Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Had this shit myself a few minutes ago. Install the latest Flash then turn off your PC. Wait 30 seconds then turn it back on, that should cure the problem.

At 12/13/07 12:13 PM, Hybrid-Of-Souls wrote:
2 years for me. Hehe.
Here's to an odd two years of less than three posts per day.

Oh hey hybrid, did you know wikigrounds is back up?

I find it funny that shittykitty never "officially" came back to Newgrounds after being de-modding for nearly DOSing the site.

At 12/13/07 01:19 AM, mayeram wrote:
If you were to go on an extremely difficult journey to attempt to find the Arc, and in the end you actually found it, why wouldn't you present your findings at least to other religious people?

Dunno why someone wouldn't, although there are people out there who really wouldn't. Though I was more referring to the fact that even if you did there's no garentee by any means it would get any media attention.

Even if the news agencies would refuse to report such a thing, why wouldn't you just report your findings to scientists?

If you know where they are, I see no reason not to either. I dunno about you though, but I've net met a scientist in my life, nor do I know where to find one. I could ask around and find out, but even then if all I'm doing is saying "I found an ark on a mountain", what's the scientist going to do? Is he going to go, "ZOMG YOU FOUND TEH ARK!!!!!! GRATS!!!!!"?

I would think they would be thrilled if your findings were well documented and showed proof of the arc.

Possibly, even so it doesn't mean you would remember your way back, or that you wouldn't get lost trying to find your way back and never turn up the proof. Or that even if this didn't happen word would get out.

Finally you could create a website documenting your evidence including videos, pictures, maps, and experts that you took along with you to see it. One way or another, such a momentous discovery would get out.

If you have a computer, and the internet, and the extra money for said site sure. Of course, even then that only accounts for more recent years, people would dismiss it as made up hogwash, and there's no garentee that the thought would occur to them in the first place.

So why should this vague thing in this satellite photo hold any sway over people when the people showing it as evidence are unwilling to even go there to see what it is?

Well do you wanna climb 14000 feet up in the frigid temperatures? I sure as fuck don't. It's not like driving to a location down the road, you can die or get seriously injured climbing mountains(Yes I know you can die in car wrecks too, but it's much easier to avoid it). It's also a lot more difficult.

Although I think it is fairly clear that there was a Jesus, there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows that he was the son of god, or that he actually had divine powers

There are plenty of witness accounts to this, even amongst non-followers, or there were, their long dead. Still even then people argue he was just a person with ESP and stuff. The point is it's more proof than pastafarianism has.

No, it's "Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted."

I see, I really did misinterpret that then.

If there is a good chance that there is something there, why has a modern expedition to the site not been made?

That is a point yes, of course it could be that there has been ones that there are no record of. Of course, you'd think the media would be quick to pick up on it, but then again they seem all too wrapped up in politics to care about anything else half the time.

If the arc were ever found it would be the greatest religious discovery of all time, and one of the greatest archeological discoveries of all time.

Not necessarily. Although perhaps a great archeological discovery, it would be arguably no more relevant to the proof of religion than the existence of Jesus, which is undeniable real.

Tell me, what specific feature would distinguish this from a ridge of rock, or even a ridge of snow and ice? What makes you look at that and say "I think there's something buried under there"?

The black parts that were circled?

Blams: 5217 (+4 since last log)
Saves: 17293 (+57 since last log)

Damn you final exams, I shoulda gotten over 80 points :(

At least they're over now.

At 12/12/07 07:34 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

What I mean is that people make out that you can't trust anything you find on wikipedia,

I don't think anyone's saying it's 0% accurate, just that it's innaccurate enough to be considered unreliable and as such, not a valid source.

At 12/12/07 07:28 PM, Elfer wrote:
Really? Tell me what features of this ridge make it appear as though it has an object below it, that you wouldn't observe normally. What distinguishes it from every other rock ridge that you might see in a mountain?

It appears to have an object buried under it's snow.

No it's not.

Strawman again, laced with Ad Nauseum, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

I don't think you know what a straw man argument actually is.

Isn't it just where someone makes a statement like, "I'm correct and you are not" without substantiation?

At 12/12/07 07:21 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
What the fuck you moron,

This is unsubstantiated Ad Hominem fallacy, and it is erroneous.

it's not a strawman,

Yes it was, attacking something that was proven true with, "no it isn't" is strawman.

and you didn't provide any evidence of this NASA find

Evidence was posted by another person earlier in the thread.

All references like that have a few errors. According to this study, Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittannica.

1 person writing a biased, pro-wiki column, no I gotta say it's bullshit.

Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source of information, but it's lack of creditable information is greatly exaggerated.

Right, Brian Pepper's article being deleted, that's exaggerated, David Tholen's usenet info being deleted, that's exaggerated, trivia info being deleted, that's exagerated.

At 12/11/07 11:08 PM, Elfer wrote:

One person from 1900 years ago is not something I would consider consistent.

Odd, there were more stories than just the one person from 1900 years ago,

In addition, a ridge is not evidence.

A ridge with what appears may be an object below it, in the same spot that several historical account of people claiming to site something at however is at least something. Not a ridge in and of itself.

I could say that about all of your posts in this thread.

You could but you'd be wrong.

So if enough people say something it is more believable then something that less people say even if there is no proof or concrete evidence for either thing?

If it combined with something NASA find to suggest there may be something then yes. Is it concrete? No, but no one's saying it is, only that it's more than pastafarianism has.

Also, how much consistent hearsay would you need for it to be enough? Would the consistent stories of people that say they were abducted by aliens be more worthy then the belief of one man?

Well I dunno about abductions, I will say that I always believed there were some credible UFO reports that had proven something. And recently declassified reports by the governement state that in a nutshell, it was "aware" of UFOs this whole time but tried to keep the public in the dark to avoid causing a panic over percieved aliens. Does that prove UFOs and aliens concretely? No, but it's more than just zero evidence at the same time, is it not?

Besides, isn't it hearsay when Pastafarians say that the flying spaghetti monster exists?

They're making it up to mock religous people, that comparison fails.

Well I say NASA didn't find this.

Strawman

At 12/11/07 10:21 PM, Elfer wrote:
Sure, it's "consistent" with the story of the bible that there would be some sort of observable thing on Ararat.

Well actually I meant with the other reports you were talking about, not the story in the bible itself.

Everything else in your post is pretty much addressed in the sources, or is summed up by saying "hearsay is not scientific evidence"

While this is true, enough consistant hearsay is better than nothing, and is more than the pastafarian, "You can't disprove it." Especially with NASA finding something that may(ever vaguely) be what was talked about in what happens to be the same location.

Don't be stupid.

Erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.

He obviously knew where he was or how the fuck would he have gotten back to society?

Not necessarily. People who get lost, end up in the middle of nowhere, and live to tell the tale obviously didn't know where they were. Yet they got back to society.

Read back and you'll see someone all ready disproved this little hoax.....

Strawman

And yet an obviously religiously funded site would post information that leads to the unltimate demise of a couple thousand pages that people have believed for 2000 years.....right?

I didn't say there wasn't biased info, I said it was more reliable than a site where some dumb fuck admin will knowingly place false info onto articles because his birth certificate has a misprint.

Idiotman.

That's an unsubstantiated claim, and it is erroneous.

At 12/11/07 08:49 PM, Elfer wrote:

So, he claimed to have found a fifty ton ark, which he couldn't direct people to, and which nobody else has ever found. Fifty tons of wood is no packet of matches, so I don't see how it would be lost again so easily.

In all fairness, it is rather difficult to direct somebody to the middle of nowhere without a satelite, which he did not have.

His evidence for this is a piece of wood. You say that there's no wood near the area, I say that while that may be true, he could have gotten the wood from somewhere else, for example, anywhere that there is wood.

If the wood showed signs of erosion caused by high up snow storms(or whatever effects would be had that high on the mountain), that would certainly make it plausible.

Five laboratories examined the wood. Three laboratories dated it to 720 to 790 A.D. +/- 90 yrs. One dated it to 260 A.D. +/- 120 yrs, but had an insufficient sample size. The only laboratory to date it to the appropriate time period never published a report.

And at the same time the details of the bible are extremely ambiguous, hence why there is a ton of confusion about a lot of things within its text.

May I also ask what their methods of "dating" this were?

1900 year old hearsay from an apologist who had obvious reasons for promoting the truth of the old testament is not valid scientific evidence.

Christians who deliberately lie about God and the bible are considered Blasphemers who are considered to be sent to hell. While this doesn't mean they wouldn't do it, it does mean that it's unlikely they would. One who truly believes would not likely send oneself to eternal damnation for 15 minutes of fame.

He saw Mount Ararat and was told that it was the resting place of Noah's Ark. I am not denying that the mountain exists, nor that people think there is a boat on it.

While his statement does appear an exaggeration, it is consistant with the other stories of the location and the object.

Again, hearsay with a bunch of mysteriously disappeared "evidence." Why is it that with biblical creationist arguments, the information just always mysteriously disappears?

All lot of stuff info that existed before the communist revolution would be destroyed. Hearsay is at least better than nothing when it is consistant with other hearsay.

Furthermore, Roscovitsky's story and even his name are ADMITTED FALSEHOODS.

How so?

I'm going to post one of these satellite photos so you can see what type of "object" they're talking about. Whoever is analyzing it is drawing the conclusion of a large wooden ship from what looks like a bit of a rocky ridge and a protrusion of rock that don't even seem to be related.

While much of the "object" is covered in snow, it is nonetheless consistant with the other stories, is it not? It's an indication of something, which is more than there is for pastafarianism, which was the whole point from the beginning.

JerkClock, why do you look at wikipedia with such distrust and yet accept Proteas' site http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp ?Cat2=262&ItemId=965 as proof? It seems like a pro-religious site to me.

Much of the info we get has to be filtered from opinionated sources, which tend to have at least some factual info, albiet dressed up in hogwash and rhetoric.

No it's not.

Strawman.

Err, to clarify something, "derogatory" info can be factual too. Sometimes information is objectively negative.

At 12/11/07 08:39 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

The whole point of deleting "unneutral", "derogatory" or "unencyclopedic" information is becuase they are not factual.

With the exception of "unencyclopedic", yes that's true. But the point was that often material that is factual gets deleted because admins are playing semantics with those words.

At 12/11/07 08:13 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: .

Also, the first unbiblical sentence of the page is 'The word of God is the inerrant truth authored by the finger of God.'
I really don't think this is the most reliable source.

It's more reliable than wikipedia, which is what you cited.

At 12/11/07 06:41 PM, SlithVampir wrote: They plan to do this by assigning different users "credibility ratings" based on how their edits hold up.

That won't fix they're credibility. If they wanna be credible they need to stop deleting legit information while playing semantics about what's "neutral", "derogatory" or "unencyclopedic" and just allow the facts to flow. They also need to stop this kind of bullshit(ie. favoring sourced lies over unsourced facts).

At 12/11/07 08:00 PM, Elfer wrote:
However, if it was the biblically stated length of 300 cubits, it would still be the largest wooden ship ever built.

That's a point, however it wasn't an impossibility. Especially if they weren't expecting to have to push it into water, but rather for the water to come on its own.

Ok, but if I debunk Proteas's evidence, I'm going to chalk that up as debunking your mystery article too, because you seem to think that it falls under what Proteas has posted.

But you see it does, because my point was that evidence of the event was discovered.

At 12/11/07 05:58 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
Also, you said that elections is the only thing needed for democracy, which was what I countered. You don't only need elections, you need elections for everything (if you're just going to use the word letter by letter).

That wasn't really the point though, just that it had nothing to do with being free, which is true.

By denying them fair trials with the argument that "hey, our soldiers saw them do stuff!" while at the same time paying civilians in Iraq for handing over people they think is associated with Al-Qaeda, you do seem quite hypocritical. Especially when using Saddam's neglect of human rights as a reason for going to war.

The POW capture system isn't perfect and never was. But consider the alternative; allowing people who want to kill us to lawyer their way around and get free when captured. I think that's much worse, and I don't exactly feel like putting up with that bullshit because people wanna say they think some people are captured unfairly.

But we DO have info. Of course it could all be lies, but so could the soldiers claims be. There are lots of testimonies and wittnesses.

I'm sure there are, but why should we start wasting even more of our tax dollars than we do already to prosecute people who were captured while shooting at our soldiers on the battlefield? It doesn't really make sense.

You said that retaliation should take place regardless of that the result may be that more enemies may come and as such, more american deaths may very well be the result.

What I said is you can't be swayed by the fact that going after people who want to kill you will sometimes make others take their place in anger. Didn't say we shouldn't focus on both defense and offense.

Now, this isn't a list I wrote at home. This IS the UN declaration of human rights,

Right, but just because the UN says it doesn't mean it is absolute truth.

(source, wikipedia, which links to other sources, thus, if you don't like wikipedia, you can read it directly from there instead.)

Wikipedia != valid. It very often contains lies.

At 12/11/07 05:38 PM, Elfer wrote:

Let me try to explain this simply, so that even you

Erroneous personal attack.

When we're talking about the early stages of the big bang, we're dealing with something that is very small, and moving very fast. To reiterate, if you think you can apply classical physics to a situation like the big bang, get fucked.

That still does not contradict "classical physics" so I don't see your point.

Actually, even if the statement is true, it can still be argumentum ad nauseum if the conclusion does not follow logically from the evidence, which in this case it does not.

Your claim is erroneous, and ignores proteas' links.

So you're clinging to reports from 1993 or earlier, none of which you have managed to produce, despite the fact that the discovery of an actual large Ark of any kind would be a fairly momentous occasion, not just for the theistic value, but also for the engineering value. Noah's ark would easily be the largest wooden boat ever built,

You are ignoring what I said earlier about it maybe being a boat that held only the known species. It wouldn't necessarily be a giant ship that held every existing creature. It could be one that held only the ones Noah knew about, very easily.

Anyway, until you come up with some evidence for your ghost article,

I know that you keep ignoring Proteas' evidence, but it was posted, and does exist. I don't have to post evidence when it's been posted.

Damn finals, if only I didn't have I'd have more than that damned 57 B/P a day average. Well, just goes to show there's more important things than Newgrounds.

At 12/11/07 03:20 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote:

He didn't invalidate the article which was posted earlier, he has his own information he is working with,

Right but the point you missed is it validates my argument about evidence being discovered of Noah's ark really happening. A point you missed, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

How am I making a false claim?

Because I have done more than point out people's fallacies, you made a claim no substantiation to the contrary.

How is it unsubstantiated?

Because you merely made the statement without any demonstration as to how it was so.

You have done nothing other than say "This unsubstantiated presupposition" then claim that a statement is erroneous

False, I have only done so in responce to the multiple Ad Hominem and Strawman fallacies that were directed my way. And they were indeed unsubstantiated and erroneous, making a true statement over and over is not Argumentum Ad Nauseum, making a false claim over and over is. A point you fail to comprehend.

How much more painfully clear that I'm using Google do I have to get for you?

You can make that up all you want but that does not change the fact that you are making it up.

No, you were clinging to an article in 1993,

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous. I was talking about several reports that were abound at the time as well as before.

You attacked the idea of millions of years for evolution,

No you idiot I attacked the idea that it takes millions of years to evolve into sub-species(such as evolving into deer and elk) not the idea of stuff forming over millions of years.

you lost on it,

Unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

He said the part about classical physics, you said "Everything is bound by the laws of science.", thus attacking his statement.

Perhaps I was pointing that out so that he would reply, clarifying exactly what he meant, no?

It seems you dodged the point that you != elfer and that you have no authority to speak for him. No surprise considering you lack a logical argument.

At 12/11/07 02:36 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote:

Simply because a Wiki is in the mix with other sources does not invalidate those sources.

Right, but I explained about the other source, and the "hoax" bickering was invalidated by proteas, a fact you are deliberately being oblivious to. As expected, from someone who lacks a logical argument.

You've done nothing to defend your position other than claiming people are idiots,

This unsubstantiated presupposition is nothing more than another of your erroneous claims.

Do you even know what your spouting? This is the definition of Argumentum Ad Nauseum

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.

How am I contradicting myself,

If you used google you would know what a horribly lost cause searching for 13 year old news article using long phrases on it would be.

Unsubstaniated eh? Proteas is using a different set of information altogether,

Like what? The info that evidence of noah's ark was found which was what I was claiming all along?

Dodged the question? You seem to have missed the point, and so I will make it ever more clear until you can get it. The study of genetics and DNA sequencing have given strong evidence that evolution from a common ancestor has taken place,

Right, evolution is a part of the planet, I never said it wasn't. In fact, I said it makes sense for a God to design life that way.

He didn't say that, he said that classical physics would not apply to such a situation, read, then post.

Mayhaps you should let him explain what he means and not speak for him?

At 12/11/07 12:11 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote:

Ok this is where the lines become blurry. Who deserves torture? Who is able to decide? Under what authority? And when does it stop? I think it is nearly impossible to draw a recognizable line with torture.

No system is perfect, but with competant rule it can be applied fairly at least.

At 12/11/07 11:26 AM, Drakim wrote: JerkClock, I understand your frustration, but, you have made a claim, with no sources to back them up.

With sources like wikipedia being among them, I'd say it's the same as zero.

Commander wrote:

Thus far, you are just proving my point.

This is another claim which is both unsubstantiated and erroneous.

Funny, someone did, and found the very thing you were hunting, and managed to prove it was hoax.

Argumentum Ad Nauseum, laced with deliberate ignoring of something even you agreed to, that this wasn't all proven false. As expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

Funny, I use Google all the time

Then you are contradicting yourself, you claim it is a good search engine that can reliably find info, or at least you imply that you think so. And yet if you used it, you would know it is not.

That would be true, except for the fact that the groups producing the information not only relied on a hoax for its main source of information,

That is you making an unsubstantiated and erroneous presupposition, as proteas has proven that is not the case.

Genetics, in conjunction with DNA has shown extrodinary evidence that such things have occured.

How nice, you dodged the point that your "millions of years" argument is unproven.

A) If you think you can apply classical physics to a situation like the big bang, get fucked.

Everything in reality is bound by the laws of science.

But then we'd be wishing that humantarget was dead. :P

It has nothing to do with who's #1 in XP, I'm fine with OrangeClock, I mean HumanTarget.

At 12/11/07 11:09 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote:
So what are your sources? As of right now you have done little but confirm my belief that you are an idiot trolling.

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.

You want to get into a discussion then put some proof on.

Thank you for proving that you are a dumb fuck who thinks I should tangle with that peice of shit search engine that can't find a damn thing to prove something that happened 13 years ago for fuck's sake.

IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM, THEN BACK IT UP. How hard is that?

You haven't used google very much have you?

Wrong, the entire thing was based on that hoax,

No, only certain reports were, not all of them. You are making a fallacy of composition.

therefore, the whole ordeal is a hoax. As for blaming Google, then use the countless others.

Name one that's good at searching and I'll use it.

Genetics. What do you have on your side?

Saying the word, "genetics" doesn't prove your case dumbass.

At 12/11/07 08:29 AM, Coop83 wrote:

What's he done that's got you so wound up about? I've missed some details here.

I don't like him because he's a whiney little idiot who associates with hackers like Bedn. People like that don't deserve to exist in my opinion.

At 12/10/07 11:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

They haven't found physical evidence, k?

Ah yes, en.dumbfuckipedia.org, the site where Jimbo Wales' birthdate is erroneously posted as the wrong day because his birth certificate had a misprint. You can lie all the fuck you want on that site, as long as you find some arbitrary "source" that supports your lie. Good job with your, "proof", dumbass.

Elfer wrote:
In any case, if you're going to make a wild claim that is highly suspicious, such as "there is proof of a historical Noah's Ark," you should at least have one source for it so we can look at the information and see if it does indeed say what you say it does.

It wasn't "proven" a hoax, only some of the shit surrounding it was. If the internet had a search engine that actually searched text unlike google, I could probably find a source.

Sajberhippien wrote:
It's pretty well-proven that the chance of evolving quickly is infinetly small.

Depends what you mean. If you mean quickly as in with 3-6 generations yes, it wouldn't likely happen that fast.

As I said, such an evolution would take millions of years.

And you "know" this how?

At 12/11/07 12:22 AM, Imperator wrote:

I believe Israel can handle itself quite nicely without our help. I see a difference in letting terrorists stop us and us doing stupid pointless things to piss off people.

Right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't help minimize their casualties.