Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/22/07 04:16 PM, JerkClock wrote: Erroneous

Listen, don't lie to people about what temperature is, then tell me that I'm making erroneous statements.

Temperature

Effects everything it surrounds, no exceptions.

You're just making shit up because you don't know anything about molecular kinetics. As I mentioned earlier, it's not my fault you don't understand what temperature is, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're correct in assuming that it's magic.

This would mean that your definition of Christianity includes all possible scenarios, and therefore the required evidence is fully arbitrary.

Yeah and? What's your point? I fail to see how that invalidates my belief.

It doesn't invalidate your belief, it invalidates the idea that you have scientific evidence for it. You've reduced the specificity of your argument so much that there's nothing to be found that could contradict the idea of Christianity, and as such any possible scenario is possible under Christianity, and Christianity makes no specific prediction as as to what might happen.

This means that not only do you not have any evidence for the specific case, but you've generalized your argument so much that no evidence could ever possibly exist.

Anything could be said to have happened independant of a christian God no matter what it is, if it was God talking to people who'd be arguing that they were all hallucinating the same thing by shear coincidence. However that would be unlikely, just like someone somehow predicting that a flood will come and wipe out the town, then pre-emptively building a boat. Sure it could happen but it's more likely something told him/her about it.

Yeah, it's true that anything could be construed to be independent of god. However, you're trying to demonstrate this by bringing up a strong case for god that you have no evidence of ever actually occurring. What I'm telling you is "man owns boat, flood occurs" does not necessitate the Christian god.

Also, the person didn't need to build a boat in anticipation of a flood. The person could build a boat in anticipation of maybe they're a fisherman and fishermen generally own boats? Then when the flood comes, they just hop into the boat and/or are already in it and are saved.

Of course, this is all conjecture anyway because you have no evidence of this ever happening.

No see it doesn't contradict our science, merely some of it's conclusions based on assumptions we can't possibly know.

Assumptions that we can't possibly know, such as what? Be specific. Don't just say "We assume we can know what happened millions of years ago." I want a specific reason that you're judging the conclusion to be so shaky.

Again, the gap increases in magnitude, but not in proportion.

Playing of semantics to dodge the point noted.

That's not semantics at all. You're the one playing semantics by saying bigger time period = bigger error, while dodging the fact that the percentage error remains the same.

"Magnitude" and "proportion" have two very different meanings, so this is not a game of semantics.

physics-defying

It doesn't defy physics and you haven't proven it.

I explained to you a few times why it defies physics. Not my fault you're too dumb to comprehend the explanation.

unwilling to learn

No I asked for details and you refused to give them because you knew they'd be debunked.

No, I refuse to give them because you're so fucking lazy that you refused to look up simple terms like "elastic."

There is no way that I'll be able to explain this to you beyond a rough explanation (which I have already given) without using terms that you don't know and will refuse to look up. Ultimately, it's just not worth the effort to prove something obvious. If you truly think that you can demonstrate reasonable doubt that the mantle is involved in continental drift (which you will never do, because the plate MUST enter the mantle at subduction zones, there's simply nowhere else for it to go), then you can do your own research and come back here with a coherent argument.

Otherwise, I'll just have to spend days explaining the Earth's structure to you, only for you to come up with some asinine comment demonstrating a total lack of comprehension of what I've just told you. It's happened a few times already in this topic, and I can see no evidence that it wouldn't happen again.

If you want to argue against continental drift, do your homework first. It's your responsibility to be informed.

wizard.

Rodney Dangerfield is not remembered as a wizard either, so your comparison fails.

Incorrect. My story book that I wrote remembers him as a wizard. Sure, THAT part isn't backed up by any other historical source, but you know, it could have happened, you weren't there.

You bring it up, you explain, I'm not looking shit up just because you lack ability to back yourself up.

You brought up Pangaea, you brought up continental drift. I'm not explaining shit to a moron just because he's too dumb to do any reading for himself.

judging all science

Calling into question the ability of dating stuff millions and billions of years old is "judging all science" eh? That's a fallacy of composition.

Well, you've also called into question chemical kinetics with the radiation thing, you've dismissed quite a lot of physics with the high-speed continental drift idea, and of course huge amounts of geology all over the place. If not judging all science in general, you're at least throwing away all science that relates to anything you're saying in this topic.

fossilized remains

The analogy fails because ground isn't the same as water, and so boyancy would have no effect.

Then why would dinosaurs sink to the bottom? If buoyancy has no effect (which is doesn't, which is what I said in the first place) then we would expect to find dinosaurs and humans in the same strata, had they co-existed. However, we don't find that, ever, not even once.

Yes, see, it is plausible that over a thousand or more years the enitre universe would have enough small changes to effect the cosmic ray amount notably, you're just invoking Ad Nauseum at this point.

I'm using as nauseum? You're the one repeatedly asserting that cosmic ray activity could spontaneously increase everywhere in the universe all at once with no reason for it to do so. You're claiming it's plausible, but give no reason that it would be plausible.

Here's a reason why it's not plausible: There's absolutely no reason for that to happen, ever. It's an inexplicable event that you imagined simply to fit with your own predetermined conclusion.

The idea that we can not possibly know what happens over millionsor billions of years, combined with the fact that the methods are directly contradicted by the properties of temperature and neglect variations in energy which could very easily effect it also(such as lightning strikes).

Wow, three complete misunderstandings of science in one sentence. Nice.

Anyway, I didn't ask you why you thought it was wrong in general, I'm asking you why, if it's so unreliable, are so many people getting the same results despite the experiments being done in different places by different people with different equipment? Seems like a pretty big coincidence if the technique is completely useless.

There's been many people throughout history who said the same things dude, that's better than some stupid fuck atheist going, "Well I'm making this spagetti monster up."

No, it's not though. It's just a few stupid fuck Christians going "Hey, I found this boat. Evidence? No no, that was all mysteriously destroyed. Also I can't tell you really where it was or what it might look like."

I do have some, but no links, so you'rejust going to call bullshit on it(although much of it has recently aired on "The Universe")

Oh yeah, I have a bunch of that type of evidence for pastafarianism. I'm not going to even hint at what it is or where you might find it though.

Trust me, it's VERY convincing.

---

Religion is all about faith. trying to compare science and faith is like trying to compare your ability to read and what you can see in an abstract painting. I don't know if you all saw that movie the secret. ITs alright.

---

At 12/23/07 06:18 AM, Psi-realm wrote: Religion is all about faith. trying to compare science and faith is like trying to compare your ability to read and what you can see in an abstract painting. I don't know if you all saw that movie the secret. ITs alright.

Hmm well said, there really isn't anything to lose from blieving in God is there? nope

---

At 12/23/07 06:28 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Hmm well said, there really isn't anything to lose from blieving in God is there? nope

Believing in God =/= religion

---

At 12/23/07 06:31 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 12/23/07 06:28 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Hmm well said, there really isn't anything to lose from blieving in God is there? nope

Believing in God =/= religion

;
I don't think that's correct Earfetish. I believe there is a god (I think there's more than 1 actually)
But I don't see anything in any religion I've looked at that isn't self serving.
None of them have the answers any more than you ,I or anyone else here does.

But they have all these various tasks, & demands they place on their faithful & you have to dress a certain way, act a certain way, pray like this, do that... I find it all to be a smoke screen if you will , to hide the fact they don't know any more than we do.
Plus for the most part in the last several hundred years, religion ( well the so called belief's of the religious groups) has killed more people than old age.

This I find distasteful as well as disturbing, in that still so many people chose to ignore those facts.

---

At 12/22/07 01:49 PM, Earfetish wrote: Well, in my primary school, in this country at least, some of the teachers went on about God all the time and Religious Studies lessons were like religious brainwashing, and it was a state school.

I don't know how it is on the otherside of the pond, with the Anglican Church, but we don't have that problem here. I suppose that's partially due to most being Protestant.

Maybe they should teach kids critical studies in religious education, and how to apply critical analysis to religion.

The problem with common sense is it isn't so common, or so the saying goes.....
Once you teach these critical analysis skills I'm not sure if the populace will use them to ends intended.

And there shouldn't be the Ten Commandments anywhere, compulsory prayer at public functions, an ommision of compulsory God from the public sphere.

I agree to a degree. These things should not be there as a form of religious surepmacy, however, they should remain in historical context. For example, the state of California was originally founded by Catholic Priests, hence why they had a cross on the state emblem.

Do they not do this anyway?

No, most churches do not. The ones that do pay full taxes because of their outspoken opinions on politics.

Aye well who the fuck cares, religion is getting a free ride; churches aren't necessarily charities and you deduct your charitable costs from your bloody taxes anyway.

I'm not sure how the tax code works over in the UK or Scotland, but here non-profit organizations only get the tax-exemption. You make them pay more taxes, the less they have to give to charitable causes, the less aforementioned causes have, the less people who need it get critical care.

Of course there shouldn't be religious schools. I suppose I can allow religious summer camps.

You didn't answer my initial question. I asked if you would have the government step in and tell individuals that they cannot open a school on the grounds it's religiously oriented.

Perhaps I am an idiot for not connecting the dots, but you can liberate me from my yoke of stupidity by telling me exactly how'd you enforce the rule that no religious schools may be opened.

Still should happen. Which is why the promotion of atheism is so important. I would recommend religious people read, cover-to-cover, their particular holy book, and a book that is a critique of their religion. That seems intleligent.

Whenever I say "Good luck with that." It indicates two things A) I don't necessarily see a problem with the statement B) Don't really think it's something worth arguing over.

But yeah, I've read the Bible pretty thoroughly, observed all the laws in it and noted the criticisms of it by philosophers saying how barbaric they are.

Correct. I don't think there'll ever be eradication of religion. But people like the Pope and the Vatican have a stupid amount of influence.

What you could do is promote Hessite or Martin Luther teaching if you don't like the idea a single man can speak for God or the influence they wield.

No; political viewpoints are at least worthy of arguing about and are based on real observation.

The Spanish Inquisition had only killed a few thousand, an atrocity, but pales in comparison to the number of deaths socialism and marxism have inflicted. Logic would dictate these two ideas are much more deadly than any religion.

---

At 12/23/07 02:11 PM, Zeistro wrote:

No; political viewpoints are at least worthy of arguing about and are based on real observation.

The Spanish Inquisition had only killed a few thousand, an atrocity, but pales in comparison to the number of deaths socialism and marxism have inflicted. Logic would dictate these two ideas are much more deadly than any religion.

Hmm, you've got to consider the different time period as well. Deporting millions of people to Siberia by train would prove rather difficult for the Inquisition. Got to kill with the tools you have.

Besides, you can actually argue over the merits of certain political viewpoints, you can't argue over which religion is the best. It's all faith...

---

At 12/23/07 02:27 PM, Togukawa wrote: Hmm, you've got to consider the different time period as well. Deporting millions of people to Siberia by train would prove rather difficult for the Inquisition. Got to kill with the tools you have.

Still, the sheer number of deaths(A whopping 109 million in the USSR's lifetime) is not something that can be written off. This consideration does not nullify my point.

Look at the Middle East, most of which ruled by Islamic Theocracies. They possess all the technology of Soviet Russia(Them being backwards ass and having technology ranging from 40-20 years behind industrialized nations) and yet they haven't killed nearly as many as the Reds.

The point remains Marxism > religion in lethality department.

Besides, you can actually argue over the merits of certain political viewpoints, you can't argue over which religion is the best. It's all faith...

Adhering to the tenets of socialism, despite the clear superiority of free-markets, requires quite a bit of faith.

---

At 12/23/07 04:26 PM, Zeistro wrote: The point remains Marxism > religion in lethality department.

No.

---

At 12/23/07 07:04 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/23/07 04:26 PM, Zeistro wrote: The point remains Marxism > religion in lethality department.

No.

Yes, and you're an imbecile to think otherwise.

---

At 12/23/07 07:08 PM, Zeistro wrote:

Yes, and you're an imbecile to think otherwise.

So you're saying that all these nations were under Marxism regimes?

---

At 12/23/07 10:23 AM, morefngdbs wrote: ;
I don't think that's correct Earfetish. I believe there is a god (I think there's more than 1 actually)
But I don't see anything in any religion I've looked at that isn't self serving.
None of them have the answers any more than you ,I or anyone else here does.

But they have all these various tasks, & demands they place on their faithful & you have to dress a certain way, act a certain way, pray like this, do that... I find it all to be a smoke screen if you will , to hide the fact they don't know any more than we do.
Plus for the most part in the last several hundred years, religion ( well the so called belief's of the religious groups) has killed more people than old age.

This I find distasteful as well as disturbing, in that still so many people chose to ignore those facts.

Choose to ignore because that is not our religion, people who kill for their religion are wrong, it is very stupid to harp on about religion causing all this shit.
Our free will are to blame for that shit not religion, peace, love, and good things are what many religions hold dear, not war and hate.
It is an easy mistake to make since people tell others that they do what they do because God told them or they must honor their religion, that is the person's fault they do those things not religion.
George Bush tells us that God told him to attack Iraq, either he is crazy or he just wants to pull religious people into the opposite side of religion.
Just like Bush, it is other people's choice to accept his madness and kill for a faith that they are going against by doing it.

Now that thats cleared up we can now go back to speculating about how much evidence we can get to prove there is a God, if God wanted us to find him as mortals then he would've made it easier.

So all the atheists can fuck off and stop tempting others into their disbelief in God, because there is nothing to lose from truly believing, peace and love is the way to go, not war and hate.

---

At 12/23/07 09:04 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Choose to ignore because that is not our religion, people who kill for their religion are wrong, it is very stupid to harp on about religion causing all this shit.

Religion gives people the motivation to become violent and irrational. Of course, the majority aren't this way, but you're ignorant if you believe it happens to no one.

Our free will are to blame for that shit not religion, peace, love, and good things are what many religions hold dear, not war and hate.

The Islam Holy book, the Koran, is particularly violent, for one thing, and so is a large chunk of the old testament.

It is an easy mistake to make since people tell others that they do what they do because God told them or they must honor their religion, that is the person's fault they do those things not religion.

Maybe "god" did tell them in a dream/halluciantion. Who are you to say what is and isn't religion.

George Bush tells us that God told him to attack Iraq, either he is crazy or he just wants to pull religious people into the opposite side of religion.

Both, as a matte of fact.

Just like Bush, it is other people's choice to accept his madness and kill for a faith that they are going against by doing it.

Though it doesn't matter the bible, in some parts, advocates the killing of others.

Now that thats cleared up we can now go back to speculating about how much evidence we can get to prove there is a God, if God wanted us to find him as mortals then he would've made it easier.

What teh fuck. So you're saying that suffering for all eternity for not believing is justified even though he doesn't give us evidence. You're fucking barbaric.

So all the atheists can fuck off and stop tempting others into their disbelief in God, because there is nothing to lose from truly believing, peace and love is the way to go, not war and hate.

Never mind a good chunk of war and hate is Religion's fault.

---

More retarded babble from Sadisticmonkey, your words are poison to young minds, I suggest you seek therapy before you hurt yourself.

---

At 12/23/07 09:19 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: More retarded babble from Sadisticmonkey, your words are poison to young minds, I suggest you seek therapy before you hurt yourself.

Stop this bullshit.

Actually respond to the points raised in my post, as I extend the courtesy to you.

---

At 12/23/07 06:18 AM, Psi-realm wrote: Religion is all about faith. trying to compare science and faith is like trying to compare your ability to read and what you can see in an abstract painting. I don't know if you all saw that movie the secret. ITs alright.

He is right. Religion that you can prove is not religion at all. God expects undivided loyalty so to speak (Correct me if you want) and life's daily challenges are test of our faith.

---

At 12/23/07 07:26 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/23/07 07:08 PM, Zeistro wrote:

Yes, and you're an imbecile to think otherwise.

So you're saying that all these nations were under Marxism regimes?

Fuck, did you not read what it said? It stated in big, bold print "Communist Body Count" so even an idiot can see........or not.

---

At 12/23/07 11:29 PM, Zeistro wrote:
Fuck, did you not read what it said? It stated in big, bold print "Communist Body Count" so even an idiot can see........or not.

I fucking know that dickwad.

Your post said that Marxism>Religion lethality, not communism>religion.

---

At 12/23/07 11:48 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I fucking know that dickwad.

And apparently not semantics nor correlation.

Your post said that Marxism>Religion lethality, not communism>religion.

Marx·ism /%u02C8m%u0251rks%u026Az%u0259m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mahrk-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

And guess what broad category communism falls under? I'll give you a hint, it starts with "m" and ends with a "m"

---

I can prove my religon is more valid.

I'll get everyone to convert, and for each convert, i have one more person who beleives my religion to be real.

---

Marxism is a set of ideas, Communism is state power; Tony Blair has Marxist tendencies but he's still a Capitalist, and it's very unlikely Marx would ever have agreed with Stalin.

Genocide kills more people than religion, but I don't see such genocide happening in Cuba, and I wouldn't therefore link it inexorably to Marx. Who had a decent social philosophy, that's worth talking about.

And the point matters not at all, because even if Marxism is inherently genocidal, that doesn't mean religion isn't. And the differences are multiple; "Marx came up with this idea and didn't think it was faulty" is a better starting point than "God made this Holy Book factual."

And I'm not proposing the outright banning of religion either; just like society has shifted against the worse aspects of Marxism, society should shift against religion, too. I would say neither should be banned, just like no ideas should be banned.

And I can't believe the disrespect SadisticMonkeys is getting, for having the decency to discuss these issues with y'all frankly. And I think you all know that we're at least somewhat correct; religion is false and harmful.

---

At 12/22/07 04:16 PM, JerkClock wrote:

Poxpower wrote:
fucking strong evidence

There is strong evidence, they're just saying radioactive decay can't be effected by anything that happens around it which is not only a bold assumption, but pretty fallacious at that, it directly contradicts the properties of temperature, and since energy is a factor, it neglects variations in energy as well.

Nothing that happened on earth affected it, that's guaranteed, unless again you have proof that at some point the earth was about 1000 degrees hotter for, I dunno, all the time until maybe 10 000 years ago. Or the reverse, that it was at like 40 kelvin.
Again, you emit tons of probabilities that have never EVER been backed up to suggest that something which has been proven time and time again is wrong.
Aliens, magic, paralel dimensions, miracles, YES, THEY ALL EXPLAIN EVERYTHING, BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THEM, EVER.

Well I'd be hard pressed to believe using snow layers based on average snowfall could accurately date snow beyond a human lifespan either. And for the record, they wouldn't need that to prove natural occurrences of global warming. Historical accounts alone could do that.

Line Elfer said, they date layers of snow and they can go back THOUSANDS of years, because snow doesn't melt in the antartic. This method has nothing to do with radiometric dating. It's like counting the rings on a tree.

And as that source said, those different materials get less accurate.

Ok let me explain it to you.
If they both are accurate at 95%, if you date something that is 100 years old, then it will be more or less 5 years.
If you date something that is 1 000 000 years old, then it will be accurate to more or less 50 000 years, But it's still JUST AS ACCURATE, accuracy being a PERCENTAGE.

Saying "I am right" doesn't prove your case.

Alright I'm done here, you clearly don't want to learn anything you're replying to everything as fast as you can.

---

At 12/23/07 01:43 AM, Elfer wrote:
don't lie

I'm not, you are the one saying temperature doesn't effect that which it surrounds, which is in fact erroneous.

You're just making shit up

Argumentum Ad Lapidem. I'm not making anything up, temperature effects everything it surrounds. That's a fact, no matter how much you try to deny it Ad Nauseum.

It doesn't invalidate your belief, it invalidates the idea that you have scientific evidence for it.

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous. A broader idea is in fact much easier to prove, because you only have to prove the general idea.

What I'm telling you is "man owns boat, flood occurs" does not necessitate the Christian god.

Does anything? Just because it doesn't necessitate him doesn't mean it isn't more likely that he intervened.

Also, the person didn't need to build a boat in anticipation of a flood.

I doubt they would build a giant eliptical boat for fishing.

no evidence

Erroneous claim laced with Ad Nauseum, as expected from someone who thinks temperature does not effect that which it surrounds.

Be specific.

I gave specific reasons, several times in fact, but you are ignoring them and pretending like I didn't say them now, as expected from someone who thinks temperature does not effect that which it surrounds.

That's not semantics at all

Yes it is, you are playing semantics with "magnitude" and "proportion."

"Magnitude" and "proportion"

Yes I know, that doesn't you aren't trying to play semantics though.

I explained to you a few times

No you've made statements of your own which defied physics, such as trying to say temperature doesn't effect that which it surrounds

I refuse to give them

Exactly because you know I'll debunk them like I did your asinine idea of temperature not effecting what it surrounds.

There is no way that I'll be able to explain this

Well then give a link that does.

total lack of comprehension

The only lack of comprehension is you trying to say that temperature won't effect things it surrounds.

story book

A story book you wrote knowing it is false and nothing but a story is not the same as a large number of followers, witnesses, and documentation, you fail.

You brought up Pangaea, you brought up continental drift.

You brought up "elastic" and "plastic", playing semantics fails you again.

radiation thing,

Temperature will effect it whether it generates it's own heat or not, and you have failed to prove otherwise.

you've dismissed quite a lot of physics with the high-speed continental drift idea

Which physics, give me the details and I will explain this.

If buoyancy has no effect

Then you can't say heavy things will have an equal chance of sinking as lighter things, period. You'd have to have another explanations, which as of now you do not.

no reason

Unsubstantiated and erroneous presupposition, laced with Argumentum Ad Nauseum. As expected from someone who lacks a logical argument. Saying that over a thousand years there can easily be enough minor changes across the entire universe is a reason and a good one, you deliberately ignore it and invoke Ad Nauseum.

three complete misunderstandings

Unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem attack, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

many people getting the same results

Argumentum Ad Populum. They're blindly following what they've been told and not questioning it. So they don't question whether radiometric dating is even reliable when they perhaps should.

a few stupid fuck Christians

Argumentum Ad Lapidem, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

Oh yeah, I have a bunch of that type of evidence for pastafarianism.

No you don't, you're making it up. If you'd be willing to listen(er read), I can tell you what I'm talking about.

Poxpower wrote:
Nothing that happened on earth affected it, that's guaranteed

No it's not garenteed at all. Temperature doesn't have a magic number where it suddenly starts effecting stuff whereas it didn't before. Science doesn't work that way.

Line Elfer said, they date layers of snow and they can go back THOUSANDS of years, because snow doesn't melt in the antartic. This method has nothing to do with radiometric dating. It's like counting the rings on a tree.

I think what he said is they measure the layers of snow that are packed on during winter. Problem is in places like the arctic, doesn't it snow year round?

Ok let me explain it to you.

According to the link I gave though, they're not both equally accurate.

Alright I'm done here

Ah cut and run.

---

At 12/24/07 03:23 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/23/07 01:43 AM, Elfer wrote:
don't lie

I'm not, you are the one saying temperature doesn't effect that which it surrounds, which is in fact erroneous.

No, your understanding of temperature is erroneous. I've tried to explain a few times now why different temperatures don't affect the rate of radioactive decay, but you're just not getting it.

You're just making shit up

Argumentum Ad Lapidem. I'm not making anything up, temperature effects everything it surrounds. That's a fact, no matter how much you try to deny it Ad Nauseum.

But see, you're basing this on an incorrect, oversimplified explanation of the kinetic molecular theory, because once again, you don't actually understand the mechanism behind the things you're trying to talk about. You don't understand what temperature is, and you don't understand how radioactive decay works.

The reason it sounds like ad nauseum is because I'm not really sure what else to tell you. I've already explained it in terms so simple a child could understand, but for some reason you're still struggling.

It doesn't invalidate your belief, it invalidates the idea that you have scientific evidence for it.

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous. A broader idea is in fact much easier to prove, because you only have to prove the general idea.

But when you have a very broad idea, it's hard to find evidence that demonstrates that idea exclusively. When you broaden up your definition of Christianity so much that the expected outcomes for the existence and non-existence of the Christian god are identical, then all discussion of evidence becomes meaningless.

What I'm telling you is "man owns boat, flood occurs" does not necessitate the Christian god.

Does anything? Just because it doesn't necessitate him doesn't mean it isn't more likely that he intervened.

Let me rephrase. "Man owns boat, flood occurs" is a very likely situation regardless of the existence of a god or gods.

Also, the person didn't need to build a boat in anticipation of a flood.

I doubt they would build a giant eliptical boat for fishing.

As I said, the giant elliptical boat is something that you made up, and have no evidence for. On top of that, when we get into the idea of gigantic boats with funny shapes, you run into the same engineering and technology problems that I described much earlier in the topic.

no evidence

Erroneous claim laced with Ad Nauseum, as expected from someone who thinks temperature does not effect that which it surrounds.

Non sequitur. Where's your evidence? As far as I've seen, it consists of a rock on a mountain, some fraudulent (or at least unverifiable) wood samples, and hearsay from people who may not have even existed. Not impressive.

Be specific.

I gave specific reasons, several times in fact, but you are ignoring them and pretending like I didn't say them now, as expected from someone who thinks temperature does not effect that which it surrounds.

Oh for fuck's sake. Temperature doesn't affect what it surrounds. Heat does. Get it straight.

That's not semantics at all

Yes it is, you are playing semantics with "magnitude" and "proportion."

But they mean very different things. I'm not splitting hairs here. The absolute error increases, but the percentage error stays the same. Guess which is more important in science?

I refuse to give them

Exactly because you know I'll debunk them like I did your asinine idea of temperature not effecting what it surrounds.

If you're so sure you're going to debunk the idea that the properties of the mantle have no role in the speed of continental drift, shouldn't you have some understanding of continental drift first?

Here's some evidence for you:
- Zones of subduction exist
- At a zone of subduction, the plate has nowhere else to go other than into the mantle
- Therefore, the properties of the mantle must determine the speed at which subduction can occur. Since continental drift cannot occur without subduction, the properties of the mantle therefore must have a significant effect on the speed of continental drift.

There is no way that I'll be able to explain this

Well then give a link that does.

Here, words and pictures. If there's something in this link you don't understand, look it up for yourself.

story book

A story book you wrote knowing it is false and nothing but a story is not the same as a large number of followers, witnesses, and documentation, you fail.

Witnesses and documentation? Like what, the original authors and the work itself?

You brought up Pangaea, you brought up continental drift.

You brought up "elastic" and "plastic", playing semantics fails you again.

Correct, I brought up two terms that are important in understanding continental drift, which you brought up. If you're going to claim that you know that the speed could have been much, much faster, the elasto-plastic properties of the mantle is a subject you should have already been familiar with.

radiation thing,

Temperature will effect it whether it generates it's own heat or not, and you have failed to prove otherwise.

...What? Yeah, I guess that radioactive decay wouldn't self-initiate at absolute zero. Unfortunately for you, the Earth was never at absolute zero so the point is moot.

you've dismissed quite a lot of physics with the high-speed continental drift idea

Which physics, give me the details and I will explain this.

Well, material properties such as elasto-plastic behaviour, and in the same vein, chemical bonding. Saying that continental drift can move really fast is like saying that because glass deforms plastically over long periods of time, I should be able to throw a pane of glass at the ground and have it splatter into a puddle instead of shattering.

Then you can't say heavy things will have an equal chance of sinking as lighter things, period. You'd have to have another explanations, which as of now you do not.

But they do have the same change of sinking: Zero. Fossils don't sink through rock, period.

Saying that over a thousand years there can easily be enough minor changes across the entire universe is a reason and a good one,

As assertion like that is not self-justifying. Give me a REASON that cosmic ray activity would have been significantly greater a thousand years ago.

many people getting the same results

Argumentum Ad Populum. They're blindly following what they've been told and not questioning it. So they don't question whether radiometric dating is even reliable when they perhaps should.

That's not as populum. A bunch of scientists repeating an experiment and getting the same result verifies that result through probability, not popularity. By calling it ad populum, you're suggesting that a huge number of scientists all over the world are falsifying their results as part of some grand conspiracy to promote radiometric dating.

I really don't think you get how science works.

Oh yeah, I have a bunch of that type of evidence for pastafarianism.

No you don't, you're making it up. If you'd be willing to listen(er read), I can tell you what I'm talking about.

Fine. I'm waiting.

---

You know, at this point, even if Jerkclock is just a troll, I think he's still a dumbass.

There is no way he's a day over 15.

---

Ok jeryclock, its time for you to stop.

Either you give one piece of evidence that elfer has not totaly clusterfucked OR you STFU and get a life.

---

That is the reason I left this thread, I said he was a troll like 4-5 pages ago. He provided nothing other than is deranged rantings with nothing to back them up.

---

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

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.

O ya, omfg, and the bible said, if you cut off your foot, you no longer have one of your feet. +1 bible?!

---

At 12/24/07 07:39 PM, poxpower wrote: You know, at this point, even if Jerkclock is just a troll, I think he's still a dumbass.

Trolls don't have this level of persevering. Only Christfags with blind faith could go on for this long.

---

I'm surprised this topic made it this far. When are people going to learn that you can't prove or disprove religion?

Does the carbon dating on that fossil say the world is older than 12,000 years? IT WAS PUT THERE TO TEST OUR FAITH!! Does the evidence seem to point towards the theory of evolution? LIES CREATED BY SATAN!!!

Personally, I think the entire world was built sometime last thursday, and all the memories you have were fabricated to make it seem like the world is older. And you know what? none of you can prove me wrong, because that's what blind faith is all about.