How Large is the Universe?

[seekingtruth]

Tim,
“The square-cube law makes it a physical impossibility that humanoids of the size represented by these bones could ever existed.” isn't that the same “law” that says dino's couldn't have walked either?

[TimothyVI]

Hi seekingtruth,
There are theories concerning how dinosaurs could have walked ranging from denser atmosphere to decreased gravity during that period. I am not well versed in those studies

Are you saying that you believe in those giant human photos?

Tim

[seekingtruth]

i used to work with Photoshop and could have easily have done those pictures, so of course I'm skeptical. However my worldview does allow for “giants” but I would still need to see it for myself or hear it from a source I did trust.

Wm

[TimothyVI]

Good for you.

Tim

[Proclaimer]

Quote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 08 2012,00:05)

Hi T8, These pictures are known to be photoshopped hoaxes. The other two things you mention have not been proven to be hoaxes at all, but my real question to you would be: why would you want to encourage wakeup to continue to believe something that makes him appear foolish? That is not a very friendly, or compassionate thing to do. TIm

What are you talking about. I am not encouraging anyone to believe this. I made a few obvious jokes about it, and if people can't pick up on that, then that is not my fault.

I neither believe these pictures are genuine and am not encouraging anyone to think they are. Where do you get such an idea.

[Proclaimer]

Regarding gigantism, we know from the fossil record that many species that exist today were much bigger in the past. Redwoods, dragonflies, reptiles (dinos), even kangaroos.

And I also work with Photoshop and could easily replicate that picture. I could also do that with a mere camera and no special effects. It is called forced perspective.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 07 2012,23:06)

As it is, I have explained to you already how the universe came into existence, and you are in denial about that history. I'm sorry for you that you seem unable to accept the answers to the questions you pose.

Maybe I missed that one.
Was that the post where you repeated Hawkins idea about gravity?

Would you like a debate on this subject now that you have had time to compile evidence? If not, I am still willing to debate an Atheist 8 times more intelligent. Do you know of any?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 07 2012,23:06)

If you didn't have this rather pathetic and parochial death-cult religion metaphorically around your neck you might be able to discover a much richer spirituality than the one you seem to have which apparently relies on reality-denial and semantic games.

Ha ha. What is it that you understand about spirituality when you deny that there are spirits. I need clarification on what you are actually saying.

Have you changed your mind Stu? Do you believe in spirits now? Let us know about what changed your mind if this is the case.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 09 2012,11:42)

Regarding gigantism, we know from the fossil record that many species that exist today were much bigger in the past. Redwoods, dragonflies, reptiles (dinos), even kangaroos. And I also work with Photoshop and could easily replicate that picture. I could also do that with a mere camera and no special effects. It is called forced perspective.

Modern reptiles are not descended from dinosaurs…just for the record.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 09 2012,11:44)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 07 2012,23:06) As it is, I have explained to you already how the universe came into existence, and you are in denial about that history.  I'm sorry for you that you seem unable to accept the answers to the questions you pose. Maybe I missed that one. Was that the post where you repeated Hawkins idea about gravity? Would you like a debate on this subject now that you have had time to compile evidence? If not, I am still willing to debate an Atheist 8 times more intelligent. Do you know of any?

Who is Hawkins?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 09 2012,14:47)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 07 2012,23:06) If you didn't have this rather pathetic and parochial death-cult religion metaphorically around your neck you might be able to discover a much richer spirituality than the one you seem to have which apparently relies on reality-denial and semantic games. Ha ha. What is it that you understand about spirituality when you deny that there are spirits. I need clarification on what you are actually saying. Have you changed your mind Stu? Do you believe in spirits now? Let us know about what changed your mind if this is the case.

My Concise Oxford dictionary has two senses of the word spiritual(ity) that do not mention spirits. The paragraph of definitions at the start of the Wikipedia article doesn't mention spirits at all. Perhaps you should go on there are correct it.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 10 2012,21:22)

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 09 2012,11:42) Regarding gigantism, we know from the fossil record that many species that exist today were much bigger in the past. Redwoods, dragonflies, reptiles (dinos), even kangaroos. And I also work with Photoshop and could easily replicate that picture. I could also do that with a mere camera and no special effects. It is called forced perspective. Modern reptiles are not descended from dinosaurs…just for the record. Stuart

Where did I say that?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 10 2012,21:28)

My Concise Oxford dictionary has two senses of the word spiritual(ity) that do not mention spirits.  The paragraph of definitions at the start of the Wikipedia article doesn't mention spirits at all.  Perhaps you should go on there are correct it. Stuart

Okay spiritual has no association with spirit. Just coincidence.
But a person with English skills might argue that 'ual' is a suffix and it has been added to the word 'spirit' to produce the word 'spiritual'.

And a suffix is placed after the stem of a word and is associated with the word.

Let's look at some other 'ual' words to see if they are associated with the stem word.

Accrual
Bilingual
Contextual
Eventual
Factual
Habitual
Manual (manual labour)
Sexual
Tactual
Textual
Visual

So Stu is spiritual, and denies the spirit realm and the existence of spirits.

Okay, makes perfect sense. Time to crack open another Tui.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 10 2012,20:32)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 10 2012,21:22) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 09 2012,11:42) Regarding gigantism, we know from the fossil record that many species that exist today were much bigger in the past. Redwoods, dragonflies, reptiles (dinos), even kangaroos. And I also work with Photoshop and could easily replicate that picture. I could also do that with a mere camera and no special effects. It is called forced perspective. Modern reptiles are not descended from dinosaurs…just for the record. Stuart Where did I say that?

My mistake, I forgot. You don't believe those changes you described, that are demonstrated in the fossil record, have resulted from animals giving birth to slightly different animals. You believe a god made entirely different animals each new generation.

Or else you have never explained how the fossil record comes to look the way it does. Maybe you have never thought about it before.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 10 2012,20:46)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 10 2012,21:28) My Concise Oxford dictionary has two senses of the word spiritual(ity) that do not mention spirits.  The paragraph of definitions at the start of the Wikipedia article doesn't mention spirits at all.  Perhaps you should go on there are correct it. Stuart Okay spiritual has no association with spirit.

Good.

By the way, in case you are in any doubt, try these terms where the root noun isn't necessarily related:

dexterity
monotony
hospitality

Stuart

[Author]

Posts