Thursday, May 11, 2006

Google Trends

Monday, May 08, 2006

HAHAHA STuPiD Gay ass Christians!!!

Can Matter be Explained in Terms

Can Matter be Explained in Terms
of Consciousness?


In recent years, researchers have made great progress toward identifying physical activities in the brain that correlate with conscious experiences such as thoughts and other mental activities. But, even if every known function of consciousness can be paired with parallel matter-energy transfers in the brain, and those events detailed down to the level of quantum processes, as scientists like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff are attempting to do, will we really have explained consciousness? This essay questions whether the results of such research can lead to a definitive explanation of consciousness, and proposes an alternative approach as a complement to these efforts. While research into the details of neurological processes and quantum brain dynamics is very worthwhile, the parallel functions approach is an attempt to explain consciousness in terms of matter and energy. It may well be that consciousness can never be explained in this way. This argument is supported by evidence that consciousness is the ground of all phenomena, rather than an abstract epiphenomenon of matter, and by showing that any attempt to identify consciousness with specific physical structures leads to an infinite descent that ends in logical contradiction.

Most scientists trained in the current paradigm believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of material evolution. They argue that the universe evolved for billions of years before life and consciousness began to appear. This view of consciousness, like any other scientific theory, has its a priori assumptions, and the first step in the formal presentation of a scientific theory is to enumerate the a priori assumptions upon which the theory is based. Surprisingly, there is one assumption, perhaps the most basic assumption of all in the current scientific paradigm, that is rarely ever articulated. This is because it seems to be so obviously true that most scientists see no need to include it explicitly in the written accounts of their work. This rarely-mentioned assumption is the assumption that physical reality is independent of consciousness.

In the formulation of the theory of relativity, for example, Albert Einstein spelled out the assumptions of constant light speed and no preferred reference frame, but saw no need to mention mind-matter independence. Einstein was certainly aware of this underlying assumption, but to find his acknowledgement of it, we have to turn to his more general writings. In James Clerke Maxwell: A Commemorative Volume, he said: "The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science."

Those who believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter usually consider the identification and understanding of the physical structures and electro-chemical processes that are associated with perception and thought to be the only "explanation" of consciousness possible. While this approach seems reasonable, it is based upon the a priori assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of a material reality that existed prior to, and independent of consciousness. What if this assumption is wrong? Quantum mechanics has produced strong evidence that it is wrong. It may even be that consciousness is a more basic aspect of reality than matter and energy or space and time. If so, we are more likely to be able to successfully explain the material universe in terms of consciousness, rather than the other way round as most scientists have been trying to do.


In the last ten years or so, an impressive amount of careful, detailed research has successfully correlated many neurophysiological structures and complexes with processes and experiences associated with consciousness. Certain features of physical reality at the quantum level, revealed by Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiment, especially nonlocality and complementarity, suggest to some researchers that the functioning of consciousness can best be explained in terms of quantum brain dynamics. For example, Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, in their paper Orchestrated Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: a Model for Consciousness, presented at the conference, Toward a Science of Consciousness (1996, Tucson II), argued that quantum processes, including the much discussed quantum-wave collapse, can affect larger-scale physical structures, like the brain. They proposed the hypothesis that such effects are found in the form of orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) of cyctoskeletal microtubules in the brain. They concluded that "Orch Or in brain microtubules is the most specific and plausible model for consciousness yet proposed." This orchestrated objective reduction, is thought to be based on nonlocal entanglement of quanta, resulting in a quantum-level coherence that can sweep through the brain giving rise to a global awareness, i.e., the functioning of consciousness.

It would seem that knowledge of the physical processes associated with consciousness, from the firing of neurons down to the last quantum interaction, should bring us literally to the "bottom" line. But does the identification of micro-structures and quantum processes related to conscious mental activities really explain consciousness? Identifying the connection between quantum processes and brain functions may yield valuable practical applications in biology, medicine and psychology, but does it bring us any closer to understanding what consciousness is? Or are we, in fact, still where Leibnitz was three hundred years ago when he said that even if we could magnify a human being to the point that we could walk inside and observe every moving part, we still would not find anything called consciousness? Can consciousness be explained in terms of matter and energy, or is there another way to approach the problem that may lead to a deeper understanding of the relationship between mind and matter?


The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox was a thought experiment designed to demonstrate failure of the uncertainty principle in the case of the creation of a pair of twin particles and the subsequent determination of certain physical characteristics of the particles at some distance from the point of their creation. The logic of the situation described by Einstein, et al, was inescapable. If the particles were actual physical entities, like tiny baseballs traveling through space at less than light speed, the uncertainty principle failed. Bohr's response was that it is incorrect to think of quanta as localized phenomena with paths through space. They only exhibit such effects when they impinge upon physical obstacles or receptors, irreversibly making their presence known in a way that could be observed and recorded in the mind of an observer. Einstein found this explanation totally unacceptable on the grounds that it violated the theory of relativity and the common sense assumption that sub-atomic paricles are localized bits of matter with definite physical characteristics, even if we cannot observe them directly. If Bohr's explanation was wrong, the uncertainty principle was wrong, and the whole fabric of quantum theory would fall apart. But quantum theory, with the uncertainty principle as an integral part continued to predict experimental results with great accuracy. This was indeed a paradox.

If elementary particles travel through space as localized phenomena, as EPR (and common sense) insist, then it is easy to show that the correlation between a pair of particles in an EPR-type experiment cannot exceed a specific numerical value. John Bell was able to show mathematically that if Bohr was right, that value would be exceeded. Experiments carried out by Clauser and Freedman, Aspect, and others, have proved that Einstein was wrong; Bohr was correct. As John Wheeler has said: "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon." This startling conclusion has been born out by a number of experiments, including the so-called 'delayed-choice' experiment.

In the classical two-slit experiment, light is shown to have both particle and wave characteristics. A barrier with two slits in it is placed between a light source and a blank screen. When both slits are open, interference patterns are observed on the screen, demonstrating the wave nature of light. By closing one of the slits, the experimenter can cause the light to behave as particles, striking the screen one at a time, creating a single patch of light, scattered around a point directly behind the open slit. In the delayed-choice experiment, the solid screen is replaced by a venetian-blind screen that can be opened or closed after an emitted photon has had time to pass the slits, but before it reaches the screen. Two particle collectors are placed behind the screen, one in line with the light source and the left slit, the other in line with the source and the right slit. If a photon is emitted and the venetian-blind screen is left open, the photon registers in one collector or the other, indicating a linear path through one of the slits. If the venetian-blind screen is closed after the photon, traveling as a particle, would have passed through one of the slits, the photon strikes the screen, contributing to an interference pattern developing there. In this way, the photon is induced to act as a wave or a particle by a choice made after it has passed the slitted barrier. Thus we can decide, after the fact, whether a photon behaved as a wave or as a particle. This demonstrates the fact that elementary phenomena like photons do not exist as localized particles or waves until they register by impacting upon a receptor.


Verification of Bohr's view, known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, raises an even more interesting question: How do we know that quanta, the building blocks of physical reality, exist before registering in the consciousness of an observer? Common sense, i.e., our normal, every-day experience of things, prompts us to think that they must, but this is the same common-sense idea that led to the EPR paradox. The famous Schrödinger's cat conundrum illustrates the difficulty of this question. The cat's state (dead or alive) depends upon the collapse of a wave function to form a physical quantum from a decaying radioactive source in a box containing the cat and a vial of poison that will be released when the quantum registers. If the cat, poison and radioactive source are all part of a quantum mechanical system, what constitutes registration? Does the registration of the quantum triggering the release have to wait for a conscious observer? Is the cat a conscious observer?

Schrödinger did not believe that the Copenhagen interpretation could possibly be correct, and the purpose of this thought experiment was to show just how ridiculous it was. Now, however, we know that the Copenhagen interpretation is correct! The problem of when and how the quantum wave collapse occurs is even more critical if we accept John Von Neumann's conclusion in his classic work, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, that no logical physical separation is possible between quantum systems and classical physical objects. If quanta do not exist until they register as effects on a receptor, and we have no way of knowing of them until evidence of their effects is received in our consciousness via a chain of quanta and receptors, how are we to know whether they exist or not, without the presence of consciousness?

Belief in the independent existence of physical phenomena is a basic assumption of the current scientific paradigm. Is there any way to determine whether or not we should abandon this belief? Fortunately, we don't have to base our decision on belief. We can use the scientific method to testing our hypothesis and determine whether it is true or false. We can form a hypothesis from the belief in an external world independent of consciousness by noting that if this belief is true, the material world would exist pretty much as we perceive it, with or without the existence of consciousness. But now we have a problem: This is not a scientific hypothesis — It cannot be verified or falsified because we can't observe a universe without an observer.

Current observations suggest that billions of years of physical evolution passed before conditions favorable for organic life arose, and therefore, perhaps the universe did exist without consciousness, and still does, in distant galaxies and lifeless planets in our own solar system. This argument, however, is spurious because it assumes that the only possible form of consciousness is that associated with life as we know it.

To assure the proper application of the scientific method, we must guard against closing our minds to possibilities other than those implied by the assumptions of our current paradigm. If we insist on staying within the current paradigm of scientific materialism, we are stuck. The belief in the independence of the material world remains just that -- a belief. But what about the converse? Can the belief that the material world IS NOT independent of consciousness be turned into a scientific hypothesis and tested? Is it possible that the physical universe and consciousness are interdependent?

Suppose, for a moment, that consciousness is the organizing agent that creates all structure in the universe. Without it, the second law of thermodynamics, known to operate in closed physical systems, would soon bring the universe to maximum entropy. There would be no structure or order distinguishing any part of the universe from any other part. If consciousness is the organizing agent behind all structure, then trying to understand consciousness by analyzing the physical structure of the brain is like trying to determine the meaning of a symbol such as the letter 'A', a word, or a mathematical symbol by analyzing the physical properties of the ink and the paper upon which the symbol is printed.


Nearly all physicists now accept Bohr's interpretation as the correct understanding of quantum mechanics. Most, however, are not ready to admit that acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation necessitates acknowledging involvement of consciousness in quantum processes. The logical ramifications of the Copenhagen interpretation, however, force us to consider the possibility that reality is not consciousness independent.

Consider the psychoparallelism described by Von Neumann: The act of observation divides the world into two parts: the observer and the observed. The flow of information is traced, through the mechanism of reflected elementary particles (photons), from the object to the receptive structures of the eye of the observer, and then, through the optic nerve and brain, a series of elementary particles (electrons) carry the information to the consciousness of the observer. Finally, the observer's conscious perception involves the creation of mental images that 'parallel' features existing in the external world.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires that a moving elementary particle has no localized form until it impacts upon a receptor. And information is carried from the object to the observer by a series of sources, particles, and receptors. But what is the final receptor? If it is a physical structure, it is by definition made of elementary particles, and if the energy of the incoming quanta is absorbed by physical particles, how can we account for the image of the object of observation that arises in consciousness? Is it composed of energy? If so, there is a minimum volume within which the image of an object can appear and be stored, since energy can only occur in quanta, or discrete, finite packets. What is the consciousness that perceives this image? Is it also made up of quanta of matter and energy? If so, then the elementary particles of which it is composed also had no local physical form until they registered on a prior receptor. And that prior receptor, if it was composed of quanta of matter and energy, also had to have had a prior receptor, and so on. Thus the quest for the first receptor becomes an infinite regression in time and space. But time and space are finite in the physical world and there is, therefore, a "bottom" to physical phenomena, the infinite regress or descent is impossible, and we have a logical contradiction. Conclusion: the final receptor and the images it perceives are not composed of quanta of matter and energy.

This is the same logical contradiction discovered by the inner research of mystics as they seek to discover the nature and location of the self. See, for instance, the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. The mystic asks: Who am I? and where does this "I" reside? Attempting to locate the perceiving self, one soon realizes that any part of the physical body, the head, heart, brain, etc., identified as the location of the self, immediately becomes an object perceived by the self, and the perceiving subject is therefore something other than the structure. The conclusion, again, is that consciousness is something beyond matter and energy.

Given this conclusion, we can no longer maintain the assumption of scientific materialism, i.e., that reality consists of nothing but matter and energy interacting in time and space. No one can deny the fact that consciousness exists; we all experience it directly. But the separation of reality into the observer and the observed and the logic of infinite descent forces us to conclude that consciousness cannot be composed of quanta of matter or energy. In order to continue in an objective, scientific manner, we must therefore abandon the limiting assumption of materialism and allow non-quantum consciousness to take its place as real, right along with matter and energy.

What is the nature of this conscious non-quantum receptor? The great difficulty in answering this question lies in the fact that it is, by definition, the very essence of awareness, the principle that allows sentient beings to exist in such a way as to be able to ask this question in the first place. We can begin, however, by identifying the basic functions of consciousness: The primary function of drawing distinctions, first between self and other, and then in what it perceives to be other than itself. The secondary function of consciousness is to organize those distinctions into logical structure and order.

Some of the innate features of consciousness that we can identify include:

  • Continuity - Consciousness exhibits infinite divisibility, or continuity, distinguishing it from the discreet quanta of matter and energy.
  • Nonlocality - Because of its inherent continuity, consciousness is able to perceive phenomena ranging from a single quantum to objects composed of many distinct parts. This awareness suggests that the form of consciousness in which images are formed is connected, comprising a unified whole.
  • Complementarity - Consciousness and the physical universe are complementary aspects of the reality we experience, since they are both necessary for that experience to occur.
  • Uncertainty - The identification of consciousness with a structure of matter and energy, e.g., the body through which it perceives the physical universe, gives rise to uncertainty because of the limitations of knowledge imposed by the boundaries of that which is perceived to encompass the self.

With Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiment, quantum physics has revealed that the quantum level of reality exhibits the last three of these features.

At first it may seem curious that some of the features of consciousness are necessary features of the physical universe at the quantum level. On the other hand, if consciousness is actually the ground of all phenomena, rather than an abstract epiphenomenon of matter, then this finding is perfectly natural and would have been expected, if we had not assumed mind and matter, consciousness and energy, to be separate in the first place. If we accept the similarity of the features of quantum reality and consciousness revealed by empirical evidence and the logic of infinite descent to be more than coincidence, we begin to see reality as a unified whole, something that includes both subject and object, something that manifests as a spectrum ranging from non-quantum consciousness to quantized energy and matter. This "something" is the root of all phenomena, the ineffable potential from which all forms are selected by the drawing of distinctions.


Instead of trying to explain consciousness in terms of matter and energy, perhaps we should be trying to explain matter and energy in terms of consciousness. By approaching the problem in this way, we will be able to obtain information complementary to the information from research into parallel physical processes and structures. Attacking the problem from both sides will lead to a better understanding of the interaction of mind and matter and produce a more meaningful explanation of consciousness.


Click here to download F-22 Total Air War (TAW) FULL by DiD

The link above is an rapidshare link, what this means is you have to scroll down the page and in the bottom right corner click on the 'Free' button. It will bring you to another page where you will have to wait 60 seconds. After the wait, you will be required to enter a code/word verification to ensure you are not a robot and then you will be allowed to download TAW SETUP program.

Please be aware that the TAW SETUP program is a decompressor that unpacks the installation unto a specified area of your harddrive. You can choose the location you want it to be unpacked to by clicking on 'browse' and using your own location. Afterwards you will have to go to that location and locate and install TAW using the TAW Setup program in that directory. TAW WILL NOT INSTALL ITSELF, you have to do it manually.

WARNING: For those of you using Windows XP please DE-Select the "MUSIC" Option during the installation of TAW SETUP or else TAW will crash to desktop every time you attempt to run the simulator. This is becuase TAW uses a midi not compatible with XP, the only solution is to disable MUSIC during the install.


Get Involved with F-22 TAW Community! Join the great F22 TAW community HERE!;f=64

Incase that doesn't work try this link here:

and in case THAT doesn't work try downloading it using p2p file sharing program such as
morpheus, OR spend the money and buy it online at ebay or amazon.

Here is an absolute bare-bones version of TAW FULL version, less than 50mb!
(thats 25mb smaller than the DEMO of TAW!!)

And for those of you sad sad people still on 56k modem, get flashget and
I split it into four files here:


Total Air War has been called the most elegant modern flight simulator ever made. It's hard to argue with that, but many simply take this for meaning it is oversimplified. That is not true. There is a great deal more detail and sophistication in the programming than I think people recognize. The refinement is what gives the impression of simplicity. TAW does not attempt to model most of the minutia of avionics, weapons management, and aircraft systems that would be classified in the F-22. In terms of aviation itself, it simplifies many of the duties of flying an aircraft. You do not balance the fuel, type in TACAN data, or conduct a full aircraft startup on the runway. If you think about it, modern air combat is not really concerned with that. That is the minutia the pilot for that particular aircraft has trained years to learn how to master. When he engages in an air combat exercise, these general duties are second nature and unimportant when analyzing that exercise. Total Air War is just that...the air war itself. If you want to learn how to start up an aircraft, navigate, and do everything else, then buy something like X-Plane and eventually take flight lessons. One thing you'll notice about TAW and EF2000, they do not feel like any other flight sims you have ever used. There's a certain quality to the way they handle. It looks like real HUD camera footage from an F-16. I remember reading a review of EF2000 by a fighter pilot who concluded out of about a half dozen different sims, DiD's had the most accurate feel. Many others like Falcon 4 and Lomac get the detailed specifications correct...painstakingly so. Yet pilots have repeatedly said Falcon doesn't feel digital and snappy enough, there's still to much drift for an advanced FBW design. TAW does not have that problem. Not only that, but the flight modeling is so sophisticated that when DiD added the thrust vectoring they found this computerized control system couldn't keep up. Therefore they made it optional. That's a good thing, believe it or not, because without a real F-22's computers to determine how to use the nozzles when and by how much, you wouldn't be able to fly the F-22 here. Just like experimental thrust vectoring aircraft, you'll find your forward airspeed dropping off immediately when you use it. And just like the real deal, at high altitudes you do need to use it for large changes of pitch. Speaking of high altitudes, I've done the equivalent of flight testing for this rendition of the Raptor. It comes as close to the best known public information we have, and makes certain assumptions about performance that suggests they did a lot of very educated cross referencing with what the various test pilots had said on it. Optimum cruise efficiency altitude is 44,000ft. Many people see that and think it's being unrealistic and "arcadey". It's not. The F-22 has a lifting body design, engines that are near-turbofan efficiency at mach speeds without reaching either full military power or afterburner, and fixed inlets that are optimized for about 1.5 times the speed of sound. It's a legit attempt to be accurate. The Raptor is unmatched when it comes to cruising speed and range, especially when carrying everything internally. That very low drag can give it a range of over 5000nm with a standard internal weapon loadout...not including refueling. At the opposite extreme, wings level flight is still pre-stall as low as 90-100kts. High AoA rudder effects are properly modeled. You get nice changes in the way your rudder and elevators affect yaw and roll under these conditions. This is a stealth aircraft. What other consumer simulation has so intricately modeled radar cross sections, low observability, probability of detection, etc? None. The US Air Force's air combat doctrine is in the process of being redefined, restructured, and reimagined. Why? Stealth, and to a lesser extent data-linked sensor fusion...the sort of God's Eye View presentation of threat information the F-22 and F-35 MFD's relay. But this later development has been somewhat gradual in comparison to stealth for air combat, which went from zero to full-on in one generation. With low observability you can flank the enemy at high altitude, use your kinematic (speed and height) advantage to fire at a longer range, and turn away before they ever have a chance. This is fully modeled in TAW, though there are enough advanced adversaries around that you will have constant opportunities to merge into a dogfight if you wish. Speaking of dogfights... Many people have poked fun of its weapons modeling. Huh? This was the first sim to attempt an accurate modeling of the new AIM-9X off-boresight short range air to air missile. Not only did they do a pretty good job, but it was the first and still only 9X attempt that has a proper Helmet Mounted Sight. The fire control system does not require you to padlock a target. You can move your view around and the fire control/seeker bracket cue will move around attempting to acquire an aircraft in that vicinity. Lomac has a very simple lock and blink system for Russian aircraft, but that's it. Falcon has an awful little padlocking system that doesn't lock (you move your view, you lose it). Janes FA-18 has a slightly better locking padlock system. TAW is the only attempt I'm aware of that uses a proper seeking bracket for the 9X, let alone one that is compatible with both padlocking AND panning. Other people have also poked fun of the AIM-120R's in TAW. Little do they know that a ramjet version of the AMRAAM does in fact exist. It was designed to compete for the BVRAAM competition and is thought to have been used in the Gulf War. Though as far as anyone knows it has not been fielded yet, in 1998 DiD was far ahead of the curve in modeling it here. The "R" was a logical designation for them to give it. You can even see the "boxy" shape it has in the loadout screen. The only serious complaints against the weapons I know of that are justified are rather minor. One retarded munition doesn't have an accompanying parachute. And the JDAMs come preprogrammed. You cannot reallocate a GPS target while in flight. Total Air War's AWACs system was a first and has never even been attempted since. You do not simply train and fly combat missions. A central part of this sim is the ability to take over AWAC Tac-O duties, allocating flights to protect different assets or to intercept threatening bandets. While the air-to-ground aspect of this is limited, you have full control over the air-to-air orders going out into the battlespace. And the AI will attempt to carry them out to the best of their ability. The dynamic campaign, the first one of its kind, includes a whole war of these guys attempting to make decisions autonomously. You'll be surprised at the unpredictable results this can have. The viewing system is still one of the best ever made. You can see any action from anywhere at anytime, and you can switch it to one of several different cinema-type modes that will switch between events automatically. The ACMI is also full-featured. So does this mean Total Air War is pretty much perfect? Of course not. A lot of people do not like the "Wall of Migs", or in this case SU-35's. Their biggest concern is that the narrative revolves around small countries that, even in the context of the storyline about them getting rich off oil, could not account for unlimited bandits they keep pumping out. This doesn't bother me. With the capabilities of the F-22, you need unlimited resourses on the other side. Otherwise there is just no competition. Just consider it a nightmare scenario. Also, the graphics can be a little finicky for some people. Most users get the easiest results using Direct 3D, but on most modern cards and drivers you will get texture splitting lines and corrupted maps on the central MFD. There are older drivers for the ATI 9250 I was using previously that had no problems, but my new x800xt has introduced me to the same problems everyone else has. In spite of these, though, it is still quite functional. Even with full graphics options, antialiasing, you name it, I always get very high framerates...with never any stuttering, ever. Lomac and Falcon have never totally been without stutters. It doesn't have Lomac's graphics or Falcon's avionics and systems minutia. I own those, but I'm still very glad to have Total Air War.

Almost a year after the release of the brilliant and realistic flight simulation, F-22 ADF by DID, they have released the sequel. F-22 Total Air War will pierce a hole in the opponent simulation's frail chassis as hard as its predecessor did. The break through technology used in the campaign engine is completely new and innovative.

Mission Replay?
Total Air WarThe heart of TAW lies within its campaign engine - which is one of the only differences betweem it and ADF.

Almost everything ranging from the AWACS to the Training Simulator is identical. Same interface, same missions, same briefings, and so on.

TAW was released as a separate simulator, instead of being released as an add-on to ADF.

You may think this repetitiveness is a train-smash.

Think again.

It is quite clever in my opinion, as an experienced F-22 pilot can practice missions and certain tactics, while a new-comer can learn the essence of the F-22 from a fresh start.

Main TAW Interface

Spot the Difference
There is very little to add about the graphics and sound as it is almost the same as F-22 ADF. Note this screenshot of the great photograph quality graphics:

F-22 In flight

Personalized Playing
A cute, personalized touch is added at the startup when you choose your player name, his callsign, his face-on photograph, and his squadron sign. This enables you to have a number of different pilots who visibly look different and fly for different fleets - a smart way to quickly recognize and sort pilots of different experience levels, or for different family members each leading totally separate Air Force careers.


Once that information is entered you come to the main page which has also been changed slightly. It is a more organized and orderly set up than ADF, but still hold its unique, java-like picture show when the cursor is brought over it. Throughout the entire game, the interface has been built to be stern, serious, and bestow a peerless military character.

Choose Your Combat Mode
Another new addition is the custom combat mode. This, like the name suggests, allows for full customization of a practice mission. You can choose your terrain, distance from the enemy, enemy air, sea, or ground vehicles, their weapons, and their numbers. You can also customize your aeroplane and your wingmen craft and numbers. This is a good way to practice something you've had problems with without having to wait for a certain mission to do it for you.

Custom Combat

So, What's the Secret Weapon?
Remove the covers and lay out the red carpet. TAW's campaign engine is one the most impressive and technological advances I have seen in any game for a long time, and one which I think should launch it far ahead of other games.

Campaign Status

Real-Time Real-Life
The structure of the campaign is a real-time, real-life situation which you are entering. There are a number of different campaigns, each holding their own geographical location, nations, ground and air vehicles, and goals for you to achieve. You keep track of your war-fleet, opponent craft and their movements. No matter whether you are flying a mission yourself or if you are controlling the complete battlefield through the AWACS system, you must look out for enemy approaches and attacks, as well as ensure clear and unpatrolled passages for your flights, and create tactical and swift charges on your enemies.

Campaign Selection

The campaigns are all set in real time. That means you can start a campaign with ten hours to take control of the situation, and it's gonna feel like ten hours. There's no quick way out. Reaching the campaign goal is not the difficult part, it's maintaining safety and keeping damage levels down throughout the campaign which requires all your concentration and awareness.


Once you enter a campaign you come to a separate base-page, the War Room, which can take you to all parts of the campaign. You have a number of choices ranging from seeing a continuously updated map of all craft in the area. You can also see a number of statistical graphs such as a sortie graph and a damage report for and against you.

The War Room

Scramble Missions
Now having a very long continuous battle is not what TAW is all about. While controlling and patrolling, you can sign yourself up for scramble missions. This is much like a red-alert siren being sounded with top priority. You must act immediately and take to the air to complete your goal, or one of your flights or crucial radar systems is sure to be lost. Every movement must be monitored and instantaneously reacted upon to guarantee survival and an upper hand on the enemy.

There is also a choice of speeding up time a bit. This is good after a long patrol of the AWACS, when you are ready for some intense action. You can sign yourself up for scramble missions, and let time fly until you are needed in the air up there.

Mission Selection

Available Missions
Besides the option of flying scramble missions, there is also an option to fly available missions. There are many types of missions ranging from a CAP intercept mission to a ground target attack mission. These missions arise throughout the campaign, and you are given clearance to fly them according to rank. While you start on a low rank, you only get to fly simple, safe missions. Each mission holds points according to their difficulty and when you succeed you stand in line for promotion which clears you to fly extremely dangerous and complex missions.

Along with each mission possible or scramble alert you are called up for, there's a mission planner. This allows you to change all aspects of your flight including your wingmen or escorts and their weaponry, as well as total optimization for yourself, or for the specific mission you are flying which in turn allows for infinite variations, which must be considered with each sortie.

Mission Planner

Lantirn view of ground target

Smart Campaign Engine
You may think that you will endeavour a campaign, lose the battle, and then when you retry the campaign it'll all be the same again. Wrong. The campaign engine is all new and innovative. It uses a method of assessment and reaction to whatever you do, where your craft are, and how each side is persisting in the war. This means that now matter how many times you play a campaign or even a single mission. it will never be the same as before. It adapts itself and your missions to the current situation and status. The tactics in the engine is one which was used by the US in the gulf-war, which is accurately explained in the manual. It has detailed paragraphs, diagrams, and theories which was called the Five Ring Process. This tells you exactly how to approach a battle, which gives you the best and most cost-effective way to hurt the enemy while keeping you alive and on guard.

If having it all your way is what you want, it's what you get with TAW. The game has everything for a new F-22 user, as well as some pretty nifty extras and added bits to keep an adept pilot busy for a long time.

The new campaign part of the game is another giant leap in the world of flight sims and is sure to set F-22 TAW by DID apart from any other simulator for a long time to come.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

god is dead, never even existed

I respect your believes in a higher power and I don’t want to turn this into a religious discussion. But to let you know, I have been on both sides of the fence. I know
How it is to live a ‘Christian’ life and the essence of what it means to be a true believer, and I can also see things from the strong atheist’s point of view. And finally I see things from just MY own personal perspective, with my own taint on things. I could defend religions just as well as I could denounce them. But the truth is Mormon, there is no god.
I could debate this with you, but I see no need to. Of all the uncertainties in this world, I am certain of the fact that a supposedly omnipotent and perfect all loving ‘God’ who takes on human characteristics and who intervenes with the affairs of mankind, who creates a universe that even allows imperfection on any level is a direct contradiction and absolute absurdity beyond all reasonable and/or unreasonable doubt. -- (logical and common sense proof that God is impossible, proof by contradiction) - Her invisible Pink Highness! -- (shows how it was actually man who made God, and not the other way around) -- (an insightful view of a much clearer perspective of reality) -- (shows just how many error, fallacies, absurdities, and self contradictions that are contained in a supposedly perfect work of God)

I’d like you to take a good hard look at those five links above before you argue with me.

I would be less offended if people who have their own beliefs would keep it to themselves. Instead, lies are spread as truth, missionaries preach the gospel twisting and convoluting what is reality that even the most intellectual of people will fall for these ridiculous bullsh*t. Smart person are skilled at defending ridiculously believes derived from non-smart reasons. So I feel that I have the prerogative to spread a little ‘truth’ of my own here, especially since Christianity really has no ground.

It should also be noted, that on a practical level our world would be a lot better off if religion never existed. But I think that religion and the eternal human denial of reality and believe in unwarranted optimism (Iraq war/ peak oil situation anyone?) is hardwired innate in our mind, and what is going to screw us all.

HEY -> Maybe this world is just a dream? Maybe there is a ‘divine’ ONENESS of all existence and we are part of it but we just don’t know? But the Christian God with all his doings and teachings (there are more errors in the Bible than any other book ever written)
Are just bullshit and UNDEFENDABLE!

~ Yeah, humans are superior and all the animals and plants are put here for us to have dominion over, we are to be fruitful and multiply and thank heavenly father for all the blessings which he has given us, and don’t forget all the stars in the universe were put into place so we could have some light to see at night, and humans exists for the sole purpose of GOD’s good pleasure~ (why doesn’t he just masturbate for good pleasure?)

Sorry for my ranting guys, I just can’t tolerate bullshit much these days anymore.

I have no problem with people believing in God, just like I have no problem with people believing in 'love'. But know the truth first, then believe what you want to believe, despite what you have discovered. It makes all the difference in the world. There is no meaning in life, but that doesn't mean people don't fall in love, or that people don't have anger, hatred, fear, jealousy. know the truth first, then believe what you want to believe, despite what you have discovered. It makes all the difference in the world.

The Bible is just a waste of trees.



Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth. This assumption is false, not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.
Proving a universal negative
Many Christians, as well as atheists, claim that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. For example, while we may not have evidence that unicorns or dragons exist, we cannot prove that they do not exist. Unless we have a complete knowledge of the universe, we must admit the possibility that somewhere in the universe, there might be such creatures.

But the claim that omniscience is needed to prove a universal negative presumes that the concept which we are discussing is logically coherent. If the attributes which we assign to a hypothetical object or being are self-contradictory, then we can conclude that it cannot exist, and therefore does not exist. I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which make their existence impossible. A cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible -- they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object.

I intend to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to demonstrate that Yahweh's existence is an impossibility.

Defining YHWH
Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

These attributes of God are related by the Bible, which Christians believe to be the perfect and true Word of God.

One verse which many Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible, and reveal the impossibility of all of them being held simultaneously by the same being. There is no foolishness in denying the impossible. Foolishness is worshipping an impossible God.
Perfection seeks even more perfection
What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely?

God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete -- it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing the elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.
Perfection begets imperfection
But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and had the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans.

The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot make itself imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.
The Freewill Argument
The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.
All-good God knowingly creates future suffering
God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.
Infinite punishment for finite sins
God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely injust. The absurdity of this infinite punishment appears even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of the human's imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.
Belief more important than action
Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.
Perfection's imperfect revelation
The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means for overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books called the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man. No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigma. And yet the perfect God expects the imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.
Contradictory justice
One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.
Contradictory history
The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?
Unfulfilled prophecy
The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it with Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The sign given by Isaiah to King Ahaz was meant to assure him that his enemies King Rezin and King Remaliah would be defeated. The prophecy was fulfilled in the very next chapter. Yet Matthew 1 not only misinterprets the word for "maiden" as "virgin," but claims that this already-fulfilled prophecy is fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus!

The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.
The Omniscient changes the future
A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.
The Omniscient is surprised
A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may react emotionally.

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.
The conclusion of the matter
I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and free thinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is as contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

While believers may find comfort in being faithful to impossibilities, there is no greater satisfaction than a clear mind. You may choose to serve an impossible God. I will choose reality.

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
How many stalls and horsemen?

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.
Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Snails do not melt

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
Fowl from waters or ground?

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Odd genetic engineering

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Earth supported?

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Heaven supported too

JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
The hydrological cycle

ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Storehouses are not part of the cycle
Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days."
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)
Moses' personality

Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."
Righteous live?

Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."
Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."
Jesus' last words

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Years of famine

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
Moved David to anger?

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.
God be seen?

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)
Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)
Ascend to heaven

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)
What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?

Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30
How many times did the cock crow?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
Who killed Saul

SA1 31:4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
SA1 31:5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
SA1 31:6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.
SA2 1:15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount

MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
Does every man sin?

KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Who bought potter's field

ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Who prophesied the potter's field?

Matthew 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13
Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)
Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

(various trapsing)
How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?

1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)

MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)

1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."
Good deeds

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)
For or against?

MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)
Whom did they see at the tomb?

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
God change?

malachi 3:6
james 1:17
1 samuel 15:29
jonah 3:10
genesis 6:6
Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)

MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

zechariah 11:11-13
(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)
Who's sepulchers

acts 7:16
genesis 23:17,18
Strong drink?

proverbs 31:6,7
john 2:11-11
When second coming?

MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

1 thessalonians 4:15-18
Solomon's overseers

550 in I Kings 9:23
250 in II Chron 8:10
The mother of Abijah:

Maachah the daughter of Absalom 2 Chron 9:20

Michaiah the daughter of Uriel 2 Chron 13:2
When did Baasha die?

26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8

36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

22 in 2 Kings 8:26

42 in 2 Chron 22:2
Who was Josiah's successor?

Jehoahaz - 2 Chron 36:1

Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11
The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.
What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

scarlet - Matthew 27:28

purple John 19:2
What did they give him to drink?

vinegar - Matthew 27:34

wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23
How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again." As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days," but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day."