# Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today!



## deanrd (Apr 23, 2019)

National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)


The earth is 50 million years old?

And took thousands of years to cool down?

Hilarious!

And the dinosaurs are terribly funny.  Of course it was known what some of them looked like, they had bones.

But they didn't have computer technology so they couldn't figure out that T Rex and others balanced on their hind legs, not stood upright like people.

And the one dinosaur scratching itself with it's front legs was very cartoony.

But still, they got the form right, they knew the dinosaurs was from millions of years ago and they knew the both cooled down and heated up.

A far cry from the earth being thousands of years old and people being shimmered into being from dirt.

What this shows is how the "theory" of evolution keeps.......well......evolving.  It's not settled science.  It's continuing exploration.

In Arizona, teaching creationism is supported by 4 of 5 Republicans who want to oversee education

Evolution wording removed from draft of Arizona school science standards

More proof Republicans will never stop with their ignorance.  They only way to stop them is to defeat them at the ballot box.  And for the good of the country, they MUST be defeated.  Can you imagine the country if Republicans got their way and taught their ignorance to American children?


----------



## deanrd (Apr 23, 2019)

You would think by 2019 this fight would be over.

Douglas' Office Defends Creationist on Panel: Christianity Not a 'Fringe View'

Kezele, a biology instructor at Arizona Christian University, says that scientific evidence supports his beliefs that the planet is just 6,000 years old and that teenage dinosaurs were on board Noah's Ark. His ideas are rejected by an overwhelming majority of mainstream researchers.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Apr 23, 2019)

Willis O'Brien did a far better job with rubber dinosaurs in *The Lost World*, which was released earlier that year.  *Fifty Million Years Ago* suckered itself ramora-like to the success of the earlier film, kind of like *Battle Beyond The Stars* ripping off *Star Wars*, which of course ripped off other things.

It's interesting that you would choose a film that gets most of its science wrong to criticize others getting the science wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 23, 2019)

Kezele is a quack. He has no degree in biology and no research experience in biology. Which, of course, is exactly what this christian university was looking for.


----------



## miketx (Apr 23, 2019)

Evolution=democrats/liberals devolving from Kennedy like types to the sky screaming useless bags of meat they are today.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 23, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


Kewl...
Almost every chemist, biologist, physicist, MD, electrical and mechanical engineer I know is a Republican.
Almost every idiot I know is a Liberal.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 23, 2019)

Indeependent said:


> Almost every chemist, biologist, physicist, MD, electrical and mechanical engineer I know is a Republican.


So what? That means nothing.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 23, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


That’s because the theory was knew then.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 23, 2019)

What did he no and when did he no it?


----------



## petro (Apr 23, 2019)

When creating a thread questioning the intelligence of others, it's probably a good idea to check the grammar in your title to avoid looking like an idiot.

Its far too late for Deany.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 23, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...




It wasn't computer technology you anti science dumb fuck.

.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Apr 23, 2019)

Dean,

How old is the Universe?

How old is our Galaxy?

How old is our Solar system?

How old is our Sun?

How old is our planet?

How old is the Human race?

Now you are most likely wondering why am I asking such simple questions like this, well the reality is the Human race as it is is just a spec in time eye.

Our understanding and knowledge of how humanity came into creation is just theories and true the Univers is far older than our pathetic existence but we do not know the whole story either and I keep my mind wide open to all ideas...


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 23, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...



Every time R-Derp can't come up with something to attack Trump with...his default post is another string about how stupid Republicans are!  How many is this now?  About your 200th variation of the same theme?  

It's ironic how one of the board's least intelligent posters spends so much time accusing OTHERS of being ignorant!


----------



## deanrd (Apr 23, 2019)

Indeependent said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> ...


Your confusing straight with Republican.  

Because the truth is, the majority of Republicans think college is bad for America.  Of course fewer scientists will be Republican.  It only stands to reason.







Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion


----------



## boedicca (Apr 23, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...




And wow!  I bet they knew that there are two sexes:  male and female; and that women have babies and men don't.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 23, 2019)

Oldstyle said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> ...


So you believe magical creation should be taught along side real science?

Because that's what the argument is.  

Should they expand it further?

Alchemy?

Astrology?

Tea leaves?


----------



## deanrd (Apr 23, 2019)

boedicca said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> ...


Double wow!  Everything you imagine you know in a single sentence.  Amazing!


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Apr 23, 2019)

"new" lol


----------



## boedicca (Apr 23, 2019)

deanrd said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...




^^^ Diagnosis:  Terminal Projection ^^^


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 23, 2019)

Wow...

Deanturd knows less about what anyone else knows about anything, yet he's always here to troll the forum with complete ignorance and delusional bullshit.


.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 23, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...



Why do you even bother with these strings, R-Derp?  They always end the same way.  Why?  Because you're not that bright and when you try and engage in a conversation to "prove" that you're smarter than Republicans are...you invariably demonstrate how not that bright you really are!


----------



## airplanemechanic (Apr 23, 2019)

> *Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today!*



Stay in school, kids.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 23, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> > *Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today!*
> 
> 
> 
> Stay in school, kids.



LOL...only R-Derp starts a string with a title like that!  You can't make this stuff up...


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 23, 2019)

I work with a nice guy who’s a D.
I always have to explain to him how things, such as maintaining roads, play a role within a much larger context.


----------



## Tax Man (Apr 23, 2019)

miketx said:


> Evolution=democrats/liberals devolving from Kennedy like types to the sky screaming useless bags of meat they are today.


And to think tezans are less than useless bags of meat.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 23, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Dean,
> 
> How old is the Universe?
> 
> ...


So are you saying mysticism is a possibility?


----------



## deanrd (Apr 23, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Willis O'Brien did a far better job with rubber dinosaurs in *The Lost World*, which was released earlier that year.  *Fifty Million Years Ago* suckered itself ramora-like to the success of the earlier film, kind of like *Battle Beyond The Stars* ripping off *Star Wars*, which of course ripped off other things.
> 
> It's interesting that you would choose a film that gets most of its science wrong to criticize others getting the science wrong.


No he didn't.  Here is a link:


Dinosaurs look just the same.  And it's terrible the way their limbs look contorted to make them appear to be standing up.

See how much more natural they look not standing up.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Apr 23, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Dean,
> ...



Are you saying that you know all the answers and if so do share!?!


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2019)

Republicans haven’t evolved much


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 23, 2019)

boedicca said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> ...


But even then, they probably knew that we arent slaves to our biology, and our minds are more important and are what separate us from bacteria.

Well, some of us.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 23, 2019)

Indeependent said:


> I work with a nice guy who’s a D.
> I always have to explain to him how things, such as maintaining roads, play a role within a much larger context.


You can have a similar discussion about universal healthcare.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 23, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Republicans haven’t evolved much


It's not in their DNA.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 23, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


Some things are relatively easy to figure out.  From the wavelength of light and the direction, we can figure out if other suns are moving towards or away from us.
That's just physics.  It's measurable.

See these explosions in reverse?


If you look at the direction the particles are moving and go backwards, from the direction and the speed, you can tell the beginning of the explosion.  Again, simple physics.

Well, if you can measure the stars are moving away from each other, which they are, and go back in time, things were much closer together.You can find a starting point.

Then the fact that we can only see 13 billion light years in any direction and before that, there wasn't any light, then we can measure how old the universe is.

See how that all fits together?

It wasn't like they imagined a bunch of stuff.  They went and measured it.

Some, like Einstein theorized a black hole.  And now we have a picture of one.

Not only can they go out and measure stuff, but from the collected data, they can figure out new stuff.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Apr 24, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...



Yeah, and people thought the Earh was flat and the Universe revolves around us.

As you sit there saying you know everything and your theory is the only answer, well I will keep my mind open because those like you close yours and never allow opposing opinions ever.

Buddha, Jesus and Moses words have taught me there is more to this Universe, but stay close minded and never change mister know it all...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 24, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Buddha, Jesus and Moses words have taught me there is more to this Universe, but stay close minded and never change mister know it all...


Are you open minded to the idea that there isn't more to this world, and that their teachings are magical nonsense?


----------



## james bond (Apr 24, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So are you saying mysticism is a possibility?



It's not mysticism, but real science.

It goes to show the libs and people who believe evolution learned fake science.  The secular/atheist scientists started to eliminate their opposition, i.e. creation scientists, around the 1850s.  All of your examples would reflect the fake science.  Of course, you are too ignorant to know that.

We still find soft tissues in the millions of years old fossils.  It means that the dinosaurs that died were not millions of years old -- https://www.history.com/news/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones.

And with that 1925 movie deanrd, are you admitting that humans lived with dinosaurs?  They were called dragons back then -- Fossil Footprints | Genesis Park.


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 24, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?


Maybe... maybe not...



deanrd said:


> And took thousands of years to cool down?


Maybe... maybe not...



deanrd said:


> Hilarious!


Why?



deanrd said:


> And the dinosaurs are terribly funny.  Of course it was known what some of them looked like, they had bones.
> 
> But they didn't have computer technology so they couldn't figure out that T Rex and others balanced on their hind legs, not stood upright like people.
> 
> ...


Maybe... maybe not...



deanrd said:


> A far cry from the earth being thousands of years old and people being shimmered into being from dirt.


That's not impossible...



deanrd said:


> What this shows is how the "theory" of evolution keeps.......well......evolving.


It IS a theory, and it is not a scientific one. It is a religion. It may or may not be true. We have no way to test the null hypothesis of that theory, since we can't go back in time to observe what actually happened... Theories do not "evolve"...



deanrd said:


> It's not settled science.  It's continuing exploration.


There is no such thing as "settled science". Science is NEVER "settled"... It is a set of falsifiable theories; that's all science is.



deanrd said:


> In Arizona, teaching creationism is supported by 4 of 5 Republicans who want to oversee education
> 
> Evolution wording removed from draft of Arizona school science standards
> 
> More proof Republicans will never stop with their ignorance.


Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one being ignorant, as you think you know for sure what is true and what is false concerning evolution and the age of the Earth.  Those are religious beliefs; they can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

Believe what you will; I am not here to tell you what to believe, but simply that your reasoning for your beliefs is fallacious (bad reasoning)...



deanrd said:


> They only way to stop them is to defeat them at the ballot box.  And for the good of the country, they MUST be defeated.  Can you imagine the country if Republicans got their way and taught their ignorance to American children?


They already teach their beliefs to their children... So do leftists... Some children stick by all or most of their parents' beliefs, while others don't...


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 24, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Dean,


I'll answer for Dean...



Bruce_T_Laney said:


> How old is the Universe?


It's anyone's guess... We simply do not know.



Bruce_T_Laney said:


> How old is our Galaxy?


It's anyone's guess... We simply do not know.



Bruce_T_Laney said:


> How old is our Solar system?


It's anyone's guess... We simply do not know.



Bruce_T_Laney said:


> How old is our Sun?


It's anyone's guess... We simply do not know.



Bruce_T_Laney said:


> How old is our planet?


It's anyone's guess... We simply do not know.



Bruce_T_Laney said:


> How old is the Human race?


It's anyone's guess... We simply do not know.



Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Now you are most likely wondering why am I asking such simple questions like this, well the reality is the Human race as it is is just a spec in time eye.


Yup... Humanity as a whole is a tiny spec in the grand scheme of the universe...



Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Our understanding and knowledge of how humanity came into creation is just theories


Correct... and more specifically, religious theories, since they aren't falsifiable...



Bruce_T_Laney said:


> and true the Univers is far older than our pathetic existence


I'd say we don't even know that much...



Bruce_T_Laney said:


> but we do not know the whole story either and I keep my mind wide open to all ideas...


Correct. We simply do not know the answers, and science can't be involved since these theories are not falsifiable... The best we can do is religiously believe in particular theories.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 24, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> That's not impossible...


So?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 24, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> It's anyone's guess... We simply do not know.


Wrong. Some guesses are much better than others. No, your guess is not as valid as a cosmologist's "guess".  So no, it's not "anyone's guess".



gfm7175 said:


> We simply do not know the answers, and science can't be involved since these theories are not falsifiable... The best we can do is religiously believe in particular theories.


Which theories are not falsifiable? Name a couple.

Btw, evolution is as 'proven' as anything can be proven. It is an accepted fact.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 24, 2019)

Tax Man said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution=democrats/liberals devolving from Kennedy like types to the sky screaming useless bags of meat they are today.
> ...


so are a lot of tax preparers....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 24, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Republicans haven’t evolved much


you are right many act like they havent evolved anyway....but i see many democrats going backwards.....maybe they are acting too....


----------



## deanrd (Apr 25, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> "new" lol


 I wondered how long it would take anybody to notice that. Finally somebody pointed it out.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2019)

deanrd said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > "new" lol
> ...


That you're an illiterate?  A number of people pointed that out...but you were too clueless to grasp what they were saying!


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong. Some guesses are much better than others. No, your guess is not as valid as a cosmologist's "guess".  So no, it's not "anyone's guess".


Yes, it is. We cannot go back in time to see what actually happened...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Which theories are not falsifiable? Name a couple.


The Big Bang Theory
The Theory of Abiogenesis
The Theory of Evolution



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Btw, evolution is as 'proven' as anything can be proven. It is an accepted fact.


No, it is not 'proven'... Neither religion nor science can be proven; they are open functional systems. They don't make use of proofs.

Evolution is the theory that present day life arose from the mutations of earlier life forms. That theory is not falsifiable, as we cannot use a time machine to see what actually happened all those years ago. Science has NO theories about past unobserved events...

Also, a fact is NOT a universal truth, nor is it a proof. A 'fact' is simply an assumed predicate. Facts are useful for speeding up conversations...


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > That's not impossible...
> ...


So, it's a valid theory... just as valid as any other unfalsifiable theory...


----------



## xyz (Apr 25, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


But they didn't know many of them had feathers.

Cool film though.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Yes, it is. We cannot go back in time to see what actually happened...


 Nor do we need to, because this is a deterministic universe with no magic. So no, your idea is nutball.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> No, it is not 'proven'...


Its as 'proven' as anyhthing can proven. Same with electromagneitc theory. But you go ahead and stick a fork in a toasterand let me know if you falsify electromagnetic theory.

By the way, You're a troll.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> ...


Fascinating. Someone who's developed a healthy understanding and respect for logic yet apparently remains utterly clueless as to the power and ramifications of applied probability. Carbon dating, for example. While one may argue with the accuracy or precision of particular calculations and/or measurements, there's always a limit (yes, in real life) derivable to some extent from logic just as the limits in calculus apply to ranges specified and logically applicable under an integral. Math is not dependent upon human existence. Probability is reality. With no one around we actually "know" that a tree falling in a forest makes a sound due to the probability of it not doing so being so vanishingly remote mathematically. Flying Spaghetti Monsters no longer needed nor called for.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 25, 2019)

Intelligent Design "theory" is rooted in arrogant denial, feelings, and ironic illogic. In a relative information vacuum, us strongly feeling the need for a supernatural explanation for things that at first appear extremely unlikely is understandable. However, it's not a derivation from sound logic. Rather, it comes from our very human needs and emotions. Fear induced ones mostly. Again, ironically considering how ID is so often introduced as though inspired from a superior appreciation of beauty or some such nonsense. The obvious counter to "It's so beautiful and unlikely, it simply must result from some higher form of intelligence!" is  "How do you know there weren't a zillion more random possible outcomes that weren't even more beautiful?" Something had to result (due to probability), no? What's really so unlikely about all this? "Oh, hwell, just look at all the other planets.. they're so dead and ugly by comparison, silly boy!" Are they really now? You mean from the perspective of most humans? How convenient of you! Arrogant! Fallaciously circular and self-fulfilling! 

eta: In the beginning there was human ignorance. As time marched on we learned a thing or two. Then came math, logic, and scientific inquiry. Soon much that was abstract became far less so, if not plain. The need for supernatural explanations diminished tremendously,.. though, obviously,.. a fuck ton of people have yet to notice!


----------



## james bond (Apr 25, 2019)

deanrd said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > "new" lol
> ...



We "knew" you can't spell simple words.  Do you point out someone being retarded?  No, unless it gets in the way.


----------



## buttercup (Apr 25, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Your confusing straight with Republican.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 25, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. Some guesses are much better than others. No, your guess is not as valid as a cosmologist's "guess".  So no, it's not "anyone's guess".
> ...


 Somethings aren’t a theory. There  are things that can be measured and even looked at. 






 Do you know what that is?


----------



## deanrd (Apr 25, 2019)

buttercup said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Your confusing straight with Republican.


 I’m using the speak feature on my phone and sometimes when my eyes review it I just don’t notice. No big deal.


----------



## petro (Apr 25, 2019)

deanrd said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


There is a sight to behold I bet. Babbling incoherently into a phone on a dozen threads simultaneously  with spittle flying out your mouth.

Maybe slow down and do a little proof reading. The delay wouldn't mean anything as you are convincing no one.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 26, 2019)

petro said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...


 It’s only Babble when it it’s lies. And I don’t believe in lying. I believe lying is wrong. And that’s why I post with links with most everything I post.  I’m in love with evidence.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


I think that attitude is great. Add laughing at yourself for your own mistakes, especially when pointed out by others so humorously.


----------



## impuretrash (Apr 26, 2019)

Threads like this provide valuable insight into the true nature of the political left. All that stuff about inclusion, tolerance and diversity is a lie. Beneath the facade, they're full of hate towards God and arrogant contempt for their fellow man.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 26, 2019)

impuretrash said:


> Threads like this provide valuable insight into the true nature of the political left. All that stuff about inclusion, tolerance and diversity is a lie. Beneath the facade, they're full of hate towards God and arrogant contempt for their fellow man.


Many scientists have mystical beliefs.

They believe you can believe in both the spiritual and the natural.

But your kind is dangerous.  Your ignorance and judgemental nature is what harms the country.  If we listened to your kind, this country would be ripe for the picking.  That is why your kind must be defeated at the ballot box.  For the safety of both the nation and the world.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 26, 2019)

So no one knows what this is?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 26, 2019)

The Big Bang, as viewed from somewhere? something? apparently beyond the Universe?


> *Universe* is the name that we use to describe the collection of all the things that exist in space. It is made of many millions of millions of stars and planets and enormous clouds of gas separated by a gigantic empty space which is called the universe.


"the collection of all the things that exist in space"


> *Outer space*, or just *space*, is the expanse that exists beyond the Earth and between celestial bodies. Outer space is not completely empty—it is a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles, predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust, and cosmic rays. The baseline temperature, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270.45 °C; −454.81 °F).[1] The plasma between galaxies accounts for about half of the baryonic (ordinary) matter in the universe; it has a number density of less than one hydrogen atom per cubic metre and a temperature of millions of kelvins;[2] local concentrations of this plasma have condensed into stars and galaxies. Studies indicate that 90% of the mass in most galaxies is in an unknown form, called dark matter, which interacts with other matter through gravitational but not electromagnetic forces.[3][4] Observations suggest that the majority of the mass-energy in the observable universe is a poorly understood vacuum energy of space, which astronomers label _dark energy_.[5][6] Intergalactic space takes up most of the volume of the universe, but even galaxies and star systems consist almost entirely of empty space.


So space - "a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles"

Wikipedia please! We beg of thee: Where, oh where are we supposed to be viewing that image from? What's that called?


> *Vacuum energy* is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. This behavior is codified in Heisenberg's energy–time uncertainty principle. Still, the exact effect of such fleeting bits of energy is difficult to quantify. The vacuum energy is a special case of zero-point energy that relates to the quantum vacuum.[1]



Can you say "Bullshit!"? I knew you could. What's wrong with this picture? Anyone?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> So no one knows what this is?


CMB


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 26, 2019)

Yes.


> The *cosmic microwave background* (*CMB, CMBR*), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation". The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space.


Now. Same question?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Apr 26, 2019)

They could correctly spell the past tense of "know" in 1925, too!


----------



## Crepitus (Apr 26, 2019)

Indeependent said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> ...


Either you know very few people or you are lying.  Approximately 6% of scientists are conservative.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 26, 2019)

Again:


> *Universe* is the name that we use to describe the collection of all the things that exist in space. It is made of many millions of millions of stars and planets and enormous clouds of gas separated by a gigantic empty space which is called the universe.


Therefore space limits the size of the Universe. But since the Universe is expanding then space must also be expanding. Expanding into what?


----------



## Death Angel (Apr 26, 2019)

Hate to be a grammar nazi, but I just noticed the title


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is.

I am not going to make arguments for you... Present your own arguments...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 26, 2019)

You've probably concluded that I'm going off on a tangent here, but I'm not. I'm actually backing the prime assertion made in the title. Aside from "new" and "Republicans" it's unquestionably true. Back in 1925 most people could answer the question "What's beyond the Universe?" with ease. It seemed obvious. Then major stupidity took over having nothing whatsoever to do with Party affiliation. Einstein caught it big time and sealed the deal. Now all we get for an answer is this clearly fallacious, circular reasoned crap. _The Universe? Well, it's the Universe don't cha know? Space limits the size of the Universe and The Universe contains all space. Look, here's a picture from somewhere we just can't seem to put our finger on! Isn't that impressive though! _Incredibly sad perhaps? All these great minds, cosmologists, thought experimenters, famous physicists... all militantly defensive and seemingly fully satisfied to work with this lame, unworkable conception of the very foundations of everything forever. I sensed something was way wrong with our physics as far back as 7th grade and it's only grown worse since then. Wake up people. Help is sorely needed here.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today!



Sure, that's why in 1925 John Scopes was arrested and imprisoned for teaching evolution in school, right, Troll King?


----------



## deanrd (Apr 26, 2019)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today!
> ...


 By the religious in charge.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...



Yes, in Tennessee which was completely controlled by your party, not Republicans.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 26, 2019)

True.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


Also True.


> From opening sessions with prayer to new laws, religion often intersects with politics and policy in the Tennessee General Assembly's work, drawing passionate discussion and even national attention. And the week-old 2016 legislative session promises to deliver more of the same.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 26, 2019)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


 It was completely controlled by white conservatives. Who were the Democrats in the 20s and 30s all the way up to the 60s. That’s when the white conservatives left the Democratic Party and became Republicans. At least you have to admit that today’s Republicans are white conservatives. And you know Lincoln was never a confederate.

You do know that Lincoln was never a confederate?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> It was completely controlled by white conservatives. Who were the Democrats in the 20s and 30s all the way up to the 60s. That’s when the white conservatives left the Democratic Party and became Republicans. At least you have to admit that today’s Republicans are white conservatives. And you know Lincoln was never a confederate.
> 
> You do know that Lincoln was never a confederate?



Precisely, dill weed.  Lincoln wasn't a confederate.  Your people were and your people locked up Scopes for teaching evolution which flushes your entire troll thread right down the toilet, so you can shut up now and save yourself from further embarrassment.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Same question?


?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2019)

Indeependent said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> ...



Everyone I know who is on Welfare is a democrat.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Apr 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Almost every chemist, biologist, physicist, MD, electrical and mechanical engineer I know is a Republican.
> ...


So an education only counts if your a liberal ?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 26, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


No, i am saying his personal anecdote means squat.


----------



## james bond (Apr 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Same question?
> ...



I think he's saying you answered deanrd simple and pointless question right, but what does the continued expansion CMB mean?  Is it affecting our solar system and us?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, i am saying his personal anecdote means squat.



Well, if others are saying the same thing, then it means there is confirmation or possibly shows a trend.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> continued expansion CMB


Not sure what you mean....?


----------



## james bond (Apr 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > continued expansion CMB
> ...



What I was asking (and thought he meant) was what is happening to the CMB?  Is it expanding in all directions or has it stopped?  What does this mean?


----------



## hadit (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...



Wow, you are seriously paranoid. Whoever is paying you to post this garbage is getting ripped off.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Is it expanding in all directions or has it stopped?


It is microwave radiation, travelimg at the speed of light. It is electromagnetic radiation that became so red shifted that we now observe it as microwave radiation. Yes, it will, essentially, travel forever.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Same question?
> ...





Grumblenuts said:


> What's wrong with this picture?





Grumblenuts said:


> Where, oh where are we supposed to be viewing that image from? What's that called?





Grumblenuts said:


> since the Universe is expanding then space must also be expanding. Expanding into what?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


That image is viewed from earth. Its a 360 degree panorama of the sky.

It doesnt make sense to ask what space is "expanding into". Thats like asking, "what is north of the north pole?"

As for "whats wrong with this picture?"...no idea what you are asking, there.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> I think he's saying _{...}_ what does the continued expansion CMB mean? Is it affecting our solar system and us?


Thanks for trying to help! But no, that's not it. At all.


james bond said:


> Well, if others are saying the same thing, then it means there is confirmation or possibly shows a trend.


No, that's actually the common logical numbers fallacy. While seeking safety in numbers and sheltering within circling wagons makes many feel more secure, it does nothing to increase the veracity of their argument. Agreement is not confirmation, whether a trend develops or no.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Fair enough. Lol. My bad. Knew that. Forgot. Obviously poor excuse for me to launch into this line of inquiry here. Nonetheless,..



> It doesnt make sense to ask what space is "expanding into". Thats like asking, "what is north of the north pole?"


No, that analogy completely fails. Okay, forget the picture. As I've provided, the Universe is currently defined as  space plus all matter and energy. Expanding. The Universe is expanding. Nobody says North is expanding. Space is defined as equivalent in expanse to the Universe. Therefore also expanding. Expanding into what? What is beyond space? What is beyond the Universe?

It makes perfect sense to ask. What's appalling is how few people actually do.

By the way, that's just one particularly nagging question. I've got plenty more.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> No, that analogy completely fails.


I think it works, in that it is nonsensical. And, just as there is no north of north, there is no space beyond space. Your preposition "into" derives from your very limited human mind and from your concept of space. You cannot fathom "no space", because our tiny little head computers have no concept of that. So we say flawed things and ask nonsensical questions, like yours. Believe me, i share your thoughts, and the question. But it's nonsensical nonetheless.

A possible solution more comprehensible to us is that our local universe is not "all space". It's just all the space we can observe or ever observe.

I have nagging questions as well. Why is there any normal matter at all?


----------



## deanrd (Apr 26, 2019)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > It was completely controlled by white conservatives. Who were the Democrats in the 20s and 30s all the way up to the 60s. That’s when the white conservatives left the Democratic Party and became Republicans. At least you have to admit that today’s Republicans are white conservatives. And you know Lincoln was never a confederate.
> ...


But Republicans are confederates.  That's why you see the Confederate Flag at their conventions.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 26, 2019)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


No, of course not.  Because knowledge isn't conservative or liberal.  It's just knowledge.

It's Republicans and conservatives who cry that it's liberal.  Why?  Because science refutes magical creation.

What technological advances came from science?  Answer?  All of them.

What technological advances came from religion?  Answer?  None of them.

It time to stop trying to make science somehow prove mysticism.

Besides, Republicans don't really  follow traditional religion anymore.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...



Silly.

History says otherwise, and Democrats are tearing down Confederate statues to erase their history of slavery.

They are still Confederates, who've now adopted Communism, and seek to replace the old slavery of black-to-white with the slavery of all to the State.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 26, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> History says otherwise, and Democrats are tearing down Confederate statues to erase their history of slavery.



Utter nonsense. These are grassroots movements, and they win.


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...








They also KNEW how to spell back then too.

What's your excuse, moron!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > No, that analogy completely fails.
> ...


I'd agree that language often proves frustrating and seemingly insufficient.  I don't find that a significant factor here. Rather, the "nonsense" is all yours. You keep leaping to conclusions with no help from me. You alone have declared north of north nonsensical. Decided that that tangential personal deduction somehow relates directly to my question. Declared "there is no space beyond space."  In truth I simply don't  presume either space or "no space" unfathomable. Same regarding the Universe and beyond.


> A possible solution more comprehensible to us is that our local universe is not "all space". It's just all the space we can observe or ever observe.


Only "A possible solution" to the question if one deliberately ignores the textbook premises.  Don't simply kneejerk attack the question or questioner. Don't beat yourself up either. Try instead to reasonably answer questions asked reasonably.


> I have nagging questions as well. Why is there any normal matter at all?


Not at all assured you really want to know. The short answer is probability. For the long answer.. years of reading may  help with the required deprogramming...


> ex·pand
> /ikˈspand/
> 
> _verb_
> ...


See? "expanded into"  "recede from".. Neither my words nor "nonsense."
By definition. That's why it begs to be questioned, and it truly takes a modern physicist to define "expand" as "recede from". Lol


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I don't find that a significant factor here.


Then you're wrong. You don't have to take my word for it. Ask a physicist what space is "expanding into". You will get the same answer.



Grumblenuts said:


> Only "A possible solution" to the question if one deliberately ignores the textbook premises.


Which premises are those? Let me clarify for you. You refer only to one premise, in defining "universe" as "all space there is". But there is no reason toto stay beholden to that,other than intransigence. And the way that dedinition is being presented by you is not really violated anyway. We can reatain that definition, and still talk about our local universe, or local "subverse".



Grumblenuts said:


> Not at all assured you really want to know. The short answer is probability. For the long answer.. years of reading may help with the required deprogramming...


Now you are bloviating. You dont know the answer. If you say you do, you are lying.



Grumblenuts said:


> See? "expanded into


 Yes, I am aware of what the phrase means. Its meaning is why it is nonsensical to ask what space is "expanding into".


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

To be very clear, you continue to simply dodge the question. Your speculations regarding what you or I can possibly fathom are neither here nor there.  There's no question that "space" and "the Universe" are commonly described, defined, and understood in simple three dimensional terms by and for everyone exactly as I've provided. By physicists in particular whose use of the same descriptions are all over the internet. No call, reason, nor need to ask any one in particular. "Expanding into what?" is in no sense silly, nonsense, nor a trick question. It's straightforward deductive reasoning. Quit dodging it.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Youre behavior is odd. You didn't really address the points at all.


That would be you. I'm still patiently waiting...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> There's no question that "space" and "the Universe" are commonly described, defined, and understood in simple three dimensional terms by and for everyone exactly as I've provided.


Then by your own insistence, your question is nonsensical. If universe means "all space there is", then the question, "what is the universe expanding into" is nonsensical. How do you not get this?

Furthermore, if you were asking honestly, then you would stop nipping at my ankles and go look up (and even present) some speculative answers to the question. But you haven't. That shows that you are not engaging in honest inquiry, but rather a little game to amuse yourself.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "all space there is"


..is completely your invention. Quit arguing with only yourself and address the question as presented.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> That would be you. I'm still patiently waiting..



You're still waiting for me to answer a question that i already said is nonsensical and to which I have no other answer? Well, that makes you a bit of a fool, doesn't it?


----------



## Cosmos (Apr 27, 2019)

If you want to start a thread with the premise, "Republicans are Stupid", you really ought to learn how to spell "knew".  It's not the same word as "new".  Dumbass.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ..is completely your invention.


I'm not claiming thats the correct definition at all times. Are you?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Furthermore, if you were asking honestly, then you would stop nipping at my ankles and go look up (and even present) some speculative answers to the question. But you haven't. That shows that you are not engaging in honest inquiry, but rather a little game to amuse yourself.


Again, that would be seem to apply to you more than me. Go ahead and look it up. You seriously think I haven't? Share and discuss what you agree with.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ..is completely your invention.
> ...


I didn't claim it at all.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > That would be you. I'm still patiently waiting..
> ...


Perhaps unusually patient..

And since you haven't indicated "I have no other answer" until now, how was I to know your intent was to remain so closed minded?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Go ahead and look it up.


I have . And I related the answer a comsmologist would give. You have looked up nothing and instead are begging a stranger onthe internet for an answer to a question said stranger has already said is nonsensical.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I related the answer a comsmologist would give


Without quotes no less. Big of you! I'm sure they all appreciate your presuming to speak for them


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

One cosmologist:


> Wish # 1: Figure out the nature of dark matter.
> 
> 
> “I think we’re very close to solving this dark matter problem and I think its going to be stunning when it sinks in to everyone that most of the stuff in the Universe is made of something other than what we are,” Turner said.


Now, Mr. FUN, is dark matter "nonsense"? Is that what you gather from the above? Nothing indicating it being confined to "space" or "the Universe." If not, then perhaps that's what "space" expands into? Why the hell not? If "most of the stuff in the Universe is made of something other than what we are" then why couldn't it be most of the stuff beyond as well? In other words, which actually came first, this derived as simply necessary "dark matter" stuff or the Big Bang? Perhaps "dark matter" was already here and explains why "space" not only appears to continue expanding, but at an accelerating rate?..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> If not, then perhaps that's what "space" expands into? Why the hell not?


Because that doesn't make any sense to me, either. Dark matter exists within space.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 27, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


Why would Republicans want to keep monuments to the enemy?

Are you sure you've thought this through?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Apr 27, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...



It is all American history and should be clearly remembered so the Democrats can't do it again.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > If not, then perhaps that's what "space" expands into? Why the hell not?
> ...


Was there a Universe or "space" before the Big Bang? If not, then what? A Great Void? Heaven? Did God just snap her fingers? Where was She sitting?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A possible solution more comprehensible to us is that our local universe is not "all space". It's just all the space we can observe or ever observe.


BUT when YOU assert the possible existence of a universe beyond The Universe.. "space" beyond "Space".. that means it's not nonsense! Just as "...but when the President does it, that means it is not illegal..." or “I can’t be doing so badly, because I’m president, and you’re not,”


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


You know there's one thing evolution does not even attempt to explain, but people like you still think evolution is the answer.

How did life begin?

Evolution explains the origin of species.  A guy wrote a book about it, and that was his title.

But evolution does not and was never intended to explain the origin of life.

And you didn't know that.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

> *counter space*
> noun
> Definition of _counter space_
> : total flat surface area for preparing food in a kitchen. I wish my kitchen had more _counter space_.


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it is. We cannot go back in time to see what actually happened...
> ...


Goodness, so many atheists are closed-minded -- and you act like it's a superior mindset.


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Intelligent Design "theory" is rooted in arrogant denial, feelings, and ironic illogic. In a relative information vacuum, us strongly feeling the need for a supernatural explanation for things that at first appear extremely unlikely is understandable. However, it's not a derivation from sound logic. Rather, it comes from our very human needs and emotions. Fear induced ones mostly. Again, ironically considering how ID is so often introduced as though inspired from a superior appreciation of beauty or some such nonsense. The obvious counter to "It's so beautiful and unlikely, it simply must result from some higher form of intelligence!" is  "How do you know there weren't a zillion more random possible outcomes that weren't even more beautiful?" Something had to result (due to probability), no? What's really so unlikely about all this? "Oh, hwell, just look at all the other planets.. they're so dead and ugly by comparison, silly boy!" Are they really now? You mean from the perspective of most humans? How convenient of you! Arrogant! Fallaciously circular and self-fulfilling!
> 
> eta: In the beginning there was human ignorance. As time marched on we learned a thing or two. Then came math, logic, and scientific inquiry. Soon much that was abstract became far less so, if not plain. The need for supernatural explanations diminished tremendously,.. though, obviously,.. a fuck ton of people have yet to notice!


Prove to me that the universe wasn't created ten minutes ago, with the light from distant stars in transit.  Prove to me you didn't poof into being with all your memories of life before already built in.  Prove to me the Earth wasn't built with the fossil record already intact.

Go ahead.  You'll understand if I don't hold my breath.


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> You've probably concluded that I'm going off on a tangent here, but I'm not. I'm actually backing the prime assertion made in the title. Aside from "new" and "Republicans" it's unquestionably true. Back in 1925 most people could answer the question "What's beyond the Universe?" with ease. It seemed obvious. Then major stupidity took over having nothing whatsoever to do with Party affiliation. Einstein caught it big time and sealed the deal. Now all we get for an answer is this clearly fallacious, circular reasoned crap. _The Universe? Well, it's the Universe don't cha know? Space limits the size of the Universe and The Universe contains all space. Look, here's a picture from somewhere we just can't seem to put our finger on! Isn't that impressive though! _Incredibly sad perhaps? All these great minds, cosmologists, thought experimenters, famous physicists... all militantly defensive and seemingly fully satisfied to work with this lame, unworkable conception of the very foundations of everything forever. I sensed something was way wrong with our physics as far back as 7th grade and it's only grown worse since then. Wake up people. Help is sorely needed here.


It's turtles all the way down.


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Is it expanding in all directions or has it stopped?
> ...


Microwave radiation IS electromagnetic radiation.


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

deanrd said:


> *Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today! *




*Wow!  Another half-baked libtard talking about how stupid others are who still doesn't now the difference between:*

*NEW:  Something just created.  And*
*KNEW:  Past tense comprehension or cogitation of an intellectual matter.*
But then there's that keyword:  comprehension.  Leaves ol' Dean in the dust every time.  Mouth moves, but the brain sleeps.


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Sorry to bust Professor Indies bubble here, but microwave radiation only travel's at 1C in free space in a vacuum.  They are just radio waves.  It isn't red-shifted down from a higher state if it was generated as a microwave!  And microwaves do not travel forever (maybe in theory but rarely in practicality as they are direct straight line only), the power density of EM waves is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance they travel, so for every doubling of their distance, their power is quartered.  MWR is highly reactionary to the medium they travel in, so unless in absolute unfettered free space, often get blocked or absorbed as heat which is why they are so good at cooking food because water molecules resonate well at their frequency!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Was there a Universe or "space" before the Big Bang?



Yes, of course, as the big bang properly refers to the period of rapid expansion of the space that existed at the time. What you mean to ask is whether or not time had a beginning from our perspective, and whether or not "space" existed before it. And the answer is, "we dont know, maybe".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> BUT when YOU assert the possible existence of a universe beyond The Universe.. "space" beyond "Space".. that means it's not nonsense!


When I talk that way, it refers to space beyond the space we could ever possibly observe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Sorry to bust Professor Indies bubble here, but microwave radiation only travel's at 1C in free space in a vacuum. They are just radio waves. It isn't red-shifted down from a higher state if it was generated as a microwave!


Then you should shut up immediately and go read up before commenting again.

It is called the "cosmic microwave background" because it shines most strongly in the microwave spectrum.


Yes, the CMB has been dramatically redshifted.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

daveman said:


> Goodness, so many atheists are closed-minded -- and you act like it's a superior mindset.


This is a science thread,not a crybaby thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

daveman said:


> Microwave radiation IS electromagnetic radiation.


I literally said that in the post of mine you quoted.


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Goodness, so many atheists are closed-minded -- and you act like it's a superior mindset.
> ...


I asked a question earlier.  Maybe you could give it a shot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> And microwaves do not travel forever (maybe in theory but rarely in practicality as they are direct straight line only), the power density of EM waves is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance they travel, so for every doubling of their distance, their power is quartered.


That's dumb. You could take their energy down to almost zero, and they would still be travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum. Yes, light travels, essentially, forever, until absorbed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

daveman said:


> I asked a question earlier. Maybe you could give it a shot.


I'll do my best....repost it?


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Microwave radiation IS electromagnetic radiation.
> ...


My apologies.  I misread your intent.


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I asked a question earlier. Maybe you could give it a shot.
> ...


Certainly.

Prove to me that the universe wasn't created ten minutes ago, with the light from distant stars in transit. Prove to me you didn't poof into being with all your memories of life before already built in. Prove to me the Earth wasn't built with the fossil record already intact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Sorry, I cannot disprove magical nonsense, due to the inherent nature of magical nonsense. I can only assume a deterministic universe and then learn about amd describe the processes within, based on the evidence gathered. 

So, sorry dude, I can't disprove your magical hooha. Nor would I ever feel compelled to attempt to do so. The very nature of magical horseshit prevents the concepts of proof and evidence.


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Yeah, 'bout what I expected.  You implicitly trust the evidence you've been shown, when my scenario proves it's inherently untrustworthy.

In other words...you take it on faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

daveman said:


> when my scenario proves it's inherently untrustworthy.


No it doesnt. Your scenario merely tosses determinism out the window. Of course, you have no good reason or evidence to do so, nor could the concept of "evidence" even exist in the scenario you just dreamt up. so all your scenario and comments show is that you have a weak grasp of logic and an inherent tendency to believe utter nonsense.

Let me sum up your stupid diatribe:

"Nothing can be trusted, because magic might be real!"

Wow, you're a real deep thinker, haha


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > when my scenario proves it's inherently untrustworthy.
> ...


Deeper than you, apparently.  You can't conceive that what you've been told might not be accurate.  You can't conceive that the concept of "truth" might itself be based on fiction.  

You believe what you've been told to believe.  You lack the wit to question it.  

I might be wrong about the creation of the universe by an omnipotent being.  I might be right.  I won't know for sure until I've shuffled off this mortal coil.  

But you?  Your mind's made up, and nothing's going to sway you.

Now...you sure you still want to bitterly cling to your intellectual superiority?


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Thread summary:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

daveman said:


> You can't conceive that what you've been told might not be accurate


HahaHaha...oh man. Listen up,you fraud:

 Your idea of "maybe, magic!" is not deep or complicated. 3 year olds come up with it all on their own.

Might it be possible that there is magic (and it just happens to align with your personal fetishes and superstitions of course, haha, just like a toddler would think)? Of course. I just see no reason to believe such a thing.

And the biggest problem a quack like you has is that the moment you enter magic into your paradigm, you immediately and forever preclude yourself from any use of the concepts of logic or evidence. You throw determinism out the window. So, you basically, intellectually castrate yourself. You seem to be more than happy with that state of affairs.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

> Was there a Universe or "space" before the Big Bang?





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, of course, as the big bang properly refers to the period of rapid expansion of the space that existed at the time.


Oh? Reminder,


> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> *Space*, also known as *outer space*, is the near-vacuum between celestial bodies.[1] *It is where everything* (all of the planets, stars, galaxies and other objects) *is found*.





> Physicists are currently unsure *if anything existed* before the Big Bang. They are also unsure whether the size of the universe is infinite.





> Theory says that in the first second after *the universe was born*, our cosmos ballooned faster than the speed of light.


'Fraid I'm not seeing much support there for your "space that existed at the time" theory. Quite the contrary. Are you nuts like me or what?


----------



## daveman (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You can't conceive that what you've been told might not be accurate
> ...


Yes, we get it.  You're closed-minded.  No need to keep repeating yourself.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 27, 2019)

I wonder if they "new" [sic] how to spell the past tense of "know" back in 1925.


----------



## james bond (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It is microwave radiation, travelimg at the speed of light. It is electromagnetic radiation that became so red shifted that we now observe it as microwave radiation. Yes, it will, essentially, travel forever.


 
I keep telling you there is no infinite or forever in the physical world as one would have to divide by zero.  We can only have countless quantities.

As for the CMB radiation, you are right.  The CMB is a thermal map and I think it causes us to see space or spacetime as black.  It seems to follow spacetime as it expands.  I am not sure what causes the microwave radiation.  It also looks the same if we look at one part of the map to another.  However, we know say 5 ly sq from one section compared to another 5 ly sq from another section is different.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Fraid I'm not seeing much support there for your "space that existed at the time" theory.


So what? The big bang theory is what it is, no matter what you had for breakfast. It refers to the period of rapid expansion. Yes, space existed before that. No, big bang theory does not demand a singularity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> I wonder if they "new" [sic] how to spell the past tense of "know" back in 1925.


Good one! Even funnier than the first ten times it was posted!


----------



## MaryL (Apr 27, 2019)

[QUOTE="deanrd, post: 22251089, member: 63247



The earth is 50 million years old?

And took thousands of years to cool down?

Hilarious!

And the dinosaurs are terribly funny.  Of course it was known what some of them looked like, they had bones.

But they didn't have computer technology so they couldn't figure out that T Rex and others balanced on their hind legs, not stood upright like people.

And the one dinosaur scratching itself with it's front legs was very cartoony.

But still, they got the form right, they knew the dinosaurs was from millions of years ago and they knew the both cooled down and heated up.

A far cry from the earth being thousands of years old and people being shimmered into being from dirt.

What this shows is how the "theory" of evolution keeps.......well......evolving.  It's not settled science.  It's continuing exploration.


More proof Republicans will never stop with their ignorance.  They only way to stop them is to defeat them at the ballot box.  And for the good of the country, they MUST be defeated.  Can you imagine the country if Republicans got their way and taught their ignorance to American children?[/QUOTE]


*We  know this a overgeneralization. And then liberal leftie intellectuals assert there are 112  different genders, so who is living in a fantasy world here?*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> I keep telling you there is no infinite or forever in the physical world as one would have to divide by zero.


Which you don't understand.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

MaryL said:


> And then liberal leftie intellectuals assert there are 112 different genders, so who is living in a fantasy world here?


They are referring to psychology, not genetics. Where did you get your PhD in psychology? And could you direct us to some of your research? Thanks.


----------



## james bond (Apr 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Sorry to bust Professor Indies bubble here, but microwave radiation only travel's at 1C in free space in a vacuum.  They are just radio waves.  It isn't red-shifted down from a higher state if it was generated as a microwave!  And microwaves do not travel forever (maybe in theory but rarely in practicality as they are direct straight line only), the power density of EM waves is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance they travel, so for every doubling of their distance, their power is quartered.  MWR is highly reactionary to the medium they travel in, so unless in absolute unfettered free space, often get blocked or absorbed as heat which is why they are so good at cooking food because water molecules resonate well at their frequency!



From what you stated, microwaves are only good for cooking in a confined space isn't it?  Out in space or spacetime, they aren't confined and do get blocked out.  What do you think is causing it, seemingly everywhere space is?  I guess it is a form of radiation or heat, but we do not see it like we normally see heat as an orange red color.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> I am not sure what causes the microwave radiation.


It is electromagnetic radiation released just at and just after the big bang. It is literally a picture of the big bang. It is precisely what we would expect to see, if the big bang theory is correct.


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to bust Professor Indies bubble here, but microwave radiation only travel's at 1C in free space in a vacuum. They are just radio waves. It isn't red-shifted down from a higher state if it was generated as a microwave!
> ...




Yes, I know all about the 7cm microwave background remaining from the initial big bang.  At one time I worked and studied briefly at Bell Labs in New Jersey where it was discovered.  Saw what was left of the original detector horn.  Almost went into astronomy as a career. But none of that was mentioned in the post that was copied that I replied to and I didn't feel like going back 40 pages looking for it so I could only comment on what was actually read, so qualified it several times by adding the free space disclaimer.  But what the hell does any of that have to do with the topic of evolution?


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 27, 2019)

deanrd said:


> You would think by 2019 this fight would be over.
> 
> Douglas' Office Defends Creationist on Panel: Christianity Not a 'Fringe View'
> 
> Kezele, a biology instructor at Arizona Christian University, says that scientific evidence supports his beliefs that the planet is just 6,000 years old and that teenage dinosaurs were on board Noah's Ark. His ideas are rejected by an overwhelming majority of mainstream researchers.



No.  It will never be over.   There will always be Christians who believe the bible.  There will also always be scientists, that don't follow the evolutionary dogma.  You, and your children, will die with this fight still not being over.

You want this fight to be over?  You'll have to kill us.  Just being honest.  I'll die before I believe your non-sense.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Fraid I'm not seeing much support there for your "space that existed at the time" theory.
> ...


Okay, so first you get the "space" then you get the Bang! Where's the woman?


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > And microwaves do not travel forever (maybe in theory but rarely in practicality as they are direct straight line only), the power density of EM waves is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance they travel, so for every doubling of their distance, their power is quartered.
> ...




What's dumb is that you don't read what people say.  And if you think microwaves travel forever, then why are microwave towers interfered with by flocks of birds?


----------



## MaryL (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > And then liberal leftie intellectuals assert there are 112 different genders, so who is living in a fantasy world here?
> ...


I was being...factious,  kiddo. Sexual  dysphoria is a thing.  Oliver Sacks wrote a book called "The  man that mistook his wife for a hat". Because someone actually believes  something, that doesn't make it real. Take for instance people that don't recognize the left side of their body. Should we pander to mental illness?


----------



## jillian (Apr 27, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Dean,
> ...


We know approximately how old the universe is

And it isn’t 6,000 years old.


----------



## james bond (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I keep telling you there is no infinite or forever in the physical world as one would have to divide by zero.
> ...



Haha.  You're the guy who mocked asking what is north of north when you claim the same thing of spacetime going on forever.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Andylusion said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > You would think by 2019 this fight would be over.
> ...


So what? Evolution is a fact, whether or not you believe it .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Neato! Nobody has any idea what you are trying to say.

And no, you don't understand the talking point about dividing by zero that you regurgitated.


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to bust Professor Indies bubble here, but microwave radiation only travel's at 1C in free space in a vacuum.  They are just radio waves.  It isn't red-shifted down from a higher state if it was generated as a microwave!  And microwaves do not travel forever (maybe in theory but rarely in practicality as they are direct straight line only), the power density of EM waves is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance they travel, so for every doubling of their distance, their power is quartered.  MWR is highly reactionary to the medium they travel in, so unless in absolute unfettered free space, often get blocked or absorbed as heat which is why they are so good at cooking food because water molecules resonate well at their frequency!
> ...



It's a matter of efficiency.  Your microwave oven confines and reflects the energy to limit the amount of power needed put into it to get sufficient power to heat and cook the food in a reasonable time by shaking the water molecules.  Standing waves develop at the nodes of the compartment causing hot and cold spots which is why they rotate the food.

Out in space left untouched in a straight line, they merely fade in strength from a given source over distance like any wavefront.  Since the CMB is basically coming from all directions, it is pretty even.  There is no "direction" you can look in to say the big bang happened over "there" because "there" was originally a point source or "everywhere," then space expanded giving us here, there and everywhere.

A lot of people mistakenly believe the CMB is a signal from the creation of the universe, but it actually is the radiational background "stretched-out" from the expansion of space just as the sound of a train goes lower as it passes.  What remains today is down in the low end of the microwave region almost into the UHF band (radio).  You could actually kind of detect some of it in the old days if you tuned between TV channels and looked at the static noise pattern on the tube.  Some of that was the CMB of the universe.

After the universe began, once it cooled enough, it eventually cooled to where protons and electrons could form and matter and energy were able to separate from each other.  It was at that point that a "spherical surface of last scattering" occurred which is the farthest back in time we can see, about 13.8 billion light years back.  That's not to say the universe isn't older, just that this is the farthest back we can see where ordinary matter began and energy decoupled from it to form what we hear today as a cool hiss just above absolute zero.  Hopefully that makes a little sense and answers your questions.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 27, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


 Lame. Republicans don’t care about history. They care about money and power.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > *Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today! *
> ...


 Wow, you couldn’t attack the topic, so you attacked me. Pitiful, just pitiful.


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...



Is that why all Democrats ever promise their dependents is more money and power for them if they just keep voting for them?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> 13.8 billion light years back. That's not to say the universe isn't older, just that this is the farthest back we can see where ordinary matter began and energy decoupled from it to form what we hear today as a cool hiss just above absolute zero.


So how much older do you think it could be? A significant amount or just a fraction of a second? Was "space" required for the initial super hot energy to exist? Does "dark matter" or "dark energy" require "space" or do you suppose the opposite may in fact be the case?


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

deanrd said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...



Do you ever have any topic other than what a shithead you actually bare?


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > 13.8 billion light years back. That's not to say the universe isn't older, just that this is the farthest back we can see where ordinary matter began and energy decoupled from it to form what we hear today as a cool hiss just above absolute zero.
> ...



You're asking impossible questions to answer.  Nobody knows.  Even the BBT is still only a theory, though it is supported by observation.  As the universe expanded, space and time expanded with it, so yes, space was required because both matter and energy take up space and time to exist.  "Space" is like a fabric, the playing board of coordinates where matter and energy may play.  I'm not at all sold on dark energy, just a mud ball thrown at the wall to explain something we don't understand, but I'm wholly convinced dark matter is the real deal.  Dark matter IMO creates gravity, the source of mass, the "field" by which ordinary vectorial coordinates in space and time are mapped.  Dark matter is like the 4th of July rocket, and matter and energy that we see is just the little sparkles coming off of it after it explodes.  We aren't the show, we are just little ripples washing ashore after the real show has passed us by.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Thanks. You know, Einstein took the Aether for granted until he suddenly didn't any more. "Space/time' and "fabric" became  the new reality and physics has been drunk peddling that stupidity ever  since. Einstein himself repeatedly expressed tremendous doubts about it. Consider all the parallels between this sexy new "dark matter" and the long forgotten Aether that practically all took for granted before 1925. Just coincidence? Intrigued at all?


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Thanks. You know, Einstein took the Aether for granted until he suddenly didn't any more. "Space/time' and "fabric" became  the new reality and physics has been drunk peddling that stupidity ever  since. Einstein himself repeatedly expressed tremendous doubts about it. Consider all the parallels between this sexy new "dark matter" and the long forgotten Aether that practically all took for granted before 1925. Just coincidence? Intrigued at all?




Well, quite a difference between how I view dark matter (which has been scientifically "verified" and "observed"  (here are two images of dark matter surrounding distant galaxy clusters):




 



 


and the "luminiferous ether" originally postulated by James Clerk Maxwell.  However, the point is valid, there is theoretical basis to believe that while in a different form than Maxwell envisioned, that some form of "fabric" or "Minkowski Space" platform exists whereby matter and energy are able to exist and interact.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Those images don't actually show any "dark matter." It's supposedly "dark."


> Our Milky Way galaxy resides in a modest bundle of about 50 galaxies, collectively known as the Local Group. But 10 billion light-years away, a massive cluster called IDCS J1426.5+3508 boasts roughly one to two thousand galaxies—a vast city compared to our galactic neighborhood. Since its discovery in 2012, NASA observatories have imaged the cluster in visible, infrared and X-ray light. Because the cluster is so distant, we see it as it was when the universe was about 3.8 billion years old, just a quarter of its current age. From the images, scientists have learned that the cluster is anchored in a sea of hot gas, and that stars make up just one to two percent of its mass. Most of the cluster—a staggering 85 percent—consists of dark matter, *an invisible substance perceptible only by its gravitational pull*. Clusters such as this one likely formed in unusually dense patches of dark matter, *gas and dust* in the early universe. The views provided by space telescopes are helping researchers deduce how galaxy clusters evolve. Explore the images to learn more.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 27, 2019)

Intrigued or not, here's another old fart who's done all the reading required and written plenty about it so I don't have to. Just a taste mind you:


> In the writings of J. J. Thompson it is found he considered dielectric propagation and magnetic propagation can be independent. Also considered is that the magnetism is a secondary response to dielectric forces. This is also found in the writings of C. P. Steinmentz, "Transients in Space", page 394 to 419, from "Theory and Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena". Here considered is a "Hysteresis of the Aether", given as an alternative to the concept of electromagnetic radiation. In this chapter the velocity of the dielectric induction and the velocity of magnetic induction are given as independent variables. The factor one over c squared is here only a dimensional transform between inductance and capacitance. See The International Tesla Society lecture on the "Hysteresis of the Aether" by E. P. Dollard. Here again one over c squared is only a proportionality factor, not a velocity. Finally, it has been disclosed by insiders within the space program, N.A.S.A., of a "certain complication". It was found that when far outside the Earth’s field of influence the stars and sun are NOT VISIBLE! However, the Earth and the Moon are plainly visible. No direct light in outer space, only that made visible by gross physical matter. This gives rise to an important question, does the "light" from the sun propagate with a velocity at all, or is it simply a function of time. The "time delay" may be no more than a hysteresis of the luminiferous aether


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Those images don't actually show any "dark matter." It's supposedly "dark."
> 
> 
> > Our Milky Way galaxy resides in a modest bundle of about 50 galaxies, collectively known as the Local Group. But 10 billion light-years away, a massive cluster called IDCS J1426.5+3508 boasts roughly one to two thousand galaxies—a vast city compared to our galactic neighborhood. Since its discovery in 2012, NASA observatories have imaged the cluster in visible, infrared and X-ray light. Because the cluster is so distant, we see it as it was when the universe was about 3.8 billion years old, just a quarter of its current age. From the images, scientists have learned that the cluster is anchored in a sea of hot gas, and that stars make up just one to two percent of its mass. Most of the cluster—a staggering 85 percent—consists of dark matter, *an invisible substance perceptible only by its gravitational pull*. Clusters such as this one likely formed in unusually dense patches of dark matter, *gas and dust* in the early universe. The views provided by space telescopes are helping researchers deduce how galaxy clusters evolve. Explore the images to learn more.


Correct. It shows how much there is and where it is, based on observed effects on the observed matter and light.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> So how much older do you think it could be?


Infinite, possibly.


----------



## james bond (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Neato! Nobody has any idea what you are trying to say.
> 
> And no, you don't understand the talking point about dividing by zero that you regurgitated.



You cannot divide by zero is a simple analogy to explain that one cannot have a boundless, edgeless and centerless universe.

The point is you were wrong about spacetime being forever.  How can it be forever when you can't explain what is further north of north?  You were wrong about CMB being forever.  Even with the expansion of spacetime, it is not forever.  The effects of gravity reduces spacetime and the CMB.  We also have thermodynamics in a closed system where energy is conserved.  Nothing is forever in the material world.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> You cannot divide by zero is a simple analogy to explain that one cannot have a boundless, edgeless and centerless universe.


You do not need infite spacetime in order to have a boundless universe, just as the surface of a sphere is finite yet boundless.



james bond said:


> The point is you were wrong about spacetime being forever.


You misread my comments. I only mentioned that electromagnetic waves can propagate forever.  If the spacetime in which they propagate does not last forever, that is not their fault.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot divide by zero is a simple analogy to explain that one cannot have a boundless, edgeless and centerless universe.
> ...



Explain the giant skeletal remains that have been found in all areas of the globe if "evolution" is real.....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Why should I explain your nonsense? You explain it.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Because the theory of evolution is total bullshit......


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Says you...


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 28, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Those images don't actually show any "dark matter." It's supposedly "dark."



Actually, they do.  If you don't believe me, take it up with NASA.  I'm not familiar with the exact technique they are using, but as I recall, the red represents x-rays and the blue represents the dark matter.  But it's not like they held the camera up and just took a normal picture of it, the colors are merely synthesized from the data and superimposed over a visible light image of the galaxy field so we can relate to it, just as radio maps of the Milky Way are converted to various synthesized colors so that we can relate to the data in a way our eyes can interpret and understand.

BTW, by "dark" matter, they mean something which isn't just dark, but wholly non-interactive with any of the physical matter, energy, etc., that we normally understand as "stuff."  It's like a shadow substance that occupies the same space as we are in but otherwise doesn't affect us or we it in any way we yet understand.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...



Prove it then.

Oh that's right... you can't.

Evolution is not a fact.   It's a myth by pagan people, to convince other pagan people, that believing in a massive space expulsion over a long time frame, is basically going to magically create life... and this is somehow more believable than G-d.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...



Actually, I'm a Republican and I know more about evolution than you do. In fact I know more about everything than you do. Especially current events, politics, science, history, economics, healthcare, psychology, the list is endless.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2019)

Andylusion said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Yeah actually we can prove it. It's in the fossil record, it's in Geology, astronomy, physics, and even the observations of Darwin (biology). We see evolution today. It's proven in antibiotic resistant microorganisms.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 28, 2019)

PredFan said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Actually it isn't in the fossil record.  If you actually knew anything about the fossil record, you wouldn't say that.   Nor is it in the Geology.  Nor is it observable.   And no, it's not shown in antibiotic resistance.

I'm amazed at how much there is a lack of understanding of the science....


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...





Leave those of deep Christan faith ALONE ya fuckin brainwashed MUPPET
they will not throw you off a roof ......yet!
let us pray with them 
Dear lord why did you make the leftarded totalitarian conformist so stupid INTOLERANT and retarded
OH lord we ask thou why and to smite them oh mighty white lord smite them 
amen !

Oh course god is white his kid may of been a half breed .....this is why i only talk to the father and also dont trust black or women doctors 
WHY?
Affirmative action !
How do i know Jesus wasn't given his position or promoted , or graduated Just because of the color of his skin ...or had a vagina  I dunno he could of been in transition and waiting for a taxpayer funded  for a hatchet wound ....EH ? WE DONT KNOW 
'

whaddya mean i don't believe in god ....talk to him everyday 
Charles Mustaine 

another man who who gets it along with darwin 

look to darwin on the eye

*Repeatedly, he seems to put the theory at risk through these seemingly damaging admissions, but then rescues it.  What always fascinates me about our hero is that while on the one hand he affirms the appeal to reason, his very view of reason (as this passage in its entirety would show) involves active imagination.  Of course, imagination is central to science--but as a part of reason, not in opposition to it.  *

logic, reason ,imagination and indeed i would add some blind faith all rattling around in yer dumbed down little leftarded commie heads ....yas should try it sometime

DARWIN WOULD INSIST 
no really you lefttrads should try it for a nice change of pace


----------



## james bond (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You do not need infite spacetime in order to have a boundless universe, just as the surface of a sphere is finite yet boundless.



Yes, but we are referring to a thermal mapping.  That means entropy and what have we noticed with our most large and powerful stars?  More powerful than our own sun?  We just discussed it.   They collapse onto themselves through gravity.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I only mentioned that electromagnetic waves can propagate forever. If the spacetime in which they propagate does not last forever, that is not their fault.



And others have pointed out there are different wavelengths comprising the EMS.  We have gamma rays and that is what will ends up destroying everything as gravitation collapses our largest stars upon themselves.  So while we have an expansion of countless amounts of matter, it does not keep expanding forever.  Eventually, they reach a point of equilibrium and potential energy takes over and the massive gravitation occurs.  I guess it looks like one final gigantic explosion as gamma rays are emitted in all directions, but it ends up as a black hole or an abyss.  Thus, your theoretical boundless universe does have an edge and boundaries and ends up as what goes up must come down.  We see this as spacetime curves around the edges.  It means that spacetime is starting to collapse onto itself.


----------



## james bond (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Says you..



ToE and evolutionary thinking wants to believe in dark energy and dark matter that comprises a boundless and centerless universe.  However, this is not what we see with our most powerful telescopes.  We see a curvature in spacetime.  Nothing last forever.  It means the final abyss is occurring.  We see that with our most powerful galaxies and stars.  What good is our galaxy without the sun once it is spent?


----------



## james bond (Apr 28, 2019)

Evolutionary thinking's dark energy and dark matter (which no one has ever seen) is the perfect lie, "You aren't going to die," i.e. our universe continues to expand forever.  Now, where have I heard that before haha?


----------



## Aponi (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


i really cant belive how big of a idiot you are its amazing


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 28, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> I'm not familiar with the exact technique they are using, but as I recall, the red represents x-rays and the blue represents the dark matter. But it's not like they held the camera up and just took a normal picture of it, the colors are merely synthesized from the data and superimposed over a visible light image of the galaxy field so we can relate to it, just as radio maps of the Milky Way are converted to various synthesized colors so that we can relate to the data in a way our eyes can interpret and understand.


Fair enough. Appreciate the effort. It's not visible by definition is all I meant.


toobfreak said:


> BTW, by "dark" matter, they mean something which isn't just dark, but wholly non-interactive with any of the physical matter, energy, etc., that we normally understand as "stuff." It's like a shadow substance that occupies the same space as we are in but otherwise doesn't affect us or we it in any way we yet understand.


Yes, I call it the Aether and round we go. It is extremely difficult to discard all the space time lunacy drilled into us over so many years with a vengeance, but it can be done. One must look and consider hard with an open mind, which requires great willpower and suspension of disbelief before some degree of understanding begins making it easier.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 28, 2019)

Little thought experiment:

Say you're out on a putting green one sunny day and tap your ball 2 inches due west. Then you pick the ball up and return it to its original position. Then you drill a cup hole 2 inches due west and insert a cup. Have you just increased the ball's "potential energy"?


----------



## The Purge (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


I didn't "NEW" that! ....... ROTFLMFAO.......


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

Andylusion said:


> Oh that's right... you can't.


Proofs are for mathematics. When it comes to evolution, allthe evidence ever gathered shows it is true. So it is accepted fact. No, it doesnt matter whether or not you believe in it. And i don't care if you do or not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Little thought experiment:
> 
> Say you're out on a putting green one sunny day and tap your ball 2 inches due west. Then you pick the ball up and return it to its original position. Then you drill a cup hole 2 inches due west and insert a cup. Have you just increased the ball's "potential energy"?


No.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> ToE and evolutionary thinking wants to believe in dark energy and dark matter that comprises a boundless and centerless universe. However, this is not what we see with our most powerful telescopes.


Yes it is. It is precisely what we see.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

MaryL said:


> [QUOTE="deanrd, post: 22251089, member: 63247
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*We  know this a overgeneralization. And then liberal leftie intellectuals assert there are 112  different genders, so who is living in a fantasy world here?*[/QUOTE]
 I provide links. I’m not sure you do. Why don’t you do that? And I don’t mean a link to some weirdo right wing anti-science site. But from some from informed and well respected scientists. I’d be willing to see that. In fact I would be enthusiastic to see that.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


 We know that blue states have to support red states because they’re just not educated and they need help.  Do a little research and you can find that out on your own.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


 It’s 2019 and some people can be that stupid? It’s mind-boggling.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> . Thus, your theoretical boundless universe does have an edge and boundaries and ends up as what goes up must come down.


No.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

Andylusion said:


> Actually it isn't in the fossil record.


Of course it is. What a stupid thing to say.


Andylusion said:


> Nor is it in the Geology. Nor is it observable.


Also total horseshit. On both counts.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it isn't in the fossil record.
> ...


 The fossil record and geological records are called records because they’re right there in the ground. We have to do is discover them, of course. For people to deny what is something observable that you can just go out and find on your own is a determined ignorance level we haven’t seen since George Bush lied to us about why we need to go into Iraq. 
 I thought after the right was so misled and lied to by Bush they would be a little more suspicious of a ConMan. But Trump saw that he could say anything and they would believe it. And he’s proving his particular theory.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it isn't in the fossil record.
> ...


 Mountains are a geological record of two tectonic plates colliding. Did you know that?

 The ground doesn’t form bones on its own. They come from once living creatures. Did you know that?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Yes, of course.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Did you know that you evolution theory believers have mistaken adaptation for evolution? Life didn't MAGICALLY crawl out of a swamp, and man didn't evolve from apes... sorry.

Why don't you start by explaining how life started... (I'll have to admit that's a setup, because NO ONE knows where life came from.)


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> Did you know that you evolution theory believers have mistaken adaptation for evolution?


Haha...what is this nonsense?

And how do you suppose animals "adapt"? Happy thoughts?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> Why don't you start by explaining how life started...


Why? That's not what the theory of evolution does. Try to focus.


Life arose from physical systems that follow all the same deterministic physical laws as any other system. First, there was no life. Then, there was life. What connects the two is abiogenesis.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know that you evolution theory believers have mistaken adaptation for evolution?
> ...


It appears you need to learn something new today. I would suggest you look up the definition of the word ADAPTATION for starters... ok, skippy?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


No, I think you can tell us how animals adapt. In your alternative explanation, that is. So, how do animals adapt?

How does a apecies that once had brown fur migrate north over 1000s of years and develop white fur?

How does a species with eyes spend a million years underground and develop nonfunctional eyes?


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you start by explaining how life started...
> ...


Ummm... no... sorry... life didn't "arose." Our planet was a ball of molten rock with no atmosphere for billions of years, lifeless. There's not a person alive that can explain HOW life got here, no one. So you PRETENDING you know is rather comical.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


No, I think you can tell us why you think evolution and adaptation are the same.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> Ummm... no... sorry... life didn't "arose."


Of course it did. Once, there was no life. Then, there was life. Are you proposing that what connects the two is magic?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


Hmm,no, you're not going to slither out of this one. How do you suppose animals adapt? You say animals adapt. How?

Give one example. Explain how it happened.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm... no... sorry... life didn't "arose."
> ...


Where did life come from?

And don't tell me it just "arose." It didn't. Find me ONE SHRED OF PROOF of WHERE life came from... just ONE.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


No, you're the evolution man here. You tell me why many of you theory believers are now calling evolution, adaptation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> Where did life come from?


Huh? As in....what location? What planet, or star system? You're using somewhat childish terms. Could you be more articulate in your question?


----------



## Jitss617 (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


 Do you knowledge that most scientist disagree With you?


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm... no... sorry... life didn't "arose."
> ...


Here ya go skippy... we'll just put this one to bed before you make an even bigger buffoon out of yourself...

*How Did Life Start On Earth?*

Scientists do not know how life began on Earth, but they do know that the early Earth’s atmosphere was very different from the atmosphere now.

How Did Life Start On Earth? | Las Cumbres Observatory


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> No, you're the evolution man here. You tell me why many of you theory believers are now calling evolution, adaptation.


No, you propose an alternative explanation. So explain it. How do animals adapt? Anyone with any basic knowledge of evolution can answer this using the accepted theory. That's an academic exercise.

But you have a fresh alternative. So, let's hear it. How do animals adapt?


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Where did life come from?
> ...


Nice try to dodge the question, as moronic as it was.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > No, you're the evolution man here. You tell me why many of you theory believers are now calling evolution, adaptation.
> ...


I didn't propose anything. I said you evolutionist are mistaking adaptation for evolution, and that's exactly what you're doing, because many evolution theory believers are starting to call evolution, adaptation.

You can't focus worth fuck, and so far all you've contributed to this conversation is bull shit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


Not a dodge. Your question seems to ask from what location life arose. Being courteous, I pointed out that this is probably not what you mean to ask. So i am giving you an opportunity to clarify yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> I didn't propose anything. I said you evolutionist are mistaking adaptation for evolution,


That's a proposition right there.

So,given that you have insight that seems to elude the global scientitic community, I think it's fair to ask you to explain,then,how animals adapt. Happy thoughts? Genetic changes?

If you don't feel like making such a simple effort, just say so.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Man above from primitive man. I’ve never heard anybody say man evolved from apes except the ignorant who don’t understand evolution.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 28, 2019)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Willis O'Brien did a far better job with rubber dinosaurs in *The Lost World*, which was released earlier that year.  *Fifty Million Years Ago* suckered itself ramora-like to the success of the earlier film, kind of like *Battle Beyond The Stars* ripping off *Star Wars*, which of course ripped off other things.
> 
> It's interesting that you would choose a film that gets most of its science wrong to criticize others getting the science wrong.



Battle Beyond the Stars ripped off Star Wars and The Magnificent Seven at the same time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

Well, this guy is clearly unable or unwilling to share his insight. Maybe another evolution denier can answer:

How do animals adapt?


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


That’s why scientists use the  Scientific method to study things they don’t know.
 It wasn’t that long ago they discovered penicillin. So were they stupid for not knowing what penicillin was before they discovered it?


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Well, now you're dancing around like a one legged man in an ass kickin' contest obfuscating.

You think I'm talking about MARS here? I'm talking about EARTH, and it makes ZERO difference where on earth, so long as it's EARTH. Obviously you skipped right past the post I made where it points out that scientists have NO IDEA how life started on earth.

So that really begs the question, if scientists don't even know how life started on earth, then how the hell do they know it evolved?


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, this guy is clearly unable or unwilling to share his insight. Maybe another evolution denier can answer:
> 
> How do animals adapt?


 Their answer will be that they don’t. You know what’s really funny is when you ask about animals that have drifted away genetically but are still able to reproduce. Even though the farther they drift away the more genetic errors are introduced into the offspring. Like the offspring of a lion and a tiger or a zebra and a horse or a horse and a donkey.
 Their answer will be because they’re the same “kind”.  That’s the word the deniers have to describe animals that have gone down different evolutionary paths. That they’re actually the same “kind” and they were created similar because they’re  the same “kind”.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> I'm talking about EARTH,


Then you just answered your own question.

Q: " Where did life come from?"

A: "Earth."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Their answer will be that they don’t.


Maybe, but this 007 character says they do. But he also says it's not evolution.

So, i am curious as to how he thinks animals adapt.  This simple question has, apparently, thrown him into a tailspin.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, this guy is clearly unable or unwilling to share his insight. Maybe another evolution denier can answer:
> 
> How do animals adapt?


How many times does it take for something to sink into your skull?

I DID NOT SAY ANIMALS ADAPT. I SAID, that YOU people are MISTAKING adaptation for evolution. I don't give a rats ass about either, but I can find countless new references pertaining to your evolution theory where now you people are calling it ADAPTATION. THAT is my point. Let it sink in.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


 You don’t need to know how to make a car to drive it. You don’t need to know how to create a lightbulb to turn it on. 
 You can feel rain without knowing where it comes from. I’m sure there’s people on earth who believe that rain comes from the gods crying or pissing or some other such nonsense.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm talking about EARTH,
> ...


I'll ask one last time, and then I'll let the readers of this thread see just how you EVADED answering this question... 

... HOW DID LIFE START ON EARTH?

No one knows, but evidently YOU do, but you're INCAPABLE of telling us.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> I DID NOT SAY ANIMALS ADAPT.


Sure you did. You said scientists mistake adaptation for evolution. If adaptation does not occur, then your comment makes no sense. I think you need to get your story straight.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Pfft...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> HOW DID LIFE START ON EARTH?


I already answered that: abiogenesis.

Once there was no life on earth. Then, there was. What connects the two is abiogenesis.

Just as once there was no star where our Sun resides, and then there was. What connects those two states of affairs is star formation.

This isn't complicated stuff.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Well, this guy is clearly unable or unwilling to share his insight. Maybe another evolution denier can answer:
> ...




Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

 Natural selection sometimes called adaptation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

Well this is playing out as expected. The evolution denier breathlessly poses his big "stumpers!!", which are easily and succinctly answered by anyone with a modest education level, with a minimum of effort.

And then he ignores all question posed to him.

Rinse, repeat.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > I DID NOT SAY ANIMALS ADAPT.
> ...


Sorry, you can't have it both ways. As you acknowledge, I SAID, scientists mistake adaptation for evolution, and you are, because that's what they're calling it. It is THEM doing it, not me. I am not calling evolution, adaptation, the evolutionists are now. They've changed their story, much like the GLOBAL WARMING crowd now likes to call that, CLIMATE CHANGE. Can't prove something, you leftists just change the name to something that sounds familiar but is less innocuous.

But lets get back to where did life come from. If anyone needs to explain something, it's you, because you appear to know, so, let's see the proof, where did life come from?


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Which all will share the same DNA, as in even though adaptation occurs, a species will still be the same species. New species are not magically appearing out of thin air with new different DNA.


----------



## 007 (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well this is playing out as expected. The evolution denier breathlessly poses his big "stumpers!!", which are easily and succinctly answered by anyone with a modest education level, with a minimum of effort.
> 
> And then he ignores all question posed to him.
> 
> Rinse, repeat.


You're the one dancing around ignoring things, skippy. Got any more fun dances you can do? Maybe pretend you know how big the universe is?

Maybe you could pretend you're God.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 said:


> I SAID, scientists mistake adaptation for evolution


Which means you are saying adaptation occurs.

So, ignoring the rest of your word salad:

How do animals adapt?



007 said:


> But lets get back to where did life come from.


Third time: abiogenesis.

Don't ask me another question until you get some manners and answer my first and only question to you thus far:

How do animals adapt?


----------



## Toro (Apr 28, 2019)

Indeependent said:


> Kewl...
> Almost every chemist, biologist, physicist, MD, electrical and mechanical engineer I know is a Republican.
> Almost every idiot I know is a Liberal.



That one person has all those degrees?

Impressive!


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 28, 2019)

Toro said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Kewl...
> ...


I see you’re a Canadian since your grammar  is different.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

007 

And he's off like a prom dress....


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Little thought experiment:
> ...


And obviously so, amiright. Yet here's that ball and cup!


> *Potential energy*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How dare you think for yourself! You must be nuts like me


----------



## daveman (Apr 28, 2019)

Question for...well, everybody.

What does it matter?  If a discovery is made tomorrow that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt everything you believe today, and proves it to the satisfaction of even those who disagree with you...

What does it matter?  How will your life be improved?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 28, 2019)

daveman said:


> Question for...well, everybody.
> 
> What does it matter?  If a discovery is made tomorrow that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt everything you believe today, and proves it to the satisfaction of even those who disagree with you...
> 
> What does it matter?  How will your life be improved?


I just disbelieve. Nothing there for me


----------



## james bond (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ToE and evolutionary thinking wants to believe in dark energy and dark matter that comprises a boundless and centerless universe. However, this is not what we see with our most powerful telescopes.
> ...



Liberals claim expansion of space

Don't lie.  No one can see dark matter.  It's evolutionist's invisible Satan. They claim it is expanding the universe faster than ever.

However, we do see that spacetime curves as it goes further out so our universe is starting to collapse.  Einstein could not deny the expansion of space because of Hubble and Lemaitre redshifts, but still didn't buy expansion forever.


----------



## james bond (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > . Thus, your theoretical boundless universe does have an edge and boundaries and ends up as what goes up must come down.
> ...



Besides "faith-based" belief in invisible dark matter, you are ignoring what happens with gravity.  That's what goes up must come down.


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...




Do a little research yourself asshat and tell me where the "red" and "blue" states are? Then tell me how people become more and less "educated" when their state shifts from one color to the next?  What do you think, they move people around from state to state, idiot?





You'll find very few states in there that were consistently always one color, and the few that were are most likely states mainly agricultural and very low in population where people work hard on farms to feed themselves because there is no welfare office two blocks down the street.  Further, as you are so famously always saying, not that many people live there so you probably have more people needing "help" in one city block of Blue State New York City than you do ALL of the state of, say, Oklahoma, chump.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> Don't lie. No one can see dark matter.


I didn't say we can. I said we can observe its gravitational effects on its surroundings.

JBond, if you are going to participate in these science discussions, please do better.
 You already bring a lot of poor logic and outright falsehoods to the table. The least you could do is pay attention and not misrepresent others.



james bond said:


> They claim it is expanding the universe faster than ever.


No. That's what scientists say about dark energy.



james bond said:


> However, we do see that spacetime curves as it goes further out so our universe is starting to collapse.


No,it isn't, and i have no idea where you are getting this nonsense.



james bond said:


> Besides "faith-based" belief in invisible dark matter


Embarrassing lie. The only "belief" is in the very real, observable effects of dark matter. If you uave another explanation for the obaervations, let's hear it. You ,of course, do not, and you dont understand any of this anyway. So, when you reject any of it, really,nobody gives a shit. You have less than no credibility in these topics, as you clearly know less than nothing about them.

And when you claim scientists who taught us everything we know about gravity are "ignoring gravity", you make yourself a laughingstock.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 28, 2019)

*Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today!*

*Yea and they thought global warming was going to kill us and the world was going to run out of oil by the 1930's*


*A 1912 news article ominously forecasted the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels on climate change*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 28, 2019)

People new_(sic) _more about dark matter as well:


> *aether* (Ancient Greek: αἰθήρ, _aither_[1]), also spelled *æther* or *ether* and also called *quintessence*, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere.[2] The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson–Morley experiment, and this result has been interpreted as meaning that no such luminiferous aether exists.[3]


The Michelson–Morley experiment was shit so produced a nothing result which Einstein was happy to accept. Many were fooled into repeating much the same shit experiment including themselves multiple times. Inspired by someone (long since forgotten) who actually knew what he was doing, M-M tried one more time with a much bigger apparatus (though at insufficient elevation) and achieved a small positive result which they immediately blew off as insignificant and proclaimed the results the same as ever.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



But yet here you are....spewing stupidity and angst in tremendous volumes day after day....as if you have no life at all.

(snicker)


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

bear513 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> ...


So, how do animals adapt?


----------



## james bond (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I didn't say we can. I said we can observe its gravitational effects on its surroundings.
> 
> JBond, if you are going to participate in these science discussions, please do better.
> You already bring a lot of poor logic and outright falsehoods to the table. The least you could do is pay attention and not misrepresent others.



No, you need to do better.  You are _assuming_ it is a large mass of dark matter that is producing the effects.  Dark matter is one of these hypotheses.  There could be some other cause which we do not understand yet -- This Gigantic Ring of Galaxies Could Bring Einstein's Gravity Into Question.  BTW I still think Einstein never really gave up his cosmological constant.  He said it was the biggest blunder of his life after investigation and admitting to Hubble and Lemaitre's redshifts.  It would explain the spacetime expansion and also explain a big collapse or the universe is not eternal.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No. That's what scientists say about dark energy.



Heh.  You didn't watch the video.  It gets to dark energy.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No,it isn't, and i have no idea where you are getting this nonsense.



From Einstein.  He never did give up on his lamda or cosmological constant -- Einstein's Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang - The Crux, but why bother you're not going to read and understand it anyway.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Embarrassing lie. The only "belief" is in the very real, observable effects of dark matter. If you uave another explanation for the obaervations, let's hear it. You ,of course, do not, and you dont understand any of this anyway. So, when you reject any of it, really,nobody gives a shit. You have less than no credibility in these topics, as you clearly know less than nothing about them.
> 
> And when you claim scientists who taught us everything we know about gravity are "ignoring gravity", you make yourself a laughingstock.



Again, you believe hypotheses of dark matter is true.  There could be other explanations of the cosmos.

Finally, you ask a question but without hearing the answer you continue to be the stupid, ignorant blowhard that is your nature haha.  I am one step ahead of you as usual and have already provided the answer above.

Let's just say that you will end up knowing what billions of years mean through experience as you will see what happens without gaining any real and true understanding of the universe and continue to believe in your false science.  Your final destination has already been determined..


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

Interesting links there, James. Thanks. So much time and energy wasted on that stupid lambda fudge factor.


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

jillian said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


No, we don't... It's a guess, like any other guess. There is no way of knowing how old it is; we weren't there to observe its creation (IF it was even created)...


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


Yes, many atheists are closed-minded... you are correct.

This is due to their religious fundamentalism in their atheism (yes, atheism IS a religion). All a religion is is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. Atheism makes the initial circular argument that god(s) do not exist. All atheist argumentation is based on that initial circular argument.  Likewise with Christianity, all Christian argumentation is based on the initial circular argument that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is. It all comes back to the initial circular argument...  That's how religion works.  Many people fail to recognize this, and instead act like religion and theism are synonymous terms... While theism is a part of what religion is, religion goes well beyond theism...


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 29, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


*Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today!*


Wow even in 1925 people *knew* how to spell better than you do today


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> we weren't there to observe its creation (IF it was even created)...


How old is your shirt? You weren't there to witness its creation (IF it was even created)...


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > we weren't there to observe its creation (IF it was even created)...
> ...


I have no idea how old my shirt is... The manufacturer would know, though...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> You are _assuming_ it is a large mass of dark matter that is producing the effects.


For the purpose of studying it. Again, I am not claiming anything with 100% certainty, nor are scientists. In fact, they are quite busy not only trying to detect dark matter, but also to rule it out and to find another, different explanation for the observations. One is a modfied theory of gravity. What do ypu know about that? Less than nothing,of course. Until some YEC fool mentions it in a blog that you later plagiaraize without any understanding.

You are welcome to to present your alternative explanation. I think you will find that explaining things is harder than being a naysayer who doesn't understand any of it. Your naysaying is worthless and ignorant.

You have no understanding of any of these ideas; you present no alternative explanation to the hypotheses you shit on without any understanding of them; you present no evidence or valid argument; you bring not single idea to the table that makes any useful predictions or is testable in any way. You dont even know what posted images show, until you are spoonfed an explanation of them; you make completely baseless claims as to what scientists are and arent doing, and then have to be corrected like a child making up stories.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 29, 2019)

007 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Well, this guy is clearly unable or unwilling to share his insight. Maybe another evolution denier can answer:
> ...


Adaptation over generations. Some call at evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Yes, many atheists are closed-minded...


On the contrary,it's you religious dogmatists who are much more closed minded. Evidence based thinkers are always willing and compelled to change their minds, in light of new evidence. You magical dogmatists claim to have the answers and refuse to consider any evidence that might contradict your strident religious dogma.

Thus the religious goobers in this thread dismissing mountains of mutually supportive evidence and the scientific theories the evidence renders true. Thus your embarrassingly stupid arguments that boil down to the moronic idea, "Nothing is 100% certain (*except your favorite magical fetishes), therefore every idea and explanation is equally valid."

Of course, except for any idea that contradicts whatever magical horseshit happens to be the subject of your fetishes at the time. Just so we are clear on your silly "rules".


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


Not if it spontaneously generated like a fire. Yet the Fire Marshall can still find out how old that fire was well after the fact. Go figure?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Atheism makes the initial circular argument that god(s) do not exist.


Wrong. We assert nothing requiring "belief." We assert disbelief alone due to lack of supporting scientific evidence. We reject all supernatural belief systems rooted in faith and belligerent ignorance.


> To be clear: Atheism is _{...}_ a lack of belief in gods. _{...}_
> If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.


Disbelief.


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> On the contrary,it's you religious dogmatists who are much more closed minded.


Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one being the religious dogmatist... Remember, Atheism IS a religion too... Religion is not limited to theism. Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. I've found that to be the best way to define what a religion is and how it logically works. You're too caught up in your fundamentalism to realize this, or to even comprehend my argument and form a proper response to it...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Evidence based thinkers


Not as special of a thing as you think it is... Evidence is merely "any statement which supports an argument"... Evidence is all around you...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> are always willing and compelled to change their minds, in light of new evidence.


I've presented you with new evidence, yet you are not willing nor compelled to change your mind... hmmmmmm...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You magical dogmatists


There is nothing magical about me.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> claim to have the answers


Nope. In terms of my Christian faith, I am merely expressing my beliefs. They may or may not be correct.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> and refuse to consider any evidence that might contradict your strident religious dogma.


Evidence is not a proof, Fort... Religion cannot be proven nor disproven...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Thus the religious goobers


Be careful with your Insults... Not only are they logical fallacies, but this one in particular is also aimed at yourself. Humans are INHERENTLY religious animals (as I have defined religion above). See to it...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> in this thread dismissing mountains of mutually supportive evidence


Supporting evidence is NOT a proof, Fort...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> and the scientific theories


There is nothing "scientific" about evolution. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The Theory of Evolution is NOT falsifiable. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Evolution is a religion, just like Christianity is, just like Atheism is... 



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> the evidence


There is no "the evidence"; just evidence...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> renders true.


Evidence is NOT a proof, Fort... It can't render anything "true"...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Thus your embarrassingly stupid arguments


Calling arguments "stupid" without providing any counterarguments to them is what is known as the Argument of the Stone Fallacy.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> that boil down to the moronic idea, "Nothing is 100% certain


Is THAT 100% certain??!!  That type of statement is self-refuting, so no, I would never suggest that nothing is 100% certain. There ARE things that are 100% certain. One such example is a logical or mathematical proof. Logic and Mathematics are closed functional systems; they operate under a specific set of rules (foundational axioms). Proofs are an extension of those axioms. They are 100% certain to be true.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> (*except your favorite magical fetishes),


I have never claimed that the Christian God is 100% certain. I believe that he exists, however.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> therefore every idea and explanation is equally valid."


Nope, never claimed such a thing. I would claim the opposite, actually, as there are logically valid and invalid arguments.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course, except for any idea that contradicts whatever magical horseshit happens to be the subject of your fetishes at the time. Just so we are clear on your silly "rules".


Incorrect. You really don't understand my argumentation, do you?  My position holds Atheism, Evolution, etc. to all be logically valid theories. While I generally do believe in Evolution (albeit a weaker faith), I do not believe in Atheism.


----------



## james bond (Apr 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Interesting links there, James. Thanks. So much time and energy wasted on that stupid lambda fudge factor.



Einstein's ToR predicts the the universe can expand.  He added the cosmological constant to allow for an universe in equilibrium or steady state.  This is what was observed with the weak telescopes of his time.  However, Edwin Hubble had the advantage of a more powerful telescope.

"Einstein heard about these results, and in the early 1930s, he traveled to California and met with Hubble.  At the Mount Wilson Observatory he saw the massive data set on distant galaxies that had led to “Hubble’s law” describing the expansion of the universe and got angry at himself: had he not forced his equations to stay static with that cosmological-constant invention of his, he could have _theoretically predicted_ Hubble’s findings!

That would have been worth a second Nobel Prize for him (he deserved a few more, anyway)—in the same way, for example, that the CERN scientists’ 2012 experimental discovery of the Higgs boson recently won Peter Higgs the Nobel in 2013. In disgust, Einstein exclaimed after his Mount Wilson visit: “If there is no quasi-static world, then away with the cosmological term!” and never considered the cosmological constant again. Or so we thought until recently."

Little did we and he know (since he died) that his lambda would return in the form of dark energy.

"*Dark Energy: Lambda Returns*
When a genius such as Einstein makes a mistake, it tends to be a “good mistake.” (I am indebted to the mathematician Goro Shimura for this expression.) It can’t simply go away—there is too much thought that has gone into it. So, like a phoenix, Einstein’s cosmological constant made a remarkable comeback, very unexpectedly, in 1998.

That year, two groups of astronomers made an announcement that rocked the world of science. The “Supernova Cosmology Project,” based in California and headed by Saul Perlmutter, and the “High-Z SN Search” group at Harvard-Smithsonian and Australia, announced their results of the shifts of distant galaxies leading to a conclusion that nobody had expected: The universe, rather than slowing its expansion since the Big Bang, is actually _accelerating_ its expansion!

And it turns out that the best theoretical way to explain the accelerating universe is to revive Einstein’s discarded lambda. The cosmological constant (acting differently from how it was designed, as a force stopping the expansion) is the best explanation we have for the mysterious “dark energy” seen to permeate space and push the universe ever outward at an accelerating rate. To most physicists today, lambda, cosmological constant, and dark energy are closely synonymous. But unfortunately Einstein was not there to witness the reversal of his “greatest blunder,” having died in 1955.

And it has been widely assumed that he died without ever reconsidering the cosmological constant. Until now."

This is what Fort Fun Indiana and I are arguing about.  The Big Bang believers think this dark energy will increase the spacetime expansion forever while Einstein believed it could also cause a collapse.  In an universe that is able to expand, we see that it is but the dark energy could cause a collapse, as well.

"In a closed geometry, the universe was born and will someday recollapse on itself. In an open geometry, it was born and will expand forever, and the same happens in a flat (Euclidean) geometry. Based on modern theories supported by satellite observations of the microwave background radiation in space, space-time is nearly perfectly Euclidean, meaning that the universe was born in a Big Bang and will expand forever, becoming less dense with time. Eventually, matter may decay into few kinds of elementary particles and photons, the distances among them growing to infinity."

The article also mentions the speeds of light and large masses which Einstein was never able to figure out.  He was working on these things up to the day he died.  We still do not understand gravity, speed of light and the missing mass even though the evolutionists think it's dark matter.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> YOU are the one being the religious dogmatist...


A baseless, deaperate claim, unsupported by a single example or sheed of argument. As such, you discredit yourself and no direct response is required . just stand next to me and keep talking, so I look smart.


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wrong. We assert nothing requiring "belief."


Is that your belief?



Grumblenuts said:


> We assert disbelief alone


Is that your belief?



Grumblenuts said:


> due to lack of supporting scientific evidence.


[1] This is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy. Remember, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

[2] Evidence is NOT a proof.

[3] There is no such thing as "scientific" evidence; just evidence. The meaning of the word doesn't change for science. Evidence means "any statement which supports an argument". There is evidence all around you...



Grumblenuts said:


> We reject all supernatural belief systems


Define "supernatural".



Grumblenuts said:


> rooted in faith and belligerent ignorance.


Your Atheism is also rooted in faith, you know... Faith is a synonymous term with circular reasoning. Accepting something on a circular reasoning basis is accepting something on a faith basis...

The only one being ignorant here is you, as your above-mentioned Argument From Ignorance Fallacy showed...



Grumblenuts said:


> To be clear: Atheism is _{...}_ a lack of belief in gods. _{...}_


Is that your belief?

Are you catching on to the issue with your reasoning that I am pointing out??



Grumblenuts said:


> If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.


Oh wow, I've never heard that cliche of a mantra before... Atheism is a religion for the reasons I have laid out...



Grumblenuts said:


> Disbelief.


Is that your belief?

Do you see why this reasoning fails??


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > YOU are the one being the religious dogmatist...
> ...


See my post #270, from which you picked out one specific quote of mine and left the rest of my argumentation out of it and unresponded to... I supported my reasoning within that post, but you chose to ignore it.

I'm attempting to have a philosophical discussion with you, but you seem uninterested due to your religious fundamentalism...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Atheism makes the initial circular argument that god(s) do not exist.


One last time. WRONG. Atheists can speak. Atheism cannot. I assert only that I lack belief in anything supernatural ("gods"). In other words, I self-identify as an atheist. A straightforward statement of fact. Not an argument. Not "reasoning." Therefore not "circular" by definition.


> *Circular reasoning* (Latin: _*circulus in probando*_, "circle in proving";[1] also known as *circular logic*) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2]


Not "trying to" do anything but be clear about what I will not believe.


gfm7175 said:


> Inversion Fallacy.


Yes, very good. That's what you and your ilk are guilty of time and again:


> *Denying the antecedent*, sometimes also called *inverse error* or *fallacy of the inverse*, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form:[1]
> If _P_, then _Q_.
> Therefore, if not _P_, then not _Q_.
> which may also be phrased as
> ...


If an -ism, then must be  a religion.
Therefore, if not a religion, then not Atheism.
If you supply no evidence, then I don't need to either (claim or none).
Therefore, if you supply evidence (of no gods) , only then do I need to (supply evidence to support my positive assertion that there are or may be gods.)

You fail to comprehend because you just try to bully your way through. Simply repeating your godlike assertions and tossing around fallacy names without even trying to fit their logic pieces together will never help you.


----------



## Dick Foster (Apr 29, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


I just love your title for this tread shitforbrains. People new? Let's face it, you're no brainiac.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> There is no such thing as "scientific" evidence; just evidence.





> *Scientific evidence* is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.


You're welcome.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> I supported my reasoning within that post, but you chose to ignore it.


Excuse you. I responded directly with the difference between explanations and ideas built on evidence and ignorant guesses and belief without evidence. You, of course, being beholden to your idiot's narrative that any and all guesses are equal (thus not doing anything to validate your own magical horseshit, but merely an embarrassing attempt to drag all knowledge down into the ignorant miuck where your faith based horseshit resides),ignored this obvious and important difference between evidence based knowledge and faith based belief.

Because, of course, you are a fraud.


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> One last time. WRONG.


Nope, my assertion is correct.



Grumblenuts said:


> Atheists can speak. Atheism cannot.


Semantic quibbling noted. I can say "atheists say..." instead of "atheism says..." if that makes you happier...



Grumblenuts said:


> I assert only that I lack belief in anything supernatural ("gods").


Is that your belief?



Grumblenuts said:


> In other words, I self-identify as an atheist. A straightforward statement of fact.


Yup.



Grumblenuts said:


> Not an argument.


You being an atheist is not an argument. Atheism itself IS an argument, though. It argues that god(s) do not exist.



Grumblenuts said:


> Not "reasoning." Therefore not "circular" by definition.


Yes, it is reasoning. It also happens to be circular reasoning.



Grumblenuts said:


> *Circular reasoning* (Latin: _*circulus in probando*_, "circle in proving";[1] also known as *circular logic*) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2]


This definition is half correct. It is correct that circular reasoning is reasoning which concludes with its initial predicate. It is incorrect by claiming that it is a logical fallacy (acting as if it is always a fallacy). It CAN be a logical fallacy IF and ONLY IF one attempts to prove that reasoning. Circular reasoning, in and of itself, is not a fallacy. Attempting to prove circular reasoning IS a fallacy, though.



Grumblenuts said:


> *Denying the antecedent*, sometimes also called *inverse error* or *fallacy of the inverse*, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form:[1]
> If _P_, then _Q_.
> Therefore, if not _P_, then not _Q_.
> which may also be phrased as
> ...


That's not what an Inversion Fallacy is.  That would be the Denying the Antecedent Fallacy. An Inversion Fallacy, rather, is the fallacy of projection... It stems from the contextomy fallacy, as one is attempting to assign context A to person B instead of leaving it on person A.



Grumblenuts said:


> If an -ism, then must be  a religion.


Not my argument at all. Strawman Fallacy.



Grumblenuts said:


> Therefore, if not a religion, then not Atheism.


Atheism IS a religion. I have described why already.



Grumblenuts said:


> If you supply no evidence, then I don't need to either (claim or none).


Not my argument at all. Strawman Fallacy.



Grumblenuts said:


> Therefore, if you supply evidence (of no gods) , only then do I need to (supply evidence to support my positive assertion that there are or may be gods.)


I'm not asking you to supply any evidence, and I don't have to provide you any evidence either. Christianity can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.



Grumblenuts said:


> You fail to comprehend because you just try to bully your way through.


I'm not bullying; I am attempting rational discourse...



Grumblenuts said:


> Simply repeating your godlike assertions


You make argument A, I make counterargument A... Since you keep responding with argument A, I keep responding with counterargument A... See how that works? In order to break the cycle, you need to respond to counterargument A with your own counterargument A (instead of reverting back to argument A).



Grumblenuts said:


> and tossing around fallacy names without even trying to fit their logic pieces together will never help you.


I'm only calling out the fallacies that I catch you committing (and I don't even always note every single fallacy out loud). Stop committing fallacies and I will stop calling them out.


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Excuse you. I responded directly with the difference between explanations and ideas built on evidence and ignorant guesses and belief without evidence.


Yes, that was your original argument. I then made a counterargument in post #270 directly related to evidence (and how it isn't as special as you think it is, and tried to help you understand what various words actually mean and how they relate to logic and forming arguments), of which you ignored, and you just reverted back to your original argument. I'm still waiting for you to address my points in post #270...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You, of course, being beholden to your idiot's narrative that any and all guesses are equal


Insult Fallacy. Strawman Fallacy. Argument By Repetition Fallacy.

I have never made such an argument; in fact, I argued the opposite. You didn't pay attention to my argumentation, due to your anger-fueled atheist fundamentalism. Why are you so angry?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> (thus not doing anything to validate your own magical horseshit,


Again, why are you so angry?  I don't have to validate my faith to you. In fact, your attempt to force me into committing the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy is a fallacy in and of itself, called the Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> but merely an embarrassing attempt to drag all knowledge down into the ignorant miuck where your faith based horseshit resides),


Why are you so angry?   The only ignorant one here is you.   I'm trying to increase your knowledge, but you keep refusing due to your religious fundamentalism...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ignored this obvious and important difference between evidence based knowledge
> and faith based belief.


What "difference" am I ignoring?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because, of course, you are a fraud.


How so?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> I'm not bullying; I am attempting rational discourse...


Yeah, and pigs fly!


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ...


Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. Appeal to Definition Fallacy. Dictionaries do not have authority over any word definition. They do not own any word definition.



> *Scientific evidence* is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.


There is no such thing as a "scientific theory"; just a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. But back to the definition... It is saying that "scientific evidence" is "evidence", which is what I said it was. Hence, there is no such thing as "scientific evidence"... It is just evidence. 



> Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.


Science is NOT a "method"; it is a set of falsifiable theories.



> Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.


Not how science works... Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is... It really is quite simple...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is... It really is quite simple...


You're a dickhead (because I say so). That's ALL you are... It really is quite simple..


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not bullying; I am attempting rational discourse...
> ...


Once again, you pick out one little bit of my argumentation and ignore all the rest... You don't seem interested in civil discourse at all... Your religious fundamentalism blinds you...


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is... It really is quite simple...
> ...


Are there any unfalsifiable theories in science?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> the definition... It is saying that "scientific evidence" is "evidence", which is what I said it was. Hence, there is no such thing as "scientific evidence"... It is just evidence.


Hilarious! You really have no clue, do you. I shouldn't laugh.


----------



## james bond (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> just stand next to me and keep talking, so I look smart.



LMAO.  You wouldn't look smart even next to deanrd talking about what he nows.  It could be the mouth breathing, low brow language and moronic posts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Once again, you pick out one little bit of my argumentation and ignore all the rest..


Which a fraud like you should already have come to expect from people. One of your obviously favorite bits of quackery is the Gish Gallop. So people who have to deal with you are forced to strip away all of your meaningless pap to get to your only, germane premise. Which,of course, is always just the same,idiotic premise, reiterated 100 different ways. Frauds like you, who are in possession of no evidence whatsoever and no compelling arguments, have to resort the these late night Shamwow seller tactics. Because, as we both know, you possess neither the logical tools nor the knowledge to directly tackle any hard earned scientific knowledge.

So, instead, you attempt to beguile and confuse and naysay. Of course,you know as well as anyone how full of shit you are. That's why you're not taking baths with toasters or jumping off your roof to see if you fall up. But hey, whether or not you fall up is 'anyone's guess', right? Haha...how embarrassing you are ...


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, you pick out one little bit of my argumentation and ignore all the rest..
> ...



Post #270 still stands... You still haven't addressed it.

Until you are willing to address my counterarguments in that post, there is nowhere for our correspondence to go.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

By the way, just so everyone here realizes what kind of embarrassing fraud we are dealing with:

There is no such things as the "inversion fallacy". This fraud made it up, to try to sound smart.

Damn this place is an idiot magnet sometimes.


----------



## Dick Foster (Apr 29, 2019)

buttercup said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Your confusing straight with Republican.


That's a pet peeve of mine too. It's remarkable how many supposedly literate knot heads can't get it right. A true testimate to just how piss poor the educational system in this country has become.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

Dick Foster said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


Of more concern is the number of americans who reject evolution.


----------



## daveman (Apr 29, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Well said.


----------



## daveman (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, many atheists are closed-minded...
> ...


Looky there at you, completely rejecting out of hand one possible explanation.  

I'm a Christian.  I can accept the idea of a Big Bang.  I can accept the idea of evolution.  I see no reason why God has not used both ideas.

But you?  You cannot accept the idea that there could have been Someone who lit the fuse on the singularity from which the universe exploded.

But _you_ call _me_ closed-minded...in contradiction of reality.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

Dick Foster said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


Then you neglected this one for some reason. Lol 


ThunderKiss1965 said:


> So an education only counts if your a liberal ?


----------



## daveman (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...


Why?  What difference does it make in anyone's life?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

daveman said:


> Looky there at you, completely rejecting out of hand one possible explanation.


Not once have I done that, whiner. Might a rainbow unicorn have writen the bible and is somewhere laughing at you right now? Sure. But there is no evidence of that magical horseshit, so i will call it magical horseshit. 



daveman said:


> I'm a Christian. I can accept the idea of a Big Bang. I can accept the idea of evolution. I see no reason why God has not used both ideas.


Great, maybe you get it. When you believe magical borseshit (as you do), then you can oncoporate any idea. You canpoint at anything, from evolution to plate tectonics, and say, "god did that!". Saying so is useless in any practical sense, but it may have value to you in comforting you. Go right ahead,it affects nothing.


----------



## daveman (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Looky there at you, completely rejecting out of hand one possible explanation.
> ...


Not once have you done that...really?

You've been rejecting the idea of faith in every thread about it.

Stop lying about it.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Christian. I can accept the idea of a Big Bang. I can accept the idea of evolution. I see no reason why God has not used both ideas.
> ...


Oh, look -- there you go again, completely rejecting out of hand one possible explanation.

The thing that you refuse to accept is....we can't know what happened.  Ever.  We can come up with ideas about how they might have happened, but we won't ever be able to say with certainty, "This is exactly what happened."  There will never be an experiment to test the theories of creating a universe that results in a universe.  

It's nothing more than thought experiments.  I proposed one of those earlier, and y'all shit your pants in incoherent rage.  

"Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think."
-- Werner Heisenberg 

And aside from letting you feel superior for no apparent reason, what does it matter?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

daveman said:


> You've been rejecting the idea of faith in every thread about it.


That doesn't make sense. I have not rejected that faith exists. Are you high?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

Dick Foster said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


Also, did you mean testament? education system?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 29, 2019)

Testimate: when one Australian rubs his testicles against another.


----------



## daveman (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You've been rejecting the idea of faith in every thread about it.
> ...


How is you think you're smarter than anyone else?  It's baffling.

You reject without thought any notion that there might be a higher power.  You despise the idea -- just as you despise believers.  Don't even bother denying it; you've made it ridiculously plain.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 29, 2019)

boedicca said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> ...



  I knew it would be a waste of time bringing that up......
You can bet our forefathers didnt waste time trying to get two cows to fuck each other for money.


----------



## 22lcidw (Apr 30, 2019)

deanrd said:


> National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)
> 
> 
> The earth is 50 million years old?
> ...


And around the same time Progs started telling us the world has 10 years or so of oil left or global climate or ozone depletion or living irresponsibly must be paid by someone else who is one of those people that are the hated Christians. Yes we have evolved. We went from a penny saved is a penny earned to as ucker is born every moment. We gave you a Republic, see if you can keep it was a warning. We failed.


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 30, 2019)

daveman said:


> Looky there at you, completely rejecting out of hand one possible explanation.


Correct. You noticed precisely what Fort Fun Indiana is doing. He has his mind completely closed to theism. Now, he COULD logically reject theism and accept atheism, if he were to do so on a faith basis (like how you and I accept God's existence on a faith basis), but his reasoning for rejecting theism commits the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy (as he claims that he doesn't believe due to "lack of evidence"). What he forgets is that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. He also forgets that evidence is NOT a proof.



daveman said:


> I'm a Christian.  I can accept the idea of a Big Bang.  I can accept the idea of evolution.  I see no reason why God has not used both ideas.


Well said. What you have likely noticed here is that the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are NOT contradictory to Christianity. It is perfectly logical to believe all three theories on a faith basis.  Many people will claim that the BBT and the Theory of Evolution are "science", but those people are wrong. Those theories are also religions, since they also are an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from them. Science, rather, is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. Neither the BBT nor the Theory of Evolution are falsifiable, thus they are not theories of science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events.



daveman said:


> But you?  You cannot accept the idea that there could have been Someone who lit the fuse on the singularity from which the universe exploded.
> 
> But _you_ call _me_ closed-minded...in contradiction of reality.


Precisely.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

daveman said:


> You reject without thought any notion that there might be a higher power.


No. Again, I believe it's possible, but I see no reason to believe it.

Nothing more. Get that through your head.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 30, 2019)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 Might be? Because you can’t prove it that means it might be?

Me, I personally believe the interior of the moon is made from a soft and creamy white cheese. You can’t prove it’s not.

 How is your belief better than mine?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

deanrd said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


That's what these goobers dont understand. Their "Alamo" is to say "anything is possible...you cant prove anything isn't possible..."

Yet this renders their preferred little religious fetishes even less likely. Now we have trillions of silly, magical fantasies to choose from. And, by their own, moronic logic, they are all equally likely.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 30, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> his reasoning for rejecting theism commits the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy (as he claims that he doesn't believe due to "lack of evidence"). What he forgets is that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. He also forgets that evidence is NOT a proof.


Okay, nice neat bundle of smelly BS. So let's unpack that McBigFart in reverse and clear the air, shall we. I knew you would:

We must pretend, momentarily for your sake, that the shoe is firmly on the other foot. In other words, you are now the target of the above incoherent spiel attack, but let's also make it FUN and likely true. Say you gave up on both the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy last year. Still love your {*}ESTs dearly but now claim not to believe in that crap any more having encountered no compelling evidence other than their word for it. Plus they finally admitted it was all bunk as soon as you confronted them about it last week. You had taken it on faith as long as you could possibly stand, but man, goddammit, enough is enough! Good boy.

So now you think.. now harder..
_Do I need to prove to anyone that I no longer believe in the Easter Bunny? Fuck no! That's crazy. 
Do I need to supply evidence to anyone in order for them to accept my disbelief in Easter Bunnyism? Fuck no! That's really crazy. 
Would I need compelling evidence to switch back to believing in the Easter Bunny? Fuck yeah! Otherwise, I'd just be crazy. Until then I'm an aBunnyist! And damn proud of it!
_
Good boy. Have a cookie.

[{*} - Elementary School Teachers - substituted to remove likely crybaby objection]


----------



## gfm7175 (Apr 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Okay, nice neat bundle of smelly BS. So let's unpack that McBigFart in reverse and clear the air, shall we. I knew you would:


Logic is not "smelly BS" nor a "McBigFart"...



Grumblenuts said:


> We must pretend, momentarily for your sake, that the shoe is firmly on the other foot. In other words, you are now the target of the above incoherent spiel attack, but let's also make it FUN and likely true.


English is not "incoherent" nor a "spiel attack".



Grumblenuts said:


> Say you gave up on both the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy last year.


IF I ever believed in them (I honestly don't remember ever believing in them), I stopped believing in them a long long time ago.



Grumblenuts said:


> Still love your {*}ESTs dearly but now claim not to believe in that crap any more having encountered no compelling evidence other than their word for it.


I can't prove the existence/non-existence of the Easter Bunny nor the Tooth Fairy. I believe on a faith basis that they do not exist in actuality.



Grumblenuts said:


> Plus they finally admitted it was all bunk as soon as you confronted them about it last week. You had taken it on faith as long as you could possibly stand, but man, goddammit, enough is enough! Good boy.


It's STILL taken on faith, Grumble... That bit hasn't changed. One cannot prove/disprove the actual existence of those things...



Grumblenuts said:


> So now you think.. now harder..
> _Do I need to prove to anyone that I no longer believe in the Easter Bunny? Fuck no! That's crazy._


Nope. I don't need to prove anything. In fact, I can't prove the existence of the Easter Bunny even if I wanted to.
_


Grumblenuts said:



Do I need to supply evidence to anyone in order for them to accept my disbelief in Easter Bunnyism? Fuck no! That's really crazy.

Click to expand...

_
They don't have to accept my disbelief in the Easter Bunny. They can believe whatever they want. The actual existence of the Easter Bunny cannot be proven/disproven.
_


Grumblenuts said:



Would I need compelling evidence to switch back to believing in the Easter Bunny? Fuck yeah! Otherwise, I'd just be crazy. Until then I'm an aBunnyist! And damn proud of it!

Click to expand...

_
Nope, evidence is not necessary. Only faith is necessary. I need only accept the circular argument as true, false, or I could even say idk...  I happen to reject the actual existence of the Easter Bunny.


----------



## daveman (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You reject without thought any notion that there might be a higher power.
> ...


You take it on faith.  Why can't you acknowledge that?


----------



## daveman (Apr 30, 2019)

deanrd said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Where did I say my belief is better?

You keep making claims with no basis.


----------



## daveman (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You can stamp your feet and pout all you want.

But you can't disprove anyone's metaphysical belief.  The funny part is, you honestly think ridiculing people will get them to abandon their faith.

Childish.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 30, 2019)

Always picking the Blue Pill is just cowardly and shameless denialists earn themselves nothing to crow about.








> from Lewis Carroll's 1865 novel _Alice in Wonderland_, in which the central character, Alice, has to choose between colored potions to either enable her adventure to continue or go back home.[_better source needed_][1] In _The Matrix_, the main character Neo is offered the choice between a red pill and a blue pill by rebel leader Morpheus. The red pill represented an uncertain future—it would free him from the enslaving control of the machine-generated dream world and allow him to escape into the real world, but living the "truth of reality" is harsher and more difficult. On the other hand, the blue pill represented a beautiful prison—it would lead him back to ignorance, living in confined comfort without want or fear within the simulated reality of the Matrix.





> Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.[2] In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas


Such as.. _there may, in fact, be an Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, ..._


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

daveman said:


> You take it on faith.


I take what on faith? Use your big boy words.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 30, 2019)

daveman said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I don't push my belief.  
Speaking of my belief, I do wish the cheese not too hot.  I'm not overly fond of soft and creamy white cheese that is a touch too spicy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

daveman said:


> But you can't disprove anyone's metaphysical belief.


Nor would i ever try, nor would i have any desire to do so, nor can any "metaphysical" (you can just say, "magic", don't try to put lipstick on a pig) idea ever be disproven. I keep saying this. Pay attention!

So, my question to you is: So what? I can't disprove unicorns, either. What does that say about the truth of unicorns?


----------



## deanrd (Apr 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Always picking the Blue Pill is just cowardly and shameless denialists earn themselves nothing to crow about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


(sigh)
 I think those demi Gods have gotten a raw deal.  Not a Donald Trump type raw but more like cultural misconception.  
Everybody love the Easter Bunny.  
And the Tooth Fairy?  A true capitalist paying money for body parts.  
Santa Claus, the God of the Benevolent Billionaire.  
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, otherwise, the Italians feel left out.
Gods can be everywhere.
They are all equally "real".  And until one speaks up, they will remain equally real.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 30, 2019)

I feel your sarcastic humor, bro.. I really can FEEL IT!
(but not substantively)


----------



## daveman (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You take it on faith.
> ...


I thought I did.  Apparently, it was too difficult for you to grasp, even though I've explained it to you before.

You believe science because science tells you to believe.  

You take it on faith.


----------



## daveman (Apr 30, 2019)

deanrd said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


You don't push your belief?

Man, leftists sure do lie a lot.


----------



## daveman (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > But you can't disprove anyone's metaphysical belief.
> ...


Hey, we may be making a bit of progress!  Prolly just an accident, though.  

So, you rightly admit you can't disprove the metaphysical..."magic", if it makes you feel better.  

So what is your basis, then, for dismissing the idea of a Creator?  That there's no proof one exists?

Do you see the broken logic there?

One of my favorite authors, Arthur C. Clarke, once said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Think how much of today's technology would have gotten you executed for witchcraft a thousand years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

daveman said:


> You believe science because science tells you to believe.


That's stupid and wrong. Haha, that's all you got? It would seem scientific knowledge remains quite safe from you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

daveman said:


> So what is your basis, then, for dismissing the idea of a Creator?


It may be true. For the 5th time. i see no reason to believe it.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 30, 2019)

daveman said:


> So what is your basis, then, for dismissing the idea of a Creator? That there's no proof one exists?


That combined with having no empirical basis to share your blind faith in one. Tried long ago. Multiple times. Peer pressure galore! Even after enduring tons of verbal abuse from priests, ministers, and good little lemmings like you. Nope, just couldn't even begin to actually do it and look myself in the mirror. But that's just me. Completely unnecessary and illogical to demand that atheists somehow "prove"  their disbelief in other's assertions of Creators or other magical stuff.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> Think how much of today's technology would have gotten you executed for witchcraft a thousand years ago.


...by religious people who refused to listen to the explanation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > So what is your basis, then, for dismissing the idea of a Creator? That there's no proof one exists?
> ...


Maybe there is a creator.  Maybe it is a rainbow unicorn who rides dragons in the 6th dimension. These magical beliefs are quite useless, in any pragmatic sense. They explain nothing and provide no useful predictions. They come without evidence and grant no insight.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 1, 2019)

It's fun to reduce all to childish fantasies, but they've too often come with a vengeance. The price tags being belligerent ignorance, fear and loathing, hatred and pestilence, discrimination,.. See The Crusades, Dark Ages ("a time of intellectual darkness between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance"), etc. Subscribers with unorthodox views have faced much the same.  Newton, for example:



> Like many contemporaries (e.g., Thomas Aikenhead) he lived with the threat of severe punishment if he had been open about his religious beliefs. Heresy was a crime that could have been punishable by the loss of all property and status or even death (see, e.g., the Blasphemy Act 1697). Because of his secrecy over his religious beliefs, Newton has been described as a Nicodemite.[9]
> 
> According to most scholars, Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism.[9][21][22] 'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> Man, leftists sure do lie a lot.


Don't care what crazy shit you tell yourself about "leftists," and you clearly don't care either, but here's some actual facts about religious affiliation vs major political party:





Notice that, while it's true that the percentage of religious among Republicans is somewhat higher than that among Democrats, *Democrats are in fact more religious* than Republicans because there are far more Democrats than Republicans overall. And if both major Parties weren't such corporate, Wall Street lackey, neo-lib, neo-con,  war mongering, shameless whores.. the "no lean" younger group in the middle would be growing far more slowly.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You believe science because science tells you to believe.
> ...


If that makes you feel better, sure.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > So what is your basis, then, for dismissing the idea of a Creator?
> ...


But you'll believe science because it's presented in the proper trimmings.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > So what is your basis, then, for dismissing the idea of a Creator? That there's no proof one exists?
> ...


All you've done is prove you don't understand the nature of faith.  

Proof precludes faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> But you'll believe science because it's presented in the proper trimmings.


No, I will believe ideas supported by compelling evidence.

You keep trying (and failing) to put words in my mouth. That should be your first clue that your arguments are useless garbage...you have to invent fodder for them.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Think how much of today's technology would have gotten you executed for witchcraft a thousand years ago.
> ...


How would you explain a smart phone to an atheist a thousand years ago without using the word "magic"...or him thinking it's magic?

I doubt you could do it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> How would you explain a smart phone to an atheist a thousand years ago without using the word "magic"...or him thinking it's magic?


I suppose i would need a lot of time, and technical manuals. How would i explain it to you? You are just as ignorant of it. So, same question.


----------



## deanrd (May 1, 2019)

This poll asked Americans if they believe in God. The answers were fascinating.

Pew’s results remind us that the religious tapestry of America is more complex than it may seem. How somebody identifies — an identity that is deeply rooted in racial, economic, and political ideologies as well as explicitly religious ones — may not necessarily reflect the content of their beliefs about God or the nature of the universe.

Someone who rejects the label of, for example, evangelical Christian may be doing so for reasons that have less to do with theology than with culture. (Indeed, in the wake of the increasing alliance of Christianity and Trumpism, a number of prominent evangelical Christians are actively rejecting the term.)


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Which again begs the question I asked before, and to which I received no answer:

What benefit would Mr. Average Joe American gain from knowing exactly how, say, the universe came about?

Another question:  Would it kill you to at least make an effort to come up with something besides "rainbow unicorns" as a metaphor for religion?  I mean, you've made your contempt for religion pretty plain -- but it's getting pretty boring, actually.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> It's fun to reduce all to childish fantasies, but they've too often come with a vengeance. The price tags being belligerent ignorance, fear and loathing, hatred and pestilence, discrimination,.. See The Crusades, Dark Ages ("a time of intellectual darkness between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance"), etc. Subscribers with unorthodox views have faced much the same.  Newton, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, we're just gonna pretend the hundred million plus people killed by the intellectual darkness of atheist Communism never happened, or...?


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Man, leftists sure do lie a lot.
> ...


I'm sure you believe that refutes my claim that leftists lie a lot -- somehow -- but it doesn't.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> What benefit would Mr. Average Joe American gain from knowing exactly how, say, the universe came about?


Well, one benefit I gain is a deepr understanding of the universe. Sure, you, for instance, know less than nothing about it, amd I am sure youre doing fine. But its not as important that every individual know as it is that it is known by someone.  With these pursuits we gain new knowledge and techniques that benefit mankind greatly.

For instance,  our entire discussion right now would be impossible without our knowledge of general relativity.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > But you'll believe science because it's presented in the proper trimmings.
> ...


I bet.  Do you believe ideas when you don't understand the evidence?


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > How would you explain a smart phone to an atheist a thousand years ago without using the word "magic"...or him thinking it's magic?
> ...


Goodness, there's that irrational hatred for people of faith peeking out again.  You just can't keep a lid on it, can you?

Of course I have a basic understanding of the technology, and if I want something more specific, I know where to find reference materials explaining it further.

Your problem with my question is that you don't even have a common technical language with which you could explain it to Middle Ages Man...and that never occurred to you.  He wouldn't understand there are "colors" of light he couldn't see that carries the sound of voices between the two little boxes.  He wouldn't understand a thing you said, so his first reaction would be "MAGIC!!" 

Do you understand that, or do I need to explain it more simply?


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > What benefit would Mr. Average Joe American gain from knowing exactly how, say, the universe came about?
> ...


You just keep demonstrating your bigotry.  Tsk, tsk.

Meanwhile, I love science.  It's awesome and fascinating.  Somehow, you can't understand that simple fact.  So you should probably drop your condescension; you're simply not good at it.

But, okay, you'd gain a "deeper understanding of the universe".  So, no real practical value.  

There are some questions that can never be answered.  "How did the universe come into being" is one of them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> Do you believe ideas when you don't understand the evidence?


Sure, technically, because evidence comes in many forms.

Could i mathematically describe every quark? No. Do I trust the scientists, and that they have it right? I do, for now. And the evidence that causes me to trust (not "have faith"; this is a bet, not a belief with any absolute certainty) them comes in many forms; for instance, the quantum mechanical machine i am using to talk to you right now.

Dude, just give it up. You are not going to put words in the right order and turn everything into faith. You are not, not ever, going to drag evidence-based knowledge into the ignorant muck where  faith resides. Just accept that they are different concepts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> There are some questions that can never be answered. "How did the universe come into being" is one of them.


Says you. You will have to excuse me if i dont accept that just because some guy who knows less than nothing about cosmology claims it.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe ideas when you don't understand the evidence?
> ...


Oh, I've always known they're different concepts.  As I said, I'm a huge fan of science.  

But I also understand that faith doesn't require proof, and that absence of proof is not proof of absence.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > There are some questions that can never be answered. "How did the universe come into being" is one of them.
> ...


What makes you think I know less than nothing about cosmology?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> But I also understand that faith doesn't require proof, and that absence of proof is not proof of absence.


"Proof" is for mathematics.

Absence of evidence can, indeed, be evidence of absence. But that is irrelevant to magical hooha,as the concept of evidence has no meaning in a universe without determinism.

There exists no good evidence of Bigfoot. None. But we would expect a breeding population of large animals to leave lots of evidence lying around....skeletons, feces, hair, teeth, nails, remnants of where they sleep, etc. The complete lack of any of this evidence is, itself, evidence that they do not exist.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > But I also understand that faith doesn't require proof, and that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
> ...


I see what you did there.

I said "proof".  You said "evidence".  

I believed you complained earlier about people putting words in your mouth...?  So why is it okay when you do it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> I said "proof". You said "evidence"


Correct. Different concepts. It wasn't a direct counter to your statement, nor was it meant to be. And I didn't accuse you of thinking or saying anything. Those thoughts are mine, not what i imagine yours are.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I said "proof". You said "evidence"
> ...


And yet:

"You will have to excuse me if i dont accept that just because some guy who knows less than nothing about cosmology claims it."

Oh, look.  That's you imagining what my thoughts are.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> All you've done is prove you don't understand the nature of faith.


That's great since all you've done is pretend to rebut with vapid declarations that only demonstrate your piss poor comprehension of basic logic. Kindly bore me no more.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> Oh, look. That's you imagining what my thoughts are.


Yes, your prior comments led me to believe that. Of course, that's not the same as putting words in your mouth, which you attempted with me several times. 

Anyhoo, not relevant.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > All you've done is prove you don't understand the nature of faith.
> ...


LOL!  What a whiny little child you are.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, look. That's you imagining what my thoughts are.
> ...


Like I said, it's different when you do it.

Meanwhile, you have yet to address the posts where I point out your irrational hatred of believers.

Wise choice, actually.  It's not like you can credibly deny it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> Meanwhile, you have yet to address the posts where I point out your irrational hatred of believers.


Because I hate no believers...at least not for believing...I have a family full of them, even.


----------



## PredFan (May 1, 2019)

Andylusion said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Yes, it is. Just saying no, doesn't make it so.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Heh, you've obviously confused me and the simple truth with what your avatar screams. xoxo


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, you have yet to address the posts where I point out your irrational hatred of believers.
> ...


LOL!  Uh huh.


----------



## daveman (May 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


PICTURE OF A GUN BOOGA BOOGA


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


So leta review your contribution to the thread:

- your trust in scientific knowlesge is just faith!

- what benefit do you get from knowing stuff, anyway?

- you just hate believers!


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 2, 2019)

daveman said:


> But I also understand that faith doesn't require proof, and that absence of proof is not proof of absence.


Faith requires magical belief. An absence of proof evidences nothing. An absence of evidence indicates zero validity, wishful thinking, and/or delusion.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Proof" is for mathematics.


Indeed, in math and formal axiomatic systems of logic, proofs are precise, exacting things with true finality. However, in general logical proofs only establish a given argument's validity and, even then, only through rigorous, formal deduction in accord with established rules. In court proof is formally established through deduction _from evidence_.  'Tis truly a shame that dictionaries list "evidence" and "proof" as synonyms. Small wonder we invariably face know-it-all goobers like Dave.


----------



## daveman (May 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


If that makes you feel better about yourself, sure.


----------



## daveman (May 2, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > But I also understand that faith doesn't require proof, and that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
> ...


I'm a know-it-all?  Have you like been...not reading what I've written?  

I have never claimed to know everything.  I'm the guy who says there are some questions that can't be answered, remember?

At least make a token effort to keep up.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 2, 2019)

Unfortunately, I have read what you've written. It wasn't anywhere near worth the bother.


----------



## daveman (May 2, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Unfortunately, I have read what you've written. It wasn't anywhere near worth the bother.


Oh, then you're just outright lying about what I've said.  

A normal person would have the self-awareness to be ashamed.  But you do you, Skippy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 2, 2019)

daveman said:


> Oh, then you're just outright lying about what I've said.


I'm not sure thats even possible, since, in your generally incoherent ramblings, you contradict yourself at the most fundamental levels.

You claim we do know some things,then you claim nothing can be known...because, hey,maybe there is magic!

One can't really misrepresent or contradict someone who takes all positions at once, sometimes in the same paragraph.

My advice to you is that, the next time you feel like hopping into a thread with both hands swinging, you pause for about 5 minutes (maybe 5 days, in your case) and get your talking points in order.  This whole "not even sure what i am going to say next" thing isn't working out for you.


----------



## deanrd (May 2, 2019)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I really hate to have to explain this because the answer is so very obvious.

But I'll try.

The more knowledge people have about the world around them, the better decisions they will make.  I prefer decisions based on "knowing" rather than "wishing".

If you feel the earth is new and God will take care of you, then of course, you have no problem with spewing filth into the air and trash into the oceans.  After all, God will take care of you, until he doesn't.


----------

