Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/10/07 06:10 PM, JerkClock wrote: Bits and peices although nothing conclusive. Events described in the bible have been proven, most notably, the evidence discovered that the Noah's Ark thing happened. While that's not 100% proof, you do have to wonder how someone would know there'd be a big enough flood to kill off everything on the planet and build a ship to survive said flood pre-emptively.

That was all put in place by the flying spaghetti monster to test our faith. You're a fool to believe that blasphemy.

At 12/10/07 06:31 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/10/07 06:25 PM, mayeram wrote:
Also are you saying that it was a world wide flood or a centralized flood?

World wide, no I'm not tangling with google to find these peices but I can recall some of the details.. They were news posts made in the papers years ago that I remember reading about news of a worldwide catastrophic flood,

So your evidence is vague details about some newspaper article you might have read, but you can't provide any evidence that such a newspaper article about the subject ever existed?

Smashing.

Your evidence amounts to "Maybe someone found a boat once, and there was a boat in the bible."

At 12/10/07 07:23 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/10/07 07:18 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote:
stuff

Those were tablets written about the incident after it happened. Which is funny because if that many people wrote about, be it from different points of veiw or not, it does make it more likely that such an event happened.

You seem to miss the point of the article, and that is, the flood story was the result of this. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Also, when are you supposed to write about something if I may be so bold as to ask? You certainly can't put down all the facts while the event is still occuring and hasn't fully been completed now can you?

If you want to be taken seriously you need sources to back you up, and I'm still waiting for them. If you don't provide them I'm certain the attacks on your statements will get even worse, and you will lose even more credibility. As it stands right now, I'm not entirely sure your not a troll, but I'll wait and see....

At 12/10/07 07:06 PM, JerkClock wrote: Unfortunately I don't have that, but it did exist, it happened around the time I was in 6th grade, which should be about 13 years ago.

So, 1993 would be around the right time then?

It was revealed to be a hoax about five months after it was first brought to the stations.

Further details

At 12/10/07 08:40 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/10/07 07:06 PM, JerkClock wrote: Unfortunately I don't have that, but it did exist, it happened around the time I was in 6th grade, which should be about 13 years ago.

So, 1993 would be around the right time then?

It was revealed to be a hoax about five months after it was first brought to the stations.

Further details

You all seem to be missing the point. even if the evidence appears to be real, it's just a test set in place by the FSM. we must all worship his noodly appendage.

One, secularism states a politician cannot make a law based on a religious view point
Two, To full extent of this adherence to the goodness of the secular state, would require full cooperation. Therefore, he has to figure out how to discard all religious principals from his stance on the issues in what he would do.
Three, Therefore, he must pass legislations which go as far away from his religious beliefs as is humanly possible.

I forgot what i was trying to do with that, Qed, secularism is about preventing laws from being forced on individuals concerning religion, and giving people the ability to make their own decisions concerning social issues so long as they don't cause problems for the lives of others.

At 12/10/07 07:45 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: JerkClock, you're a fucking moron.

Please don't try to insult other members of our forum; you don't make any headway in an argument by making someone pissed off.

At 12/10/07 07:24 PM, JerkClock wrote:
Simple, they evolved into existence. Evolution is nothing more than gradual adaptation, and so it makes sense for a god to design life to evolve.

jf

It is true that evolution can sometimes work in leaps and bounds (like the wolf becoming the dog). In fact there was a case where scientists in Siberia bred foxes to be more docile. After several generations the foxes began to develop doglike traits such as likeing to be pet, flopping ears rather then ears that stick straight up and they actually began making a bark like sound.

However, the great biodiversity found across the planet could not have happened in such a short period of time as 4 thousand years. Also if so many new species evolved due to changes in climate why did humans not evolve? Or do you think that the different races of man (black, white, Asian, etc) are different evolutionary paths of man?

Well, I'm personally both Jewish and Pastafarian (hey, the Torah never specifies that God isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster).

I think that while no other religion is more theologically valid than Pastafarianism, they are more valid as religions, because they actually provide moral guidelines in a vast array of subjects that can be applied to everyday life, whereas the Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts all basically say "don't be an overzealous douchebag," true words, yes, but not very deep.

At 12/10/07 06:22 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 12/10/07 05:38 PM, SirStanley wrote: Pastafarianism was never funny, and you can't prove an opinion to be valid.

However, I will humor you anyways. The Bible makes the prediction that the Jewish state will be re-established before the end of the world, and it has, so +1 for the Bible.

Well that may be true, but it is a pretty vague statement. In fact it's pretty predictable. General Douglas MacArthur said "I came out of Bataan and I shall return" after leaving the Philippines after being defeated by the Japanese. He returned to the Philippines. He was able to predict the future, but does this mean that he was inspired by God? It could easily be the same thing in the bible. It was said in holy scripts that the Jews would retake their land, and therefore they felt that it was their destiny to retake their ancestral lands. As long as the Jews took back Israel some time in the future, the prophesy would have come true.

You find that in same scope of "some elders passing something down verbally" coming true thousands of years later? In the meantime several more powerful civilizations have fallen into nothingness, never to return?

At 12/10/07 05:38 PM, SirStanley wrote:

However, I will humor you anyways. The Bible makes the prediction that the Jewish state will be re-established before the end of the world, and it has, so +1 for the Bible.

Upon re-reading this i have come to the conclusion that this statement is like me saying " In 1000 years......cars......will be DIFFERENT!!".

At 12/10/07 09:23 PM, mayeram wrote:
However, the great biodiversity found across the planet could not have happened in such a short period of time as 4 thousand years. Also if so many new species evolved due to changes in climate why did humans not evolve? Or do you think that the different races of man (black, white, Asian, etc) are different evolutionary paths of man?

Err, well you don't know that for a fact, but then again the bible isn't clear on exactly how many years ago it was either. Only time frame it is clear on with respect to today's date, is Jesus' death. And yes, other races of man are quite potentially different evolutionary paths. They do have native nations on different continents with different climats and different environments, so this is partially supported by geography.

Dumbass wrote:
JerkClock, you're a fucking moron.

Your unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.

elfer wrote:
So your evidence is vague details about some newspaper article you might have read, but you can't provide any evidence that such a newspaper article about the subject ever existed?

No I read and heard the news reports, they were real, but I;m not wasting my time fighting with google for something it's too stupid to find(ie. everything) becaue of some internet idiots who are going to be stubborn minded.

So, 1993 would be around the right time then?

It was revealed to be a hoax about five months after it was first brought to the stations.

Further details

Some reports were erroneous, yes, but not all of them. That applies to just about anything though.

At 12/10/07 10:36 PM, JerkClock wrote:
Some reports were erroneous, yes, but not all of them. That applies to just about anything though.

They haven't found physical evidence, k?

At 12/10/07 10:36 PM, JerkClock wrote: No I read and heard the news reports, they were real, but I;m not wasting my time fighting with google for something it's too stupid to find(ie. everything) becaue of some internet idiots who are going to be stubborn minded.

This hoax was reported in the news.

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.

Otherwise, I can say that there's evidence that pirates coexisted with flying spaghetti monsters, and
it was in the news, and it's proven, but I'm just too lazy to find it, so trust me, ok?

At 12/10/07 11:26 PM, Elfer wrote:
Otherwise, I can say that there's evidence that pirates coexisted with flying spaghetti monsters, and
it was in the news, and it's proven, but I'm just too lazy to find it, so trust me, ok?

LOL O YEH i LIEK SAW IN ON THE NEWS THAT TIME LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

At 12/10/07 05:02 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 12/10/07 04:51 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Nice.

Mucho lulz all around.

Good luck connecting it to politics.

I agree.

From the webpage:

"To some this is just an experiment; a response to the Intelligent Design movement, a defense of science, a satirical religion meant to combat religious fundamentalism run amok.

We believe it's important to keep religion out of politics. But when we see public officials abusing their positions, putting their personal religion-based ideas into policy, we fight to get our ideas included as well. It's only fair."

If I may...

BOOM, HEADSHOT.

Lol that was the best beatdown i've seen all night. I would of given him a
bread basket of "YOU GOT SERVED' followed with a good old fashion "YEAH BOII"
Put a smile on my face.

I find Pastafarianism absolutely hilarious. Perhaps that is due, in large part, to the fact that I do not feel that the concept threatens the integrity of the things in which I do or do not believe.

At 12/11/07 01:06 AM, BrotherJohn wrote: I find Pastafarianism absolutely hilarious. Perhaps that is due, in large part, to the fact that I do not feel that the concept threatens the integrity of the things in which I do or do not believe.

And what would that be?

At 12/10/07 07:42 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/10/07 07:36 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

But the story of the flood takes place some thousands of years ago, and evolution takes literally millions before the species will be so divided that they are called different species.

Not neccessarily. That's:

1. only theory

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

2. neglecting the more minor things, like a species having different variants. Something could have moved to different continent where it evolved into both deer on one, and elk on another.

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

At 12/10/07 11:30 PM, gouku88 wrote:

Lol that was the best beatdown i've seen all night. I would of given him a
bread basket of "YOU GOT SERVED' followed with a good old fashion "YEAH BOII"
Put a smile on my face.

I'm sorry my post came off that way. I really didn't read the site.

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 10:58 AM, JerkClock wrote:

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.

So what are your sources? As of right now you have done little but confirm my belief that you are an idiot trolling. You want to get into a discussion then put some proof on. IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM, THEN BACK IT UP. How hard is that? Do I need to bold it for you so you can see it?

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.

Wrong, the entire thing was based on that hoax, therefore, the whole ordeal is a hoax. As for blaming Google, then use the countless others.

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?

Genetics. What do you have on your side?

At 12/11/07 10:58 AM, JerkClock wrote:

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.

Actually he's right on that note. Not all of it was "proven" to be 100% false. Then again that sort of goes back to the "You cant disprove it, ergo it must be true" theory.

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.

JerkClock, I understand your frustration, but, you have made a claim, with no sources to back them up. Others have made counter claims, with sources to back them up. You dismissed these sources pretty much without any reason.

Unless you pull out something. Just something, whatever you say now is useless.

Nobody will take your word over the word of several other people, when you refuse to dig out ANY sources and they keep giving links that tells the opposite.

Claiming that you don't want to bother finding sources for "Internet idiots" is just stupid. You came here to debate, and unless you hold yourself to a standard, nobody will take you seriously. If you can't bother with those "Internet idiots", then get the fuck out of the topic and let people who can deal with other people stay and debate.

At 12/11/07 11:14 AM, JerkClock wrote:

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.

Thus far, you are just proving my point.

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.

Funny, someone did, and found the very thing you were hunting, and managed to prove it was hoax. You have done nothing on the matter, but since you can't seem to do your own work, I'll give you a bit of a boost.

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

You haven't used google very much have you?

Funny, I use Google all the time, in fact I'm willing to bet good money that almost everyone here does.

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.

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, it also falsified information in the programs that they put out, and knowingly did so. Read the articles posted.

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.

Sure, here you go, one I like to use when Google fails me, and then a search engine that searches for search engines, the final one I used to use all the time.

1. A Wiki with a list of search engines.
2. Dogpile, a meta serach engine.
3. A whole list of search engines if you don't like any that the first, or second link provided.
4. If all else fails, MSN.

Now then, get off the forums for five minutes, and take a look, and stop trash talking.

Genetics. What do you have on your side?

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

Genetics, in conjunction with DNA has shown extrodinary evidence that such things have occured. Now then, will you finally post something other than insults that don't have anything to do with discussion. I have already given you a whole list of search engines to work with. Prove my assumptions wrong.

At 12/10/07 06:50 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: NO THERE FUCKING HAS NOT.

In 1955, there was a man by the name of Fernando Navara. He was a French explorer. Navara not only claimed to have found Noah's ark, but he estimated it at a weight of about 50 tons. He actually brought back a piece of wood that was coated with a bituminous compound. What was so amazing about a piece of wood with a bituminous coating? He was up 14,000 feet on Mt. Ararat, which is a mountain between Turkey and Russia. There is no wood within 300 miles of this place. Explorers and adventurers risk their lives climbing to this level. They can only go at certain times of the year. Nobody carries beams of this nature up 14,000 feet, which is miles above sea level.

Navara brought it back, where the age of the beam was measured to be between four and five thousand years old. The scriptures' account of Noah's ark took place approximately 4,500 years ago.

....

In the last 122 years, Noah's ark has been spotted by over 186 people of note. In ancient times, it was seen by the Jewish historian Josephus, who was one of the most famous historians immediately following the time of Christ. Josephus speaks about Noah's ark, saying that he saw it.

Marco Polo, about whom you've read in history books, was a famous explorer. Many pay homage to this man in regard to his accomplishments, but lose respect when he gets to the point where he says, "I saw Noah's ark."

According to the Turkish government, there was a team of workers that entered three of the ark's compartments in 1840. A man by the name of Dr. Noui, the Archdeacon of Jerusalem in Babylon, saw the ark in 1892. There was a Russian pilot by the name of Vladimir Roscovitski who went with a military expedition to find the ark just prior to the Russian Revolution. He reported that plans were drawn and complete measurements, as well as photographs, were taken. I believe these records were destroyed during the Russian Revolution.

In the 1960s, NASA sighted what could be Noah's ark: an alien, cigar-shaped object approximately 14,000 feet up on Mt. Ararat. The ark was, of course, cigar-shaped.

It then goes on to sight ancient inscriptions speaking of a worldwide flood in other cultures, and sites them all for reference.

And now, my turn to make all of your heads explode;

"The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting, by which every body as much as in it lies, continues in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly nor a measure of mass." Isaac Newton's definition of the basics of Inertia from Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. In more modern terms, this is read as "A body in motion tends to stay in motion, a body at rest tends to stay at rest."

Knowing that, would somebody kindly explain to me how the universe could just explode all by itself without outside interference from a creator like being, as prescribed in the theory of the Big Bang? Because by simple scientific definition, that would be physically impossible.

At 12/11/07 12:12 PM, Proteas wrote: And now, my turn to make all of your heads explode;

"The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting, by which every body as much as in it lies, continues in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly nor a measure of mass." Isaac Newton's definition of the basics of Inertia from Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. In more modern terms, this is read as "A body in motion tends to stay in motion, a body at rest tends to stay at rest."

Knowing that, would somebody kindly explain to me how the universe could just explode all by itself without outside interference from a creator like being, as prescribed in the theory of the Big Bang? Because by simple scientific definition, that would be physically impossible.

I've got an exam coming up soon, so I'll leave the myriad of spotty "evidence" for the ark to other people for now, but as for this, two things

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

B) That's not what the big bang theory actually says. All it says it that some point, the matter in the universe was all very very close together, and at that point it expanded (Note that I'm not saying it was idle THEN expanded, I'm saying that it was very close together and expanding at that point). This model is relatively accurate and non-speculative back to 10^-12 seconds after the big bang is said to have occurred (i.e. the physics is well-understood after the beginning of the electroweak epoch).

Haha, I can't believe people STILL have the idea that the Big Bang theory is about how matter arose. It's as if, they intentionally WANT the theory to be like that so that they can dismiss it.

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.