Creation or Evolution? (Maybe both)

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

You've been made to look like a complete idiot by two people, and yet you still babble on and steal material from others?

Your name says it all!!!!!!!!!

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

and I hope for your sake you really are "well endowed" though I doubt it, because I have made quite clear you got screwed on brains and basic science education

Not to get off topic but why would you care what another man's penis size is??????

[Look-at-Stupid]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Perhaps if I were submitting a thesis or if this was an exam- What's my penalty- 5 years in jail? Did you not read my first sentence where I clearly mention: HERE'S MY SOURCE:: When I type :HERE's MY SOURCE does that not tell the average person that I am quoting someone's work??? I saw you make that same accusation to someone else- get a life!!!!!


This is a fucking Eccie Whoreboard and you are talking about plagarism as if I was submitting my Thesis LMFAO

Clue for ya very very stupid one, the ones who duck questions, as you have DONE ALL OF MINE, loses the debate. I guess since you did not make it to high school, much less college, you're oblivious to that fact. Plus, still waiting on proof of this supernatural sky fairy? The other gentleman here stated it better than I can...." the simple thought process of a moron....I can't figure out how it was done, SO IT MUST BE JESUS!!!!!".....You make me laugh and very thankful I have an education and a brain.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

My Friend you have a lot to learn about the strcture of the Pyramid here's one source that talks about the perfection of the Pyramid and how whoever built the Pyramids had to know the precise circumference of the earth and the constellations:

The antiquity of the pyramids of Giza, their debatable purpose (whether a tomb or something far more profound), and the fact they were designed on the basis of a sacred, hermetic geometry, makes for considerable intrigue. Scholars have, in fact, labored over the Great Pyramid of Giza, and in the process have discovered a host of marvels. For example, the builders almost certainly knew the precise circumference of the Earth and the length of the year to several decimal places accuracy.

This includes the Sidereal year (365.2564 days between two sightings of the same star before and after the earth’s orbit), the Anomalistic year (365.2599 days of the earth’s sun orbit), and the Solar year (365.24 days between two successive autumnal equinoxes).

The Great Pyramid of Giza has been shown to be an almanac capable of measuring the length of the year to an accuracy of 365.2422 days -- rivaling the accuracy of a modern telescope. The ancient architect(s) may also have known the mean length of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, the average distance of the Earth from the Sun, the specific density of the planet (and thus the weight of the planet), the precession of the equinoxes (which defines the current era as the Age of Pisces), the acceleration of gravity, and the speed of light. In fact, as a simple, precise, and virtually indestructible surveying instrument, the compass point of the pyramid is so finely tuned to north that modern compasses use it for a reference. The Pyramid’s location also serves as a geodetic marker for the geography of the ancient world - being located at the geocentric center of the earth’s land mass.

The Great Pyramid also incorporates in its sides and angles the means for creating a highly sophisticated map projection of the northern geohemisphere, and as such correctly incorporates the geographical degrees of latitude and longitude. It is also a celestial observatory from which maps of the stellar hemisphere can be accurately drawn, and along with the other two Giza pyramids replicates the exact positions of the three stars in the “belt” of the Constellation Orion. Finally, there is an example of The Golden Spiral, whereby the three pyramids and the Sphinx are interlocked and thus situated by design.

The hemispherical map projection is particularly intriguing. The apex of the Pyramid, for example, corresponds to the geographical pole, while the perimeter of the Pyramid corresponds to the equator, both in proper scale. Each flat face of the Pyramid was designed to represent one curved quarter of the northern hemisphere (a spherical quadrant of 90°). This is more difficult than one might imagine, for in order to project a spherical quadrant onto a flat triangle correctly, the arc, or base of the quadrant must be the same length as the base of the triangle, and both must have the same height.

This can only happen in a pyramid if the slope angle allows for a p relationship between the height of the pyramid and its base. In this relationship the side (S) of the Great Pyramid, divided by twice the height (H) must equal p divided by four, i.e.:

S / ( 2 x H ) = p / 4

The slope angle, a, between the slope of the pyramid’s side and the horizontal is given by tan a = 2 x H / S = 2 x 480 feet / 754 feet, such that a = 51.853318324... °. This angle becomes extremely important in the construction of pyramids, great and otherwise, and we will return to it shortly.

The slope angle is intriguingly similar to 360°/7 = 51.42857142857...° This similarity is discussed in more detail in Nines.

It is clear that the builders of the Great Pyramid knew their Sacred Geometry, as well as the importance of the Golden Mean. By choosing the proper dimensions, they managed to ensure that the area of each face of the Great Pyramid is exactly equal to the square of the pyramid’s height. This is a nice trick, and is accomplished by choosing the slope of the Pyramid such that the apothem equals 1.618 times half the side of the base.

For example, if half the side of the Great Pyramid (S/2) is set equal to 1, the height of the Pyramid equals ÖF (F being the Golden Mean), and the apothem (the distance from the midpoint of a side, along the face of the pyramid, to the top) equals F. In some respects, this is simply the Pythagorean Theorem where the square of the hypotenuse (F) equals the sum of the squares of the sides (1 and ÖF).


Explain, how the builders were able to get these exact numbers and keep in mind this is long before the telescope and before man went into space!!!!

Where did you read all of that bullshit? POST A LINK so we can see who wrote it. There are LOTS of charlatans that write mystical books to sell to the gullible and they wil make stuff up and/or misconstrue real facts - not to mention ignoring reasonable explanations - in order to make sensational claims to sell books.

Most of the BS above involves nothing more than explanations of the mathematical relationships between the sides, surfaces, and angles of a geometric shape - in this case a four sided pyramid. I studied that same stuff in geometry class in 10th grade. There is nothing mystical about it - except to you. The ancient Egyptians and the ancient Greeks know about geometry, too. Unfortunately, they also attached mystical meanings to mathematical relationships.

Do you believe every piece of crap you read on the Internet?

And notice the weasel wording ("may") of the anonymous article you cited:

"The ancient architect(s) MAY also have known the mean length of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, the average distance of the Earth from the Sun, the specific density of the planet (and thus the weight of the planet), the precession of the equinoxes (which defines the current era as the Age of Pisces), the acceleration of gravity, and the speed of light".

Really? They MAY have known all that? They MAY have know what I had for breakfast this morning, too, but there is not proof of that, either.

Do you believe every piece of crap you read on the Internet?

And just what the fuck does this mean:

"In fact, as a simple, precise, and virtually indestructible surveying instrument, the compass point of the pyramid is so finely tuned to north that modern compasses use it for a reference. The Pyramid’s location also serves as a geodetic marker for the geography of the ancient world - being located at the geocentric center of the earth’s land mass."

What is the "compass point of the pyramid"? The Great Pyramid, located in Egypt, is located at 30 degrees north latitude and points directly up in the sky. That is nowhere near north. And just what does "tuned to north" mean?

Do you believe every piece of crap you read on the Internet?

And what does "geocentric center of the earths land mass mean"? Here is the definition of geocentric:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/geocentric

Yes, that's right. It refers to having the earth as the center of the solar system and/or universe. Something that we ALL now know is false.

And how could Giza even be at the center of the earth's land mass? The surface of the earth doesn't have a "center" anywhere on it. Center relative to what?

The earth has a center of mass, located at the center of the globe, about 4000 miles below the surface. It doesn't have a center of land mass.

Do you believe every piece of crap you read on the Internet?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Where did you read all of that bullshit? POST A LINK so we can see who wrote it. There are LOTS of charlatans that write mystical books to sell to the gullible and they wil make stuff up and/or misconstrue real facts - not to mention ignoring reasonable explanations - in order to make sensational claims to sell books.

Most of the BS above involves nothing more than explanations of the mathematical relationships between the sides, surfaces, and angles of a geometric shape - in this case a four sided pyramid. I studied that same stuff in geometry class in 10th grade. There is nothing mystical about it - except to you. The ancient Egyptians and the ancient Greeks know about that stuff, too. They unfortunately did attach mystical meanings to mathematical relationships.

And notice the weasel wording ("may") of the anonymous article you cited:

"The ancient architect(s) MAY also have known the mean length of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, the average distance of the Earth from the Sun, the specific density of the planet (and thus the weight of the planet), the precession of the equinoxes (which defines the current era as the Age of Pisces), the acceleration of gravity, and the speed of light".

Really? They MAY have known all that? They MAY have know what I had for breakfast this morning, too, but there is not proof of that, either.

So when you post a link about Evolution we are supposed to believe it's factual and law of the land????

[wellendowed1911]

But here are some sources:
http://www.petrospec-technologies.co...id/pyramid.htm

http://rickzepeda.hubpages.com/hub/E...et-Information


http://www.squidoo.com/the-great-pyramid-anomoly


http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-...alignment.html

[exoticdanceweardealer]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You can't possibly be serious- can you please google Pumapunku and get a close up visual of that structure? Are you saying the Great pyramids, stonehedge, and Pumapunu all you needed was a lever on a large scale to build that monument?? Even the most skeptical Archaeologist would laugh in your face at that comment.

I promise you that you get by the most advanced machinery at Lowe's and you couldn't even build a tree house without making major flaws.
If a lever is all you needed, how do you carry and lift 100 ton stones???? How do you carve them?


Are you telling me a hundred men gathered around the stone and said:" on the count of 3 let's all lift???" You surely can't be that naive or gullible? Look at the pictures of Puma Punku- there are no other stones in that vicinity- that had to have been carried from one location to another- the wheel was not invented yet- so who carried these 100 ton stones???
Just admit you don't have an answer instead of digging yourself a hole- again either they had technology far superior than what we have in 2012 or they had divine help- there's no way out of this mystery.

Wow, this thread is still strong! Good job OP! You got a good debate going!

Anyway, here is an interesting article on the pyramids:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0328104302.htm

We don't know exactly what happened with these ancient civilizations and how they built their stone masterpieces.

I am not sure how this applies to evolution but I didn't read at least a page of this thread.
-----------------------
As for the name calling and general insulting. I don't see how that provides evidence, it does shame people for not taking your view but it doesn't act as evidence to support any argument.

[Juan Pablo de Marco]

have you guys really been arguing this shit for a WHOLE WEEK? weather has been great...any of you been outside? Rangers are winning tonight...

i'm sure SO FUCKING MANY minds have been changed.

carry on men.

JPdM

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

But here are some sources:
http://www.petrospec-technologies.co...id/pyramid.htm

http://rickzepeda.hubpages.com/hub/E...et-Information


http://www.squidoo.com/the-great-pyramid-anomoly


http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-...alignment.html

Did you read them either?

Did you not notice that these articles offer perfectly rationale explanations for most of the "so-called" mysteries of the Great Pyramid?

Like how to find true north by putting a stick in the ground and measuring it's shadow? How to bisect angles?

And the precise measurements (to 4 or 5 decimal points) are conjecture also. They have not been - and cannot be - measured on the great Pyramid.

Why? Because the exterior finishing stones on surface of the Great Pyramid were torn off centuries ago by looters. The GP was originally a brilliant white. Take a look at the picture of the rough, yellowish block stones in the picture of the Great Pyramid in one of the links you posted.

At the very tip-top, you can make out some whitish looking stones. They are all that is left of the finishing stones.

So how exactly do you measure a surface angle to the precision of 51.8431 degrees, if you do not even know where the surface lies? The answer is you can't. It is just conjecture.

Somebody stood at the base and picked an approximate spot where they thought the surface would have ended. Similarly, somebody estimated where the peak was. Then they assumed all the missing finishing stones lay in a flat surface between those 2 points. And they estimated the angle to the horizontal.

If they were real good, the ancients might have gotten that angle to about a tenth of a degree. The rest of the precision was filled in by folks with a vested interest in selling books about ancient astronauts.

[exoticdanceweardealer]

Originally Posted by Juan Pablo de Marco

have you guys really been arguing this shit for a WHOLE WEEK? weather has been great...any of you been outside? Rangers are winning tonight...

i'm sure SO FUCKING MANY minds have been changed.

carry on men.

JPdM

They were, I just got bored and jumped back in!

Interesting question, what do you guys complain about plagiarism for? It isn't going to invoke a lawsuit unless it is being used commercially. Simply quoting some article for a web based debate on a forum isn't against the law and even if it were it isn't worth them pressing charges over. I am a search marketing pro and believe me a lot of our job is plagiarizing via article syndication.

However providing a source is the correct technical writing method so that others can view and judge whether the sources are feasible or not.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

The ignorant one is you child, evolution only pertains to life once it was already here. The field of abiogensis is the field that is concerned with origins. Read here, MAYBE it is simple enough for someone with your limited capacity to understand. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

After learning how stupid you are, come back apologize for being so frickin stupid. I mean really kid, how many times must be told the same thing before you get a frickin clue?

Title Of This Post: THEY DON"T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE

Yes yes, a cleaver little way through the use of semantics to try
and separate themselves from something that they self admittedly
don't have A FUCKING CLUE about, question being " How did it all start "

We'll try and separate ourselves from it and call it by a different
name even though both go hand in hand and one cannot really be
separated from the other.

Abiogenesis: The belief that life arose from dead matter apart
from any creator commonly referred to as GOD.

Naturalist Evolution: The belief that after life arose from dead matter
apart from any creator commonly referred to as GOD, it then proceeded
to evolve from one life form to another, apart from any creator
commonly referred to as GOD

Nice try, but how could even a child be fooled by that.

Question to a naturalist evolutionist- So you believe that life started
from dead matter without the help of God ( oh no you are confusing
evolution with abiogenesis ) So where then do you believe that life
came from ( we believe that life started from dead matter without
the help of God ) Oh well then, now I see the difference. Thanks
for clearing that up.

This guy dose a pretty good job of explaining how they go hand in hand.
www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html

[Look-at-Stupid]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Title Of This Post: THEY DON"T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE

Yes yes, a cleaver little way through the use of semantics to try
and separate themselves from something that they self admittedly
don't have A FUCKING CLUE about, question being " How did it all start "

We'll try and separate ourselves from it and call it by a different
name even though both go hand in hand and one cannot really be
separated from the other.

Abiogenesis: The belief that life arose from dead matter apart
from any creator commonly referred to as GOD.

Naturalist Evolution: The belief that after life arose from dead matter
apart from any creator commonly referred to as GOD, it then proceeded
to evolve from one life form to another, apart from any creator
commonly referred to as GOD

Nice try, but how could even a child be fooled by that.

Question to a naturalist evolutionist- So you believe that life started
from dead matter without the help of God ( oh no you are confusing
evolution with abiogenesis ) So where then do you believe that life
came from ( we believe that life started from dead matter without
the help of God ) Oh well then, now I see the difference. Thanks
for clearing that up.

This guy dose a pretty good job of explaining how they go hand in hand.
www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html

Good job! You finally admit you have NO fucking clue!! But at least you appear to have TRIED to fix your incredible ignorance.

The question stands .....where is any evidence of this god guy? Since you have run like a little girl from every question I have asked, as all cowardly religious kooks do, it's not like I am expecting an answer. It's just beyond your limited capabilities. yep, that liberal arts degree did you little good didn't it?

[Look-at-Stupid]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Title Of This Post: THEY DON"T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE

Yes yes, a cleaver little way through the use of semantics to try
and separate themselves from something that they self admittedly
don't have A FUCKING CLUE about, question being " How did it all start "

We'll try and separate ourselves from it and call it by a different
name even though both go hand in hand and one cannot really be
separated from the other.

Abiogenesis: The belief that life arose from dead matter apart
from any creator commonly referred to as GOD.

Naturalist Evolution: The belief that after life arose from dead matter
apart from any creator commonly referred to as GOD, it then proceeded
to evolve from one life form to another, apart from any creator
commonly referred to as GOD

Nice try, but how could even a child be fooled by that.

Question to a naturalist evolutionist- So you believe that life started
from dead matter without the help of God ( oh no you are confusing
evolution with abiogenesis ) So where then do you believe that life
came from ( we believe that life started from dead matter without
the help of God ) Oh well then, now I see the difference. Thanks
for clearing that up.

This guy dose a pretty good job of explaining how they go hand in hand.
www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html

Also, got a source for that lie you just posted about the definition of evolution? Of course not!! Liars never back their lies, they just tell new ones, so prove me right once again moron

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

Also, got a source for that lie you just posted about the definition of evolution? Of course not!! Liars never back their lies, they just tell new ones, so prove me right once again moron

Another reply that is really no reply just childish insults
and some kind of childish attempt at rhetoric, (How many dose
that make now) so let me answer in kind.


Is there anyone else out there besides Look At Dummy and
exOLDdorker that has anything constructive to say or
at least an intelligent argument to make, if not I think
this thread is done.


Look At Dummy thinks that his childish 3rd grade level
debating skills and silly 2nd grade level rhetoric proves
his intelligence, oh wait it dose.


Look At Dummy you still have some evolving to do.


But hey, just another proof that natural selection doesn't
always work.

[Look-at-Stupid]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Another reply that is really no reply just childish insults
and some kind of childish attempt at rhetoric, (How many dose
that make now) so let me answer in kind.


Is there anyone else out there besides Look At Dummy and
exOLDdorker that has anything constructive to say or
at least an intelligent argument to make, if not I think
this thread is done.


Look At Dummy thinks that his childish 3rd grade level
debating skills and silly 2nd grade level rhetoric proves
his intelligence, oh wait it dose.


Look At Dummy you still have some evolving to do.


But hey, just another proof that natural selection doesn't
always work.

Poor foolish little one, look up the term projection, it applies to you! Is it not funny you can never say HOW am I wrong?

Shall we review your laughable fuck ups?

1) equating dogma with science, and then coming back with laughable bullshit that was unscientific....there is no dogma in science foolish little one.

2) thinking evolution deals with origins....and then backpedaling and laughably trying to equate evolution and abiogenesis...they are not the same thing foolish little one.

I doubt you understand much about scientific theories. Maybe this is news to you (I am sure it is) that gravity is also a scientific theory. And evolution was derived using the same scientific method as gravity.

You know you should stick to commenting on things you actually know something about in the future, then perhaps you won't get your dumbass exposed in public?