War on Science

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by kslidz on Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:15 pm

the only viable proof someone has given me for an old Earth
is the distance of the stars

if anyone can explain this it would be greatly appreciated

if not i can continue to give the weak argument that that only suggests an old universe

also if evolution turns out to be true it does not undermine my faith at all it just changes my belief about Genesis

kslidz
Minion

Male Number of posts : 753
Age : 28
Location : your pants
Registration date : 2009-02-13

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Toaster on Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:35 pm

kslidz wrote:the only viable proof someone has given me for an old Earth
is the distance of the stars

*Sigh. It's very hard to argue this to people who just poo poo the entire fossil record by saying that the biblical flood scrambled everything up.... but you know, you can come up with a story, claim it to be true, and use it against any theory you want. That doesn't change anything.

Aside from what it says in the Old Testament, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that the events of Noah's Ark ever occurred, the Grand Canyon included.

And so, all we have is the fossil record, as well as the knowledge of complex systems, like plate tectonics. The Earth's continents fit together like pieces of a puzzle, and we know that the plates are moving around at a pretty slow rate. Remains of the same ancient species' have been found in different corners of the world. This would suggest that the Earth's continents were once unified.

There's also radiometric dating (using radioactive decay) which can help us to determine the age of rocks ect. I believe the oldest sample measured was something like 4 billion years old.

So yeah.. the argument is somewhat beyond me... I'd have to do some more looking into it. I've never really given the other side any form of credit, and therefor haven't bothered with ACTUALLY producing valuable arguments.
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Felix on Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:12 pm

I could have sworn I say a video in Bio class last year that said that humans evolved from monkeys(or apes) because of some DNA link chain where monkeys(or apes) had one more stand of a chromosone, and that humans had a "combined" one that would match the missing chromosone.

A little fuzzy with the details though, I could ask him(in september[if I even remember]) for the video though.
Felix
Felix
Banana

Male Number of posts : 2083
Age : 27
Location : Unlocking Alchemy
Registration date : 2009-02-08

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by kslidz on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:03 pm

ReconToaster wrote:
kslidz wrote:the only viable proof someone has given me for an old Earth
is the distance of the stars

*Sigh. It's very hard to argue this to people who just poo poo the entire fossil record by saying that the biblical flood scrambled everything up.... but you know, you can come up with a story, claim it to be true, and use it against any theory you want. That doesn't change anything.

Aside from what it says in the Old Testament, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that the events of Noah's Ark ever occurred, the Grand Canyon included.

And so, all we have is the fossil record, as well as the knowledge of complex systems, like plate tectonics. The Earth's continents fit together like pieces of a puzzle, and we know that the plates are moving around at a pretty slow rate. Remains of the same ancient species' have been found in different corners of the world. This would suggest that the Earth's continents were once unified.
all EASILY explained by the flood

if in the flood the water comes from below the ground (like it says in the Bible) the plates and the splitting land into continents makes sense

if like in everything else small things sift to the bottom the fossil records make sense
(also that if an animal is smarter, once waters rise they go for high ground, and although birds are stupid they fly)makes sense for elephants to be higher than raptors because raptors size cause them to sift to the bottom


ReconToaster wrote:
There's also radiometric dating (using radioactive decay) which can help us to determine the age of rocks ect. I believe the oldest sample measured was something like 4 billion years old.
well since we have no reason to believe that the substances start out in a rock are the same as they used to be the half life method is not predictdable or reliable
(not aying halflifes arent right but the amount that starts in a substance is constantly changing)

ReconToaster wrote:
So yeah.. the argument is somewhat beyond me... I'd have to do some more looking into it. I've never really given the other side any form of credit, and therefor haven't bothered with ACTUALLY producing valuable arguments.

so yeah the only argument that is not EASILY put aside is the distance of the stars

and again if evolution is true im a okay with it

kslidz
Minion

Male Number of posts : 753
Age : 28
Location : your pants
Registration date : 2009-02-13

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Felix on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:05 pm

But didn't the flood kill everyone not on the boat?
Felix
Felix
Banana

Male Number of posts : 2083
Age : 27
Location : Unlocking Alchemy
Registration date : 2009-02-08

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by kslidz on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:07 pm

some fish mighta been okay the point was to wipe all but the humans form the planet we arent sure what to make of the animals

kslidz
Minion

Male Number of posts : 753
Age : 28
Location : your pants
Registration date : 2009-02-13

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Felix on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:08 pm

kslidz wrote:some fish mighta been okay the point was to wipe all but the humans form the planet we arent sure what to make of the animals

I am confused beyond belief as to what the hell you just said...
Felix
Felix
Banana

Male Number of posts : 2083
Age : 27
Location : Unlocking Alchemy
Registration date : 2009-02-08

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Toaster on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:26 pm

Kslidz wrote:all EASILY explained by the flood

As I said, It's very hard to argue this to people who just poo poo the entire fossil record by saying that the biblical flood scrambled everything up.... but you know, you can come up with a story, claim it to be true, and use it against any theory you want. That doesn't change anything.

I could say that ancient aliens forged the earth with lasers and personally engineered each and every living organism. It would explain everything, wouldn't it?
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Felix on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:28 pm

ReconToaster wrote:
Kslidz wrote:all EASILY explained by the flood

As I said, It's very hard to argue this to people who just poo poo the entire fossil record by saying that the biblical flood scrambled everything up.... but you know, you can come up with a story, claim it to be true, and use it against any theory you want. That doesn't change anything.

I could say that ancient aliens forged the earth with lasers and personally engineered each and every living organism. It would explain everything, wouldn't it?

My science teacher said, that an andvanced civilization could have lived here millions of ago, and we wouldn't know it.(but of course, the Earth hasn't been around for billions of years...)
Felix
Felix
Banana

Male Number of posts : 2083
Age : 27
Location : Unlocking Alchemy
Registration date : 2009-02-08

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by kslidz on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:40 pm

ReconToaster wrote:
Kslidz wrote:all EASILY explained by the flood

As I said, It's very hard to argue this to people who just poo poo the entire fossil record by saying that the biblical flood scrambled everything up.... but you know, you can come up with a story, claim it to be true, and use it against any theory you want. That doesn't change anything.

I could say that ancient aliens forged the earth with lasers and personally engineered each and every living organism. It would explain everything, wouldn't it?

no it didnt just scrambled it up

if you want to disprove my logic go ahead but dont just "poo poo" it like you say i am come up with your own logic i am not poo pooing anything you are

kslidz
Minion

Male Number of posts : 753
Age : 28
Location : your pants
Registration date : 2009-02-13

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Toaster on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:49 pm

kslidz wrote:
no it didnt just scrambled it up

if you want to disprove my logic go ahead but dont just "poo poo" it like you say i am come up with your own logic i am not poo pooing anything you are

You are promoting something simply because it was featured in 2000 year old scripture. Seriously, if we lived in a world where Christianity did not exist, and some loon came up to you on the street and told you that the world is 10,000 years old, and that there was a massive flood, and some guy built a massive boat (with the help of a space ghost) and gathered every animal in the world and lived out the flood which shaped the earth and created the Grand Canyon.... you would throw him some change and look the other direction.

You give the idea consideration SIMPLY because it is associated with your religion. I cannot take that seriously. The fossil record is all we have. Could some entity have done something to fuck with it at some point in the past? Possibly... but we have no LOGICAL reason to think that.
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Kasrkin Seath on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:52 pm

I still do not see why you even try and argue Recon. Its pretty pointless, this debate could go on FOREVER.

_________________
I AM THE LAW
War on Science - Page 4 Kasrki10
[00:17:22] @ KrAzY : new law.
[00:17:28] @ KrAzY : the law can now be a person.
[00:17:28] @ XNate02 : The Law, can only be The Law.
[00:17:32] @ Gauz : I'd kick everyone....
[00:17:37] @ KrAzY : and that person is seath
[00:17:39] @ kasrkin seath : YES
------------------------------------------
[02:22:43] @ KrAzY : the reason we all come to TCF is because Seath is too Lord Pheonix damn sexy to stop.
Kasrkin Seath
Kasrkin Seath
The Law

Male Number of posts : 3018
Location : Michigan
Registration date : 2008-07-12

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Toaster on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:58 pm

Kasrkin Seath wrote:I still do not see why you even try and argue Recon. Its pretty pointless, this debate could go on FOREVER.

Because it makes me angry beyond possible belief. I can't just let things be. I've thought about being a psychologist one day, but I think I'd end up HITTING my patients.
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by kslidz on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:59 pm

well recon i have not seen you throw out anything logical

you know that if there was no religion in the world and no theory of evolution
and some guy on the street came up to you and said that billions of years ago humans used to be amoebas you would throw him some change and look the other way

you act as if your idea does not sound as ridiculous as mine does
i realize mine SOUNDS ridiculous, but so does yours

you have no proof either

you have stuff that suggests but no proof, by literal definition, that evolution is true
i have at least a book that agrees with multiple other books that says something
although many would argue (and not ridiculously but logically) that the book actually insinuates evolution
but i digress

kslidz
Minion

Male Number of posts : 753
Age : 28
Location : your pants
Registration date : 2009-02-13

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Toaster on Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:09 pm

kslidz wrote:well recon i have not seen you throw out anything logical

you know that if there was no religion in the world and no theory of evolution
and some guy on the street came up to you and said that billions of years ago humans used to be amoebas you would throw him some change and look the other way

I'm not talking about mega-evolution. I'm talking about Humans and Apes evolving from a common ancestor... which really does not sound 'ridiculous' at all.

I think the evolution you are talking about, that all animals on Earth are somehow biologically related... is.... possible, seeing as most all of Earth's animals have VERY similar features, but I'm not really promoting that idea.
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Ukurse on Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:39 pm

IMO, all Religions are just jokes.
But believing in god is understandable.
Ukurse
Ukurse
Minion

Male Number of posts : 1441
Age : 25
Location : Auckland, New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-01-12

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by CivBase on Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:08 pm

Step 1: Insult the other side
ReconToaster wrote:*Sigh. It's very hard to argue this to people who just poo poo the entire fossil record by saying that the biblical flood scrambled everything up.... but you know, you can come up with a story, claim it to be true, and use it against any theory you want. That doesn't change anything.

Step 2: Point out that the other side has no proof, despite the fact that nobody has made such a claim.
ReconToaster wrote:Aside from what it says in the Old Testament, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that the events of Noah's Ark ever occurred, the Grand Canyon included.

Step 3: Tell everyone what you learned from 3rd grade science class.
ReconToaster wrote:And so, all we have is the fossil record, as well as the knowledge of complex systems, like plate tectonics. The Earth's continents fit together like pieces of a puzzle, and we know that the plates are moving around at a pretty slow rate. Remains of the same ancient species' have been found in different corners of the world. This would suggest that the Earth's continents were once unified.

Step 4: Present your evidence.
ReconToaster wrote:There's also radiometric dating (using radioactive decay) which can help us to determine the age of rocks ect. I believe the oldest sample measured was something like 4 billion years old.

My response (quoted from Mythonian):
Spoiler:
Possibly the primary reliance of geologic time and evolution is the various methods of radiometric dating. The most commonly used tests include Carbon 14, Uranium-Lead, and Potassium-Argon. All of these are based on assumptions of "half-lives", which are the lengths of time required for a various unstable substance to decay 50%. There is no proven studies that show that these half-lives are correct whatsoever, as they are in the millions of years.

Also, these methods of dating are highly inaccurate. They never tell you about the fallacies of science and evolution, but they exist and are plentiful. Here are a few of radiometric dating alone:

1) When the Apollo 11 mission brought moon rocks and soil samples, Uranium-Lead testing produced four different dates: 4.6 billion years, 5.4 billion years, 4.8 billion years, and 8.2 billion years. Potassium-Argon testing produced an age of 2.3 billion years.
2) Potassium-Argon testing was used on some volcanic rocks from Hawaii, and produced ages ranging from 160 million years to 3 billion years. The rock was known to have come from an eruption that occurred in 1801.
3) Tests from a combination of all three methods were used on volcanic rocks from Russia, with results ranging from 50 million years to 14.6 billion years (which was about when the Big Bang happened, which is impossible to be accurate), when this volcano erupted about 200 A.D.
4) A high-voltage power line fell near Grand Prairie, Alberta, Canada in 1973. It instantly fossilized some tree roots, which were put through Potassium-Argon testing. This indicated an age of several million years.
5) A number of living mollusks have been put through Carbon-14 testing, and have given results of 2,300 years.
6) Some mortar used within an English castle less than 800 years old tested at 7,370 years old.
7) Fresh seal skins have dated as far back as 1,300 years.

Step 5: Insult the other side on the way out.
ReconToaster wrote:So yeah.. the argument is somewhat beyond me... I'd have to do some more looking into it. I've never really given the other side any form of credit, and therefor haven't bothered with ACTUALLY producing valuable arguments.

ReconToaster wrote:As I said, It's very hard to argue this to people who just poo poo the entire fossil record...
Then why do you? By your example, it's not only very hard, but impossible.

ReconToaster wrote:You are promoting something simply because it was featured in 2000 year old scripture.
No, he's promoting it because he believes that that story is true, not because of where it was.

ReconToaster wrote:Seriously, if we lived in a world where Christianity did not exist, and some loon came up to you on the street and told you that the world is 10,000 years old, and that there was a massive flood, and some guy built a massive boat (with the help of a space ghost) and gathered every animal in the world and lived out the flood which shaped the earth and created the Grand Canyon.... you would throw him some change and look the other direction.
And if we lived in a world without atheism and evolution and some guy came up to you telling you that everything in the universe once squeezed together into a tiny little dot and spun around until pieces broke off and turned into planets, and entire ecosystems magically formed by complete chance on these rocks, you would probably do the same.

ReconToaster wrote:You give the idea consideration SIMPLY because it is associated with your religion.
And you do so simply because it's associated with science.

ReconToaster wrote:I cannot take that seriously. The fossil record is all we have. Could some entity have done something to fuck with it at some point in the past? Possibly... but we have no LOGICAL reason to think that.
We have no logical reason to think anything of our past origins... but we do.

_________________
War on Science - Page 4 Bzsigy2
CivBase
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by kslidz on Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:25 pm

get em civbase

my sentiments exactly

kslidz
Minion

Male Number of posts : 753
Age : 28
Location : your pants
Registration date : 2009-02-13

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Toaster on Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:04 pm

Make an extremely weak argument showing that you know absolutely nothing on the subject:

Yah, no. If we evolved from apes as evolution suggests, there would be million of those missing link fossils and the apes wold have died out.

Ask how something could be proof after It has already been said that it would only be suggestive evidence:

Then how the hell would a missing link prove anything? May as well just be a new species.

Shamefully back off as you realize you have been beaten, but make sure that you have thrown in one last "TAHT ISNT PROOF!" statement, just to make it look like you actually have an argument:

So you're insisting that it would be an ancestor to both humans and apes. I suppose that makes sense, but doesn't really prove anything.

Sit back, and let someone else argue for you, and then return to criticize your opponent's tactics which were extremely efficient in flushing you out.

Anyways, Kslidz asked for evidence that suggests that the Earth is really old, and so I did the best I could to supply him with that.

Civ wrote: Step 5: Insult the other side on the way out.

ReconToaster wrote:So yeah.. the argument is somewhat beyond me... I'd have to do some more looking into it. I've never really given the other side any form of credit, and therefor haven't bothered with ACTUALLY producing valuable arguments.

That was not an insult. I was simply stating that I'm not particularly versed in the argument, and that I'd have to do some looking into it at some point. If me not gracing a topic with my attention is an insult to the topic in question... then I must be a pretty amazing person.
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by CivBase on Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:31 pm

ReconToaster wrote:Make an extremely weak argument showing that you know absolutely nothing on the subject:

Yah, no. If we evolved from apes as evolution suggests, there would be million of those missing link fossils and the apes wold have died out.

Ask how something could be proof after It has already been said that it would only be suggestive evidence:

Then how the hell would a missing link prove anything? May as well just be a new species.

Shamefully back off as you realize you have been beaten, but make sure that you have thrown in one last "TAHT ISNT PROOF!" statement, just to make it look like you actually have an argument:

So you're insisting that it would be an ancestor to both humans and apes. I suppose that makes sense, but doesn't really prove anything.
All my stuff was based upon the argument that man evolved from apes, which apparently wasn't the discussion. Sorry if I misread.

ReconToaster wrote:Sit back, and let someone else argue for you, and then return to criticize your opponent's tactics which were extremely efficient in flushing you out.
Unlike you, I have a life that doesn't orbit around this forum.

ReconToaster wrote:Anyways, Kslidz asked for evidence that suggests that the Earth is really old, and so I did the best I could to supply him with that.

Civ wrote: Step 5: Insult the other side on the way out.

ReconToaster wrote:So yeah.. the argument is somewhat beyond me... I'd have to do some more looking into it. I've never really given the other side any form of credit, and therefor haven't bothered with ACTUALLY producing valuable arguments.

That was not an insult. I was simply stating that I'm not particularly versed in the argument, and that I'd have to do some looking into it at some point. If me not gracing a topic with my attention is an insult to the topic in question... then I must be a pretty amazing person.
"I've never really given the other side any form of credit, and therefore haven't bothered with actually producing valuable arguments."

The way you worded it makes it sound a lot like an insult.

_________________
War on Science - Page 4 Bzsigy2
CivBase
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by BBJynne on Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:35 pm

So here's this giant enemy crab, and you attack its weak point for massive damage.

BBJynne
The Lord's Blood Knight

Male Number of posts : 5059
Age : 27
Registration date : 2008-03-24

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by MrX on Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:54 pm

the face?
MrX
MrX
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 3080
Location : broadmore
Registration date : 2008-03-25

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Toaster on Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:57 pm

Civ wrote:Unlike you, I have a life that doesn't orbit around this forum.

My post count is 1838. Your post count is 3941

Our registration dates are less than 2 months apart.

Lawl
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by MrX on Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:00 pm

this thread is a pointless offspring of people enforcing their opinion on other people ...
MrX
MrX
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 3080
Location : broadmore
Registration date : 2008-03-25

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Toaster on Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:02 pm

sargentbilco wrote:this thread is a pointless offspring of people enforcing their opinion on other people ...

NO! This is a thread about SCIENCE!

Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

War on Science - Page 4 Empty Re: War on Science

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum