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

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

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

tzor wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a small child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir.

You fail at so many things; why am I not surprised that you fail in geometry? A "circle" is by definition a two dimensional object.

A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre. The distance between any of the points and the centre is called the radius. It can also be defined as the locus of a point equidistant from a fixed point.

And a plane is, also by definition, flat.

Of course that doesn't prove that they believed in a "flat" earth; they believed in a slightly domed earth with the dry land at the center being, naturally, higher.

So the earth's equator is a flat line? This is in fact what Isaiah 40:22 is talking about. The earth's equator.

They did not have sophisticate language as we do. For example they had no word for "Cone" shape. So then they may in fact use the word "Pointy" Or "Circle." Why don't you prove to us that they had a word for Sphere and other complex geometric shapes 3,500 years ago.

They probably do now, but if you show me where they used the word Sphere in other text's of that time and place then I will gladly eat my own shite! =)
Last edited by Viceroy63 on Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show

Viceroy63

Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.
Medals: 18

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

I already did Viceroy - bon appetit!

crispybits wrote:Except for the small fact Viceroy, that the Hebrews had a word meaning flat circle (chuwg) and a word meaning sphere or ball (duwr). In Isaiah 40:22 the word used is the word for a flat circle. By contrast, (allegedly) the same author uses the word for sphere in Isaiah 22:18:

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there the chariots you were so proud of will become a disgrace to your masterās house.

If the authour had meant that the Earth was spherical or ball shaped, there is proof right there that he had the word to do so. He didn't. He specified a flat circle.

Calling ancient hebrew a "simple" language and implying it was without the conceptual word for a 3D sphere is stretching even your credibility. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually bothered to do any actual bible study at all?

Edit - actually "starting to wonder" might be an ever so slight exaggeration - I think it's been pretty obvious for some time now

We know you love youtube Viceroy - sticking a video on there (without camera tricks) of you taking a dump and then eating it will be sufficient - thanks.
Last edited by crispybits on Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

crispybits

Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

mejihn7779 wrote:So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

crispybits

Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Yeah, citing a video is fine, as long as you go into detail about why you are doing so. I mean, I post a lot of Futurama clips, and I don't expect anyone to watch them. But, really, you all should, since at least they aren't 2 hours long.

--Andy

AndyDufresne

Posts: 24917
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

AndyDufresne wrote:Yeah, citing a video is fine, as long as you go into detail about why you are doing so. I mean, I post a lot of Futurama clips, and I don't expect anyone to watch them. But, really, you all should, since at least they aren't 2 hours long.

--Andy

If Futurama was as funny as you and others' compilation, then I'd watch it more. Until then, there is no God.

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
Medals: 48

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

crispybits wrote:
mejihn7779 wrote:So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

Why should I be willing to take the time to go through your video & refute it when you are not willing to do the same for me? My statement above simply asked you to be willing, even if you did not agree with me. Isn't that a fair request?
mejihn7779

Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:34 pm
Medals: 12

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

AndyDufresne wrote:Yeah, citing a video is fine, as long as you go into detail about why you are doing so. I mean, I post a lot of Futurama clips, and I don't expect anyone to watch them. But, really, you all should, since at least they aren't 2 hours long.

--Andy

And, you can learn something useful from them to boot!
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
AAFitz

Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 86

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Viceroy63 wrote:So the earth's equator is a flat line? This is in fact what Isaiah 40:22 is talking about. The earth's equator.

Isaiah 40:22 wrote:The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth,
its inhabitants like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a veil
and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in,

The Very Bad KJB Translation wrote:It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Viceroy63 logic ... more of less ... "If I sit on the equator all the inhabitants of the earth look real small because I'm on the equator, which is a circle which proves people thought the earth is round in Isaiah's time."

In both cases it is clear that the KJB use of "circle" has nothing whatsoever to do with equator but with the "circle" that formed the sky. It should more correctly be termed a "vault."

But let's look at this very closely ... actually I will let this guy look at it ... "The Circle of the Earth" Translation and Meaning in Isaiah 40:22 Dennis Bratcher

The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 44:22 (××Ö¼×, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun ××Ö¼× (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun ×Ö°××Ö¼××× (mechugah; Isa 44:13), referring to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.

Isaiah 44:13 refers to this "circle instrument."

Isa 44:13 The carpenter stretches a line, marks it out with a stylus, fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he makes it in human form, with human beauty, to be set up in a shrine. [NIV]
The verbal form of the word basically means "to make a circle" or "to scribe a circle."

Job 26:10 He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness. [NRSV]
Most modern translators agree that this "scribing a circle" in relation to the world refers to the horizon of the earth.

NIV: He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.
NLT: He created the horizon when he separated the waters; he set the boundary between day and night.
GWT: He marks the horizon on the surface of the water at the boundary where light meets dark.
Ancient people were very good at observing the physical properties of the earth without necessarily understanding how all of those properties worked. The horizon of the earth is easily seen from any high vantage point or open area as an encompassing circle. This led ancient peoples to describe this "circle" or the horizon as the "edge" or "end" of the earth (Deut 13:7, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 28:24, Psa 48:10, etc.).

The poetic hymn of Proverbs 30:4 uses this "ends of the earth" language to say much the same thing that Isaiah 44:13 says by "circle of the earth" and that Job 26 expresses by saying "he scribed a circle on the face of the waters."

Prov 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is the person's name? And what is the name of the person's child? Surely you know!
The other uses of the same Hebrew root reveal a similar meaning.

Job 22:14 Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.

Ancient people of 2,000 or 1,000 BC did not have modern scientific knowledge. Yet they developed perceptions of the physical world based on observations. It was certainly not scientific but practical, based on what they could observe simply by looking at the earth and sky.

People of the Ancient Near East, as well as ancient Hebrews and Israelites, conceptualized the world as a large, flat, circular disk anchored in water below (the deep, Prov 8:27, Gen 1:2, 49:25, etc.) by pillars or foundations (1 Sam 2:8, Prov 8:29, etc.). Between the earth and this deep was Sheol, the place of the dead. -2- The earth was covered by a "firmament," conceived as a large solid upside down bowl or "dome" (Job 22:14, 37:18), in which the stars were placed (Gen 1:14-20). Above the dome was also water, which was the source of rain.

Gen 1:7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.
The dome had "doors" and "windows" to let the waters above fall to the earth (Gen 7:11, Isa 24:18, Mal 3:10, etc.). God was described as ruling the world from his throne above the dome (Psa 33, Psa 113:4-6, Matt 5:34, etc.).

These references are not just isolated anomalies amidst an otherwise scientific grasp of the world. These conceptions are pervasive throughout the biblical narratives, not only in describing the physical world, but extended into metaphorical applications relating to other topics or even simply as ways to talk about the world and God. For example, creation hymns (Psa 33, 104, Hab 3, etc.) evoke these images as a form of praise. Or in the Babel story God must "come down" to see the puny work of humanity (Gen 11:5).

While there are many graphic depictions of ancient cosmology, we need to keep in mind that this was not a pictorial conception, but a functional and descriptive one. It is we in the modern world who tend to want visual imagery and reduce ideas to graphics and charts. Yet for ancient people this was simply a way of expressing what they saw about the operation of the physical world.

Also, we should not conclude that this way of talking about the physical world is what the Bible teaches as a reality, something in which we must believe in order to believe Scripture. Instead, this is the way ancient people talked about their experience of the world in the absence of any scientific knowledge about the processes at work in the world. Certainly we would describe the world today in much different terms. But then we live 3,000 years later in human history with much more knowledge about the physical world, and a different vocabulary with which to describe the world.

We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God (plenary inspiration; see Revelation and Inspiration of Scripture). Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvelous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived. That incarnational dimension of Scripture is crucial for us to understand if we are to hear adequately the important confessions about God and humanity that Scripture expresses.

tzor
Community Team

Posts: 3422
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Medals: 33

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Viceroy63 wrote:
tzor wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a small child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir.

You fail at so many things; why am I not surprised that you fail in geometry? A "circle" is by definition a two dimensional object.

A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre. The distance between any of the points and the centre is called the radius. It can also be defined as the locus of a point equidistant from a fixed point.

And a plane is, also by definition, flat.

Of course that doesn't prove that they believed in a "flat" earth; they believed in a slightly domed earth with the dry land at the center being, naturally, higher.

So the earth's equator is a flat line? This is in fact what Isaiah 40:22 is talking about. The earth's equator.

They did not have sophisticate language as we do. For example they had no word for "Cone" shape. So then they may in fact use the word "Pointy" Or "Circle." Why don't you prove to us that they had a word for Sphere and other complex geometric shapes 3,500 years ago.

They probably do now, but if you show me where they used the word Sphere in other text's of that time and place then I will gladly eat my own shite! =)

I find it funny that you consider sphere a complex geometric shape, when it is the most prevelant shape in the universe.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
AAFitz

Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 86

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

mejihn7779 wrote:
crispybits wrote:
mejihn7779 wrote:So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

Why should I be willing to take the time to go through your video & refute it when you are not willing to do the same for me? My statement above simply asked you to be willing, even if you did not agree with me. Isn't that a fair request?

Did you even read my post? Did you see where I refuted the very first argument he made? Do you understand English? Do you understaand that you're doing the equivalent of walking into a room where a long discussion about something has been going on for a long time and saying "I am right! All of you must stop everything and prove me wrong! NOW!"? Do you even understand how fricking arrogant that is? Put something into the conversation first, and then I'll give you something back...

crispybits

Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

crispybits wrote:
mejihn7779 wrote:
crispybits wrote:
mejihn7779 wrote:So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

Why should I be willing to take the time to go through your video & refute it when you are not willing to do the same for me? My statement above simply asked you to be willing, even if you did not agree with me. Isn't that a fair request?

Did you even read my post? Did you see where I refuted the very first argument he made? Do you understand English? Do you understaand that you're doing the equivalent of walking into a room where a long discussion about something has been going on for a long time and saying "I am right! All of you must stop everything and prove me wrong! NOW!"? Do you even understand how fricking arrogant that is? Put something into the conversation first, and then I'll give you something back...

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

Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:34 pm
Medals: 12

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

mejihn7779, here's the criticism to your video:

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

Ya like how that works?

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

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
Medals: 48

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

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

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

Ya like how that works?

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

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

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

\$87.99 for, "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman

\$92.49 for, "Evolution" by Mark Ridley

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

If Dinosaurs were alive on the planet even up to a thousand or so years ago it would totally blow evolution right out of the water. Say if Dinosaur Blood were found inside of a fossilized bone? How could you then say it was millions of years old and still be fresh?

If there is evidence that proves that Dinosaurs have lived along side of us and perhaps still are would you be willing to examine it?

Ok then how do you explain the hundreds of documented photos and carvings and drawing of dinosaurs, other wise known as dragons through the earth in recent history when supposedly no one has seen a dinosaur in over 65,000,000 years?

http://www.skygaze.com/content/strange/Dinosaurs.shtml

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex boneāthe first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.-----

Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls āround microstructuresā in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.----

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasnāt just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzerās work is āshowing us we really donāt understand decay,ā Holtz says. āThereās a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.ā

[Could it simply be that the carbon dating method is also based on assumptions and providing us with false dates measuring in eons of time and what they are saying is millions of years old is probably only thousands if not simply hundreds of years old?]

Marco Polo lived in China for 17 years, around 1271 A.D. Upon his return from Asia, he reported of families raising dragons, yoking them to royal chariots for parades and special occasions, and using dragon parts for medicinal purposes. Interestingly, the twelve signs of the Chinese zodiac are animals, eleven of which are everyday, extant creatures (rat, horse, dog, ox, rabbit, tiger, snake, ram, monkey, rooster, dog, and pig.) The twelfth is the dragon. Why would the Chinese include the āmythologicalā dragon with these common living animals? And we trust Marco for other history why not also dinosaurs or "Dragons"?

So much for the theory of evolution!

An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show

Viceroy63

Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.
Medals: 18

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Viceroy63 wrote:So much for the theory of evolution!

I agree. There is so much evidence for it...its more of a certainty than a theory.

You must have read those textbooks BBS suggested after all.

It was the best money you ever spent.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
AAFitz

Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 86

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Viceroy63 wrote:If Dinosaurs were alive on the planet even up to a thousand or so years ago it would totally blow evolution right out of the water.

No it doesn't. That's a wonderful straw man covered in manure you have there. If you could find real evidence that dinosaurs were alive a thousand years ago then that would prove that somewhere, somehow, some survived.

Let's consider the horseshoe crab, who was around this planet some 450 million years ago and is still around today. Dinosaurs only appeared some 230 million years ago, so they lived before and after dinosaurs.

And do you know something really funny? If dinosaurs were alive on this planet one thousand years after Christ, you think someone would have made an accurate account of it?

tzor
Community Team

Posts: 3422
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Medals: 33

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

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

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

\$87.99 for, "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman

\$92.49 for, "Evolution" by Mark Ridley

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

You know why they cost so much?

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

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

So high prices on evolution textbooks compared creationist texts may suggest as to which "area" is more reputable
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.

Lootifer

Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

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

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

\$87.99 for, "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman

\$92.49 for, "Evolution" by Mark Ridley

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

You know why they cost so much?

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

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

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

Textbooks are expensive: unprecedented!

Frigidus

Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Medals: 7

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

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

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

Ya like how that works?

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

Gee,

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

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
Medals: 48

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

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

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

\$87.99 for, "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman

\$92.49 for, "Evolution" by Mark Ridley

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

You know why they cost so much?

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

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

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

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

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

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
Medals: 48

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

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

Army of GOD

Posts: 7096
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Medals: 29

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Gee,

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

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

crispybits

Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

crispybits wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Gee,

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

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

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

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

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
Medals: 48

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

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

comic boy

Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London
Medals: 28

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

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

I wonder what sort of consistency it'll be.

Frigidus

Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Medals: 7

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

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

I wonder what sort of consistency it'll be.

my guess is not very "consistent".

betiko

Posts: 9786
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
Medals: 222

PreviousNext