ah its his site

I just tried (and failed) to underline the "funny gifs" part of the url.

And the award for FJs best default text color is:

I only come in second. There's a guy in the horsefucker board with gray text that's almost the same shade as the background. You don't notice he's said something 80% of the time.

now you see, long age that was the only plausible truth, no way to test it worthiness except by traveling around the earth its self, which would be much to expensive and take to long to properly test. Truth is is based on what is able to be seen but as times goes on more is seen and the truth begins to change in order to be correct based on what that eras seen and proven.

I guess zalmos is right, it's the "perception" of the truth that changes.

To be honest , we may never know what the 'Truth" is..... In a thousand years who knows what will change about our the way we think of what is truth.

I read someone figured the earth was circular from the shadow it casts on the moon
and yes we may never know it, we just try the best we can

"the earth is flat" - everyone before the 1500's.

that would be what people thought was true

now you see, long age that was the only plausible truth, no way to test it worthiness except by traveling around the earth its self, which would be much to expensive and take to long to properly test. Truth is is based on what is able to be seen but as times goes on more is seen and the truth begins to change in order to be correct based on what that eras seen and proven.

I guess zalmos is right, it's the "perception" of the truth that changes.

To be honest , we may never know what the 'Truth" is..... In a thousand years who knows what will change about our the way we think of what is truth.

I read someone figured the earth was circular from the shadow it casts on the moon
and yes we may never know it, we just try the best we can

that just means people's perception of truth isn't absolute.

Logic is said to be be a science is is often thought of to be absolute, but it isn't. "it is only logical" cam mean so many different things that it isn't even funny because it will vary in between each persons thinking therefore it will almost never be an absolute, there will be groups who think similar to each other therefore their logic will often coincide but it will never the "only logical" way. Which is is similar to truth.

therefor, logic is in the eyes of the beholder.

P.s. apologies if it doesn't make sense.

do you have an example of truth not bring absolute

"the earth is flat" - everyone before the 1500's.

that would be what people thought was true

now you see, long age that was the only plausible truth, no way to test it worthiness except by traveling around the earth its self, which would be much to expensive and take to long to properly test. Truth is is based on what is able to be seen but as times goes on more is seen and the truth begins to change in order to be correct based on what that eras seen and proven.

I guess zalmos is right, it's the "perception" of the truth that changes.

To be honest , we may never know what the 'Truth" is..... In a thousand years who knows what will change about our the way we think of what is truth.

I read someone figured the earth was circular from the shadow it casts on the moon
and yes we may never know it, we just try the best we can

that just means people's perception of truth isn't absolute.

One quick question, What do you mean by intelligent design.

irreducibly complex biological systems such as the bacterial flagellum. the flagellum couldnt have evolved from a less complex system because if it was missing just one component, it would be nonfunctional. evolution cannot act upon a non-functional object.

the fine tuning of the universe.
if physical constants such the speed of expansion, the gravitational constant, or the amount of entropy were even slightly changed, life, in any form, would be impossible
1.the fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design
2. It is not due to physical necessity because there is no reason why the expansion of the universe could not have been a faster or slower, or the amount of entropy couldn't have been higher or lower
3. it is not due to chance. imagine theres an octillion(thats 1 followed by 27 0's) black balls(representing non-life-permitting universes) and 1 white ball (the life permitting universe) in a box. the chances of picking out the white ball are so low that it's pretty much impossible.
4. therefore the fine tuning of the universe is do to design.

lack of evidence for evolution + the evidence against evolution
genetic entropy, genetic limits, non viability of transitional forms etc... and the fact that theres no genetic mechanism that allows new information to be added to the genome. the fossil evidence for evolution falls apart once you abandon uniformitarianism

evidence for Biblical events such as the Noachian flood
there are fossils of sea creatures high above sea level suggesting that ocean waters once flooded over the continents. billions of nautiloid fossils exit in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon proving there was a catastrophic flow of sediment which could have only been produced by a massive flood. the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon had to have been eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada, also suggesting a flood

You're wrong on all of these points I'm afraid. Research Supersymmetry and M-Theory.

nothing about m theory predicts the universe or its constants.

... dude, the entire essence of M-theory is aimed at describing WHY the constants, weights, spins, subparticle families, and the like are the way they are.

but it cannot predict the values of the constants of nature. it consistently fails at this

Yes it does. The Higgs Boson? Black holes as represented as fundamental particles (spin, mass, charge)? The list is as long as our modern comprehension of quantum mechanics. Just to head you off a bit, you're debating this with someone whose career is based upon such things. I value debate, but your arguments don't take into account any modern advancements in any of the 5 (now 6) branches within M-Theory.

"you're debating this with someone whose career is based upon such things."

from what I gather it's that the universe is complicated, therefore it must be designed

Logic, like truth, is in the eyes of the beholder.

"truth is in the eye of the beholder" - Thats fucking bullshit. Truth is obsolete. there are no different views.

I think you mean "absolute", not "obsolete".

yeah. my bad, long day

lmao!!

How does truth become obsolete?

Truth is truth. there is only 1 truth.

Truth isnt some sort of metaphysical thing like beauty or intelligence. its a real thing. something is either true, or its not.

so..... how did it become obsolete?

It was always obsolete. Truth is truth.

Are you sure you know what obsolete means?

why do you think Truth can be malleable and changed

no i don't but for some reason it is. it is often twisted to fit someones "logical" way of thinking. destroying the truth it self.

then it is not truth. it is a lie. truth remains true. if it is broken then it is no longer truth. its a lie.

That is what i meant when i said "destroying the truth itself".
People for some reason tend to believe a lie and pass it as truth. or they take the truth and twist it until it is still recognizable as a truth but no longer servers the purpose that it did.
The truth is destroyed and it becomes a lie but still viewed as a truth.

that would be what was perceived as truth

then that truth is an illusion. the truth will always remain truth

... okay... now explain how the truth is "obsolete"?

P.s. that is what im saying.

Used the wrong words.

Human error

Mybad

It's all good.

.... you are making negative sense...

also do explain

If you're saying no it would be what people think is logic

Logic is said to be be a science is is often thought of to be absolute, but it isn't. "it is only logical" cam mean so many different things that it isn't even funny because it will vary in between each persons thinking therefore it will almost never be an absolute, there will be groups who think similar to each other therefore their logic will often coincide but it will never the "only logical" way. Which is is similar to truth.

therefor, logic is in the eyes of the beholder.

P.s. apologies if it doesn't make sense.

do you have an example of truth not bring absolute

"the earth is flat" - everyone before the 1500's.

that would be what people thought was true

now you see, long age that was the only plausible truth, no way to test it worthiness except by traveling around the earth its self, which would be much to expensive and take to long to properly test. Truth is is based on what is able to be seen but as times goes on more is seen and the truth begins to change in order to be correct based on what that eras seen and proven.

I guess zalmos is right, it's the "perception" of the truth that changes.

To be honest , we may never know what the 'Truth" is..... In a thousand years who knows what will change about our the way we think of what is truth.

I read someone figured the earth was circular from the shadow it casts on the moon
and yes we may never know it, we just try the best we can

that just means people's perception of truth isn't absolute.

Because you're calling OP a faggot for nothing.

For example. Look at anon below us.