ProHypster

But no info is worse. 1. More info is sometimes worse then no info. And they had evidence to back up their assertions. 2. Are you kidding, Darwin and Newton had no evidence of their theories at the time. Einstein had no evidence of his theories, it just works. For example? 3. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_different_theories_about_the_universe What makes it illogical? 4. Many things, everything exapnding without a trigger, time not existing while it was expanding.... imagine what this theory looks like.

Why do you believe that I am speaking for creationalism right now, well how about this, right now I'm speaking for all the other theories there about the beginning of the universe which isn't creationalism or the big bang theory. I think they deserve a shot, don't you? That is actually the truth. Secondly, there is no scientific theory for the beginning of the universe. There is not any scientific theory with any evidence of what the trigger was that created the universe, therefore all theories are accepted, this is beyond just calculation and observation. So? Just because ultraviolet rays were not visible or in any way felt by humans in their life time 100 years ago, they didn''t exist. Again I'm not talking about god, can you get it in your mind that there is at least 1000 more theories about the beggining of the world or you think all of that is bullshit and there is only two, one true one, one false one? ahaha, the world would be so simple if that was true. Why do you always stick to the opinion of MOST scientists? It's arguably not the right people to choose as a teacher. Newton, Darwin and most other breakthrough scientists were part of a small minority of scientists when they published their theories. Also, the Big Bang's theory foundation is that the world triggered itself when there was no time, correct? That is illogical, against our laws of physics, if the best theory we can provide is based on illogical triggers, then all theories can not be possibly worse then this one, and I do understand that the big bang theory might have more information then other theories, but more info doesn't mean better info.

Well, the time is up for a prediction, and if anyone still cares , we will have our winner on september 11th. EDIT: 9 Hours to go and it currently looks like BTG's prediction is getting passed (63.100) with 63.315 posts at the current moment and we are coming close to mine (64.800) while onion is sitting at a 70.000 and hoping for a spambot . I will have to get 63.951 Posts to win this match! It will be a close one!!

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. It's not an opinion, though. One side uses evidence and there is a lot of it (Big Bang Theory). The other side....well....has a story with no evidence whatsoever (Creationism). One only needs to research both subjects to see that there's absolutely no evidence of creationism and loads of evidence for the Big Bang Theory. There is debate, but it's over whether a camera works by light being exposed on a surface that 'copies' the photo to a negative or to a memory card...............or an imp living in the camera painting the pictures. We have evidence on how a camera works. We don't have evidence of a picture painting imp. We have evidence on how the Big Bang happened. We don't have evidence of a creator deity. If you believe that the Big Bang theory is a common fact that everyone should know then you really are a fool as Blue said it. I'm not saying that creationalism is right either. But that's not the ONLY valid theories there is, is there now? I think by now we all agree that the universe was created illogically or at least not by the laws of nature we have today. Otherwise, tell me a logical beginning where I can't ask a question and brings back to illogical against our laws of nature things, I really want to hear it, my ears are open. My point is if our universe started illogically and we all agree then you can just make a matrix of all the possibilities and pick a theory by chance, they will all be the same chance really. We can calculate things close to the beginning of the universe, but the actual beginning has really no logical explanation. At least 10.000 years went by as civilization tried to explain it, not theorists, not philosophers nor scientists even could think of one possibility that makes sense.

LordSinister, your server has good ping (around 100 for me) but.... My point is it was empty when I was there!

Will it work if I add non-steam half-life sven coop to steam then run the mod???? (Yes I have an illegal copy right now but I bought at least 10 legit half-lifes, they all got lost along with many other discs... so don't blame me, I think I paid Valve enough for half-life)

Nah you don't need to, my fault if I put pressure on you, you may introduce yourself there though if you want to or when you are ready.

Certainly for the population it did. But structurally it was the time when exports of minerals (especially oil during the 70s crises) generated enough revenue to support foreign trade and cover domestic military spending. But even towards the end of 70s I began to notice things starting to disappear from grocery shop shelves... USSR was a major importer of grain, meat and poultry. Largely due to the distortions in agriculture introduced by Khruschev but also because of the general low efficiency of collective farming. Actually, I think a lot has changed but things are far from over... It will take probably a decade or two for Russia and Ukraine (and other ex-USSR countries) to complete their transformation and find their new place in the world. Regards Where are you from Vapymid? Are you from an ex-USSR country like me? :D Anyway, good info, didn't really think USSR needed to trade food but yes I checked and apparently they did have to... on the other hand I don't know if any country could supply themselves at this moment if they stopped trading, oh and about the transformation, I was talking about the trade really. Foreign Trade still remains the same even more you see... Anyway I would plus rep you but I don't have any points

Excellent post, very intelligently formed theories and something to think about. One thing I got to ask you, you keep saying "regards" but you don't put your name or anything there, kind of a weird writing style I must say . Welcome to the forums Vapymid by the way, if you haven't yet, you can introduce yourself at the introduction thread in the free for all section. If I have missed your introduction there I dig myself under sand in shame!

Sorry to disappoint you but the system clearly did NOT work. The USSR has only lasted as long as it did because it could trade resources against products with other countries. On its own the USSR could not even feed its own population. The basic problem was that the economy did not have feedback from consumption to production as its signals were hopelessly distorted and blocked by extremely invasive (in the market sense) system of redistribution of wealth and intermingling of political and economic governance. Innovation in any areas was suppressed because it disrupted the attempts to correlate plans with economic output in the absence of market signals. Lack of segregation of powers led to absence of checks and balances in making investment decisions ranging from industrial to social to scientific aspects. As the result, products which were needed were not produced, unneeded products were overproduced. Research in areas vital for future development and growth was blocked in favour of wild goose chases initiated on personal whims of the oligarchic elite. Only the ability to exchange raw materials for technology, ideas and state-of-the-art products with the rest of the world kept USSR going for so long after the world war II. The "socialist" regime was needed to kick Russia out of its backward social and economic state into the 20th century. Without it Russia would never have survived WWII. But then the system quickly outlived its use-by date... Well I agree with that almost completely, I agree there needed something to be done anyways due to it's backwards social and economic state with the czars. Still somewhere in the between 1966-1976 there was some moments were it looked like it worked that was my point and that is all that is needed. I do know they traded most of the stuff they needed badly , they didn't trade food though and I'm sure they would survive but yes invention and ideas got lost due to the state trying to do that themselves... But since the collapse not much has changed, they still have to trade with america for computer technology stuff and with other countries like japan and germany for cars as retty much every other country. The point is to survive in our environment one must trade since we are a trading planet right now.. But still if you look at the EU......

I don't think there is any controversy at all regarding the teaching of the origin of the universe (which has nothing to do with evolution, by the way). Is there a controversy over who built the pyramids? How about a controversy over whether there's four elements (air, water, fire, earth) or over 100 (including gold and mercury)? Or perhaps a controversy over whether the planets and sun revolve around the Earth? Or whether it's turtles all the way down? That's the thing I'm trying to point out here. There is no controversy. There is that which is in evidence and there is that which isn't in evidence. I do not want children being taught that the moon landing may have been faked or that lead can be turned into gold by the process of alchemy. There is no controversy here. Now we don't know the latter two for sure respectufully..... I mean chances are 99999/1 for moon landing and 5/1 for lead into gold alchemy possibility. Origin of Universe is highly controversial, I don't understand you there. Do you know for a fact how our universe was created or something???? I mean this is kind of stupid don't ya think, I know we go for the best theory but we don't have much info on the best theory in this case. Why would you teach children about a particular theory because some guy saw rays and the other measured them and a third calculated their life span... it's too weak. If you do teach this I would encourage pointing out: "We don't know how the hell our universe started but this is our best shot with the best evidence most scientists agree on, got" (This is offtopic and has nothing to do with evolution)

Thank you for being so respectful. Since an open sex relationship would have to be consensual, I personally would not consent to that, and do not comprehend why it would be a logical decision to make. I wasn't talking personally though I am trying to figure our why many disciplines see this generally as wrong and the bible even as a sin.

*Looks at his full 16 gb mp3 player with 895 tracks, makes sad face* 8418 songs total in my lie-berry. The key to getting lots of music is hoarding. When I hear a song I like, I get the whole album. When I hear that an artist is similar to an artist I like, I download their discography. Oh, and if you're paying money for your music, you'll never have a large collection. Well there can't possibly be 8418 songs that one can all like D:!!!!! I used to download charts and my collection used to be some thousands on the computer (Still much less then 8418) as a one time max but really, so many songs I didn't like or got bored I almost restarted my collection from the beginning and since then if I do download charts, which is rarely cause they are mostly crap to me, I pick out like 1 or two good songs from them.... As I said in another topic individually right now I get maybe 2-4 tracks per week, but I search for them for more then 15 hours.... and it gets worse and harder every time, it almost seems I have picked out more then 70 % of every excellent track in Techno, Trance, House or Minimal to my ears there is so far... I might need to shift genres soon to keep tracks coming but first I need a new mp3 player... probly 64 gb will be enough for every excellent track in the genres I'm looking for

Ready anytime, I love this mod and still play it with friends on garena, if you have garena, I'm playing

Peer pressure is the most common cause for crimes in under 18 year olds... How is it laughable that it is also the leading cause for the loss of virginity? I am not susceptible to it, and there are quite a few who aren't, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists and affects most of the world's population. I overreacted.... never mind this. It's a stupid thing though, I can say...

It's considered a social norm here not to accept other social norms.

Banned because you took my spot...

*Looks at his full 16 gb mp3 player with 895 tracks, makes sad face*

This is the part that confuses me. If some idiots think that you are a freak or loser or gay why should that force someone to have sex???? I mean we have the same thing here, maybe some guys kid around about not losing virginity, I haven't really seen one that would actually bully someone because of that.... but I still don't get how this can drive people to have sex and lose virginity. Blue: But we're talking about way before you even meet love.... you haven't promised her/him anything yet and who the hell knows maybe he/she and you will agree on an open sex relationship. In that case preserving virginity would all be a waste anyway... By the way, I do respect what you are doing, I have nothing against that.

I'm sorry but LOL... social pressures?...

To be more accurate, we know about the detrimental effects on astronauts who are in unshielded environments that don't provide gravity or a regular night-day cycle. (All problems that would be avoided living in a spinning, hollowed-out asteroid.) No, I've been doing this long enough to know that the only thing that makes space travel "impractical" is our unwillingness to spend more than a twentieth of a pittance on making it practical. That, and the fact that you shouldn't believe TV. Life is not, and most llikely never will be, like "Star Trek." And after all that we can live in a rational anarchy I posted in the topic of statism vs nonstatism.... I like

Yes, it can benefit you when you don't have sex before marriage/open marriage sex, I agree, but can you tell me how it can be harmful if you DO do it? My main point is finding out why the bible and many philosophies say it is a sin.... I can understand that it can be wise not to do it but I don't see how it is anything worse then just foolish or silly when you do do it.

ipconfig /release

Ah, no harm done. Anyway there is one more day to go at it, anyone want to make a prediction? Looks like Zacalak already failing... but he wasn't going to win anyway as he posted his prediction in the wrong format *Smell of troll fading...

I'm the exact opposite.