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 - EnragedPenguin

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27
The Lounge / Why Won't God Heal Amputees
« on: February 02, 2007, 01:22:02 PM »
Hence why, deism, agnosticism, atheism are probably the most logical modes of thought.

It's my opinion that deism is pointless. What possible purpose can believing in a useless deity serve? I mean, why bother? You're just an atheist who won't admit it.
As for agnosticism, you're not agnostic about the Easter Bunny are you? What about the Celestial Teapot? Or Santa Claus? So why be agnostic about God? It isn't like God has a higher probability of existing.

The Lounge / Global Warming
« on: February 02, 2007, 12:08:20 PM »
Quote from: "beast"
Yeah the report gets released today.

Not quite. The report isn't being released today. What's being released is the Summary for Policy Makers (You can check it out here).
The full report won't be finished until April.

Oh, and as an interesting side note, scientists are being offered cash to dispute the report.

The Lounge / Poetry
« on: February 01, 2007, 07:25:12 PM »
Quote from: "SPrinkZ"
When I feel hot and cold in my forehead, and my lip gets numb from anticipation of the next word, that's how I know poetry.

Or as Emily Dickinson puts it:

"If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry. These are the only ways I know it. Is there any other way?"

They all make me feel ill.

Hmm, poetry sounds pretty horrible to me. I think that I shall never read poetry and thus avoid these unpleasant experiences.

The Lounge / These bots are crazy
« on: January 24, 2007, 06:17:05 PM »
I can ban its IP, but it will just come back with a new one. The only way to stop them is to implement more measures to keep them from registering. I might turn on admin account activation, although I'd rather find a less time consuming way if possible.

The Lounge / World War II
« on: January 24, 2007, 06:13:32 AM »
I say it started when Germany invaded Poland, so 1939.

Oh, and I is from American.

P.S You realize that even if people don't know this, they'll just google search it and answer anyway, right?

Flat Earth Q&A / Tides...
« on: January 16, 2007, 04:47:56 PM »
Quote from: "LaserMcknight"
There is nothing wrong with being wrong if your goal is the truth.

Which is why I suggested posting any ideas here so they can be commented on.

Flat Earth Q&A / Tides...
« on: January 16, 2007, 04:38:29 PM »
Exactly. What happens if he's wrong and I don't realize it? Then we'd be all embarassed.

Flat Earth Q&A / Tides...
« on: January 16, 2007, 04:34:26 PM »
Why bother with a PM? If you post them here everybody can comment on them, and give suggestions on how to make them better.

Flat Earth Q&A / Tides...
« on: January 16, 2007, 04:28:06 PM »
Actually, we threw out the tides from tilting theory a while ago. Erasmus came up with a much better explanation of tides being caused by Earth vibrating. I don't remember the exact details, but I'll try to find the thread for you.

Edit: Aha! here it is:

Flat Earth Q&A / The Earth is a disk!
« on: January 15, 2007, 07:55:07 PM »
All right Scientist, I gave you a second chance and you deliberately ignored my warning. I don't know why I didn't do this sooner.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Earth is a disk!
« on: January 15, 2007, 06:34:22 PM »
Scientist, Sodapop, and Hara Taiki, this is your last warning. Continue on the way have been and you will be banned.

The Lounge / My idea for AiG
« on: January 15, 2007, 10:18:47 AM »
I'm willing to help with the project. Just keep in mind that I know next to nothing about anything, and on a scale of one to ten, with ten being "really super fantastically eloquent", and one being "anti-eloquent", I'm .5
Maybe I can help with the research...

Flat Earth Q&A / Speed of light
« on: January 15, 2007, 10:04:16 AM »
Quote from: "timewarp"

Again, you can't pick and choose which parts of relativity you want to agree with. Gravity is an important part of general relativity

Who said anything about General Relativity? Eramus' explanation in that post deals exclusively with Special Relativity.

Flat Earth Q&A / Speed of light
« on: January 15, 2007, 09:15:41 AM »
Fear not! All is explained here. This question is raised quite fequently. Just remember that all motion (including the effects produced by this motion) is relative.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Terminal Velocity and the Flat Earth
« on: January 14, 2007, 03:00:52 PM »
This is called the "terminal velocity." Obviously, this isn't exactly "explained" on the round Earth model all too well, but it's part of the magical force called gravity, I guess, which is relatively O.K.

Actually it is explained rather well, and it would work the same in either model. An object reaches terminal velocity when air resistance equals the objects weight, and so it stops accelerating.
In the round Earth model, air resistance increases because the object is moving faster and faster into the air (and thus hitting more air molecules in less time). In the flat Earth model, it increases because the air is moving faster and faster into the object. Either way it will have the same effect.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions
« on: January 13, 2007, 07:37:11 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"

I agree with this, and wondered why you made your post.

Ah, I see what you meant.
I made my post because it seems very much to me that Oliwoli is trying to say that the assumption God exists is just as valid as the assumption that the universe exists (and thus trying to draw a comparison between them). This is simply not true. One is an assumption* that is absolutely neccessary to make if we wish to do...well...anything, and the other is a pointless assumption that we have no real reason for making at all.

*I'm also not very much convinced that saying "the universe exists" is even an assumption. An assumption is something we take for granted. Since we have evidence that indicates the universe exists, and no evidence that indicates it doesn't, we aren't taking it for granted.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Nope. If he's talking about the one I think he's talking about it's even simpler than that. It isn't so much an experiment as an observation.

Flat Earth Q&A / the moon is not flat.
« on: January 13, 2007, 11:33:09 AM »
Quote from: "Zulroth"
You're either joking, mocking or insane.

Try all three. Just ignore him, he's a troll that was banned a couple days ago.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions
« on: January 13, 2007, 11:26:40 AM »
Quote from: "Captain_Bubblebum"
dont some believe that God made everything? so they could, and probably would, argue that the observation of their very existance is proof that God is real?

I hope they wouldn't, as that's circular reasoning.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions
« on: January 13, 2007, 11:12:06 AM »
I is no understand. One what was not stated?

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
2) What is DA?

A Devil's Advocate. Someone who believes the Earth is round, yet argues in favor of the FE theory.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions
« on: January 13, 2007, 11:02:13 AM »
There is no observation I can make that leads me to the conclusion that God exists. Every observation I can make leads me to the conclusion that the universe exists.
There is no comparison between the two.

Flat Earth Q&A / Conspiracy as a logical trap.
« on: January 11, 2007, 10:34:13 AM »
Daemonaetea, you seem to have misunderstood the conspiracy. We do not use the conpiracy as a "wild card" as you're suggesting. The conspiracy is not a logical trap. There is a large difference between using the conspiracy to explain things and saying "God did it."

I will use your fish example to explain.

Let's say that we have proved through various means (experimentation, observation etc.,) that a magical fish did in fact create the world, then it stands to reason that the different ages of the Earth were indeed faked by the fish, and the photos and the governments and so on. We now know that a large fish created the world, therefore anyone who says otherwise is incorrect.
If you want to prove the ages of Earth were not faked, and that the photos are real, and the governments are not shadow puppets, you need to prove that a giant fish did not create the world.

Unlike with God and the fish, the Flat Earthers feel that the FE theory is proven, therefore the photos must be fake, and the governments are lying when they say otherwise.

And yes, if you can prove there is no conspiracy, you will have proved that Earth isn't flat. So good luck with that.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Fatal Flaws
« on: January 07, 2007, 06:20:02 PM »
Quote from: "MMMM"

"The weight of an object is acheived through the affect of RE gravity upon it's mass." As RE gravity does not exist in the FE world, you have no attraction between two bodies based upon their mass, all you have is a bunch of weightless objects being pushed through space with equal force which would result in equal weight.

An object doesn't have weight unless there's support force. When there is a support force, the objects weight will be the force required to accelerate the object at 1g.
For example, let's say you wanted to pick up a large stone. In the RE model, gravity is pulling on the stone with the force required to accelerate the object at 9.8m/s^2 (its weight). To accelerate the stone in the opposite direction (pick it up), you need to apply a force greater than than its weight.
In the FE model, the stone is being acclerated at 9.8m/s^2. To "pick up" the stone, you need to apply enough force to accelerate it faster than this.

In either model, to pick up the stone all you do is accelerate the object at a rate greater thn 9.8m/s^2. The force required to do this is the same in both models, and depends on the objects mass.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 07, 2007, 11:29:39 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"

1. Who said it was? Universe is part of God. He is everything, so he is also that which is not.
2. Why could not the universe belong to a "supernatural" power?

If there is anything outside of the known universe, it's still part of God. If there is nothing outside the known universe, it makes little difference to the fact that God still is everything.

Ok, is there a distinction between your version of God and the universe?

So you, always fighting for the correct use of words, would not say that you've made a flower. You would say "Hey! Look! I've made something resembling a flower!"?

I probably wouldn't, but no matter what I did say, that's what I'd mean.

Well, I'm not talking about Nature alone. If I would have posted "I am Nature", it wouldn't only have been the wrong choice of words, it would also result in people not understanding shit and not giving a frak.

Well your definition of God fits the definition of Nature perfectly. So regardless of whether or not you said it "I am Nature," with your definition of God it means the same thing. Thus people not giving a frak is exactly what I think they should do.

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof of Gravity and the Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 07, 2007, 11:18:23 AM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"

Great.  Here is a description of an experiment that measured the gravitational attraction of several materials:

Well the videos are, like pictures, not admissible as evidence. I'd have to be able to test it myself, and I can't use an experiment whose validity is in doubt.
Of course, anyone can edit wikipedia, so that's not reason to discount the experiment entirely. Maybe Erasmus, Engineer, or Skeptical can vouch for it?

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof of Gravity and the Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 06, 2007, 11:45:40 AM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Why not? Even in the FE model, the Earth is composed largely of metals.

Are you willing to test every single one of them? Otherwise the experiment only proves that iron has gravitational attraction.
But even that isn't necessary. Would performing this experiment with two massive rocks (Parts of the Earth) convince you that the Earth has gravity?

Yes. Or rather, it would show that the material making up the crust of Earth has a gravitational field.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 06, 2007, 11:38:19 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"

And for this reason he could absolutely not be a supernatural deity, because...?

Because the universe is not a supernatural deity.
The universe is only part of God. God = the collective energy of the known Universe and everything beyond and inside of it.

When I say universe I'm not talking about the known universe. There is no "outside the universe." The universe is everything that exists.
If you take some clay and form it into a flower, you might say "Look! I've made a flower!".

You might, but you'd be wrong. You haven't made a flower, you've made something resembling a flower.
Here's a question for you: What word should I use instead of "God" in your opinion?..

How about Nature?

Quote from: "Crane"
Correct. It has acceleration.

Acceleration doesn't exist. The theory of F=ma (Newton's 2nd law of motion) is surely untrue, as he was the first person to come up with the idea of gravity.

So what is it exactly that's happening when I apply an unbalanced force to an object?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 06, 2007, 07:23:31 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"

Saying "God is everything" is not the same as saying "The word 'God' means 'Everything'".

I fail to see the difference. You're saying that God is everything, therefore God is no longer a supernatural deity that created the universe, God is simply...The universe.
There is no distinction between God and the universe, thus the word God has the same meaning as the word universe. You've simply changed the definition of the word God.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27