Let's brush up on our Roman history.

The Roman Republic was created centuries before Cicero was born.  While it was an admirable effort at representative government, it was also severely flawed, votes by the poor hardly counted, people in conquered provinces didn't vote at all, and corruption there was as bad as it is in any modern country.

The Roman Senate was basically an aristocracy: you gained entry by birth and remained a member for life.  Julius Caesar did not destroy the Senate.  The Senate continued to have significant political influence for 17 years after Caesar's death, and persisted in name only for several hundred more years.

Cicero was assassinated in 43 B.C.  Saying that he lived in the time of Christ is equivalent to saying that FDR lived in the time of Justin Bieber.

I don't know how relevant this will end up to Doug's eventual argument, but I wanted to point this out before we hear more historical inaccuracies.

That's not what you said. You said a young earth was equally as likely as an old one.

If there isn't enough information to make an accurate determination as to how old something is, then what you've said here is the logical next step - that something being old or young is equally likely.

Bis thinks the earth could be 10,000 years old.

No. Bis doesn't presume to know how old the earth is.

Regardless of what the bible says, the earth is billions of years old.
 

So how do you know that? Oh, right, you're a sheep following blindly behind whoever you think might lead you in the right direction. Baa, baa, BL sheep, have you any wool? No sir, no sir, you're just a fool.

Bis, I also love your thoughts on communism.

I discussed socialism. Communism is a form of socialism, though it bears little resemblance to the specific points I mentioned.

It sure is for the top 10% or so.  And its really really not for the bottom 50.  But most people (sheeple) think its great.

Capitalism is absolutely wonderful for those at the top, and they have every reason to enjoy it and want it to stay the way it is. However, it doesn't make sense for the vast majority of people.

In fact, it's absurd on the face of it. Where else can you get a large group of people to willingly accept a deal that continually screws over the vast majority of them so that a few can benefit greatly? It's downright ridiculous, and yet people continue to accept it.

  I dont think it is possible to have the ultimate communist/socialist system, because there are too many people willing to do anything to take and or keep power, humans generally suck is what it boils down to. 
 

I agree that people generally suck from an economic standpoint and perhaps in other ways as well. That's not simple cynicism but based on years of observation, study, and analysis by myself as well as others.

The solution, however, is intricately simple, as I already mentioned. You simply offer whomever wants it the chance to give up capitalism for a socialist environment where everyone is as equal as humanly possible. No one is forced to join against their will, so there is no backlash. The benefits for those who were formerly poor and destitute are instant and amazing - they are now absolutely middle class and on equal footing with everyone else. How do you avoid laziness and shirking? You simply make it abundantly clear anyone not doing their equal share of the work (whatever their job is) will be removed from the socialist community and forced to return to the capitalist world, where they will once again be subjugated to the situation they came to the community to avoid. Who would want to be lazy or shirk work onto others if the punishment is to go from middle class to being poor again?

As for the age of the Earth, obviously nobody can know the definite answer to that, but I certainly believe in billions of years old, all evidence that I put stock in points to that.

I think there are a lot of things we THINK we know from a scientific standpoint which will later be shown to be false. At one point many intelligent people thought the earth was the center of the universe. At another point many intelligent people seriously considered (if not outright believed) the earth could be "flat". Both were clearly wrong.

In MANY other cases, scientists have had theories which attempted to explain various phenomenons and made sense at the time, only to later admit the theory was wrong when more information was discovered.

So while most people will gladly follow like a sheep behind any group of scientists who says they "know" something, I choose to think for myself. If there is any dispute over a topic, I don't just jump on the bandwagon where the majority of scientists ride. I think for myself and if I don't believe there is enough evidence to jump to a conclusion, I'm not afraid to say so.

There have been many free thinkers like myself throughout history. Most of them have been ridiculed by people who amount to ignorant bullies, so its not a surprise that people such as BL fill that role for me here. In most cases the free thinkers are not only more intelligent than the sheep who attempt to belittle them, but they are also correct.

 

son of a ***** this topic just won't die

LOL @ SF

You should really know better. After all, BL is involved.

ya but I keep hope I can kill this stupid thread then again it is funny so what the hail

Posted by bistiza on 9/9/2013 9:01:00 AM (view original):

That's not what you said. You said a young earth was equally as likely as an old one.

If there isn't enough information to make an accurate determination as to how old something is, then what you've said here is the logical next step - that something being old or young is equally likely.

Bis thinks the earth could be 10,000 years old.

No. Bis doesn't presume to know how old the earth is.

Regardless of what the bible says, the earth is billions of years old.
 

So how do you know that? Oh, right, you're a sheep following blindly behind whoever you think might lead you in the right direction. Baa, baa, BL sheep, have you any wool? No sir, no sir, you're just a fool.

Bis, I also love your thoughts on communism.

I discussed socialism. Communism is a form of socialism, though it bears little resemblance to the specific points I mentioned.

It sure is for the top 10% or so.  And its really really not for the bottom 50.  But most people (sheeple) think its great.

Capitalism is absolutely wonderful for those at the top, and they have every reason to enjoy it and want it to stay the way it is. However, it doesn't make sense for the vast majority of people.

In fact, it's absurd on the face of it. Where else can you get a large group of people to willingly accept a deal that continually screws over the vast majority of them so that a few can benefit greatly? It's downright ridiculous, and yet people continue to accept it.

  I dont think it is possible to have the ultimate communist/socialist system, because there are too many people willing to do anything to take and or keep power, humans generally suck is what it boils down to. 
 

I agree that people generally suck from an economic standpoint and perhaps in other ways as well. That's not simple cynicism but based on years of observation, study, and analysis by myself as well as others.

The solution, however, is intricately simple, as I already mentioned. You simply offer whomever wants it the chance to give up capitalism for a socialist environment where everyone is as equal as humanly possible. No one is forced to join against their will, so there is no backlash. The benefits for those who were formerly poor and destitute are instant and amazing - they are now absolutely middle class and on equal footing with everyone else. How do you avoid laziness and shirking? You simply make it abundantly clear anyone not doing their equal share of the work (whatever their job is) will be removed from the socialist community and forced to return to the capitalist world, where they will once again be subjugated to the situation they came to the community to avoid. Who would want to be lazy or shirk work onto others if the punishment is to go from middle class to being poor again?

As for the age of the Earth, obviously nobody can know the definite answer to that, but I certainly believe in billions of years old, all evidence that I put stock in points to that.

I think there are a lot of things we THINK we know from a scientific standpoint which will later be shown to be false. At one point many intelligent people thought the earth was the center of the universe. At another point many intelligent people seriously considered (if not outright believed) the earth could be "flat". Both were clearly wrong.

In MANY other cases, scientists have had theories which attempted to explain various phenomenons and made sense at the time, only to later admit the theory was wrong when more information was discovered.

So while most people will gladly follow like a sheep behind any group of scientists who says they "know" something, I choose to think for myself. If there is any dispute over a topic, I don't just jump on the bandwagon where the majority of scientists ride. I think for myself and if I don't believe there is enough evidence to jump to a conclusion, I'm not afraid to say so.

There have been many free thinkers like myself throughout history. Most of them have been ridiculed by people who amount to ignorant bullies, so its not a surprise that people such as BL fill that role for me here. In most cases the free thinkers are not only more intelligent than the sheep who attempt to belittle them, but they are also correct.

 

Is there any evidence for a young earth? Because there is a ton for an old one.

There's not enough evidence to make a conclusion on the age of the earth, so I guess "a ton" isn't enough.

For those who want to know why capitalism is a terrible system, consider what you do for a living and ask yourself if it is wage slavery (which is explained fairly well there, though the information isn't all encompassing or completely accurate, but then again it is wikipedia).

Is there *any* evidence for a young earth???

Again, there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion on the age of the earth, young, old, or in between, so please stop asking for evidence that there is no evidence.

So you're saying there's no evidence either way? What about radiometric dated rocks?

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Are you two retards still going on about this?

So you're saying there's no evidence either way? What about radiometric dated rocks?

No, that's not what I said at all. Stop trying to twist things (then again, if you did that, you'd never be able to argue anything).

There is not sufficient evidence to make a conclusion that could be considered reasonably accurate as regards the age of the earth.

As for radiocarbon dating, it relies upon several assumptions and can therefore be accurate but lead us to incorrect conclusions. This site explains in simply and scientifically why this is the case.

tec, I'm just having fun with BL, the same as I always do. I may be making a mistake by actually trying to show him the error of his ways - he'll just plow ahead as stubbornly as ever, I'm sure - but I can't help myself.

oh good gawd. tec bis badluck all three of you need to STFU and let this topic die

Posted by jm1618 on 9/8/2013 8:49:00 PM (view original):
Let's brush up on our Roman history.

The Roman Republic was created centuries before Cicero was born.  While it was an admirable effort at representative government, it was also severely flawed, votes by the poor hardly counted, people in conquered provinces didn't vote at all, and corruption there was as bad as it is in any modern country.

The Roman Senate was basically an aristocracy: you gained entry by birth and remained a member for life.  Julius Caesar did not destroy the Senate.  The Senate continued to have significant political influence for 17 years after Caesar's death, and persisted in name only for several hundred more years.

Cicero was assassinated in 43 B.C.  Saying that he lived in the time of Christ is equivalent to saying that FDR lived in the time of Justin Bieber.

I don't know how relevant this will end up to Doug's eventual argument, but I wanted to point this out before we hear more historical inaccuracies.

Let's see. Where did I go wrong?

Ummmm......I never implied the Roman Senate was the US Senate. As far as I know, it was the first one. That's all. I'm not comparing it to our modern Senate, although they're beginning to look a lot alike. 

It continued as a partially viable institution for another 17 years.  In a civilization that lasted 1000 years.     Shoot me.

By "in the time of Christ " I was simply implying era. As in ancient. Not a contemporary.  Should I have to explain? 

This is a tough crowd.

I'm relating some thoughts of a book once read. I'm not writing the damned thing. It's a dialog, not a whipping post. 

Go back to whatever it was you thought you were doing. 

If anyone has an interest I suggest you go to the local library. Should this particular tome not have been hidden, lost, stolen or burned; you will find it there. Possibly in audio. 

It is THE 5000 YEAR LEAP by W. Cleon Skoussen. My work here is done. Before it even started. Thanks! You saved me a lot of time and effort.

buzzkill

Posted by bistiza on 9/9/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):

So you're saying there's no evidence either way? What about radiometric dated rocks?

No, that's not what I said at all. Stop trying to twist things (then again, if you did that, you'd never be able to argue anything).

There is not sufficient evidence to make a conclusion that could be considered reasonably accurate as regards the age of the earth.

As for radiocarbon dating, it relies upon several assumptions and can therefore be accurate but lead us to incorrect conclusions. This site explains in simply and scientifically why this is the case.

tec, I'm just having fun with BL, the same as I always do. I may be making a mistake by actually trying to show him the error of his ways - he'll just plow ahead as stubbornly as ever, I'm sure - but I can't help myself.

I'm not going to go read some creation propaganda site. If you have an argument, make it. If not, shut up.