RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 495 496 497 498 499 [500] 501 502 503 504 505 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2015,04:02   

You lost me at Their...MORON. English it's a language not a lavatory.

Hey Gary I think I found your brother over at physforum.com

Quote
could to think that the inverse than imagine the relations of space-time has others aspects,for example a body with high velocitiy,would do the time shrink,it is the time measured by clock would be dilated,because it entry in the equations as space,but the time generated in the curvatures with differences of rotations amongs left-handed and right-handed,would do the shrunk time,as the curve goes
if turning more closed,decresing the ray of the curvatures.then how much more linear,more the time suffer shrunk.it is,the time goes increasing the numbers of its "ticks",major quantities of ticks demonstrate that the time is suffering shrinking.then the space goes increasing it elasticity,goes it stretching,it is how much faster a body travel.but go stretching the space,to that i can travel more fast,increasing the velocity.when one body if approach of speed of light,the time is
shrinked to a point into of reference systems and synchronizations of clocks,the space is stretched,it is a space approach of the infinite
i think that the stardrive think in altere the space and time of that form.
then could has velocity infinite,because the clocks lose its synchronizations with the
increase of the speed,and the space suffer deformations,increasing it size.then the time seen as suffer slow down by a observer in a rocket,is just derived of the curvatures that the body appear conform go accellerating,is due the variations that occur between the differences of times forward in time-rotations leading with rotations for left-handed and the others is forward in time are rotations carrying
space-time for right-handed.
HOW COULD TO AFFIRM THAT THE CLOCKS CAN TO BE SYNCHRONIZED,IF THE TIME IS LINKED AT THE MOTION,AND IS GIVEN BY A ROTATIONS THAT IN IT INVERSION OF AXES HAS A IMAGINARY NUMBER TO EFFECTUE THESE ROTATIONS
THAT DOUBLY METRIC,IT IS A ROTATING TO LEFT_HANDED AND OTHER RIGHT-HANDED.THEN THERE DOES APPEAR THE TORSION FIELDS DYNAMICS


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2015,05:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 18 2015,21:18)
Yes, if someone waves their hand over something complex and says, "the explanation for it is that it evolved" (or emerged), you have every right to respond that that's not much of an explanation, and you'd like more details before you buy into the explanation.  However, unlike "magic", emergence and evolution are both known processes with some well documented and well understood examples.

One reply later and we're studying the future features of "evolutionary theory" where I am relatively sure almost all will look at all the arrows in the circles around circles illustration that's in it and think "Huh?".

The programmed genome leads to all sorts of possibilities including a magic programmer there somewhere, at that stage of your evolutionary process. Especially where someone from the ID movement were explaining that part of the EES theory.

Although it surprisingly includes the vital "reciprocal causation" that exists the operational definition that is given goes into additional qualifying information than the standard definitions for it all over the internet have, which makes it a nonstandard operational definition. The ID theory does not drag that kind of baggage around. A reciprocal causation is a two directional flow (A influences B, B influences A) that can be either intelligent causation or unintelligent causation and which it is is tested by modeling (or at least determine how many requirements are needed to model the given reciprocating systems).

The evolutionary theory that even your Queen's scientists are now studying that in comparison to what was there before is rather revolutionary has a very serious case of the exact thing you like to warn about. And the only way to get rid of it to entirely disconnect from "Darwinian natural selection" straight onto a modeling method to in-silico demonstrate intelligent and/or unintelligent "reciprocal causation" events. Sal has for some time been the ruling ID expert on genome RAM, which makes it something you have to get more information on from the ID movement that has already gone into more detail than even I did for that part of the system in reciprocation with the behavior of matter and the cellular intelligence behavior that emerges from the genome built and maintained city-like cell. What is needed to rid it of what mucked up your operational definitions and at the same time make it useful for cognitive science and other fields already exists.

After thinking about what to do next, the most productive thing of them all that I can think of is code an algorithm that draws the reciprocal logic, also showing where Intelligent Causation is at in the biological picture and not (does not need to be). The way the drawing program has to loop a certain way to show the from generation to generation will sort out the arrows and not need two views of the same thing. I'm not exactly sure what it will look like but from what I can visualize the main features it will have is having to atoms on up cover all of what you call "evolution" even the origin of human intelligence that on a day to day basis works somehow too. A small program like that could be included with the new ID Lab software. Where I left off in the how it works (parts of to be used for Planet Source Code description text I needed to write before being ready to submit) needs to go into what the entire model looks like, as it relates to program forms/modules (Design, NavNet, IA, etc.) that each neatly contain some area of all that gets illustrated. From there the Theory of Intelligent Design pdf just goes into more information with the illustration you're tired of seeing all over, that does not show generation to generation but I think could. That would eliminate wording all that to those who think in code, who most want to know what all that looks like when programmed out.

The slippery-slope that starts at the EES theory published by the Royal Society just keeps on going and going until even Salvador ends up waving back to you as you go-by. And the lubricating illustration that it just happens to contain is too tempting for me to resist experimenting with. So I'll get right to it, then let you know when I have something you need to take a close look-at.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2015,07:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2015,13:00)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 18 2015,21:18)
Yes, if someone waves their hand over something complex and says, "the explanation for it is that it evolved" (or emerged), you have every right to respond that that's not much of an explanation, and you'd like more details before you buy into the explanation.  However, unlike "magic", emergence and evolution are both known processes with some well documented and well understood examples.

One reply later and we're studying the future features of "evolutionary theory" where I am relatively sure almost all will look at all the arrows in the circles around circles illustration that's in it and think "Huh?".

The programmed genome leads to all sorts of possibilities including a magic programmer there somewhere, at that stage of your evolutionary process. Especially where someone from the ID movement were explaining that part of the EES theory.

Although it surprisingly includes the vital "reciprocal causation" that exists the operational definition that is given goes into additional qualifying information than the standard definitions for it all over the internet have, which makes it a nonstandard operational definition. The ID theory does not drag that kind of baggage around. A reciprocal causation is a two directional flow (A influences B, B influences A) that can be either intelligent causation or unintelligent causation and which it is is tested by modeling (or at least determine how many requirements are needed to model the given reciprocating systems).

The evolutionary theory that even your Queen's scientists are now studying that in comparison to what was there before is rather revolutionary has a very serious case of the exact thing you like to warn about. And the only way to get rid of it to entirely disconnect from "Darwinian natural selection" straight onto a modeling method to in-silico demonstrate intelligent and/or unintelligent "reciprocal causation" events. Sal has for some time been the ruling ID expert on genome RAM, which makes it something you have to get more information on from the ID movement that has already gone into more detail than even I did for that part of the system in reciprocation with the behavior of matter and the cellular intelligence behavior that emerges from the genome built and maintained city-like cell. What is needed to rid it of what mucked up your operational definitions and at the same time make it useful for cognitive science and other fields already exists.

After thinking about what to do next, the most productive thing of them all that I can think of is code an algorithm that draws the reciprocal logic, also showing where Intelligent Causation is at in the biological picture and not (does not need to be). The way the drawing program has to loop a certain way to show the from generation to generation will sort out the arrows and not need two views of the same thing. I'm not exactly sure what it will look like but from what I can visualize the main features it will have is having to atoms on up cover all of what you call "evolution" even the origin of human intelligence that on a day to day basis works somehow too. A small program like that could be included with the new ID Lab software. Where I left off in the how it works (parts of to be used for Planet Source Code description text I needed to write before being ready to submit) needs to go into what the entire model looks like, as it relates to program forms/modules (Design, NavNet, IA, etc.) that each neatly contain some area of all that gets illustrated. From there the Theory of Intelligent Design pdf just goes into more information with the illustration you're tired of seeing all over, that does not show generation to generation but I think could. That would eliminate wording all that to those who think in code, who most want to know what all that looks like when programmed out.

The slippery-slope that starts at the EES theory published by the Royal Society just keeps on going and going until even Salvador ends up waving back to you as you go-by. And the lubricating illustration that it just happens to contain is too tempting for me to resist experimenting with. So I'll get right to it, then let you know when I have something you need to take a close look-at.

Hey Gary I think you might not be alone. It seems that plain fucked up science blog trolls might be more common than we think. Your's and their oeuvres could be a subject for a study of the online psyche ward. It would beat having to camp out at dumpsters in alleys for interview subjects. Are you sure this guy isn't your brother?

   
Quote
the event horizons are crated to no permit that appear singularities in the spacetime;but taking be the the variable spacetime curvatures,these singulaties not must occur,since that the manifold be a bitorus,interconected with two spacetimes with opposed orientations in 8-dimensions.then to beyond evennt horizons,have several continuos spacetime,each with speed of light,limit.then the
information falling in BH are conserved in each regions( different curvatures of spacetime,associated with "gravitational tension" and gravitational energy.
then the raditions that travel against the gravitational forces of the BH,are particles,virtually created as antiparticles,that travel forward in time,then are weekly radiations,that permit observer the differents times to the same event,when seen into of the event horizons and out of it.then the spacetime follow not an linear orientation,because with the increae of the speed there are differents spacetimes,being mensureds.the proper asymmetry of particles and antiparticles appear in the BH,through the alterations in the spacetime( discreteness and continuty),as the "preference" by the universe by particles and not by antiparticles.
these differences are in the primordial asymmetry that was created the matter and the jucton of spacetime as exchange dimensions,but conjugateds.


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2015,11:58   

Quote
One reply later and we're studying the future features of "evolutionary theory" where I am relatively sure almost all will look at all the arrows in the circles around circles illustration that's in it and think "Huh?".


That's what we've been saying with every post you make.

To reduce your verbiage to Shorter Gaulinese; "My god can beat your god".

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2015,12:17   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 18 2015,21:18)
Still delusional.  

How appropriate that page 500 begins with those two words.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2015,15:35   

Gaulin,

You keep taunting us about how well ID is doing and often refer to Casey Luskin, the Attack Gerbil.

Read and enjoy!

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/....ess....ess.com

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2015,18:41   

N.Wells, the circles and arrows did work out to make sense only way. I already have something on the screen. I'm now labeling and finishing up details to make it look marvelous. But I'm stuck unsure which way the name should be. I found four words that sum it all up real nice, but can be worded two ways:

"Reciprocal Causation Biological Model"

"Biological Reciprocal Causation Model"

Do you know which it should be? Anyone?

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2015,18:51   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 20 2015,15:35)
Gaulin,

You keep taunting us about how well ID is doing and often refer to Casey Luskin, the Attack Gerbil.

Read and enjoy!

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/....ess....ess.com

Before getting back to the science work, I just had to answer your enjoyable reply that linked me to an article on Ken Ham. He didn't like ID, so he's more on your side on that issue.
It looks like your url is missing detail, or something.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,03:29   

Quote
It looks like your url is missing detail, or something.


And we add "scrolling" to the Gaulin "Not-a-Dictionary".

The article below the Hambo one is the one about Luskin's Circus.

To help you, either go to the page and use your "scroll wheel" (in the centre between the "click" buttons) or observe the vertical "bar" on the right-hand side of the screen, "click" on the down arrow and you will get to the linked article.

Sorry if this is too technical and scientific for your limited creationist mind but Google can help with these terms.

To use Google enter the word "Google" into a search engine and use the "search" facility.... Damn getting too technical again.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,06:14   

Quote
...Ken Ham. He didn't like ID, so he's more on your side on that issue.


So even a fraud believes that "intelligent cause" is rubbish. Well, colour me shocked!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,19:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 21 2015,18:41)
N.Wells, the circles and arrows did work out to make sense only way. I already have something on the screen. I'm now labeling and finishing up details to make it look marvelous. But I'm stuck unsure which way the name should be. I found four words that sum it all up real nice, but can be worded two ways:

"Reciprocal Causation Biological Model"

"Biological Reciprocal Causation Model"

Do you know which it should be? Anyone?

A model of reciprocal causation in biology.
A model of reciprocal biological causation.


However, Larry's critique is valid - despite some improvement, that paper is still attacking a strawman view of the theory of evolution.  As Larry said, modern versions of evolutionary theory have for a long time already included neutral theory, random genetic drift, heirarchical theory, and coadapted development, among other concepts, in addition to mutation and natural selection, and it shouldn't overemphasize what happens in animals relative to plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and archaea.

Ham disapproves of ID for entirely different reasons that are incompatible with science, so, no, he's not on "our side".

  
paragwinn



Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,20:57   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 21 2015,16:41)
N.Wells, the circles and arrows did work out to make sense only way. I already have something on the screen. I'm now labeling and finishing up details to make it look marvelous. But I'm stuck unsure which way the name should be. I found four words that sum it all up real nice, but can be worded two ways:

"Reciprocal Causation Biological Model"

"Biological Reciprocal Causation Model"

Do you know which it should be? Anyone?

"For Entertainment Purposes Only"

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,02:08   

I have it!

Google Scholar will show that "Molecular Species" and "Genomic Species" are existing phrases for what's shown. It's so logically connected that following a given path provides the words and order needed to form a coherent sentence best explaining that order of events. Connecting the generations through "Speciation" makes it very specific for over long periods of time, which in turn makes "Evo" words unnecessary.



https://sites.google.com/site.......800.png

Drawing software is included in latest Preliminary code.
IDLab5-Preliminary.zip

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,03:52   

Sheesh Gary the scale is all wrong. HOW BIG IS A MOL??????? MORON

Use a Log scale.



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,04:32   

It looks like Gaulin received a "Join the Dots" book and scribbled all over it.

We also add "environment" and "mol" to the Gaulin Not-a-Dictionary.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,05:59   

Another useless diagram! Hooray!

Gary, pretend for a moment you've been asked onto a radio show to explain that diagram. Your audience has no access to pictures and might not be familiar with real-science.

Radio host: "So, Gary, in August of this year you produced a diagram outlining your theory. For the benefit of our listeners can you explain to them what it shows?"

Ready, Gary.....GO!

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,06:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 25 2015,03:08)
I have it!

Google Scholar will show that "Molecular Species" and "Genomic Species" are existing phrases for what's shown. It's so logically connected that following a given path provides the words and order needed to form a coherent sentence best explaining that order of events. Connecting the generations through "Speciation" makes it very specific for over long periods of time, which in turn makes "Evo" words unnecessary.



...

Oh goody, a new diagram.
This one is even more flawed than your previous cow-flop.

Molecules do not speciate.  Regardless of the existence of the phrase "Molecular Species", which has already been explained to you.  

There is no justification for labeling the line connecting molecule in row 2 to molecule in row 3 'Intelligent Cause'.  It is your most blatant attempt yet to smuggle your conclusion into your "theory", with no explanation, no justification, no logical coherence, and, as per your usual standard, absolutely no evidence.

The same, of course, applies to the connection from row 3 to row 4.

To claim that a diagram that includes the words 'Species', 'Genome', 'Genomic', 'Unicellular', and 'Multicellular' makes "Evo" words unnecessary is simply insane.

As already noted, your diagram is as useful as simply taking a 'connect the dots' book and drawing random circles all over it.  
Useless.
Epic fail, yet again.
If your work weren't so meaningless, it would be irrelevant.

What you have are fulminating delusions of comprehension.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,12:30   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 25 2015,03:08)
I have it!

Google Scholar will show that "Molecular Species" and "Genomic Species" are existing phrases for what's shown. It's so logically connected that following a given path provides the words and order needed to form a coherent sentence best explaining that order of events. Connecting the generations through "Speciation" makes it very specific for over long periods of time, which in turn makes "Evo" words unnecessary.



https://sites.google.com/site.......800.png

Drawing software is included in latest Preliminary code.
IDLab5-Preliminary.zip


   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,15:40   

Regular Text = Thing.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,16:44   

Next, Gary will come up with another loony idea after discovering that "canon" can refer to both photocopiers and biblical beliefs, and "reproduction" is something done by both photocopiers and organisms.  Throw in just one more thing and it's a Trinity, so clearly it's all god's way of making duplicates.

Gary, arrows are not explanations, chemical species are not biological species and do not speciate, and molecules are not intelligent.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,19:48   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 25 2015,14:44)
Next, Gary will come up with another loony idea after discovering that "canon" can refer to both photocopiers and biblical beliefs, and "reproduction" is something done by both photocopiers and organisms.  Throw in just one more thing and it's a Trinity, so clearly it's all god's way of making duplicates.

Gary, arrows are not explanations, chemical species are not biological species and do not speciate, and molecules are not intelligent.

Canon is also a musical structure. Trifecta achieved.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,20:48   

Maybe the small circles are further away.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,03:42   

Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 26 2015,04:48)
Maybe the small circles are further away.

only if the arrows are pointing the wrong way...or to each other...maybe just replace the arrows with circles and make a note on the scale ...F major should work.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,06:19   

I need to give-up on these assholes.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,06:28   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 26 2015,04:42)
Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 26 2015,04:48)
Maybe the small circles are further away.

only if the arrows are pointing the wrong way...or to each other...maybe just replace the arrows with circles and make a note on the scale ...F major should work.

No, no -- the is Gary "epic fail" Gaulin.
The 'intelligent' key choice is G flat minor.
All the chords are diminished.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,06:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 26 2015,07:19)
I need to give-up on these assholes.

Typical resounding defense of your absurdist notions.

How many years have you been using this ridiculous retort in response to perfectly legitimate critiques of your effluent?
Precisely as many years as you have failed to follow through.
That seems to be the only bit of consistency in your output.

Oh, a completely different thought occurs.  Perhaps you need to give up on other assholes now that you've given up on your own?  You're certainly so full of shit that a sewn-up asshole is the only possible explanation.  It leaks out of your every orifice except the proper one.
Is that why you "theory" is actually low-grade toilet paper?

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,06:35   

Quote (NoName @ Aug. 26 2015,06:28)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 26 2015,04:42)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 26 2015,04:48)
Maybe the small circles are further away.

only if the arrows are pointing the wrong way...or to each other...maybe just replace the arrows with circles and make a note on the scale ...F major should work.

No, no -- the is Gary "epic fail" Gaulin.
The 'intelligent' key choice is G flat minor.
All the chords are diminished.

That explains the "mol". Spelt properly (with the double l) it's the German for "minor" as applied to musical scales.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,09:03   

Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 25 2015,18:48)
Maybe the small circles are further away.


OMG GG's invented the Time Tunnel!

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,09:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 26 2015,14:19)
I need to give-up on these assholes.



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,10:03   

Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 26 2015,09:03)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 25 2015,18:48)
Maybe the small circles are further away.


OMG GG's invented the Time Tunnel!

I can see a distinct similarity with a henge complex in Northern England ( Thornborough Henges ) and am going to assert a Design Inference

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 495 496 497 498 499 [500] 501 502 503 504 505 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]