# Evolution is a bunch of lies, who is with me?



## JTHearts

I am not religious but ever since I first read about evolution and natural selection and all that retarded **** I've been firmly against it. I'm pretty sure the world was created by God, but God is evil and therefore I shall never him and burn in hell for all of eternity. 

Anyway, evolution is a bunch of lies. Get it through your heads.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded

Bro, do you even science ?


----------



## Cashel

Why is everyone still on this whole 'evolution is a lie' thing? Gravity is obviously the real false science.


----------



## JTHearts

RenegadeReloaded said:


> Bro, do you even science ?


No I always hated science because all my science teachers in school were mean to me about sucking at labs.


----------



## NathanielWingatePeaslee




----------



## RenegadeReloaded

The bible says Earth was created a few thousands of years ago, but animal fossils were found dating from millions of years ago, enough proof for me to say God didn't created Earth.


----------



## Zizi

OP is trolling~


----------



## JTHearts

I am not trolling. I shall burn in hell.


----------



## iCod

Dude just stop. You're not even a good/funny troll like iambored21 or megaldoom. Just quit.


----------



## SplendidBob

NathanielWingatePeaslee said:


>


Perfect


----------



## drjohnsn

Since we're on the subject, sliced bread sucks.


----------



## minimized

Ugh, flashbacks of some guy who wanted to bait me into getting into a pissing match on youtube. He told me I must have fallen asleep in science class since he knew that evolution was false, theory, blah blah blah.


----------



## thunder1276

Believing in God makes you religious. Even if you hate him.


----------



## KILOBRAVO

JTHearts said:


> No I always hated science because all my science teachers in school were mean to me about sucking at labs.


i didnt know you could ''suck'' a Lab, or..... did you suck [something] in the Lab?..... LOL you Americans and your language


----------



## blue2

I'm with you,this thread makes me wanna punch a dinosaur in the face


----------



## JTHearts

iCod said:


> Dude just stop. You're not even a good/funny troll like iambored21 or megaldoom. Just quit.


I AM NOT A TROLL. stop bullying me


----------



## MondKrabbe

JTHearts said:


> I AM NOT A TROLL. stop bullying me


Nobody is bullying you. You're the one that's trolling us non-stop.


----------



## JTHearts

MondKrabbe said:


> Nobody is bullying you. You're the one that's trolling us non-stop.


i am not trolling and you people are the ones bullying me, you won't stop calling me a troll


----------



## Ignopius

I'm so confused. I can't figure out of this guy is genuine or a troll. At first I was inclined to believe that he wasn't but now I'm thinking otherwise.


----------



## AussiePea

I agree!


----------



## eukz

RenegadeReloaded said:


> The bible says Earth was created a few thousands of years ago, but animal fossils were found dating from millions of years ago, enough proof for me to say God didn't created Earth.


Believers will tell you that God created the fossils with their age, as well as the entire Universe and Big Bang evidence to test our faith in him. But he's not a psycho...


----------



## ilsr

I took the requisite science in college for a science related major. But not all science is equally reputable imo. So in general I tune out evolution and psychology.


----------



## ugh1979

JTHearts said:


> I am not religious but ever since I first read about evolution and natural selection and all that retarded **** I've been firmly against it. I'm pretty sure the world was created by God, but God is evil and therefore I shall never him and burn in hell for all of eternity.
> 
> Anyway, evolution is a bunch of lies. Get it through your heads.


Unless you are prepared to explain why and actually show you have any degree of knowledge and intelligence on the subject then you are just trolling.

Let's start off with a question and see how you get on; Why do you think peer reviewed science on the subject is a lie but the religious beliefs you clearly have aren't?


----------



## ugh1979

ilsr said:


> I took the requisite science in college for a science related major. But not all science is equally reputable imo. So in general I tune out evolution and psychology.


Why don't you think evolution related science is reputable? I'll ignore the question of psychology since it's off topic.


----------



## MondKrabbe

ugh1979 said:


> Unless you are prepared to explain why and actually show you have any degree of knowledge and intelligence on the subject then you are just trolling.
> 
> Let's start off with a question and see how you get on; Why do you think peer reviewed science on the subject is a lie but the religious beliefs you clearly have aren't?


Nobody can really tell, but it's being believed this guy is just here to troll. I know you love debating, but I wouldn't even bother with this guy. :stu Do what makes you happy though.


----------



## ugh1979

MondKrabbe said:


> Nobody can really tell, but it's being believed this guy is just here to troll. I know you love debating, but I wouldn't even bother with this guy. :stu Do what makes you happy though.


I know, but sometimes trolls bring people who aren't trolls but agree with them out the woodwork so we get a fun debate. 

If he is just a troll he'll ignore my questions. I can see someone else has already came to his defence though who claims to have a science related major so I'm more interested in what they have to say.


----------



## ilsr

ugh1979 said:


> I know, but sometimes trolls bring people who aren't trolls but agree with them out the woodwork so we get a fun debate.
> 
> If he is just a troll he'll ignore my questions. I can see someone else has already came to his defence though who claims to have a science related major so I'm more interested in what they have to say.


I'm not really up for a debate. I am just alone, depressed, and bored on a Friday night. I know the OP is probably a troll from his tone of words. But I'll say a bit more why I think this way. It took a while, but within the last ten years I finally came back to believing in God as I did in early sunday school so the only thing I agree seriously with the OP is the weakness of the evolutionary theory and not being saved and going to hell. There are many unresolved questions about evolution, missing link etc. , and the probabilities that the natural world evolved to the species we have, I don't quite believe is not part of a supernatural design anymore. Physical sciences have been proven for the most part and there are products of engineering that has changed the world using those sciences. The human species and life on earth seems supernaturally special to me.


----------



## tehuti88

I hate to judge people as trolls because I'm horrible at perceiving such things, and I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt, but...



RenegadeReloaded said:


> Bro, do you even science ?





JTHearts said:


> No I always hated science because all my science teachers in school were mean to me about sucking at labs.


...yeah, I think I'm heavily leaning toward "troll" by now. :blank

Sorry OP. Not with you on this.



ilsr said:


> But not all science is equally reputable imo. So in general I tune out evolution and *psychology*.


*and yet, is here on an anxiety disorder site* :|



Cashel said:


> Why is everyone still on this whole 'evolution is a lie' thing? Gravity is obviously the real false science.


What?? :eek What are you talking abo

*floats away toward ceiling*


----------



## ugh1979

ilsr said:


> I'm not really up for a debate. I am just alone, depressed, and bored on a Friday night. I know the OP is probably a troll from his tone of words. But I'll say a bit more why I think this way. It took a while, but within the last ten years I finally came back to believing in God as I did in early sunday school so the only thing I agree seriously with the OP is the weakness of the evolutionary theory and not being saved and going to hell. There are many unresolved questions about evolution, missing link etc. , and the probabilities that the natural world evolved to the species we have, I don't quite believe is not part of a supernatural design anymore. Physical sciences have been proven for the most part and there are products of engineering that has changed the world using those sciences.


What missing links are you referring to?

The theory of evolution is like a jigsaw.  We have a large number of the pieces, but not all, but that doesn't mean it's not extremely clear what the jigsaw is a picture of. It's one of the best supported scientific theories we have, with well over hundred years of peer reviewed science which supports it, and no peer reviewed science that supports creationism.

How can you ignore that? Because it suits your religious beliefs? It requires immense intellectual dishonesty to deny evolution is true, and increasingly diminishing god of the gaps arguments to try and maintain a belief it's false.

You talk about probabilities in relation to evolutionary biology but what are you comparing that to? You don't have a control planet with the same conditions as ours to test billions of years of biology against it so how can you say certain things in evolutionary biology are too improbable to be true?

Never mind the immense amount of genetic evidence we now have which confirms the ancestry of species without doubt.



> The human species and life on earth seems supernaturally special to me.


That's just anthropocentric hubris. Commonly found it humans, as it always has been, but it's sad it still exists in contemporary educated people.


----------



## Blue Dino




----------



## ugh1979

tehuti88 said:


> What?? :eek What are you talking abo
> 
> *floats away toward ceiling*


The comment about gravity was sarcasm. 

It's funny how creationists have no problem with scientific theories which don't contradict their religious beliefs, but when one does, they say the same scientific institutions behind the work are wrong and there's some global scientific conspiracy or something else as inane. :roll


----------



## ugh1979

ilsr said:


> I meant psychology in the context as a useless science to actually help
> people with their problems. But I get it if you think I'm full of it.
> I don't think much of your posts either.


I understand if that's been your personal experience, as not every line of treatment helps everyone, but there are millions of people who are helped by psychology to overcome a range of mental issues.

I know I certainly was for example. Being taught and learning about psychology played a huge part in my recovery from SA and depression.


----------



## naes

Obvious troll. Keep your day job, if you even have one.


----------



## tehuti88

He seems to have deleted his comment, that's odd...I seem to be inciting a lot of that lately.



ilsr said:


> I meant psychology in the context as a useless science to actually help
> people with their problems. But I get it if you think I'm full of it.
> I don't think much of your posts either.


All right then for the clarification, which I could not have been expected to understand from your initial post.

To end your reply on an insulting note, though? (Even if it's true, where did I say I "didn't think much of your posts"?--your posts in this thread are all I'm aware of, at the moment.) Nice touch, especially considering that *I'm someone who hasn't been helped one bit by years of numerous psychological treatments*. (If you're as familiar with my posts as you claim to be, you should know this.)

So, you basically slapped in the face a person who is actually in a position to see where you're coming from :blank even if I agree more with Ugh1979's comment below...



ugh1979 said:


> I understand if that's been your personal experience, as not every line of treatment helps everyone, but there are millions of people who are helped by psychology to overcome a range of mental issues.


----------



## ilsr

tehuti88 said:


> He seems to have deleted his comment, that's odd...I seem to be inciting a lot of that lately.
> 
> All right then for the clarification, which I could not have been expected to understand from your initial post.
> 
> To end your reply on an insulting note, though? (Even if it's true, where did I say I "didn't think much of your posts"?--your posts in this thread are all I'm aware of, at the moment.) Nice touch, especially considering that *I'm someone who hasn't been helped one bit by years of numerous psychological treatments*. (If you're as familiar with my posts as you claim to be, you should know this.)
> 
> So, you basically slapped in the face a person who is actually in a position to see where you're coming from :blank even if I agree more with Ugh1979's comment below...


what you said was pretty low in the first place with no sign of being interested where I was coming from. I deleted it because I didn't want to be harsh at the end and just ignore it.


----------



## BeNice

He's like a Battle Troll










Kind of cute. He doesn't even really know he is one.


----------



## jimity

I'm with you. Evolution is a load of crap. Satan's way of trying to convince people that there is no spiritual world.


----------



## whocares187

I think the last word in your first paragraph is the key answer very few people believe in.

btw to the people thinking he's a confirmed troll. I hate science too because my science teachers were mean to me and I sucked at labs. maybe troll maybe not. at least don't be overconfident in assumptions. for that is more anti-science than this thread itself.


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> That's just anthropocentric hubris. Commonly found it humans, as it always has been, but it's sad it still exists in contemporary educated people.


Why does science scoff at the idea of a supernatural being creating everything? Science can't tell us how or why the big bang happened and what was before. They admit they don't know. So that leaves us with the most logical explanation of a being creating everything.

God = big bang = everything. Therefore everything was made by God. All particles and laws of nature. So the idea that now man has discovered how nature works means there is no God is wrong. All science is really doing is showing how intelligent God is in his handywork.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I'm with you. Evolution is a load of crap. Satan's way of trying to convince people that there is no spiritual world.


Hundreds of millions of people have spiritual beliefs and believe in evolution. The two don't have to contradict each other.

So, you're clearly wrong on both points.


----------



## jimity

MondKrabbe said:


> Nobody is bullying you. You're the one that's trolling us non-stop.


So anyone against evolution is now a troll?


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> Hundreds of millions of people have spiritual beliefs and believe in evolution. The two don't have to contradict each other.
> 
> So, you're clearly wrong on both points.


I was referring to Christian based spiritual world. The one most science disregards. The rest have a spiritual belief that doesn't come into conflict with evolution like christianity does.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Why does science scoff at the idea of a supernatural being creating everything?


Because there is no evidence for said supernatural being.



> Science can't tell us how or why the big bang happened and what was before. They admit they don't know.


And so should you since you don't know either.



> So that leaves us with the most logical explanation of a being creating everything.


It's not logical if you have any intellectual honesty. It's only logical for those who express anthropocentric or anthropomorphic hubris and demand a mind has to be responsible for complexity, typically because they can't or don't understand how complexity arises from fundamental and simple processes. It's very primitive thinking.



> God = big bang = everything. Therefore everything was made by God. All particles and laws of nature. So the idea that now man has discovered how nature works means there is no God is wrong. All science is really doing is showing how intelligent God is in his handywork.


To the contrary, science over the last few hundred years has been removing the need for a god to exist. The god of the gaps arguments people like you make have less and less gaps to try and shoe horn in your god. Thus it's no wonder religiosity is dead or dying in the developed world. Many people just don't need god to be an answer to anything as the idea has been made redundant by better scientific explanations. It's as an archaic a concept as any of the thousands of other deity based myths that have come and gone over the millennia.

Saying god = big bang = everything makes as much sense as saying pink unicorn = big bang = everything. There's no evidence for the initial condition so it's not valid reasoning.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I was referring to Christian based spiritual world. The one most science disregards. The rest have a spiritual belief that doesn't come into conflict with evolution like christianity does.


Most Christian's accept evolution is true. It's typically evangelical's, Mormon's, and some other minor sects on the extremist/literal end of the scale that deny it.

Feel free to learn about things before speaking about them.


----------



## JustThisGuy

Cashel said:


> Why is everyone still on this whole 'evolution is a lie' thing? Gravity is obviously the real false science.


I know, right? It's just theory.



Zizi said:


> OP is trolling~


 Yea, and terribly.


----------



## MondKrabbe

jimity said:


> So anyone against evolution is now a troll?


Literally didn't say any of that. I just got done finishing an argument on a message board where the guy spent the whole time misquoting me. Can you not do that? Thanks.

Anyways, he's a troll because that's what he's been doing. He makes random, short paragraphed posts in his threads that make no sense, generally in Society and Culture but they way he words them make them sound like they should be in Frustration. When anyone points out his odd logic, the ensuing debates just go around in circles because he dismisses what's being said. Granted, he makes a few posts that aren't trolling but those are in the minority.


----------



## Noca

I used to believe evolution was a joke growing up in a christian fundamentalist household, but then I informed myself on the topic and stopped being so ignorant, never looked back.


----------



## mike91

I believe it more true then god created us and the bible well if i believe in that well there must be a magic bean that grows in to the clouds and giants live up there


----------



## Persephone The Dread

As soon as I saw the thread title I knew it would be you that posted it because it's just too obvious and you posted it in the science section instead of the debate section...


----------



## jimity

> Because there is no evidence for said supernatural being.


Where do you think the people got the ideas for the books of the bible? Too much manna? I don't think so. Not to mention miracles performed by saints and weeping statues and pictures of Mary and Jesus and all the reports of people having near death experiences and out of body experiences.



> And so should you since you don't know either.


If the bible says God created everything then that's what happened.



> It's not logical if you have any intellectual honesty. It's only logical for those who express anthropocentric or anthropomorphic hubris and demand a mind has to be responsible for complexity, typically because they can't or don't understand how complexity arises from fundamental and simple processes. It's very primitive thinking.


So if I throw a pile of garbage in a pile eventually it will turn into life? Riiight.



> To the contrary, science over the last few hundred years has been removing the need for a god to exist. The god of the gaps arguments people like you make have less and less gaps to try and shoe horn in your god. Thus it's no wonder religiosity is dead or dying in the developed world. Many people just don't need god to be an answer to anything as the idea has been made redundant by better scientific explanations. It's as an archaic a concept as any of the thousands of other deity based myths that have come and gone over the millennia.


Just because people came up with supernatural ideas to try to explain how nature works and now we have scientific explanations for how nature works doesn't mean that God isn't behind it.

And with the belief in God dying in the developed world just look at what is happening to the economy, the environment, the family. It's all going to hell in a hand basket.



> Saying god = big bang = everything makes as much sense as saying pink unicorn = big bang = everything. There's no evidence for the initial condition so it's not valid reasoning.


But there is no book written on a pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster. This is just made up to try to show people who believe in God how people can believe in anything. And two hundred years ago there was no evidence for black holes or worm holes but hey guess what? Things still exist regardless if humans have found evidence for it or not.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Where do you think the people got the ideas for the books of the bible? Too much manna? I don't think so.


Many of the stories in the bible are reworks of stories from earlier religions. Also, humans have a great ability for making up stories. You don't think creativity requires the supernatural do you?



> Not to mention miracles performed by saints and weeping statues and pictures of Mary and Jesus and all the reports of people having near death experiences and out of body experiences.


No 'miracles' ever stand up to scrutiny, and NDEs and OBEs have plausible rational explanations. Do you think dreams are supernatural as well?



> If the bible says God created everything then that's what happened.


It takes incredible naivety and credulity to believe that and it's circular logic since you can show neither the bible or god is valid/true. If you accept such primitive claims as true then why do you reject similar claims in other religions scripture, who all make the same kind of arguments as you do?



> So if I throw a pile of garbage in a pile eventually it will turn into life? Riiight.


If you are referring to the chemical building blocks of life as garbage, then yes, with the right conditions and enough time it's highly plausible that is what happens. It's unarguable that complexity can emerge from a more basic form without intelligent guidance.



> Just because people came up with supernatural ideas to try to explain how nature works and now we have scientific explanations for how nature works doesn't mean that God isn't behind it.


And I could argue that it's a pink unicorn behind it and it be just inane as your unsubstantiated claim.



> And with the belief in God dying in the developed world just look at what is happening to the economy, the environment, the family. It's all going to hell in a hand basket.


We've collectively never had a higher standard of living. A recent economic dip which we're recovering/recovered from is nothing compared with the huge economic gains we've had in the last 70 years (which also correlate with the demise of religiosity). If you think things are bad now, then you are clearly ignorant of history. Things in general have never been better, which less crime, war and as I say a higher standard of living for everyone. As for the environment, do you reject the vast swathes of climate science that shows how pollution has effected it and claim it's due to increasing irreligiosity? If so, it wouldn't surprise me if you think gays cause earthquakes as well. :roll



> But there is no book written on a pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster. This is just made up to try to show people who believe in God how people can believe in anything.


You're missing the point. People have been making up such characters and calling them divine creators etc for at leasts tens of thousands of years. I could list hundreds of recorded deities that are far older than your concept of god. Why do you reject them if all you need to believe in a god is a story in an old book?



> And two hundred years ago there was no evidence for black holes or worm holes but hey guess what? Things still exist regardless if humans have found evidence for it or not.


But we can only claim things exist once credible evidence for them is found. Otherwise it's delusional/dishonest. (btw there isn't credible evidence wormholes exist, yet. They are still hypothetical.)


----------



## twitchy666

civilisation is reversing to cave-dwelling, bone-raw, dog nature, learning quick or slow, it's happening. badbye telly fones

mind contamination
nuclear or psychologist decay
self species direct damage


----------



## hoddesdon

MondKrabbe said:


> Nobody is bullying you. You're the one that's trolling us non-stop.


Just because someone does not agree with you does not make that person a troll. Claiming otherwise is a form of bullying.


----------



## tehuti88

mike91 said:


> I believe it more true then god created us and the bible well if i believe in that well there must be a magic bean that grows in to the clouds and giants live up there


Magical cloud beans, hell yes! :yes



jimity said:


> But there is no book written on a pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster. This is just made up to try to show people who believe in God how people can believe in anything.


If you're going to make that argument, there _are_ books written (or at least oral tales handed down) about...

...a falcon god hatching out of a primordial egg at the sound of a voice and creating the world, sailing the boat of the sun all day and fighting giant serpents in the underworld at night, and then sending a vicious lioness to destroy humanity, and getting her drunk on beer to convince her to stop the slaughter, at which point she turned into the sweet-natured goddess of love...

...and about a jackal-headed god who weighed a person's heart against a feather while an ibis-headed god wrote down the verdict before the soul could either get eaten by a crocodile/hippo/lion hybrid, or go to the afterlife (the judge being a green man who was cut into pieces by his brother and resurrected by his sister/wife, whom he then impregnated before dying again)...

...and about a pregnant woman who fell from the sky, landed on the back of a giant snapping turtle whose shell became the world, and was the ancestor of twins, who themselves created the rest of the world...

...and about a road it takes four days to travel to the afterlife, but you have to watch out for raging rivers and various monsters/pitfalls along the way, not to mention the giant flying skeleton who might try to waylay you...

I could go on and on. :/ Honestly I would be surprised if there had NOT been a holy book written somewhere that expressed sincere belief in pink unicorns or a flying spaghetti monster.

(And this is coming from somebody who actually does believe in God.)


----------



## WillYouStopDave

eukz said:


> Believers will tell you that God created the fossils with their age, as well as the entire Universe and Big Bang evidence to test our faith in him. But he's not a psycho...


 :lol

Just for the sake of argument.....how do you know? I mean wouldn't anything that would intentionally create all of this be a psycho?


----------



## joolz

minimized said:


> Ugh, flashbacks of some guy who wanted to bait me into getting into a pissing match on youtube. He told me I must have fallen asleep in science class since he knew that evolution was false, theory, blah blah blah.


Evolution IS a theory. It hasn't been proven. Just like the "Big Bang Theory". The fact that people insist these theories ARE fact, lends credence to the notion that science is a religion in itself.


----------



## jimity

> Many of the stories in the bible are reworks of stories from earlier religions. Also, humans have a great ability for making up stories. You don't think creativity requires the supernatural do you?


No it doesn't.



> No 'miracles' ever stand up to scrutiny, and NDEs and OBEs have plausible rational explanations. Do you think dreams are supernatural as well?


http://listverse.com/2008/07/14/top-10-astonishing-miracles/

There are cases where people have had out of body experiences and have seen and heard things going on around them while unconscious and these things actually took place.

You can probably find people experienced with inducing OBEs and will come across cases where they claim they have heard things people have said and later have had it verified.

If a dream turns into an astral projection then it is supernatural. Big difference between a dream and an astral projection.



> It takes incredible naivety and credulity to believe that and it's circular logic since you can show neither the bible or god is valid/true. If you accept such primitive claims as true then why do you reject similar claims in other religions scripture, who all make the same kind of arguments as you do?


I can't accept two religions. All others must be rejected. That doesn't mean I don't believe what they say. I just won't follow them.



> If you are referring to the chemical building blocks of life as garbage, then yes, with the right conditions and enough time it's highly plausible that is what happens. It's unarguable that complexity can emerge from a more basic form without intelligent guidance.


What are these chemical building blocks of life?

So far life has not been created in the lab out of inorganic material. I doubt it ever will.



> And I could argue that it's a pink unicorn behind it and it be just inane as your unsubstantiated claim.


People are intelligent enough to know they only exist in the imagination and that's why people don't believe in something like pink unicorns. People still and will always believe in God. They have a personal relationship with God. They are intelligent enough to know God exists.



> We've collectively never had a higher standard of living. A recent economic dip which we're recovering/recovered from is nothing compared with the huge economic gains we've had in the last 70 years (which also correlate with the demise of religiosity). If you think things are bad now, then you are clearly ignorant of history. Things in general have never been better, which less crime, war and as I say a higher standard of living for everyone.


Because religion is still alive and well despite what you think. But as the numbers go down and people turn towards sin a time will come when enough is enough.



> As for the environment, do you reject the vast swathes of climate science that shows how pollution has effected it and claim it's due to increasing irreligiosity? If so, it wouldn't surprise me if you think gays cause earthquakes as well. :roll


If people everywhere were christian I bet some natural process would have stopped the pollution from causing increasing destructive weather patterns.

No gays help spread aids.



> You're missing the point. People have been making up such characters and calling them divine creators etc for at leasts tens of thousands of years. I could list hundreds of recorded deities that are far older than your concept of god. Why do you reject them if all you need to believe in a god is a story in an old book?


Like I said before. Doesn't mean I don't believe them. There are many stories about the great flood in other religions. I don't reject them. It just confirms what I already believe.


----------



## ugh1979

joolz said:


> Evolution IS a theory. It hasn't been proven. Just like the "Big Bang Theory". The fact that people insist these theories ARE fact, lends credence to the notion that science is a religion in itself.


You clearly don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and theory in lay terms. A scientific theory is akin to a fact since it's testable and repeatedly been shown to be correct.

See the below definition:



> A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.


Too many people make the mistake you do.


----------



## joolz

ugh1979 said:


> You clearly don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and theory in lay terms. A scientific theory is akin to a fact since it's testable and repeatedly been shown to be correct.
> 
> See the below definition:
> 
> Too many people make the mistake you do.


I understand the difference. But I also understand the seeming dogma with which such a weak theory is asserted as "akin to a fact". I have read/heard too much in the way of valid criticism to ever regard it as fact.



> Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact. It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation.
> 
> The process of general evolution could theoretically be reproduced through experimentation, but it never has been. Though speciation has been demonstrated in laboratories, no event beyond speciation has ever been demonstrated.


----------



## SilentRobot

Well that's not true at the slightest. I've just witnessed your evolution into a massive moron.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Really. And what religions are these earlier ones and what stories in the bible?


You can read about some of them here: 10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions

There are many more obvious plagiarisms as well if you care to do any research.



> http://listverse.com/2008/07/14/top-10-astonishing-miracles/


I've heard of many of these before and have read investigations of them which contradict their claims as well. All in all, nothing that isn't ambiguous, lacking data to show it was a miracle or a fraud. Happy to discuss a few if you want.



> There are cases where people have had out of body experiences and have seen and heard things going on around them while unconscious and these things actually took place.
> 
> You can probably find people experienced with inducing OBEs and will come across cases where they claim they have heard things people have said and later have had it verified.


Anecdotal reports that don't stand up to scrutiny. There was a large scale study conducted last year that didn't find such evidence.



> If a dream turns into an astral projection then it is supernatural. Big difference between a dream and an astral projection.


It sounds like you're speaking out of your astral projection. :lol



> I can't accept two religions. All others must be rejected. That doesn't mean I don't believe what they say. I just won't follow them.


So even though you don't disbelieve them you reject them? Is there anything else you reject even though you don't disbelieve it to be true? Why have you picked whatever branch of Christianity you have?



> What are these chemical building blocks of life?


Read this: The Chemical Building Blocks of Life



> So far life has not been created in the lab out of inorganic material.


Not quite yet, but we're getting very close to it: Formation of life's building blocks recreated in lab.



> I doubt it ever will.


I think it's just a matter of time before synthetic biology creates a true second genesis. Synthetic biology is a huge 21st century field, and when combined with other fields such as artificial intelligence the odds are in it's favour.

If it does happen, will you accept evolution is true?



> People are intelligent enough to know they only exist in the imagination and that's why people don't believe in something like pink unicorns.


People say the same thing about your god. Just because you don't means nothing.



> People still and will always believe in God.


Some yes, but that's a dwindling number.



> They have a personal relationship with God.


I'd call it a personal delusion, just as children have personal relationships with imaginary friends and schizophrenics have personal relationships with hallucinated beings.



> They are intelligent enough to know God exists.


There's a negative correlation between intelligence and theism. You can read more about it here:

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades.



> Because religion is still alive and well despite what you think. But as the numbers go down and people turn towards sin a time will come when enough is enough.


Religion is far from well in most of the developed world. It's all but absent in many places, which funnily enough are also ranked the best places in the world to live due to their high living standards.

It's laughable to claim the less religious people are the more 'sinful' they become. The places with the least crime for example correlate with being the least religious, where as the most religious countries are among most crime ridden. There are other factors involved as well, but the bottom line is there is no correlation between being 'sinful' and religiosity.



> If people everywhere were christian I bet some natural process would have stopped the pollution from causing increasing destructive weather patterns.


Wow, talk about living in a fantasy world. That's like something out of a children's book. :lol



> No gays help spread aids.


Did you just warp here from 1987? :roll Such claims are as ignorant as they are shameful. Heterosexual sex spreads HIV more than homosexual sex in this day and age.



> Like I said before. Doesn't mean I don't believe them. There are many stories about the great flood in other religions. I don't reject them. It just confirms what I already believe.


So even when other religions beliefs contradict your Christian beliefs you don't say you don't believe them? Or is it in fact that you are happy to cherry pick the odd myth that correlates with your own mythology?


----------



## ugh1979

joolz said:


> I understand the difference. But I also understand the seeming dogma with which such a weak theory is asserted as "akin to a fact". I have read/heard too much in the way of valid criticism to ever regard it as fact.


Where are you getting this "valid criticism" from? It's certainly not peer reviewed scientific journals.

Please don't embarrass yourself by saying you get your "valid criticism" from Creationist websites. :roll

How you can claim a theory which has many hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers which support it and pretty much none that reject, (and absolutely none in the premier journals), as weak, suggests you either don't understand how scientific credibility is established and/or are intellectually dishonest and expressing gross cognitive bias.


----------



## joolz

ugh1979 said:


> Where are you getting this "valid criticism" from? It's certainly not peer reviewed scientific journals.
> 
> Please don't embarrass yourself by saying you get your "valid criticism" from Creationist websites. :roll
> 
> How you can claim a theory which has many hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers which support it and pretty much none that reject, (and absolutely none in the premier journals), as weak, suggests you either don't understand how scientific credibility is established and/or are intellectually dishonest and expressing gross cognitive bias.


You're the one demonstrating gross cognitive bias by suggesting that nothing valid can come from creationists or their websites. This is that "religion of science" I was talking about. But there have been scientists who have opposed the theory of evolution.

Can you in any way counter the issues with the theory that were raised in the excerpt of my last post? Or are you just going to rely on the argument "It's science, so it has to be true."?


----------



## ugh1979

joolz said:


> You're the one demonstrating gross cognitive bias by suggesting that nothing valid can come from creationists or their websites. This is that "religion of science" I was talking about.


To the contrary, anyone can post any crap on a website, and it requires great credulity and cognitive bias to use it as the basis for your beliefs while rejecting the vast swathes of counter-evidence from what is a definitive credible source. (Peer reviewed journals)

Are you saying peer reviewed journals aren't credible?



> But there have been scientists who have opposed the theory of evolution.


That means nothing unless they are publishing research which shows why it's wrong. The fact is they don't, because they can't.



> Can you in any way counter the issues with the theory that were raised in the excerpt of my last post?


What post?



> Or are you just going to rely on the argument "It's science, so it has to be true."?


I think you are getting confused with arguments that reference credible evidence rather than lay theistic/conspiracy etc websites.

It's a typical theistic argument that states, "It's in my scripture so it has to be true". Scientific based arguments use peer reviewed evidence to substantiate them, not "science" as some kind of quasi-scripture concept. Not all science produces verifiable results.


----------



## apx24

How has the OP managed to get away with trolling these forums for so long?


----------



## minimized

Nothing valid can come from creationists or their websites.

Fact.


----------



## joolz

ugh1979 said:


> What post?


The post where I quoted this:



> Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact. It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation.
> 
> The process of general evolution could theoretically be reproduced through experimentation, but it never has been. Though speciation has been demonstrated in laboratories, no event beyond speciation has ever been demonstrated.


And I didn't take this from a creationist website, nor do I resort to any type of scripture, as I'm agnostic. I subscribe neither to religious or scientific dogma. The quote was taken from a NY Times article written by William W. Wassynger, "a postdoctoral research scientist at Columbia University's School of Medicine."

Is that "crap on a website" to you?



> Are you saying peer reviewed journals aren't credible?


In a way, yes, they aren't. There have been cases in which journals have exhibited sometimes funded agendas, refusing to publish scientifically exceptional material.

From the same article as above:


> Even in Darwin's day, scientists who opposed evolution were charged with irrationality and religiosity. But they did not attack evolution on religious grounds; rather, they protested its lack of scientific proof and pointed to the evidence that supported a typological nature.





> Not all science produces verifiable results.


I separate this from the rest of my argument, as I am not totally familiar with scientific criteria, and I may just be giving you some material you actually can use to support your position, but if it's not verifiable how is it science? Verification is part of the scientific method is it not?


----------



## ugh1979

joolz said:


> The post where I quoted this:
> 
> And I didn't take this from a creationist website, nor do I resort to any type of scripture, as I'm agnostic. I subscribe neither to religious or scientific dogma. The quote was taken from a NY Times article written by William W. Wassynger, "a postdoctoral research scientist at Columbia University's School of Medicine."
> 
> Is that "crap on a website" to you?


I see that was an opinion piece from 1989 by a postdoctoral research scientist. I doubt he's qualified to debate with evolutionary biologists on the subject, and he makes the usual fallacies of citing long dead scientists who supported creationism and referring to non-peer reviewed sources while rejecting the peer-reviewed sources in a clear example of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive bias.

His core claim about the fact that we've never observed speciation while also being a typical creationist strawman argument due to the fact speciation usually takes so long it can't be directly observed, is now known to be wrong since we now have evidence for speciation on shorter, observable time-scales.



> In a way, yes, they aren't. There have been cases in which journals have exhibited sometimes funded agendas, refusing to publish scientifically exceptional material.


A few bad apples in a few minor rouge journals don't change the fact that the majority are established and credible. Journals that get a bad name due to not being credible/honest doom themselves as nobody wants to publish in them. It's a self governing system where only the most credible work gets published in the most credible journals. The fact none of them support creationism speaks volumes.



> From the same article as above:


There wasn't a huge amount of evidence ~150 years ago. It was a field in its infancy. Now we have hundreds of thousands of credible papers which support it, so it's a very different situation.



> I separate this from the rest of my argument, as I am not totally familiar with scientific criteria, and I may just be giving you some material you actually can use to support your position, but if it's not verifiable how is it science? Verification is part of the scientific method is it not?


The scientific method produces results which need to be repeatable to be verified. That's how we can establish/verify the scientist hasn't made an error in their research. Many papers are rejected due to not being verifiable. They are still scientific, but with errors in the science. That's why we have the peer review system which independently verifies papers to make them worthy of publishing in credible journals.


----------



## MondKrabbe

hoddesdon said:


> Just because someone does not agree with you does not make that person a troll. Claiming otherwise is a form of bullying.


I don't go out of my way to call people who don't agree with me a troll. It's just his threads happen to be devoid of logic and reasoning, and I'm not talking about just this one in particular. When people call him out on his flawed logic, he doesn't address any argument in his replies or he just ducks out of the thread completely.

Look around, I'm not the only one who thinks he's a troll.


----------



## tehuti88

jimity said:


> If people everywhere were christian I bet some natural process would have stopped the pollution from causing increasing destructive weather patterns.


:um

Christianity is the solution to global warming?? I have to admit that's a new one for me...



jimity said:


> No gays help spread aids.


:blank ...

Yeah...speechless.

...

Well, looks like last night I wasted a half hour I could've better spent sleeping, trying to be rational with someone who isn't. :roll Lesson learned. I hope some random passerby enjoyed my post, at least. I did put a lot of work into it and hate the thought of it all being wasted.

I'm rather glad _you_ didn't respond to my comments, though, if this is the type of "logic" we're dealing with.

And I think Charlie Sheen might want to have a talk with you.


----------



## jimity

> So even though you don't disbelieve them you reject them? Is there anything else you reject even though you don't disbelieve it to be true? Why have you picked whatever branch of Christianity you have?


Nobody can follow two religions. I don't want anything to do with the others other than the one I grew up with.



> Anecdotal reports that don't stand up to scrutiny. There was a large scale study conducted last year that didn't find such evidence.


So if you experienced something like an obe and hear a conversation two rooms away and had it verified you'd dismiss it because it can't be proven in a lab?



> If it does happen, will you accept evolution is true?


No.



> People say the same thing about your god. Just because you don't means nothing.


You can't pull out of your hat something like a pink unicorn and claim it to be as valid as God in the bible.



> Wow, talk about living in a fantasy world. That's like something out of a children's book. :lol


When Israel was attacked they still managed to defeat all the arab nations that attacked them. Divine intervention has happened before.



> Did you just warp here from 1987? :roll Such claims are as ignorant as they are shameful. Heterosexual sex spreads HIV more than homosexual sex in this day and age.


What's so shameful about the comment? Did I hit a nerve? What about the percentage of aids among them? And all I said is they help spread it. You're the one making the assumption that I am saying they're the worst.



> So even when other religions beliefs contradict your Christian beliefs you don't say you don't believe them? Or is it in fact that you are happy to cherry pick the odd myth that correlates with your own mythology?


Yes I will take some and leave whatever doesn't fit in with my "mythology".


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Nobody can follow two religions. I don't want anything to do with the others other than the one I grew up with.


Yet you say you don't disbelieve what other religions claim. How can you not disbelieve something that contradicts your beliefs?



> So if you experienced something like an obe and hear a conversation two rooms away and had it verified you'd dismiss it because it can't be proven in a lab?


There's all sorts of cognitive issues that can lead people to make false assumptions. The fact it can't be shown to happen when those are accounted for speaks volumes.



> No.


Why not?



> You can't pull out of your hat something like a pink unicorn and claim it to be as valid as God in the bible.


Why not? The term however is just a place holder for any of the thousands of deities that mankind has documented, all which have just as little evidence for existence as yours.



> When Israel was attacked they still managed to defeat all the arab nations that attacked them. Divine intervention has happened before.


I assume you are referring to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war? Why do you think that required divine intervention? The number of combatants were around even and Israel had far better weapons.



> What's so shameful about the comment? Did I hit a nerve? What about the percentage of aids among them? And all I said is they help spread it. You're the one making the assumption that I am saying they're the worst.


You clearly harbour some anti-homosexual beliefs to come out with such a claim, which makes sense. People from all groups help spread HIV via unprotected sex. To single out homosexuals is ignorant, and I'll call you out for unjustifiably attacking homosexuals as quickly as I will for any other minority group.



> Yes I will take some and leave whatever doesn't fit in with my "mythology".


At least you can admit you cherry pick. Hence why you are intellectually dishonest and are led by cognitive bias.


----------



## kageri

Ignopius said:


> I'm so confused. I can't figure out of this guy is genuine or a troll. At first I was inclined to believe that he wasn't but now I'm thinking otherwise.


I'm starting to feel sorry for him.


----------



## jimity

> Yet you say you don't disbelieve what other religions claim. How can you not disbelieve something that contradicts your beliefs?


I believe in other gods of the other religions. To me they all exist. Perhaps I don't believe in the way they say the earth was made unless it fits in with the bible.



> There's all sorts of cognitive issues that can lead people to make false assumptions. The fact it can't be shown to happen when those are accounted for speaks volumes.


Yet you didn't actually directly answer my question. Maybe you'd doubt your own senses because then you'd have to re evaluate your beliefs about what science knows.



> Why not?


Because all it would show was life can be created in the lab by intelligent beings.



> I assume you are referring to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war? Why do you think that required divine intervention? The number of combatants were around even and Israel had far better weapons.


I'm not sure exactly what war but I believe there was weather that helped to kick up the dust and obscured the vision of the attackers.



> You clearly harbour some anti-homosexual beliefs to come out with such a claim, which makes sense. People from all groups help spread HIV via unprotected sex. To single out homosexuals is ignorant, and I'll call you out for unjustifiably attacking homosexuals as quickly as I will for any other minority group.


So if I singled out skinny white heterosexual males you'd be fine with that even if it wasn't actually true? Maybe you harbour anti heterosexual beliefs or maybe you think it's fine to attack people as long as they're average height and weight, white and straight (and probably male).

And if homosexuals were the largest spreader of aids no doubt you'd still be against me bringing it up just as if I said africans help spread aids simply because they're a minority (you'd say I'm racist). But if I said junkies (a minority) help spread aids I bet you wouldn't of even have seen it as an attack now would you. If you are honest you'll admit you'd have not seen that as an attack on junkies.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I believe in other gods of the other religions. To me they all exist. Perhaps I don't believe in the way they say the earth was made unless it fits in with the bible.


OK so you're a polytheist rather than a monotheist. That's an odd claim for a Christian, as it goes against your doctrine. What about all the things other than how the earth was made that other religions doctrines state that contradict what the bible states? Do you just ignore those parts?



> Yet you didn't actually directly answer my question. Maybe you'd doubt your own senses because then you'd have to re evaluate your beliefs about what science knows.


Actually I did. To clarify, If I experienced what appeared to be a validation of hearing a conversation from 2 rooms away during an OBE, I'd think it was in fact some error in reasoning due to one of the numerous cognitive bias that can occur, especially when in the type of mindset typical of an OBE.

It's no different from those that think they see the future in their dreams. Some are adamant they do, yet none can ever actually do it when tested. Anecdotal accounts are often full of errors, and seeing/experiencing first hand should never be the gold standard for believing due to that.



> Because all it would show was life can be created in the lab by intelligent beings.


You're moving the goalposts there, we were talking about creating the conditions where the building blocks of life (which is chemistry) turns into biology. If that can be replicated in the lab then there is good reason it could be replicated in nature sans intelligence. It may just require the correct chemicals in the correct conditions.



> I'm not sure exactly what war but I believe there was weather that helped to kick up the dust and obscured the vision of the attackers.


Do you think all the weather that caused so much trouble for the US forces in the Vietnam War was divine intervention in favour of the Viet Cong as well?



> So if I singled out skinny white heterosexual males you'd be fine with that even if it wasn't actually true? Maybe you harbour anti heterosexual beliefs or maybe you think it's fine to attack people as long as they're average height and weight, white and straight (and probably male).


No I'd call you out on anything I disagreed with. I'm not sure why I even used the word minority, as in fact I'll defend any group I think are being unjustifiably represented. I'm happy to, (and do), defend moderate Christians and Muslims regarding certain blanket statements some people make for example.



> And if homosexuals were the largest spreader of aids no doubt you'd still be against me bringing it up just as if I said africans help spread aids simply because they're a minority (and the fact that any attack on a black person is usually assumed to be because they are black). But if I said junkies (a minority) help spread aids I bet you wouldn't of even have seen it as an attack now would you. If you are honest you'll admit you'd have not seen that as an attack on junkies.


To the contrary, I'd use the same reasoning in that it's not fair to single out one group when it's an issue that effects many groups.

Also, just because some people are addicted to drugs doesn't mean I don't see them as equal humans to any other, so no I wouldn't accept a general attack of them. In fact they are often the ones in need of help rather than attack, as it's a tragedy what can happen to them due to the illness of addiction.


----------



## Brawk Shady

@jimity @ugh1979

I will admit the Old Testament is pretty sketchy, so everything in it can't be taken literal or even as relavent. However, I find the New Testament to be legitimate, and references from the New Testament to the Old Testament support that the whole Old Testament isn't BS.

As for accepting multiple religions, it depends to what degree you do so. Organized religion makes it seem that Holy text should only be interpreted in one way, but a good amount of the religious people who analyze the text will interpret it slightly differently, but not different enough to make another branch of that religion and expect people to join. So taking some ideas from other religions isn't necessarily wrong, as long as it doesn't make any contradictions.

I believe evolution is a pretty straight forward theory, and that the Big Bang Theory is possible. The Universe is an autonomous system, so it would make sense that things would be created autonomously.

For the idea that people being religious stops pollution...you just can't say that. There's no correlation between people being religious, and using fossil fuels.

Many religious people say that acting on homosexual urges is wrong because it's not natural. That depends on their definition of natural. I have thought deeper about this subject, and I think acting on homosexual urges is wrong because it is lust. People if the opposite sex have complimentary personalities, which would allow them to get along so well, that they would eventually fall in love. However, in same-sex couples, their personalities don't really compliment each other, so the relationship is based mainly on lust. Now I'm not saying that there aren't any opposite-sex couples that have a relationship based on lust; I'm saying its possible for opposite-sex couples to have a romantic relationship without lust. In today's society, a lot of relationships are based on lust anyways, but what can one do?


----------



## ugh1979

Brawk Shady said:


> Many religious people say that acting on homosexual urges is wrong because it's not natural. That depends on their definition of natural. I have thought deeper about this subject, and I think acting on homosexual urges is wrong because it is lust. People if the opposite sex have complimentary personalities, which would allow them to get along so well, that they would eventually fall in love. However, in same-sex couples, their personalities don't really compliment each other, so the relationship is based mainly on lust. Now I'm not saying that there aren't any opposite-sex couples that have a relationship based on lust; I'm saying its possible for opposite-sex couples to have a romantic relationship without lust. In today's society, a lot of relationships are based on lust anyways, but what can one do?


How can you say same-sex couples don't have the same chance of having complimentary personalities, which would allow them to get along so well that they would eventually fall in love as straight couples? There's nothing inherent about what gender someone is that need create any issue. To say homosexual relationships are more likely based on lust that heterosexual ones is nonsense.

Therefore, you're underpinning point about it being the 'sin' of lust that is your reason for being anti-gay falls apart.


----------



## jimity

> Do you just ignore those parts?


Yes.



> Actually I did. To clarify, If I experienced what appeared to be a validation of hearing a conversation from 2 rooms away during an OBE, I'd think it was in fact some error in reasoning due to one of the numerous cognitive bias that can occur, especially when in the type of mindset typical of an OBE.
> 
> It's no different from those that think they see the future in their dreams. Some are adamant they do, yet none can ever actually do it when tested. Anecdotal accounts are often full of errors, and seeing/experiencing first hand should never be the gold standard for believing due to that.


What error in reasoning? You heard something why would you doubt what you heard.

And what says that people cannot see the future in their dreams? There are reports of it happening. Perhaps they were just coincidence but I'm sure people have dreamed things that later happen in real life. And what makes you think this is easily repeatable in a lab? I think it's more of a sporadic thing rather than someone deliberately trying to induce a precognitive dream.



> Do you think all the weather that caused so much trouble for the US forces in the Vietnam War was divine intervention in favour of the Viet Cong as well?


That could of just been natural. Jews are God's chosen people so anyone that attacks them will eventually fail.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> Yes.


At least you admit you are intellectually dishonest. :lol



> What error in reasoning? You heard something why would you doubt what you heard.


If you think just because you thought you heard something you can know for certain it was real explains why you are so credulous on this topic.



> And what says that people cannot see the future in their dreams? There are reports of it happening. Perhaps they were just coincidence but I'm sure people have dreamed things that later happen in real life. And what makes you think this is easily repeatable in a lab? I think it's more of a sporadic thing rather than someone deliberately trying to induce a precognitive dream.


It doesn't require a lab experiment to show it's untrue. The simple fact is nobody has ever been credibly recorded as having foretold the future due to something they experienced in a dream. If someone believed they had the ability it would be easy for them to prove it, yet nobody can.



> That could of just been natural. Jews are God's chosen people so anyone that attacks them will eventually fail.


Ah so more cherry picking. :roll


----------



## jimity

> If you think just because you thought you heard something you can know for certain it was real explains why you are so credulous on this topic.


So do you walk around questioning everything you see and hear just incase it's not real.

And by your answer you already are dismissing what I claim to have heard. If what I heard during an obe (and there was no way I could have heard it from where I was in the house while unconscious) was verified as having been said then what? Are you still a doubter? But of course I forget you believe such things are impossible so no point even bringing this hypothetical situation up with you since you'll dismiss it.



> It doesn't require a lab experiment to show it's untrue. The simple fact is nobody has ever been credibly recorded as having foretold the future due to something they experienced in a dream. If someone believed they had the ability it would be easy for them to prove it, yet nobody can.


Define credibly. No doubt personal claims are not credible enough for you so there's no point even going further with this because you would put things down to cognitive distortions or false memories or some other rational explanation or pass them off as outright lies and tall stories :roll



> Ah so more cherry picking. :roll


If I need to cherry pick to try to point something out then I will.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> So do you walk around questioning everything you see and hear just incase it's not real.


That depends on the scenario. Some situations are know to be prone having issues in reliability when it comes to personal reporting of them.



> And by your answer you already are dismissing what I claim to have heard. If what I heard during an obe (and there was no way I could have heard it from where I was in the house while unconscious) was verified as having been said then what? Are you still a doubter? But of course I forget you believe such things are impossible so no point even bringing this hypothetical situation up with you since you'll dismiss it.


It's the 'verification' of what was said not being known to you via other means I have issue with. There's all sorts of ways people can get confused about when something was said or the person who said it can inadvertently lead someone to think they knew what there were saying.



> Define credibly. No doubt personal claims are not credible enough for you so there's no point even going further with this because you would put things down to cognitive distortions or false memories or some other rational explanation or pass them off as outright lies and tall stories :roll


For it to be credible they would just have to record their premonition on a source that couldn't later be changed after the event of said premonition. It's really a very simple means of testing, so the fact nobody has ever done it speaks volumes about the fallacy of the claim.



> If I need to cherry pick to try to point something out then I will.


All you are pointing out to everyone is how intellectually dishonest you are.


----------



## Brawk Shady

ugh1979 said:


> How can you say same-sex couples don't have the same chance of having complimentary personalities, which would allow them to get along so well that they would eventually fall in love as straight couples? There's nothing inherent about what gender someone is that need create any issue. To say homosexual relationships are more likely based on lust that heterosexual ones is nonsense.
> 
> Therefore, you're underpinning point about it being the 'sin' of lust that is your reason for being anti-gay falls apart.


Well, homosexual people have more of the hormones that are found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex. Therefore the masculinity+masculinity, or femininity+femininity in those people's personalities would "clash". And by masculinity and femininity, I don't mean stereotypical things like women are supposed to act super polite and what's considered lady-like, and men have to be super tough; I mean masculinity and femininity as in the unique urges and general behavior of what's thought to be typical of male and female.


----------



## AntiSocialGuy

Did you see **** naledi?


----------



## ugh1979

Brawk Shady said:


> Well, homosexual people have more of the hormones that are found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex. Therefore the masculinity+masculinity, or femininity+femininity in those people's personalities would "clash". And by masculinity and femininity, I don't mean stereotypical things like women are supposed to act super polite and what's considered lady-like, and men have to be super tough; I mean masculinity and femininity as in the unique urges and general behavior of what's thought to be typical of male and female.


So men don't get on with men as well as men get on with women, and vice versa?

What absolute nonsense. If anything people of the same gender typically get on better. Look at the gender of peoples friends for evidence.


----------



## Brawk Shady

ugh1979 said:


> So men don't get on with men as well as men get on with women, and vice versa?
> 
> What absolute nonsense. If anything people of the same gender typically get on better. Look at the gender of peoples friends for evidence.


From my observations of people in my school, I have noticed that people generally have friends of both genders. People with the same gender usually do hang out with each other more often. I've overheard some of the conversations of groups of females, and they usually talk about things that would be awkward talking about with males. There is also the nervousness around a member of the other gender whom is a potential romantic interest, and it would make someone be more comfortable to be around people of the same gender.

On the other hand, couples I've seen in school tend to prefer being with each other, than with other friends. I believe this is where the common saying "bros before hoes" came from, implying that the couple spends significantly more time together than they spend with their friends of the same gender.

Homosexual people also tend to hang out casually with people of the opposite sex anyway.


----------



## ugh1979

Brawk Shady said:


> From my observations of people in my school, I have noticed that people generally have friends of both genders. *People with the same gender usually do hang out with each other more often.* I've overheard some of the conversations of groups of females, and they usually talk about things that would be awkward talking about with males. There is also the nervousness around a member of the other gender whom is a potential romantic interest, and it would make someone be more comfortable to be around people of the same gender.
> 
> On the other hand, couples I've seen in school tend to prefer being with each other, than with other friends. I believe this is where the common saying "bros before hoes" came from, implying that the couple spends significantly more time together than they spend with their friends of the same gender.
> 
> Homosexual people also tend to hang out casually with people of the opposite sex anyway.


It sounds like you pretty much just backed up what I said. People typically get on with people of both genders, but there is a tendency for someone to have more friends of the same gender, so the claim that people of the same gender more frequently don't get on is nonsense.


----------



## Brawk Shady

ugh1979 said:


> It sounds like you pretty much just backed up what I said. People typically get on with people of both genders, but there is a tendency for someone to have more friends of the same gender, so the claim that people of the same gender more frequently don't get on is nonsense.


I explained why people of the same gender hang out more after the part you bolded. It's not necessarily that they get along better, but that it's not as awkward for the person, in their current social situation. The gender(s) of the people a person hangs out with isn't completely dependent on if they get along just about perfectly, because it's not like the person's around them 24/7.


----------



## ugh1979

Brawk Shady said:


> I explained why people of the same gender hang out more after the part you bolded. It's not necessarily that they get along better, but that it's not as awkward for the person, in their current social situation.


Not feeling as awkward is part of getting along better.

As I say, people's likes and interests are more likely to be common to those of the same gender than not, so your original claim that masculinity+masculinity, or femininity+femininity clash is nonsense, since many likes and interests tend to align with masculinity and femininity.


----------



## Brawk Shady

ugh1979 said:


> Not feeling as awkward is part of getting along better.
> 
> As I say, people's likes and interests are more likely to be common to those of the same gender than not, so your original claim that masculinity+masculinity, or femininity+femininity clash is nonsense, since many likes and interests tend to align with masculinity and femininity.


I meant "awkward", in a way that meant the person was nervous. I think just about everyone on this website will agree that if they feel awkward around someone, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to try to get to know them better.

I would say that not everyone's interests are either all completely masculine or feminine. People of opposite genders can have common interests that are stereotypically thought to be masculine or feminine.


----------



## ugh1979

Brawk Shady said:


> I meant "awkward", in a way that meant the person was nervous. I think just about everyone on this website will agree that if they feel awkward around someone, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to try to get to know them better.


I don't see how that changes what I said. If you feel less awkward around someone you are clearly getting on better with them.



> I would say that not everyone's interests are either all completely masculine or feminine.


Nobody is saying they are.



> People of opposite genders can have common interests that are stereotypically thought to be masculine or feminine.


Of course, hence why I said more likely rather than exclusively.


----------



## Brawk Shady

ugh1979 said:


> I don't see how that changes what I said. If you feel less awkward around someone you are clearly getting on better with them.


Just because someone is nervous around someone else, doesn't mean they don't get along. Not getting along with someone is when the people get annoyed by each other, argue, etc.



> Nobody is saying they are.
> 
> Of course, hence why I said more likely rather than exclusively.


Just because people have common interests don't mean they necessarily get along. This brings me back to my original argument about the complimentary nature of masculine and feminine general behavior. A main reason people have so many friends of the same gender is because of social norms and being nervous about socializing with a potential romantic interest. The other main reason is so the people can relate to problems that would only concern their gender. Friends aren't around each other as much as couples are, so they don't really experience the clashing of their masculinities or femininities, so the argument that people have so many friends of the same gender doesn't support that they would be romantically compatible.


----------



## ugh1979

Brawk Shady said:


> Just because someone is nervous around someone else, doesn't mean they don't get along. Not getting along with someone is when the people get annoyed by each other, argue, etc.


I never said it didn't mean they don't get along. I said being less nervous around someone you want to be around is a sign of getting along better.



> Just because people have common interests don't mean they necessarily get along.


Of course, but it's obviously more likely they will.



> This brings me back to my original argument about the complimentary nature of masculine and feminine general behavior. A main reason people have so many friends of the same gender is because of social norms and being nervous about socializing with a potential romantic interest. The other main reason is so the people can relate to problems that would only concern their gender. Friends aren't around each other as much as couples are, so they don't really experience the clashing of their masculinities or femininities, so the argument that people have so many friends of the same gender doesn't support that they would be romantically compatible.


Gender is irrelevant when it comes to romantic relationships. Homosexual couples are just as likely to get along as heterosexual ones.

From a recent study:
"same-sex couples and heterosexual couples have statistically indistinguishable rates of [marriage] breakup" Source


----------



## WillYouStopDave

Well, I don't necessarily think evolution is a lie. I just think they purposely turned it around backwards so people will think things are getting better and the future will always be brighter than the past. :lol


----------



## Umpalumpa

JTHearts said:


> i am not trolling and you people are the ones bullying me, you won't stop calling me a troll


----------



## Umpalumpa

Rrriiiiiiiiigggghhhhtt, it makes much more sense that you are a demon though.


----------



## zomgz

Are you trying to get attacked, OP? I posted something like this once in S&C. It didn't end well. SASers will burn you at the stake for saying something like this.


----------



## ugh1979

WillYouStopDave said:


> Well, I don't necessarily think evolution is a lie. I just think they purposely turned it around backwards so people will think things are getting better and the future will always be brighter than the past. :lol


Who are "they"?

You think the theory of evolution by natural selection has been turned round backwards and things are in fact devolving rather than evolving? And that equates to things getting worse rather than better? It seem like you are confusing various different areas of evolutionary processes spanning biology to culture.

Do you think society was better in the past?


----------



## ugh1979

zomgz said:


> Are you trying to get attacked, OP? I posted something like this once in S&C. It didn't end well. SASers will burn you at the stake for saying something like this.


Interesting choice of words. Burning at the stake being something religious people sometimes did to those that they believed weren't of their religion. (Heretics)

When someone makes such an absurd claim of course people are going to vehemently criticise it, here or just about anywhere in the modern world.

This forum is actually very tame compared to many.


----------



## zomgz

ugh1979 said:


> Interesting choice of words. Burning at the stake being something religious people sometimes did to those that they believed weren't of their religion. (Heretics)


I'm glad you appreciated my satire. 



ugh1979 said:


> This forum is actually very tame compared to many.


Not really. SAS takes criticism to new levels.


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

Some douchebags will call a troll anyone who has a different theory and they know deep down that theory might be true.Hey, consider it as a compliment.And I am with you on it.God did not create the world.And nothing ever evoluated on this planet.Maybe changed shape, color, but the basic stuff is still the same. 
Cat still haunts mice no matter size, color.Us humans still fight for control and survival whether we call ourselves "apes" or "image of God".Birds still fly no matter they're small or big, dynosaurs or sparrows.
That's why aliens won't be talking to us.Cause we so blind we can't see what's in front of us.We're buying the whole "evolution" thing never noticing that no matter how "civilized" and "technologically advanced" we'd be, we're still the same primates we were thousand years agf course evolution is a lie.Just look around.Trees, grass, still the same shapes and colors they were thousands of years ago.
There is "adaptation" to "change" cause things can't stay the same but at its core, the universe is still the same.
Call me a troll if you dare, fellas, but first make sure your theories are able to hold their own against mine before throwing your sarcasm at me.
Au revoir, mis amigos!


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

You know what's the thing with astral projection?
It is the same thing that happens with everything in nature.Electro/magnetic resonance.Read into it and it will all be explained to you.Here's an example.You know how a tree is surrounded by energy?How tree hugging can heal?Same stuff happens when we astral travel.It is a process of our brain.Don't believe me, go look into it.Nothing "supernatural" about dreams, creation, astral travelling etc.
And there is no evolution, there is...let's call it...intelligence.Or abilities of nature.Us humans have discovered the abilities to write, do math, build machines.Hallellujah!Does that make us gods?Nope.It just means we have the ability to discover resources.Doesn't mean we have learnt how to use them yet, some comments on this thread proves that so well.Ooppsss...!  Think about how everything in this universe works.Vibration.Energy.Magnetism.Think of all you know...it doesn't take to be a top "scientist" to realise how this universe was created and how it works.Touch the string of a guitar.It vibrates.Where did the sound come from?From two elements going against each other.If the Moon can influence the tides...what is it?Answer yourselves to all this.Can you see it yet?


----------



## Brawk Shady

ugh1979 said:


> I never said it didn't mean they don't get along. I said being less nervous around someone you want to be around is a sign of getting along better.


That's true for some reasons of why the person is nervous, but not relevant to the nervousness caused by not wanting to embarrass oneself.



> Gender is irrelevant when it comes to romantic relationships. Homosexual couples are just as likely to get along as heterosexual ones.
> 
> From a recent study:
> "same-sex couples and heterosexual couples have statistically indistinguishable rates of [marriage] breakup" Source


I think that it would be helpful to find out more information about how they picked the couples that would participate, because I think it would be reasonable to think that happier couples would be more likely to volunteer themselves, rather than having someone go up to a couple and asking them directly. It would also be helpful to find out how many people in the area were in homosexual or heterosexual relationships, so proportions of couples of one orientation in the study to the couples of that orientation in the area they were accepting participants from, could be observed.


----------



## ugh1979

zomgz said:


> Not really. SAS takes criticism to new levels.


You must have lived a sheltered life forum wise then. Many are far more brutal with much less or no moderators to stop things turning nasty.

Do you think people shouldn't criticise others?


----------



## ugh1979

JustALonelyHeart said:


> You know what's the thing with astral projection?
> It is the same thing that happens with everything in nature.Electro/magnetic resonance.Read into it and it will all be explained to you.


Can you cite any peer reviewed scientific papers which validates astral projection being objectivity real?



> Here's an example.You know how a tree is surrounded by energy?


Everything is surrounded by energy, and everything fundamentally is energy.



> How tree hugging can heal?


No, again please cite papers that show this which have been published in a peer reviewed journal.



> Same stuff happens when we astral travel.It is a process of our brain.Don't believe me, go look into it.Nothing "supernatural" about dreams, creation, astral travelling etc.


Yeah it's a process much a dream, which some people can experience, but it's deluded to think it's objectively real, just as it would be of a dream.



> Vibration.Energy.Magnetism.Think of all you know...it doesn't take to be a top "scientist" to realise how this universe was created and how it works.


Oh really? So you think the answer to what has kept many of the worlds top scientists busy for centuries is in fact obvious? Can you explain what this obvious answer to how the universe was created and functions is?



> Touch the string of a guitar.It vibrates.Where did the sound come from?From two elements going against each other.


What's your point?



> If the Moon can influence the tides...what is it?


Erm, it's called gravity. :?



> Answer yourselves to all this.Can you see it yet?


How about you try providing the answer rather than just saying it's obvious and something to do with vibrations?


----------



## ugh1979

Brawk Shady said:


> That's true for some reasons of why the person is nervous, but not relevant to the nervousness caused by not wanting to embarrass oneself.


Being nervous about embarrassing oneself is something that eases the better you know someone.



> I think that it would be helpful to find out more information about how they picked the couples that would participate, because I think it would be reasonable to think that happier couples would be more likely to volunteer themselves, rather than having someone go up to a couple and asking them directly.


They study lasted 3 years, so while everyone who participated may well have been in happy couples, the point was to see if they split up over the course of the study.



> It would also be helpful to find out how many people in the area were in homosexual or heterosexual relationships, so proportions of couples of one orientation in the study to the couples of that orientation in the area they were accepting participants from, could be observed.


What area? It was a US wide study of 3,000 couples, with 500 of them being same-sex.

Do you think there is some issue with the study and that hetro couples are in fact more likely to stay together?


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

ugh1979 said:


> Can you cite any peer reviewed scientific papers which validates astral projection being objectivity real?
> 
> Everything is surrounded by energy, and everything fundamentally is energy.
> 
> No, again please cite papers that show this which have been published in a peer reviewed journal.
> 
> Yeah it's a process much a dream, which some people can experience, but it's deluded to think it's objectively real, just as it would be of a dream.
> 
> Oh really? So you think the answer to what has kept many of the worlds top scientists busy for centuries is in fact obvious? Can you explain what this obvious answer to how the universe was created and functions is?
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Erm, it's called gravity. :?
> 
> How about you try providing the answer rather than just saying it's obvious and something to do with vibrations?


"Papers"...what do papers have to do with it?Leave your smart *** replies and sarcasm aside when replying to me, yeah?It does not impress me at all.As for science...there are countless evidence, on paper, of all that I have said, just because you are too lazy to look into it, don't blame me.


----------



## ugh1979

JustALonelyHeart said:


> "Papers"...what do papers have to do with it?


Wow. Do you even understand how credibility is attained?



> Leave your smart *** replies and sarcasm aside when replying to me, yeah?


No. When people make claims as absurd as you did in this thread it's open season. 



> It does not impress me at all.


Who cares?



> As for science...there are countless evidence, on paper, of all that I have said, just because you are too lazy to look into it, don't blame me.


No I will blame you, and will now note your obvious credulity as there are no credible peer reviewed papers which support it, and I bet you are getting your info from whack job books and websites, none which stand up to scrutiny.

You are the one who has made the extraordinary claim so the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it. I'm already well aware of how much nonsense and pseudo-science it is, as I have looked into it. It's up to _you_ to show everyone why your fantastical claim is true.


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

ugh1979 said:


> Wow. Do you even understand how credibility is attained?
> 
> No. When people make claims as absurd as you did in this thread it's open season.
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> No I will blame you, and will now note your obvious credulity as there are no credible peer reviewed papers which support it, and I bet you are getting your info from whack job books and websites, none which stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> You are the one who has made the extraordinary claim so the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it. I'm already well aware of how much nonsense and pseudo-science it is, as I have looked into it. It's up to _you_ to show everyone why your fantastical claim is true.


Hhaha offended much by the truth?That ain't any of my problems.You know, if you are so smart, why won't YOU come with evidence, with "papers", to back up against my theory?Instead of throwing your sarcasm and intentions to insult me around.But you know, I feel insulted not, I just feel pity for you.


----------



## ugh1979

JustALonelyHeart said:


> Hhaha offended much by the truth?


I'm not offended by your delusion. Your claim that it's true and refusal to explain why is as laughable as it is pitiful.



> That ain't any of my problems.You know, if you are so smart, why won't YOU come with evidence, with "papers", to back up against my theory?Instead of throwing your sarcasm and intentions to insult me around.But you know, I feel insulted not, I just feel pity for you.


As I say, you are the one making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. If you don't think backing up your wild claims is your problem then that speaks volumes about the errancy of your reasoning on the subject.

It's as ridiculous as someone claiming they have a monster under their bed but it's not up to them to show anyone there is. :lol


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

You know what I think?You are simply looking for attention.Go to your mummy and cry for her attention will ya, and stop wasting everyones time on here.


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

ugh1979 said:


> Can you cite any peer reviewed scientific papers which validates astral projection being objectivity real?
> 
> Everything is surrounded by energy, and everything fundamentally is energy.
> 
> No, again please cite papers that show this which have been published in a peer reviewed journal.
> 
> Yeah it's a process much a dream, which some people can experience, but it's deluded to think it's objectively real, just as it would be of a dream.
> 
> Oh really? So you think the answer to what has kept many of the worlds top scientists busy for centuries is in fact obvious? Can you explain what this obvious answer to how the universe was created and functions is?
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Erm, it's called gravity. :?
> 
> How about you try providing the answer rather than just saying it's obvious and something to do with vibrations?


besides, I gave examples from nature, that every scientist knows and published about.What more do you want?Unless you are Einstein and have all the answers or know better and care to provide evidence, please, get off my back.You ask evidence from me, yet I did offer you examples, clear examples, and when I ask for evidence or at least an example from you, all you do is go around calling me psychotic, delusional, mocking my posts.It is clear enough you are here only to stirr trouble and get attention.Or maybe you had a bad day?Go outside for a jog, get laid, or whatever.But don't be bullying people.Grow up.


----------



## ugh1979

JustALonelyHeart said:


> You know what I think?You are simply looking for attention.Go to your mummy and cry for her attention will ya, and stop wasting everyones time on here.


The attention I'm looking for and receive is showing the fallacy of claims like yours. That's not a waste of time, and in fact many people here like what I do. In fact it's a noble pursuit in world of so many irrational and delusional beliefs.


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

Again, you are just proving how you have not the slighest idea what you are talking about.Maybe people are attracted to your seemingly self confidence but that is all to you.Your arrogancy.Again, do you have any evidence or example to back up against my own, or are you just trying to show off your sense of superiority?If you do not have any, please stop replying to my posts.I am not interested in conversating with ignorant and arrogant people.


----------



## ugh1979

JustALonelyHeart said:


> besides, I gave examples from nature, that every scientist knows and published about.What more do you want? Unless you are Einstein and have all the answers or know better and care to provide evidence, please, get off my back.You ask evidence from me, yet I did offer you examples, clear examples, and when I ask for evidence or at least an example from you, all you do is go around calling me psychotic, delusional, mocking my posts.


I've already begun to explain why your examples are nonsensical or so ambiguous they mean nothing, and you've chosen to ignore my questions about them. They were anything but clear. That speaks volumes about the quality of your argument. To think what you said counts as evidence requires great credulity.

Where did I call you psychotic? When people make claims which are justifiably delusional is fair play to call them so, and if you see that as 'mocking' so be it. There are many ideas worthy of derision. Why shouldn't I highlight any I find? This is a debate forum so if you don't want to be criticised for such fantastical beliefs it's advised you make you shouldn't be here. (Check the forum rules)



> It is clear enough you are here only to stirr trouble and get attention.Or maybe you had a bad day?Go outside for a jog, get laid, or whatever.But don't be bullying people.Grow up.


If you hang around longer than the paltry 9 days you've been here it should become apparent what I'm doing here, and it's certainly not to just stir trouble. As I say, I do look for attention to be paid to the highlighting of fallacies people make, but that's a valid and just reason. Also, I'm having a great day in fact, and I love ripping apart claims like you made in this thread so this entertains me. I do it all the time, and have done for a very long time. I simply don't tolerate such nonsense and will call it out at any opportunity. If you can't handle that then tough. (Again, read this forums rules)

It's laughable you are telling me to "grow up" and stop "bullying" you for me just challenging your claim and trying to get you to provide some form of intellectual argument. It's clear you aren't used to having to provide them. Unfortunately for you here I am.


----------



## ugh1979

JustALonelyHeart said:


> Again, you are just proving how you have not the slighest idea what you are talking about.


It's blatantly evident to the audience here that it's you who doesn't know what they are talking about, otherwise you would have been able to provide reasons that go way beyond the vague nonsense you have stated so far.



> Again, do you have any evidence or example to back up against my own, or are you just trying to show off your sense of superiority?If you do not have any, please stop replying to my posts.I am not interested in conversating with ignorant and arrogant people.


I've already told you, the absence of any credible evidence is what makes me able to say you are wrong. You are clearly the one who is ignorant of that. It's no wonder you don't want to debate with me on this as it's obvious you are out of your depth so are crying about irrelevant stuff rather than having the ability to intellectually defend your claim. I see people like you do this frequently, and I'm very well versed in how to make the audience learn the fallacy of such claims.


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

Please respect it when I ask you to stop.I think I have already told you I provided examples and evidence.Unless you think trees are not real, unless you think the process through which the Moon influences the tides is bollocks, unless you think the chemical reaction between two people who are physically attracted to each other is not real, unless you think the magnetism between two magnets is not real.
Chemistry, magnetism, gravity, it is all about vibration, energy, and different processes that this world works by, that it was created through.You know damn well there is evidence of it.So unless you think nature is not real(cause I offered you examples from nature which were also studied by scientists and proved as real) or you can come up with evidence against what I provided you with, I invite you to stop replying to me and to quit calling me names, harrassing me, calling me out whereas you have no right to do that.All what you are doing now is against the forum's rules.I also sent you a pm because I no longer wish to carry this on publicly.Please respect some limits.Have that decency at least.


----------



## ugh1979

JustALonelyHeart said:


> Please respect it when I ask you to stop.


You have no right to tell people not to reply to you. I'll do as I please thanks.



> I think I have already told you I provided examples and evidence.Unless you think trees are not real, unless you think the process through which the Moon influences the tides is bollocks, unless you think the chemical reaction between two people who are physically attracted to each other is not real, unless you think the magnetism between two magnets is not real. Chemistry, magnetism, gravity, it is all about vibration, energy, and different processes that this world works by, that it was created through.You know damn well there is evidence of it.So unless you think nature is not real(cause I offered you examples from nature which were also studied by scientists and proved as real) or you can come up with evidence against what I provided you with,


All you have said is that those things exist, which I haven't debated. How you are using them to justify the objective reality of astral projection isn't clear in the slightest, and you have in fact provided zero evidence for it, and as I say, the absence of any credible evidence for it all the evidence I need to show why you are wrong. You don't seem to understand that.

You also need to actually try to form some sort of cohesive argument rather than just mentioning random facets of the universe with no apparent link to what you are arguing for.



> I invite you to stop replying to me and to quit calling me names, harrassing me, calling me out whereas you have no right to do that.


I invite you to realise you are on a beliefs based debate forum and you can't escape contentious beliefs being criticised. I have every right to do so.



> All what you are doing now is against the forum's rules.


You are the one who has focused on the conflict rather than the debate. I'm keen to actually debate the subject and drop this nonsense, but it seems you are unable to even remotely explain your argument.



> I also sent you a pm because I no longer wish to carry this on publicly.


So you send me a PM saying that but then just decide to carry it on publicly anyway. :roll



> Please respect some limits.Have that decency at least.


You should have the decency to respect that you are way beyond the limit of your apparent ability to debate with me on this subject, hence why you are trying the classic diversion trick to try and make people forget that you keep choosing to ignore my questions about your claims.


----------



## zomgz

ugh1979 said:


> You must have lived a sheltered life forum wise then. Many are far more brutal with much less or no moderators to stop things turning nasty.


Or could it be that you tend to naturally gravitate toward forums that are more debate oriented and critical because you are that way?

Your insulting assumption in no way reflects my actual forum history which you clearly know nothing of.


----------



## ugh1979

zomgz said:


> Or could it be that you tend to naturally gravitate toward forums that are more debate oriented and critical because you are that way?


That's irrelevant.



> Your insulting assumption in no way reflects my actual forum history which you clearly know nothing of.


I didn't say all forums. I said many. If you only frequent forums where nobody argues/criticises so be it, but my comment still stands, in that you have clearly been sheltered from the many forums where it can be much worse, typically due to poor moderation. I don't see how that is insulting. It's just a passing comment on your admitted experience of other forums. Maybe it's lucky you if you have only been on forums where nobody is arguing if you don't like people arguing/criticising you?


----------



## zomgz

ugh1979 said:


> That's irrelevant.


Prove to me that it's irrelevant and maybe I'll believe you.



ugh1979 said:


> I didn't say all forums. I said many. If you only frequent forums where nobody argues/criticises so be it, but my comment still stands, in that you have clearly been sheltered from the many forums where it can be much worse, typically due to poor moderation. I don't see how that is insulting. It's just a passing comment on your admitted experience of other forums. Maybe it's lucky you if you have only been on forums where nobody is arguing if you don't like people arguing/criticising you?


My admission of frequenting kinder forums in no way signifies how many other, more argumentative forums I've been to.

Why do you even care?


----------



## ugh1979

zomgz said:


> Prove to me that it's irrelevant and maybe I'll believe you.


Are you doubting that there are many forums which are worse than this for arguments/abuse?



> My admission of frequenting kinder forums in no way signifies how many other, more argumentative forums I've been to.


You're the one who is saying SAS takes criticism to new levels. If that is so, then you clearly haven't been on many other forums which are far worse.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with that fact. :?



> Why do you even care?


I don't. You're the one who took exception to my benign comment.

Why do you care that you haven't seen the far worse forums that I've seen? Why is that an issue?


----------



## zomgz

ugh1979 said:


> Are you doubting that there are many forums which are worse than this for arguments/abuse?
> 
> You're the one who is saying SAS takes criticism to new levels. If that is so, then you clearly haven't been on many other forums which are far worse.
> 
> I'm not sure why you have a problem with that fact. :?
> 
> I don't. You're the one who took exception to my benign comment.
> 
> Why do you care that you haven't seen the far worse forums that I've seen? Why is that an issue?


Wow. All you do is circle around me, spinning your web ~ but I'm peacing out because on my list of things to debate, this barely makes the 'stupid list'.


----------



## ugh1979

zomgz said:


> Wow. All you do is circle around me, spinning your web ~ but I'm peacing out because on my list of things to debate, this barely makes the 'stupid list'.


I still don't even understand what your issue is. Let's just forget about it as this is getting boring.


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

There is just no worth trying to reason with people like ugh1979 cause they will just turn the conversation around as they please.But if you got him to say "this is boring"....and him wanting to quit, means you did do something well.Guess playing the game with the same cards is no advantage for him...and those cards are lucky for his opponent.Good job...well done.


----------



## ugh1979

JustALonelyHeart said:


> There is just no worth trying to reason with people like ugh1979 cause they will just turn the conversation around as they please.


The lack of reasoning skills you demonstrated in this thread is why you fail to be able to reason with people like me. Of course we can can control discussions to our ends. Welcome to effective debating 101.



> But if you got him to say "this is boring"....and him wanting to quit, means you did do something well.Guess playing the game with the same cards is no advantage for him...and those cards are lucky for his opponent.Good job...well done.


All they done was apparently take offence at me saying they hadn't been exposed to the many worse forums than this. Their refusal to answer why they took offence at that was going nowhere and there was nothing for me to gain by maintaining the debate. Their refusal served my purpose. Silence speaks volumes when the person is being asked direct questions (as happened with you earlier in the thread). So yeah "well done them".


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

That's right, keep delusioning yourself that YOU are right while everyone else around you is wrong, I am dieing to have the laughter of my life when I'll finally see your castle of arrogance and self delusions tumble down on ya.
Bye, sir.


----------



## ugh1979

JustALonelyHeart said:


> That's right, keep delusioning yourself that YOU are right while everyone else around you is wrong, I am dieing to have the laughter of my life when I'll finally see your castle of arrogance and self delusions tumble down on ya.
> Bye, sir.


Ah the old, "you think you are right and everyone else is wrong", stunt. I hate to let you in on reality but you aren't everyone. You won't find many people that agree with your claim that that astral projection is real, and many will find the "evidence" you cited for it as pitiful and shallow as I did.

Good luck in your quest to see my "castle or arrogance" that you call counter-argument come tumbling down. You'll need it, as you sure don't appear to have the aptitude to have an actual discussion about your claim. I'm happy for you to try and show you do though by answering the questions I ask you rather than ignoring them. Flat our refusal to reply to them is a clear demonstration of the fallacy of your argument. People who actually know what they are talking about don't run away from questions asked of them.


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

Maybe I do not think answering the astral projection issue questions to someone who attacks my views, is worth my time.And again, you are NO ONE, to claim to have a right to call me out.You are no one to me.You saying you have the right to do whatever you want.But you only have the courage to be a little ***** to people because you are sitting behind a computer.Makes you feel powerful?Less insecure about your sad, patethic life?Congrats to you.Hallellujah, you found the way to cope with social anxiety...Being an *** to people online.Or maybe you go around in real life raping women, or beating people, or stealing?Cause you will "do whatever you want"?You only dare to have this attitude because the anonymity makes you feel safe.Well that is, sorry to break it to you, an illusion. 
You want answers, go find them on your own.I am done with you.
Stop replying.


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

Oh wait, whereas I will not answer you to the astral projection matter(why, from all the subjects I mentioned in my posts, you chose to pick up on astral projection, I have no idea.And no, I was not talking to YOU personally when I said astral projection isn't supernatural, but you thought someone was -FINALLY-giving you attention so you took advantage of it...except, bummer, I was not giving attention to you personally).
Here is a nice piece you will have fun reading, please enjoy 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...rolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

it sounds a lot like you, given you admitted having fun "calling out on people" while at the same time not providing examples of your own to demonstrate that what someone else has said, is untrue.You're only bickering and enjoy getting a response.That qualifies you as a troll.Guess it must be a nice job.Do they pay well for it?Maybe I should sign up for the job, no?Nay, you would have competition and wouldn't like that, would ya?Oh nevermind, I am not interested.It's more fun hunting down trolls anyway


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

By the way, is your username suposed to be some sort of a warning for other forum users?Ugh-as in, Ugly Goblin Haunting?Cause you are haunting this forum like you were the ghost of an ugly goblin.Someone gotta check if there isn't someone with that name who died recently in some sort of sadistic manner and your soul has not find peace, this is why you are being such a...troll.Awww poor you.I pity you soo much, now I wanna hug you.Except I'm scared you will plat a knife in my back.Wha am I gonna do? 
Hahaha.
So.You gonna provide any example or evidence to back up against my two posts on evolution and astral travel(those two posts I wrote before you replied and acted like a dick) or you gonna keep resorting to trolling?
Wasn't it clear enough that I gave examples of how astral projection is a natural process, like the moon's gravity with the tides?Man...you are unbelievable. Even scientists say astral projection is a brain process.Go look it up.


----------



## JamesM2

Closed due to conflicts.


----------

