Millenniums are not scientifically proven.

  • 32 Replies
  • 4900 Views
?

doyh

  • 391
Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« on: January 21, 2011, 01:44:15 PM »
No one has ever witnessed a millennium. Therefore, they are a faith; a religion, if you will.
If we would all stop deflecting questions, maybe we could get somewhere.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2011, 01:51:11 PM »
Haven't heard this joke before.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2011, 02:12:44 PM »
From an epistemological stand point, this is true.

However, this stance also means all science is based off blind faith since there is no reason to think that what happened in the past will reflect what will happen in the future.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2011, 05:45:19 PM »
I think this is a satire of the people who claim evolution is not scientific even though we can see segments of it happening.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2011, 05:47:42 PM »
lrn2plural
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

doyh

  • 391
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2011, 06:08:42 PM »
No one has ever witnessed a millennium. Therefore, they are a faith; a religion, if you will.


What needs to become plural?
If we would all stop deflecting questions, maybe we could get somewhere.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2011, 06:23:51 PM »
What needs to become plural?

Please refer to the thread title.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2011, 06:26:13 PM »
plural millenniums or millennia ???
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2011, 07:03:06 PM »
If we're going to talk about this seriously, a millenium is nothing new. It is defined as 1000 years, and a year is defined as 365 and some days and a day is 24 hours and eventually you just get to the root concept of time, and the entire spectrum becomes a giant math problem.

So you don't have to observe a millenium to know for a fact that there exists such a thing since a millenium does not require any new observation. We observe lengths of time, and a millenium is a length of time. Therefore, a millenium can exist.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2011, 07:47:44 PM »

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2011, 10:52:51 PM »
plural millenniums or millennia ???

no, but plural of millennium is.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2011, 10:13:27 AM »
If we're going to talk about this seriously, a millenium is nothing new. It is defined as 1000 years, and a year is defined as 365 and some days and a day is 24 hours and eventually you just get to the root concept of time, and the entire spectrum becomes a giant math problem.

So you don't have to observe a millenium to know for a fact that there exists such a thing since a millenium does not require any new observation. We observe lengths of time, and a millenium is a length of time. Therefore, a millenium can exist.

Yet we have never observed a millennium, which is the point. Just like the people claiming evolution isn't scientific because it is not directly observed.

?

doyh

  • 391
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2011, 06:53:40 PM »
No, millennia (or millenniums, either are proper English) are macro-time. Years and days and such are micro-time.
If we would all stop deflecting questions, maybe we could get somewhere.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2011, 06:57:24 PM »
No, millennia (or millenniums, either are proper English) are macro-time. Years and days and such are micro-time.

 ???

*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • Rabble rabble rabble
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2011, 07:27:50 PM »
No, millennia (or millenniums, either are proper English) are macro-time. Years and days and such are micro-time.

 ???

I think this is a satire of the people who claim evolution is not scientific even though we can see segments of it happening.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2011, 07:32:42 PM »
I thought he was for real for a moment.  :P

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2011, 06:43:35 AM »
Sorry, does nobody remember the year 2000? I'm sure I remember observing it... I drank Babycham that night. Good times...


*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2011, 08:15:20 AM »
Sorry, does nobody remember the year 2000? I'm sure I remember observing it... I drank Babycham that night. Good times...



2001 was the beginning of the next millenium if you believe in millennia, but you haven't personally seen a thousand years.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2011, 08:38:40 AM »
Sorry, does nobody remember the year 2000? I'm sure I remember observing it... I drank Babycham that night. Good times...



Hmm pipes burst, computers crashed, grease trap backed up, and I stumbled home after downing something and muching on mushroom brownies.

From the remnants I would have to say rum.

Overall not unlike a normal saturday night.

Berny
Does not miss the days.

To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2011, 01:06:38 PM »
Sorry, does nobody remember the year 2000? I'm sure I remember observing it... I drank Babycham that night. Good times...



2001 was the beginning of the next millenium if you believe in millennia, but you haven't personally seen a thousand years.

You don't need to see a whole elephant to deduce you've seen an elephant.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2011, 01:12:40 PM »
Sorry, does nobody remember the year 2000? I'm sure I remember observing it... I drank Babycham that night. Good times...



2001 was the beginning of the next millenium if you believe in millennia, but you haven't personally seen a thousand years.

You don't need to see a whole elephant to deduce you've seen an elephant.

Herelephant
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2011, 03:20:29 PM »
Sorry, does nobody remember the year 2000? I'm sure I remember observing it... I drank Babycham that night. Good times...



2001 was the beginning of the next millenium if you believe in millennia, but you haven't personally seen a thousand years.

You don't need to see a whole elephant to deduce you've seen an elephant.

I think that's the point of the thread, Chris.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2011, 08:30:02 PM »
I'm rather saddened that not a single regular got the joke here other than masterchef judging by the posts. Has no one learned anything from fe theory?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2011, 11:17:14 PM »
I'm rather saddened that not a single regular got the joke here other than masterchef judging by the posts. Has no one learned anything from fe theory?

>implying that most people who got the joke would bother posting about it and spoiling it for the angry noobs
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2011, 01:32:33 AM »
I'm rather saddened that not a single regular got the joke here other than masterchef judging by the posts. Has no one learned anything from fe theory?

>Implying those arguing aren't also enjoying the joke by taking it further.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2011, 08:15:54 AM »
Ah yes, pull the "no I got the joke I was just faking to be funny"

Good one guys.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2011, 09:28:24 AM »
Ah yes, pull the "no I got the joke I was just faking to be funny"

Good one guys.

Haven't heard this joke before.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2011, 12:04:31 PM »
Ah yes, pull the "no I got the joke I was just faking to be funny"

Good one guys.

>Implying anybody actually thought somebody would believe that millenniums don't exist.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2011, 11:16:33 PM »
Ah yes, pull the "no I got the joke I was just faking to be funny"

Good one guys.

>Implying anybody actually thought somebody would believe that millenniums don't exist.

Coming from the forum that still has most people believing there are real fe'ers......

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2011, 01:17:17 AM »
I am disheartened by the creeping realization that genuine proponents of the FET might not exist, or are even fewer than I might've guessed. This forum still looks like a lot of fun, though.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.