General > Off Topic

Are u a creationist?

<< < (10/10)

PurpleYouko:

--- Quote ---your supposed to do it while he have no hair
--- End quote ---

OK Zelos, I will grant you that it is impossible to do certain things while keeping within the conditions laid down by the proposer.

Another example of this would be something I heard on TV last night.

One guy said to the other "Now I've seen everything"
The other guy replied. "I bet you have never seen a man eat his own head"

It is obviously impossible to do something with something that isn't there and it is simply ridiculous to suggest such a thing as a refutation of a statement that nothing is impossible.
My obvious meaning is that nothing is scientifically impossible. This obviously doesn't preclude something being impossible under certain circumstances like climbing a ladder that doesn't exist.

PurpleYouko:

--- Quote ---my dad can predict event years before they happen, not exacly but very close, how does he dop that? its called life experience. he have alot of it and can by that predict how things ends
--- End quote ---

It is pretty easy to predict generalizations about what will happen years in advance, based on life experiences but to get every tiniest detail absolutely perfect requires a little more than just an educated estimate.

A lot of fortune tellers rely on life experiences and reading the client's body language and such like, in order to make their generalized predictions. They often get it right too but more than likely they are just smart scam artists who tell people what they want to hear.
But imagine that someone tells you that a specific event will happen at a specific time, couple of days into the future, then gives exact details including what is going to be said and done by every person involved in the event.
On top of this, written transcript of the future event is prepared.
Two days later and the event happens exactly as predicted down the the last tiny detail.

The only conclusion for this has to be that the person making the prediction had...
1) Prior knowledge of the event from some form of precognition.
2) The ability to shape the event such that the false prediction is fulfilled.

Given that my Mom had no way to directly influence the outcome of a Snooker match being played in another country (Ireland I believe), I am left with option 1.

If you can think of a third option then please let me know because the concept of true precognition has some pretty strong ramifications in the field of causality and freewill.

AZPaul:

--- Quote ---Given that my Mom had no way to directly influence the outcome of a Snooker match being played in another country (Ireland I believe), I am left with option 1.
--- End quote ---

First, Mom's abilities were miss-directed toward gambling. Shame, shame, shame.  I am proud of her for refusing your enticements.  She should be given a subscription to The Wall Street Journal.  Equities trading is an old and honorable pursuit and with her abilities she could make a killing!... er...tidy respectable profit from her labors.

Second, can you impose upon the lady to predict when an update of DBII might be available? How about a bot memory dump capability? .sexrepro?

And send her my love.:wub:

-P

PurpleYouko:

--- Quote ---Second, can you impose upon the lady to predict when an update of DBII might be available? How about a bot memory dump capability? .sexrepro?

And send her my love.wub.gif
--- End quote ---

 :laugh:

Will do. She is coming over to the US for a visit at the end of next week.

Numsgil:
"I'm afraid I can't comment on the name 'Rain God' at the present time, and we are calling him an example of a Spontaneous Para-Causal Meteorological Phenomenon."

"Can you tell us what that means?"

"I'm not altogther sure.  Let's be straight here.  If we find something we can't understand we like ot call it something you can't understand, or indeed pronounce.  I mean if we just let you go around calling him a Rain God, then that suggests that you know something we don't, and I'm afraid we couldn't have that.

"No, first we have to call it something which says it's ours, not yours, then we set about finding some way of proving it's not what you say it is, but something we say it is.

"And if it turns out that you're right, you'll still be wrong, because we will simply call him a... er, 'Supernormal'- not paranormal or supernatural because you think you know what those mean now, no, a 'Spuernormal Incremental Precipitation Inducer.'  We'll probably want to shove a Quasi in there somewhere to protect ourselves.  Rain God!  Huh, never heard such nonsense in my life.  Admitedly, you wouldn't catch me going on holiday with him.  Thanks, that'll be all for now..."

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page