61

Flat Earth Q&A / Astronomical point

« on: September 29, 2006, 04:23:20 AM »

I'm sorry if some parts were somehow badly presented so let me clear it up. When talking about the same stars it means the stars that can be observed at the same local time. So stars that are seen in South America at local time 1am can be seen in Australia 1am local time.

And 1am local time in australia is what time in south america? 2 pm? You can't see stars at 2 pm, and by the time you can, the stars have moved around to your side of the disc. Now it's night in South America, and you're looking at star A. It's the middle of the day in Australia, and they're not looking at any stars.

By the time it's night time in australia again, it's day time in south america, and star A has moved back over to australias side of the earth.[/quote]

ever heard of radio telescopes? you can see the same bloody stars at the same time in buenos aires and sydney (except at low angles due to CURVATURE OF EARTH)

62

The Lounge / reincarnation

« on: September 29, 2006, 03:24:39 AM »

reincarnation ?
discuss

63

Technology, Science & Alt Science / flat terror

« on: September 26, 2006, 06:50:04 AM »

so many times i hear FEers say "stop believing what you are told to believe" referring to a round earth.

i am told american and british soldiers are fighting and being killed in iraq and afghanistan. should i doubt this? FEers: assuming you dont, why do you not doubt this? i have met helen sharman twice, she claims she has been into space, according to you i should doubt this. you may have relatives and friends who claim to have served in iraq or afghanistan, but can you prove it to yourself? do you doubt them?

64

Flat Earth Q&A / the FE mind

« on: September 26, 2006, 06:49:29 AM »

so many times i hear FEers say "stop believing what you are told to believe" referring to a round earth.

i am told american and british soldiers are fighting and being killed in iraq and afghanistan. should i doubt this? FEers: assuming you dont, why do you not doubt this? i have met helen sharman twice, she claims she has been into space, according to you i should doubt this. you may have relatives and friends who claim to have served in iraq or afghanistan, but can you prove it to yourself? do you doubt them?

65

The Lounge / the holocaust

« on: September 26, 2006, 06:42:38 AM »

It is one thing to believe that garbage

indeed.

66

The Lounge / What is your religion?

« on: September 25, 2006, 04:44:55 AM »

As everybody probably knows by now, I'm Muslim ( am I the one you mentioned, beast?).
................

ALLAHU AKBAR!
 

sunni, shia, or one of the other ones? (how many groups are there? are most muslims sunni?)

67

Flat Earth Q&A / I have proof the world is round.

« on: September 25, 2006, 03:21:26 AM »

it shouldnt be upside down, but at a nearly-upside-down angle. only at the south pole would you be upside down! fake!

68

The Lounge / the holocaust

« on: September 25, 2006, 02:41:50 AM »

Nice theory, but do you have any proof? As you are the one making the claim, produce sources, witnesses, documents!

No offence, but if Irving couldn't, I very much doubt you can. Quit while you're ahead.

i dont actually believe that (obviously), but i genuinely do not see the difference in logic between this and FE. both assume fake evidence and people lying.

69

The Lounge / the holocaust

« on: September 25, 2006, 01:40:27 AM »

the holocaust was all a conspiracy, created to make you feel sorry for jews. all the death camp photos are faked.
jews run the global Conspiracy to hide the true nature of the earth's shape. if people feel sorry for jews, they will give money to charities for jews etc., which all goes into funding the Conspiracy.

70

Flat Earth Q&A / conspiracy

« on: September 25, 2006, 01:39:56 AM »

the holocaust was all a conspiracy, created to make you feel sorry for jews. all the death camp photos are faked.
jews run the global Conspiracy to hide the true nature of the earth's shape. if people feel sorry for jews, they will give money to charities for jews etc., which all goes into funding the Conspiracy.

71

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 25, 2006, 01:34:50 AM »

Nazi stands for National Socialist political party, which Hitler founded and was a member of.

did he? i thought he joined up when it was still the DAP, as member 555.

72

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread

« on: September 25, 2006, 01:26:19 AM »

I don't think Bible literalists are ignorant, they know full well what evolutionary science is made out of and how it works (otherwise they wouldn't have the ability to debate the subject), but what they also realize is that the assumptions evolution makes can be wrong.

what assumptions does evolution make?

and from my experience, they dont even know how science in general works.




and anyway, why are you continually quoting the bible? this is supposed to be about evolution.

73

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Anti-Matter

« on: September 19, 2006, 08:38:50 AM »

soviet union! yes!



in short: antimatter/matter at start of universe etc.
yes, a problem for particle physics, but not really one for cosmology. the Big Bang picture is pretty incomplete anyway, although its fucking obvious that something crucial happened there and then.

74

Flat Earth Q&A / There is no way a round earth is credible. Please read

« on: September 19, 2006, 03:57:35 AM »

so where the fuck is the relevance between this whole raindrop shite to the shape of the earth, eh?

75

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Anti-Matter

« on: September 19, 2006, 03:55:46 AM »

Not even taking into an account something because you don't beileive in one part of it is being closed minded. Do you think I just automaticly throw away a paper because it's based on a evolution? No, I read through it as if i beleived it myself and see if the theory works.

Do you think I disregard all theories stated in this forum using a flat earth diagram or FE logic? Some things said by FE'ers actually make sense, when you look at it from a FE point of view, others however, make none what-so-ever.

Don't be so closed minded.

i certainly read Answers in Genesis articles - problem is, they often read like a comedy
they are so rediculously stupid, ignoring things discovered 50 years ago and assuming anything from conventional geology takes "millions of years2 and then disproving it, even though no one ever sugested that "millions of years" were involved. total wankers. they shit all over radiometric dating but not once have they ever given a reason why it is unreliable.

76

Flat Earth Q&A / Planets?

« on: September 19, 2006, 02:14:32 AM »

How do you know the Sumer existed? Because you were told they do. All ancient civilisations that claim to have "observed" RE phenomena were invented by the government in order to make the conspiracy seem more credible.

haha

anyway, screw the sumerians, you can see they are 3d with a half-decent telescope and a few consecutive nights.

77

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Anti-Matter

« on: September 19, 2006, 02:10:25 AM »

I just finished reading a research paper on Answers in Genesis which was written by a kid (15 years old, I believe) about anti-matter.  He presents an interesting argument against the Big Bang Theory by use of observable evidence in the universe's amount of anti-matter.  The basic argument is this:

The Big Bang Theory states that energy turned into matter after it started spreading out.  In doing so, energy also turns into an equal amount of anti-matter.  Anti-matter and matter destroy each other when they come into contact.  Scientists have not been able to demonstrate why most of the universe seems to be made of matter and not anti-matter.  There are three theories for the discrepancy (outlined in the student's research paper) but none seem to solve the puzzle.

What do you guys think about this subject?  If you're interested in actually refuting the argument provided, the url is:

yep, i know about this. by the way this does not contradict in the slightest the fact that the universe is expanding from a "point" and has been for >12ga. (the proofs for that are totally different)
it does however pose problems for ideas about that "point"'s composition and structure, and i dont think anyone has yet come up with a decent explanation for it within current physics.

anyway, why dont the FEers deny the existance of antimatter? its not as if you can create some yourself and prove it to yourself, is it?

78

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 18, 2006, 05:19:43 AM »

I heard an interesting theory about the Flood. Okay, it was on a TV programme but still, it's plausible!

Geological records show that the Black Sea was once dry land, below sea level, but isolated from the sea by a narrow neck of land where Istanbul is today. The same records also show that around the same time as the Black Sea filled in, there was a large earthquake near Istanbul. The theory goes that this earthquake was enough to breach the natural dam, and open up the Bosporus. the Black Sea would have filled from the Mediterranean incredibly quickly, within a few days. To anyone living in this area, as Noah would have done, it would have seemed like the end of the world.

yep. sea level in the Black Sea was certainly much lower in the past.
this probably is the root of the Epic of Gilgamesh flood account too.

79

Flat Earth Q&A / the reversal of the poles on a flat earth

« on: September 18, 2006, 05:05:22 AM »

Why are you trying to explain this to a flat-earther? If this forum has proven anything, it's that the average flat-earther knows a lot more about the RE model than the average RE'er.

Specifically, I've already addressed paleomagnetism.

well, what dogplatter said goes against that doesnt it?

i havent seen any FEer show any knowledge of geology. i love their seismic wave diagram! and then of course there is my planetary geology, and my own work on Huygens which requires round earth, gravity, heliocentricism otherwise we wouldn't have got the darn thing to Titan. but they just cry Conspiracy. they know fuck all.

80

Flat Earth Q&A / the reversal of the poles on a flat earth

« on: September 18, 2006, 05:04:01 AM »

The Earth's north magnetic pole is drifting away from North America so fast that it could end up in Siberia within 50 years, scientists have said.

What does this mean, what will happen. Am i going to have to buy a new compass?

no, it drifts all the time.

81

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where did u hear about this forum?

« on: September 18, 2006, 03:48:34 AM »

I stumbled apon it whilst reserching antarctica on wikipedia. Something like "it is interesting to note that many believers in "flat earth" theorys do not believe in antarctica." How about you?

yep.

82

Flat Earth Q&A / The Shape of the Moon

« on: September 18, 2006, 03:46:30 AM »

you wont get one, only retards posting about irrelevant false claims that 1+1 is not 2.

1 + 1 = 1 if your talking about two masses joining to one like two raindrops forming into one

but the mass of two raindrops (1 +1) equals twice the mass (=2)

yes yes yes yes yes. the raindrop is not a quantifiabloe discrete entity whereas mass is. in that bollocks situation, 1+1=2. it has no relevance at all to the shape of the earth, just yet another shite diversionary topic

83

Flat Earth Q&A / There is no way a round earth is credible. Please read

« on: September 18, 2006, 03:44:59 AM »

OP meaning.

OPENING POST

84

Flat Earth Q&A / the reversal of the poles on a flat earth

« on: September 18, 2006, 03:44:15 AM »

Yeah, I see no verifiable evidence for pole reversal. It's just them telling us it happened, where's the science?

oh for fucks sake. heard of magnetic stripes at subduction zones? paleomagnatism?

then again, why am i trying to explain this to a flat-earther?

85

Flat Earth Q&A / The Shape of the Moon

« on: September 18, 2006, 03:41:52 AM »

you wont get one, only retards posting about irrelevant false claims that 1+1 is not 2.

86

Flat Earth Q&A / There is no way a round earth is credible. Please read

« on: September 18, 2006, 03:40:42 AM »

where the hell is the relevance of the OP to the shape of the earth?

87

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Big Bang Theory

« on: September 16, 2006, 02:10:11 AM »

A good site for one interpretation of string theory: http://www.tenthdimension.com.

ha, string theory. don't get me started on that!


googlesearch: the best you can do?!

88

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 16, 2006, 02:04:02 AM »

Bible defines kind as the possibility of two representatives on that kind to successfully have offspring. It's quite simple, really.

This is the same definition as species (in sexual organisms). African and Asian elephants cannot reproduce, therefore both are seperate kinds, therefore both were on the ark? as well as the ~250 species of big mamallian carnivore? and the same number of species of hoofed mammals?

89

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 16, 2006, 02:00:52 AM »

Point is not here. Two "bacterias" can be more different genetically than human and sequoia. Then, we have two possibilities:
- All bacteria are not one kind.
- Human and sequoia belongs to one kind, since they're more closer than many "bacterias" to each other.

well, yeah! we and the trees are both eukaryotes, whereas bacteria are not. i'd love to see a creationist try to deny that.

90

Technology, Science & Alt Science / The "Worldwide" Flood

« on: September 16, 2006, 01:59:11 AM »

a fact which many creationists actually admit- they simply claim that "kinds" are much larger.

Yeah, sometime as large as "bacteria" kind as whole. Of course, if any "bacteria" (in laymans term) belong to one kind, then human and sequoia are one kind as well.

Can human and sequoia have offspring? If not - they are different kinds.

therefore, kind = species.