Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scotty CTA

The Evolution and Dinosaur Hoaxes Laid Out

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Did you not understand the 'For the sake of argument' bit and 'maybe'.

Of course, but although folk might disagree with me, no one could genuinely believe I'm 'thick as sh*t'.

(How else could I post so eloquently? :wink2: )

Dawkins (for example) has just about everything wrong, but he's not 'thick as sh*t'.

His ability to understand isn't the problem.

(It's his heart and his ego.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Of course, but although folk might disagree with me, no one could genuinely believe I'm 'thick as sh*t'.

(How else could I post so eloquently? :wink2: )

Dawkins (for example) has just about everything wrong, but he's not 'thick as sh*t'.

His ability to understand isn't the problem.

(It's his heart and his ego.)

To be fair, not even considering that scientists might be able to find out stuff that happened 2 billion years ago and calling them 'eggheads' isn't doing your 'Im not as thick as shit' cause much good.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 9:41 AM, Eisegerwind said:

To be fair, not even considering that scientists might be able to find out stuff that happened 2 billion years ago and calling them 'eggheads' isn't doing your 'Im not as thick as shit' cause much good.

I've thought it through clearly, and it would definitely be impossible for any human today to prove one single thing from 2 billion years ago.

For starters, they'd be working outside of science, leaving them with only 'scientism' and theories hypotheses (lets be honest... ) guesses that the 'thick as sh*'t' swallow as 'popular' fact.

 

On 9/4/2019 at 2:00 PM, Ally Bongo said:

My goodness. Just use your own head, Ally. 

A good start would be for the 'eggheads' to get something (anything!) correct with radiometric dating.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

I've thought it through clearly, and it would definitely be impossible for any human today to prove one single thing from 2 billion years ago.

For starters, they'd be working outside of science, leaving them with only 'scientism' and theories hypotheses (lets be honest... ) guesses that the 'thick as sh*'t' swallow as 'popular' fact.

 

My goodness. Just use your own head, Ally. 

A good start would be for the 'eggheads' to get something (anything!) correct with radiometric dating.

 

It's taken along time but we've finally got to the crux of the matter and every single post you have ever made ever. You are of 'at least average intelligence' and almost everyone else is 'thick as shit'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do seem very quick to 'debunk' or provide links to prove scientists or 'eggheads' wrong.  How can you be so sure that you, and the sources you provide are correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, in5omniac said:

You do seem very quick to 'debunk' or provide links to prove scientists or 'eggheads' wrong.  How can you be so sure that you, and the sources you provide are correct?

The guy that did the work on Mt St Helens was a creationist and made an arse of it.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review.html

That's hard work.   Easier to say a big god did it and ran away.   Although there is a bush in the Mojave desert that is over 11,000 years old (by two dating methods).

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

It's taken along time but we've finally got to the crux of the matter and every single post you have ever made ever. You are of 'at least average intelligence' and almost everyone else is 'thick as shit'.

Nope. There's many folk more intelligent than myself.

4 hours ago, in5omniac said:

You do seem very quick to 'debunk' or provide links to prove scientists or 'eggheads' wrong.  How can you be so sure that you, and the sources you provide are correct?

We're not the ones claiming to know what was what 2 billion years ago.

Other than that, the 'egghead' (assumed) numbers are used to test the 'egghead' guesses, and they don't add up.

Example... Scientism (through NASA and the military) tells us that the spinning ball earth has a circumference of approx. 24, 800 miles, yet there are hundreds of examples of us being able to see things (like skylines) that should be thousands of feet below the (imaginary) curve that simply aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Nope. There's many folk more intelligent than myself.

We're not the ones claiming to know what was what 2 billion years ago.

Other than that, the 'egghead' (assumed) numbers are used to test the 'egghead' guesses, and they don't add up.

Example... Scientism (through NASA and the military) tells us that the spinning ball earth has a circumference of approx. 24, 800 miles, yet there are hundreds of examples of us being able to see things (like skylines) that should be thousands of feet below the (imaginary) curve that simply aren't.

Yea, well there would be since you're only 'of a least average intelligence', bound to be lots of people more intelligent than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Example... Scientism (through NASA and the military) tells us that the spinning ball earth has a circumference of approx. 24, 800 miles, yet there are hundreds of examples of us being able to see things (like skylines) that should be thousands of feet below the (imaginary) curve that simply aren't.

I'd like to see one example of that which stands up to scrutiny...

 

Edited by Toepoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

I'd like to see one example of that which stands up to scrutiny...

 

Whereas radiometric dating has been peer reviewed throughout the world by thousands of scientists 

If only they had viewed a 3 minute video that debunked it

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Toepoke said:

I'd like to see one example of that which stands up to scrutiny...

The New Orleans skyline (from approx. 28 miles away) should be hidden by approx. 520 feet of 'curvature' yet it can be seen with the naked eye.

Edited by Scotty CTA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Yea, well there would be since you're only 'of a least average intelligence', bound to be lots of people more intelligent than that.

More that 'at least'?

(Anyway, I've already happily conceded the point you're attempting to make.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

More that 'at least'?

(Anyway, I've already happily conceded the point you're attempting to make.)

Assuming you meant 'more than', how much more than? Do you have some independent verification of your intelligence, a special certificate or badge or something, or are you just going by your 'feeling' criteria.

Edited by Eisegerwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Whereas radiometric dating has been peer reviewed throughout the world by thousands of scientists 

"The 'Egghead' lets pat each other on the back mutual appreciation society."

1 hour ago, Grim Jim said:

Ship on the right must be sinking?

No. 

The land is stationary, while the boats/sea go up and down with the waves.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

The New Orleans skyline (from approx. 28 miles away) should be hidden by approx. 520 feet of 'curvature' yet it can be seen with the naked eye.

Couple of things.   The video is clearly taken from above sea level.   I'll say the observer is at 25feet.   That gives us a horizon for the sea at 6 miles using the formula here... https://sites.math.washington.edu/~conroy/m120-general/horizon.pdf

The buildings we're told are a further 22 miles away.   So using the same calculation in reverse, the height you'd need to be at to see that far would be 336 feet.   (Use the 1st diagram in above link to give you observer to sea, then flip the triangle for sea to buildings.)

Therefore anything above 336 feet may be visible to the guy with the camera on the video.   There are 12 buildings on this list over 400 feet, including a few over 500... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_Orleans

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

"The 'Egghead' lets pat each other on the back mutual appreciation society."

 

 

Shows how little you know about egghead scientists and how they strive to be the first to discover something

Disproving radiometric dating would have been the modus operandi of many to get their name published

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 5:53 PM, Scotty CTA said:

"The 'Egghead' lets pat each other on the back mutual appreciation society."

No. 

The land is stationary, while the boats/sea go up and down with the waves.

What causes the waves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd think the Lake Ponchartrain bridge/causeway would be a good vantage point for Flat Earth experiments. It looks pretty much dead straight and perhaps level enough to work with?

26a1116d0f0eb479163cba3421934479232e57d8

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...