hello 2 all the dragonfans

Firuweata · Post by **Firuweata** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:28 pm

Atomicly, yes, we are related to everything in the universe...

And, theoretically, if you could attract other energies toward you somehow, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, mind reading, astroprojection, and the Kah-me-ha-me-ha wave all become possible...

Kojack · Post by **Kojack** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:28 pm

No. If you think about it like that then we are related to every living thing in the universe.

Firuweata · Post by **Firuweata** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:30 pm

Uhhh, I just said that...

And not just living things, EVERYTHING!!!

wut2say · Post by **wut2say** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:48 pm

well actually i said it before both of u

so dont take all the credit since we all led to this point.

Firuweata · Post by **Firuweata** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:24 am

True, but from what I gathered, common sence would have lead me in the right direction...

Anyway, I've tried All of these psychic abilities, Plus some, by trying to establish a connection with the energy in the air seperating myself from the object...

I haven't been able to do anything physically psychic yet, but I don't give up hope...

Anyone else have anything I can try???

Kojack · Post by **Kojack** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:38 am

Not really. The only thing I can tell you is to keep trying.

Firuweata · Post by **Firuweata** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:17 pm

I do...every day, I do...

Kojack · Post by **Kojack** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:23 pm

Well... there is one thing I can honestly tell you. Your way will work but it will take some time.

Firuweata · Post by **Firuweata** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:29 pm

Yeah...

I'd first have to make a physical bond with the object using only strung together particles in the air, and would then have to make the object travel along the particle strings until it reached me...

Or, if it were pyrokenesis, I'd have to accelerate the objects total Kenetic energy until the friction ignites the object...

Or, if I were to attempt the Kah-me-ha-me-ha wave, I would have to collect all surrounding particles in my hand, and accelerate the kenetic energy until it becomes super-charged, and explosive...

Or, if I were to attempt astroprojection, I would have to manipulate the air particles until they resembled my shape, and vice versa if I were to try and veiw far away objects, people, ect...

And the mind reading, well, if people couldn't already be read like a book, than I would simply torture them until they told me what was on their mind...

Kojack · Post by **Kojack** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:26 pm

Well well well... you really know your stuff, but you do have one thing mistaken my friend.

Inorder to do any of that you just mentioned you must understand that it is more of a phsical ability then mental one.

Firuweata · Post by **Firuweata** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:38 pm

Well, yes and no...

You have to be able to manipulate the particles between yourself and the object, which takes a mental understanding of physics, chemistry, and geometery, not to mention all of the subjects that lay in between...

However, in order to manipulate the particles, an extreme amount of energy is needed, and in order to harness it, physical ability really helps...

Kojack · Post by **Kojack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:46 pm

So true. Ive been able to use energy for so long it is as easy as moving your arm or blinking. But dont worry, youll get it in due time.

Firuweata · Post by **Firuweata** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:56 pm

Wow, that's weird, because everyone can use energy...

In fact, as I type this, I am using up energy I could use to try lifting the key from the table in this room...

However, using energy simply isn't enough. You have to be able to attract the object by forcing the negativly charged particles in your body to your hand to attract the positively charged ones in the object, and ect...

Kojack · Post by **Kojack** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:24 pm

That is energy. Energy is not just moving your fingure but it is also moveing an object with out touching it, moveing atoms from point A to point B. A good example of moveivg atoms is the Kamehameha Wave. (And yes I meant to say atoms.)

Extra information.

Everybody can use energy indeed, but their are different types of energy. If someone teahes a person how to use energy then that person uses nothing but a copy of a certain type of energy. But if you teach your self, you will use a type of energy that nobody can use except for you.

Firuweata · Post by **Firuweata** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:36 pm

To heck with it, I'll just continue to catch things on fire, or better yet, blow those things up!!!

What's the best ratio of gasoline to air in a molotav cocktail???

niÃ±o de los dragones · Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:48 pm

Firuweata wrote:Yeah...

I'd first have to make a physical bond with the object using only strung together particles in the air, and would then have to make the object travel along the particle strings until it reached me...

Or, if it were pyrokenesis, I'd have to accelerate the objects total Kenetic energy until the friction ignites the object...

Or, if I were to attempt the Kah-me-ha-me-ha wave, I would have to collect all surrounding particles in my hand, and accelerate the kenetic energy until it becomes super-charged, and explosive...

Or, if I were to attempt astroprojection, I would have to manipulate the air particles until they resembled my shape, and vice versa if I were to try and veiw far away objects, people, ect...

And the mind reading, well, if people couldn't already be read like a book, than I would simply torture them until they told me what was on their mind...

in other words what u have just described is called aura witchcraft. which is what i am on top of being a halfling dragon.

Kojack · Post by **Kojack** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:39 pm

Nooo, dont give up. Im telling you, you will get it. Give it some time.

niÃ±o de los dragones- Sort-of. What he just described is the basics of learning how to use energy. Aura Witchcraft is well... a form of stressing the basics so... yeah. Firuweata did describe that. I didnt think anybody was going to see that.

Post by **Tempest** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:50 pm

Kojack wrote:The Theory of Evolution has too many holes in it. Scientist searched for the missing link forever it seems and still have found it. The Theory of Intelligent Design has less holes in it than evolution.

You are living in a dream world if you think that Intelligent Design (I.D.) has any basis in reality. Let see, despite the fact that I.D. is a religious belief, the supporters of this "theory" do not support any of their propositions with facts and they don't do any researches or experiments proving the existence of a designer or a god. Usually, in my book that's all what is needed to confirm that I.D. has no credibility.

Moreover, according to the "theory", if we were all in the Antiquity discussing about the nature of thunder, they (the I.D. supporters) would say that god must exist because none of us can explain what is electricity. Then around 1600, Dr William Gilbert would investigate the reactions of amber and magnets and eventually the phenomenon would be explained without relying on a divine intervention. Sorry but sciences isn't going to say "We just discovered a new phenomenon but we can't explain it yet, so god did it until we discover a reasonable way to explain the phenomenon".

Lastly, to quote U.S. District Judge John E. Jones:
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions"

Chalgrish · Post by **Chalgrish** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:04 pm

I stayed out of the conversation, because starting up a discussion would end up in being off-topic. But at any rate, as an agnostic, there is an easy way to prove that I.D. is false. Fossils. Trilobites and index fossils, as well as the geologic column, easily prove that over time, slight differences are prevalent in the general evolutionary scale. Some was sudden, and some creatures reahed perfection before the dinosaurs. Cockroaches. They wouldn't survive a nuclear holocaust, true, but they are impossible to kill out entirely, because they evolve to be resistant against the poisons which kill them.

Firuweata · Post by **Firuweata** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:49 am

I disagree...with both of you...at once...

Evolution is proven, yes...

However, without the aid of I.D., there would be no way that life on Earth could be as diverse as it is now. We all evolve, as learning is defined as evolution. I even accept that over time, physical changes can occur. However, somewhere in the history of the universe, a greater being had to have intervened, for the energy it took to generate the universe's activation had to have come from somewhere, as well as the matter that was part of the big bang. Quite simply, Some greater being went through a lot of trouble to make the universe exist...

Life on Earth didn't begin until well after the creation of Earth, and there wouldn't have been enough time for a unicellular organism to transform, even in the course of one billion years, into a multicellular organism...

I have also witnessed a trend, and it seems that all of the EXTREMELY smart scientists, we're talking Einstein and Hawking here, never could disprove the existance of a greater being, but rather, found it explained much of the universe's observable phenomena...

So I end this by saying that I am surprised that two, relativly responsible mods would bring theology into a post that was nearly dead, and was stearing clear of the theological one you two started...which means...you two changed the subject!!!

There really is a greater being...Thank you, greater being...

Chalgrish · Post by **Chalgrish** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:55 am

You have to look at the broad and small scales of science. With WIMPs and MACHOs, yes they are theoretical particles, as well as dark matter, an alternate universe is possible.

Firuweata · Post by **Firuweata** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:59 am

I don't think I mentioned particles once in that correction of thy blasphemy, but Okay, I'll consider the possibility of alternate universes...

Chalgrish · Post by **Chalgrish** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:14 am

The point IS is that you said nothing could explain the existence of the universe. When the big crush (the time when matter is spread so thin that the universe collapses) would produce enough energy to compress the universe. The alternate universe would be producing dark matter, thhus creating energy, acting like a bit of popcorn.

John · Post by **John** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:09 am

Uh...I think you lost me... What are you guys talking about?

Post by **Tempest** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:31 pm

Firuweata wrote:I disagree...with both of you...at once...

Evolution is proven, yes...

However, without the aid of I.D., there would be no way that life on Earth could be as diverse as it is now. We all evolve, as learning is defined as evolution. I even accept that over time, physical changes can occur. However, somewhere in the history of the universe, a greater being had to have intervened, for the energy it took to generate the universe's activation had to have come from somewhere, as well as the matter that was part of the big bang. Quite simply, Some greater being went through a lot of trouble to make the universe exist...

First, you suppose there is the existence on a greater being because according to you, life is too diverse. Statements like these are not facts in themselves. In fact, diversity is hardly something difficult to explain; most animals follow the same template (four limbs, a tail, a brain, a heart, etc...) and most of the actual diversity is related to changes in the lenght/proportion of the bones, the color and the size the creature. Birds are a very good example of a large diversity with subtle anatomical changes.

However, the same questionable logic can apply to this greater being, if this greater being created the universe, then who created him/her in the first place? And to paraphrase yourself "for the energy it took to generate this greater being had to have come from somewhere as well as the godly matter that make him/her/it".

Firuweata wrote:Life on Earth didn't begin until well after the creation of Earth, and there wouldn't have been enough time for a unicellular organism to transform, even in the course of one billion years, into a multicellular organism...

A statement made out of thin air. Despite geological evidences demonstrating a chronological greater complexity of life, that bacteria can divide in about 20 minutes, that a mouse can mature and reproduce every 26 days (thus making an astronomical amount of offspring even over a few thousand years), there wouldn't be enough time because you say so.
<cough>support your claims with facts and evidences</cough>

However, if you had bothered to read on the subject you could easily have found information contradicting your statement, to name one I especially like:

In 1953, Stanley Miller & Harold Urey have demonstrated that the primitive atmosphere of Earth could have created organic molecules. The primitive atmosphere of Earth is composed of the same gases that are ejected in a volcano eruption. So they put those gases (H2O, H2, NH3 and CH4) into a bottle and use a source of energy (small rods to create artificial thunder). After a week, this created several organic compounds including some amino acid that can constitute the proteins of organism. Modern experiments were using more precise quantity of gas and the experiment gave about the results but over a longer period of time. From this, we know that inorganic matter can turned into organic compounds. Let says that the frequency of thunder may differ from the one of the primitive Earth and the quantity of organic compound must be greater. This however can only affect the time require for this experiment. Note: no trace amount of god has been found on the inside of the bottle so we will have to conclude that god didn't mess with it.

Firuweata wrote:I have also witnessed a trend, and it seems that all of the EXTREMELY smart scientists, we're talking Einstein and Hawking here, never could disprove the existance of a greater being, but rather, found it explained much of the universe's observable phenomena...

This is what debaters call "an appeal to ignorance", arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. However, a fundamental principle of logic is that when one makes an assertion it is their sole responsibility to prove that the assertion is true. Whoever is hearing the proposition has no logical burden whatsoever.

Also, these two guys and these extremely smart scientists have never proven that the invisible pink unicorn didn't exist either simply because prove the non-existence of something is nearly impossible. In my example, to prove that invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist, you would have to touch every unoccupied space on Earth at the same time and realistically this is impossible. It's even worse with a god. You see, god is invisible, he doesn't show up on radar or infra-red or any other detection instruments, he has never shown himself to anyone, he never does press conferences. He doesn't shake hands or sign autographs, nor does he come pre-packaged and ready to eat without cholesterol or preservatives. So if no one has seen, heard, touched, smelled or even tasted this almighty being, then logically he can't exist. That is until you're willing to believe.

Firuweata wrote:So I end this by saying that I am surprised that two, relativly responsible mods would bring theology into a post that was nearly dead, and was stearing clear of the theological one you two started...which means...you two changed the subject!!!

There really is a greater being...Thank you, greater being...

If you'd bothered to read the rules you'd have noticed that moderators and administrators are not going to be catching every guidelines violation but when we do see one, we will address it. If I stumble on someone posting porn on the board, I won't just close my eyes because it's "a nearly dead topic" or because "people steared clear from posting more porn". Someone was caught posting material that qualified as propaganda, the issue was addressed and the discussion should have been considered closed.