Well that proves it then
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Religionists are fools
I do seem to remember you saying that you had lots of friends who are religious. I hope you are as forthright with them as you are here. I take it that you tell them they are fools and should stop spreading malicious lies.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
A lot of the religious zealots are not just fools but wuck fit numpties. But I don't agree that by being religious it makes someone a fool. But then again the atheists do have such an eminent fool in Dawkins that we shouldn't just assume that it is religion that makes them stupid. If we just say that zealotry seems to make a fool of the best minds, I think everyone can agree.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
We all know that USian bible belt arseholes cannot think in terms of facts or science, for they do not like what these 'Facts' say. So the world was created 4000BC. I think the fact that the mitochondrial dna mutation rate (Proven beyond all doubt) shows that it is impossible. They cry about missing links, but it is precisely these missing links that prove evolution. Imagine a 2 metre high pile of sand. It consists of only red sand. You remove one random grain of red sand and replace it with a grain of yellow sand. Is the pile now yellow? No, of course not. So you repeat the exchange with another grain. Can you see the difference? No? No! Repeat ad nauseum...at what point do you notice the change? Have gaps, say every 10,000 grains, and look then, you would start to see the changes, gradually, but they would be there. Religionists are fools, and worse, they are not only fools to themselves, but they wish to spread their foolishness amongst those around them by use of lies, force and law. They should be fought and defeated at each and every juncture.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
:thumbsup:Job done then.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
And of Jewsons isn't conclusive proof of the Devil, I don't know what is. :suss:
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
And when someone rational gives an honest answer and says, "I don't know", you'll just consider it another triumphant success for the "logical" argument for an intelligent creator. What is silly about this is that a truly logical mind will say, "Let's go and figure out the origins of the red and yellow sand as best we can. Let's test these theories and use test results to discover the answer." The religionist will say, "To hell with research. We KNOW the answer. We don't have to PROVE the answer or TEST the answer, we just know. Again... To hell with science."
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
We all know that USian bible belt arseholes cannot think in terms of facts or science, for they do not like what these 'Facts' say. So the world was created 4000BC. I think the fact that the mitochondrial dna mutation rate (Proven beyond all doubt) shows that it is impossible. They cry about missing links, but it is precisely these missing links that prove evolution. Imagine a 2 metre high pile of sand. It consists of only red sand. You remove one random grain of red sand and replace it with a grain of yellow sand. Is the pile now yellow? No, of course not. So you repeat the exchange with another grain. Can you see the difference? No? No! Repeat ad nauseum...at what point do you notice the change? Have gaps, say every 10,000 grains, and look then, you would start to see the changes, gradually, but they would be there. Religionists are fools, and worse, they are not only fools to themselves, but they wish to spread their foolishness amongst those around them by use of lies, force and law. They should be fought and defeated at each and every juncture.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Religionists are fools, and worse, they are not only fools to themselves, but they wish to spread their foolishness amongst those around them by use of lies, force and law.
It is for this reason I do not worship at the alter of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. :rolleyes:
-
David J. Stewart[^] wrote:
Recently, a thought captivated my mind that proves that the theory of evolution is a big hoax. The thought is simple and yet profound ... why is there no recorded history before approximately 4,000 B.C.? The answer is obvious ... there was no history! Think about it! Evolutionists claim that man evolved over billions of years (that's billions with a "B"). If there were any truth to these false claims by unscrupulous scientists, then man's historical record should span back at least hundreds-of-thousands of years, if not millions.
So there, all these unscrupulous scientists are making it up! Nothing happened pre 4000BC because there was no pre 4000BC. Okay?
The earliest known writing for record keeping evolved from a system of counting using small clay tokens that began in Sumer about 8000 BC
Feck. Disproved the theory there buba [there are references for this]. So come and enjoy yourselves. Find a FACT and then, using no more than one search term, disprove it. A game for all the family to play.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
1. You use Wikipedia as your source? There is your first mistake. Go back and read it. It says "about 4000 BC". 2. You are missing the point. Let's assume your 8000 BC is correct, doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years? By you finding something that claims 8000 BC you are still supporting David's point.
-
We all know that USian bible belt arseholes cannot think in terms of facts or science, for they do not like what these 'Facts' say. So the world was created 4000BC. I think the fact that the mitochondrial dna mutation rate (Proven beyond all doubt) shows that it is impossible. They cry about missing links, but it is precisely these missing links that prove evolution. Imagine a 2 metre high pile of sand. It consists of only red sand. You remove one random grain of red sand and replace it with a grain of yellow sand. Is the pile now yellow? No, of course not. So you repeat the exchange with another grain. Can you see the difference? No? No! Repeat ad nauseum...at what point do you notice the change? Have gaps, say every 10,000 grains, and look then, you would start to see the changes, gradually, but they would be there. Religionists are fools, and worse, they are not only fools to themselves, but they wish to spread their foolishness amongst those around them by use of lies, force and law. They should be fought and defeated at each and every juncture.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
But think about it. Adam and Eve being the first human beings, they add to make children together. Then, their children had to make other children together. And so on. That much inbreeding may explain why the human kind is so dumb.
-
But think about it. Adam and Eve being the first human beings, they add to make children together. Then, their children had to make other children together. And so on. That much inbreeding may explain why the human kind is so dumb.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Than much inbreeding may explain why the human kind is so dumb
Only the religious descend from Adam and Eve... :)
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Than much inbreeding may explain why the human kind is so dumb
Only the religious descend from Adam and Eve... :)
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
:laugh: Good point!
-
We all know that USian bible belt arseholes cannot think in terms of facts or science, for they do not like what these 'Facts' say. So the world was created 4000BC. I think the fact that the mitochondrial dna mutation rate (Proven beyond all doubt) shows that it is impossible. They cry about missing links, but it is precisely these missing links that prove evolution. Imagine a 2 metre high pile of sand. It consists of only red sand. You remove one random grain of red sand and replace it with a grain of yellow sand. Is the pile now yellow? No, of course not. So you repeat the exchange with another grain. Can you see the difference? No? No! Repeat ad nauseum...at what point do you notice the change? Have gaps, say every 10,000 grains, and look then, you would start to see the changes, gradually, but they would be there. Religionists are fools, and worse, they are not only fools to themselves, but they wish to spread their foolishness amongst those around them by use of lies, force and law. They should be fought and defeated at each and every juncture.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
I think the fact that the mitochondrial dna mutation rate (Proven beyond all doubt) shows that it is impossible.
They cry about missing links, but it is precisely these missing links that prove evolution.Nonsense. If one starts with the assumption that there is a god that is all knowing, all powerful and all seeing then there is absolutely no evidence that one can present which cannot be explained by referring to the assumption.
-
1. You use Wikipedia as your source? There is your first mistake. Go back and read it. It says "about 4000 BC". 2. You are missing the point. Let's assume your 8000 BC is correct, doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years? By you finding something that claims 8000 BC you are still supporting David's point.
ryanb31 wrote:
You are missing the point. Let's assume your 8000 BC is correct, doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years?
Nonsense - there is no wide spread belive system of any sort that claims that.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I think the fact that the mitochondrial dna mutation rate (Proven beyond all doubt) shows that it is impossible.
They cry about missing links, but it is precisely these missing links that prove evolution.Nonsense. If one starts with the assumption that there is a god that is all knowing, all powerful and all seeing then there is absolutely no evidence that one can present which cannot be explained by referring to the assumption.
jschell wrote:
If one starts with the assumption
And that is the nub of the problem. Anyone who makes assumptions is a fool. Would you believe anything I told you just because I told you? Assume nothing, believe only what you can prove. In law an assumption of guilt is not enough, it has to be proved, or would you like to go to jail on the evidence of an accusation?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
1. You use Wikipedia as your source? There is your first mistake. Go back and read it. It says "about 4000 BC". 2. You are missing the point. Let's assume your 8000 BC is correct, doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years? By you finding something that claims 8000 BC you are still supporting David's point.
er...man has been around for at most 200,000 years, and to be honest Homo sapiens sapiens for only about 50,000 years. Prior to that our ancestors were other homonids that hadn't quite got to the sapiens. And as for evidence then there is plenty of pre 8000bc human traces, like at Chauvet and Lascaux, these are 35,000 years old, so could be considered the original "Old Masters" :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
1. You use Wikipedia as your source? There is your first mistake. Go back and read it. It says "about 4000 BC". 2. You are missing the point. Let's assume your 8000 BC is correct, doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years? By you finding something that claims 8000 BC you are still supporting David's point.
I didn't vandalise the page. Changing Wikipedea 'for a laugh' is not exactly clever, is it?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
er...man has been around for at most 200,000 years, and to be honest Homo sapiens sapiens for only about 50,000 years. Prior to that our ancestors were other homonids that hadn't quite got to the sapiens. And as for evidence then there is plenty of pre 8000bc human traces, like at Chauvet and Lascaux, these are 35,000 years old, so could be considered the original "Old Masters" :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
The wee OR had vandalised the page. It was orignially 8000bc as per the cited source, but numpty felt changing it was 'funny'.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
1. You use Wikipedia as your source? There is your first mistake. Go back and read it. It says "about 4000 BC". 2. You are missing the point. Let's assume your 8000 BC is correct, doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years? By you finding something that claims 8000 BC you are still supporting David's point.
ryanb31 wrote:
doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years?
Not really. I use to think, wow are sociecty creates so much stuff/waste that if there were some 'almost' event (astriod etc.) certainly after the smoke cleared, some evidence would be found. However, in the recent years there is more and more a push for green and parts that easily break down. This is likely to continue even more so. This means in a few hundred years it may be possible for a exitinctional event to occur, that would cause all records of our societies to be erased (espeacially in a digital era). And in addition to that, it is also possible that societies exist with out simply having so much 'stuff'. Some societies may have existed and prospered with out becoming so consumed with obtianing stuff. Essentially, they avoided the key concept of capitalism (good or bad... doesn't matter) But more importantly is what we have seen in the last millenium. During war and assimilation cultures destroy other cultures items. They do not look to them first and say "hey look at this, proof that our beliefs are wrong". They instead started large bonfires and burned everything (and everyone for that matter) they could find, leaving no trace behind. In fact, they would not even record they burned anything or found anyone in some cases. History is written and more importanly re-written by the victor.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
The wee OR had vandalised the page. It was orignially 8000bc as per the cited source, but numpty felt changing it was 'funny'.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
jschell wrote:
If one starts with the assumption
And that is the nub of the problem. Anyone who makes assumptions is a fool. Would you believe anything I told you just because I told you? Assume nothing, believe only what you can prove. In law an assumption of guilt is not enough, it has to be proved, or would you like to go to jail on the evidence of an accusation?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
But all of you so called intellectuals who only believe what science says "believe anything [science] told you just because [science] told you?" Don't you realize that at one point in history science had "proven" that the earth was flat and they had also "proven" that the sun revolved around the earth. You can't prove that something is 2 billion years old because none of you were there. You cannot prove that. The point is you should not criticize someone for having faith in a God because you are hypocritical since you have faith in science. Your faith is just in a different direction but you are doing the same thing you criticize others for.
