um..in defense of dyw...you havent show us the research...youve shown us what you know about it..
Religion, Dinosaurs, A.I. and Aliens
- Thread starter superstring01
- Start date
um..in defense of dyw...you havent show us the research...youve shown us what you know about it..
I do qualify for leniency on this subject matter.
As stated earlier I said; "there is an active cover up involving both religious and scientific authorities".
Ah, I see. So it's only (unsupported) crank sites that have access to the "truth"?
A bare statement on a web site (or in a book by a known crank) with no provenance is sufficient?
And you still haven't given a decent reply to my Oppenheimer objection.
There is no site or book that will tell you this. I pieced it together a little at a time.
I provided a little at a time. I also admitted this is only my opinion.
Read about the Baalbek site in Lebanon. http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/lebanon/baalbek.htm
Read Ezekiel 31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+31&version=KJV
Compare the two.
Last edited:
Maybe you should ask him yourself. See how quickly history becomes a problem.
It's only been 60 years.
What about history after 600, or 6,000. Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters?
It's easy to play the critic. Let's switch places. What's your theory on the matter?
I see. You make a claim and either refuse to back it up or are simply incapable of doing so.
And you made a comment earlier about people not taking me seriously.
"History"? Or personal supposition?
PS My ouija board's in for servicing so I'll forego asking Oppy directly for the time being.
Mine's as good as anyone else's. History is full of theories.
Evolutions still just a theory, right.
I'm not bashing it here, it may be partially true, but "Java Man" was false.
"Lucy" was found to be false. Are you picking up a theme here?
Whatever they are saying today can be declared false in another 60 years.
Nobody will care because we'll all be dead.
Meanwhile the cover-up continues. It will end someday.
Because it has a goal. A point to which it is reaching.
Not if it's unsupported.
Wrong. In the sense you seem to be using. In science "theory" is as close as you get to "confirmed fact".
As you should know by now, you've been on this forum long enough to have seen that explained more than once.
Yep. The theme appears to be "point out the mistakes (which, incidentally were shown to be mistakes by the people involved) and treat them as symptomatic of the entire discipline, while disregarding the non-mistakes".
That's if the "cover up" isn't yet another unsupported opinion of yours.
You just made a revealing error. You split my last post up into four parts and refuted them individually.
But....you left out the fifth part and didn't try to refute it.
"Whatever they are saying today can be declared false in another 60 years.
Nobody will care because we'll all be dead."
Therein lies the weakness of your argument. You didn't refute this because you know it's true.
And this statement qualifies the rest of my post.
That's how it starts. Your slipping, getting tired and making small mistakes.
Small mistakes grow into big ones and then...Game Over.
Er, no.
Apart from the fact anything can be declared false at any time...
Declaring something to be false would require evidence that it actually is so.
It wasn't worth "refuting" since it ties in with the rest of your unsupported opinions.
As I have continually pointed out
A) your statements appear to be completely unsupported.
B) the contrary view has independently-verifiable support.
Where does that leave you?
As you say.... Game over.
Er, yes.
Er, no. It must be proven false first before it is declared anything.
Er, no. The evidence must be accepted to be true by the one continuing to call it false.
"After all other explainations have been exausted, whatever remains, however inplausible must be accepted as reality.
All assumptions do not need proven then. The process of elimination procludes this as a alternative.
You should know this, but you're the only one not accepting facts shown before you.
Ah, so you're contradicting yourself:
Unfortunately you haven't presented any facts. You have, however, presented a lot of unsupported speculation and then cried off because you don't have any support. Either because of the "cover up" (which you can't actually evidence) because it's just your opinion.
Yes I did. You denied all of the facts presented without any supporting evidence.
Correction, you have made claims (not presented "facts") and failed to support them.
I dismissed your claims because you have failed to support them.
The documentary I provided you was full of evidence and facts.
You dismissed it with considerable prejudice. You are a poster child for the system.
Thanks for proving my point to the world.
On the contrary. The "documentary" was full of falsehoods, unsupported claims and distortions. Not facts.
And you appear to be the poster child for gullibility.
i think the order is like;
hypothesis
theory
testing
results
so a theory does not have to be fact or fiction, the testing will evaluate whether it is fact or fiction.
sounds like the atheist/theist debates....
anybody ever gonna write a book about how many zillions of cover-ups there are?..
we have been conditioned to ignore the word cover-up, to dissmiss it as bogus..(too many ppl screaming 'Cover Up!)
but that does not mean they do not exist..
if you are just reading someone elses book..understand that someone just like you wrote it..find out for yourself whether it is true or not..
there is truth in all those books,doesn't mean its all true..
also it depends on the value we assign to that truth..
(why does it feel like i am posting about the bible?)
Tch, a theory is an explanation of the facts. A theory is the framework that holds together the relationship of individual items of data.
