Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Significant Passings
#41
(03-01-2012, 11:52 AM)John L Wrote:
(03-01-2012, 11:05 AM)WarBicycle Wrote:
Quote:In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.
We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.
Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.
Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:
I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.
Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.
Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.


This is a loss for the Right, I really enjoyed reading his Blog.

I am moving this to the original "Significant Passings" thread where it should have been placed. But I can't get it done because this forum software does things the very opposite of how it should be done, and I screwed it up. S4

There is no move a post to another thread option available until myBB 1.8 version.

Just copy the post and take it to the desired thread and post it.

Beach
Reply
#42
(06-07-2012, 02:50 AM)Green Wrote: Bradbury was on the Left side of the world. That's why you don't like him.

I for one like P.K. Dick most of all.

No he was simply not that good a science fiction writer.He was overrated and lucky in his career despite that.A good writer sure but not that good.

There were many far better than him and that is reflected in the awards handed out over the decades where he won exactly ONE Hugo and ZERO Nebula Awards.Heck he was NEVER nominated for a Nebula at all!

Hugo Awards

Nebula Nominations

Connie Willis wins 7 and many more writers wins at least 2 while the much talked about Bradbury wins 0.

Nebula Awards

The better writers are obvious such as Issac Asimov who won the All time best science fiction series Hugo in 1966.How come The Martian Chronicles failed to win? Oh thats right it was never nominated in the first place:

Hugo all time best series

It boggles my mind that they made for TV the Martian Chronicles but never for the Foundation series.But at least The Lord of the Rings was made into a three part movie series that showed how good his nominated series was.

The Martian Chronicles was a decent movie but.......

S13
Reply
#43
Neil Armstrong, first man to walk on moon, dead at age 82. Suddenly I am very much aware of my age. S4
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#44
I think that moon landing was the greatest human achievement in history. No other people, in any age of man, can say that they sent men to walk on the moon. And Armstrong was the first to set foot on the moon. Like the man said in the article, "As long as there are history books, Neil Armstrong will be in them."

I also have always found it very interesting that after many scientists and science fiction writers warned that the moon could have a dust layer up to a hundred feet thick, in which the lunar lander might have sank, because supposedly dust had been sleeting down out of space and gathering on the lunar suface for billions of years--and because of which, the first lunar landers had large snowshoe-like apendages on their landing struts--Armstrong and company found that the layer of accreted dust on the lunar surface was only one-half to three-fourths of an inch thick. That had to have been a hard blow to evolutionists and others who needed to believe that the universe is billions of years old.
Reply
#45
W.t.f.

Seriously? You managed to Tard up a thread about Neil Armstrong with the idea that the universe isn't old as shit? I'm amazed. You should go finger blast yourself to images of Sarah Palin while thinking about the levels of moon dust.

Jebus, man....
[Image: 760.png]
Reply
#46
Ghoullio, I happen to believe that the extreme shallowness of accreted moon dust was one of the most important discoveries of the entire space program. Just because it jostles your preferred world view, doesn't diminish its objective importance. Here is just one very good example of hard scientific evidence that refutes the idea of vast ages of the universe. Instead of denouncing anything that disrupts your preferred paradigm, how about opening your mind to the scientific evidence the Apollo program gained for us all? That was the point of going to the moon, to discover such things that tell us very basic things about the nature of the universe. I could also mention the various isotope ratios (including relatively short-lived isotopes) they found in the lunar soil and rock. But I don't want to be accused of "piling on." Some people do not welcome arguments and Biblical evidence about religious teachings, no matter how clear; some people do not welcome political facts that reveal bad things about popular political leaders (such as Obama), no matter how well documented; and some people do not welcome solid scientific facts that run counter to their cherished philosophy of science. Welcomed or not, the truth is what it is, and deserves to be made known. Armstrong and the others who walked on the moon were a part of that. I am sure God honors them for that very reason, even if you do not.
Reply
#47
Ron,



You're fighting an anti intellectual battle here amigo. The universe is not the age you have assigned the earth. The bible has nothing to say about such issues.

"Lost World of Genesis". Good book, enlightening view of what the writer meant when he penned Genesis based on comparative studies of all ANE Literature.
Reply
#48
Well, you have to give Ron some credit here. At least he has his limits and will stick to them, come hell or high water. S13
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#49
John,

Ron means well.

That's why I have taken the time to tell him about the philological research that demonstrates the author of Genesis did not mean "creation" ex nihilo. He meant God "made this thing functional", it had already been created out of nothing is what Genesis means.

Until Christians stop with this nonsense, unbelievers who otherwise would listen will not. That's the reason I bother. This "the earth is young" idea is hardly the only error in the church universal , but, it is an embarrassing error and destructive to the advancement of the kingdom.

BTW, until just a couple of years ago, I would have read the text the way Ron does, I'm not virgin in misreading stuff.
Reply
#50
(08-26-2012, 11:49 AM)Palladin Wrote: John,

Ron means well.

That's why I have taken the time to tell him about the philological research that demonstrates the author of Genesis did not mean "creation" ex nihilo. He meant God "made this thing functional", it had already been created out of nothing is what Genesis means.

Until Christians stop with this nonsense, unbelievers who otherwise would listen will not. That's the reason I bother. This "the earth is young" idea is hardly the only error in the church universal , but, it is an embarrassing error and destructive to the advancement of the kingdom.

BTW, until just a couple of years ago, I would have read the text the way Ron does, I'm not virgin in misreading stuff.

You know, I used to consider myself insulted by having to endure this. But now I view it as some sort of continuation of the Far Side cartoon series. Just remove the "We say to dogs" and substitute "Creationists tell the rest of us", and the cartoon makes perfect sense.

[Image: 209782_f520.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#51
My science is more soundly and objectively scientific than your science; my intellectualism is more intellectual and honest and open to all facts than your intellectualism; so why do some presume to call me anti-intellectual? Why do so many people ignore the Creator, and blindly deny that He has communicated with us? That is supposed to be scientific--to claim to study the universe while determinedly refusing to harken to the One who made it? That is supposed to be intellectual--to desperately hold on to the proposition that there is no truth that can be reliably known, no matter how abundant is the contrary evidence is provided? In the next debate juncture down the road, you will claim that no concrete evidence refuting evolution and proving Creation can be found--when I have provided it for you repeatedly.
Reply
#52
Because I think you're making claims the bible does not make when properly understood and it negatively affects others.

"The Lost World of Genesis" by John Walton is a cheap, quick read. The guy did the hard work for us comparing tons of ANE literary works, avail yourself of the research efforts. Genesis 1 and 2 do not mean what you think( Or I thought before doing some reading). Moses did not think like we think.

If you want, I'll mail the book to you. I'm finished with it. PM me with your address. Consider all material in exegeting the text and we now have uncovered so much material shedding new light on the scriptures.

We're foolish not to take advantage of this stuff.
Reply
#53
Ron, I am speechless. I highly doubt anything will change your medicare supported philosophy on life. The sort of hard line ignorance I dislike.

Pat, I am extremely interested in that book. I have several books on the history of Christianity and of the bible in general, especially those Eastern branches (Nestorians, etc), and that would be another delicious read.

I'll PM you my address if you want, and I will mail the book back when I am done. I love that stuff.
Reply
#54
(08-25-2012, 09:14 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: I also have always found it very interesting that after many scientists and science fiction writers warned that the moon could have a dust layer up to a hundred feet thick, in which the lunar lander might have sank, because supposedly dust had been sleeting down out of space and gathering on the lunar suface for billions of years--and because of which, the first lunar landers had large snowshoe-like apendages on their landing struts--Armstrong and company found that the layer of accreted dust on the lunar surface was only one-half to three-fourths of an inch thick. That had to have been a hard blow to evolutionists and others who needed to believe that the universe is billions of years old.

I have never heared of this nonsense in science, or science fiction. The moon is dead, has no atmosphere, no water, no seismic activity, so what would produce dust? Meteors only, and much of it would escape the moon's low gravity. No Ron, you mind is playing tricks again. Did Jesus whisper to you to post this?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#55
Q, The dust/soil on the moon is the result of cosmic dust raining down on the lunar surface. Supposedly for billions of years.

There is an advantage to being old enough to have lived through the Apollo program and watching the landings on television. I remember the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke warning that the lunar lander might sink out of sight, because the dust layer must be so deep, after "billions of years" of infalling space dust. Scientists were also interviewed, saying the same thing.


Here is a photo from the Apollo 11 mission which shows Buzz Aldrin's boot and the bootprint it made (notice how deep it is NOT):


.jpg   BuzzAldrinFootprintInLunarSoil.jpg (Size: 14.53 KB / Downloads: 42)


And here is a photo of Buzz Aldrin standing by one of the Lunar Module's landing struts, with the large, snowshoe-like footpad clearly in evidence. The possibility of the lunar dust layer being very deep was taken seriously.


.jpg   BuzzAldrinStandsBesideLMstrutAndFootpad.jpg (Size: 15.41 KB / Downloads: 42)

Link for both photos: http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html
Reply
#56
We didn't read Clarke, but Lem and the Strugatskys. Before Apollo 11, there were lots of unmanned probes from the Russians and Americans on the moon. They didn't sink out of sight. Space is a vacuum. There isn't much dust, even in billions of years.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#57
It's not cosmic dust, you knob, it's lunar soil. Bits of meteors and charged particles break up the surface of the moon and over time leave a film.

We knew as early as 1966 that the moon wasn't covered in several feet of dust.
[Image: 760.png]
Reply
#58
(08-27-2012, 12:41 PM)ghoullio Wrote: It's not cosmic dust, you knob, it's lunar soil. Bits of meteors and charged particles break up the surface of the moon and over time leave a film.

Correct Kris. And even at low gravity, the dust/soil/whatever would settle in and compact itself over time. Of course this would not occur in just six thousand years. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#59
The amount of dust is something like 20 tons a day. Over several billions of years that adds up to a few inches.
[Image: 760.png]
Reply
#60
(08-27-2012, 12:51 PM)ghoullio Wrote: The amount of dust is something like 20 tons a day. Over several billions of years that adds up to a few inches.

Yeah, but that goes against the fact that the universe is only a few thousand years old, right?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)