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 ... 25 26 [27]
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Creationism?
« on: October 24, 2005, 11:22:05 AM »
Quote from: "Realist"
I'm not a flat earther but here goes anyway

Christians say: Intelligent Design theory

Christians mean: Ok, people have undoubtedly proved the creationism idea wrong. There have been many reliable, unbiased studies which have proven that evolution does occur, and you have found many interconnections between species, each of which could have evolved. So we're going to pull out an example of a complex biological system (from the millions available) and say that this system is of irreducible complexity, then after we've wasted many years of very intelligent men/women's lives, when they show that the system is actually extremely reducible in complexity we will say that this does not matter as you still have not proven the complexity of "insert random bug, bacteria or animal here" is undesigned. Or we will keep wasting years of these peoples lives by continually saying that there is a missing link and when that link is filled we will say that there is a missing link, between the newly discovered link and the next form of the species.

Evolution can be observed, but not evolution of species. Let's say you where to take a dish of bacteria and add a few drops of anti-bacteria all of the bacteria will die except a few who have a gene that makes them immune, and then all bacteria produced by them will also be immune. however, that is not one species changing into another, which is what the evolution theory says happens.

Evolution hasn't been proved right, it just can't be proved wrong (of course, thats how all scientific theory's are "proved"), same with creationism.

Furthermore, despite not being published in unbiased scientific journals and having made no correct testable predictions (a requirement of a theory) we will call this the intelligent design theory when in fact it does not even qualify as a scientific hypothesis, and we will say that evolution is just a theory, neglecting to tell the public that theory means a totally different thing in the scientific community and that ID DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A THEORY.

All scientific journals are biased, in favor of science(DUH). It has never been published in a scientific journal because no scientist has ever tried to prove it right, simply because they don't want it to be right, because if it is right than that means there is something that science can't explain.

When all is said and done, in many thousands or even millions of years when science has discovered everything that is to be discovered about eveything, and proven it to everyone, we will either claim that god set these processes in action and exists in another plane of existance OR BETTER YET! since no one man/woman could possibly know everything about everything in existance and many fields of science rely on other fields discoveries, we will say that science is a religion in itself, and that there is a mass conspiracy against the church and science is lying to us but just forget to specify which field of science is being lied.

I hate to tell you this but science IS a religion. Unless you question everything a scientest tells you, than that is just faith, and since, like you said, no one can ever possibly know everything, scientists will just have to believe what other scientists tell them, which makes it a religion.

Scientists say: insert any comment on ID by an intelligent scientist talking about the field relevant to his speciallity.

Scientists mean: You're a bunch of fucking morons who can't even see the truth that has been collected for you and laid out before your eyes.

It should actualy say, "You're a bunch of f*****g morons who can't even see the small amount of evidence that has been collected for you and laid out before your eyes."
since because science "proves" things by simply not being able to prove them wrong, means that science doesn't really "prove" anything (and usualy it doesn't pretend to). like I have said before "science doesn't offer proof, only evidence" so to say that a scientific theory is 'fact' or 'truth' means that you believe it is, and to believe it is is nothing more than blind faith. Science can pretend to be whatever it wants, but in reality it is nothing more than a religion.

You can believe whatever you chose to believe, just don't try to say evolution has been "proven", because it hasn't been, and probably never will be.

« on: October 10, 2005, 06:38:13 PM »
Iíll try to explain the concept of ďoptical illusionsĒ to you guys without being over-elaborate. Mainstream science would have you believe that the sun doesnít rise, move across the sky and set. It also says that the sun stays the same size throughout itís imaginary journey, even though it looks a lot bigger as it approaches the horizon. Both these phenomena are said to be ďoptical illusionsĒ. I take a neutral view, even though itís tempting to believe the evidence of your senses.

 The brain thinks that objects on the horizon should be farther away than objects overhead; since the Sun is the same apparent size in both places, the brain concludes that the Sun is physically bigger when it's on the horizon, and thus tricks you into thinking that the angular size is bigger than when it's overhead. This phenomenon is known as the Ponzo Illusion, and occurs for the Moon as well.
To convince yourself that this is, in fact, an optical illusion, put your head between your legs and look at the Sun upside down when it's on the horizon: it should look the same as it does when overhead, you can also look at the moon through a cardboard tube.

Who would expect the sky in Australia to look the same as the sky in the UK ?
If I look at the ceiling in my dining room I donít expect it to be the same as the ceiling in my upstairs bedroom. I would be shocked and astounded if it did! Just as much as I would if the sky was the same in different continents. I donít know why youíre so surprised to see a different sky.

I'm not surprised to see a different sky, but if the earth was flat I would be, because if it was flat shouldn't it look the same from all over? flat earthers say the north pole is the center of the earth and the south pole is an ice wall  
around the edge, but if that where true than people standing at random spots on the south pole would all see a different sky, but they don't.

« on: October 09, 2005, 06:19:28 AM »
Another thing I forgot. How come you see completly different stars in the northern hemisphere, than you see in the southern hemisphere?

« on: October 08, 2005, 12:55:05 PM »
first off, I would like to wish you luck in having a sensible debate, it seems that all the other round earthers would rather throw insults at, and flame, anyone who has different beliefs than them.

that is a good way to look at it, how ever, I don't believe that every thing else is stationary, just moving to slowly (when compared to the size of the known universe) to tell. moons orbit their planets, planets orbit their stars, stars orbit whatever is in the center of the galaxy. galaxys are possibly orbiting somthing to large to comprehend.

next, the arctic circle. if the earth was flat, why would it be day light for months on end in certain parts of the world, but the days stay normal lengths in others?

also, how could it be day on one half of the world, and the other half be night if the earth was flat? wouldn't it be almost the same all over?

then there are the people that say if the earth was round, why don't the oceans drip off the sides. well I can't answer that myself, but, I do know that Jupiter is made of gas, the reason the gas does not just float away would be the same reason that the oceans stay on the earth.

last, have you ever heard of Eratosthenes? he heard of a well where the suns reflection could be seen in the water at noon June 21, the longest day of the year, he surmised that the sun was directly above the earth at that moment. he believed that two cities (Syene and Alexandria) where on the same meridien (longitudinal line, the imaginary north-south running lines on the map.) by measuring the shadow cast by obelisk in Alexandria at the same moment there was no shadow in Syene, he computed the length of two sides of a triangle-the length of the shadow and the hight of the obelisk. with that information and some basic geometry, he figured the angle of the triangle and with that figure determind the degree that the sun was from directly overhead. that proved two be 7 degrees 12' which is equal to about one fiftieth of a circles 360 degrees, knowing this, he further reasoned that if he knew the distance from Syene to Alexandria- wich would equal the third side of his triangle connecting the sun, Alexandria, and Syene-he could simply multiply that distance by 50 and would have the aproximate size of the earth. he then learned that it took camels 50 days to make the trip from Syene to Alexandria. using ancient EPA camel standards of 100 stadia per day (stadia is an ancient maesurement related to the size of a greek race course) he came up with a distance of 5000 stadia between the two cities, multiplying that by fifty gave him an earth circumfrence of 250,000 stadia. which roughly translates to 25,000 miles, close to it's actual measurment at the pole of 24,860 miles.

of course his measurment would not have been possible on a flat earth, and it also shows that not even the ancients thought it was flat.

Flat Earth Q&A / I wish to challenge your theroy
« on: September 30, 2005, 01:43:44 PM »
If the flat earthers want to prove the earth is flat, why don't they set off on an expidetion to the edge of the earth? you know, bring back some pictures maybe some video? if they did that I would believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is flat.

Flat Earth Q&A / I challenge all flat-earthers to explain........
« on: September 30, 2005, 01:22:21 PM »
I have a few of questions for flat earthers: first off, how come in the artic circle it will be day light for months on end while the rest of the world's day light stays normal? second, if all the other planets in the solar system are spherical including the planets closer to the sun, why wouldn't the earth be the same? third, people have said if the earth was round the water should drip off the edge, however Jupiter is made up completly of gas (as evidenced by the by the holes punched through it by meteors) so why doesn't the gas just float away? and yes I know Jupiter is round because it rotates so fast I can actualy see it rotate through my telescope  (a full rotation takes about ten hours), and I can also watch Jupiter and saturns moons orbit the planets. I am not trying to say that a flat earth isn't possible, just wondering if some one could explain all this to me.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27]