Conquer Club

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.

 
Total votes : 0

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:15 pm

betiko wrote:According to my version of the bible, noe's arch looked like this:

(also called the meat ship! look at all the apetizing animal features on the deck and noe with a cool red hat!!)

Image


Wow! Your version of the bible is totally cool! Before, I accepted this lame version of the Bible, but with your version, EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE. EVERYTHING.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
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

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby betiko on Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:17 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:THE ABSENCE OF A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL SPELLS THE END 0F DARWINISM!

There are more than 300 million fossils in existence today. Not a single one is a transitional form. There is not a trace of all the imaginary transitional forms that must have existed in their billions of even trillions, according to Darwinists.

To reiterate; THERE EXISTS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM. This fossil, like Ida, Ardi and all the other fossils that have been subject of such speculation, is merely being used for making a furore, which is all Darwinists have left.


The reasoning of Viceroy is the inverse of the reasoning of bad conspiracy theorists. For conspiracy theorists, as you offer more reasonable explanations, they marginally expand the conspiracy into realms that encompass your explanation. For Viceroy, as more evidence of evolution is shoveled onto his rabid mind, he marginally contracts his standard of 'evidence', so that one single exception or perceived flaw (which the theory of evolution may not even support) is sufficient enough to not only discard the theory and all other evidence but is also enough for him to justify leaping to the claims of a specific magic book, the Bible.


I just have one thing to reply to this:

the meat mug!!!! (filled in with cheese)

Image
Image
User avatar
Major betiko
 
Posts: 10941
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
22

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PROFITS on Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:01 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... qiyRo&NR=1

Scientist and Doctor's, discuss the Javaman Hoax, the Piltdown man Hoax, the Lucy Hoax and several others that are still used as evidence that Man evolved from lower forms of life. Even National Geographic admits that fossilized foot prints used as evidence of evolution resembles modern man foot prints exactly. Did Modern man exist millions of years ago? I don't think so.

This is not funny! Evolutionist continue to dupe the public with Hoaxes that they claim is evidence of evolution. Like the horse for example that has been proven a Hoax decades ago. Yet is still used in text books to teach evolution as fact. What is funny is that evolutionist claim that creationist are not being scientific?

What?????? Creationist are not the ones creating Hoaxes to prove their point. If anything creationist are acting more scientific in representing the facts than evolutionary scientist are.
User avatar
Colonel PROFITS
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:38 pm
Location: Orange County, California.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Metsfanmax on Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:17 pm

Ok, let's put Viceroy's theory to the test. If it is on par with standard evolutionary theory or any legitimate scientific theory, it should be able to make some sort of prediction about what will happen in the future. Viceroy claims that species can change and diversify over time (e.g. skin color differences among humans) but that species do not gradually mutate into other species. So, Viceroy, how are humans today different from the first humans, and how will humans in 10,000 years be different from the humans of today?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Timminz on Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:25 pm

Viceroy,

Here's a recommendation for further reading that may help you with this thread.

Image
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:39 pm

Timminz wrote:Viceroy,

Here's a recommendation for further reading that may help you with this thread.

Image



Timminz, I'm ashamed. Lowering the standards for being mentally challenged is an insult to their community.




Instead, I would recommend this to Viceroy:


Image
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
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

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Dukasaur on Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:39 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Timminz wrote:Viceroy,

Here's a recommendation for further reading that may help you with this thread.

Image



Timminz, I'm ashamed. Lowering the standards for being mentally challenged is an insult to their community.




Instead, I would recommend this to Viceroy:


Image

\

I would say this is far more relevant:
Image
Red fish are NOT a transitional species.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26963
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:40 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:Let me see if we can try this again once more. The theory of evolution claims that species evolve from lower life form species into more complex ones. The mechanism is called Natural Selection. And while natural selection is real it does not lead to a more complex life form.

The process of evolution is gradual taking millions if not billions of years to occur. In the case of a bird evolving from a reptile you would see perhaps half or slightly formed feathers but not yet feathers. The feathers themselves would take millions of years to evolve.

In those millions of years if not billions of years there would have had to lived and died an enormous amount of reptiles with half formed feathers. So where are they? Even if fossils are rare, after millions of years, even if we only find less then .01% of fossils, out of 1 Million, That is still a lot of fossils left in the earth. Again, where are they?

You can not say that we can not find those half formed feathered reptiles yet we have the first reptile before it became a bird and we have the bird as well but not any of the intermediary species with the slightly formed feathers in between. That is way too selective for fossil record keeping.

And even so, all that you have wrote states nothing to the fact that for the past 150 years Darwinists have been lying to the public. Why?

Why the need to create a Hoax if the evidence is self sustaining?

Because there is no evidence and so they must make it up or people will lose interest in this theory. So every now and then they find some recently fossilized Lemur or monkey bones and claim that this is the "Mother of all findings!" "The one that will re-write human history!" only to have to apologize for being wrong about that one as well. The thing is that the apology is often quiet and unheard while the discovery grabs national headlines.

So why do it? Why lie?

None of this is correct and I sincerely don't know where you are getting this from. Is there a book that you're reading that I should go through with you?
In many cases we see organisms losing traits that we would think would be helpful, and sometimes it's for reasons unknown. We've seen some flies lose their second pair of wings, and some other flies develop a second set of wings. The old set become little balls on sticks. Recently, shockingly, it's been discovered that all snakes have poison glands. Shocking... because you might think being poisonous would be helpful somewhere.
Another popular example would be every single early fish. Fish today are far more dexterous and faster than their ancient predecessor. They also have far more advanced gills, scales, and jaws.

And about feathers, we have hundreds of fossils with under-developed feathers on them. T-Rex juveniles had a coat of feathers. On the genetic level, birds are reptiles.
And in the modern time we have other animals with "under-developed" organs and such. Penguins, Cormorants, Emus, those all have "under-developed" flying wings. Yet they don't need them. Some other organisms are "over-developed" with organs and such that they don't need. Your Appendix is arguably useless, and has a good chance to randomly kill you. Many ants have wings that they don't use, and those wings get in the way while they travel through tunnels. Many will shed their wings over time, while some queen ants will rip their own wings off.

Organisms do not 'evolve-up' just because. They can become more complex, but they don't have to. Evolution is driven by mutation, and the mutations will only be passed on if they are helpful in some way. If there is no driving process, or reason to favor a mutated gene, then there will be no reason for that mutation to survive. Survival of the fittest in nature is that driving process. But if an organism exists without competition, then there will be no reason for it to evolve any complexity whatsoever. Instead, that organism will save on the expense of a costly (in terms of it's limited resources) adaptation. For example, if there are no other plants around on earth, then there is no reason for a tree to waste resources growing upwards. The same number of protons from the sun will hit the tree no matter how high it grows, so why waste resources growing a tall trunk?



About your time-scale, some animals have become extremely good at adaptation, and some have even done so within the human lifetime. It can be said that evolution takes large scales of time to be noticeable, but that's not a law. And as Earth is subject to extreme erosion and it's own uniquely violent weather patterns, fossilization is a rare event. Plus we have an abundance of organisms that eat the dead. Otherwise there would be bones absolutely everywhere today. So this is why we don't have a lot of fossils. But the Theory of evolution doesn't need fossils.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PROFITS on Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:53 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:[15] This foundationless theory of evolution is what is being taught as "fact" in children schools and Universities in the United States and around the world. And many so called "intellectual" people buy it with out ever really questioning the Theory. They simply accept it as fact. The fact is that if you don't accept this theory as fact, then you are looked down upon by the majority of the intellectual world as being ignorant of the so called facts of the so called "truth of evolution" or are just plain stupid. You take your pick.


No one who is being careful with their terminology claims that the theory of evolution is a "fact." (Sometimes people describe the theory of evolution as a fact, but they are not using that word in the sense that it is an objectively measurable quantity, they are using it in the sense that few or zero respected biologists disagree with it.) The theory of evolution is a scientific theory (see below), which means that to describe it as fact is, well, factually incorrect. It is much different from the realm of actual facts (e.g. the fossils we have collected). What science class teaches you always is, and always has been, is the accepted consensus of the scientific community at large of a reasoned explanation for the facts we observe. Physics class is not just about learning that it is a fact that if you throw something upwards, it will fall down; it is about quantifying how long it will take to fall down, given a particular scientific theory explaining gravity. Chemistry class is not just about learning that molecules have electrons; it is quantifying how certain molecules react, using a particular understanding of intermolecular forces. Earth science/geology class is not just about learning that earthquakes happen; it is describing the theory of plate tectonics that we believe explains why earthquakes happen. Similarly, biology class is not just about learning that we have collected certain fossils; it is about learning how all of those fossils are related, in a coherent framework. The purpose of science class is not so much to teach facts as it is to teach the scientific method -- how scientists take a set of data and analyze it to come to a conclusion.

But the theory of evolution has as much acceptance among professional biologists as the theory of plate tectonics has among professional geologists, so it is perfectly reasonable to teach it in the science classroom. If you believe that there should also be a class that teaches about religious outlook on the world, you are welcome to push for it. Or if you believe that we should not teach science in high school, you are welcome to push for that too. But it is absurd to suggest that we should not teach what the vast majority of scientists believe, in science class.

[16] Some do not even acknowledge the word "Theory" as simply an idea or a thought and use words like "Unproven Hypothesis?" Whaaat? Yes, the word theory does not simply mean theory but a fact that has yet to be proven??? What ever that means. I always that that a fact is proven already, but watch out now, Don't you be ignorant of the difference between the two???


The word "theory" just means something specific in science. It is not a reasonable argument to suggest that because you have a different definition of it, that the arguments of scientists is moot. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that explains a set of a data in a coherent manner and, as far as we know, is not in dispute with any other data. In other words, a theory is a hypothesis that actually explains known data. A hypothesis is under no such restriction, which is why "theory" is reserved for better-tested ideas. If you would indict evolution as an "unproven hypothesis," so you must indict Newton's theory of gravity and all the other ones I mentioned above, and more.


"But it is absurd to suggest that we should not teach what the vast majority of scientists believe, in science class." The Scientists that are pushed by organizations with agendas and the Science teachers that were hired BECAUSE THEY PROCLAIM TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION don't account for the vast majority. They are simply the scientists that are being heard out, promoted, and FUNDED. HEAVILY FUNDED. If evolution theory is approved, results of TRILLIONS of dollars from government, donations, grants for further research and more jobs, book deals, various sources of income. If not approved, cuts in spending to science, loss of jobs, loss of potential sources of income. Voting yes does not mean you BELIEVE it, but only that it is an acceptable theory. Okay Scientists, lets take a vote now. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh, lets not forget "you'll be fired if you publicly profess not to believe in evolution". Okay Mr scientist "do you believe in evolution?'
User avatar
Colonel PROFITS
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:38 pm
Location: Orange County, California.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Metsfanmax on Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:23 pm

PROFITS wrote:"But it is absurd to suggest that we should not teach what the vast majority of scientists believe, in science class." The Scientists that are pushed by organizations with agendas and the Science teachers that were hired BECAUSE THEY PROCLAIM TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION don't account for the vast majority. They are simply the scientists that are being heard out, promoted, and FUNDED. HEAVILY FUNDED. If evolution theory is approved, results of TRILLIONS of dollars from government, donations, grants for further research and more jobs, book deals, various sources of income. If not approved, cuts in spending to science, loss of jobs, loss of potential sources of income. Voting yes does not mean you BELIEVE it, but only that it is an acceptable theory. Okay Scientists, lets take a vote now. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh, lets not forget "you'll be fired if you publicly profess not to believe in evolution". Okay Mr scientist "do you believe in evolution?'


It is true that the number of scientists that do PR related to promoting public understanding of basic biology is much smaller than the number of working scientists. But those working scientists do believe in the theory of evolution. Overwhelmingly so. In fact, what you see in the media vastly over-represents the scientific case against the theory (there basically is none at this point).

No one suggests that we should spend significant effort paying scientists to disprove Newton's law of gravitation. That's because it's correct.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby tzor on Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:27 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory.


Lots of things have never been observed in a Laboratory. (Especially those things of a time frame longer than the existence of the laboratory.) Plate tectonics, the complete life cycle of your average class C star, the breakup of a moon due to tidal forces (which can be powerful enough if you get close enough to some of the gas giants) and even the evolution of "rings" around gas giants like Saturn and Jupiter.

There are some insects who live only for a few days. They generally tend to be very doubtful of the idea of "seasons."

This gets even more complicated when you are dealing with a scale where you loose track of beginning and end. Even when we can look at the genetics of something a few thousand years ago, doesn't mean they are living, breathing and capable of performing mating experiments.

Here is a good example. Sing me a psalm as David would have sung it. Oh, that's right. Music was a mutating oral tradition until written methods were created that started with relatively "modern" Gregorian chant. If you don't have the beginning to compare, how can you say it did or did not "evolve." One can see the evolution in written music, but even then, the evolution of musical instruments can make even the written record complex at times. (The tempered scale wasn't used until the 18th century and is significantly different from scales before that time that were more natural.)
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:34 pm

I'd also like to point out that all scientists actually accept evolution as an undisputed fact. It's just not a fact like math makes a fact. The only thing you'll ever see a scientist attach the label "fact" to is something that is proven with math. If you don't believe me, go ahead and try to find a list of "scientists" who dispute evolutionary theory. It'll be funny.

The above isn't law either, but it's pretty much the way it goes. "Facts" have to be more than observable and repeatable.

Common usage confuses the word "hypothesis" with the word "theory."
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Metsfanmax on Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:36 pm

tzor wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory.


Lots of things have never been observed in a Laboratory. (Especially those things of a time frame longer than the existence of the laboratory.) Plate tectonics, the complete life cycle of your average class C star, the breakup of a moon due to tidal forces (which can be powerful enough if you get close enough to some of the gas giants) and even the evolution of "rings" around gas giants like Saturn and Jupiter.


Just going to point out that there is no "C" classification of stars :)
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:49 am

Metsfanmax wrote:Ok, let's put Viceroy's theory to the test. If it is on par with standard evolutionary theory or any legitimate scientific theory, it should be able to make some sort of prediction about what will happen in the future. Viceroy claims that species can change and diversify over time (e.g. skin color differences among humans) but that species do not gradually mutate into other species. So, Viceroy, how are humans today different from the first humans, and how will humans in 10,000 years be different from the humans of today?


I do not make this claim and this is not my theory. That mutations occur is a fact. Than Natural Selection "WEEDS OUT" the negative aspects of mutations is a fact. I did not come up with this. I learned these facts to be true.

That evolution has never been observed is a fact. Yet some scientist will say that mutations are evolutions and that evolution has been observed in a laboratory when one kind of germ or virus mutates into another type of germ or virus. But according to Darwinian Evolution that complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms, germs and virus mutating into other forms of germs and viruses is simply diversification of the species and not evolution. It is in the end the same species type. It is how we define that word "Species" and "Evolution" that is at the heart of this matter.

Darwinian Evolution, has never been observed in or out side of a laboratory.

Yet it is taught as fact. This is what should not be done. If Evolution were indeed fact then why the debate? If the facts were irrefutable then why the need to create Hoaxes and pawn them off as truth when they are lies.

It really is not evolution that I am against but lies. And evolution just happens to be the biggest Hoax of Lies that man has yet to teach little children. What will our future be like if we start on a foundation of lies? Make that prediction for me if you can.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:17 am

tzor wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory.


Lots of things have never been observed in a Laboratory. (Especially those things of a time frame longer than the existence of the laboratory.) Plate tectonics, the complete life cycle of your average class C star, the breakup of a moon due to tidal forces (which can be powerful enough if you get close enough to some of the gas giants) and even the evolution of "rings" around gas giants like Saturn and Jupiter.

There are some insects who live only for a few days. They generally tend to be very doubtful of the idea of "seasons."

This gets even more complicated when you are dealing with a scale where you loose track of beginning and end. Even when we can look at the genetics of something a few thousand years ago, doesn't mean they are living, breathing and capable of performing mating experiments.

Here is a good example. Sing me a psalm as David would have sung it. Oh, that's right. Music was a mutating oral tradition until written methods were created that started with relatively "modern" Gregorian chant. If you don't have the beginning to compare, how can you say it did or did not "evolve." One can see the evolution in written music, but even then, the evolution of musical instruments can make even the written record complex at times. (The tempered scale wasn't used until the 18th century and is significantly different from scales before that time that were more natural.)


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182529&start=315#p4015533

Already dealt with and sufficiently (re: viceroy's claim).

Either he's a A+ troll or a fuckin' idiot. What can you do?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
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

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:19 am

Viceroy63 wrote:
That evolution has never been observed is a fact.



What is happening in the following links, Viceroy?


http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/lite ... ruit_flies
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121625.htm


If you had to press me, I'd guess you're an idiot who immediately wishes not to critically examine his own beliefs--but hey, that's just me. You could visit those links and educate yourself, but we both know that I am asking too much. Why address your own ignorant claims when you can seek the less costly path of ignorance?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
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

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby crispybits on Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:20 am

Image
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:01 am

Viceroy63 wrote:What will our future be like if we start on a foundation of lies? Make that prediction for me if you can.


We've been teaching the Christian lie for centuries now, and somehow we're still alive. I think we'll all turn out OK in the end ;P
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby tzor on Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:25 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
tzor wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory.


Lots of things have never been observed in a Laboratory. (Especially those things of a time frame longer than the existence of the laboratory.) Plate tectonics, the complete life cycle of your average class C star, the breakup of a moon due to tidal forces (which can be powerful enough if you get close enough to some of the gas giants) and even the evolution of "rings" around gas giants like Saturn and Jupiter.


Just going to point out that there is no "C" classification of stars :)


When you get old you loose your vision memory. I meant to write "G". It's just a little difference between C and G; two little lines.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:11 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:What will our future be like if we start on a foundation of lies? Make that prediction for me if you can.


We've been teaching the Christian lie for centuries now, and somehow we're still alive. I think we'll all turn out OK in the end ;P


That's not fair because you can not prove it's a lie. In fact there is overwhelming historical and archeological evidence to support the stories of the Bible.

But the Darwinian Hoaxes stand bare and naked, for all to see. The theory of evolution is the biggest Hoax of lies ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting humanity. The evidence is clear.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby comic boy on Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:36 pm

I have concluded that the OP is likely not a Troll , at least not a very good one because he is too obviously sticking to an agenda . A good Troll would be far more subtle and mix things up a bit , introduce some ambiguity , perhaps even concede that his case may be flawed ;)
For a time I hoped I might be obseving the work of a gifted artist , sadly it seems that we only have a parrot repeating what he likes to hear , ignorance and stupidity alive and well for all to see:(
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby jonesthecurl on Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:47 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:What will our future be like if we start on a foundation of lies? Make that prediction for me if you can.


We've been teaching the Christian lie for centuries now, and somehow we're still alive. I think we'll all turn out OK in the end ;P


That's not fair because you can not prove it's a lie. In fact there is overwhelming historical and archeological evidence to support the stories of the Bible.

But the Darwinian Hoaxes stand bare and naked, for all to see. The theory of evolution is the biggest Hoax of lies ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting humanity. The evidence is clear.


Historical proof of the existence of Jesus?
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:31 pm

jonesthecurl wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:What will our future be like if we start on a foundation of lies? Make that prediction for me if you can.


We've been teaching the Christian lie for centuries now, and somehow we're still alive. I think we'll all turn out OK in the end ;P


That's not fair because you can not prove it's a lie. In fact there is overwhelming historical and archeological evidence to support the stories of the Bible.

But the Darwinian Hoaxes stand bare and naked, for all to see. The theory of evolution is the biggest Hoax of lies ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting humanity. The evidence is clear.


Historical proof of the existence of Jesus?


Well Duhhhh! We count the years AD and BC, After his death on the cross and Before Christ existed! Why would we do that unless the God/Man made such an impact with his teaching and purpose in life? Think about it man? Please.

Also the four Gospels themselves were written by hands on eyewitnesses and are eyewitness historical accounts themselves. In two thousand years why did not anyone say, "It's a lie." O sure the world hated true Christians enough to killed them, The Catholics were the ones doing most of the killing actually, but no one ever spoke out against the four Gospel accounts. Why not?
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby jonesthecurl on Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:29 am

Other than the accounts in the bible, which are not eye-witness accounts(and which are not exactly independent evidence anyway), do you have any historical sources for Jesus? Or any of the events of his life? I'm not asking you to prove that he is the way, the truth, the son of god, or anything else -just that he existed. I'm not even saying that he didn't, just that you have to prove that the evidence for his physical existence is "overwhelming".
"Overwhelming evidence" I believe you said.
btw, If you're going to count the AD/BC thing as proof, will you accept all other dating systems as proof of the events they commemorate?
oh, and incidentally you have the BC/AD dating wrong anyway.
After his death on the cross and Before Christ existed!
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:22 am

jonesthecurl wrote:Other than the accounts in the bible, which are not eye-witness accounts(and which are not exactly independent evidence anyway), do you have any historical sources for Jesus? Or any of the events of his life? I'm not asking you to prove that he is the way, the truth, the son of god, or anything else -just that he existed. I'm not even saying that he didn't, just that you have to prove that the evidence for his physical existence is "overwhelming".
"Overwhelming evidence" I believe you said.
btw, If you're going to count the AD/BC thing as proof, will you accept all other dating systems as proof of the events they commemorate?
oh, and incidentally you have the BC/AD dating wrong anyway.
After his death on the cross and Before Christ existed!


See, you are misquoting me, yet again. It's just a slight wording or two but still it's enough to mislead the majority of the people in just the same way that Darwinists have misrepresented the fact and mislead the majority of the people right from preschool about the theory of evolution.

Now I will ask you to find that quote where I said. "the evidence for his physical existence is "overwhelming."" And then we can continue OK. Thank you.

This is the same tactic by the way, that evolutionist use to claim that the theory of evolution is true when it is not. OK. Thank You very much!

Oh and as many times as we need to go through this exercise, we will go through this exercise until we learn to speak the same language and use the same definitions for the same words that we use. Thank You.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users