrious (but highly questionable) "logic", trollface.
2) What the hell is up with Creedo (again)? He seems to be in one of his sexually-focused moods again. Perhaps a sign of frustration in that area of life. I noticed he sidled-up to Sarah awhile back to. At least there is little evidence that Creedo is gay!
Yes, well your lack of knowledge of how "sacred geometry" exhibits itself in nature is clearly evident in your "workings". You seem to just think you can compare two things, in any arbitrary manner, and if they don't show you the Phi ratio in that ONE way of analyzing it, that it must not be there. You are simply a rank amateur in both understanding AND applying the mathematical concepts of fractals, chaos, and Phi. Admit it trollface. And yes, now you HAVE done something stupid. For you should know that you are ignorant about these topics (I have been telling you to educate yourself on them), and in your ignorance you decide to try to make yourself look intelligent in these fields by arbitrarily throwing out some computations. That is an act of stupidity: Thinking you are smart enough in an area to believe you can say things and sound like you know what you are talking about. Sorry, it backfired.
If you want to see how Phi shows up in BOTH the human body AND the DNA double helix, you should study the website CAT provided you. In fact, since you always seem to want other people to do your lesson work for you (were you this way in school as well?), I will even point you to the precise pages that exhibit how Phi shows up in both these natural structures:
http://goldennumber.net/dna.htm
and
http://goldennumber.net/body.htm
And to add to this last one: I think it is interesting that there is another place that Phi shows up in the human body architecture, and I have not yet found it on this site: What is the shape of the human embryo early in the specialization stage of development? Yes, it is a spiral shape.... a GMS to be precise.
No, you just don't LIKE the explanations I give, because they would force you to seriously look at the mathematical areas I have pointed you at. You say you are not disputing these areas of math, only their application. Well that obviously means you do not understand these areas of math in very much detail, for the applications of fractal self-similarity to MANY DIFFERENT living physical systems has been established for some time now. If an area of mathematics is shown to have a very close alignment with a great many instantiations of life forms, then this, in an of itself, shows correlation between the two. It provides a level of confidence that the application is reasonable, if not correct.
Have fun with CAT, trollface. And don't forget to pay some attention to Creedo...I think he is crying for some of your kind of attention.
I'll be checking in for the rest of the week, but have nowhere near the time to kill that I have in the past weeks. Boating, beer, and jetskiing in Colorado is more important than pacifying a debunker who wants attention. (Now I know there will be whining from this statement!)
RainmanTime
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
Oh yeah, one more thing to expose how trollface ignores things he doesn't wish to consider. Here are your exact words from this last post:
Well, yes. Considering that I ALREADY did this for you, and you just ignored the quote (which was pertinent to my discussion of information as energy), I DO think it is too much work to have to feed you your pablum...again...after you spit it out.
Now I will accept an apology, seeing as how I had done this when I posted the original link, and you were too lazy to go find that quote. Here...I will make it even easier on your poor, tired, Windoze 95 bedraggled fingers. Just click HERE , scroll down to the embedded links to the paper, and you will see the quote you need to find it in archives.
Gee....now was THAT so hard? Actually having to read EVERYTHING I wrote, and not just what you wish to debate?
RainmanTime
Oh yeah, one more thing to expose how trollface ignores things he doesn't wish to consider. Here are your exact words from this last post:
Well, yes. Considering that I ALREADY did this for you, and you just ignored the quote (which was pertinent to my discussion of information as energy), I DO think it is too much work to have to feed you your pablum...again...after you spit it out.
Now I will accept an apology, seeing as how I had done this when I posted the original link, and you were too lazy to go find that quote. Here...I will make it even easier on your poor, tired, Windoze 95 bedraggled fingers. Just click HERE , scroll down to the embedded links to the paper, and you will see the quote you need to find it in archives.
Gee....now was THAT so hard? Actually having to read EVERYTHING I wrote, and not just what you wish to debate?
RainmanTime
trollface
Quantum Scribe
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
Ever?
Just following what you said, cheif. I even quoted where you said that you were comparing the size of one to the other.
Uh, this is something you've said several times in this thread, and I've not disputed it once.
That has nothing to do with the size of the human body relative to the size of DNA, or the size of the human body relative to the size of the universe, which is what you were talking about.
Change what you're saying all you like, it's a matter of public record.
Ever?
Just following what you said, cheif. I even quoted where you said that you were comparing the size of one to the other.
Uh, this is something you've said several times in this thread, and I've not disputed it once.
That has nothing to do with the size of the human body relative to the size of DNA, or the size of the human body relative to the size of the universe, which is what you were talking about.
Change what you're saying all you like, it's a matter of public record.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: EVIDENCE of the crime
Yeah...one more parting shot for this evening, that I found quite amusing from this trollface post:
That is, unless you want to play semantic games about the definition of "holy". See HERE.
RainmanTime
Yeah...one more parting shot for this evening, that I found quite amusing from this trollface post:
How quaint your choice of wording is! What is really interesting about it is the nature of its technical depth in correctness. You see, since I *do* believe in our Creator, and you do *not* believe in our Creator, this would, in point of fact, make me holier than thou, trollface.
That is, unless you want to play semantic games about the definition of "holy". See HERE.
RainmanTime
trollface
Quantum Scribe
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
And have you tried finding a google cache from that quote? Or are you just criticising from a baseless assumption again?
See? Now that's funny, and it isn't a dig at me and it's not snarky. You do have it in you. Well done!
So, you been going over this entire thread before you go on holiday, then? Whatever floats your boat.
And have you tried finding a google cache from that quote? Or are you just criticising from a baseless assumption again?
See? Now that's funny, and it isn't a dig at me and it's not snarky. You do have it in you. Well done!
So, you been going over this entire thread before you go on holiday, then? Whatever floats your boat.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
You're fun, trollface. You have a little too high opinion of yourself and your abilities in some areas, but fun nonetheless. You keep trying to make me wrong. Because what we do here matters naught. Your human logic is subordinate to the realm of the Creator. The "acid test" will be what we discover upon death with regard to the Creator, not what your Incomplete logic thinks you are "proving". At least some of you will have to wait for death. Others of us have transcended this realm while still existing in these 3 dimensions.
RainmanTime
And you made the brash assumption that "size" equated to 1-dimensional linear length, so you arbitrarily chose to compare those. And this coming from a guy who told me he believes 3-D is the only level of dimensionality, and 1-D is just a concept. I would have thought with a view like this, you might want to compare....oh I don't know....something on the order of 3-D VOLUME....maybe.....hmmmmmmm????
You're fun, trollface. You have a little too high opinion of yourself and your abilities in some areas, but fun nonetheless. You keep trying to make me wrong. Because what we do here matters naught. Your human logic is subordinate to the realm of the Creator. The "acid test" will be what we discover upon death with regard to the Creator, not what your Incomplete logic thinks you are "proving". At least some of you will have to wait for death. Others of us have transcended this realm while still existing in these 3 dimensions.
RainmanTime
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
If you wish for me to also do your google cache search for you, you will have first send a gift certificate for a case of beer (the good German stuff, not the stuff you Brits pass off for beer).
And if you DID a cache search with that quote and did not find anything, the polite response would have been "I looked using the quote you supplied, but it did not come up with anything." Because how would I have ever known you even tried, or even recognized the quote I did give you.
So, I am arguing based on your lack of response, or even indication that I had given you the quote you requested before you even requested it. Nothing more.
Technically, buoyancy floats my boat. But sometimes your posts are like watching a train wreck, trollface.
RainmanTime
You asked for a quote. It was there all along. NOW you are asking me to ALSO do your cache search for you? Where does the toil of the American engineer ever end? RIGHT HERE, I say!
If you wish for me to also do your google cache search for you, you will have first send a gift certificate for a case of beer (the good German stuff, not the stuff you Brits pass off for beer).
And if you DID a cache search with that quote and did not find anything, the polite response would have been "I looked using the quote you supplied, but it did not come up with anything." Because how would I have ever known you even tried, or even recognized the quote I did give you.
So, I am arguing based on your lack of response, or even indication that I had given you the quote you requested before you even requested it. Nothing more.
Technically, buoyancy floats my boat. But sometimes your posts are like watching a train wreck, trollface.
RainmanTime
trollface
Quantum Scribe
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
And exactly how would you choose to measure the volume of DNA? Using the molecular mass to calculate the wieght, presumably? Are we talking about functional DNA, or crystallised? For DNA to be functional, you realise, it has to be wrapped around protein. Do we include the weight of that? How are you calculating the molecular weight of the DNA? Are you averaging out the different weights of the A, C, G and T molecules? Or would you calculate them individually? And so on.
I suspect that the answer is that you would go with whichever gave you the answer closest to the result that you want. As I said, the definitions are too loose, the criteria too arbitrary.
You know, this is true. But you are exactly the same in this respect, so I don't feel so bad.
I know. This should be enough to convince you that I'm arguing for the wrong side if my intention is to try to prove people wrong, shouldn't it? After all, if anybody else is right, they get to have that moment where I discover that I was wrong all along. If I'm right, then everybody else won't even find out that they were wrong, because they'll not exist any more.
That must be nice. Send me a postcard.
And exactly how would you choose to measure the volume of DNA? Using the molecular mass to calculate the wieght, presumably? Are we talking about functional DNA, or crystallised? For DNA to be functional, you realise, it has to be wrapped around protein. Do we include the weight of that? How are you calculating the molecular weight of the DNA? Are you averaging out the different weights of the A, C, G and T molecules? Or would you calculate them individually? And so on.
I suspect that the answer is that you would go with whichever gave you the answer closest to the result that you want. As I said, the definitions are too loose, the criteria too arbitrary.
You know, this is true. But you are exactly the same in this respect, so I don't feel so bad.
I know. This should be enough to convince you that I'm arguing for the wrong side if my intention is to try to prove people wrong, shouldn't it? After all, if anybody else is right, they get to have that moment where I discover that I was wrong all along. If I'm right, then everybody else won't even find out that they were wrong, because they'll not exist any more.
That must be nice. Send me a postcard.
trollface
Quantum Scribe
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
Yes, that's what I was asking you to do. Well figured out.
You're right, I forgot, and that was rude of me.
Well, in future, as I've asked many times, rather than getting on your high horse and automatically assuming the worst, why not try giving me the benifit of the doubt? Why not assume that I'm not just trying to be an arse, rather than that that's my reson d'etre? Might make this more pleasant all round.
Yes, that's what I was asking you to do. Well figured out.
You're right, I forgot, and that was rude of me.
Well, in future, as I've asked many times, rather than getting on your high horse and automatically assuming the worst, why not try giving me the benifit of the doubt? Why not assume that I'm not just trying to be an arse, rather than that that's my reson d'etre? Might make this more pleasant all round.
trollface
Quantum Scribe
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
Y'know, you nearly had me for a second, there. Forgot all about this for a moment.
You say you're not going to address any of the points I've made. However, before you go (or when you pop in during the week) you simply have to explain that post about the "real me". That is simultaniously the weirdest insult and the weirdest threat I've ever recieved, and I'm just dying to know what on Earth you think you're talking about there.
Please explain.
Y'know, you nearly had me for a second, there. Forgot all about this for a moment.
You say you're not going to address any of the points I've made. However, before you go (or when you pop in during the week) you simply have to explain that post about the "real me". That is simultaniously the weirdest insult and the weirdest threat I've ever recieved, and I'm just dying to know what on Earth you think you're talking about there.
Please explain.