Thread: Greatest fictional book

Originally Posted by Harbinger

I mention new scientist because I've actually read it, where I can take a fair guess from the progression of your agument that you don't read science, and you've just gone and googled for info. New Scientist takes reviews all the scientific journals like the two you have mentioned, and writes them for the general public.

You stupid shit. First you denigrate New Scientist for it's errors. Then specify you read New Scientist, and not respected, peer reviewed scientific publications.

So you read what you admit is crap, and then boast about it. Impressive, and I doubt you even noticed this. I supposed I shouldn't be surprised that you said God might have planted evidence to trick us. Your scientific knowledge awes and impresses me deeply.

What that actually means is that it's checked for plausibility before it's published, the journals still publish work that is proved incorrect later on.

As opposed to checking for implausability? What it means is that they check that submitted articles have been properly researched by scientists, almost always PhDs in the relevant field.

And what's your point that some articles are proven 'incorrect' later. Scientists make mistakes. Newtone's theory of gravity was later demonstrated to be incorrect. So was Einstein's to some degree. Does this mean scientists aren't supposed to do research, or publish their findings?

no they used it as a resource not good, not anything, they most likely use it once every seven years when theres an uproar over creationism. The fact is that you quoted from that source with absolutely no idea about it's accuracy, and then managed to scrape up some legitimacy afterwards....

I've been a reader of the talk.origins newsgroup since 1998. It's been around at least since 1993 that I know of. What you meant to say was to confess that you're a clueless idiot.

Just because a site got quoted once by a real source, does not mean that your information you pulled from there is accurate, as I already posted, they admit themselves that their information may not be factual.

They don't need to specify it's accurate. They're RECOMMENDING it for god's sake.

Secondly, I'm uncertain as to what you are referring to by saying they 'admit their information may not be factual'. Could you be more specific?

How can you possibly back that up, I've read numerous articles trying to define whether evolution is still occuring and none of them have been able to determine that.

Perhaps you've been reading the wrong articles? Your Answers in Genesis newsletter is not a good resource for finding evidence of evolution.

So how the f*ck can there be empirical evidence of it??

Given that we've observed in the laboratory, unicellular organisms evolving to multicellular organisms within a hundred generations after the introduction of a predator to the environment, and observed evolution countless times in both the lab and in real world situations, I'd say we have a lot of empyrical evidence that evolution is still occurring.

Fossile records and genetics help us determine that evolution has occured in the past. Are fossils now theoretical, and not empirical evidence?

we can't even really conclude how much genetic similarity we have to primates.

???

Humans are primates.

Theres no direct chain of fossil evidence to back this up.

I don't know if NTU has an anthroplogy department, presumably they do. Have you considered picking up a text book, or examining journals and periodicals specific to the relevant field?

Of course, from the same guy(?) who dismisses Science and American Scientist, and obviously won't do his own research, and will disregards any links, there is no point in providing any evidence to you, because you will automatically dismiss it. I could cite college text books, but you won't verify them.

In other words, you will remain blind to any facts and will only stick with your Bible BS that you've obvoiusly been tutored in.

But it can also be wrong which is why you can't say that its a fact. Otherwise it become the law of evolution, a theory is not a fact, in the very definition of it.

Dipshit, remember your lesson from the MT thread? You follow me through the thread calling me a 'liar' and 'moron' and posting your 'evidence', before finally realising and admitting you misread it. EVEN THOUGH I SPECIFICALLY POINTED IT OUT TO YOU THREE TIMES BEFORE THAT.

The lesson being, learn to fucking reading.

A theory is not a fact. I agree. I never said it was. What I said was a theory CAN be a fact. And in the case of evolution, it is.

I'm not arguing the logic of who beleives what, creationism is the alternate theory.

Um, no. Creationism is religious doctrine. Evolutionary theories are scientific theories. Saying 'Goddidit' is not a scientific theory.

By very definition its an accident because its due to an utterly random sequence of events. If not guided by some higher power then its an accident.

Natural selection is not random. You can predict events according to this particular mechanism of evolution.

why not, I'd do it.. and you beleive that people go to hell for disbeleiving? So your desperate to prove that you're right in order to avoid the terrible logic that you will otherwise go to hell?

No I don't believe people go to Hell. Why not? Because I don't believe in Hell.

If you disbelieve in the Bible, you disbelieve in Jesus. According to Jesus, there is no way to Heaven but through him. If not Heaven, how many alternatives do you have? I can only think of Hell.

as a note, im a lapsed catholic, hurrah, which means that no, I don't beleive any of this crap. and to everyone, if someone has a right to their beleifs,

Which begs the question on why you're posting Christian lies and disinformation about science.

Originally Posted by Jaian

You stupid shit. First you denigrate New Scientist for it's errors. Then specify you read New Scientist, and not respected, peer reviewed scientific publications.

I didn't denigrate new scientist, I said it has errors, thats not a denigration, its a mention. I use new scientist as an example because they review the pre mentioned articles, and also mention when such articles are refuted universally. Meaning that they do stories on false journal entries.

Originally Posted by Juju Beans

As opposed to checking for implausability? What it means is that they check that submitted articles have been properly researched by scientists, almost always PhDs in the relevant field.

I'm saying thats a lie, theres no way that they repeat years and years of experiments to check data, which says that its only checked over, not investigated in depth.

Originally Posted by jackrabbit

I've been a reader of the talk.origins newsgroup since 1998. It's been around at least since 1993 that I know of. What you meant to say was to confess that you're a clueless idiot.

well that just tells me that you're an idiot, who the fuck reads that kind of crap unless they're professionally involved in the field?? noone that's who, people with no lives, who live to slag creationists because they want to feel superior to someone on the planet.

Originally Posted by Jaian

Secondly, I'm uncertain as to what you are referring to by saying they 'admit their information may not be factual'. Could you be more specific?

I quoted it, its on their about page, it says that they don't check their information. Its just posted by whoever feels like it. Your site is exactly what I was referring to, a place where information is posted by anyone, and hence is utterly unreliable. You can ignore any references to new scientist, science, aaaawhatever, because the site itself says it can contain unreputable information.

[jaian mode] YOU FUCKING IDIOT, YOU CAN GO EAT POO, CAN'T YOU READ!!?!? IM FUCKING GOD!!!! DRIBBLE DRIBBLE GIBBER GIBBER[/jaian mode]

Anyway, I'm done for the night. You keep hiding behind your Biblical literature and posting your BS.

I said I was going to go in for the night, but I just noticed Harbinger's post just before mine, and I just had to comment on this:

Originally Posted by Harbinger

well that just tells me that you're an idiot, who the f*ck reads that kind of crap unless they're professionally involved in the field?? noone that's who, people with no lives, who live to slag creationists because they want to feel superior to someone on the planet.

Who posts on a gaming forum unless they're professionally involved in the field? Noone, that's who, people with no lives.

I take it you're a professional gamer or game developer Harbinger? Just like everyone else on this forum?

You've obviously been indoctrinated in 'Christian science', are you telling me you worked as a priest of some sort? You wouldn't read Bible science propoganda just out of interest or for the sake of knowledgte. Oh, and a Catholic. Oh wait, lapsed Catholic? Why's that? Were you an altar boy?

Obviously people who are interested in a subject don't involved themselves in communities that are relevant to that subject. Fortunately, you have a life, seeing how you're a professional game developer, and you're posting on these forums to trade game development tips.

A pity you choose to denigrate most people on this forum as people with 'no lives', just because they choose to read a gaming forum when they're not professionally involved in gaming.

Originally Posted by Jaian

Of course, from the same guy(?) who dismisses Science and American Scientist, and obviously won't do his own research, and will disregards any links, there is no point in providing any evidence to you, because you will automatically dismiss it. I could cite college text books, but you won't verify them.

I didn't dismiss them I simply said you can't take them as gospel (pun intended).

Originally Posted by shitforbrains

words, you will remain blind to any facts and will only stick with your Bible BS that you've obvoiusly been tutored in.

I haven't argued any facts from the bible or towards god, i'm only disputing your argument. You however, are obviously a raving lunatic.

Originally Posted by shitforbrains

Dipshit, remember your lesson from the MT thread? You follow me through the thread calling me a 'liar' and 'moron' and posting your 'evidence', before finally realising and admitting you misread it. EVEN THOUGH I SPECIFICALLY POINTED IT OUT TO YOU THREE TIMES BEFORE THAT.

The lesson being, learn to fucking reading.

No remind me, I don't know how to "reading"???

Originally Posted by fuckknuckle

A theory is not a fact. I agree. I never said it was. What I said was a theory CAN be a fact. And in the case of evolution, it is.

You say that god does not exist because of "A", but then you admit that yes "A" could be false, but also could be true, and hence what?? you're a dick?? yep

Originally Posted by Cockmangler

Um, no. Creationism is religious doctrine. Evolutionary theories are scientific theories. Saying 'Goddidit' is not a scientific theory.

why does a theory have to be scientific? their theory is based on beleif, yours is based on science, they both "could" be fact, not necessarily in equal quantities but thats how it is.

Originally Posted by numbnuts

Natural selection is not random. You can predict events according to this particular mechanism of evolution.

Bollocks, unless you go to the point of chaos theory(fuck no don't do it) then the development and life and evolution up to the point of sentience is random, it has to be, nothing is ordering it, you've been arguing that.

Originally Posted by jibberer

Which begs the question on why you're posting Christian lies and disinformation about science.

I haven't posted any christian lies, where did I say "god is the saviour" LEARN TO READING YOU FUCKING IDIOT MORON SHITHEAD POOPOOFACE.

And I haven't posted disinformation about science, I said that evolution is a theory, thats true.

I'm done arguing what I set out to, I won, have a nice aneurysm

Originally Posted by Jaian

Who posts on a gaming forum unless they're professionally involved in the field? Noone, that's who, people with no lives.

I take it you're a professional gamer or game developer Harbinger? Just like everyone else on this forum?

You've obviously been indoctrinated in 'Christian science', are you telling me you worked as a priest of some sort? You wouldn't read Bible science propoganda just out of interest or for the sake of knowledgte. Oh, and a Catholic. Oh wait, lapsed Catholic? Why's that? Were you an altar boy?

Obviously people who are interested in a subject don't involved themselves in communities that are relevant to that subject. Fortunately, you have a life, seeing how you're a professional game developer, and you're posting on these forums to trade game development tips.

A pity you choose to denigrate most people on this forum as people with 'no lives', just because they choose to read a gaming forum when they're not professionally involved in gaming.

No because you see, I play games, this gives me an interest, this forum that i PARTICIPATE in, I don't just read it for the purpose of obtaining knowledge...

Obtaining knowledge for the express purpose of having that knowledge.. is the greatest waste of time I can imagine, all it let's you do is lord up that knowledge over other people... oh wait.. that's you, well, that proves my point, what a waste of time..

oh yes, I also mock bible bashers, because they are zealots, you are also a zealot, and for someone who loves to denigrate people for not reading, you're an ignorant bastard.

Book of althalus

The Axis Trilogy

Assassins Apprentice

Liveship Trilogy

The Sapphire Rose (Book 2 in a trilogy)

Revenge, Betrayel, and one more I can't remember (has main character of Torkyn Gynt).

The above books rock more then any others.

If anyone is after some good story with a bit of excitement then get the book "The Chalice and The Blade"

Quote

Gibber Gibber Gibber

Quote

Gibber Gibber Gibber

(Thanks Harbs for the wording)

See I am right, not you.

Agreed?

No it never will be. But an intertaining Topic / Posting it always is when you bring religion into the Argument

Originally Posted by Jaian

And what's your point that some articles are proven 'incorrect' later. Scientists make mistakes. Newtone's theory of gravity was later demonstrated to be incorrect. So was Einstein's to some degree. Does this mean scientists aren't supposed to do research, or publish their findings?

Exactly why it is called the Theory of evolution, because it could possibly be disproved. Nothing as of yet has conclusivly proven evolution. To this end, it is just as foolish to put your 'faith' in evolution, than to put your 'faith' in god.

Originally Posted by Jane

A theory is not a fact. I agree. I never said it was. What I said was a theory CAN be a fact. And in the case of evolution, it is.

Oh, by that token, a theory canNOT be a fact too? What is your fucking point? Nice firm footing for your beliefs you have there. Theres a 'chance' its right, chance its wrong. Nice hard facts buddy.