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 - mikolaj_koppernigk=cojon

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Death of it All
« on: November 19, 2006, 03:08:49 PM »
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Quote from: "mikolaj_koppernigk=cojon"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Stuff I said before ...


i spent the last 20  years searching the contents oif my own pants and i can say with some authority



doh!


Can you explain the relevance of this post?

Yes!

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Death of it All
« on: November 08, 2006, 05:54:37 PM »
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
End of Discussion.

You have a cheap experiment, but I suggest you spend the $1.50 to go to a museum and observe the Foucault Pendulum for yourself.  I've spent the whole time I was here searching for this thing, for I remember watching it for three hours (I was five; it intrigued my undeveloped brain), and wondering how it swung back and forth AND rotated around.

By the way, that website explains it all.  If you don't believe it, make one yourself.

Case closed.


i spent the last 20  years searching the contents oif my own pants and i can say with some authority



doh!

3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Free will
« on: March 16, 2006, 08:17:08 PM »
On the topic of personal free will I would like to refer everyone to the works of John Stuart Mill.  

Read these and truly learn how deep the argument gets.

One of my favourite questions  goes something like  " If one man had the power, does that one man have as much right to silence society, as society has to silence that one man?".  

Hmmmm!

answers on a postcard

4
The Age of the Earth
by Chris Stassen


According to this chap the earth is 4.55 billion years old though I don’t believe him.  The oldest rock found on earth is approximately this age using radiographic dating, but anything beyond this is pure conjecture.  So the earth is over 4.55 billion years old is all.  

Of course there is shit like this out there!

The primary authority for Answers in Genesis is the infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A Bible). All theories of science are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories. Evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, so it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised too.
The first article on this page sums up what the creationists’ attitude should be about various ideas and theories. The other articles provide examples of arguments that should no longer be used; some arguments are definitely fallacious, while others are merely doubtful or unsubstantiated. We provide brief explanations why, and/or hyperlinks to other articles on this Web site with more detailed explanations. We don’t claim that this list is exhaustive—it will be updated with additions and maybe deletions as new evidence is discovered. Many of these arguments have never been promoted by AiG, and some have not been promoted by any major creationist organization (so they were not directed at anyone in particular), but are instead straw men set up by anti-creationists.
It is notable that some skeptics criticise creationists when they retract doubtful arguments, but these are also the same people who accuse creationists of being unwilling to change their minds!
Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is ‘the truth’ (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments.
This page also shows why it is important for people to stay up-to-date with sound creationist literature, since these publications (e.g. Creation magazine, and TJ) have already revealed the fallacious nature of some of these arguments.
 
What is important for creationists to defend, and what should be held more loosely?
•   ‘Hanging Loose’: What should we defend?
Which arguments should definitely not be used?
•   ‘Darwin recanted on his deathbed’. Many people use this story, originally from a Lady Hope. However, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if true, so what? If Ken Ham recanted Creation, would that disprove it? There is no value to this argument whatever.
•   ‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’. For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either). See also Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (Technical).
•   ‘NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.’ Not promoted by major creationist organizations, but an hoax in wide circulation, especially on the Internet.
Essentially the same story, now widely circulated on the Internet, appeared in the somewhat unreliable 1936 book The Harmony of Science and Scripture by Harry Rimmer. Evidently an unknown person embellished it with modern organization names and modern calculating devices.
Also, the whole story is mathematically impossible—it requires a fixed reference point before Joshua’s long day. In fact we would need to cross-check between both astronomical and historical records to detect any missing day. And to detect a missing 40 minutes requires that these reference points be known to within an accuracy of a few minutes. It is certainly true that the timing of solar eclipses observable from a certain location can be known precisely. But the ancient records did not record time that precisely, so the required cross-check is simply not possible. Anyway, the earliest historically recorded eclipse occurred in 1217 BC, nearly two centuries after Joshua. So there is no way the missing day could be detected by any computer. See also Has NASA Discovered a ‘Missing Day’? for historical and scientific documentation that this alleged discovery is mythological.
Note that discrediting this myth doesn’t mean that the events of Joshua 10 didn’t happen. Features in the account support its reliability, e.g. the moon was also slowed down. This was not necessary to prolong the day, but this would be observed from Earth’s reference frame if God had accomplished this miracle by slowing Earth’s rotation. See Joshua’s long day—did it really happen?
•   ‘Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe’. This is contradicted by the geological setting in which mammoths are found. It’s most likely that they perished toward the end of the Ice Age, possibly in catastrophic dust storms. Partially digested stomach contents are not proof of a snap freeze, because the elephant’s stomach functions as a holding area—a mastodon with preserved stomach contents was found in mid-western USA, where the ground was not frozen. See also technical PDF article.
•   ‘The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in “old” strata invalidate the geologic column.’ These are not sound examples—the Castenedolo skeletal material shows evidence of being an intrusive burial, i.e. a recent burial into older strata, since all the fossils apart from the human ones had time to be impregnated with salt. The Calaveras skull was probably a hoax planted into a mine by miners. For the current AiG view on human fossil stratigraphy, see Where are all the human fossils? from the Answers Book.
•   ‘Dubois renounced Java man as a “missing link” and claimed it was just a giant gibbon.’ Evolutionary anthropology textbooks claimed this, and creationists followed suit. However, this actually misunderstood Dubois, as Stephen Jay Gould has shown. It’s true that Dubois claimed that Java man (which he called Pithecanthropus erectus) had the proportions of a gibbon. But Dubois had an eccentric view of evolution (universally discounted today) that demanded a precise correlation between brain size and body weight. Dubois’ claim about Java man actually contradicted the reconstructed evidence of its likely body mass. But it was necessary for Dubois’ idiosyncratic proposal that the alleged transitional sequence leading to man fit into a mathematical series. So Dubois’ gibbon claim was designed to reinforce its ‘missing link‘ status. See Who was ‘Java man’?
•   ‘The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand’. This carcass was almost certainly a rotting basking shark, since their gills and jaws rot rapidly and fall off, leaving the typical small ‘neck’ with the head. This has been shown by similar specimens washed up on beaches. Also, detailed anatomical and biochemical studies of the Zuiyo-maru carcass show that it could not have been a plesiosaur. See Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence and Letting rotting sharks lie: Further evidence that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark, not a plesiosaur
•   ‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’. This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.
Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
•   ‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’ In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this ‘pussyfooting’, as he called it. He said, ‘In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.’
However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.
It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying ‘If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?’
So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (‘races’) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of ‘letters’ of new information.
•   ‘Women have one more rib than men.’ AiG has long pointed out the fallacy of this statement, which seems to be more popular with dishonest skeptics wanting to caricature creation. The removal of a rib would not affect the genetic instructions passed on to the offspring, any more than a man who loses a finger will have sons with nine fingers. Any skeptic who tries to discredit the Bible with this argument must be a closet Lamarckian, i.e. one who believes Lamarck’s thoroughly discredited idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics! Note also that Adam wouldn’t have had a permanent defect, because the rib is the one bone that can regrow if the surrounding membrane (periosteum) is left intact. See Regenerating ribs: Adam and that ‘missing’ rib.
•   ‘Archaeopteryx is a fraud’. Archaeopteryx was genuine (unlike Archaeoraptor, a ‘Piltdown bird’), as shown by anatomical studies and close analysis of the fossil slab. It was a true bird, not a ‘missing link’.
•   ‘There are no beneficial mutations.’ This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, ‘We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.’ For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Beetle Bloopers: defects can be an advantage sometimes, New eyes for blind cave fish? and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?
•   ‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ‘kind’, and involves no new genetic information. See Q&A: Speciation.
•   ‘Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.’ There is no basis for this claim. Seasons are mentioned in Genesis 1:14 before the Flood, which strongly suggests an axial tilt from the beginning. Some creationists believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noah’s Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as speculative for now. Furthermore, computer modelling suggests that an upright axis would make temperature differences between the poles and equator far more extreme than now, while the current tilt of 23.5° is ideal. The Moon has an important function in stabilizing this tilt, and the Moon’s large relative size and the fact that its orbital plane is close to the Earth’s (unlike most moons in our solar system) are design features.
•   ‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed—see Q&A: Dinosaurs.
•   Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species. Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step (in his opinion, with which AiG obviously disagrees—see Darwin v The Eye and An eye for creation).
•   ‘Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.’ Commentators both before and after Lyell and Darwin (including Calvin, Keil and Delitzsch, and Leupold) are almost unanimous that this passage refers to linguistic division at Babel and subsequent territorial division. We should always interpret Scripture with Scripture, and there’s nothing else in Scripture to indicate that this referred to continental division. But only eight verses on (note that chapter and verse divisions were not inspired), the Bible states, ‘Now the whole earth had one language and one speech’ (Gen. 11:1), and as a result of their disobedience, ‘the LORD confused the language of all the earth’ (Gen. 11:9). This conclusively proves that the ‘Earth’ that was divided was the same Earth that spoke only one language, i.e. ‘Earth’ refers in this context to the people of the Earth, not Planet Earth.
Another major problem is the scientific consequences of such splitting—another global flood! This gives us the clue as to when the continents did move apart — during Noah’s Flood — see below on plate tectonics.
•   ‘The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.’ This is not so. The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood. The Masoretic Text (on which almost all English translations are based) preserves the correct chronology. See Williams, P., Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology, CEN Technical Journal12(1):98–106, 1998.
•   ‘There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may be 10,000 years old or even more.’ This is not so. The language is clear that they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of the father at the birth of the next name in line. So the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. See Biblical genealogies for exegetical proof.
•   ‘Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin.’ This is not stated in Scripture and even contradicts important points. The language of the NT indicates physical descent, which must be true for Jesus to have fulfilled the prophecies that He would be a descendant of Abraham, Jacob, Judah and David. Also, the Protevangelium of Gen. 3:15, regarded as Messianic by both early Christians and the Jewish Targums, refers to ‘the seed of the woman’. This is supported by Gal. 4:4, ‘God sent forth His Son, coming (genomenon) from a woman.’ Most importantly, for Jesus to have died for our sins, Jesus, the ‘last Adam’ (1 Cor. 15:45), had to share in our humanity (Heb. 2:14), so must have been our relative via common descent from the first Adam as Luke 3:38 says. In fact, seven centuries before His Incarnation, the Prophet Isaiah spoke of Him as literally the ‘Kinsman-Redeemer’, i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems (Isaiah 59:20, uses the same Hebrew word goel as used to describe Boaz in relation to Ruth). To answer the concern about original sin, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35), preventing any sin nature being transmitted. See also The Virginal Conception of Christ for a defence of this foundational doctrine and further discussion of these Biblical passages.
•   ‘The phrase “science falsely so called” in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.’ To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.
Of course AiG believes that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God’s action in Creation and the true knowledge available in His Word, the Bible. But as this page points out, it is wrong to use fallacious arguments to support a true viewpoint. On a related matter, it is linguistically fallacious to claim that even now, ‘science really means knowledge’, because meaning is determined by usage, not derivation (etymology).
•   ‘Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the Earth as an absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is anti-Scriptural.’ AiG rejects this dogmatic geocentrism, and believes that the Biblical passages about sunset etc. should be understood as taking the Earth as a reference frame, but that this is one of many physically valid reference frames; the centre of mass of the solar system is also a valid reference frame. See also Q&A: Geocentrism, Faulkner, D., Geocentrism and Creation , TJ15(2):110–121; 2001.
•   ‘Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark’ This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud flow.
•   ‘Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible’ There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt’s claims, just excuses to explain away why the evidence is missing.
•   Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter.
•   ‘Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, and is proof of a young sun.’ This is about a formerly vexing problem of detecting only one third of the predicted numbers of neutrinos from the sun. Also, accepted theories of particle physics said that the neutrino had zero rest mass, which would prohibit oscillations from one ‘flavour’ to another. Therefore, consistent with the data then available, some creationists proposed that the sun was powered one-third by fusion and two-thirds by gravitational collapse. This would have limited the age to far less than 4.5 billion years.
However, a new experiment was able to detect the ‘missing’ flavours, which seems to provide conclusive evidence for oscillation. This means that neutrinos must have a very tiny rest mass after all—experimental data must take precedence over theory. Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun. So it cannot be used as a young-age indicator—nor an old-age indicator for that matter. See Newton, R., Missing neutrinos found! No longer an ‘age’ indicator, TJ16(3):123–125, 2002 (to be posted).
•   ‘Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to belief in a Creator.’ However, in the normal meaning of these terms, Einstein believed no such thing. See also Physicists’ God-talk.
What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?
•   Canopy theory. This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For AiG’s current opinion, see Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from? from the Answers Book.
•   ‘There was no rain before the Flood.’ This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.
•   ‘Natural selection as tautology.’ Natural selection is in one sense a tautology (i.e., Who are the fittest? Those who survive/leave the most offspring. Who survive/leave the most offspring? The fittest.). But a lot of this is semantic word-play, and depends on how the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised. There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in hand (e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can’t explain how motors work.) — it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent proof of something. To harp on the issue of tautology can become misleading, if the impression is given that something tautological therefore doesn’t happen. Of course the environment can ‘select’, just as human breeders select. Of course demonstrating this doesn’t mean that fish could turn into philosophers by this means — the real issue is the nature of the variation, the information problem. Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real weakness of neo-Darwinism — the source of the new information required. Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment, and this has been demonstrated amply in practice.
Natural selection is also a useful explanatory tool in creationist modelling of post-Flood radiation with speciation [see Q&A: Natural Selection].
•   ‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
•   ‘There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
•   ‘The speed of light has decreased over time’ (c decay). Although most of the evolutionary counter-arguments have been proven to be fallacious, there are still a number of problems, many of which were raised by creationists, which we believe have not been satisfactorily answered. AiG currently prefers Dr Russell Humphreys’ explanation for distant starlight, although neither AiG nor Dr Humphreys claims that his model is infallible. See How can we see distant stars in a young Universe? from the Answers Book.
•   ‘There are no transitional forms.’ Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it’s better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: ‘While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.’ See also Q&A: Fossils.
•   ‘Gold chains have been found in coal.’ Several artefacts, including gold objects, have been documented as having been found within coal, but in each case the coal is no longer associated with the artefact. The evidence is therefore strictly anecdotal (e.g. ‘This object was left behind in the fireplace after a lump of coal was burned’). This does not have the same evidential value as having a specimen with the coal and the artefact still associated.
•   ‘Plate tectonics is fallacious.’ AiG believes that Dr John Baumgardner’s work on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics provides a good explanation of continental shifts and the Flood. See Q&A: Plate Tectonics. However, AiG recognises that some reputable creationist scientists disagree with plate tectonics.
•   ‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.
•   ‘The Gospel is in the stars.’ This is an interesting idea, but quite speculative, and many Biblical creationists doubt that it is taught in Scripture, so we do not recommend using it.

I presumed this bollocks was in the public domain.  PM me if I'm wrong!

answers on a postcard

5
Flat Earth Information Repository / Horizon
« on: March 09, 2006, 04:05:58 PM »
Quote from: "I are a believer"
Quote from: "mikolaj_koppernigk=cojon"
Some interesting stuff on this in a recent copy of NewScientist.  

Dark energy was supposedly formulated to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.   Dark energy is equivelant to Einsteins cosmological constant stating that vacuum in space counters gravity.  This supposedly does not stand up to calculation.  Dark energy may be explained by neutrinos formed after the big bang and which have survived since they do not interact with matter in a readily measureable way.  Three types of neutrino exist and they can apparently mix, which forms the crux of this theory since neutrino mixing may solve the dark matter issue.  The vacuum of space, it is proposed, consists of neutrino particles which flash in and out of existence creating energy through their interaction with the vacuum.   This theory is supposedly testable. Accounting therefor for the lost mass.

On a related topic

E=MC squared.  One of the most well known and accepted equations (energy=massxspeed of light squared).  This has recently been proved to the factor of 1 in 2,000,000.  Previously this had only been demonstrated to 1 in 50000 through the use of adapted quantum scales.  The new result was reached by the collaboration of 2 separate research groups investigating different parts of the equation and pooling the results.  Now 1 in 50,000 is impressive and sure to convince most people, so why the neccessity to take the "proof" a leap further.  Because science recognises thst proof does not exist (sometimes) and the only goal can be rigour.   It is proved to that factor simply because the technology was developed.  I'm sure that some physicist will be dissatisfied with this and take the "proof" further.  When will we be convinced? 1 in 1,000,000,000 maybe.  The persuit of this best demonstrates that there are no proofs, but simply mounting evidence which still stands the chance of being refuted, but simply becomes less likely to succumb to this.

Answers on a postcard


Quite actually we have proof, just no undesputable we have computers and actual pictures, My uncle happens to be an astronout[thats why i came to this forum]. He has seen earth from afar it is indeed round. Now people could call me a liar, and that the computerized evidence and proof is all fake or faulty, even if it's not. The harizon is basically proof the world is round. But objects will always disapear to your eyes once they get far enouh away. I am pretty confident the world is round because acording to flat earthers you could travel straight west and end up in the south pole-like 125 foot wall. I find it hard to believe we cant reach the top of a 125 foot wall but you never know. when we go to the wall/southpole we travel south and only south, meaning it cannot encompass the whole world. I would say this disproves the FE theory but it only leads you to believe my idea.

I am 14, I want to see how many older people think my answer is now less effective because it was expressed by some one of my young age.


For fucks sake


Take this post elsewhere.  This is supposedly a thread on the nature of the lost mass of the universe.  If you think your uncles alleged trip into space proves any shit then argue it in the appropriate place.  Methinks Ise wastings moise toimes heare!

Answers on a postcard

6
Flat Earth Information Repository / Horizon
« on: March 09, 2006, 03:51:49 PM »
Quote from: "I are a believer"
Quote from: "Ub3r H4xx0r"
OOOOMG!!!!!R3d4lert!SC13NCE GEEK!!!!

N0one\/\/4nts-A-N00blkieyuoH3R3! GoR34d YuorSuXX0rCo113geb00ks!!!
DW3333333333B!!!!!111111111111!!

StFuWtih Ur B0rInG///!!!11 G33kA$$mo-fo!

n00b!!1337, lololololol,Ug01 Fl4/\/\3D BigT1mE!


Yes I will translat, I speak broken 1337 speak.

no one wants a noob like you here Go Read your sucky college books dweeb shut the f*ck up with your boring geek ass mo-fo noob leet lol You got flamed bigtime.

he isnt tat good at the language either..
I knew what the turd was saying, but thanks ( I think ) for clarifying it for those that didn't!  The guys obviously a belm and you seem to be in the same court.  Forgive me if I'm wrong.

However the topic is one of the nature of dark matter/dark energy and the supposed missing mass of the universe.  So bollocks.

Answers on a postcard.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / The Flat Earth Society office building
« on: March 08, 2006, 05:10:01 PM »
I'd join that club.  Sounds cool.  Hehe.  Bar and all.  Just get on with it!

8
Flat Earth Information Repository / Horizon
« on: March 08, 2006, 05:04:41 PM »
Some interesting stuff on this in a recent copy of NewScientist.  

Dark energy was supposedly formulated to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.   Dark energy is equivelant to Einsteins cosmological constant stating that vacuum in space counters gravity.  This supposedly does not stand up to calculation.  Dark energy may be explained by neutrinos formed after the big bang and which have survived since they do not interact with matter in a readily measureable way.  Three types of neutrino exist and they can apparently mix, which forms the crux of this theory since neutrino mixing may solve the dark matter issue.  The vacuum of space, it is proposed, consists of neutrino particles which flash in and out of existence creating energy through their interaction with the vacuum.   This theory is supposedly testable. Accounting therefor for the lost mass.

On a related topic

E=MC squared.  One of the most well known and accepted equations (energy=massxspeed of light squared).  This has recently been proved to the factor of 1 in 2,000,000.  Previously this had only been demonstrated to 1 in 50000 through the use of adapted quantum scales.  The new result was reached by the collaboration of 2 separate research groups investigating different parts of the equation and pooling the results.  Now 1 in 50,000 is impressive and sure to convince most people, so why the neccessity to take the "proof" a leap further.  Because science recognises thst proof does not exist (sometimes) and the only goal can be rigour.   It is proved to that factor simply because the technology was developed.  I'm sure that some physicist will be dissatisfied with this and take the "proof" further.  When will we be convinced? 1 in 1,000,000,000 maybe.  The persuit of this best demonstrates that there are no proofs, but simply mounting evidence which still stands the chance of being refuted, but simply becomes less likely to succumb to this.

Answers on a postcard

9
The Lounge / Re: Rugby
« on: March 02, 2006, 04:10:35 PM »
Quote from: "BlackJack"
Rugby?  Possibly the best sport in exsistence?  I say yes.

Debate.
Indeed.  Everything else seems gay in comparison.

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re-incarnation
« on: February 25, 2006, 04:05:33 PM »
Thank you flying leaf.  You are of course perfectly right, though I did however think it was obvios why I included the diagram.  Reincarnation does form the foundation of many millions of peoples beliefs and as such should attract the same respect as our (now) more traditional westernised beliefs.

Cinlef, noone was suggesting that the concept of reincarnation was in any way affiliated to christianity(capital ommitted deliberately).  The fact remains that this belief does however predate christianity by many hundreds of years and at times has taken a bigger slice of that (unverified) diagramatical pie.  

If anyone can come up with a positivist method to test the concept of reincarnation I'm sure many people would be interested.

Answers on a postcard

11
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re-incarnation
« on: February 24, 2006, 04:55:05 PM »
Reincarnation is a belief as old as the bible, if not older.  Of the major religions active on this planet reincarnation still forms a part of many peoples beliefs.  This is an unverified chart.[/code]

If this is the case do we find ourselves in any more of a position to question these beliefs than we need to question our own.  On many levels the idea of reincarnation appeals since it offers the believer the chance to right wrongs or perhaps to attone for sins.  Very unproveable if that is what was being asked.  However the concept of Buddhist reincarnation and the wheel of life ( and the eternity of the universe ) does raise some questions about our individual passage through life.  Believing in this cycle means that everyuone you meet may have been your brother/sister/father/mother/friend/lover/wife.......etc.  and as such each individual you meet should be treated in kind.  Now this to me is not a bad starting point for directing ones discourse with others. However, just like most christians find it difficult to live up to their deity, these are high demands and as such something to work towards (this is the proposition of most religions in their essence after all--to strive to achieve a certain state).  If classical reincarnation is true then the person that one may be flaming on the internet could indeed have been their mother in a previous life and if one was to believe this (even for a second) then they should dessist immediately.  This is of course one vision of reincarnation (the classical Buddhist one) so check the flavours for youself.  It's all on the net.  I just like this one since the concepts involved in the Buddhist ideal are indeed atheist.


Answers on a postcard

12
Arts & Entertainment / Favourite recent film
« on: February 22, 2006, 06:55:21 PM »
Quote from: "Sharky"
Lord of War is my favorite recent movie
Nick cages best offering for a long time.  The character the film was based on has his own web site about this shit.  Can't remember the www though.

Saw Derrailed the other day and despite the poor reviews I found it entertaining.  I never guessed the twist, but then I deliberately try not to just so I can enjoy the spectacle.

Answers on a postcard

13
Flat Earth Q&A / You people...
« on: February 14, 2006, 04:22:08 PM »
FlatEarth_FTW wrote

Along that same vein, I have never seen any of you people, so how do I know you exist? I haven't touched you or physically met you and conversed,

You of course do not.  Think popular philosophy.  Descartes states that I think therefor I am ( or something akin to that ).  Your thinking does not prove my existence since you could not know that I also am thinking ( some may say that last bit was impossible).

Answers on a postcard

14
Flat Earth Information Repository / Horizon
« on: February 14, 2006, 04:03:02 PM »
Thank you EnragedPenguin.  Whats irritating is that was a really interesting episode of Horizon and I also thought that some folks in here may find the above points interesting.  They are of course now lost in a morrass of bickering.  Oh well.  On with the show.

Answres on a postcard

15
Flat Earth Information Repository / Horizon
« on: February 14, 2006, 03:26:14 PM »
Wow spook!  That was you?  I Honestly didn't know, but hey.  I also hadn't read your reply until now.  Jeez you seem determined to bring out the worse in me and me being all polite and all.  Like I have said I never flame people.  I will however respond sometimes to being flamed.  So you have multiple accounts on here.  Whats that all about.  You must've created that one post account simply to flame me with that nonsense.  I can only imagine why.  

answers on a postcard

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Mathematics, anyone?
« on: February 13, 2006, 05:58:44 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "mikolaj_koppernigk=cojon"
Mathematics is merely a sophistcated theoretical tool which has historically proven useful for ordering the world into something that is understandable.  Of course a lot of purely theoretical mathematics is just a head up the theoretical; arse of science and doesn't achieve anything, but merely cheats.

Mathematics is the "spanner" of science and the bastard child of phylosophy and hence all mathematicians are in fact spannermaticians.  If you disagree, use maths to prove something useful (and I mean prove in the empirical absolute ).


Huh?
You had trouble with that.  Jeez! I can dum it down a bit if you want.

Answers on a postcard

17
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 13, 2006, 05:42:02 PM »
Sorry Cinlef, but that last post was nonsense.  Scripure can be cited anywher to demonstrate a pont.  

Of course it will still be bollocks. But!

Answers on a postcard

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Mathematics, anyone?
« on: February 13, 2006, 05:32:58 PM »
I just read the first few posts again and spelling is definetely back on the agenda ( and i'm not talking typos or grammar here so neee ).  

Mathematics is merely a sophistcated theoretical tool which has historically proven useful for ordering the world into something that is understandable.  Of course a lot of purely theoretical mathematics is just a head up the theoretical; arse of science and doesn't achieve anything, but merely cheats.

Mathematics is the "spanner" of science and the bastard child of phylosophy and hence all mathematicians are in fact spannermaticians.  If you disagree, use maths to prove something useful (and I mean prove in the empirical absolute ).

You can't and that makes you not only spannermaticians, but spannermaticians whom are working with a broken spanner!

Answers on a postcard

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Mathematics, anyone?
« on: February 13, 2006, 05:22:22 PM »
This isn't a fucking spelling test you nerds it's "Mathematics anyone".  Spelling is not the issue though I have forgotten waht the issue actually is.

Anyway lets get on with the mathematics and not the FUCKING spelling.  

Answers on a postcard

20
Flat Earth Information Repository / Horizon
« on: February 13, 2006, 05:11:04 PM »
Quote from: "Ub3r H4xx0r"
OOOOMG!!!!!R3d4lert!SC13NCE GEEK!!!!

N0one\/\/4nts-A-N00blkieyuoH3R3! GoR34d YuorSuXX0rCo113geb00ks!!!
DW3333333333B!!!!!111111111111!!

StFuWtih Ur B0rInG///!!!11 G33kA$$mo-fo!

n00b!!1337, lololololol,Ug01 Fl4/\/\3D BigT1mE!
That is of course the exact reply I was looking for.  The prose and composition of this is beyond superlative.  Your use of expletives far surpases my meagre attempt to provoke discussion.  

I know you havn't been able to form an appropriate sexual relationship from the lengthy and soul searching message you sent me.  Rest assured the household pet has suffered no lasting trauma although I would recommend counselling in case you feel these urges again.

Of course you're very socially retarded as well aren't you.  I'm a psychologist.  I may be able to help you come to terms with your difficulty in formong a coherent relationship.  That is a coherrent relationship with something human, though I know from your message that the something is probably a dominant male.  Each to their own I suppose.  

I do hope someone without socio-sexual problems answers to this.  It was only a point of interest!

Answers on a postcard

21
Flat Earth Information Repository / Horizon
« on: February 13, 2006, 01:03:41 PM »
I saw an interesting episode of the long running science programme Horizon the other day.  Apparently physicists can only account for about 4% of the mass of the universe in terms of things that we supposedly understand.  That is to say, atoms.  That leaves a massive 96% unaccounted for.  Now dark matter was meant to plug this gap.  Problem- none has ever seen or measured it and hence its existence is purely theoretical.  Another problem is that the latest in astro physics claims that dark matter only accounts for another 20% or more of the missing mass.  Enter from stage left "Dark Energy".  Now I'm not a physicist so my first  reaction to this is EH!  Interestingly, other theories are out there to vhallenge this new wave of asrophysical theory stating that all can be accounted for with our present understanding of the universe and it's composition.  The problem here though ( I unfortunately cannot remember the scientists name ) is that the explaination challenges some of the most fundamentally accepted laws of physics.  Namely those of Newton.  The assertion is therefor that we can better understand the universe if we challenge the laws of gravity and motion.  Go figure.  These are cutting edge theorists and they're challenging beliefs that have been held for hundreds of years.  Hohum.

Answers on a postcard

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Why?
« on: February 13, 2006, 11:29:22 AM »
Quote from: "Cheese8242"
So this is the biggest conspiracy in the world, and you who "know that the world is flat" can't explain, what the government's of the world gain from this conspiracy.  

Cause you see there is nothing to gain from making the people of earth believe that the earth is round.  In fact there is much to lose by doing so.  Time, money, and effort.  A conspiracy of this size and magnitude would cost millions, if not billions, of dollars, an incredible amount of time and effort.  No one would spend that kind of resources into making people believe that the earth is round(that is if it were really flat) if it didn't gain them something and to spend the incredible amount of resources that it would take to keep such a conspiracy going it would have to gain them an incredible amount of something.  In fact it would have to be enough to justify the spending of such resources.

So, since there is nothing to gain by this, then there isn't a conspiracy.
Perhaps there is a conspiracy not for the purpose of gain, but merely to maintain the status quo.  Science relies on faith in its methods much more so than god does.  If science were shown to be flawed in it's stance on something so fundamental as the shape of the earth all hell would literally break loose.  Where would our faith in medical science rest if the scientists were shown as supperters of nonsense.  The theory of the round earth has becme so wideley accepted that science may be duty bound to uphold this standpoint despite it's frailty.  Hence the conspiracy!

Or maybe not

Answers on a postcard

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Wikipedia article on Alternate Science
« on: February 11, 2006, 02:01:46 PM »
Cheesejoff wrote

""Many of these theories are considered pathological science: a psychological process in which believers in a theory, who may have originally conformed to the scientific method, unconsciously veer from that method and begin a pathological process of wishful data interpretation......"

Thats very interesting, but did you also know that this also perfectly describes a psychological pathology that all scientists (people) are prone to.  Namely the psychological phenomena of " Confirmation Bias" or it's other name (my favourite, because it gets the positivists riled) "Positivity Bias".  I suppose thats psychologists getting their own back for being acused of being "pseudo science" by followers of natural science!

Answers on a postcard

24
I'm late on this thread so appologies for picking up on this as your other points in the same post Cinlef were admirable.  However your process of reasoning goes as so-

1.Question
2.Hypothesis
3.First Principle Logic
4. Factual Tests
5. Belief

1.  Question and hypothesis could in science be regarded as the same thing.  The mainstream of science merely states "hypothesis" as a more formalised form of question.  i.e to negate ambiguity.  If we're talking science then hypothesis is a starting point.  That is unless observation came before this.  By this i mean you're misnomer of "factual tests".  Many hypotheses started post primary observation and the science was carried out to refine and isolate the observations.  

2.  Factual tests.  Wha?  Surely refined observation in a bid to reduce confounding and extraneous variables (sorry if you consider these to be the same).  Facts do not play a part of this and the result cannot also be considered "fact" unless we alienate this term from an absolute and simply define a fact as the most probable truth.

3.  Belief.  Since when did belief mean a damn thing except to the believer?  Everyone has socially constructed beliefs.  It's how us humans make sense of the world and surmise that the chair we sit on at present will not suddenly turn inyo a steaming turd (this happened to me once whilst under the influence of dubeous substances many years ago.  I always look before sitting these days!).  Beliefs are similar to personal values.  I refer you to Gawds(!) above post.  It alludes to believe this, but that does not make it fact as it also alludes to.  

Answers on a postcard

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / The BIG Question
« on: February 10, 2006, 12:55:46 PM »
Aside from the fact that I don't think it is possible to know anything when knowing is defined as a certainty, I find the question of gods existence fascinating.  The concept of god exists with about as much certainty as one can possibly muster in our finite existence, however when one begins to define god as creator we immediately face logical pitfalls.  

I cannot remember if I posted this elsewhere on here.  Apologies if that is the case.  For most people (faith is a part) the existence of god is evidenced by our very existence.  This argument exists on the premise that the universe had a starting point (cyclical theories aside for now) and as such must have a creator.  ie. that everything that begins to exist neccessitates a cause.  This of course immediately falls down when one applies the same logical premise to god.  That is to say that god by the same logic must have a creator.  Thus the "temporal cosmological argument" falls foul of its own logic.  The modal and contingent arguments suffer similar demises since they rely on similar premises.

bored now

answers on a postcard

26
Flat Earth Q&A / The continuous work of the few
« on: February 07, 2006, 04:53:33 PM »
People!  Ask youselves this question.

Can people function as productive individuals whilst still holding a belief in a theory that is not mainstream?

The answer is of course YES!  Just because folks believe in a flat earth does not make them more prone to fall off it (I spose the ice walls would stop that), and as for science, most of scientific study is useless ego stroking bollocks.  There are thousands of students at this very moment completing theses on subjects that really don't matter a shit except to them and the poor sap that has to mark it.  Every now and againm someone comes up with something useful to everyday life.  But not often.  So if the world is a sphere how does that help my trip to the corner shop to buy beer?  Not at all.  May as well be flat.   In fact I cannot think of one instance whereby the existence of a flat or a round earth has benefitted my transit through life.  Much simpler to accept both possibilities and just live (or get a life).  Logic and metaphysics guide the phylosophical thought in these areas and they agree the possible existence of any shaped earth.

Are we to face logic in a stand off?

Probably!

answers on a postcard

27
GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

That got your attention didn't it?  Actually I may have been too bold since god obviously exists as a concept or belief or I would not be typing this now.  The unfortunate truth for all you religio-psychos is that no logical argument for the existence or indeed the possible existence of god stands up to scrutiny.

Firstly take the most basic question of "Must the universe have a cause?".

The temporal and modal cosmological arguments fail since the arguments themselves also prove that god does not exist (ie.  the universe exists therefor there must be a creator,  ergo who created the creator etc. ).

If anyone has any argument against this other than the contents of an old crusty and boring book please answer.  I await in baited conscioussness!

Answers on a postcard

28
We are all part of the one beautiful cycle of life.  We all feed on the one collective psyche.  We all experience the beauty of the reincarnative cycle.  We have all passed through many lives in our passage to enlightenment.  We will all pass through many more lives in this quest.  Therefore we are all Bullhorn, if not now, in a previous life or in the future.  Will the real Bullhorn please raise his hand!

answers on a postcard

29
The Lounge / President
« on: January 25, 2006, 05:21:47 PM »
All world leaders ars penguins.  It's in the job description.

30
Arts & Entertainment / Favorite TV shows
« on: January 25, 2006, 05:20:37 PM »
Red Dwarf is by far the best contribution that TV has offered.  I have been accused of being Lister!

Pages: [1] 2