The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Baron_Bread on November 21, 2011, 02:44:11 AM

Title: Evolution
Post by: Baron_Bread on November 21, 2011, 02:44:11 AM
Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This argument has no consequence. Snakes do not have legs because they don't need legs to function. Evolution does not apply to abiotic features of the universe, which includes celestial bodies.
Unless of course, you decide to bring religion into the mix. "God created snakes that way and simply 'decided' that these things would be like that". Of course, there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a God or otherwise.
Assuming that no-one manages to prove the existence of God or uses the argument "Why don't YOU prove that God DOESN'T exist?", several arguments FES is based upon rely on assumptions.
Of course, feel free to "counter argue" as it may well be.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 21, 2011, 04:53:39 AM
I agree that animals are a poor example. Perhaps another analogy will be more convincing.
Let's assume that I've only seen three chairs in my life. Each of these chairs had a common property - they had armrests.
When asked to define a chair, I would include the armrests in the definition.
Now, when shown a fourth chair, this time without armrests, I can approach this in two ways:
In other words, using all other chairs I know/all other celestial bodies we've seen to prove anything about the fourth chair/Earth is a non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 21, 2011, 05:39:02 AM
1. You're assuming that the Earth is Flat, that's a sophism.
2. All the celestial bodies we've found are round, and we don't have an explaination for the formation of flat bodies. So?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Pongo on November 21, 2011, 08:43:27 AM
All the celestial bodies we've found are round...

False
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 21, 2011, 10:01:54 AM
Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: markjo on November 21, 2011, 10:15:36 AM
Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)

Most (if not all) asteroids.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 21, 2011, 10:51:46 AM
Not moons, planets or stars.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 11:59:48 AM
I agree that animals are a poor example. Perhaps another analogy will be more convincing.
Let's assume that I've only seen three chairs in my life. Each of these chairs had a common property - they had armrests.
When asked to define a chair, I would include the armrests in the definition.
Now, when shown a fourth chair, this time without armrests, I can approach this in two ways:
  • Redefine "chair" so that it no longer requires armrests to be one. This is the FE approach. When presented with a flat celestial body, we've decided that flat celestial bodies exist.
  • Refuse to redefine it, and either claim that this chair cannot possibly exist, since it contradicts the definition of a chair - this is (an exaggerated misrepresentation of) the RE approach. All celestial bodies we've seen thus far are round, so the Earth must be round too.
In other words, using all other chairs I know/all other celestial bodies we've seen to prove anything about the fourth chair/Earth is a non-sequitur.

You forgot to add that a non-sequitur fails to be such if all observations that an object has a particular property are in agreement with it being so.
If you'd like to give an example of an observation that doesn't fit with the earth being round, go right ahead.
You've also got your argument backwards. You are accusing the RE'ers of saying "the earth should be round because other planets are." In fact, the roundness of earth was generally accepted long before the shape of any of the other planets was known. The analysis of earth's shape arrived at it's conclusions without knowledge of other planetary data, and comparing the two things is merely a crosscheck that suggests the earth IS like other planets.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 21, 2011, 12:23:36 PM
You've also got your argument backwards. You are accusing the RE'ers of saying "the earth should be round because other planets are."
No, that's specified by the OP, actually.

If you'd like to give an example of an observation that doesn't fit with the earth being round, go right ahead.
The Bedford Level Experiment.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Tausami on November 21, 2011, 12:50:49 PM
Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This argument has no consequence. Snakes do not have legs because they don't need legs to function. Evolution does not apply to abiotic features of the universe, which includes celestial bodies.
Unless of course, you decide to bring religion into the mix. "God created snakes that way and simply 'decided' that these things would be like that". Of course, there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a God or otherwise.
Assuming that no-one manages to prove the existence of God or uses the argument "Why don't YOU prove that God DOESN'T exist?", several arguments FES is based upon rely on assumptions.
Of course, feel free to "counter argue" as it may well be.

Planets also evolve. In RET, the reason that planets are spherical is that it allows them to better support their gravity. If that's not evolution, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: whatnewguy on November 21, 2011, 01:03:15 PM
The Bedford Level Experiment.

An experiment performed with a poor understanding of the experimental conditions and a good chunk of the relevant physics.  Rowbotham's methods and results are based almost entirely upon cherry-picking the conclusion he desired and ignoring physical, mathematical and logical evidence that runs contrary to his claims.

The Bedford Level Experiment counts as an experimental observation about as much as reading EnaG counts as having met Rowbotham.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 21, 2011, 01:06:06 PM
Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This argument has no consequence. Snakes do not have legs because they don't need legs to function. Evolution does not apply to abiotic features of the universe, which includes celestial bodies.
Unless of course, you decide to bring religion into the mix. "God created snakes that way and simply 'decided' that these things would be like that". Of course, there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a God or otherwise.
Assuming that no-one manages to prove the existence of God or uses the argument "Why don't YOU prove that God DOESN'T exist?", several arguments FES is based upon rely on assumptions.
Of course, feel free to "counter argue" as it may well be.

Planets also evolve. In RET, the reason that planets are spherical is that it allows them to better support their gravity. If that's not evolution, I don't know what is.

Evolution of a celestial body and evolution of a living thing is a tad different, isn't it?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Tausami on November 21, 2011, 01:13:29 PM
Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This argument has no consequence. Snakes do not have legs because they don't need legs to function. Evolution does not apply to abiotic features of the universe, which includes celestial bodies.
Unless of course, you decide to bring religion into the mix. "God created snakes that way and simply 'decided' that these things would be like that". Of course, there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a God or otherwise.
Assuming that no-one manages to prove the existence of God or uses the argument "Why don't YOU prove that God DOESN'T exist?", several arguments FES is based upon rely on assumptions.
Of course, feel free to "counter argue" as it may well be.

Planets also evolve. In RET, the reason that planets are spherical is that it allows them to better support their gravity. If that's not evolution, I don't know what is.

Evolution of a celestial body and evolution of a living thing is a tad different, isn't it?

Only from a vivicentric point of view.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 21, 2011, 01:19:03 PM
No, it isn't: a stellar object evolves by mainly undergoing the law of physics wheras a living organism changes mainly whithin itself, by changing its genome for instance.

The scale also is completely different (bacteria vs huge stars), the timescale also.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 01:44:08 PM
You've also got your argument backwards. You are accusing the RE'ers of saying "the earth should be round because other planets are."
No, that's specified by the OP, actually.

If you'd like to give an example of an observation that doesn't fit with the earth being round, go right ahead.
The Bedford Level Experiment.

The Bedford Level Experiment conducted by SB Rowbotham produced results inconsistent with the earth being round: +1 for flatness
The Bedford Level Experiment conducted by AR Wallace produced results consistent with the earth being round: -1 for flatness
Overall value of the Bedford Level Experiments as a measure of the shape of the earth: zero.
Modifiers to this argument...
Wallace was said to have a financial incentive to produce results showing roundness: +1
Rowbotham's results of the experiment is in contradictory to his own admission that ships appear to sink over the horizon: -1
Overall value of the Bedford Level Experiment: still zero.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 21, 2011, 01:59:13 PM
Daniel Shenton reproduced the experiment. +1
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 02:25:59 PM
Daniel Shenton reproduced the experiment. +1

Daniel Shenton admitted he did not get usable results that indicated either way.
Back to zero.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: jraffield1 on November 21, 2011, 02:26:51 PM
Daniel Shenton reproduced the experiment. +1

I did an experiment not too long ago that involved a pendulum precessing due to the Earth's rotation.

Round Earth: +1

Photographs of the Earth from space that show a round Earth

Round Earth: +1

Direct experimental evidence that gravity exists (gravity torsion balances etc) for regular matter and therefore the Earth

Round Earth +1

...

I think the data can speak for itself on this one...
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 21, 2011, 02:34:20 PM
No, it isn't: a stellar object evolves by mainly undergoing the law of physics wheras a living organism changes mainly whithin itself, by changing its genome for instance.

All changes happen as a result of the laws of physics.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 21, 2011, 03:27:19 PM
Don't tell me you're back on irrelevant comparisons.

I also said:

No, it isn't: a stellar object evolves by mainly undergoing the law of physics wheras a living organism changes mainly whithin itself, by changing its genome for instance.

The scale also is completely different (bacteria vs huge stars), the timescale also.

And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

Etc.

But if really you want to carry on with your willingness to be right at any cost, be my guest.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 21, 2011, 03:55:02 PM
And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.


And again, you'd be wrong.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Tausami on November 21, 2011, 04:12:47 PM
Don't tell me you're back on irrelevant comparisons.

I also said:

No, it isn't: a stellar object evolves by mainly undergoing the law of physics wheras a living organism changes mainly whithin itself, by changing its genome for instance.

The scale also is completely different (bacteria vs huge stars), the timescale also.

And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

Etc.

But if really you want to carry on with your willingness to be right at any cost, be my guest.

Something which, over the course of a very long period of time, changes to better suit its environment.

Which am I talking about?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Ski on November 21, 2011, 11:07:13 PM
Quote
A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

Are you entirely certain that stars are not living objects?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Baron_Bread on November 21, 2011, 11:48:17 PM
Quote
A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

Are you entirely certain that stars are not living objects?
There's no way to possibly prove this one way or the other in an average person's capacity. There's no consequence to this point.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Ski on November 21, 2011, 11:51:44 PM
It speaks entirely to the question at hand.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Baron_Bread on November 21, 2011, 11:55:59 PM
It speaks entirely to the question at hand.
Perhaps, but how is one person going to prove whether or not stars are alive?
Are you entirely certain that stars are not living objects?
They can't prove that stars are not living objects
You can't prove that stars are living objects.
There's no possible way for there to be conclusive proof supporting either direction in a single human being's capacity. Hence, this argument has no consequence, regardless of whether or not it applies to the question.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Ski on November 21, 2011, 11:57:59 PM
It's relevant if one is attempting to disregard the possibility while arguing the proposed dynamics of stellar evolution.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 22, 2011, 12:14:29 AM
And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.


And again, you'd be wrong.

And nothing to back up your claims. Is is standard FE'ers issue?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 22, 2011, 12:15:32 AM
Quote
A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

Are you entirely certain that stars are not living objects?

If you'd only looked for the difinition of "life"!
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Baron_Bread on November 22, 2011, 01:02:32 AM
It's relevant if one is attempting to disregard the possibility while arguing the proposed dynamics of stellar evolution.
It's irrelevant because you can't prove it either way. Sure, you can say "Stars are alive" but the other person has equal weighting in the argument to say "Stars are not alive." Since there isn't any extra evidence to tip the scale, any argument about stars being alive or not will always reach a stalemate.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on November 22, 2011, 02:02:44 AM
And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.


And again, you'd be wrong.

And nothing to back up your claims. Is is standard FE'ers issue?
We have created life but never a star. It would be too complicated.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: hoppy on November 22, 2011, 06:12:28 AM
When has man created life?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Ski on November 22, 2011, 09:31:44 AM
It's relevant if one is attempting to disregard the possibility while arguing the proposed dynamics of stellar evolution.
It's irrelevant because you can't prove it either way. Sure, you can say "Stars are alive" but the other person has equal weighting in the argument to say "Stars are not alive." Since there isn't any extra evidence to tip the scale, any argument about stars being alive or not will always reach a stalemate.

Precisely why we should avoid blanket statements like "A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star."

When has man created life?
Never.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 22, 2011, 11:21:47 AM

Precisely why we should avoid blanket statements like "A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star."


I was just giving arguments why, in my opinion, stars and living organisms are so different that it is a bit pointless to make a comparision. All your quibbling shows me that nothing interesting has come up of it. I can wait, I'm patient, you can prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: KristaGurl on November 22, 2011, 11:53:44 AM
I agree that animals are a poor example. Perhaps another analogy will be more convincing.
Let's assume that I've only seen three chairs in my life. Each of these chairs had a common property - they had armrests.
When asked to define a chair, I would include the armrests in the definition.
Now, when shown a fourth chair, this time without armrests, I can approach this in two ways:
  • Redefine "chair" so that it no longer requires armrests to be one. This is the FE approach. When presented with a flat celestial body, we've decided that flat celestial bodies exist.
  • Refuse to redefine it, and either claim that this chair cannot possibly exist, since it contradicts the definition of a chair - this is (an exaggerated misrepresentation of) the RE approach. All celestial bodies we've seen thus far are round, so the Earth must be round too.
In other words, using all other chairs I know/all other celestial bodies we've seen to prove anything about the fourth chair/Earth is a non-sequitur.

That's completely asinine.  We've decided that (as far as we know) flat celestial bodies DON'T exist.  If they do, we've already decided... no, PROVEN that the earth is not one of them.  Why?  No, not because we speculated or took a vote and decided it was that way or because we've been lying to ourselves about how math works for over 2,000 years, but because we have pictures, measurements and first-hand witness accounts.  All of which are easily ignored when you convince yourself that the pictures and witnesses are a part of a conspiracy, and math is wrong. 
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: KristaGurl on November 22, 2011, 12:08:38 PM
The Bedford Level Experiment.

An experiment performed with a poor understanding of the experimental conditions and a good chunk of the relevant physics.  Rowbotham's methods and results are based almost entirely upon cherry-picking the conclusion he desired and ignoring physical, mathematical and logical evidence that runs contrary to his claims.

The Bedford Level Experiment counts as an experimental observation about as much as reading EnaG counts as having met Rowbotham.

When Rowbotham first did the earliest BLE's, he determined the world was flat because you CAN see an object in its entirety.  Soon thereafter, the BLE's were redone correctly, and proved you, in fact can't see the objects in their entirety because of the horizon.  Rowbotham then came up with an explanation into human perspective based on artistic theory, which made a ham-handed excuse at saying "my experiments were wrong, but since Christian fundamentalists are giving me tons of money to prove the world is flat, here's how my experiments being wrong actually concluded the same thoery as it did before."

This is how it happened:

1. Rowbotham proved that 2+2 = 5.
2. The church thought this was awesome, because the Bible says 2+2 = 5!
3. Another guy proved that Rowbotham accidentally used a 2 and 3 instead of 2 and 2.
4. Rowbotham proved that 2+3 also = 5 because the church needed it too.
5. 150 years later, 15 people believe 2+2 = 5 because of what happens when you add 2+3.  The rest of the world... along with every iota of scientific evidence and pictures and eyewitness account, proves that 2+2=4 while 2+3=5. 
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Ski on November 22, 2011, 12:35:28 PM

Precisely why we should avoid blanket statements like "A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star."


I was just giving arguments why, in my opinion, stars and living organisms are so different that it is a bit pointless to make a comparision. All your quibbling shows me that nothing interesting has come up of it. I can wait, I'm patient, you can prove me wrong.

So we've gone from baseless statement of "fact" to "in my opinion."  That's a start, at least.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 22, 2011, 01:04:43 PM
Yeah, you still have to prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: markjo on November 22, 2011, 01:22:04 PM
Yeah, you still have to prove me wrong.

Not really.  You're the one that need to provide enough evidence to show that you're right.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 22, 2011, 02:40:48 PM
And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.


And again, you'd be wrong.

And nothing to back up your claims. Is is standard FE'ers issue?

So you make a baseless (and frankly ludicrous) claim without providing any evidence, I tell you you're wrong, and you berate me for not providing any evidence that what you didn't provide any evidence for in the first place is wrong?

Interesting.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: The Knowledge on November 22, 2011, 03:37:29 PM
So we've gone from baseless statement of "fact" to "in my opinion."  That's a start, at least.

Semantics. Troll harder.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 22, 2011, 03:44:01 PM
I don't think I am going to bother explaining obvious things regarding a comparison which is more boring than possible.
Let me know when you draw some interesting conclusions about the FE/RE debate.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on November 22, 2011, 05:01:15 PM
I don't think I am going to bother explaining obvious things regarding a comparison which is more boring than possible.
Let me know when you draw some interesting conclusions about the FE/RE debate.
Interesting conclusion: The earth is flat.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Ski on November 22, 2011, 05:03:50 PM
So we've gone from baseless statement of "fact" to "in my opinion."  That's a start, at least.

Semantics. Troll harder.

Hardly. It is an important distinction which I am glad you managed to realize.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: The Knowledge on November 24, 2011, 11:33:19 AM
So we've gone from baseless statement of "fact" to "in my opinion."  That's a start, at least.

Semantics. Troll harder.

Hardly. It is an important distinction which I am glad you managed to realize.

It is possible to use "in my opinion" and to state something to be a "fact" in cases where the stated subject may be either fact or opinion. It's a matter of phrasing. Therefore to redefine an argument based on the distinction between them is a fallacy.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Ski on November 24, 2011, 08:24:54 PM
What is it when both the opinion and the "fact" are false?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: The Knowledge on November 25, 2011, 11:17:04 AM
What is it when both the opinion and the "fact" are false?

In that case it's called being wrong. Many things have been stated as both opinions and facts over the years that have turned out to be false.
I was just saying attacking the exact wording of a post rather than its intention is weak trolling.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: snipez on November 25, 2011, 12:39:00 PM
you people who talk like you know what a star actually is makes me laugh

you don't know, lol

you will never know

no one will, PERIOD

there is no debate

so you can quote useless scientists all you want, till you are blue in the face

all you have is a "theory"

nothing more, nothing less

you have no proof

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

humans are so stupid and ignorant

to think we are the true Gods, lmao

keep thinking that

while you are prancing around and playing God, please create me a universe

I'm waiting....

And no, I'm not a bible thumper. But what I said before, the elite make it easy to figure out what side to cheer for

they attack God

why?

if God doesn't exist then why waste their time to try and discredit it?

because God does exist and they want God removed from the earth forever


that's where you get weather modification, GMO food, and all the other sick BS going on in our world today. us stupid humans are the real God. hahaha, give me a break.

how retarded can someone be?

to think we are more "high" than the highest of the high?

welcome to the "new age of Aquarius"

more sick fantasy's,  by garbage like alice bailey and her loser followers

Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Tausami on November 25, 2011, 01:20:47 PM
you people who talk like you know what a star actually is makes me laugh

you don't know, lol

you will never know

no one will, PERIOD

there is no debate

so you can quote useless scientists all you want, till you are blue in the face

all you have is a "theory"

nothing more, nothing less

you have no proof

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

humans are so stupid and ignorant

to think we are the true Gods, lmao

keep thinking that

while you are prancing around and playing God, please create me a universe

I'm waiting....

And no, I'm not a bible thumper. But what I said before, the elite make it easy to figure out what side to cheer for

they attack God

why?

if God doesn't exist then why waste their time to try and discredit it?

because God does exist and they want God removed from the earth forever


that's where you get weather modification, GMO food, and all the other sick BS going on in our world today. us stupid humans are the real God. hahaha, give me a break.

how retarded can someone be?

to think we are more "high" than the highest of the high?

welcome to the "new age of Aquarius"

more sick fantasy's,  by garbage like alice bailey and her loser followers

tl;dr
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Baron_Bread on November 25, 2011, 04:57:35 PM
you have no proof 1

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created2

humans are so stupid and ignorant3

to think we are the true Gods, lmao4

keep thinking that

while you are prancing around and playing God, please create me a universe

I'm waiting....5

if God doesn't exist then why waste their time to try and discredit it?6

because God does exist and they want God removed from the earth forever

that's where you get weather modification, GMO food, and all the other sick BS going on in our world today. us stupid humans are the real God. hahaha, give me a break.7

to think we are more "high" than the highest of the high?8
1. Neither do you.

2. Are there stamps on everything that says "Made by God"?

You people who talk like you know God actually exists is makes me laugh, to quote you somewhat. You can't prove that God exists.
 
3. If you don't like it, get out. I personally don't care who created the universe, because, once we find out, what will change?

4. I don't think that. Plenty of people don't think we are.

5. Who are you to "demand" evidence like that? You aren't any greater or lesser than the average human being. In fact, why don't YOU create me a universe with your belief in God? Once we reach this stalemate, your claims become useless. Goodnight to that "attack".

6. Because people like you believe in it and tell them that they're wrong. That's why they try to discredit it.

7. Let's assume God exists. What's to stop human curiosity about these kinds of things? IT's exactly the same as trying to find out how the universe began. And before you say "God made it", prove it. And if your only point is "Prove it wrong" then we've reached a stalemate again.

8. AT least we know that humans exist.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: markjo on November 25, 2011, 08:38:28 PM
anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

I could never understand why evolution is incompatible with God.  Are you suggesting that God could not create a dynamic, evolving universe?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: hoppy on November 25, 2011, 10:21:16 PM
anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

I could never understand why evolution is incompatible with God.  Are you suggesting that God could not create a dynamic, evolving universe?
Evolution is incompatible with God because evolution contradicts the word of God. God created man in the image of God. He formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into us.
 God did not start with pond scum to make man, he started with dust of the earth.
  You can read more in Genesis chapter 2.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: trig on November 26, 2011, 07:22:47 AM

 Evolution is incompatible with God because evolution contradicts the word of God. God created man in the image of God. He formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into us.
 God did not start with pond scum to make man, he started with dust of the earth.
  You can read more in Genesis chapter 2.

This is the downside of using the word "evolution" for rocks and water. Every creationist who googles the word "evolution" comes to pick a fight where nobody wants to fight creationists.

Every FE "theorist" is clear in the concept that rocks do not adapt to survive, and therefore the word "evolution" is just a poorly chosen word for "change", as in "the Earth was different in the past compared with its present condition". Every real scientist will tell you the same thing.

So, the discussion about evolution and the second chapter of the Genesis belongs in the angry ranting random musings section.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: markjo on November 26, 2011, 08:03:03 AM
anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

I could never understand why evolution is incompatible with God.  Are you suggesting that God could not create a dynamic, evolving universe?
Evolution is incompatible with God because evolution contradicts the word of God. God created man in the image of God. He formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into us.
 God did not start with pond scum to make man, he started with dust of the earth.
  You can read more in Genesis chapter 2.

Do you think that the authors of the Bible (and every other ancient holy text) had the intellectual capacity to understand the intricate workings of a dynamic, evolving universe?  They had to tell their story in a way that people of the time could understand.  After all, why couldn't God take pond scum, evolve it for a few hundred million years and then breathe a soul into the end result (humans)?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Tausami on November 26, 2011, 08:37:24 AM

 Evolution is incompatible with God because evolution contradicts the word of God. God created man in the image of God. He formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into us.
 God did not start with pond scum to make man, he started with dust of the earth.
  You can read more in Genesis chapter 2.

This is the downside of using the word "evolution" for rocks and water. Every creationist who googles the word "evolution" comes to pick a fight where nobody wants to fight creationists.

Every FE "theorist" is clear in the concept that rocks do not adapt to survive, and therefore the word "evolution" is just a poorly chosen word for "change", as in "the Earth was different in the past compared with its present condition". Every real scientist will tell you the same thing.

So, the discussion about evolution and the second chapter of the Genesis belongs in the angry ranting random musings section.

Ah, but they do. Why do you think river rocks are round? They either become as such or break apart. Rocks which cannot suit their environment become sand; lifeforms that can't become dirt.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: trig on November 26, 2011, 03:22:46 PM

Ah, but they do. Why do you think river rocks are round? They either become as such or break apart. Rocks which cannot suit their environment become sand; lifeforms that can't become dirt.
And why do you consider round rocks more evolved than sand? Why is Earth more evolved than the bigger planets, which ignited and became secondary stars in their star system?

Where is your analogy for the basis of evolution, which is the survival of the best adapted until they produce offspring? Are you suggesting that river rocks have offspring?

As everything in FE "theories", this is not more than a very generic analogy that crumbles at the slightest inspection.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Ski on November 26, 2011, 03:43:27 PM
Evolution is incompatible with God because evolution contradicts the word of God. God created man in the image of God. He formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into us.
 God did not start with pond scum to make man, he started with dust of the earth.
  You can read more in Genesis chapter 2.

Are you equally positive that mountains and hills actually sing, or that trees clap their hands? Why are you insisting on a literal translation of a text that reads like poetry?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Tausami on November 26, 2011, 08:49:35 PM

Ah, but they do. Why do you think river rocks are round? They either become as such or break apart. Rocks which cannot suit their environment become sand; lifeforms that can't become dirt.
And why do you consider round rocks more evolved than sand? Why is Earth more evolved than the bigger planets, which ignited and became secondary stars in their star system?

Where is your analogy for the basis of evolution, which is the survival of the best adapted until they produce offspring? Are you suggesting that river rocks have offspring?

As everything in FE "theories", this is not more than a very generic analogy that crumbles at the slightest inspection.

This has nothing to do with FET. It's actually kind of philosophical. The point is, although the mechanism is slightly different, cosmic evolution and the evolution of life are inherently similar so long as one does not give special significance to life.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: jraffield1 on November 26, 2011, 11:27:14 PM
you people who talk like you know what a star actually is makes me laugh

you don't know, lol

you will never know

no one will, PERIOD

there is no debate

so you can quote useless scientists all you want, till you are blue in the face

all you have is a "theory"

nothing more, nothing less

you have no proof

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

humans are so stupid and ignorant

to think we are the true Gods, lmao

keep thinking that

while you are prancing around and playing God, please create me a universe

I'm waiting....

And no, I'm not a bible thumper. But what I said before, the elite make it easy to figure out what side to cheer for

they attack God

why?

if God doesn't exist then why waste their time to try and discredit it?

because God does exist and they want God removed from the earth forever


that's where you get weather modification, GMO food, and all the other sick BS going on in our world today. us stupid humans are the real God. hahaha, give me a break.

how retarded can someone be?

to think we are more "high" than the highest of the high?

welcome to the "new age of Aquarius"

more sick fantasy's,  by garbage like alice bailey and her loser followers

God did a few cool things a few thousand years ago, but what has he done for us recently? Did he warm up my hot pocket or turn on my computer for me? No? But I'll tell you what did, science. Well, science created the things that did, being a microwave and a plastic "on" button respectively.

Lol, just messing with you. Even if God does exist, I don't think I could serve a god as evil and psychotic as the god of the bible. I would rather be a moral person who does good in the world, rather than someone who follows the rantings of cosmic serial killer. Food for thought.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: trig on November 27, 2011, 12:31:51 AM
This has nothing to do with FET. It's actually kind of philosophical. The point is, although the mechanism is slightly different, cosmic evolution and the evolution of life are inherently similar so long as one does not give special significance to life.
You mean cheap philosophy, or dumb word games, as most "FE'ers" play.

Evolution is not just a synonym for change, it is the name of a specific biological process. And it involves specific mechanisms which appear in living beings and do not appear in rocks or planets or stars.

What you are naming "philosophical" is actually a bad metaphor, where you play with the other meanings of the word "evolve" and try to jump back to the first meaning without others seeing your deplorable sleight-of-hand.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 27, 2011, 08:27:27 AM
Evolution is not just a synonym for change
And now for another episode of English with PizzaPlanet!

Hi, boys and girls, ready to get started? YEAAAAAAAH!

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/evolution?q=evolution
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/evolution
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/business-english/evolution
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/evolution
http://oaadonline.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/evolution
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/evolution
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evolution
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/evolution

Well, it looks like evolution is a synonym for gradual change after all.
Happy to be of assistance!
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 27, 2011, 10:29:08 AM
This has nothing to do with FET. It's actually kind of philosophical. The point is, although the mechanism is slightly different, cosmic evolution and the evolution of life are inherently similar so long as one does not give special significance to life.
You mean cheap philosophy, or dumb word games, as most "FE'ers" play.

Evolution is not just a synonym for change, it is the name of a specific biological process. And it involves specific mechanisms which appear in living beings and do not appear in rocks or planets or stars.

What you are naming "philosophical" is actually a bad metaphor, where you play with the other meanings of the word "evolve" and try to jump back to the first meaning without others seeing your deplorable sleight-of-hand.

He's absolutely right though.  The universe evolved into galaxies and stars etc due to the laws of physics.  It was those same laws of physics (we presume) that led to the genesis of life, and those same laws of physics led to the evolution of life.  So unless you attach some kind of religious or spiritual significance to the existence of life itself, you have to concede that it's all part of the same continuous flow of evolution.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Tausami on November 27, 2011, 10:49:45 AM
This has nothing to do with FET. It's actually kind of philosophical. The point is, although the mechanism is slightly different, cosmic evolution and the evolution of life are inherently similar so long as one does not give special significance to life.
You mean cheap philosophy, or dumb word games, as most "FE'ers" play.

Evolution is not just a synonym for change, it is the name of a specific biological process. And it involves specific mechanisms which appear in living beings and do not appear in rocks or planets or stars.

What you are naming "philosophical" is actually a bad metaphor, where you play with the other meanings of the word "evolve" and try to jump back to the first meaning without others seeing your deplorable sleight-of-hand.

No, you're just an angry noob. You see, when one strips away the special importance we put on life, evolution becomes nothing more than the gradual change of living objects to better suit their environment. Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: trig on November 28, 2011, 02:46:13 AM
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Tausami on November 28, 2011, 02:54:57 AM
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.

You're still putting special significance on life
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 28, 2011, 05:00:59 AM
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap.
So you actively ignore the three posts that proved you wrong? How hilarious.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: jraffield1 on November 28, 2011, 06:36:11 AM
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap.
So you actively ignore the three posts that proved you wrong? How hilarious.

Its just as hilarious as the thread where it took around 10 pages to explain to you that a flat map must exist for a flat Earth.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: El Cid on November 28, 2011, 08:59:15 PM
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
Oh, come now, that's not what he means.  I think what he's trying to say is that life is based on DNA which is based on chemistry and physics.  Celestial motion acts by the same laws.  You're the worst kind of rationalist.  To you, there is no in-between and all reason based on something that isn't reason itself is not valid at all.  What Spock's dad didn't understand was that marrying a human to understand their species better is not rational at all.  It's just silly.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: trig on December 01, 2011, 12:36:56 AM
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
Oh, come now, that's not what he means.  I think what he's trying to say is that life is based on DNA which is based on chemistry and physics.  Celestial motion acts by the same laws.  You're the worst kind of rationalist.  To you, there is no in-between and all reason based on something that isn't reason itself is not valid at all.  What Spock's dad didn't understand was that marrying a human to understand their species better is not rational at all.  It's just silly.
It is not rationalism. Darwin and others in his time chose the word "Evolution" instead of creating a new word, and they had the right to do so. They created a new concept and pretty much overtook the word.

Playing with the various definitions of one word as if they were just one is exactly what I have been saying: useless word games. No special powers are transferred from one meaning to the other just because the same word is used for both.

You may find a sense of beauty and a sense of purpose on any random occurrence. You can see the Virgin Mary on a stained wall if you want. But this does not transfer any purpose to the wall. Darwinian Evolution is not the same as "things evolve from a state I like less to a state I like more". It is a huge lot more than that.

And Physics and Chemistry are everywhere, but that does not mean anything either. There is Physics and Chemistry in my brain and in a computer, but that does not mean I think like a computer.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: The Knowledge on December 01, 2011, 04:40:29 AM
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap.
So you actively ignore the three posts that proved you wrong? How hilarious.

Yes, just like you and the bendy light disproof: "Duh, nobody has EVER posted that, herp derp"
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: El Cid on December 01, 2011, 08:00:22 PM
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
Oh, come now, that's not what he means.  I think what he's trying to say is that life is based on DNA which is based on chemistry and physics.  Celestial motion acts by the same laws.  You're the worst kind of rationalist.  To you, there is no in-between and all reason based on something that isn't reason itself is not valid at all.  What Spock's dad didn't understand was that marrying a human to understand their species better is not rational at all.  It's just silly.
It is not rationalism. Darwin and others in his time chose the word "Evolution" instead of creating a new word, and they had the right to do so. They created a new concept and pretty much overtook the word.

Playing with the various definitions of one word as if they were just one is exactly what I have been saying: useless word games. No special powers are transferred from one meaning to the other just because the same word is used for both.

You may find a sense of beauty and a sense of purpose on any random occurrence. You can see the Virgin Mary on a stained wall if you want. But this does not transfer any purpose to the wall. Darwinian Evolution is not the same as "things evolve from a state I like less to a state I like more". It is a huge lot more than that.

And Physics and Chemistry are everywhere, but that does not mean anything either. There is Physics and Chemistry in my brain and in a computer, but that does not mean I think like a computer.
Exactly.  It doesn't matter.  So stop talking about it.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: TonySonofGawain on December 05, 2011, 10:34:31 AM
Talk about going in circles. I am no advocate of FE theory but I like to debate and I respect anyone or anything that challenges mainstream ideas. Lets face it though, ideas change (evolve if you want) and a hundreds of years from now people will probably laugh at all of us. But anyway ...

I would like to add something that all here might find worthy of note. I watched a documentary called "IMAX Hubble" about the (alleged to FE'ers) Hubble space telescope and all the amazing pictures and data that it has provided on its journeys.
In one section it showed the birth process of stars in the Orion nebula which take on a perceptible 'disc-like' shape as the various gases and clumps of matter (not an expert so please excuse me if Im inaccurate with terminology) swirl around the central ... um ... "nucleus?" ... Anyway, is this not an example of a heavenly body in a the shape of a disc? Galaxies also apparently have a disc-like shape (roughly disc-like) for reasons that Ive always wondered about ... are galaxies not also heavenly bodies when seen with the naked eye or through a telescope?  This documentary was partly the reason that I joined this whole debate. Scientists are constantly learning something new about the universe and are usually taken by complete surprise by what they find ...
To stick to your current debate though, I think that the word "evolution" can be used in both the traditional sense (ie gradual change) and the evolutionist sense of it. Why not? Is this not the English language where one word can mean multiple things?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Rushy on December 05, 2011, 10:43:09 AM
You can tell FE'ers are all trolls when they believe the earth is flat (a religous phenomenon arguing that humans are special creatures) and then go to argue evolution. They take the side that receives the most negative criticism in any given argument to ensure they receive maximum attention. The exact same strategy a troll would use.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 05, 2011, 01:08:04 PM
Talk about going in circles. I am no advocate of FE theory but I like to debate and I respect anyone or anything that challenges mainstream ideas. Lets face it though, ideas change (evolve if you want) and a hundreds of years from now people will probably laugh at all of us. But anyway ...

I would like to add something that all here might find worthy of note. I watched a documentary called "IMAX Hubble" about the (alleged to FE'ers) Hubble space telescope and all the amazing pictures and data that it has provided on its journeys.
In one section it showed the birth process of stars in the Orion nebula which take on a perceptible 'disc-like' shape as the various gases and clumps of matter (not an expert so please excuse me if Im inaccurate with terminology) swirl around the central ... um ... "nucleus?" ... Anyway, is this not an example of a heavenly body in a the shape of a disc? Galaxies also apparently have a disc-like shape (roughly disc-like) for reasons that Ive always wondered about ... are galaxies not also heavenly bodies when seen with the naked eye or through a telescope?  This documentary was partly the reason that I joined this whole debate. Scientists are constantly learning something new about the universe and are usually taken by complete surprise by what they find ...
To stick to your current debate though, I think that the word "evolution" can be used in both the traditional sense (ie gradual change) and the evolutionist sense of it. Why not? Is this not the English language where one word can mean multiple things?

Stars form when a clump of matter in a large dust cloud gets disturbed, these clouds are usually rotating.  This rotation causes the shape of a disk until the gravitation of the central cluster can pull in the rest of the surrounding matter.

Galaxies are not always thin disks, and they have similar physics as stars when you think of the stars as dust particles.  as galaxies age they are less likely to be thin disks, as the black holes at their center/ collisions with other galaxies gradually draw the stars in.  These Galaxies tend to be filled with much larger more red stars, unlike our own milky way which is younger and still filled with plenty of young blue stars.

The spinning we see in many aspects of the universe is what can account for disks, but only in non solid bodies.  Dust clouds and galaxies are fluid, while planets are much more solid.  Sure the planets spin, but the mass of the central object prevents a disk shape, instead a bulge around the equator can be found.  But the earth and moon's orbit are both disk shapes, but only because they are not combined into one.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 05, 2011, 02:49:34 PM
You can tell FE'ers are all trolls when they believe the earth is flat (a religous phenomenon arguing that humans are special creatures) and then go to argue evolution. They take the side that receives the most negative criticism in any given argument to ensure they receive maximum attention. The exact same strategy a troll would use.

Did I read this wrong, or did you just suggest that belief in evolution receives more negative criticism than belief in Creationism?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Tausami on December 05, 2011, 05:52:19 PM
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
Oh, come now, that's not what he means.  I think what he's trying to say is that life is based on DNA which is based on chemistry and physics.  Celestial motion acts by the same laws.  You're the worst kind of rationalist.  To you, there is no in-between and all reason based on something that isn't reason itself is not valid at all.  What Spock's dad didn't understand was that marrying a human to understand their species better is not rational at all.  It's just silly.
It is not rationalism. Darwin and others in his time chose the word "Evolution" instead of creating a new word, and they had the right to do so. They created a new concept and pretty much overtook the word.

Playing with the various definitions of one word as if they were just one is exactly what I have been saying: useless word games. No special powers are transferred from one meaning to the other just because the same word is used for both.

You may find a sense of beauty and a sense of purpose on any random occurrence. You can see the Virgin Mary on a stained wall if you want. But this does not transfer any purpose to the wall. Darwinian Evolution is not the same as "things evolve from a state I like less to a state I like more". It is a huge lot more than that.

And Physics and Chemistry are everywhere, but that does not mean anything either. There is Physics and Chemistry in my brain and in a computer, but that does not mean I think like a computer.

Evolution in the Darwinian sense is nothing other than the other definition, but more precise. Your argument is equivalent to me arguing that algae are nothing like sea grass because algae are plant-like, and not sea grass-like.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: Rushy on December 05, 2011, 06:20:05 PM
You can tell FE'ers are all trolls when they believe the earth is flat (a religous phenomenon arguing that humans are special creatures) and then go to argue evolution. They take the side that receives the most negative criticism in any given argument to ensure they receive maximum attention. The exact same strategy a troll would use.

Did I read this wrong, or did you just suggest that belief in evolution receives more negative criticism than belief in Creationism?

Depends on who you're arguing with. If I go into an advanced biology class and start discussing creationism I'm going to receive a lot of negative criticism. If I go into a church and start discussing evolution, same thing.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: EireEngineer on December 20, 2011, 07:31:49 PM
Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)

Most (if not all) asteroids.
Way to be willfully obtuse there Markjo.   All celestial objects of any sizable mass are spherical.
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: markjo on December 20, 2011, 08:42:23 PM
Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)

Most (if not all) asteroids.
Way to be willfully obtuse there Markjo.   All celestial objects of any sizable mass are spherical.
Are you saying that irregularly shaped asteroids can't be of a sizable mass (whatever that means)?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: El Cid on December 20, 2011, 11:41:45 PM
Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)

Most (if not all) asteroids.
Way to be willfully obtuse there Markjo.   All celestial objects of any sizable mass are spherical.
Are you saying that irregularly shaped asteroids can't be of a sizable mass (whatever that means)?
Yes.  "Sizable" generally means something like "pretty big."  So a celestial object of a pretty big mass will always collapse into a sphere due to gravity.  A giant cube is a sphere with eight huge mountains that are incredibly unstable and will immediately crash in a huge mess of avalanches and rockslides, etc.

In this context, I'd take "sizable" to mean big enough to collapse into a sphere.  Of course asteroids aren't spheres, because they aren't a big enough mass to collapse into a sphere, whereas a planar Earth (assuming the mantle and core to still exist underneath) would.  Do you know of any other celestial planes?
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: ClockTower on December 20, 2011, 11:51:58 PM
I think this is the point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium).
Title: Re: Evolution
Post by: kbthiede on December 22, 2011, 06:10:47 PM
The Bedford Level Experiment.

An experiment performed with a poor understanding of the experimental conditions and a good chunk of the relevant physics.  Rowbotham's methods and results are based almost entirely upon cherry-picking the conclusion he desired and ignoring physical, mathematical and logical evidence that runs contrary to his claims.

The Bedford Level Experiment counts as an experimental observation about as much as reading EnaG counts as having met Rowbotham.

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society! Where everythin is made up and good science doesn't matter (because it's all a part of a big bad conspiracy!!!)