Dubstepforum.com

I love tits. Why can't we have a theory based on tits.

DJelements wrote:I love tits. Why can't we have a theory based on tits.

Because they are one of life's facts.

Tomity wrote:

DJelements wrote:I love tits. Why can't we have a theory based on tits.

Because they are one of life's facts.

True.



Did you know that irony powers the world?

badger wrote:yeah it would look entirely different but life would still exist

More to the point, if the moon was the wrong size or in the wrong place, we wouldn't be here to comment on it's size and positioning. Life's only going to emerge on a planet that happens to have the right conditions for life, and given that the universe is a pretty big place, it's not surprising that the those conditions will occur somewhere.

DJelements wrote:

Tomity wrote:

DJelements wrote:I love tits. Why can't we have a theory based on tits.

Because they are one of life's facts.

True.



Did you know that irony powers the world?

Really? I thought I powered the world? How vain I have been...

DJelements wrote:I love tits. Why can't we have a theory based on tits.

Heres one on asses

The bigger the cushion = the sweeter the pushin.

Parson wrote:

eLBe wrote:

Parson wrote:

eLBe wrote: far was you reasoning on god goes, I think the fact that everything works so intricately points the other way, it suggests that it is by chance rather than a higher orde/being/conciousness, the idea that any higher order, no matter how 'powerfull' (for want of a better word) could concieve such in depth complexities is beyond the capacity of my faith and reasoning.

if you came across a sandcastle on the beach and babylon told you it was just there by chance, would you believe it

no, but equally a sandcastle is not a living world full on concious beings.

yeah, so a sandcastle must have been built by intelligent beings, but a complex universe full of intricate systems to support life of all kinds is mere chance. boy do you ever think about the stuff you say?

I'd say that a sandcastle would almost certainly have been built by intelligent beings because I have other evidence that intelligent beings capable of building sandcastles exists.

If I had no idea that intelligent life existed and made sandcastles and I came across a sandcastle, I probably wouldn't say "this small arrangement of sand and shells seems too complex to have occurred by chance, it's much more likely that an unthinkably vast and complex array of organic compounds is precisely arrayed to create a being with the will and ability to build sandcastles."

"there is no sandcastle"

Slothrop wrote:

badger wrote:yeah it would look entirely different but life would still exist

More to the point, if the moon was the wrong size or in the wrong place, we wouldn't be here to comment on it's size and positioning. Life's only going to emerge on a planet that happens to have the right conditions for life, and given that the universe is a pretty big place, it's not surprising that the those conditions will occur somewhere.

Even with the moon as it is and where it is, still doesn't guarantee life on the planet it orbits. All thats needed really is water (as far as we know).

thats like assuming all you need is water and you can have a cat

Parson wrote:thats like assuming all you need is water and you can have a cat

Not a cat. They need all sorts of shit. But the most basic of life requires water and it can form. Scientists used to believe that both light and water was needed until they went deeper into the ocean where no light gets to.

that life deep in the ocean depends on every system of the earth to be in working order. it doesn't exist in a vacuum. the deep sea gets power from the sun via dead things sinking to the bottom

i just watched the deep sea episode of blue planet last week

ohhh i wanna read this book
http://www.amazon.com/Holographic-Unive ... F8&s=books



The service that Mr. Talbot provides is a challenge to rethink the conventional definition of science so that it can take into account a much wider range of human experience. What he argues for is the acceptance, as valid scientific data, of the experiences of individual humans, across cultures and throughout history, that are remarkably consistent with one another. These experiences address aspects of reality that are invisible to the skeptical eye, but become obvious to the person who chooses to develop other forms of perception.

Tomity wrote:

DJelements wrote:

Tomity wrote:

DJelements wrote:I love tits. Why can't we have a theory based on tits.

Because they are one of life's facts.

True.



Did you know that irony powers the world?

Really? I thought I powered the world? How vain I have been...

No really. Think about what generally happens to peace activists. They die.

How do many famous dietitians die? Weight-based problems caused by dieting.

And how about religions? Most religions call for peace, but people carry out atrocities in the name of said religions.

Parson wrote:the moon is 1/400th the size of the sun and is 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, so it appears the exact same size in the sky, making solar eclipses possible. it is only significant from a human perspective on earth. like the alignments of stonehenge or pyramids.

this is considered to be the biggest coincidence in the universe. its also responsible for life on this planet.

there is design

so, according to this, humans could never look up (from their native planet) at a moon of any other description.

where other sun/moon/planet relationships exist, they go unobserved.

if there was only one sun/moon/planet, and it had those conditions, then maybe ...

funnily enough i was reading something the other day that suggests the moon is responsible for life on earth, or the event that formed the moon is, anyway. this article was saying that it was created by a cataclysmic collision of a small planet with the earth, the force of which blew off most of earth's greenhouse gases letting it retain its water for billions of years

i'll dig it up

i don't buy any of this simulation stuff because most of what i've read on the subject follows the logic of 'you cant disprove it so it has to be true'

i reckon the appeal is not in deciding whether you believe it,
but thinking about it anyway.

(someone already said that? oh well, it bears repeating)

DJelements wrote:

Tomity wrote:

DJelements wrote:

Tomity wrote:

DJelements wrote:I love tits. Why can't we have a theory based on tits.

Because they are one of life's facts.

True.



Did you know that irony powers the world?

Really? I thought I powered the world? How vain I have been...

No really. Think about what generally happens to peace activists. They die.

How do many famous dietitians die? Weight-based problems caused by dieting.

And how about religions? Most religions call for peace, but people carry out atrocities in the name of said religions.

I wouldnt call that irony though. The peace activists die due to the thing they are against.

If a dietitian got excessively fat, that would be ironic....

Religion calls for both peace and war depending on who is promoting said religion.

Tomity wrote:

DJelements wrote:

Tomity wrote:

DJelements wrote:

Tomity wrote: Because they are one of life's facts.

True.



Did you know that irony powers the world?

Really? I thought I powered the world? How vain I have been...

No really. Think about what generally happens to peace activists. They die.

How do many famous dietitians die? Weight-based problems caused by dieting.

And how about religions? Most religions call for peace, but people carry out atrocities in the name of said religions.

I wouldnt call that irony though. The peace activists die due to the thing they are against.

If a dietitian got excessively fat, that would be ironic....

Religion calls for both peace and war depending on who is promoting said religion.

Religions themselves aren't for war usually. But people do stuff in the name of those religions.

pk- wrote:i don't buy any of this simulation stuff because most of what i've read on the subject follows the logic of 'you cant disprove it so it has to be true'

i don't see how you could have been following at all and concluded this