I'd Like A Flat Earth Believers Perspective On A Few Questions

Quote from: Deceiver on May 03, 2010, 11:26:57 PM

uh yes, you do have to have credentials. We are at a point now where moderate education is necessary to progress any field of science...

Do you not think it presumptuous to state that the dictionary is incorrect?

Do you not think it is presumptuous to state that the dictionary is incorrect?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Antarctica
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/earth
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sun

Yet still, just as it is not required that you wear a lab coat to be a scientist (by definition), you neither have to fulfill your requirements.

Why are you repeating what we already agreed on. Yes, the definition does not say explicitly how you become a scientist. You are again assuming that the dictionary is all inclusive or rules out criteria. Brevity is the purpose of a dictionary... if it was to actually explain anything, then it would be called an Encyclopedia.

An example:
star? ?[stahr]  Show IPA ,noun, adjective, verb,starred, star·ring.
–noun
1.
any of the heavenly bodies, except the moon, appearing as fixed luminous points in the sky at night.

Notice that there is nothing about atomic fusion or electron states. Yet, the release of energy from atomic fusion is precisely what makes it luminous...

What the hell does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

What the hell does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

Nothing, really. It evolved from pongo being too dumb to understand how you become a scientist.

Quote from: Death-T on May 06, 2010, 01:56:41 PM

What do you believe is needed, in terms of men and material, to gaurd the ice wall to the point we don't have a single bit of evidence of it being guarded or a picture of the "beyond?"

Honestly, I'm not sure.  Something more than a lot.  To be totally truthful though, I suspect that the 'ice wall' isn't even habitable by human beings.  I would suspect there is a toxic atmosphere or perhaps even none at all.  It's hard to tell the ramifications on the body being in such proximity to the edge of the world.  It can't be healthy.  If this were true, then it would take a very few people to guard the wall.

Do you have evidence of this toxic atmosphere..... or even a scientific reason beyond " I thinkz it should be so?" Besides, we have had several, independent expeditions to the poles.... and they didn't seem to be gagging on toxic atmoshpere. Oh wait..... let me guess... they're part of the conspiracy too, Ima rite? /rolls eyes/

You're arguing about how you become a scientist, to a scientist, when you're not really sure anyway?

No, I was not.  Please reread the thread to understand what I was saying.

Quote from: Pongo on May 03, 2010, 11:37:13 PM

Quote from: Deceiver on May 03, 2010, 11:26:57 PM

uh yes, you do have to have credentials. We are at a point now where moderate education is necessary to progress any field of science...

Do you not think it presumptuous to state that the dictionary is incorrect?

Do you not think it is presumptuous to state that the dictionary is incorrect?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Antarctica
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/earth
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sun

Yes.

Quote from: Pongo on May 06, 2010, 10:46:31 PM

Quote from: Death-T on May 06, 2010, 01:56:41 PM

What do you believe is needed, in terms of men and material, to gaurd the ice wall to the point we don't have a single bit of evidence of it being guarded or a picture of the "beyond?"

Honestly, I'm not sure.  Something more than a lot.  To be totally truthful though, I suspect that the 'ice wall' isn't even habitable by human beings.  I would suspect there is a toxic atmosphere or perhaps even none at all.  It's hard to tell the ramifications on the body being in such proximity to the edge of the world.  It can't be healthy.  If this were true, then it would take a very few people to guard the wall.

Do you have evidence of this toxic atmosphere..... or even a scientific reason beyond " I thinkz it should be so?"

No, that is why I qualified the statement with the word "suspect" rather than stating it as fact.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 08, 2010, 03:32:07 AM

You're arguing about how you become a scientist, to a scientist, when you're not really sure anyway?

No, I was not.  Please reread the thread to understand what I was saying.

He's a scientist. Hence the "to a scientist"
You're not really sure. Which you admitted.
You're arguing how you become a scientist. You said his definition was wrong, hence arguing.

You got to be a troll.

Quote from: Pongo on May 09, 2010, 08:17:57 PM

Quote from: Catchpa on May 08, 2010, 03:32:07 AM

You're arguing about how you become a scientist, to a scientist, when you're not really sure anyway?

No, I was not.  Please reread the thread to understand what I was saying.

He's a scientist. Hence the "to a scientist"
You're not really sure. Which you admitted.
You're arguing how you become a scientist. You said his definition was wrong, hence arguing.

You got to be a troll.

I said I was unsure the manpower needed to guard the "ice wall", not that I was unsure how to become a scientist.  You are either quote mining or have a serious deficiency in reading comprehension.

Guarding the "ice wall" would require only one person, considering it's actually just a single point.

For a conspiracy that spans the entire earth, it's pretty sweet that only the United States has a flag there.

Perhaps our ice guards are in conflict with other nation's ice guards? Ultimate 'Capture the Flag' tournament?

\
An example:
star? ?[stahr]  Show IPA ,noun, adjective, verb,starred, star?ring.
?noun
1.
any of the heavenly bodies, except the moon, appearing as fixed luminous points in the sky at night.

Notice that there is nothing about atomic fusion or electron states. Yet, the release of energy from atomic fusion is precisely what makes it luminous...

If I said that nebula's and galaxies visible to the naked eye are stars, would I be correct or incorrect by that definition?

If I said Venus was a star, would I be correct or incorrect by that definition?

For a conspiracy that spans the entire earth, it's pretty sweet that only the United States has a flag there.

Perhaps our ice guards are in conflict with other nation's ice guards? Ultimate 'Capture the Flag' tournament?

I'm with Red Team. Blue team sucks.

For a conspiracy that spans the entire earth, it's pretty sweet that only the United States has a flag there.

Perhaps our ice guards are in conflict with other nation's ice guards? Ultimate 'Capture the Flag' tournament?

*ahem*

Quote from: Catchpa on May 09, 2010, 10:44:57 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 09, 2010, 08:17:57 PM

Quote from: Catchpa on May 08, 2010, 03:32:07 AM

You're arguing about how you become a scientist, to a scientist, when you're not really sure anyway?

No, I was not.  Please reread the thread to understand what I was saying.

He's a scientist. Hence the "to a scientist"
You're not really sure. Which you admitted.
You're arguing how you become a scientist. You said his definition was wrong, hence arguing.

You got to be a troll.

I said I was unsure the manpower needed to guard the "ice wall", not that I was unsure how to become a scientist.  You are either quote mining or have a serious deficiency in reading comprehension.

So you know how to become a scientist  then?

Quote from: Deceiver on May 08, 2010, 07:05:03 AM

\
An example:
star? ?[stahr]  Show IPA ,noun, adjective, verb,starred, star?ring.
?noun
1.
any of the heavenly bodies, except the moon, appearing as fixed luminous points in the sky at night.

Notice that there is nothing about atomic fusion or electron states. Yet, the release of energy from atomic fusion is precisely what makes it luminous...

If I said that nebula's and galaxies visible to the naked eye are stars, would I be correct or incorrect by that definition?

If I said Venus was a star, would I be correct or incorrect by that definition?

You just proved his point that you cannot take the dictionary as the be all and end all.

Or didn't you see that you just walked into your own trap with that last comment?

Quote from: Pongo on May 10, 2010, 03:01:56 AM

Quote from: Deceiver on May 08, 2010, 07:05:03 AM

\
An example:
star? ?[stahr]  Show IPA ,noun, adjective, verb,starred, star?ring.
?noun
1.
any of the heavenly bodies, except the moon, appearing as fixed luminous points in the sky at night.

Notice that there is nothing about atomic fusion or electron states. Yet, the release of energy from atomic fusion is precisely what makes it luminous...

If I said that nebula's and galaxies visible to the naked eye are stars, would I be correct or incorrect by that definition?

If I said Venus was a star, would I be correct or incorrect by that definition?

You just proved his point that you cannot take the dictionary as the be all and end all.

Or didn't you see that you just walked into your own trap with that last comment?

When did I say the dictionary is an end-all be-all resource?

You act like it.

When you use it to prove a point, you're very heavily referring to it.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on May 11, 2010, 01:13:15 AM

Quote from: Pongo on May 10, 2010, 03:01:56 AM

Quote from: Deceiver on May 08, 2010, 07:05:03 AM

\
An example:
star? ?[stahr]  Show IPA ,noun, adjective, verb,starred, star?ring.
?noun
1.
any of the heavenly bodies, except the moon, appearing as fixed luminous points in the sky at night.

Notice that there is nothing about atomic fusion or electron states. Yet, the release of energy from atomic fusion is precisely what makes it luminous...

If I said that nebula's and galaxies visible to the naked eye are stars, would I be correct or incorrect by that definition?

If I said Venus was a star, would I be correct or incorrect by that definition?

You just proved his point that you cannot take the dictionary as the be all and end all.

Or didn't you see that you just walked into your own trap with that last comment?

When did I say the dictionary is an end-all be-all resource?

You consistently say that I am wrong 'by definition'.

I quoted a definition that is obviously fallacious if taken at face value. Which you proved with your Venus comment.

Yet you have been clinging on so heavily to the 'by definition' argument throughout this entire thread... proving that you regard the dictionary as an end-all-be-all text.

No, all it proves is what I've been saying all along.  It's a simple point, I don't understand why you can't grasp it.  You were, by definition, wrong.  Saying the dictionary is not the end-all source, looking up other definitions, and pointing out my vast and unyielding ignorance may all be correct.  Yet, it will never change the fact that you were, by definition, wrong.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 10, 2010, 02:04:50 AM

For a conspiracy that spans the entire earth, it's pretty sweet that only the United States has a flag there.

Perhaps our ice guards are in conflict with other nation's ice guards? Ultimate 'Capture the Flag' tournament?

*ahem*

is that the magnetic one?