Where is... gulp... the end?

holy shit .. do you understand what a theory is ? a theory doesn't require facts, it's an idea .. the facts are what you find to make your hyptohesis and then you analyze and conclude ..

In the mundane sense, yes, a "theory" can be any model you want. But in science, a theory means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

That was the meaning I meant.

there are too many facts to list that support my round earth theory,

Name one.

From the very same wikipedia

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON FACTS.  REGARDLESS OF US HAVING FACTS OR NOT, IT'S STILL A THEORY, DIPSHIT.

It wouldnt be called a theory if it was proven to be true. that is like me saying this:

My theory on what I had for breakfast this morning. I went into the kitchen and grabbed the captain crunch, put it in a bowl, and ate it.

that is not a theory, that is fact. well it didnt really happen this morning but you get the idea.

From the very same wikipedia

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON FACTS.  REGARDLESS OF US HAVING FACTS OR NOT, IT'S STILL A THEORY, DIPSHIT.

That wasn't the meaning I was using, but I guess you know what I think better than I do, eh Round Earther?

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 01:54:14 AM

From the very same wikipedia

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON FACTS.  REGARDLESS OF US HAVING FACTS OR NOT, IT'S STILL A THEORY, DIPSHIT.

That wasn't the meaning I was using, but I guess you know what I think better than I do, eh Round Earther?

Yeah you're right, if you're making up your own definitions I have no idea what you're trying to say.  You win.

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 01:43:39 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 01:54:14 AM

From the very same wikipedia

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON FACTS.  REGARDLESS OF US HAVING FACTS OR NOT, IT'S STILL A THEORY, DIPSHIT.

That wasn't the meaning I was using, but I guess you know what I think better than I do, eh Round Earther?

Yeah you're right, if you're making up your own definitions I have no idea what you're trying to say.  You win.

I quoted the definition I was using frmo the EXACT SAME PAGE, so what are you talking about, Round Earther?

My definition was from the same page as yours.  Mine isn't wrong.  I never called yours wrong.

My definition was from the same page as yours.  Mine isn't wrong.  I never called yours wrong.

Stop lying. You said:

"Yeah you're right, if you're making up your own definitions I have no idea what you're trying to say.  You win."

You said I "made up" the definition, when it came from that very same page!

But I guess it's ok for a Round Earther to lie to protect his belief system, isn't it?

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 08:17:30 PM

My definition was from the same page as yours.  Mine isn't wrong.  I never called yours wrong.

Stop lying. You said:

"Yeah you're right, if you're making up your own definitions I have no idea what you're trying to say.  You win."

You said I "made up" the definition, when it came from that very same page!

But I guess it's ok for a Round Earther to lie to protect his belief system, isn't it?

Choosing which definition you want to use and making up your own are different, you caught me.

This is what I meant: you can't say something, which has more than one definition, without clarifying what you actually mean.  You never gave any facts with your flat earth theory, so technically yours is only a theory if mine is.

A religion is not a theory. Please do not confuse the two. Round Earthism is a religion. Flat Earthism is the truth, and not a religion.

religion is a theory, it cannot be proven therefore it is not fact

A religion is not a theory. Please do not confuse the two. Round Earthism is a religion. Flat Earthism is the truth, and not a religion.

Uh...

Regardless of it being a religion or not, it can still be a theory, if you use the wikipedia definition.

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 08:31:42 PM

A religion is not a theory. Please do not confuse the two. Round Earthism is a religion. Flat Earthism is the truth, and not a religion.

Uh...

Regardless of it being a religion or not, it can still be a theory, if you use the wikipedia definition.

Please do explain how a RELIGION can become a THEORY.

god franc you are a MORON LOL .. ANY religion is a theory because it's an IDEA from some kind of PERSON .. now if a GOD made a religion, that might b fact

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:04:36 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 08:31:42 PM

A religion is not a theory. Please do not confuse the two. Round Earthism is a religion. Flat Earthism is the truth, and not a religion.

Uh...

Regardless of it being a religion or not, it can still be a theory, if you use the wikipedia definition.

Please do explain how a RELIGION can become a THEORY.

Read the wikipedia definition, that you so kindly pointed out, and tell me how a religion isn't a theory.

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 09:13:59 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:04:36 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 08:31:42 PM

A religion is not a theory. Please do not confuse the two. Round Earthism is a religion. Flat Earthism is the truth, and not a religion.

Uh...

Regardless of it being a religion or not, it can still be a theory, if you use the wikipedia definition.

Please do explain how a RELIGION can become a THEORY.

Read the wikipedia definition, that you so kindly pointed out, and tell me how a religion isn't a theory.

Theories are based on observations. Religions are based on faith. Round Earthism is based on faith.

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:23:36 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 09:13:59 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:04:36 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 08:31:42 PM

A religion is not a theory. Please do not confuse the two. Round Earthism is a religion. Flat Earthism is the truth, and not a religion.

Uh...

Regardless of it being a religion or not, it can still be a theory, if you use the wikipedia definition.

Please do explain how a RELIGION can become a THEORY.

Read the wikipedia definition, that you so kindly pointed out, and tell me how a religion isn't a theory.

Theories are based on observations. Religions are based on faith. Round Earthism is based on faith.

The bible is based on observations.  Do you believe Jesus didn't exist?

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 09:31:55 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:23:36 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 09:13:59 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:04:36 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 08:31:42 PM

A religion is not a theory. Please do not confuse the two. Round Earthism is a religion. Flat Earthism is the truth, and not a religion.

Uh...

Regardless of it being a religion or not, it can still be a theory, if you use the wikipedia definition.

Please do explain how a RELIGION can become a THEORY.

Read the wikipedia definition, that you so kindly pointed out, and tell me how a religion isn't a theory.

Theories are based on observations. Religions are based on faith. Round Earthism is based on faith.

The bible is based on observations.  Do you believe Jesus didn't exist?

Apart from the Gospels, which were written 30-90 years after the supposed fact, and interpolations and fabrications made 90+ years after the supposed fact, do you have any evidence "he" did?

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:40:29 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 09:31:55 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:23:36 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 09:13:59 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:04:36 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 08:31:42 PM

A religion is not a theory. Please do not confuse the two. Round Earthism is a religion. Flat Earthism is the truth, and not a religion.

Uh...

Regardless of it being a religion or not, it can still be a theory, if you use the wikipedia definition.

Please do explain how a RELIGION can become a THEORY.

Read the wikipedia definition, that you so kindly pointed out, and tell me how a religion isn't a theory.

Theories are based on observations. Religions are based on faith. Round Earthism is based on faith.

The bible is based on observations.  Do you believe Jesus didn't exist?

Apart from the Gospels, which were written 30-90 years after the supposed fact, and interpolations and fabrications made 90+ years after the supposed fact, do you have any evidence "he" did?

I thought age didn't determine how true or false something is?

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 10:02:09 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:40:29 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 09:31:55 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:23:36 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 09:13:59 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 09:04:36 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 08:31:42 PM

A religion is not a theory. Please do not confuse the two. Round Earthism is a religion. Flat Earthism is the truth, and not a religion.

Uh...

Regardless of it being a religion or not, it can still be a theory, if you use the wikipedia definition.

Please do explain how a RELIGION can become a THEORY.

Read the wikipedia definition, that you so kindly pointed out, and tell me how a religion isn't a theory.

Theories are based on observations. Religions are based on faith. Round Earthism is based on faith.

The bible is based on observations.  Do you believe Jesus didn't exist?

Apart from the Gospels, which were written 30-90 years after the supposed fact, and interpolations and fabrications made 90+ years after the supposed fact, do you have any evidence "he" did?

I thought age didn't determine how true or false something is?

Do I really have to explain to you the difference between historical evidence and hearsay/fabrications? How old are you?

Another ad hominem attack.  You don't stop do you?

You haven't proven anything as fact.  You haven't proved that Jesus didn't exist either.

Another ad hominem attack.  You don't stop do you?

You haven't proven anything as fact.  You haven't proved that Jesus didn't exist either.

Who said I was going to? I made no such claim. You are the one who made the claim. You have zero evidence, hence your claim is worthless.

Just like Round Earthism.

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 10:08:45 PM

Another ad hominem attack.  You don't stop do you?

You haven't proven anything as fact.  You haven't proved that Jesus didn't exist either.

Who said I was going to? I made no such claim. You are the one who made the claim. You have zero evidence, hence your claim is worthless.

Just like Round Earthism.

You can't prove the earth isn't round, you can't prove it's flat, you can't prove Jesus didn't exist.  You also have zero evidence.

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 10:12:56 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 10:08:45 PM

Another ad hominem attack.  You don't stop do you?

You haven't proven anything as fact.  You haven't proved that Jesus didn't exist either.

Who said I was going to? I made no such claim. You are the one who made the claim. You have zero evidence, hence your claim is worthless.

Just like Round Earthism.

You can't prove the earth isn't round, you can't prove it's flat, you can't prove Jesus didn't exist.  You also have zero evidence.

I have plenty of evidence in all three cases, but the issue is irrelevant. This conversation is about Round Earthism, not your flying Messiah on a stick. I can prove the Earth is not round very easily. Behold:



Also see my thread "Round Earthism is NOT obvious!" for more evidence.

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 10:14:43 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 13, 2007, 10:12:56 PM

Quote from: rolli on March 13, 2007, 10:08:45 PM

Another ad hominem attack.  You don't stop do you?

You haven't proven anything as fact.  You haven't proved that Jesus didn't exist either.

Who said I was going to? I made no such claim. You are the one who made the claim. You have zero evidence, hence your claim is worthless.

Just like Round Earthism.

You can't prove the earth isn't round, you can't prove it's flat, you can't prove Jesus didn't exist.  You also have zero evidence.

I have plenty of evidence in all three cases, but the issue is irrelevant. This conversation is about Round Earthism, not your flying Messiah on a stick. I can prove the Earth is not round very easily. Behold:



Also see my thread "Round Earthism is NOT obvious!" for more evidence.

You're dodging questions by claiming that this isn't the place.  This forum barely has a specific direction.  What better place for you to support that evidence than right here?

I just gave you two elements of proof.

Nothing can be proven to someone who won't listen.

You are a hypocrite.

well being that the bing bang theory is mostly opinion ne way, really nothing can be proved by this

I would like to know more about this "Bing Bang" Theory...

A religion is not a theory. Please do not confuse the two. Round Earthism is a religion. Flat Earthism is the truth, and not a religion.

A truth?
It is full of voids, for example... in your loved FAQ, there are mentioned the elephants and the turtle, thought it is said too that: We don't know, what kind of truth is that?
Anyway... Answer to this: Can the elephants lift and INFINITE WEIGHT? Because you said you think that the Earth is an infinite flat... You can't agree even with yourselves, Fe'ers...

Quote from: WasteofHumans on March 12, 2007, 10:21:55 PM

moron, i'm not talking about humanity, you're theories indicate that we're the only "planet" that is flat and that everything else is spherical, but not actually planets, just celestial beings.. now why is it that the earth is made up of all the same material as everything else, but ends up flat with a giant ice wall ?

It must have resulted from the initial conditions in the Big Bang. I am not a cosmologist so I can't really answer that.

Franc T., Planar... He is theories.