All we know is what we are shown.
I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.
We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
or we apply heat to water and it boils.
When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
We all know religion works the main monotheistic religions are based on a race of people from the middle east and now after thousands of years the world helped some of them set a nation up in their homeland.
When a Vicar/Priest says That a man called Noah built a boat and all the animals where able to fit on it with Noah and his family also requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify what has been written.
When someone doesn't believe in a popular hypothesis they are looked at by the believers in a negative way.
When someone doesn't believe in a religion they are looked at by the believers in a negative way.
Is Science the new religion ?
All we know is what we are shown.
I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.
We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
or we apply heat to water and it boils.
When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
We all know religion works the main monotheistic religions are based on a race of people from the middle east and now after thousands of years the world helped some of them set a nation up in their homeland.
When a Vicar/Priest says That a man called Noah built a boat and all the animals where able to fit on it with Noah and his family also requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify what has been written.
When someone doesn't believe in a popular hypothesis they are looked at by the believers in a negative way.
When someone doesn't believe in a religion they are looked at by the believers in a negative way.
Is Science the new religion ?
Science on the other hand relies on proof.
I don't think what I said has been understood :-[ I can verify that my computer works as It comes in pieces,motherboard ,graphics card ect I build it then plug it in and it works.you incapable of understanding the evidence doesn't change anything about the facts.
How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away ?
If this can't be verified by myself it then requires a massive amount of faith for me to believe what the scientists have observed is true just as religion requires a massive amount of faith to believe what has been written is true.
Is science the new religion.?
I don't think what I said has been understood :-[ I can verify that my computer works as It comes in pieces,motherboard ,graphics card ect I build it then plug it in and it works.So you think science is a religion because you, personally, cannot verify every finding.
How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away ?
If this can't be verified by myself it then requires a massive amount of faith for me to believe what the scientists have observed is true just as religion requires a massive amount of faith to believe what has been written is true.
Is science the new religion.?
Do we all know exactly in full detail how a processor works? yet, we all use it if we want to discuss a subject on this forum, and we expect it to do it's job in the way it is designed to.I don't think what I said has been understood :-[ I can verify that my computer works as It comes in pieces,motherboard ,graphics card ect I build it then plug it in and it works.So you think science is a religion because you, personally, cannot verify every finding.
How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away ?
If this can't be verified by myself it then requires a massive amount of faith for me to believe what the scientists have observed is true just as religion requires a massive amount of faith to believe what has been written is true.
Is science the new religion.?
Be reasonable! How would it ever have been possible for any one person to verify personally every finding in science.
But, what can be done is to seek independent evidence for any new "discovery". That is the way science works.
One group announces something like, say, "cold fusion" (an actual case).
But other scientists are rather skeptical of that being possible, so the finding is not widely accepted unril it is replicated a few times by other groups (and it could not be replicated.).
Not being a scientist, but interested in these things,
when new discoveries come up that I am doubtful of, I think "Isn't that intesesting!", but remain sceptical until the finding is verified.
So, when it comes to "How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away?"
Well, personally, neither you nor I can, but does it matter? It won't affect your life if you believe it or reminder sceptical.
When it comes to findings that might affect you personally, such as a new medical treatment, all you can do is think "That's nice, it might treat my problem, but I'll wait till it is confirmed by others".
So, while I do not agree that science is a religion, there will always be the problem that we, personally, cannot verify everything and there are many questionable "findings".
There are many "pseudo-scientific" reports of things like "free-energy machines" or "magical medical treatments".
To guard against this sort of thing some grounding in the basics of science is very important for everyone.
At least enough else to hammer home the point that you never get something for nothing (so no free energy) and you can't even break even (so no perpetual motion machines). :D It's also good financial advice. :D
Sorry, I did not mean to ramble on again!
totally agree on that Hannibaal.
though, science and religion are equally old since the first self consious human being walked on the surface of the Earth. Humans have always been occupied by explaining their surroundings, explolations and learnings from earlier mistakes or learning from each other or from observations.
at first religion and science were very close to each other but even then those two were extensions of each other...
and just like Hannibaal said...it should be extentions of each other now too.
All we know is what we are shown.
I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.
We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
or we apply heat to water and it boils.
When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
Anything that requires a great amount of faith to be believed has to be a religion.
Some people are stupid and gullible so they believe anything.
Alot of science is hard to believe we are told for example:
The earth is a globe
We are shown some CGI Images and then expected to believe in this globe theory.
I'm not really bothered what shape the earth is or if scientist's are lieing or telling the truth it makes no difference to my life.
That said until something can be verified by myself I do not believe it.
If the majority of people do not deny the existence of a spiritual side or aspect of life besides the material/physical part, then why does modern science do?
Science was religion in all past of the world. But it was accepting the God. But updated fake/Darwinist science made a coap to real science. This is a religion too but denying to the real science. It should be destroyed is an Emergency coded task.
@Coffercrisp
An interesting point about only the "best" being chosen; could it be that the people who determine who the best are could be looking for intelligent but gullible easily manipulated people who will not go against an already established hypothesis.
For example Einstein over Tesla
Einstein had theorys that nobody could verify.
Tesla had inventions people are still using today but Einstein was generally presented in my English education as being superior.
@Canadabear
Thank you for the offer but unfortunately I'm really busy this year so will not have time to travel to Canada to witness this curvature you speak of as I'm from England.
Do any of you know where in England I can witness this curvature you speak of.
If the majority of people do not deny the existence of a spiritual side or aspect of life besides the material/physical part, then why does modern science do?
I don't think science denies the spiritual and metaphysical, rather it has no comment on it. Not being testable, it is outside science's domain.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of scientists with opinions on religion, though..
Anything that requires a great amount of faith to be believed has to be a religion.
Some people are stupid and gullible so they believe anything.
Alot of science is hard to believe we are told for example:
The earth is a globe
We are shown some CGI Images and then expected to believe in this globe theory.
I'm not really bothered what shape the earth is or if scientist's are lieing or telling the truth it makes no difference to my life.
That said until something can be verified by myself I do not believe it.
the blue marble image is CGI so my claim is hardly baseless.
7the blue marble image is CGI so my claim is hardly baseless.
citation needed
Notes:
- There are multiple blue marble images, I'm talking about the original.
- CGI != photo editing.
Thanks for the info Canada Bear I will go to Lynton and will see if I can witness this curvature you speak of.
I believe the quick formula for curvature is miles squared multiplied by eight then divided by twelve to bring back to feet I will see if this works out for the distances involved.
Science does require Faith for example Einsteins theory of relativity has never been verified as NOBODY has travelled at the speed of light but some people believe it because they have faith that Einsteins theory was correct and he was telling the truth and other scientists have done experiments that support Einsteins hypothesis which could be described as convinient as it would be in their financial interest to further exalt one of the science religions gods.
@Alpha2 omega the blue marble image is CGI so my claim is hardly baseless.
How other than witnessing curvature can the earth be proven a globe ?
As from what I've seen so far most of it also works on the geocentric model.
I think what makes a lot of people sceptical about the globe theory is that we have apparently been in space thousands of times but there are very few pictures / images that stand up in photoshop.
For example if I was an astronaut I would simply put my mobile phone to the window and record the rocket taking off and docking at the space station in one unbroken real video;
this has not been done yet even though mobiles have had cameras on for over ten years.
They could also make another Hubble type telescope launch it into deep space and set it up so it shows the earth and other planets orbiting the sun or the cheaper option would be to turn hubble round.This has not been done yet. ( can you see the pattern?)
I'm not saying the earth is flat because that is something I have yet to verify for myself but I struggle to understand why CGI has to be used when we have allegedly been in space thousands of times so it is not unreasonable for the millions of people to be sceptical about the globe theory.
The blue marble 2002 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BlueMarble/BlueMarble_2002.php
Notes:
- There are multiple blue marble images, I'm talking about the original.
- CGI != photo editing.
Thanks for the info Canada Bear I will go to Lynton and will see if I can witness this curvature you speak of.
I believe the quick formula for curvature is miles squared multiplied by eight then divided by twelve to bring back to feet I will see if this works out for the distances involved.
Science does require Faith for example Einsteins theory of relativity has never been verified
as NOBODY has travelled at the speed of light but some people believe it because they have faith that Einsteins theory was correct and he was telling the truth and other scientists have done experiments that support Einsteins hypothesis which could be described as convinient as it would be in their financial interest to further exalt one of the science religions gods.
@Alpha2 omega the blue marble image is CGI so my claim is hardly baseless.
How other than witnessing curvature can the earth be proven a globe ?
As from what I've seen so far most of it also works on the geocentric model.
I think what makes a lot of people sceptical about the globe theory is that we have apparently been in space thousands of times but there are very few pictures / images that stand up in photoshop.[citation needed]
For example if I was an astronaut I would simply put my mobile phone to the window and record the rocket taking off and docking at the space station in one unbroken real video;
this has not been done yet even though mobiles have had cameras on for over ten years.
They could also make another Hubble type telescope launch it into deep space and set it up so it shows the earth and other planets orbiting the sun
or the cheaper option would be to turn hubble round.This has not been done yet. ( can you see the pattern?)
I'm not saying the earth is flat because that is something I have yet to verify for myself but I struggle to understand why CGI has to be used when we have allegedly been in space thousands of times so it is not unreasonable for the millions of people to be sceptical about the globe theory.
I think what makes a lot of people sceptical about the globe theory is that we have apparently been in space thousands of times but there are very few pictures / images that stand up in photoshop.
For example if I was an astronaut I would simply put my mobile phone to the window and record the rocket taking off and docking at the space station in one unbroken real video;
this has not been done yet even though mobiles have had cameras on for over ten years.
They could also make another Hubble type telescope launch it into deep space and set it up so it shows the earth and other planets orbiting the sun or the cheaper option would be to turn hubble round.This has not been done yet. ( can you see the pattern?)
I'm not saying the earth is flat because that is something I have yet to verify for myself but I struggle to understand why CGI has to be used when we have allegedly been in space thousands of times so it is not unreasonable for the millions of people to be sceptical about the globe theory.
I don't think what I said has been understood :-[ I can verify that my computer works as It comes in pieces,motherboard ,graphics card ect I build it then plug it in and it works.
How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away ?
If this can't be verified by myself it then requires a massive amount of faith for me to believe what the scientists have observed is true just as religion requires a massive amount of faith to believe what has been written is true.
Is science the new religion.?
The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless :PNASA announced how the 2002 blue marble photo was produced.
Hello,This photos in that link were ridiculed in this post:
I am new to this forum and society. I am researching various things and I am curious to how "Flat Earth" believers handle the story and picture from Apollo 8 astronaut William Ander, called Earthrise?
Here is a link to a story where he even showed a reporter the negative for the picture:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/home/earthrise.html
Thank you,
QFT
First of all, NASA's info or images posted have been discredited by FEs . . . . . . Anyway, I advised you questfortruth not to use NASA images or posting. It doesn't help.
For example, your Apollo 8 image of the earth that was taken by one of the astronauts Anders could not be confirmed to be authentic as it was posted by NASA in its website. And by ordinary observation, the earth just appears to be just the size of the moon as we viewed it from earth at his full moon condition, and the size of the moon is about 1/3 that of earth from a distance of something like 238,900 mi. It's a bit puzzling because the photo was taken at 240,000 miles away from earth while they orbitted the moon (they were really pretty near the moon surface at this orbit distance)... and yet they saw an earth image just the same size as that of the moon. Direct calculation and common sense dictate that it should have been 3 times the size of moon image as seen from earth. Further, I came across websites that calculate the size of an object's image given the object's size, distance of the object from the camera or observer with known focal length, etc. and the image size of earth from Apollo 8's report came out to be much smaller as expected... I did this just for curiosity's sake. No need to debunk, hehe... With that image size, the distance from the observer came out to be much more than 240,000 mi that seems to be an unrealistic result already.... well, seems not reliable enough... :)
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/img/e2.jpg) The colour photograph of Earthrise - taken by Apollo 8 astronaut, William A. Anders, December 24, 1968. Although the photograph is usually mounted with the moon below the earth, this is how Anders saw it. | (http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/img/earthrisec.jpg) Black and white photograph of Earthrise - taken by Apollo 8 commander, Frank Borman, December 24, 1968. |
From: Lunar and Planetary Institute. (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_8/photography/)
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_8/images/A08camera.gif) Cameras and Accessories
The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses. For certain photographs of the lunar surface, a 60-millimeter lens with a reseau was used. Use of this lens and reseau is apparent in the views that show crosslike fiducial marks. For analytical purposes, black-and-white emulsions were determined to provide a higher degree of resolution and image clarity than the color emulsions; therefore, much of the photography is black-and-white.
The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless :PNot really. CGI generally refers to simulated images, not composites of real images.
The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless :PNot really. CGI generally refers to simulated images, not composites of real images.
It's more of a photoshopped composite image, like stitching together images to make a panorama.
The 1972 Apollo 17 Blue Marble, on the other hand, is an old school, film based photograph. No CGI. No composite.
@Coffercrisp
An interesting point about only the "best" being chosen; could it be that the people who determine who the best are could be looking for intelligent but gullible easily manipulated people who will not go against an already established hypothesis.
For example Einstein over Tesla
Einstein had theorys that nobody could verify.
Tesla had inventions people are still using today but Einstein was generally presented in my English education as being superior.
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx
Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.
Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.
Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.
However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.
Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx
Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.
Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.
Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.
However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.
Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.
I'm afraid little of what you state contains any facts whatsoever, s in your case no change required.
I'm afraid little of what you state contains any facts whatsoever, s in your case no change required.
Nice rebuttal....Guess the case is closed ::)
Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.
Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.
Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.
However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.
Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.
I sort of agree. Science done well, no, not a religion. Actual science adhered to by people with an unscientific mindset, kind of like a religion. But then again the same is true of everything.
The theoretical stuff? I cringe whenever I hear a scientist start to speculate about worm holes or string theory. Too much of that and you can go full Deepak Chopra.
Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion
If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles. Looks about right to me.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.
No, science is not a religion, as there is no central deity to worship. It we take a definition of religion as a starting point.....
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
....we can see that there is no way this can be applied to science as there is no controlling power or god.......so that in turn makes your opening statement patently false.
In regard to the rest of your post, it's so incoherent and full of meaningless ramblings that it does not merit a response.
Some people have said they have been abducted by aliens.And some people are retards, so they say science is a religion.
Some people have said they have seen God.
When people say things it doesn't mean they are true.This.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"
What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.
And some people are retards, so they say science is a religion.
Semantics
Science is only touted when convenient like many other things. However, if it doesn't align with a preconceived notion, agenda or group think it is rejected out right...Or some mathematical nonsensical rhetoric soup is used to attempt justification of an outcome. Even though the equations would never work in reality and completely bypasses the scientific method or even simple logic and observation itself.
I love unmolested true science, my livelihood and profession lives in it. I equally detest hypothetical, nonsensical science used by many sects, people with agenda, and group think.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"
What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.
Well, many people, not some. It is routine.
So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.
It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"
What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.
Well, many people, not some. It is routine.
So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.
It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.
I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm just not stupid or gullable enough.
How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.
How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?
How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?Because the oblateness is to subtle to be visible from space. However, the French Geodesic Mission set out to measure the oblateness in the 18th century.
More like you have no coherent response.No, it's more like you don't understand what you're arguing against.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"
What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.
Well, many people, not some. It is routine.
So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.
It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.
I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm just not stupid or gullable enough.
How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.
No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.
How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?
True Science= Fantastic, helpful, gets fairly accurate "facts" etc..No wonder that this comes from a ME ::)
Hypothetical "science"= Fun, but not facts or science in the correct form. Though unfortunately this is the issue, it is spouted as absolute fact and nincompoops parrot the same sentiment. See above quote...
The latter is a religion, belief, or whatever you want to call it...Anything but science or fact.
Sorry kids
The pictures and images of earth Nasa have given us show a round planet not an oblate spheroid.How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?Because the oblateness is to subtle to be visible from space. However, the French Geodesic Mission set out to measure the oblateness in the 18th century.More like you have no coherent response.No, it's more like you don't understand what you're arguing against.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"
What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.
Well, many people, not some. It is routine.
So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.
It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.
I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm just not stupid or gullable enough.
How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.
No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.
How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?
You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
The pictures and images of earth Nasa have given us show a perfectly round planet not an oblate spheroid.How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?Because the oblateness is to subtle to be visible from space. However, the French Geodesic Mission set out to measure the oblateness in the 18th century.More like you have no coherent response.No, it's more like you don't understand what you're arguing against.
So you are saying the Earth is an oblate spheroid but you can't tell from the pictures ...?
Do Santa and the Tooth Fairy have anything to do with it?
I think they must have only Santa and the Tooth Fairys magic combined could make an oblate spheroid look like a perfect circle.
True Science= Fantastic, helpful, gets fairly accurate "facts" etc..No wonder that this comes from a ME ::)
Hypothetical "science"= Fun, but not facts or science in the correct form. Though unfortunately this is the issue, it is spouted as absolute fact and nincompoops parrot the same sentiment. See above quote...
The latter is a religion, belief, or whatever you want to call it...Anything but science or fact.
Sorry kids
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"
What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.
Well, many people, not some. It is routine.
So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.
It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.
I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm just not stupid or gullable enough.
How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.
No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.
How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?
You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
Yes, this is what "time dilation" stands for. That things happen slower. I do not know what "time itself goes slower" even means.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"
What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.
Well, many people, not some. It is routine.
So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.
It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.
I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm just not stupid or gullable enough.
How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.
No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.
How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?
You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
Yes, this is what "time dilation" stands for. That things happen slower. I do not know what "time itself goes slower" even means.
You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.
I will give some examples to help:
Using your religions logic.
I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.
Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.
I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.
Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.
A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.
So why do clocks go slower in airplanes?
True Science= Fantastic, helpful, gets fairly accurate "facts" etc..No wonder that this comes from a ME ::)
Hypothetical "science"= Fun, but not facts or science in the correct form. Though unfortunately this is the issue, it is spouted as absolute fact and nincompoops parrot the same sentiment. See above quote...
The latter is a religion, belief, or whatever you want to call it...Anything but science or fact.
Sorry kids
What because nonsense masquerading under the guise of "science" isn't welcome in my field?
You scientific fundamentalists are hard work.You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"
What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.
Well, many people, not some. It is routine.
So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.
It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.
I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm just not stupid or gullable enough.
How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.
No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.
How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?
You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
Yes, this is what "time dilation" stands for. That things happen slower. I do not know what "time itself goes slower" even means.
You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.
I will give some examples to help:
Using your religions logic.
I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.
Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.
I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.
Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.
A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.
So why do clocks go slower in airplanes? And why do they go exactly as much slower as the Lorentz equation predicts?
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"
What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.
Well, many people, not some. It is routine.
So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.
It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.
I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm just not stupid or gullable enough.
How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.
No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.
How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?
You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
Yes, this is what "time dilation" stands for. That things happen slower. I do not know what "time itself goes slower" even means.
You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.
I will give some examples to help:
Using your religions logic.
I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.
Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.
I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.
Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.
A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.
So why do clocks go slower in airplanes? And why do they go exactly as much slower as the Lorentz equation predicts?
It is irrelevant whether clocks slow down or not on a plane.
You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.
I will give some examples to help:
Using your religions logic.
I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.
Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.
I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.
Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.
A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.
Hope that helps
You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.
I will give some examples to help:
Using your religions logic.
I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.
Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.
I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.
Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.
A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.
Hope that helps
I don't accept the argument that RiF is making here, but I do think this is a rather clever post. I would like it if someone expounded a little more on why this line of reasoning is incorrect. (I know in my head, but I don't think I can articulate it well.)
Science was religion in all past of the world. But it was accepting the God. But updated fake/Darwinist science made [it a co-op] to real science. This is a religion too but denying to the real science. It should be destroyed is an Emergency coded task.
Yes, funny how these things work out when you really look into it.If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles. Looks about right to me.
You did not show the math.
I guess you are using pythagoras equation.
0.94185 ° (this is half your 1.88 °).
3975 miles is the radius of the Earth.
3975 miles / tan(0.94185 °) = 241,790 miles (Earth to the moon distance)
Or in metric:
6400 km is the radius of the Earth.
6400 km / tan(0.94185 °) = 389,297 km (Earth to the moon distance)
Where do you draw the line between true science and hypothetical science?
Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible..
Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible..
(http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-049.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/skype-emoticons.html)
Yes, Babybrain. Tell us all about it.
It is irrelevant whether clocks slow down or not on a plane.
It is irrelevant if someone has retro fitted a formula to support their nonsensical hypothesis.
Clocks only measure seconds and hours.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"
What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.
Well, many people, not some. It is routine.
So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.
It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.
I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm just not stupid or gullable enough.
How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.
No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.
How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?
You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
If this is what the people of your scientific religion call evidence or proof it is little wonder that millions of people don't believe in your religion.
I have never seen anything that would suggest time it self does exist it is just how we measure the passing of minutes hours days ect.
Nobody has ever travelled through time and nobody ever will.
Nobody has ever slowed time down or speeded time up and no one ever will.
I have no need to waste my "time"and learn about your nonsensical religion
Where do you draw the line between true science and hypothetical science?
Easy.. The scientific world I live in (and true science) is a simple method.
Example...I have an idea about a compact pressure fed turbo pump. I say it will flow 15k cfm at 8k psi... So I build this design and test it, either it works or it doesn't. If it works, I will continue testing it, if it does not, then I will see the failure, make changes, and test again.
I then will record all the stats of it, how much power it consumes, efficiency, heat soak etc etc etc.
This is science...Hard facts... It's binary, a simple yes or no.
Hypothetical science, origins, macro evolution, general relativity, string theory etc etc etc.
Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible, I am not touting it as fact. Nor do I call people ignorant for not thinking it is fact. I even find alot of plausibility in GE.
Simply this...I believe the higher power I have faith in is a fact. Hence the bolded word.. I can cite much circumstantial evidence for both a higher power, and the exact higher power I believe in...Though in the end, I am fully aware, despite whatever circumstantial evidence, it is a faith and a belief.
The issue I have with "hypothetical science" is all the yuppies cite "fact fact fact" "science science science" when it is neither.
Then call all who don't agree cavemen, simplitons, and morons.
When in reality it is "faith faith faith" "belief belief belief"..
Science is not "a superhuman controlling power" and in particular not "a personal God or gods".
religion
rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
"consumerism is the new religion"
Another scientific fundamentalist in denial.
How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?Yes, I have a very "coherent response" and it's even very relevant.
More like you have no coherent response.
Spherical Earth
The realization that the figure of the Earth is more accurately described as an ellipsoid dates to the 17th century, as described by Isaac Newton in Principia. In the early 19th century, the flattening of the earth ellipsoid was determined to be of the order of 1/300 (Delambre, Everest). The modern value as determined by the US DoD World Geodetic System since the 1960s is close to 1/298.25.
Try to look further than your own profession. Not everything is ME.Where do you draw the line between true science and hypothetical science?
Easy.. The scientific world I live in (and true science) is a simple method.
Example...I have an idea about a compact pressure fed turbo pump. I say it will flow 15k cfm at 8k psi... So I build this design and test it, either it works or it doesn't. If it works, I will continue testing it, if it does not, then I will see the failure, make changes, and test again.
I then will record all the stats of it, how much power it consumes, efficiency, heat soak etc etc etc.
This is science...Hard facts... It's binary, a simple yes or no.
Hypothetical science, origins, macro evolution, general relativity, string theory etc etc etc. Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible, I am not touting it as fact. Nor do I call people ignorant for not thinking it is fact. I even find alot of plausibility in GE.You know that a whole lot of chemistry/biology etc. is "hypothetical" to some degree, and they work with "models" that work in real life, but you do not know whether or not those really are true? Aditionally, those models or some "hard facts" we have nowdays started out as "hypothetical science" back in the days.
Hypothetical science, origins, macro evolution, general relativity, string theory etc etc etc. Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible, I am not touting it as fact. Nor do I call people ignorant for not thinking it is fact. I even find alot of plausibility in GE.I'm rather sure there is more evidence for GR, macro evolution etc than there is for a higher power. Because there is no evidence for a higher power.
Simply this...I believe the higher power I have faith in is a fact. Hence the bolded word.. I can cite much circumstantial evidence for both a higher power, and the exact higher power I believe in...Though in the end, I am fully aware, despite whatever circumstantial evidence, it is a faith and a belief.
The issue I have with "hypothetical science" is all the yuppies cite "fact fact fact" "science science science" when it is neither. Then call all who don't agree cavemen, simplitons, and morons.
When in reality it is "faith faith faith" "belief belief belief"..
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1In this post you asked for a coherent answer
How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?and I gave you a coherent answer in Re: Is Science the new Religion ? « Reply #86 on: May 22, 2017, 10:02:37 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70710.msg1912150#msg1912150)
More like you have no coherent response.
1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
8)Answer: Potential energy.
Number 8
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
8)
Number 8
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
how did you (or somebody else) measure that straight line?
please show us the source for the information about your claim.
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.
The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .Have you done so? Or are you just saying you could if you wanted to?
Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.
The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
I expected you to say it was a superior mirage or refraction.
No not yet.
NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining. However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.
Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.
The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
I expected you to say it was a superior mirage or refraction.
ok you than saw it yourself.
i can say i saw the effect of the earth curvature here in Canada when i view across Lake Ontario to Toronto and it match exactly the global earth.
how can we find out why it is different?
do you have any pictures or videos that supports your claim?
Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.
No, it cannot. I know that. Don't believe anything you see on youtube, just because you want to believe it.
Even at about 5 degrees Southern latitute, I could not see Polaris anymore.
Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.
No, it cannot. I know that. Don't believe anything you see on youtube, just because you want to believe it.
Even at about 5 degrees Southern latitute, I could not see Polaris anymore.
If you say so;do you wear spectacles ? what about polaris at the north pole how would that be possible on the heliocentric model?
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.
The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
I expected you to say it was a superior mirage or refraction.
ok you than saw it yourself.
i can say i saw the effect of the earth curvature here in Canada when i view across Lake Ontario to Toronto and it match exactly the global earth.
how can we find out why it is different?
do you have any pictures or videos that supports your claim?
I could link a video of Chicago visable from the other side of Lake michigan .
I think its better people verify things for themselves if you want to see it just Google it.
Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.
No, it cannot. I know that. Don't believe anything you see on youtube, just because you want to believe it.
Even at about 5 degrees Southern latitute, I could not see Polaris anymore.
If you say so;do you wear spectacles ? what about polaris at the north pole how would that be possible on the heliocentric model?
The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .Have you done so? Or are you just saying you could if you wanted to?
No not yet.
NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining.
However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.
Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated [about 3/4 degree from] directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere [south of about 1° south latitude]. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent.
Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.
If the earth is orbiting the sunDid you ever visit school? Are you trolling?
and the sun with our solar system is moving through our galaxy how is it possible for Polaris to be above the north pole constant when it is meant to be so far away it doesn't even change from summer to winter and where meant to be on opposite sides of the sun.
There are many videos online that show most of the stars orbiting around the north pole on the geocentric model there is an image of the above in this link.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
On the geocentric model the stars orbit the earth ( un logo )polaris stays above magnetic north (centre) so from the equater it would appear to be on the horizon on the geocentric model also.
I do not believe anything I have not verified for myself (As I'm not religious)
I'm interested in both geocentric and heliocentric models.
If the earth is orbiting the sun
and the sun with our solar system is moving through our galaxy how is it possible for Polaris to be above the north pole constant when it is meant to be so far away it doesn't even change from summer to winter and where meant to be on opposite sides of the sun.
I do not believe anything I have not verified for myself (As I'm not religious)
So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?
That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.
Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?
That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.
Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.
Lol...Canadabear, you and those like you speak as those in a cult.
It's funny at times,
Annoying others,
As well as disturbing on top of that...
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.
The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
I expected you to say it was a superior mirage or refraction.
Lol...Canadabear, you and those like you speak as those in a cult.
Lol...Canadabear, you and those like you speak as those in a cult.
It's funny at times,
Annoying others,
As well as disturbing on top of that...
I think you are more a member of a cult.
The only cult I follow is that I like to see evidence for claims that somebody makes.
As I saw from you posts on threads here you are a member of the cult to believe in a idea without any evidence.
Lol...Canadabear, you and those like you speak as those in a cult.
I suppose to the ignorant or uneducated, science can seem like a cult. It has it's own laws and jargon.
With research and critical thinking, avoiding the "conclusions" of researchers in such hypothetical rhetoric, and studying just the data... You learn how weak the house of cards really is (5 percent science, 95 percent conclusion of whatever the agenda/group think postulates).. Simply group think and agenda. However I can say the exact same with organized religion. You actually study the source material (speaking of Christianity), you understand most churches are simply a business, following the greed and power manual and not the source the belief is based off of.
Interesting point here.
Would you mind deliver some examples? Does this apply to all parts of science?
What is if something (e.g. medication) works, but the working mechanisms are not understood very well? Is it science?
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?
That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.
Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.
You are wrong.
The position of the stars are changing.
The easiest way to find out is that you check the star constellations of the 12 signs of zodiac. They do not anymore match up with the original dates.
The universe is expanding since billions of years. You can only look at a timeframe of a few years. You are simply not able to see the change.
Its like you look at a tree only for one day. You also do not see that the tree grows. But if you look over a time of 10 years you can clearly see it.
Real science there is no room for opinions, group think, personal feelings or anyone's agenda. It's binary, either a yes or no, it works or it doesn't..Doesn't matter how you feel about it or what you wanted/needed.
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?
That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.
Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.
You are wrong.
The position of the stars are changing.
The easiest way to find out is that you check the star constellations of the 12 signs of zodiac. They do not anymore match up with the original dates.
The universe is expanding since billions of years. You can only look at a timeframe of a few years. You are simply not able to see the change.
Its like you look at a tree only for one day. You also do not see that the tree grows. But if you look over a time of 10 years you can clearly see it.
So the Stars are close enough to appear to move right through the sky on a twenty four hour revolution but far enough away for us to have seen the same constellations for thousands of years even though all the stars are at vastly different distances from the earth they all follow us through the galaxy ?
If this is the case there must be lots of stars that will be different depending on the time of year as we would be differect sides of the sun as we are told space is three dimensional not just above us.
Can you reference any of these stars so I can verify myself as I'm not religous I don't have the faith to believe it.
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?
That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.
Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.
You are wrong.
The position of the stars are changing.
The easiest way to find out is that you check the star constellations of the 12 signs of zodiac. They do not anymore match up with the original dates.
The universe is expanding since billions of years. You can only look at a timeframe of a few years. You are simply not able to see the change.
Its like you look at a tree only for one day. You also do not see that the tree grows. But if you look over a time of 10 years you can clearly see it.
So the Stars are close enough to appear to move right through the sky on a twenty four hour revolution but far enough away for us to have seen the same constellations for thousands of years even though all the stars are at vastly different distances from the earth they all follow us through the galaxy ?
If this is the case there must be lots of stars that will be different depending on the time of year as we would be differect sides of the sun as we are told space is three dimensional not just above us.
Can you reference any of these stars so I can verify myself as I'm not religous I don't have the faith to believe it.
You want to know about Stars?
Why not start here:-
http://www.space.com/33544-million-galaxies-dot-huge-3d-map.html
Haven't got time just wanted a few references I could verify myself. To be honest the flat earth model for stars seems to work better than the heliocentric one.Really?
Haven't got time just wanted a few references I could verify myself. To be honest the flat earth model for stars seems to work better than the heliocentric one.
If the earth is orbiting the sunNo problem at all - the stars are a very great distance away!
and the sun with our solar system is moving through our galaxy how is it possible for Polaris to be above the north pole constant when it is meant to be so far away it doesn't even change from summer to winter and where meant to be on opposite sides of the sun.
There are many videos online that show most of the stars orbiting around the north pole on the geocentric model there is an image of the above in this link.Rebuttals and Refutations, 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball Refutations (http://the-uncredibles.tumblr.com/200proofs)
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
On the geocentric model the stars orbit the earth (un logo) polaris stays above magnetic north (centre) so from the equater it would appear to be on the horizon on the geocentric model also.You state, "polaris stays above magnetic north".
I do not believe anything I have not verified for myself (As I'm not religious)
I'm interested in both geocentric and heliocentric models.
Published on Jan 24, 2016And here is a very short one taken a few days ago:
Time-lapse and star trail video's compiled into a movie - each clip contains around 500 stills rendered using LightRoom and StarStax. The images were taken in summer on the Island of Guernsey UK for the Northern Hemisphere, and the Warrumbungle Ranges near Siding Springs Australia for the Southern Hemisphere.
Haven't got time just wanted a few references I could verify myself. To be honest the flat earth model for stars seems to work better than the heliocentric one.See, that's your problem. You're in too much of a hurry. The quest for knowledge and understanding takes time.
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.the stars that we can see change over the year. look for example the sign of Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)
If the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .and if you learn a little bit about astronomy you see that is that way
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.
On the geocentric centric model we are told there are apparently three north east and south I'm only able to verify the north with their model (our stars rotate around magnetic north)and from what I have seen it works.
This is a flat earth forum so it is the place to post views and opinions and theorys that go against establishment that people of the science religion would consider shit.
You obviously have never done any "real" science, opinions are everywhere and fought over like you wouldn't believe, like it or not, everyone has an agenda and personal feelings. What matters in the end is evidence and experiment, often it's never binary, it's a question of the degree of understanding all the real world variables, like did you account for temperature gradient when you measured the earth's curvature by seeing if you could see a 66 ft high lighthouse from 30 miles away.
Scientific debate is the foundation on which "real science" is built. Dumb, unsupported ideas don't last very long.
To argue that everything is either black or white, is to miss the point. It's not a case of it works or doesn't, it's a case of why did it work, or why didn't it work. Big difference.
The start of the 'true science' method is part of the 'true science' too, no?
No fucking shit everything has to start with an idea, opinion etc etc etc...However, these are not facts (or as close as we can know in our reality) until processed through true scientific method.
Dumb unsupported ideas do stay in science because of group think
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?
That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.
Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.
You are wrong.
The position of the stars are changing.
The easiest way to find out is that you check the star constellations of the 12 signs of zodiac. They do not anymore match up with the original dates.
The universe is expanding since billions of years. You can only look at a timeframe of a few years. You are simply not able to see the change.
Its like you look at a tree only for one day. You also do not see that the tree grows. But if you look over a time of 10 years you can clearly see it.
So the Stars are close enough to appear to move right through the sky on a twenty four hour revolution but far enough away for us to have seen the same constellations for thousands of years even though all the stars are at vastly different distances from the earth they all follow us through the galaxy ?
If this is the case there must be lots of stars that will be different depending on the time of year as we would be differect sides of the sun as we are told space is three dimensional not just above us.
Can you reference any of these stars so I can verify myself as I'm not religous I don't have the faith to believe it.
You want to know about Stars?
Why not start here:-
http://www.space.com/33544-million-galaxies-dot-huge-3d-map.html
Haven't got time just wanted a few references I could verify myself. To be honest the flat earth model for stars seems to work better than the heliocentric one.
[/quote
thats one reference I gave you, not enough time, time for what?....to be honest the flat earth thinking on starts is a heap of cow pat.....its not clever and its not true as it neither fits with the evidence or with anything approaching reality.
The start of the 'true science' method is part of the 'true science' too, no?
Science can create nothing, true science simply verify thoughts and ideas to see if they are reality or not. To weed out the dreams from reality.That's the biggest bullshit I have heard so far from you.
You obviously have never done any "real" science, opinions are everywhere and fought over like you wouldn't believe, like it or not, everyone has an agenda and personal feelings. What matters in the end is evidence and experiment, often it's never binary, it's a question of the degree of understanding all the real world variables, like did you account for temperature gradient when you measured the earth's curvature by seeing if you could see a 66 ft high lighthouse from 30 miles away.
Scientific debate is the foundation on which "real science" is built. Dumb, unsupported ideas don't last very long.
To argue that everything is either black or white, is to miss the point. It's not a case of it works or doesn't, it's a case of why did it work, or why didn't it work. Big difference.
Semantics again as always, your M.O. will never change will it?
No fucking shit everything has to start with an idea, opinion etc etc etc...However, these are not facts (or as close as we can know in our reality) until processed through true scientific method.
Dumb unsupported ideas do stay in science because of group think
it starts with an idea and than there will be done experiments to confirm that idea.
these experiments will show if the idea is working.
this is been done since hundreds of years.
We can see from these experiments the shape of the earth.
all experiments show that the earth is a globe.
nobody ever showed a experiment that proved that the earth is flat.
there are a few (always mentioned here) experiment that seem to show a flat earth, but i saw them all disproved.
alone that there are a lot of different Flat Earth Models exist, shows that there is no prove for that idea.
almost for each problem exist a FE-Model but each one does not work always.
Science can create nothing, true science simply verify thoughts and ideas to see if they are reality or not. To weed out the dreams from reality.That's the biggest bullshit I have heard so far from you.
Just think about it, and please, stop being so ME narrow minded...
it starts with an idea and than there will be done experiments to confirm that idea.
these experiments will show if the idea is working.
this is been done since hundreds of years.
We can see from these experiments the shape of the earth.
all experiments show that the earth is a globe.
nobody ever showed a experiment that proved that the earth is flat.
there are a few (always mentioned here) experiment that seem to show a flat earth, but i saw them all disproved.
alone that there are a lot of different Flat Earth Models exist, shows that there is no prove for that idea.
almost for each problem exist a FE-Model but each one does not work always.
I am not arguing F.E. or anything specific. Simply debating the correct use of science as well as how it is abused by certain sects.Science can create nothing, true science simply verify thoughts and ideas to see if they are reality or not. To weed out the dreams from reality.That's the biggest bullshit I have heard so far from you.
Just think about it, and please, stop being so ME narrow minded...
Lmao...So I state a simple fact of science and you say it is bullshit? Very telling indeed.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with what I said, it really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true... Scientific method is simply a method for testing ideas/hypothesis or whatever you want to call them. See if they work in reality or not. If it works, we keep it, if it doesn't it gets written off or reworked to try again.
I am sorry, science is not a god user lmao.... You crack me up and frighten me all at once sometimes.
it really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true...First: If you call your statements "true", it doesn't make you sound smart, but sound like Trump.
the correct use of science?
it is simple:
the correct use of science is to perform experiments that are repeatable an deliver a clear result.
I hit quote, but nothing showed..Very telling.
it really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true...First: If you call your statements "true", it doesn't make you sound smart, but sound like Trump.
Anyway, just one example of science creating something:
I present you Crispr/Cas9
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpeqvD6kIZhGb2ur6vmGR4OpHmC-15KhH15rU4QKFFyBTZqcAp4w)
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.the stars that we can see change over the year. look for example the sign of Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)QuoteIf the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .and if you learn a little bit about astronomy you see that is that way
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.QuoteOn the geocentric centric model we are told there are apparently three north east and south I'm only able to verify the north with their model (our stars rotate around magnetic north)and from what I have seen it works.
it does not work for southern hemisphere, look up how the stars movement looks on the southern hemisphere and how it would look like in the Flat Earth ModelQuote
This is a flat earth forum so it is the place to post views and opinions and theorys that go against establishment that people of the science religion would consider shit.
i think more this is a place where the Flat Earth Idea can be discussed and the claims for the FEI can be tested.
I hit quote, but nothing showed..Very telling.
For some people, simple things are difficult. Let me help you:Quoteit really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true...First: If you call your statements "true", it doesn't make you sound smart, but sound like Trump.
Anyway, just one example of science creating something:
I present you Crispr/Cas9
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpeqvD6kIZhGb2ur6vmGR4OpHmC-15KhH15rU4QKFFyBTZqcAp4w)
LMFAO!! You are right...Things are hard sometimes..Please look up sarcasm ha ha ha..
You worry me ever so much
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.the stars that we can see change over the year. look for example the sign of Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)QuoteIf the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .and if you learn a little bit about astronomy you see that is that way
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.QuoteOn the geocentric centric model we are told there are apparently three north east and south I'm only able to verify the north with their model (our stars rotate around magnetic north)and from what I have seen it works.
it does not work for southern hemisphere, look up how the stars movement looks on the southern hemisphere and how it would look like in the Flat Earth ModelQuote
This is a flat earth forum so it is the place to post views and opinions and theorys that go against establishment that people of the science religion would consider shit.
i think more this is a place where the Flat Earth Idea can be discussed and the claims for the FEI can be tested.
Thank you for your help.
Can you please explain why polaris in the north and the southern cross in the south stay constant above the so called poles all year round when the earth tilts 23.5 degrees between summer and winter. (It was 23.5 degrees when I was at school I'm sure you will correct me if that's wrong)
Got the information from link below.
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/north-star-movement
I hit quote, but nothing showed..Very telling.
For some people, simple things are difficult. Let me help you:Quoteit really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true...First: If you call your statements "true", it doesn't make you sound smart, but sound like Trump.
Anyway, just one example of science creating something:
I present you Crispr/Cas9
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpeqvD6kIZhGb2ur6vmGR4OpHmC-15KhH15rU4QKFFyBTZqcAp4w)
LMFAO!! You are right...Things are hard sometimes..Please look up sarcasm ha ha ha..
You worry me ever so much
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.
If the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.the stars that we can see change over the year. look for example the sign of Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)QuoteIf the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .and if you learn a little bit about astronomy you see that is that way
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.QuoteOn the geocentric centric model we are told there are apparently three north east and south I'm only able to verify the north with their model (our stars rotate around magnetic north)and from what I have seen it works.
it does not work for southern hemisphere, look up how the stars movement looks on the southern hemisphere and how it would look like in the Flat Earth ModelQuote
This is a flat earth forum so it is the place to post views and opinions and theorys that go against establishment that people of the science religion would consider shit.
i think more this is a place where the Flat Earth Idea can be discussed and the claims for the FEI can be tested.
Thank you for your help.
Can you please explain why polaris in the north and the southern cross in the south stay constant above the so called poles all year round when the earth tilts 23.5 degrees between summer and winter. (It was 23.5 degrees when I was at school I'm sure you will correct me if that's wrong)
Got the information from link below.
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/north-star-movement
simple, the tilt does change in view of the plane that represent the circulation of the earth around the sun. the rotational axis of the earth points always in direction of polaris and appr. the southern cross.
i suggest you should take a basic course of astronomy, that will help you understand this topic. you should than also be able to use a observation telescope and see the planets closer and see the structure of the moon surface.
BTW: as you already mention the southern cross, how do you explain that the southern cross does not move (or better say only a little) if the stars all circle the north pole?
I don't have the faith to beleve that.
I don't have the faith to beleve that.
...
Ladies and gentleman...there is no truth in science.
...
with you FEIB it is sometime not easy to decide if you are serious, joking or being sarcastic.
...
Ladies and gentleman...there is no truth in science.
...
Maybe in your eyes you can not see the truth of the science, but that does not mean that is really that way.
You simply do not understand science.
But that is not your fault, it's like that animals can not talk, they simply do not have the ability for that.
I don't have the faith to beleve that.
with you FEIB it is sometime not easy to decide if you are serious, joking or being sarcastic.
I will keep this in mind moving forward.
I have a dry sense of humor in real life, prob even worse through text.
What is FEIB?...
Ladies and gentleman...there is no truth in science.
...
Maybe in your eyes you can not see the truth of the science, but that does not mean that is really that way.
You simply do not understand science.
But that is not your fault, it's like that animals can not talk, they simply do not have the ability for that.
Don't be snotty Canadabear...Thought Canadians are supposed to be well mannered and polite?
FEIB = Flat Earth Idea Believer
And again you made an assumption without any knowledge:
Yes Canadian are well mannered and polite, but I may live in Canada but I am not an Canadian. I am a German, and you may know what that means ;D
FEIB = Flat Earth Idea BelieverYou are too polite! A better definition might be: "FEIB = Flat Earth Idiocy Believer".
I am a German, and you may know what that means ;D
What a rant!!
You're wellcome to give your point of view....always in for some new understanding !What a rant!!
That was a hell of a rant Dutchy...Though many things I agree with, a few I don't.
I have no problem with eating meat...But the animal cannot be miserable while alive or killed inhumanely. This is why I don't buy 1.99 per pound chicken from pilgrims pride...I buy 13 dollar a pound from a farm 70 miles from me, I have visited there, they damn near pet all the animals there. Completely free range and allowed to do what they do. Modern animal presses are disgusting, if that is all there was, I would be a vegi as well.I agree completely. I have nothing against certain animal consumption, but the way the bio industry has taken cruelty to a whole new level.
Although I agree with the wealth redistribution system being absurd (actually an understatement)...IQ is not the main factor...It may come into play a bit. The main thing is work ethics and drive.What i meant is that some people are just smart enough to work on the fields or operate very straightforward machines in a factory.
Someone with a 200 iq is useless if they do nothing with it besides sit on their ass. I know many people, and friends with a few that are not that smart. However, they figured out they did one thing well, and we're smart enough to focus on that..Then they had the drive to exploit it, in return have done very well for themselves.
Of course, if someone has the drive AND the brains they will be a powerful double threat, but it is never just the IQ.
Other than that, well said.
Of course, if someone has the drive AND the brains they will be a powerful double threat, but it is never just the IQ.
I have no problem with eating meat...But the animal cannot be miserable while alive or killed inhumanely.
If an animal lives a happy care free life, fed and looked after well and then goes to sleep one day and never wakes up. That's my ideal way to treat an animal you would consume.I do not think personal preference (eating meat) suffices to justify killing a happy animal.
Well, it can thank its very existence at all because we placed a value on its meat.And then again, if we started to breed human slaves, children for pedophiles etc, would that be okay because their very existance is because we placed value on their (place anything here)?
I don't have the faith to beleve that.
Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.
Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:
(http://i.imgur.com/WbNWLCk.png)
Exactly what is the problem with that explaination?I don't have the faith to beleve that.
Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.
Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:
(http://i.imgur.com/WbNWLCk.png)
http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html
It is impossible for our so called poles to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day towards the sun as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles.
It takes faith and religion to believe the impossible or stupidity and nievity.
This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.I'm got to tell you that "this aspect of your model" does work perfectly thank you. Your not understanding it changes nothing.
I don't have the faith to beleve that.
Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.
Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:
(http://i.imgur.com/WbNWLCk.png)
http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html
It is impossible for our so called poles to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences towards the sun as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.
It takes faith and religion to believe the impossible or stupidity and nievity.
This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.
I don't have the faith to beleve that.
Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.
Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:
(http://i.imgur.com/WbNWLCk.png)
http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html
It is impossible for our so called poles to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences towards the sun as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.
It takes faith and religion to believe the impossible or stupidity and nievity.
This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.
...
Just looking at the way people view Bill Nye is hilarious.The dude talks about stuff like thats his specific field of study
Nope. Some humans have the ability to draw a line somewhere. Others (perhaps yourself) have trouble drawing a distinction.Looks like I found a raw point...
This was once 'alive' tooNot sure how deep you're into biology, but I guess you are aware of nerves and such basic stuff. So don't make yourself look like a clown.
(https://www.happycow.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/VeganSlaughterhouse-mini.jpg)
In fact, every fruit and vegetable you have eaten was once 'alive' until you picked it. Get over it.
Are you seriously having guilt about being on top of the food chain? No one here advocates treating lesser animal lives like shit.Isn't that exactely whats happening? Isnt killing something "treating it like shit"?
You are alive today because every day, something has died to sustain you.So what? How is that even an argument?
Where the actual f#&k do you draw the line?I'm not vegan myself because of multiple reasons. But at least I'm not as delusional and ignorant to tell myself it would not be better if I was vegan...
It is impossible for our so called poles to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences towards the sun as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.
It takes faith and religion to believe the impossible or stupidity and nievity.
This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.
All we know is what we are shown.Yes, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion", but how many of those aspects really affect our own lives.
I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.
We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
or we apply heat to water and it boils.
When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is Science the new religion ?
I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat?So, instead of actual arguments you now throw around wild allegations?
Or how about the Inuit who slaughter whales because in places like Greenland, it is literally one of the only sources of food for the humans throughout the winter. I oppose the Japanese travelling all the way to the Antarctic to slaughter whales because it is not necessary, but for some people, their survival depends on it.Didn't know you're an inuit that relys on that meat. My bad then.
But to take a moral high ground that even the best treated animal that ends up slaughtered in a painless and stressless way is barbaric and treating it like shit is ludicrous, absurd and the height of hypocrisy demonstrating you are just a 'keyboard warrior'.How is any slaugthering justified by what happened before it? How is that an argument?
Also Veganism takes their philosophy to the extreme where any product coming from an animal is shunned. So the guy who has some backyard chickens that looks after them well and caters to their every desire but eats their unfertilised eggs (essentially chicken periods lol) is a cruel bastard. They do not even allow a symbiotic relationship with animals.Egg-producing industry has way more issues, I don't think a vegan would have a problem with your described scenario.
I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat?So, instead of actual arguments you now throw around wild allegations?
And no, I obviously don't support either of those points.
Or how about the Inuit who slaughter whales because in places like Greenland, it is literally one of the only sources of food for the humans throughout the winter. I oppose the Japanese travelling all the way to the Antarctic to slaughter whales because it is not necessary, but for some people, their survival depends on it.Didn't know you're an inuit that relys on that meat. My bad then.
But to take a moral high ground that even the best treated animal that ends up slaughtered in a painless and stressless way is barbaric and treating it like shit is ludicrous, absurd and the height of hypocrisy demonstrating you are just a 'keyboard warrior'.How is any slaugthering justified by what happened before it? How is that an argument?
Why/how am I a hypocrite "keyboard warrior"?
Also Veganism takes their philosophy to the extreme where any product coming from an animal is shunned. So the guy who has some backyard chickens that looks after them well and caters to their every desire but eats their unfertilised eggs (essentially chicken periods lol) is a cruel bastard. They do not even allow a symbiotic relationship with animals.Egg-producing industry has way more issues, I don't think a vegan would have a problem with your described scenario.
Also it's bad to take "best case scenario" which occurs in probably <0.01% of all cases to defend everything else.
Get a pet-rabbit... ;)I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat?So, instead of actual arguments you now throw around wild allegations?
And no, I obviously don't support either of those points.
So where do you stand on the issue then.
I'm not an Inuit but I wouldn't support vegans pushing their ideology onto a culture and people that would starve to death following their way. Not everybody on Earth is blessed with living in a 1st world country with plentiful farming land. I refuse to call people like them who are trying to survive an 'arsehole' for killing a wild animal for instance, however I would gladly call the Japanese whalers arseholes because they do not kill for survival.Thing is: Me and you, we do not need to eat meat for survival.
Because on one hand, you eat meat/animal products, and on the other, push a twisted ideology that no matter how well an animal would be treated, there is no justification to kill it for food. If you want to push a left wing SJW narrative, at least follow the script.I don't eat meat but I'm not vegan either. I have multiple reasons not to be vegan, (at least one of them being egoistic) but I think vegans deserve respect and everyone that is not vegan, should at least be aware of what it means and causes to eat meat and animal products.
We have the capacity for empathy. If you have it, you are hardly an arsehole.That's a bad argument. Just because you have empathy doesn't make you a good person in any way. If a rapist feels bad afterwards and has empathy for his victim he is still an asshole.
Actually, veganism does have a huge problem with this [eggs] and certainly wont eat it. They will not touch it. Groups like PETA would still say it is cruel.As far as I know their problem with eggs is that male chickens get killed after birth because they are "useless", plus the henns have generally very low amount of space (even when they're biological eggs).
Humans are omnivorous. Certainly we can survive on a plant only diet but if you wish the best of health, you need to have a balanced diet which includes animal products.I suggest you look into the science of whether we are, from an anotomy perspective, omnivores or herbivorers.
This thread started out with the post:All we know is what we are shown.Yes, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion", but how many of those aspects really affect our own lives.
I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.
We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
or we apply heat to water and it boils.
When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is Science the new religion ?
A test I give is whether it is consistent with what I can observe and with what I know already.
Some things, like "two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away" might not be inconsistent, but I have no way of proving or disproving it.
My reaction here is to "file it away under interesting", but since it has no effect on my life, leave it at that.
Other things, and I include the shape of the earth, do have more effect on how I think of the world and interpret my surroundings.
When it comes to the shape of the earth, it does affect how I see things, so I ask myself whether the shape I believe fits with my own personal observations, without my having to make up outlandish explanations.
So far, my personal observations might not prove that the earth is a Globe with a distant sun, but they are quite consistent with that.
Now there is a tremendous lot more evidence that I cannot personally verify. Much of that evidence comes from astronomy.
Now I am not even an amateur astronomer, but there are thousands of amateur astronomers all over the earth and they write of their findings and those would simply be meaningless on a flat earth.
But there are some simple aspects of astronomy, such as the movement and appearance of the sun, moon and closer planets that we can easily observe. Now we might no make measurements of our own, but we can all see simple things like sunrise and sunset times and even directions. And even things like observing that at present the planet Jupiter shows very brightly around 9 pm.
This looks about right according to "Time and Date, Astronomy, night Australia, Brisbane (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/australia/brisbane)".
In other words, what I observe fits the Globe model and does not fit any flat earth model.
So, I do not agree that "All we know is what we are shown." We can observe a lot ourselves, and see if is consistent with what we are told.
Though, as I said before, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion" and it is up to you what you do there.
But, to ridicule anything that you cannot understand is childish behaviour.
All we know is what we are shown.Yes, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion", but how many of those aspects really affect our own lives.
I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.
We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
or we apply heat to water and it boils.
When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is Science the new religion ?
The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.
It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.
It is obvious I'm no astrologer but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.
So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.
The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.
Are you sure about this?It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.
Are you sure about this?It is obvious I'm no astrologer but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.
Are you sure about this?So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.
I suggest you properly research the things you've claimed above. Then come back and reconsider this statement.
I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider
[That's not a bad argument trouble is the globe model does not fit with what can be observed I have never seen any curvature.Sorry, what you mean is "the globe model does not fit with what" Resistance.is.Futile and other flat earthers interpret from what "can be observed".
There are many real pictures of landmarks that should be beyond the horizon and we are told that it must be a superior mirage or refraction.Please show your "many real pictures of landmarks that should be beyond the horizon" with distance and height of the camera.
If the sun was 92 million miles away it wouldn't change size during the alleged rotatation of the earth.No, you are completely incorrect there. When the sun is very bright and overhead, most of the apparent size is simply "glare".
The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.
It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgo9jn039gitosj/20160711%20-%20Sun%20%2009.30%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5uz5udkvnj8rxd4/20160711%20-%20Sun%2012.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/xsvlg3ot95fmmf6/20160711%20-%20Sun%2015.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/641s6jyn4mdv9f9/20160711%20-%20Sun%2017.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxfxxibtutm20k3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1) |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc7fzmu0wkihken/1%20-%2020160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%206.3deg%20Az%20107.7deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (1) Date: May 24, 2016 19:36 EAST Alt 6.3°, Az 107.7°, size 0.52° | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws9n0fu8n6oovcc/2%20-%2020160524%2020.16%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2014.5deg%20Az%20103.6deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (2) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:16 EAST Alt 14.5°, Az 103.6°, size 0.52° | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ak5kitli48uvq8a/3%20-%2020160524%2020.57%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2023.1deg%20Az%20%2099.6deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (3) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:57 EAST Alt 23.1°, Az 99.6°, size 0.52° | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ftubx50otw1fvw5/4%20-%2020160525%2006.46%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2026.5deg%20Az%20%20262.1deg%20%20size%20%200.50deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (4) Date: May 25, 2016 at 06:46 EAST Alt 26.5°, Az 262.1°, size 0.50° |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/623ac3d252yu5qa/5%20-%2020160524%2022.16%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2037.8deg%20Az%20%2092.7deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (5) Date: May 24, 2016 at 22:16 EAST Alt 37.8°, Az 92.7°, size 0.52° | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/38tz2dkno9tq10u/6%20-%2020160621%2023.12%20-%20Strawberry%20Moon1%20-%20at%20Alt%2067.1deg%20Azm%2070.8deg%20%20size%20%200.53deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (6)Date: June 21, 2016 at 23:12 EAST Day after Strawberry Moon at Alt 67.1°, Azm 70.8°, size 0.53° | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/t6bpqw0n0xpmgsh/7%20-%2020160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (7) Date: May 19, 2016 at 22:08 EAST Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°, size 0.52° | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/27roefdgd2ogld0/8%20-%2020160620%2023.38%20-%20Strawberry%20Full%20Moon%20-%20at%20Alt%2080.2deg%20Azm%2023.4deg%20%20size%20%200.52xdeg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1) (8)Date: June 20, 2016 at 23:38 EAST Strawberry Full Moon at Alt 80.2°, Azm 23.4°, size 0.52x° |
It is obvious I'm noIn the northern hemisphere, you will see the stars in the north all year around, though, except for Polaris, their positions change,astrologerastronomer (big difference) but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.
So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.No, it is in fact your misunderstanding of the heliocentric model that doesn't fit your own observations.
Most sceptics are ordinary people who look at the alternative models in the little spare time they have so it is hardly surprising that they don't have all the answers on there favoured model as the heliocentric's do .Yes, "It all comes down to what you want to believe personally", but the earth is a certain shape and neither your nor my belief can change that.
It all comes down to what you want to believe personally it wouldn't bother me if someone believed the earth was square shaped which leads to the deeper and darker question of why are people so bothered what other people choose to believe which just gives ammunition to the alleged conspiracy.
No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.That is what bugs me so much with so many flat earthers.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/lgk7p91e4nr7wg7/Flat%20Earth%20Ice-wall%20map.png?dl=1) FE Ice Wall Map - North Pole centred AEP | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5110wqptw5dnq1s/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272.png?dl=1) FE Bipolar Map - (0°, 0°) centred AEP | (http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/017/494/original/flat-earth-map-02.jpg) 1893 map by Orlando Ferguson. Credit: Don Homuth |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5x9b1gq3l18h1u9/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1) Map Northern Hemiplane, DET | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ys43mw3xhg6xgor/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1) Map Southern Hemiplane | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pyviizp8ta99mui/Sandokhan%27s%20True%20Flat%20Earth%20Map.png?dl=1) Sandokhan "True" Flat Earth Map |
No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.That is what bugs me so much with so many flat earthers.They claim to know "THE TRUTH" and claim that everybody else is lying to them.And I have been accused of being a liar and a deceiver for simply giving evidence that
the earth is a Globe and has always been a Globe,
that the Globe has been the accepted shape of the earth for a couple of millennia and
no-one has come up with credible evidence that it is not a Globe.
And it is worse than that,you claim that the earth is not a Globe, yet, you do not have any credible alternate model.It seems like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
Flat earthers cannot decide even on the basic continental layout of the earth, all they seem to agree on is:The earth is Flat!So, does the continental layout of your flat earth look like any of these?Or maybe your flat earth looks like one of these?
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20co-ords_zpssfzmbeef.jpg)
FE Ice Wall Map - North Pole centred AEP (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272_zpsfub8glzp.png)
FE Bipolar Map - (0°, 0°) centred AEP (http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/017/494/original/flat-earth-map-02.jpg)
1893 map by Orlando Ferguson.
Credit: Don Homuth
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane_zpsbbjawftx.png)
Map Northern Hemiplane, DET (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane_zpsgjjzrxi4.png)
Map Southern Hemiplane (https://i.imgsafe.org/c943d47b7b.png)
;D ;D İntikam's, "New Map Suggest" ;D ;DAll of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.
And is "gravity" caused by:You say "Earth is flat. No amount of lies will change the mind of those who have realized the truth."
- Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
- Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
- Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
- Simple density as many seem to claim,
- Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
- Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
- İntikam's "atmosphere push".
- And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down.
Which of the almost unlimited possible flat-earths is "the truth."I venture to claim that you have not the faintest idea!
So until flat earthers can come up with some answers they should stop claiming that most people on earth are either lying or deceived.
No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.That is what bugs me so much with so many flat earthers.They claim to know "THE TRUTH" and claim that everybody else is lying to them.And I have been accused of being a liar and a deceiver for simply giving evidence that
the earth is a Globe and has always been a Globe,
that the Globe has been the accepted shape of the earth for a couple of millennia and
no-one has come up with credible evidence that it is not a Globe.
And it is worse than that,you claim that the earth is not a Globe, yet, you do not have any credible alternate model.It seems like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
Flat earthers cannot decide even on the basic continental layout of the earth, all they seem to agree on is:The earth is Flat!So, does the continental layout of your flat earth look like any of these?Or maybe your flat earth looks like one of these?
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20co-ords_zpssfzmbeef.jpg)
FE Ice Wall Map - North Pole centred AEP (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272_zpsfub8glzp.png)
FE Bipolar Map - (0°, 0°) centred AEP (http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/017/494/original/flat-earth-map-02.jpg)
1893 map by Orlando Ferguson.
Credit: Don Homuth
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane_zpsbbjawftx.png)
Map Northern Hemiplane, DET (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane_zpsgjjzrxi4.png)
Map Southern Hemiplane (https://i.imgsafe.org/c943d47b7b.png)
;D ;D İntikam's, "New Map Suggest" ;D ;DAll of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.
And is "gravity" caused by:You say "Earth is flat. No amount of lies will change the mind of those who have realized the truth."
- Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
- Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
- Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
- Simple density as many seem to claim,
- Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
- Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
- İntikam's "atmosphere push".
- And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down.
Which of the almost unlimited possible flat-earths is "the truth."I venture to claim that you have not the faintest idea!
So until flat earthers can come up with some answers they should stop claiming that most people on earth are either lying or deceived.
The point I'm making is why should we dismiss our own observations and take the word of someone else ?
One of your colleagues was implying my observations where incorrect when they are not anyone can check that for themselves.
The flght paths don't make sense on the heliocentric modelthey seem to go the long way round.
We are then told that there is not the financial insentive for direct flights which is possible but hard to believe.
When you look at the flight path software planes just dissappear in the southern hemisphere .
When we look at all the contradictions regarding the southern hemisphere it is obvious something is "up" with their heliocentric model.
Just because your model doesn't reflect reality or observation anyone that notices this must have a fully working flat model ?
Why must someone that noticed your model doesn't work have to have a fully working flat model ?
Why are you and your colleague's bothered what shape other people think the earth is this attitude on a flat earth forum gives ammunition to the alleged conspiracy.
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion.
Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed)
its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.
Humans are definitely not herbivores only. Way back in the day before civilisation how would we have survived?As far as I know humans were eating meat only every once in a while and the diet was mostly plant based. Nowdays it's like a 180° turn; lots of meat and a bit of everything else (at least where I live, I don't know about 3rd world countries).
And well cancer comes from over consumption of meats, especially processed meats full of sodium nitrate and meat that is overcooked and washed down with alcohol or soda. There is nothing unhealthy about incorporating a little meat or dairy like eggs and cheese etc in your diet.Have you studies to proof those claims?
If you see a piece of meat on the table and you acknowledge the sacrifice the animal(s) (involuntarily) made and you do not waste it, it is far less sadistic than a guy who may think 'sucked in' and toss half of it in the garbage bin.That was my point. You don't have to be vegan/vegetarien, but at least be aware of what it causes (and treat food respectfully).
Like it or not, humans place a higher value on humans than they do of lesser animals.Thanks, captain.
Would you rather buy an animal product that came from a farmer who cared about the welfare of his animals throughout their life? Or buy one from someone who abused the shit out of them and made them suffer a horrible death needlessly.... The end outcome is the same (death), but which one is more palatable for you to support?Which is more palatable for you to support, a murderer that tortures his victim first, or one that takes his victim on a romantic dinner first?
Society needs to change its standards and eating habits no question. Just that we can still eat meat and not be arseholes about it. Remember, there are now 7 billion people to feed. You cant expect they all turn vegan/vegetarian. Animals will still be bred and slaughtered for our survival.Obviously I don't expect that, but then again, if people ate at least fewer meat, there would also be more food available and lesser pollution (climate change).
As far as I know humans were eating meat only every once in a while and the diet was mostly plant based. Nowdays it's like a 180° turn; lots of meat and a bit of everything else (at least where I live, I don't know about 3rd world countries).
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion. Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed), its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.
From an evolutionary perspective, Hominids turned from a largely herbivore and fructivor habit as typical for primates (including the Australopithecines) to a hunting behaviour, and this is largely seen as having triggered the evolution of the human brain, because our brain needs much energy.But then again, lot's of meat eating animals/apes have a rather low developed brain (by our standards) and e.g. an elephant, (which is huuuuuge) has about 3 times as much neurons in his nervous system as we have. So it seems rather far-fetched to imply that our brain developement happened due to meat-eating?
But then again, lot's of meat eating animals/apes have a rather low developed brain (by our standards) and e.g. an elephant, (which is huuuuuge) has about 3 times as much neurons in his nervous system as we have. So it seems rather far-fetched to imply that our brain developement happened due to meat-eating?
I think it's more that we have developed one specific part (/few parts) of our brain (especially cerebral cortex) and not brain developement in general.
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion. Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed), its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.It seems strange that what you call the "dark ages" applies only to Europe, "The West", and even there it is a very inaccurate description.
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion. Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed), its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.
Well, obviously eating meat does not necessarily lead to bigger brains, nobody claims that. It just provides more energy in less time than eating plants. Also elephants are more than 3 times bigger than we, aren't they?So shouldn't they be 3 times as intelligent?
Yes, it is the growth of the cortex that is thought to have required a shift in our diet to proceed, because it is the part of our brain that needs so much energy.Do you have any sources for your claims?
Well, obviously eating meat does not necessarily lead to bigger brains, nobody claims that. It just provides more energy in less time than eating plants. Also elephants are more than 3 times bigger than we, aren't they?So shouldn't they be 3 times as intelligent?
By the way; the limiting factor of human brain size is, as far as I know, thought to be birth because bigger brain = harder birth due to larger skull.
Yes, it is the growth of the cortex that is thought to have required a shift in our diet to proceed, because it is the part of our brain that needs so much energy.Do you have any sources for your claims?
Anyway, whether eating meat was evolutionary required/beneficial for brain developement isn't an argument pro/contra meat eating anyway, because obviously nowdays we do no longer have problems with our energy managment (actually we do have, but in the other direction; just look at obesity rates...).All of your discussion seems to have been on energy requirements, but that has very little to do with the original need for meat, or at least animal products in the diet.
Essential and Non-Essential Amino AcidsEnergy requirements are easily ( :D too easily :D) supplied by carbohydrates found in (over) abundance in cereals, fruit and sugars.
Any time you consume protein, your body receives a source of amino acids. Your body uses combinations of 20 distinct amino acids to make up the protein in your cells. Dietary amino acids fall into two categories: non-essential amino acids, which your body can produce on its own, and essential amino acids, which your body cannot produce and therefore requires as part of your diet. Sources of protein that contain every essential amino acid are called complete proteins, while sources of protein deficient in one or more essential amino acids are incomplete proteins. Failure to eat enough of any essential amino acid prevents your body from making the protein it needs to function, leading to tissue breakdown.
Intake Recommendations
The specific amount of protein you need each day depends on your weight and activity level. Most people can calculate their required protein intake by multiplying their weight by 0.4, according to the Iowa State University Extension. For example, the average 150-pound individual would require 60 grams of protein daily. If you’re an athlete or you have a very active lifestyle, you might require more protein, up to 1.8 grams per pound. A registered dietitian can help you determine an appropriate protein intake, as well as design a diet plan to help you meet this goal.
Sources of Protein
If you follow a well-balanced and varied diet, you likely consume protein from a range of sources. Eggs, meat, dairy products, soy products and quinoa all represent sources of complete protein, while beans, lentils, nuts and whole grains contain incomplete protein. Eating a combination of foods to meet your daily protein intake helps ensure you’ll consume enough of each essential amino acid, especially if you consume some sources of complete protein. Choose lean proteins to limit your consumption of fat, and eat fatty sources of protein in moderation. Plant-based sources of protein typically contain little fat, or contain unsaturated fats that benefit your health. Fatty meats, like red meat, or full-fat dairy products contain significant amounts of saturated fat, which increases your risk of cardiovascular disease. Limit your intake of red meat, instead opting for leaner meats, such as skinless chicken or turkey breast.
From Why Are Proteins & Amino Acids Important to Life? (http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/proteins-amino-acids-important-life-2153.html)
No.Exactely, that's my point. Seems like there is no (/very low) correlation between herbi/carnivore, animal size and intellectual capacities. So, saying that eating meat "triggered the evolution of the human brain" seems a rather weak hypothesis. I'm not denying that it might have been a factor, but my guess would be it wasn't the main one, rather a part of lot's of circumstancial events & random happenings.
It is not "my claim", it is a neurological fact. You can easily verify that.I quickly googled and found no surces. I'd like to see sources for those claims:
Generally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
In summary, vegetarians have consistently shown to have lower risks for cardiometabolic outcomes and some cancers across all three prospective cohorts of Adventists. Beyond meatless diets, further avoidance of eggs and dairy products may offer a mild additional benefit. Compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets, vegan diets seem to provide some added protection against obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes; and cardiovascular mortality.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/
So animal products were certainly the easiest and most abundant source of protein and they provided all 20 amino acids necessary for life.It rather is a balance between carnivore/herbivore animals; too much carnivore animals leads to fewer herbivores which then again leads to fewer carnivores because they don't have food, which means herbivore animal populations can regrow and so on. It's not like it always was that you enter a shop and have your meat prepared for you...
As far as I have seen we would certainly be better off with less animal product in our diet and that would be better if it were the likes of fish and chicken and much less red meat.I agree.
.No.Exactely, that's my point. Seems like there is no (/very low) correlation between herbi/carnivore, animal size and intellectual capacities. So, saying that eating meat "triggered the evolution of the human brain" seems a rather weak hypothesis. I'm not denying that it might have been a factor, but my guess would be it wasn't the main one, rather a part of lot's of circumstancial events & random happenings.
It is not "my claim", it is a neurological fact. You can easily verify that.I quickly googled and found no surces. I'd like to see sources for those claims:
From an evolutionary perspective, Hominids turned from a largely herbivore and fructivor habit as typical for primates (including the Australopithecines) to a hunting behaviour, and this is largely seen as having triggered the evolution of the human brain, because our brain needs much energy.
Yes, it is the growth of the cortex that is thought to have required a shift in our diet to proceed, because it is the part of our brain that needs so much energy.
Lurk moar.So you don't want to provide sources.
Lurk moar.So you don't want to provide sources.
"Actually there is a certain correlation between carnivoric behaviour and intelligence" again is something that needs a source.
Hunting animals are usually more intelligent than their prey. That is a very trivial fact.Hunting: Recognize pray, hunt it, kill it, eat it.
I know that all because I am so smart. My source is my incredibly high developed brain, energized by all sorts of meat including crocodiles and monkeys.Well, might be you'd be able to see things more clearly and think further if you ate a bit fewer meat ;)
Here in Malaysia we are llike this: when we are driving and an animal passes the street, we step on the gas, run over and cook it.I wasn't expecting you to have shops to buy stuff in Malaysia anyway, so no big suprise here ;D
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion. Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed), its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.
I have to disagree with you to some extent - science is worse than religion!
Religion accepts the science that doesn't oppose it, but science totally rejects religion and faith.
God can't be measured or observed, so God does't exist to the scientific mind.
The same scientist never measured or observed love, but he for sure can't live without it, or deny its existence!
All holy books talked about the flood of Noah which covered the earth, but scientists simply denied that and called it a myth, regardless of all the fossils of sea fish found at high altitudes all over the world!
At 3000 m height, sea fish remains were found in the mountains in my country, all over the place, and in many other countries, as well > but, scientists deny that because it was simply mentioned in a 2000 year old book, supposedly from god!
Yes science is important in our life, but if we would only live by the rules of a religion, nothing would be developed.
Science is important in our lives and in shaping our future, but it is not the most important part of it!
Hunting animals are usually more intelligent than their prey. That is a very trivial fact.Hunting: Recognize pray, hunt it, kill it, eat it.
Eating plants: Recognize food, eat it.
I think the hunting and killing part needs mostly phyiscal strenght (which is what we see in nature and can be called a "trivial fact").
"Advanced" hunting can be helpful but so can be "advanced" plant-eating; you know like hide your food somewhere for later, "farming" (in primitive ways) etc.
Also intelligence from the hunter could aswell lead to higher intelligence of the hunted; you know, only the smarter animals survive (=not get eaten).
I don't see any "trivial fact" here.
QuoteI know that all because I am so smart. My source is my incredibly high developed brain, energized by all sorts of meat including crocodiles and monkeys.Well, might be you'd be able to see things more clearly and think further if you ate a bit fewer meat ;)
QuoteHere in Malaysia we are llike this: when we are driving and an animal passes the street, we step on the gas, run over and cook it.I wasn't expecting you to have shops to buy stuff in Malaysia anyway, so no big suprise here ;D
Nowdays sources are required for jokes? I think you're confusing things. Might be because you lack some vitamins, which you could get with eating more vegetables ;) (<-- hint: watch for smileys to spot jokes)Well, might be you'd be able to see things more clearly and think further if you ate a bit fewer meat ;)I don't think that you want to provide a source for this non-trivial claim...
Well, for me it is trivial. For you it is something impossible to figure out. Humans differ from each other.So, you can't logically explain your "trivial" claims nor provide any evidence or studies.
Nowdays sources are required for jokes? I think you're confusing things. Might be because you lack some vitamins, which you could get with eating more vegetables ;) (<-- hint: watch for smileys to spot jokes)Well, might be you'd be able to see things more clearly and think further if you ate a bit fewer meat ;)I don't think that you want to provide a source for this non-trivial claim...
Well, for me it is trivial. For you it is something impossible to figure out. Humans differ from each other.So, you can't logically explain your "trivial" claims nor provide any evidence or studies.
Might be they're not as "trivial" as you think they are and you're just simple minded and thus not able to think things through, so everything to you seems "trivial"? ::)
Let me guess...not a joke?First part no, second part obviously yes.
You mean like vitamin D most abundant in liver...wait, joke, right?What are you trying to tell me? I don't understand.
... I don't understand...
@RabinozSure, but where could any primitive society get such a varied plant based diet.
All 9 essential amino acids can be found in non-animal productsQuoteGenerally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
Where's the beef?!
I'll take a Bacon Triple Cheeseburger over tofu any day!
B12 is found in Comfrey.I think the whole point has been that a healthy vegetarian or vegan diet is now possible, but would have been quite impossible in most primitive societies.
Which isn't a food source if you believe in the tests designed to fail by the FDA ;D
B12 is found in Comfrey.I think the whole point has been that a healthy vegetarian or vegan diet is now possible, but would have been quite impossible in most primitive societies.
Which isn't a food source if you believe in the tests designed to fail by the FDA ;D
This explains why meat and other sources of protein etc were so highly prized in those societies.
Where's the beef?!
I'll take a Bacon Triple Cheeseburger over tofu any day!
The ball earth is a cage, and we are its unwitting cows being milked of our spirituality. Wake up. Your CELL phones and interNET and WEB are all there to CATCH you and keep you entranced.
Where's the beef?!
I'll take a Bacon Triple Cheeseburger over tofu any day!
I would vomit if either touched my lips, they are both processed man made defilers of the body that aim to suppress your sex drive and make you a docile and dumb.
The ball earth is a cage, and we are its unwitting cows being milked of our spirituality. Wake up. Your CELL phones and interNET and WEB are all there to CATCH you and keep you entranced.
And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?
And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?
let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?
what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
Are that supposed to be arguments against veganism, or specifically against arealhumanbeing to show him how retarded he is?And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?
let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?
what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.No, science isn't a religion. If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely. In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today. Religion could end up being anything
You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
That takes a massive amount of faith.
I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.
I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.
The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?
Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.No, science isn't a religion. If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely. In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today. Religion could end up being anything
You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
That takes a massive amount of faith.
I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.
I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.
The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?
Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
Are that supposed to be arguments against veganism, or specifically against arealhumanbeing to show him how retarded he is?And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?
let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?
what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
You may not be able to replicate them but if you took the time to study such things you could. You can go and talk to people who have done it.Are that supposed to be arguments against veganism, or specifically against arealhumanbeing to show him how retarded he is?And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?
let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?
what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
Dude, I cant even understand you.
Yes, science has become a religion. I cannot replicate claims about quantam physics, nor can I replicate a photo of the globe. I can however MAKE an image of the globe, in Blender, or by painting it.
And its indistinguishable from what NASA hocks on the public.
I know this because I loaded my 3D fake globe onto my phone and went about asking if people could tell a difference between my photo and NASAs. Guess what, none could. Ill be posting videos soon.
ExactlyScience is a religion and that's the end of it.No, science isn't a religion. If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely. In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today. Religion could end up being anything
You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
That takes a massive amount of faith.
I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.
I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.
The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?
Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.
and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
Are that supposed to be arguments against veganism, or specifically against arealhumanbeing to show him how retarded he is?And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?
let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?
what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
Dude, I cant even understand you.
Yes, science has become a religion. I cannot replicate claims about quantam physics, nor can I replicate a photo of the globe. I can however MAKE an image of the globe, in Blender, or by painting it.
And its indistinguishable from what NASA hocks on the public.
I know this because I loaded my 3D fake globe onto my phone and went about asking if people could tell a difference between my photo and NASAs. Guess what, none could. Ill be posting videos soon.
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.Science is a religion and that's the end of it.No, science isn't a religion. If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely. In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today. Religion could end up being anything
You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
That takes a massive amount of faith.
I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.
I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.
The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?
Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.
and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.Science is a religion and that's the end of it.No, science isn't a religion. If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely. In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today. Religion could end up being anything
You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
That takes a massive amount of faith.
I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.
I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.
The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?
Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.
and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
Do you mean they killed the vikings or their gods? If you mean the former I have to object, because they remained very much vikings after their conversion; if you mean the latter, I can't say anything because I don't know much about spiritual warfare.
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
Do you mean they killed the vikings or their gods? If you mean the former I have to object, because they remained very much vikings after their conversion; if you mean the latter, I can't say anything because I don't know much about spiritual warfare.
the religion got killed either by killing their believers or by forcing them to convert.
i think with the vikings was it more convertion and with north and south american believers it was more killing the believers themself.
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
Do you mean they killed the vikings or their gods? If you mean the former I have to object, because they remained very much vikings after their conversion; if you mean the latter, I can't say anything because I don't know much about spiritual warfare.
the religion got killed either by killing their believers or by forcing them to convert.
i think with the vikings was it more convertion and with north and south american believers it was more killing the believers themself.
The vikings converted voluntarily (though after the kings had converted they also suppressed pagan opposition by force).
Regarding Native Americans, when you speak about the 16th/ 17th century, sure, it was the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Either you became Christian or you were killed. Later genocides (like the wiping out of the Californian Indians) were not so much religiously motivated, it was more about killing off the natives, if they were Christians or not. Many of the Cherokees who died on the Trail of Tears ( the Cherokees who had been allies of the US in every war!) were Christians.
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
Do you mean they killed the vikings or their gods? If you mean the former I have to object, because they remained very much vikings after their conversion; if you mean the latter, I can't say anything because I don't know much about spiritual warfare.
the religion got killed either by killing their believers or by forcing them to convert.
i think with the vikings was it more convertion and with north and south american believers it was more killing the believers themself.
The vikings converted voluntarily (though after the kings had converted they also suppressed pagan opposition by force).
Regarding Native Americans, when you speak about the 16th/ 17th century, sure, it was the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Either you became Christian or you were killed. Later genocides (like the wiping out of the Californian Indians) were not so much religiously motivated, it was more about killing off the natives, if they were Christians or not. Many of the Cherokees who died on the Trail of Tears ( the Cherokees who had been allies of the US in every war!) were Christians.
but still their original religion got almost complete removed.
the original argument was that somebody claim that if all religions will be deleted, the abrahamic religion will come up again.
and i say that it will not happen because if God does exist, why are exist other religions, now and in the past.
you can not show one religion that evolved parallel to the abrahamic religions that has the same stories and history.
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.Science is a religion and that's the end of it.No, science isn't a religion. If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely. In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today. Religion could end up being anything
You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
That takes a massive amount of faith.
I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.
I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.
The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?
Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.
and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.
if god does exist, how do you explain the religions that are different than the abrahamic religions?
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
the same with the believes of the northamerican indians or the southamerican maya.
what is with the buddist religion, they have a very different story than the abrahamic.
i was talking about the science of the real world, not inventions.
the evolution would be the same, the chemical science would be the same, also the physical science would be the same.
BTW. the electric motor was invented 1834 by Moritz Jacobi
the first gas motor was invented 1867 by Nikolaus August Otto
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.Science is a religion and that's the end of it.No, science isn't a religion. If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely. In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today. Religion could end up being anything
You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
That takes a massive amount of faith.
I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.
I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.
The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?
Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.
and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.
if god does exist, how do you explain the religions that are different than the abrahamic religions?
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
the same with the believes of the northamerican indians or the southamerican maya.
what is with the buddist religion, they have a very different story than the abrahamic.
i was talking about the science of the real world, not inventions.
the evolution would be the same, the chemical science would be the same, also the physical science would be the same.
BTW. the electric motor was invented 1834 by Moritz Jacobi
the first gas motor was invented 1867 by Nikolaus August Otto
In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.Science is a religion and that's the end of it.No, science isn't a religion. If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely. In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today. Religion could end up being anything
You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
That takes a massive amount of faith.
I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.
I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.
The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?
Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.
and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.
if god does exist, how do you explain the religions that are different than the abrahamic religions?
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
the same with the believes of the northamerican indians or the southamerican maya.
what is with the buddist religion, they have a very different story than the abrahamic.
i was talking about the science of the real world, not inventions.
the evolution would be the same, the chemical science would be the same, also the physical science would be the same.
BTW. the electric motor was invented 1834 by Moritz Jacobi
the first gas motor was invented 1867 by Nikolaus August Otto
In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!
And you worship a shitty fictitious character who orders people to commit genocide in one of the most stupid books ever written.
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.Science is a religion and that's the end of it.No, science isn't a religion. If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely. In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today. Religion could end up being anything
You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.
That takes a massive amount of faith.
I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.
I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.
The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?
Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.
and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.
if god does exist, how do you explain the religions that are different than the abrahamic religions?
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
the same with the believes of the northamerican indians or the southamerican maya.
what is with the buddist religion, they have a very different story than the abrahamic.
i was talking about the science of the real world, not inventions.
the evolution would be the same, the chemical science would be the same, also the physical science would be the same.
BTW. the electric motor was invented 1834 by Moritz Jacobi
the first gas motor was invented 1867 by Nikolaus August Otto
In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!
And you worship a shitty fictitious character who orders people to commit genocide in one of the most stupid books ever written.
And which book is that that orders people to commit genocide?
Are you from Thailand you FalseCharater - I'm having my doubts now if you are from Malaysia, as you claim!
You are right, I am a young Thai hustler. Does that turn you on?
You are right, I am a young Thai hustler. Does that turn you on?
Naaa - but maybe yes if you were from Syria! :P hahahaha...
In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!
In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!
if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.
what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.
if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.
what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.
why are exist other religions, now and in the past.
what is so magical about a non existing being?
In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!
if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.
what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.
I know, as well as you know, that science is not a religion! But, in the rat-penis-vagina concept, some might consider science as the same!
And, what the hell is so magical about a rat, and what powers could one gain from worshiping it?
To me; religion is following the right path that will lead you to the creator, who sooner or later we shall join in His kingdom after this physical life.how do you know that it is that way? and how do you know that the religion that you follow is the right one.
They can choose to join the rat in the sewage if they wish, maybe there where they really belong, but certainly I don't wish to spend my afterlife in a shit hole!how do you know there is an afterlife?
Religion is a goal you set in your life and aim for reaching - you live a descent life; being honest with yourself and with others > certainly you shall reach high after death.i can tell you that the most not honest people are the religious ones are.
And if you aim for a shit hole > you certainly shall be dumped there!
You see; there are no complications in religion > science can confirm that, as well!no complications in religions????
It's an easy equation - in fact, the easiest I was confronted with!
Quotewhat is so magical about a non existing being?
Compare the shit hole with the universe around you!Quotehow do you know that it is that way? and how do you know that the religion that you follow is the right one.
I chose to be a good person - is there a better way to live your life? Worshiping a penis or vagina, maybe! ::)Quotehow do you know there is an afterlife?
If there is one; I'd rather go high and not into a shit hole!Quotei can tell you that the most not honest people are the religious ones are. look at statistics about crimes and religion
And I can tell you they claim to be religious, but they're not - they worship their ego!
If some one blows himself up in the name of "Allah" - does that make Allah a terrorist and a murderer, or should we call the terrorist who killed those innocent people an impostor who uses the name of God to justify his Satanic actions?Quoteno complications in religions???? if there is no complications in religion why are there so many different ones?
They call what they follow religions but they're not!
I've heard of someone who invented a new religion and gained some followers in time - then, he put them all in a hall and all set fire with their bodies! > That must've been a quick come and go religion, and there are examples of many others.
You can complicate things and you can make things as easy as running water!
And, you can worship the creator (be connected to him), or you can choose the rat, penis and vagina - it's certainly a personal choice.
I have made mine - did you make yours?
i do not worship anybody or anything.Quotewhat is so magical about a non existing being?
Compare the shit hole with the universe around you!Quotehow do you know that it is that way? and how do you know that the religion that you follow is the right one.
I chose to be a good person - is there a better way to live your life? Worshiping a penis or vagina, maybe! ::)Quotehow do you know there is an afterlife?
If there is one; I'd rather go high and not into a shit hole!Quotei can tell you that the most not honest people are the religious ones are. look at statistics about crimes and religion
And I can tell you they claim to be religious, but they're not - they worship their ego!
If some one blows himself up in the name of "Allah" - does that make Allah a terrorist and a murderer, or should we call the terrorist who killed those innocent people an impostor who uses the name of God to justify his Satanic actions?Quoteno complications in religions???? if there is no complications in religion why are there so many different ones?
They call what they follow religions but they're not!
I've heard of someone who invented a new religion and gained some followers in time - then, he put them all in a hall and all set fire with their bodies! > That must've been a quick come and go religion, and there are examples of many others.
You can complicate things and you can make things as easy as running water!
And, you can worship the creator (be connected to him), or you can choose the rat, penis and vagina - it's certainly a personal choice.
I have made mine - did you make yours?
The answer to the original forgotten question is still and always has been no.
if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.
what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.
That is what most hypothetical science is...a belief in a magic power.
We can't prove it, observe it, or replicate it as even the most basic scientific method will require. However, don't mind that, it happened as we said, it is FACT...anyone who calls us out for our hypocrisy or doesn't accept our false conclusion of the group think bubble, we will call ignorant/brain dead/barbarians etc etc.
You don't get any more "religion like" than that.
At least I admit my beliefs are just that...a belief.
I consider them a fact, however, I don't shit my pants and start belittling someone who does not agree with me.
There is also vitamin B12 that a vegan diet in times past would have been totally absent lending to the weight that evolved to consume animals and their products.
Even today despite an abundance of food a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation.
@RabinozSure, but where could any primitive society get such a varied plant based diet.
All 9 essential amino acids can be found in non-animal productsQuoteGenerally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
A healthy vegan diet is possible now but was simply not feasible even a century ago.
The vegetarians I know are almost like religious zealots. I don't know a single one who doesn't take vitamin supplements.
Vegans can shove their tofu.
sounds like your (you're*)are vegan.
and with that comment you just proved that you get not enough nutrition to have a fully functional brain.
And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?
let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?
what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
B12 is a bacteria
B12 is a bacteria
:D :D :D
B12 is a bacteria
:D :D :D
I think it's rather obvious what he meant
"B12 is produced in nature only by prokaryotes in the form of certain bacteria and archaea; it is not made by any multicellular or single-celled eukaryotes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Bacteria
But yeah, most likely noone in this forum even know the difference between pro- and eukaryotes.
How lucky we are that you are here to tell us things.Yeah, I hope you're at least grateful.
As a vegan of 8 years, I'd just thought I would chime in.There is also vitamin B12 that a vegan diet in times past would have been totally absent lending to the weight that evolved to consume animals and their products.
Even today despite an abundance of food a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation.
Simply not true. B12 is a bacteria found in soil and waterways and would have actually been far easier to obtain naturally before than it is today with everything being sanitised.
On top of this, even the animals you consume are fed B12 supplements because even they lack the ability to obtain in naturally in certain situations. So no, this isn't really a vegan-only problem.
Do you even have a source for your claim that "a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation" that doesn't come from a junk, evidence-free opinion piece?So, you personally don't take any supplements at all? or any B12 fortified foods? Almost every vegan site or forum I have read has insisted users drink/eat B12 fortified foods or take supplements.
Eating meat, eggs and dairy in effort to get a single vitamin is asinine, especially considering everything else that naturally comes with such food such as saturated fat, cholesterol and trans-fatty acids. B12 can be easily obtained either through fortified foods or supplementation, so why filter nutrients/vitamins through someone else's body?
@RabinozSure, but where could any primitive society get such a varied plant based diet.
All 9 essential amino acids can be found in non-animal productsQuoteGenerally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
A healthy vegan diet is possible now but was simply not feasible even a century ago.
What are you basing this on? It's been shown time and again that the diet of our ancestors was largely plant/starched based and that eating meat was something that couldn't be relied on and was thus only a small part of their diet.
How lucky we are that you are here toYeah, I hope you're at least grateful.tellwiki us things.
Seeing as you seem to reference this site, maybe you lend weight to what it says and don't consider it to be a junk evidence-free opinion pieceI was using pubmed, not him.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
And you want to talk about transfatty acids? Look no further than cheap vegetable/seed oils. Probably among the biggest offender. I use coconut oil mostly myself. Saturated and stable.So you think saturated = transfatty acid. Interesting. Actually it's not; saturated refers to the amount of double bindings between the fa's c atoms, whereas transfatty acid refers to the conformation of the molecule.
We evolved as omnivorous. No use pretending we didn't or that we didn't have to.I don't think anyone pretended or said that.
Seeing as you seem to reference this site, maybe you lend weight to what it says and don't consider it to be a junk evidence-free opinion pieceI was using pubmed, not him.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
And you want to talk about transfatty acids? Look no further than cheap vegetable/seed oils. Probably among the biggest offender. I use coconut oil mostly myself. Saturated and stable.So you think saturated = transfatty acid. Interesting. Actually it's not; saturated refers to the amount of double bindings between the fa's c atoms, whereas transfatty acid refers to the conformation of the molecule.
We evolved as omnivorous. No use pretending we didn't or that we didn't have to.I don't think anyone pretended or said that.
No, I am saying I find saturated fats to be the least likely to contain transfatsYeah, I'm pretty sure saturated fats can't be transfats because saturated fats do not contain any double bonds between two C atoms, which would obviously be required to get a trans fat.
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.
I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!
I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.
Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be, and where could it possibly lead you?
Thank you for answering my questionFunny thing is, you write your bullshit on a computer/smartphone, probably visit a doc every once in a while, probably use airplanes/trains/cars now and then.
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)
Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.
Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.
The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.
Thank you for answering my questionFunny thing is, you write your bullshit on a computer/smartphone, probably visit a doc every once in a while, probably use airplanes/trains/cars now and then.
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)
Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.
Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.
The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.
What a hypocrite you are!
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.
I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!
I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.
Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be, and where could it possibly lead you?
Thats a good question.
it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it
but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?
now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
The only real rules are the rules of nature (interaction between matter). If you think they have been made by god, that's okay and I don't mind.So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
Well then, tell me you smartass - can you live without rules?
The only real rules are the rules of nature (interaction between matter). If you think they have been made by god, that's okay and I don't mind.So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
Well then, tell me you smartass - can you live without rules?
Gooooooooooooooood then - nature has rules, but God doesn't!You are overthinking things.
Thank you - I'm satisfied so far with your ignorance and case is closed to me!
But, please tell me, just out of curiosity, before I go; is "nature" a thing, an intelligent being, or does it just act on its own?
Does it have its own brain, maybe?
Is nature a god of its own?
I mean; it has rules, and rules must be followed and obeyed - so, can we say since nature rules are above everything and everybody > could we call nature god and us its followers?
Gooooooooooooooood then - nature has rules, but God doesn't!You are overthinking things.
Thank you - I'm satisfied so far with your ignorance and case is closed to me!
But, please tell me, just out of curiosity, before I go; is "nature" a thing, an intelligent being, or does it just act on its own?
Does it have its own brain, maybe?
Is nature a god of its own?
I mean; it has rules, and rules must be followed and obeyed - so, can we say since nature rules are above everything and everybody > could we call nature god and us its followers?
I recommend learning some maths and physics for better understanding.
Thank you for answering my questionA religion is based on belief, by faith, without the necessity of physical evidence.
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)
The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.I am not "bothered what people believe", but I do get concerned when that belief leads them to claim that large numbers of who believe that the earth is a Globe are deceivers and liars.
Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.I know many flat earthers are said to be ignorant because of their abysmal understanding things like simple physics, optics and even elementary photography.
Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.
I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!
I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.
Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be, and where could it possibly lead you?
Thats a good question.
it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it
but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?
now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?
That's a good answer - and was expected!
Also a good question from you - and also was expected!
Which of course will lead to the next important question:
* Name me one thing in this world that does not have rules to follow?
You have rules at home, at school, at work, on the street, in the country and the whole world - everything follow rules, and that's the nature of humans.
Now remove those rules from home, school, work and your entire life > I need not to tell you what would happen then, because any sane man would surly agree with me that chaos will take over, the life cycle will stop and the whole world will drift into the demise!
You need a boss at home, at school, to run the company, to run the government and the country.
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
There is nothing wrong with rules - we follow them from cradle to grave, and certainly cannot live without them!
When you follow the rules at work, everything will go smooth and the company will run healthy, and so does everything else.
> It's no magic - just simple logic!
Any dereliction or lessening in your work, your boss will warn you once or twice, then they will kick you out of the company - wouldn't you say it would be a fair punishment?
Was the boss strict and hard with his actions against you or was he fair?
Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.
Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.
There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.
I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!
I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.
Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be, and where could it possibly lead you?
Thats a good question.
it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it
but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?
now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?
That's a good answer - and was expected!
Also a good question from you - and also was expected!
Which of course will lead to the next important question:
* Name me one thing in this world that does not have rules to follow?
You have rules at home, at school, at work, on the street, in the country and the whole world - everything follow rules, and that's the nature of humans.
Now remove those rules from home, school, work and your entire life > I need not to tell you what would happen then, because any sane man would surly agree with me that chaos will take over, the life cycle will stop and the whole world will drift into the demise!
You need a boss at home, at school, to run the company, to run the government and the country.
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
There is nothing wrong with rules - we follow them from cradle to grave, and certainly cannot live without them!
When you follow the rules at work, everything will go smooth and the company will run healthy, and so does everything else.
> It's no magic - just simple logic!
Any dereliction or lessening in your work, your boss will warn you once or twice, then they will kick you out of the company - wouldn't you say it would be a fair punishment?
Was the boss strict and hard with his actions against you or was he fair?
Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.
Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.
There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!
You gave the answer I expected.
Lot of word only for basically one short sentence:
"there is nothing that could make me not believe anymore in my religion."
That show how narrow minded you are and how ignorant.
You say you know the absolute truth what is the "right" way. And you threatening everyone that do not believe the same you do.
That is how dictators work: follow me or you will get punished.
And that is what I hate about religion and their fanatic followers. They act like dictators, everyone shall come to their believe.
That is horrible and addition to that the most cover it under speeches that they do good stuff.
Why shall I follow something that try to convince me with threatening and not with logical arguments?
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.
I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!
I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.
Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be, and where could it possibly lead you?
Thats a good question.
it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it
but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?
now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?
That's a good answer - and was expected!
Also a good question from you - and also was expected!
Which of course will lead to the next important question:
* Name me one thing in this world that does not have rules to follow?
You have rules at home, at school, at work, on the street, in the country and the whole world - everything follow rules, and that's the nature of humans.
Now remove those rules from home, school, work and your entire life > I need not to tell you what would happen then, because any sane man would surly agree with me that chaos will take over, the life cycle will stop and the whole world will drift into the demise!
You need a boss at home, at school, to run the company, to run the government and the country.
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
There is nothing wrong with rules - we follow them from cradle to grave, and certainly cannot live without them!
When you follow the rules at work, everything will go smooth and the company will run healthy, and so does everything else.
> It's no magic - just simple logic!
Any dereliction or lessening in your work, your boss will warn you once or twice, then they will kick you out of the company - wouldn't you say it would be a fair punishment?
Was the boss strict and hard with his actions against you or was he fair?
Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.
Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.
There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!
You gave the answer I expected.
Lot of word only for basically one short sentence:
"there is nothing that could make me not believe anymore in my religion."
That show how narrow minded you are and how ignorant.
You say you know the absolute truth what is the "right" way. And you threatening everyone that do not believe the same you do.
That is how dictators work: follow me or you will get punished.
And that is what I hate about religion and their fanatic followers. They act like dictators, everyone shall come to their believe.
That is horrible and addition to that the most cover it under speeches that they do good stuff.
Why shall I follow something that try to convince me with threatening and not with logical arguments?
What, what.... what?
Who said that statement, in the first place? Are you addressing me or someone else?
And where did I threaten everyone?
Why are you throwing false accusations at me, claiming I said so and so?
Please show me where I said your FALSE accusations! Please...
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.
I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!
I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.
Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be, and where could it possibly lead you?
Thats a good question.
it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it
but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?
now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?
That's a good answer - and was expected!
Also a good question from you - and also was expected!
Which of course will lead to the next important question:
* Name me one thing in this world that does not have rules to follow?
You have rules at home, at school, at work, on the street, in the country and the whole world - everything follow rules, and that's the nature of humans.
Now remove those rules from home, school, work and your entire life > I need not to tell you what would happen then, because any sane man would surly agree with me that chaos will take over, the life cycle will stop and the whole world will drift into the demise!
You need a boss at home, at school, to run the company, to run the government and the country.
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
There is nothing wrong with rules - we follow them from cradle to grave, and certainly cannot live without them!
When you follow the rules at work, everything will go smooth and the company will run healthy, and so does everything else.
> It's no magic - just simple logic!
Any dereliction or lessening in your work, your boss will warn you once or twice, then they will kick you out of the company - wouldn't you say it would be a fair punishment?
Was the boss strict and hard with his actions against you or was he fair?
Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.
Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.
There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!
You gave the answer I expected.
Lot of word only for basically one short sentence:
"there is nothing that could make me not believe anymore in my religion."
That show how narrow minded you are and how ignorant.
You say you know the absolute truth what is the "right" way. And you threatening everyone that do not believe the same you do.
That is how dictators work: follow me or you will get punished.
And that is what I hate about religion and their fanatic followers. They act like dictators, everyone shall come to their believe.
That is horrible and addition to that the most cover it under speeches that they do good stuff.
Why shall I follow something that try to convince me with threatening and not with logical arguments?
What, what.... what?
Who said that statement, in the first place? Are you addressing me or someone else?
And where did I threaten everyone?
Why are you throwing false accusations at me, claiming I said so and so?
Please show me where I said your FALSE accusations! Please...
You say that I am wrong with that sentence?
There are arguments that would you stop believing in a religion?
What would be these arguments.
In this text you said that all should follow the right way or everyone stay in a dirt hole. And as you always explained that your believe is the right way.
In the other thread you did even more threatening and insulting.
Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.
Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.
There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!
Jesus didn't attack anyone even though the people hung him on a cross. What's your excuse?He has mental issues, we shouldn't judge him.
Jesus didn't attack anyone even though the people hung him on a cross. What's your excuse?
I'm looking for anything he may have said about stepping on necks
But Jesus told us to love our enemies. How much better would the world be if everyone followed this advice.
I'm looking for anything he may have said about stepping on necks but all I can find about that is that's something guards in the North Korean gulags did to babies that were born there from their raping. It sounds so cruel.
I don't agree with all BHS's conclusions but I do agree with his post above for the most part.
Note that Babybrain is a real engineer, did research on radiometric dating methods (finding out that they are all wrong, though without publishing his findings), can read Hebrew and Noah was 1000 years old when he made his ark.
Everybody is interested what he has to say about science.
It feels like babybullshit does copy pasta his 'mimimi hypothetical science is religion mimimi' bullshit everywhere he can.
...plethora...engineering stuff...shown and proven this stuff...hot air...REAL science...someone to talk to...earned my right to speak...
...plethora...engineering stuff...shown and proven this stuff...hot air...REAL science...someone to talk to...earned my right to speak...
Do you have a reasonable explanation why you always sound like one of those poor guys without a life who only post on Internet Fora to pretend to be something?
...show actual customized proof of what I have said...My post history contains it all, I can also repost whatever you would like.
and make fun of blowhards
...
As for my attacking and insults in the other thread, as you claim - I think I already answered Shifter in that regard - that my words were mere reflections to his insults (User), prior to mine.
I never attack anyone unless attacked by them!
...show actual customized proof of what I have said...My post history contains it all, I can also repost whatever you would like.
That's how those poor guys without a life who only post on Internet Fora to pretend to be something sound.
Also I know the shit you post.Quoteand make fun of blowhards
Yes, Babybrain, cause that's what they are for.
Do you have a reasonable explanation why you sound like the "religious nuts" you always make fun of when you talk about your religion of science?
This will go nowhere, I can tell you right now. But feel free to keep it up for 140 pages.
I'm not angry with you.
You know:
"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad"
There is no "hypothetical science". What could be called as such would be a hypothesis that cannot yet be tested. It is still science. It is the task of experimental or observational science to find ways to test a hypothesis. As soon as a hypothesis can be tested, it can either be proven wrong (falsified) or not. A hypothesis is tested by observing if its predictions are accurate.
I'm to dumb to look at a graph
I'm to dumb to look at a graph
I somehow don't believe you
The sentence makes no sense.
Can you please try to understand that science is about evidence; truth is a colloquial term.
I just want to help you to cover up that you are an idiot. Posting shit you find on the internet to sound knowledgeable, as you like to do, is insufficient for that. How do you think you can hoax somebody into believing that you ever did any kind of "research" when all you say about science sounds as if you have directly copied it from Ken Ham?
There is no "hypothetical science". What could be called as such would be a hypothesis that cannot yet be tested. It is still science. It is the task of experimental or observational science to find ways to test a hypothesis. As soon as a hypothesis can be tested, it can either be proven wrong (falsified) or not. A hypothesis is tested by observing if its predictions are accurate.
Science is a method, nothing more. It allows us to gain knowledge about the unobservable by analyzing the observable. By analyzing the spectra of stars we gain knowledge about their composition. By observing the fossil record we gain knowledge about past life. It is essentially the same what a hunter does when he observes the traits of an animal and gains knowledge about the animal itself although he cannot observe it.
Different from science is scientizism. It is the worldview, that the scientific method is the only way for humans to gain knowledge, that is "scientific evidence" is identified with "truth". This claim is not part of the scientific method itself. You can call that a belief, but it is still not a religion, because it has no rites.
I can't see where there is any place for religion. All religions I know contain statements about history (there own history) and in many cases also about biology, cosmology etc which can easily be proven to be wrong. You will never be able to understand that because you lack the intellectual sincerity to accept that principally the same methods of scrutiny that can be applied for analyzing a technical device can also be applied for a historical text or a paleontological site.
I'm to dumb to look at a graph
I somehow don't believe you
...said many times...know scientific method...profession/business/livelihood....
...
As for my attacking and insults in the other thread, as you claim - I think I already answered Shifter in that regard - that my words were mere reflections to his insults (User), prior to mine.
I never attack anyone unless attacked by them!
You threat was generaly, you said:
"I will break the neck of someone that insult my god"
You say that you are willing to kill somebody because that one said something you did not like.
It is quit a overreaction to murder somebody for an verbal attack.
You are getting lower each time you post something like that.
As a believer in some kind of the Christian religion do you not have to follow the 10 commandments? Especially: you shall not kill.
Or is it on of the things that is put in the Bible by the corrupt people, as you claimed
I'm to dumb to look at a graph
But that's OK. I don't even know the difference between to and too.
I'm Bots and never mak a tyop.
I'm Bots and never mak a tyop. At least not when I'm implying that others are intellectually inferior because they don't see things the way I do.
Great, buddy. Looking forward to the "flat earth meet-up"?
...said many times...know scientific method...profession/business/livelihood....
(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Computer-Guy-Facepalm.jpg)
I notice you won't answer certain questions, I wonder why? Are you in a corner sir?
I'm to dumb to look at a graph
I'm to dumb to look at a graph
I somehow don't believe you
Stop proving what I am saying about you religious people.The sentence makes no sense.
Can you please try to understand that science is about evidence; truth is a colloquial term.
I just want to help you to cover up that you are an idiot. Posting shit you find on the internet to sound knowledgeable, as you like to do, is insufficient for that. How do you think you can hoax somebody into believing that you ever did any kind of "research" when all you say about science sounds as if you have directly copied it from Ken Ham?
There is no "hypothetical science". What could be called as such would be a hypothesis that cannot yet be tested. It is still science. It is the task of experimental or observational science to find ways to test a hypothesis. As soon as a hypothesis can be tested, it can either be proven wrong (falsified) or not. A hypothesis is tested by observing if its predictions are accurate.
Science is a method, nothing more. It allows us to gain knowledge about the unobservable by analyzing the observable. By analyzing the spectra of stars we gain knowledge about their composition. By observing the fossil record we gain knowledge about past life. It is essentially the same what a hunter does when he observes the traits of an animal and gains knowledge about the animal itself although he cannot observe it.
Different from science is scientizism. It is the worldview, that the scientific method is the only way for humans to gain knowledge, that is "scientific evidence" is identified with "truth". This claim is not part of the scientific method itself. You can call that a belief, but it is still not a religion, because it has no rites.
I can't see where there is any place for religion. All religions I know contain statements about history (there own history) and in many cases also about biology, cosmology etc which can easily be proven to be wrong. You will never be able to understand that because you lack the intellectual sincerity to accept that principally the same methods of scrutiny that can be applied for analyzing a technical device can also be applied for a historical text or a paleontological site.
Insults, calling me an idiot because I question the validity of faith and opinion stated as "fact"... Just as I keep saying you religious people act.
As I have said many times, I know scientific method, my entire profession/business/livelihood depends on it....There is no room for opinion/agenda or any form of belief (yes you can believe an idea will work, but if proven wrong through actual scientific method then it is trashed or reworked...it doesn't continue to production and passed as a working unit)
Ok fine...we won't call your "science" a religion or "hypothetical science" ..we will call it as you say, a belief.
Though I will say this, it sure walks, talks and looks like one.
And one more thing, it certainly isn't science
I'm to dumb to look at a graph
I somehow don't believe you
Stop proving what I am saying about you religious people.The sentence makes no sense.
Can you please try to understand that science is about evidence; truth is a colloquial term.
I just want to help you to cover up that you are an idiot. Posting shit you find on the internet to sound knowledgeable, as you like to do, is insufficient for that. How do you think you can hoax somebody into believing that you ever did any kind of "research" when all you say about science sounds as if you have directly copied it from Ken Ham?
There is no "hypothetical science". What could be called as such would be a hypothesis that cannot yet be tested. It is still science. It is the task of experimental or observational science to find ways to test a hypothesis. As soon as a hypothesis can be tested, it can either be proven wrong (falsified) or not. A hypothesis is tested by observing if its predictions are accurate.
Science is a method, nothing more. It allows us to gain knowledge about the unobservable by analyzing the observable. By analyzing the spectra of stars we gain knowledge about their composition. By observing the fossil record we gain knowledge about past life. It is essentially the same what a hunter does when he observes the traits of an animal and gains knowledge about the animal itself although he cannot observe it.
Different from science is scientizism. It is the worldview, that the scientific method is the only way for humans to gain knowledge, that is "scientific evidence" is identified with "truth". This claim is not part of the scientific method itself. You can call that a belief, but it is still not a religion, because it has no rites.
I can't see where there is any place for religion. All religions I know contain statements about history (there own history) and in many cases also about biology, cosmology etc which can easily be proven to be wrong. You will never be able to understand that because you lack the intellectual sincerity to accept that principally the same methods of scrutiny that can be applied for analyzing a technical device can also be applied for a historical text or a paleontological site.
Insults, calling me an idiot because I question the validity of faith and opinion stated as "fact"... Just as I keep saying you religious people act.
As I have said many times, I know scientific method, my entire profession/business/livelihood depends on it....There is no room for opinion/agenda or any form of belief (yes you can believe an idea will work, but if proven wrong through actual scientific method then it is trashed or reworked...it doesn't continue to production and passed as a working unit)
Ok fine...we won't call your "science" a religion or "hypothetical science" ..we will call it as you say, a belief.
Though I will say this, it sure walks, talks and looks like one.
And one more thing, it certainly isn't science
I have a feeling you call science "hypothetical science" when it disagrees with you.