StarGateWars Forums

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:I conceed then hitch, you are correct.

you see. if only people could have realised this more often...

Except when your wrong of course,

also..... i'm still wiating for your reply to the israel/palestine thread.....

oh, that?
well, i haven't given up on that thread per-se, i've just given up on the participants.
i've went through a short George III routine.
the local trees proved to be a somewhat more shrewd bunch than you lot (admittedly, the Phoenix dactylifera tended to be somewhat long winded, and the Ficus carica tended to be simplistic, but the Olea europaea tended to have solid reasoning. and anyway, all three's arguments were, well, deeply rooted in reality). they actually even maneged to come up with some interesting arguments (you know, the kind with facts as premises and at least some logic behind them).
oh, i have to go. it seems the Punica granatum (which is technically a shrub, but we don't practice ordericism around here) thought up some new ideas.
talk to you later.

Translation: Thriller wins..

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:I conceed then hitch, you are correct.

you see. if only people could have realised this more often...

Except when your wrong of course,

also..... i'm still wiating for your reply to the israel/palestine thread.....

oh, that?
well, i haven't given up on that thread per-se, i've just given up on the participants.
i've went through a short George III routine.
the local trees proved to be a somewhat more shrewd bunch than you lot (admittedly, the Phoenix dactylifera tended to be somewhat long winded, and the Ficus carica tended to be simplistic, but the Olea europaea tended to have solid reasoning. and anyway, all three's arguments were, well, deeply rooted in reality). they actually even maneged to come up with some interesting arguments (you know, the kind with facts as premises and at least some logic behind them).
oh, i have to go. it seems the Punica granatum (which is technically a shrub, but we don't practice ordericism around here) thought up some new ideas.
talk to you later.

Translation: Thriller wins..

you see, here's the problem right there.
people looking for a one sided "win". doing what they can to "win" a debate they can't, instead of taking a chance to discuss a topic and maybe learn something new, or get a different perspective.
that's how the religion topic got banned.

Hitchkok wrote:

buck wrote:

Diamond Dust wrote:

buck wrote:They wouldnt have had the capacity to understand time is infinate and nor would they have the number skillz!

Sorry Buck, but what a ridiculous thing to say/assume.

Id love to hear your arguement for the post industrial, Post non cannibal dieted, hell, post still seeing the sun as some sort of deity, Civilisations maths being comprehenseable to that of our own or even anywhere near, our standard.

Go on, Im waiting!

this is what we call a "Genetics fallacy", where facts regarding the genesis of an argument, which are not relevent to the argument itself are used to discredit the argument.
in this case, the facts are the bolded part, the argument is the Mayan calender and math, and the genesis is the Mayan.
in simple words, everything above might be true, but bears no relevence.
just like not having a way to rebutt someone's argument, and calling him "Ugly" instead.



sorry KMA, no jab at you here.
i know you've been looking for it.

KnowLedge wrote:buck, just because there is no proof of their "math skillz" doesnt mean they dont have any comparable to ours.. there are proof of quantum physics during the ancient times.. explain that one.

Lithium wrote:Juliette read more and speak less

have u ever seen a UFO? yet there are lots of evidences that cant be explained.

Nibiru is said to be the crossing planet , its on bible and genesis book , has many names.

many belive that our solar system have only 1 star which could be a rarity in the galaxy or even universe as for scients (ive onlyread their comments bout it), bisolar system or multiple are normal in the universe. Nibiru is an gas giant planet but its not the only one who cros nearby the earth ever 3600 years, (yet has to be confirmed his exact orbit to sun)

from ancient sumerian texts and genesis book its mentioned that nibiru hit Tiamat (earth) long time ago , result is the asteroid belt and draged earth in the current orbit while losing his satelite Moon.

another thing that looks very interesting are the earth poles which arent older then 4k years , and teh cause could be teh crossing planet which changes tehm by 29 degrees.

meh there are a lot of info that came from ancient history not confirmed by actual science and none is going to be open about whet they work. but u cant deny teh ancient texts

Kit-Fox wrote:Since when can a solar system only have one star??

We know of many different double stars which have obiting planetary bodies. Many of which would qualify for the term 'solar system'

So please would you care to explain where you got that a solar system can only have one star? Or are you not aware of binary systems or double star pairings?

Morbid Angel wrote:I stand corrected, I meant to say solar systems capable of sustaining life, by most scientific hypotheses.

"It's a good thing we don't live in a binary star system - the gravitational interactions of two stars would make circular orbits (ok, nearly circular) impossible, which would pretty much nix the possibility of life. Stable orbits are very important for life as we know it. In fact, all the searches for extra-solar planets have so far focused on solitary stars."

But I digress, too tired to argue cosmology at the moment, and it's been too long since I've studied

Hitchkok wrote:sorry KMA, no jab at you here.
i know you've been looking for it.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:sorry KMA, no jab at you here.
i know you've been looking for it.

sorry, i'm not following you, looking for what?


if i have misunderstood something you've said, please tell me and i'll happily apologise


as for the topic at hand, i knew it wouldn't stay on topic for long, its to big a subject and i hope it doesn't get locked.

Juliette wrote:

Morbid Angel wrote:I stand corrected, I meant to say solar systems capable of sustaining life, by most scientific hypotheses.

"It's a good thing we don't live in a binary star system - the gravitational interactions of two stars would make circular orbits (ok, nearly circular) impossible, which would pretty much nix the possibility of life. Stable orbits are very important for life as we know it. In fact, all the searches for extra-solar planets have so far focused on solitary stars."

But I digress, too tired to argue cosmology at the moment, and it's been too long since I've studied

What about non-carbon based life, hm? That could be INSIDE any star. I'm just saying.. the fact that we would die there, doesn't mean everything life-ish would..

~Sabaku no Gaara~ wrote:What do you think?

i say that the world is NOT going to end in 2012.

The world ended in 2000 , LMAO !

The human kind is obsessed on setting a date for the end of the world !

And most of the things we hear is mass manipulation.

Mister Sandman wrote:

~Sabaku no Gaara~ wrote:What do you think?

i say that the world is NOT going to end in 2012.

The world ended in 2000 , LMAO !

The human kind is obsessed on setting a date for the end of the world !

And most of the things we hear is mass manipulation.

its 2050 get it right!

Juliette wrote:

Mister Sandman wrote:

~Sabaku no Gaara~ wrote:What do you think?

i say that the world is NOT going to end in 2012.

The world ended in 2000 , LMAO !

The human kind is obsessed on setting a date for the end of the world !

And most of the things we hear is mass manipulation.

its 2050 get it right!

Pessimist. The world isn't going to end for another few billion years.
Now humanity.. that's a different story. But our fate is not the fate of the planet.