ok, disprove this:

Scientology is for the gullible, weak-minded, and bat-shit insane.

FET is for skillful debaters.

Or for those that believe the world is flat.

Quote from: Mykael on April 16, 2009, 08:53:55 PM

Scientology is for the gullible, weak-minded, and bat-shit insane.

FET is for skillful debaters.

Or for those that believe the world is flat.

Both!

Indeed!

The majority of people are theists, I thought it right to assume you were one of these people, seeing as you are a dumbass without religion considered.

How am I a dumbass and why do you think so...because I don't agree with your ideas?  Your assumptions just show your frustration towards your inability to explain your ideas in a way that someone else would be able to take as a logical idea.

No, his frustration is at your inability to listen to a logical idea and stop just parroting what you've been told since you were a child. If nobody had told you that Santa doesn't exist, you'd probably still believe in him due to this utter lack of independent though you've been displaying.

Lurk moar, you'll find plenty.

No, his frustration is at your inability to listen to a logical idea and stop just parroting what you've been told since you were a child. If nobody had told you that Santa doesn't exist, you'd probably still believe in him due to this utter lack of independent though you've been displaying.

I can't stop wondering as what kind of childhood you people had. Always someone telling you - believe me, earth is round. And never explaining why they think so. Poor you. At least I didn't have that kind of childhood.
 And what kind of logical idea you talk? Flat earth? There is nothing logical about it as you can see from this forum. You must always invent some sort of new term or force or other thing to explain your observations. And then you don't have any way to do experiments and collect data that supports in some way your theory.

We make assumptions based on observations? That's science. You didn't have RE drilled into you from birth? What made you decide the Earth was round then? And I think you'll find we do. You know EnaG? It's sort of full of them.

You must always invent some sort of new term or force or other thing to explain your observations.

Like Isaac Newton? Are you saying the word "gravity" existed before he made it up. Are you saying that he just had a thought about "gravity" being true without first observing something?

We here at FES know that the "theory" of gravity has no substantial backbone, nothing that could actually cause it to happen, so we thought of a better explanation. And by "we" I mean the people that actually came up with it, not the people here now.

We make assumptions based on observations? That's science.

That is not a science. This is fantasizing. Or maybe philosophy fits in on some degree but not any physical science.

You didn't have RE drilled into you from birth?

No, I guess that I was lucky then.

What made you decide the Earth was round then?

Start from beginning with math, physics, geology and so on and when time passes and you learn things then you realize that round earth is only logical explanation for phenomenons that happen around you every day.

And I think you'll find we do. You know EnaG? It's sort of full of them.

Full of what? Badly done experiments, wrong assumptions?

Quote from: zork on April 17, 2009, 09:35:58 AM

You must always invent some sort of new term or force or other thing to explain your observations.

Like Isaac Newton? Are you saying the word "gravity" existed before he made it up. Are you saying that he just had a thought about "gravity" being true without first observing something?

There is difference. Newton didn't have any word for it so he said "gravity". You have all the explanations and terms but you ignore them and invent new words for things that already have them.

We here at FES know that the "theory" of gravity has no substantial backbone, nothing that could actually cause it to happen, so we thought of a better explanation. And by "we" I mean the people that actually came up with it, not the people here now.

  I understand only that that you don't understand gravity and so you invent something else that you think that you understand. Like upward accelerating earth. Yes, that is more understandable but then you must explain what and how accelerates earth. And there you fail more miserably than scientist now at explaining gravity. And same with all other things. Like bending light, EA, celestial gears and whatever else.

I have a few questions for you then.

How do you define "science"?
Can't you name any of these phenomena, or is your claim that such things exist self evident?
Can't you prove these experiments are badly done, or that the assumptions are wrong, or is this claim again self evident?

I have a few questions for you then.
How do you define "science"?

How do you deifne it? As for me... get dictionary, encyclopedia or wikipedia, which one you prefer. I can only say that science deals with data and uses scientific method. FE lacks both of them.

Can't you name any of these phenomena, or is your claim that such things exist self evident?

I guess that you mus actually read what people post here. There are many time discussed such everyday phenomenons in this forum.

Can't you prove these experiments are badly done, or that the assumptions are wrong, or is this claim again self evident?

Again, have you itself any proof that these experiments were correctly done? You have only ENag which describes experiments quite generally. And if you search forum there are quite many occasions where experiments were shown to be badly done. Edtharan for example has many times shown that first experiment was done wrongly. Some others have pointed out Rowbotham wrong interpretation of perspective. Some time ago there was link to research about detecting earth curvature and it's conclusion was that yes, from ground you can't see it. So all the Rowbotham experiments which based on assumption that you can detect earth curvature from the ground are busted. So, what proof have you that Rowbotham experiments were correct and present strong base for flat earth? Can you dig up some credible scientific peer review from last 20 or 30 year?

First of all, the question has nothing to do with my definition, I want to know how you define it. I find it interesting that you have failed to actually name one of these many phenomena. As for the BoP, you're the one who claimed they were done wrongly, you prove it. References to other peoples work is pointless if you don't let us see it, either cite the sources you claim to have or GTFO.

First of all, the question has nothing to do with my definition, I want to know how you define it.

I already said my opinion and science is already defined. I gave you hints where you can find it. And you was the first one to mention science - We make assumptions based on observations? That's science. - I guess that it is your science definition - Making assumptions based on observations.

I find it interesting that you have failed to actually name one of these many phenomena.

I find it interesting that you seem to be around here quite a long time but you haven't actually read what other people write here. Or you have quite short memory. Use search function.

As for the BoP, you're the one who claimed they were done wrongly, you prove it. References to other peoples work is pointless if you don't let us see it, either cite the sources you claim to have or GTFO.

Source is http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/. I gave you the hints what is needed for searching. So, use search again. And you are the one who claims that Rowbotham experiments are correct and prove flat earth. So, you prove that they are. I accept gladly any names or just hints for people or magazines or books which contain some scientific peer review(done during last 30-20 years) of Rowbotham work.

Nice examples, or lack thereof. I'm not going to waste my time here until you actually respond to my questions.

Nice examples, or lack thereof. I'm not going to waste my time here until you actually respond to my questions.

Typical, if there is some need to do something then you don't do anything. I for example have actually read these forums and remember something but I don't remember exact topics and url's for posts. So, I don't going to waste my time to search these up again because you just have bad memory or don't read things here. Hints for searching were more than sufficient. And I at least gave hints. You gave absolutely nothing for your claims.

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 17, 2009, 12:43:22 PM

Nice examples, or lack thereof. I'm not going to waste my time here until you actually respond to my questions.

Typical, if there is some need to do something then you don't do anything. I for example have actually read these forums and remember something but I don't remember exact topics and url's for posts. So, I don't going to waste my time to search these up again because you just have bad memory or don't read things here. Hints for searching were more than sufficient. And I at least gave hints. You gave absolutely nothing for your claims.

If you are listing the differences between you and him, you forgot one. He isn't stupid.

If you are listing the differences between you and him, you forgot one. He isn't stupid.

If I listed something then his inability to support his claims and despite of source and hints for searching his lack of interest to actually search for anything. And yes, I am quite stupid in many areas, so what? And if he isn't stupid then I don't know what term you use to describe him because "smart" isn't that word.

How about "Very smart"? Just because you can't read doesn't mean you get special treatment when it comes to debating.

How about "Very smart"? Just because you can't read doesn't mean you get special treatment when it comes to debating.

It includes the word "smart" in it and as I said, that doesn't seem to fit. But you can throw in the word "genius", because geniuses are usually not understood by other lowly life.  And I guess the special treatment in debate is actually debating, not just jumping to other and requesting that they do and prove all things.
 But as you can read an I don't then maybe you can quote to me where he proved his claims about Rowbotham experiments being right/correct.

Quote from: taters343 on April 17, 2009, 01:00:05 PM

How about "Very smart"? Just because you can't read doesn't mean you get special treatment when it comes to debating.

It includes the word "smart" in it and as I said, that doesn't seem to fit. But you can throw in the word "genius", because geniuses are usually not understood by other lowly life.  And I guess the special treatment in debate is actually debating, not just jumping to other and requesting that they do and prove all things.
 But as you can read an I don't then maybe you can quote to me where he proved his claims about Rowbotham experiments being right/correct.

I don't know what you were trying to say there. It could be me though, I am very tired.

Quote from: zork on April 17, 2009, 01:12:02 PM

Quote from: taters343 on April 17, 2009, 01:00:05 PM

How about "Very smart"? Just because you can't read doesn't mean you get special treatment when it comes to debating.

It includes the word "smart" in it and as I said, that doesn't seem to fit. But you can throw in the word "genius", because geniuses are usually not understood by other lowly life.  And I guess the special treatment in debate is actually debating, not just jumping to other and requesting that they do and prove all things.
 But as you can read an I don't then maybe you can quote to me where he proved his claims about Rowbotham experiments being right/correct.

I don't know what you were trying to say there. It could be me though, I am very tired.

Ohh, I guess that I can refer to itself also as "genius" because you  didn't understand me.

Quote from: taters343 on April 17, 2009, 01:19:55 PM

Quote from: zork on April 17, 2009, 01:12:02 PM

Quote from: taters343 on April 17, 2009, 01:00:05 PM

How about "Very smart"? Just because you can't read doesn't mean you get special treatment when it comes to debating.

It includes the word "smart" in it and as I said, that doesn't seem to fit. But you can throw in the word "genius", because geniuses are usually not understood by other lowly life.  And I guess the special treatment in debate is actually debating, not just jumping to other and requesting that they do and prove all things.
 But as you can read an I don't then maybe you can quote to me where he proved his claims about Rowbotham experiments being right/correct.

I don't know what you were trying to say there. It could be me though, I am very tired.

Ohh, I guess that I can refer to itself also as "genius" because you  didn't understand me.

You are an "it"?

Quote from: zork on April 17, 2009, 01:26:21 PM

Ohh, I guess that I can refer to itself also as "genius" because you  didn't understand me.

You are an "it"?

Things happen when your native language isn't english. I guess that you don't do better if I ask you to write in estonian language.

Quote from: taters343 on April 17, 2009, 01:28:01 PM

Quote from: zork on April 17, 2009, 01:26:21 PM

Ohh, I guess that I can refer to itself also as "genius" because you  didn't understand me.

You are an "it"?

Things happen when your native language isn't english. I guess that you don't do better if I ask you to write in estonian language.

Well, we aren't on an Estonian forum, so why would you?

Quote from: zork on April 17, 2009, 01:31:24 PM

Things happen when your native language isn't english. I guess that you don't do better if I ask you to write in estonian language.

Well, we aren't on an Estonian forum, so why would you?

Just to make my point which you don't seem to get. I guess that proves my...

Quote from: General Douchebag on April 18, 2009, 03:11:12 AM

Nope.

Oh good. Just glaring contradictions and inaccuracies then.

Nope.

Nope. FE acknowledges gravitation, just not gravity, plus the joke is just that. So my original statement's pretty all-encompassing.

Hmm... I wonder if the legendary Flat Earth Wiki (FEW) will be any more informative when (if) it goes live.