Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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

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?

not only do they not have any evidence, but if you tally up all the arks witnessed theres a mild contradiction. a single ark can not appear on multiple mountains throughout Turkey and Armenia.

At 12/11/07 11:01 PM, JerkClock wrote:

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.

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? So before the scientific revolution the hearsay that the earth was flat and the center of the universe was a valid way to determine the way things were?

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? Or the beliefs of the followers of a cult that believed that if they died at the stroke of midnight on 12/12/2012 their souls would fly up into a flying saucer which would fly them away from earth and give them eternal bliss? Why does more people believing in something that has no evidence supporting it make it more true?

Besides, isn't it hearsay when Pastafarians say that the flying spaghetti monster exists? How many Pastafarians would be needed before the hearsay would be considered enough consistent hearsay?

At 12/11/07 11:01 PM, JerkClock wrote:
While this is true, enough consistant hearsay is better than nothing, and is more than the pastafarian, "You can't disprove it."

Wow, we don't have any real proof, so we're resorting to someone said to someone that said to someone that there was a Giant flood and a boat full of animals.

Especially with NASA finding something that may(ever vaguely) be what was talked about in what happens to be the same location.

Well I say NASA didn't find this. I don't have any evidence but neither do you so OMG liek it's a tie lol.

At 12/12/07 03:15 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/11/07 11:01 PM, JerkClock wrote: Especially with NASA finding something that may(ever vaguely) be what was talked about in what happens to be the same location.

Well I say NASA didn't find this. I don't have any evidence but neither do you so OMG liek it's a tie lol.

I hear that in a tie, the person with the alphabetically first name wins.

Just saying.

At 12/11/07 10:54 PM, Elfer wrote: So there you go. That's why Proteas's argument doesn't hold water, and why classical physics doesn't always apply.

*wipes egg off face*

All right, I'm willing to admit that I was wrong about the Noah's Ark thing. I'm probably just a glutton for punishment, BUT... I probably should rephrase what I was trying to get at with the second half of my post.

What I understood from Newton's Law of Inertia was that it is physically impossible for something to happen upon it's own without being acted upon by an outside force. A ball will not jump into the air and go across the room unless someone throws it, a gun will not fire unless somebody loads it and pulls the trigger, my car is not going to disappear from my driveway unless someone gets the key and drives it off, that sort of thing.

Science theorizes and has shown that all the matter in outer space is moving father away and getting faster all the time (or something to that effect), moving away from one centralized point in the universe. My question is; how? What actually caused this expansion outward? Because as I understand it, it couldn't happen on it's own. Why would it?

At 12/12/07 11:10 AM, Proteas wrote:

Science theorizes and has shown that all the matter in outer space is moving father away and getting faster all the time (or something to that effect), moving away from one centralized point in the universe. My question is; how? What actually caused this expansion outward? Because as I understand it, it couldn't happen on it's own. Why would it?

I'm assuming it would be equivalent to a pressure build up. The matter may have all collected into a small space, possibly from a black hole like object. Some people theorize that after collecting so much matter a black hole explodes, which may be the same case here. Thus an explosion would occur and the objects would travel outwards.

Even if that is true it doesn't explain the creation of that original matter, which is something scientists don't even claim to know. So if the big bang theory is correct it doesn't say there isn't some superior being, it just says how the current universe was created.

At 12/12/07 11:10 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/11/07 10:54 PM, Elfer wrote: So there you go. That's why Proteas's argument doesn't hold water, and why classical physics doesn't always apply.

What I understood from Newton's Law of Inertia was that it is physically impossible for something to happen upon it's own without being acted upon by an outside force.

And what I'm trying to tell you is that when you get into quantum mechanics, things get goofy. We get things like pair production where you get energy and anti-energy from nothing, but the overall net energy is the same. You just really, really can't apply Newton's laws to the big bang.

On top of that, you're acting as though gravity is the only fundamental force, and that kinetic energy is the only form of energy. When you pack that much stuff together, you end up with a whole lot of potential energy. For example, if you hold two magnets together with similar poles facing each other, you may have no kinetic energy, but as soon as you let go, the magnetic potential will be released and converted into kinetic energy.

An interesting related point is that you almost never actually "touch" anything. When you type, the molecules in your fingers don't actually collide with the molecules in the keys. They get really close to each other, but are then repelled my electromagnetic forces. If we actually "touched" things, we'd get all sorts of nasty reactions happening.

My question is; how? What actually caused this expansion outward? Because as I understand it, it couldn't happen on it's own. Why would it?

This is the other problem with your argument that I've been trying to point out. It's a big problem that people have when they're criticizing the big bang.

The big bang theory does not in any way state that the big bang happened of its own volition, just that it happened. There is no underlying original cause postulated in the big bang theory itself, and that is currently a somewhat different area of theoretical physics. The "it happened by itself" idea is just something you've extrapolated to because it's the simplest idea to understand, but it's not a part of the actual theory.

Perhaps before the big bang all of the matter in the universe had collapsed in to one area, and the big bang was a form of rebound. Perhaps one of the goofier theories is true, like there was a singularity transported here from another universe by a black hole.

The truth is, the big bang theory just doesn't tell us what was going on pre-big bang, as that would comprise a whole other theory.

At 12/12/07 12:10 PM, Elfer wrote: The truth is, the big bang theory just doesn't tell us what was going on pre-big bang, as that would comprise a whole other theory.

So basically... it happened, we can show it happened, but we don't know why and there's no easy scientific way to explain how.

I feel like I'm 10 years old and being told about taking something as an article of faith all over again, man.

At 12/12/07 01:34 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/12/07 12:10 PM, Elfer wrote: The truth is, the big bang theory just doesn't tell us what was going on pre-big bang, as that would comprise a whole other theory.

So basically... it happened, we can show it happened, but we don't know why and there's no easy scientific way to explain how.

I feel like I'm 10 years old and being told about taking something as an article of faith all over again, man.

But you're not being told to take something as an article of faith, because as you said, we can show that it happened. There's quite a bit of evidence to show that we know what was going on right up to 10^-12 seconds after the big bang. I'd consider that to be pretty good.

That's the thing about science, we're just constantly peeling back layers. You can't expect all of the answers in the universe to be neatly wrapped up for you before you're born.

Saying that the big bang is a matter of faith is like dropping a glass then being skeptical that it actually dropped just because we can't explain exactly how gravity works yet.

At 12/12/07 01:34 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/12/07 12:10 PM, Elfer wrote: The truth is, the big bang theory just doesn't tell us what was going on pre-big bang, as that would comprise a whole other theory.

So basically... it happened, we can show it happened, but we don't know why and there's no easy scientific way to explain how.

I feel like I'm 10 years old and being told about taking something as an article of faith all over again, man.

You are missing the point. All we are asking is that you don't apply more to the Big Bang theory than what it actually is. The Big Bang theory doesn't try to explain where matter comes from anymore than the theory of Gravity does.

I don't know if science has an theory for how matter arose. But I'm not too good at this subject.

But, I don't really see where you feel that faith comes in. What are we asking you to believe without evidence?

Scientists don't ask you to take anything on faith, they have evidence that it happened, and therefore feel confident in saying that it happened. However they have no evidence saying how or why it happened so you can basically believe at the moment that anything could have caused the big bang. There are some guesses, but I don't think they are backed up by any evidence, and are therefore just as valid as saying that god did it.

Before science could say what caused the big bang and how with any certainty, they would have to have some evidence.

Religion can't be proved, that's why we call it religion, it's based on faith, not on facts. Besides, Pastafarianism or whatever the hell you call it stopped being funny 3 years ago, so shut the fuck up.

At 12/12/07 04:05 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Religion can't be proved, that's why we call it religion, it's based on faith, not on facts. Besides, Pastafarianism or whatever the hell you call it stopped being funny 3 years ago, so shut the fuck up.

let me fix that for you:

Religion can't be proved, that's why we call it religion, it's based on faith, not on facts. Besides, Christianity or whatever the hell you call it stopped being funny 2000 years ago, so shut the fuck up.

But, anyway, you just scored some might epic fail points.

1. Pastafarianism hasn't existed for 3 years yet.
2. People are free to talk about whatever they want, including unfunny things.
3. With Intelligent Design still trying their thing, Pastafarianism is still very relevant.

At 12/12/07 01:34 PM, Proteas wrote: I feel like I'm 10 years old and being told about taking something as an article of faith all over again, man.

The difference between science and faith is that A, we don't say this is absolutely postively 100% correct and we will never change our beliefs, and B, we just go with what the evidence points at. We don't try and make the Big bang seem plausible because we want it to be true.

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 12/12/07 07:13 PM, JerkClock wrote:

Well I say NASA didn't find this.

Strawman

What the fuck you moron, it's not a strawman, and you didn't provide any evidence of this NASA find so I have every right to say they didn't find it.

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.

At 12/12/07 07:13 PM, JerkClock wrote: 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.

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?

At 12/12/07 07:25 PM, JerkClock wrote:

it's not a strawman,

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

No it's not. Stop pulling these bullshit fallacies out of your ass and start providing some actual proof about your claims.

At 12/12/07 07:25 PM, JerkClock wrote:

it's not a strawman,

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

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

At 12/12/07 07:32 PM, Elfer wrote:
I don't think you know what a straw man argument actually is.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

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 07:40 PM, JerkClock wrote: Isn't it just where someone makes a statement like, "I'm correct and you are not" without substantiation?

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."

Example:
Person A: "I don't think kids should play on the road"
Person B: " I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day"

I am want to be a pastafarianist also I am gonna join!

At 12/12/07 07:13 PM, JerkClock wrote:

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.

If there is a good chance that there is something there, why has a modern expedition to the site not been made? 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. It would go a long way to proving the bible to be true. If you believe that this ridge is worthy of further research why don't you petition the Vatican or some other group to try to send someone there to see it at ground level? If it can be seen from satellites, it should be easily found at ground level using GPS and other modern navigational methods. I understand that the journey may be tough, but wouldn't it be worth it to you if you were able to find the arc and prove it to the rest of humanity? After all, people climb Everest just to be able to say that did it.

At 12/12/07 07:40 PM, JerkClock wrote:

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.

You didn't answer the question, you're just doing ad nauseum again.

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"?

Oops i meant After all, people climb Everest just to be able to say THEY did it.

Hai yoo guyz look i proved gos iz real lolz

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?

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.

Hey dude check this out, now there's bits and pieces of proof for Pastafarianism!