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 - James

Pages: 1 ... 169 170 [171]
Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:59:26 AM »
Quote from: "Professor Sphincter"
I have been a firm believer in FE theory for some time now, and i have committed my team of researchers to discoving the truth behing Pangaea once and for all, and the results of our preliminary research are highly interesting.
We have already discovered that Pangaea did in fact exsist, a very long time ago upon the seas surrounded by the ice wall. Out research has shown that the two FE plates that the sections of Pangaea sat upon did not slide apart as in RE theory, but in fact exploded upwards with a great force, which we have calculated to have continued for some weeks. During these weeks, the power of the swelling magma below the surface of the Earth was pushed upwards to form mountain, as with 'Constructive plate theory' of RE believers. However, the construction of the mountains did not, as some posters have speculated, split the ice wall in any way. The new land masses simply made the sea levels rise across the disk, and then proceeded to break apart with shattering force that sent the two halves of Pangaea hurtling from each other due to the build up of pressure inside the mountains. Thus the halves of Pangaea took up new positions on the disk-oceans, and the sea levels returned to what they had been because the mountains had been scattered by the almost explosion-like splitting of Pangaea. Thus the Ice Wall remained in tact, and fossil evidence is explained through the sudden splitting that the continental plate experianced.

This is pure speculation! What would possibly cause some sort of worldwide explosion that would not damage the Ice wall?

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:56:52 AM »
Quote from: "Sepulchre"
Fair enough Dogplatter, i accept that my arguement doesn't disprove FE theory, but can we now safely assume that Pangaea never existed in the FE model?

Yes, I completely agree with you on this point.

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
cracking shells and using twigs to make a nest is leaps and bounds below building a ship which could sail intercontinentally, and if you can demonstrate to me how a bunch of plants (which is much of what the fossil evidnce is) could have built a ship... walked across hundreds of miles of land, died, left no fossil evidence of the ship ever being created (i.e. no ship, no boat, etc) than i might be persuaded to believe you

We're talking dinosaurs here buddy, not plants. Claiming that plants could manipulate building materials would be just plain stupid, I never implied that.

As for the lack of boat evidence (assuming a) none exists and b) it hasn't been surpressed by the government), let me explain a little bit about fossilisation processes.

Fossils don't just happen willy-nilly when something dies - there have to be specific conditions - namely anaerobic preservation of dead matter. This only really happens in tar pits, glaciers and other extreme conditions. Two things relating to boat theory then -

1: Why would the dinosaurs sail near to a dangerous place like a glacier or tar pit, knowing full well that it might sink their boat?

2: Given the number of dinosaur fossils found compared with dinosaur population, it's clear that hardly any stuff becomes fossil matter, relatively speaking. The ships could easily have disintegrated along with the millions of unfound dinosaur cadavers.

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:47:57 AM »
Quote from: "horse"
We need more people of Dogplatters quality on the forum, he at least is not putting forward crackpot arguments.

Oh thanks, I hope you're not being sarcastic. Your dinosaur carving thing sounded like you might have been taking the mickey a bit.

Quote from: "Sepulchre"
The lines themselves are imaginary, which only means that there isn't a group of giant white lines streaking across the earth.

The concepts defined by the lines are not imaginary.

Similiar concept to money.  Why should a piece of paper dictate whether I can buy a can of soup or not?  Its the concept that the money represents that means I can buy things.

Yeah. And paper money, just like longditude, is an empty representation of a non-real thing which has no material value.

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:42:01 AM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
except no they could not, first of all, they were not intelegent enough, but we cannot be too sure of that, as we werent around with them (ill just convieniently leave out the fact that their brains were about the size of my fist)... but anatomically, they were not handy enough to use tools... as none existed, even barring that, they havent opposable thumbs.

As you say yourself, we can't be sure of dinosaur intelligence (<-this is the correct spelling btw). Even if their brains were small, how do we know that they didn't combine their efforts somehow?

Many anatomically non-humanlike animals in the modern world use tools. Otters, for example, lack opposable thumbs, but they use rocks to crack open shellfish. Besides, opposable thumbs aren't the only tool-using appendage you can have. What about birds? How do they build nests?

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:39:18 AM »
Quote from: "horse"
And I say my dinosaur council carvings were discovered archaelogically, so therefore you cannot say it doesnt work. Have you ever visited the great wall? Your ignorance is proof that me and my fellow grunts do our job well, and for that compliment I thank you.

I've never heard about so called "dinosaur council carvings". Are you making fun of me?

You answered your own question in the first sentence.

The lines of longitude are imaginary lines

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:36:12 AM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
But the argument in question was specifically Pangaea, whic has been proven geologically and achealogically, so you cannot say it doesnt work, and it cannot have happened in FE theory, bar your explination, which still doesnt work, as anything would have been discovered archaelogically, so essentially you failed in this one.

I explained how currently accepted fossil evidence backs up my claims. The common concensus is that the wide spread of dinosaur remains across different modern day continents proves that there was once a single land mass, right? I assume that's what you're referring to.

That theory doesn't allow for the possibility that dinosaurs could have travelled between continents if they HAD been split up the whole time (which they were). Building boats isn't that difficult, I'm sure some dinosaurs could have managed it.

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:30:42 AM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
and why not that hot snow falls up

Technically, hot snow does fall up. Ever heard of melting followed by evaporation? Yeah.

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:29:22 AM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

exactly why I am a RE person, because established geologican and archaelogican evidence prove you wrong, and if you can prove the dinosaurs had a conspiracy im willing to believe the earth is flat, and that pigs fly, and why not that hot snow falls up

I never explicitly said the dinosaurs had a conspiracy. What I'm saying is that they lived on seperate continents and had enough resources and technology to travel between them and, periodically, die on different continents too.

Flat Earth Q&A / This place is quite comical.
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:27:28 AM »
Quote from: "Marshy"

is it fake if I launch a sattelite and take my own pic? :roll:

How will you do that? Corporations and "governments" with enough revenue to launch satellites are almost all in the know about the true nature of the Earth - private, skeptical citizens won't have the resources to do so.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Quick Question
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:24:44 AM »
Quote from: "Marshy"
Quote from: "lomfs24"
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
If we have already found all the tectonic plates, and they all connect to form a sphere, how can you FE theory be correct?

A quick question deserves a quick answer.
A: Because it is.


Well no, they don't connect to form a sphere. Notice the distinct lack of Earthquakes around the so-called South Pole? There are none, because the outer regions of the Earth are volcanically stable due to it being so cold.

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:16:04 AM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
dogplatter... get off the drugs, its affecting your mental abilities.  This is in fact proving the RE theory, and debunking the FE side of things

The fact that you're resorting to an ad hominem attack by implying that I'm a drug addict just shows the weakness of YOUR argument.

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

Using fossil evidence proves you are an idiot, as the statement you made seems to be under the assumption that there was more than one continent,

Sepulche pointed out that Pangea was impossible under the FE model, which was quite right. I'm not so much using fossil evidence as pre-empting the inevitable fossil-evidence argument which would be used against me (if pangea didn't exist, how did dinosaur fossils spread across the Earth?).

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

Pangaea was one super-continent, allowing travel between the things that would eventually break up into many different continents.  

We've established already that this couldn't have been the case. As Sepulche said, the wall would have had to expand in order for land to split apart within it - impossible!

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

Pangaea itself disproves the FE thoery, as that would have been a time w/out an ice wall if that is antarctica (which has fossils that were origionally believed to be exculivly in australia, found by independant archaeologists)  which proves the supercontinent, and in FE theory this would cause all the water to spill out

If dinosaurs had intercontinental capabilities, they would blatantly have sent scouting dinosaurs to the wall, and doubtless some of them would have died there. In fact, fossil evidence in antarctica proves my point even more.

Flat Earth Q&A / A small poll
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:02:58 AM »
Quote from: "Sepulchre"

UJB is/was? a member who was very religiously biased and who generally would accuse RE'ers of contradicting god.  He had a very interesting website

I think he was probably pulling our legs. Check out the blurb on the front page of his site! What a crank.

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:00:02 AM »
Quote from: "Sepulchre"
Crimson you just made me think of another thing that helps disprove unimportants FE theory statement that antarctica is a ring shaped continent.

Assuming that FE theory believes the  supercontinent Pangaea existed at some point and that antarctica is actually just a big ring shaped continent that surrounds the rest of the earth.

This presents a problem because in order for Pangaea to have broken apart the outer ring (antarctica in the FE model) would have had to expand, providing space for the other continents to move into.  How could a ring of land increase its radius without breaking at some point?

We can therefore conclude that Pangea didn't exist. And before you try and use fossil evidence to debunk this - the fact that dinosaur fossils are spread out in confusing ways reflects the fact that dinosaurs were actually much more highly advanced than we think they were - they had mastered the technology of intercontinental travel. Heck, they probably knew about the ice wall too, and who knows, their governments (if they had any) were probably surpressing it even back then.

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 10:47:27 AM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
No, its a landmass, it was part of the Pangaea seperation, the ice formed because of the extreme coldness of the area it is in, and the fact that it snows so much, causing permafrost

Quote from: ""
Even though it is covered in ice it receives some of the least amount of rainfall, getting just slightly more rainfall than the Sahara Desert, making it the largest desert on earth. Most people have the misconception that a desert is a hot, dry, sandy, lifeless place, but the true definition of a desert is any geographical location that receives very, very little rainfall. Even though there's ice on the ground in Antarctica, that ice has been there for a very long time.

Not an amazing source, but this is fairly common knowledge even among RE'ers. Antarctica (the ice wall) recieves hardly any precipitation whatsoever! It doesn't snow or rain much in antarctica at all.

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 10:38:38 AM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Except antarctica is LANDMASS, as in a mass, with land, not a big wall of ice, so it is fundamentally different, good try though

No, it's just ice. The reason it formed was due to none of it being in the sun's circular path, preventing it from melting. How would land just magically freeze there with it?

Flat Earth Q&A / The four corners of the earth??
« on: June 18, 2006, 10:33:52 AM »
Christianity and Flat Earth Theory don't have to go hand in hand.

Flat Earth Q&A / A small poll
« on: June 18, 2006, 10:22:10 AM »
What is UJB? I'm sort of new around here so I don't understand many of the forum acronyms.

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat Earth Map
« on: June 18, 2006, 10:19:47 AM »
That image is highly inaccurate. For starters, the ice wall is only about 10 miles thick - the one in the picture looks several hundred miles thick!

Also, the wall should be about the same thickness all the way around - the equal spreading of water under the power of the Earth's upward motion would make an almost perfect circle.

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 10:15:05 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
The continent of antarctica exists, it is just very different in shape than it is supposed on the round earth; it is a large plane of ice that encircles the disc earth. Penguins most likely live on the plane of ice, probably in the most seaward few miles, as further back would be more heavily guarded by the ice wall police.

But they live in tandem with the ice wall police - they were created specifically for that purpose.

Flat Earth Q&A / Prove me wrong please
« on: June 18, 2006, 10:13:00 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Q Why are flightplans arced?

They aren't.

Minor point here, but they actually are. Check my answer for an explanation as to why.

Flat Earth Q&A / Prove me wrong please
« on: June 18, 2006, 10:11:17 AM »
Q Why are flightplans arced?

Q Where does magnetism come from?

Q Where does the sun go when it goes over the horizon?

Q Where do you base your beliefs off of? The Bible? Greek Mythology?

Q And how do we sail to Asia by going west not east (If your in North America)

Q Why hasnt anyone ever fallen off the edge?

A: Flightplans are arced because since the earth is moving upwards at a constant rate, the actual "trajectory" of the plane has to go up too, or the plane would crash into the Earth (technically, the Earth would crash into the plane). When the plane wants to land, it starts going down again so it can reach the earth quickly.

A: Magnetism originates from the North Pole (center of the Earth), just like Round Earth Theory posits.

A: Read the FAQ. The sun is actually a tiny spotlight which moves around above the Earth. It doesn't shine everywhere at once.

A: I base my beliefs on personal experience, and also the fact that flat Earth theory just makes so much more sense.

A: We don't. Have you ever sailed to Asia?

A: The edge (surrounded by a giant ice wall) is heavily guarded by conspiracy grunts using advanced technology to stop us seeing the walls. I'd imagine people have fallen off the edge - the government doesn't care as long as they don't come back and show the truth!

Flat Earth Q&A / antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 10:04:01 AM »
How else do you explain that penguins are unable to fly, and why penguin fossil records are basically non-existant? There are no penguin fossils because penguins didn't evolve - they were MADE.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: antartica
« on: June 18, 2006, 09:56:00 AM »
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.
The presence of penguins around the ice wall is actually a clever means of providing a reliable food source for conspiracy staff stationed there.

Penguins were deliberately engineered to be very easy to catch (hence their lack of flight), but also to be extremely efficient at catching and eating fish. It is economically easier for conspiracy ice-wall guards to have penguins indirectly harvest fish for them, then shoot or trap the fish-filled penguins with ease.

In answer to your other question - yes, March of the Penguins was filmed in a studio. Those penguins were probably animatronic replicas though, because the government can't afford to use large numbers of penguins except for feeding ice-wall guards.

Flat Earth Q&A / New, with a few questions...
« on: June 18, 2006, 09:33:14 AM »
Quote from: "EnCrypto"

Ever hear of Watergate? Governments aren't good at keeping secrets.

Watergate was deliberately staged by the Conspiracy to make us think that governments aren't good at keeping secrets.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New, with a few questions...
« on: June 18, 2006, 09:29:31 AM »
Quote from: "EnCrypto"

2. What was flying around Earth when Sputnik was launched? It was visible to the naked eye, travelling across the sky.

Even though the Earth is flat, things can still fly in the sky. Sputnik could have been a Conspiracy aeroplane deliberately deployed to make Americans and Russians THINK that space travel was possible.

Pages: 1 ... 169 170 [171]