All Posts by Tykero

It looks like Morrowind in MMORPG form. The animations are a little rigid, but honestly, it looks like it's gonna be a lot of fucking fun.

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=64217
 

LOL WUT

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=64217

LOL WUT

Originally posted by Draenor

Originally posted by Tykero

Originally posted by Arndur

Originally posted by Tykero

Originally posted by Draenor

Originally posted by Tykero

Originally posted by Draenor

Short answer: yes

 

Everyone has the same evidence to look at, it's a matter of what you are willing to postulate based upon that evidence.  Both sides, creation, and evolution, require leaps of faith, and anyone who tells you that one does not is simply in denial.

 

This is a joke.

 

Evolution does not postulate on the creation of the universe or this planet.

Evolution does not give any mention to the origin of life (that's abiogenesis, not evolution; something you'd do well to understand the difference between).

There is no leap of faith required to understand or acknowledge evolution, because if there was then it would not be a scientific theory.

There is no factual support for a creation origin. None. Saying "well how else did it get here?" is not factual support. Not knowing is not factual support.

There is plenty of evidence for the origin of the earth as a large molten mass formed by the gravitational pull of our star. There is plenty of evidence for the concept of the Big Bang (though it is certainly not perfect and scientists as a whole generally acknowledge that there will be unknowns in regards to the origins of the universe -- this is not an excuse to slap "God did it!" into the blanks).

 

The one in denial here is you -- for insinuating that the two concepts are somehow equal.

Science is not perfect, no. But there is no leap of faith in science. If you have to make a leap of faith, it is not science. That's the damn principle of the whole thing.

The only way to arrive at a creation origin is through logical fallacy.

 

Educate yourself.

 

 

Lol...don't get me started kid...You don't want to debate me about this, you'll quickly find that you are the one that is not educated.  I used to be an evolutionist...How could I not be seeing as how it's the only theory taught in public schools? 

I know both sides of the debate, you want to post some details on why my post is a joke?  I'll be glad to send you packing.

I find it interesting that you call me "kid." Your attempt to belittle me on basis of age when only three years separate us is amusing.

 

I'd also like to point out that I made multiple points, which, instead of defending against, you merely attacked me, and made some baseless claims about your understanding of the subject.

 

Evolution is a logical conclusion. We can observe it on the small scale through microbial analysis. We can observe it on the large scale through genetic mapping and fossils. We've even stimulated the process through selective breeding. Rejection of evolution is rejection of a blatant truth. Saying faith is required here is a cop out, a joke, and overall simply an uninformed and ignorant opinion.

Evolution does not have any mention of the origin of life, the universe, or our planet.

Divine creation is not a logical conclusion. Divine creation is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with science. God isn't falsifiable. God isn't observable (no, not just in the literal sense). They're certainly not mutually exclusive.

I'm not the kind of person to make illogical conclusions. I certainly don't deny the possibility of a god or creator. I do, however, want to make it very clear that there is a gigantic difference between a possibility and a scientific theory. Creationism is a possibility. Evolution is a scientific theory.

They are not alike.

 

Seeing moths change to match a enviroment over a few generations or watching single cell creatures change to become......different single cell creatures(not multi cell or a higher level being) logical we can see that. But saying that every type of creature and bsaicly living thing on this planet started as the same single cell oragnism is not logical. Looking around at the world and saying this couldn't be a random accdient.....logical

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

 

 

Lol...I ask him to debate me with something substantial and the first thing that he comes up with is the peppered moth fraud?

 

If you don't know the difference between microevolution, speciation, and macro evolution, then you need to go help yourself to a science book and then come back to me.

I actually didn't bring that up, but thanks for failing at reading.

Edit: Xemous, that body of text has grown far too massive to reply to at this point.

All I can say is -- you're the one making the claim. Give me some evidence, and I'll be happy to disprove it. Link me a source. Cite something.

It is not my job to disprove god. It's your job to provide the evidence.The burden of proof, after all, is on you.

We can go back and forth arguing pointlessly, or we can actually debate.

---

You have to understand this, (i wrote a lot more, but i pressed the $#($&#)$ back button on my mouse)
Science and physics are very different.  The quantum physics community laughs at the scientific community for claiming to be "scientific"  If anyone understands quantum physics, you will understand the parallel universes that are right in front of our eyes, inside our bodies, everywhere, that operate on a different spectrum. ..We only see, touch, and feel, a fraction of reality. As Einstein said
"We dont even understand one thousandth of one percent of what science has revealed to us. "
Yes i believe a hint of science promotes atheism, but going in the rabbit hole, you find a designer, cause stuff like this doesnt just "happen"  Plus genetics contradicts a lot of "scientific" theory

---

I still see a lot of claims a not of support for them.

---

---

 

You would think if there were a God, in his infinite wisdom he would create life from the most basic, logic way possible.

---

 

Well, no, not really. The physical laws of our universe had no bearing prior to its existence.  Physical laws? Lol you really dont understand physics.  What makes you think God would operate on these physical laws?

---

Please read my statement again.
Before our universe existed, the physical laws that bind it (time, gravity, 'strong force,' 'weak force,' etc.) did not exist. A supreme being would not only be operating from the outside of any universal laws, it would also have not even created them yet -- so why would logic apply to its design?
I have a very strong doubt that you know that much about physics at all.

---

William Occam was a theist. Why would you quote him trying to disprove God?  Atheists go around weilding occams razor because it states that fewest assumptions should be made.  When God is not really an assumption when you have, personal religious experiences, mutual religious expericnes, thousands of testimonials of enounters with the supernatural, knowledge of deeper science.. ect. ect.  Hell, ghosts could be used to prove my point.  Theres about a million photos and videos of those, even more testimonials, and famous haunting cases.  That proves the point of life after death.

---

God IS an assumption. You do not have proof. You have worthless data.
I suppose you believe in alien abductions and every conspiracy theory ever as well? Those all have testimonials of encounters, pictures, data,.. and yet most of it is fabricated, misconstrued, or only perceived incorrectly -- much like what you do now.
You consider evidence that cannot be backed up as scientific. That's the exact opposite of scientific evidence.
Again, I strongly doubt your understanding of science in general.
Regardless of Occam's views of the world, his principle clearly cuts a god entity out of the picture until more evidence is assembled.
Every single supernatural experience has a physical, reality-grounded explanation for it. Most of them can be attributed to the human nature of seeking attention.

---

Im not arguing the origin of the universe, hell we may never know, im arguing a ultimate being, a designer.  Give me logic on how "mysterious chemical reactions" occur to produce life.

---

There is no logic necessary. These things have been reproduced hundreds of times on paper and computer. There is no "mysterious chemical reaction." We already know the makeup. It's more a question of which. Did the first components arrive by comet? By assembly in the boiling, electrically charged seas of early earth? In fact, the mere fact that there are multiple difference possible ways that life could have began on this planet only give further credence to the whole thing.
Regardless, evolution doesn't even touch on the beginning of life. Only its development.

---

and   Even Charles Darwin doubted his theory, and im not going to search the interweb for the quote, but it goes somthing like, "If there happens to be an organism, whos makeup consists of parts that are irreduecable and cant function without the other, my theory would ultimatly break down"   When Darwin was alive, people thought of cells as protoplasm, its only modern day science that reveals the parts in side the cell that cant function without the other, the flagellum motor, google it.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

As you can see, it took me about ten seconds to disprove that. There are already possibilities. Nothing is irreducible. As somebody who claims to know so much about physics, you of all people should know that everything breaks down.

---

Its depressing that you think the only view of God is from a dogmatic religious standpoint.  You dont A) Understand philosophy, or B) Understand physics... You dont C) have an open mind and say the thousands of testimonials arent really ALL a coincidence. You cant D) Look at the complexity of life, the cosmos, and see something greater than a product of "nothing"  You haven't E) Researched some of the greatest scientists and philosophers and gotten their view on the world.  

---

You make a lot of assumptions.
Unfortunately, not a one of them are true.

---

People cant prove there isnt a God.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_ignorance

---

The proof i have is philosophy,

---

Philosophy is the first part of the scientific process -- it observes, and then it deduces. The problem is that philosophy stops there. It doesn't test. It doesn't prove. As a result, some of the most wrong and some of the most beautiful information tends to come from the same people.
What you don't understand is that philosophy is merely a logical exercise. It is not proof of anything.

---

There is no "hard evidence" for God.  The only "hard" evidence i could give you, would be the thousands of near death experiences, www.near-death.com

---

Oh please, near death experiences? You haven't even taken the time to research this at all, have you?
Do some research for me:
DMT
pineal gland
ketamine
cerebral anoxia

---

The thousands of personal testimonials, best of all, knowledge of philosophy and a depth of physics.

---

Your knowledge of philosophy and depth of physics sound to me like they were "learned" in a religious youth group.
You've got all the misinformation and none of the clarification.
There are personal testimonials for a lot of things.
A basic knowledge of psychology would tell you of the unreliability of humans, especially in particularly alarming, shocking, or unusual situations. I can testify as a child that I saw shadow men moving around my house. There's a whole phenomena group dedicated to it. Thousands of people have seen them. Does that mean shadow men are real?
More likely it's a result of a child's churning imagination, near-asleep brain, and the distortion of a familiar figure into a fearful one.

---

  Oh and i can use ghosts in my argument for life after death.  Thousands of videos and pictures there, and a million more testimonials / famous cases with "scientific" documentation.  If you believe, he will do fabulous things in your life, it doesnt matter if you dont understand the full truth, or understand what God really is, you just need to believe in something greater, smarter than yourself. Miracles defy science, along with a thousand other phenomena..  Hell here a picture that defies reality itself The burning monk.  He is dying for his country by protesting the war.  He is immomilated in flames and doesnt move a muscle, because he doesnt feel pain.  He isn't inside his body, meditating all his life he can tap his spirit out instantly.  Proof of life beyond our physical world.

---

This is what you consider proof? Do you just construe everything that you possibly can as "proof" without considering other possibilities?

You throw out "thousands" and "millions" quite readily, though I see you've dropped "trillions" thankfully.

Surely, if these things existed in such number, at least one that can't be logically reconciled and can't be faked must exist, right?

I'm sure that with all this data you claim to have, you can produce that for me.
There is nothing spiritual in a monk's ability to control their body. The mind and body are linked. These people train themselves for their entire lives to be able to manipulate the limits of the human body. People harm themselves every day.
Do you know what the brain does when it is flooded with massive amounts of neural "pain" signals? It goes into shock. It STOPS feeling. Similarly in particularly alarming situations. If you've ever been in a situation like this, you would know from personal experience what it's like.

---

I encourage you to throw out quotes.  I can guarantee i will throw out 50 more by people x10 as famous.

---

You.. don't even understand what I said, do you?

---

We have more "information" than you can imagine.  It takes an open mind and a person who doesn't pick cherries.  Its hard to find anyone that doesn't pick cherries though.

---

Your mind is hardly open.
You've yet to give me anything substantial.

Originally posted by Arndur

Originally posted by Tykero

Originally posted by Draenor

Originally posted by Tykero

Originally posted by Draenor

Short answer: yes

 

Everyone has the same evidence to look at, it's a matter of what you are willing to postulate based upon that evidence.  Both sides, creation, and evolution, require leaps of faith, and anyone who tells you that one does not is simply in denial.

 

This is a joke.

 

Evolution does not postulate on the creation of the universe or this planet.

Evolution does not give any mention to the origin of life (that's abiogenesis, not evolution; something you'd do well to understand the difference between).

There is no leap of faith required to understand or acknowledge evolution, because if there was then it would not be a scientific theory.

There is no factual support for a creation origin. None. Saying "well how else did it get here?" is not factual support. Not knowing is not factual support.

There is plenty of evidence for the origin of the earth as a large molten mass formed by the gravitational pull of our star. There is plenty of evidence for the concept of the Big Bang (though it is certainly not perfect and scientists as a whole generally acknowledge that there will be unknowns in regards to the origins of the universe -- this is not an excuse to slap "God did it!" into the blanks).

 

The one in denial here is you -- for insinuating that the two concepts are somehow equal.

Science is not perfect, no. But there is no leap of faith in science. If you have to make a leap of faith, it is not science. That's the damn principle of the whole thing.

The only way to arrive at a creation origin is through logical fallacy.

 

Educate yourself.

 

 

Lol...don't get me started kid...You don't want to debate me about this, you'll quickly find that you are the one that is not educated.  I used to be an evolutionist...How could I not be seeing as how it's the only theory taught in public schools? 

I know both sides of the debate, you want to post some details on why my post is a joke?  I'll be glad to send you packing.

I find it interesting that you call me "kid." Your attempt to belittle me on basis of age when only three years separate us is amusing.

 

I'd also like to point out that I made multiple points, which, instead of defending against, you merely attacked me, and made some baseless claims about your understanding of the subject.

 

Evolution is a logical conclusion. We can observe it on the small scale through microbial analysis. We can observe it on the large scale through genetic mapping and fossils. We've even stimulated the process through selective breeding. Rejection of evolution is rejection of a blatant truth. Saying faith is required here is a cop out, a joke, and overall simply an uninformed and ignorant opinion.

Evolution does not have any mention of the origin of life, the universe, or our planet.

Divine creation is not a logical conclusion. Divine creation is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with science. God isn't falsifiable. God isn't observable (no, not just in the literal sense). They're certainly not mutually exclusive.

I'm not the kind of person to make illogical conclusions. I certainly don't deny the possibility of a god or creator. I do, however, want to make it very clear that there is a gigantic difference between a possibility and a scientific theory. Creationism is a possibility. Evolution is a scientific theory.

They are not alike.

 

Seeing moths change to match a enviroment over a few generations or watching single cell creatures change to become......different single cell creatures(not multi cell or a higher level being) logical we can see that. But saying that every type of creature and bsaicly living thing on this planet started as the same single cell oragnism is not logical. Looking around at the world and saying this couldn't be a random accdient.....logical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

Originally posted by Waterlily

Originally posted by Tykero

 

The Middle East is a scourge upon this planet.

 

My compassion is only given to those who deserve it.

 

 

lol

You are shortsighted.

---

Originally posted by Xemous

??  Science is merely the perception of the everyday phenomena that goes on around us.
Science doesnt contradict the concept of God, in any way shape or form.  It might contradict religion, but by all means not God.

---

That doesn't mean that a god exists, obviously. There's the possibility. There's also the possibility that the universe spawned from the ashes of a previous one. We'll probably never know.

---

You would think if there were a God, in his infinite wisdom he would create life from the most basic, logic way possible.

---

---

The big bang theory is great because it fulfills a philisophical concept of opposites.  The universe started as a subatomic particle, then expanded to somthing bigger than we can imagine.
"God always takes the simplest way"
-Albert Einstein

---

---

Try this
Put parts of a bike in a bag, shake the bag up, and see if anything is assembled.  Except its more complicated than that, put gas and dust in a bag, shake it up, and see if life is assembled.  Pretty dumb huh? 

---

---

Even if this is the case, it would be impossible without divine intervention.

---

---

People cant prove there isnt a God.  The proof i have is philosophy, trillions of testimonials, NDE, supernatural, quamtum physics, ect ect.  And best of all.... L O G I C

---

---

"To one with faith, no explanation is needed, to one without, no explanation is possible"
-St. Thomas Aquintas
"A hint of philosophy brings ones mind to atheism, a depth brings his mind back to religion"
-Sir Francis Bacon

---

It's important to remember that the logical neutral is atheism.
Until proven, doubt. Give credence to the concept, but not the conclusion.

More simply -- I do not deny the possibility of a god. I do deny that there is any reason to believe in one with the information we have available now.

Addendum:
I hope that's sufficient. My mood has changed a few times as I wrote this, so if I've said anything particularly rude I apologize. I can't be arsed to skim back through it again, as I'm tired and need sleep.

Originally posted by Draenor

Originally posted by Tykero

Originally posted by Draenor

Short answer: yes

 

Everyone has the same evidence to look at, it's a matter of what you are willing to postulate based upon that evidence.  Both sides, creation, and evolution, require leaps of faith, and anyone who tells you that one does not is simply in denial.

 

This is a joke.

 

Evolution does not postulate on the creation of the universe or this planet.

Evolution does not give any mention to the origin of life (that's abiogenesis, not evolution; something you'd do well to understand the difference between).

There is no leap of faith required to understand or acknowledge evolution, because if there was then it would not be a scientific theory.

There is no factual support for a creation origin. None. Saying "well how else did it get here?" is not factual support. Not knowing is not factual support.

There is plenty of evidence for the origin of the earth as a large molten mass formed by the gravitational pull of our star. There is plenty of evidence for the concept of the Big Bang (though it is certainly not perfect and scientists as a whole generally acknowledge that there will be unknowns in regards to the origins of the universe -- this is not an excuse to slap "God did it!" into the blanks).

 

The one in denial here is you -- for insinuating that the two concepts are somehow equal.

Science is not perfect, no. But there is no leap of faith in science. If you have to make a leap of faith, it is not science. That's the damn principle of the whole thing.

The only way to arrive at a creation origin is through logical fallacy.

 

Educate yourself.

 

 

Lol...don't get me started kid...You don't want to debate me about this, you'll quickly find that you are the one that is not educated.  I used to be an evolutionist...How could I not be seeing as how it's the only theory taught in public schools? 

I know both sides of the debate, you want to post some details on why my post is a joke?  I'll be glad to send you packing.

I find it interesting that you call me "kid." Your attempt to belittle me on basis of age when only three years separate us is amusing.

I'd also like to point out that I made multiple points, which, instead of defending against, you merely attacked me, and made some baseless claims about your understanding of the subject.

Evolution is a logical conclusion. We can observe it on the small scale through microbial analysis. We can observe it on the large scale through genetic mapping and fossils. We've even stimulated the process through selective breeding. Rejection of evolution is rejection of a blatant truth. Saying faith is required here is a cop out, a joke, and overall simply an uninformed and ignorant opinion.

Evolution does not have any mention of the origin of life, the universe, or our planet.

Divine creation is not a logical conclusion. Divine creation is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with science. God isn't falsifiable. God isn't observable (no, not just in the literal sense). They're certainly not mutually exclusive.

I'm not the kind of person to make illogical conclusions. I certainly don't deny the possibility of a god or creator. I do, however, want to make it very clear that there is a gigantic difference between a possibility and a scientific theory. Creationism is a possibility. Evolution is a scientific theory.

They are not alike.

Originally posted by Draenor

Short answer: yes

 

Everyone has the same evidence to look at, it's a matter of what you are willing to postulate based upon that evidence.  Both sides, creation, and evolution, require leaps of faith, and anyone who tells you that one does not is simply in denial.

This is a joke.

Evolution does not postulate on the creation of the universe or this planet.

Evolution does not give any mention to the origin of life (that's abiogenesis, not evolution; something you'd do well to understand the difference between).

There is no leap of faith required to understand or acknowledge evolution, because if there was then it would not be a scientific theory.

There is no factual support for a creation origin. None. Saying "well how else did it get here?" is not factual support. Not knowing is not factual support.

There is plenty of evidence for the origin of the earth as a large molten mass formed by the gravitational pull of our star. There is plenty of evidence for the concept of the Big Bang (though it is certainly not perfect and scientists as a whole generally acknowledge that there will be unknowns in regards to the origins of the universe -- this is not an excuse to slap "God did it!" into the blanks).

The one in denial here is you -- for insinuating that the two concepts are somehow equal.

Science is not perfect, no. But there is no leap of faith in science. If you have to make a leap of faith, it is not science. That's the damn principle of the whole thing.

The only way to arrive at a creation origin is through logical fallacy.

Educate yourself.

Originally posted by Waterlily

Originally posted by Tykero

If the middle east wiped itself out, I could really only consider that as a betterment of the world.

 

 

 

Finish high school first, then take your first steps online. Not the other way around.

And if you truly believe these are acceptable views, search a mentor or someone who teaches you some compassion.

 

Nuclear Proliferation has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and misery. Nuclear science should never be used to advance weaponry where the solo purpose of it is to use it during wars.  It not only kills people, it kills unborn babies, it kills people from after effects and sickness. It's terrible. Before anyone even mentions it they should read up on what atomic bombs really do.

The people throwing and deciding to engage in atomic bombing have no clue what horror and destruction it results in.

It's wrong. A last resort if your country is under threat from a country who is at the last stages of engaging in nuclear activity by using it as an offensive means would be considered probably. But before that EVERYTHING should be done to stop it in time and to end a conflict with the LEAST amount of human bloodshed possible.

The Middle East is a scourge upon this planet.

My compassion is only given to those who deserve it.

You're naive as hell. Nuclear weaponry isn't the only thing that kills unborn babies, has aftereffects, and causes wholesale destruction. Guess what? WAR in every sense causes that. At least in the case of a nuclear blast, you're vaporized instantaneously, or if you somehow manage to survive you die in shock, not truly feeling what happened.

The Middle East is generally filled with single-minded, dogmatic people; willing to wage war over petty superstition. If it wiped itself out, innocents would die, yeah. But the world would be a better place for it. This planet is overpopulated and it cannot sustain people who cannot get along with each other for such ridiculous reasons.

I'm not being cruel, I'm being realistic. You need to grow up.

P.S. Finished High School years ago.

P.P.S. I've probably been on the internet longer than you.

If the middle east wiped itself out, I could really only consider that as a betterment of the world.