Upload
Login or register

auryn

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 26
Date Signed Up:3/17/2012
Last Login:8/30/2016
Location:The Netherlands
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#862
Highest Content Rank:#14558
Highest Comment Rank:#46
Content Thumbs: 96 total,  176 ,  80
Comment Thumbs: 62144 total,  72601 ,  10457
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 77.7% (777/1000)
Level 348 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 349 Comments: Sold Soul
Subscribers:1
Content Views:13110
Times Content Favorited:14 times
Total Comments Made:10405
FJ Points:48171

latest user's comments

#39 - **auryn used "*roll picture*"** **auryn rolled image ** H… 07/02/2016 on Need Some Reactions 0
#18 - Seems like everything has electric current in India. …  [+] (4 new replies) 07/02/2016 on Superpower 2020 +97
User avatar
#44 - majestispaceduck (07/02/2016) [-]
Fool that wasnt electric current, it was the toilet witch.
User avatar
#26 - abesimpson (07/02/2016) [-]
Well now you know why people shit in the streets
#20 - Millybays (07/02/2016) [-]
Many other Asian countries as well, It's scarily common for people to be electrocuted in the bathroom.
User avatar
#19 - alekksandar (07/02/2016) [-]
you were attacked by the boo of the loo
#72 - What is the most plausible is dependant upon a certain factors…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/30/2016 on atlantis 0
User avatar
#74 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
If you think science is wrong in any way, you have to prove it. It's such a co out when people say things like "science is biased and corrupted, etc". If you think something is real, prove it.

Evidence talks and bullshit walks.

I look forward to seeing you win a plethora of Nobel prizes for all of the amazing work you're going to show us. Expose those frauds!
User avatar
#73 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
The plausibility of Atlantis is essentially zero as I've said, because if you think that it was some 100,000 years ago, we didn't have the tech to make a civilization like that. If you think Plato's account, which contains real people living at the time in it is real, then there would be loads of evidence for it as well. There isn't.

Your story is as plausible as the ones about Heracles, and that's why no one is able to write any papers that prove it. it's fake as fucking Hercules. Sorry.
#70 - Once again, I do not claim to know anything. But unli…  [+] (4 new replies) 06/30/2016 on atlantis 0
User avatar
#71 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
When evidence is extremely strong, certain things can be considered true, and this is the case with Atlantis. If tomorrow there is some amazing discovery that brings irrefutable evidence for this island, then I will accept it as being true.

But life is too short to think such ridiculous claims are true in the absence of any evidence. It's like thinking that:

"hey, maybe the boogeyman is what causes SIDS sudden infant death syndrome . I mean, we know that it's a combination of different factors and isn't totally understood. No one has any evidence that the boogeyman is involved, but it's plausible because someone told me they saw him once.".

Ruling out ideas like my example and your Atlantis one immediately is basically science 101. The most plausible cause is generally the correct one.
#72 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
What is the most plausible is dependant upon a certain factors that are limited and partial on their own, not to consider all factors that we aren't even aware of.
It remains some sort of extrapolation of everything within our limited scope, and in no way necessarily reflects truths.

With this kind of mentality what happens, and what has been happening for a long time in the scientific field, is confirmation bias.
User avatar
#74 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
If you think science is wrong in any way, you have to prove it. It's such a co out when people say things like "science is biased and corrupted, etc". If you think something is real, prove it.

Evidence talks and bullshit walks.

I look forward to seeing you win a plethora of Nobel prizes for all of the amazing work you're going to show us. Expose those frauds!
User avatar
#73 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
The plausibility of Atlantis is essentially zero as I've said, because if you think that it was some 100,000 years ago, we didn't have the tech to make a civilization like that. If you think Plato's account, which contains real people living at the time in it is real, then there would be loads of evidence for it as well. There isn't.

Your story is as plausible as the ones about Heracles, and that's why no one is able to write any papers that prove it. it's fake as fucking Hercules. Sorry.
#1 - And the cuck of the year award goes to..  [+] (1 new reply) 06/30/2016 on Savage +3
User avatar
#4 - plazmaflare (06/30/2016) [-]
They're not dating so its technically not cucking. But I guess its kind-a sort-a the same idea.
#68 - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Anyon…  [+] (6 new replies) 06/30/2016 on atlantis 0
User avatar
#69 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That phrase is not accepted in science. What is accepted is "you claim it, you prove it". Got an open mind about Thor, fairies and the boogeyman? How about the idea that the worlds elite are actually shape shifting lizard people from another planet?

I rely on science and reason, where assumptions must be reduced as much as possible. Science works because of empirical data and not assumptions. That is why we know when humans first evolved and where. We know when the Bronze Age began and we understand plate tectonics and geology to an amazing level.

And we know that claims must have proof. Yours doesn't, otherwise you would have by now at least attempted to explain you idea of Atlantis. Not once have you even tried to show your reasoning as to why think it's even plausible.

I used to think that supernatural thing and some 'alternate history' stuff may have had at least some truth to it, but as I learned more about the universe I came to understand that these sorts of things always had rational explanations. Atlantis doesn't.

If you're interested, this site blows apart myths and bullshit from all over the globe and all throughout history. Some of the things I thought were true about certain UFO encounters her just annihilates. I hated losing to this guy at first but after a few articles I was amazed and am much better for it.

skeptoid.com/
#70 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Once again, I do not claim to know anything.

But unlike you, I do not completely rule out other possibilities. That would be highly unscientific of me.
User avatar
#71 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
When evidence is extremely strong, certain things can be considered true, and this is the case with Atlantis. If tomorrow there is some amazing discovery that brings irrefutable evidence for this island, then I will accept it as being true.

But life is too short to think such ridiculous claims are true in the absence of any evidence. It's like thinking that:

"hey, maybe the boogeyman is what causes SIDS sudden infant death syndrome . I mean, we know that it's a combination of different factors and isn't totally understood. No one has any evidence that the boogeyman is involved, but it's plausible because someone told me they saw him once.".

Ruling out ideas like my example and your Atlantis one immediately is basically science 101. The most plausible cause is generally the correct one.
#72 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
What is the most plausible is dependant upon a certain factors that are limited and partial on their own, not to consider all factors that we aren't even aware of.
It remains some sort of extrapolation of everything within our limited scope, and in no way necessarily reflects truths.

With this kind of mentality what happens, and what has been happening for a long time in the scientific field, is confirmation bias.
User avatar
#74 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
If you think science is wrong in any way, you have to prove it. It's such a co out when people say things like "science is biased and corrupted, etc". If you think something is real, prove it.

Evidence talks and bullshit walks.

I look forward to seeing you win a plethora of Nobel prizes for all of the amazing work you're going to show us. Expose those frauds!
User avatar
#73 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
The plausibility of Atlantis is essentially zero as I've said, because if you think that it was some 100,000 years ago, we didn't have the tech to make a civilization like that. If you think Plato's account, which contains real people living at the time in it is real, then there would be loads of evidence for it as well. There isn't.

Your story is as plausible as the ones about Heracles, and that's why no one is able to write any papers that prove it. it's fake as fucking Hercules. Sorry.
#66 - You're ruling something out based on an assumption. A hypothes…  [+] (8 new replies) 06/30/2016 on atlantis 0
User avatar
#67 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
What's is my assumption? The null hypothesis says that nothing special has happened but you're saying that something "plausibly" has. No one has written a paper showing that it is true because there's no evidence! It's that simple!

Just because you deem something plausible doesn't mean that all the experts in that field feel the same way. Again, this is quite obvious as there is no evidence!

It could be extraordinary if there was an advanced society some 100,000 years ago in Europe when it was still the stone age. Copper wasn't even utilized until about 10,000 years ago, so to have an advanced civilization some 90,000 before that would be very extraordinary indeed!

You say I'm not being very scientific when I have only asked for evidence for claims and am adhering to logical principles. Science is built on empirical evidence and claims without said evidence get rejected: that is science right there. The null hypothesis also says that nothing has happened until proven otherwise. I've been very scientific.

If an Island "sinks", it has to go somewhere, and when things like that happen they leave traces. There are no traces of this island anywhere.

So, according to science, no, there never was an Atlantis. And we can show that this is true so I can claim that I do know. To know something means you have to be able to show it, and the science is very clear on this one.
#68 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Anyone actually interested in the truth would keep an open mind.

Ofcourse you may think for yourself what the most likely option is, but you seem to forget or not be aware that it's still an assumption.
User avatar
#69 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That phrase is not accepted in science. What is accepted is "you claim it, you prove it". Got an open mind about Thor, fairies and the boogeyman? How about the idea that the worlds elite are actually shape shifting lizard people from another planet?

I rely on science and reason, where assumptions must be reduced as much as possible. Science works because of empirical data and not assumptions. That is why we know when humans first evolved and where. We know when the Bronze Age began and we understand plate tectonics and geology to an amazing level.

And we know that claims must have proof. Yours doesn't, otherwise you would have by now at least attempted to explain you idea of Atlantis. Not once have you even tried to show your reasoning as to why think it's even plausible.

I used to think that supernatural thing and some 'alternate history' stuff may have had at least some truth to it, but as I learned more about the universe I came to understand that these sorts of things always had rational explanations. Atlantis doesn't.

If you're interested, this site blows apart myths and bullshit from all over the globe and all throughout history. Some of the things I thought were true about certain UFO encounters her just annihilates. I hated losing to this guy at first but after a few articles I was amazed and am much better for it.

skeptoid.com/
#70 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Once again, I do not claim to know anything.

But unlike you, I do not completely rule out other possibilities. That would be highly unscientific of me.
User avatar
#71 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
When evidence is extremely strong, certain things can be considered true, and this is the case with Atlantis. If tomorrow there is some amazing discovery that brings irrefutable evidence for this island, then I will accept it as being true.

But life is too short to think such ridiculous claims are true in the absence of any evidence. It's like thinking that:

"hey, maybe the boogeyman is what causes SIDS sudden infant death syndrome . I mean, we know that it's a combination of different factors and isn't totally understood. No one has any evidence that the boogeyman is involved, but it's plausible because someone told me they saw him once.".

Ruling out ideas like my example and your Atlantis one immediately is basically science 101. The most plausible cause is generally the correct one.
#72 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
What is the most plausible is dependant upon a certain factors that are limited and partial on their own, not to consider all factors that we aren't even aware of.
It remains some sort of extrapolation of everything within our limited scope, and in no way necessarily reflects truths.

With this kind of mentality what happens, and what has been happening for a long time in the scientific field, is confirmation bias.
User avatar
#74 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
If you think science is wrong in any way, you have to prove it. It's such a co out when people say things like "science is biased and corrupted, etc". If you think something is real, prove it.

Evidence talks and bullshit walks.

I look forward to seeing you win a plethora of Nobel prizes for all of the amazing work you're going to show us. Expose those frauds!
User avatar
#73 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
The plausibility of Atlantis is essentially zero as I've said, because if you think that it was some 100,000 years ago, we didn't have the tech to make a civilization like that. If you think Plato's account, which contains real people living at the time in it is real, then there would be loads of evidence for it as well. There isn't.

Your story is as plausible as the ones about Heracles, and that's why no one is able to write any papers that prove it. it's fake as fucking Hercules. Sorry.
#64 - Those aren't facts. They're estimations and interpretations. …  [+] (10 new replies) 06/30/2016 on atlantis 0
User avatar
#65 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
What aren't facts? Can you show some evidence for your claim?

There's no evidence that there were technologically advanced people 100,000 years ago nor any evidence that an island existed there either.

In science we take whats called the "null hypothesis". That just means the base position is that "nothing extraordinary has happened until shown otherwise". Now, you can claim that there was a real Atlantis, but that claim gets dismissed until you have evidence for it in the same way a claim that leprechauns creating human's does.

Atlantis was just a story from Plato, man.
#66 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
You're ruling something out based on an assumption. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis and is not necessarily congruous with reality. You're not being very scientific.

Neither is there something extraordinary about a change of the surface of earth.

I do not claim to know anything, since just like you, I do not know. But I do deem it plausible.
User avatar
#67 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
What's is my assumption? The null hypothesis says that nothing special has happened but you're saying that something "plausibly" has. No one has written a paper showing that it is true because there's no evidence! It's that simple!

Just because you deem something plausible doesn't mean that all the experts in that field feel the same way. Again, this is quite obvious as there is no evidence!

It could be extraordinary if there was an advanced society some 100,000 years ago in Europe when it was still the stone age. Copper wasn't even utilized until about 10,000 years ago, so to have an advanced civilization some 90,000 before that would be very extraordinary indeed!

You say I'm not being very scientific when I have only asked for evidence for claims and am adhering to logical principles. Science is built on empirical evidence and claims without said evidence get rejected: that is science right there. The null hypothesis also says that nothing has happened until proven otherwise. I've been very scientific.

If an Island "sinks", it has to go somewhere, and when things like that happen they leave traces. There are no traces of this island anywhere.

So, according to science, no, there never was an Atlantis. And we can show that this is true so I can claim that I do know. To know something means you have to be able to show it, and the science is very clear on this one.
#68 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Anyone actually interested in the truth would keep an open mind.

Ofcourse you may think for yourself what the most likely option is, but you seem to forget or not be aware that it's still an assumption.
User avatar
#69 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That phrase is not accepted in science. What is accepted is "you claim it, you prove it". Got an open mind about Thor, fairies and the boogeyman? How about the idea that the worlds elite are actually shape shifting lizard people from another planet?

I rely on science and reason, where assumptions must be reduced as much as possible. Science works because of empirical data and not assumptions. That is why we know when humans first evolved and where. We know when the Bronze Age began and we understand plate tectonics and geology to an amazing level.

And we know that claims must have proof. Yours doesn't, otherwise you would have by now at least attempted to explain you idea of Atlantis. Not once have you even tried to show your reasoning as to why think it's even plausible.

I used to think that supernatural thing and some 'alternate history' stuff may have had at least some truth to it, but as I learned more about the universe I came to understand that these sorts of things always had rational explanations. Atlantis doesn't.

If you're interested, this site blows apart myths and bullshit from all over the globe and all throughout history. Some of the things I thought were true about certain UFO encounters her just annihilates. I hated losing to this guy at first but after a few articles I was amazed and am much better for it.

skeptoid.com/
#70 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Once again, I do not claim to know anything.

But unlike you, I do not completely rule out other possibilities. That would be highly unscientific of me.
User avatar
#71 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
When evidence is extremely strong, certain things can be considered true, and this is the case with Atlantis. If tomorrow there is some amazing discovery that brings irrefutable evidence for this island, then I will accept it as being true.

But life is too short to think such ridiculous claims are true in the absence of any evidence. It's like thinking that:

"hey, maybe the boogeyman is what causes SIDS sudden infant death syndrome . I mean, we know that it's a combination of different factors and isn't totally understood. No one has any evidence that the boogeyman is involved, but it's plausible because someone told me they saw him once.".

Ruling out ideas like my example and your Atlantis one immediately is basically science 101. The most plausible cause is generally the correct one.
#72 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
What is the most plausible is dependant upon a certain factors that are limited and partial on their own, not to consider all factors that we aren't even aware of.
It remains some sort of extrapolation of everything within our limited scope, and in no way necessarily reflects truths.

With this kind of mentality what happens, and what has been happening for a long time in the scientific field, is confirmation bias.
User avatar
#74 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
If you think science is wrong in any way, you have to prove it. It's such a co out when people say things like "science is biased and corrupted, etc". If you think something is real, prove it.

Evidence talks and bullshit walks.

I look forward to seeing you win a plethora of Nobel prizes for all of the amazing work you're going to show us. Expose those frauds!
User avatar
#73 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
The plausibility of Atlantis is essentially zero as I've said, because if you think that it was some 100,000 years ago, we didn't have the tech to make a civilization like that. If you think Plato's account, which contains real people living at the time in it is real, then there would be loads of evidence for it as well. There isn't.

Your story is as plausible as the ones about Heracles, and that's why no one is able to write any papers that prove it. it's fake as fucking Hercules. Sorry.
#62 - Too much assumptions based on too little facts. The p…  [+] (12 new replies) 06/29/2016 on atlantis 0
User avatar
#63 - popeflatus (06/29/2016) [-]
Those aren't assumptions but are well known facts. Do you exclude the possibility of leprechauns creating humans? If not, what's the probability that they did?
#64 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Those aren't facts. They're estimations and interpretations.

The fact remains that there remains a plausibility, and there even are plenty of indications of change of landmass and the flooding that would've occured in the period between 100,000 B.C. and 80,000 B.C.

Coming to an exclusive concusion as yours is plain short-sightedness.
User avatar
#65 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
What aren't facts? Can you show some evidence for your claim?

There's no evidence that there were technologically advanced people 100,000 years ago nor any evidence that an island existed there either.

In science we take whats called the "null hypothesis". That just means the base position is that "nothing extraordinary has happened until shown otherwise". Now, you can claim that there was a real Atlantis, but that claim gets dismissed until you have evidence for it in the same way a claim that leprechauns creating human's does.

Atlantis was just a story from Plato, man.
#66 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
You're ruling something out based on an assumption. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis and is not necessarily congruous with reality. You're not being very scientific.

Neither is there something extraordinary about a change of the surface of earth.

I do not claim to know anything, since just like you, I do not know. But I do deem it plausible.
User avatar
#67 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
What's is my assumption? The null hypothesis says that nothing special has happened but you're saying that something "plausibly" has. No one has written a paper showing that it is true because there's no evidence! It's that simple!

Just because you deem something plausible doesn't mean that all the experts in that field feel the same way. Again, this is quite obvious as there is no evidence!

It could be extraordinary if there was an advanced society some 100,000 years ago in Europe when it was still the stone age. Copper wasn't even utilized until about 10,000 years ago, so to have an advanced civilization some 90,000 before that would be very extraordinary indeed!

You say I'm not being very scientific when I have only asked for evidence for claims and am adhering to logical principles. Science is built on empirical evidence and claims without said evidence get rejected: that is science right there. The null hypothesis also says that nothing has happened until proven otherwise. I've been very scientific.

If an Island "sinks", it has to go somewhere, and when things like that happen they leave traces. There are no traces of this island anywhere.

So, according to science, no, there never was an Atlantis. And we can show that this is true so I can claim that I do know. To know something means you have to be able to show it, and the science is very clear on this one.
#68 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Anyone actually interested in the truth would keep an open mind.

Ofcourse you may think for yourself what the most likely option is, but you seem to forget or not be aware that it's still an assumption.
User avatar
#69 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That phrase is not accepted in science. What is accepted is "you claim it, you prove it". Got an open mind about Thor, fairies and the boogeyman? How about the idea that the worlds elite are actually shape shifting lizard people from another planet?

I rely on science and reason, where assumptions must be reduced as much as possible. Science works because of empirical data and not assumptions. That is why we know when humans first evolved and where. We know when the Bronze Age began and we understand plate tectonics and geology to an amazing level.

And we know that claims must have proof. Yours doesn't, otherwise you would have by now at least attempted to explain you idea of Atlantis. Not once have you even tried to show your reasoning as to why think it's even plausible.

I used to think that supernatural thing and some 'alternate history' stuff may have had at least some truth to it, but as I learned more about the universe I came to understand that these sorts of things always had rational explanations. Atlantis doesn't.

If you're interested, this site blows apart myths and bullshit from all over the globe and all throughout history. Some of the things I thought were true about certain UFO encounters her just annihilates. I hated losing to this guy at first but after a few articles I was amazed and am much better for it.

skeptoid.com/
#70 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Once again, I do not claim to know anything.

But unlike you, I do not completely rule out other possibilities. That would be highly unscientific of me.
User avatar
#71 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
When evidence is extremely strong, certain things can be considered true, and this is the case with Atlantis. If tomorrow there is some amazing discovery that brings irrefutable evidence for this island, then I will accept it as being true.

But life is too short to think such ridiculous claims are true in the absence of any evidence. It's like thinking that:

"hey, maybe the boogeyman is what causes SIDS sudden infant death syndrome . I mean, we know that it's a combination of different factors and isn't totally understood. No one has any evidence that the boogeyman is involved, but it's plausible because someone told me they saw him once.".

Ruling out ideas like my example and your Atlantis one immediately is basically science 101. The most plausible cause is generally the correct one.
#72 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
What is the most plausible is dependant upon a certain factors that are limited and partial on their own, not to consider all factors that we aren't even aware of.
It remains some sort of extrapolation of everything within our limited scope, and in no way necessarily reflects truths.

With this kind of mentality what happens, and what has been happening for a long time in the scientific field, is confirmation bias.
User avatar
#74 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
If you think science is wrong in any way, you have to prove it. It's such a co out when people say things like "science is biased and corrupted, etc". If you think something is real, prove it.

Evidence talks and bullshit walks.

I look forward to seeing you win a plethora of Nobel prizes for all of the amazing work you're going to show us. Expose those frauds!
User avatar
#73 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
The plausibility of Atlantis is essentially zero as I've said, because if you think that it was some 100,000 years ago, we didn't have the tech to make a civilization like that. If you think Plato's account, which contains real people living at the time in it is real, then there would be loads of evidence for it as well. There isn't.

Your story is as plausible as the ones about Heracles, and that's why no one is able to write any papers that prove it. it's fake as fucking Hercules. Sorry.
#36 - There are a lot of misconcpetions about Atlantis. Atl…  [+] (25 new replies) 06/28/2016 on atlantis +1
User avatar
#37 - popeflatus (06/28/2016) [-]
Humans need water to survive and so tend to live where they can get an ample supply, namely lakes and rivers. Primitive people did not understand things about geology and the water cycle 1000s of years ago and so made up stories about why floods occurred.

They also explained things away that they didn't know such as earthquakes and lightning as the products of gods.

There is no evidence of a world wide flood and a giant amount that proves that one never happened.

As for Atlantis; IamWhoIam is correct. It was a metaphor used by Plato and also has no evidence to support it either.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis
#62 - auryn (06/29/2016) [-]
Too much assumptions based on too little facts.

The possibility shouldn't be ruled out.
User avatar
#63 - popeflatus (06/29/2016) [-]
Those aren't assumptions but are well known facts. Do you exclude the possibility of leprechauns creating humans? If not, what's the probability that they did?
#64 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Those aren't facts. They're estimations and interpretations.

The fact remains that there remains a plausibility, and there even are plenty of indications of change of landmass and the flooding that would've occured in the period between 100,000 B.C. and 80,000 B.C.

Coming to an exclusive concusion as yours is plain short-sightedness.
User avatar
#65 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
What aren't facts? Can you show some evidence for your claim?

There's no evidence that there were technologically advanced people 100,000 years ago nor any evidence that an island existed there either.

In science we take whats called the "null hypothesis". That just means the base position is that "nothing extraordinary has happened until shown otherwise". Now, you can claim that there was a real Atlantis, but that claim gets dismissed until you have evidence for it in the same way a claim that leprechauns creating human's does.

Atlantis was just a story from Plato, man.
#66 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
You're ruling something out based on an assumption. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis and is not necessarily congruous with reality. You're not being very scientific.

Neither is there something extraordinary about a change of the surface of earth.

I do not claim to know anything, since just like you, I do not know. But I do deem it plausible.
User avatar
#67 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
What's is my assumption? The null hypothesis says that nothing special has happened but you're saying that something "plausibly" has. No one has written a paper showing that it is true because there's no evidence! It's that simple!

Just because you deem something plausible doesn't mean that all the experts in that field feel the same way. Again, this is quite obvious as there is no evidence!

It could be extraordinary if there was an advanced society some 100,000 years ago in Europe when it was still the stone age. Copper wasn't even utilized until about 10,000 years ago, so to have an advanced civilization some 90,000 before that would be very extraordinary indeed!

You say I'm not being very scientific when I have only asked for evidence for claims and am adhering to logical principles. Science is built on empirical evidence and claims without said evidence get rejected: that is science right there. The null hypothesis also says that nothing has happened until proven otherwise. I've been very scientific.

If an Island "sinks", it has to go somewhere, and when things like that happen they leave traces. There are no traces of this island anywhere.

So, according to science, no, there never was an Atlantis. And we can show that this is true so I can claim that I do know. To know something means you have to be able to show it, and the science is very clear on this one.
#68 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Anyone actually interested in the truth would keep an open mind.

Ofcourse you may think for yourself what the most likely option is, but you seem to forget or not be aware that it's still an assumption.
User avatar
#69 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That phrase is not accepted in science. What is accepted is "you claim it, you prove it". Got an open mind about Thor, fairies and the boogeyman? How about the idea that the worlds elite are actually shape shifting lizard people from another planet?

I rely on science and reason, where assumptions must be reduced as much as possible. Science works because of empirical data and not assumptions. That is why we know when humans first evolved and where. We know when the Bronze Age began and we understand plate tectonics and geology to an amazing level.

And we know that claims must have proof. Yours doesn't, otherwise you would have by now at least attempted to explain you idea of Atlantis. Not once have you even tried to show your reasoning as to why think it's even plausible.

I used to think that supernatural thing and some 'alternate history' stuff may have had at least some truth to it, but as I learned more about the universe I came to understand that these sorts of things always had rational explanations. Atlantis doesn't.

If you're interested, this site blows apart myths and bullshit from all over the globe and all throughout history. Some of the things I thought were true about certain UFO encounters her just annihilates. I hated losing to this guy at first but after a few articles I was amazed and am much better for it.

skeptoid.com/
#70 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
Once again, I do not claim to know anything.

But unlike you, I do not completely rule out other possibilities. That would be highly unscientific of me.
User avatar
#71 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
When evidence is extremely strong, certain things can be considered true, and this is the case with Atlantis. If tomorrow there is some amazing discovery that brings irrefutable evidence for this island, then I will accept it as being true.

But life is too short to think such ridiculous claims are true in the absence of any evidence. It's like thinking that:

"hey, maybe the boogeyman is what causes SIDS sudden infant death syndrome . I mean, we know that it's a combination of different factors and isn't totally understood. No one has any evidence that the boogeyman is involved, but it's plausible because someone told me they saw him once.".

Ruling out ideas like my example and your Atlantis one immediately is basically science 101. The most plausible cause is generally the correct one.
#72 - auryn (06/30/2016) [-]
What is the most plausible is dependant upon a certain factors that are limited and partial on their own, not to consider all factors that we aren't even aware of.
It remains some sort of extrapolation of everything within our limited scope, and in no way necessarily reflects truths.

With this kind of mentality what happens, and what has been happening for a long time in the scientific field, is confirmation bias.
User avatar
#74 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
If you think science is wrong in any way, you have to prove it. It's such a co out when people say things like "science is biased and corrupted, etc". If you think something is real, prove it.

Evidence talks and bullshit walks.

I look forward to seeing you win a plethora of Nobel prizes for all of the amazing work you're going to show us. Expose those frauds!
User avatar
#73 - popeflatus (06/30/2016) [-]
The plausibility of Atlantis is essentially zero as I've said, because if you think that it was some 100,000 years ago, we didn't have the tech to make a civilization like that. If you think Plato's account, which contains real people living at the time in it is real, then there would be loads of evidence for it as well. There isn't.

Your story is as plausible as the ones about Heracles, and that's why no one is able to write any papers that prove it. it's fake as fucking Hercules. Sorry.
#39 - bandetx (06/28/2016) [-]
Well, there is actually evidence of a big flood.. the formation of the Mediterranean sea.
#51 - anon (06/28/2016) [-]
there were many massive changes with the climate

yes some areas were flooded on a massive scale and worldwide. usually happens during ice ages
User avatar
#40 - popeflatus (06/28/2016) [-]
Plate tectonics and erosion are what's responsible for the formation of the Mediterranean Sea.
User avatar
#43 - popeflatus (06/28/2016) [-]
No, the rest of the oceans are still just filled to the same level. The land 5,000 years ago was virtually the same as it is today and was not completely flooded.
#50 - anon (06/28/2016) [-]
5000 yes

10 000 no

User avatar
#55 - popeflatus (06/28/2016) [-]
Lol. 10,000 years ago was pretty much the same as it was 5,000 years ago. The Great Flood never happened. Get over it.
#44 - bandetx (06/28/2016) [-]
It makes perfect sense for the land 5000 years ago to be the same as today because the Mediterranean sea formed five million years ago.
User avatar
#45 - popeflatus (06/28/2016) [-]
But the world was never flooded.
User avatar
#46 - accalia (06/28/2016) [-]
Actually you're wrong here buddy, whilst the whole entirety of the world was not flooded, great portions of the world have been. Especially when we were shifting from a pangean planet to a Terran planet. During this stage of earth's history great shifts in the tectonic plates resulted in a breaking apart and separation of the one super continent into the multitude of smaller continents we have today. We through the study of fossils have determined that great swathes of land that was once on the surface sank and indeed our planet is still changing constantly, just at a rate that is slower than the human brain is capable of contemplating without advanced scientific equipment and measurement devices. Though one very visible way of telling is the current sinking of Venice.
User avatar
#54 - popeflatus (06/28/2016) [-]
How am I wrong when I never said "portions"? I've only been talking about the entire world which was never flooded, especially with reference to the Bible.

If you're talking about "portions" of the world being flooded then we could almost say that that is the way that it always is. After all, there is about two thirds of the planet currently covered by water!