Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - FlatBible

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 24, 2011, 02:15:27 PM »
What sort of a buffoon would use Google to perform rigorous academic study on the nature of the universe?

Did I say you should use google to perform rigorous academic study.  No.  If you need to look up definitions for something.  Yes. 

How do you expect to convert anyone to believing the earth is flat is you dance around questions and give smart ass responses to people?   Don't bother answering cause I'm done.  Goodbye.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 24, 2011, 02:08:36 PM »
I've offered a perfectly reasonable explanation for the rarity of transform faults, which you seem unable to acknowledge. Could it be that you lack the humility to admit that you were wrong?

Yes it is perfectly reasonable if you have no knowledge of what a transform fault is.  I will not converse with a moron who is quite obviously delusional and perhaps unable to use google to find out what a transform fault is.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 24, 2011, 02:00:33 PM »
Transform faults are rare because the Earth rarely transforms.

Just what I thought.  You have no explanation.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 24, 2011, 01:56:27 PM »
Globularist science journals are tomes of vile untruths, they cannot handle my revolutionary true scientific discoveries, so they do not publish them. I prefer to disseminate my findings through more respectable media.

Then please enlighten me.  How do you explain the fact that transform faults are rare, when if the Earth was flat they would be the only boundaries we would find.   Don't avoid the question, it is perfectly legitimate.  I want a straightforward answer.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 24, 2011, 01:47:10 PM »
Plate tectonics, as it is described by the insidious doctrines of globularism, does not exist. What evidence is there to suggest that America and China, for example, were once joined together in one giant super-country? The very notion is proposterous, and lacks convincing substantiation.

Then submit a paper about why you believe that plate tectonics is a preposterous bunch of crap.  Scientists are looking for the truth, and if you are right and can present evidence then they will gladly change their position on these things.  I should know I am a scientist, unlike you.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 24, 2011, 11:50:57 AM »
Well I've heard explanations like "Plate tectonics are a myth", despite accurate predictions regarding them...

Thats one thing they don't understand.  You can't just say its a myth, you have to prove it.  Go into the field, study whatever it is you are trying to disprove, then write a paper about it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 24, 2011, 10:32:08 AM »
So basically, the Flat Earth tectonic plates sit on lava which exists for no reason, and the plates themselves exist for no reason?

Not only that, but the reason there are spreading centers and subduction zones is because the Earth is a globe.  The plates curve with the Earth and that causes the plate boundaries to be uneven.    I have been trying to think of a way for this to work with a flat earth, and I really can't see any way that it could.  If the Earth really is flat then the flat earth proponents must explain this. 

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 23, 2011, 07:06:32 PM »
Read my edit

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 23, 2011, 06:56:14 PM »
Plate Tecnonics has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Pictures have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth yet you still have to explain why every picture ever taken of the Earth from space shows a sphere.  If the Earth was flat than every plate boundary would form a transform fault.  How come we don't see this?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 23, 2011, 06:05:34 PM »

Topic from a few days ago.

But yeah, plate tectonics can be pretty damning for a FE.

Wow.  They don't even try do they?  I always come here for a laugh every once and a while, and I always leave dumbfounded.  I still don't understand why they believe this stuff. 

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 23, 2011, 05:49:58 PM »
I posted this a few days ago. Apparently they don't believe in Plate Tectonics, either.

Have you read John Mcphee's Assembling California?  Thats where I got this from.  I was reading when I thought damn this would really mess with the flat earth people.  I notice they don't even mention plate tectonics in the FAQ.  Too much to explain I guess.  Are the geologists in on it too,  how would everything work. (bendy crust?)

Flat Earth Q&A / Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 23, 2011, 11:17:41 AM »
I would like to know how the flat earth hypothesis explains this question.  Why do spreading centers and subduction zones take up most of the length of the world's plate boundaries and transform faults like in California take up so little? 

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler
« on: October 06, 2010, 07:04:53 PM »
What is the FET opinion of those who died long before the RET conspiracy could have been born, but who's works support the RET version of the universe with tested observations and mathematics?

Examples people:

Please move to Q&A if you are so inclined, I posted in the wrong area.

I tend to think other than the shape of the earth, Brahe was really rather on to something before he was murdered and his work stolen by the fraud Kepler.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!  Brahe was never on to anything. He just collected data.  He partnered up with Kepler because he needed a Mathematician.  Hardly a fraud.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler
« on: October 06, 2010, 06:50:07 PM »
Kepler thought the universe was a nested series of platonic solids.

Just because a theory is beautiful mathematically... doesn't mean it's correct in reality.

Of course people want to believe everything is simple, like a sphere.

It's a cognitive bias, that's why round earth people get so aggressive about it.

As a mathematician I have endless respect for the amazing work of Kepler but you simply cannot use pure reason to understand the real world. You need to get out there and do experiments!

Kepler rejected his platonic solids theory.  It wouldn't work and Brahe's calculations proved him wrong, so he admitted it was wrong and came up with his laws governing planetary motion.  As an astrophysicist I could not let that go.  I highly doubt you are a mathematician or you would not make such a stupid statement about the sphere being a simple concept.  No people did not find it a particularly easy thing to grasp which is why they originally thought the earth was flat.  Religion suppressed the idea of a round earth, but they did not come up with the flat earth hypothesis.(In anticipation of your rebuttal)

To the rest of you flat earthers.  You are wrong, and I will not waste my time on idiots.  You are so far past simple ignorance it astounds me.  Why don't you go play with your Creationist pals and you guys can come up with new ways to shit on real science.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I'm confused
« on: March 21, 2009, 11:35:18 AM »
I dont know i was flying with southwest airlines.

Flat Earth Q&A / I'm confused
« on: March 21, 2009, 11:21:43 AM »
So a couple of weeks ago i was on a flight from charlotte NC to las vegas.  While I was flying i noticed that I could see that the earth had a curve to it.  I took a picture but couldnt figure out how to post it.  I am not a REtard there is no way the earth is round.  What was i seeing.

Pages: [1]