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 - I am not Tom Bishop but I can't prove it

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth-like planet found
« on: April 27, 2007, 02:28:02 PM »
An earth-like planet?  What, there is another flat earth floating up there somewhere? This sounds like part of the conspiracy to me.  If they can "prove" another sphere up there that looks like earth, then it makes a round earth more believable.


32

Tom, I know how busy you are with your research



LMAO ;D

I figured you would like that. ;)  Yes, I am kissing his ass big time, but I figure he needs all the love and support he can get from fellow flat earth theorists because of all the negativity he has to put up with.

33
You're just saying that because you can't answer my questions...

Oh, here's another question for you... do you really believe in "black holes" (ha!).  So a star stops shining occasionally and that's proof there is this huge vacuum cleaner in space sucking up everything?  So isn't it just a matter time before these interstellar vacuum cleaners suck up the entire universe?  What happens then?  Is there a proof for that?

A black hole has the same gravitational attraction as the star it was made from.  It does gain gravitational attraction as it swallows stuff up though. However, suppose the black hole in the center of our galaxy swallowed up our entire galaxy.  Our galaxy wouldn't just begin to swallow other galaxies, unless they were already destined to collide with us.

If you were to shrink the moon down small enough to become a black hole, then it would still orbit the earth the way it does now, and would still give us the tides and still regulate our tilt.  It would not suck the Earth into it.

Also keep in mind, science doesn't say with 100% absolute fact black holes exist.  If some experiment or other observation provided a better, more plausible explanation, the concept of black holes would be discarded.





But couldn't this also be explained by stars just turning their lights off for a while?  And what about the blinking effect?  Couldn't that be explained by turning their on and off switches?

Tom, I know how busy you are with your research, but what's the official flat earth explanation for the behavior of stars?  Can you quote from that book again (when you have some time)?


34
You're welcome. ;D

Not you...

Although I shouldn't post this because it's a serious forum so sorry in advance mods please don't hurt me TOLD

Round Earth Conspiracist keeps spreading lies that I am Tom, so my apologies do not extend to him... The same goes for those like Akira who viciously attacks me.

36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What conspiracy?
« on: April 27, 2007, 01:53:12 PM »
I don't care about the opinions of Wikipedia posters. Wikipedia also says that the world is round.

It's not.

Well, that makes you quite biased doesn't it?  And I hate to tell you Tom, but Wikipedia as a whole knows alot more than you.  Just putting that out there...

Wrong.


Oh yea, one person knows more than millions put together.  And ignoring part of the argument while paying extra attention to another is TOTALLY not being biased. [/sarcasm]

We are all guilty of that.  Everyone believes in his or her truths and ignores things which they have difficulty answering.

And what about those millions and millions of religious people out there?

37
And did you round earth theorists miss all those posts where you ridicule and make fun of us?  And did you forget that this site is called theflatearthsociety.org?  And did you forget to read up on the FAQ about flat earth theory?  Why do people have to keep pestering Tom all the time?  Poor man.  It's amazing how much patience he has, finding the time to answer all your questions.  But do any of you ever thank him for taking the time?  No, you just hurl more abuses at him.

And did you flat earther forget to take your nap today?  I did read the FAQ, I read the opening greeting before entering the site (which it is quite obvious you didn't), and I try not to make generalizations about FE'ers.  Hell, I even separate explanations that have been agreed upon by afew FE'ers, and Tom's which havn't.  But have you ever realized that no two RE'ers are the same?  Have you ever thanked those RE'ers who have given you answer?  No, you just hure more abuse at them.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank round earth theorists who have answered my questions.  And you're right, I do sometimes lump you guys altogether.  When the other side does it so much and pushes one into a corner, it's hard sometimes to realize there are different kinds of round earthers.  Again, my apologies.

38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What conspiracy?
« on: April 27, 2007, 01:40:22 PM »
I don't care about the opinions of Wikipedia posters. Wikipedia also says that the world is round.

It's not.

Well, that makes you quite biased doesn't it?  And I hate to tell you Tom, but Wikipedia as a whole knows alot more than you.  Just putting that out there...

Wrong.

39
Much the same way, just because you believed the earth was round all your life doesn't mean it was correct.  Check out my thread entitled: Flat Earth Brainwashing.

Check out to your nearest hospital.  And stop with your RE insulting threads, it's getting quite annoying.  You act as if having an opinion that is the same as 6~ billion other people makes you stupid.  Great theory, but I think you're alone with it.

You're just saying that because you can't answer my questions...

Oh, here's another question for you... do you really believe in "black holes" (ha!).  So a star stops shining occasionally and that's proof there is this huge vacuum cleaner in space sucking up everything?  So isn't it just a matter time before these interstellar vacuum cleaners suck up the entire universe?  What happens then?  Is there a proof for that?


Did you miss the part in your OP when you insulted people who believe the earth is round?  Anyway, do a search.  Stop nagging about complete BS when you know you can easily use that stupid little search function on Wiki and find almost all your answers.



And did you round earth theorists miss all those posts where you ridicule and make fun of us?  And did you forget that this site is called theflatearthsociety.org?  And did you forget to read up on the FAQ about flat earth theory?  Why do people have to keep pestering Tom all the time?  Poor man.  It's amazing how much patience he has, finding the time to answer all your questions.  But do any of you ever thank him for taking the time?  No, you just hurl more abuses at him.

Also, if you round earth theorists just want to be around people who agree with you all the time, why don't you create a site called theroundearthsociety.org?

40
Much the same way, just because you believed the earth was round all your life doesn't mean it was correct.  Check out my thread entitled: Flat Earth Brainwashing.

Check out to your nearest hospital.  And stop with your RE insulting threads, it's getting quite annoying.  You act as if having an opinion that is the same as 6~ billion other people makes you stupid.  Great theory, but I think you're alone with it.

You're just saying that because you can't answer my questions...

Oh, here's another question for you... do you really believe in "black holes" (ha!).  So a star stops shining occasionally and that's proof there is this huge vacuum cleaner in space sucking up everything?  So isn't it just a matter time before these interstellar vacuum cleaners suck up the entire universe?  What happens then?  Is there a proof for that?

41
How about the sun, moon, and planets? ;D

My guess is they are at a different "level."  The stars must be pegged on a revolving ceiling or something.

42
The stars of the night sky do scroll by in a circular fashion.  ::)

Tom, what makes the stars in the sky scroll in a circular fashion?  Can you perhaps quote from that book?

43
Quote
Not long after the original experiments, one of Rowbotham's cornerstones, the Bedford Level Experiment, was disproved by Alfred Russel Wallace.  Wallace, in direct opposition to Rowbotham, was a qualified surveyor, so he knew what he was doing.

We don't care about Wallace. He made a large wager with an FE proponent and when he lost he attempted to argue semantics about eye level this and eye level that, completely undermining the laws of perspective. Flat Earth proponents have successfully conducted Rowbotham's experiments hundreds of times. I myself have successfully reproduced Rowbotham's findings.

The Flat Earth Society wouldn't have persisted for over 150 years if Rowbotham's findings were fallacious.

Actually, this makes no sense. Aristotle's theories sustained for over 2000 years but were utterly flawed. A point of view held by many people for a long time does not make it correct.

I agree with that.  It should be looked at seriously, but it is not proof itself of its correctness.

Much the same way, just because you believed the earth was round all your life doesn't mean it was correct.  Check out my thread entitled: Flat Earth Brainwashing.

44
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What conspiracy?
« on: April 27, 2007, 01:04:54 PM »
Truthseeker responding to Tom!  I guess this is proof they are not the same! ::)

Here is your "proof", your "logic":

1. Tom Bishop deleted his old account at the same time (What counts as the same time?  Within the same day?) that TruthSeeker created an account.
2. They both believe the earth is flat.
3. They are also here at the same time.
4. They argue differently, but they do that just to trick us.
5. They respond to each other.
6. Whenever they are not here at the same time, they are just doing that to make it seem like they are different people.
7. When they don't respond to each other, they are once again just trying to make it seem that they are different people.
8. The majority of people on this website believes that they are the same person.

If this isn't the most ridiculous reasoning ever, then I don't know what is (besides the earth being round)!

45
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What conspiracy?
« on: April 27, 2007, 12:58:30 PM »
I don't care about the opinions of Wikipedia posters. Wikipedia also says that the world is round.

It's not.

Right on.  The earth is flat.

46
Quote
Then why would the Round Earth Society persist so long if his findings were accurate?

For the same reason Christianity persists. Dogma and blind faith.

Quote
Are you a qualified surveyor, as Wallace was (and Rowbotham was not)?

Wallace was a spiritualist hack who wasn't even respected in scientific circles. He wasn't a surveyor.

Being a Geologist I am a surveyor, however. It comes with the job.

Exactly.  Just like Christianity has persisted, so has round earth theory.  We need to reclaim the truth from the globularists.

47
What do you measure the horizon with?  Do you just look and say "looks flat to me", or do you actually break out some survey equipment or put any thought into it?  What proof do you have the horizon is flat?  See how I turned it around?


Yes, I see that... but just because you turned it around doesn't make the scientific method valid.

At best, it seems like we are all clueless.  It really boils down to what is reality?  You guys are always busting on me for not taking physics class, but how many of you have taken philosophy?  These things are questioned and discussed all the time.

48
Did you read the first sentence in my post and then just skip past the rest?  I ask because you seem to completely miss the point. ;D

No, I didn't.  Also, not one of you answered every question in my original post.  No one mentioned anything about the AI part.  I think you guys missed by original point.  You guys are so sure of your beliefs but I'm showing you that every belief is ultimately subjective.


49
From what I've gathered so far, round earth theorists believe in these fundamental truths:

1. Truth can only be found by consensus.  You cannot rely on yourself alone since you can be deceived.  What the majority constitutes as evidence is proof.  What the minority constitutes as evidence is an illusion.

That's a fallacy.  Science holds a majority opinion in no greater light than a minority opinion.  It's about observation and experimentation and being able to make accurate predictions through these observations and experiments.  Even when the majority said black holes were science fiction, the observations and experiments said they exist.  And since then, future observations and experiments support the theory black holes exist.



But see, I was told by round earth theorists that what I observe with my senses can be deceiving.  So just because you can confirm your formulas by experiments doesn't prove anything.  What you believe to be a confirmation could turn out to be false.

And there is something to be said about repetition.  But I can apply that to flat earth theory.  Every time I go to the beach, I see a flat horizon.  I have never felt the earth spin on its axis.  I have never felt the earth traveling through space.  I have never been able to measure Everest.

50
Scientific method has its foundation in logic.  It tries to be objective, whereas zetetic method seems to be pretty subjective.  And when I say that I think it's important to trust the consensus, I'm talking about the consensus among people who know what they're talking about.  I don't believe the earth is round because everybody around me believes the earth is round.  That would be short-sighted.  I don't think, however, that it is short-sighted to believe the earth is round because that's the conclusion that thousands of people who understand these things a lot more than me have already come to.

Obviously truth can not only be found by consensus.  Truth is usually discovered by one man.  That truth will be unpopular until it has been tested and verified.  Hence scientific method, and hence its tendency to be (mostly) non-biased.  As I've pointed out in the past, Newton merely discovered gravity; it wasn't widely accepted until it had gone through rigorous experimentation and verification.  And herein lies the problem with trusting a fringe book like Earth Not a Globe.

Not long after the original experiments, one of Rowbotham's cornerstones, the Bedford Level Experiment, was disproved by Alfred Russel Wallace.  Wallace, in direct opposition to Rowbotham, was a qualified surveyor, so he knew what he was doing.  If Wallace had undergone the experiment and come to the same conclusion as Rowbotham, FET would probably be more widely accepted.  But he didn't.  One of the important things about scientific method is that the result must be repeated by others in the scientific community.  The Bedford Level Experiment failed in this respect.  FEers base their belief in a book with an already faulty premise.

And I still think you're Tom.

Logic... and logic was created by human beings... True and false does not exist in nature.  So how do you then explain that different scientists come up with different sets of logic?  Can there only be one true logic and the rest are flawed?



51
Okay, you think religious beliefs cannot be used to explain scientific beliefs.  But doesn't this make science indisputable then according to science?  Scientific methods are accepted without question.  Only scientific methods can be relied upon.  Any other method cannot be relied on.  I don't see much difference between this and what some fundamentalists believe, that you can only rely on the Bible.

But religion is more a matter of opinion than a matter of using methods and experiements to reach a conclusion...the two cannot be compared to each other.

Religion can claim that this is what God said.  Religious people can claim they used non scientific methods to get to the truth.  To them it is truth, just gotten by a different method.

I agree that you cannot really compare apples and oranges, so forget about that part.  But how do you prove that the scientific method is correct?  It seems to have assumptions built into its belief system.

52
Okay, you think religious beliefs cannot be used to explain scientific beliefs.  But doesn't this make science indisputable then according to science?  Scientific methods are accepted without question.  Only scientific methods can be relied upon.  Any other method cannot be relied on.  I don't see much difference between this and what some fundamentalists believe, that you can only rely on the Bible.


Didnt I tell you not to talk about science?

See, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.  Since some people cannot answer my questions and they need to convince themselves that they know everything, they have to come back with a putdown.

53
I have some questions for all of you, including both round earth theorists and flat earth theorists.  What made you seek out this site?  What propelled you to come here?  How did you even find out about it?  And what makes you keep coming back?  Since most round earth theorists are so convinced that the earth is round and that flat earth theorists have gone off the deep end, I think this is fair to ask.

I didn't seek out this site, someone told me about it. I joined here simply to try and get some people to join my forum but I gave up on that after about 5 minutes and 'got involved'. I keep coming back because this place is highly entertaining, plus when I read the debate threads I feel ever so slightly intelligent and sometimes I learn things.

As for the rest of your post, seems mostly pointless to me you saying all that, trying to explain scientific beliefs using an example of religious beliefs seems a bit silly to me.

But this bit
Quote
As for the last point... since truth is not fixed and rock solid, then how can you even argue about what is true and what is not?  Something might be discovered tomorrow that renders everything you know today to be false.  What's even the point?

I kinda agree with you there...


Okay, you think religious beliefs cannot be used to explain scientific beliefs.  But doesn't this make science indisputable then according to science?  Scientific methods are accepted without question.  Only scientific methods can be relied upon.  Any other method cannot be relied on.  I don't see much difference between this and what some fundamentalists believe, that you can only rely on the Bible.

54
I have some questions for all of you, including both round earth theorists and flat earth theorists.  What made you seek out this site?  What propelled you to come here?  How did you even find out about it?  And what makes you keep coming back?  Since most round earth theorists are so convinced that the earth is round and that flat earth theorists have gone off the deep end, I think this is fair to ask.

From what I've gathered so far, round earth theorists believe in these fundamental truths:

1. Truth can only be found by consensus.  You cannot rely on yourself alone since you can be deceived.  What the majority constitutes as evidence is proof.  What the minority constitutes as evidence is an illusion.
2. Humans can create reliable devices which can come up with truths that humans alone cannot.
3. Truth is ever changing.  With more reliable formulas and computers, previous truths are discarded and replaced by new truths.

Now, since you guys picked apart what I considered my fundamental truths, I think it is only fair that I pick these apart.  (By the way, let me know if I got the above fundamentals wrong, according to your view.)

If I cannot rely on myself alone to determine the truth and have to rely on what the majority thinks, then what about this: Christianity is the one true religion.  Why?  Because there are more Christians in the world than any other religion.  Here is the breakdown:

1) Christians - 2,116,909,552 (which includes 1,117,759,185 Roman Catholics, 372,586,395 Protestants, 221,746,920 Orthodox, and 81,865,869 Anglicans)
2) Muslims - 1,282,780,149
3) Hindus - 856,690,863
4) Buddhists - 381,610,979
5) Sikhs - 25,139,912
6) Jews - 14,826,102

And...

a) Others - 814,146,396
b) Non-Religious - 801,898,746
c) Atheists - 152,128,701

http://geography.about.com/od/culturalgeography/a/popularreligion.htm

Now of course these numbers should be questioned, as this comes from a government source (the CIA!).  Not to mention we are not told how they came up with these numbers.  But let's for argument's sake assume that these numbers are correct.

So why doesn't science proclaim that Christianity is the one true religion?  After all, the majority believes in it.  Also, shouldn't Biblical truths then override truths that science comes up with?

Now about the second point... humans can create devices which are more truthful than they are.  What if one day we were able to create artificial intelligence to rival man, and this machine came to the conclusion that humans are a threat to the universe and should be wiped out?  Is it then justifiable for the computer to systematically destroy the human race?  And going back to the first point, if these computers were able to convince the majority of humans of the validity of their proofs, then doesn't this make it out to be true?

As for the last point... since truth is not fixed and rock solid, then how can you even argue about what is true and what is not?  Something might be discovered tomorrow that renders everything you know today to be false.  What's even the point?

Anyway, I would like you round earth theorists to answer these questions please, if you can without degenerating into calling me stupid or an imbecile or saying I shouldn't be born.  Let's keep it civil for once.

And let me say once more, I am not Tom.  But I guess going back to the last point, since truth is ever changing, if more people on here believe I am not Tom, then at that point I am no longer Tom.  ::)

55
Ok, this whole measuring the height of Everest sounds like measuring the speed of light.

Exactly.  They can't prove it but they keep insisting that Everest is the tallest mountain on earth.


You canít prove their measurements are wrong.  And they do know what the speed of light is.

I'm not proving they are wrong.  I'm questioning whether the measurements are correct.  The truth is NO ONE knows how tall Everest is.

Speed of light, hahahahahahaha... when's the last time you went the speed of light in your car and looked down at the odometer?


You twat. Odometer's measure DISTANCE travelled not speed. Get your facts right before you try and make a shitty explanation. Dickhead

Awwwwwwww.... poor little baby... can't even take a joke

So what are you going to do about it?  Kick my ass?  I'm waiting.  Let's see if you can find me using your globe.

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Brainwashing
« on: April 26, 2007, 11:53:01 PM »
Absolutely it is humans who decide what is truth. But, it is the collective perception of third parties that decide what one claims to be true to be actually true. I.E., it is not me and my senses that decide what is true, but me, my senses, and third party perspective. I can't do it alone, my senses can decieve me, but if other people observe the same thing i do, then the probability of it being true is far greater.

Consider a problem associated with a difficulty metric. Give the problem to a randomly selected population sample. When the problem is easy, 80% of the sample solves. As the difficulty level of the problem increases, less and less people in the sample are able to correctly solve the problem. Suppose the whole sample is to provide one solution, decided by blind majority among each solutions from the members of the sample. As the problem's difficulty level increases, the probability of the collective solution given by the sample to be correct decreases. The collective should never decide.

But isn't this how science currently works though?  What the majority of scientists can agree on becomes established theory.  Most scientists believe in the big bang, but there are other scientists who have other theories.  Most scientists believe a virus causes AIDS, but there are some scientists out there who dispute that.  It seems to me that there is a lot of subjectivity involved.  So is there another system that you propose?

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Brainwashing
« on: April 26, 2007, 09:00:31 PM »
Quote
Oh I see, I'm not supposed to be deceived by who's who on the Internet.  Only round earth theorists are allowed to confuse me with Tom.  Okay, got it.  So this prove the earth is round right?  Yeah, okay, got it.  Oh fuck, I'm getting off topic.  I'm also cursing.  Oh shit.  I can't control myself.  I might revert back to a round earth theorist soon.  I'm acting the way I used to be before I converted.

Words being put into my mouth right there. People's senses deceive them, i don't think you're Tom, others did. This thread isn't about proving a round earth, you should know, you started it after all. We are simply trying to point out to you that trusting only your senses is not viable if you are looking for truth.

Point taken... it's senses plus how you process the information you are given.  But in the end, whether you rely on your eyes or a computer or a formula, you are making a subjective judgment inside your head.  People who rely on mathematics and such tend to think that these truths exist independently of human consciousness.  That's debatable, but my point is, it's humans who ultimately decide what's truth.

58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Brainwashing
« on: April 26, 2007, 08:50:08 PM »
Alright, i'll give you that, and i'll apologize for calling you an imbecile. I don't think you should have twisted his words the way you did though.

I seriously didn't understand why Akira came out like that, out of nowhere too.  It was wierd.

Anyway, I apologize for whatever abraisive style of talk I might have engaged in.  I'm getting kinda hyper, I think I need to calm down. lol

59
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Brainwashing
« on: April 26, 2007, 08:47:36 PM »
Quote
Oh, I did more than that...right, after being told that I'm idiot, imbecile, etc.  Oh let me guess, you get to spew whatever you want at me but I'm supposed to remain a gentleman.  Why don't you just back off lady.

I called you an imbecile after i said you went off topic. I said Akira was giving out orders and some other bullshit, again, review your own posts.
Quote
Yes, and we are debating... but you seem to have a very narrow definition of what counts as debate.  I think the moderators can decide what is and isn't allowed.  Who made you in control of this forum?

I never said what i do and don't consider debating, nor do you have sufficient experience to logically come to that conclusion. About control, review my post, as i have addressed that already.


Quote
So you're not angry?  Cool?  Best friends then?

Let's not go to extremes here. I'm not angry at you, but i'm certainly not your friend either. I can have one without the other can't i?

Quote
Why don't you just back off lady.

I almost missed that one. I'm a guy. You're senses deceive you yet again.

Oh I see, I'm not supposed to be deceived by who's who on the Internet.  Only round earth theorists are allowed to confuse me with Tom.  Okay, got it.  So this proves the earth is round right?  Yeah, okay, got it.  Oh fuck, I'm getting off topic.  I'm also cursing.  Oh shit.  I can't control myself.  I might revert back to a round earth theorist soon.  I'm acting the way I used to be before I converted. :P




60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Brainwashing
« on: April 26, 2007, 08:42:53 PM »
Quote
Oh, I did more than that...right, after being told that I'm idiot, imbecile, etc.  Oh let me guess, you get to spew whatever you want at me but I'm supposed to remain a gentleman.  Why don't you just back off lady.

I called you an imbecile after i said you went off topic. I said Akira was giving out orders and some other bullshit, again, review your own posts.
Quote
Yes, and we are debating... but you seem to have a very narrow definition of what counts as debate.  I think the moderators can decide what is and isn't allowed.  Who made you in control of this forum?

I never said what i do and don't consider debating, nor do you have sufficient experience to logically come to that conclusion. About control, review my post, as i have addressed that already.


Quote
So you're not angry?  Cool?  Best friends then?

Let's not go to extremes here. I'm not angry at you, but i'm certainly not your friend either. I can have one without the other can't i?

I think Akira telling me I'm full of shit was uncalled for.  I'm not just going to sit here and take it.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5