[OT News] Laser Could Rip a Hole in Space & Time

[Buzz Bumble]

Doctor Who is NOT going to be happy about this! ;-)

From LockerGnome.com ...

World's Most Powerful Laser Could Rip a Hole in Space and Time
--------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine a laser so powerful it could rip a hole in the vacuum
of space. This sounds like something out of science fiction,
but it's actually quite real. Scientists are proposing a laser
that wields 100,000 times the power of electricity produced
throughout the entire world. The beam lasts about one
trillionth of a second, and scientists believe it will be
capable of tearing a hole in the vacuum of space long enough
to allow them to detect ghost particles. Ghost particles are
subatomic particles that jump in and out of existence. We know
they're there, but we've never actually seen them. This is
because they fight with one another and eat each other before
any of our tools can measure them. This laser, by focusing
energy so intense it would dwarf that of even the center of
the Sun, would theoretically rip a hole in the vacuum of space
that would separate these ghost particles long enough for us
to measure them.

<http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2012/10/12/worlds-most-powerful-laser-could-rip-a-hole-in-space-time/>

[The Doctor]

In article <BuzzBumble-16...@203-118-187-106.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

Thank you Chris!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012

[Brian]

I hope they know what they are doing as it can be dangerous to mess with
nature.

Kind of reminds me of science fiction movies where scientists accidentally
opened a gateway that let in creatures to earth.

--
Regards Brian

[The Doctor]

In article <2053894869372057354....@free.teranews.com>,

Creation could be in trouble.

[The Coca Cola Kid]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 7:20:43 PM UTC-5, Buzz Bumble wrote:
>scientists believe it will be capable of tearing a hole in the vacuum of space
>long enough to allow them to detect ghost particles. Ghost particles are
>subatomic particles that jump in and out of existence. We know they're there,
>but we've never actually seen them. This is because they fight with one
>another and eat each other before any of our tools can measure them.

I love how these pop science articles equate 'our tools [being able to] measure them' with the 'existence' of said particles/objects. It makes it sound a lot more mysterious / cooler than it actually is, but it also makes a lot more people disillusioned and cynical about this version of 'science', when they find out the truth of it.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2fd45b0-961f-4f7d...@googlegroups.com...

"This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution?"

-- Marcus Aurelius.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Brian]

It seems that they will be spending a lot of money to prove that something
does not exist. 'We know they are there' must be just a guess.

--
Regards Brian

[powrwrap]

> An tSin Gorm wrote:
>
> What you can't measure, or at least observe, is religion and not science.
>

As when evolution postulates that mutations create unique new structures (rather than modified features)?

[The Coca Cola Kid]

"powrwrap" wrote in message
news:b82905d0-3e32-4621...@googlegroups.com...

>As when evolution postulates that mutations create unique new structures
>(rather than modified features)?

What is the difference? After a certain extent, modifying features will
alter the structures.

[powrwrap]

> The Coca Cola Kid wrote:

> >"powrwrap" wrote in message

> >As when evolution postulates that mutations create unique new structures
>
> >(rather than modified features)?


> What is the difference? After a certain extent, modifying features will
> alter the structures.

[Your Name]

In article <5aa20ef0-425c-4670...@googlegroups.com>,

Obviously the timescale involved means humans cannot really measure or
observe the actual process, but you can observe the results. It's been
observed in various animal species for centuries. In places there are two
sub-species that are almost identical, but have minor differences due to
evolving to fit their local habitat. There are others where sub-species
die out leaving a more successful, more evolved sub-species to take over.

[powrwrap]

>Your Name wrote:

Those are modified features and not new unique structures.

[Your Name]

In article <d0bdd187-9391-4a05...@googlegroups.com>,

"Evolution" by definition means modification of something that exists -
it's impossible to create something out of absolutely nothing. A
"mutation" is itself simply a modification of an existing structure.

Of course, an individual animal in a species may have a mutation like an
extra horn, and if it gives it an advantage over the others and if that
mutation can be passed on to it's off-spring, then it is patently possible
that eventually all of that animal will have the "extra" horn (at least in
that area, if not across the entire species) - the animals with the
advantage will simply out-breed or out-live those without.

An mutation that creates a disdvantage means the animal will likely not
survive to pass on the mutation anyway or will, in reverse, be out-breed
or out-lived by those not disadvantaged.

[The Doctor]

In article <chine.bleu-1AB0E...@news.eternal-september.org>,

An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <d0bdd187-9391-4a05...@googlegroups.com>,
> powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
>

>> Those are modified features and not new unique structures.
>

>THe only new feature in the universe was the Big Bang. Everything else in th
>universe is derived from that.
>
>--
>My name is Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
>Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
>Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

Terminus anyone?

[Brian]

An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <d0bdd187-9391-4a05...@googlegroups.com>,
> powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
>

>> Those are modified features and not new unique structures.
>

> THe only new feature in the universe was the Big Bang. Everything else in th
> universe is derived from that.

I find it very difficult to believe that intelligent life came from an
explosion.



--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

They say that Man evolved from Apes but I don't see any half and and half
man in the world.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

It's possible that one horned creatures call unicorns did exist and were
eventually were wiped out.

--
Regards Brian

[The Doctor]

In article <297231982372514418.8...@free.teranews.com>,

DNA correct?

[Stephen Wilson]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:297231982372514418.8...@free.teranews.com...

It didn't. This universe (probably) came into being after a big bang. After
a few million years at least one planet developed the conditions that could
sustain carbon-based life forms. After a few more million years, intelligent
life evolved.

Depending on your definition of intelligent, of course.

[Stephen Wilson]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1570726930372514292....@free.teranews.com...

I've seen a few wandering around my city centre...

[Stephen Wilson]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message

news:181540143372514515.7...@free.teranews.com...

It's possible. But very unlikely. Do you think there were also flying
lizards that could breathe fire? Or men with wings who flew around about
2000 years ago? Or perhaps little men dressed in green that hide pots of
gold at the ends of rainbows? Or creatures with human torsos and the body of
a horse?

[Stephen Wilson]

"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:k60pot$26i$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...

> In article <297231982372514418.8...@free.teranews.com>,
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In article <d0bdd187-9391-4a05...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those are modified features and not new unique structures.
>>>
>>> THe only new feature in the universe was the Big Bang. Everything else
>>> in th
>>> universe is derived from that.
>>
>>I find it very difficult to believe that intelligent life came from an
>>explosion.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Regards Brian
>
> DNA correct?

No, I think your DNA got a bit mixed up.

[The Coca Cola Kid]

"An tSin Gorm" wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-1AB0E...@news.eternal-september.org...

>THe only new feature in the universe was the Big Bang. Everything else in
>th
>universe is derived from that.

The Big Bang is a mythology that is beyond the realm of scientific
observation. All that we know, at this point, is that the section of the
universe that we can observe, from our perspective, has been expanding. We
have yet to see any evidence that the universe is, or ever was, finite in
size.

[The Coca Cola Kid]

"The Doctor" wrote in message news:k5vb64$kus$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>Terminus anyone?

I remember that people scoffed at the idea that Terminus was supposedly
located at the exact centre of the universe, because there is no centre of
the universe.
I also recall that the idea was originally intended to be that Terminus
was supposed to be a TARDIS, turned inside-out!

[The Coca Cola Kid]

"An tSin Gorm" wrote in message

news:chine.bleu-6229B...@news.eternal-september.org...
[Re: an inside out TARDIS]
>Would that make the outside larger than the inside?

It does put laid-to-rest the idea that the TARDIS is infinite, on the
inside.

[The Coca Cola Kid]

"Brian" wrote in message
news:1570726930372514292....@free.teranews.com...
>They say Man evolved from Apes but I don't see any half and half
>man in the world.

As I understand it, the theory is that Man and Apes evolved from similar
ancestors, not that one was a descendent of the Other. (No pun intended.)

[The Doctor]

In article <3RTgs.5041$UJ4....@fx22.am4>,

Suppose we define the intelligent as the one who came up with DNA.

[The Doctor]

In article <DRTgs.29568$Tf3....@fx12.am4>,

Which city is this?

[The Doctor]

In article <%UTgs.10354$ti6....@fx20.am4>,

Explain yours then.

[The Doctor]

In article <chine.bleu-CC5C7...@news.eternal-september.org>,

An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <3RTgs.5041$UJ4....@fx22.am4>,

>According to some religions life, intelligence, and/or souls originated outside
>the universe. That would mean they are not derived from the Big Bang. Such
>explanations depend on unobservables hence they are religion, not science.

>
>--
>My name is Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
>Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
>Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

Do you believe the universe is expanding?

[The Doctor]

In article <k616dl$rkq$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

REd spectrum versus Blue spectrum.

[The Doctor]

In article <k616ru$svj$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

The Universe has a centre.

[The Doctor]

In article <k618f2$14s$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:

Frontios and Castrovalva.

[Your Name]

In article <297231982372514418.8...@free.teranews.com>,
Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

I've yet to find much sign of "intelligent" life anywhere, especially on
Usenet. ;-)

Technically life didn't come from the "Big Bang", but the chemicals, etc.
needed for it did. Life itself evolved much later.

[Your Name]

In article <1570726930372514292....@free.teranews.com>,

There were some, but it was millions of years ago. If you want to see some
now, just watch WWE* "wrestling". ;-)


* Or whatever they've yet again changed it to.

[Your Name]

In article <181540143372514515.7...@free.teranews.com>,

Single horned animals are all over the place. The "unicorn" is more likely
to have been a mistakenly identified single-horned (either natural,
accidental, or mutation) member of the deer / antelope family.

[Your Name]

In article <zUTgs.5042$UJ4....@fx22.am4>, "Stephen Wilson"

There are flying lizards and there are lizards with bright red tongues.

> Or men with wings who flew around about 2000 years ago?

Leonardo Di Vinci did have drawings of what are basically handgliders and
parachutes. :-)

> Or perhaps little men dressed in green that hide pots of gold at
> the ends of rainbows?

More likely they hide their money under the matress or in the stock market
these days.

> Or creatures with human torsos and the body of a horse?

There are weirdos who do all sorts of things with dead anmals. :-(

[Your Name]

In article <chine.bleu-CC5C7...@news.eternal-september.org>,

An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <3RTgs.5041$UJ4....@fx22.am4>,

> According to some religions life, intelligence, and/or souls originated
> outside the universe. That would mean they are not derived from the Big
> Bang. Such explanations depend on unobservables hence they are religion,
> not science.

Nah, such explanations are not science = nonsense (non-science). ;-)

[Your Name]

In article <k6193t$309$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, "The Coca Cola Kid"

Nope. They do have a common ancestor way back in the evloutionary chain,
although whether that is technically an "ape" may be question. Go far
enough back and EVERY living thing on this planet is related.

[The Doctor]

In article <YourName-221...@203-118-187-143.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

I recall the Doctor and Peri cartoon on this.

[Your Name]

In article <k61m9a$525$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The

Doctor) wrote:
> In article <k616dl$rkq$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"An tSin Gorm" wrote in message
> >news:chine.bleu-1AB0E...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >
> >>THe only new feature in the universe was the Big Bang. Everything else in
> >>th universe is derived from that.
> >
> >The Big Bang is a mythology that is beyond the realm of scientific
> >observation. All that we know, at this point, is that the section of the
> >universe that we can observe, from our perspective, has been expanding. We
> >have yet to see any evidence that the universe is, or ever was, finite in
> >size.
>
> REd spectrum versus Blue spectrum.

Nope, "Spectrum is green" / "SIG" (Captain Scarlet). ;-)

[Your Name]

In article <k61o1l$79l$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The

Doctor) wrote:
> In article <YourName-221...@203-118-187-143.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >In article <297231982372514418.8...@free.teranews.com>,
> >Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >> An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <d0bdd187-9391-4a05...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> > powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Those are modified features and not new unique structures.
> >> >
> >> > THe only new feature in the universe was the Big Bang. Everything else
> >> > in th universe is derived from that.
> >>
> >> I find it very difficult to believe that intelligent life came from an
> >> explosion.
> >
> >I've yet to find much sign of "intelligent" life anywhere, especially on
> >Usenet. ;-)
> >
> >Technically life didn't come from the "Big Bang", but the chemicals, etc.
> >needed for it did. Life itself evolved much later.
>
> I recall the Doctor and Peri cartoon on this.

The "Big Bang" itself wasn't actually an explosion, but rather a rapid
expansion of space (according to some theories).

[The Doctor]

In article <YourName-221...@203-118-187-74.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

That's not scientific.

[The Doctor]

In article <YourName-221...@203-118-187-74.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>In article <k61o1l$79l$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
>Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <YourName-221...@203-118-187-143.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> >In article <297231982372514418.8...@free.teranews.com>,
>> >Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > In article <d0bdd187-9391-4a05...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Those are modified features and not new unique structures.
>> >> >
>> >> > THe only new feature in the universe was the Big Bang. Everything else
>> >> > in th universe is derived from that.
>> >>
>> >> I find it very difficult to believe that intelligent life came from an
>> >> explosion.
>> >
>> >I've yet to find much sign of "intelligent" life anywhere, especially on
>> >Usenet. ;-)
>> >
>> >Technically life didn't come from the "Big Bang", but the chemicals, etc.
>> >needed for it did. Life itself evolved much later.
>>
>> I recall the Doctor and Peri cartoon on this.
>
>The "Big Bang" itself wasn't actually an explosion, but rather a rapid
>expansion of space (according to some theories).

Infinite mass , infinitely high temperature, singularity.

[The Doctor]

In article <chine.bleu-673D3...@news.eternal-september.org>,

An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <YourName-221...@203-118-187-74.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

>It also included a massive amount of usable energy.

>
>--
>My name is Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
>Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
>Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

Infinite energy.

[Brian]

An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <3RTgs.5041$UJ4....@fx22.am4>,
> "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> "Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:297231982372514418.8...@free.teranews.com...

>>> An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <d0bdd187-9391-4a05...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Those are modified features and not new unique structures.
>>>>
>>>> THe only new feature in the universe was the Big Bang. Everything else in
>>>> th
>>>> universe is derived from that.
>>>
>>> I find it very difficult to believe that intelligent life came from an
>>> explosion.
>>

>> It didn't. This universe (probably) came into being after a big bang. After
>> a few million years at least one planet developed the conditions that could
>> sustain carbon-based life forms. After a few more million years, intelligent
>> life evolved.
>>
>> Depending on your definition of intelligent, of course.
>
> According to some religions life, intelligence, and/or souls originated outside
> the universe. That would mean they are not derived from the Big Bang. Such
> explanations depend on unobservables hence they are religion, not science.

I wonder if scientists will come up with a better theory of how the
universe was created. I can understand diamonds being created over time but
not the intelligence of creatures. It's a bit of a wild theory to say that
it was created by random and not on purpose.
I believe that everything in the universe has a purpose. I can understand
the sun having a purpose but I'm not certain about the planets except for
maintaining a balance in our galaxy as if one of the planets was destroyed
then our galaxy could collapse. Maybe in time scientists will discover the
purpose for other things.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

"Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message

> news:181540143372514515.7...@free.teranews.com...

>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> In article <d0bdd187-9391-4a05...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:

>>>> Those are modified features and not new unique structures.
>>>

>>> "Evolution" by definition means modification of something that exists -
>>> it's impossible to create something out of absolutely nothing. A
>>> "mutation" is itself simply a modification of an existing structure.
>>>
>>> Of course, an individual animal in a species may have a mutation like an
>>> extra horn, and if it gives it an advantage over the others and if that
>>> mutation can be passed on to it's off-spring, then it is patently
>>> possible
>>> that eventually all of that animal will have the "extra" horn (at least
>>> in
>>> that area, if not across the entire species) - the animals with the
>>> advantage will simply out-breed or out-live those without.
>>>
>>> An mutation that creates a disdvantage means the animal will likely not
>>> survive to pass on the mutation anyway or will, in reverse, be out-breed
>>> or out-lived by those not disadvantaged.
>>
>> It's possible that one horned creatures call unicorns did exist and were
>> eventually were wiped out.
>
> It's possible. But very unlikely. Do you think there were also flying

> lizards that could breathe fire? Or men with wings who flew around about
> 2000 years ago? Or perhaps little men dressed in green that hide pots of
> gold at the ends of rainbows? Or creatures with human torsos and the body of
> a horse?

I believe that there is missing information in the history of mankind.
Information not recorded or passed on due to civilizations being wiped out
in wars and natural disasters.
I also believe that there were giants the roamed the earth.

--
Regards Brian

[Your Name]

In article <992727852372559815.7...@free.teranews.com>,

Oh dear, looks like another reglious nutter has joined this newsgroup. :-(

[Your Name]

In article <1000080699372559091....@free.teranews.com>,

Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I believe that there is missing information in the history of mankind.
> Information not recorded or passed on due to civilizations being wiped out
> in wars and natural disasters.
> I also believe that there were giants the roamed the earth.

o..k..a..y ... {backs slowly away}



Where'd you guys put that emergency medication?!? :-\

[The Coca Cola Kid]

"Brian" wrote in message
news:992727852372559815.7...@free.teranews.com...

>I wonder if scientists will come up with a better theory of how the
>universe was created.

Unlike planets, stars, and galaxies, et cetera ... the universe is, by
definition, infinite. It is futile to speculate about the beginning, or
end, of such a thing.

>I can understand diamonds being created over time but
>not the intelligence of creatures. It's a bit of a wild theory to say that
>it was created by random and not on purpose.

If you understand cause and effect, then nothing is truly random in the
universe. Many different areas of science have observed what is called
'emergence'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

>I can understand the sun having a purpose but I'm not certain about the
>planets except for maintaining a balance in our galaxy as if one of the
>planets was destroyed then our galaxy could collapse.

Er ... what the hell are you talking about?

[The Coca Cola Kid]

"Brian" wrote in message
news:1000080699372559091....@free.teranews.com...

>I also believe that there were giants the roamed the earth.

I was with you up until that line. What you wrote before that, about
previous civilisations being wiped out and lost, did make sense, though.

[The Coca Cola Kid]

"Your Name" wrote in message
news:YourName-221...@203-118-187-191.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

>Oh dear, looks like another reglious nutter has joined this newsgroup. :-(

That actually improves our chances of turning Doctor Who into a bona fide
religion. :-)

[Monsieur Tabernac]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:25:27 -0500, "The Coca Cola Kid"
<thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Unlike planets, stars, and galaxies, et cetera ... the universe is, by
>definition, infinite. It is futile to speculate about the beginning, or
>end, of such a thing.

What dictionary defines "universe" as "infinite"?

[Brian]

Maybe my definition and your definition of a giant differs.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm considering what is possible. A person is very large in size can be
considered to be a giant. However I don't expect everyone to agree with
what I say.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:

I was trying to say that I believe everything has a purpose but the purpose
of somethings have not been discovered yet.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

This is my definition of a giant.

a. A person or thing of great size.
b. A person or thing of extraordinary strength.

I was not referring to the fairy story giants.


--
Regards Brian

[The Doctor]

In article <992727852372559815.7...@free.teranews.com>,
Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

Ever tried mathematical modelling?

[The Doctor]

In article <1000080699372559091....@free.teranews.com>,
Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

Those giants were flooded out.

[The Doctor]

In article <k62bbr$hbr$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's a little dangerous.

[The Doctor]

In article <chine.bleu-F6DFD...@news.eternal-september.org>,

An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <k621p5$hol$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,

>No. That would've caused it to collapse under its own infinite weight.
>

Singurality for you.

>--
>My name is Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
>Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
>Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

[Brian]

This is worth a looking at.
http://grisham.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/27/6728412-fact-or-fiction-could-giants-be-real

--
Regards Brian

[Stephen Wilson]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message

news:992727852372559815.7...@free.teranews.com...

Rubbish. If you subscribe to the idea that life on planet earth had a
creator, what is your explanation for how the creator came into being? An
intelligent creator can't have come about by random. So the creator was
created by a more intelligent creator? See... your theory does not hold up.
1

> I believe that everything in the universe has a purpose. I can understand
> the sun having a purpose but I'm not certain about the planets except for
> maintaining a balance in our galaxy as if one of the planets was destroyed
> then our galaxy could collapse. Maybe in time scientists will discover the
> purpose for other things.

Why does everything need to have a purpose? Why not just enjoy things for
what they are, instead of trying to look for a purpose that probably isn't
there?

[Stephen Wilson]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1000080699372559091....@free.teranews.com...

>>>
>>> It's possible that one horned creatures call unicorns did exist and were
>>> eventually were wiped out.
>>
>> It's possible. But very unlikely. Do you think there were also flying
>> lizards that could breathe fire? Or men with wings who flew around about
>> 2000 years ago? Or perhaps little men dressed in green that hide pots of
>> gold at the ends of rainbows? Or creatures with human torsos and the body
>> of
>> a horse?
>
> I believe that there is missing information in the history of mankind.

I'm sure there is. No way anybody could know it all.

> Information not recorded or passed on due to civilizations being wiped out
> in wars and natural disasters.

There's plenty that has come and gone over the years. We can only guess what
the ancient Egyptians knew, what was known by the citizens of Pompeii, etc.

> I also believe that there were giants the roamed the earth.

If you mean dinosaurs, then yes - we already know this. If you mean humans
taller than average - well we know the largest man in recorded history was
almost 9 feet tall..But such people are the exception, not the rule.

[Stephen Wilson]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1006559186372609572....@free.teranews.com...

It would be if the author could actually site any real evidence. However
skeletons of these so-called giants were of normal size. More information
can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si-Te-Cah

There's a massive difference between legends and exaggerated sightings and
reality.

[The Doctor]

In article <Dnehs.22862$Wc4....@fx10.am4>,

Could dinosaurs have walked with modern man?

[Your Name]

In article <974906187372605103.9...@free.teranews.com>,

Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> This is my definition of a giant.
>
> a. A person or thing of great size.
> b. A person or thing of extraordinary strength.
>
> I was not referring to the fairy story giants.

Jack killed them all. ;-)

[Your Name]

In article <k63ie8$h6v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The

Doctor) wrote:
> In article <992727852372559815.7...@free.teranews.com>,
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >I wonder if scientists will come up with a better theory of how the
> >universe was created. I can understand diamonds being created over time but
> >not the intelligence of creatures. It's a bit of a wild theory to say that
> >it was created by random and not on purpose.
> >I believe that everything in the universe has a purpose. I can understand
> >the sun having a purpose but I'm not certain about the planets except for
> >maintaining a balance in our galaxy as if one of the planets was destroyed
> >then our galaxy could collapse. Maybe in time scientists will discover the
> >purpose for other things.
>

> Ever tried mathematical modelling?

He tried, but the modelling agency person said that he doesn't have the
"figures" for it. ;-)

[Your Name]

In article <1006559186372609572....@free.teranews.com>,

Some people believe all sorts of weird nonsense based on looney ideas
guessed at by archaeologists digging something up ... in 2,000 years time
no doubt some idiot will dig up a picture of Barney and believe man lived
alongside purple dinosaurs. :-\

[Your Name]

In article <k646ml$8vv$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The

Doctor) wrote:
> In article <Dnehs.22862$Wc4....@fx10.am4>,
> Stephen Wilson <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:1000080699372559091....@free.teranews.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> It's possible that one horned creatures call unicorns did exist and were
> >>>> eventually were wiped out.
> >>>
> >>> It's possible. But very unlikely. Do you think there were also flying
> >>> lizards that could breathe fire? Or men with wings who flew around about
> >>> 2000 years ago? Or perhaps little men dressed in green that hide pots of
> >>> gold at the ends of rainbows? Or creatures with human torsos and the body
> >>> of a horse?
> >>
> >> I believe that there is missing information in the history of mankind.
> >
> >I'm sure there is. No way anybody could know it all.
> >
> >> Information not recorded or passed on due to civilizations being wiped out
> >> in wars and natural disasters.
> >
> >There's plenty that has come and gone over the years. We can only guess what
> >the ancient Egyptians knew, what was known by the citizens of Pompeii, etc.
> >
> >> I also believe that there were giants the roamed the earth.
> >
> >If you mean dinosaurs, then yes - we already know this. If you mean humans
> >taller than average - well we know the largest man in recorded history was
> >almost 9 feet tall..But such people are the exception, not the rule.
>
> Could dinosaurs have walked with modern man?

No, not the true dinosaurs as seen in movies like Jurassic Park.

There are still the tuataras alive today in New Zealand that are the last
remaining reptiles of order Rhynchocephalia, which mostly died out with
dinosaurs.

[Your Name]

In article <Dnehs.22862$Wc4....@fx10.am4>, "Stephen Wilson"
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

To the pygmy people of places like Papua New Guinea, normal people would
LOOK like giants, but that's as close as you'd get in the real world.

[Your Name]

In article <Dnehs.22862$Wc4....@fx10.am4>, "Stephen Wilson"
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1000080699372559091....@free.teranews.com...
> >>>
> >>> It's possible that one horned creatures call unicorns did exist and were
> >>> eventually were wiped out.
> >>
> >> It's possible. But very unlikely. Do you think there were also flying
> >> lizards that could breathe fire? Or men with wings who flew around about
> >> 2000 years ago? Or perhaps little men dressed in green that hide pots of
> >> gold at the ends of rainbows? Or creatures with human torsos and the body
> >> of a horse?
> >
> > I believe that there is missing information in the history of mankind.
>
> I'm sure there is. No way anybody could know it all.

There's also a lot of utter garbage (even ignoring the admited hoaxes)
reported as "facts" that is nothing but guesswork by the so-called
"experts", and often later proven to be nonsense. There's a TV show called
"Ancient Aliens" which is about the myths that aliens visted humans in the
ancient past, and much of their "proof" is simply a load of bollocks being
spouted by blinkered loonies.

[Stephen Wilson]

"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:k646ml$8vv$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...

Of course they could have. If they hadn't become extinct. But they did so
they didn't.

[Stephen Wilson]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message

news:992727852372559815.7...@free.teranews.com...
> An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> In article <3RTgs.5041$UJ4....@fx22.am4>,

>> "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message

> I wonder if scientists will come up with a better theory of how the
> universe was created. I can understand diamonds being created over time
> but
> not the intelligence of creatures. It's a bit of a wild theory to say that
> it was created by random and not on purpose.

You reckon? I think it's wilder to say it was created on purpose. What
exactly do you think its purpose is? The way I see it, the purpose of life
is to be born, have babies, die. As "intelligent" beings, we can make a
little more of things. Have fun. Enjoy what we've got while we have it.

Do you think our planet, and we ourselves, were designed? Cos if you do I
think the designer needs shooting. Why would anyone design a planet that
destroys life every now and then with earthquakes, floods and volcanoes? Why
design life that cannot survive without consuming other life? Why design
creatures that drown when submerged in water, considering that about 70% of
the planet we live on is covered in ocean? Why design creatures that, should
they lose a limb, are unable to regrow it? Humans can walk and run - but
they suffer from aching feet and knee injuries. We can twist our spines, but
most of us will develop back problems at some point in our life. Our babies
have large brains, but giving birth to them involves great pain and risk.
Basically, humans have many flaws in their design, most of which came about
due to compromises made when our ancestors stood upright. The spine, for
instance, originally functioned as an arch. When we started walking on 2
legs, it had to become a weight bearing column. About 4 million years ago it
developed into an S shape. But the lower region continues to suffer from the
pressure placed on it by our upright posture.

Sorry, but nothing in the way this planet or its inhabitants exist suggest
that there's an intelligent force that's responsible for them. Humans like
to think that we represent some kind of perfection. If you have a faith, you
think we were designed to be the ultimate living creature on earth. If
you're an atheist, you're more likely to want to believe we represent the
pinnacle of evolution, where we are the latest in a line of models that each
improved on its predecessors. Both are wrong. Evolution is not directed in
any particular direction. It's full of diversity and dead ends. It's messy.
And it doesn't happen overnight. It happens slowly, over thousands of years.

> I believe that everything in the universe has a purpose. I can understand
> the sun having a purpose but I'm not certain about the planets except for
> maintaining a balance in our galaxy as if one of the planets was destroyed
> then our galaxy could collapse. Maybe in time scientists will discover the
> purpose for other things.

Why do you need everything to have a purpose? There are reasons why some
things are the way they are. Science can help us determine many things by
observing the universe around us and carrying out experiments to see whether
a theory can be developed to fit the observation.. However science doesn't
attempt to explain the "why", only the "how".

[The Doctor]

In article <YourName-231...@203-118-187-175.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

Sorry but the agency does not qualify ;-)

[The Doctor]

In article <YourName-231...@203-118-187-175.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

So how can modern birds be derived from ancient dinosaurs?

[Your Name]

In article <WYihs.41713$hy3....@fx19.am4>, "Stephen Wilson"

<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:k646ml$8vv$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> >

> > Could dinosaurs have walked with modern man?
>
> Of course they could have. If they hadn't become extinct. But they did so
> they didn't.

Given the size difference, I think it would be more like "dinosaurs could
have walked ON modern man ... without even noticing." ;-)

[Your Name]

In article <k64h96$imf$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The

Doctor) wrote:

> In article <YourName-231...@203-118-187-175.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >In article <k646ml$8vv$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
> >Doctor) wrote:
> >>
> >> Could dinosaurs have walked with modern man?
> >
> >No, not the true dinosaurs as seen in movies like Jurassic Park.
> >
> >There are still the tuataras alive today in New Zealand that are the last
> >remaining reptiles of order Rhynchocephalia, which mostly died out with
> >dinosaurs.
>
> So how can modern birds be derived from ancient dinosaurs?

The same way everything else evolved ... very slowly. :-)

[The Doctor]

In article <YourName-231...@203-118-187-24.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

Could they?

[Brian]

There are a lot of mysteries and unexplained things in the world which I
believe is due to missing knowledge. Take for example of how they moved
heavy stones up a pyramid to create the top of the pyramid. Someone
suggested that the stones were put inside something round and rolled up the
side of the pyramid on a temporary structure which makes sense. Being a
slave building a pyramid in those days demanded a lot of strength
especially under the hot sun with someone whipping you if you were slow at
moving heavy stones. Not something that the average person could do these
days.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

The real world in the past would be different to the real world of the
present.
Humans were larger and stronger in the past. Try doing some of the things a
warrior or slave did these days would you would not survive. For some you
would have trouble holding up a heavy sword.
There have been cases were a person has continued to grow well beyond the
normal height of the average human.

--
Regards Brian

[Your Name]

In article <94113427372648058.8...@free.teranews.com>,

Skeletal remains prove that humans were actually slightly smaller in the
past and are becoming slightly bigger over time. The distant ancestors
coming down from the trees were about the size of most children are today.

> There have been cases were a person has continued to grow well beyond the
> normal height of the average human.

Those cases are abnormal and rare, and are caused by medical problems.

[Your Name]

In article <1350809031372648428....@free.teranews.com>,

There are many theories for how that was done, ranging from the sensible
to the purely idiotic.

> Someone suggested that the stones were put inside something round and
> rolled up the side of the pyramid on a temporary structure which makes
> sense.

The stones are large and extremely heavy, trying to put them "inside
something round" isn't really sensible, lety alone rolling them up hill.

Some theories suggest the use of low gradient spiral ramps around the
outside of the pyramid with the stones being hauled up one sleds or
rollers. Others suggest the use of a basic block-and-tackle device to
hoist the blocks up. No doubt there was a combination of various methods
used.

> Being a slave building a pyramid in those days demanded a lot of strength
> especially under the hot sun with someone whipping you if you were slow at
> moving heavy stones. Not something that the average person could do these
> days.

Not something that the average person could do back then either - most
slaves died.

[Brian]

A good example of how knowledge of the past is missing. They knew how it
was done but at some stage this knowledge was not passed on or recorded.

>
>
>
>> Being a slave building a pyramid in those days demanded a lot of strength
>> especially under the hot sun with someone whipping you if you were slow at
>> moving heavy stones. Not something that the average person could do these
>> days.
>
> Not something that the average person could do back then either - most
> slaves died.

However the pyramids were built by man power. Yes only the fittest
survived.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <YourName-231...@203-118-187-213.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
>>> Being a slave building a pyramid in those days demanded a lot of strength
>>> especially under the hot sun with someone whipping you if you were slow at
>>> moving heavy stones. Not something that the average person could do these
>>> days.
>>
>> Not something that the average person could do back then either - most
>> slaves died.
>

> They weren't slaves. They included farmers on the offseasons.
>
> A healthy young person could do it, or be quickly made fit. What's amazing isn't
> that they could blocks of stones--any large enough group of people can do
> that--but the social organisation that got this done, the canals flowing, and
> the crops growing.

The body adjusts to the conditions it needs to live in and what labour is
required. In parts of the world where we drive to work in a car, spend
hours in an office pushing a pen then the not the need for great strength.

--
Regards Brian

[Your Name]

In article <chine.bleu-12A9B...@news.eternal-september.org>,

An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <YourName-231...@203-118-187-213.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > >

> > > Being a slave building a pyramid in those days demanded a lot of strength
> > > especially under the hot sun with someone whipping you if you were slow at
> > > moving heavy stones. Not something that the average person could do these
> > > days.
> >
> > Not something that the average person could do back then either - most
> > slaves died.
>

> They weren't slaves. They included farmers on the offseasons.
>
> A healthy young person could do it, or be quickly made fit. What's
> amazing isn't that they could blocks of stones--any large enough group
> of people can do that--but the social organisation that got this done,
> the canals flowing, and the crops growing.

It's not really that amazing ... it's called co-operation and community,
which is something else (along with common sense and common decency) that
most of the human race has lost. In terms of things like the pyramids,
it's also something called religious fanaticism.

[Brian]

But you are assuming that everything is created. Why should the creator be
created. There are some things beyond the understanding of the human mind.

> 1
>> I believe that everything in the universe has a purpose. I can understand
>> the sun having a purpose but I'm not certain about the planets except for
>> maintaining a balance in our galaxy as if one of the planets was destroyed
>> then our galaxy could collapse. Maybe in time scientists will discover the
>> purpose for other things.
>
> Why does everything need to have a purpose? Why not just enjoy things for
> what they are, instead of trying to look for a purpose that probably isn't
> there?

Humans have a desire to explore things and ask why. You are right about the
need to enjoy life and not everyone wants to be a scientist.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

While I read with interest of how you view the world, you tend to paint a
darker side of life but to many life should be enjoyed. Our bodies are able
to repair themselves and fight against bacteria. Medical problems often
occur because we abuse our bodies and push them to the limit. The human
race could easily be wiped out with the spread of a disease but we are
still surviving over the years. The earth still provides us with food and
warmth from the sun. Some say if the human race gets wiped out then humans
will cause it. Its also its intelligence that keeps us alive along with the
fear of death.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <k61o1l$79l$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
> Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <YourName-221...@203-118-187-143.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> In article <297231982372514418.8...@free.teranews.com>,

>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> An tSin Gorm <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <d0bdd187-9391-4a05...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> powrwrap <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are modified features and not new unique structures.
>>>>>
>>>>> THe only new feature in the universe was the Big Bang. Everything else
>>>>> in th universe is derived from that.
>>>>
>>>> I find it very difficult to believe that intelligent life came from an
>>>> explosion.
>>>

>>> I've yet to find much sign of "intelligent" life anywhere, especially on
>>> Usenet. ;-)
>>>
>>> Technically life didn't come from the "Big Bang", but the chemicals, etc.
>>> needed for it did. Life itself evolved much later.
>>
>> I recall the Doctor and Peri cartoon on this.
>
> The "Big Bang" itself wasn't actually an explosion, but rather a rapid
> expansion of space (according to some theories).

If it was rapid then the force on the planet earth would tear it apart.

--
Regards Brian

[The Doctor]

In article <94113427372648058.8...@free.teranews.com>,
Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

I prefer that these Giants were Homo-Artificialus pre-Flood.

Recall Goliath was 9' high.