Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Since it's been so long... evolution!

This is topic Since it's been so long... evolution! in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/485.html

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Hey Omega...

I was watching a special on the Biblical flood when my father came up with a simple bit of data that disproves the Creationist theory of "sediment sorting" That bit they use to try to explain why the fossils aren't all in one layer, or whatever you called it. Ready?

Coal seams.

Since all coal is essentially identical, being made from various plant materials, if sediment sorting via the Flood were true, it should all have been laid down in one layer. But it isn't. Around here, it's easy to spot two coal seams with layers and layers of other sediment between them.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Only if all the plants were the same type. Density differences are definitely possible with huge trees and undergrowth. It's also possible that some of the plants (undergrowth) died immediately, but the large trees lasted longer, and stayed standing longer, thus forming another layer.

Admittedly, I don't have the best grasp of the hydrosorting theory possible, so I'm not the best person to defend it.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Except that we know from studying coal seam fossils that the plants were many different types, from ferns to light reedy bushes to trees, within the same seam. And that explanation still doesn't account for more than two seams. There are places around here where you can find four, five, even six separate seams. Or oil and gas fields.

Personally, I think the theory's hard to 'explain to the layman' because it's about as well thought-out and reasoned as the Time Cube. But that's just me.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited June 29, 2000).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Fair enough.

I know so little about it that I don't want to declare it valid or invalid either way. If you've got a problem with it, I'm not the guy to talk to.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

All the 'Creationist' theories I've seen always have facts accompanying that prove them wrong.

------------------
"The lies I told are not falsehoods according to my definition of truth." Bill Clinton
"All stupid people are liberals, because they don't know any better." Rob Rodehorst
"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" - Dilbert, Scott Adams

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

Err one question on the evolution theory. Imagine if Jesus (or Moses or whoever) was trotting down the local dirt path and a T-rex decided to have lunch. Since the world is some few thousand years old, you'd think the holy texts would have some information or ongoing reference to these creatures.

------------------
"Remeber, if there is a nuclear explosion, be sure to close your windows as the massive heat could cause objects within your home to catch fire".

Wise, wise words.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

naah, they generally consider the dinosaurs as having been wiped out in the Flood, (except for the ones Noah saved?) with maybe a few surviving later to create the legends of Behemoth and Leviathan. Apparently, though, they didn't do as well as every other species.

And we still don't know where all the water went.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

The basic theory on the dinosarus (at least the one I currently subscribe to) is that they still exist (or at least existed until relatively recently), but they just don't grow as big. Reptiles grow throughout their lives, and if humans lived centuries upon centuries before the flood, there's no reason to think that everything else didn't, as well. Thus huge reptiles.

And all the water is still in the oceans. It convered the earth because the antedeluvian continents were lower that the current ones.

And I would point out to Jeff that I have yet to see any theory that could explain how the world/life/the universe could have come about that holds water.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited June 30, 2000).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

*ahem* Dinosaurs are *not* reptiles. They have been proven time and again to be warm-blooded, much more like birds.

If the world was indeed covered with water at one point, shouldn't the entire continents be covered with sedimentary rock?

If the world is only 3000-4000 years old, then explain this: The sun is so dense that it takes 10,000 years for a single photon inside it to bounce its way out and on its way here(Discover Magazine, sometime last year). How are we seeing the light from the sun now?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"If the world was indeed covered with water at one point, shouldn't the entire continents be covered with sedimentary rock?"

Not when you account for volcanic activity over the past few thousand years.

"Dinosaurs are *not* reptiles. They have been proven time and again to be warm-blooded, much more like birds."

Oh. Well, then, ignore that part of the theory. It doesn't really matter.

"How are we seeing the light from the sun now?"

You're assuming that the sun has always been as it is. That's something a lot of evolutionists do with a lot of things.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

... and something a lot of Creationists do with a lot of things, too, in certain feeble attempts to explain why the universe HAS to be young. Like your old 'short-lived comets' and 'moon receding from Earth' theories.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

There's a big difference between assuming a value remains constant and assuming that the rate of change remains relatively constant.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Don't forget the bogus "the speed of light constant is speeding up" theory.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You never did explain why you thought that the evidence didn't fit that general theory.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

Wasn't the theory that Earth was only 4000 or so years old disproved eons ago? Watch "Inherit the Wind." Awesome movie except for two extremely annoying songs.

------------------
"One more day before the storm
At the barricades of freedom!
When our ranks begin to form
Will you take your place with me?"
--Enjolras, "One Day More," Les Miserables

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Closer to 7,000, and no. There's no evidence that it has to be much older. The only reason that that's believed is because it's the only way that evolution works.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Strange. Last time this came up I thought that Simon and First (and others) gave us a bucket load of information saying that the Earth is older than 7,000 years. I guess you blinked.

------------------
"I can't believe we're actually gonna meet Guru Lou. Everyone says he's the wisest man in the universe. He's sensitive, creative, has a great sense of humour, and he's a really smooth dancer. *giggles*"
"You're confused Polly. We're not meeting Paul Newman."
- Polly & Speedy; Samurai Pizza Cats

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Not that much, actually, and all of it I refuted.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

The "slowing speed of light" theory is refuted by several simple realizations:

1.) You can see. Since our cones and rods are constant during our lifetimes, if the speed of lite changes, the wavelengths of light reaching our eyes would change, and we would no longer see in regular light.

2.) Light is simply one form of electromagnetic radiation, which includes IR, UV, and Micro- and Radio waves. If C slows down, so would all the other forms of radiation... and nothing we have based on these technologies could function.

3.) The assumed "variations" in the speed of light generally noted by proponents of the theory are FAR more likely to be generated by the varying sensitivity of the instruments and measurements used to determine light's speed. The speed they got in 1800 using reflectivity is NOT going to be the speed they get in 1995 using the vibrations of an atom. They could also be created using flaws in the original data, see "Vulcan" and "Planet X." below.

Vulcan: Hypothetical planet once presumed to exist between Mercury and the Sun, due to perceived variations between Mercury's predicted orbit and actual appearances. However, Mercury's variations were actually produced by the gravitational warping of space near the sun (See: Einstein's theory of Relativity -- which, by the way, also depend on C being constant), and thusly Vulcan was discarded.

Planet X: Hypothesized due to apparent variations in the orbit of Neptune. Led to the discovery of Pluto, but Pluto was far too small to account for the variations, so astronomers spent years looking for "Planet X." It is now virtually a certainty that the percieved variations were due to imperfect measurements of Neptune's location, speed, mass, etc.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

1) Not quite. Speed is the product of wavelength and frequency. As you pointed out, since we can all see, the wavelength must be constant. I'm under the impression that it was frequency that determined what color you saw, so I'll modify your claim slightly. Correct me if I'm wrong. So frequency must reamian constant, while according to my theory, speed decreases. If wavelength decreased, while frequency remains the same, then speed would decrease, while having no detrimental inpact on vision. No proof, but no problem, either.

2) "If C slows down, so would all the other forms of radiation... and nothing we have based on these technologies could function."

Why, praytell, not? Why is, say, a radio transmitter dependant on the speed of light remaining at a specific value?

3) "The assumed "variations" in the speed of light generally noted by proponents of the theory are FAR more likely to be generated by the varying sensitivity of the instruments and measurements used to determine light's speed."

As I pointed out when this first came up, the variations were well outside the margin of error for the instruments in use. There were cases in which the same scientists used the exact same tools decades later and STILL registered a decrease far greater than could be accounted for by the margin of error.

It comes to mind that since SI is now entirely defined by atomic vibrations and the wavelength of light (with the exception of the platinum block in Paris that defines the kilogram), if neither is constant, then a meter is gradually getting longer, as is a second.

"The speed they got in 1800 using reflectivity is NOT going to be the speed they get in 1995 using the vibrations of an atom."

This brings up another point. The data gathered in the last fifty years or so was gathered with atomic clocks. This is only valid if you assume that the vibrational frequency of any given atom is constant. If the speed of light and vibrational frequency were both decreasing at the same rate, then by measuring C using tools based around the vibrational frequency of an atom, you're obviously going to get the same answer every time. So is there any reason to assume that C and the vibrational frequency of whatever atom they use in atomic clocks are not both decreasing at the same rate?

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Oh, and relativity only states that all light in the universe, regardless of your POV, is traveling at the same speed. It doesn't say that C can't vary with time, just that C can't vary with position and relative velocity.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

So, we're given a choice between light remaining constant and light slowing down, eh? Though it seems that any facts presented here just go screaming down the gullet of that dark beast that sleeps behind our brainstems, I suppose I'll try.

On the one hand, we have the statement that c is constant in all reference frames. This includes time. Remember, it was Einstein who introduced the concept of space and time being the exact same thing. If light must be a constant speed in all spatial reference frames, then it necessarily follows that it does so in all temporal ones as well.

On the other, we have a value of c that, per Omega, remains constant in all spatial frames but not all temporal ones. Ignoring for the moment whether this is actually possible or not, under what circumstances can this occur? What mechanism exists that effects light simultaneously everywhere in the universe, causing it to slow? Remember that any such mechanism must be traveling instantaneously, and hence violates relativity, unless you are willing to start invoking bizarre quantum effects. (You could, for instance, state that every photon in the universe is entangled with every other one, as in the experiments performed recently regarding the phenomenon of quantum teleportation. However, were this so, anything that affects one photon does so to all of them. Seeing as how the entire universe doesn't shift when I reflect my flashlight off a mirror, this does not seem to hold water.)

So ultimately, we have one theory that demands a constant velocity of c. This theory has had all of its parts tested rigorously for the past century, and seems to be as accurate as we can make it. On the other, we have a demand for slowing c, unsupported by any evidence, demanding some sort of unobserved mechanism that violates physics as we currently understand it. Now I ask you, which is more likely to be correct?

------------------
But the dead only quickly decay. They don't go about being born and reborn and rising and falling like souffle. The dead only quickly decay.
--
Gothic Archies
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! For the love of God, Montressor!

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

The one proposed by the person who knows the difference between something being effected & something being affected.

------------------
"Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel

Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :

I'm just going to start out and say that the earth is far older then 7,000 years old. Why do we know this because of a little something called carbon dating. So the whole comment about the need for an older earth so that evolution works is bogus. Things don't just happen. The all mighty power created the universe with the big bang and then let it grow on its own. The bible can hardly be called an accurate document. There are flaws, Noah's ark would collapse under it's own weight, The flood would have left hugh amounts of evidence of which there is none. Those are just the more apparent ones.

------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

Ack! HEATHENS. BURN THEM! BURN THEM ALL! How dare you conradict the allmighty? String him up! He's a witch!

(Yes, there is a point to the above).

------------------
"Remeber, if there is a nuclear explosion, be sure to close your windows as the massive heat could cause objects within your home to catch fire".

Wise, wise words.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"Noah's ark would collapse under it's own weight"

This is based on the assumption that we know exactly what it was made of, and its EXACT design, which we don't.

"The flood would have left hugh amounts of evidence of which there is none"

Look at the bottom of the Atlantic sometime.

"What mechanism exists that effects light simultaneously everywhere in the universe, causing it to slow?"

You have to look at it another way. Think of the spacial universe as a cube (sphere, whatever) traveling at c (whatever that may be) through time. In this model, a photon only exists at one point in time. The universe hits the photon, and it appears to travel through the universe at c, when it's really the universe traveling through the photon (from our current frame of reference). This model seems to fit in pretty well with the superstring theory, as I understand it. Now your question becomes "Why would the universe slow down in time?" My response is that the question should be "Why would the universe remain at a constant speed through time?" Disorder will always increase. Things decay. Why would the universe taken all together not follow the same law?

"unsupported by any evidence"

Wrong. Quite a bit of evidence, as I've pointed out.

Tec:

"a little something called carbon dating"

You might want to find out how radiocarbon dating works sometime. It's another time that evolutionists assume a value to have always been constant, when there's good reason to assume it hasn't.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

"This is based on the assumption that we know exactly what it was made of, and its EXACT design, which we don't."

Ummmm.....I don't think it's that difficult to figure out what materials comprised the ark's constructions. At the time, there were only a few viable construction materials: wood, stone, copper (bronze), & reed derivatives like the Egyptians used.

I'm fairly sure we can discount stone & bronze--they don't float very well. Reed derivatives don't have any real structural stability to support the weight/mass of 1 pair each of all the world's fauna plus Noah's family......that pretty much leaves wood.

------------------
"Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Oh my, a syntax critique! Oh, I am wounded to the very quick! I think I shall have to run home now and never ever show my virtual face again!

Wait, I am home. And affect/effect has long been my achilles heel. Along with its/it's. Also, I really don't care.

"You have to look at it another way."

I see. So light doesn't really move in Nature's Harmonic Four Day Time Cube? Perfect sense. You didn't happen to learn about string theory and thermodynamics from the same source, did you?

"Quite a bit of evidence, as I've pointed out."

To borrow a page from your book, I can't remember you pointing out a single bit of evidence anywhere ever that was not refuted.

"It's another time that evolutionists assume a value to have always been constant, when there's good reason to assume it hasn't."

You might want to take your own advice and learn what radiocarbon dating is used for. Here's a hint, not for dating rocks.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Heh...good retort to my anality, Sol!

But who wants to date rocks? Sure, they're cheap, don't ask for much, & never really have "issues"....but you can't really dress 'em up & take 'em anywhere..& they're really piss-poor sexually...not to MENtion all the bitching about "erosion" this & "mining" that....

------------------
"Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

About the Ark... well, given what we DO "know" about it, given the dimensions and construction materials in the "unerring" Bible, It's actually quite clear.

Listen, if ANYBODY possessed the technology to make ships as big as the ark is supposed to have been, the Spanish would have found a way to make ships just as big (and using slightly more modern materials) to bring gold back from the new world. But they didn't. Because the technology doesn't exist. There has always been (and still is) an upper limit to how big wooden ships can be. But the Bible writers, being primarily landlubbers, didn't know that.

And if go all Atlantean on us and suggest some 'lost supertechnology' that only Noah possessed, I swear I'll slap you.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Shik:

The point is that we don't know what KIND of wood. No one knows what this "gopher" wood was. It's easily possible that all the "gopher" trees are gone now, and thus we can't know its structural properties.

Sol:

If you have a problem with my model, point it out. Your previous pointless statements about it I shall ignore, as they serve no purpose.

"I can't remember you pointing out a single bit of evidence anywhere ever that was not refuted."

Trrevor Norman and Barry Setterfield, "The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time", self-published, 1987.

T.C. Van Flandern, "Is the Gravitational Constant Changing?", The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 248, 1 Sept. 1981, pp. 813-816.

"You might want to take your own advice and learn what radiocarbon dating is used for. Here's a hint, not for dating rocks."

Did I ever IMPLY that I thought it was for dating rocks?

"given the dimensions and construction materials in the "unerring" Bible"

Having the dimensions and having a detailed blueprint are hardly the same thing, and as I've pointed out, we don't know the structural properties of the material used to build the thing.

I certainly hope that an extinct species of tree doesn't constitute a lost supertechnology.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"If you have a problem with my model, point it out."

Point out that it is complete and utter nonsense, with absolutely no connection to reality and that the only difference between it and Gene Ray's more lucid rantings is its brevity?

"Trrevor Norman and Barry Setterfield, "The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time", self-published, 1987."

Oh boy, the theory of c-decay! Uh, you do realize that Barry Setterfield's work was so full of holes that the Institute of Creation Research itself rejected it in 1988 in their "Acts and Facts" publication? Or that, as I recall, First and I posted long lists of everything that was wrong with the theory the last time we went through this?

I must confess I haven't been able to find any reference to the other article you've cited. The journal in question only has an online catalouge extending back to 1996.

"Did I ever IMPLY that I thought it was for dating rocks?"

"It's another time that evolutionists assume a value to have always been constant, when there's good reason to assume it hasn't."

Well, seeing as how you imply that in this sentence that radiocarbon dating provides support for the evolutionary model, when in fact it can't measure dates much beyond...gosh...12,000 years, isn't it? At any rate, hardly enough to be a cornerstone of the model.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

That's not a legitimate problem. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't work. Now if you COULD point out a legitimate problem, I'd be glad to change my tune.

'Bout the only thing First posted on this last time was that some guy did a study with hardly any mathematics involved with the specific intention to derive a curve from the legitimately obtained data points that fit his theories. You all seemed to think that if someone uses data to draw in illegitimate conclusion, that makes the data themselves illegitimate. Obviously not a valid conclusion.

Again, I never implied that carbon dating was good for dating rocks, nor for greater than 10 millenia or so. Tec seemed to think that. And the date being accurate DOES rely on the amount of C14(?) in the atmosphere remaining constant.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

I really don't see the point of this thread any more. Isn't it clear to any of you now that no matter what evidence you can bring up, no one on the other side is going to believe it even if it's true? As for Omega, you seem to think believing in Creationism and some biblical miracles is all that's required to convert "unbelievers" (I hate that word. It's alienation verbalized). Is Creation more important than "love thy neighbors"?

By all means, keep arguing.

------------------
"One more day before the storm
At the barricades of freedom!
When our ranks begin to form
Will you take your place with me?"
--Enjolras, "One Day More," Les Miserables

[This message has been edited by Tora Ziyal (edited July 04, 2000).]

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

No. Keep arguing.

For one, it's hugely entertaining.

For another, they're actually bringin out evidence. okay, so it's evidence that's almost two decades old in some cases, but who says that when quoting sources to back up your argument, you should try and quote recent studies. No-one. Ever.

And finally, I read something First posts without having to eat my hand to stop from screaming "Just let go of the bloody gun thing. Just once!"

But to summerise, in one corner we have Simon Sizer, FirstIdon'tknowhisrealnameofTwo, and Einstein. And in the other, we have Omega. I'm siding with the guys who are old enough to have sex. Plus Simon's surname is very similar to one of the hardest bad-ass Pokemon there is.

*opens a can of larger and sits back* Carry on!

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I must agree with Ziyal. There's not much point to this anymore.

But...

"Is Creation more important than "love thy neighbors"?"

Hey, "love thy neighbor" and "don't try to convince your neighbor that he's wrong" are two seperate things.

And who says I'm not old enough, Liam?

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Er, you did when you said you were 15. Or did I imagne that? (Possibly due to some form of evil drug. Wait, they're all evil. Especially the social ones.)

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Very good. Now go read a book. Preferably "Brave New World."

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Canadian bacon is called that because it's made from Canadians. And while I'm on the subject, could you people cut back on the fish and rodents and eat more fruits and berries? It would vastly improve your flavor, in my opinion." - Simon Sizer

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I tried that one. Couldn't get through it. Half way through the book was all I got, and I couldn't get any further. There didn't seem to be any real plot...

And I believe my legal status as to sex is dependant upon the age of my hypothetical partner.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Er, it is? In which world exactly?

(We got out of reading Brave New World. That was the other English class. We got 1984, which was much better.)

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

You'd think that reading 1984 would help someone understand the necessity of the private ownership of guns.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Hell, I learned it from reading about the Inquisition and such... imagine if someone had opened up on Torquemada's men with an AK-47...

*chuckles with glee*

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

Thanks, Liam. Now I'm gonna start calling Sol "Simon Scyther."

------------------
"One more day before the storm
At the barricades of freedom!
When our ranks begin to form
Will you take your place with me?"
--Enjolras, "One Day More," Les Miserables

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, since the laws vary from state to state...

But I'm just going by what I overheard a thirteen year old talking about.

Yeah, 1984 was COOL! Love that sense of all-enveloping evil. The illegitimate sequel wasn't all that good, though.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

There was an illegitimate sequel?

And BNW is one odd book. The plot is basically non-existant, although it does come into its own two-thirds of the way in.

------------------
"Truth about Santa Claus debunks Santa God. God evolves from Santa."
-Gene Ray, http://www.timecube.com

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Actually, you'd think reading 1984 would show how private ownership of guns wouldn't help if there really WAS a global (or at least one-third global three times over) conspiracy to turn you all into unquestioning slaves. I assume that the people in the books had guns in the fictional 1950's, and that didn't help, did it?

Tora: too bad he isn't as hard as Scyther. Hell, he's barely a Weedle. And I have heard from some sources that Likitung bears some resembelence to Frank.

Me? I'm Bulby.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

It also shows why a powerful government is a bad thing. Once it dumbs the people down enough, they'll turn over their weapons voluntarily.

1985, by Gyorgy Dalos. Good luck finding it.

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I thought the theme of 1984 was: "Life sucks, politics suck, socialism sucks, capitalism sucks, even sex sucks. I hate you."

You know, I should get a job doing this.

Burmese Days: "Hi, I'm British. God, we're a bunch of right bastards, aren't we?"

Animal Farm: "Ooh, I'd really like to punch Lenin in the face. Wouldn't you? And socialism and capitalism both still suck."

Brave New World: "The future sucks. Or does it? Hell if I know. Ooh, LSD!"