BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 04:41 PM

Inability to prove a negative doesn't make a negative true.

And absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence - when you've looked carefully for the evidence and found the evidence absent.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 04:41 PM

"gust from sanity"

It's an ill gust that blows no sense.... or some such clever wordplay

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 05:06 PM

The evidence is in the video..whether you like it or not!
It tends to 'narrow the field'.

Now if you want to start a new hypothesis, go ahead...but try basing it on something besides your prejudices!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 06:30 PM

The evidence is in the video..whether you like it or not!
It tends to 'narrow the field'.

Well save us the tedium of watching the whole bloody thing (some of us have chunes to learn, you know) and tell us what evidence you've gleaned from your videos. If it's evidence, I like it, even if it shatters my current notions.

Now if you want to start a new hypothesis, go ahead...but try basing it on something besides your prejudices!

Yes, well, you really don't get this scientific process malarkey, do you! That is not the way it works, ol' chum! Now "we" (as opposed to "you") have lots of evidence that the shroud is probably a medieval rag that has nothing to do with Jesus. You don't agree? Great! Formulate your alternative hypothesis then (don't forget to tell us what it is), then tell us what evidence you have gleaned so far and what you intend to do about gathering more evidence. And linking to a video is not evidence, in case you were wondering. That's just being a lazy-arse. If you think your video has new evidence, kindly apprise us. Just a cautionary note though (because I love to be helpful): do look up "evidence" in a good dictionary so that you'll know exactly what gathering it actually entails. And do you think that the Turin shroud is, even in the remotest sense, connected to Jesus? Just thought I'd ask...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 08:12 PM

Bottom line???

99% of climatologists believe that global warming is the result of man's activity...

This is straight-forward...

Can anyone find anyone in the remaining 1% who have any credibility within the science community???

Please name, por favor...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 08:18 PM

Expect silence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 12:54 AM

Steve: "Well save us the tedium of watching the whole bloody thing (some of us have chunes to learn, you know) and tell us what evidence you've gleaned from your videos. If it's evidence, I like it, even if it shatters my current notions.

Yes, well, you really don't get this scientific process malarkey, do you!"

Do you have any idea how contradictory these statements you just made are????

You don't want to watch the video, to understand the evidence, then you turn around and say I ... ME... Moi.. Yours Truly ...."don't get this scientific process malarkey???"

You are ignorant of the evidence in the video that you never watched, and you're refuting the evidence, on the video that you never saw???????

You gotta' be fucking kidding me!

...and then say you are 'into' the 'scientific process'????

You gotta' be fucking kidding me!!

Now come on folks...are you going to side with THIS???...and expect to be taken seriously?????

You gotta' be fucking kidding me!!!!!

I was right the first time, Oh Harp-Man..you are a blowhard with a big mouth! Nothing to say, that came right out the center of the nothing in your head!

Let's have a round of applause for the moron!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 04:08 AM

I tried watching the first part of your video, GfS, and found it long-winded, tedious, over-dramatised and unconvincing. You've obviously watched the whole f*cking thing (perhaps you're a glutton for punishment or have nothing better to do?). So come on, summarise the ridiculous thing for us and let us know what 'evidence' it contains for what.

I'm siding with Steve on this - no-one has to watch hours of boring video all the way through just because you demand that we do. If you're trying to make a point, perhaps you should make it (what's the point you're trying to make, by the way?).

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 06:04 AM

Thank you for your calm, measured and erudite post, Gusty One. :-)

I am most certainly not refuting any evidence that your videos may contain. Naturally, as soon as you apprise me of it I shall apply the usual tests for evidence to it. Was it obtained by careful controlled experimentation on adequate samples? Can any observations be independently corroborated? Has the evidence been independently peer-reviewed? Could independent researchers obtain the same results or consistently make the same observations? Now before I even bother to apply such rigour, I should tell you that I don't count witness, hearsay, tradition, incomplete ancient texts penned by storytellers, myth or the edicts of holy men as evidence. So save yourself some time and put your evidence through that filter first. I would watch your videos if I had time, which, sadly, I haven't, though a further problem is that I watch very little on the telly these days and I even have difficulty following the plot of The Adventures Of Spot The Dog, let alone hour after hour of video with such unappealing subject matter.

And, Shimrod, perhaps the point he's trying to make is that he believes that the shroud of Turin actually did, at one point, come into intimate contact with the dead body of his Saviour (and, begod, he does sound like he need saving from something). Guffo...?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 06:39 AM

" ... perhaps the point he's trying to make is that he believes that the shroud of Turin actually did, at one point, come into intimate contact with the dead body of his Saviour"

The poor, sad schmuck!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 09:23 AM

OK..you don't want to watch it, fine..but keep your uneducated opinions to yourself in regards to what you know NOTHING about!.. because when you don't the only thing that spews forth is stupidity..no matter how 'indignant' you may try to mask it!!!!

Fair enough!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 09:33 AM

But our opinions are not uneducated. We know the evidence about the shroud being medieval, not of Jesus's time at all. If you have revolutionary new evidence to the contrary we're all ears. But you can't force us to watch hours of video to find it. If you're so convinced, sum it up for us. Kick start the procedure. Snip the video up and post the sections that are germane. If what you tell us sounds interesting we'll go for it.

By which I mean interesting enough to point to the possibility that the cloth did, indeed, come into intimate contact with the body of dead Jesus. What do YOU think, Guffer?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 10:02 AM

Being attacked by you, GfS, is like being savaged by a dead sheep (with apologies to Denis Healey and, of course, Sir Geoffrey Howe)!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:02 AM

Steve: "We know the evidence about the shroud being medieval, not of Jesus's time at all. If you have revolutionary new evidence to the contrary we're all ears...."

Horseshit! If new findings are found, the you might want to look into them...not doing so is willful ignorance and you two seem to willfully stupid and proud of it!
..as so far as the rest..you DON'T know what you're talking about..(not a rhetorical insult, just the plain truth!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:20 AM

""no matter how 'indignant' you may try to mask it!!!!""

I take it that you aren't an Enlish language specialist Goofus?

"indignantly"

Also, you might like to re-examine your take on scientific procedure. If you wish to present a counter argument based on a new hypothesis, it is up to YOU to present evidence to your peers to support it.

They are under no obligation either to accept your unsupported word, or to go looking for your evidence.

Genuine Scientists scotch their own snakes friend!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:22 AM

Nimrod: "I tried watching the first part of your video, GfS, and found it long-winded, tedious, over-dramatised and unconvincing. You've obviously watched the whole f*cking thing (perhaps you're a glutton for punishment or have nothing better to do?)."

Instead you find it a better use of your time posting inane posts, that you can't back up????
Maybe you should exit Mudcat, as long as you're computer is on, and watch something educational..besides porn!
(But then I guess you DO need help in fucking yourself!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:26 AM

Don, you might find it a novel experience to know what you're talking about. Like the rest of these Nimrods, how can you comment on something you have no info on??....especially something that a whole new area of scientific studies have opened up, based on their new discoveries??.. Not interested??..Well stay prejudiced and biased...who gives a shit?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:34 AM

Oh dear, Jesus wouldn't like him getting all nasty with us the way Guffy does, would he? It's hardly the way to treat us who are still to be saved! Here, Guffers, I'll get you started. Here's your hypothesis:

"The Turin shroud bears an image that strongly resembles Christ as he has been described to us down the centuries. The null hypothesis is that the cloth is not contemporary with Christ's life, so cannot bear the true image of dead Jesus. I now intend to present evidence that will reject the null hypothesis."

There ya go, old chap. Next step: your evidence, please! And links to videos are not evidence!!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:44 AM

3rd post - 6 weeks ago

*****************************************
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Ebbie - PM
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:20 PM

Warning: This will be a short thread. :)
******************************************
She reckoned without some of us....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 12:05 PM

Steve Nimrod: "There ya go, old chap. Next step: your evidence, please! And links to videos are not evidence!!"

How would you know?????????????????????????????????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 12:24 PM

"Don, you might find it a novel experience to know what you're talking about. Like the rest of these Nimrods, how can you comment on something you have no info on??""

So educate us smartarse! Extract your evidence from the place where YOU found it and lay it out for examination.

We're not your hired staff and none of us is going to sit through four hours of pompous shite to find whatever nugget of truth (according to you, and your record ain't great) might be hidden in it.

It's your hypothesis, so you present your pertinent evidence, or shut up about it.

Every one of us except you has presented our own arguments and the evidence for them.

You float in on a cloud of whimsy and start demanding we wade through a sea of dross to save you the trouble.

Dream on! It isn't going to happen. Now piss, or get off the pot!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:01 PM

DonT: "So educate us smartarse! Extract your evidence from the place where YOU found it and lay it out for examination."

Well go ahead and examine it..I ain't stoppin' you!

Idiots!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:02 PM

It's all there for anyone to look at...and examine....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:19 PM

This argument that you are making, GfinS, is terribly flawed... You have what you *claim* is a *documentary* that you *claim* is nothing but the *truth* and when folks watch a little of it and find it tedious and suspect and ask you to make *your* arguments your rebuttal goes like this:

No, I won't because ya'll didn't subject yourselves to what "I claim to be the truth."...

That is not an argument... That is a testimonial... Testimonials are not arguments... They are beliefs...

Folks here have been fair in asking that you lay out you evidence and make your arguments...

You refuse...

I gotta score this one a loss for ya' GfinS...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:21 PM

A link to a video is not evidence. Let me give you another example. You tell me that, in the lineage leading to Jesus, Salmon begat Booz (I always liked that one). I ask you for evidence. You tell me to go to the library for a bible and look it up, refusing to give me any guidance as to which verse, chapter, author or testament. Well I'll tell you what, mate. You need to consider outcomes a little more! You won't win many converts to your beliefs that way! In any case, you won't even tell us your beliefs! For example, do you believe that the shroud bears the image, made through direct contact with his dead body, of Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:24 PM

Calm down, GfS, you're over-exciting yourself! You've endured the whole teejus vijo - so you summarise it and give us details of any new evidence that you think it contains. After all, why keep a dog and bark yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:26 PM

He's bloody barking all right! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:34 PM

I like the bit towards the end of the video where they say that goofus is talking bollocks and the shroud is a windup.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:58 PM

Bobert: "That is not an argument... That is a testimonial... Testimonials are not arguments... They are beliefs..."


Would you say that a 'testimonial' in laboratory conditions, could be considered 'evidence'?

Bobert: "Folks here have been fair in asking that you lay out you evidence and make your arguments..."

I did several times..they are too fucking lazy and arrogant to see for themselves.

Bobert: "You refuse..."

False!!

Bobert: "I gotta score this one a loss for ya' GfinS..."

Well you are biased yourself!..Your scoring don't mean shit!
Scientifically speaking, one should look at the 'evidence' before one renders an opinion......have you looked at the evidence?..then how can I respect your opinion??!!??

GFS: "From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 05:37 PM

Steve: "....The study of the shroud did not have the endorsement of any religion, sect or political system as its remit. Its aim was to discover how old the thing was and to investigate the nature of the imprint. The findings, as I understand them, are "true" in that they conclude that the shroud is a medieval piece of cloth containing an imprint that still holds mysteries."

OK..Close, but NOT an 'imprint'...an image, holographic in nature caused by 'radiation, either of heat or light, or both. To 'lift' the image, to try to reproduce the image as accurately as possible, Ray Downing, from Macbeth Studios had to find out what caused it....THAT is where it gets interesting, as so far and the technical, and what they discovered....fair enough?"

This is one of two posts where I brought up the nature of what they found....and the numbnuts have NEVER addressed it!..because they didn't look at it, too lazy to read, or are deficient in comprehension..take your pick!
they'd rather take time to type illiterate type posts than to find out what they are talking about. Par for the course!

So, if you can't look into it yourselves, come up with an OBJECTIVE opinion, or just 'file it', who gives a rat's ass during a flying fuck what they think???!!!??..Elementary Watson...They don't know what they are talking about..(or missing).

I DO! I Already did my homework!

Jeez....makes you wonder about some of their upbringing. I wonder if their parents tied tin cans on their nuts and left them out in the blizzard all week!!

GfS

P.S...Better than keeping something so stupid in their houses for the same duration!!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 02:07 PM

Bobert: "Folks here have been fair in asking that you lay out you evidence and make your arguments..."
"You refuse..."

"FALSE!!

"From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 03:18 PM

The study of the shroud, and their findings, DO NOT endorse ANY religion, sect, or political system..other than, if the findings are indeed true, could (would) alter our perception of 'reality'. Being as the study opened up a new field of science, that which is consistent with quantum physics, 'string theory', 'membrane theory' and how they work...and guess what?..they use MUSIC (and harmonics)to describe how it all works and to describe our relationship to the dimensions...and there are MORE than the ONE we see!..FACT!!"

Bobert: "Folks here have been fair in asking that you lay out you evidence and make your arguments..."
"You refuse..."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:33 PM

Let's try this again, for all those who are a little 'slow'....

..Jeez, I thought even you would have known that...!!..At least any lesser dummy would have known that BEFORE engaging in a moronic discussion against FACTS!

Now, if the shroud was of the 13th century, how do you explain the image, being as it was tested, and was found NOT to have been painted, only 2 microns deep, (no absorption, less than any paint or medium that was used back then), no materials found used in paint AND was concluded that the image was the result of radiation, (either heat or light, or both)...pretty far out technology being as the camera was not invented till several centuries later.....and as long as we are on cameras, how in the world did they in the 13th century, be able to photograph or paint a holographic image....the only known picture ever found with these properties?
I'm sure you have a simple answer for these.
....and while you're at it, explain the pollen that was found in the fibers that come from a plant that only grows within 50 miles of Jerusalem.
When you get done 'explaining all that away' there's more!

GfS

Wrong AGAIN, Ol' Bobert!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 04:46 PM

Back before my dad succeeded in drinking himself to death, he managed to pickle so many brain cells that he couldn't put together a coherent argument for love or money... and believe me when I say that he was NOT a happy drunk and would pick a verbal fight over anything.

His most memorable quote from back then was... "Don't confuse the argument with facts."

This thread is really starting to resemble one of those incoherent rants he was so addicted to... besides the booze. We could no more stop his rants than we could stop his drinking... he lost his family and replaced it with his loser drinking buddies.

I fear that this thread has been hijacked by those who if they really are the God's chosen that they think they are.... boy, that is one pathetic deity.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 05:04 PM

Yo, GfinS...

All I have read from you are proclamations, testimonials and personal attacks on folks asking you to present a coherent case...

Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 05:46 PM

...and then consider whole thing!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 05:57 PM

"Now, if the shroud was of the 13th century, how do you explain the image, ...etc...."

No one has to explain any of this unless they are either asserting or denying something.
Those who assert that it IS serious evidence of 'something', must supply an explanation which fits... and does not conflict... with all known other evidence. By themselves, certain lab tests are only interesting. Until someone comes up with a lab test which shows overwhelming evidence of a 'certain age', it is merely curious.

The church has an interest in the shroud NOT being debunked, and have so far been very limiting in what tests they will allow on what areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 06:02 PM

GfS, for some strange reason you've driven me to cliches (dead sheep, barking dogs etc.). But here's a final one: when you're in a hole stop digging!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 06:43 PM

> The church has an interest in the shroud NOT being debunked.

Maybe not as strong an interest as you might suspect. The Vatican has taken no special position on the shroud's authenticity, and as far as Christian doctrine is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the shroud is real or not. A fake 13th century shroud doesn't logically discredit a real first-century Resurrection - which was accepted for 1300 years with no shroud in evidence.

Those with the strongest interest in pushing for authenticity any way they can are fundamentalist types who want a "smoking gun" they can use to boost creationism and discredit science at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 06:46 PM

BillD: "The church has an interest in the shroud NOT being debunked, and have so far been very limiting in what tests they will allow on what areas."

Actually, not only was there dissension among the hierarchy, at the Vatican, about letting the do the tests in the first place(as relayed on the video), the Official position of the Papacy, was that the 'inspiration' of the shroud was the most important, even if it wasn't the real thing...that's on the video, as well...The compromise was that the team only got about ten days, to inspect it, photograph it, run tests...ans stuff that if you had seen the video, this wouldn't be necessary to explain on here..the video is faster, easier and more detailed...and as per aforementioned, NOT church or 'religiously based' group or entity who wanted to run the tests nor who did the tests.
Why there is so much agony at the thought of getting pretty interesting input staggers the imagination, in regards to the depth of brain-blockage!
If you're interested (anybody) check it out yourself...if not, keep you stupid opinions about what you have no idea about in this next place..........................................>>>>

.............>>>> Nimrod: "But here's a final one: when you're in a hole stop digging!"

Speaking of holes...did you find any polyps, yet?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 04:58 AM

Cheap insults do nothing for your credibilty, GfS!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 07:09 AM

For those of you interested in the ongoing science around the Turin Shroud, here's a page of references
Shroud Science

The radiocarbon dates, measured by 3 labs in 1988, all came out suggesting the shroud was mediaeval but that doesn't answer the question of where the image came from.

One interesting suggestion is that there was a Coronal Discharge or 'St Elmo's fire' event that you can sometimes see in thunderstorms.

Body Image Formation Based on Coronal Discharge

There doesn't seems to be anything in the research that either requires or excludes a supernatural event, so I guess we can all hang on to our preconceptions for a while yet...

KP (who was a research chemist before spending most of the time trying to tune 12 string guitars)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 08:12 AM

> The radiocarbon dates, measured by 3 labs in 1988, all came out suggesting the shroud was mediaeval.

If the shroud is medieval, as the contemporaneous testimony and the scientific evidence suggests, then it becomes very unlikely that it bears the imprint of a real person. The elongated appearance of the image also works against it.

The interesting question is precisely how the image was made.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 09:50 AM

On rare occaisions someone with a kilogram of neurons in there head comes up with an idea other people can not picture easily.
Sometimes the ideas are correct.
When they are correct it is rare for the idea to gain traction with the current language of the day.
Sometimes the correct language (usually math) expresses the new idea with traction and correctness.

For correct ideas that have no current common language the path for the new idea is usually oblivion.

A few brave people with new ideas create their own language for their idea. People like Richard Feynman and his Feynman diagrams.

I would not call his diagrams an alternative to science but an attempt for a new way for communication new concepts that are hard for 2 dimensional thinkers to see without a new language to elucidate and translate the ideas to the liear thinking brains, or as I call them obsolete operating systems of the past.

Today with graphic animations we can help linear thinking people to actually see the truth of how time exists in all its future and past expressions just as space itself exists in all of of its micro and macro expanses, right now, everwhere.

These animations are helping people to see what they had no eyes to see before. People who already see in 3 and 4 D are inventing new language to describe what is challenging for them to see.

We now have special space telescopes to quantify the previously subjective concepts that were once thought to be unknowable.
This is wonderful news for the curious at heart. The process of science itself is expanding the process of what can be known as well as what can be inferentially seen.

These discoveries are not a simple alternative to science but rather an expansion of science like the universe/multiverse itself/themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 10:52 AM

"The interesting question is precisely how the image was made."

We don't know, therefore it must have been God wot did it. Simple this science business, when you get the hang of it, isn't it, GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 11:00 AM

Hi Martin Gibson, Nimrod or whatever fake ignorence advocate person you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 11:01 AM

Donuel, good post!

Nimrod, you are jumping to assumptions...grow up!

KP, Shall review the links...thank you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 02:35 PM

a fake ignorance advocate is not a put down

Steven Colbert is the king of fake ignorance advocates.


Deciphering the savant and dyslexic minds of today by looking without predjudice, is turning up many great truths about the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 02:37 PM

Oh you mean to say you are not a FAKE ignorant advocate?
I'm sorry, damn my blurry eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 05:25 PM

not committing one way or another as far as the shroud is concerned but contrary to the imaginations of some;- creationists are not, that i know of, that het up about it
maybe its the atheists that are more worried about it!
gfs-i seen to recall that the nail prints are positioned in the wrists in the image rather than through the palms of the hand, as i understand is traditional in medievel art.am i right?.

i have today realized that birds might have come from dinos after all-

if they vomited after eating them!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 07:16 PM

not committing one way or another as far as the shroud is concerned

Oh, go on, why don't you. Commit yourself! The facts are clear! It ain't Jaysus! It's clever, it's medieval and it ain't Jaysus! It won't affect you! Creationism is just as possible with a fake shroud! Off the fence with you,, dear boy!

but contrary to the imaginations of some;- creationists are not, that i know of, that het up about it
maybe its the atheists that are more worried about it!

So who's getting all worked up about the bloody thing in this thread, hysterically trying to force all us laid-back, rational types to watch a silly video, reinforcing his call with every possible raving insult known to humanity? Why, 'tis not an atheist, old bean!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 08:51 PM

tsk... Pete.. birds did not exactly come FROM 'dinos'... one basic species does not magically change into another. Whatever happened, it was extremely complex and over LONG time.
   Once you accept the 10s of millions of years involved and the many, many lines of relationship and branches, it is a lot easier to talk about.
I am aware that you already have a simple way of explaining different species..."God made them as He wished"... but the hard evidence says that it happened in the complicated way... whether or not some super-being planned it. What we have evidence of is the evolutionary path.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 01:00 PM

Still checking out those links...and cross checking them...

Hey, to some of the others..don't let your bigotry get in the way of collecting scientific data... you might have a problem calling a spade a spade, but bigotry is bigotry...and some of you might check yourselves out. It's patently obvious to those who aren't even 'religious'!!!...oh, and that being said, should clear thinking people take the point of view from bigots seriously????

"Love me, love me love me..I'm a 'liberal'"-Phil Ochs

GfS