I'm right, because I say I'm right!

Another Google plus special review...
Let's crack into it.
From a chap called Adam Dobrin that places the claim: "I think I've found a verifiable pattern that links ancient scripture, history, music, and Holy words... "
like hundreds of people before him he's seen the pattern that nobody else can see! Better yet he has a 'verifiable pattern' - I'll be sure to undertake a verification of this later.

Adam Posted:

I think I've found a verifiable pattern that links ancient scripture, history, music, and Holy words... I'm very curious what you think. Here, I provide one example, which shows how a song "They Stood Up for Love" by Live ties the word "Menorah" to America's history... specifically the "Sons of Liberty."

It's my contention that this acronym is the "SOL" of God, which Live sings he "gave to the one," and that this message, that the word Menorah "reveals" a question intended to be posed through time... to get us to wake up. The Sons of Liberty didn't really provide that.. specifically to slaves and women; and this question ties the word Menorah (a light bringing device) to what I've called the Sang Rael--another pattern I'd love some feedback on.

-- edited out link --

I specifically discuss how this might prove the existence of God, by showing us that there is a hidden message that spans from the Bible to modern music--one that the prophets could not have known about, and the musicians of today most likely are going to be surprised to hear .. might be speaking the words of God.

-- edited out link -- talks about how the acronym for SEA shows us that there is a tie between Shekinah (the spirit of God) and "everyone," Holy Water. It ends up ambiguous, leaving the last "A" of SEA as having multiple possible suggestions: Adamah, Allah, etc.  I think the word "allah" leads us, to show that the "AH" in this context is an acronym for "All Humanity" and that this is confirmed strongly by the word Menorah, now a question through time:

Men, or All Humanity?

What do you think of the message?  I find it's existence to be compelling evidence to prove that we are literally the "light" of the Apocalyptic fire... one that might begin with 
-- edited out link --

I've taken out the links to what appears to be his blog, but I will be checking the content myself, I just don't wish to promote what I see as nonsense by linking to it.

---

1st paragraph breakdown:

Regarding the song: "They stood up for love" by Live - released in 2000
Claim: the word menorah (think Jewish Hanukkah...) is in his own words 'specifically tied, to America's history and more specifically to the group "Sons of Liberty"
First point to raise: the song does not include the word menorah. it does contain the word 'candle' but I would argue that a candle is a singular object and a menorah is a very defined thing which in itself cannot simply be called 'a candle'
From this I suggest this point Adam has simply injected a word that he has chosen as 'fitting' with no reason to back why that word is chosen.

P1 Summary:

• The reference word is seemingly chosen at random (or by subjective personal opinion)
• The reference word appears nowhere in the song against which it is referenced
• The 'Sons of Liberty' had no relevancy to either the song, it's lyrics or any form of Jewsih ideology.

---

2nd paragraph breakdown:

I'll start by stating that I personally find it very hard to read this paragraph in a format in which is actually makes sense. So this breakdown is based on how I've understood the details of this paragraph.
The term "acronym SOL of God" makes no sense, the acronym is of Sons of Liberty, and they in themselves have no reference to god, the group was formed in protestation of taxation.
Even if we read the acronym, Sol, commonly refers to the Latin for sun, and if it is related to a god then it is the god Sol a Roman deity, one that pre-dates the god of the Bible. to this end any reference to biblical interpretation is irrelevant.

Live sings he "gave to the one," and that this message, that the word Menorah "reveals" a question intended to be posed through time... to get us to wake up.

The song (and it's lyrics) seem quite intentionally bent toward the Christian ideas, which if my conjecture of Roman deity is even remotely accurate is, as I say, utterly irrelevant.

I would pose that Adam has specifically chosen to observe a song that he has a personal (subjective) affinity toward, which makes the choice of song to be quite ambiguous.
The last part of this details that a 'question' is revealed, however what follows is written as a directive not an inquisitive detail.
moving on the the next part:

The Sons of Liberty didn't really provide that.. specifically to slaves and women;

The Sons of liberty, at least from what I've found, had nothing to do with the 'waking up' of slaves or women, their history is steeped in political unrest and is directly caused by what was seen to be unfair taxation.
I'd like to add I'm presuming that in context the 'waking up' of slaves and women would be the act of emancipation of those parties, or somehow related to their respective freedoms.
In the last part of the 2nd paragraph Adam specifically refers to another hypothesis he's formed to be used as part of the supporting detail to this hypothesis, I would argue this is deliberately obfuscating details by presenting ever more personal and subjective interpretation.

P2 Summary:

• Seemingly random acronym chosen, based on nothing within the referenced song.
• Acronym definition presupposed, there are many other S.O.L acronym meanings.
• Acronym of English language referenced against Jewish concept (English/Hebrew not accounted for)
• Misrepresentation of argument - incorrect details of the Sons of Liberty group intentions.
• Song seems to be chosen based on personal affinity (subjective interpretation)
• Backing up fallacious presentation of details with a further (possibly) fallacious details.
• Possible deliberate obfuscation.

---

3rd Paragraph breakdown:

This paragraph is simply conjecture, it is a paragraph of personal contemplation and offers no basis on verification or even alluding to the format of the pattern that we are to be observing.
Adam does offer in here what appears to be a moment of hesitation or doubt by using the word "might" twice in the paragraph in place of assured words such as "definitively", or "certainly".
"might" Is a term used where one is not sure of that which is being referenced (in this context the reference point is God) it's inconsequential, but I find it amusing that the tone of language has altered from terms such as 'verifiable' (that which can independently and objectively be seen as truthful or accurate) to more vague terminology.

P3 Summary

• Personal conjecture
• Use of vague terminology

---

4th Paragraph breakdown:

This is another self-reference observation, claiming accuracy based on details of a previous assertion that was made and would appear to have equally little validity, is rife with subjective choices and details.
It further muddies the already unclear intention by adding a new deity into the mix (in this paragraph Allah is referred to) which again poses translational issues as Adam continues to reference English language observations, this time based on Arabic original content.
In this paragraph, Adam does however admit that the choice of acronym, and indeed the resultant meaning is one riddled with ambiguity.
It is this last part which I think clearly breaks down any veracity of any propose 'verifiable pattern'
I would propose that for something to be valid, it cannot allow ambiguity.

P4 Summary:

• Additional Obfuscation of original message
• Subjective (personal interpretation) of details.
• Further translational or linguistic barriers (English/Arabic)
• Self admission that there has been personal subjective interpretation and assertion of detail.

---

Wrapping up

I was about to list the various fallacy argument points that Adam has relied upon to act as cranes to his thought process, but instead of listing all the one I possibly could I'll give a few choice ones and link this page: 7 Common Fallacies of Biblical Interpretation
If I have any closing comment it is that the proposed verifiable pattern is with some certainty simply not present due to the heavy reliance on personal subjective interpretation and detail presentation.

---

Final choices to represent my thoughts on Adam's presented idea:

• Argument by Fast Talking (presenting a lot of detail for the reader to have to read)
• Circular reasoning (enforcing presupposition)
• Cherry Picking
• Etymological Fallacy
• Fallacy of Composition
• Oh.. and Occam's Razor needs to be brought in here too!

Most importantly, I can actually see no presentation of the pattern that Adam is testing and so cannot test it for myself.
As I see it the pattern is:

1. Choose a song (one you like is better)
2. Choose a random item or concept which is easily referable to the Bible, or Qu'ran (do other holy books count?)
3. Form a link for the song and that item/concept - how you go about this is up to you.
4. Choose an article of historical relevance (finding random wiki pages can help with this)
5. Form an acronym based on that historical reference, again what letters you choose here are up to you.
6. Explain how that acronym is intrinsically linked to the song - the reason you give is up to you.
7. Present your findings as proof to something (better to choose a god or other equally deep concept such as Death or single socks missing in the washing machine)

Continue

Does Human Life Exist?

From Google Plus: "Science Fact; Acording to the Law of Probability!... Do you Think 4.55 Billions years is Enough For Human Kind To Evolved ... Give Data To Support It ... i will use your Model to win the Lottery..."

Here are my thoughts on why this essentially boils down to gamblers fallacy.
But let me put my thoughts down so you can see why I've come to this result.

Let's have a look at how I would build a probability of model of life occurring:

Does Life exist?

1, We have only one set of datum on which to compare our model that being that human life exists.
and so therefore we must declare that the probability of humans existing is extremely likely as we don't have another universe to observe for 14 billion years (and yes your 4.5 billion is wrong, I'll explain why in a moment)

2, We know that the universe exists. This fact can be tested and hopefully be declared as accurate. There are some that would posit that all existence is merely a dream etc, however, regardless of the metaphysical state of reality we can repeatedly observe, measure, test and base accurate predictions on what we know of the reality we have so until reality can be definitively proven not to exist let us take it that reality exists as it is right now.

3, We have through observation come to understand that this reality has existed in a historical sense for at least 14 billion years or so (the fractions are unimportant here) of which I seem to recall that some 13 billion years has had the universe developing planets.

4, It is hypothetically possible that any planet created has a chance of having life created, but we have only one measured instance of this (our own) there have been billions of planets that have existed, even before ours was formed. and even from empirical evidence there are currently billions of planets that exist. This detail is important later.

Can human life exist?

5, Probability suggests that at any given moment, and I mean in time scales smaller than would be sensible to measure, an event has an X chance of occurring. Where X represents a probability chance of a given event occurring. Our event to be measured is the occurrence of life (here represented as L). so we are attempting to find where X:1

I'me leaning on the occurrence of life being one of natural origin such as Abiogensis and I would see that the occurrence likelihood of such an event to be immeasurably small.

Limitation of event parameters: Where it can occur.

6, We know that X can hypothetically only occur on a planet, but we have already come to understand from point 4 there have been/there are billions of planets and so X now has to be multiplied by the number of planets (here represented as P) that ever existed so now we know that probability of life is at least X(P):1

Limitation of event parameters: When it can occur.

7, The scale of time in which the event can occur (lets call this T) is really quite immense. For example count how many 'moments' there are in a given second (rhetorical). The number of 'moments' that have ever come to pass probably surpasses comprehensible numbers in which I can express things.

There have been 14 billion years (and if you subscribe to the theory of multi-verse as I do, possibly hundreds of billions of years) or simply countless nearly infinite 'moments' at which X has had chance to occur.

Now we have that X(PT):1 is our given chance of life occurring

• X is a redundantly small number
• It is multiplied to the power of an extremely large number (P)
• It is then further exponentially multiplied by a number (T) which cannot even be quantified correctly.

I cannot even come to fathom the scale of this probability event but let us in sake of furthering my discussion point state that we arrive at a probability of 1:1,000,000. This suggests that in every million occurrences it is likely that it would happen at least once.

Gamblers Fallacy

Gamblers fallacy helpfully points out that even in something simple as a coin toss (a 1:2 probability event) it is entirely possible that if flipped a million times we may never see a 'heads' result which hypothetically should occur at least half a million times.

However the opposite is also true of Gamblers fallacy it could be that we see in a coin toss a million results of 'heads'. This is the fun thing about probability, the event outcome does not increase, or decrease its likely outcome based on previous event outcomes.

So even in a coin toss where we see one 'heads' and every other outcome is tails this adhere's to the fact that every event occurrence is 1:2

Back to life...

Back to our derived probability of life occurring, a 1:1,000,000 chance (or however large a scale you like to put in) states that at any moment life can start, and those moments have been flying by, probably several quadrillion moments have occurred while I've written this. Maybe more?

Quite frankly the scale of this now starts to confound and confuse me a little, we have a nearly infinite number of event occurrences in time with a nearly infinitely small likelihood of an event occurring.

Conclusion

I think I'll sum all of this long winded crap up by stating that I would see the probability of life as 1:1 or in terms that can be read by people: 100%.

I am happy to report that life does exist. If life did not exist, I'd have a hard time trying to explain all this. To perhaps alleviate this entire post of rhetorical nonsense, let us in stead observe from a simple top-down check.

1. life exists.

Q: Can life exist?
A: Yes.

---

Addendum, I tried looking up some things to help express my thoughts, it didn't help. I found this excerpt from a 'probability over time' thread on www.physicsforums.com

"Or, you could define a metadistribution H(x) = w F(x) + (1-w) G(x) where 0 < w < 1 is a monotonic function of time."

I don't even understand what any of that means... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Continue

Oh... Jon O

For John Omoluabi

This is a dissection of the article you had linked : http://www.christianitytoday.com/ how i almost lost bible
perhaps it is with some irony that the action of linking this article as some form of evidence is in itself somewhat logically fallacious.

While I have used the appropriate name for fallacy where found I have not explained in detail why, but (rather foolishly) I take the position that the details of why are actually quite easy to see If you read the article and compare it to my notes.

For reference of what the terms of a fallacy may mean, please feel free to reference sites such as: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Begin the dissection!

1st Paragraph
raised by religious parent (it is accepted that children follow parent religion by 'peer pressure' alone)

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/religion-and-family-connection-social-science-perspectives/chapter-13-familial-influence
(best to skip to summary)

This part proves nothing other than (confirming) the fact that children are greatly influenced by their parents when it comes to religious matters. Argumentum ad verecundiam.

2nd Paragraph
In corroboration of early childhood (appeal to tradition), this does nothing other than to confirm the person has (a now ingrained) religious view.

3rd Paragraph
Contains subjective quote that adds/reinforces confirmation bias. Ends with Appeal to tradition (or perhaps even Appeal to ancient wisdom)

4th Paragraph
Opens with Argumentum ad populum and then enters the presumption of argument from adverse consequence, proposing by assumption that 'loosing faith' is a negative effect to be avoided.

5th Paragraph
Opens with Argumentum ad verecundiam with Ad nauseum (repetition of content does not validate it) followed by subjective content - possible appeal to motive/bribery by way of reinforcing confirmation bias)

6th Paragraph
I find no content of note other than reference to prior Argumentum ad verecundiam.

7th Paragraph
I find no content of note perhaps introducing an additional layer of Argumentum ad verecundiam.

8th Paragraph
Oddly this is the first example of any objectively recognised detail.


9th & 10th Paragraphs
(these roll together) I find these to be written in perhaps the most open format, perhaps subjective but at least written from internal rather than inferred external contemplations.

11th Paragraph
This approaches the primary Argumentum ad verecundiam but also introduces Appeal to loyalty (father)

12th Paragraph
by way of Argumentum ad verecundiam an additional Argumentum ad verecundiam is introduced.

13th Paragraph (and sub section)
I could find nothing of note other than a referenced Style over substance fallacy

14th Paragraph
This is entirely argument from adverse consequence.

15th Paragraph
This appears to be about how the writer is now accepting or reinforcing their cognitive dissonance.

16th Paragraph
Use of emotive language/reference (echoing the previously assumed argument from adverse consequence) more argument from adverse consequence.

17th Paragraph (and subsequent)
No content of note, seems to echo to previous Argumentum ad verecundiam


I find nothing within the entire article which alludes to veracity of any deity, it appears to be the story of how one indoctrinated child was about to learn about reality but thanks to emotionally invested arguments from authority was turned about such that the writer could find an appropriate comfortable level of cognitive dissonance.

Continue

I'll have a Q, another Q and the batman symbol ...

Inspired by post from: Sascha Spiegel (link to post)

You can see an image of the post on the right  ⇒  ⇒  ⇒  ⇒  ⇒  ⇒
( Click to enlarge be warned it ventures into bat-shit crazy territory)


The basic principal of the post (TL:DR mode) is that the word Deus can be mathematically translated to mean "MANKIND OWES GOD THE PEACE"

So now I'll explain why you are so very wrong Sascha.

The word "Deus" is actually thought to originate from ancient Greek Theos (θεός), yet you've used a modern Latin alphabet to transcode the numbers. Of course you give no thought to the original biblical language of Hebrew, so, let's not even entertain this slightly obfuscatory detail and simply move on.

Learn more about the word 'Deus' here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus

Essentially - This means your equation is all wrong.

Let me explain why.
You've used an illogically matched word and alphabet combination,

• fistly, by mixing ancient/modern text
• secondly, by mixing the actual context language Greek/Latin
• thirdly, the entire subjectivity and massed amount of 'special pleading' used throughout.

Your initial premise is flawed: 

Originally the 'latin' word Deus was from Greek (Δεύς) which means your letter to number equation should be:

α =1, β =2, γ =3, δ =4, ε =5, ζ =6, η =7, θ =8, ι =9, κ =10, λ =11, μ =12, ν =13, ξ =14, ο =15, π =16, ρ =17, σ =18, τ =19, υ =20, φ =21, χ =22, ψ =23, ω=24,

Learn more about Greek here: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/greek.htm

As a thought exercise, I decided to follow (verbatim) your instructions of calculation... let's see what happens. Following your own (special pleading) mathematics exactly as you prescribe them but using the now correct reference alphabet:

Δεύς = 45206 = √212.617026599

I shall follow exactly the way you prescribe to 'follow the code':

212.617026599 becomes 21, 26, 17, 02, 65, 99,

Reverse translate (number to letter)

21, 26, 17, 02, 65, 99, becomes φ β ρ β ρ γ

For those that don't speak ancient Greek this translates into rough English as Phi Beta Rho Beta rho Gamma most closely pronounced in an English native tongue as: Fbrbry)

Once again you now establish something as factual when it it nothing more than your own personal inference and additionally for unknown reasons introduce an unrelated language you state 'Arabian' I note that this additional language is only applied to the latter half of your twisted text.

I shall do the same:

Fbr bry

Fbr as close approximation in English would equate to "Fiber"
Bry as abbreviated Arabian بري which pronounced as berri or berry
(for reference: exact translation is 'wild')

Learn more about Arabic (Arabian) here: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic.htm

This give the phrase Fiber berry, which as far as I can work out is indicative of a healthy diet for good bowels.

What does this mean?

I shall now verbatim use your own following paragraph and exchange the words you found with the ones I have found, I have for sake of grammatical error corrected sentences where required (consider the orange one's added/corrected)

Until now, we know that 'healthy bowels' for GOD, but we do not know yet who is 'healthy' GOD the 'bowels'. That someone is 'healthy' GOD the 'bowels' and not someone else is a fact, because the word 'GOD' in the Latin version 'DEUS' is transcribed into numbers the only number of this calculation. The result of this whole calculation is the root of this number. And thus the person which is talked about in this calculation, is GOD

While it's a little wonky, I'm pretty sure this has something to do with god pooping?

A note on additional correction...

From Wiki:

"The name God was used to represent Greek Theos, Latin Deus in Bible translations, first in the Gothic translation of the New Testament by Ulfilas. For the etymology of deus, read more"

Additional reference (the 'read more') of this etymology goes to dyēus. you can learn more about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyeus

At the very nub or root of this words etymology it seems inexorably linked to Greek Theos or even more simply a reference to Zeus, so for your above paragraph I have could have corrected the word 'GOD' to Zeus, but for sake of clarity and not wanting to make an assumptive move I have not done so.

Continuing along the Numerology-path

While I'm willing to entertain some of the irrational and baseless assertions I'm omitting a lot of the 'calculation' of the original post and simply skip to the next most relevant detail:

The 'second string'

212.617026599 becomes 2, 12, 61, 70, 26, 59, 9

According to our 'trustworthy' guide in these matters - Only the middle is of any importance

2, 12, 61, 70, 26, 59, 9 becomes 61, 70, 26 

(70 being the exact middle number, but to ensure the result is not truncated it is paired equally with it's neighbouring numbers and thus retaining 'only the middle')

Reverse translate (number to letter)

61, 70, 26 becomes ν χ β 

Again, for the less Grecian folk: the Anglicised version that's vu (or nu), chi, beta which would pronounce as "nuchb" which for the lack of vowels sounds like someone saying "no chubby" so clearly a reaffirmation of the healthy breakfast from the 1st string!

Now we combine the strings:

According to instruction the 2nd string goes first...

No chubby, Fiber berry

Apparently, for no real reason (like any of the OP has any 'reason'...) we now add the word GOD in the middle:

No chubby, GOD  Fiber berry

And so, this 'prophecy' is about god (possibly Zeus) not putting on weight by ensuring a healthy breakfast...

Continue

Doubting Thomas

On request of Thomas Dawe (quote: "When you actually prove me wrong, I'll be happy to accept the fact.") I have put together the following dissection of a transcript of dialogue that we had engaged in:

To skip all the dialogue in which I highlight where the invalid statements are and go right to the conclusion of this article CLICK HERE

Thomas Dawe 5:06 PM

Didn't they predate Jesus?  No one really knows what they wrote about... especially since someone in power burned down their Royal Libary of Alexandria in the more recent history, probably to hide the truth about the past.  Just saying, Egypt probably isn't the best place to turn for facts due to the history there.  Of course, if they did find that historical vault under the Great Sphinx like Edgar Cayce predicted, someone knows the truth... and I wish they weren't bogarting it.

The claim being made: The total sum knowledge of the Egyptian empire was destroyed in the Greek fire.

Why the claim is wrong: There are many hieroglyphs readily available for study from ancient Egypt.

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [1]

Thomas Dawe 5:21 PM

Yes, but as I said, the entire Library of Alexandria was burnt along with all of the historical and educational documents within.  They weren't just all about hyroglyphics on walls.  So it is impossible to say what sort of details they had when it is all ash now.

Secondary claim of the already stated detail now reinforced with counter claim against the veracity of hieroglyphs as a source of detail.

Rich Peall 5:26 PM+6

+Thomas Dawe they had reason to write about their pets via hieroglyph I think a GIANT F---ING FLOOD would get a mention.

Counter claim being made: the importance of such a significant event would not have gone undocumented

Rich Peall 5:48 PM

[Content of post directed at unrelated 3^rd party]

Thomas Dawe 6:04 PM

+Atavistic By Nature - I agree that it is a possibility that the 'heresy' contained within could have been the reason... well, unless it was Julius Ceasar who had it burnt.  Don't think he was a Christian.  But no one is really certain who was responsible. Stories vary.  Anyway, your whole argument is based on assumption, so seems like you're the one not equipped here.

Claim being made: “your whole argument is based on assumption”

Why this is wrong: you have no possible way at this time to understand how much or how little the person knows on this given subject

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [2]

Thomas Dawe 6:05 PM

Incidentally, the water erosion on the sphinx itself is proof of a flooding in that area at the very least.  Of course, it also predates written history.

Thomas Dawe 6:18 PM+1

Much of the bible was taken from earlier scriptures from other religions.  The flood, for instance, was a story 'borrowed' from Babylonian history (do a search on Gilgamesh Flood myth) - which may have even originated from stories from Sumeria.  So it is kind of silly to say that it didn't happen.

Claim being made: “kind of silly to say that it didn't happen”

Why this is wrong: argument from authority, if you research the idea of a substantial flood within the appropriate time period there is little actual geological data to support the hypothesis.

Supporting document: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Flood%20geology.pdf

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [3]

[cont.]
It would probably be more accurate to say we don't know when it happened.  Scientists have proven that the sun is capable of bombarding our atmosphere with a surplus of hydrogen atoms

Claim being made: “Scientists have proven that the sun is capable of…”

Why this is wrong: I can find no document anywhere that any scientific study has either hypothesised this or stated it to be accurate – Claim made without proof.

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [4]

[cont.]
which, when combined with our oxygen-rich atmosphere, will increase the amount of water significantly over an amazingly short period of time.  A great flood is indeed possible.  Doesn't take a god to make it happen though.  Just good, old-fashioned science.

Claim being made: “A great flood is indeed possible”

Why this is wrong: conclusion drawn on anecdotal and unsupported hypothesis (see above)

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [4]

Thomas Dawe 6:40 PM

Yeah, I sincerely doubt it was a world-wide flood.  However, when massive amounts of liquid supersaturate the Earth's crust, who is to say what might happen?   Could be serious techtonic plate changes on parts of the earth which absorbed some of the excess water. There is evidence supporting a 'growing earth',

Claim being made: There is evidence supporting a 'growing earth'

This is correct! There is evidence and study detailing how Earths size is increasing, sadly not for the reasons you have suggested but none the less the claim is accurate.

[cont.]
and evidence of underground oceans of water.  It all kind of goes hand-in-hand.  There is evidence of sea creatures found on top of mountains, for instance... suggesting that there have indeed been significant changes to our globe over the millenia.

The above two points are also correct! Again, not for the reasons you would assert, but that does not detracts from these two statements validity

[cont.]
What might such a natural disaster do to even our technologically advanced civilization?  Would we be reverted to the stone age?  How many generations would it take for us to forget just how great we were?  How long would it take for us to look back on the way it was as if it were just another Atlantis?

The above is nothing more than hyperbole and anecdotal inference and as such has no bearing on the validity of any other statements

[cont.]
Palentologists have found human remains dating back hundreds of thousands of years.   Plenty of opportunity for our ancestors to skirt disaster a few times.

Thomas Dawe 7:14 PM

[Content of post directed at unrelated 3^rd party]

Thomas Dawe 7:18 PM

+David Miller Prey tell, what happens to all the cosmic garbage that enters our atmosphere?  Is it incinerated into nothingness?  Several thousand asteroids hit our planet every day, that material is added to our planetary mass... aka, global growth.  Booyah.

The above is the beginning of the ‘new topic’ but as it is presented here is nothing more than a red herring (entering into a new topic to avoid properly engaging in the current topic)

Thomas Dawe 7:48 PM

+David Ripley Well, if insulting is your best come back, I will assume you have no rebuttal to the tons of cosmological debris that gets attracted by the earth's gravitational pull every day causing the earth to grow.  It's cool, you know... to admit that you're wrong once in a while.  It doesn't hurt anything but that over-sized ego you are sporting.

Claim being made: “…causing the earth to grow”

Why this is wrong: the current, and well supported details suggest the Earth is not ‘growing’ because of this effect, but the effect is considered it is more likely that the Earth is ‘shrinking’ (loosing mass)

Supporting detail: work and statement by Dr Chris Smith & Mr Dave Ansell of Cambridge University, http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0513/ijsrp-p17109.pdf

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [5]

Rich Peall 8:29 PM

[Content of post directed at unrelated 3^rd party]

Thomas Dawe 8:41 PM

+P. KEY I don't know.  What's a good daily average?  For the sake of arguments, let's say the earth gets pummeled with 500 pounds of cosmic debris a day on the average (just a guess estimating a mean weight of 1/2 pound per asteroid and 1000 asteroids a day - probably a low value).  That's 178000 pounds in a year. 178000000 pounds in a millennium. 89,000 tons every 1000 years.  Anyone who claims the Earth is not growing is clearly ignorant in the basic laws of physics.  Cause and effect kind of thing there.  The added material has to still be here, not like we have a lot of Earth ejecta. Now, it's no mount everest over a thousand years, but it would be in 2,000,000 years.  Yes that means we have added about 2300 times mass of Mt. Everest since the original formation of the planet...

... assuming that the whole 'Earth is 6000 years old' theory is hogwash, of course.

Claim being made: too many to list, a lot of random numbers and assertions to details which are apparently unknown to Thomas.

Why this is wrong: simply picking numbers out of the air to support your premise is an argument from ignorance and entirely fallacious.

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [6]

Thomas Dawe 8:48 PM

[Content of post directed at unrelated 3^rd party]

Rich Peall 8:50 PM

+Thomas Dawe

I assume you know how to use Google?

Why not fact check your statements, then you wont look like a buffoon.

It seems that besides all your fancy numbers (which are wrong) your statement of Mass gain over time, is quite wrong, here - let me Google that for you...

Earth is loosing mass.

http://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses-50000-tonnes-of-mass-every-year/

Thomas Dawe 11:28 PM

+Rich Peall Word of advice, never use anything that starts off with "According to some calculations" as concrete evidence to support your claims.  It's guesswork at best, based on theories of what is going on deep within the earth, which no one can be certain about yet since we haven't even broke the crust.

Claim being made: “…of what is going on deep within the earth”

Why this is wrong: It’s actually a study of cosmological effect and nothing to do with anything ‘deep within the earth’

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [7]

Claim being made: “which no one can be certain about yet since we haven't even broke the crust.”

Why this is wrong: There are entire sub-categories of geological study that actually do know what is below our feet. And there is a plethora of material ready for you to look over.

Supporting detail: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/inside.html

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [8]

[Remaining content of post directed at unrelated 3^rd party]

Rich Peall 11:34 PM

+Thomas Dawe don't be so condensing when I present some 'real' detail rather than making up numbers on the spot to support random nonsense (exactly what you had done in your 3rd post up)

My post is supported by research, your post comprised of utter hyperbole.

Here's how it lands, You are wrong

Claim being made: Thomas is wrong

Supporting detail: this transcript

[cont.]
(if we follow the best available details we have) and you are attacking me because you have no better way to defend your arrogance.

(added edit) also:

"so I say again, how does anyone know what the Ancient Egyptians had written about?"

Historians/archaeologists know, because they can interpret what they (the ancient civilizations) wrote... Yes, there are entire fields of study in the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt (and other ancient written languages such as Sumerian)

How can you be so very ignorant in a day and age where information is readily available to you?

Thomas Dawe 11:39 PM

+Rich Peall  Actually, your link supports my assertion that we are gaining cosmic debris, I severely understated just how much we were gaining.  I was estimating low on purpose to make a point.  Your link however lacks any real proof that there is a consumption of matter going on.  It is an estimate based on a theory that someone came up with based on guesswork of what is going on within the planet.  If any one of the factors he was basing his calculations on are wrong, the whole calculation is wrong.  So you can't say it is empirical proof... it's not proof at all.

You claim that the same detail supports your argument but is dismissible in mine, this is a double standard. Either the detail is submissible and accepted or not, if parts of the detail are to be questioned then please provide adequate falsification of those details.

Thomas Dawe11:42 PM

[Content of post irrelevant to discussion]

Thomas Dawe11:46 PM

One more thing, +Rich Peall any idea just how much helium and hydrogen is being deposited into our planet from the sun? 

Claim being made: there is helium and hydrogen being introduced into our atmosphere from the sun

Why this is wrong: there is no data anywhere that I can see that suggests any such idea, a claim being made without any supporting detail, most likely based on an argument from ignorance, additionally subverting the topic once more with a second red herring.

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [9]

[cont.]
Probably a lot more than you realize ... since this article doesn't seem to account for the sun's impact on the earth at all.  I can share a link with you about it if you would like to read about it.  However, if you're going to just keep on with this pissing match about something this stupid, then nevermind.

Rich Peall11:50 PM

1."your link supports my assertion that we are gaining cosmic debris"

No, it doesn't.. read it again, it clearly outlines loss of mass/weight. and that 'theory' has probably more statistical data than you could even comprehend to back up the claims it makes.

Oh, here's more information 'supporting' my claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

2."any idea just how much helium and hydrogen is being deposited into our planet from the sun"

Your turn now. Find me the data to support this claim.

I suggest the sun is a little too far away to 'deposit' anything as heavy as gaseous elements into our atmosphere, but I await the detail that proves my assumption incorrect.

"I can share a link with you about it if you would like to read about it"

Please do, I'm always open to new information.

Above contains counter arguments and supporting details to those counter arguments

Total number of times Thomas has been proven wrong 

(and has not given sufficient counter argument or evidence to otherwise have his original claim validated)

9

A full and uncommented version of the conversation can be found here: Saved Google+ Transcript PDF

Continue

A Taste Of Herring & Ham

After a recent debate hosted by Answers In Genesis in what I can only assume to be a publicity push for their brand of nonsense there has been a little post-debate discussion and dissection of what had come to pass.

Personally I think that Bill Nye could have done a better job, but I do applaud that he called on the audience to think, to look for answers themselves and implored that education is paramount.

Ken Ham, someone for whom I have little respect as I consider that he actively seeks to promote ignorance and reduce the effect of generation on generation learning. recounted "there's a book (referring to the Bible) that answers that" more than four times during the debate.

but more so, on one topic, he became deliberately deceitful in how he answered.

I can only highlight how intellectually dishonest this man is and ask that others call him out also, his actions are dangerous, perhaps not with immediate effect, but through his actions he can potentially negatively impact peoples lives

So, without further ado -

An Exploration of the Red Herring fallacy, feat. Ken Ham

Continue