|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
WorldDesigner
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 38
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:56 am Post subject: |
    |
|
| Wonder where these guys come up with these things from on the moon. So much speculation around here man. Easy for people to claim whatever they want. Notice how they never reference the material they give us. Another great discussion the one on Fen Shui. A little Ying and Yang is good for your health. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1104
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you wonder where these guys get their information from, maybe you should have another look at the Wikepedia article you linked to yourself. It seems to deal with several theories of the Moon's origin in what appears to be a balanced approach. Mind you, it does not suggest anywhere that the Moon and Earth were created in a week by a higher being.
At the end of the day we all choose what we want to believe, or not believe. Just because someone has expressed their views or interpretation in a webpage on the internet doesn't mean anyone has to believe it.
Personally I find it very hard to comprehend such massive timescales, as I expect does every mortal human being. None of us will ever have the opportunity to go back and prove for ourselves conculsively what happened at the beginning of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 838
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WorldDesigner
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lekizz wrote: | If you wonder where these guys get their information from, maybe you should have another look at the Wikepedia article you linked to yourself. It seems to deal with several theories of the Moon's origin in what appears to be a balanced approach. Mind you, it does not suggest anywhere that the Moon and Earth were created in a week by a higher being.
At the end of the day we all choose what we want to believe, or not believe. Just because someone has expressed their views or interpretation in a webpage on the internet doesn't mean anyone has to believe it.
Personally I find it very hard to comprehend such massive timescales, as I expect does every mortal human being. None of us will ever have the opportunity to go back and prove for ourselves conculsively what happened at the beginning of time. |
Heck, that is the smartest thing I have heard around here. Only thing those guys didn't get it from Wikipedia. And who knows where Wiki get's it's stuff from - a concoction of writers. Still, some guys are making statements on the moon also with no reference to where they are getting their ideas. So much seems speculation as well. Since nobody could have been there, any theory or idea is just as good as the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Heck, that is the smartest thing I have heard around here. |
We have all said that at one time or another. All we are trying to do is keep religion and science separate because they don't belong together.
There is plenty of information available about the moon. If you are truly interested you can find it yourself.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VoiceOFreedom
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This topic on the Moon is indeed interesting.
| Quote: | the problem with this simplistic math is:
| Quote: | Quote:
The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time. It depends both on the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and the exact shape of the Earth. The details of continents and oceans moving around on Earth actually change the rate, which make it a very hard thing to estimate. The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size. |
|
All one needs is a little reading to see that in fact, the shape of the earth suggests a much younger earth, and there is simply no explanation for the shape of the earth if we consider an older moon. As long as there have been oceans, the tidal effect is increasing the radius of the moons orbit. And how can anyone know also how long it took for the oceans to form? And even if there was a momentary freeze of the oceans for a long period of time, it could have then slowed the rate of increase in this distance. Yet nobody can say that in 15 billions years the moon's orbit will stop increasing, this is only speculation and spreading of mis-information. Plus some seem to adopt the "co-formation hypothesis", which Wikipedia tells us does not explain the "angular momentum of the earth-moon system". And even with the "giant impact hypothesis" there are problems. And, again, it is all hypothesis. The moon shows the earth is not so old after all.
And see, 15 billion years that Chris quoted is wrong - It is fifty billion years, not fifteen. Another mis-quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
| Quote: | | So the Moon is gradually receding from the Earth into a higher orbit, and calculations[1] suggest that this will continue for about fifty billion years. By that time, the Earth and Moon will become caught up in what is called a "spin–orbit resonance" in which the Moon will circle the Earth in about 47 days (currently 29 days), and both Moon and Earth will rotate around their axes in the same time, always facing each other with the same side. Beyond this, it is hard to tell what will happen to the Earth–Moon system. |
See, nobody knows what will happen after 50 billion years. Nobody can say the moon will stop to move away.
People posting here are mis-quoting, and confusing information.
| Quote: | Yes I already commented on it. The moon has not always moved away at 4cm per year (this is just how it is moving now)
When it was first formed both it and the Earth where molten rock. Tidal forces where non existent and the moon was being pulled toward the earth. It took a billion years for the oceans to form and also some periods may have had substantial ice which minimized the tidal effects. The moon is a very large mass the tidal force is extremely weak. It would take billions of years for it to begin moving and then accelerate to 4cm per year. In another billion years they say it will be moving at 6cm per year. |
Some forgot to see this one:
| Quote: | This known dynamical limit in the earth-moon system is a great problem to knowledgeable evolutionists. Robert C. Humes in his book Introduction to Space Science (John Wiley, 1971) acknowledges the problem and states that "The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative." Dr. Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology treats this problem in great detail and concludes that "the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem."2
This known dynamical limit in the earth-moon system is a great problem to knowledgeable e voluti onists. Robert C. Humes in his book Introduction to Space Science (John Wiley, 1971) acknowledges the problem and states that "The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative." Dr. Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology treats this problem in great detail and concludes that "the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem."2
Hence from theoretical and observational considerations there are two proofs that the earth-moon system can not be as old as a billion years.
1) The earth-moon spacing and recession rate refutes that long age.
2) The shape of the earth refutes that long age. |
Even the data used to calculate the supposed "mean displacement of the moon" is also based on the archeologycal dating techniques subject to failure, as had been pointed. Thus, the averages, if being considered over a longer period then actually existed, would seem to suggest that the recession was even slower a long time ago. But if the earth is younger then those dating methods suggest, then the recession may actually have not changed significantly:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000RvGeo..38...37W
Only a little reading quickly shows that failing to quote references proves to be the failure of some. And then mis-quoting others as can be seen in this topic. With so much confusing of the issues, it is no wonder some cannot make heads or tails of this. And some continue to react in an impolite manner, when requested to explain their position. And others, not involved, come in to make impolite statements as well.
And as has been shown, believing the universe could have been c reated is not a r eligion. Simply demonstrating how the universe was cr eated is not r eligion if it is based on plausible evidence, which it is. And the evidence has been presented in scientific manner. So in no way can the scientific e vidence be dismissed as r eligion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VoiceOFreedom
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Devolution
Why ID is not
The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_fact
| Quote: | If you are in ninth grade and live in Dover, Pennsylvania, you are learning things in your biology class that differ considerably from what your peers just a few miles away are learning. In particular, you are learning that Darwin’s theory of evolution provides just one possible explanation of life, and that another is provided by something called i ntelligent design. You are being taught this not because of a recent breakthrough in some scientist’s laboratory but because the Dover Area School District’s board mandates it. In October, 2004, the board decreed that “students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, i ntelligent design.”
While the events in Dover have received a good deal of attention as a sign of the political times, there has been surprisingly little discussion of the science that’s said to underlie the theory of i ntelligent design, often called I .D. Many scientists avoid discussing I .D. for strategic reasons. If a scientific claim can be loosely defined as one that scientists take seriously enough to debate, then engaging the i ntelligent-design movement on scientific grounds, they worry, cedes what it most desires: recognition that its claims are legitimate scientific ones.
Meanwhile, proposals hostile to e volution are being considered in more than twenty states; earlier this month, a bill was introduced into the New York State Assembly calling for instruction in i ntelligent design for all public-school students. The Kansas State Board of Education is weighing new standards, drafted by supporters of i ntelligent design, that would encourage schoolteachers to challenge D arwinism. Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, has argued that “i ntelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.” An I.D.-friendly amendment that he sponsored to the No Child Left Behind Act—requiring public schools to help students understand why e volution “generates so much continuing controversy”—was overwhelmingly approved in the Senate. (The amendment was not included in the version of the bill that was signed into law, but similar language did appear in a conference report that accompanied it.) In the past few years, college students across the country have formed I ntelligent Design and E volution Awareness chapters. Clearly, a policy of limited scientific engagement has failed. So just what is this movement?
First of all, i ntelligent design is not what people often assume it is. For one thing, I .D. is not B iblical literalism. Unlike earlier generations of c reationists—the so-called Young Earthers and s cientific c reationists—proponents of i ntelligent design do not believe that the universe was created in six days, that Earth is ten thousand years old, or that the fossil record was deposited during Noah’s flood. (Indeed, they shun the label “c reationism” altogether.)<This title being imposed here to the thread> Nor does I .D. flatly reject e volution: adherents freely admit that some e volutionary change occurred during the history of life on Earth. Although the movement is loosely allied with, and heavily funded by, various conservative C hr istian groups—and although I .D. plainly maintains that life was c reated—it is generally silent about the identity of the c reator.
The movement’s main positive claim is that there are things in the world, most notably life, that cannot be accounted for by known natural causes and show features that, in any other context, we would attribute to intelligence. Living organisms are too complex to be explained by any natural—or, more precisely, by any mindless—process. Instead, the design inherent in organisms can be accounted for only by invoking a designer, and one who is very, very smart.
All of which puts I .D. squarely at odds with D arwin. D arwin’s theory of e volution was meant to show how the fantastically complex features of organisms—eyes, beaks, brains—could arise without the intervention of a designing mind. According to D arwinism, e volution largely reflects the combined action of random mutation and natural selection. A random mutation in an organism, like a random change in any finely tuned machine, is almost always bad. That’s why you don’t, screwdriver in hand, make arbitrary changes to the insides of your television. But, once in a great while, a random mutation in the DNA that makes up an organism’s genes slightly improves the function of some organ and thus the survival of the organism. In a species whose eye amounts to nothing more than a primitive patch of light-sensitive cells, a mutation that causes this patch to fold into a cup shape might have a survival advantage. While the old type of organism can tell only if the lights are on, the new type can detect the direction of any source of light or shadow. Since shadows sometimes mean predators, that can be valuable information. The new, improved type of organism will, therefore, be more common in the next generation. That’s natural selection. Repeated over billions of years, this process of incremental improvement should allow for the gradual emergence of organisms that are exquisitely adapted to their environments and that look for all the world as though they were designed. By 1870, about a decade after “The Origin of Species” was published, nearly all biologists agreed that life had e volved, and by 1940 or so most agreed that natural selection was a key force driving this e volution.
Advocates of i ntelligent design point to two developments that in their view undermine D arwinism. The first is the molecular revolution in biology. Beginning in the nineteen-fifties, molecular biologists revealed a staggering and unsuspected degree of complexity within the cells that make up all life. This complexity, I .D.’s defenders argue, lies beyond the abilities of D arwinism to explain. Second, they claim that new mathematical findings cast doubt on the power of natural selection. Selection may play a role in e volution, but it cannot accomplish what biologists suppose it can. |
If some wish to separate the c hurch from the s tate, and r eligion from s cience, then the same should be said for the s tate and s cience. Why would one separate
1. C hurch from S tate.
2. R eligion from s cience.
and not separate also
3. The S tate from S cience?
As we have it today, the system is engaged in spreading e v o l u t i o n fanatically as a sort of religion. I think we should start look at what is real devolution. This will then begin to mean we will to give back people the truth they have been denied by the system. As demonstrated in this thread, it is the system that is engaged in an active campaign of suppression of information, of keeping from the public any data that may demonstrate the religion of e v o l u t i o n to contain errors.
The genetic information contained in the species does not proceed to auto-organization. Adding information to genetic codes does not occur in nature. Rather, only mutations, adaptations of species to the environment, and the perfection of these species, creating new isolated versions of these species in new micro cosmos environments. If Devolution could be considered the opposite of e volution, it would state thus that genetic information becomes lost forever when the species is lost and there is no cross over of species. The fact that different species may contain very similar genetic codes does not prove these species are related. It may have been simply a same design pattern being used to create it. In fact, random genetic mutations, environmental adaptations and genetic drift frequently tend to decrease the genetic quality of species in some areas, while increasing the genetic quality in other areas, making them better adapted but in no way do they auto evolve into higher forms of complexity. Devolution would then state that birds may not be necessarily successors of dinosaurs. This may in fact be a mis-conception. Devolution would also thus demonstrate how the age of the moon suggests a younger earth. Further, devolution will then suggest the current dating methodologies are all prone to failure and cannot be considered final evidence for the date of fossils.
If nobody was there at that time to demonstrate those fossils came from that time, then there is no proof.
Devolution will then accept the fact that the universe can be very old, based on analysis of scientific data (such as the Grand Canyon, and light reaching our planet from the distant cosmos of space).
Devolution will thus desire to bring back decency to science, when articles are banned or harassed in the scientific community, now they become openly accepted. Both e volutionits and devolutionists will then be free to present and debate their data with each other, with no fear of recrimination, of being rejected by biased peer reviews. Devolution will then also proclaim the separation of science and the S tate. The S tate should no longer dictate what is acceptable science and what is not. As long as the data meets the scientific method, it should be presented in parallel to other theories, so that in effect students can decide for themselves, rather then being told what to think as currently is taking place.
Devolution will thus demonstrate further that the law of enthropy refutes e volution, and also demonstrates how e volution cannot explain even the basic genetic formation of a single basic cell or organism needed for life. At this point e volution brakes down completely. Devolution will then show us how species have a much older existence then being presented, including man. Many species being dubbed as pre-cursors of man are actually extinct species of primates with no succession and connection to modern man. Devolution will then suggest that man may indeed not have originated in Africa and the mtDNA tracing is not accurate as the genetic Eve gives a different date from the genetic Adam.
Devolution thus will accept any scientific idea currently in existence. It wills to accept this data with an open mind. Devolution thus will call for all to present their data in an un-biased manner, with an open mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 838
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
They do start talking to themselves and always the same tactics.
It appears they can't help themselves. I feel pity for them  .
As long as science and religion stay seperated I'm happy .
Is this the result of the Bush admin? Why is this happening? What are thier goals?
Why the wierd scary names like voiceoffreedom/worlddesign/archimotion/usarender?
Do other religions besides creationist/believers OPPRESS science?
at least feng shui has the electro magnetic force going for it.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 838
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oops, I ment to ask. Do other religions besides intelligent/design/creationist/believers OPPRESS science?
I hope my mistake doesn't get miscontrued as me talking to myself. 
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VoiceOFreedom
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now they are talking to themselves.  Do religions other then e volution oppress r eligious groups? Do p olitical systems other then the supposed d emocracy some claim to have mix the S tate and S cience? Blame the B ush A dministration they will now. Is this a p olitical move? Is it because of the elections? Why so much o ppresssion close to election date? It appears they can't help themselves now and must blame someone. One can only feel pity for for such p olitical moves. What type of eletromagnetic force of member b ashing are these guys trying to use. One can only feel pity for all those being o ppressed around these regions of cyber-space. Apparently it is only the politically aligned who survive the opression. Why do science, the S tate and social groups continue to oppress those who hold alternate views to e volution? Sad to see those who do not have an open mind and who do not know how to express themselves, but have to either go back editing, correct themselves, correct their blunders of mis-statement, go back and say they changed their mind, contradict themselves, as can be seen in this discussion. This to their credit.. What are they affraid of? Do they believe they are some type of exclusive group? If so, let them join the secret society and pay their membership dues. If not, they are no more members then any other who wishes to express an opinion. And why now are c reationists or even B ush being pegged to blame for the errors some are committing? And what for this grouping of members and people into categories? It is obvious the majority of those coming into this topic belong to the same group and camp. They cannot stand to see those who demonstrate the fallacies of science. Convenient now they not only rename the topic but use ths re-naming now to persecute the group to which the name pegging is assigned. This re-naming apparenly has been going on as a way they believe they can persuade others to join their camp, by appealing to the fears of others. They create a situation of apparent fear, or of a posed threat, by the supposed B ush administration, so as to make all believe now they must oppose that a dministration. Or the same they do with other camps. Does anyone really care if they wish to persecute now B ush or anyone else for that matter, or name tag, name group, classify and punish all or anyone who can demonstrate the f allacies of science? We can't believe anyone in this country anymore anyways, much less politicians, teachers, s cientists, e volutionists, self-appointed leaders of society, philosophers, a t heists, pragmatic pests of thought or anyone else for that matter. So they will go on with their grouping and classifications, categorical statements and the like in the attempt to ridicule, rather then analyze the data with an open s cientific mind. One needs not do to much reading before all the dominoes of e v olu tion begin to fall and the cracks begin to appear. Happy will be the day when r eligion is free of s cience, s cience is f ree of r eligion, the s tate is free from s cience, s cience is free from the s tate, and when r eligion is truly free from the s tate. The V oice of F reedom will always live on in the hearts of black, white, yellow or red. They all want the same. Just sad to see when white becomes red, when yellow fades to red, when black and white no longer balance each other, but rather black is seen as the enemy of white. Happy will be the day when all the colors are able to live in harmony, and when a condition of balance and tolerance is restored. The storm may surge, but after the storm will come the calm. And then peace, fr eedom, and impartiality will reign supreme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Are you all the same person?
voiceoffreedom/worlddesigner/archimotion/usarender?
I see a lot of similarities but also slight differences. Do you have multiple personalities? Do you hear voices? Maybe bipolar disorder? Medicine can help.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VoiceOFreedom
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: | I did some more research on DeYoung
The is from Grace.edu
http://www.grace.edu/academics/undergrad/math.php
b i o g r a p h y
Dr. Don DeYoung is Professor of Physics
and Chair of the Physical Science Department
He joined the Grace College faculty in 1972. He
is known internationally for his work in creation
science, is president of the Creation Research
Society, author of 15 books on Bible-science topics,
and well known as a creation science speaker.
Dr. DeYoung earned his A.S. degree from Grand
Rapids Junior College, B.S. and M.S. degrees from
Michigan Technological University, M.Div. from
Grace Theological Seminary, and Ph.D. degree
from Iowa State University.
OK, it looks like he may have a BS,MS And phD in something but no mention of astrophysics
Six Scientific Evidences for Creation
The universe is governed by basic unchanging laws of gravity, motion,
light, etc. These laws cannot somehow arise slowly by mutation or
natural selection. They have been established since the beginning of
time. Each law bears testimony to a carefully planned creation.
The two most basic laws discovered in nature both involve energy. The
first law states that energy is conserved or constant. Energy takes various forms but can be neither created nor destroyed. This law was established at the completion of the creation week when the Creator ceased the input of energy into the physical universe from his infinite reserves.
The second basic law describes unavoidable losses whenever energy
is dealt with. The energy does not disappear but becomes unavailable.
Stated more broadly, all things (including people!) wear out over
time. Ultimately, death itself is part of this second law, which is clearly
connected with the Fall of mankind in Genesis 3.
The fossil record does not reveal unlimited changes in living things over
a vast time scale. Instead, the fossils show separate created categories of
plants and animals, many now extinct. And very few fossils are forming
today. The great majority resulted from the global deluge of Noah’s day.
The origin of life remains a fundamental “unsolved mystery.” None of
the explanations for life’s start, either from chemicals in the sea or from
space, are convincing. Actually, scientists cannot agree on the natural
origin of anything, whether life, the moon, or stars. Meanwhile, creation
ex nihilo, from nothing, remains as a refreshing alternative to endless
speculation.
We are surrounded by incredible design in nature. Even in the fallen
world we are surrounded by beauty, patterns, symmetry, and order. The
current “Intelligent Design Movement” shows that complex items such
as the eye or a living cell could never arise by chance. Romans 1:20
further reminds us that there is no valid excuse for disregarding this clear
evidence of the Creator’s work.
Four Tenets of Young-Earth Creation
The creation week as described in Genesis 1-2 was literal history with
24-hour days. This was the origin of our present-day calendar.
The Garden of Eden, our first parents Adam and Eve, the earth, and the
universe beyond were established fully functioning with an appearance
of maturity.
Creation took place thousands of years ago, not billions of years.
The Genesis Flood was global in extent and this water judgment
reshaped the entire surface of the earth. |
Why so much persecution of a professor of physics? Why such unfounded accusations? Maybe these people are really all one and the same, or at least certainly they are of the same spirit and mind, who cares. The colors of freedom all desire the same liberation from the oppression that some are creating in their guilt trips. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VoiceOFreedom
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: | Huh?
My post was not deleted.
Yours may have been but that is most likely due to some glitch. Try reposting it.
I experienced a delay a few moments ago and ended up with a double post in my physics thread. |
This is obvious. Such people agree with the system. Since the half-life of carbon evidence around these regions of space seem short lived, certainly one cannot have time, nor be able to apply the effort needed to demonstrate all the errors that are being committed by science. But at least a small amount of eye opening will do to point some in the right direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VoiceOFreedom
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: |
DeYoung clearly lied about his credentials so why should we consider anything else he says to be true?
|
And on the subject of Mount Saint Helens, it is preposterous to assume that a view of one individual should represent all C reationists, or that all are guilty of the same error as one individual. I simply posted that out of a curiosity, and even placed a disclaimer there. Funny now how some are gripping on to this subject in an attempt to ridicule open thinking. It never hurts to look into matters further before jumping to conclusions, as some are doing around this forum. And it is not a sin to post links that one has not been able to confirm, as the nature of this forum should to be have an open mind to look into things further - and that I why I brought the issues up. Rather, some are using those as arguments and entering into judgemental types of attitudes intended to make others look absurd. |
See, so much confusion of issues, when others are being accused of not having credentials, when the information they are presenting is being despised and when science is no longer to tolerate other science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Maybe these people are really all one and the same, or at least certainly they are of the same spirit and mind, who cares. The colors of freedom all desire the same liberation from the oppression that some are creating in their guilt trips. |
Very mysterious but I will take that as a yes.
That is interesting, I suppose with each new character you try to be a little different to disguise your identity or does this just happen naturally?
The usarender character was the most outrageous and then when archimotion first came that personality was much more reasonable at the begining. World designer says "man" a lot and VOF is much more similar to archimotion.
It isn't your fault, a lot of people suffer from this condition.
I guess you go through very large mood swings here is something which may help:
http://www.patientslikeme.com/mood/community
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
