Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:21 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:I went to that site and I can't believe it!

$58.27 for, "The Major Transitions in Evolution" by John Maynard Smith

$87.99 for, "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman

$92.49 for, "Evolution" by Mark Ridley

Boy, what some people are willing to dish out for a lie?

You know why they cost so much?

Because they are often named by Universities as required texts or core reading material.

Incidentally Universities are also free to decide what they teach (compared to government prescribed curriculum in most [western] schools). Therefore it is in their best interests to select reading and course material that comes from highly reputable sources - after all brand is nearly everything for a University: better brand, more students paying more money.

So high prices on evolution textbooks compared creationist texts may suggest as to which "area" is more reputable

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:29 pm**

Lootifer wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:I went to that site and I can't believe it!

$58.27 for, "The Major Transitions in Evolution" by John Maynard Smith

$87.99 for, "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman

$92.49 for, "Evolution" by Mark Ridley

Boy, what some people are willing to dish out for a lie?

You know why they cost so much?

Because they are often named by Universities as required texts or core reading material.

Incidentally Universities are also free to decide what they teach (compared to government prescribed curriculum in most [western] schools). Therefore it is in their best interests to select reading and course material that comes from highly reputable sources - after all brand is nearly everything for a University: better brand, more students paying more money.

So high prices on evolution textbooks compared creationist texts may suggest as to which "area" is more reputable

Textbooks are expensive: unprecedented!

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:04 am**

Viceroy63 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:mejihn7779, here's the criticism to your video:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Textboo ... T7V97TM69F

Ya like how that works?

Surely, you can summarize the arguments of your favored video, right?

Gee,

1. Pose Marco Polo 'problem'
2. Gets refuted by many.
3. Ignore criticism
4. Pose Marco Polo 'problem'

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:07 am**

Lootifer wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:I went to that site and I can't believe it!

$58.27 for, "The Major Transitions in Evolution" by John Maynard Smith

$87.99 for, "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman

$92.49 for, "Evolution" by Mark Ridley

Boy, what some people are willing to dish out for a lie?

You know why they cost so much?

Because they are often named by Universities as required texts or core reading material.

Incidentally Universities are also free to decide what they teach (compared to government prescribed curriculum in most [western] schools). Therefore it is in their best interests to select reading and course material that comes from highly reputable sources - after all brand is nearly everything for a University: better brand, more students paying more money.

So high prices on evolution textbooks compared creationist texts may suggest as to which "area" is more reputable

Price is no indicator of truth on matters of religion and science,

but the rest of your post AND price is certainly suggestive...

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:22 am**

Jesus tittyfucking Christ guys. I'm sick of seeing this thread in offtopics. STOP GETTING TROLLED

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:46 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:Gee,

1. Pose Marco Polo 'problem'
2. Gets refuted by many.
3. Ignore criticism
4. Pose Marco Polo 'problem'

You forgot all the others he's had refuted and ignored, including being willing to eat his own shite if it turns out the ancient hebrews had a word for sphere....

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:56 am**

crispybits wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Gee,

1. Pose Marco Polo 'problem'
2. Gets refuted by many.
3. Ignore criticism
4. Pose Marco Polo 'problem'

You forgot all the others he's had refuted and ignored, including being willing to eat his own shite if it turns out the ancient hebrews had a word for sphere....

Oh sure, but how can I justify spending >1 minute per post for that troll?

I wouldn't put it past him that he eats his own shite because cult members do perform odd rituals.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:14 am**

Viceroy have you eaten your shit yet , if so then where is the video , if not then why ?

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:09 am**

comic boy wrote:Viceroy have you eaten your shit yet , if so then where is the video , if not then why ?

I wonder what sort of consistency it'll be.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:38 am**

Frigidus wrote:
comic boy wrote:Viceroy have you eaten your shit yet , if so then where is the video , if not then why ?

I wonder what sort of consistency it'll be.

my guess is not very "consistent".

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:40 am**

mejihn7779 wrote:All I am saying is that I will gladly watch your video & refute if you are willing to do the same for mine.

What you mean like I've said I will on multiple occasions?

crispybits wrote:Put something into the conversation first, and then I'll give you something back...

crispybits wrote:I'll tell you what - you watch this and refute every argument the presenters make, and I'll go back and watch the rest of your video and refute all the other claims, not just the one I've already refuted...

I'll put the same amount of effort into your videos as you do mine (and by the way I just picked a full length episode from that show at random, I don't actually have any idea what topics specifically they discuss in there)

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:19 pm**

comic boy wrote:Viceroy have you eaten your shit yet , if so then where is the video , if not then why ?

When you provide me with a 3,500 year old Hebrew word for "Sphere!"

You know what CB, You sure do talk a lot of shit yourself. I am wondering if you practice eating shit, the way that you have mention it so many times already? Does that turn you on? You probably even have your own videos of yourself documenting the act; Don't Ya?

But that's besides the point. If there is no ancient Hebrew word for Sphere, then just what the hell are the ancients suppose to say to describe the earth?

But they do have several words for Flat! so if they in any ways thought that the earth was flat and circular like a pancake, then why did they not say so?

Try answering the question if you can rather than talking all that "shit!"

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:24 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:
comic boy wrote:Viceroy have you eaten your shit yet , if so then where is the video , if not then why ?

When you provide me with a 3,500 year old Hebrew word for "Sphere!"

You know what CB, You sure do talk a lot of shit yourself. I am wondering if you practice eating shit, the way that you have mention it so many times already? Does that turn you on? You probably even have your own videos of yourself documenting the act; Don't Ya?

But that's besides the point. If there is no ancient Hebrew word for Sphere, then just what the hell are the ancients suppose to say to describe the earth?

But they do have several words for Flat! so if they in any ways thought that the earth was flat and circular like a pancake, then why did they not say so?

Try answering the question if you can rather than talking all that "shit!"

Please sir, keep your mouth closed while you chew your shit.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:38 pm**

There is a word for ball. (Isaiah 22:18)

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:09 pm**

Which only proves my point that the word Circle in Isaiah 40:22 is talking about an equatorial line around the earth. Because the earth is not being compared to anything. The Circle of the earth is the Equator of the earth. Then the question becomes, How did these ancient people know that there was an Equator? Unless this was revealed and common knowledge among them.

"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, ..."
-Isaiah 40:22

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:24 pm**

It was not "common knowledge" as there many who still believed the Earth flat, although the idea of a sphere is dated to around 540 BC.

However, there is no evidence that the Bible is referring to an equator, and in fact quite a bit of evidence that the Bible just refers to things in general, flat terms:

…take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)

A sphere has no edges. Why would the author of Job have spoken of “edges” of the earth if he had known the earth was spherical? Isn’t it more probable that the author imagined grabbing the edges a flat earth, rather than grabbing the ball of the earth by “edges” that aren’t there? Also, consider that the same author had this to say about the formation of our planet:

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal. (Job 38:14)

When stamped with a seal, clay is flattened—not rounded. If the Job author had known the earth was round, why compare it to clay seals, which are pressed flat? With this comparison coming so soon after his referral to the “edges” of the earth, it seems unlikely that both could be flukes.

“Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; (Mat 4:8)”

In this passage, Jesus is able to see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. On a spherical earth, this would not be possible.

It should also be noted that there are many biblical verses that claim that the earth has “ends” (impossible for a spherical shape)

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:26 pm**

Also, if there was no word for sphere, why couldn't the Hebrews have invented one? Many words appear in the Bible for the first time, so clearly invention was not beyond them.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:44 pm**

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9 ... eider.html

Pretty solid and detailed reasons why you're still talking crap when you should be eating it there viceroy.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:49 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:
comic boy wrote:Viceroy have you eaten your shit yet , if so then where is the video , if not then why ?

When you provide me with a 3,500 year old Hebrew word for "Sphere!"

You know what CB, You sure do talk a lot of shit yourself. I am wondering if you practice eating shit, the way that you have mention it so many times already? Does that turn you on? You probably even have your own videos of yourself documenting the act; Don't Ya?

But that's besides the point. If there is no ancient Hebrew word for Sphere, then just what the hell are the ancients suppose to say to describe the earth?

But they do have several words for Flat! so if they in any ways thought that the earth was flat and circular like a pancake, then why did they not say so?

Try answering the question if you can rather than talking all that "shit!"

Oh Dear
You appear to be getting rattled , are you finally realising what nonsense you have swallowed , are you starting to feel like a bit of a dupe , you should

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:50 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:Which only proves my point that the word Circle in Isaiah 40:22 is talking about an equatorial line around the earth. Because the earth is not being compared to anything. The Circle of the earth is the Equator of the earth. Then the question becomes, How did these ancient people know that there was an Equator? Unless this was revealed and common knowledge among them.

The Circle of the Earth is the Horizon. Not the equator. It has nothing to do with the equator. It's bad enough you know shit about science, but knowing shit about the Word of God is unbelievable.

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:07 am**

DoomYoshi wrote:There is a word for ball. (Isaiah 22:18)

I looked into this word, "Ball" and it is Strong's word H1754, "Duwr" Pronounced Dure. It is also used to represent a Circle or simply another word for "Circle." Only with a slight variation because the word in Isaiah 40:22 is referring to the equatorial line of the earth. Isaiah could have simply said "He who sitteth upon the earth and just left it at that. But instead he was being descriptive about the earth and thus showing the knowledge that they had about the earth.

We need to remember that the Bible is a simple book for simple people who simply had advance understanding of the universe around them. How else would they have known at the time, that the earth hung on nothing in empty space when all the world believed that the world was stood upon something.

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.'
-Job 26:7

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:44 am**

The one thing God is incapable of doing is reliably explaining his creation to some uppity apes?

Sounds legit.

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:11 am**

Neoteny wrote:The one thing God is incapable of doing is reliably explaining his creation to some uppity apes?

Well sure, just not in the way Viceroy insists on.

Consider this; what is the first event in the first creation story (and yes there are two) in Genesis?

Why the "Big Bang" of course.

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:38 am**

Maybe so. But, like you say, it wasn't intended to be admissible as an accurate explanation of an actual historical and physical phenomenon. Assuming it was divinely inspired, it's much safer to assume it's an artistic or intended with multiple meanings or whatever. And the matter of intent is an important one. Trying to find modern knowledge in a text without that goal atrociously misled.

But, I personally feel that the idea of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator god to much more mind blowing than a spherical earth or common descent. I don't understand how anyone can say that these people were too dirty and brown to understand the highfalootin' science of geometry, but were quick to grasp the nature of a deity.

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:22 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:We need to remember that the Bible is a simple book for simple people...

Thats what weve been trying to tell you all along....

Conquer Club

An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.