Tool's Maynard James Keenan Says He's Found Jesus

Anything and everything goes here... post away!

Moderators: EatMoreLead, Nad, Suck.

User avatar
Suck.
Benefactor
Posts: 3146
Joined: Nov 13th, 2004 at 8:36 pm

Tool's Maynard James Keenan Says He's Found Jesus

Postby Suck. » Apr 6th, 2005 at 10:56 am


User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Apr 6th, 2005 at 11:59 am

i found jesus. he was in my closet the whole time.

whoda thunk?

-PUPPY

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Apr 6th, 2005 at 1:44 pm

If it's true, which I doubt, then Hell has certainly frozen over.
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
Mouser
Elite Member
Posts: 1633
Joined: Dec 12th, 2004 at 8:34 pm

Postby Mouser » Apr 6th, 2005 at 2:49 pm

Tool has a history of giving people misinformation for their own amusement. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case. But I would shit myself retarded if it was true.

User avatar
b0ba
Senior Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sep 15th, 2002 at 10:17 am

Postby b0ba » Apr 6th, 2005 at 9:30 pm

if he left tool i would flip out...

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 6th, 2005 at 9:32 pm

If its true then cool. If it isn't then its a sick joke at the expense of people who are christians. Either way I could care less.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
EatMoreLead
Benefactor
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sep 17th, 2002 at 11:59 pm

Postby EatMoreLead » Apr 6th, 2005 at 9:57 pm

that is "C"hristians bubba. In TX we capitalize J and C you noob.

If it is a joke, it is funny, regardless of your religion. Some Christians have a good sense of humor - like God himself certainly does.
EatMoreLead aka EML

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 6th, 2005 at 10:52 pm

Jesus was the most sarcastic peson who ever lived. No joke.

When two women were fighting over the ownership of a child Jesus said "how about I split him in two and give each of you a half". Pwned :)
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
[Comrade]lanoldar
Senior Member
Posts: 375
Joined: Oct 27th, 2004 at 5:28 am

Postby [Comrade]lanoldar » Apr 6th, 2005 at 11:13 pm

too bad it was King Solomon who said that.

not quite sure why I remember that....
Image
Image

User avatar
Suck.
Benefactor
Posts: 3146
Joined: Nov 13th, 2004 at 8:36 pm

Postby Suck. » Apr 6th, 2005 at 11:14 pm

Solomon. :roll: I guess that rules out EML's "Cat's a Christian Crusader" theory.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 7th, 2005 at 12:51 am

[Comrade]lanoldar wrote:too bad it was King Solomon who said that.

not quite sure why I remember that....


lol, you are right Lan. My bad

What is wrong with being a christian? Seems that being a Christian makes you a minority on the HF forums, but I'm not sure why that is a problem. Not sure what I said to make me come off like a crusader... I'm a human being with morals and I have a belief structure. Somehow that makes me a crusader?

I think there are alot of misconceptions about the Bible that are propogated by people with agendas. If you read it yourself and speak to intelligent people about it, you may be surprised at what it actually says/means to be a Christian. Christians are not flawless human beings, but for some reason every time someone sees a Christian do an act that is not "Christian"ly" they say "see Christianity is false and that guy/girl proves it.

I keep my beliefs in religion to myself, but when a moral discussion is taken on I do let my morals be my guide. That may make me appear like a crusader, but a crusader tends to convert by force (historically speaking) and I seek not to convert nor preach unless someone was to ask me what my beliefs are (which is what the bible teaches Christians to do).

This is the last and only post I will make about my beliefs.

"In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded... yeah right"
"It is a proven fact that the universe is expanding at an increasing speed, that rules out the big bang theory. So what bogus theory can we put our faith in next?"
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
EatMoreLead
Benefactor
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sep 17th, 2002 at 11:59 pm

Postby EatMoreLead » Apr 7th, 2005 at 12:57 am

You are not in the minority brother Cat, you are just often outspoken for the rest of us, which is presumptuous imho.
EatMoreLead aka EML

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:01 am

What did I presume? I would like to correct anything that I might have said/done to offend.

I speak my mind. I say what I think. I do not make myself a spokesman for the Christian right, nor do I speak for any person on earth outside myself. I say what I belive to be true. Perhaps you take my beliefs as a reflection on your faith?
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:08 am

"It is a proven fact that the universe is expanding at an increasing speed, that rules out the big bang theory. So what bogus theory can we put our faith in next?"

please explain how this rules out the big bang ...

-PUPPY

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:09 am

You know anything about physics?
*edit* no sarcasm intended
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:10 am

yes. EE majors take a good deal of physics.

*EDIT* and even though it was a serious question and not sarcastic, it was still a retarded answer to my question. *EDIT*

-PUPPY

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:18 am

This breaks several laws of thermodynamics. You should be able to discover what I am saying by reading the laws and applying them to a "big bang" theory and see the improbability of a "big bang".

There is another law, and I never can remember what it is called. I allways get it confused for the financial law of "diminishing returns". You prob know the law that I am talking about.

Now laws of physics may in deed be relative, but were not thought out or intended as relative. Rather they were thought out and drafted as absolutes "laws".

When a thing explodes it does not continue to gain speed. That is a fact based on the laws of physics.

I am not a physicist and I am not a EE major so there may be other "discoveries" that
throw doubt onto the negation of the big bang theory. I would be very interested in what these laws/theories are.

Found the law I was speaking of.

Newtons 1st law:

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.


*edit* you can take my reply how you wish. The question was valid as my understanding of the laws of physics deny the possibility of the "big bang" so when I ask if you know the laws of physics it is a valid question. Feel free to be offended if you want. It was not my intention and that is why I edited my post to state that.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:35 am

Cat, if the big bang theory didn't hold up to "several laws of thermodynamics", then the big bang theory would have been abandoned long ago.

But, anyway, here's a little answer:

Why do we think that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?

The evidence for an accelerating expansion comes from observations of the brightness of distant supernovae. We observe the redshift of a supernova which tells us by what the factor the Universe has expanded since the supernova exploded. This factor is (1+z), where z is the redshift. But in order to determine the expected brightness of the supernova, we need to know its distance now. If the expansion of the Universe is accelerating due to a cosmological constant, then the expansion was slower in the past, and thus the time required to expand by a given factor is longer, and the distance NOW is larger. But if the expansion is decelerating, it was faster in the past and the distance NOW is smaller. Thus for an accelerating expansion the supernovae at high redshifts will appear to be fainter than they would for a decelerating expansion because their current distances are larger. Note that these distances are all proportional to the age of the Universe [or 1/Ho], but this dependence cancels out when the brightness of a nearby supernova at z close to 0.1 is compared to a distant supernova with z close to 1.


http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Also, keep in mind that the big bang wasn't an explosion like you think it is (which would explain you believe thermodynamics is the reason why the big bang doesn't exist), but a singularity.

Also, think of the universe expanding not as galaxies move apart, but as the space between them increases - the universe is stretching (if that makes any sense).

Anyway, the entire concept of cosmology/big bang/etc is beyond me right now, and this is the best I can offer with my limited knowledge (though it may be wrong).

Honestly, if someone of *our* intelligence could disprove the big bang theory with the measly laws of thermodynamics, don't you think academia would have done it long before? We're not that smart.

but i think it's cute you think you can disprove the big bang with thermodynamics.

-PUPPY

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:39 am

also, here's a really, really good resource to use:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/cosmology.php

-PUPPY

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:40 am

ahh, here, i found what i was looking for:

No, that little point of matter that was the Big Bang was not a little point of stuff inside an empty universe. It was, in fact, the entire observable universe. There was no "outside" of that point into which it could explode. In fact, the Big bang was not an explosion at all; it was simply the very hot state of the early universe. Distances between objects were much shorter back then, but the universe was still homogeneous and isotropic. Wherever you were in the early universe, you would see a homogeneous, even, distribution of matter and energy around you. There was no empty "space" outside of this point of matter into which it could expand, for all of space was already there, in that little "point." The expansion of the universe is manifested only in the stretching of space itself, perpetually increasing diastnces between distant objects, not in some "empty space" gradually getting filled as matter streams into it. These distances expand in all directions equally, and so cannot be traced back to a single point. If you try to do this, you find that the single point is your telescope, no matter where in the universe you observe from. After all, the "point" in question was all there was of space: the entire observable universe. The Big Bang happened everywhere. It happened right where you are sitting, where the Andreomeda galaxy is now, and in the most distant reaches of the universe. It's just that the reaches of the universe were not quite as distant those many billions of years ago.


http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=71

Like I said ... the space between galaxies is increasing - things aren't moving apart.

-PUPPY

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:50 am

PUPPY, you make assumptions about my knowledge and you do not know my background... vanity is not a popular traite.

I am not a politician, banker, or physics professor, but I base my belief structure off of the evidence beofore me. I know that if I invenst my money in tech stocks right now I am making a bad decision. I know that if I vote for a certain party that they will change governing policy in certain ways. To claim igornance for not having a valid argument is weak at best.

Now what I have stated IS in hot debate right now. Everyone will give their oppinion on some bs story they saw on the ET network, but if we bring up a valid discussion about the creation of the universe then we are not qualified to an oppinion? You are one of the more oppinionated people on the board, you can't honestly believe that.

As far as your quote goes it has no basis on this discussion except to validate that the universe is indeed expanding at an excellerating rate. So if the universie is expanding at an excellerating rate then it goes against the core principles of thermondynamics and Newton's 1st law.

Imagine that you are looking at the stars. You measure the distance between 300 different stars and then 1 year later you measure the distance again. It is then a shorter distance than previously thought based on mass/density and diameter of the object you are measuring. So you then postulate that the universe is speeding up in expansion relative to those objects you have measured. So now you have to understand that the distance bewteen those objects is growing because in order to measure expansion you have to have multiple objects that are not expanding at the exact same rate other wise you could not calculate squat.

The interesting thing about this is that if you can measure expansion then you can also calculate the birth of the universe. I have not seen anyone put a figure on the date of the "big bang" yet. The whole thing is a big uproar right now so I'll be curious what the accepted belief ends up being.

We may not be able to see, touch, taste, or smell God or the absence of God but we still have beliefs. Based on your argument we are not entitled to thse beliefs.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Mouser
Elite Member
Posts: 1633
Joined: Dec 12th, 2004 at 8:34 pm

Postby Mouser » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:54 am

Actually the "oscillating universe" theory has fallen out of favor recently in the scientific community for a possible static universe concept. There's still lots of conflicting data on the subject and we still know so little about the universe.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 7th, 2005 at 1:55 am

Ok, I see the argument that "The universe was not originaly one dense ball of matter that exploded. I can understand that the the universe was originally a "tighter" universe. However it is expanding and the distance between is growing. So the point is still valid that the universe is expanding. The current argument is that the universe is "speding up" its expansion (i.e. the distance between galaxies etc.). What is acting upon this that would not have acted upon it since the dawn of time? Granted time is relative so take it as the "generaly understood" dawn of time.

So based on this argument... A boat leaving a peer at 30mph and accelerating to 60mph is not moving faster... The distance between it and the peer is becoming greater?

The laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 1st law do not require a "bang" nor do they require a "solid mass" as the starting point for the universe. They are simply laws that speak about motion. Motion does not accelerate of its own accord. Something must act upon it. What is at the core of the universe that is decreasing in mass (reducing gravitational pull). So lets say you have this huge planet. Another planet that is smaller in front of it. The smaller planet would be pulled inward to the larger star. So based on your argument the universe was originally very dense altho not soid... but at some point the gravitational pull broke down "without a bang" and thrust out its contents into the void. Thse objects are being pushed apart by some invisible gravitational field (possibly dark energy) that causes the distance to grow at an exponential rate over time. So somewhere there is a beginning so since there is a core starting point that still has matter there is no expansion. It is only growth. Not buying it.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Apr 7th, 2005 at 2:08 am

first off cat. the universe is "accelerating", not "excellerating". secondly you fail to grasp the concept. galaxies aren't moving away from eahc other like you think.

here, let me simplify this for you:

a car is driving down a road away from you, it's accelerating away from you. it grows distant. this is not what's happening with the universe.

but what if the car is stopped and the road is EXPANDING, causing the car to grow to distant. the car isn't accelerating - but it is moving further away.

That's the point I'm getting at. Newton's 1st law doesn't apply here. There are a few instances where Newton's Law's don't apply. Neither do the laws of thermodynamics.

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion.


http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

And if you think that Newton's 1st law is at the epicenter of the debate on the big bang, then you are sadly misunderstanding the debate. It has been known for quite some time that Newton's Law's don't apply everywhere.

Understand that Newtons Law's and the Laws of Thermodynamics won't apply in the quantum world. (this has to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - among other stuff) - that doesn't mean that they aren't useful, they are still valid in the macroscopic world.

Again, I'm not an astronomer, nor a physicist, and I'll defer to their knowledge and greater understanding - as you should.

We may not be able to see, touch, taste, or smell God or the absence of God but we still have beliefs. Based on your argument we are not entitled to thse beliefs.


Uhm, how did I say that? All I stated was that your reason for dismissing the big bang was lacking. Did I even bring God into anything? That's such an insipid and baseless comment on your part.

Good job - why is it that you can't discuss science without: A. Getting the science wrong or B. taking it as an attack on God, even though God is never brought up? - it seems like a personal problem to me.

-PUPPY

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Apr 7th, 2005 at 2:13 am

again, let me reiterate (because this seems to be the crux of your debate). I'm SURE NEwton's Laws do not apply at the quantum level. I'm not sure about Thermodynamics, but I'm pretty sure they don't apply as well. Please stop using that as your argument. Also, please try to grasp the concept of the space between objects increasingas I used with the car example.

Also, a "pier" is a platform extending from a shore over water and supported by piles or pillars, used to secure, protect, and provide access to ships or boats - not a "peer".

-PUPPY


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests