Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

page: 66
82
<< 63  64  65    67  68 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I apologize for saying you used the 'evolutionary of the gaps' theory there is currently a lot of evidence for evolutionary theories and it is one of the best conclusion thus far.
edit on 6-9-2011 by KingJames1337 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You just sitting on the sidelines enjoying this



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


The bible, The quran. There's a long lineage of a medicine man slaying the serpent, be it St Patrick, Asclepius, Moses, etc etc. That's probably the origins of your two snake on a rod you keep saying is dna.

Thor fighting Jörmungandr

Shesha vs the hydra.

It's a universal story.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by KingJames1337
 


No worries man. I am not aware of any texts that would support radiation sickness before this. Although when reading ancient translations it is up to people to try and make assumptions about the meanings of event that are not described clearly. And to make things worse there is the constant twisting of texts and alterations for whatever reason leading to stories that hold no weight. Personally I found this particular story very interesting and did some searching quite a while back and if memory serves "and I don't have a massive amount of faith in my memory anymore lol" this whole story really came out around 1994. I could be wrong about that one and it wouldn't surprise me at all.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by KingJames1337
 





so I don't know.


That's all we wanted to hear. Your information is based on HIGHLY questionable sources that aren't good enough to draw any conclusions.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

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.

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


I don't get how you were using facts I was using the facts to come to a logical conclusion even if some of them were not true which I regret. I was not using the argument of ignorance because I was at that point simply stating that it was a possibility among other possibilities nothing more nothing less, unless you could find some evidence backing up an alternate theory that came to a logical conclusion, you neglected to do so. I was not making gigantic leaps of faith and drawing conclusions without having all the facts(though I regrettably had some wrong facts) I was drawing conclusions based on facts. You further decided to use a post and deliberately change my words from 'An outlandish explanation backed up by evidence IS better than no explanation however' to (the Alien Nuclear War theory) is the "best explanation and better than none" you then proceeded to thank me for providing such an illustrative example of faulty logic. Despite your kind praise I would like to return the favor and Thank you for providing a typical fallacy in informal logic known as straw man en.wikipedia.org... Furthermore you are not denying ignorance you are inviting it by not providing explanations for occurrences in the past. Unfortunately you will not attempt to argue my claims because you are nothing more than a coward, a coward who jumps on the back of another member to attack others. A Word-Changing, Arrogant, coward.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by KingJames1337
 


You clearly stated it was a nuclear war when the facts don't support that and you don't have any definitive proof...so you DID use the argument from ignorance



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by KingJames1337
 


You clearly stated it was a nuclear war when the facts don't support that and you don't have any definitive proof...so you DID use the argument from ignorance


I said evidence of a nuclear war and possible nuclear war, never once did I state there was a nuclear war, it appears you are reverting back to your straw man roots and changing my words again.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

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 never stated aliens are the only logical answer I said it was a possibility, you changed my words, I state even the most outlandish explanation with evidence is better than no evidence. That could have included any other explanation provided that made sense



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by KingJames1337
 


You clearly stated it was a nuclear war when the facts don't support that and you don't have any definitive proof...so you DID use the argument from ignorance



Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).

I never asserted the proposition(alien nuclear war) was true but stated even the most outlandish explanation is better than no explanation at all. That could have included any other possibilities such as a mass murder combined with nuclear radiation being dumped on the site and that giant crater being the site of a construction project, but you refused to even try to provide an explanation reasserting I was using the argument from ignorance, asserting that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false. Even though I explained to you any possibility within reason or outlandish explanation would be just as good as the alien theory. But you refused to provide any alternate theories continually pushing that I was using the Argument of Ignorance stating my theories as fact even though at that point I wasn't. You in my opinion are the truly ignorant one in this case by dismissing my ideas based on facts and using Gingrich-esque tactics to tell me I'am wrong.
edit on 6-9-2011 by KingJames1337 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
eh, everybody learns from books. just because the books don't all agree with each other doesn't mean one book is the only right one vs. the other book. fact o' the matter is, they probably both contain good data and faulty data when it comes to the ancient past BECAUSE NONE OF US WERE ACTUALLY THERE to verify it. (unless you believe you've reincarnated from that time frame, which is a totally different line of argument). to suggest some error in one proves the whole lot is wrong is asking for big problems, because the history of the enlightenment period scholars has not faired much better, and in fact, worse, than most of the posts on GLP.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Frederic Wolfe, a scholar of german higher criticism, in his "Homeric Problem" text, declared that all ancient greek texts were fabrications because, he said, they couldn't write during the time their texts were said to be written. As a result of Wolfe's text, ancient greek annals, histories and epics, were tossed out for being historically invalid, and thus began the enlightenment period. (it had a snowball effect) Turned out he was wrong, something that wasn't discovered till the advent of the science known today as archaeology, some 40 years later.

In the meantime, university students were encouraged to pour over ancient texts and see if they too could find evidence such as Wolfe had. The entirety of ancient history was put up to the magnifying glass of unsupported criticisms. Without the lynch pin that is ancient greek writings, texts that relied on grecian interaction to support their references, faced similar fates. Soon the entire ancient world was tossed in the trash bin. 40 years later, they discovered Wolfe was wrong, and when confronted with this evidence, they refused to correct the error in their own new histories on the ancient greeks. instead they asked if it would be better to go back to believing in fairies, which of course was not the argument at all.

They also insisted that ancient Troy never existed. That the land of Shinar never existed. That there was no ancient texts that supported the flood story in the bible nor any of the other people, places or events. When Ancient Sumer and Akkad were dug up and the old writings started to come to light, it seemed as if the biblical accounts were supported by other texts. Their response to this factoid? They called the biblical authors, plagiarists and ignored the accumulating historical evidence for a real flood (although not global, definitely along water ways of the mediterranean, atlantic, persian gulf, etc.).

The issue is one of extremes. They insist on taking a hard line position all the way to one side -- that of refusing to acknowledge the historical accuracy of anything older than 300 years ago.
edit on 6-9-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by KingJames1337
 


But it's not an explanation if it isn't based on facts!!

You are speculating about a nuclear war for which you have no proof...yet you seem to imply a nuclear war happened. So unless you're just saying there is a high concentration of radiation, you are using the argumetn from ignorance. Even worse, the whole radioactive human remains claim comes from BLOGS, aka unreliable sources.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
kingjames

i wouldn't bother trying to debate this with mrxyz, he will not accept any evidence except evidence that suggests the opposite. this is a clear indicator that you're not dealing with a person who wants to know the truth, only argue for the sake of arguing and always taking the position that you can't prove it. this is particularly easy by simply ignoring 5000 years of written history (and once we know what it says on the gobekli tepe stone and verify its authenticity), make that 8000 years of written history



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


The bible, The quran. There's a long lineage of a medicine man slaying the serpent, be it St Patrick, Asclepius, Moses, etc etc. That's probably the origins of your two snake on a rod you keep saying is dna.

Thor fighting Jörmungandr

Shesha vs the hydra.

It's a universal story.


wait this is what you said:



Because every king or queen from that time period claimed to be descendant of this god or that god, with this animal form or that animal form.


what's that got to do with battles? you said DESCENDED from. so did i. the ancient royals of china said they descended from dragon gods. examples of fighting animals is not the same as saying "Descended" from. i'm sensing a "skeptical kobayashi meru" approaching



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
kingjames

i wouldn't bother trying to debate this with mrxyz, he will not accept any evidence except evidence that suggests the opposite. this is a clear indicator that you're not dealing with a person who wants to know the truth, only argue for the sake of arguing and always taking the position that you can't prove it. this is particularly easy by simply ignoring 5000 years of written history (and once we know what it says on the gobekli tepe stone and verify its authenticity), make that 8000 years of written history


Let's look at the facts, shall we?

1) This entire "radioactive skeletons" stuff is based on BLOGS, and NOT credible sources...so the entire base premise is questionable.

2) Even if we had a scientific study proving that those skeletons exist, it doesn't mean "nuclear war" is the answer we're looking for...especially in the absence of any proof.

And what "opposite" are you talking about? I said we don't know, not that I am for/against a certain position.

This entire thing lacks facts, and is based on pure SPECULATION.

As for "5000 year old history", taking myths literally is silly. Those remains/scriptures show us what people back then BELIEVED, not necessarily reality!

In short, unless someone presents facts, they can't call something "evidence". How about finding a scientific article mentioning those skeletons, not some random blog post. I could start a blog too and talk about random unicorns skeletons in Sumatra...doesn't mean it's the truth. So get some peer reviewed papers instead of nonsense blog posts or crap from hogwash sites like Godlikeproductions. Until then, you attacking people who aren't blind believers, people who care about FACTS and OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, is kinda silly...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


i've already established with the mahabharata, that they could operate vehicles with weaponry, that could fly in the sky. some of these vehicles were celestial. meaning, not just in our sky but outer space and/or other dimensional. this is not an example of them writing their beliefs, but historical accounts of what they saw or their ancestors saw. i could provide you with huge stacks AND I MEAN HUGE, of verified historical accounts found in ancient histories, yet we're being brainwashed to believe they contain no truth whatsoever and are just fairy tales about things that never happened, or as gorman put it, "chinese whispers."

this is what i mean about ignoring evidence. once you've established in your own mind that ancient history is just mythos, you can have the luxury of denying anything they contain, even if proven otherwise, cause afterall, we don't "want to go back to believing in fairies."

yeesh the strawmen in these arguments are so thick, ya can't see the cornfield.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The Mahabharata: Drona Parva
SECTION CLXXIX
Naikartana, was now hurled at the Rakshasa. Beholding that excellent and blazing weapon capable of piercing the body of every foe, in the hands of the Suta's son, the Rakshasa began to fly away in fear assuming a body gigantic as the foot of the Vindhya mountains. Indeed, seeing that dart in Karna's hand, all creatures in the sky, O king, uttered loud cries. Fierce winds began to blow, and thunders with loud report began to fall on the earth.
www.sacred-texts.com...

The Mahabharata, Book 7: Drona Parva

Putting forth his prowess, Madhava hurled unto the sea the Daitya city called Saubha, (moving) in the skies, protected by Salwa, and regarded as impregnable.
www.sacred-texts.com...
------------

^A city called Saubha, moving in the skies, was "hurled" into the sea, even though it had been regarded as impregnable before that. So it was a flying, nearly impregnable city.

Mahabharata, Book 7 Vana Parva
Then O king, the wicked Salwa, thus afflicted by the Vrishnis, mounted on his car of precious metals, and leaving Dwaraka scudded through the skies!'"
www.sacred-texts.com...
.....



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I think you're confusing myths with reality or an accurate description of history. You know, those people creating scriptures, pottery, and other stuff were often just as irrational as people today.

According to your research, if in 2000 years someone finds a text about Scientology's e-meters, written by scientology, then that person in the future should also believe e-meters totally work??? That's completely irrational. Witness testimony (which is what we're taking about here) is about the least credible type of evidence.

Just because some people had gods riding giant golden chariots pulled by elephants through the sky doesn't mean it really happened!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo
 


I think you're confusing myths with reality or an accurate description of history. You know, those people creating scriptures, pottery, and other stuff were often just as irrational as people today.

According to your research, if in 2000 years someone finds a text about Scientology's e-meters, written by scientology, then that person in the future should also believe e-meters totally work??? That's completely irrational. Witness testimony (which is what we're taking about here) is about the least credible type of evidence.

Just because some people had gods riding giant golden chariots pulled by elephants through the sky doesn't mean it really happened!


no the correct analogy would be, in 2000 years if they find a painting or other material capable of withstanding the rigors of time and massive catastrophe, of an e-meter, skeptics will claim it never existed, and even if it did, it was probably just a tool for hammering wood because everybody knows the americans were primitive worshippers of eagle gods and female gods.


you ASKED for that.




new topics
top topics
 
82
<< 63  64  65    67  68 >>

log in

join