695 replies to this topic

[Arbitran]

I propose it is a good sign that Harsh hasn't responded to this thread in days. Maybe we finally reached him. One can always hope...

[Erowin]

Civilizations require farming and people living together in massive amounts and close proximity. Neither of those things were true at the time. A hunting-gathering band could simply not make a civilization, because they kept themselves small and were always on the move. They might stop to build a temple that they would visit but they had no premament settlements. They couldn't, until they became farmers.

[Harte]

Erowin,

I haven't seen you around here much lately (this section.)

Have we been too boring?

Glad to see you back here.

Harte

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 03 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I propose it is a good sign that Harsh hasn't responded to this thread in days. Maybe we finally reached him. One can always hope...

You wish..............but your statement does have a undertone of 'You missed me'.


http://www.trueorigin.org/

everything that you read in talk origins has been debunked multiple times.The above links will help you to judge for yourself.

P.S.--There is lot of material supporting a young Earth in the above link,but i will clarify that i do not suscribe to it lest you call me a biblical creationist.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 06 November 2012 - 05:31 AM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

cormac mac airt, on 31 October 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

I know what I'd like to see him do. And that's to actually post something relevant to the thread, concerning possible Ice Age civilizations, instead of continuously hi-jacking it to drone on and on about how he doesn't believe in evolution. His inability to comprehend it is his own failing and off-topic. Bet he can't do it.

cormac

Harte, on 31 October 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I can see why he doesn't believe in Evolution.

After all, he was left behind by it.

Harte

Clobhair-cean, on 31 October 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

We have to give one thing to him though: despite being proven fundamentally wrong in a number of independent scientific fields and despite having no-one around who would support any of his outlandish claims, he is still going strong. The guy has tenacity.

All my fans i would be pleased to inform yall that i am back..........yall can commit ad hominem and keep liking it,only demonstrates intellectual bankruptcy.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 06 November 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

You wish..............but your statement does have a undertone of 'You missed me'.


http://www.trueorigin.org/

everything that you read in talk origins has been debunked multiple times.The above links will help you to judge for yourself.

P.S.--There is lot of material supporting a young Earth in the above link,but i will clarify that i do not suscribe to it lest you call me a biblical creationist.

Not only hasn't anything on Talk Origins been debunked, on the contrary, it's your silly "True Origin" that has been utterly discredited. Sorry. And don't flatter yourself; one doesn't have to "miss you" to note the fact that you've been mysteriously absent recently.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 06 November 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

All my fans i would be pleased to inform yall that i am back..........yall can commit ad hominem and keep liking it,only demonstrates intellectual bankruptcy.

Yeah, because childishly deeming us "fans" and insulting us while claiming the victim position just makes us like you so much...

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 06 November 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

All my fans i would be pleased to inform yall that i am back..........yall can commit ad hominem and keep liking it,only demonstrates intellectual bankruptcy.

In other words, you STILL have nothing relevant to the topic to say. We figured as much.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

cormac mac airt, on 06 November 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

In other words, you STILL have nothing relevant to the topic to say. We figured as much.

cormac

oh and you are so relevant aren't you.

[kmt_sesh]

Is it just me, or are creationists utterly clueless about how uranium decay has been used to date the earth to around 4.5 billion years? To me the story of how scientists were able to figure this out based on isotopes is truly fascinating (even if some of it is over my head). More to the point, it's proven science. I don't understand the mindset of people who refuse to educate themselves about these things but go on insisting science is wrong anyway.

Goodness.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 08 November 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Is it just me, or are creationists utterly clueless about how uranium decay has been used to date the earth to around 4.5 billion years? To me the story of how scientists were able to figure this out based on isotopes is truly fascinating (even if some of it is over my head). More to the point, it's proven science. I don't understand the mindset of people who refuse to educate themselves about these things but go on insisting science is wrong anyway.

Goodness.

Though i don't believe that the world is just 6000 years old,i also believe that the dating methods are not accurate.The link below gives a list of assumptions:
http://www.earthage....f the Earth.htm

Though Hindus believe that the world and civilization is billions of years old approx 4.5/4.32 billion years old according to Vedic scriptures,way before modern radiometric techniques.

http://en.wikipedia....Hindu_cosmology

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

Though i don't believe that the world is just 6000 years old,i also believe that the dating methods are not accurate.The link below gives a list of assumptions:
http://www.earthage....f the Earth.htm

Though Hindus believe that the world and civilization is billions of years old approx 4.5/4.32 billion years old according to Vedic scriptures,way before modern radiometric techniques.

http://en.wikipedia....Hindu_cosmology

Don't act like you represent all Hindus; I'm a Hindu, but I don't believe what you do, or anything similar. And the "assumptions" you like are bogus; you need to learn, just giving a link that subscribes to a certain view doesn't make it's claims true, it's the facts that ultimately win out. That's why your creationist sites are wrong; they don't have any facts; though they do appear to hold a monopoly in bull****.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 08 November 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

Don't act like you represent all Hindus; I'm a Hindu, but I don't believe what you do, or anything similar. And the "assumptions" you like are bogus; you need to learn, just giving a link that subscribes to a certain view doesn't make it's claims true, it's the facts that ultimately win out. That's why your creationist sites are wrong; they don't have any facts; though they do appear to hold a monopoly in bull****.

Why do you think you are a Hindu? It's not a race if thats what you are thinking.
Scriptures and their interpretions that you don't like are not bogus,they are interpretations by credible vedic scholars endorsed by wikipedia.You being a Hindu seems like a Bogus claim based on your birth into a Hindu family probably in the Indian subcontinent.
Thats why your evolutionist sites are bull**** as they think they have a monopoly and they can supress free rational,logical and empirical thought.

Luckily we Hindus are tolerant in all aspects of life and thought so we can tolerate intolerant people like you as well.Our tolerance allows you to claim that you are also a Hindu.Even atheists have a place in Hinduism,it is very inclusive.

[Clobhair-cean]

Lol at "endorsed by wikipedia", a site that anyone can edit. It is one level above "endorsed by the crazy naked homeless guy on the sidewalk". Your "credible vedic scholars", based on the links you tout, are just random people with Comic Sans-typed websites and not actual researchers that publish in credible journals.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

Why do you think you are a Hindu? It's not a race if thats what you are thinking.

Why do I think I'm a Hindu... I am well aware it isn't race. It's a culture; an ideology. One which I subscribe to; ergo, I'm a Hindu.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

Scriptures and their interpretions that you don't like are not bogus,they are interpretations by credible vedic scholars endorsed by wikipedia.You being a Hindu seems like a Bogus claim based on your birth into a Hindu family probably in the Indian subcontinent.

If you're referring to Cremo, he isn't a "credible Vedic scholar". And incidentally, I was born into a Christian family, and not in India. Your talent at making unfounded assumptions is nothing short of remarkable.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

Thats why your evolutionist sites are bull**** as they think they have a monopoly and they can supress free rational,logical and empirical thought.

Wow, so science isn't scientific enough for you now? Pity...

Then again, you've made it overwhelmingly clear you don't understand science in the first place; so I'm not terribly surprised.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

Luckily we Hindus are tolerant in all aspects of life and thought so we can tolerate intolerant people like you as well.Our tolerance allows you to claim that you are also a Hindu.Even atheists have a place in Hinduism,it is very inclusive.

Yes, science is intolerant; not all ideas are created equal, my fellow Hindu. And yes, atheists can be Hindu; I am both, incidentally: an atheistic Hindu. I also consider myself a Buddhist, Taoist, Shintoist, Confucianist, etc.... Though Hindu is my technical grouping.