Categories
New User Articles
- I'm New!(:
- Third eyes don't give up
- FSI Afterimage Tech?,Help...
- Astral Realm... Verse... :S...
- so CLOSE!
- My crew: Psions INT.
- Hi I am new
- Did I really do it O_O
- Making Something Reality
- Visualization Techniques
- Flying
- I feel Powerless
- Doing What's Right- Chapter...
- My Negative Experience
- Seer?
- Meditation time
- Horsy: How to make a pack of...
- What APing really feels...
- What is Locked Away.
- Vashna's Story
- Old Friend
- So You Want To Be A Mage - Intro...
- Another Crack at...
- The Supreme Frustration
- Trust The PSI Wheel
May's Top Members
Choose this day...
This article was written by shade000 on 2011-10-26 under Member Pages.
Register or Login to comment!
Hello Newbie. If you want to enjoy the full MyTK experience, sign up!
A few things here.
First off, my participation on this site has been reduced over the past few
days, and will most likely be reduced more and more over the coming
months. I have poured myself single-mindedly into this site for months, and
generated 110+ articles, and 1000+ posts. But no longer.
Reason being: arguing/trolling.
I understand that every site has arguments, but when arguments spread
and develop into things more serious, i.e., death threats and actual attacks,
then something is very very wrong. The arguing and trolling is supposed to
have been reduced, but in all reality, it has only been increasing. That is
not the only reason though. This site has been getting progressively more
childish as days go by, people arguing about who is the most powerful, and
other such things. MyTk is beginning to look just like every other psionics
website, and I do not like that one bit. Agash_Lark has all but disappeared,
Rune has cut way back, as has Maestro, and Twilar has left altogether,
mostly because the general public has taken notice of his activities. We
have had a few "older" users return over the past weeks, and I don't think
they like what they see. I know I certainly don't.
So, long and short of it is, I will not leave altogether (no one really does),
but you won't see me here much anymore. I have other things to attend to.
My students and apprentices, please, use my email,
465a73132b402c90210d@gmail.com, not this site's PM app.
Now, a parting shot.
Seeing as the Veil could collapse in two days, and large numbers of people
are running in lemming-like fashion, to push on it and "help it along", I
must make a final word on the subject:
The Veil's fall will not help humans in any way, shape, or form. That is the
simple, brutal truth. Anyone who continues in a blithely optimistic view of
things is being naive. Normally I would try to be more diplomatic about
this, but time is short, and this should be known to all humans. You stand
to gain nothing, not one dime, from pummeling away at the veil, and you
stand to lose a great deal. As the title says, "Choose this day".
Make your decision.
Will you continue in your optimism, and, beyond all reason, assume that
"somehow", the collapse of the veil will help humanity? Or will you realize
that it in fact will help no human, not even by one iota of strength?
That is truly all that I have to say on the matter.
-Shade
Et Ducit Mundum Per Luce
Register or Login to comment!
143 Comments:
By: KingJet
why? oh thats easy :) because i want my abilities to be more physical and i love drama and i believe that the more pain there is the more happiness there is you cant have one without the other
why? oh thats easy :) because i want my abilities to be more physical and i love drama and i believe that the more pain there is the more happiness there is you cant have one without the other
By: merlin
1) The veil separates the energetic planes from the physical world, so, when it falls, they will be the same thing. Energy will be physical and humans will be able to do just as much as they can currently do while astral projecting. Hate to break it to you Shade, but you're wrong. This has nothing to do with "bindings".
2) You're part of the reason it's getting so childish. You only say things that you've partially read, then translate into your own warped language and spit out into an article.
1) The veil separates the energetic planes from the physical world, so, when it falls, they will be the same thing. Energy will be physical and humans will be able to do just as much as they can currently do while astral projecting. Hate to break it to you Shade, but you're wrong. This has nothing to do with "bindings".
2) You're part of the reason it's getting so childish. You only say things that you've partially read, then translate into your own warped language and spit out into an article.
By: getawaypsi
i agree with you shade im not going to bother with it but i think it will fall anyways
i agree with you shade im not going to bother with it but i think it will fall anyways
By: Royce
so the first humans got wiped out so they said HAHA LETS DO IT AGAIN!!!!
is this a game to somebody? that gives me even more reason to be against the veil.
so the first humans got wiped out so they said HAHA LETS DO IT AGAIN!!!!
is this a game to somebody? that gives me even more reason to be against the veil.
By: shade000
I hate translating years and meanings thereof, it gives me a headache. An i believe you are wrong, but seeing as, unlike ShadowWalker, you are incapable of hosting a professional debate, I will note even try to be reasonable with you.
I hate translating years and meanings thereof, it gives me a headache. An i believe you are wrong, but seeing as, unlike ShadowWalker, you are incapable of hosting a professional debate, I will note even try to be reasonable with you.
By: Erodin
Shade, THIS GROUP of humans is at least 65000 physical years old. THe first group, was actuall y around BEFORE the 2nd veil, which was put up 300k physical years ago. So, the physical is only 300k or so years old, because the veil split the planes.
Shade, THIS GROUP of humans is at least 65000 physical years old. THe first group, was actuall y around BEFORE the 2nd veil, which was put up 300k physical years ago. So, the physical is only 300k or so years old, because the veil split the planes.
By: shade000
@Royce: If you want, at some point I can give you the entire account of the humans race(s)..it seems as though it would definitely explain a few things.
@Royce: If you want, at some point I can give you the entire account of the humans race(s)..it seems as though it would definitely explain a few things.
By: Royce
shade. you just agreed that the first humans were created over 65,000 earth years ago. you no longer have any reason to continue the argument back and forth about theories to prove that earth was less than 10,000 years old as you previously stated/implied. so why are you still?
shade. you just agreed that the first humans were created over 65,000 earth years ago. you no longer have any reason to continue the argument back and forth about theories to prove that earth was less than 10,000 years old as you previously stated/implied. so why are you still?
By: ShadowWalker
Well, yes, dust on earth is composed mainly of dead skin. So you know, it is a very flawed theory. But it sounds good, just needs refining a bit. And thank you, I'll take that as a compliment, and suspend this convo for now, as I have to go eat tea :) I hope we can do this again sometime, it was very interesting. It's rare I ever get to debate with someone who can actually respond logically
Well, yes, dust on earth is composed mainly of dead skin. So you know, it is a very flawed theory. But it sounds good, just needs refining a bit. And thank you, I'll take that as a compliment, and suspend this convo for now, as I have to go eat tea :) I hope we can do this again sometime, it was very interesting. It's rare I ever get to debate with someone who can actually respond logically
By: shade000
Actually, it has been shown that iff all freshwater and saltwater reserves, both terrestrial and aquatic, were combined, you would have water of 1.5% salinity, or "brackish" water. brackish water, while not ideal for the physiology of fish, is still tolerable to both freshwater and saltwater fish. It is similar to one who lives at a high altitude going low, and a low altitude dweller going up high. Not ideal, but still within physical tolerance levels.
Actually, it has been shown that iff all freshwater and saltwater reserves, both terrestrial and aquatic, were combined, you would have water of 1.5% salinity, or "brackish" water. brackish water, while not ideal for the physiology of fish, is still tolerable to both freshwater and saltwater fish. It is similar to one who lives at a high altitude going low, and a low altitude dweller going up high. Not ideal, but still within physical tolerance levels.
By: shade000
Its been a LONG since we have had this many comments on one thread.
That is a very good point, and one that I will pursue and investigate, however, here is a thought on that:
First, the dust on the Moon is composed differently then the dust here on Earth, and thus it would be a mistake to assume the density of 2.0cm/cm3. Assuming, however, that density is accurate, also take into account the fact that if the dust rate and the following compression of siad dust were sontinued for 4.5 billion years, than the dust would compress via it's own weight into a sort of porous rock. No such "spongy" rock has yet been found. This, unfortunately makes another assumption, namely that the dust rate has been constant throught however long history has been going on for.
The old saying goes, "when you assume, it makes an "ass", out of "u", and "Me".
Either way, a very tidy and well thought-out statement, assumptions aside.
Its been a LONG since we have had this many comments on one thread.
That is a very good point, and one that I will pursue and investigate, however, here is a thought on that:
First, the dust on the Moon is composed differently then the dust here on Earth, and thus it would be a mistake to assume the density of 2.0cm/cm3. Assuming, however, that density is accurate, also take into account the fact that if the dust rate and the following compression of siad dust were sontinued for 4.5 billion years, than the dust would compress via it's own weight into a sort of porous rock. No such "spongy" rock has yet been found. This, unfortunately makes another assumption, namely that the dust rate has been constant throught however long history has been going on for.
The old saying goes, "when you assume, it makes an "ass", out of "u", and "Me".
Either way, a very tidy and well thought-out statement, assumptions aside.
By: ShadowWalker
A meteor shower at the time of a flood? It's possible, the main problem I have with a flood as big as that is that if you mix salt and freshwater, everything that lives in the water dies. Yet we still have fish :)
A meteor shower at the time of a flood? It's possible, the main problem I have with a flood as big as that is that if you mix salt and freshwater, everything that lives in the water dies. Yet we still have fish :)
By: ShadowWalker
Space dust would not change that much at all.
The Earths (yeah, i'm gonna work it out on Earth first) total mass increases by one tenth of one millionth, or one one-hundred-thousandth of a percent, over the entire 4.5 billion years, due to (space) dust. If we assume dust density is 2.0 g/cm3. If a plane surface of this area were covered with a thickness of one meter (100 cm) the volume would be 5.10 × 1020 cm3, which is greater than the volume of all extraterrestrial dust. The ratio 3.375/5.10 = 0.6618 gives the true height of the layer in meters, 66.18 cm.
We calculate a layer only 66.18 cm thick after 4.5 billion years, but this is clearly an upper limit for the real thickness. For one thing, the Earth is not flat, and the curvature at the surface of the moon would cause the real layer thickness to be smaller. Furthermore, we have ignored the fact that the dust is highly porous and very much lacking in mechanical strength. If you actually tried to pile it up 66 cm deep, it would compress significantly due to its own weight. Due to Earth gravity, and compress rate it would be roughly 3 inches deep. (the 66cm was based on Earth not the moon, and the moon has a weaker gravitational pull so therefore, 1.5 inches)
Space dust would not change that much at all.
The Earths (yeah, i'm gonna work it out on Earth first) total mass increases by one tenth of one millionth, or one one-hundred-thousandth of a percent, over the entire 4.5 billion years, due to (space) dust. If we assume dust density is 2.0 g/cm3. If a plane surface of this area were covered with a thickness of one meter (100 cm) the volume would be 5.10 × 1020 cm3, which is greater than the volume of all extraterrestrial dust. The ratio 3.375/5.10 = 0.6618 gives the true height of the layer in meters, 66.18 cm.
We calculate a layer only 66.18 cm thick after 4.5 billion years, but this is clearly an upper limit for the real thickness. For one thing, the Earth is not flat, and the curvature at the surface of the moon would cause the real layer thickness to be smaller. Furthermore, we have ignored the fact that the dust is highly porous and very much lacking in mechanical strength. If you actually tried to pile it up 66 cm deep, it would compress significantly due to its own weight. Due to Earth gravity, and compress rate it would be roughly 3 inches deep. (the 66cm was based on Earth not the moon, and the moon has a weaker gravitational pull so therefore, 1.5 inches)
By: shade000
The second humans sure as hell arent. the first ones were created just before 65k physical years ago, (hates messing with time).
The second humans sure as hell arent. the first ones were created just before 65k physical years ago, (hates messing with time).
By: shade000
@Vaiden: Nope. The veil only limits nonhuman' energy.
@ShadowWalker: What if the shower occured at the time of the great flood that is recorded geologically, or perhaps just before? The water would greatly reduce impact, or, would wipe away most evidence if it occured before it.
@Vaiden: Nope. The veil only limits nonhuman' energy.
@ShadowWalker: What if the shower occured at the time of the great flood that is recorded geologically, or perhaps just before? The water would greatly reduce impact, or, would wipe away most evidence if it occured before it.
By: Erodin
Shade, you forgot to mention how agreeing with them being 65000 physical years old, means you just threw about 50000 words of your own doing away.
Shade, you forgot to mention how agreeing with them being 65000 physical years old, means you just threw about 50000 words of your own doing away.
By: ShadowWalker
Meteor showers are actually normally extremely small, they burn up in the atmosphere, the average size of a meteor is around the size of a golf ball. Still deadly, but not counted like that. Also meteor showers are not that common, and you are looking at almost mass extiction I.e, dinosaurs getting wiped out
Meteor showers are actually normally extremely small, they burn up in the atmosphere, the average size of a meteor is around the size of a golf ball. Still deadly, but not counted like that. Also meteor showers are not that common, and you are looking at almost mass extiction I.e, dinosaurs getting wiped out
By: shade000
On the moon subject:
Present events do not indicate past events. That is the rate now, but in the past, by any logical standpoint, would have varied, especially taking into account events like meteors and comets.
On the moon subject:
Present events do not indicate past events. That is the rate now, but in the past, by any logical standpoint, would have varied, especially taking into account events like meteors and comets.
By: shade000
@erodin: Ohhh. that would explain the discrepancy. I forgot to use Earth years (sorry azurephoenix lolz).
There are many meteor showers , i.e, Perseids, etc...
There could have once been a "shower" of larger meteors, a cloud of them, that accounted for most of the craters.
The amount of rocks hitting the earth ro generate those craters would have caused tremendous damage, to be sure, but not nearly enough to destroy Earth.
@erodin: Ohhh. that would explain the discrepancy. I forgot to use Earth years (sorry azurephoenix lolz).
There are many meteor showers , i.e, Perseids, etc...
There could have once been a "shower" of larger meteors, a cloud of them, that accounted for most of the craters.
The amount of rocks hitting the earth ro generate those craters would have caused tremendous damage, to be sure, but not nearly enough to destroy Earth.
By: ShadowWalker
Oh, something which cannot be argued with! (I'm gonna be prved wrong on this I presume :)) Measurements by sensors attached to satellites show that space dust accumulates on the moon at the rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year. (A nanogram is one thousandth of a millionth of a gram.) This rate would require 4.5 billion years to reach a depth of 1.5 inches, which is approximately the depth experienced by the astronauts who walked on the moon. This agrees rather well with radioactive dating of moon rocks.
Oh, something which cannot be argued with! (I'm gonna be prved wrong on this I presume :)) Measurements by sensors attached to satellites show that space dust accumulates on the moon at the rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year. (A nanogram is one thousandth of a millionth of a gram.) This rate would require 4.5 billion years to reach a depth of 1.5 inches, which is approximately the depth experienced by the astronauts who walked on the moon. This agrees rather well with radioactive dating of moon rocks.
By: ShadowWalker
Hmm, core rotation only changes by one second every 50,000 years. Still not slow enough, although it is possible.
Hmm, core rotation only changes by one second every 50,000 years. Still not slow enough, although it is possible.
By: ShadowWalker
Also, meteor, asteroid and comet impact craters (I love agood ol' meteor). Unlike the surface of the moon, most of earth's impact craters have been erased by the processes of erosion and crustal plate movements. Still, geologists have identified about 200 impact craters on the earth. Each impact releases energy greater than many nuclear warheads. If the earth were only 6 to 10 thousand years old, this would average 1 impact every 30 to 50 years. Why have no historians through the (recent) years recorded such events?
Also, meteor, asteroid and comet impact craters (I love agood ol' meteor). Unlike the surface of the moon, most of earth's impact craters have been erased by the processes of erosion and crustal plate movements. Still, geologists have identified about 200 impact craters on the earth. Each impact releases energy greater than many nuclear warheads. If the earth were only 6 to 10 thousand years old, this would average 1 impact every 30 to 50 years. Why have no historians through the (recent) years recorded such events?
By: shade000
Also, you can take into account the Earth's core rotation as well, if the earths rotation was accelerated, it would be dragging the core along, which is another inertial source.
Also, you can take into account the Earth's core rotation as well, if the earths rotation was accelerated, it would be dragging the core along, which is another inertial source.
By: ShadowWalker
However, that would be then shown, as there would be thinner layers of darker sediment seperating the layers of varves
However, that would be then shown, as there would be thinner layers of darker sediment seperating the layers of varves
By: shade000
Erodin, you have yet to offer proof of that. And you know as well as I that measuring time in years when referring to Verse events is a bad idea, as when dealing with immortals, time is largely meaningless, and isnt accurately recorded.
Erodin, you have yet to offer proof of that. And you know as well as I that measuring time in years when referring to Verse events is a bad idea, as when dealing with immortals, time is largely meaningless, and isnt accurately recorded.
By: ShadowWalker
Hmm you are right. However it is highly unlikely that the Inertia would have been strong enough to slow down the process that much.
Hmm you are right. However it is highly unlikely that the Inertia would have been strong enough to slow down the process that much.
By: shade000
The Lake Suigetsu blooms are aptly named "varves".
It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as ‘varved.’ There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units … without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation.”
Quigley, R. M, Glaciolacustrine and glaciomarine clay deposition: a North American perspective; in: Eyles, N., editor, Glacial geology—an introduction for engineers and earth scientists, Pergamon Press, New York, p. 151, 1983.
This indicates that the varves are not dependent on a yearly blooming cyacle. They may be blooming yearly today, but that is not a sure indication of the past. Moneran lifeforms have been know to change dependent on climate, and Japans climate is by no means stable.
The Lake Suigetsu blooms are aptly named "varves".
It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as ‘varved.’ There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units … without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation.”
Quigley, R. M, Glaciolacustrine and glaciomarine clay deposition: a North American perspective; in: Eyles, N., editor, Glacial geology—an introduction for engineers and earth scientists, Pergamon Press, New York, p. 151, 1983.
This indicates that the varves are not dependent on a yearly blooming cyacle. They may be blooming yearly today, but that is not a sure indication of the past. Moneran lifeforms have been know to change dependent on climate, and Japans climate is by no means stable.
By: Erodin
Shade, the first humans of this bunch were around no less than 65000 years ago. Give those theories a rest, please.
Shade, the first humans of this bunch were around no less than 65000 years ago. Give those theories a rest, please.
By: shade000
It is indeed compelling.
Allow me to say something in defense:
Inertia is influenced by gravity.
The Sun's gravity, pulling on Earth, would have slowed the rotational variance down over time. Therefore, the years, say 5500 years ago, could have been that long, but due to inertia, the effects you describe could have occured over a much smaller period of time.
It is indeed compelling.
Allow me to say something in defense:
Inertia is influenced by gravity.
The Sun's gravity, pulling on Earth, would have slowed the rotational variance down over time. Therefore, the years, say 5500 years ago, could have been that long, but due to inertia, the effects you describe could have occured over a much smaller period of time.
By: ShadowWalker
Or perhaps another example? During each springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. They die and sink to the bottom of the lake. Here, they create a thin, white layer. During the rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. The result are alternating dark and light annual layers — much like the annual growth rings on a tree. Scientists have counted about 45,000 layers; they have been accumulating since about 43,000 BCE. This is far beyond the estimates of 6 to 10 thousand years made by many creationists.
Or perhaps another example? During each springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. They die and sink to the bottom of the lake. Here, they create a thin, white layer. During the rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. The result are alternating dark and light annual layers — much like the annual growth rings on a tree. Scientists have counted about 45,000 layers; they have been accumulating since about 43,000 BCE. This is far beyond the estimates of 6 to 10 thousand years made by many creationists.
By: Erodin
The council is usually made up of 9 beings who are believed to be capable of handling the authority, without being corrupt. Funny how anyone who ends up a councilman becomes corrupted, falling into the line of those who believe in the veil being the answer. Its almost religious, to be honest.
The council is usually made up of 9 beings who are believed to be capable of handling the authority, without being corrupt. Funny how anyone who ends up a councilman becomes corrupted, falling into the line of those who believe in the veil being the answer. Its almost religious, to be honest.
By: ShadowWalker
Of course I am reading what you say, I find this incredibly intruiging, it is very hard to counter some of your points
Of course I am reading what you say, I find this incredibly intruiging, it is very hard to counter some of your points
By: Erodin
Shade, im going to point out a giant hole in your theory about the veil being needed cause of us nonhumans. Nonhumans can already effect humans, whether incarnated or not. The veil was to keep humanity from realizing their potential, as well as make a plan for the outcasts of verse, like a prison. HUmans are not limited to their born place, like many nonhumans, because they dont have to be rank and file.
Shade, im going to point out a giant hole in your theory about the veil being needed cause of us nonhumans. Nonhumans can already effect humans, whether incarnated or not. The veil was to keep humanity from realizing their potential, as well as make a plan for the outcasts of verse, like a prison. HUmans are not limited to their born place, like many nonhumans, because they dont have to be rank and file.
By: ShadowWalker
Because of tides, the rotation of the earth is gradually slowing, by about 1 second every 50,000 years. About 380 million years ago, each day would have been very close to 22 hours long! There would have been about 398 days in the year. Studies of rings on rugose coral fossils that were independently estimated to be 370 million years old revealed that when they were alive, there were about 400 days in the year. This relationship has been confirmed with other coral fossils. This is compelling evidence that the world was in existence a third of a billion years ago at least
Because of tides, the rotation of the earth is gradually slowing, by about 1 second every 50,000 years. About 380 million years ago, each day would have been very close to 22 hours long! There would have been about 398 days in the year. Studies of rings on rugose coral fossils that were independently estimated to be 370 million years old revealed that when they were alive, there were about 400 days in the year. This relationship has been confirmed with other coral fossils. This is compelling evidence that the world was in existence a third of a billion years ago at least
By: shade000
ShadowWalker, you are not annoying, I find this comparing of theories quite enjoyable, so long as you are actually READING what I post, I am most assuredly reading what you say.
And it has been shown through historical records that humans in ancient time commonly engaged in incest. Those erratic and unseemly genes are the result of inbreeding, for 50% of them. The other 50% is because genes work like they are supposed to. Just because humans share genes with bacteria does not mean we came from bacteria. It means that those genes are particularly useful and vivacious in performance of their natural duties.
ShadowWalker, you are not annoying, I find this comparing of theories quite enjoyable, so long as you are actually READING what I post, I am most assuredly reading what you say.
And it has been shown through historical records that humans in ancient time commonly engaged in incest. Those erratic and unseemly genes are the result of inbreeding, for 50% of them. The other 50% is because genes work like they are supposed to. Just because humans share genes with bacteria does not mean we came from bacteria. It means that those genes are particularly useful and vivacious in performance of their natural duties.
By: ShadowWalker
@Erodin... Wow, the councils full of jerks?? Who would have known. I mean, I know this is only your side of the story, but still.. wow.
@Erodin... Wow, the councils full of jerks?? Who would have known. I mean, I know this is only your side of the story, but still.. wow.
By: RavenArrow
irrelevant: what does the council look like?maybe like this photo here:universalpantheonlibrary.wikia.com/wiki/File:Council_by_Nalro.jpg?
irrelevant: what does the council look like?maybe like this photo here:universalpantheonlibrary.wikia.com/wiki/File:Council_by_Nalro.jpg?
By: Erodin
Ok, youre a pawn of their desires, merely because yours match theirs 100%. You even want to try to convince humans everyone will turn agaisn tthem if the veil falls., Many nonhumans wish to protect them from unfair acts.
Ok, youre a pawn of their desires, merely because yours match theirs 100%. You even want to try to convince humans everyone will turn agaisn tthem if the veil falls., Many nonhumans wish to protect them from unfair acts.
By: shade000
Erodin, I am no pawn of Solarius. I have attacked him on several occasions.
The reason I agree with the Veil is because of us immortals. We have seen with the 1st humans what happened when we were allowed en masse onto Earth.
Erodin, I am no pawn of Solarius. I have attacked him on several occasions.
The reason I agree with the Veil is because of us immortals. We have seen with the 1st humans what happened when we were allowed en masse onto Earth.
By: ShadowWalker
@Shade Oh also (sorry, if I'm annoying you XD)
The human genome project has mapped all of our genes. Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics wrote: "The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right — mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors... The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we are descended from bacteria. There is no other way to explain the jury-rigged nature of the genes that control key aspects of our development... The theory of evolution is the only way to explain the arrangement of the 30,000 genes and three billion letters that constitute our genetic code... The message our genes send is that Charles Darwin was right." Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution... must make new genes from old parts." Since evolution of the species must have taken billions of years to evolve from bacteria to humans, the earth must be very old.
Of course, that is only one mans opinion, but he has a lot of evidence to back him up.
@Shade Oh also (sorry, if I'm annoying you XD)
The human genome project has mapped all of our genes. Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics wrote: "The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right — mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors... The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we are descended from bacteria. There is no other way to explain the jury-rigged nature of the genes that control key aspects of our development... The theory of evolution is the only way to explain the arrangement of the 30,000 genes and three billion letters that constitute our genetic code... The message our genes send is that Charles Darwin was right." Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution... must make new genes from old parts." Since evolution of the species must have taken billions of years to evolve from bacteria to humans, the earth must be very old.
Of course, that is only one mans opinion, but he has a lot of evidence to back him up.
By: Erodin
The traitorous acts i did, if this is why i was "banished" was having a plan to help humanity become enlightened, and one to overthrow the council, and replace the current, corupt m embers, with selfless ones, who actually look at all sides, with EQUAL consideration, instead of trying to hold together an excuse for their mistakes.
The traitorous acts i did, if this is why i was "banished" was having a plan to help humanity become enlightened, and one to overthrow the council, and replace the current, corupt m embers, with selfless ones, who actually look at all sides, with EQUAL consideration, instead of trying to hold together an excuse for their mistakes.
By: shade000
The Eniwetok atoll in the Marshall Islands is estimated to 138,000-176,000 years old.
However.
Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute has commented on the fact that estimates of net reef growth rates vary from 0.8 millimetres per year to 80 millimetres per year, whereas actual measurements based on soundings at depth are many times these estimates. Roth suggests a number of reasons for this difference.
The main one is that measurements made at the surface will show lower rates of growth because of exposure to air at low tides and intense ultraviolet light. Lack of light will of course kill a reef—no live coral growth takes place below about 50 metres under the surface. Hence thick atolls such as Eniwetok require the ocean floor to sink as the coral builds. As the coral is lowered, faster growth is possible than that which we measure at the surface.
There are complex factors which both add to the growth of a reef and take away from it. For instance, attack by certain organisms and wave destruction will contribute to a decline in reef size. On the other hand, a growing reef can trap sediments as they are moved along by currents, thus adding to its thickness. Storms can dramatically add to the thickness of a reef by bringing in coral from other areas.
For example, in 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours.
Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes. At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years. In addition, actual experiments indicate that the rate of coral growth can be nearly doubled by increasing the temperature five degrees Celsius (remember that Eniwetok sits on a now-extinct volcano), or increasing the carbonate content of sea water.
The Eniwetok atoll in the Marshall Islands is estimated to 138,000-176,000 years old.
However.
Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute has commented on the fact that estimates of net reef growth rates vary from 0.8 millimetres per year to 80 millimetres per year, whereas actual measurements based on soundings at depth are many times these estimates. Roth suggests a number of reasons for this difference.
The main one is that measurements made at the surface will show lower rates of growth because of exposure to air at low tides and intense ultraviolet light. Lack of light will of course kill a reef—no live coral growth takes place below about 50 metres under the surface. Hence thick atolls such as Eniwetok require the ocean floor to sink as the coral builds. As the coral is lowered, faster growth is possible than that which we measure at the surface.
There are complex factors which both add to the growth of a reef and take away from it. For instance, attack by certain organisms and wave destruction will contribute to a decline in reef size. On the other hand, a growing reef can trap sediments as they are moved along by currents, thus adding to its thickness. Storms can dramatically add to the thickness of a reef by bringing in coral from other areas.
For example, in 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours.
Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes. At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years. In addition, actual experiments indicate that the rate of coral growth can be nearly doubled by increasing the temperature five degrees Celsius (remember that Eniwetok sits on a now-extinct volcano), or increasing the carbonate content of sea water.
By: ShadowWalker
Well, I think the veil was a stupid idea too Erodin. Just thought I'd chip in. And your right, thats disgraceful, unless you actually performed a tratiorus act they have no right to strip you of your rank.
Well, I think the veil was a stupid idea too Erodin. Just thought I'd chip in. And your right, thats disgraceful, unless you actually performed a tratiorus act they have no right to strip you of your rank.
By: RavenArrow
dude,sorry to be asking you this again and again but there i don't really have anything to do rather than waiting for your answer
dude,sorry to be asking you this again and again but there i don't really have anything to do rather than waiting for your answer
By: ShadowWalker
The sun is one of countless numbers of stars in our galaxy. The galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. This means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. This would indicate that our galaxy is much older than 10 thousand years
The sun is one of countless numbers of stars in our galaxy. The galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. This means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. This would indicate that our galaxy is much older than 10 thousand years
By: Erodin
The fact that Shade agrees with the veil so much just makes me realize just how much of a council pawn he is. Im going through so much trouble in my life because i dont agree with the veil, i want everyone to co-oexist peacefully. Ive been called a banished god because of my stance against the veil. Ive been told that records say i was banished because i didnt agree with the veil, but was never told what i supposedly did to get banished.
Banished or not, i know that ive dont nothing wrong, just working towards a different end than the other side. If i was banished, it was an abuse of power and rank, and i deserve my rank back when i recover. Not only because if it was removed, it was abuse of power, but because ive suffered for humanity, just so you can have the chance you deserve to be free of this oppression. In human terms im a war hero, in the councils terms, im scum, and i need to be kept down with binds and drama.
The fact that Shade agrees with the veil so much just makes me realize just how much of a council pawn he is. Im going through so much trouble in my life because i dont agree with the veil, i want everyone to co-oexist peacefully. Ive been called a banished god because of my stance against the veil. Ive been told that records say i was banished because i didnt agree with the veil, but was never told what i supposedly did to get banished.
Banished or not, i know that ive dont nothing wrong, just working towards a different end than the other side. If i was banished, it was an abuse of power and rank, and i deserve my rank back when i recover. Not only because if it was removed, it was abuse of power, but because ive suffered for humanity, just so you can have the chance you deserve to be free of this oppression. In human terms im a war hero, in the councils terms, im scum, and i need to be kept down with binds and drama.
By: shade000
Canyon Diablo meteorite (IAB):
Composition:
7.1% NI
0.46% Co
0.26% P
1% C
1% S
80 ppm Ga
320 ppm Ge 1.9 ppm Ir Structural Classification Coarse Octahedrite All in all, interesting. But with flawed dating procedures, as well as the fact that this meteor may well be extrasolar, even if it is billions of years old (which cannot be conclusively proven), then it still would not indicate the Earth's age.
Canyon Diablo meteorite (IAB):
Composition:
7.1% NI
0.46% Co
0.26% P
1% C
1% S
80 ppm Ga
320 ppm Ge 1.9 ppm Ir Structural Classification Coarse Octahedrite All in all, interesting. But with flawed dating procedures, as well as the fact that this meteor may well be extrasolar, even if it is billions of years old (which cannot be conclusively proven), then it still would not indicate the Earth's age.
By: ShadowWalker
Oh, there are other ways
-The sun is one of countless numbers of stars in our galaxy. The galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. This means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. This would indicate that our galaxy is much older than 10 thousand years.
-The thickness of the coral reef at Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean has been measured at up to 1380 meters. Even the most optimistic coral growth rates would require that the atoll be over 130,000 years of age.
Oh, there are other ways
-The sun is one of countless numbers of stars in our galaxy. The galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. This means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. This would indicate that our galaxy is much older than 10 thousand years.
-The thickness of the coral reef at Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean has been measured at up to 1380 meters. Even the most optimistic coral growth rates would require that the atoll be over 130,000 years of age.
By: ShadowWalker
Therefore, niether of us can actually know, as both c-14 and radiometric dating is extremely flawed.
Therefore, niether of us can actually know, as both c-14 and radiometric dating is extremely flawed.
By: shade000
I am aware of the radiometric lunar rocks dated to those ages. However. Radioactive decay in many cases, has been shown to not be constant. Without a mathematically precise decay rate, the radiometric dating process falls apart at the seams. Radiometrics and carbon dating alike are both extremely flawed, and quite unreliable. The "unbiased" human scientists completely ignore this, in a stunning display of violation of scientific process, simply to try and lend evidence to their theories.
I am aware of the radiometric lunar rocks dated to those ages. However. Radioactive decay in many cases, has been shown to not be constant. Without a mathematically precise decay rate, the radiometric dating process falls apart at the seams. Radiometrics and carbon dating alike are both extremely flawed, and quite unreliable. The "unbiased" human scientists completely ignore this, in a stunning display of violation of scientific process, simply to try and lend evidence to their theories.
By: ShadowWalker
Oh, and 3.The "best" age for the Earth is based on the time required for the lead isotopes in four very old lead ores (galena) to have evolved from the composition of lead at the time the Solar System formed, as recorded in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. This "model lead age" is 4.54 billion years.
Oh, and 3.The "best" age for the Earth is based on the time required for the lead isotopes in four very old lead ores (galena) to have evolved from the composition of lead at the time the Solar System formed, as recorded in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. This "model lead age" is 4.54 billion years.
By: shade000
Both gravitational theories have some credence, but not enough to be proof. There's human gullibility for ya.
Both gravitational theories have some credence, but not enough to be proof. There's human gullibility for ya.
By: ShadowWalker
Oh, and other lunar rocks dated as follows
Mission - Technique - Age (in billions of years)
Apollo 17 - Rb-Sr isochron - 4.55
Apollo 17 - Rb-Sr isochron - 4.60
Apollo 17 - Rb-Sr isochron - 4.49
Apollo 17 - Rb-Sr isochron - 4.43
Apollo 17 Sm-Nd isochron 4.23
Apollo 17 Sm-Nd isochron 4.34 Apollo 16 40Ar/39Ar 4.47 Apollo 16 40Ar/39Ar 4.42
Oh, and other lunar rocks dated as follows
Mission - Technique - Age (in billions of years)
Apollo 17 - Rb-Sr isochron - 4.55
Apollo 17 - Rb-Sr isochron - 4.60
Apollo 17 - Rb-Sr isochron - 4.49
Apollo 17 - Rb-Sr isochron - 4.43
Apollo 17 Sm-Nd isochron 4.23
Apollo 17 Sm-Nd isochron 4.34 Apollo 16 40Ar/39Ar 4.47 Apollo 16 40Ar/39Ar 4.42
By: shade000
Actually there are two gravitational theories, Newtonian, and the graviton theory. Both are simply trying to explain why something falls when you drop it.
The dinosaur question.
Approximately five thousand years ago, there is geological proof that the Earth was suddenly and violently covered in water. At that time all land animals of the time would have gone extinct. Personally, I call this the Noahic flood, but either way, it explains the dinosaurs quite nicely.
Actually there are two gravitational theories, Newtonian, and the graviton theory. Both are simply trying to explain why something falls when you drop it.
The dinosaur question.
Approximately five thousand years ago, there is geological proof that the Earth was suddenly and violently covered in water. At that time all land animals of the time would have gone extinct. Personally, I call this the Noahic flood, but either way, it explains the dinosaurs quite nicely.
By: ShadowWalker
Still didnt answer the dinosaur question :)
Dude, gravity is a theory. Does that mean it has only some evidence?
Still didnt answer the dinosaur question :)
Dude, gravity is a theory. Does that mean it has only some evidence?
By: shade000
It is "considered" more relaible. We actually have no idea if radioactive decay is constant, and when you take into account the unstable nature of most isotopes, any smart radiologist will tell you that its only a guess.
Scientific process:
Hypothesis: A guess, basically.
Theory: A hypothesis with some evidence.
Scientific Law: A theory proven by generations of conclusive supporting data.
The alleged age of Earth is touted as a law, yet is in fact, skirting somewhere in between hypothesis and theory.
It is "considered" more relaible. We actually have no idea if radioactive decay is constant, and when you take into account the unstable nature of most isotopes, any smart radiologist will tell you that its only a guess.
Scientific process:
Hypothesis: A guess, basically.
Theory: A hypothesis with some evidence.
Scientific Law: A theory proven by generations of conclusive supporting data.
The alleged age of Earth is touted as a law, yet is in fact, skirting somewhere in between hypothesis and theory.
By: shade000
I offer as evidence this:
It is a well known fact the zircon crystals are touted as the oldest rocks in Earths crust.
Zircon crystals, when made, have a certain amount of helium gas molecules contained inside them. If the earth were billions of years old, then zircon crystals would not have the amount of helium in them that they do now. We have studied the rate of helium gas loss from zircon crystals, and found that it is constant, and can be measured. The very oldest zircon crystals give no more than 8000 years constant helium loss.
Another factual evidential piece:
Lunar dust.
In 1969, scientists claimed that the age of the universe as they say would be conclusively proven by the amount of lunar dust. The astronauts took with them a measuring tool. The projected depth was several feet. The actual depth, consistent over the entire lunar surface, is 0.10 inches. This indicates the Moon's age at approximately ten thousand years, absolute maximum. According to modern theories, the Moon should be hundreds of millions of years old, and if it was, would have meters of dust, not 0.10 inches.
I have more proof if you want.
I offer as evidence this:
It is a well known fact the zircon crystals are touted as the oldest rocks in Earths crust.
Zircon crystals, when made, have a certain amount of helium gas molecules contained inside them. If the earth were billions of years old, then zircon crystals would not have the amount of helium in them that they do now. We have studied the rate of helium gas loss from zircon crystals, and found that it is constant, and can be measured. The very oldest zircon crystals give no more than 8000 years constant helium loss.
Another factual evidential piece:
Lunar dust.
In 1969, scientists claimed that the age of the universe as they say would be conclusively proven by the amount of lunar dust. The astronauts took with them a measuring tool. The projected depth was several feet. The actual depth, consistent over the entire lunar surface, is 0.10 inches. This indicates the Moon's age at approximately ten thousand years, absolute maximum. According to modern theories, the Moon should be hundreds of millions of years old, and if it was, would have meters of dust, not 0.10 inches.
I have more proof if you want.
By: ShadowWalker
But radiometric dating is considered more reliable than carbon dating, and, at 10,000 years, that would not be enough time for the dinosaurs to have existed and become extinct. So what are those fossils, fake?
But radiometric dating is considered more reliable than carbon dating, and, at 10,000 years, that would not be enough time for the dinosaurs to have existed and become extinct. So what are those fossils, fake?
By: shadow0777
So the enormous purple barrier I passed through in my past life after I died was indeed the Veil. So that seals the fact that I'm a nonhuman...
So the enormous purple barrier I passed through in my past life after I died was indeed the Veil. So that seals the fact that I'm a nonhuman...
By: shade000
ShadowWalker: c14 dating is different from radiometric.
The carbon 14 is the current Earth's atmosphere has not reached the equilibrium that it would have if it had been over 30,000 years. The current balance level places the atmosphere as least, at 10,000 years or less.
ShadowWalker: c14 dating is different from radiometric.
The carbon 14 is the current Earth's atmosphere has not reached the equilibrium that it would have if it had been over 30,000 years. The current balance level places the atmosphere as least, at 10,000 years or less.
By: shade000
Actually yes I have Raven. I astral project to where they are located, and I have learned much from them.
Actually yes I have Raven. I astral project to where they are located, and I have learned much from them.
By: ShadowWalker
Please dont tell me you actually believe the Earth is actually only 6000 years old? And actually, carbon dating is not based on tree rings or anything as silly.
The generally accepted age for the Earth and our solar system is 4.55 billion years, or near enough. The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
So, no carbon dating is actually used that much any more. What you do is you measure radioactive decay (i'm dumbing this down for you). so.
Radioactive elements change spontaneously to non-radioactive elements. For example, radioactive uranium changes, or decays, to non-radioactive lead. If you start with a certain amount of radioactive uranium (100% U) it takes a certain amount of time for one half of the uranium to become lead (50% U,50% Pb). Then it takes the same amount of time for that half to become one half lead (25% U, 75% Pb), and so on. This is called the half-life, or decay constant; it never changes inside rocks.
Different radioactive elements decay at different rates. Some radioactive isotopes have short half-lives, others have very long half-lives, such as millions or billions of years. This is where you need a fancy machine and laboratory to find out how old Earth is; it is done by actually measuring the very tiny amounts of radioactive elements and their decay products, called the parent and daughter, in rocks. If you know the amount of parent and daughter (such as uranium and lead) in a rock and the decay constant, you can calculate the age of the rock. By measuring parent-daughter ratios for various radioactive elements in many kinds of rocks, and meteorites, we know that Earth formed about 4 and 1/2 billion years ago and that the Sun formed shortly before then. Any questions? XD
Please dont tell me you actually believe the Earth is actually only 6000 years old? And actually, carbon dating is not based on tree rings or anything as silly.
The generally accepted age for the Earth and our solar system is 4.55 billion years, or near enough. The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
So, no carbon dating is actually used that much any more. What you do is you measure radioactive decay (i'm dumbing this down for you). so.
Radioactive elements change spontaneously to non-radioactive elements. For example, radioactive uranium changes, or decays, to non-radioactive lead. If you start with a certain amount of radioactive uranium (100% U) it takes a certain amount of time for one half of the uranium to become lead (50% U,50% Pb). Then it takes the same amount of time for that half to become one half lead (25% U, 75% Pb), and so on. This is called the half-life, or decay constant; it never changes inside rocks.
Different radioactive elements decay at different rates. Some radioactive isotopes have short half-lives, others have very long half-lives, such as millions or billions of years. This is where you need a fancy machine and laboratory to find out how old Earth is; it is done by actually measuring the very tiny amounts of radioactive elements and their decay products, called the parent and daughter, in rocks. If you know the amount of parent and daughter (such as uranium and lead) in a rock and the decay constant, you can calculate the age of the rock. By measuring parent-daughter ratios for various radioactive elements in many kinds of rocks, and meteorites, we know that Earth formed about 4 and 1/2 billion years ago and that the Sun formed shortly before then. Any questions? XD
By: shade000
"matrix" LMFAO. Thats actually very close to what it is Royce. Minus the battery part. It is whats best for the humans, my hope is that in a few hundred years the human race can be all enlightened and taught their powers, and then, only then, join the rest of the Universe at large.
"matrix" LMFAO. Thats actually very close to what it is Royce. Minus the battery part. It is whats best for the humans, my hope is that in a few hundred years the human race can be all enlightened and taught their powers, and then, only then, join the rest of the Universe at large.
By: Royce
So you're okay with keeping humans in a matrix where they will never learn about their true selves or true abilities and continue on in an illusion? is that really what's best for the universe?
So you're okay with keeping humans in a matrix where they will never learn about their true selves or true abilities and continue on in an illusion? is that really what's best for the universe?
By: shade000
Its not about strength, its about wisdom. The war brought unprecedented peace and happiness to the 1st humans, uinfortunately that ended with the veils collapse.
Its not about strength, its about wisdom. The war brought unprecedented peace and happiness to the 1st humans, uinfortunately that ended with the veils collapse.
By: shade000
Erodin, you know as well as I what happened to the first humans, if you truly are an ancient, then you know history has repeated itself with these humans, and will continue to do so, unless we put a stop to it.
Erodin, you know as well as I what happened to the first humans, if you truly are an ancient, then you know history has repeated itself with these humans, and will continue to do so, unless we put a stop to it.
By: shade000
I learned what I was at age three, and started training then. I quote:
www.mytelekinesis.com/shade----s-originsshade000.html
I learned what I was at age three, and started training then. I quote:
www.mytelekinesis.com/shade----s-originsshade000.html
By: ShadowWalker
Actually, Maestro's on holiday, and can't be on for the next couple of days. Anyway, I think the Admins should put up temporary bans, so people who say somehting like a death threat get blocked for say, five days. I don't know if thats possible, but it would put a lot of people off.
Actually, Maestro's on holiday, and can't be on for the next couple of days. Anyway, I think the Admins should put up temporary bans, so people who say somehting like a death threat get blocked for say, five days. I don't know if thats possible, but it would put a lot of people off.
By: shade000
The First Humans were a seperate race, but identical Azure. The humans were created over again, as a repeat.
Yes, "you" reached 1 billion back then. The First humans however, were thriving tens of thousands ago, and went extinct long ages past.
Royce, the humans are in no way inferior. They can indeed be just as powerful as any immortal. They just don't. I have met humans nearly as powerful as immortals, it is all in your belief. Look at the Shao-Lin.
The First Humans were a seperate race, but identical Azure. The humans were created over again, as a repeat.
Yes, "you" reached 1 billion back then. The First humans however, were thriving tens of thousands ago, and went extinct long ages past.
Royce, the humans are in no way inferior. They can indeed be just as powerful as any immortal. They just don't. I have met humans nearly as powerful as immortals, it is all in your belief. Look at the Shao-Lin.
By: AzurePhoenix
You said you have been helping the veil for 10 years, means you should have started at age four, and you said you learned what you were when you were older than that -.- thats where your story falls apart.
You said you have been helping the veil for 10 years, means you should have started at age four, and you said you learned what you were when you were older than that -.- thats where your story falls apart.
By: Erodin
Its not all about strength, Shade. I want the veil to fall so everything that we all believe is proved true or false. I dont want the war, i think its silly. IF its how others end up solving their problems, and its the only way to bring peace, whatever. Im dont with war, because i have issues in my own backyard, that are more important than worrying about the strength of others, and whether or not we all suffer from godly delusions, or whether we really are as powerful as we say.
Humanity will be trimmed, for various reasons, but souls get reborn. If you die in the war, you arent guaranteed to be dead forever. Maybe your death now makes a better life for the survivors.
Its not all about strength, Shade. I want the veil to fall so everything that we all believe is proved true or false. I dont want the war, i think its silly. IF its how others end up solving their problems, and its the only way to bring peace, whatever. Im dont with war, because i have issues in my own backyard, that are more important than worrying about the strength of others, and whether or not we all suffer from godly delusions, or whether we really are as powerful as we say.
Humanity will be trimmed, for various reasons, but souls get reborn. If you die in the war, you arent guaranteed to be dead forever. Maybe your death now makes a better life for the survivors.
By: shade000
Azure, the first humans reached this very same level, and were wiped out in the second verse war, some thirty thousand years ago. This universe is not anywhere near as old as scientists would like to think. carbon 14 dating is based on tree rings, and no tree rings exists beyond 3300 years. Thus, any object older than 3300 years cannot be dated by their procedure. That includes the Earth.
Azure, the first humans reached this very same level, and were wiped out in the second verse war, some thirty thousand years ago. This universe is not anywhere near as old as scientists would like to think. carbon 14 dating is based on tree rings, and no tree rings exists beyond 3300 years. Thus, any object older than 3300 years cannot be dated by their procedure. That includes the Earth.
By: AzurePhoenix
We reached 1 billion in 1804 or around that time, your just talking up a lot of pretty shit.
We reached 1 billion in 1804 or around that time, your just talking up a lot of pretty shit.
By: cjmixmaster
Shade i want you to know one thing we make our future. and i chose not to go extinct
Shade i want you to know one thing we make our future. and i chose not to go extinct
By: Royce
azure, there are theories that there were races of humans beyond our records. for example, atlantis.
shade, i wasn't calling you a liar. i was asking you to explain why humans are created to be so much weaker and inferior to the other races. it doesn't make much sense.
azure, there are theories that there were races of humans beyond our records. for example, atlantis.
shade, i wasn't calling you a liar. i was asking you to explain why humans are created to be so much weaker and inferior to the other races. it doesn't make much sense.
There are 43 more comments. |
|
LOADING... |
MyTK Shoutbox:
Hello Newbie. If you want to enjoy the full MyTK experience, sign up!