Religion, Dinosaurs, A.I. and Aliens

[TheVisitor]

The Visitor,
First of all, there is no evidence of a more advanced society than where we are today. Advanced is a relative term here.

Yes, chronologically we are more advanced. That's true. We agree...relatively speaking.

Secondly there is no evidence to support the idea of them having nuclear weapon capability. None whatsoever.

Not so. It depends on what you will accept as evidence. That is a relative term.
A person might see various signs in many different places that when veiwed together point to only one conclusion.
But one or two seperatly might mean nothing.
Critics and skeptics wouldn't accept finding a working device as evidence.
They would just dismiss it as something else, demanding a link over and over.

You don't know that is what he was referring to.

Yeah that's right, he just felt like all those little Hindu's working on the manhattan project!
It was the "prevailing mood" thing I'm sure.

Like reading a story, piecing together history requires establishing a context.
None of the sources used to find it may constitute evidence by themselves on a stand alone basis.

Skeptics and critics will usually refuse to see the connection demanding some magical link that will do all the work for them.
Without hard work establishing proper context no such magical "link" exists.
That is the stuff of fairy tales not true history.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Critics and skeptics wouldn't accept finding a working device as evidence.
They would just dismiss it as something else, demanding a link over and over.

Yeah that's right, he just felt like all those little Hindu's working on the manhattan project!
It was the "prevailing mood" thing I'm sure.

Skeptics and critics will usually refuse to see the connection demanding some magical link that will do all the work for them.
Without hard work establishing proper context no such magical "link" exists.

You once tried (incorrectly) to pull me up for a supposed cheap shot (post #173) yet you seem to think that it's okay for you to do it. Oh yeah, and you utterly failed to acknowledge that your error was an error.

1) I ask for links because your claims, unless supported remain purely that: a claim.
2) Either your comprehension is faulty or you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I ignored it the first time but at no time did I state or imply that there were any Hindus working on the Manhattan Project.
3) Since I don't see these "connections" does that not suggest to you that they may well be in your own mind, solely? As is your supposed "context".

You have thoroughly failed to provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims yet you persist in repeating them. This is the definition of trolling.
Any further repetitions will be reported as such.

If you can't support your claims don't make them.

 

[crumeman]

You guys are way to deep for me.

 

[TheVisitor]

I ask for links because your claims, unless supported remain purely that: a claim.

You may have asked for links, but they were for claims I never made. So sorry.

Either your comprehension is faulty or you are deliberately misunderstanding me.
At no time did I state or imply that there were any Hindus working on the Manhattan Project.

Ha, ha, ha... Link please.

You have thoroughly failed to provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims yet you persist in repeating them.
This is the definition of trolling.

A troll...? Is that what you think I am? You better find yourself a goat if you want to pass this bridge then.
I left a few alive over in religious topics. Throw one a carrot. You could have something in common.
You've got me confused with something else though. I'm just here doing a public service.
Taking out the trash...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pESOSI2hTA&feature=player_embedded

 

[Dywyddyr]

You may have asked for links, but they were for claims I never made. So sorry.
Ha, ha, ha... Link please.

So this wasn't your post?

A United States Geological Survey scientist who found the remains of modern man in strata confirmed by two radiological tests to be 250,000 years old was removed from her position and black listed for publishing her findings.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2576353&postcount=225
Or this:

Originally Posted by TheVisitor
Many ancient Indus Valley cities still register radiation.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2575374&postcount=199
Or this:

That was what Oppenheimer referred to about 3,000 B.C.

Same link.

You've got me confused with something else though. I'm just here doing a public service.

Nope, you're posting claims you are incapable of (or unwilling to) substantiate. That's what makes you a troll.

 

[TheVisitor]

So this wasn't your post?

I'll repeat. You may have asked for links, but they were for claims I never made.
You put your own interpretation to my posts as to what the so-called claims were.
You changed them to a false statement of your own, ignored the facts I provided and demanded links for your own altered false "claims".
That makes you the troll here.

Nope, you're posting claims you are incapable of (or unwilling to) substantiate. That's what makes you a troll.

That's Cannibal Troll to you...

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'll repeat. You may have asked for links, but they were for claims I never made.

Did you, or did you, not make the posts I quoted? If so then YOU made those claims.
If not I suggest you make access to your computer somewhat more difficult for others in your household.

I understand that you're trying to deflect the "blame" for these claims to the originator, i.e. you didn't make these claims originally, (you're simply parrotting someone else's claims), yet you have seen fit to post these claims here, as if they were factual and have failed to provide any support them.

 

[TheVisitor]

Did you, or did you, not make the posts I quoted? If so then YOU made those claims.

I made the posts and stand by them as true.
Posts and what you call claims are two different things.
You continue to ignore the facts.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I made the posts and stand by them as true. Posts and what you call claims are two different things.

Maybe you should learn English.

claim (klm)
tr.v. claimed, claim·ing, claims
1. To demand, ask for, or take as one's own or one's due: claim a reward; claim one's luggage at the airport carousel.
2. To take in a violent manner as if by right: a hurricane that claimed two lives.
3. To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain: claimed he had won the race; a candidate claiming many supporters.
4. To deserve or call for; require: problems that claim her attention.
n.
1. A demand for something as rightful or due.
2. A basis for demanding something; a title or right.
3. Something claimed in a formal or legal manner, especially a tract of public land staked out by a miner or homesteader.
4.
a. A demand for payment in accordance with an insurance policy or other formal arrangement.
b. The sum of money demanded.
5. A statement of something as a fact]; an assertion of truth[/COLOR: makes no claim to be a cure.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/claim
Wrong again.
You made a statement, an assertion - a CLAIM, about "something". And you have also declared those statements to be true.
Yet you consistently fail to offer any support or evidence that they are anything other than suppositions.

You continue to ignore the facts.

What you call a "fact" has, so far, not been shown to be factual.

 

[TheVisitor]

And this from someone who denies evolution is just a theory.

 

[Dywyddyr]

And this from someone who denies evolution is just a theory.

Fail.
Your misunderstanding on that score has been explained many times, and not just in this thread.
Pathetic attempt to divert the discussion away from your continued trolling.

 

[TheVisitor]

Your misunderstanding on that score has been explained many times, and not just in this thread.

This "theory" relied heavily on false facts such as "Java Man" and "Lucy".
You've said the facts are updated when they were shown to be false.
I have shown that to be untrue.
These were still taught as facts many years after they had been proven to be false. Until 1984.
They are making it up as they go, unwilling to let go of an unproven "theory" from the Victorian age.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Pathetic attempt to divert the discussion away from your continued trolling.

Continued trolling after being told to stop is a rather serious violation of the rules of the forum. Who moderates this board?

 

[Dywyddyr]

This "theory" relied heavily on false facts such as "Java Man" and "Lucy".

Utterly wrong.

You've said the facts are updated when they were shown to be false.
I have shown that to be untrue.

Also untrue.

Continued trolling after being told to stop is a rather serious violation of the rules of the forum. Who moderates this board?

No-one as far as I can tell.

 

[TheVisitor]

Continued trolling after being told to stop is a rather serious violation of the rules of the forum. Who moderates this board?

He's the one doing the trolling here.
A theory is a just a theory.

I'm not saying it couldn't be true.
It has yet to be proven even though it consists of many things that are fact.
That makes it a theory.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Reported.

 

[TheVisitor]

No-one as far as I can tell.

Ditto. Reported.
You brought up trolling after continually changing the meaning of my posts and demanding links after I provided them.
You're the troll, and have continued to harass me through five or six pages of posts.

Where's the moderator here?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Now who's changing the subject?
You brought up trolling after continally changing the meaning of my posts and demanding links after I provided them.

More stupidity on your part: if you bothered to read that part was a reply to Fraggle.

Please show one single occasion where I have changed the meaning of your posts.
And you haven't provided ANY links to support your claims. Again.

 

[TheVisitor]

Please show one single occasion where I have changed the meaning of your posts.
And you haven't provided ANY links to support your claims. Again.

On post #165

So, like I said: "typical TV-style unsupported crap".
It was pseudoscientific nonsense used as a mouthpiece for known cranks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Origins_of_Man
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/nbcs_origins_show/
So, one more time: what "proof" that humans and dinosaurs co-existed?
Oh yeah, The Visitor even credited the show incorrectly: it was NBC, the BBC doesn't stoop to such tripe.

You dismissed a video link I provided as... "typical TV-style unsupported crap" saying it was pseudoscientific nonsense used as a mouthpiece for known cranks...with information from one of your "more reliable" sites like "Talk Origins".
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html

That's not very nice for starters.

From post # 224

Aha! The point is that the difference has been explained many times on this form, and it is a science-based forum, hence we should be using the word correctly, not in the "Inspector, I have a theory how the jewels were stolen" sense.
The Visitor is, or should be by now, well aware of the meaning of "theory", I'm fairly sure it's been pointed to him before.
The comment "evolution is just a theory", for example, is one that has been shown to be untrue in the sense that the comment was meant at least a dozen times in various posts.

You implied you knew a meaning for my statement other than what I meant by it on this very subject.
That's why I brought it up again. That's twice.

 

[Dywyddyr]

On post #165

Fail.
Changed the "meaning" of your posts?
Hardly.
All I did was note that you appear to have taken this nonsense rather more seriously than it deserved.
I pointed out (and later gave supporting links and quotes) that the programme was considered to be scientifically UNreliable.

You implied you knew a meaning for my statement other than what I meant by it on this very subject.

I pointed out that YOU were using the word INCORRECTLY. In other words it was an attempt by you to dismiss something by misusing a particular word, one that has a specific meaning (and a meaning you weren't using).

So you fail again.