Re: War on Science

by YouCurse on Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:39 am

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

by **CivBase** on Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:08 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.

by kslidz on Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:25 pm

get em civbase

my sentiments exactly

by ReconToaster on Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:04 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.

by **CivBase** on Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:31 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.

by **BBJynne** on Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:35 pm

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

by The Pariah on Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:54 pm

the face?

by ReconToaster on Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:57 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

by The Pariah on Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:00 pm

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

by ReconToaster on Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:02 pm

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

NO! This is a thread about SCIENCE!

by Cheese on Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:02 pm

Things are starting to get a bit petty around here.

yay science!

by kslidz on Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:03 pm

"that was not an insult"

hmmm you suck at not insulting

by ReconToaster on Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:06 pm

kslidz wrote:"that was not an insult"

hmmm you suck at not insulting

It was no more of an insult than you saying that you don't believe in evolution. I was just saying that I've never really paid much attention to it, because I've never really considered it to be much of an argument. Me not paying attention to something is NOT an insult.

I was stating the fact that I am not particularly versed in the argument, but that I'd give it a try, and maybe do some looking into of the other side. Cool

by **CivBase** on Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:01 pm

ReconToaster wrote:
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

I'm on a lot, but not 24/7. Don't expect me to have a response to something five minutes after you post it.

by Felix on Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:21 pm

CivBase wrote:
ReconToaster wrote:
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

I'm on a lot, but not 24/7. Don't expect me to have a response to something five minutes after you post it.

I hate when people insult someone by saying they have "no life". This usually occurs when either the person is out witted, and can't think of anything else to say, or is the one with no life, and tries to make himself feel better by insulting the other person.

Anyway, on topic. I posted awhile back(but no one ever reads what I say when I say something smart) that basically proves that we evolved from apes(or monkeys)