Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/16/07 12:17 PM, JerkClock wrote:

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.

So your saying your total lack of evidence beats pastafarianism. Lets put this in and equation :D.

According to you 0 + 0 = 0 > 0

0 + 0 (Your Evidence adding itself together) = 0 (your total evidence) > 0 (The evidence for pastafariansim.

At best its a tie mate........ :D

---

At 12/16/07 12:17 PM, JerkClock wrote: 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.

The FSM has been spotted and filmed. You lose.

---

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.

gloryvic

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.

---

At 12/17/07 03:04 AM, JerkClock wrote: Well it wouldn't need a steam pump if it had been sealed with tar. But that still doesn't make it impossible.

"Duh, I don't get how twisting works!" (1)

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.

"Duh, I don't want to look up the meaning of simple, common terms because it would be too frustrating for me to try to understand them." (2)

I believe we didn't start out as homo-sapiens, but that we evolved into them.

"Duh, I think we evolved into homo sapiens, but all of our precursors has the same level of technology and tool use that we had during the homo sapiens period, despite overwhelming archaeological evidence to the contrary, DUHHHH" (3)

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.

"I don't get how shadows work, durrrr"

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

"I don't understand the difference between 'pitch black things' and 'a brown thing' durrrr"

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.

"I don't understand how 'weather' is used as a verb, and I think that a thin layer of ice on a mountaintop is sufficient to preserve a boat for millions of years, dwaaar" (4)

As pointed out earlier in the thread it did not go unfound, now matter how much you wish to pretend it did.

Yeah? So did the FSM. You saw the video.

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.

"I don't understand variability in measurements, durrr" (5)

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.

"I don't get stats and confidence intervals, but I'm going to talk about them as if I do" (6)

As consistanly pointed out by several people throughout history and a satellite photo.

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" and the mountain is the one that was already indicated in the bible. Then, somebody finds an entirely uninteresting formation somewhere on that mountain (tip: there are ridges and protruding bits of rock on every mountain), which nobody has ever gone to investigate.

Sounds like evidence to me, with no possibility of hoaxing in any way.

"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.

Me: "Plate tectonics is driven by the convection of the Earth's mantle"
You: (no response)
Me: "You didn't answer the question"
You: (verbatim) "Plate techtonics involves the Earth's mantle, so no I did not."
Me: "..."

Note: You still didn't answer the question (7)

I know this because I understand the mechanism of plate tectonics.

Not if you think it's speed never changes.

"You obviously don't understand plate tectonics, because you explained the mechanism and why it would have a constant speed, but I didn't understand it, so I'm going to claim that YOU don't understand, because I'm sure that that speed is highly variable. I base this, of course, on absolutely nothing and provide no explanation" (8)

Correction, you were pointing out what you think are problems based on inconclusive science.

(9)

Please, tell me what the problems are with the mantle convection mechanism of plate tectonics. This should be interesting, seeing as how you still don't seem to be aware of what it actually is.

This technology does not exist today,

Right, cus you know, we can create gargantuan ships, but just not a smaller wooden one, riiiiight.

(10)

That's right, we can't create a 450 foot long wooden ship, as shown earlier in this post.

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.

(11)

"I have had the mechanism explained to me numerous times, but I refuse to understand, as it is devastating to my argument. My response: YOU WEREN'T THERE!"

Seems irrelevant, since I'm not even arguing that it didn't happen, just that you have no scientific evidence for it.

So how is it we could not have existed that long ago?

(12)

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.

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.

(13)

So you're saying that you think they had the technology to build the largest wooden ship ever made using rocks for tools, yet no evidence of this has been found, and the technology for building boats was subsequently lost forever, and they also didn't appear to have any other significant woodworking skills, of the level that would be needed for boat making, and they didn't seem to have any other technology that was advanced to that level. All of the evidence of that we just somehow didn't find yet.

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?

What ark thing? The ark that supposedly exists, but nobody has ever found? That ark thing?

Scientific observations and hydrogenis as in?

(14)

As in there's nowhere in the geologic column to suggest a worldwide flood, and for a worldwide flood to happen, a bunch of water would have to magically appear from nowhere.

blatant, flagrant ignorance you've shown in regard

Unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.

In this post alone, I have numbered 14 instances in which you have shown your ignorance of the scientific aspects of what we're trying to discuss. It is substantiated, correct, and self-apparent.

You are ignorant of the science we're trying to discuss, and unwilling to learn.

You are making an unsubstantiated and erroneous personal attack.

The second paragraph where you point-blank say you're not going to find out what terms like "elastic" and "plastic" mean shows your blunt refusal to attempt to learn about what we're talking about. Instead, you continue to assume that you are correct, an assumption based on ignorance of a mechanism that you refuse to understand.

Lame.

It's over, I win.

gloryvic

Argumentum ad interweb

The FSM has been spotted and filmed. You lose.

Cartoon FSM doesn't count.

How do you know it's a cartoon? YOU WEREN'T THERE, MAN. YOU WEREN'T THERE.

(Explanation: You can either admit that we have video evidence for the FSM, or admit that we can use observable evidence to infer something that we did not directly observe. Either way, you lose.)

---

Also: "NOTE: Gloryvic is distinguished from being right by the fact that there's no proof involved in it. Gloryvic is defined by the fact it is devoid of any supporting evidence to accompany the claim."

Denying the evidence due to your own ignorance doesn't make it disappear.

But you know what? How about this: Instead of just declaring victory, which I have in fact earned, I'll just call a moratorium on this discussion until you have taken at least one post-secondary course in each of geology, physics and chemistry, so you actually know what you're talking about.

That way, you'd understand what I'm saying instead of just dismissing it out of hand because you don't understand it.

---

Damn, elfer, you're lucky to have caught Jerkclock, that discussion is totally rad, I bet your balls are tingling with anticipation of his every reply so you can copy/paste your argument back into the reply.

You've said like 15 times how the mountain looks like rocks and he just says "no". THIS IS GOING NOWHERE LAWL.

Damn creationists are awesome! Noah's Ark built during Pangea? Neato! Doesn't say so in the bible though, so it would mean you're believing the ark part, but not the date part. Makes no sense, but it's so much fun, it's like a movie.

Btw are you the kind who says Noah brought some dinosaurs on the ark too? I'm pretty sure all the engineering knowledge in the world prior to like 1850 couldn't produce any kind of boat or even raft ( with a giant cage on it too ) to put a Brontosaur, let alone 50 animals just like them.

Also, how the fuck do you catch a T-Rex? That's what they should make a movie about, not the 10 commandments, that shit is boring. I want to see Noah ride a Triceratops and wrangle some 15 ton carnivores onto a boat so gigantic you could probably have fitted every other boat in existence at the time on it with room to spare.

Oh well keep talking people.

---

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."

---

And also, if you want to know more stuff about the ark, read this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation /v14/i4/report.asp

and watch parts 1 and 2 of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y5ORpMTe bI

Watch the videos first, it will convince you there's an ark, then read the article and it will convince you those guys are full of shit.
Basically, every time some guy find the ark, he tries to promote himself and his discovery as much as possible while always getting assraped by every scientific investigation. It's pretty crazy the things they do though, they make videos, call in tons of "experts" , write only the partial quotes that match what they want etc.

Anyways, seriously, if the ark had been found, EVERYONE would know about it, it would indeed be the most important archaeological discovery of all frickin' time. To one-up that you'd need to find a frickin' Star Gate.
Instead you have that same bunch of nut as always who believes there's some sort of "conspiracy" to hide the facts, like about sasquatch or some shit, while not realizing that the entire world would love nothing more than to prove them right. Seriously, if you find a sasquatch, it will be the most awesome thing ever.

---

Wow Elfer good job. *applauds enthusiastically*

JerkClock, I can see that this is going no where, and you are unable to summon forth anything to defend your points. Therefore I have to conclude that although your "evidence" is possible, it is no more probable then the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The video showing the FSM and the graph showing that global warming is caused by the decrease of pirates (that was posted long ago in this topic) is (I feel) just as valid as your evidence.

Do you disagree? Why? Do you have any proof that that wasn't the flying spaghetti monster that they were recording? Do you have proof that global warming isn't caused by a decrease of pirates? How is this proof any more valid then the proof that was given to you by Elfer showing that your beliefs of the arc are flawed?

Also you earlier stated that (I am paraphrasing) if more people believe in something, it is more valid then something that less people believe in. How many people are needed to believe in something before it becomes more believable?

Here are some lists of people that believe in FSM:

http://www.venganza.org/evidence/endorse ments1

http://www.venganza.org/evidence/endorse ments2

http://www.venganza.org/evidence/endorse ments3

http://www.venganza.org/evidence/endorse ments4

At 12/17/07 02:41 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/17/07 10:54 AM, Elfer wrote:

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.

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. You are not the only human on this planet, I understand you are busy sometimes, but many of us are just as busy as you and we manage to look things up or provide sources. I am sorry, but blatant hypocrisy annoys me.

It really isn't very hard at all to look up the definition of words on the internet. All you have to do is look up an online dictionary (for instance dictionary.com) and type in the word you need to be explained. It will spit out not one, not two, but many definitions of the word you typed in. You can choose whichever definition best suits you.

Finally, in comment to your last post, if they told of the general area where the arc is, why cant people find the arc in the general area? I mean, they found the ice man frozen in ice, why can't they find something as large as the arc, and yet they found the ice man? (If you don't understand what I am saying, I will list some sources, and explain further, but I figure most people know of the ice man)

---

At 12/17/07 02:41 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/17/07 10:54 AM, Elfer wrote:
stuff

Erroneous accusations of twisting (1)

I accused a boat of twisting. This one here is a pretty good indication you're trolling, due to the ridiculous irony.

stuff

Refusal to explain yourself for fear of being debunked (2)

You need to learn how to learn for yourself. But here, I'll help you this time.

Elastic deformation is when something deforms and springs back to its original shape. For example, dropping a steel marble onto a steel plate and seeing it bounce back is elastic deformation.

Plastic deformation is when something deforms and stays deformed, like hitting a lump of clay with a hammer.

stuff

Stubborn believe that evolution exists, but only as it supports what you wish to believe (3)

Stubborn belief? First of all, I think that evolution is true because all of the evidence points to it. Since you've failed to provide anything to the contrary, I don't think I'm being stubborn.

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.

Let me explain something to you about snow. It can form shapes and ridges which can cast shadows. Snow is not completely flat, especially on steep, irregular slopes such as those found on mountains.

If you don't believe me, you can go outside, build a snowman, then look at it around 3 PM. It will cast a shadow.

Second, I also suggested the idea of snow-covered rock ridges that were casting shadows. Don't try to deny that rocks can cast shadows.

stuff

If "weather" is verb explain the meaning of it. Your refusal to explain yourself only shows that you are wrong.

Weather \Weath"er\, v. i.
To undergo or endure the action of the atmosphere; to suffer
meteorological influences; sometimes, to wear away, or alter,
under atmospheric influences; to suffer waste by weather.

You could have checked this yourself in any dictionary. Seems like a troll to me.

Yeah? So did the FSM.

It's an obvious computer generated cartoon

You weren't there, you don't know that.

made by dumbfuck athiests who think blatantly makingup evidence is the same thing as historical accounts, you fail.

Were you there when it happened to see that the FSM wasn't there? Even if this one is fake, there's plenty of other people who have accounts of the FSM. I'm not going to name any, but just trust me here.

I don't understand variability in measurements, durrr

That's correct, thank you for admitting that.

You're right, I forgot, measurements are always perfectly exact and will measure exactly the same every time a trial is done. This is why chemists and physicists only ever do one trial of an experiment, and why quality control does not exist.

Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

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.

You're right, confidence intervals don't exist because you don't want them to. How could I have been so blind?

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.

Again, if the place was so specific, why has nobody ever brought back any real evidence? If so many people have been there, why is there nothing to show for it?

Note: You still didn't answer the question (7)

Erroneous claim.

Erroneous claim. The question was, in fact, never answered.

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?)

I said "relatively constant," not "constant." You are lying about what I am saying, you are a liar.

Unless you can explain how continental drift could increase by a factor of 100 without drastically altering the properties of the mantle, shut the fuck up.

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.

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?

You're also saying they certainly don't necessarily hold up, but what do you base this on? What information do you have to suggest that the current model for continental drift isn't true? If you have something to discredit it, go ahead and claim your rewards. However, since it seems like you know approximately jack shit about geology, I think you're bluffing.

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.

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.

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.

Again, you lie about what I said. I said that there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that homo habilis were shipwrights.

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.

...There's nothing to explain here.

They may have built something like small boats used for fishing, only larger and with animal cages. Doesn't seem too impossible.

Of course, structures are infinitely scalable. Silly me and my material properties.

What ark thing? The ark that supposedly exists, but nobody has ever found?

Except several people throughout history whom you keep denying Ad Nauseum.

Several people claim to have found it, and failed to bring back evidence, or were exposed as frauds.

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.

Uh, if it was a local flood, then it's not evidence for Christianity. It's just evidence of a flood. This also throws your pangaea thing out the window. This is a MAJOR ALTERATION to the basis of your argument.

Or in which you have shown your own ignorance in assuming you know what happens over millions of years(which you can't possibly)

Again, your ignorance of and failure to understand the evidence does not disprove it.

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.

You were the one who brought up Pangaea without knowing about continental drift. It's your job, but I did it for you anyway.

The people who made it admit it was a cartoon.

Prove it. Prove that the people who admitted it were the ones who took the video, and not people who mugged the filmmakers and took their film to discredit it.

Which you have 0, you only have inconclusive theory

Again, judged to be inconclusive by you, with no reason given.

and your twisting of how man can't evolve from homo erectus, but can evolve from apes.

This isn't what I said. You are a liar.

there are no rocks in the area of the same color.

Tip: Rocks are often different colours. I'm going to attach a picture of some gneiss, two colours in the same rock! Outstanding!

No I don't think he would do that. They would most likely consider dinosaurs "monsters" and not "animals."

Question: Do you think that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

---

At 12/17/07 02:41 PM, JerkClock wrote:

Looks like != is, and there are no rocks in the area of the same color.

Well I looked at the picture, on page 3 I think, and here's what I think:
That little brown thing is a rock.
As far as I can tell, the only reason you're suggesting this is wood is because it is brown and contrasts with the snow's dark blue hue. But it's the only rock facing directly at the sun, hence why it would appear to be warmer.

Anyways, even if it was wood, I don't see any boat shapes there.

Pretty certain they wouldn't call it Pangea back then. There's no need for continent names when there's only one existing.

Oh wait I forgot about the continents drifting at about 6 kilometers every year. Hmm actually the world has been this way ever since we started making maps and whatnot, like 5000 years ago, so I guess that means the contients have to move even faster. Like 10 kilometers per year.

Let's see, that's 26 meters every day, so about 1 meter per hour. So if you were standing near a fault line there would be earthquakes pretty much constantly and if you went to sleep on the wrong side of a crevisse, you'd wake up on a different contient.

Aw I wish you weren't a troll, this would have been so funy :_(

I mean it doesn't say in the bible

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."

Based on what? Why would he bring shit like snakes and crocodiles, but not dinosaurs? There's nothing in the bibles that suggests God told him to not bring certain animals, he clearly said to pack them all in.

---

At 12/10/07 04:45 PM, mayeram wrote: I was wondering if any of you religious newgrounders could prove that your religion is more valid then Pastafarianism. So many religious people tell me that there are great amounts of evidence and proof pointing towards their religion, and yet I haven't seen anything that gives more proof for the belief in any other religion then the Pastafarians have for their religion. Why be offended of a religion that has just as much proof as yours?

By the way, if you don't know what Pastafarianism is, here is a link to the religion's homepage.

http://www.venganza.org/

Personally I'm a Sun Worshipper. Proof that it exists? Well, in case you live in a Cave or Antartica for a certain time of the year if you happen to take the garbage bags off your bed room window and turn your dilated pupils upward you can quite clearly see a large, yellow-orangish object I call my God.

---

At 12/17/07 04:37 PM, yendor87 wrote: you can quite clearly see a large, yellow-orangish object I call my God.

It's true, I seen it.

Conclusive evidence that the sun exists:

---

Hey does anyone know this psycho loser?

Pretty sickening to watch this shit. It's like child porn or something, it's so wrong.
I watched all 6 parts, and there's about 1 argument every 10 minutes, and the argument is usually a 500 year old eye witness acount / Loch Ness monster sighting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbpHjJp_W -c&feature=related

---

At 12/17/07 05:57 PM, poxpower wrote: Hey does anyone know this psycho loser?

That's Kent Hovind. Currently serving ten years for tax fraud.

---

Oh yeah, I see him on the religious channel all the time. My sister tried to convert me with his series. It is SO bad. If you understand some advanced science, you understand that every other word coming out of his mouth is a lie. What scares me is that some people (my sister among them) are not able to see the blank looks on the faces of the people in the audience. They look like they are being brainwashed. Its hilarious that in the introduction to his series they introduce him like he is some big shot and they say he "taught science in school" like that is some HUGE indication of competence. He could have taught an elementary school class! Is he really in prison? That's some of the best news I have heard in a while, although he really belongs in a padded room.

Sorry I am a little emotional, but I have personal reasons to hate that man.

---

O ya I know him.

---

At 12/17/07 06:40 PM, mayeram wrote: Oh yeah, I see him on the religious channel all the time. My sister tried to convert me with his series.

How old is she?
6?
Show her the videos I link in this post, she'll explode.

That's some of the best news I have heard in a while, although he really belongs in a padded room.

The man's not crazy, he's probably a really sly, cunning manipulative douchebag. He's clearly got his whole routine down, inserting charisma and jokes instead of facts.

GOD DAMN I HATE HIM SO MUCH. That's why I'm against religion. There's people like him on both sides of the fence, but if you give someone like that the power to influence people based on their faith, which is impossible to debate, reason or refute then they become unstopable.

Except if they evade taxes LAWL

At 12/17/07 06:06 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/17/07 05:57 PM, poxpower wrote: Hey does anyone know this psycho loser?

That's Kent Hovind. Currently serving ten years for tax fraud.

DAMN YOU SATAN!

Hey did you ever watch these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuhvLHVq9 QY&feature=related
They're awesome!

---

Yeah I saw those.

To be honest he could have ripped him apart a lot harder on the science.

---

At 12/17/07 06:51 PM, poxpower wrote:
How old is she?
6?

Unfortunately she is my older sister :( she is like 29. Really depresses me...

The man's not crazy, he's probably a really sly, cunning manipulative douchebag. He's clearly got his whole routine down, inserting charisma and jokes instead of facts.

Yeah, I can see that, but what he argues is so stupid that insane people often make more sense.

GOD DAMN I HATE HIM SO MUCH. That's why I'm against religion. There's people like him on both sides of the fence, but if you give someone like that the power to influence people based on their faith, which is impossible to debate, reason or refute then they become unstopable.

Yep, I hate him too. It's a lot more personal when it's someone you know that has been brainwashed. Guess it's just because she married into a fundamentalist Christian family. (Her father in law says that we should start up the draft again, invade every Muslim country and exterminate anyone that doesn't convert to Christianity, using nukes if necessary. He isn't joking, he is serious.)

---

Damn... I don't think I've ever seen such awesome ownage as Elfer just laid down.

Props.

---

At 12/17/07 07:10 PM, Elfer wrote:

To be honest he could have ripped him apart a lot harder on the science.

But how to even start? I mean you saw Jerkclock, you try to use the simplest scientific concepts to win him over, doesn't work. In fact when you used even slighty-complex words, he was angered or some shit.
Plus it's pretty clear that VenomX guy is a tool reading off some website or whatever.

Hey side note: I liked how in the ark videos they use carbon dating to date it, but then they say carbon dating doesn't work for shit like frozen mammoths or whatever.

At 12/17/07 07:15 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 12/17/07 06:51 PM, poxpower wrote:

Unfortunately she is my older sister :( she is like 29. Really depresses me...

Sad

(Her father in law says that we should start up the draft again, invade every Muslim country and exterminate anyone that doesn't convert to Christianity, using nukes if necessary. He isn't joking, he is serious.)

Yeah he'll go straight to heaven, that's for sure.

---

On the subject of VenomFangX and Kent Hovind.

---

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.

omg, that is the moast truth i have ever herd in one post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

At 12/18/07 12:19 AM, Antimatter500 wrote:
omg, that is the moast truth i have ever herd in one post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unless your going to include some ones in there, Single exclamation point thank you.

---

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 12/17/07 03:04 AM, JerkClock wrote:

The FSM has been spotted and filmed. You lose.

Cartoon FSM doesn't count.

Fairytale Jesus doesn't count.

---

At 12/18/07 01:42 AM, JerkClock wrote:

Then I misunderstood, where did you say the boat needed to twist?

The thing is that a boat of that size made of any kind of wood would probably twist apart and break in many places during a storm. Of course there's the argument that "God looked after him" and whatnot, but then why debate anything if you're going to say that?

K, but this deforming, and reforming stuff doesn't have to happen at constant speeds.

Yes because that's the physical properties of magma and the earth's core. That's like saying water doesn't always boil at a certain temperature at a certain pressure. Also why the "radiometric dating is bullshit" arguments make no sense. They work simply because of the physical properties of atoms and molecules that we can observe.

No think about it. if Noah's ark was built anticipation a heavy rain leading to a massive flood it could be built unconventionally.

Well the bible was apparently very precise about how it was supposed to look ( I'm told ).
Here's some pictures :
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2690 90,00.html

Haha that dude actually built himself an ark ( smaller though, about 1/3 the size, even though the article says 1/5 ). I doubt it would resist to a single stormy wave thrown its way, but it's funny.

They brought back evidence it just wasn't concrete.

If you're talking about that Wyatt guy who brought back a piece of "petrified wood", please read up on him, he's a giant phoney who claims to have discovered a ridiculous amount of important biblical places and who is not a real scientist or even an honest man. He repeatedly misquoted alleged "experts" to make it seem like he'd found the ark, but when the actual evidence fell under scrutiny by people who knew what they were talking about, it fell apart.
Also if that's the guy you're thinking about, who made those discoveries in the late 80s, he didn't "find the ark" on top of the mountain in the picture, he found it much lower on a pretty random outcropping that happened to look like a tear shaped boat but was just solidified mud flows with iron oxide veins.

So basically that was full of shit :/
I linked a video to it earlier, you watch it and you think "damn, that is pretty scientific, this seems real, he found the frickin' ark" but then you read the actual factual article and you think to yourself "what a sad, pitiful douchebag, to go that far to make his fame"

And that the events of the bible at least are true, which supports christianity.

There is no evidence in the strata layers of a massive worldwide flood, let alone on that happened at the beggining of the earth's geological life.
Of course the bible will mention things like floods, thunder, storms,shooting stars earthquakes, eclipses, they are all natural occurences that have happened forever and that every culture talks about, it's not a sign of anything.

What you don't see though, in ANY culture, is talk about dinosaurs, mammoths, 100 feet fish, giant insects etc, which were extremely common during the earth's past and of which we've found countless fossils that would suggest they were all abundant, so it's not like the excuse for them never seeing a T-Rex is because they were REALLY RARE. It's insane to think that humans back then would never come across a giant 4 story tall animal even ONCE at that they wouldn't IMMEDIATELY start writing about it in really great and lenghty detail, because that shit would have been completely crazy!

In fact, here's a really easy one: civilisations have always made shit out of seashells. Why is it that all these seashell jewels that we've found in every old civilization belongs to "modern" seashells, while there are tons of huge, exotic fossils that would suggest lots more seashells all over the world that we've never found unfossilized. Now that's a pretty huge coincidence.

Anyways, if you watch Kent Hovind's ( or whatever ) videos about dinosaurs, you'll see he doesn't bring up a single fact, all his arguments ( litterally ) are pulled straight from Dragon mythology, sea monsters, nessy sightings etc, which is proof of precisely jack shit.
here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKLO8mLcP 1A

Pretty convenient that animals like sheep and oxen, constantly mentionned in the bible, left tons and tons of bones behind for us to find and date to precisely human times ( coincidence that dating worked for all those times prefectly... dayum!! ) and yet we've not found ONCE an unfossilized dinosaur bones, the odds of this being in the order of 0.

Right, it's my job to look up your terminology.

When you don't understand a word, yes, you have to look it up.

Which at least gives the impression that you believe only homo sapiens could be our ancestors, whether or not that is what you meant.

He's saying only homo sapiens ( us ) or even at the very hugest most generous stretch, the Neandertal man would have had the intelligence to build an ark. They've never found any signs of technology ( houses, bow and arrow, shoes ) that is older than about 10 000 years, before that is was all rock tools. And Noah was a homo sapien anyways.
But you don't believe in radiometric dating ( a proven fact by science ).

Poxpower wrote:

And actually quite a few earthquakes are indeed noted in the bible.

No, it wouldn't be a few, or "quite a few", the earth would have litteraly RUMBLED constantly.

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.

Well you can't do that, you don't know which parts of the bible are truth and which ones are not. There are tons of scholars with really long white beards who've read the bible time and time again, and even they don't agree with each other. And you seem to ignore the science that would disprove some of the parts you believe to be true, so why use logic and science to disprove other parts?

---

At 12/18/07 01:42 AM, JerkClock wrote: Then I misunderstood, where did you say the boat needed to twist?

Page 5

stuff

K, but this deforming, and reforming stuff doesn't have to happen at constant speeds.

Yes, it does. Elasticity and plasticity are intrinsic properties of a substance. Here you're just plain lying, because you're grappling with simple concepts that you don't understand.

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.

Again, I never said this. I said that precursors to humans didn't have the level of technology needed to produce this type of structure. Once more, you're lying about what I said. Liar.

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).

That was when you were talking about "pitch black" things. The brown thing in the middle is a rock.

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)

Soaking something and freezing it is different from encasing it in ice. To prevent extensive damage from weathering, it would have to be completely encased in a block of ice.

stuff

No there aren't, pastafarianism is nothing but a deliberately made up religion that has 0 genuine followers, created to troll religous people.

Christianity was deliberately made up to troll the Romans. Deal with it.

confidence intervals

What "confidence intervals"?

The confidence intervals you get after you take any measurement, because we know that real-life results are never exact.

any real evidence

You're right, there has been no concrete evidence, I never said this stuff was concrete though.

No, I mean there's never been any evidence that even hints at being legitimate.

never answered.

Never to your satisfaction, but it was.

Um, no, all you said was "It could have gone faster" as opposed to why it could have gone faster. You never proposed a mechanism, as I requested.

"relatively constant,"

Okay but you still have no proof of this relative constance.

Again, this is similar to saying "Maybe at one time play dough was as hard as steel. Why? I don't know, but you can't prove it wasn't"

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)

I've already explained them. But this should be amusing to hear. I'd also like to see you explain that radioactive decay one, because it seems to be a total non-sequitur.

Plate tectonics:

Plates sit on the Earth's mantle. The mantle behaves elasto-plastically, and convects over long periods of geologic time. This convection causes formation of the ocean plates at the upward interface between convection cells, and subduction at the downward interface. As such, we observe movement of the continents over long periods of time.

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?

Not at all, no. Building a giant sphere out of wood would be significantly more difficult than building a regular ship, as well as far more likely to tip and send the contents everywhere.

Do you see how you keep changing your story to make it more and more insane in the face of repeated debunking? It's gotten so ridiculous and so far away from the biblical story you were trying to prove that there's no point anymore.

Also, a wooden ball is not evidence for the biblical story.

stuff

Well I think more than likely they had fishing rafts but not much else myself, so I'll give you that one.

So, we have "Homo habilis lack the technology to build boats." Good. That takes out the idea that this could have happened millions of years ago.

...There's nothing to explain here.

i.e, you're copping out.

No, I mean there's nothing to explain. Homo habilis and other human precursors are never found with the technology required to build such a boat. Ever. The conclusion is self-evident.

They brought back evidence it just wasn't concrete.

As in, "it was fake"

And that the events of the bible at least are true, which supports christianity.

Uh, no, "a local flood" is in fact NOT evidence of the biblical story. We all know that local floods existed, but the bible claims a global flood.

It's your job,

Right, it's my job to look up your terminology.

It's not "my" terminology. I am not the physicist who first studied the properties of materials.

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.

Again, what if it was video that was stolen and presented as comedy by anti-pastafarians in order to discredit it? Huh? What then?

The reason that you can't possibly know what happens over millions of years was given.

What, "I wasn't there"?

Just because you don't understand scientific inference doesn't mean that nobody else is allowed to.

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.

No, it gives the impression that only homo sapiens were capable of building a gigantic, physics-defying boat. And if you go back many millions of years, you don't have humans any more, you have apes.

Do you think that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

Yes, it is quite possible.

Then answer me this: Why is it that dinosaur fossils and human fossils are never, ever found on the same strata of the geologic column? Not even once?

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.

But see, even if it was deteriorated, it would still be possible to show what age it is with radiocarbon dating, because wood is an organic material.

However what about Jesus' existence? That much is at least conclusively true.

A) Not really
B) The existence of Jesus the man and Jesus the messiah are two very different things. Claiming that the existence of Jesus is proof of the bible is like me writing a book claiming that Rodney Dangerfield was a wizard, then saying that the historical evidence of Rodney Dangerfield's existence proves my book to be true.

---

At 12/10/07 04:45 PM, mayeram wrote: I was wondering if any of you religious newgrounders could prove that your religion is more valid then Pastafarianism. So many religious people tell me that there are great amounts of evidence and proof pointing towards their religion, and yet I haven't seen anything that gives more proof for the belief in any other religion then the Pastafarians have for their religion. Why be offended of a religion that has just as much proof as yours?

well, the bottom line is, you can't. no offence guys but in my opinion religions are pretty arbitrairy. they are really nothing more than a way to teach morals to a group of people, and explain events that could not be explained by science at the time the religion started. and it is just sad that people kill eachother over their religion