EKen132
-
Posts
2.036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by EKen132
-
-
Yeah a few small, unimportant details such as: how did life first begin? how did the universe start? when did the universe first come into existance? Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? What's for dinner?
Well guess who called this thread would just be an evolution debate
-
We're going with Machiavelli's "Prince" here (uuuugh) and Solomon's biography "Beethoven" (guess who it's about ;p).
-
Well that's nice and all, but absolute zero is a concept, not a reality- in no amount of space for no amount of time can there or will there ever be absolute zero. And as time goes on, it's even less likely to happen.
Although if you bring relativity into it... idk it kinda screws everything up. I guess I'd like to think that time is an absolute... stupid Einstein.
Actually, I think the absolute zero is the only point at which the time-is-an-energy theory ever works. If everything is perfectly still and will remain that way forever (bc duh you can't start it going if everything is perfectly still) and has been forever back (hm, this one's a little harder), then time... well, I guess time doesn't mean a darned thing because all it is is a lense through which we view change.
On second though, no, time is not an energy even when the total energy is zero. I guess you could say it's like comparing infinity with zero. They're on two different planes.
-
As I said, Earth has limited land, even if we wenton colonizing the whole oceans : Earth is not infinite.
Well if you're so concerned about this- what- maybe 3 square mile area that's being developed into a monument for the nation's greatest tragedy in 50 years, you can console yourself with the fact that yellowstone and millions of acres of other national parks are as of yet undeveloped
-
Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of cool things lined up for today. I might head over for a parade in a few minutes, but other than watching fireworks from my porch or a local park tonight, today isn't gonna be all that different than any other day. Maybe I'll find something fun to do.
-
Well I definately can't speak for the whole country, since I've only been exposed to my own suburban area.
As for everyone being Christian: it is definately not true. I've been to church in Europe in a few different places, and I can say that in America, there are always more people there, and always a lot more families. But the churches are never filled unless it's Christmas or Easter, and quite a few earn the nickname "Chreaster", someone who goes to church only on Christmas and Easter.
What you're seeing with African Americans singing is more of a southern protestant thing, and I live in the north (and I'm Catholic), so I can't comment too much on it.
As for the swearing in movies, movies that use more than the occasional d*mn and sh*t (unless they're war movies, which seems to justify it to a greater degree) definately have a narrower audience. Maybe a dozen to two dozen really popular movies a year have no restraints on their language, and that number of pop. movies usually portray teens having a lot of sex and drinking and doing drugs a lot. For movies like those, maybe 15% of the population of teenagers really likes them, and maybe a third to half of the kids have even seen the movie. A lot of kids find the movies tasteless or only a few parts funny, and only a very few actually talk like that, and most of them aren't on the right track in life in general.
As for the curse words, do not get the idea that these are widely used in public. To say "mother f*cker" in public is definately unnacceptable, and the same goes for p*ssy, c*nt, d*ck, and the like. In situations where there are only teenagers around though, you'll often hear these words. But parents never like to hear them, and no one really uses them in public.
And using God's name in vain is, contrary to what you might expect in a "Christian" society, quite accepted. You'll hear it all the time if you come here.
The words sh*t, d*mn, h*ll, even f*ck sometimes are used in movies that are watched by all segments of the population- little kids to grandmas. But movies that use c*nt, p*ssy, c*ck- those are usually more aimed at the male 13 to 30 segment of the population.
Hope that helps answer some of your questions.
-
Haha, true, if we remembered everywhere some accident happened, we would run out of room pretty quickly. However, if we remembered the largest disaster in the US in over 50 years... well, I think that may be allowable.
-
Wow Michael, that's a great site!!
-
time must have energy because time is always moving forward moving it from one moment to the next like frames on a movie. We called this energy Temporal Energy
No, actually we call it kinetic energy. I don't believe time is an energy, but a frame in which we view changes in energy. In fact, all time really is is the fact that things change.
Every moment is a frame. no matter how small you divide it is always made of frames.This also isn't the best analogy, because time is made up an infinite amount of frames, and since there is an infinite amount, you can't represent it with objects, like frames. It only works one way. You can divide time up into infinite frames but you can't put infinite frames back together to make time.
You should look into the "grand unified theory" for physics.
Basically all we have is matter, energy, and time, and matter and energy are basically the same thing in different forms- or at least we know they are "readily" transferable. The only two forces we have are gravity and magnetic/electric force. All the energies are simplified- nuclear is the waste product of switching between mass and energy, sound is really a type of kinetic energy, gravitational and electric potential are just the result of gravity and electric forces changing the energy of things. So there's vaccuum, and there's matter, and it has basically two properties- mass, the amount of stuff, and charge, this other property...
wait a second... why am I saying all this? I guess I'm drifting a little bit here. Ah, but it's interesting stuff
-
Then perhaps I should ask, are you opposed to this theory partially on the grounds that you do not believe in evolution? Maybe I misunderstood what this is all about.
-
Either the double or single freedom tower would be cool.
OK, Adam I thought you had meant it would be more arrogant outwardly, not just fooling ourselves that everything is the same. I totally see where you're coming from though.
-
Wait so this is an evolution debate
?I mean I really don't see what's wrong with the oldest stuff being the deepest down as a general rule.
Frankly, if this is just supposed to be fuel to start an evolution debate, I'm gonna try to stick it out.
-
I'm really failing to see how rebuilding the old World Trade centers is so arrogant. If you think that the US sends the message "Kiss my @#$%, Osama" by rebuilding them, perhaps you forgot the message Osama sent the US by knocking them down in the first place.
There was no right to knock them down, and rebuilding anything in the area of the World Trade Centers short of this is not trying to be cocky. I would prefer something like the new design of the Freedom towers that portrays a spirit of "moving on", but by no means can I find rebuilding the "originals" arrogant.
-
I'm afraid I still don't quite understand this geologic column. Can you please explain why it's so debatable and contradictory, and what's wrong with it?
-
So you wanna explain what the geologic column is? And why it's debatable that it's real?
-
I'm looking forward to The Dukes of Hazzard, Zorro, and of course, the Chronicles of Narnia.
-
I like the Freedom Towers... except for their name, sounds too propaganda-ish to me.
I had a whole big thing typed up about how I liked this, but I deleted it. LEt me just say that I love the new look, and it's quite a sight to see on the NY skyline. Suweeeet!
-
Wow, I didn't know the trailer was released just yesterday. I watched it this morning though, and it looks pretty good. Seems to me there are a lot more monsters in it than just King Kong though
.Anyhow, it may be worth a see
. -
If that's the Star Wars spoof for natural foods, I also liked it. I remember seeing it and thinking it was very clever.
-
Man, I could live on Italian food. Real pizza, tons of pastas, the best ice cream in the world... mmmmmm
Well there's about a zillion churches in rome, and I went to what seemed like an awful lot, and I'm not really sure how well known they all are, but my favorite besides St. Peters Basilica was called (still is called) St. Paul outside the Walls or something of that sort. It's very quiet and peaceful, and the interior is mostly white and gold- its absolutely stunning. Such an idyllic contrast to the hot busy Roman streets outside, it's very nice. Theres a plaza- Navana, I think, where I ate lunch one day. It's great to just sit in a Cafe there for a few hours, order some Italian food
and watch the locals, tourists, street vendors and musicians and all. There are some sweet fountains there too. The statues of Rome are generally very impressive overall, but I'm sure you've seen the Pieta (the best there is), and maybe the Trevi fountain. There's a small church, Santa Maria della Vittoria, that contains another beautful statue- St. Theresa in Ecstasy. It's really stunning. It was carved by Bellini, who also did the Navana fountain.It's always fun to see the pope too! Did you know he owns two mercedes? Hahaha it's funny if you think about it- no vows of poverty for his order, although I don't think he is an order priest anyways...
There's also a burial site of 500,000 Romans and Christians buried between 100 and 500 AD that's four stories tall. Why have you never seen it? Because it's all underground! IT's awesome, they have tours that are quite enjoyable. It's called the Catacombs of St. Callisto, I think.
If you want to be another judge, the word on the street is the best pizza in Rome is Al Marmi pizza. But don't take my word for it... go there yourself (and go early if you go, it gets crowded like you wouldn't believe).
-
Hey, I was just in Rome 48 hours ago! I love google maps, I can clearly see my house and everywhere in my neighborhood. It's great.
Definately check out St. Peters. In my opinion, when you go to Rome, the Colisseum/Forum and St. Peters are the big two things to see. After that, there is the Pantheon, the "four major basilicas", and a bunch of fountains and squares, like Trevi and Navana. Some pretty sweet stuff. Have fun Klaas!
-
If you look at evil as simply an absence of good, you can see the situation from a different standpoint. If Eru is all there is, and all comes from him, and we're assuming he's completely good (looking at what possible religious bases there might be for Tolkien to imitate, that seems logical) then he could willingly allow his creation to choose to accept the good or ignore/deny it. I belive free will is given by Eru to all creatures of Ea, not just men. The flame imperishable is life, that is the free will. The elfs must've had free will, because some choose to live peacefully and at one with nature and all, while others take oaths that lead them to killing each other and wars.
Well anyhow, in this sense, I do not believe that Eru created evil, but that he allowed his creation to choose to accept him (good) or deny him (evil, or lack of good). So as for the repentace of Melkor... technically possible but infinitely unlikely.
-
I think that battle, or the descriptions of it at least, is/are largely symbolic. Or at least in the way the Book of Revelations in the Bible applies to the world today. At face value, no one can imagine horse riders with swords coming out of their mouth, but if you take the sword to mean the guy is preaching something, it can make more sense, and really apply to any time. Even in Middle-Earth, no one is going to be physically destroying the sun and moon.
You know, this makes me wonder. We all know that Tolkien was devoutly Catholic, so he would have been versed in the Revelation at least some. I'd recommend comparing the two, the book of revelation and Tolkien's desciption of the last battle ("The Last Battle"... CS Lewis' Narnia collection ended with a book of that name I think). It could give some insight into what exactly he means about the battle... who will fight it and with what weapons and "weapons". Sure Tolkien is writing a mythology, but he wanted to write a story from a different time, and we all know that the age of men means the real history of the world can connect to the end of his mythos. So check out any references in Revelation about the sun or whatever else Tolkien talks about. I get the feeling that anything he says will be sort of close to the weird stuff talked about in that book.
Come to think of it, I do remember that somewhere in Revelation there is a woman "clothed with the sun with a crown of stars" and there's a dragon who is going to try to eat her or her baby. No moon thing... but close to Melkor and the sun
-
I have trouble believing that the courts are suddenly gonna take a bunch of crap that comes in from this law. A dad who shoots another at their sons' baseball game (I think that was an example given earlier... or somewhere I've been talking about this) is not going to walk into court, feel threatened, and walk out free. Sure this law says something that everything believes is radical, but the only time shooting people (non-war) has been warranted is when they feel threatened- ie. an intruder in their home. I have my doubts that the courts will simply start accepting BS on the "I felt threatened" line. I truly have a hard time believing that.
Americans and my twisted view on their religions..
in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
Posted
Originally it meant to have sex / rape, but now (starting in the 70s) it seems to mean anything under the sun, and for those with a really low vocabulary, it can be applied to anything.
Movies such as Eurotrip and American Pie are exactly what I had in mind when I said: