It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[Pat Mustard]

Bullshit. What you are doing is extrapolating that a lot of the people we know about lived for a long time out to "a significant number of people lived that long". Well guess what, most of the people we know about were rich, they had access to good food, good (for those times) medicine, didn't work that hard, could leave the city during plagues or general unhealthy periods (most of Rome's glitterati left for Baiae and other spa towns during the summer, when malaria was rampant). A quick google search will actually give you historical research on the topic of life expectancy in ancient Rome (the figures in that thread's OP can be found here), based off the available evidence, the proportion of those living in Rome aged 65 or over at any period was somewhere in the region of 4.7%.

For comparison here is Italy's current age graph:


The fact of the matter is people live longer now than they ever had, even 120 years ago the average life expectancy in the Western world was about half of what it is today. Bar ragnarok (of either nuclear, climate or other violent means) or complete economic collapse, both you and I can reasonably expect to live for somewhere between 70 and 80 years (and quite reasonably expect to live longer if we keep healthy and have a good job). That cannot be said for any other period in time before the 1960's.

Did you just forget what you posted?

You clearly stated "all the evidence from arcaeology from before then suggests you were ancient by 40", yet you backpedal and acknowledge that 4.7 of ancient Romans did indeed live to be 65 and older (which makes your figure of "40" an average figure, which was my point); what does that make them? really really ancient?

Also I see you left out major factor in why the life expectancy was so low in ancient times; war.

You want to continue lying, stop fucking talking to me. You want to have a serious discussion, stop fucking lying. Until you choose option B you're going on ignore, because I fucking despise mendacious idiots like you.

[Nihilist Virus]

Seriously huggy. Fresh water fish, bro. If they all survived the flood, why are the life forms in the ocean not roughly identical to the life forms in lakes? Octapuses etc all knew where to end up?

[Huggy Bear]

Did you just forget what you posted?

You clearly stated "all the evidence from arcaeology from before then suggests you were ancient by 40", yet you backpedal and acknowledge that 4.7 of ancient Romans did indeed live to be 65 and older (which makes your figure of "40" an average figure, which was my point); what does that make them? really really ancient?

Also I see you left out major factor in why the life expectancy was so low in ancient times; war.

You want to continue lying, stop fucking talking to me. You want to have a serious discussion, stop fucking lying. Until you choose option B you're going on ignore, because I fucking despise mendacious idiots like you.

YOU addressed me bruh!

What part was I lying about exactly? The part where you stated:

Back in the Roman empire you could expect to live 25 to 30 years, unless you were lucky enough to be rich and survive infancy (child mortality befor 5 was, at best 50/50). And all the evidence from arcaeology from before then suggests you were ancient by 40.

*emphasis mine*
Or where you stated:

A quick google search will actually give you historical research on the topic of life expectancy in ancient Rome (the figures in that thread's OP can be found here), based off the available evidence, the proportion of those living in Rome aged 65 or over at any period was somewhere in the region of 4.7%.

*emphasis mine*
?

Typical; Atheist destroys his own argument, then gets mad and wants to ignore somebody...

Here's an idea, how about you remain quiet when grown folks are talking?

[Huggy Bear]

Since you bailed, I'm only going to address a couple of points.

Im not saying that a theory isn't based on facts, I'm saying that the facts can be misinterpreted. Do you agree or disagree?

That's not what you said, it's what you are saying now.  You've created a circle that you think is going to get you to, "evolution might be wrong" but it won't.

No, that's exactly the point I've been making this whole time, it's just worded differently.

However an INFORMED opinion, one based on facts, is subject to change in light of new evidence.

Got it?

LMFAO, are you serious?!  I didn't think it could get any worse than that Christian Doctor Phil video you showed be, but wow.  You have outdone your self.  No Huggy, videos and pictures are not in any stretch of anyone's wildest imagination the "epitome" of scientific evidence.  So, you must believe in Big Foot and Loch Ness too then, if these are your standards for good evidence?  Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trials are considered the “Gold Standard," and you will not be able to produce even one in support of any of your claims.  I actually laughed out loud at this one, thank you.

I guess you missed the part in my post where it stated:

George J. Lacy, Investigator of Questioned Documents, and often hired by the FBI in that capacity, subjected the negative to every scientific test available. At a news conference, he stated, “To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world’s history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated.” 

So the picture has been indeed scientifically verified.

The original report.

---

---

About George J. Lacey
http://www.asqde.org/about/presidents/lacy_g.html

George Lacy was the fifth president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners and the last of the 15 men who established the organization to be elected to that office.

Mr. Lacy's first meeting was the 1942 inaugural meeting of the society.  Two years later he married Lucile Peters Lacy who would later become the tenth president of the ASQDE.

During Mr. Lacy's early work in law enforcement he arrested Charles Ponzi, the namesake of the Ponzi Scheme.  He began his career in forensic science as a general criminalist and ballistics expert.  As a ballistics expert, he worked on the Bonnie and Clyde case.  He later specialized in questioned document examination.  He was responsible for establishing the Houston Police Crime Laboratory.  Mr. Lacy maintained a private practice in Houston, Texas for many years.

About the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_S..._Examiners

The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners is the world's oldest society dedicated to the forensic science of questioned document examination with 144 members worldwide.

I find it interesting how YOU'RE quick to dismiss scientific evidence when it doesn't adhere to your world view.

This shows that you're really not all that different from the "creatards" you despise.

[LadyForCamus]

Since you bailed, I'm only going to address a couple of points.

That's not what you said, it's what you are saying now.  You've created a circle that you think is going to get you to, "evolution might be wrong" but it won't.

No, that's exactly the point I've been making this whole time, it's just worded differently.

However an INFORMED opinion, one based on facts, is subject to change in light of new evidence.

Got it?

LMFAO, are you serious?!  I didn't think it could get any worse than that Christian Doctor Phil video you showed be, but wow.  You have outdone your self.  No Huggy, videos and pictures are not in any stretch of anyone's wildest imagination the "epitome" of scientific evidence.  So, you must believe in Big Foot and Loch Ness too then, if these are your standards for good evidence?  Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trials are considered the “Gold Standard," and you will not be able to produce even one in support of any of your claims.  I actually laughed out loud at this one, thank you.

I guess you missed the part in my post where it stated:

George J. Lacy, Investigator of Questioned Documents, and often hired by the FBI in that capacity, subjected the negative to every scientific test available. At a news conference, he stated, “To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world’s history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated.” 

So the picture has been indeed scientifically verified.

The original report.

---

---

About George J. Lacey
http://www.asqde.org/about/presidents/lacy_g.html

George Lacy was the fifth president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners and the last of the 15 men who established the organization to be elected to that office.

Mr. Lacy's first meeting was the 1942 inaugural meeting of the society.  Two years later he married Lucile Peters Lacy who would later become the tenth president of the ASQDE.

During Mr. Lacy's early work in law enforcement he arrested Charles Ponzi, the namesake of the Ponzi Scheme.  He began his career in forensic science as a general criminalist and ballistics expert.  As a ballistics expert, he worked on the Bonnie and Clyde case.  He later specialized in questioned document examination.  He was responsible for establishing the Houston Police Crime Laboratory.  Mr. Lacy maintained a private practice in Houston, Texas for many years.

About the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_S..._Examiners

The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners is the world's oldest society dedicated to the forensic science of questioned document examination with 144 members worldwide.

I find it interesting how YOU'RE quick to dismiss scientific evidence when it doesn't adhere to your world view.

This shows that you're really not all that different from the "creatards" you despise.

AHHHHHHH! Huggy, that examination was completed in the fucking FIFTIES! By one person! And there is exactly ZERO information about the damn picture from a reliable source since then! No, Branham's website doesn't count. I mean, for all the bitching and moaning you did over talkorigins.org, you are going to show me a picture of a glowing penis and try to say you have "proof" that it was God? Or Angels? What the fuck?!

[LadyForCamus]

Not to mention the fact that Lacy never concluded that it was a picture of anything supernatural. It says right there in the "opinion" section that he believes it was light. How you get from "it was light," to "it was God" is beyond retarded.

[LadyForCamus]

I know, I said I was done, but for fuck's sake, explain this to me.

[Huggy Bear]

AHHHHHHH!  Huggy, that examination was completed in the fucking FIFTIES!  By one person!

And Charles Darwin published his theory on evolution in 1859; whats your point? are you saying all scientific research done before 1950 is unreliable?

And there is exactly ZERO information about the damn picture from a reliable source since then!  No, Branham's website doesn't count.  I mean, for all the bitching and moaning you did over talkorigins.org, you are going to show me a picture of a glowing penis and try to say you have "proof" that it was God?  Or Angels?  What the fuck?!

There is a reason I included that scripture in the bible where it described "tongues of fire" hanging over people heads... That is a picture of the same phenomenon.

Not to mention the fact that Lacy never concluded that it was a picture of anything supernatural.  It says right there in the "opinion" section that he believes it was light.  How you get from "it was light," to "it was God" is beyond retarded.  

What he concluded was that there had to be a light in that position to form an image on the negative, I don't know about you but I don't think lights hanging over people heads out of nowhere is a naturally occurring phenomenon; And something that can't be explained using the laws of nature by definition is supernatural.

[LadyForCamus]

And Charles Darwin published his theory on evolution in 1859; whats your point? are you saying all scientific research done before 1950 is unreliable?

Wow. Really? Still? False analogy, Huggy. Big time. A single, non-peer reviewed examination by one guy cannot be compared to a scientific theory. But you already know this (I hope by now) and your desperation is showing. I'm sorry if you can't grasp the nature of a scientific theory, but I'm done beating that dead horse.

what he concluded was that there had to be a light in that position to form an image on the negative, I don't know about you but I don't think lights hanging over people heads out of nowhere is a naturally occurring phenomenon; And something that can't be explained using the laws of nature by definition is supernatural.

Light isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon? But, okay. Let's take a different approach here. For the sake of argument, let us say this picture is an authentic photograph of God, or some type of divine, godly energy breaching the natural world. Whatever you want to call it is fine with me. Talk me through this: As this minister was giving his sermon, for whatever reason God decided this was an important moment to step in and reveal himself. But, he didn't actually reveal himself, did he? No one reported seeing anything in real time while he was preaching.

So, let's revise the above: God wanted to step in and reveal himself. So, he figured the most efficient way to do so would be to hang over this minister's head (invisible), but then tamper with one guy's camera (ruining all the other pictures because...why again?) so that later on, his divine energy could be seen on the film? Do you understand how little sense this makes when you actually think about it? Don't you think maybe, just maybe, there was something wrong with the photographer's camera, and the man who critically examined the photo simply missed something? dropping all preconceptions, which scenario seems more likely to you?

[Huggy Bear]

what he concluded was that there had to be a light in that position to form an image on the negative, I don't know about you but I don't think lights hanging over people heads out of nowhere is a naturally occurring phenomenon; And something that can't be explained using the laws of nature by definition is supernatural.

Light isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon?

Is that what you think I said? really?

 But, okay.  Let's take a different approach here.  For the sake of argument, let us say this picture is an authentic photograph of God, or some type of divine, godly energy breaching the natural world.  Whatever you want to call it is fine with me.  Talk me through this:  As this minister was giving his sermon, for whatever reason God decided this was an important moment to step in and reveal himself.  But, he didn't actually reveal himself, did he?  No one reported seeing anything in real time while he was preaching.

Because that's not how God works, he has ALWAYS spoken through a proxy, which we refer to as a prophet; the reason he chose to do it this way is because the first time he spoke to the people directly it scared them to death, so from then on God spoke to the people through a prophet.

Does not the Bible say that God will send a prophet in the last days?

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: - Malachi 4:5

That being said Branham has ALWAYS maintained that there was an entity present during his services, not only that Jesus stated himself "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."  

the good thing about Branham is he has something like 1200 services audio recorded, this is a quote transcribed from "Expectation" on September 30, 1951.
http://table.branham.org

  How do you do, sister? You are the patient, aren't you? But we be strangers, I believe, lady, I don't think I ever seen you. And if we be strangers, then I'm standing here as a man, you as a lady; and there's some few thousand people looking at us. Besides that, there's a supernatural Being standing here, which is the Angel of God that I'm speaking of. And just as certain as I'm standing here, you're aware of that. You know there's something that you never felt anything like that in your life. Isn't that right? If that's right raise up your hand, so the people see that that is right.
  Because your faith is begin moving, pulling. Yes, ma'am, I see you going away from me now; you're going back; you stop at the side of a bed. I see you holding on to the side of a bed. You're crippled, or—or no, you have a arthritis or some kind of a condition. I see you then start across the street, and you move down real easy to cross the street. And you were wearing the same clothes; it's been recently. Say, you got something on your mind you're worried about. You're upset, I see something hanging near you. You are… You're upset about something aren't you? You're worried. Now, be honest with me; it is—it's something you're worrying about. Here it comes, yes, it's concerning child, childbirth. You're afraid of a miscarriage which being pregnant. Is that right? Don't worry, go and Jesus Christ…
 
51-0930E - Expectation
Rev. William Marrion Branham

*Emphasis mine*
 

So, let's revise the above:  God wanted to step in and reveal himself.  So, he figured the most efficient way to do so would be to hang over this minister's head (invisible), but then tamper with one guy's camera (ruining all the other pictures because...why again?) so that later on, his divine energy could be seen on the film?  Do you understand how little sense this makes when you actually think about it?  Don't you think maybe, just maybe, there was something wrong with the photographer's camera, and the man who critically examined the photo simply missed something?  dropping all preconceptions, which scenario seems more likely to you?  

Was not John the only one to bear record of seeing a dove? No one else saw it. Paul was struck down by a LIGHT and that light identified itself as Jesus Christ.

Jesus stated "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me:"...

So if you're looking for some huge worldwide revelation of Jesus Christ, it will never happen; because Jesus said it will never happen, only his select few will continue to see him.

A scientifically verified picture is the best evidence that you're going to receive; or are you seriously suggesting that having everyone in the building also see the entity, would have been better evidence? Even after stating that, and I quote "testimonials are one of the lowest quality, and least reliable forms of scientific evidence."

What Mr lacy had done through testing was eliminate every possible scenario that could have caused that image to appear, and it was his DEFINITE OPINION, that there was a light there that cause that image.

def·i·nite
ˈdef(ə)nət/
adjective
adjective: definite

clearly stated or decided; not vague or doubtful.


When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

So you conclude, having no qualification of your own that an expert in his field must be wrong because, based upon your preconceptions that everything in the universe is known.

So if you want to disagree with the DEFINITIVE opinion of as expert in his field based upon your BELIEFS, that's fine and you're totally within your right to do so, just don't be hypocritical and deny others that same right.