Care to be consistent?

  • 87 Replies
  • 6746 Views
Care to be consistent?
« on: January 07, 2012, 04:07:01 AM »
All photos are fake. Anything I can't see with my own eyes I disregard.

Now prove to me:
Celestial gears (or any viable mechanism for movement of celestial bodies)
Bendy light theory
Glowing moon organisms

This is to illustrate that if you apply first hand observation as your criteria for evidence across both theories you will see that FET can't explain anything.

Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

So, applying this criteria to all scientific theories pretty much destroys science.

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2012, 05:22:30 AM »
Photos can be faked != all photos are invalid.
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2012, 07:06:02 PM »
Photos can be faked != all photos are invalid.

Buts its perfectly fine to say that all photos proving a round Earth are false?
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2012, 07:10:57 PM »
Photos can be faked != all photos are invalid.

Buts its perfectly fine to say that all photos proving a round Earth are false?

No they are either misleading or false, not just false... Lol, what a joke.

Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2012, 04:45:39 AM »
Way to miss the point guys  ::)

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2012, 05:42:06 AM »
Photos can be faked != all photos are invalid.
Including ones you take yourself?
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2012, 05:54:18 AM »
Way to miss the point guys  ::)
This is FES; people here specialise in derailing threads. However you must admit it is a pretty big step in your argument to say all photos are fake and that anything you can't see with your own eyes you disregard. What about gravity? Wind?
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2012, 06:02:42 AM »
Way to miss the point guys  ::)
This is FES; people here specialise in derailing threads. However you must admit it is a pretty big step in your argument to say all photos are fake and that anything you can't see with your own eyes you disregard. What about gravity? Wind?
As I understand it, most of the FE scientists here do not believe in the theory of gravitation, and wind can indeed be experienced directly, more or less.
Still. You are missing the point.
Forget what I said about photos, no one is going to provide photos of invisible celestial gears, bendy light, or luminescent moon creatures. I was making point about how if the FE community was consistent in the way they apply their skepticism, then the fore-mentioned celestial gears etc wouldn't be a part of their theory.

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2012, 06:10:06 AM »
Way to miss the point guys  ::)
This is FES; people here specialise in derailing threads. However you must admit it is a pretty big step in your argument to say all photos are fake and that anything you can't see with your own eyes you disregard. What about gravity? Wind?
As I understand it, most of the FE scientists here do not believe in the theory of gravitation, and wind can indeed be experienced directly, more or less.
Still. You are missing the point.
Forget what I said about photos, no one is going to provide photos of invisible celestial gears, bendy light, or luminescent moon creatures. I was making point about how if the FE community was consistent in the way they apply their skepticism, then the fore-mentioned celestial gears etc wouldn't be a part of their theory.
Sorry I won't forget the photos just yet.  The main reason they are not accepted is because the majority of them come from the conspiracy and its direct sources, e.g. NASA.  These are the very people who are trying to pull the wool over your eyes so of course they can't be trusted.

Now as for the FE community being inconsistent in their skepticism, well I personally take offense.  There may be inconsistency in how some aspects of FE theory are applied but our overall skepticism is an unwavering, united front. Perhaps you meant the former?
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2012, 08:43:26 AM »
Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

Hate to burst your bubble, but... yes it was. They just got creative. They found electrons (completely by surprise) via experiments with Crookes tubes, and the neutron was discovered (also by surprise) by bombarding gold leaf with alpha particles.

And electron microscopes can't see atoms. Those are atomic-force microscopes.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 08:46:56 AM by Tausami »

Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2012, 08:56:35 AM »
Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

Hate to burst your bubble, but... yes it was. They just got creative. They found electrons (completely by surprise) via experiments with Crookes tubes, and the neutron was discovered (also by surprise) by bombarding gold leaf with alpha particles.

And electron microscopes can't see atoms. Those are atomic-force microscopes.
AnonConda is right. Tausami is wrong. Atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2012, 09:09:02 AM »
Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

Hate to burst your bubble, but... yes it was. They just got creative. They found electrons (completely by surprise) via experiments with Crookes tubes, and the neutron was discovered (also by surprise) by bombarding gold leaf with alpha particles.

And electron microscopes can't see atoms. Those are atomic-force microscopes.
AnonConda is right. Tausami is wrong. Atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence

Hardly. It was not known that electrons existed until the Crookes experiment, and after they were found it was generally believed that elements consisted of a jello-type thing with electrons sitting around inside of it. While there was a very simplistic atomic theory before the Crookes experiment, it was based mainly as an explanation of chemical reactions (hey look, evidence by necessity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model

Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2012, 09:20:29 AM »
Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

Hate to burst your bubble, but... yes it was. They just got creative. They found electrons (completely by surprise) via experiments with Crookes tubes, and the neutron was discovered (also by surprise) by bombarding gold leaf with alpha particles.

And electron microscopes can't see atoms. Those are atomic-force microscopes.
AnonConda is right. Tausami is wrong. Atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence

Hardly. It was not known that electrons existed until the Crookes experiment, and after they were found it was generally believed that elements consisted of a jello-type thing with electrons sitting around inside of it. While there was a very simplistic atomic theory before the Crookes experiment, it was based mainly as an explanation of chemical reactions (hey look, evidence by necessity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model
Again: you incorrectly claimed that AnonConda was wrong in saying that atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom.

By the way, J. J. Thomson in 1897 first proposed the existence of the electron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2012, 09:27:57 AM »
Atomic theory was not based upon directly observing atoms, and electron microscopes came way after (BTW those photos are all faked). Atoms do not exist. No more hard atomic physics, or chemistry to deal with. Doesn't that make life easier?

Hate to burst your bubble, but... yes it was. They just got creative. They found electrons (completely by surprise) via experiments with Crookes tubes, and the neutron was discovered (also by surprise) by bombarding gold leaf with alpha particles.

And electron microscopes can't see atoms. Those are atomic-force microscopes.
AnonConda is right. Tausami is wrong. Atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Earliest_empirical_evidence

Hardly. It was not known that electrons existed until the Crookes experiment, and after they were found it was generally believed that elements consisted of a jello-type thing with electrons sitting around inside of it. While there was a very simplistic atomic theory before the Crookes experiment, it was based mainly as an explanation of chemical reactions (hey look, evidence by necessity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model
Again: you incorrectly claimed that AnonConda was wrong in saying that atomic theory developed long before anyone directly observed an atom.

By the way, J. J. Thomson in 1897 first proposed the existence of the electron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson

Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.

Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2012, 09:39:17 AM »
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2012, 10:00:30 AM »
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons. However, he didn't know what he was looking at and hypothesized it to be a new state of matter. Then Arthur Schustur made some improvements to the design, which allowed him to determine the charge to mass ratio of the substance. Then, Thompson figured out what it was. Schustur's improvement turned the apparatus from:


to


Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2012, 10:04:18 AM »
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2012, 10:15:03 AM »
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?

No, but I credit the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand with starting the holocaust.

Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2012, 11:31:52 AM »
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?

No, but I credit the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand with starting the holocaust.
Then you're inconsistent. For shame!
Also isn't it hate speech to give 'credit' when 'blame' is due for the Holocaust?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2012, 11:37:57 AM »
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?

No, but I credit the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand with starting the holocaust.

HAHAHA lol do you even know your history?  The argument could be made that Ferdinand should not have entered Serbia and that he was asking for trouble, but its just as easy to blame the Serbians, and even then the most blame should be placed on the Austrians for demanding military access to a foreign nation after his murder.  That is simply an unreasonable request, one they knew would lead to war.  So in all honesty it was the Austrian government post Ferdinand that was to blame for WW1 not the Serbians let alone one guy who made a poor decision to visit a location he was unpopular in. 

You are correct in assuming that WW1 did cause WW2, but the blame firmly lays with the french in this case.  They refused to accept Wilson's 14 points one of which was that retribution payments should be extremely mild or even none existent.  Instead Germany got slammed with huge fines that it printed money to pay, which resulted in hyper inflation and an upset public willing to elect/support a radical, and that radical was Hitler.

But even considering that its a huge stretch to blame the french for the holocaust, as it was Hitlers decision to start murdering Jews.  It was not an attempt to get back at the french for what they had done.  So there is no causation linked to the french, they only helped to enable such a situation.

So no poor Franz Ferdinand did not cause the holocaust. 

You do not arrest a person who sells kitchen knives because someone used his knife to stab someone.  Everyone's decisions are their own.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 11:44:23 AM by OrbisNonSufficit »

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2012, 12:08:43 PM »
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?

No, but I credit the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand with starting the holocaust.

HAHAHA lol do you even know your history?  The argument could be made that Ferdinand should not have entered Serbia and that he was asking for trouble, but its just as easy to blame the Serbians, and even then the most blame should be placed on the Austrians for demanding military access to a foreign nation after his murder.  That is simply an unreasonable request, one they knew would lead to war.  So in all honesty it was the Austrian government post Ferdinand that was to blame for WW1 not the Serbians let alone one guy who made a poor decision to visit a location he was unpopular in. 

You are correct in assuming that WW1 did cause WW2, but the blame firmly lays with the french in this case.  They refused to accept Wilson's 14 points one of which was that retribution payments should be extremely mild or even none existent.  Instead Germany got slammed with huge fines that it printed money to pay, which resulted in hyper inflation and an upset public willing to elect/support a radical, and that radical was Hitler.

But even considering that its a huge stretch to blame the french for the holocaust, as it was Hitlers decision to start murdering Jews.  It was not an attempt to get back at the french for what they had done.  So there is no causation linked to the french, they only helped to enable such a situation.

So no poor Franz Ferdinand did not cause the holocaust. 

You do not arrest a person who sells kitchen knives because someone used his knife to stab someone.  Everyone's decisions are their own.

I suppose I meant his assassin, but that was more of a filler line than anything and I wasn't expecting it to derail the thread. I don't know why.

And really, this is all irrelevant. Crookes discovered the electron, and Dalton figured out what it was, just like Columbus discovered America and Amerigo Vespucci figured out what it was.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2012, 12:16:52 PM »
Yes, based on the Crookes experiment and several others that made improvements on it.
By that logic, Noah discovered the electron since Crookes's experiment needed Noah's Ark.

*sigh*
Crookes invented a vacuum tube which allowed the visualization of electrons.
Noah built the Ark that saved some people whose descendants discovered electrons. I guess by your logic, we should also give credit to Adam.

Do you credit Michelson and Morley with discovering relativity too?

No, but I credit the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand with starting the holocaust.

HAHAHA lol do you even know your history?  The argument could be made that Ferdinand should not have entered Serbia and that he was asking for trouble, but its just as easy to blame the Serbians, and even then the most blame should be placed on the Austrians for demanding military access to a foreign nation after his murder.  That is simply an unreasonable request, one they knew would lead to war.  So in all honesty it was the Austrian government post Ferdinand that was to blame for WW1 not the Serbians let alone one guy who made a poor decision to visit a location he was unpopular in. 

You are correct in assuming that WW1 did cause WW2, but the blame firmly lays with the french in this case.  They refused to accept Wilson's 14 points one of which was that retribution payments should be extremely mild or even none existent.  Instead Germany got slammed with huge fines that it printed money to pay, which resulted in hyper inflation and an upset public willing to elect/support a radical, and that radical was Hitler.

But even considering that its a huge stretch to blame the french for the holocaust, as it was Hitlers decision to start murdering Jews.  It was not an attempt to get back at the french for what they had done.  So there is no causation linked to the french, they only helped to enable such a situation.

So no poor Franz Ferdinand did not cause the holocaust. 

You do not arrest a person who sells kitchen knives because someone used his knife to stab someone.  Everyone's decisions are their own.

I suppose I meant his assassin, but that was more of a filler line than anything and I wasn't expecting it to derail the thread. I don't know why.

And really, this is all irrelevant. Crookes discovered the electron, and Dalton figured out what it was, just like Columbus discovered America and Amerigo Vespucci figured out what it was.

Sorry i just hate it when people spew bullshit regarding history.

Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2012, 05:06:33 AM »
Maybe we can get the discussion back on track now.

The points I am trying to make are:

1. Evidence does not need to be through direct observation:
I don't need to be alive for millions of years to watch evolution take its course; when we have comparative anatomy, biochemistry, embryology, fossils, and genetics that each produce the same tree of ancestry. Clearly, even with this powerful evidence you still have creationists who claim "no one has seen evolution." This see it to believe it idea, goes against science and logic, and would render any crime without eye witnesses unsolvable.

2. I pointed to the flaw in using direct observation as the criteria for evidence:
That if this was adhered to by the flat earth society, then there would be no talk of celestial gears, bendy light, or glowing moon critters as these have not been directly observed by anyone.

P.S. And I wish to apologize to those in the FES who do no use this criteria for evidence for generalizing and lumping you in with them. I will have a separate topic for you in the near future.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2012, 08:16:25 AM »
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41970
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2012, 08:27:16 AM »
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Do you observe the moon shrimp themselves or do you observe the effects of the shrimp?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2012, 10:20:53 AM »
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Do you observe the moon shrimp themselves or do you observe the effects of the shrimp?
Do you, Rushy. observe the effects of the shrimp or just your fantasy of what you hope the effects are?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2012, 10:41:03 AM »
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Stop pretending to be an FEer, you yelled at them so much calling them all trolls that no one is ever going to believe you just switched over out of the blue. 

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2012, 11:19:23 AM »
It wasn't just out of the blue.  I personally observed a couple of wobbles.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2012, 11:31:47 AM »
I don't know about you, but I dirently observe the moon shrimp just about every night.

Oh my goodness, TEG is reborn!
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Care to be consistent?
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2012, 11:59:34 AM »
It wasn't just out of the blue.  I personally observed a couple of wobbles.

He grew increasingly sarcastic, then went entirely troll.  That is not a wobble. 

On december 22nd he made a comment that he thought 50 percent of the fEers were just one person with alts.  And byt eh 25th he was suddenly an fer.