Summations Only

Suppose I say to you that I've caught a small fire-breathing dragon and have it in this box.Well, you're not closed-minded, so you're willing to "just investigate" this claim. You do not want us to "limit ourselves to only those things that are not unusual". You are happy to "use a little imagination". So you want to "just investigate". Hoorah! How would you "just investigate" this claim? You'd ask me to open the box and show you the dragon. Wouldn't you?But then I refuse. I explain that "howling about evidence" is a "conversation stopper". I don't have to show you any evidence, your demands for it just show how closed-minded you are. Tsk tsk.So then you ask me why, in that case, you should believe my claim to have a dragon. And I explain to you that this sort of "intellectual inquisition" is exactly what has "retarded growth of scientific knowledge in the last 50 years", and that the frontiers of zoology will be advanced immeasurably if you'd just stop "placing shackles" on the "increase of knowledge".And then I sit on the box, occasionally spluttering out the words "howling about evidence" and "intellectual inquisition" and "shackles!" as and when the fancy takes me.Now, you think you should "just investigate" my claim. Great. I commend you on your openness to new ideas. But how are you going to investigate my claim? Remember, the "intellectual inquisition" is out, and "howling about evidence" is out, and questioning my unevidenced assertions is placing "shackles" on the "increase of knowledge" --- so how do you propose to "just investigate" my claim to own a dragon?Do please explain.

By reading the Bible, silly. Duh!

Those who complain about being asked for evidence never stop to think if the claim is true. Possibilities are for navel gazers. We want to know if an idea is CORRECT. That requires evidence. "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens Apparently some people are because they refuse to present any evidence.

And you would replace science and its methods with, what?A science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions? We already had that. They called it the Dark Ages.How about magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?No, I guess those won't work well either.How about this: How about if fundamentalists of all stripes just leave science the hell alone!

Hi ForEverYoung,People have already responded to your "evidence is a conversation stopper" comment, so I guess I'm just wondering why you care whether planets form from accretion disks or are ejected from their suns. The universe will still be billions of years old. According to Genesis, God didn't create a molton Earth by ejecting it from the sun and sending it speeding away to spend many orbits and many, many days settling into a circular orbit before spending millions of years cooling with the heaviest elements sinking toward the center.Accept the ejection theory if you like, but you're just adding to your problems. Your Biblical views still won't be supported by scientific theory, but now the scientific theory you favor is one without evidence.Why would you want that? I don't understand. Someone with your beliefs should want both theories to be wrong.--Percy

Congratulations! You have just earned yourself a place in immortality (or at least until I decide to change my signature again). If we're going to merely consider whether a claim could possibly be true without regard to evidence, all we will be doing is eliminating the logically inconsistent. It's possible there's a parallel Earth orbiting around the sun 180 degrees opposite from us where Mary Poppins was a real person who invented the pet rock. It's possible the Christian Bible was written by an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters. It's possible Napoleon hatched his plan to drive his elephants over the Himalayas while he was in exile on Elba. It's possible Francis Bacon actually wrote all the plays of Neil Simon. It's possible Lee Harvey Oswald was acting alone when he shot 18 under in his first Masters to win by 9 strokes. It's possible the Nazca lines are the result of great big giants writing their names in the sand as they urinated. It's possible the pyraminds are piles of Sphynx scat. It's possible Aborigines carried Kangaroos to Australia in their pouches while flying Pteradactyls across the Bering Strait. It's possible the Emperor of Japan's pet hedgehog Spiny Norman was the bastard child of Godzilla and the Laurentian Abyss.If we're going to dismiss the need for evidence, how exactly do we determine which of these possible hyoptheses we are going to investigate and which we are going to ignore?

I think foreveryoung is objecting to the form of the discussion rather than the substance. I doubt that he actually believes that planets were ejected out of sunspots.Foreveryoung has in the past asked questions about things like the speed of light being greater in the past, and rates or radioactive decay being greater in the past. Those questions are related to whether the earth and/or universe are relatively young.The discussions of foreveryoung's questions have always proceeded along lines similar to those presented here; namely people cite evidence or provide reasoning that argues against his proposals, and ask fy to cite evidence for his proposals. Foreveryoung to date has not seemed interested in continuing the discussion when he receives those responses.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Fuck you and all the assholes who gave me negative reps.

Fuck you. I have told you all for the upteenth time. That i am here to discuss ideas. I don't have the type of evidence you assholes are looking for. Go to hell if you don't like the topic I want to discuss.

I am here to discuss ideas. I don't have the evidence you guys want so either ignore me or quite asking me to do that. That is false. Evidence can be looked for when we need to decide if the idea is true. Until then, why can't we just discuss the possiblilities? Hitch can rot in hell for all I care.

I am assuming that "negative reps" means using the "jeers" button.If that's what it means, then I just gave you a couple because of the unnecessarily harsh language that you used.Yes, debating can be frustrating, particularly when most of the participants disagree with you. But try to stay calm if you can. Your job, as a debater, is to lay out your position as clearly as possible. Don't expect to persuade your opponents to agree with you. It is rare for that to happen. Concentrate on having your position presented as clearly as you can.

You wanted the math, well here it is.
The speed stars in the outer edges of a galaxy travel are a function of the size of the super massive black hole. The larger the SMBH, the faster the stars travel.
If a galaxy has a bulge in the center, the relation of the bulge to the SMBH is about 1 to 700.It is suggested that this link is proof SMBH’s play a fundamental role in the creation of the universe.Supermassive black holes drive the evolution of galaxiesAll you folks have is salt in a thumb smudged sack. I forgot to say bye bye! I am off to discuss this where new theories are usually not accepted.

For frak's sake, put that bottle down!Have you been getting negative reps? Who the frakking bleeding frak cares???????? Ever hear of that fool icon, "Not Of This World"? Ever hear of "Fools for Christ"? A troop of clowns! That's right, a fracking bleeding bloody troop of clowns! What is it that you should be proud of? Of being thought a fool! Of being thought a fool for the sake of Christ.So then, just what the fuck is your problem?You want to be popular? Then become of this world. You want to follow the calling to be "Not Of This World"? Then accept not being popular.So then just exactly what the frickin' frak do you want? Make up your fucking mind!

Well then, that's the problem, isn't it?Presenting an idea in the absence of evidence is one thing. Declaring that nobody should ever ask for evidence is completely another thing. You need to know the difference between the two.You are trying to argue that nobody should ever ask for evidence. That is a proven and sure-thing loser. You are truly and totally a fucking idiot for trying to advance that position.It would be different to present an idea in the absence of evidence and to admit that you do not have any evidence for it. Did you ever give that a thought? Duh?Please put that bottle away. It really does not help anything.

Then discuss ideas. But at the same time be completely honest that there is no evidence for what you are discussing.And please, please, please, please learn some bleeding English! "... or quite asking me to do that." "Quite"? What the hell is that supposed to mean in this context? The verb that you are apparently attempting is "quit". So just exactly why did you not use it? No, it is true. Inescapably true. If you have absolutely no evidence for an assertion, then nobody has to even consider your assertions.Part of this is the old problem that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. You want to assert that something is caused by invisible pink unicorns? (ignoring how invisible unicorns could possibly have a color) So to disprove your assertion we need to prove that pink unicorns do not exist? Fuck you, white man, and the horse you rode in on (oh, do please, please, please, please take me to task for that!). How could anyone ever possibly prove that pink unicorns do not exist? How's about on Pluto? Or on a planet orbitting Betelguese? Or on a planet orbitting some unnamed star in some remote galaxy? How could you or anybody ever possibly disprove the existence of pink unicorns? And do please do not get me started about blue fairies!Do you want to posit pink unicorns? OK, present some evidence for them! Or blue fairies? Same thing.Same thing is that if you want to propose something, then you need to also present some reasonable reason to consider what you are proposing.Duh????Evidence can be looked for when we need to decide if the idea is true. Until then, why can't we just discuss the possiblilities? Hitch can rot in hell for all I care.[/qs] By which you reveal that you areEdited by dwise1, : No reason given.