An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

While there is certainly proof that mutations do occur in nature; There is absolutely no real evidence to support the theory of evolution at this time (for over the past 150 years of "Dino-digging"). Including the sedimentary column.
18
26%
There probably is evidence to support this theory, yet scientist are at a loss to explain it appropriately.
18
26%
Scientist are great at making shit up when they have no evidence to prove something that is false to begin with.
10
14%
I believe in Santa. He's a real person that lives all the way deep at the north pole and brings me presents every year. The presents prove that he's real. I also leave him milk and cookies to snack on and while I don't ever see him, I just know with all my heart, that he is the one who eats all the cookies and milk. Or, I wish I had a dogasaur like Dino.
24
34%
 
Total votes : 70

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:34 pm

player wrote:No, because science and religion, faith are fundamentally different. Science is based on evidence.
Faith is based on belief, where the evidence ends.

Science actually uses both, as does religion, but not in the way you describe. For science to advance requires someone to have the imagination to think up new ideas and then the faith to follow through and see if the result is as they imagine.

You and Viceroy actually make a similar error. He assumes that because a particular scientist is stuck on an idea, then it must reflect all of science and all of science refuses to accept opposition. In fact, the opposite is true. Similarly, you have somehow convinced yourself that once people have faith, they basically stop thinking and analyzing and comparing. Neither is really true.


I agree that scientific/philosophical inquiry reaches a point, after which either (1) a conclusion can become 'sound' through one's faith in it, or (2) the conclusion remains unknown in soundness---which for many is not satisfactory. People prefer seemingly sound conclusions, rather than being prodded into accepting the vagueness of those conclusions.

For example, when Montesquieu wrote of the necessity of checks and balances for a democratic government, he could not prove that such a form government would be superior to the governments of his times (17th century). However, if he maintained that his view was the correct one, then this would be done on the basis of faith.

Of course, we would agree with Montesquieu on his checks and balances doctrine because we enjoy the position of hindsight. Even our belief in the importance of checks and balances maintains the validity/soundness of such a doctrine.

Arguments which exhort policy X in the name of the "common good," "national security," "public safety," or the ever nefarious "helping others," similarly rely upon faith in their final conclusion. If questioned about the problem of #2, they might say, "Never mind the uncertainty and the potential unintended consequences. Policy X is the correct choice." (I wonder: who fits that description?)
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:19 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:It is absurd to suggest that we atheists/scientists are the reason why people choose faith. No, the reason these people fall back on faith is that they were indoctrinated by their parents. They havebeen raised from a very young age with the unquestioning assumption that God exists, so that is naturally their default position. I suspect that Viceroy is too deeply embedded into his ideas to be easily extracted. Your argument goes nowhere, because Viceroy clearly wanted to believe from the start that evolution was flawed. What are we supposed to do, just say c'est la vie and move on? No. It is better to challenge him with alternative perspectives. If, at the end, he has still dug in his heels and hasn't changed his mind, so be it. It is cowardly to not even try.


And every culture does the same thing with their ideologies as does every parent. This continues on into the Theory of evolution. No parent that believes in the theory of evolution is going to teach their children "Logical Thinking" because the truth is that the theory of evolution is not Logical. A theory is a possible explanation for the observable facts but if the theory can't explain the facts then it is not logical to continue with the theory. And yet it is taught to school children from a very young age to believe in this theory as if it were true.

Every single text book on this subject begins more or less with, "Millions of Years ago, when Dinosaurs ruled the earth..." How is that not "Indoctrinating" our young minds to believe something that has no proof behind it or bases for a foundation? How do young minds question that which is being taught them with such authority? If we really wanted to teach our children "Logical Thinking" then we would not make it against the constitution to teach religion in school since it is already being taught in school. It goes by the name of the religion of the theory of evolution.

To teach "Logical Thinking" one must present all of the theories and present them as such. Theories and nothing more. Schools must then spend as much time teaching Basic theology (The Bible) as they spent teaching any other subject. To say that the theory of evolution is not being taught as fact is absurd. Of course it is. They just don't admit it is. Yet anyone who does not believe in the theory of evolution is immediately look upon as ignorant of the facts. This is clearly not the case.

I presented my case in the OP. The basis for the theory of evolution is set in the rocks and not in a lab. It is the Fossil records that is being used to teach evolution as fact. The fact that the sedimentary column is never found as it is drawn in the text books is not mentioned in the course of teaching the theory as fact. The fact that the exhibits, the fossil records, are also misrepresented or falsified is also not mention in the teaching of the theory as fact. It is all biased towards evolution! And this is how we keep an open mind?

I stated that there is no evidence to support the theory. Obviously Mutation do occur but if this is the evidence then I have already refuted this many times in this thread. The onus of responsibility to prove that I am wrong lies not with me but with those who claim that I am wrong. Yet all that I have seen presented are links to "mutations in a Lab." No one has yet to show the intermediary species that lead from a cow to a whale for example and not be a hoax. Everything in this thread has been digressed from the original intentions of the OP.

I wonder why?
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:32 pm

Viceroy63 wrote: This continues on into the Theory of evolution. No parent that believes in the theory of evolution is going to teach their children "Logical Thinking" because the truth is that the theory of evolution is not Logical.
Oh stop already.

First of all, we are still waiting for you to produce even a single piece of evidence that actually disputes the theory of evolution. Just pretending no evidence exists is not enough.

Also, you have not provided any evidence other than your very dicey read of the Bible (one disputed by plenty of true Biblical experts) to support your claim.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Lootifer on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:42 pm

Regarding you thing about Dinosaurs.

As Player and many others have stated this does not directly disprove evolution. What it potentially does is ask questions of dating techniques (which indirectly impact some supporting evidence for evolution).

Can I suggest that if you want to argue your case effectively (i.e. have people actually listen to you - currently zero people are taking notice of your opinions, they are merely poking holes in your wafer thin conclusions) you should be attacking dating techniques rather than evolution? This is the rational form your argument should take as if you successfully show that dating techniques are flawed then you can then (and not before) develop your argument against evolution.

By scattering consipiracy theory pictures of dinosaurs existing today and then smugly saying "Hah, see, evolution no worky!" you are not making one iota of difference in peoples minds - you are simply making yourself out to be a fool (cue Mark Twain/Abraham Lincoln quote).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:52 pm

Lootifer wrote:Regarding you thing about Dinosaurs.

As Player and many others have stated this does not directly disprove evolution. What it potentially does is ask questions of dating techniques (which indirectly impact some supporting evidence for evolution).

Can I suggest that if you want to argue your case effectively (i.e. have people actually listen to you - currently zero people are taking notice of your opinions, they are merely poking holes in your wafer thin conclusions) you should be attacking dating techniques rather than evolution? This is the rational form your argument should take as if you successfully show that dating techniques are flawed then you can then (and not before) develop your argument against evolution.

By scattering consipiracy theory pictures of dinosaurs existing today and then smugly saying "Hah, see, evolution no worky!" you are not making one iota of difference in peoples minds - you are simply making yourself out to be a fool (cue Mark Twain/Abraham Lincoln quote).

To do that effectively, he would have to actually understand how those techniques work AND how they are used. He has shown he does neither.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:03 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
player wrote:No, because science and religion, faith are fundamentally different. Science is based on evidence.
Faith is based on belief, where the evidence ends.

Science actually uses both, as does religion, but not in the way you describe. For science to advance requires someone to have the imagination to think up new ideas and then the faith to follow through and see if the result is as they imagine.

You and Viceroy actually make a similar error. He assumes that because a particular scientist is stuck on an idea, then it must reflect all of science and all of science refuses to accept opposition. In fact, the opposite is true. Similarly, you have somehow convinced yourself that once people have faith, they basically stop thinking and analyzing and comparing. Neither is really true.


I agree that scientific/philosophical inquiry reaches a point, after which either (1) a conclusion can become 'sound' through one's faith in it, or (2) the conclusion remains unknown in soundness---which for many is not satisfactory. People prefer seemingly sound conclusions, rather than being prodded into accepting the vagueness of those conclusions.
Pretty much the opposite of what I said.

Proof is proof, not faith. It is only when there is no proof that faith comes into play in science.
However, many charletans and well intentioned misguided individuals do take advantage of the difficulty in understanding some aspects of science to put forward their "answers".
BigBallinStalin wrote:For example, when Montesquieu wrote of the necessity of checks and balances for a democratic government, he could not prove that such a form government would be superior to the governments of his times (17th century). However, if he maintained that his view was the correct one, then this would be done on the basis of faith.

Of course, we would agree with Montesquieu on his checks and balances doctrine because we enjoy the position of hindsight. Even our belief in the importance of checks and balances maintains the validity/soundness of such a doctrine.
Sort of, but with no where near the basis of anything called scientific fact. These are merely ideas that presuppose other ideas and therefore a reasonable result. Many, many external conditions are necessary to even get to the point where such a system is even relevant, never mind possible or better than something else.

Our current state shows how fallible this system was/is, among other issues.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Arguments which exhort policy X in the name of the "common good," "national security," "public safety," or the ever nefarious "helping others," similarly rely upon faith in their final conclusion. If questioned about the problem of #2, they might say, "Never mind the uncertainty and the potential unintended consequences. Policy X is the correct choice." (I wonder: who fits that description?)
Not so.

See, there is such a thing as fact and science. Science relies upon tested and reproducible results. Vaccines work. Promoting a public vaccination campaign helps keep people well (generally.. not going to get into the caveats, just making the point). An idea like “free markets” is, however something ephemeral. It is based upon human behavior, which is predicated upon various outside conditions. Not so vaccines.

This is why science must be the root of any economy, fundamentally, because it is not changeable, is not based on one’s views or political position. It simply IS.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:09 am

Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:51 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).


Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive. That is according to the theory. It matters not that the dinosaurs died because of a meteor or an asteroid, according to the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the fact that it supposedly happen 65 million years ago.

Since recent archeological evidence suggest that Dinosaurs are even today still among us in remote parts of the world, they why are they not evolved? Why are they described the same way even after millions of years of evolution?

Why is it that there is no Dinosaur bones where we Find the Woolly Mammoth?

Could it be possible that theory is based on a misrepresentation of the Facts?

The only place where you find the geological sedimentary column, as shown in text books, is only in the text books. When geologist look at the sedimentary column they only find segments of it at a time. This geologist freely admit. They put the column together to fit their ideas of the theory and not to fit any facts. As I explained in an earlier comment, the reason why all the bones are found in their sections is because of the way that the sediments settle after a violent world wide flood. Those human skeletons (10 persons) were in fact held down by some kind of a land slide when the Flood occurred. Everything else just settled at it's only pace. That is why you don't find any Shoe crabs with the Dinosaurs or with the Woolly Mammoth at the top of the Column yet they are also still alive today.

If evolution were a fact instead of a theory then you would not only expect to see dinosaur bones at the level where you find mammals but also more evolved and adapted dinosaurs right there alongside of the other mammals as well. Along with alligators and crocodiles and all of those creatures which we see at the bottom of the column and are still alive today. But we do not see them, Why?

Thus the existence of any kind of a dinosaur today lays to rest the theory of evolution simply on the merit that we don't see it happening in the geological or archeological records. We should have found the evidence of intermediate species by now and not archeological proof that dinosaurs and mankind live alongside of each other and unchanged for over 65 million years. That just doesn't make sense for a theory that can't answer that question. I hope this makes it clear. And this is just one point of logical reasoning for why Evolution simply has never happened.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:55 am

Sometimes, when I read Viceroy's post, I pretend he is the Futurama character that introduces the Scary Door.




--Andy
User avatar
Sergeant AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25975
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:10 am

Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).


Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive.

No, the theory of evolution doesn't depend on death at all. It depends on some species passing on differing genes to their progeny. That can happen for a variety of reasons, including just pure random chance. (which, note, means more than just mathematical randomness, by-the-way, it means just that we cannot predict and maybe do not understand the mechanism -- aka "God did it" is plausible, just not something scientists will say because it cannot be proven, they would head that under "don't know or "random"). The process happens very slowly when there is no change, but if a population is isolated, say on an island, by a landslide or other event, it can happen whilst the main population is quite thriving.

Further, just because some individuals are doing better and passing on new genes, it is not given that the old examples will die off necessarily. They could survive just by chance, just because they happened to be on the edge of the population, somehow wound up surving despite the harsh competition. Think of blacksmiths and horse and buggy purveyors. Once each were extremely critical to civilization. Now, they are few and far between. They were absolutely out-competed, BUT... did they completely disappear? No! Some serve groups like the Amish that want the old technology, some have become artists. They are far fewer, but not utterly gone. In fact, numbers have grown again slightly in recent times. That is very similar to what happens in evolution. It is why we have Ceolocanths, Nautilus, sharks, etc... even though most of their ancient, close relatives have long since gone.

Here is another way to look at it.
In our culture, a woman takes her husband's name. If she has no brothers, that might mean the end of the name, but if she has brothers, it will continue. Even if all the males having a particular name die, there is no gaurantee that it will end the name. A sister might have a child on her own, or may marry someone who takes her name, either because that is the cultural norm there or, maybe because a particular name is so common that people are being encouraged to take another. Each of these situations is analogous to somethign that happens with mutations and evolution.

In other words, it is a “straw man” argument… an argument that is false, but presented as if it were a real and true argument to give the appearance of considering the opposition.



Viceroy63 wrote: That is according to the theory. It matters not that the dinosaurs died because of a meteor or an asteroid, according to the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the fact that it supposedly happen 65 million years ago.

Again, no. That is sort of the “kindergarten” version, something said loosely in general context because they don’t want to take the time to go into full details. The details are understood by most educated adults. Specifically, its probable a LOT of things contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs. No one seriously thinks, at least today, that all dinosaurs were instantly killed off at exactly 65 million years ago. However, around then we see a huge change in the fossil compositions. I won’t get into the whole bit because you have a tendency to ignore anything not feeding into your ideas, but the truth is that even the “quickest” scenarios have dinosaurs persisting for a long while after that. We don’t know exactly because just not finding dinosaur fossils doesn’t mean they were truly gone, it just means that none died in a way that lead to fossil preservation. However, what we do see is that there were lots and lots of dinosaurs and then none or almost none. The change happened around 65 million years ago. There is evidence of at least one major geologic cataclysm at about that time, so the idea that the 2 things.. the demise of the dinosaurs and the meteor hitting is a reasonable idea. However, it wasn’t as if it hit them all on the head. The most prominent scenario I have read recently is that this meteor and probably volcanic activity, too lead to a “dramatic” change in climate. Note that geologically, “dramatic” could mean hundreds of years, even millennia. Anyway, all that is theory and the exact reason the dinosaurs died is debated. When they died off is ALSO debated, though your creationist friends are unlikely to point that out. It is very possible that dinosaurs persisted long after. Its slightly possible they persisted into the time of humans (not very likely, but there is a slight chance).

Whether dinosaurs died or not, though is actually irrelevant. We have entirely different species today. The Bible does not talk of dinosaurs living and then being replaced by modern species. It talks of just modern species. Whatever happened with the dinosaurs predates the known times in the Bible. Of course, God knew how he created the Earth, but let me ask you. If God were to say to the people who would become Jews that these species around came from other creatures, how, exactly would they understand that? And, what would be the purpose of that understanding? In a time when many people believed the Earth to be flat (not all, but some ancient Jews did believe that) because of what they saw, when they had an utterly different understanding of time than we, the story we read is what they could have understood.

Viceroy63 wrote: Since recent archeological evidence suggest that Dinosaurs are even today still among us in remote parts of the world, they why are they not evolved? Why are they described the same way even after millions of years of evolution?

IF they exist, then it would be because they were isolated, similar to how the Coelacanth survived. The other possibility is how we still have horseshoe crabs.. that they just had a “successful” body type. Having a “successful” body type does not preclude change in progeny, but it just makes it less likely.

Viceroy63 wrote: Why is it that there is no Dinosaur bones where we Find the Woolly Mammoth?


Because woolly Mammoths lived long after the time of dinosaurs. Also, the climate was very different… ergo the woolly bit. In fact, woolly mammoths very much did live with humans.

Viceroy63 wrote: Could it be possible that theory is based on a misrepresentation of the Facts?
Sure, but you have to show that this is the case. So far, you have not done that.

Viceroy63 wrote: The only place where you find the geological sedimentary column, as shown in text books, is only in the text books.
Where did you get that idea? Actually, you can see geologic layers in many road cuts in CA and other mountainous areas. When we probe the depths of the ocean and lack sediments, we see various layers. In fact, go anywhere and take a log core sample and you will see definite layers. Oh, almost forgot.. the canyons. They give a nice, clear, vegetation-free look. Geologists love deserts because they can see the geology without having a bunch of vegetation obscuring it.


Viceroy63 wrote: When geologist look at the sedimentary column they only find segments of it at a time. This geologist freely admit. They put the column together to fit their ideas of the theory and not to fit any facts.

OH.. OK, started to answer before I had read down.
No, actually geologists are very cautious about suggesting that layers not connected are formed together. When we show kids how this works, we can use blankets and layer cakes. Try it! Take a layer of chocolate, a layer of frosting or another type of cake.. repeat in any order you wish. Make 3 (or break into 3 good sized sections). First, tear the cake in the middle. This is similar to an earth quake. Take your hand and yank out some of the middle of another, leaving just the bottom layer. That is what a river does over a very, very long period of time (sometimes wind does this also, but rivers tend to be quicker). Take the last and fold it, then twist. Those are all simple examples, without huge complications like heat that changes the rock, multiple twists and fracturing, etc.

Anyway, if you look at the layers of earth/rock in a particular area, that is what you will see. Is that, alone, proof? No. To get into the real proof, though requires chemistry and some other techniques I don’t have time to explain… and that, to be honest, likely require a lot of education you are unlikely to have. The bottom line is that Some formations are pretty clear and obvious. Even young earth creationists don’t really deny that the layers on each side of the Grand Canyon match, for example. They just try to claim they were all made at the same time. In many other cases, the story is much more complicated and not entirely understood. There is a book about the Marble Mountains in CA called “The Klamath Knot”. It is called that because there were so many different things happening to that landform that untangling it is like untangling a knot. But, just like a knot of string, you start with one, known point and work your way until you have undone all the tangles. In that case, I believe there are still some sort of mysteries. That is, no… saying “oh , well, God just did it” doesn’t work, but did this piece metamorphise with this other piece, etc, etc.. the exact details are not necessarily fully known, (and actually, they might be by now.. the book is decades old).


Viceroy63 wrote: As I explained in an earlier comment, the reason why all the bones are found in their sections is because of the way that the sediments settle after a violent world wide flood.
You have “explained” that, but the facts don’t match your explanation. Floods leave specific kinds of traces. In fact, floods are one of the easiest things to decipher, right along with volcanic eruptions. They leave definite traces and give a pretty firm universal dating mechanism, because each flood will have a very different sediment composition. There were cases of fossils shifted by floods. I would have to read the exact report you have read to know where they erred, but many times young earthers try to claim that old bones uncovered and relocated were aged the same as other, fresh bones. However, wear patterns and other evidence shows that is not the case.

Viceroy63 wrote: Those human skeletons (10 persons) were in fact held down by some kind of a land slide when the Flood occurred. Everything else just settled at it's only pace. That is why you don't find any Shoe crabs with the Dinosaurs or with the Woolly Mammoth at the top of the Column yet they are also still alive today.

I have no idea what article you think proves this, but it mixes up a good deal false information with some truths.

Viceroy63 wrote: If evolution were a fact instead of a theory then you would not only expect to see dinosaur bones at the level where you find mammals but also more evolved and adapted dinosaurs right there alongside of the other mammals as well. Along with alligators and crocodiles and all of those creatures which we see at the bottom of the column and are still alive today. But we do not see them, Why?
You do see very primitive mammals alive with dinosaurs. I have no idea what you mean by we would see “more evolved and adapted dinosaurs”. We do see a wide range of different dinosaurs, and the emergence of a few mammal predecessors.

I am not versed in Alligator phylogeny or fossils, so I don’t know when they emerged. Not sure why you think this is a critical point, though.

Viceroy63 wrote: Thus the existence of any kind of a dinosaur today lays to rest the theory of evolution simply on the merit that we don't see it happening in the geological or archeological records. We should have found the evidence of intermediate species by now and not archeological proof that dinosaurs and mankind live alongside of each other and unchanged for over 65 million years. That just doesn't make sense for a theory that can't answer that question. I hope this makes it clear. And this is just one point of logical reasoning for why Evolution simply has never happened.

Almost nothing in this last paragraph is correct.

Let me explain something to you. If you want to refure the theory of evolution, you truly need to begin with actually understanding the theory of evolution, not some creationist young earth fiction being taught by evolution opponents.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:15 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).


Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive.


No, the theory of evolution doesn't depend on death at all. It depends on some species passing on differing genes to their progeny. That can happen for a variety of reasons, including just pure random chance. (which, note, means more than just mathematical randomness, by-the-way, it means just that we cannot predict and maybe do not understand the mechanism -- aka "God did it" is plausible, just not something scientists will say because it cannot be proven, they would head that under "don't know or "random"). The process happens very slowly when there is no change, but if a population is isolated, say on an island, by a landslide or other event, it can happen whilst the main population is quite thriving.

Further, just because some individuals are doing better and passing on new genes, it is not given that the old examples will die off necessarily. They could survive just by chance, just because they happened to be on the edge of the population, somehow wound up surving despite the harsh competition. Think of blacksmiths and horse and buggy purveyors. Once each were extremely critical to civilization. Now, they are few and far between. They were absolutely out-competed, BUT... did they completely disappear? No! Some serve groups like the Amish that want the old technology, some have become artists. They are far fewer, but not utterly gone. In fact, numbers have grown again slightly in recent times. That is very similar to what happens in evolution. It is why we have Ceolocanths, Nautilus, sharks, etc... even though most of their ancient, close relatives have long since gone.

Here is another way to look at it.
In our culture, a woman takes her husband's name. If she has no brothers, that might mean the end of the name, but if she has brothers, it will continue. Even if all the males having a particular name die, there is no gaurantee that it will end the name. A sister might have a child on her own, or may marry someone who takes her name, either because that is the cultural norm there or, maybe because a particular name is so common that people are being encouraged to take another. Each of these situations is analogous to somethign that happens with mutations and evolution.

In other words, it is a “straw man” argument… an argument that is false, but presented as if it were a real and true argument to give the appearance of considering the opposition.




Time index: 55 seconds into the clip...
"Darwin made it clear that Natural Selection can only succeed if the changes provide an advantage in the survival of the species."

Time Index: 1:45 Minutes, into the clip...
"Each Change in evolution, according to Darwins Theory, must provide some kind of advantage to the species."

[I am not making this up. These are words from real scientist and learned individuals and not just me!]

Time index: 2:40 Minutes into the Clip...
"Natural Selection only selects for a functional advantage. In most cases Natural Selection actually eliminates things"

Time Index: 4:45 minutes into the clip...
'Scott Minnich" Researched the Flagellum Bacterial Motor for over 20 years. And he states clearly that the Motor could not have evolved. Thus claiming that the theory of Evolution could not have created/produce this motor.

This is not just my idea or thoughts. This is the consensus of many scientist in the field. And this Video is full of such statements.

The Explanation provided why evolution is not possible is clear to understand when you consider and compare the construction of a house (Time Index: 6:20) to the complicated species in question. All materials and tools must already exist and the construction or evolution needs to follow a plan. Evolution does neither of these but works after the facts.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:39 pm

Viceroy, did you even READ what I wrote, because I addressed most of what you claim is new information already.
Also, I have no audio on my computer right now, so write out what you want me to know.

Viceroy63 wrote:


Time index: 55 seconds into the clip...
"Darwin made it clear that Natural Selection can only succeed if the changes provide an advantage in the survival of the species."


That is the definition of Natural Selection, that species with an advantage will outcompete those without. However, natural selection is only one part of evolution.

Darwin thought evolution was more linear (more direct) than it is, he also thought it would take much less time than it does. He was wrong about those pieces, and other bits. Just because he was the first to publish the ideas doesn’t mean the theory has gone unchanged. Science evolves.

Viceroy63 wrote:
Time Index: 1:45 Minutes, into the clip...
"Each Change in evolution, according to Darwins Theory, must provide some kind of advantage to the species."

[I am not making this up. These are words from real scientist and learned individuals and not just me!]
Well, I meet your “real scientist” , since I happen to be a published scientist..a nd raise you one without any effort. (Neoteny, a few others who are ALSO scientists, real ones with real publications recognized outside of the IRC)… see I happen to be a published scientist.
And, in addition to our personal knowledge (you missed that "personal" bit before), we tend to cite scientists who have real degrees in the field they are studying and who are published in reputable science publications, not just local newspapers and the like.
Whoever this guy is, he is not correct. In most cases, yes, changes will mean improvement, but not always. Also, a point you keep ignoring.. “improved” under some conditions might well mean “death” if the situation changes. Just as an example, not many bass survive well once a dam has burst.

Viceroy63 wrote:
Time index: 2:40 Minutes into the Clip...
"Natural Selection only selects for a functional advantage. In most cases Natural Selection actually eliminates things"

Ah, this old saw.
No, that is wrong. No such preconditions exist. Not sure who thought this would pass muster… well, it doesn’t in the real scientific world.


Viceroy63 wrote:
Time Index: 4:45 minutes into the clip...
'Scott Minnich" Researched the Flagellum Bacterial Motor for over 20 years. And he states clearly that the Motor could not have evolved. Thus claiming that the theory of Evolution could not have created/produce this motor.
OK, I am not even going to bother looking this up, I will just take it at face value.
20 years of study proves… NOTHING, absolutely nothing.
Further, that might be this guys’ opinion, but it is absolutely not a widely accepted view. Also, even if it were true, it would not disprove the theory of evolution. At absolute best, it would possibly prove that evolution did not happen in that particular instance. But, to disprove evolution, you would have to disprove ALL the cases, ALL the evidence, not just pick out a few pieces you think might indicate something.

Oh, and a far more likely scenario is that this guy is just plain wrong. Most folks associated with the young earth creationists are just plain wrong.

Viceroy63 wrote:
This is not just my idea or thoughts. This is the consensus of many scientist in the field. And this Video is full of such statements.
Correction, it is the “consensus” of a few scientists associated with the anti-evolution movement, many of whom are not actually studied in anything to do with biology or paleogeology.

Viceroy63 wrote:
The Explanation provided why evolution is not possible is clear to understand when you consider and compare the construction of a house (Time Index: 6:20) to the complicated species in question. All materials and tools must already exist and the construction or evolution needs to follow a plan. Evolution does neither of these but works after the facts.

No, its clear , yet again, that you know nothing at all of evolution..
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:47 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, its clear , yet again, that you know nothing at all of evolution..


The fossil records speaks for itself! I only present the evidence that you choose to ignore.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby tzor on Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:01 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive. That is according to the theory. It matters not that the dinosaurs died because of a meteor or an asteroid, according to the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the fact that it supposedly happen 65 million years ago.


Evolution is not "dependent on death" with the exception that immortal beings obviously don't evolve. But it is dependent on birth (and in fact sexual reproduction helps the process along). "Survival of the fittest" (a really poor choice by Darwin as it should be survival of the most adapted; not always the fittest) is a way to show how species change over time, but that in and of itself isn't completely evolution.

There are species that predate the dinosaurs that are still around and common today. Evolution doesn't demand that the dinosaurs died, the lack of real evidence to indicate they have been around recently is the evidence to suggest that they died. Evolution doesn't demand that the woolly mammoths die either. Somewhere there may be a woolly mammoth, or a dinosaur, or one of those other animals that are currently not commonly seen, rarely seen or just plain old seen. There are animals that exist only on Australia.
Image
User avatar
Corporal tzor
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:11 pm

tzor wrote:There are species that predate the dinosaurs that are still around and common today. Evolution doesn't demand that the dinosaurs died, the lack of real evidence to indicate they have been around recently is the evidence to suggest that they died. Evolution doesn't demand that the woolly mammoths die either. Somewhere there may be a woolly mammoth, or a dinosaur, or one of those other animals that are currently not commonly seen, rarely seen or just plain old seen. There are animals that exist only on Australia.


That is almost like my point exactly. But why then do we not see evidence of these species in the Sedimentary Column? Where we see mankind and other mammals, we don't see dinosaurs reptiles with men as well? Why should that be? And more to the point that I was making, Why don't we also see more evolved or better adapted species after 65 supposedly million years of Dinosaur evolution? Or did they stop evolving and produced no more mutations or promutations of different dinosaurs for 65 million years? A dinosaur from Roman times look a lot like they did 65 million years ago.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

As to the lack of evidence of the continual existence of the dinosaurs, that is for everyone to judge for themselves. I am sure that all of those people who have seen the "Loche Ness Monster" or "Champ" in the USA Lake Champ, are well convinced that they were witness to a living dinosaur. The literally thousands of photo's and Video's are not what I would refer to as a lack of evidence. There is more going on then meets the eye!

Image
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 6:53 am

Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:No, its clear , yet again, that you know nothing at all of evolution..


The fossil records speaks for itself! I only present the evidence that you choose to ignore.

Oh bull.
Most of what you present wouldn't refute evolution even if it were true --- presence of dinosaurs with humans was your most recent effort, the idea that this or that fossil is a fraud or that this or that idea about a particular species is now known to be wrong. NONE of that, as you claim disproves evolution. That you think it does shows incredible misunderstanding of evolution and science in general.

A lot of the "evidence" you present has been disproven, not ignored. Scientists tend not to spend a lot of time debating folks who want to claim "Newton was just wrong". Creationists are given FAR more attention than their due because so many fall back on "its religion". That is utter bunk, but it is the claim.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:17 am

Viceroy63 wrote:
tzor wrote:There are species that predate the dinosaurs that are still around and common today. Evolution doesn't demand that the dinosaurs died, the lack of real evidence to indicate they have been around recently is the evidence to suggest that they died. Evolution doesn't demand that the woolly mammoths die either. Somewhere there may be a woolly mammoth, or a dinosaur, or one of those other animals that are currently not commonly seen, rarely seen or just plain old seen. There are animals that exist only on Australia.


That is almost like my point exactly. But why then do we not see evidence of these species in the Sedimentary Column? Where we see mankind and other mammals, we don't see dinosaurs reptiles with men as well? Why should that be?

Uh, no. Now you are taking evidence for evolution and trying to claim it is proof of the failure of the theory of evolution? Even ICR doesn't stoop that low, Viceroy.

Tzor is not almost making your point exactly, he is trying, once again, to show you why your ideas are just not even close to being real. That they are NOT seen together is evidence that they did not actually live together in any significant numbers, despite claims to the contary. If dinosaurs did exist, it would be just one more anomolous animal, not a reworking of evolution.

The evidence that is lacking that WOULD be needed is not seeing a few living dinosaurs today, or in the relatively recent past, but to see a full fledged human being or evidence of humans at the time of dinosaurs, well before the time we know humans appeared (note that there is definitely room for error in that "known time", but not enough to allow for humans at the time of T-rex, sorry).

You can make a LOT of wrong assumptions when you start out thinking you "know the truth". That is why scientists don't do that. REAL scientists don't, anway. Creationists/young earth scientists make all kinds of claims and don't bother to verify if the facts actually match.

Viceroy63 wrote: And more to the point that I was making, Why don't we also see more evolved or better adapted species after 65 supposedly million years of Dinosaur evolution? Or did they stop evolving and produced no more mutations or promutations of different dinosaurs for 65 million years? A dinosaur from Roman times look a lot like they did 65 million years ago.
LOL…
You want us to prove why what you think happened just did not fit your model?

Begin with the “dinosaurs” alive in Roman times would have been called “birds”. This is because they DID evolve. Not much is mentioned about dinosaurs after 65 million years because, well, there is basically no evidence after that point. Some small residual populations likely existed. In fact, I am not going to bother doing the google search, but I would not be surprised to find several species of dinosaurs absolutely did persist after that point. HOWEVER, the point is that most did die off and left ecological “openings” into which the mammals were able to move.

Contrary to your ideas of “always moving forward”, the dinosaurs’ sheer size and conditions at the time meant that while mammals were around in small numbers as small little vole-LIKE creatures (not voles, just might have looked roughly similar), it was not until the dinosaurs left that these little mammals could breed and spread enough to allow for the evolution that eventually led to most modern life.

Oh, and that was not the only transition.. things happened in the oceans, with reptiles, etc, etc, some at the same time, some before.
Viceroy63 wrote:http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

As to the lack of evidence of the continual existence of the dinosaurs, that is for everyone to judge for themselves. I am sure that all of those people who have seen the "Loche Ness Monster" or "Champ" in the USA Lake Champ, are well convinced that they were witness to a living dinosaur. The literally thousands of photo's and Video's are not what I would refer to as a lack of evidence. There is more going on then meets the eye!

Give it a rest already. Now you are just being truly stupid. I, tzor, Andy – basically everyone who has posted here in the past few pages has addressed this point quite well.

I mean … Loch Ness, Lake Champ…. REALLY?
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby crispybits on Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:25 am

Player has already covered it in detail, but I just ave to say that I find the irony delicious that someone who claims that so much is a hoax would use Nessie, possibly the most hoaxed story on the planet, as evidence for their case :twisted:
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Lootifer on Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:33 pm

I almost want to put on a "creationist" hat and try and argue for Viceroys point because he is doing such a spectactularly shit job of it....


Almost.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:02 pm

Lootifer wrote:I almost want to put on a "creationist" hat and try and argue for Viceroys point because he is doing such a spectactularly shit job of it....


Almost.

Yeah, he is sounding more and more like just an idiot, not someone who actually believes what he is saying. Even lionz did a better job than him... and Lionz mostly just wanted to post pictures and ask more questions.

EXCEPT.. make no mistake, there are plenty of Americans who believe things very much like what Viceroy is putting forth, and their numbers are growing, not shrinking. PLUS.. they tend to vote.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby crispybits on Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:09 pm

crispybits wrote:Player has already covered it in detail, but I just ave to say that I find the irony delicious that someone who claims that so much is a hoax would use Nessie, possibly the most hoaxed story on the planet, as evidence for their case :twisted:


I feel I should apologise for this. Nessie is only the third most hoaxed story on the planet, behind bigfoot and aliens...

Image

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Lootifer wrote:I almost want to put on a "creationist" hat and try and argue for Viceroys point because he is doing such a spectactularly shit job of it....


Almost.

Yeah, he is sounding more and more like just an idiot, not someone who actually believes what he is saying. Even lionz did a better job than him... and Lionz mostly just wanted to post pictures and ask more questions.

EXCEPT.. make no mistake, there are plenty of Americans who believe things very much like what Viceroy is putting forth, and their numbers are growing, not shrinking. PLUS.. they tend to vote.


Indeedy - and to boot...

Image

(I'm resorting to mostly image based posts as it makes it easier on them to speak in their language, after all why read a bunch of complicated stuff that actually explains everything when you can have pictures right?)
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:15 pm

LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby chang50 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:39 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.


If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?
User avatar
Lieutenant chang50
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Beta Map Achievement (1) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:16 am

chang50 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.


If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?

Its not "brainwashing" per se. They are thinking human beings. It is really no different from people who grew up in the 1400's who often thought the world was flat... they just did not have evidence to the contrary and it really did not matter much to their daily lives.

And.. the implication is that the internet, absent any check on credibility, is the most dangerous invention of all time.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby chang50 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:33 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
chang50 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.


If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?

Its not "brainwashing" per se. They are thinking human beings. It is really no different from people who grew up in the 1400's who often thought the world was flat... they just did not have evidence to the contrary and it really did not matter much to their daily lives.

And.. the implication is that the internet, absent any check on credibility, is the most dangerous invention of all time.


Interesting,I agree the internet can be dangerous especially to world views that cannot stand up to close scrutiny like creationism.Some like Thunderf00t think the internet is where religions come to die..it's food for thought at least.
User avatar
Lieutenant chang50
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Beta Map Achievement (1) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Metsfanmax

cron
Login