The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Itchy_Arris on June 09, 2015, 05:30:30 AM

Title: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Itchy_Arris on June 09, 2015, 05:30:30 AM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.

Everything in every direction is getting further away. In round Earth theory, this can only mean one thing - our little globe is the centre of the universe. I think most will agree this is ridiculous, or so unlikely that it be dismissed as a realistic explanation.

Now, in Infinite Earth Theory (IET) this all makes perfect sense. IET states that Earth is a flat plain making up the floor of the universe. The big bang was an event at the bottom of the universe, projecting all matter upwards. This energy continues today, as observed by red-shift. Only heavy elements have fallen to create the Earth, as well as lighter elements produced on Earth itself (the atmosphere).

Of course, this is only an idea of what happened at the beginning of the universe. Much more research is needed.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 09, 2015, 05:33:35 AM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.

Everything in every direction is getting further away. In round Earth theory, this can only mean one thing - our little globe is the centre of the universe. I think most will agree this is ridiculous, or so unlikely that it be dismissed as a realistic explanation.

Now, in Infinite Earth Theory (IET) this all makes perfect sense. IET states that Earth is a flat plain making up the floor of the universe. The big bang was an event at the bottom of the universe, projecting all matter upwards. This energy continues today, as observed by red-shift. Only heavy elements have fallen to create the Earth, as well as lighter elements produced on Earth itself (the atmosphere).
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.  Quite enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Itchy_Arris on June 09, 2015, 05:54:12 AM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.

Everything in every direction is getting further away. In round Earth theory, this can only mean one thing - our little globe is the centre of the universe. I think most will agree this is ridiculous, or so unlikely that it be dismissed as a realistic explanation.

Now, in Infinite Earth Theory (IET) this all makes perfect sense. IET states that Earth is a flat plain making up the floor of the universe. The big bang was an event at the bottom of the universe, projecting all matter upwards. This energy continues today, as observed by red-shift. Only heavy elements have fallen to create the Earth, as well as lighter elements produced on Earth itself (the atmosphere).
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.  Quite enjoyed it.

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. Can I consider you an IET follower now?
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Slemon on June 09, 2015, 06:21:11 AM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.

Everything in every direction is getting further away

But I thought everything was falling to us at the floor of the universe?  :o
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Itchy_Arris on June 09, 2015, 06:25:48 AM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.

Everything in every direction is getting further away

But I thought everything was falling to us at the floor of the universe?  :o

Eventually, yes, if the Earth's gravity overcomes the energy of the big bang. Heavy elements are already falling as evidenced by the make up of the Earth and by meteorites.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Slemon on June 09, 2015, 06:27:23 AM
Eventually, yes, if the Earth's gravity overcomes the energy of the big bang. Heavy elements are already falling as evidenced by the make up of the Earth and by meteorites.

So other planets are lighter than meteorites?
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Itchy_Arris on June 09, 2015, 06:55:09 AM
Eventually, yes, if the Earth's gravity overcomes the energy of the big bang. Heavy elements are already falling as evidenced by the make up of the Earth and by meteorites.

So other planets are lighter than meteorites?

Other planets are in orbit around stars. I've repeated this like 3 times now. Why can't you roundies get it?
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Quail on June 09, 2015, 07:02:34 AM
Eventually, yes, if the Earth's gravity overcomes the energy of the big bang. Heavy elements are already falling as evidenced by the make up of the Earth and by meteorites.

So other planets are lighter than meteorites?

Other planets are in orbit around stars. I've repeated this like 3 times now. Why can't you roundies get it?
Because we assume that by "gravity" you mean "stuff falling down", because you almost always say so.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Itchy_Arris on June 09, 2015, 07:16:16 AM
Eventually, yes, if the Earth's gravity overcomes the energy of the big bang. Heavy elements are already falling as evidenced by the make up of the Earth and by meteorites.

So other planets are lighter than meteorites?

Other planets are in orbit around stars. I've repeated this like 3 times now. Why can't you roundies get it?
Because we assume that by "gravity" you mean "stuff falling down", because you almost always say so.

Gravity causes objects to orbit more massive objects. This seems to be news to you people.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Slemon on June 09, 2015, 07:16:55 AM
Other planets are in orbit around stars. I've repeated this like 3 times now. Why can't you roundies get it?
A) Not everyone reads those posts.
B) Your definition of gravity (what causes orbits) is very inconsistent.
C) So, same question: stars are lighter than meteorites?
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Itchy_Arris on June 09, 2015, 07:28:17 AM
Other planets are in orbit around stars. I've repeated this like 3 times now. Why can't you roundies get it?
A) Not everyone reads those posts.
B) Your definition of gravity (what causes orbits) is very inconsistent.
C) So, same question: stars are lighter than meteorites?

No, stars are more massive. But meteors are subject to collisions,which is when they can drop out of their orbits and fall to Earth.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 09, 2015, 08:17:07 AM
(http://)
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: dephelis on June 09, 2015, 12:32:17 PM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise

Incorrect. That would be Christian Doppler, followed by Hippolyte Fizeau.

Quote
that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted).

Incorrect. everything is not red-shifted. Some things are blueshifted due to their movement towards us.

Quote
This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.

Incorrect. The cosmology community actually understand redshift.


Quote
<snip>
The R est of your post is irrelevant due to the incorrect facts used as basis for the argument.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: DonaldC on June 11, 2015, 11:01:52 PM
Well now, this is perfect. I am currently a science and math teacher in Shanghai and last week my students learned about this topic. In a moment I will walk you through the demonstration we did in class and that you can do easily at home. Also, I am currently on a sabbatical from my PhD studies in...wait for it.........................................cosmology.  ;D

For this demo you will need four things, a generally round ballon, and three different colored markers. Let's use red, blue and black (you can use any three you can lay your hands on).

Before you begin blowing up the balloon choose a spot and draw a red dot. On the other side draw a blue dot. Then go crazy with the black marker and draw dots all over that balloon. Twenty or so should suffice. Now blow the balloon up just a bit. Enough so it is showing the round shape. Take a look at the red dot. Now blow it up a little more and re-observe the red spot. You will see that all of the black dots are moving away from it. Blow the balloon up a bit more. You will see they have moved even farther away, and that they are indeed all moving away from the red dot. It must me the center dot and most important one!

Well, not so fast. Remember that blue dot? Go have a look at it. It too is surrounded by black dots. Now blow up the balloon a bit more and notice what happened. All the black dots have moved farther away from it. Blow it up some more and double check, yes indeed the black dots have again all moved farther away from the blue dot. So it must be the center!

Nope, cannot have two centers. And if you expand this idea, it is obvious that for any dot the other dots move away from it. No dot is special, none is the center. Now granted this is a 2D +1 simplification of our 3D +1 universe (+1 is the time dimension which is included by the balloon's expansion) but the concept holds.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: SkyPostings on June 12, 2015, 02:24:14 AM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.

Nope.   Red shift is one of a few theories.
There may be some other aspect of space that causes red-shift.
And science fact is not a popularity contest.
What is true is not true by majority rules.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 14, 2015, 03:41:41 AM
Tired light theory has also been proposed to explain the red shift. http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm (http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm)
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: guv on June 14, 2015, 03:57:24 AM
Tired light theory has also been proposed to explain the red shift. http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm (http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm)

Have you seen tired light.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: JerkFace on June 14, 2015, 05:13:53 AM
Tired light theory has also been proposed to explain the red shift. http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm (http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm)

Lots of things get proposed,  not many are proven correct.   Some are proven wrong.   Tired Light doesn't work   http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm)

Big Bang works.     Accelerating expansion measurements  might be in doubt, since type 1A supernova's aren't all as standard as we might like.   
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 14, 2015, 05:22:32 AM
Tired light theory has also been proposed to explain the red shift. http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm (http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm)

Lots of things get proposed,  not many are proven correct.   Some are proven wrong.   Tired Light doesn't work   http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm)

Big Bang works.     Accelerating expansion measurements  might be in doubt, since type 1A supernova's aren't all as standard as we might like.   


I am simply pointing out that the Big Bang Theory is just a theory and that not every scientist subscribes to it.  You are doing an injustice for those kids you teach, Donald, if you try to pass it off as a fact. 
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: DonaldC on June 15, 2015, 12:50:01 AM
As I seem to need to reiterate ad infinitum here, theory has two distinct meanings, one for common parlance and one for science.

Common Parlance Theory: essentially a guess
Science: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Jroa the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang have other support beyond the red shift of galaxies. Such as the temperature of the Cosmic Background Radiation, the ratio of Hydrogen/Helium/Lithium in the universe, and more.

The way you are either incapable of grasping the meaning in a science setting, or purposely remain ignorant to use the favorite tool of equivocation is truly annoying. But I will continue to try and educate you. And I teach it as it is, as a Theory. But my kids understand what that means in science. Try to catch up to my seventh graders please.

And of course Itchy is no where to be found.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: DonaldC on June 15, 2015, 06:49:27 PM
As expected, comment ignored. Theory used incorrectly again and the person who began the thread abandons it.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: SkyPostings on June 15, 2015, 07:47:03 PM
Tired light theory has also been proposed to explain the red shift. http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm (http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm)

Have you seen tired light.


I can't seem to stay up that late.

It could happen that tomorrow afternoon a theory will be published that
shows Dark Matter causes red-shift.  But until tomorrow, everyone will
be quite sure it is caused by acceleration in every direction.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Itchy_Arris on June 16, 2015, 12:47:11 AM
As expected, comment ignored. Theory used incorrectly again and the person who began the thread abandons it.

Your comment was ignored because it made no worthwhile point.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: Mikey T. on June 16, 2015, 06:12:43 PM
Which one?  Are you talking about the balloon example.  This is just a simple way of illustrating the expansion of the universe.  BTW, its more than just the galaxies flying through space, space itself is expanding.  I thought he explained it pretty well.  At every point in space, if space is expanding, then everything is moving away from everything else.  I know its hard to grasp for someone who has never given any thought to physics being valid, oh wait you still claim to have a chemistry degree from 1995 right.  Did you take no physics in college?  What chemist doesn't have to take some physics classes?
Physics 101, or rather 201 (intro to physics with calculus)for my degree, dealt with gravity, friction, and other forces.  Physics 202 dealt with electromagnetic waves and electricity, Physics 332 was basically thermodynamics, physics 341 was optics, and physics 361 was atomic and molecular structures with a little quantum mechanics thrown in.

Of course, I am sure that you getting a science degree had to do no physics classes or labs.  Surely those things are not needed for a chemist. (BTW thats a little sarcasm there).
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: markjo on June 16, 2015, 06:46:22 PM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.
Well, everything except for things like Andromeda, which is headed towards us.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: SkyPostings on June 17, 2015, 08:54:46 PM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.
Well, everything except for things like Andromeda, which is headed towards us.

Taking into account that the rate of expansion is increasing, wouldn't that reduce the impact? 
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 17, 2015, 10:45:52 PM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.
Well, everything except for things like Andromeda, which is headed towards us.

Taking into account that the rate of expansion is increasing, wouldn't that reduce the impact?

A tiny bit, yes.

Also, it's not really an impact because galaxies are so low density.  In all probability the Sun and Earth wouldn't even be effected that much.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: DonaldC on June 18, 2015, 02:06:13 AM
As expected, comment ignored. Theory used incorrectly again and the person who began the thread abandons it.

Your comment was ignored because it made no worthwhile point.

Indeed.  A demonstration that shows the expansion of the universe, the balloon represents the space itself expanding, the dots the galaxies being carried away by this expansion. You can lead a horse to water, you can force his head under the water, and close his nostrils, but you cannot force him to drink if he truly does not wish to. Just as you cannot change the mind of a true believer with evidence. in

Richard Dawkins often uses the example of Kurt Wise, a young earth creationist who also holds a PhD from Harvard in geology. This is what RD had to say about Wise.

Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Creation “scientists” have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology. And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.

There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise now makes his living at Bryan College (motto “Christ Above All”) located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famed Scopes trial. And yet, he originally obtained an authentic degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago, followed by a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, no less, where he studied under (the name is milked for all it is worth in creationist propaganda) Stephen Jay Gould.

Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, a compendium edited by John F. Ashton (Ph.D., of course). I recommend this book. It is a revelation. I would not have believed such wishful thinking and self-deception possible. At least some of the authors seem to be sincere, and they don’t water down their beliefs. Much of their fire is aimed at weaker brethren who think God works through evolution, or who clutch at the feeble hope that one “day” in Genesis might mean not twenty-four hours but a hundred million years. These are hard-core “young earth creationists” who believe that the universe and all of life came into existence within one week, less than 10,000 years ago. And Wise—flying valiantly in the face of reason, evidence, and education—is among them. If there were a prize for Virtuoso Believing (it is surely only a matter of time before the Templeton Foundation awards one) Kurt Wise, B.A. (Chicago), Ph.D. (Harvard), would have to be a prime candidate.

Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged “human bones” in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these “bones” would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!”). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were “inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.” Unusually among the motley denizens of the “big tent” of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.

All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise’s concluding paragraph:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

See what I mean about honest? Understandably enough, creationists who aspire to be taken seriously as scientists don’t go out of their way to admit that Scripture—a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders—trumps evidence. The great evolutionist John Maynard Smith, who once publicly wiped the floor with Duane P. Gish (up until then a highly regarded creationist debater), did it by going on the offensive right from the outset and challenging him directly: “Do you seriously mean to tell me you believe that all life was created within one week?”

Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984 struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.

Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

Can you imagine believing that and at the same time accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? I’m not sure that I could live with myself. And I think I would curse my God for leading me to such a pass.


I am sure Itchy, like most Flat Earthers, Geocentrics and others who take patently untenable views, is of the same ilk. He has belief and faith, do not confuse the issue with evidence.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: modestman on June 18, 2015, 02:30:25 AM
Itchy didn't you understand that Flat earth=god and round earth=science
and they are contradict at the essence. Science and religion are a system of power create to make human ruling over human and a system hiding the true god.
Round earth religion = science.
God=flat earth and simple life.
Think about it, don't quote the science if you believe in flat earth.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 18, 2015, 12:58:12 PM
Itchy didn't you understand that Flat earth=god and round earth=science
and they are contradict at the essence. Science and religion are a system of power create to make human ruling over human and a system hiding the true god.
Round earth religion = science.
God=flat earth and simple life.
Think about it, don't quote the science if you believe in flat earth.

I am a Christian and I believe in round Earth and science.  Just because God made the universe doesn't mean we shouldn't learn everything we can about it with experimentation.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: antonindvorak on June 20, 2015, 11:12:39 AM
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.

Everything in every direction is getting further away. In round Earth theory, this can only mean one thing - our little globe is the centre of the universe. I think most will agree this is ridiculous, or so unlikely that it be dismissed as a realistic explanation.

Now, in Infinite Earth Theory (IET) this all makes perfect sense. IET states that Earth is a flat plain making up the floor of the universe. The big bang was an event at the bottom of the universe, projecting all matter upwards. This energy continues today, as observed by red-shift. Only heavy elements have fallen to create the Earth, as well as lighter elements produced on Earth itself (the atmosphere).

Of course, this is only an idea of what happened at the beginning of the universe. Much more research is needed.

Ha. Ha ha ha. Ridiculous.

Pick any point in the universe, and it will appear that everything is moving away from that point. So the Martians can use this same principle to conclude that they are at the centre of the universe!

This does not prove a flat Earth.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: modestman on June 20, 2015, 11:29:38 AM
Itchy didn't you understand that Flat earth=god and round earth=science
and they are contradict at the essence. Science and religion are a system of power create to make human ruling over human and a system hiding the true god.
Round earth religion = science.
God=flat earth and simple life.
Think about it, don't quote the science if you believe in flat earth.

I am a Christian and I believe in round Earth and science.  Just because God made the universe doesn't mean we shouldn't learn everything we can about it with experimentation.
Yea we know, you are 17 American who make so many spelling mistake.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: antonindvorak on June 20, 2015, 11:40:45 AM
Itchy didn't you understand that Flat earth=god and round earth=science
and they are contradict at the essence. Science and religion are a system of power create to make human ruling over human and a system hiding the true god.
Round earth religion = science.
God=flat earth and simple life.
Think about it, don't quote the science if you believe in flat earth.

I am a Christian and I believe in round Earth and science.  Just because God made the universe doesn't mean we shouldn't learn everything we can about it with experimentation.
Yea we know, you are 17 American who make so many spelling mistake.

And you're a hypocrite that has the nerve to trash someone else's spelling when your own sentence is so grammatically incorrect, it would get you an F in elementary school. I see no spelling mistakes in his post, by the way.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: modestman on June 20, 2015, 12:00:03 PM
Itchy didn't you understand that Flat earth=god and round earth=science
and they are contradict at the essence. Science and religion are a system of power create to make human ruling over human and a system hiding the true god.
Round earth religion = science.
God=flat earth and simple life.
Think about it, don't quote the science if you believe in flat earth.

I am a Christian and I believe in round Earth and science.  Just because God made the universe doesn't mean we shouldn't learn everything we can about it with experimentation.
Yea we know, you are 17 American who make so many spelling mistake.

And you're a hypocrite that has the nerve to trash someone else's spelling when your own sentence is so grammatically incorrect, it would get you an F in elementary school. I see no spelling mistakes in his post, by the way.
Because of that I mention him being American, I am not hypocrite I know my English sucks - but if I was American I believe I wouldn't make mistakes like him.
Title: Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 20, 2015, 05:34:58 PM
if I was American I believe I wouldn't make mistakes like him.

Please elaborate on your logic here.