Since our argument has reached a dead end I dont see any reason to continue, also, if you bother to reply I may not because of our dead end and that I have more important and serious things to do, leaving our silly dead argument now.
U know that the Behemoth was a machine like creature from Greek myth right? Ya know those Greeks there existed before Jewdaism or Christianity. Ya know those greeks whose traditions were cherry pick and put into ur religion
@TurokSwe I have sent you a link to the evidence for the age of the world, bit the point is rationality, if there is lots of qualified people telling you something in detail with evidence and photos and a clear and logical and maybe mathematical explanation that is testable and makes predictions that are correct and provides for you, then you should be more likely to believe that than a few sparce and irrational ideas from unqualified people with no scientific merit?
@floisheremuch Well, you may have sent me the link, but it doesnt work. And what you just said could very well be very wrong, I believe it when it makes sense and has evidence and really seems to be real, however, we are all the same, so to speak, so it doesnt matter who you believe, whether it is an "expert scientist" or an native or an alien. You have to open your mind and your eyes for reality.
@TurokSwe I rely on what we can deduct logically and the evidence for it, if someone has studied something for years, and other people who have studied slightly different fields for years, and so on untill you get to the entire expanse of science over time, It all fits, each section of science fits in very well with the others, providing evidence and logic and knowledge, whereas conspiracy theorists, creationists and all of the other pseaudoscientific fields are incredibly inconsistent.
@floisheremuch Well, but you know that doesnt mean everything in science is true, I think you should know that. And we are all the same as I said, we are all reliable and unreliable, and thats just your view, we all have our different views.
@TurokSwe But when a veiw can be supported, and withstand rigorous skepticism, and fit in with corresponding veiws that have evidence and are logical etc, without any shifting around, then surely they are more reliable that the veiw which a minority with a wide range of opinions and inconsistencies, which go against what has been proven by the otherside? Not everything in science may be true, but science constantly improves and updates to create new knowledge and truth though skepticism.
@TurokSwe Obviously? Why on earth obviously? What possible reason would it have for this, maybe some research isnt finsihed and therefore not yet published, but it is no conspiracy, as there is no one governing body in science, a lot of scientists conduct research independantly, so it would be almost impossible.
@TurokSwe Bloody hell have you never heard of the scientific method? You have to thoroughly test your hypothesis before publishing, meaning rigorous skeptism, then after publishing peer reveiw etc. Science doesnt know everything yet, but there are things we can disprove, like a global flood and dinosaurs living today.
@floisheremuch Wait, wait, wait, its possible to disprove a global flood and living dinosaurs, but it has never been done. I absolutely believe the global flood did happen, maybe the story isnt told correct, but something like it did definetely happen. And living dinosaurs is not even anything to talk about, they are alive, without a single doubt. And I have heard of the so called scientific method.
@TurokSwe That scientific method wittles down science to make it as correct as possible. There is absolutely no geological evidence for a global flood, There is no evidence for them! A bit like faries, lion-headed men and giant man eating owls. A global flood has been disproved: /watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY or search for noahs flood debunked part 1. This also disproves a global flood, but focuses on noah ect.
@floisheremuch Oh, dont fool anyone, obviously there are many geological evidence for an global flood. You know, I think ancient people knew better of what happened then and what existed then than we do today. And the video didnt really convince me at all. It actually seems like nothing has disproved the flood, and the flood does sound very likely, except the story may not have been told correctly.
@TurokSwe What geological evidence. Seriously, see the wikipedia flood geology page, or the talk origins page, or see this link (REMEMBER TO TAKE ALL THE SPACES OUT -.-) htt p://ww w.evcforum. net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=17&t=198&m=2#2
@floisheremuch Are you trying to prove creation and the flood? Because it seems like it. I have always taken the spaces out, but some of your links just wont work. If you have done research into the topic and dont have a closed mind then you would realize that the flood really occurred.
@TurokSwe The link should work, have you tried removing the htt p space, the ww w space or the dot net space? Or simply search for 100 categories of evidence against noahs flood, on an EvC forum. I have examined both sides, there is no evidence on one, and much evidence on another.
@floisheremuch I have tried to remove the spaces. Well, maybe you cannot see the evidence, I dont know, but there are clearly evidence for something like the flood, and maybe there wasnt a flood over the whole Earth, who knows? But I absolutely believe there was some kind of "flood" event.
@TurokSwe Others have it? Google says no. 4,154,317,200 cubic km of water would be needed to cover earth, and it coming from space would have destroyed the planet (/watch?v=tXC9FJuZpeU). Water everywhere, what do you mean by that? Very small concentration of water in the atmosphere, oceans formed by subduction of pleate tectonics. Arks phsicially couldnt work, there are 5milllion animal species on earth. To sustain 10m animals there would need to be a lot of vegitation. Also genetic diversity.
@floisheremuch Haha, Google says yes. I didnt say it covered the whole Earth. It would not have destroyed Earth, please. Maybe it came from ice from the Ice Age. Dont you see that there are lots of water on the Earth? "pleate tectonics", maybe not. Arks would indeed work. But do you think there were that many species back then? Maybe not. The truth is, we dont know, and I still believe ancient people knew better.
@TurokSwe What, 4000 years ago? There would have been the same amount as today. The ice age melt water would have risen ocean levels dozens of meters, but not enough to cover substancial amounts of land. Also, in your 500000 year time scale there would have been at least 5 global floods. The ancient people with the advanced technology and understanding of the earth and universe, the ones who never belived in witches and spirits etc? Yeah right.
@TurokSwe How can you say that? They had less knowledge and technology than us in almost every single aspect! It was all sarcasm, witches and spirits dont exist. So much for knowing better. Ice ages come every 40-100 thousand years, in 500000 there would have been at least 5, and even then they wouldnt be large enough to cause a global flood, just localised flooding.
@floisheremuch How do you know? Have you ever been back in that time and found out? I highly doubt it. Witches may exist, but spirits do indeed exist. They knew better. Sure ice ages do... NOT! Have you ever seen that happen? I think not. Open your eyes for reality.
@TurokSwe You tried the variations in CO2 from the Vostok Ice cores? Thats how we know about ice ages, and how you think you are correct in saying that when the ice melted it flooded the earth. Prove spirits. Lol. They had none of the knowledge and technology we do now.
@floisheremuch Ah, no, dont really think so. We have spirits inside us, when we die they becomes Ghosts, there are millions of people who have seen them and photographed them and videotaped them, you can search for such videos and see documentaries etc. They probably didnt have our technology, they probably had much better.
@TurokSwe Yeah.. right. Much better technology and advancement than us? So where is your evidence for this? Surely if they were so much better and so much wiser and had all this brilliant technology than they would have remained that was, supposed flood or not.
@floisheremuch Who knows what happenede in the ancient times, not you and me I can say, we can only speculate. Only if we travel back in time we will know.
@TurokSwe That is impossible, but I prefer to support the one with the actual evidence like primative artefacts which though them we can make logical deductions, rather than the complete lack of evidence that is mere speculation and a feeble attempt to back up a failing argument.
@TurokSwe Impossibility is pretty much inevitable, for example breaking the laws of thermodynamics, or nailing liquid water to a tree. Most things arent impossible, like eating a cupcake or licking your nose, but the fact of the matter is, you can neither prove nor disprove it. Most pepple are likely to rely on evidence as to whether something is right or not, but many people fantasize as you cannot prove a negative, eg you cant disprove faries. But its very likely you wont prove them either.
@floisheremuch You may be right about some parts, maybe not that impossibility is inevitable. And you know, you dont have to prove everything, you only need to believe by yourself, you dont need to convince anyone else that your belief is true, you choose what you can and can not believe.
@TurokSwe In this universe, there is impossibility, no denying that. But why is faith in something fantastical and unlikely to exist so great? You only kid yourself. I make a judgement based on what I can see, what is there and real. To do otherwise is unreailstic and childish. And you can choose what to not belive and what not to believe. But it is stronger if you base it on a thing that has A) Evidence there and B) Has other people supporting it. Or else it is pretty unlikely to be correct.
@floisheremuch Yeah, there is impossibility, but still everything is possible. What a coincidence, I also makes a judgement based on what I can see, what is there are real. I think you meant that you can choose to believe or not to believe. A) Mostly, if not always, I base my belief on real evidence. B) Other people always support my beliefs. Its true it may be pretty unlikely if this wasnt true.
@TurokSwe Not everything is possible. Its a fundamental, though somethings could. If you have sparce and prehaps heavily biased or faked evidence from a few individuals with little academic merit, as opposed to thousands with many qualifications who all have interlocking and definite answers, who do you trust more? Numbers in the long run dont matter much, its what you have to back it up (Which is why I choose science over religion). What evidence do you have out of interest?
@TurokSwe For what, evolution, the age of the earth, what? For both I have provided many cases and facts and peices of evidence over the course of this debate, and you havent the decency to refute them, so you just say they arent evidence! :L So if you want evidence, scan backwards..
@floisheremuch Aha, but you havent provided that much evidence, maybe one, or maybe two things, of what you have said are evidence, by scanning backwards I wont find that many evidence. Hmm, you want me to show proof for evolution? All of it? Or just a piece? Hmm, age of the Earth, you know the Moon was supposed to have been formed when the planet was young, and the Moon is supposed to be 10 000 years old according to research.
@TurokSwe About ten things actually. Nasa have dated it to 4.5 billion.. and theyve been there. If it was 10000 years old, then we'd all be dead as it was formed by the collision of a small planet with our own earth, see oxygen isotope ratios, the angular momentum constraints and computer models (which I'm sure you can search youtube for)
@floisheremuch Ten things, dont really think so, I still think we have all our different views of what evidence is. Ah, the good old unreliable NASA! I know theyve been there, or thats what I believe. I know it was supposedly formed by a collision, so according to research it occurred 10 000 years ago, I dont think we would be dead by that time if we maybe didnt exist then, but who knows? I am still doing research about the Moon´s all mysteries, so Im not done yet.
@TurokSwe What research?! Its pretty stupid seeing as a collision would devastate the entire planet, causing massive lumps to fall of and life on earth to be obliterated, due to massive energy waves, i saw a video that calculated that if a pluto-sized planet hit earth, then the temperature would reach around that of the surface of the sun. (Exitinction isnt real, eh?) Nobody can truly know anything, but science is not far off. You have a different veiw of evidence than everybody else. Period.
@floisheremuch You know, they have done research on the Moon, and calculated it to be 10 000 years old. I dont think I said "extinction isnt real", I just dont believe in it, or I believe it may never have happened, and remember, nothing would go extinct if nothing existed then. The truth is, we dont KNOW what happened 10 000 years ago, niether 6000 yaers ago, niether 2000 years ago, we just dont KNOW. Everyone has different views of what evidence is, its not only me. Period?
@TurokSwe You make no sense. You think that extinction doesnt exist, you dont belive in it, same thing, stop nitpicking. You think no life existed 10000 years ago? So how did everything come about, a creator? It couldnt have evolved that fast. You dont belive in one, so you are contradicting your veiws. No, its only you that thinks we dont know. Everyone else knows. Tada. Veiws on what evidence is or isnt vary very slightly, and very few people just completly reject what has been proven.
@floisheremuch Oh, if you had an more open mind you would see that im making sense. Yeah, its the same things, whats with that? "no life existed 10000 years ago" it was only a theory, Im still working on it. Oh, so you know it couldnt have evolved that fast? Please! Im not contradicting my views, please! Oh, you wished we knew, eh? But the truth is, we DONT KNOW! Aha, sure.
@TurokSwe Not really, you havent provided any sifficient proof and have basically just spouted nonsensical crap about spiritis and the universe being 0.5mn years old whilst saying my legitimate evidence is bull crap whilst not rebutting it at all and giving upi when you reailse its right. You still used it in an argument. Yes I do know it., 30 mutations per lifetime over 10000 years doesnt make all the biodiversity. You are contradictory, science isnt. We do KNOW you just cant accept it.
@floisheremuch Why would I provide proof? True, I have not provided any proof, I think, but you havent provided as much proof as you claim. Oh, you are talking the bullshit language, which means you are stating things you wished were true. Yeah, whatever. No you dont know, and you know thats the truth, you just dont want to admit it. Oh, Im not contradictory, or maybe, I dont know, I would say you are too. We DONT KNOW, I have accepted the truth.
@TurokSwe Because proof validates your belife, shows others that it might be true, convinces them that you actually have something other than fantasy, and gives you an actual argument rather than some nonsense about how the other side wishes it wasnt true and how they havent provided evidence and how it isnt actually evidence. You havent provided any back up to your point and therefore I dont respect it. I dont actually wish any of them were true and have never stated it. You avoided mutations.
@floisheremuch I know proof validates my belief, but I never talked about fantasy, I only mentioned it. Actually, when youve seen the evidence, or some small parts of it, and when you actually have an open mind, and has done enough research into the topics, and when you know how to understand it all, it seems like many people only wishes when they speak about proof and truth. I always bets my back up wont matter due to ignorant arguments. I know you never stated it, and maybe you do wish? What?
@TurokSwe Exactly, proof does validate your belief. And you havent provided me with any, so I conclude it is fantasy (even if you didnt say it was) with no back up. If you gave me suitable evidence I would give it some lee-way and acceot it at least in part to be truth. But you havent. I have done a great deal of research into this topic, many many hours infact. I dont understand your grammar for the mddle section. I never stated that I wished it to be true. You avoided the mutations issue.
@floisheremuch Yeah, conclude whatever you want. Suure you would accept it, I have doubts about that. I wont bother giving any evidence because I can predict it will be ignored, most probably. Yeah, hours, while I have made research in years, and I havent stoped. Sorry if its hard to understand. No, and I never stated that you stated that you wish, but it very much seems like it, maybe you do wish, but unconscious. Avoided what mutation issue?
@TurokSwe Whats to say I havent stopped? You did indeed state thats what I wished, look backwards. I did not ever say that. You would never provide evidence because it would be ignored? Or did you mean disproved? When you are incapable of doing so to mine. Hmm. The only evidence you have provided are the paluxy river tracks and the carbon dating thing. Both of which I have debunked. The fact that all the mutations leading to the biodiversity today couldnt have appeared in your timecale.
@floisheremuch I dont think you said you stopped, but it kind of seems like it. No I only asked. I know you didnt say that. No, ignored. Sure you have debunked them, not, maybe in your dreams? Its just what you believe you have done. Yes, I believe it could, but theres no point arguing about that since we all have our different views and no one seems to have planned to change his mind. As I said, our argument is pointless.
@TurokSwe Stopped researching? It doesnt seem like it at all. I have done, look back for proof I have done so. No, It could not have occured in your timescale, evolution isnt exactly a rapid process mate. Well, your attitude suggests you want ot give up..
@floisheremuch Suure you have. Yes it probably could. Evolution is a kinda rapid process. Well, our argument seems pointless for the moment if you havent realized.
@TurokSwe EVOLUTION IS NOT A RAPID PROCESS. The accumalation of changes in your timescale would be nowhere near enough to create the biodiversity that we have today. 30 mutations in a lifetime. 3 billion bases. The gene pool take time to change. Plus theres lifetime, a bacteria may chnage rapidly because it reproduces very quickly, but an elephant, tiger, human, dog, monkey, lizard, takes lots and lots of time.
@floisheremuch Yes, it kinda is, but I cant give you any explained examples of why it is, but have you ever looked into why it is a rapid process? I think not. As I said, dead end, leave it, why do you even bother trying to disproove my theory, theres no point with that, and as I said, Im still working on it, I may come to another conclusion, but Im not taking any real conclusions exactly, I always have my mind opened in case something else comes up, believe what you want, while I do the same.
@TurokSwe Because of environmental change, and depending on lifespan. It is also harder to evolve something (say wings) than to de-evolve them. Why do I bother? Because it is bullcrap. With its basic facts wrong. Sorry mate. Well I hope you do come to another conclusion, because your current ones a little unbeliveable.
@floisheremuch Thats no reason, its not bullcrap, literally. Its a simple theory I am working on, leave it to me. Thanks, yeah, they might sound unbelievable, but if I just could show it, and pretty hard since the theory isnt complete, and this is just one of my theories, and this specific theory should explain how everything works in such a short timeline.
@floisheremuch And I dont care that much about academic merit adn etc. All Humans are the same, so to speak, we are capable of the same things, people cant trust anyone, but still people does.
@TurokSwe By academic merit I mean people who have in depth knowledge of the subject and have learnt over many years in great volume and understanding, as opposed to someone who knows little about the subject as a whole? Yes we are roughly capable of the same things, but knowledge is aquired over time. If you made a rational decision on which side had more credibility, reason, logic, proof etc, then surely you would trust them? People can usually trust others, with a pinch of salt at least.
@floisheremuch Your´e right about that, but there still doesnt matter much who you believe most. Yes, people can trust others, but that doesnt mean the people you trust really are reliable, and maybe the other peoples are unreliable too, you never know.
@TurokSwe But who is most likely to be unreliable? Some internet anons with a few blurry photos open to their own interpetation and some high-school science from ten years ago, or people who have studied years into the complexities of this world and are fully trained, and have proper evidence?
@floisheremuch In fact, I am not believeing what I want to believe, or kind of, I am believing what is there, and what is there is what I once wanted to believe, so Im pretty sure I believe the truth.
@TurokSwe So you kind of are. And you have basically admitted that you belived it wth no evidence, then found some hazy back up to support it, ignoring everything else. I am assuming the majority of your 'evidence' is from the internet, a place where you can find so called evdence for just about anything, whether it be UFOs, fairys, dragons, the FSM, the illuminati, the rapture, anything! You must be pretty gullible mate.
@floisheremuch Yes, I "kind of are". I believe in real evidence, and I didnt admit anything. Well, nice theory you got there, to bad for you it is not reality. Yes, the good old internet, where you can find evidence fpr anything, you only need to know whats evidence, or you may also need an more open mind and listen to the surroundings also, not only the internet. I am certainly not gullible, I would say you are, and I dont ignore.
@TurokSwe You dont know whats evidence! You refuse to acknowledge any of mine, dont answer me when I prove you wrong with it, and simply dont accept it at all! I have seen your evidence and refuted it. You have not with done so with mine, but simply ignore me, and dont prove it wrong. 'Real' Evidence for you is subjective. I listen to many sources other than the internet, books, television, radio. I am perfectly open minded to WHAT IS THERE. You are subjective as to what is evidence. Get over it
@floisheremuch Whatever! Make up your own view of me then, but it doesnt make it reality. You dont think I am listening to books, magazines, TV, radio and etc? Well, by your comments to judge, you seem not to be open minded. I only believe what is there! Trust me, or feel free to just make up something! Get over what? Please!!! Have a real open mind, do some more research into other topics, stop pretend like you know what you are saying, and stop turning this to me etc!
@TurokSwe I am open minded, if there was solid scientific evidence for dinosaurs or dragons or god, spirits etc or even creation, I would accept it. But there isnt, so I belive what is actually there. You dont accept my evidence as what it is, evidence, and when you get to a dead end, you simply avoid it (eg. the moon bit). I do kow what I am saying, though I am not sure you do. I made my veiw of you based on what you have said over the last few days. You started the debate..
@floisheremuch No youre not open minded. No you wouldnt, if that was the case, you would have accepted it long ago. Now you start sounding ignorant. No, you started the debate!
@TurokSwe You were the one who replied, otherwise it would have just sat there. There is no sufficient evidence to suggest that there is any paranormal, spiritual, or creation reality. End of. If there was, i.e all the fossils in one strata, dinosaur bones dated to a few thousand years ago, a cat giving birth to a dog, being contacted by spirits, Then I Would Believe. But there isnt. So I am open minded. To what is there. How am I ignorant when you think the world is 0.5 million years old?
@floisheremuch True, I replied, but then you replied too. You just wished there wasnt, eh? Thats your worldview, we all have our different worldviews. Well, I think the only dinosaur fossils that have been correctly dated were a few thousand years old. Why would a Cat give birth to a Dog? Why would a spirit contact you? You probably have a spirit inside you. Ok, youre not open minded, thats for sure, dont fool yourself. We all are probably open minded to what is there, please! Easy, you ignore.
@TurokSwe Oh ffs. When it comes to truth. I belive what is there. Not what I want to belive is or isnt there. There is no sufficient evidence for your veiws. Period. There has never been a dinosaur dated to a few thousand years, we've been though the various forms of radiometric dating and how there is many types and many age ranges. A cat giving birth to a dog would contradict evolution. Being contacted by a spirit would convince me of their prescence. Evidence, ok, Evidence. I ignore nothing
@floisheremuc Yeah, I bet you cant see the truth. I only believe what is there. Not what I or anyone want to believe or isnt there, there is no such a thing as "isnt there", kind of. Oh, you just wished there wasnt. Yes, there has been dinosaurs dated to be only a few thousand years old. Aha, whatever. SUUURE! "I ignore nothing" now if that was true I am Jesus.
@TurokSwe Of course there is such a thing as isnt there eg. The large unicorn infront of me. I know what is there. That is what i beleive in - reality. I have googled it, and what I found (on creationwiki no less) is fossils that have been CARBON DATED - the method which cannot exetend over a few ten thousand years. However (we've been though this) the longer reaching methods have dated much older. Carbon dating is not the correct dating for these, and will only produce those young results.
@TurokSwe@TurokSwe Well I belive in reality = the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Im afraid to say you have a rather idealistic veiwpoint. Yes we have, refer back several pages and you'll find me mentioning uranium dating (And to no working contradiction or rebuttal from you either). Yeah so what? It means we can prove the world is not that young. htt p://simple.wikipedia. org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating (Remember spaces.)
@floisheremuch Well, thats your worldview, I believe in reality, reality is everything that exists and everything that dont exist and everything between and nothing, my worldview. We have what? But Im sorry, doesnt seem like uranium doesnt proove that much, or maybe as much as everything else. And it does not mean we can proove it to not to be young, there are different dating methods that shows different results, doesnt sound convincing.
@TurokSwe Actualy reality is what exists, to say it is what doesnt exist is kinda paradxical to the idea. The different dating methods you are reffering to are radiometric dating that is shorter scale (like carbon-14) which has been incorrectly applied and warped by those promoting a young eath. It proves that the earth is 4.5 billion years old with an error margin of around 100 million years. htt p://ww w.talkorigins. org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.h tml (Remove spaces) Disprove please
@TurokSwe Well, doubt all you want. I would bet a great deal of money that it wont. Ever. Because we have evidence, you have none. Over 99% of relevant scientists belive in a 4.9 bn year old earth. Who actually know what they're talking about.
@floisheremuch Thank you! Oh, I have evidence, or not me personally but others have, and I just dont see any reason to show it when it probably will be ignored and what else as usually, I would say you dont have that much evidence as you are stating. 99%, I have great doubts about that! I think every scientist or whatever actually knows what theyre talking about. And our argument seems to be pointless, so why do we continue?
@TurokSwe So you dont have evidence. Good luck having any basis or credibility at all. It will definetly not be ignored, I will counter it, as you seem to have avoided doing. Google 'percentage of scientists young earth' and even on young earth sites it will state it (Btw roughly about the same as scientists called steve). Scientists are credible then. If you want to give up that will show to me that you have nothing against the truth. Go ahead if you dont have the evidence.
@floisheremuch Thank you, but I dont need luck, I need reality, and I have basis and credibility, people here were I live can assure you of that. Yes it will most probably be ignored, we all counter evidence, I have not avoided it. I googled, so? Against the truth? Now you start to seem like a dreamer, why the hell would I have anything against the truth? I am looking for the truth, and then you need to see everything, and you need to believe. I have just as much evidence as you, which is zero.
@TurokSwe Yes, you need reality, you dont seem to have much at the moment. How many of those people are eductated in this area? No it wont. It will be countered. Why would i be a dreamer if I belive in reality (truth)? 99 percent of scientists, you highly doudbt it, there it is. Actually I do have a lot of evidence. You just ignore it because you cant face reality. You have not presented me with any that I cannot disprove. We've been through this.
@floisheremuch Well, I only have reality, in fact thats what every Human has and has always had. I cant give you an exact number, but at least around 50 I would guess, dont really know. Ok, now our argument seems to have reached a dead end.
@TurokSwe About 50 people in your area know about this? At what level? No. Yours has. Mine will go on, as I have evidence and reason and reality instead of nothing to go on, illogical arguments and a rather large delusion.
@TurokSwe About 50 people in your area know about this? At what level? No. Yours has. Mine will go on, as I have evidence and reason and reality instead of nothing to go on, not illogical arguments and a rather large delusion.
@floisheremuch "How am I ignorant when you think the world is 0.5 million years old?" Now we were not talking about me, and that was just a theory, still working on it. Well, we are all ignorant, but you ignore to have an open mind, you ignore to do more research into these topics, you ignore that there are evidence for these "paranormal, spiritual, or creation realitys", you ignore to realize that you havent provided that much evidence as you are stating etc.
@TurokSwe I have already explained that I have an open mind to what is there. I have seen evidence on both sides and made a decision. You dont need to 'work on it', What do you think science has been doing for you? THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR THEM. If there is, Provide some, you have provided 10x less evidence than me by far. Look back and you will find my evidence, dont ignore it or say it isnt evidence. We ARE talking about you and your complete obliviousness to reality.
@floisheremuch Yeah, thats your worldview, not mine, niether anyone elses. And I cant help you if your´e going to play ignorant. If you only could have a "real open mind" to reality, then you can understand things much better. And why are we talking about me? Why did you change subject? Please!
@TurokSwe It is you that has the crazy and irrational belifes not me. My worldveiw is not just shared by me but most rational people, this thing is here, we have facts, get a theory, theory works, we accept it because it has been proven. Deranged fantasies such as yours arent that common. I am certaintly not ignorant, you dont even seem to know basic facts. I have an open mind. TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE. You prefer to resort to fantasy. Rational vs Irrational. Period.
@floisheremuch We all have our beliefs. No, no one has the same worldview as you, niether as me, or anyone else, we all have our different worldviews. Thats part of your worldview. Fantasies? I am not talking about fantasies, Im talking about reality, or well, fantasies may be included in reality, but anyway. Yes, you are ignorant, thats one more thing you need to accept, we are all ignorant. Oh, I know basic facts, do you? Period? What the h*ll are you talking about?
@TurokSwe You seem to ignore basic facts, and ignore evidence for them as well, such as the rate of evolution and the formation of the moon not being 10000 years ago. Period = end of. Many people have similar worldveiws to me, only a few to you. So you are talking about fantasies that could possibly be included in reality, but without proof. Settled.
@TurokSwe Maybe I ignore evidence that I know is wrong because I can see it has its basic prinicpals wrong. You ignore my evidence and basic science which makes the counter-arguments you provide almost worthless. Something similar to my worldveiw is shared by many. 'Fantasies may be included in reality' That kinda goes against the principal of reality.
@floisheremuch Oh, you dont ignore evidence that are wrong, you ignore the ones thats right, or at least some of them. Then dont argue with me, why did you start an argument? And what are you trying to prove, or who are you trying to convince? No one of us convinces anyone here. We all have similar worldviews, but still theyre not. Not when you talks about the "real" reality.
@TurokSwe I ignore the ones that are blatently flawed, for example using carbon dating to determine that the earth is young, and that there are no transitional fossils etc, because they are faulty at their very foundations! I am trying to do the same as you, convince and argue against the opposing side (but with me a little more evidence). Not all of us have imilar world veiws eg. someone who belives in a land of elves and faires, and a rationalist. Fantasy is basically the opposite of reality.
@floisheremuch Yeah, but your´e not doing such a great job in convincing, and you only have very few evidence, some which I already knew about, and I wont bother giving any evidence, seems like our little discussion doesnt get anywhere. And fantasy is basically the opposite of reality, thats true, but it is part of reality, and you can turn fantasy to reality.
@TurokSwe You wont bother giving any evidence because you have none that could stand up in a debate against the truth. That is the long and short of it, end of, period. No it isnt part of reality! ThAt DeFeAtS tHe PoInT. In some instances yes you can, for example inventions and achiveing your dreams, but not with elves, faries, dinosaurs, dragons, spirits. At least not with current technology. Which means they certaintly dont exist now.
@floisheremuch Personally I dont have any evidence true, and I think its the same for you, but my evidence would just be ignored. A debate against the truth? I am not debating against the truth, is that what youre doing? Please. Yes it is part of reality. See, we have different views and beliefs, Im not going to go in to the topic, Im kinda tired of our pointless argument.
@TurokSwe You dont have any true evidence? But you dont think I have. Well I do, you just ignore it. The truth is what is real and there and proven and tested. I am not arguing against that. Fantasy (which you have admitted it to be) is no part of reality. So basically youre running out of ideas and you cant provide anything to back up your claims.
@floisheremuch Ignore it? You havent even provided YOUR own evidence. Pretty hard to ignore when thats not done. Well, in fact you are arguing against it. Yes, the truth is fantasy is part of reality, if you only could see it. Running out of ideas? Ideas of what? I can provide evidence but it doesnt matter whether I provide it or not, it will only be ignored and explained as something else, so I basically dont bother.
@TurokSwe Look backwards, we have been doing this for w hile you know. I am arguing for truth against ejits who think dinosaurs are still alive -.- Type in opposite of reality into google, you get fantasy. on oppostie word dot com the opposite of fantasy is reality. OPPOSITES. No light in dark, no answer in question, no near in far. Ideas for evidence. So can you really provide evidence? Go on then. I wont ignore it, I actually promise.
@floisheremuch Yes, you are arguing AGAINST truth I would say, while I am on the same side as truth. Yes, who dont know thats the opposite? This seems pretty funny. Yeah, promises are made to be broken.
@TurokSwe Well you would say a lot of things, most of them utter nonsens. Im glad you have such faith in humanity. Provide evidence. Why not exactly? I have already said I will ignore it and counter it as best I can, so it seems to me you are just scared. Im not afraid of providing evidence when asked, as long as you treat it as such.
@floisheremuch Yeah, you say lots of things too, also nonsense. Oh, there you said it, "I will ignore it", believe whatever you want, im not scared, there just is no point when I know it will be ignored.
@TurokSwe Haahaha you are trying to squirm out of it! Just say it, I wont ignore it, what on earth do you have to be scared of? If you have such evidence that will prove your point, why not just say it and win the entire argument, and possibly even convince me? Prehaps you dont have it. But I am inviting you to saying, on the absolute promise that I will take it into account and debate over it. I do not ignore most points, a major one like that would not go amiss.
@floisheremuch Well, theres lots of things to be scared of, like loosing your family, die, get attacked by some kind of unknown animal etc. etc. It depends on what point it is supposed to prove.
@TurokSwe Dont try to pick on fine points to avoid the main question. On your belifes about the age of the world, the idea that extinction is a lie, and that the dinosaurs are still alive, a global flood happened ETC ETC... What we've been talking about so far. Not difficult to figure out.
@floisheremuch What??? Oh I have many beliefs about the age of the world, do you mean I need to prove all of them? Extinction is kinda a lie, if you know what I mean? Dinosaurs still alive, ok, a global flood, ok, thanks, I only wanted you to give me some specific things to prove, so its just these things you want proof for? Ok, well, good luck with that, since we probably have different views of what proof is and our minds are full of ignorance, you know I wont bother giving any proof, or...
@TurokSwe No I dont know what you mean by extinction being kinda a lie, because there is nothing there to make me think that eg. No megalosaurs walking around the english countryside. I have a non-selective veiw of proof. if it proves something, and cant be debunked (bearing in mind you cant disprove a negative, so thats not part of proof) then it is proof. If you do not provide proof, then I will simply assume you have none and the debate will be won on my part. Simple.
@floisheremuch Just what I thought, well maybe not to make YOU think that. Ok, you dont know if there are any Megalosaurs walking around there, its what you believe, so dont make such a claim. Non-selective? I have doubts. Oh, everything can be debunked, so there simply are no proof for anything, right? Well, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but I will disagree that you won the debate. Simple.
@TurokSwe Well I'm pretty sure everyone else that I've ever met doesnt think there are huge canivorous dinosaurs walking around england. Because it is ridiculous. Obviously not everything can be debunked, as you havent done it to what I have provided (just giving out the crap excuse that it isnt evidence). STOP AVOIDING GIVING IT. Provide whatever you see as evidence then. Its not hard. Just do it.
@floisheremuch Ok, but why be sure when you can ask them instead? And it is certainly NOT ridiculous, thats absurd. Yes, everything can be debunked, but that doesnt mean I can or want to do it. Well, you need to realize what is real evidence, but we all obviously have different views of evidence, so what does it matter? Stop avoiding it, hmm... Let me think about it...
@TurokSwe Because its the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and you would have to be insane to think there are massive dinosaurs stolling around england. Most people I know are at least half-sane. Look. I will accept yours as evidence. If I can debunk it then fine. I will not simply say it is not evidence. JuSt GeT oN wItH iT. sToP aVoIdInG tHe PoInT.
@floisheremuch To you maybe, and I dont understand why. Im not insane just by believing that giant dinosaurs are walking around there, there is no reason to be insane. Most people you know are half-sane? What? Ok. We´ll see if Im gonna give any evidence, and what point?
@TurokSwe Because it is so obvious that there arent, or else we probably would have noticed them by now, dont you think? Y'know, massive carnivorous lizards as big as buildings? -.- Which couldnt possibly survive in todays conditions - but thats for another time, right now i want evidence. We have discussed which point. Look up about 8 posts. Whatever you like out of them and the others you have attempted to make during the course of this debate basically.
@floisheremuch No, its not obvious that there arent. Well, I would say they have pretty much been noticed. Not really, it depends on which "carnivorous lizard" you mean. Oh, such creatures could very easily survive in todays conditions, but as you said, thats for another time. Which point? What? Explain.
@TurokSwe Well the complete absence of them makes it so -_- Heck, its a big deal when they find a new type of rodent in papua new guinea, I'd think actual comprehensive proof of a new dinosaur would draw so much attention to it. Oxygen levels and general climate, plus the whole ecosystems that existed then that dont now. Though some still do - birds. The age of the world, the idea that extinction is a lie, and that the dinosaurs are still alive, a global flood happened ETC ETC. Get on with it.
@floisheremuch Well, I doubt oxygen levels and climate really matters. And we dont know what ecosystem existed then, and when it existed. Ok, now, I have so many theories about the age of the world Im working on, so that I would put away. My view that extinction is a lie is so complicated I cant even explain it to myself. Dinosaurs are still alive, okey, I´ll see what I can do. Global flood, nothing more, okey, lets see...
@TurokSwe Well we can deduct a lot from fossils. What we see in the strata is what was alive at that point, rocks date to different ages, getting older as they go down. We see very few organisms alive today (Eg. ferns and coelacanths), but we do see forms leading to the ones alive today (see whals and horses for example). We cant prove anything but we're pretty sure. If you cant explain it to yourself then whats the point? Ever heard of occams razor? I await evidence.
@floisheremuch It depends on what you mean with "a lot", we can deduct lots of skeleton parts, yes, but not very much else. A strata can easy fool us to believe something thats not true, of course rocks date to different ages, depends on what kinds of methods you use. Very few alive today? Disagree to the max. Not really, no. True, we cant prove anything, but we all can be sure of some things, yeah. Yeah, and youre asking that now? Yes. Continue with that.
@TurokSwe Skeleton parts? You do realise that there are imprints of tiny sea creatures, insects etc? Well what else would you deduct from the strata? We've been over dating and how it works and how its true etc, which they get the dates of the rocks from. Well I'm failing to see why you disagree, if you cant even think of a reason why and how. Well then, I suggest you check out the transitional forms of whales and horses, for example. Occams razor: Less assumptions, the better. You make lots.
Leviathan is just crocodile, LIMBS. behemoth is elephant. Just make the end trunk instead of tail, as this translation is.
animaljp3 1 week ago
The early dinosaurs did not eat grass, seeds had not evolved yet.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz the teeth design is completely wrong in all dinosaurs to eat grass. no flat teeth coming down even in the front, no way to get grass.
animaljp3 1 week ago
JOB 40:
15 Behold now behemoth
16 His strength is in his loins and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Dinosaurs come from eggs, THEY DON’T HAVE NAVELS.
OH Wait, let's change the Bible again.
Face the Facts, We did not know about Dinosaurs until they dug up the millions of years old fossils.
Dinosaurs changed over 160 million years of earth's history. Fact.
gregrutz 4 months ago
ok so the question is are they mammels or reptiles hmmmmm ????
musicman3005 5 months ago
Since our argument has reached a dead end I dont see any reason to continue, also, if you bother to reply I may not because of our dead end and that I have more important and serious things to do, leaving our silly dead argument now.
TurokSwe 7 months ago
In my opinion, Noah's ark was dinosaur.
uniontera 7 months ago
Also if you bother to reply I may not because I'm away for like 2 weeks.
floisheremuch 7 months ago
U know that the Behemoth was a machine like creature from Greek myth right? Ya know those Greeks there existed before Jewdaism or Christianity. Ya know those greeks whose traditions were cherry pick and put into ur religion
AboutRoberts 7 months ago
Is this video supposed to be a joke?
bigmattanderson 8 months ago
@bigmattanderson No its not.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe This video then, in simplest terms, is a paradox
bigmattanderson 8 months ago
@bigmattanderson Call it whatever you want. We have all different views of it.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@bigmattanderson Wouldnt that be nice :L
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch I havent ignored any evidence. I choose not to ignore real evidence.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Then you selectivly pick what you deem to be real or not, in line with your worldveiw. Simple, and you have denied it!
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Aha, whatever.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
To my second last bit, Hard to explain against evolution = hard to explain without evolution, apologies
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch What?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe I mis-phrased something, nvm
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Okey?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe I have sent you a link to the evidence for the age of the world, bit the point is rationality, if there is lots of qualified people telling you something in detail with evidence and photos and a clear and logical and maybe mathematical explanation that is testable and makes predictions that are correct and provides for you, then you should be more likely to believe that than a few sparce and irrational ideas from unqualified people with no scientific merit?
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Well, you may have sent me the link, but it doesnt work. And what you just said could very well be very wrong, I believe it when it makes sense and has evidence and really seems to be real, however, we are all the same, so to speak, so it doesnt matter who you believe, whether it is an "expert scientist" or an native or an alien. You have to open your mind and your eyes for reality.
TurokSwe 8 months ago 4
@TurokSwe I rely on what we can deduct logically and the evidence for it, if someone has studied something for years, and other people who have studied slightly different fields for years, and so on untill you get to the entire expanse of science over time, It all fits, each section of science fits in very well with the others, providing evidence and logic and knowledge, whereas conspiracy theorists, creationists and all of the other pseaudoscientific fields are incredibly inconsistent.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Well, but you know that doesnt mean everything in science is true, I think you should know that. And we are all the same as I said, we are all reliable and unreliable, and thats just your view, we all have our different views.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe But when a veiw can be supported, and withstand rigorous skepticism, and fit in with corresponding veiws that have evidence and are logical etc, without any shifting around, then surely they are more reliable that the veiw which a minority with a wide range of opinions and inconsistencies, which go against what has been proven by the otherside? Not everything in science may be true, but science constantly improves and updates to create new knowledge and truth though skepticism.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch That may be true. But you should also know that science obviously dont tell us everything, in other words, have secrets.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Obviously? Why on earth obviously? What possible reason would it have for this, maybe some research isnt finsihed and therefore not yet published, but it is no conspiracy, as there is no one governing body in science, a lot of scientists conduct research independantly, so it would be almost impossible.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch SUUUURE! I really believe they have secrets and unfinished research, some things they just dont want us to know obviously!
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Bloody hell have you never heard of the scientific method? You have to thoroughly test your hypothesis before publishing, meaning rigorous skeptism, then after publishing peer reveiw etc. Science doesnt know everything yet, but there are things we can disprove, like a global flood and dinosaurs living today.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Wait, wait, wait, its possible to disprove a global flood and living dinosaurs, but it has never been done. I absolutely believe the global flood did happen, maybe the story isnt told correct, but something like it did definetely happen. And living dinosaurs is not even anything to talk about, they are alive, without a single doubt. And I have heard of the so called scientific method.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe That scientific method wittles down science to make it as correct as possible. There is absolutely no geological evidence for a global flood, There is no evidence for them! A bit like faries, lion-headed men and giant man eating owls. A global flood has been disproved: /watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY or search for noahs flood debunked part 1. This also disproves a global flood, but focuses on noah ect.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Oh, dont fool anyone, obviously there are many geological evidence for an global flood. You know, I think ancient people knew better of what happened then and what existed then than we do today. And the video didnt really convince me at all. It actually seems like nothing has disproved the flood, and the flood does sound very likely, except the story may not have been told correctly.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe What geological evidence. Seriously, see the wikipedia flood geology page, or the talk origins page, or see this link (REMEMBER TO TAKE ALL THE SPACES OUT -.-) htt p://ww w.evcforum. net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=17&t=198&m=2#2
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Are you trying to prove creation and the flood? Because it seems like it. I have always taken the spaces out, but some of your links just wont work. If you have done research into the topic and dont have a closed mind then you would realize that the flood really occurred.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe The link should work, have you tried removing the htt p space, the ww w space or the dot net space? Or simply search for 100 categories of evidence against noahs flood, on an EvC forum. I have examined both sides, there is no evidence on one, and much evidence on another.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch I have tried to remove the spaces. Well, maybe you cannot see the evidence, I dont know, but there are clearly evidence for something like the flood, and maybe there wasnt a flood over the whole Earth, who knows? But I absolutely believe there was some kind of "flood" event.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe 1) What evidence do you have? Is there even any geological evidence?
2) Where did the water come from?
3) Where did the water go?
3) How did the marine life suvive the toxic mixture of fresh, brackish and salt water?
5) How did land life survive during the flood?
6) How did the organisms survive all the vegetation being destroyed after the flood?
Feel free to reply over several posts.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch 1) I dont have any evidence, but others have it. Yes there obviously are.
2) I dont know, space maybe.
3) I assume the water is almost everywhere now.
3) I dont know.
5) All land maybe wasnt flooded, and then there are the many legends of arks with animals.
6) I doubt all vegetation was destroyed.
You know I doubt the whole Earth was flooded, maybe just some parts, but who knows? Not you and me. More likely the ancient people who were there.
TurokSwe 8 months ago 2
@TurokSwe Others have it? Google says no. 4,154,317,200 cubic km of water would be needed to cover earth, and it coming from space would have destroyed the planet (/watch?v=tXC9FJuZpeU). Water everywhere, what do you mean by that? Very small concentration of water in the atmosphere, oceans formed by subduction of pleate tectonics. Arks phsicially couldnt work, there are 5milllion animal species on earth. To sustain 10m animals there would need to be a lot of vegitation. Also genetic diversity.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Haha, Google says yes. I didnt say it covered the whole Earth. It would not have destroyed Earth, please. Maybe it came from ice from the Ice Age. Dont you see that there are lots of water on the Earth? "pleate tectonics", maybe not. Arks would indeed work. But do you think there were that many species back then? Maybe not. The truth is, we dont know, and I still believe ancient people knew better.
TurokSwe 8 months ago 3
@TurokSwe What, 4000 years ago? There would have been the same amount as today. The ice age melt water would have risen ocean levels dozens of meters, but not enough to cover substancial amounts of land. Also, in your 500000 year time scale there would have been at least 5 global floods. The ancient people with the advanced technology and understanding of the earth and universe, the ones who never belived in witches and spirits etc? Yeah right.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yeah, 5 global floods, dont think so, but who knows? They really believed in Witches and spirits. Anyway, they probably knew better.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe How can you say that? They had less knowledge and technology than us in almost every single aspect! It was all sarcasm, witches and spirits dont exist. So much for knowing better. Ice ages come every 40-100 thousand years, in 500000 there would have been at least 5, and even then they wouldnt be large enough to cause a global flood, just localised flooding.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch How do you know? Have you ever been back in that time and found out? I highly doubt it. Witches may exist, but spirits do indeed exist. They knew better. Sure ice ages do... NOT! Have you ever seen that happen? I think not. Open your eyes for reality.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe You tried the variations in CO2 from the Vostok Ice cores? Thats how we know about ice ages, and how you think you are correct in saying that when the ice melted it flooded the earth. Prove spirits. Lol. They had none of the knowledge and technology we do now.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Ah, no, dont really think so. We have spirits inside us, when we die they becomes Ghosts, there are millions of people who have seen them and photographed them and videotaped them, you can search for such videos and see documentaries etc. They probably didnt have our technology, they probably had much better.
TurokSwe 8 months ago 3
@TurokSwe Yeah.. right. Much better technology and advancement than us? So where is your evidence for this? Surely if they were so much better and so much wiser and had all this brilliant technology than they would have remained that was, supposed flood or not.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Who knows what happenede in the ancient times, not you and me I can say, we can only speculate. Only if we travel back in time we will know.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe That is impossible, but I prefer to support the one with the actual evidence like primative artefacts which though them we can make logical deductions, rather than the complete lack of evidence that is mere speculation and a feeble attempt to back up a failing argument.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch So thats your dream?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Whats my dream?
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch "That is impossible", is impossibility your dream? That things has to be impossible?
TurokSwe 8 months ago 3
@TurokSwe Impossibility is pretty much inevitable, for example breaking the laws of thermodynamics, or nailing liquid water to a tree. Most things arent impossible, like eating a cupcake or licking your nose, but the fact of the matter is, you can neither prove nor disprove it. Most pepple are likely to rely on evidence as to whether something is right or not, but many people fantasize as you cannot prove a negative, eg you cant disprove faries. But its very likely you wont prove them either.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch You may be right about some parts, maybe not that impossibility is inevitable. And you know, you dont have to prove everything, you only need to believe by yourself, you dont need to convince anyone else that your belief is true, you choose what you can and can not believe.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe In this universe, there is impossibility, no denying that. But why is faith in something fantastical and unlikely to exist so great? You only kid yourself. I make a judgement based on what I can see, what is there and real. To do otherwise is unreailstic and childish. And you can choose what to not belive and what not to believe. But it is stronger if you base it on a thing that has A) Evidence there and B) Has other people supporting it. Or else it is pretty unlikely to be correct.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yeah, there is impossibility, but still everything is possible. What a coincidence, I also makes a judgement based on what I can see, what is there are real. I think you meant that you can choose to believe or not to believe. A) Mostly, if not always, I base my belief on real evidence. B) Other people always support my beliefs. Its true it may be pretty unlikely if this wasnt true.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Not everything is possible. Its a fundamental, though somethings could. If you have sparce and prehaps heavily biased or faked evidence from a few individuals with little academic merit, as opposed to thousands with many qualifications who all have interlocking and definite answers, who do you trust more? Numbers in the long run dont matter much, its what you have to back it up (Which is why I choose science over religion). What evidence do you have out of interest?
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yes, everything is possible. I choose both science, religion and lots of things. What evidence?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe For what, evolution, the age of the earth, what? For both I have provided many cases and facts and peices of evidence over the course of this debate, and you havent the decency to refute them, so you just say they arent evidence! :L So if you want evidence, scan backwards..
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Aha, but you havent provided that much evidence, maybe one, or maybe two things, of what you have said are evidence, by scanning backwards I wont find that many evidence. Hmm, you want me to show proof for evolution? All of it? Or just a piece? Hmm, age of the Earth, you know the Moon was supposed to have been formed when the planet was young, and the Moon is supposed to be 10 000 years old according to research.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe About ten things actually. Nasa have dated it to 4.5 billion.. and theyve been there. If it was 10000 years old, then we'd all be dead as it was formed by the collision of a small planet with our own earth, see oxygen isotope ratios, the angular momentum constraints and computer models (which I'm sure you can search youtube for)
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Ten things, dont really think so, I still think we have all our different views of what evidence is. Ah, the good old unreliable NASA! I know theyve been there, or thats what I believe. I know it was supposedly formed by a collision, so according to research it occurred 10 000 years ago, I dont think we would be dead by that time if we maybe didnt exist then, but who knows? I am still doing research about the Moon´s all mysteries, so Im not done yet.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe What research?! Its pretty stupid seeing as a collision would devastate the entire planet, causing massive lumps to fall of and life on earth to be obliterated, due to massive energy waves, i saw a video that calculated that if a pluto-sized planet hit earth, then the temperature would reach around that of the surface of the sun. (Exitinction isnt real, eh?) Nobody can truly know anything, but science is not far off. You have a different veiw of evidence than everybody else. Period.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@floisheremuch You know, they have done research on the Moon, and calculated it to be 10 000 years old. I dont think I said "extinction isnt real", I just dont believe in it, or I believe it may never have happened, and remember, nothing would go extinct if nothing existed then. The truth is, we dont KNOW what happened 10 000 years ago, niether 6000 yaers ago, niether 2000 years ago, we just dont KNOW. Everyone has different views of what evidence is, its not only me. Period?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe You make no sense. You think that extinction doesnt exist, you dont belive in it, same thing, stop nitpicking. You think no life existed 10000 years ago? So how did everything come about, a creator? It couldnt have evolved that fast. You dont belive in one, so you are contradicting your veiws. No, its only you that thinks we dont know. Everyone else knows. Tada. Veiws on what evidence is or isnt vary very slightly, and very few people just completly reject what has been proven.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Oh, if you had an more open mind you would see that im making sense. Yeah, its the same things, whats with that? "no life existed 10000 years ago" it was only a theory, Im still working on it. Oh, so you know it couldnt have evolved that fast? Please! Im not contradicting my views, please! Oh, you wished we knew, eh? But the truth is, we DONT KNOW! Aha, sure.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Not really, you havent provided any sifficient proof and have basically just spouted nonsensical crap about spiritis and the universe being 0.5mn years old whilst saying my legitimate evidence is bull crap whilst not rebutting it at all and giving upi when you reailse its right. You still used it in an argument. Yes I do know it., 30 mutations per lifetime over 10000 years doesnt make all the biodiversity. You are contradictory, science isnt. We do KNOW you just cant accept it.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Why would I provide proof? True, I have not provided any proof, I think, but you havent provided as much proof as you claim. Oh, you are talking the bullshit language, which means you are stating things you wished were true. Yeah, whatever. No you dont know, and you know thats the truth, you just dont want to admit it. Oh, Im not contradictory, or maybe, I dont know, I would say you are too. We DONT KNOW, I have accepted the truth.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Because proof validates your belife, shows others that it might be true, convinces them that you actually have something other than fantasy, and gives you an actual argument rather than some nonsense about how the other side wishes it wasnt true and how they havent provided evidence and how it isnt actually evidence. You havent provided any back up to your point and therefore I dont respect it. I dont actually wish any of them were true and have never stated it. You avoided mutations.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch I know proof validates my belief, but I never talked about fantasy, I only mentioned it. Actually, when youve seen the evidence, or some small parts of it, and when you actually have an open mind, and has done enough research into the topics, and when you know how to understand it all, it seems like many people only wishes when they speak about proof and truth. I always bets my back up wont matter due to ignorant arguments. I know you never stated it, and maybe you do wish? What?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Exactly, proof does validate your belief. And you havent provided me with any, so I conclude it is fantasy (even if you didnt say it was) with no back up. If you gave me suitable evidence I would give it some lee-way and acceot it at least in part to be truth. But you havent. I have done a great deal of research into this topic, many many hours infact. I dont understand your grammar for the mddle section. I never stated that I wished it to be true. You avoided the mutations issue.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yeah, conclude whatever you want. Suure you would accept it, I have doubts about that. I wont bother giving any evidence because I can predict it will be ignored, most probably. Yeah, hours, while I have made research in years, and I havent stoped. Sorry if its hard to understand. No, and I never stated that you stated that you wish, but it very much seems like it, maybe you do wish, but unconscious. Avoided what mutation issue?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Whats to say I havent stopped? You did indeed state thats what I wished, look backwards. I did not ever say that. You would never provide evidence because it would be ignored? Or did you mean disproved? When you are incapable of doing so to mine. Hmm. The only evidence you have provided are the paluxy river tracks and the carbon dating thing. Both of which I have debunked. The fact that all the mutations leading to the biodiversity today couldnt have appeared in your timecale.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch I dont think you said you stopped, but it kind of seems like it. No I only asked. I know you didnt say that. No, ignored. Sure you have debunked them, not, maybe in your dreams? Its just what you believe you have done. Yes, I believe it could, but theres no point arguing about that since we all have our different views and no one seems to have planned to change his mind. As I said, our argument is pointless.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Stopped researching? It doesnt seem like it at all. I have done, look back for proof I have done so. No, It could not have occured in your timescale, evolution isnt exactly a rapid process mate. Well, your attitude suggests you want ot give up..
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Suure you have. Yes it probably could. Evolution is a kinda rapid process. Well, our argument seems pointless for the moment if you havent realized.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe EVOLUTION IS NOT A RAPID PROCESS. The accumalation of changes in your timescale would be nowhere near enough to create the biodiversity that we have today. 30 mutations in a lifetime. 3 billion bases. The gene pool take time to change. Plus theres lifetime, a bacteria may chnage rapidly because it reproduces very quickly, but an elephant, tiger, human, dog, monkey, lizard, takes lots and lots of time.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yes, it kinda is, but I cant give you any explained examples of why it is, but have you ever looked into why it is a rapid process? I think not. As I said, dead end, leave it, why do you even bother trying to disproove my theory, theres no point with that, and as I said, Im still working on it, I may come to another conclusion, but Im not taking any real conclusions exactly, I always have my mind opened in case something else comes up, believe what you want, while I do the same.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Because of environmental change, and depending on lifespan. It is also harder to evolve something (say wings) than to de-evolve them. Why do I bother? Because it is bullcrap. With its basic facts wrong. Sorry mate. Well I hope you do come to another conclusion, because your current ones a little unbeliveable.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Thats no reason, its not bullcrap, literally. Its a simple theory I am working on, leave it to me. Thanks, yeah, they might sound unbelievable, but if I just could show it, and pretty hard since the theory isnt complete, and this is just one of my theories, and this specific theory should explain how everything works in such a short timeline.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@floisheremuch And I dont care that much about academic merit adn etc. All Humans are the same, so to speak, we are capable of the same things, people cant trust anyone, but still people does.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe By academic merit I mean people who have in depth knowledge of the subject and have learnt over many years in great volume and understanding, as opposed to someone who knows little about the subject as a whole? Yes we are roughly capable of the same things, but knowledge is aquired over time. If you made a rational decision on which side had more credibility, reason, logic, proof etc, then surely you would trust them? People can usually trust others, with a pinch of salt at least.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Your´e right about that, but there still doesnt matter much who you believe most. Yes, people can trust others, but that doesnt mean the people you trust really are reliable, and maybe the other peoples are unreliable too, you never know.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe But who is most likely to be unreliable? Some internet anons with a few blurry photos open to their own interpetation and some high-school science from ten years ago, or people who have studied years into the complexities of this world and are fully trained, and have proper evidence?
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch I would say both are most likely to be unreliable.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe But which is most reliable?
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch None.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Im stuggling to indentify how you come to that conclusion..
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Hard to explain.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Try or I will assume you cant.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch As I said, hard to explain, so assume whatever you want! In my opinion, no one is most reliable, thats what I have realized.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Well, if you cant see blatent truth then there is little hope for you. Try not to belive what you want to beleive, but what is there.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch In fact, I am not believeing what I want to believe, or kind of, I am believing what is there, and what is there is what I once wanted to believe, so Im pretty sure I believe the truth.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe So you kind of are. And you have basically admitted that you belived it wth no evidence, then found some hazy back up to support it, ignoring everything else. I am assuming the majority of your 'evidence' is from the internet, a place where you can find so called evdence for just about anything, whether it be UFOs, fairys, dragons, the FSM, the illuminati, the rapture, anything! You must be pretty gullible mate.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yes, I "kind of are". I believe in real evidence, and I didnt admit anything. Well, nice theory you got there, to bad for you it is not reality. Yes, the good old internet, where you can find evidence fpr anything, you only need to know whats evidence, or you may also need an more open mind and listen to the surroundings also, not only the internet. I am certainly not gullible, I would say you are, and I dont ignore.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe You dont know whats evidence! You refuse to acknowledge any of mine, dont answer me when I prove you wrong with it, and simply dont accept it at all! I have seen your evidence and refuted it. You have not with done so with mine, but simply ignore me, and dont prove it wrong. 'Real' Evidence for you is subjective. I listen to many sources other than the internet, books, television, radio. I am perfectly open minded to WHAT IS THERE. You are subjective as to what is evidence. Get over it
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Whatever! Make up your own view of me then, but it doesnt make it reality. You dont think I am listening to books, magazines, TV, radio and etc? Well, by your comments to judge, you seem not to be open minded. I only believe what is there! Trust me, or feel free to just make up something! Get over what? Please!!! Have a real open mind, do some more research into other topics, stop pretend like you know what you are saying, and stop turning this to me etc!
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe I am open minded, if there was solid scientific evidence for dinosaurs or dragons or god, spirits etc or even creation, I would accept it. But there isnt, so I belive what is actually there. You dont accept my evidence as what it is, evidence, and when you get to a dead end, you simply avoid it (eg. the moon bit). I do kow what I am saying, though I am not sure you do. I made my veiw of you based on what you have said over the last few days. You started the debate..
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch No youre not open minded. No you wouldnt, if that was the case, you would have accepted it long ago. Now you start sounding ignorant. No, you started the debate!
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe You were the one who replied, otherwise it would have just sat there. There is no sufficient evidence to suggest that there is any paranormal, spiritual, or creation reality. End of. If there was, i.e all the fossils in one strata, dinosaur bones dated to a few thousand years ago, a cat giving birth to a dog, being contacted by spirits, Then I Would Believe. But there isnt. So I am open minded. To what is there. How am I ignorant when you think the world is 0.5 million years old?
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch True, I replied, but then you replied too. You just wished there wasnt, eh? Thats your worldview, we all have our different worldviews. Well, I think the only dinosaur fossils that have been correctly dated were a few thousand years old. Why would a Cat give birth to a Dog? Why would a spirit contact you? You probably have a spirit inside you. Ok, youre not open minded, thats for sure, dont fool yourself. We all are probably open minded to what is there, please! Easy, you ignore.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Oh ffs. When it comes to truth. I belive what is there. Not what I want to belive is or isnt there. There is no sufficient evidence for your veiws. Period. There has never been a dinosaur dated to a few thousand years, we've been though the various forms of radiometric dating and how there is many types and many age ranges. A cat giving birth to a dog would contradict evolution. Being contacted by a spirit would convince me of their prescence. Evidence, ok, Evidence. I ignore nothing
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuc Yeah, I bet you cant see the truth. I only believe what is there. Not what I or anyone want to believe or isnt there, there is no such a thing as "isnt there", kind of. Oh, you just wished there wasnt. Yes, there has been dinosaurs dated to be only a few thousand years old. Aha, whatever. SUUURE! "I ignore nothing" now if that was true I am Jesus.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Of course there is such a thing as isnt there eg. The large unicorn infront of me. I know what is there. That is what i beleive in - reality. I have googled it, and what I found (on creationwiki no less) is fossils that have been CARBON DATED - the method which cannot exetend over a few ten thousand years. However (we've been though this) the longer reaching methods have dated much older. Carbon dating is not the correct dating for these, and will only produce those young results.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Well, I think we all believe in reality, nothing else. Around 60 000 years to be more correct, (have we?) yeah, so what?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe @TurokSwe Well I belive in reality = the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Im afraid to say you have a rather idealistic veiwpoint. Yes we have, refer back several pages and you'll find me mentioning uranium dating (And to no working contradiction or rebuttal from you either). Yeah so what? It means we can prove the world is not that young. htt p://simple.wikipedia. org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating (Remember spaces.)
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Well, thats your worldview, I believe in reality, reality is everything that exists and everything that dont exist and everything between and nothing, my worldview. We have what? But Im sorry, doesnt seem like uranium doesnt proove that much, or maybe as much as everything else. And it does not mean we can proove it to not to be young, there are different dating methods that shows different results, doesnt sound convincing.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Actualy reality is what exists, to say it is what doesnt exist is kinda paradxical to the idea. The different dating methods you are reffering to are radiometric dating that is shorter scale (like carbon-14) which has been incorrectly applied and warped by those promoting a young eath. It proves that the earth is 4.5 billion years old with an error margin of around 100 million years. htt p://ww w.talkorigins. org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.h tml (Remove spaces) Disprove please
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Thats your worldview! I doubt that proves it to be that old. Not hard to disprove when the link doesnt work, yes I removed the spaces.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Well, doubt all you want. I would bet a great deal of money that it wont. Ever. Because we have evidence, you have none. Over 99% of relevant scientists belive in a 4.9 bn year old earth. Who actually know what they're talking about.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Thank you! Oh, I have evidence, or not me personally but others have, and I just dont see any reason to show it when it probably will be ignored and what else as usually, I would say you dont have that much evidence as you are stating. 99%, I have great doubts about that! I think every scientist or whatever actually knows what theyre talking about. And our argument seems to be pointless, so why do we continue?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe So you dont have evidence. Good luck having any basis or credibility at all. It will definetly not be ignored, I will counter it, as you seem to have avoided doing. Google 'percentage of scientists young earth' and even on young earth sites it will state it (Btw roughly about the same as scientists called steve). Scientists are credible then. If you want to give up that will show to me that you have nothing against the truth. Go ahead if you dont have the evidence.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Thank you, but I dont need luck, I need reality, and I have basis and credibility, people here were I live can assure you of that. Yes it will most probably be ignored, we all counter evidence, I have not avoided it. I googled, so? Against the truth? Now you start to seem like a dreamer, why the hell would I have anything against the truth? I am looking for the truth, and then you need to see everything, and you need to believe. I have just as much evidence as you, which is zero.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Yes, you need reality, you dont seem to have much at the moment. How many of those people are eductated in this area? No it wont. It will be countered. Why would i be a dreamer if I belive in reality (truth)? 99 percent of scientists, you highly doudbt it, there it is. Actually I do have a lot of evidence. You just ignore it because you cant face reality. You have not presented me with any that I cannot disprove. We've been through this.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Well, I only have reality, in fact thats what every Human has and has always had. I cant give you an exact number, but at least around 50 I would guess, dont really know. Ok, now our argument seems to have reached a dead end.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe About 50 people in your area know about this? At what level? No. Yours has. Mine will go on, as I have evidence and reason and reality instead of nothing to go on, illogical arguments and a rather large delusion.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yeah, I heard this the first time.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Very funny. I realised i had a typo that would make the sentence describing you a description of me.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Okey.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe About 50 people in your area know about this? At what level? No. Yours has. Mine will go on, as I have evidence and reason and reality instead of nothing to go on, not illogical arguments and a rather large delusion.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch We clearly have different views.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Sure, I havent noticed this entire time -.-
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Oh, you havent? ;)
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Haha, funny :L
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch "How am I ignorant when you think the world is 0.5 million years old?" Now we were not talking about me, and that was just a theory, still working on it. Well, we are all ignorant, but you ignore to have an open mind, you ignore to do more research into these topics, you ignore that there are evidence for these "paranormal, spiritual, or creation realitys", you ignore to realize that you havent provided that much evidence as you are stating etc.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe I have already explained that I have an open mind to what is there. I have seen evidence on both sides and made a decision. You dont need to 'work on it', What do you think science has been doing for you? THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR THEM. If there is, Provide some, you have provided 10x less evidence than me by far. Look back and you will find my evidence, dont ignore it or say it isnt evidence. We ARE talking about you and your complete obliviousness to reality.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yeah, thats your worldview, not mine, niether anyone elses. And I cant help you if your´e going to play ignorant. If you only could have a "real open mind" to reality, then you can understand things much better. And why are we talking about me? Why did you change subject? Please!
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe It is you that has the crazy and irrational belifes not me. My worldveiw is not just shared by me but most rational people, this thing is here, we have facts, get a theory, theory works, we accept it because it has been proven. Deranged fantasies such as yours arent that common. I am certaintly not ignorant, you dont even seem to know basic facts. I have an open mind. TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE. You prefer to resort to fantasy. Rational vs Irrational. Period.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch We all have our beliefs. No, no one has the same worldview as you, niether as me, or anyone else, we all have our different worldviews. Thats part of your worldview. Fantasies? I am not talking about fantasies, Im talking about reality, or well, fantasies may be included in reality, but anyway. Yes, you are ignorant, thats one more thing you need to accept, we are all ignorant. Oh, I know basic facts, do you? Period? What the h*ll are you talking about?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe You seem to ignore basic facts, and ignore evidence for them as well, such as the rate of evolution and the formation of the moon not being 10000 years ago. Period = end of. Many people have similar worldveiws to me, only a few to you. So you are talking about fantasies that could possibly be included in reality, but without proof. Settled.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yeah, we all have to ignore something. And thats your view in your worldview, only yours. Settled.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Maybe I ignore evidence that I know is wrong because I can see it has its basic prinicpals wrong. You ignore my evidence and basic science which makes the counter-arguments you provide almost worthless. Something similar to my worldveiw is shared by many. 'Fantasies may be included in reality' That kinda goes against the principal of reality.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Oh, you dont ignore evidence that are wrong, you ignore the ones thats right, or at least some of them. Then dont argue with me, why did you start an argument? And what are you trying to prove, or who are you trying to convince? No one of us convinces anyone here. We all have similar worldviews, but still theyre not. Not when you talks about the "real" reality.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe I ignore the ones that are blatently flawed, for example using carbon dating to determine that the earth is young, and that there are no transitional fossils etc, because they are faulty at their very foundations! I am trying to do the same as you, convince and argue against the opposing side (but with me a little more evidence). Not all of us have imilar world veiws eg. someone who belives in a land of elves and faires, and a rationalist. Fantasy is basically the opposite of reality.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yeah, but your´e not doing such a great job in convincing, and you only have very few evidence, some which I already knew about, and I wont bother giving any evidence, seems like our little discussion doesnt get anywhere. And fantasy is basically the opposite of reality, thats true, but it is part of reality, and you can turn fantasy to reality.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe You wont bother giving any evidence because you have none that could stand up in a debate against the truth. That is the long and short of it, end of, period. No it isnt part of reality! ThAt DeFeAtS tHe PoInT. In some instances yes you can, for example inventions and achiveing your dreams, but not with elves, faries, dinosaurs, dragons, spirits. At least not with current technology. Which means they certaintly dont exist now.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Personally I dont have any evidence true, and I think its the same for you, but my evidence would just be ignored. A debate against the truth? I am not debating against the truth, is that what youre doing? Please. Yes it is part of reality. See, we have different views and beliefs, Im not going to go in to the topic, Im kinda tired of our pointless argument.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe You dont have any true evidence? But you dont think I have. Well I do, you just ignore it. The truth is what is real and there and proven and tested. I am not arguing against that. Fantasy (which you have admitted it to be) is no part of reality. So basically youre running out of ideas and you cant provide anything to back up your claims.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Ignore it? You havent even provided YOUR own evidence. Pretty hard to ignore when thats not done. Well, in fact you are arguing against it. Yes, the truth is fantasy is part of reality, if you only could see it. Running out of ideas? Ideas of what? I can provide evidence but it doesnt matter whether I provide it or not, it will only be ignored and explained as something else, so I basically dont bother.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Look backwards, we have been doing this for w hile you know. I am arguing for truth against ejits who think dinosaurs are still alive -.- Type in opposite of reality into google, you get fantasy. on oppostie word dot com the opposite of fantasy is reality. OPPOSITES. No light in dark, no answer in question, no near in far. Ideas for evidence. So can you really provide evidence? Go on then. I wont ignore it, I actually promise.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yes, you are arguing AGAINST truth I would say, while I am on the same side as truth. Yes, who dont know thats the opposite? This seems pretty funny. Yeah, promises are made to be broken.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Well you would say a lot of things, most of them utter nonsens. Im glad you have such faith in humanity. Provide evidence. Why not exactly? I have already said I will ignore it and counter it as best I can, so it seems to me you are just scared. Im not afraid of providing evidence when asked, as long as you treat it as such.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Yeah, you say lots of things too, also nonsense. Oh, there you said it, "I will ignore it", believe whatever you want, im not scared, there just is no point when I know it will be ignored.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Haahaha you are trying to squirm out of it! Just say it, I wont ignore it, what on earth do you have to be scared of? If you have such evidence that will prove your point, why not just say it and win the entire argument, and possibly even convince me? Prehaps you dont have it. But I am inviting you to saying, on the absolute promise that I will take it into account and debate over it. I do not ignore most points, a major one like that would not go amiss.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Well, theres lots of things to be scared of, like loosing your family, die, get attacked by some kind of unknown animal etc. etc. It depends on what point it is supposed to prove.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Dont try to pick on fine points to avoid the main question. On your belifes about the age of the world, the idea that extinction is a lie, and that the dinosaurs are still alive, a global flood happened ETC ETC... What we've been talking about so far. Not difficult to figure out.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch What??? Oh I have many beliefs about the age of the world, do you mean I need to prove all of them? Extinction is kinda a lie, if you know what I mean? Dinosaurs still alive, ok, a global flood, ok, thanks, I only wanted you to give me some specific things to prove, so its just these things you want proof for? Ok, well, good luck with that, since we probably have different views of what proof is and our minds are full of ignorance, you know I wont bother giving any proof, or...
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe No I dont know what you mean by extinction being kinda a lie, because there is nothing there to make me think that eg. No megalosaurs walking around the english countryside. I have a non-selective veiw of proof. if it proves something, and cant be debunked (bearing in mind you cant disprove a negative, so thats not part of proof) then it is proof. If you do not provide proof, then I will simply assume you have none and the debate will be won on my part. Simple.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Just what I thought, well maybe not to make YOU think that. Ok, you dont know if there are any Megalosaurs walking around there, its what you believe, so dont make such a claim. Non-selective? I have doubts. Oh, everything can be debunked, so there simply are no proof for anything, right? Well, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but I will disagree that you won the debate. Simple.
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Well I'm pretty sure everyone else that I've ever met doesnt think there are huge canivorous dinosaurs walking around england. Because it is ridiculous. Obviously not everything can be debunked, as you havent done it to what I have provided (just giving out the crap excuse that it isnt evidence). STOP AVOIDING GIVING IT. Provide whatever you see as evidence then. Its not hard. Just do it.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch Ok, but why be sure when you can ask them instead? And it is certainly NOT ridiculous, thats absurd. Yes, everything can be debunked, but that doesnt mean I can or want to do it. Well, you need to realize what is real evidence, but we all obviously have different views of evidence, so what does it matter? Stop avoiding it, hmm... Let me think about it...
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Because its the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and you would have to be insane to think there are massive dinosaurs stolling around england. Most people I know are at least half-sane. Look. I will accept yours as evidence. If I can debunk it then fine. I will not simply say it is not evidence. JuSt GeT oN wItH iT. sToP aVoIdInG tHe PoInT.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
@floisheremuch To you maybe, and I dont understand why. Im not insane just by believing that giant dinosaurs are walking around there, there is no reason to be insane. Most people you know are half-sane? What? Ok. We´ll see if Im gonna give any evidence, and what point?
TurokSwe 8 months ago
@TurokSwe Because it is so obvious that there arent, or else we probably would have noticed them by now, dont you think? Y'know, massive carnivorous lizards as big as buildings? -.- Which couldnt possibly survive in todays conditions - but thats for another time, right now i want evidence. We have discussed which point. Look up about 8 posts. Whatever you like out of them and the others you have attempted to make during the course of this debate basically.
floisheremuch 7 months ago
@floisheremuch No, its not obvious that there arent. Well, I would say they have pretty much been noticed. Not really, it depends on which "carnivorous lizard" you mean. Oh, such creatures could very easily survive in todays conditions, but as you said, thats for another time. Which point? What? Explain.
TurokSwe 7 months ago
@TurokSwe Well the complete absence of them makes it so -_- Heck, its a big deal when they find a new type of rodent in papua new guinea, I'd think actual comprehensive proof of a new dinosaur would draw so much attention to it. Oxygen levels and general climate, plus the whole ecosystems that existed then that dont now. Though some still do - birds. The age of the world, the idea that extinction is a lie, and that the dinosaurs are still alive, a global flood happened ETC ETC. Get on with it.
floisheremuch 7 months ago
@floisheremuch Well, I doubt oxygen levels and climate really matters. And we dont know what ecosystem existed then, and when it existed. Ok, now, I have so many theories about the age of the world Im working on, so that I would put away. My view that extinction is a lie is so complicated I cant even explain it to myself. Dinosaurs are still alive, okey, I´ll see what I can do. Global flood, nothing more, okey, lets see...
TurokSwe 7 months ago
@TurokSwe Well we can deduct a lot from fossils. What we see in the strata is what was alive at that point, rocks date to different ages, getting older as they go down. We see very few organisms alive today (Eg. ferns and coelacanths), but we do see forms leading to the ones alive today (see whals and horses for example). We cant prove anything but we're pretty sure. If you cant explain it to yourself then whats the point? Ever heard of occams razor? I await evidence.
floisheremuch 7 months ago
@floisheremuch It depends on what you mean with "a lot", we can deduct lots of skeleton parts, yes, but not very much else. A strata can easy fool us to believe something thats not true, of course rocks date to different ages, depends on what kinds of methods you use. Very few alive today? Disagree to the max. Not really, no. True, we cant prove anything, but we all can be sure of some things, yeah. Yeah, and youre asking that now? Yes. Continue with that.
TurokSwe 7 months ago
@TurokSwe Skeleton parts? You do realise that there are imprints of tiny sea creatures, insects etc? Well what else would you deduct from the strata? We've been over dating and how it works and how its true etc, which they get the dates of the rocks from. Well I'm failing to see why you disagree, if you cant even think of a reason why and how. Well then, I suggest you check out the transitional forms of whales and horses, for example. Occams razor: Less assumptions, the better. You make lots.
floisheremuch 7 months ago