YoungGuyver

Most of the war in the middle east looks like it was done for oil and profit (other industries can move in now under the western regime). To combat global warming, the oil based industries would take a hit. Most governments have been asking scientists to tone down their results. How is this governments using global warming for an agenda? If anything, it would fit better if their were an agenda -against- global warming theories. And to say that scientists do not understand why an ice age was caused is not completely true. Scientists look for evidence. If evidence has been destroyed, or rather, if enough evidence has been destroyed, they may be able to determine that it happened, but not enough to pick apart a cause. They may be able to tell that it happened in the past (which is prety good), now they are trying to make sense of how different pieces of evidence can be worked together to explain why. And some of them have an answer (the milankovich cycles for instance). You are going to read opinion, instead of reading results of research? Interesting method. Sorry about the link not work. Newscientist does this from time to time, trying to get more subscriptions to pay their staff. Oh well, I guess going out and finding a bunch of links is time consuming enough to be worth getting paid for it

Here's a good video of a series that I just started watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjJSa5UGR7U I suppose it's not surprising that it is less offensive in a foreign language. And funnier too! I like the censor blocks. Their great

Perhaps you should actually read that link that I posted Ryuki. And its a good thing for scientists to bitch NOW while there still is snow, BEFORE there isn't snow and we end up dead. And back in Southern Alberta, we've had a severe lack of snow. When I was a kid, I grew up with at least a foot of snow on the minimum. Now, we're lucky to get two inches. Lucky if it lasts two weeks. The weather patterns will be splotchy, (wind swirls, trees diffuse wind), as regional variables will even things out. But on a global average, this has been the hottest decade in the last 2000 years (as far as we can calculate)-and that includes the heightened solar activity from about a hundred years ago

Lions also eat there cubs when times get tough. Ants prepare for the winter But I do agree with you. We are slaves that work for a system that is a joke. Part of the problem is that we are so obsessed with consuming more and more. Do we really need to buy another shirt for the closet? Does everything have to be brand new? I blame the bottle cap for our modern way of thinking. Before the bottle cap, we would wash our milk bottles, save our corks, repair our shoes, patch our pants. Then comes along the disposable bottle cap. A cheap piece of metal that you just peel off and toss. It was so simple. It was so widespread. Once it finished its use, it became garbage. We started tossing milk containers too. And even the plates that food from McDonalds was served on (when they first started they used real plates-not cardboard or styrofoam). We have made it easy. I'm all for things being easy, but not in the way that it is wasteful. They say that the western world consumes 2/3 of the Earths resources. How does the eastern world survive with so little? What are they doing different? How can we maintain such a comfortable life without being wasteful? When we first started developing energy efficient light bulbs they would break down after a few months to a year. Now we've got them lasting just as long or longer than their predecessors. The changes might not be easy at first, but we can figure it out.

Ryuki, you just said several myths that the article covered. First-Governments have been asking scientists to tone down the evidence. Governments don't want to change because corporations/lobbyists make too much money off the current system Second-A few areas temporarily get better before they get worse, but can you fit the entire human race into those small regions? Some crops can be moved for a few years, while others will simply die out. Migration is not a realistic solution And we are not talking about stopping the usage of electricity. We are talking about changing how me get it, and how we use it. We're not talking about abandoning human civilization, but modifying it. The agenda here is to save lives. Kinda like why cars have seat belts. It's true that data can be manipulated to say anything, the point of that article is to put ALL the data on one comprehensive chunk so you can see the big picture. For instance, earlier someone posted that human industry can't possibly affect the climate because a single volcano puts out so much more. The article points out that a volcano can put out .3 GT of carbon dioxide, life on Earth puts out around 380, the Earth absorbs around 400, and human industry 25. Volcanoes do not overpower modern industry. Modern industry is tipping the balance. And after oceans reach a certain temperature, they are expected to stop absorbing carbon dioxide.

Ok, here is a link to a series of articles that explains global warming, and dispells the myths about it (such as why your pic isn't exactly a direct comparrison and explanation of global warming) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html If it were the sun causing global warming, we would notice an affect on all planets, and not just 3-with one of those being debatable, another explainable, with the last being us.

What they forgot to mention in this video is that, after the explosion, all the birds and crabs fled for their lives. Not a one to be seen for miles

I HATED Gerard Butler as the phantom. He always sang Mmmmmusic, again and again. The dragging of the M really got on my nerves. And they way Schumaker filmed it, especially the first trip down into the sub basements... it was such a waste. It was SO mechanical when it should have been magical. On stage, the candles arise from the fog/water, and it really feels like magic. In this movie, we have a camera on one end of the tunnel, stitch to the camera on the other, and presto candles lift from the water on cue and auto ignite. Everything was too crystal clear and shallow. If I could have done that scene, I would have had the camera follow them into the tunnel, go over their heads-spin around, and face them as they come out the other side. Switch to a camera mounted above the water, near the front of the boat as it passes-have a faint puff of rolling mist across the water, and slowly have the candelabras arise. The flames would slowly ignite-from different candle nubs at different intervals. And DON'T use a wide angle lens; the background must blur a little to get that magic feeling. Some things must be perfectly sharp, others slightly out of focus, and slowed down. This is Phantom of the Opera! Spectacle is EVERYTHING! Granted, I liked how they repositioned the chandelier scene, that was good. And the singing got way better after the chandelier. I loved the grave yard

I think a little bit of PG Porn is in order: And nothing like 'perfect' porn. Don't you just love it when every little bit works? http://www.spike.com/video/pg-porn-high-poon/3157900

Are you referring to the part where they crush the robot with the hydrolic press? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwyyJ3D3g1E And now we can delve into Avatar, apparently http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2009/10/james-cameron-stole-avatar-question-mark I really want to see this one, it looks great

That's not true. Cameron DID say that during official interviews, but offscreen he admited that he ripped off Harlan Ellison. Terminator was based off of two Harlan Ellison short stories that were filmed for the original Outer Limits series back in the 60's. The first story is Soldier, about men that are trained to be the perfect killing machines, cold emotionless, and never stopping-whom get sent back in time. The Demon with the Glass Hand is about an android sent back in time to protect humanity. There was a lawsuit involved, and Harlan's name had to be added into the credits of the first movie.

Wow. Sorry to revive a dead thread. But wow. I was looking around and saw a article that just jumped out at me, reminding me of a scene from these movies. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427341.300-dont-pack-your-parachute-totally-free-fall.html I mean its really possible to do that?! I thought out body mass would require a much larger wing span. I'm impressed. I ended up watching both movies with friends for Halloween. Both have car chases at night. I love the use of oranges. And the flaming fire truck. The dark knight doesn't have any masterful cinematic shots like the first one did with Batman hiding in the drug apartment shadows. Not as much subtle in that way.

Nice Guyver vid. Enjoyed it. Here's the first ep of a new web series Karma Kula http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n60JS311zM

I can't fit it in Ryuki because it's a story with no supporting evidence to match the theory. I speculated that the old testament might fit in because if you consider the first chapter of Genesis as a poetic description, it could work. Modern Archeology suggests that Yhwh was only one deity in a pantheon, so I suggested that the entire pantheon may have been the ones to engineer this world. I could just as easily pick Gaia as the one whom engineered this world. I don't know. A government history with no physical evidence is difficult to pin down. Thus far, my whole solid theory simply rests on the Earth growing bigger at one point in its creation. For all I know, the Ainu were right (original Japanese natives, before the Mongols colonized and became the modern Japanese). In their tradition, all the world was water, until a golden chain hung from the sky, and something about it's pointing down (light beam, I forget) brings the land up from the water. That is an equally valid theory. If a space ship or something increased the size of Earth with some kind of mass transfer or mass manipulator? If you listen to some of their ancient hero legends, you here tails of power armor that wraps around you and allows you to teleport through the clouds. To separate myths from facts is very difficult. But I can see this as possible, I mean, with a smaller Earth, with a global pangea, Hudson's bay is the only major body of water left uncovered by land. Though I don't know what the mineral deposits under it say about impacts.

My thoughts on that are the same as my thoughts on Scientology. They made a wild claim. But ok, wild claims may be possible. So to back it up. How exactly did they come about this information? That is the key. Scientology looks like it was just made up. And this? They are claiming there is a galactic language that we can all subconsciously read. So how come none of the rest of us are reading it? Why bother writing this out in English? Wouldn't writing it out in the ancient language be more efficient? Don't get me wrong, the idea of learning to live together and not break down into war is a good one. But I don't need a flaky scifi story to entice me to do it. The value of peace itself is worth it

The dimension idea works without the bible, I just found the bible things interesting. Based on real world archeology, I would say multiple entities/gods. Yhwh as a monotheistic god was something that only really took after the Isrealites had been conquered. Evidence shows that the Isrealites were the Caananites that took to the hills to escape corruption. That Yhwh was a Caananite god, alongside Baal, El, and the rest of their pantheon. Yhwh, the host of hosts. The wording then becomes very interesting. I don't attribute dictators as demons. I think humanity is capable of evil all on our own. Don't get me wrong, there are parts in the bible (such as King Saul in the book of Samuel, and the Pharoh in Exodus) that show humans being used as puppets. But we do have free will to a limited degree. We are capable of good and evil all on our own. We don't need scape goats. If you take away our responsibility for our actions, then what is the point of heaven or hell? Why bother with labelling sin at all? Why would it even matter? But about the physics of it, religion aside. I want to explore other real world ramifications. The real world evidence is that the continents fit together perfectly in a Pangea style, but not just on one side, on ALL side. But you require a smaller Earth, which suggest Earth was at one point in time smaller. I suggest a transdimensional creation. I want to explore the physics of it. How can we prove it real or not? Current Earth formation theories suggest that water came from asteroids and comets that crashed upon the Earth. This is important because Earth has formed in a region of the star system where water particles are shot away. Water does not exist in this region naturally. But the water ions of Earth are different from those found in comets. Don't get me wrong, it -appears- there is also water on Themis (an asteroid in the belt) that shouldn't survive there. More research still has to be done on that. But it is a possibility to explore. If Earth had a transdimensional origin, we would want to look for variations in our particles from the rest of the universe. In scifi terms, we would want to look at our planets energy signature and compare it to the rest of the universe. The water ions -could- be something along those lines. Personally, I would feel comfortable looking for particles closer to the Earths core. I want to find particles that have been shielded from the rest of the universe, and there might be contamination. This sounds far fetched, but when you look at how photons and electrons interact the concept of contamination looks more likely. Could this be related to the moon mysteries? The size and distance of our moon? If our world was inserted into this universe, how does it relate to Luna? Did the insertion process require an already existing gravity to help form a bridge between dimensions? Was the moon also inserted into this dimension? The Earth's core and Luna's core compositions are very different chemically, so I would say that in terms of genesis they are different. But they do both have molten cores, so I'm not going to discount all similar function possibilities. We would need to know HOW the dimensional crossing works in order to say for sure. I am suspecting that at one point in time, the composition of the Earth's core acted as an antennae, a gateway into this dimension. It could be that the materials in the core only work as a receiver, and the origin dimension has a transmitter of different composition. I am interested in going back to the origin dimension, or at least manipulating matter between the two on some level. Contact would prove the theory, and would illuminate so much of physics. We would know where in M-theory our universe stands. Which is why exploring the genesis of Earth, and all the attributes involved is so interesting. The consequences of the theory, what they mean. For instance, as Zeo pointed out in a PM, the value of the gravitational constant. If the Earth were still growing, there would be signs in gravity. So it is evident that who or whatever transmitted the matter/energy into this universe has evidently stopped for whatever reason. If it were entities from a dying universe that created us, if their universe were undergoing a 'big freeze', they would eventually lose contact with us. They would suffer time dilation. Their only hope would be to escape into this world. How would they do that and survive? (Sorry, I digress here) But a dying universe would have certain signs to look for when trying to make contact. Honestly, the big freeze and time dilation thing is from Michio Kaku's book. To me, a big crunch would be more likely for time dilation as you would increase the mass and density as planets and galaxies crunch together. I can see gravity breaking the dimensional barrier in such superdense clusters and becoming apparent to us as they pull our galaxies around. That very well -could- be our dark matter. Our dense stars -could- line up with their dense stars. The true question would be 'what density is required in order to make a transdimensional connection'? Another is 'Can you cheat it by using certain materials to -tune- matter into the phase of your target dimension'? How do you make the process survivable? The mars rock samples are now a lot more interesting. The properties of the particles in those rocks are now worth very close scrutiny. That goes for every extra terrestrial material. We obviously have almost everything in common with them. We are made of atoms, in the same structure. But what are the differences, and what do they tell us?

In terms of natural selection Ryuki? With all do respect, if that is all it takes to attain peace, we would have ended war a long time ago. Instead, all of human history is limited to maybe ten or a hundred years where the Earth is war free (decimal place?). For all our trying to attain peace, we sure make it easy to find an excuse to go to war. When the time comes, we somehow find an excuse to ignore those that ask for peace. I can agree with Guyver, that even in the real world we are relatively adaptive, and aggressive. What can you accomplish in this world without exhibiting some form of aggressiveness? Agresive being the mood to support the motivation. We feed off of conflict so much that we REQUIRE it in some form or another in our recreational media. Man vrs Man, man vrs nature, etcetera. Look at comedy. Comedy itself-the funniest stuff requires someone to experience some form of pain (even if that someone isn't real). And about freedom? How free are we right now? We must balance our freedom within our responsibilities. Do you want to eat and have a roof over your head? Then you must work a minimum eight hours a day, obeying most every whim of your boss. And even your land lord, you must comply with his demands for no smoking, no pets, and no modification of the paint or screwing shelves into the walls. We do have many restrictions on our freedom within society. Our true freedom is what we do within the context of our rules and commandments. How much freedom is left? From another perspective on freedom, behavioral sciences and analysis wouldn't work if our decisions weren't based on the mental programing of our types. If an individual is predictable, then freewill may as well be a mute point in philosophical terms.

I don't like the king James version because it was a translation of the Greek version (old testament) which was a translation of the Hebrew. A translation of a translation. I prefer the New Revised Standard Version (NSRV). It is a translation from the original languages, and uses original manuscripts as reference. Actually I could go on about how in depth they went into to make it accurate. There is another more accurate one though-my version gets gender specific, which is incorrect for some parts in the original versions. But I think I can get by with that. When a word can be interpreted more than one way, my version points out both. I've actually got footnotes on the bottom explaining that Adam means 'man', and Eve mean 'life giver'. It points out when it doesn't understand a phrase in the original language, and has to rely on a previous translation to provide some meaning. So I'm pretty happy with it. For instance, as you have I have Foot note f is also interesting. In 3 5, it says be like god, but god could also be taken as a plural.

Sorry for the absence. I got a little hot headed and needed to take a little time off. But I'm back. Wow. This discussion really went into an interesting place. Um. Not exactly where I intended. I'm open to the concept of an Astral plane and everything, but I wouldn't give it a definitive dimensional number until science can quantify it and explain it in terms of particle physics and the like. It seems a little premature at this point to start calling it 'dimension 6' or something. For all we know, it could be nothing more than a subconscious state that the brain can enter. And how would you ever know if I had more? So much of my bravado stems from that fact that -you- started shooting down without even asking a single question to get me to explain more. Your stance seemed to be as if a kneejerk reaction, as if instantly I was wrong by -possibly- challenging a belief. Honestly, I can't give creationists much credit for their Earth dating, not when their version of radioactive dating violates science that we use for printed circuit boards. What surprises me is that Zeo actually had some good questions and comments in his pm. -for instance, he questioned Earth's gravitational relationship, if of course it were growing. My answer is that of course Earth has obviously stopped growing. If Earth was a planet created by someone from an alternate plane of existence, then they probably finished that phase of its construction a long time ago. It's this alternate Pangea that strongly suggests to me that -Earth- possibly had a transdimensional origin: Ignore the audio in that. There are many theories on how to interpret it. It is not a new observation, it at least goes back to the 1930's. But the core point is there. (I don't disagree with plate tectonics, its just that it looks like there's more going on) The reason why I suggested that god might be evil is that over time, we have stated what god is, and why he acts in a certain way-not from empirical evidence, but rather from faith. We MUST believe he is good, we must believe he is justified. Few of us are willing to consider the possibility that he is evil. But opening the mind to anything, going back, and rereading the first chapter of Genesis-in order, each day can act as a summary of creation. Day One-Big Bang. Earth was a formless void. The wind spread over the waters (is this an interesting way to describe the blast?) And god said let there be light-light didn't exist at first in the big bang. We are a visual people, and in my mind at least, I 'see' the explosion rather than imagine the force it actually represents. It is interesting how light is mentioned in Genesis. "There was evening and there was morning-the first day" Day Two-"Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let is separate the waters from the waters". I'm sorry, what? Day two describes air being generated, dividing clouds from ocean. If material were being pumped into this dimension, how does this affect an atmosphere? My first reaction is to suggest that any transdimensional gateway would require energy that would heat any material passing through. Of course with humanities lack of any real world technology of such at this time, that's just an assumption. I like to think that the core of the Earth is like an antennae that makes the cross over possible, first bringing the water over. But in Genesis we are given mention to water first. It's possible that when the first solid material (Earth's core-or the start of it) was brought over, it was indeed hot, and began to flash water into vapor, to form something of an atmosphere. I'm being extremely liberal in my atmospheric composition, because I'm not using a form of dimensional structure like string or M-theory. There is a physical observation, and I'm noting that a mythical text kind of draws parallels. Day Three-Land appears, and vegetation starts to grow on it. Terra forming. At this early stage primitive life is used to turn Earth's atmosphere into an oxygen one (in my theory, its possible that extreme heat from the Earth's core pouring through the dimensional barrier creates an oxygen atmosphere, but also possible that poisonous gases could be carried in to create an atmosphere. This is a different method of planet formation, but molten metals are still used. Unless the day two passage merely suggests that gases were pumped through the dimensional gateway. But I think the core/gate way was in a molten state either way, at least until the surrounding waters could cool it into a solid form. It is somewhere in this point that matter, or at least great amounts of it, have stopped being pumped through the gate way. At least as far as we can tell). Day Four-"Let there be lights in the dome in the sky to separate the night from the day". Again, what? Did this just suggest that no sunlight was getting through? I suppose we could interpret this in an 'Eric the Viking' sense, in which everything is merely grey cloudy type day all the time. But it could also suggest a change in the Terra forming. What is weird is that it is at THIS point that the sun and the stars are created. It mentions them as light being created though, but it mentions that light was created in day two. Does this suggest that day two describes the division of the four forces-and day four is when astral bodies are generated separately from Earth's injection into the universe? There are a few different ways to interpret this. Personally, I'm quite surprised by this. I wouldn't expect a clear sky in such a hot universe, but I suppose the universe would have to be cool in order to allow a clear sky to observe any star like structures. But if the atmosphere were acting as a sort of shield from the intense heat and cloud of a cooling universe and forming sun, then I doubt the atmosphere could be simple rain clouds and nitrogen oxygen gas. The engineering for this would have been incredible. Day Five-And then animal life comes from the sea. Evolution says it does, but so does the bible. Evolution probably said it does because the bible did, but genetic evolution science agrees with it. IC Ominae stated that certain structures are not reducible. That is not true. Creationists argue that a wing is one structure that has no intermediary steps that are useful. That is true, but is does have an origin step that allows it to be residual until it becomes useful again as a wing. The lungs of a bird, wings, and gills are all genetically related. DNA mutation can allow multiple copies of a gene to be created, and evolve separately. A fish could have developed two sets of gills, one to become a lung, the other a wing. Not all at once, mind you. But with examples like this, it kind of justifies the biblical claim that life came from the ocean. I'm just wondering if the gateway was used to inject life into this world, or if merely the conditions were set. I myself think that at least Terra forming life was injected in, but that's just me. Day Six-Here come the land animals. Note, birds came in day five, not on six, were it mentions land animals. Strange. Day Seven-God takes a rest. Why would an omnipotent being need rest? Unless the being behind the creation of this world required regeneration? That would suggest either a limit on how much the source of our creator could create, or that our creator was fueled from an outside source. In any event, rest suggests limit. If our creator were indeed a mortal from another dimensional plane, that would be very realistic. There are three separate ideas coming together here. The bible, of course. It is not necessary for the theory itself, just an interesting note. The bible can be made to match observations in science. My theory that Earth is an injected creation can exist without it. The growing Earth theory is of course the biggest key. It's a real world observation that many different people are coming up with their own theory for. And thirdly, Michio Kaku's 'Parallel World' sparks the biggest shoot off, as it strongly suggests we escape our own dying universe by creating another and jumping into it, and going into how we might actually pull it off. Rereading the bible, it kind of got me wondering if -that's- what someone else was TRYING to do. Eating from the tree of knowledge or wisdom then have different connotations. Genesis gives very literal reasons why it was bad for humanity to break those rules. We've tried to explain those away so that god still remains a good guy. Why? Ryuki, you asked me about god being long lived? Well, in one version of the dying universe, time dilation becomes and extreme factor. Days would become years. Moses had an interesting relationship with god. He even seems to out think him, which is really weird. God decides to punish the Israelites, and Moses points out it would be a bad idea-Exodus 32 10-14. And in Numbers saves people from gods power, interrupting a plague, interrupting gods power-Number 16 41-50. If the effects of time dilation were increasing, it might explain why we have no outward communication with 'god' at this point. I've got a few ideas on why god simply wouldn't cross over, and why seraphim would be punished for it; but really an in depth understanding of the dimensional plane structure would be required to really explain that. And I don't think anyone has anything that adequate yet to give a definitive answer

I just find it weird that a couple decades ago, we were told that there would be global warming due to pollutants, and now we barely have a winter here. When someone warns you that something is going to happen, and it actually DOES happen, you might have a tendency to believe them

No, you are right. But in the confines of the story, we need to find another way to make Aptom work. Thes best possible reasoning is that during the experiments on him, Dr Balcus found another way to make memory transfer cellularly. It looks like Aptom has no -real- mind until his brain forms though. But he does have some way to transfer information around to recreate his mind and memories.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's 'possible' to make a girl into a zoanoid. But for the logistics of breeding troops on demand, I don't think you would want it. And yes, It looks like the Ark is meant to have hyper drive, but it also has one incredible city styled life support system. It looks like they are gearing up for one long flight. I don't think they really know how long it will take them to find the creators

We've had lots of discussion on how zoaforming works in the past, and lots of time afterwards to reflect on it. The best guess (and mind you, this is a guess and an opinion) is that certain parts of the DNA are changed to read and express other parts of the DNA in a completely different way. Human DNA share certain similarities with mice and chimps. What if a zoanoid has his DNA altered to express those traits-advance the musculature to match that of a guerrilla. Some zoanoids have extra weapons that probably couldn't be expressed in DNA, such as Vamore's bio lasers, perhaps what the data files mean when they says weapons are added in is that extra patches are added on to create the weapons (Creating an extra strand akin to Down syndrome). If the control areas in the DNA being changed are in the male portion, then when having children, they would become full fledged regular zoanoids. This would mean that having regular human women around would allow you to breed the right kind of troop as the situation allows. So yes, load woman onto the Ark right before you leave on your long voyage. You'll save on processing tank time in the long run. It's just a thought

I don't know about that Ryuki. Innovation has allowed us to take one thing and make use of it for something completely different. Viagra, for instance, was originally heart medication. Computers can become corrupt, can be influenced by malware, and can be equipped with AI. Looks like they have a few different outlets that will allow them to evolve. I wonder how much damage they could do to us just by messing with the shipping and transport information? Imagine redirecting all food stuffs to one point, forcing millions to starve. Sure, we have farmers markets; but saving a few will relatively mean nothing. Then there is the obvious 'missile launch' scenario, but there are a lot of ways for tech to screw with us.

Basically Ryuki, what he was really saying was that instead of debating the possibility of something else, he'd rather try to convince us to follow his already existing establishment and beliefs. Note: if I were following the 'scientific doctrine', or whatever label you wish to apply for it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As you won't find my theory in any of those as far as I am aware. Good luck with that pathetic line or argument. Perhaps actually thinking and attempting to understand my theory will provide you with better arguments. You lumping me into a group without even taking the time to see if I really 'am' a member of that group is rather insulting. This is a half shodded attempt to convert me. Actually I have taken a look at a few creationists websites. One in particular takes an unbiased view as they publish experiments and peer review them in an attempt to find problems with the main stream in favor of creationism. They tested such things as carbon dating samples-where so far everything as matched up with the main stream. (Some samples initially look like modern science has made a mistake with a dating technique, until you count in other geological factors such as magma and volcanic flows that alter such things as hydrogen soil levels. Accurate results require accurate science. If you want to challenge, bring something concrete to the table. It was science that noticed the explosion in the first place. Science doesn't give you all the answers at once. You have to work, due the math, and see if it matches up with reality. So far what does creationism offer to explain these things? That 'god wanted it that way to make the universe work'? Mainstream science is stilling working through the problem, trying to figure out how it really works. Do I agree with all of it? No. I've got my own theories. I don't agree with the conceptualization of string theory for instance. But its a damn good start. Note: modern science deals with 'Neo-Darwinism', which uses modern discoveries, research, and experimentation to figure out how it all REALLY works. For instance, Darwin suggested a tree of life (religious reference also), while science shows us that genetically it is more like a web of life-where even viruses can transmit a mutation across several species at once. That was something Darwin NEVER predicted. We are so far past Darwin. Basing your arguments on him is useless. It's like basing your astronomy on Copernicus, or Galileo. It's ancient news baby. Though about the Earth and the moon, yes, there are already debates about that. Even in the modern mainstream science there are questions. Don't you think it strange that I am trying to use real science to explain how the Earth could expand? Is it not possible that maybe it is related? Not necessarily. If my theory is right, and this planet/universe was created as an escape route for entities from a dying universe, then we very well could view god as evil. So far, the defense we have made for some of god's 'questionable' acts have been that he is omnipotent and has some glorious divine plan that is so far incredibly beyond us. But if he requires an escape route, then he couldn't possibly be omnipotent, and might very well be evil. And yes, Jesus is nice. But we must analyze the source material. How accurate is it? How come there are two versions of Josephus' material (That with Jesus mentioned, and that without?). How come no other historian mentioned him until 150 years later? How come his life follows the same pattern of countless other gods? How come Moses (Mosheh in the original pronunciation) parallels Micies and others? How comes Jacobs conquest of the Canaanites yields no archeological evidence? Is Karen Armstrong correct when she suggests that Jacobs crossing of the Jordon was the only historical crossing into the new nation of Israel, and that the conquest was a philosophical one? That is was again a parable? And the ancient nations of the Egyptions, Olmecs, and one other that name escapes me built sky scraper like structures. Does that meen that THERE gods were real? Yeah. He outlines in Samuel 1 chapter 8 that a king would basically tax the people to death. You meen like how it is also almost impossible to explain how the Egyptian civilization seemed to radically appear? How Egyptologist count the kings on the kings list as real, but the gods before them on the same lists as nothing more than mythological, even though the myths from the gods seem to describe how they came to be? actually, no. That is not the question I have always asked myself. One of my questions involves the point of this thread, which involves transdimensional physics. THAT is the point of this thread. Hopefully you are satisfied in your petty religious conversion attempts. Hopefully we can get back on topic. Maybe after you realize that you can't convert everyone here you will attempt to hack into the site to stop an alternate line of thought from continuing to spread-but some of us are indeed well versed and still disagree with you. Just because you have read and understand everything in the bible does not meen you agree with it. We've already gone over 'turn the other cheek' on this message board. Why bother going over it again? We already pointed out the cultural ramifications, and how it would make the violence of the act an undesirable thing. Back on track: I still have to take a look as some measurements, and see what the radius of the Earths core is compared to the size of the smallest possible crust in this pangea model. I want to see if the crust meets the surface of the core. Of course I am expecting water to cover the surface-as that would be firmament. The division of firmament would likely be the introduction of an atmosphere which creates a blanket of cloud cover. Due to intense heat? Would the separation of the continents reveal magma fissures that would begin evaporation under the surface of the water? Or would the transdimensional core generating a crust bring about the heat in the water surface? (That is my guess) That the generation of molten material from the core was the generation of the crust, that the layer of water cooled it into the core, and at the same time helped create an atmosphere. Though there is still so much to check out on this. I havn't even checked other growing Earth theories in any detail yet to see where they are or what they really have. It could be interesting