ForumsWEPRHAARP

68 8101
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP
http://www.bariumblues.com/haarp1.htm
Our tax dollars going to this crap

  • 68 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

Gravity may have been lighter during this period


What? How do you figure that? The only reasoning I can think of is because of the size of the animals, you're basing it off an assumption that their hearts wouldn't have been able to pump blood up that far in such large amounts.

I don't see any reason why gravity would be less then.
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

because you ignore every source and attempt at someone telling you how it's false?

Ignore? Well I see it, realize it's wrong to me, and then ignore it.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

Ignore? Well I see it, realize it's wrong to me, and then ignore it.

realize it's wrong to me, and then ignore it.

realize it's wrong to me

wrong to me


wat.jpg

You can't decide something to be wrong only for you. Gravity doesn't rely upon the belief one has in it
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

You can't decide something to be wrong only for you. Gravity doesn't rely upon the belief one has in it

I wasn't talking about gravity, I was replying to someone
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,562 posts
4,140

Ignore? Well I see it, realize it's wrong to me, and then ignore it.


This is not how you interpret and debunk articles; you would fail right out of College with that attitude.

You read the premise; read the evidence that backs up the premise; read the data and studies that support the evidence.

Afterwards, you contrast this with the current beliefs you have. Just how much evidence did this new article have? Was it logically sound? Was it acknowledged by many peer-reviewers? Were they accredited with their professions?

How credible is this, compared to the credibility of what your current beliefs? Was yours acknowledged by many accredited peer-reviewers?
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

This is not how you interpret and debunk articles; you would fail right out of College with that attitude.


I think I'll take college a little more seriously than a game website forum lol

How credible is this,


You see, I, unlike you guys, find the church to be a credible source.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

I think I'll take college a little more seriously than a game website forum lol


This may be a game website forum, but you're arguing about life issues. That's a serious topic.

You see, I, unlike you guys, find the church to be a credible source.


The church IS a credible source...on its own theology and doctrine. Not on conspiracy theories, of all things!
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,562 posts
4,140

You see, I, unlike you guys, find the church to be a credible source.


This is a glaring issue and here's why: Science is Mundane; Religion is Spiritual.

One cannot debunk the other.

While Science cannot use evidence (and will never have the evidence) to debunk the existence of a god, Religion cannot use faith or religious text to debunk scientific material, like Evolution, Climatology, and Physics (because no amount of religious text or faith can disprove the Mundane).

It's because these two separate realms cannot be used against one another.

While Science can use geological and physiological evidence to debunk the stories of Noah and Adam and Eve, Religion can in turn use religious text and faith to philosophically dispute wars and Abortion.

The unfortunate advantage here is that Mundane controls the realm of the entire universe, while Spirituality controls the realm of Ideas.
Minotaur55
offline
Minotaur55
1,387 posts
2,720

I think I'll take college a little more seriously than a game website forum lol


This is a forum of logic, it's suppose to come naturally to you. Everything you say is illogical. So if you have to take a forum seriously there is a problem. A forum is suppose to be a breeze, school is for seriousness.

The church IS a credible source...on its own theology and doctrine. Not on conspiracy theories, of all things!


Note how he said in it's own theology. Not to mention, church supports government. It doesn't defy it. You do, but it does not.

Religion cannot use faith or religious text to debunk scientific material, like Evolution, Climatology, and Physics (because no amount of religious text or faith can disprove the Mundane).


Exactly. Not to mention, it was knowledge of gravities effects that helped in the modern rocket age. The rocket would have come down eventually had a scientist not noticed that all things come down, unless a massive amount of thrust was needed to keep it traveling.

Religion did not support this, science did. I agree with Freakenstein on this. Mundane controls the realm of the entire universe, while spirituality controls the realm of ideas.
Minotaur55
offline
Minotaur55
1,387 posts
2,720

Not to mention, church supports government.


Sorry, that was a typo. Religion supports government. Church is a vague and irrelevant term.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

Ignore? Well I see it, realize it's wrong to me, and then ignore it.


Wrong to you? There is not wrong to you. Something is either true or not.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

Something is either true or not.


Unfortunately the world is not so black and white.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

Unfortunately the world is not so black and white.


Not so. I actually got into an argument with my teacher years ago, because she said I was a 'black and white thinker.'

More than one thing can be true, but something is always either true or false. Even opinions fall into this - it's true someone likes something better than another, while it may be objectively false that it is actually 'better.' Proof? Why do we have judges in contests relating to opinion? Because those people have experience and can make a better judgement that is 'more true' or 'better' than another.

It's only black and white on the surface.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

More than one thing can be true, but something is always either true or false. Even opinions fall into this - it's true someone likes something better than another, while it may be objectively false that it is actually 'better.' Proof? Why do we have judges in contests relating to opinion? Because those people have experience and can make a better judgement that is 'more true' or 'better' than another.


I'm interested by your choice in example, because it seems contradictory to your claim. To continue your example, if a judgement is "more true" then other judgements, it would also be correct to say that it is the "least false" of the other judgements. By its nature, then, it qualifies for both prepositions: it can lay a claim to be both A) true, and B) false. While the concept of true and false is mutually exclusive on paper, in practice the norm is for some form of equilibrium to be met between the two conditions. "More true", as you say.

To paint everything holisitically as either A or B is establishing a false dilemma.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

I'm interested by your choice in example, because it seems contradictory to your claim. To continue your example, if a judgement is "more true" then other judgements, it would also be correct to say that it is the "least false" of the other judgements. By its nature, then, it qualifies for both prepositions: it can lay a claim to be both A) true, and B) false. While the concept of true and false is mutually exclusive on paper, in practice the norm is for some form of equilibrium to be met between the two conditions. "More true", as you say.


Think of it like this. Ideas are a compliation of many things. They have reasons behind them, causes, different expressions, and variations. Each idea is composed of hundreds or thousands of "true/false" things. These are evaluated individually, and then quantified later to arrive at whether something is "more true" or "better."

For example with food, you're not looking at one aspect. You're looking at taste of individual parts, texture, appearance, flavor, temperature, proportions, preparation, serving, finesse, and many other things. Each of these you can break down to a statement of what is 'better' than another.

So for let's say a hamburger, we have the meat. You arrive at the conclusion it's better than another. Why is that? Different people have different tastes, who are you to say it's better? Well, you're looking at it in an objective way (hopefully) and evaluating everything, even if it's not consciously. At some point, you found how cooked it was arguably better. But why? That's still an opinion, isn't it? So then we look at what it actually is. Are there any raw spots? Y/N. Is it still tender? Y/N. Does it still retain the juices? Y/N.

Taking that further, you can break down to why raw spots are 'better' or worse than fully cooked, by going into fact. Raw spots mean there might be bacteria still, so even if you like raw food, it's not 'better' than cooked food.

I could go on like this for a while, because there's really no end to it. Each component is made up of parts which is made up of different areas which are evaluated based on certain criteria because of arguable FACT. There IS a true/false in everything, there just can be quite a few, and in different places.
Showing 16-30 of 68