1,422 Forum Posts by "JerkClock"
Well I do agree that the sai's are better than the ninja stars at least. Anyway check this out:
Blams: 5307 (+11 since last log)
Saves: 18002 (+104 since last log)
Over 100 saves in a day again.
At 12/21/07 01:37 AM, Elfer wrote: in circles
Erroneous personal attack and evasion of proof, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Temperature
Effects everything it surrounds, no exceptions.
This would mean that your definition of Christianity includes all possible scenarios, and therefore the required evidence is fully arbitrary.
Yeah and? What's your point? I fail to see how that invalidates my belief.
independent of the existence of the Christian god.
Anything could be said to have happened independant of a christian God no matter what it is, if it was God talking to people who'd be arguing that they were all hallucinating the same thing by shear coincidence. However that would be unlikely, just like someone somehow predicting that a flood will come and wipe out the town, then pre-emptively building a boat. Sure it could happen but it's more likely something told him/her about it.
crazy theories
No see it doesn't contradict our science, merely some of it's conclusions based on assumptions we can't possibly know.
Again, the gap increases in magnitude, but not in proportion.
Playing of semantics to dodge the point noted.
physics-defying
It doesn't defy physics and you haven't proven it.
unwilling to learn
No I asked for details and you refused to give them because you knew they'd be debunked.
wizard.
Rodney Dangerfield is not remembered as a wizard either, so your comparison fails.
Refusal to learn anything for yourself noted.
You bring it up, you explain, I'm not looking shit up just because you lack ability to back yourself up.
judging all science
Calling into question the ability of dating stuff millions and billions of years old is "judging all science" eh? That's a fallacy of composition.
fossilized remains
The analogy fails because ground isn't the same as water, and so boyancy would have no effect.
No, see,
Yes, see, it is plausible that over a thousand or more years the enitre universe would have enough small changes to effect the cosmic ray amount notably, you're just invoking Ad Nauseum at this point.
making up
No, I've always said the idea we can somehow measure what happens over millions or billions of years is utter bullshit. And the fact that both radiocarbon and radiometric dating are directly contradicted by the properties of temperature with respect to molecular particles(something which can be, and has been measure within our lifetime) should set off alarms with anyone who thinks rationally about stuff.
dismissal without cause
The idea that we can not possibly know what happens over millionsor billions of years, combined with the fact that the methods are directly contradicted by the properties of temperature and neglect variations in energy which could very easily effect it also(such as lightning strikes).
unverified statement
There's been many people throughout history who said the same things dude, that's better than some stupid fuck atheist going, "Well I'm making this spagetti monster up."
Just something, anything, that you think suggests that Christianity (and Christianity in particular) is true, that you feel isn't adequately explained by naturalistic science.
I do have some, but no links, so you'rejust going to call bullshit on it(although much of it has recently aired on "The Universe")
Poxpower wrote:
fucking strong evidence
There is strong evidence, they're just saying radioactive decay can't be effected by anything that happens around it which is not only a bold assumption, but pretty fallacious at that, it directly contradicts the properties of temperature, and since energy is a factor, it neglects variations in energy as well.
decay rate that affects the temperature
Again that's like saying your computer's ability to function can't be effected by temperature because it creates its own. It does, but it's still effected by the temperatures around it.
you can date snow too
Well I'd be hard pressed to believe using snow layers based on average snowfall could accurately date snow beyond a human lifespan either. And for the record, they wouldn't need that to prove natural occurrences of global warming. Historical accounts alone could do that.
different material
And as that source said, those different materials get less accurate.
Dating techniques are insanely complex and precise and if you don't believe they work
Saying "I am right" doesn't prove your case.
At 12/19/07 09:56 AM, YoinK wrote:
Yea.. this is the 2nd time reaching 14.00 .... but first one to reach it after the redesign.
15.00 VP is definitely possible with the new system. It's all just a matter of time.
Unless they make it rescale when pimp hits level 60, which there's a lot of speculation of. In which case, I'll be pretty enraged.
At 12/20/07 07:02 AM, poxpower wrote: A scientist
I know that, but they aren't always right either. 100 years ago most(with notable exceptions such as King James) though smoking was harmless, and 20 years ago they didn't think there was any healthy benefit to alcohol, taken in moderation or otherwise.
one sitting.
Well the point is there's enough wrong with the bible that it's hard to use it as a solid set of beliefs.
unfossilized dinosaur bone,
While that doesn't disprove humans and dinosaurs co-existing, it is sound reasoning for it. So I'll just concede the point.
radioactive particles,
That still assumes that radioactive decay is constant. And yes temperature would have to effect it if it effects the speed at which molecular particles move.
temperature,
Ice ages could effect it, very easily, as could natural periods of global warming(not the stupid crackhead theory of human caused global warming). Would these cancel age other out? Not necessarily, if something is trapped in a glacier for 10000 years during an ice age it is unlikely the next warming period would cancel that out. And also, even if it proved to be close within thousands of year, that's by no means the same as being reliably close over millions or billions of years.
radiometric dating
I found this:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.
html
correspondingly ancient events. Isotopes with shorter half-lives cannot date very ancient events because all of the atoms of the parent isotope would have already decayed away, like an hourglass left sitting with all the sand at the bottom. Isotopes with relatively short half-lives are useful for dating correspondingly shorter intervals, and can usually do so with greater accuracy
Which corresponds directly with my argument, and when you add in the uncertainty of how fast or slow the decay due to factors like temperature and other stuff which may also effect it, it leaves room for wide margins of error.
THOUSANDS of people
Ad Populum. They are using science which is inconclusive. If 10000, or even 10 million people conclude that the Earth is a cube and use radiometric/radiocarbon dating to prove it, then is it? What if 6 billion do?
Elfer wrote:
irrelevant
Well it is relevant from the standpoint that no matter what is written or proven, people will provide an explanation for how it could be contrary.
affects temperature
Yes, it does. Just like turning on your computer effects temperature. However it is still effected by temperature, hence why even in a moist free environment, your computer can not operate below certain temperatures, or above others.
And yes these are directly related as both involve the movement of molecular particles, and in both cases said movement effects temperature.
radioactive decay
I wouldn't so wrong so much as misunderstanding. You have good reason for your argument, there's just a piece you're missing.
constant earthquake zone
Basic vegetation could indeed survive, not tall trees or anything though, but would be enough that there could indeed be animals around.
your theory on how it happened contradicts all sorts
It doesn't have to be consistant with any branch of christianity, because I'm not with any branch and more of the open-interpretation christian type, which allows theories that don't reflect the bible all that strictly.
We've repeatedly debunked anything you've brought up
No you've come up with possibilities but not proven anything definitely.
70-year interval
I'm not contradicting science's ability to explain things in the short term, in fact I think it quite excellent at that. But you have to admit that over the span of thousands, millions, and billions of years the gap increases and could potentially be way off by the time you get to the latter two.
go fucking look it up for yourself
Concession noted.
evidence you have
So Jesus never happened?
you don't understand
Refusal to explain yourself noted.
overconfidence effect?
Erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.
doesn't make sense
Right because heavier things don't sink. I'm not saying it would happen overnight, but over millions of years?
is a hideously improbable argument
Admittedly so yes. Still possible though.
from the entire universe
Yes I know that, and that is as such where the possibility of having at least a notable difference comes in. I know that events in the universe happened over millions of years and not thousands, granted. But consideringcomsic rays do come from the entire universe, it is more than possible that the entire universe could have changed enough as a whole to change the cosmic ray rate by a notable amount over a thousand or thousands of years.
radiometric dating
Yeah I read up on it when pox brought it up. It's not bad for what it is, but to say you can reliably measure events over millions or billions of years with it isn't true.
Level 35, icon still sucks.
At 12/20/07 01:59 AM, Timmy wrote:
Unless he's only moving up 4 points a day now, and just avoiding that fifth vote...
Yeah that's what I'm saying, he could still get that. Of course it would take a while but it's better than zero.
At 12/20/07 12:02 AM, Elfer wrote: necessitate a god to explain it
God could have spoken to everyone directly and this been recorded historical fact and people would still argue it was ergo being everywhere and they hallucinated it.
independent of the temperature
Right because temperature effects how particles move, but when you say it doesn't, therefor decay is constant despite it being completely illogical.
heat up
Yes, but they are still effected by the temperatures around them.
...What?
Exactly, you don't understand and shouldn't speak as though you do.
Yeah, but if you can only live on the places where there's no fault lines, how did the animals migrate all over the continent and still proliferate for a million years or so?
Animals don't need shelter like humans do(or aat least, very few animals build themselves shelters), they could deal with more shaky environments.
evidence to suggest that something is true,
Which in this case there wasn't.
say someone's theory is wrong,
Not saying the theory is wrong, just saying that it is by names means set in stone, and that while there are hearty, well thought out reasonings behind it, it still doesn't
you don't have any
Erroneous.
confidence interval
Okay but the point still stands.
taken into account
All that means is they're aware it could be wrong, not that they are suddenly more accurate than they otherwise would be.
. The evidence for continental drift being driven by convection cells is more complicated
And I want the details.
actual evidence
What you call actual evidence is concrete and I never said there was any, just suggestive evidence.
They're packed with more information than you would think.
I know the sort of info they are "packed" with, I'm just saying it is inconclusive at best.
A "strata" is a layer, in this case a layer of the geologic column.
Okay in that case I see your point, dinosaurs and humans could have still co-existed though, if their way heavier corpses sank them lower over all that time or if they were hear before us, and died shortly after we arrived but just having been found in the same strata yet.
Irrelevant. Radiocarbon dating is only used to date back thousands of years, not millions or billions of years. A drastic increase in cosmic radiation is unreasonable over that short a time span, unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise.
Two things:
1. It is fairly predictable withing a human lifespan of about 75 years, over the course of 1000 years or more, it is plausible that it could be off by a notable amount.
2. If not radio-carbon dating, then what is used to date stuff over millions and billions of years?
At 12/19/07 11:48 PM, the-phantom-spancker wrote:
Only the phantom knows. :)
Hey spanker I got ahead of you in XP :D
Wait, leveloneaccount can't get anymore B/P points?
At 12/18/07 10:24 PM, Elfer wrote:
stuff
Right so if it doesn't follow the bible word for word, that disproves religion.
Absolute zero
Yes but we have indeed been able to measure the fact that molecular particles do in fact move slower at lower temparature and faster as higher temperatures. Which would mean radioactive decay is faster at higher temperatures, and slower at lower temperatures, thus not constant and that's just one factor, one which is scientifically proven to change it.
alpha decay!
If it's moving slower it'll take it longer to hop that activation barrier.
Yeah, except that they wouldn't be able to
If they were used to it, they'd have found way to build stuff. Probably not a massive ship though. But it also depends where on the massive continent you would live. If it's on the outskirts where the shaking is less violent it's more than possible. Especially when you consider there'd more likely live there anyway due to massive earthquakes not shaking their homes down.
Ok, but calling bullshit on something is lying if you don't give any reason whatsoever as to why it's wrong.
Argumentum Ad Ignorantium. Not knowing it's false does not make it true.
The error only becomes "major"
Yes and as a result there is no way they can have anything but plausible theory. Nothing more.
"evidence" for your theory
All I said is there is more evidence than pastafarianism had, not that it's proven beyond a doubt.
You don't know what confidence intervals are, do you?
Gaps caused by non-exactness of science.
- Continental drift is driven by convection of the mantle
- Convection is plastic behaviour
And you know this how?
- The mantle only behaves plastically over long periods of geologic time
And you know this how?
Ok, but any non-rounded shape would be plagued by the shear and torque forces that the water would subject it to, so we're looking at a sphere or an ellipsoid.
There'd be problems with having a bunch of animals on board to begin with, so yes, I'm not hard pressed to believe that.
See the difference?
Okay I see what you're saying, no earthly events could prove God's existence whether he created it or not. That does make sense. However there is suggestive evidence is all I'm saying, not that it's concrete beyond a doubt proven.
useful evidence.
Still more than pastafarianism has.
we don't need God to explain an ordinary flood.
True but the thing with this story is God supposedly informed him beforehand it was going to happen. And considering that local floods happen all the time(and did back then), it's unlikely someone would know beforehand it was going to be disasterous enough and build a boat pre-emptively to survive it. True, it could just be he had a 6th sense, but then again ifGod was proven there wouldn't be other belief systems.
Trust me.
You obviously made that up on the spot.
Ok, of course we can't know it 100% completely, but when something is consistent with all of the physical evidence that we observe, it really, really suggests that it's true.
The physical evidence combined with small observations that are anything but conclusive and combined with theoretical science. I'm not saying it's not a good theory for what little we have to work with, just saying it's anything but proven.
Uh, any of them?
Usually when I hear the term strata it refers either to the atmosphere or to rainy clouds, so I'm afraid I don't know what that is.
Radiocarbon dating
Here's what I found on the matter:
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Cours eware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.h tml
Radiocarbon dating relies on a simple natural phenomenon. As the Earth's upper atmosphere is bombarded by cosmic radiation, atmospheric nitrogen is broken down into an unstable isotope of carbon - carbon 14 (C-14).
Cosmic radiation is fairly predictable over short periods of time such as the human lifespan. I can easily see this as being fairly reliable for determining a dead person's age when they died in recent years.
But think back millions of years, do you think that the same amount of cosmic radiation surrounded us as does today? What about billions of years ago? I think it's safe to assume that, while not necessarily true, it is more than likely that there's be a major difference that far back. Combine this with the radioactive decay thing it also uses which I explained above, there's easily room for major error. Major enough that you can't conclusively prove this stuff true by any means.
At 12/18/07 07:24 AM, poxpower wrote:
boat of that size
That is a good point, to be honest, I'm not disinclined to believe the story posted on page 7 about Noah just taking his dog on a boat or what have you. What with churches suddenly deciding limbo doesn't exist and stuff.
physical properties
If I put on a labcoat and said it was the "physical property" of the Earth to have 80000 degree days would that suddenly be true? What evidence do they cite to say it is constant, other than just, "well it's physical properties and stuff"?
very precise
I personally believe that among other things was just detail that got added later to sway non-believers.
dinosaurs,
The term "dinosaur" or "T-Rex" or what have you probably wasn't coined back then either. However there are writings of dragons and monsters, and plenty of them. It is easily seeable how they would perceive dinosaurs as dragons and monsters.
seashells
Okay first, you don't know for a fact that man always made shit out of seashells, and um, why do you keep bringing up fossilization? What I mean is you make it sound like stuff is only fossilized when human being touch them(I know that's not it, but that's why I'm asking).
we've not found ONCE an unfossilized dinosaur bones,
Again, what do you mean by this? I know you're not saying human beings have to touch them for fossilization to occur.
you have to look it up.
So the burden of proof lies with the person being presented to, not the presenter? No I think not.
And Noah was a homo sapien anyways.
Okay let's just say it was a local flood where he built a boat and took his dog along(which is more plausible anyway), it still could have happened right?
But you don't believe in radiometric dating ( a proven fact by science ).
Proven how? Saying radioactive decay is constant is a direct contradiction to the atomic properties regarding temperature. If it were true, stuff would decay even in absolute 0 temps, which is impossible if atomic matter can not move(which in absolute 0 it supposedly can't).
No, it wouldn't be a few, or "quite a few", the earth would have litteraly RUMBLED constantly.
If the rumbling was that constant it would be no more significant to anything living at the time than the blueness of the sky is to us.
Well you can't do that, you don't know which parts of the bible are truth and which ones are not.
With the exception of the parts documenting Jesus' life, that's correct. In fact, that's exactly why I believe the way I do.
elfer wrote:
just plain lying
Calling bullshit on unproven stuff isn't lying just because you say the words "it's proven."
pitch black
Dude give it a rest, who cares if it's really really dark brown or pitch black. Quibbling over minor, already conceded points is a logical fallacy you know?
Soaking something and freezing it
If it's soaken enough it's essentially the same, albiet encasing it in a big ice cube would create a sort of armor, so it would still be better.
Christianity was deliberately made up to troll the Romans
No you just made that up.
never exact.
Yes I understand that, all too well in fact. The thing is, over thousands, millions, and especially over billions of years there's room for major error with these "confidence intervals", especially considering that our assumptions for these are based on small approximations(that have confidence intervals of their own) observed within our lifetime.
legitimate
People can find any reason to call something illegit. Doesn't mean it's not evidence. I mean there are people who can find ways to "prove" we don't exist and claim our "evidence" for our existence doesn't even hint at being legitimate.
mechanism
Perhaps your miscalculations based on "confidence intervals"?
Again, this is similar to saying
And your argument is like saying, "well I'm plastic and elastic, so I move at constant speeds, because that's the properties of plasticity and elasticity." Doesn't amount to anything really.
I've already explained them
No you didn't. you said, "Well it's elastic and plastic and that means it's constant."
Building a giant sphere out of wood would be significantly more difficult than building a regular ship,
And because you say so, it's true. BTW, I didn't say an exact sphere, I said this:
More like an empty ball
Note that I did not say, "exact sphere." In fact, the scope of that is rather broad, as it merely entails a wood container without an open top(like a normal boat), not any specific shape.
changing your story
Presenting a logical explanaion for how something "could" happen is not the same as changing your story. Changing your story is if you're saying it has to happen a specific way from the start, then say it has to happen another specific way and so on.
However, since you were too dumb to notice, I never said it had to happen any specific way, only that it had to happen somehow, which does allow for any of a number of angles to be true, and presenting said angles would not be changing your story, since all the person is doing is saying that the general idea happened.
it was fake
Just because evidence isn't concrete doesn't mean it's fake, you saying so doesn't make it so.
the bible claims a global flood
And in all fairness, people's concept of "global" back then was, "A flat world encompassing only the land I know about." The biblical story could have easily been about a local flood.
Again, what if it was video that was stolen and presented as comedy by anti-pastafarians in order to discredit it?
No it was posted by the one who made it.
scientific
No I understand it, it attempts to measure stuff that goes way past the human life span by millions of years, and I'm sorry, it's not concrete. There's no way we can know it.
Why is it that dinosaur fossils and human fossils are never, ever found on the same strata of the geologic column? Not even once?
And what "strata" is this?
radiocarbon dating
And tell me how this, "radiocarbon dating" works. Yes I know how but I want to make sure you don't try to spin my explanation, so first you explain yourself, then I will.
A)
B)
A) Yes Really.
B) Yes I know, even when evidence is presented that people were healed and stuff by Jesus they still argue he was just a rare person with telepathy. It's simple fact that no matter what you prove, people can find ways to "prove" the opposite. It's more evidence than some idiots going "Look a drew a picture of a flying spagetti monster"
At 12/17/07 03:42 PM, Elfer wrote:
boat twisting stuff
Then I misunderstood, where did you say the boat needed to twist?
stuff
K, but this deforming, and reforming stuff doesn't have to happen at constant speeds.
Stuff
Evolution makes sense whether you believe in intelligent design or not. It's nothing more than gradual adaptation, I've been saying this whole time that I believe in it. You ignored the point that you are trying to say it can be true, but not of human types evolving from other human types.
stuff
Yes snow can cast shadows, no one said it can't, but you're saying it can leave a wide round area with no shadow, casting a shadow exclusively in the middle(which isn't possible unless it magically floats in the air like a sky platform BTW).
stuff
Okay so by whether you meant "erode". Well then I addressed that when I said that soaking something in water then freezing it(encasing it in ice) can preserve it.(of course, there'd still likely be some erosion of millions of years)
stuff
I do know it's a cartoon when the creators deliberately stage it just to troll religious people.
stuff
No there aren't, pastafarianism is nothing but a deliberately made up religion that has 0 genuine followers, created to troll religous people.
Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
You're welcome, any time.
confidence intervals
What "confidence intervals"?
any real evidence
You're right, there has been no concrete evidence, I never said this stuff was concrete though.
never answered.
Never to your satisfaction, but it was.
"relatively constant,"
Okay but you still have no proof of this relative constance.
See, you're just saying this, but you don't know a single thing about the science behind it. How can you even say this if you don't know how plate tectonics work?
I do, I've heard details before, but I prefer you recap them before I explain why they're not solid such as to avoid people twisting this after I do.(I will say for starters: radioactive decay being constant contradicts the existence of absolute zero)
Longest wooden ship ever made fell well short of Noah's ark, and required technology that you can't account for, such as metalworking and steam pumps.
No think about it. if Noah's ark was built anticipation a heavy rain leading to a massive flood it could be built unconventionally. That is, it would not need to be moved onto water, and would need to ensure the rain didn't flood the ship itself. It would most likely not be a boat in the strictest sense. More like an empty ball(though there would need to be non-leaky trap doors and stuff), the inner hollowness acting like a pocket of air would allow boyancy, and due to the nature of the design, there'd be less need for stuff such as balance(no need to avoid tipping the ball). It would be much easier to design such a thing and make it big than a regular ship, no?
stuff
Well I think more than likely they had fishing rafts but not much else myself, so I'll give you that one.
...There's nothing to explain here.
i.e, you're copping out.
failed to bring back evidence,
They brought back evidence it just wasn't concrete.
It's just evidence of a flood.
And that the events of the bible at least are true, which supports christianity.
your ignorance
Ad Nauseum.
It's your job,
Right, it's my job to look up your terminology.
Prove it.
It's a computer generated image lacking the detailed color of real world objects, also:
Category: Comedy
That's a direct admission it was faked, unless you're going to tell me that random, floating shit is supposed to be funny just because.
stuff
The reason that you can't possibly know what happens over millions of years was given.
This isn't what I said.
This I believe was what you said:
As for humans existing for millions of years, again, scientific evidence suggests that homo sapiens has not been around for many millions of years.
Which at least gives the impression that you believe only homo sapiens could be our ancestors, whether or not that is what you meant.
Do you think that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?
Yes, it is quite possible.
Poxpower wrote:
stuff
You make some good points, however I fail to see the pangea stuff as disproving human presence there. And actually quite a few earthquakes are indeed noted in the bible. I can see your point about the rock facing the sun directly though. But you're right, even if it is wood and it was noah's ark, even with the ice perservation it would be too deteriorated to conclusively prove itself to be noah's ark, I'll give you that. And yes, the bible doesn't explain the criteria for what animals to bring, but I believe much of it is saturated with BS that the writers thereof arbitrarily decided to include that wasn't dictated by god to begin with. Which is why I'm an independant christian, and not someone belonging to a sect.
However what about Jesus' existence? That much is at least conclusively true.
JerkClock, it works both ways. You can't yell at someone for not looking things up or doing their own work when you are too lazy to look up a SINGLE thing.
It's not that, if someone uses terms, it's reasonable to ask them to explain what they mean. Especially when not doing so can lead to people playing semantic with multi-definition terms and stuff. Hence why when I'm not clear what someone means, I ask them to explain, which is more than reasonable.
At 12/16/07 12:25 PM, JerkClock wrote: Wow, over 100 protects on a non-special day. I never would have thought..............That's pretty awesome. How long were you on the portal for that day?
Normal waking hours while checking it every 10-20 minutes. It probably helped that I don't turn my PC off at night and B/P when I wake up to use the bathroom(I still turn it off for temp file pruges though).
At 12/17/07 10:54 AM, Elfer wrote:
stuff
Erroneous accusations of twisting (1)
stuff
Refusal to explain yourself for fear of being debunked (2)
stuff
Stubborn believe that evolution exists, but only as it supports what you wish to believe (3)
I don't get how shadows work, durrrr
That's correct, you don't, as indicated by the fact you think they spawn out of nowhere in the middle of an open place with nothing above them.
stuff
If "weather" is verb explain the meaning of it. Your refusal to explain yourself only shows that you are wrong.
Yeah? So did the FSM.
It's an obvious computer generated cartoon made by dumbfuck athiests who think blatantly makingup evidence is the same thing as historical accounts, you fail.
I don't understand variability in measurements, durrr
That's correct, thank you for admitting that.
I don't get stats and confidence intervals, but I'm going to talk about them as if I do
That's correct, that's what you are doing, thank you for admitting that.
Let's see, a few people throughout history say that it's in a consistent place, but that consistent place is "on an unknown spot on a mountain"
They named the general area, but yet despite this being pointed out, you ignore it ferrous cranusly and call it "unknown" yet again, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Note: You still didn't answer the question (7)
Erroneous claim.
I didn't understand
Indeed you didn't, as you think speeds in reality are constant(did you know the orbit and rotation of the Earth are also not constant?)
Please, tell me what the problems are
You're assuming we could possibly have some grasp on what happens over millions of years, based on inconclusive and by no means solid scientific theories that certainly do not necessarily hold up.
That's right, we can't create a 450 foot long wooden ship, as shown earlier in this post.
That's erroneous, you never showed that.
I refuse to understand
Indeed you do, you think speeds are constant and never change, and that we know exactly how long stuff that takes millions of years takes. You also think that evolution can happen, but that human derivitives can't evolve into homo-sapiens, because it's too inconvinient for you to acknowledge that possibility, even though it makes perfect since if you believe in evolution.
Archeology + statistics. We find plenty of remains in the right time period that fit into the same model, which disagrees with what you're saying.
Oh? Explain.
So you're saying that you think they had the technology to build the largest wooden
They may have built something like small boats used for fishing, only larger and with animal cages. Doesn't seem too impossible.
What ark thing? The ark that supposedly exists, but nobody has ever found?
Except several people throughout history whom you keep denying Ad Nauseum.
As in there's nowhere in the geologic column to suggest a worldwide flood,
Okay but it could have been a local flood too. Back then they thought the world was flat, and as such it's unlikely it was explored enough to know all the lands.
In this post alone, I have numbered 14 instances in which you have shown your ignorance
Or in which you have shown your own ignorance in assuming you know what happens over millions of years(which you can't possibly) or that evolution can only happen as you say it can. Man, according to you, can evolve from apes, but not from homo erectus. Which makes no sense.
The second paragraph where you point-blank say you're not going to find out what terms like "elastic" and "plastic" mean
Is because I'm not fighting with google because you refuse to explain yourself. If you bring up the terms, you explain them. I'm not going to go look it up because you refuse to do your own work.
Argumentum ad interweb
Agumentum Ad Fallacy.
How do you know it's a cartoon? YOU WEREN'T THERE, MAN. YOU WEREN'T THERE.
The people who made it admit it was a cartoon.
gloryvic is distinguished from being right by the fact that there's no proof involved in it.
Which you have 0, you only have inconclusive theory and your twisting of how man can't evolve from homo erectus, but can evolve from apes.
You've said like 15 times how the mountain looks like rocks and he just says "no".
Looks like != is, and there are no rocks in the area of the same color.
Doesn't say so in the bible though,
Pretty certain they wouldn't call it Pangea back then. There's no need for continent names when there's only one existing.
Btw are you the kind who says Noah brought some dinosaurs on the ark too?
No I don't think he would do that. They would most likely consider dinosaurs "monsters" and not "animals."
At 12/16/07 01:44 PM, yoshi77777 wrote:
Major stat whoring lol.
Yeah but the point is even never even heard of that, not on a normal, non-special day. I've heard of people getting over 100 total points or even over 100 blams, but not over 100 protects. That was just insane.
At 12/16/07 02:31 PM, Elfer wrote: Stuff
Well it wouldn't need a steam pump if it had been sealed with tar. But that still doesn't make it impossible.
stuff
Ugh, I'm not frustrating myself looking those terms up, if you're going to use "elasticity" and "plasticity" then explain exactly what you mean by them. I have an idea but I won't speak until I am clear on it.
stuff
While this is true, you have to remember also that technological progression is also slower at lower technical knowledge levels.(hence why the stone age lasted longer than the copper age, which lasted longer than the bronze age etc.)
stuff
I believe we didn't start out as homo-sapiens, but that we evolved into them.
stuff
Sorry but there are no rocks in the area that are that color, and the snow isn't going to magically cast a big shadow in a spot where there's white all around.
stuff
K 1st, if that's brown it's a pretty dark brown. 2nd, so? Big whoops dude, I said things instead of thing, big deal, 3rd, no it isn't, 4th yes that would be a likely attribute of a foreign object.
stuff
How does an object "weather"? Did you mean "wither"? Well there's no moving water at the top of the mountain and if it was exposed to water during a flood and ended up on that mountain then yes, said water would freeze, perserving it.
stuff
As pointed out earlier in the thread it did not go unfound, now matter how much you wish to pretend it did.
stuff
5%, plus others that were way off of that is enough inconsistency to call into question the reliability of the tests. If their science is so good it should be able to pinpoint stuff, not have conflicting dates.
stuff
Yes there is no exact science, but at the same time there' no way we can know the age of things 1000's of years old reliably. We can only theorize on what we think makes sense as being signs of age, but not really know conclusively.
A vague indication of the whereabouts
As consistanly pointed out by several people throughout history and a satellite photo.
"Yes, your comment was relevant, so I did not respond to it"?
You are making an unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, I said no such thing.
I know this because I understand the mechanism of plate tectonics.
Not if you think it's speed never changes.
I was pointing out the problems the whole time.
Correction, you were pointing out what you think are problems based on inconclusive science.
This technology does not exist today,
Right, cus you know, we can create gargantuan ships, but just not a smaller wooden one, riiiiight.
This could never happen,
Of course you know this because you monitered the continents drift for all the billions of years that the planet existed and noticed it never changed.
more stuff
So how is it we could not have existed that long ago?
Hominid precursors to humans that used basic stone tools, and didn't build boats.
Or whom we have no evidence as of yet of them building any.
B) Before even seeing your source, I can tell you that local floods do exist, and more than likely can explain what you're talking about.
Okay then why can't they explain the ark thing?
stuff
Scientific observations and hydrogenis as in?
blatant, flagrant ignorance you've shown in regard
Unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.
You are ignorant of the science we're trying to discuss, and unwilling to learn.
You are making an unsubstantiated and erroneous personal attack.
It's over, I win.
He's right JerryClock, you just got owned in the ass.
Unsubstantiated and erroneous personal attack.
lack of evidence
Unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with deliberate ignoring of presented evidence. As expected, since you lack a logical argument.
The FSM has been spotted and filmed. You lose.
Cartoon FSM doesn't count.
Not an achievement, but check this shit out:
Blams: 5258 (+19 since last log)
Saves: 17536 (+117 since last log)
Wow, over 100 protects on a non-special day. I never would have thought..............
At 12/15/07 05:33 PM, Elfer wrote:
Given the biblical dimensions, the size of ship people are looking for, the size of the ship people claim to have found, and the amount of animals he still WOULD need to house, yes, it would be the largest wooden ship ever built.
Even so, considering that wooden ships weren't exactly massive, that's not saying much.
"Plat Techtonics" is a different name, not a mechanism. What I'm asking you is if you understand the forces that actually drive the motion of the continental plates.
Explain.
Not really. It's not logically feasible that this happened millions of years ago, because that would mean that technological progress progressed quite a bit, at least to the point of relatively advanced ship-building, then technology in all areas stopped progressing for millions of years before miraculously restarting again a few thousand years ago.
Not necessarily. We've technologically regressed quite a few times just throughout known history. Back then if a society with advanced knowledge was invaded by a barbarian horde, the scientists killed, and the libraries burnt, that was it. The technology was just fucking lost. It's not like today where there are endless records everywhere in networks and computers, and where it's nearly impossible to destroy all of it.
And keep in mind also that the further back in history you go, the more war prone human society was. It is more than possible that war kept us at a technological standstill for that long.
On top of that, you're also suggesting that all evidence of all homo sapiens that lived before or for the first few millions of years after the flood also miraculously vanished, and only that which fits in with a logical evolutionary timeline remains.
Huh? I don't know where I said that or what you're suggesting by this.
Neither does wood. You know what is black sometimes? Rocks.
Well actually wet wood can, or tar, if the ship was coated with it.
Furthermore, look at the picture itself. There is nothing pitch black along the ridge itself, the best you could get out of that is a mid-blue. The only thing that I can see in the photo near the ridge that looks black is the part behind the ridge, which as you can see is precisely the same colour as what appears to be either shadows cast by other snow ridges on the mountain or protrusions of rock.
It's also in a spot where there is nothing above it to form a shadow for that matter. And oddly enough, none of the mountain rock matches its color.
Unless you're willing to do that, I don't want to hear anything else about that stupid photo.
Wow it's circled in red and you still don't know what I'm talking about.
Well, no, not really, and that still doesn't explain why it was never covered in snow.
Well yes, really, it is. And snow shifts around dude, just like sand does. It doesn't have to be covered in snow now to have been covered in the past.
Ok, but plenty of good navigation equipment has been around for the last several decades at least, and that's being GENEROUS. If we've known where it is for such a long time, and so many people have supposedly found it, there is no excuse for a complete lack of hard evidence at this point.
Granted, people living in the area should go and research it, but how do you know they won't?
Three laboratories dated it to 720 to 790 A.D
That is not a consistant date :|
See, in science, you can't just dismiss people's findings without cause by calling them "bad."
No but you can question why results aren't pinpointing things exactly. What you can't do is say, "Well the ones that support my side were conclusive and the ones that don't, weren't."
That's a band of elevation a thousand feet wide that would stretch for miles around the mountain. That's hardly what I'd call "specific."
While that's true, it's not a lack of indication either.
If they could even say what face they were on, or some recognizable landmarks, it might be more credible. The fact that none of these people have ever managed to actually demonstrate that they found it is a strong indicator that none of these claims are actually true.
Or that it was in the middle of nowhere with no visible landmarks for them to be able to pinpoint exactly where it is.
I like how you didn't respond to the point about how you'd have to completely change the physical character of the Earth's mantle in order to make the change your suggesting.
Plate techtonics involves the Earth's mantle, so no I did not.
Yes, continental drift moves at a relatively slow and constant pace,
And you know this how? Did you live for millions of years monitering its speed?
hare-brained scheme
Unsubstantiated and erroneous personal attack.
As for humans existing for millions of years,
What was Homo erectus?
On top of all this, there's no evidence in the geologic column
That's not true either, what about the packs of skeletons that have been found crushed by water pressure above sea level?
On top of THAT, the idea of a massive worldwide flood doesn't even make any physical sense,
While that is true it's possible it could have receded to the mountaintops within their lifetime.
what I'm telling you is that you will never be able to reconcile this idea with scientific observations.
Because you say so right?
You're a troll at best, and at worst woefully ignorant of the science you're trying to discuss.
This is an unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.
I think this discussion is finished.
Ah, I see you are invoking cut and run.
hypocritical statement
Your unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
None of the evidence that has been presented for your case is conclusive so
Never said it was, just said it's more than pastafarianism has.
If you took ever animal in existence on the planet today (which i will roughly estimate is close to the same amount that populated the earth since the time when Noah could have supposedly made his boat)
and placed them on a ship it would indeed have to be the largest ship ever built.
Ad Nauseum, you are ignoring the fact that it could have been only the ones Noah knew about.
How could Noah and his relations( being the last people left on the earth) repopulate without massive failure to to inbreeding and incest related gene mutation?
They wouldn't, but inbreeding may not have been taboo back then either(and probably wasn't).
Not to make an attack but since when has believing that a man and his family built the largest ship ever created, followed by the earth flooding, and that now the ships apart of a mountain ever been logical.
I see that you are a Ferous Cranus. As I explained it would not be the biggest ship ever built as it didn't need to actually house every animal on Earth.
Just wondering, do you know how the convection that drives continental drift actually works?
Plat Techtonics right?
Also, if you think that the animals migrated across pangaea after the flood, what kind of time period are we actually looking at in this flood? When do you think, realistically speaking, it could have actually happened?
That I don't know, but what I do know is that it's possible no matter how long ago it was.
Against a drop of bright white snow, there's going to be sharp contrast with any shadows.
It's not that, it's just that shadows don't tend to be pitch black(or anywhere near it)
Also, what do you propose those black things actually are, if they're indicating a buried object? Protruding wood that failed to erode over thousands (or whatever time period you're suggesting)?
Possibly, it's possible that could indeed happen.
I thought we were talking about why nobody has yet gone after what is supposedly "buried"
Right, hence it refers to the past, not the future.
When someone claims to have seen a gigantic ship that defies all current engineering practice
Or alternatively, merely exaggerated the details.
then brings back wood from the wrong time period
Wood which was inconclusively dated, possibly with bad testing methods.
yet still fails to give any indication of where they may have found it
14000 feet up, between 2 mountains that were named is an indication.
Again, to make this claim, and have Pangaea fit into a realistic time frame for some sort of miracle-working shipwright, you would have to propose an entirely new mechanism for continental drift.
So you're proposing that tectonics move at constant speeds then, or that man couldn't have existed for millions of years, that it's not at all possible?
But the idea of 8 people, keep peace between predators & prey AND...
It's called cages dude. Those were primitive times, not stupid times.
At 12/15/07 12:08 AM, YoinK wrote: LEVEL UP!!!!
I'm now a level 47
All golden levels for now on. :)
Yeah but 51 and 55 still suck though.
At 12/13/07 11:45 PM, MysticShinHanKu wrote:
pardon me for having an opinion, my good sir.
Why yes, how dare I criticize you for being a bigot and hating people for something as small as putting "Clock" in their name.
I think a lot of his stuff is awesome, and I think he's quite talented, but that doesn't mean I have to love and worship everything he makes. It's not like your account will get deleted if you say you don't like an admins creation.
I don't like everything he makes myself, but I don't make moronic blanket statements about Clocks either.
Dumbass. ;)
Your unsubstantiated claim is erroneous.
Continental drift takes more than 4400 years.
Correction, at the continent's current speed it does, but that's assuming that the speed of continental drift is constant and it more than likely isn't. It's more than likely that they drifted apart faster when they first broke apart than they do now.
But as for 4400 years, who are we to say it was 4400 years ago and not much, much longer?
Oh, you mean the shadows cast by the ridge?
They were to dark to be shadows dude :|
Compasses have existed for a while now.
Yes but compasses don't constantly point due north either. In fact the direction they actually point in flucuates quite a bit. While it's true that this pattern can be learned, it's not quite something an amature could do either.
Also, since we're talking about expeditions that are going to take place in the future, GPS is extremely applicable.
In the future yes, but the original question asked why no such expedition happened in the past, did it not?
Again, atheists claim that these things are hoaxes because somehow every single time people have failed to bring back any evidence, or have brought back evidence that is revealed to be an obvious fraud.
No it wasn't revealed to be obvious fraud, it was revealed inconclusive. There is a difference.
Boy, continental drift sure is speedy these days, isn't it?
As explained, we don't know how long ago the flood happened or how fast the continents drifted when they first broke apart.
That is the stupidest fucking thing I have heard in my entire life.
Unsubstantiated, erroneous, and childish personal attack.
Your dead serious in stating that Noah somehow created a boat and gathered every animal on the earth 60 million years ago.
Note the obliviousness in your reply, I did not once say he gathered ALL the animals on earth I said this:
more like it could hold every known animal in the within the region of the place it was built(ie. every known one within perhaps a 100 mile radius) which is a reasonable assumption for how such a thing could have happened.
ie. not every animal on earth, dumbfuck.
I pity you. I'm serious when i say that. I just cant believe that you could be so diluted and misinformed. It makes me very sad to write this and to think that in as advanced a society we live in there are still people who are so blinded by belief that they brush aside common facts and institute there own ideas as the ultimate truth over critical thinking.
Another childish, unsubstantiated, and erroneous personal attacked, with invective. As expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
I do so pity you and whoever you com in contact with in real life. Please, oh please, leave your computer, sit in a large comfortable chair, and read about the world today and the discoveries people have actually made so that you can raise yourself to the level of intelligence of someone belonging to the human species.
Another childish, unsubstantiated, and erroneous personal attacked, with invective. As expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
The explanation for what makes wikipedia an uncredible POS source is longand contrived, but you can read all about it here:
At 12/13/07 12:53 AM, flashsurfer11 wrote:
This is true and many articles had citing rules on them, you have to cite any information you put on these post and then its checked, only afterwards does it show up
And sometimes what's "cited" is a bad source.
There are no black parts that are circled. There's one brown thing that's circled that appears to be a rock.
K, but they're not the same colors as the surrounding rocks, making it appear a foreign object.
Generally, if you're going on an expedition like this, that's something you would know beforehand. And you know what a scientist would say? They'd ask you specific questions depending on their field (remember, "scientist" isn't actually a job title), but mostly they'd ask something like "Oh, ok, well where was it, and do you have any pictures or samples?"
Right, but you missed an important point. How do they get the info out there and assure that it'll become widespread knowledge.
Duh, hello, I'm Jim, the dumbest explorer. I'm going to get supplies, hire guides and plan everything out for this mountain expedition. However, I'm not going to bring a GPS or even a map,
GPS is recent technology, it does not account for anything more than 5 years ago, And a map doesn't help in the middle of nowhere. You can't tell if you're walking perfectly in a direction or not and you no signs to guide you like you do on road travel. All you have is endless terrrain that looks just about the same all around. Not a good guiding point,
If you can afford to go on a mountain expedition to find the ark, and certainly if you actually DID find it, you can spare the twenty bucks for a domain name and web hosting.
And of course, you ignored the point that this would only apply to recent years, and would just tardpiled by athiests claiming it's a hoax even if it isn't.
Well then don't try to fucking use it as evidence.
Right, a satelite photo suggesting there may indeed be something in a spot that many people throughout history have been witness to there being something there means nothing because you say so.
This may sound stupid, but how did, for example, all the say, Kangaroos get from atop this mountain and find their way to Australia?
Pangea.
It only happens when you do that on UJ Flash, but it's been known to happen to people.
At 12/13/07 02:23 PM, MysticShinHanKu wrote: I almost agree with you, yet I don't like Clock Crew either. They use the stupid computer voices, have bad writing, and aren't funny or entertaining in any way, shape, or form to me. I've never seen a clock crew flash I've liked. I just can't get into them.
So you don't like Tom Fulp then? Because he's a Clock you know:
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/6254 4/1
Dumbass.
I was ready to reduce my PC to scrap metal for nothing it seems.
You can lose your B/P and also your XP if you only vote 0 and 5 on UJ Flash. On Flash passed judgement you have nothing to worry about however.
Those Flash that were deleted, got deleted because they're authors broke the rules and got themselves deleted. If a Flash author gets deleted, his Flash goes with him. The Flash themselves weren't targetted, it was the users who broke the rules and happened to b the authors of those Flash.
