Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

reply to post by john_bmth


Meteor Strikes with radiation lasting over a long period of time?

Originally posted by KingJames1337

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by john_bmth

So what's more likely an alien war with a nucler weapon or a rare radioactive meteor hitting earth and people dying in an exact place(which would be the case in a meteor too), they are at least equally as likely.

That's a false dichotomy. There is absolutely zero evidence for an "alien nuclear war" so it's not a choice of either/or. Just because we cannot explain something, it doesn't mean the explanation with absolutely zero supporting evidence what so ever gets put on equal footing with the ones that at least have some grounding in reality.

He's using the argument from ignorance to make his point...not a good approach on a website with a "deny ignorance" mantra

Alright Nigger I'm in a good mood so i'ma forget about that. But there is evidence of a nuclear explosion, or radiation of some some sort, What Gives?

Overlooking the obvious racism, why pretend you "forgetting about that" is somehow merciful? I'm stating the FACTS, you ARE using the argument from ignorance...not exactly sure what your point is.

You're taking GIGANTIC leaps of faith and draw conclusions without having all the facts. And even worse, you justify this by claiming it's the "best explanation and better than none". That's the very definition of the argument from ignorance. Thanks for providing such an illustrative example of a typical fallacy in informal logic.

Originally posted by KingJames1337
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Meteor Strikes with radiation lasting over a long period of time?

We have evidence for meteors. We have evidence for radiation. We have evidence for meteors and radiation. Even if meteors and radiation are the incorrect explanation, that doesn't mean that alien wars is the only logical answer as we have no evidence for aliens or alien wars. You are arguing from ignorance, or "alien of the gaps".

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by KingJames1337

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by john_bmth

So what's more likely an alien war with a nucler weapon or a rare radioactive meteor hitting earth and people dying in an exact place(which would be the case in a meteor too), they are at least equally as likely.

That's a false dichotomy. There is absolutely zero evidence for an "alien nuclear war" so it's not a choice of either/or. Just because we cannot explain something, it doesn't mean the explanation with absolutely zero supporting evidence what so ever gets put on equal footing with the ones that at least have some grounding in reality.

He's using the argument from ignorance to make his point...not a good approach on a website with a "deny ignorance" mantra

Alright Nigger I'm in a good mood so i'ma forget about that. But there is evidence of a nuclear explosion, or radiation of some some sort, What Gives?

Overlooking the obvious racism, why pretend you "forgetting about that" is somehow merciful? I'm stating the FACTS, you ARE using the argument from ignorance...not exactly sure what your point is.

Your taking GIGANTIC leaps of faith and draw conclusions without having all the facts. And even worse, you justify this by claiming it's the "best explanation and better than none". That's the very definition of the argument from ignorance. Thanks for providing such illustrative example of a typical example of a fallacy in informal logic.

edit on 6-9-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

How is that #ing racism I'm calling you something used to say person, if you took offense to that sorry. Furthermore I'm not going to lose my cool I was forgetting about you saying I'am using the argument from ignorance because I'm not. Perhaps in the original post I was but that is not what I'm sayin now. What are the Facts, people were dead at a site, there is evidence of radiation, people died in some cases holding hands, there is evidence of green glass in the sand something that happens after an atomic bomb. The explanation I put forth is better than none but not better than any explanation you might have that is reasonable so if you have an explanation that is reasonable and would be so kind to present it please do.

reply to post by KingJames1337


Again, you have ZERO facts that would prove your point about alien attacks. We can't prove it wrong, but that doesn't make it right or the truth, especially in the absence of any proof regarding aliens. And that's the EXACT definition of the argument from ignorance.

It seems you can't cope with not knowing and NEED to believe in something rather than admitting you don't know like the rest of us...which is a FACT

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by KingJames1337

 

Again, you have ZERO facts that would prove your point about alien attacks. We can't prove it wrong, but that doesn't make it right or the truth, especially in the absence of any proof regarding aliens. And that's the EXACT definition of the argument from ignorance.

It seems you can't cope with not knowing and NEED to believe in something rather than admitting you don't know like the rest of us...which is a FACT

I don't have proof of alien attacks but there is proof of radiation and possible nuclear war. There were not people that had nuclear weapons back then if you believe conventional history. If you didn't read what I said above I'm not claiming this Is the truth but a possibility now if you have any other explanations for what happened there that are reasonable I would put it right up there with alien nuclear war...or better if it is reasonable. Furthermore I don't need to believe in something but would enjoy an explanation or possible explanation for an event.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by KingJames1337
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Meteor Strikes with radiation lasting over a long period of time?

We have evidence for meteors. We have evidence for radiation. We have evidence for meteors and radiation. Even if meteors and radiation are the incorrect explanation, that doesn't mean that alien wars is the only logical answer as we have no evidence for aliens or alien wars. You are arguing from ignorance, or "alien of the gaps".

I'am not claiming alien wars is the only logical explanation, we have no evidence of alien or alien wars but we have evidence of a nuclear war, people did not have nuclear weapons back then according to conventional history. I'am arguing from inference you are arguing from ignorance or the "evolution of the gaps" theory.

Originally posted by KingJames1337

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by KingJames1337
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Meteor Strikes with radiation lasting over a long period of time?

We have evidence for meteors. We have evidence for radiation. We have evidence for meteors and radiation. Even if meteors and radiation are the incorrect explanation, that doesn't mean that alien wars is the only logical answer as we have no evidence for aliens or alien wars. You are arguing from ignorance, or "alien of the gaps".

I'am not claiming alien wars is the only logical explanation, we have no evidence of alien or alien wars but we have evidence of a nuclear war, people did not have nuclear weapons back then according to conventional history. I'am arguing from inference you are arguing from ignorance or the "evolution of the gaps" theory.

We have a mountain of evidence for evolution (not that it has anything to do with the point you are trying to make). We have absolutely zero evidence of nuclear weapons prior to the mid-20th century. We have lots and lots of evidence for meteors hitting Earth prior to the invention of nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by KingJames1337

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by KingJames1337
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Meteor Strikes with radiation lasting over a long period of time?

We have evidence for meteors. We have evidence for radiation. We have evidence for meteors and radiation. Even if meteors and radiation are the incorrect explanation, that doesn't mean that alien wars is the only logical answer as we have no evidence for aliens or alien wars. You are arguing from ignorance, or "alien of the gaps".

I'am not claiming alien wars is the only logical explanation, we have no evidence of alien or alien wars but we have evidence of a nuclear war, people did not have nuclear weapons back then according to conventional history. I'am arguing from inference you are arguing from ignorance or the "evolution of the gaps" theory.

We have a mountain of evidence for evolution (not that it has anything to do with the point you are trying to make). We have absolutely zero evidence of nuclear weapons prior to the mid-20th century. We have lots and lots of evidence for meteors hitting Earth prior to the invention of nuclear weapons.

We don't have evidence of a nuclear weapon prior to the 20th century? These skeletons are among the most radioactive ever found, on par with those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Other cities have been found in northern India that show indications of explosions of great magnitude. One such city, found between the Ganges and the mountains of Rajmahal, seems to have been subjected to intense heat. Huge masses of walls and foundations of the ancient city are fused together, literally vitrified! And since there is no indication of a volcanic eruption at Mohenjo-Daro or at the other cities, the intense heat to melt clay vessels can only be explained by an atomic blast or some other unknown weapon. The cities were wiped out entirely.

That and the green glass formed by atomic bombs after a nuclear explosion is present at the site too.

reply to post by KingJames1337

Radiation + blast damage does NOT mean nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by KingJames1337

 

Radiation + blast damage does NOT mean nuclear weapons.

Radiation+blast damage+fusing of walls+green glass present after nuclear tests+people dying in place holding hands Does Mean nuclear weapons, unless you're bad at math. Or have a better theory.

reply to post by KingJames1337

there is proof of radiation and possible nuclear war

Radiation isn't automatically proof of a nuclear war

Leaps of faith...leaps of faith...

By the way, don't you think it's kinda weird how you only read about those "radioactive skeletons" on blogs and laughable sources like godlikeproductions? Where are the scientific studies?

reply to post by KingJames1337


I would ask in all your research about this particular event that you reference as evidence for atomic warfare if you haven't come across the false info that has been the copy/pasta for some time now.

If you search the text of the The Mahabharata you will not find the text your making reference too. Its simply not there as you listed it.

There are no walls of glass or anything close to my knowledge although I would love to see some photos and be proven wrong about that particular one.

The total body count if I remember correctly from all the cities was appx 300 total and none were "laying the streets holding hands" and many were buried at different layers of sediment showing different dates of death.

There was and is radiation there. Not insane like most sites claim it to be but it is there in the proximity. Also there which is neglected to be reported in these copy/pasta articles are Indian Nuclear Project/ Power plant/ Testing sites/ nuclear waste dumping sites.

I can't remember about the crater it seems like it has all the sign of being an impact crater. There is a nice read here that links up most of it if you would like to see if I have misrepresented anything.

twitscope.wordpress.com...-40

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by KingJames1337

 

there is proof of radiation and possible nuclear war

Radiation isn't automatically proof of a nuclear war

Leaps of faith...leaps of faith...

What about the Other evidence, such as the green glass evident after nuclear war, the people dying in place, and other evidence just leaving it out doesn't make it go away.

Originally posted by KingJames1337

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by KingJames1337

 

there is proof of radiation and possible nuclear war

Radiation isn't automatically proof of a nuclear war

Leaps of faith...leaps of faith...

What about the Other evidence, such as the green glass evident after nuclear war, the people dying in place, and other evidence just leaving it out doesn't make it go away.

This entire radioactive skeleton nonsense is only mentioned on blogs and laughable sources such as Godlikeproductions. You might wanna take the entire thing with a grain of salt, because if it's on comedy sites such as GLP, it's 99.99% nonsense

reply to post by john_bmth

We have absolutely zero evidence of nuclear weapons prior to the mid-20th century. We have lots and lots of evidence for meteors hitting Earth prior to the invention of nuclear weapons.

Really? Actually, we do have evidence. Read about it here:
Ancient Atomic Knowledge?

OKLO: AN UNAPPRECIATED COSMIC PHENOMENON "In 1972, French scientists discovered that several natural concentrations of uranium ore had become critical and flared up some "2 billion" years ago at Oklo, Gabon. The concentration and configuration of the natural uranium and surrounding materials at that time had been just right to sustain fission.

and.....

Another curious sign of an ancient nuclear war in India is a giant crater near Bombay. The nearly circular 2,154-metre-diameter Lonar crater, located 400 kilometres northeast of Bombay and aged at less than 50,000 years old, could be related to nuclear warfare of antiquity. No trace of any meteoric material, etc., has been found at the site or in the vicinity, and this is the world's only known "impact" crater in basalt. Indications of great shock (from a pressure exceeding 600,000 atmospheres) and intense, abrupt heat (indicated by basalt glass spherules) can be ascertained from the site. David Hatcher Childress in Nexus Magazine

www.s8int.com...

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by KingJames1337

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by KingJames1337

 

there is proof of radiation and possible nuclear war

Radiation isn't automatically proof of a nuclear war

Leaps of faith...leaps of faith...

What about the Other evidence, such as the green glass evident after nuclear war, the people dying in place, and other evidence just leaving it out doesn't make it go away.

This entire radioactive skeleton nonsense is only mentioned on blogs and laughable sources such as Godlikeproductions. You might wanna take the entire thing with a grain of salt, because if it's on comedy sites such as GLP, it's 99.99% nonsense

Actually I don't read or take any of my information from that site. Some of the information I posted might be wrong because it was taken off blogs, for instance the skeletons with the extreme radiation probably is wrong, as is the skeletons holding hands. I'am not an expert on the subject so I don't know.

reply to post by autowrench


Credible sources, please. Journals and other peer-reviewed science, not websites, books or blogs.

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by KingJames1337

 

I would ask in all your research about this particular event that you reference as evidence for atomic warfare if you haven't come across the false info that has been the copy/pasta for some time now.

If you search the text of the The Mahabharata you will not find the text your making reference too. Its simply not there as you listed it.

There are no walls of glass or anything close to my knowledge although I would love to see some photos and be proven wrong about that particular one.

The total body count if I remember correctly from all the cities was appx 300 total and none were "laying the streets holding hands" and many were buried at different layers of sediment showing different dates of death.

There was and is radiation there. Not insane like most sites claim it to be but it is there in the proximity. Also there which is neglected to be reported in these copy/pasta articles are Indian Nuclear Project/ Power plant/ Testing sites/ nuclear waste dumping sites.

I can't remember about the crater it seems like it has all the sign of being an impact crater. There is a nice read here that links up most of it if you would like to see if I have misrepresented anything.

twitscope.wordpress.com...-40

Actually I'am not an expert on it and made some mistakes, I do assume if some people saw the green glass and reported it might be true but I'm not sure. That text is not from the mahambarta and I apologize for that I posted it in a hurry. Even if there is radiation there it probably is low levels because it was such a long time ago or it might have been contaminated. are there any pre 20th century texts describing the effects of people living in the region. That would provide help in determining if radiation was there prior to any nuclear waste sites.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by autowrench

 

Credible sources, please. Journals and other peer-reviewed science, not websites, books or blogs.

If I may argue it is a crater that apparently is of a non-meteorite origin, I mean we can see it or look at a picture of it. Not trying to be rude just saying.