5581

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth

« on: March 13, 2016, 06:01:32 AM »

Didnt you just admit the big bang is a trust us scenario? I don't understand at all your comment about dropping something from a sub, because buoyancy itself completely defies gravity. Things that are less dense than water rise, things that are more dense drop. A theory, by definition, not a law, of gravitation has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't defy anything.  Buoyancy is a force like any other.  It pushes less dense objects up or, more accurafely, more dense objects down.  Its a product of gravitation.  Lets take wood and water.  They both are being pulled down at the same rate.  However, the water is denser so its mass can move the wood against gravity to get closer to the surface.  The wood moves out of the way of the water until its floating on top.

A submarine is denser than water.  FYI.  How does that defy your logic?

Why is buoyancy defined as something that only affects object in liquid water? Our atmosphere is a fluid just as much as a body of water is.

Never said otherwise.
Just easier to see in water than air.

5582

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Diplomacy

« on: March 12, 2016, 07:51:17 PM »

The people are Germany are a people of peace, and we welcome good relations with our Italian neighbors.  One of my statesmen will send along a proposal shortly.

Let it never be said that the great citizens of the German Empire thirst for war.  To that end, Germany would like to officially extend an offer of mutual nonaggression to any nation interested in preserving the peace and prosperity of Europe and her allies.  Feel free to contact the Kaiser at your convenience to discuss any interest or terms you may have.

also the kaiser will try to be on irc more often for diplomacy related stuff.

I would be more then pleased to host the Kaiser and join in this nonaggression pact.  Such an agreement can only strengthen our two nations.

5583

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Diplomacy

« on: March 12, 2016, 06:41:58 AM »

Who would be foolish to attack my German friends?

5584

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth

« on: March 10, 2016, 11:27:52 PM »

Didnt you just admit the big bang is a trust us scenario? I don't understand at all your comment about dropping something from a sub, because buoyancy itself completely defies gravity. Things that are less dense than water rise, things that are more dense drop. A theory, by definition, not a law, of gravitation has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't defy anything.  Buoyancy is a force like any other.  It pushes less dense objects up or, more accurafely, more dense objects down.  Its a product of gravitation.  Lets take wood and water.  They both are being pulled down at the same rate.  However, the water is denser so its mass can move the wood against gravity to get closer to the surface.  The wood moves out of the way of the water until its floating on top.

A submarine is denser than water.  FYI.  How does that defy your logic?

5585

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 10, 2016, 09:21:33 PM »

Just wondered which era of American history you would turn the clocks back too? It's always a bit of a mystery when I hear people harking back to the golden age as they seem to cherry pick bits from here and there, forgetting all the shit that went with it.
The British nationalist have some mythical amalgamation of Richard the lion-heart (a particularly bad time to be in Britain if you know your history) and the height of the Victorians (see Dickens for the down side), so when was America great?

The 20s or 50s.
We were fresh from the war, great economy, everyone was happy except for those who were socially oppressed (but who cares about them, am I right?).  Plus we got "In God We Trust" put on our money and "Under God" in our pledge in the 50s.  What's not to love?

5586

Technology & Information / Re: I just bought a NUC

« on: March 10, 2016, 09:19:43 PM »

Name it Bilbo: Because it's so small, no one notices or cares about it.

5587

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth

« on: March 10, 2016, 09:00:34 PM »

The contradiction is that you've said religion deals with supernatural but the Earth's shape is not supernatural (by definition).  It can also be observed and measured.  Yet you then seem to think that using the supernatural angle is the only way to get people to agree the Earth is flat.  You are literally saying "The Earth is flat.  Believe it because I said so." which is a really bad way of getting people to join your cause.
And yes, science does think it's a laughable notion, with good reason.  But, be reminded, they said the same thing about plate tectonics.

If the Earth's shape was satisfactorily observed, measured, and confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt would this forum even exist? There is an incredible amount of faith involved in believing in things like the moon landing, the big bang, or Newtonian gravity.

Moon landing?  No.  We have evidence.
Big bang?  Eh, its a theory.  Lots of evidence but obviously no definite proof.
Newtonian Gravity?  No.  Not even a little.  Want proof?  Drop something.  Want more proof?  Do it in a sub, under water.  Go test it.

And the Earth, though aspects and elements of its nature can be examined and measured, isn't automatically natural by definition, depending on your beliefs. I believe in a supernatural formulation obviously, for many of the reasons listed in my OP, and a lot of other people do as well.

Yeah it kinda is.  Natural means it exists and is bound by the laws of the universe.  It is part of nature, of the environment.  Of the universe.

I'm just pointing out the error that is trusting in a segment of society, that inherently seeks to invalidate creationism and would prefer to push big bang theories and evolution, to ever contradict themselves by giving flat earth theory any proper attention.

The two concepts are more connected than anyone apparently realizes here on this forum.

As opposed to a segmemt of society that tells you something without proof and saying "trust me."?

5588

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 10, 2016, 08:30:50 PM »

I can't due to the size of the list involved.  Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings.  I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started.  I doubt you could either.

Ohhhhh, so you meant to say that you heard he filed bankruptcy a couple times and closed a few projects before completion and in your ignorance of business you assumed that's the scarlet-letter mark of a failed businessperson. Gotcha.

Hold on... Where did I say he's a failed businessman?  He's obviously not as he holds a lot of properties, casinos, brands, tv shows, etc...  Why he wishes to give them up to be president, however, is an interesting question.

Perhaps -- and this one's gunna blow your mind -- perhaps John Oliver doesn't know everything about everything and his show is -- hold on! -- just out to make ratings.

British Documentary, actually.  On Norwegian television.
Also, Trump is out to make money and an image.  At least, he has been for 30+ years.

Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.

But that's not what you said is it? You said that because he's a businessman he will quit when there is no profit in it. You're just backpedaling now that you've been shown the inanity in your statement. However, as you appear to have forgotten, we are on a forum and I (or anyone really) can scroll up or click back to see what you said. I'm doing it now, lets see... Yep, Dave said that if there is no profit in it, Trump won't keep going. Looking for the part where you said say that their career will influence a politician's presidency... looking... looking... looking...
Nope, seems like you just made that shit right up when you were pressed on your ridiculous statements. If, perhaps, that's the message you meant to convey all along, then may I suggest you be more cognizant of the words you use. It will alleviate all this double-speaking backtalk you have to do to qualify all your statements and get us back on topic about how Trump will make America great again.

My appologies, allow me to clarify:
Trump is a successful businessman.  He is worth a few Billion in assets.  He is not stupid.  As a smart, successful businessman, he will not waste time on failed ventures.  He will not continue to dump money into a non-profitable company without thinking it will be profitable.  He will abandon anything that will damage his image or his fortune and fight, very very hard, to maintain both.

So, I expect a Trump presidency to be full of force, policy changes based on current need, and the interests of Trump's presidency and image to be more important than other people or the nation.  He will make himself great.  And nothing anyone says will persuade him that he's succeeded.


Maybe that's what you want.  Maybe that's what America wants.  But when president Trump is told No by congress for the first time, something he isn't accustomed to, it will not be pretty.  I look forward to it.

5589

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 10, 2016, 05:31:17 PM »

If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.

I'm not sure I can. 
This one I'm most thinking of but not as abandoned as I thought:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf/421065/

And of course, this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

But eh.  Whatever.  Point is, he's a business man.  If there's no profit, why keep going?

What? In what universe does that make sense? Hillary's a mother so she'll bake cookies for America. Sanders is a Yankee so he'll go to war with the South. Trump is a businessman so he will quit if he's not making a profit.

This may shock you Dave, but people are more than their titles. You fire off all these things you're clearly parroting from whatever Facebook feeds you follow, and when asked to back up your assertions your response is, "I'm not sure I can." How about instead of regurgitating whatever you read that aligns with your presuppositions, you state things you can handle.  Lets start with a small one:

Trump is going to make America great again. (You should repeat this often.)

I can't due to the size of the list involved.  Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings.  I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started.  I doubt you could either.

Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.

But how about this statement:
I hope America gets the tyrant it wants.  I hope Donald Trump spits in the face of allies and enemies alike.  I hope he rips apart NAFTA, economically fucks China, and violates the 4th amendment finding all the illegals.

I'll be here in a civilized country, avoiding America.

5590

Announcements / Re: Admin Resignation

« on: March 10, 2016, 12:08:06 PM »

So how will you choose a replacement, if there is going to be one?

5591

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Water from cars - check my math

« on: March 10, 2016, 06:15:02 AM »

There is this thing called the water cycle. Water leaves the ocean, it gets added to the ocean, it gets electrolysised, it gets created by combustion.

Irrelevant. Just like the carbon in oil, the hydrogen in it has also been out of the water cycle for billions of years. The water cycle, just like the carbon cycle, is not immutable and can be disturbed by adding or removing material.

That is like saying meteors are upsetting the balance of rock on earth.

Not to state the obvious but when a meteor hits the Earth, it does damage the land, changing it forever. 

There is this thing called the water cycle. Water leaves the ocean, it gets added to the ocean, it gets electrolysised, it gets created by combustion.

The National Ocean Service claims there are 352,670,000,000,000,000,(352 quintillion) gallons of water in the oceans. So your 136 billion gallons of water is really just a drop in the ocean. Don't lose any sleep over it.

Thaf's just gasoline usage in the US though.

But yes, its a small amount.  But considering the carbon dioxide released is also tiny by comparison to the total amout in the atmosphere, I'd say it warrents consideration on some level.

It just shows neither need any attention. You are only told by media to worry about this so as you can be guilt taxed on it at a later date.

There used to be religious taxes. The people believed in God so authorities gave them a church tax. It you want to believe in this chicken-licken 'carbon will kill us all' nonsense then the authorities will apply the obligatory idiot's environmental tax.

Not me.  No tax in America nor Norway.

Also, why not worry about both?

5592

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth

« on: March 09, 2016, 09:46:26 PM »

Thanks for actually putting some thought into a response.

I've only maintained what I've said from the beginning, which is that science as a vehicle for flat earth theory is a non starter. Where you see a contradiction on that point I'd like to know. Whether you personally believe in God or that the Earth is Flat or Round is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But I can tell you are letting your personal views overpower your ability to objectively look at the points I've raised. Even if I didn't personally believe in intelligent design, I still know there are lots of people that do. I only seek to find out why the "flat earth society" chooses to remain strictly atheistic, when it is clear the scientific community shuns it entirely.

The contradiction is that you've said religion deals with supernatural but the Earth's shape is not supernatural (by definition).  It can also be observed and measured.  Yet you then seem to think that using the supernatural angle is the only way to get people to agree the Earth is flat.  You are literally saying "The Earth is flat.  Believe it because I said so." which is a really bad way of getting people to join your cause.

And yes, science does think it's a laughable notion, with good reason.  But, be reminded, they said the same thing about plate tectonics.

5593

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Diplomacy

« on: March 09, 2016, 09:00:13 PM »

We'll be moving the game over here.

Send me your gmail address for an invite.

No invite received yet.

5594

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: March 09, 2016, 08:45:13 PM »

If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?

No, this is simply that when something happens that he can't control (such as expenses run over or legal issues crop up) Donald Trump, like any smart business man, will jump ship.
Just ask Scotland.

If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.

I'm not sure I can. 
This one I'm most thinking of but not as abandoned as I thought:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf/421065/

And of course, this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

But eh.  Whatever.  Point is, he's a business man.  If there's no profit, why keep going?

5595

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth

« on: March 09, 2016, 08:07:14 PM »

Who said it works in a vacuum?

Science.  Experiments.  Jars devoid of gas yet somehow stuff doesn't float in it.

Who said space is a vacuum? Who said anything about space? I'm talking about the thoroughly experimented on property of matter known as density, and its observable effects on earth.

You said space, not me.  Also, I'm talking about observable effects on earth too. A lead brick isn't going to float in a jar full of nothing anymore than it'll float in a jar full of air.  Also, if the density of air and us kept us down, then the total force keeping you down is equal to the force acting downwards on you: ie. the weight of the air above you.  This is very very false and can be demonstrated with some very simple math.

I directed you towards Hermeticism and you are the one that wants to talk about the Bible and Christianity only. No one said any religion is there to tell you how our natural world works, it deals with the supernatural.

The shape of the Earth is not supernatural.  Thus, if you want to use religion to convince people of the shape of the earth, then you have a contradiction.

I'm not anti-science, in fact I completely agree with the original intention of the scientific method, that is observation of our physical universe and experimentation to test different elements of it. When things become abstract mathematics with relatively (pun intended) little resemblance to reality is where I believe science has took a turn for the worse.

So you're ok with observational science which proves the Earth is round then complain about abstract concepts you don't understand, and all in a thread saying we should have Flat Earth taught as a religion....

I'm done. 
You are either trolling or one giant contradiction.  Either way, convincing you that you're wrong is pointless.  So go ahead, preach that the Earth is flat due to non-scientific reasons while then saying that science is good. 

5596

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Water from cars - check my math

« on: March 09, 2016, 04:14:23 PM »

There is this thing called the water cycle. Water leaves the ocean, it gets added to the ocean, it gets electrolysised, it gets created by combustion.

The National Ocean Service claims there are 352,670,000,000,000,000,(352 quintillion) gallons of water in the oceans. So your 136 billion gallons of water is really just a drop in the ocean. Don't lose any sleep over it.

Thaf's just gasoline usage in the US though.

But yes, its a small amount.  But considering the carbon dioxide released is also tiny by comparison to the total amout in the atmosphere, I'd say it warrents consideration on some level.

5597

Announcements / Re: Admin Resignation

« on: March 09, 2016, 04:07:01 PM »

But who will keep lolwat in line?!


Well, I can understand.  Admining is alot of work.  Enjoy your new release of responsibilities!

5598

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth

« on: March 09, 2016, 04:04:47 PM »

My gripe isn't with the shape of the Earth but with the big bang.

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane, though one could argue it wouldn't make a newly symmetrical round earth either.

Less big bang more gravity.

Gravity has nothing to do with the divine origin of man.

So man kind can exist without being held down to the ground.  Interesting.

Being held down is a principle of density in a fluid. When you're in water you go up, because you are less dense than water. In air you go down. A guy in the 1600's decided to try to explain how the Earth revolves around the Sun so that's where we get any explanation other wise.

And yet, this works in a vaccume.  Also, density isn't covered in the bible.

How do you convert someone when the bible amswers nothing of how the world works?  Also, what about OTHER religions?

5599

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth

« on: March 09, 2016, 07:53:51 AM »

My gripe isn't with the shape of the Earth but with the big bang.

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane, though one could argue it wouldn't make a newly symmetrical round earth either.

Less big bang more gravity.

Gravity has nothing to do with the divine origin of man.

So man kind can exist without being held down to the ground.  Interesting.

5600

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth

« on: March 09, 2016, 06:19:00 AM »

My gripe isn't with the shape of the Earth but with the big bang.

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane, though one could argue it wouldn't make a newly symmetrical round earth either.

Less big bang more gravity.