Re: Re: Re: I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaIts a hybrid.
Man.....I would kill for a Model-T....But what I don't understand, is that of all modern cars you follow it with a Civic...
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.
Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, that's what the world is missing! A model-T hoopty bouncing all over the road!
No ones likes a hoopty putting along at 35 on the highway. What I would do is remove the bodyshell and place it on a like-sized vehicle with a compatible chassis, so that way I would have an M-T in disguise with some boost!
In fact, four months ago, I did exactly that to a customer's '52 Chevy Pick-up; I simply swapped the body with that of an S-10.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No ones likes a hoopty putting along at 35 on the highway.
I seriously didn't even think of that. That was the funniest mental image I've had on here in a long time. LOL simply doesn't do it justice.
A '52 chevy has the same body size as an S-10? Really? I thought the 52 would be much bigger.
But, then again, I'm not really sure what I'm talking about.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.
Originally posted by Devil King
A '52 chevy has the same body size as an S-10? Really? I thought the 52 would be much bigger.
Keep in mind that there are different series and variations of the S-10. The '52 has a more voluminous interior because it has a high ceiling, however the bed of a '52 is shorter than that of the S-10. But none of that really matters, because their bodyshells are close in size, and what does matter is the relative compatibility of the vehicle's suspension and chassis in relation to the bodies.
Originally posted by Devil King
But, then again, I'm not really sure what I'm talking about.
Well duh....you're gay, and we're discussing automobiles.
😛
Originally posted by Quiero MotaWell it was part of his opening statement of human designs appearing to have evolved. There is an evolution of sorts to the designs of cars, from the model T of yesteryear to the hybrid cars of today.
Cars were intelligently designed, so see, I'm still on topic.
Sadly I don't think that flying cars are such a great idea for people yet as they still have problems with non-flying cars. Plus it'd add another problem. If a car dies in the middle of the road that's where it stays. If a car dies in the middle of the air... it ain't staying there.
Re: Re: Re: I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.
Originally posted by Jbill311
So your evidence that god exists is that there can not possibly be any evidence that God exists?If the universe needs a trigger (god), then what was god's trigger?
I wonder if you are familiar with the multiverse theory, (not a scientific theory) or if you have read Orson Scott Card's book: Children of the Mind ?
I couldn't say what triggered god, but i do know that he isn't a form of matter as such, so perhaps he doesn't need one?
Like in narrative to a story, there's equilibrium but something disturbs it (it HAS to have a reason to disturb how things were before) and then sooner or later comes a new equilibrium when peace comes between what was changed and what caused the change.
I think God is simply the narrator of the universe, and has no real explanation for his existance apart from simply being a law that changes things.
I haven't read that book before ❌