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 - Felix

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Hi (an introduction and honest question)
« on: October 11, 2005, 08:50:06 AM »
Yes, the majority are Christian; however, there are no real flat-Earthers at this site. Anyone with half an ounce of savvy at telling a lie will notice that. The Christian ones claim that there is serious scientific evidence supporting their ridiculous point of view, but of course, there isn't. What "evidence" there is is Aristotlean in its qualitativity.

It's "Christian", yes, but even most Young-Earth Creationists are embarrassed that the Flath-Earthers call themselves Christian. Ironic, really.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / England Win The Ashes
« on: September 19, 2005, 01:03:57 PM »
Clever, for a plant. Clever indeed.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / England Win The Ashes
« on: September 19, 2005, 05:14:54 AM »
Your post violates the inverted Aylesbury rule.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / England Win The Ashes
« on: September 18, 2005, 01:12:50 PM »
Okay. From Blackwall, using the Circle, Sicily and inverted Aylesbury rules, and Tottenham Court Road's closed for renovation.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / WOW! is it round or flat?
« on: September 07, 2005, 06:28:02 AM »
Quote from: "ZOOBTRON"
Flat_like_a_coin, lets look at logic seeing as you seem to think I am lacking.

ALLEGED: Flat_like_a_coin is a self confessed phyics student.

FACT: He cannot spell simple english words or construct correct grammatical text.

FACT: A high english score is a prerequesite alongside the obvious science subjects to his alleged course.

CONCLUSION: The only object more full of crap than Flat_like_a_coin's head is the contents of a communal bog with a busted flush button.


Zoobtron:

Alleged: Zoobtron is a flat-earther.

Fact: He has not yet used any of the standard flat-earth arguments, but has only offered half-assed attempts to beat Sphericists and their arguments.

Fact: He has resorted to manipulation and ad hominem attacks wherever possible.

Fact: He has supported the idea of a two-thousand-year-old (at least) worldwide conspiracy spanning from Erastothenes to Area 51.

Conclusion: He may well actually be a Flat-Earther (all of the above points being well-recognised methods of debate for anti-scientists such as Flat-Earthers and Creationists). But it's far more likely he's just enjoying venting some wrath here ;)

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Answer my question
« on: September 07, 2005, 06:24:09 AM »
Zoobtron: Go to the edge of the world. Climb the ice wall. It's not fucking difficult; people have climbed much, much, much higher things in the past, including considerably higher sheer cliffs. It is not possible that all the governments of the world have people stationed at every mile around the ice wall to stop you; this would put a hundred thousand people in the loop, all of whom would be able to squeal to the press via that great information-sieve, the Internet, if they felt it necessary (for the record, the only way to stop information reaching the Internet is to restrict the number of people who know about it; it is impossible to stop someone putting something out there if they are determined enough). So go to the wall, climb it, and look down. Tell us what you see.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Why I think the Earth is Flat...
« on: September 07, 2005, 06:20:11 AM »
Zoobtron: Please define the centrifugal force, along with its effects. Use the example of a bucket of water being swung in a circle to do so, please.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / I wish to challenge your theroy
« on: September 07, 2005, 06:17:57 AM »
Alright, Zoobtron. Explain this, if you will. Why does the atmosphere stay attached to the Earth, instead of dissipating off into space?

9
Flat Earth Q&A / A logical, absolute PROOF!! that the earth is rectangular
« on: September 05, 2005, 05:49:43 AM »
Quote from: "TheWord"
Quote from: "Felix"
"England and America are two nations separated by a common language."

First person to tell me who said that wins a cookie.


Attributed to GBS but can't be sure.


Attributed to Shaw? Oh, blimey, that's got me flummoxed. I was convinced it was Oscar Wilde. I shall have to look this up now.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / To All of you who are Serious about This Flat Earth Idea
« on: September 05, 2005, 05:48:54 AM »
Quote from: "WTF"
Quote from: "Felix"
I'm enjoying the mental exercise here arguing for a completely unfeasible and untenable but logically possible position.


It's only possible if you ignore the real world (seasons, time zones, physics, geology, astronomy, space flights, pictures, satellites, and so on), and reduce knowledge down to the "you can't really KNOW anything" argument.  Which is completely useless, not to mention stupid.


Yeah, I know. But I enjoy exploring the gaps ;) After all, isn't science about finding answers to the gaps in science?

11
Flat Earth Q&A / To All of you who are Serious about This Flat Earth Idea
« on: September 05, 2005, 05:47:02 AM »
Quote from: "Darmikalus"
Quote from: "Felix"

Besides, I see you doing little useful in most of your posts. You're not trying to convince anyone. It wouldn't work anyway. This is a shadow-battle; one side fighting against itself. If you want serious debate, try somewhere else.


i am trying to convince people! i can already tell youve seen little to none of my other posts.  

and there are afew who stay behind, whom i am content to argue with.  it is important that i chew out complete idiots who by believing in the flat earth are almost proving darwin wrong.   and if theres no other reason to argue on this forum then why the fuck are you here?


You may be trying, but you're not actually arguing against real Flat-Earthers. Nobody here believes the theory. That much is obvious from their writing. The majority come out with "OMGZ T3H EAORTH IS FLAT YOU CNUTS TEH BIBEL SAIS SO YUO GO TO HELL FECES EATERS!" and the remainder, such as the Prophet, hide their ignorance of the real "theories" behind the Flat-Earth paradigm behind "Well, you seem to be a little defensive, don't you; afraid of your bubble being burst?"

Also, why are you so angry that I should decide to stay here for the fun I find it trying to find arguments to support such an absurd position? Like I said, I find it fun; that's reason enough. The question may well be, why are you here, "trying to convince" people you know full well cannot be convinced due to their religious fervour of something so obvious that if they could be converted to it they would have been already?

12
Quote from: "Nevyn"
ah, the beauty between the English and American Language.  We say dumb, meaning stupid, you say dumb, meaning mute.  You say faggot, meaning sticks, we say faggot mean homosexual.  Ah, so great.


"England and America are two nations separated by a common language."

First person to tell me who said that wins a cookie.

13
Quote from: "Darmikalus"
and it seems you and felix have less to do than I in that not only are you cruising this forum, but your not even taking sides, your making stupid ass posts trying to back up a theory you dotn even believe! so dont fucking lecture me about mimicing theorys, and being a dick! cause you both seem to be heavy in that category


You're missing my point. You don't have to believe a theory to argue for it, silly person. I'm enjoying the mental exercise here arguing for a completely unfeasible and untenable but logically possible position. Should I "take sides"? Should I stand firm for my beliefs? I don't see why I should; it's not like discussion here is serious. The admin has abandoned this site, as have any serious flat-earthers who ever inhabited it. Those who remain, anyone with a basic knowledge of how people work and a few years' experience on the Internet will tell you, are faking it, and badly.

Besides, I see you doing little useful in most of your posts. You're not trying to convince anyone. It wouldn't work anyway. This is a shadow-battle; one side fighting against itself. If you want serious debate, try somewhere else.

14
Whoo. I have an ally. Aeroplanes prove nothing, of course.

15
Quote from: "moebius432"
"See above for geostationary satellites. As for the rest, well, they're so light (things need to be light if you're gonna send them into space, for obvious reasons) that the gravitational fields of the (tiny) stars, which pull upwards instead of down like that of Earth, drag them between them on a course predetermined by the calculations of the various space agencies. Why else do you think they go in such a wonky pattern? They go from one edge to the other along a weird pattern, and then they slingshot round over the tops of them and end up in a slightly different place, then do the round again."

A geostational orbit is exactly the same as a normal orbit, the only difference is that a geostat satellite orbits in the direction that the earth spins. An orbit of any object around a disc shaped object such as the supposed flat earth is impossible. For anything to orbit, it has to orbit around a central point(the central point being where all the gravity is focused). in a disc the the gravity is not focused on a central point so nothing can orbit it


I'm not saying they're orbiting the disc. They're orbiting something else. Read again carefully.

16
Quote
I know for a fact that the earth is round.


No you don't. Go back 3 spaces.

Quote
Explain a sensor that tests the magnetic fields of the earth in different places all around the globe that combined with GPS tell your present position on a display of the globe. why is the magnetic field close of uniform around the globe.


Just change the meaning of the word "geostationary" to mean "attached to the dome of Heaven" and you'll find your answer there. As for magnetic fields, what's wrong with the idea of a circular magnetic field radiating out from the north pole equally in all directions until it reaches the wall of ice at the edge?

Quote
Also if the world is flat why when there is an earthquake do other continents experience larger waves.


...what do you mean, waves? Not with you. You mean like, sea waves, or shockwaves? Explain please.

Quote
How do satalites even work if the world is flat.


See above for geostationary satellites. As for the rest, well, they're so light (things need to be light if you're gonna send them into space, for obvious reasons) that the gravitational fields of the (tiny) stars, which pull upwards instead of down like that of Earth, drag them between them on a course predetermined by the calculations of the various space agencies. Why else do you think they go in such a wonky pattern? They go from one edge to the other along a weird pattern, and then they slingshot round over the tops of them and end up in a slightly different place, then do the round again.

Quote
Explain the jet wave and weather patterns


Not sure how these disprove God's truth about the flat Earth; enlighten me.

Quote
Explain eclipses. And how we appear circular.


Why is an unseen dark body in the sky any more likely than this ridiculous "dark matter" which "scientists" use to explain away the holes in their ridiculous theories of the Universe?

Quote
In fact explain the movement of techtonic plates, volcanos, earthquake.


Why are these inconsistent with a multi-layered, flat Earth?

Quote
How do you explain the density of the earth when sonic waves are used to detect it.


(Also answering the next poster's point) That one's easy. Even "round-world" scientists admit that the shockwaves from earthquakes appear on seismometers on other points around the Earth because they are refracted when passing through rocks of changing density. Is it not, therefore, obvious? The disc is just thick enough that the shockwaves refract to other points on it. Some shockwaves shake the bottom of the disc, too, of course - but what can you do to detect those?

Edit: I'm not a flat-earther, but actually, I'm starting to see this as a fascinating logical challenge; to provide counterarguments :D

17
No shit? Wow, I've been wasting my time.

Message for you, dude: I enjoy watching these idiots flounder around in their own ignorance too. Do you have a problem with that?

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Important proof!
« on: August 17, 2005, 12:47:15 PM »
Quote from: "cosmos"
For a 'sphericist' you sure are defensive.

If you study my posts you will discover that I have not insulted anyone and it was your good self who resorted to ad hominem attacks in your first response to me. I have always found it best to understand the meaning of a term prior to using it in print; perhaps you could try the same in future.

What is it you do at Durham anyway? Head of the school of janitorial studies?


Actually, I'm a second-year philosophy student at Collingwood College. Though you won't believe that, not a chance, so please, by all means, ask me to provide evidence.

Moreover, in quite such a meaningless discussion as this particular thread, in which initially nothing of any consequence was being stated except "Flame. Flame. Flame. Flame" (in that order), I didn't consider as hominem out of the question. When no argument is being presented there is no need for polished counterargument, and I was in the mood for a little idiot-bashing.

I thought it was interesting to note that you assumed because I stood out against the appalling quality of your argumentation I was actually arguing against your point of view.

Quote from: "TheWord"
What more do you need than the Word of God


Evidence that what purports to be the Word of God is, in fact, the Word of God.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: One Giant Leap (Conspiracy)
« on: August 16, 2005, 09:12:11 AM »
Very well. And thank you for linking to the video, for it is exceptionally cool.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: One Giant Leap (Conspiracy)
« on: August 16, 2005, 08:52:44 AM »
You can do that on a free-falling plane, like they did during the filming of Apollo 13. Nice try, but not totally valid ;) And no amount of evidence will refute a hardcore conspiracy theorist, ever.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Important proof!
« on: August 16, 2005, 08:49:14 AM »
Oh, be quiet. You're so obviously a faker I don't even need to go into it. You're Tyler Durden, here to get kicks out of others' stupidity. You don't believe a word you say. That much has always been obvious. And no amount of "patient," patronising bullshit will wash the stench of your lies away.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Important proof!
« on: August 16, 2005, 07:35:40 AM »
Excuse me? Why don't you read my other posts before you resort to ad hominem attacks? I'm a Sphericist through and through. I don't even think there is a debate here. There is no Flat Earth theorem any more. We got rid of it several hundred years ago. What I object to is people who come in here for the sole purpose of insulting others. You'll notice elsewhere I've got involved in debate. This guy signed up the forum, and the first thing he does is spout unsubstantiated, argument-free, incoherent, disconnected statements. That's not a case. Hence the sarcasm.

That and I've been looking for an opportunity to quote Bill Hicks all day.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Important proof!
« on: August 16, 2005, 01:53:19 AM »
A convincing presentation.

Go back to bed, little man. Go back to bed.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Creationism advocate shows where his loyalties lie
« on: August 15, 2005, 05:49:27 PM »
Quote from: "Round Earth Guy"
Quote from: "Felix"
Quote from: "Round Earth Guy"
bush does not advocate creationism. bush advocates intelligent design. creationism is based on a literal straightforward reading of the biblical book of Genesis. intelligent design is the belief that atheistic evolution is not sufficient to explain certain aspects of nature or biology, so some form of higher power must have stepped in at certain points in the evolutionary process.


Creationism = ID. There is no functional difference. Both systems propose non-naturalist "laws of nature," and in doing so cease to be "science".
no, actually there are huge huge huge differences between ID and creationism, i could probably write an entire essay on the topic if i were so moved. ID is usually considered the "middle ground" between evolution and creationism.


Please note: no functional difference. Yes, they differ on the mechanisms God used to create man (animals, plants, the Earth etc.), but that's missing the point - they both assume God created man. In this regard - as I stated, that they propose non-naturalistic "laws of nature" (which is to say, "laws" which aren't really laws, being entirely subject to the whim of a Creator) they are isometric.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Creationism advocate shows where his loyalties lie
« on: August 12, 2005, 07:43:24 PM »
Quote from: "Round Earth Guy"
bush does not advocate creationism. bush advocates intelligent design. creationism is based on a literal straightforward reading of the biblical book of Genesis. intelligent design is the belief that atheistic evolution is not sufficient to explain certain aspects of nature or biology, so some form of higher power must have stepped in at certain points in the evolutionary process.


Creationism = ID. There is no functional difference. Both systems propose non-naturalist "laws of nature," and in doing so cease to be "science".

26
Flat Earth Q&A / My Sentiments Exactly
« on: July 05, 2005, 12:11:43 PM »
Ah, no, I just meant the deliberate invocation of this. I should have been clearer.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Wikipedia is Neutral, therefore it must be right
« on: July 05, 2005, 12:10:22 PM »
Quote from: "KevinHallX"
since when is wikipedia neutral? it is a very secular group working there and they do not treat alternative worldviews with much respect or neutrality at all.


You obviously have no idea whatsoever how the Wikipedia is written. Anyone who wishes to may contribute, provided they do so sensibly; after all, several entries a day do get changed to "HAHAHAHA LOLOL U ALL SUXOR". There are moderators, but the moderation changes are open for all to see, not hidden. What it does in the case of things like this is document the theories, along with their proposed and certain strengths and weaknesses. It does not attempt to assign truth values to those theories, which is a major feature of religions - automatic assignations of "True" to themselves. In this regard, if you regard "Not assuming which view is true" as a component of "Secularism" then you are right, but that is really not a valid assumption to make.

However, the moderators do not know everything, which you must remember, and if they come across articles on unusual or uncommon subjects which are biased they'll likely leave them as they are for fear of creating more problems than they solve - which is why (see, it's all a big circle) anyone is allowed to make alterations.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / My Sentiments Exactly
« on: July 03, 2005, 07:07:32 PM »
Genius, but.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Open Minded - A Genuine Inquiry
« on: June 19, 2005, 03:57:55 AM »
Damn. Sorry, that was me again. Stupid computers.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Reply to Goodfriend
« on: June 09, 2005, 09:18:02 AM »
Quote from: "Goodfriend"
I believe that the way Round Earth Science works is basically the following.

Suppose that we sit in a restaurant. We see a couple, a blonde woman and a dark-haired man. The man has steak and the woman has fish. The model we have is: blondes eat fish and dark haired people eat steak. A blonde man comes in and has fish; model is validated. Now a dark haired woman comes in and has fish. We refine our model to: blondes always have fish but dark haired women have fish too. Next person comes in, behaves according to the model. Next, we refine the model to blondes always have fish and dark haired women too, but people who enter the restaurant between 0 and 17 after the hour have fish too. And so forth.

That is, Round Earth Science explains a lot of observations, just like my model above. However still, there is no inherent truth in it.


(This quote is taken from another thread, here)

Edit:
Quote from: "Goodfriend"
Your "just face the fact that..." has parallels in history. People have "proven" that no self-propelled vehicles could possibly exist, and only critical thinking saved us from this consensus opinion. Similarly around 1880, consensus popular opinion was that the airplane was an impossibility. The fact that the Round Earth Hypothesis is widely accepted does not make it true.


(Here.)

Goodfriend:

I accept your statement that inductivism is flawed (see the ad ignorantiam fallacy[/url]). I shall not be arrogant enough to assume you've never heard of falsificationism, but I shall point out that that method is now how science is taken to work. Remember, to the falsificationist no hypothesis is said to have any evidence for it (since thanks to David Hume no amount of evidence can be described as verifying something), but evidence which is categorically against the theory is said to have utterly disproved it.

However, I charge you to, in this thread, state your arguments on non-empiricist grounds. I have read many threads here and many of the FES's theories elsewhere and I have seen no evidence for the Flat Earth which was neither empirical (and thus subject to the same problem you point out with the argument above) nor hermeneutical.

In short: the best you can do, if you choose to use the Rationalist's empiricism-annihilating argument, the Problem of Induction, is reduce the two views, Sphericism* and Flat-Earthism, to simple opinions which one must only choose between regardless of "evidence".

I object to hermeneutical arguments on many grounds, the most pertinent of which is that, essentially, they are by definition unscientific. Since Flat-Earthers would bring the discussion to Sphericists on their own terms, "the scientific," please respond with only "scientific" arguments.

Edit: In answer to your second given quote, why do you deliberately refute current scientific arguments by pointing out the ad populum fallacy[/url], without accepting in return that a Sphericist could on exactly the same grounds say exactly the same thing about Flat-Earthism?

Felix

*Yes, I know it's a new word. However, it is a gorgeous new word, and I shall be using it henceforth.

Pages: [1] 2