61
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
62
Flat Earth Community / Re: Chinese space station to crash soon "within months"
« on: October 17, 2017, 01:40:58 AM »https://gizmodo.com/chinas-tiangong-1-space-station-will-crash-to-earth-in-1819485184
Hi Gizmo910, it's generally considered low-content posting to post a link divorced of any content. FYI.
63
Flat Earth Community / Re: Cassini–Huygens mission
« on: September 20, 2017, 11:28:41 PM »stratellite/psudolite development which I am sure is real.
Please provide evidence.
Tom knows a man on the inside at NASA.
64
Flat Earth Community / Re: Alt Flat Earth
« on: September 16, 2017, 11:48:02 AM »
An infinite reel may explain some things like the Mandela Effect. If you looped the world and found things to be similar, but not the exact same then that would account for these discrepancies in memory.
65
Technology & Information / Re: Windows Subsystem for Linux
« on: February 15, 2017, 05:31:55 PM »
Was all this effort made so that you can get scammed into buying space polygons?
66
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth is Round
« on: January 24, 2017, 09:04:54 PM »The premise of a flat earth, which is not even a theory, rests on the existence of the earth being flat, which it is not.
Most flat earthers reject just about anything realiistic. LOL.
geckothegeek, Flat Earth Debate is a serious forum. If you do not have serious flat-earth related points to make, then may I suggest you visit our lovely lower forums where you can jab and joke to your heart's desire. Otherwise please refrain from submitting posts of little to no content. Thank you.
67
Status Notices / Re: Scheduled maintenance, 2017-01-21
« on: January 19, 2017, 01:16:19 PM »
How will this change protect us from Russian hackers?
68
Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« on: December 13, 2016, 09:08:50 PM »Right off the bat, it looks like did not research much here, because he is missing some of the more sophisticated solutions to the problems he points out.
Seems to make a lot of assumptions as well. Most notably that we are all religious nuts. It's hard to effectively insult someone on the grounds of stupidity when you yourself are standing on a pile if ignorant assumptions.
71
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 26th September - 1st Presidential Debate
« on: September 27, 2016, 06:41:36 PM »Trump just said, almost literally "I screwed people because it was legal to"
I don't follow. How did he screw people because it was legal?
72
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Flat Earth Society An Opposite Control Working?
« on: September 27, 2016, 12:03:26 PM »
I'm sorry, what was your suggestion or concern?
73
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do any flat earth believers use sattelite TV?
« on: August 19, 2016, 01:41:23 PM »
You don't need satellites to watch satellite TV. It's like asking an atheist if they ever eat Miracle Whip then proclaiming that they believe in divine miracles if they do. Preposterous.
74
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« on: August 19, 2016, 12:05:37 PM »http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/490558406/watch-donald-trump-expresses-regret-for-sometimes-saying-the-wrong-thing
What is this nonsense, what is going on?
Is there nothing this man can't do?! Truly a paragon of people.
75
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: June 14, 2016, 01:30:03 PM »saddam i seriously don't get why you watch this show. all you do is complain about it and talk about how awful and terrible it is. i mean, if they'd showed arya killing the waif, then you'd absolutely be in here complaining about what a terrible scene it was and how they didn't do it right and etc...
You should hear him deride the capeshit that he cannot live without.
76
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 06:20:06 PM »Indeed I do, and be my guest. You did forget to quote the rest of my reply I might add.
No, I did not forget, I neglected to quote it. However, if you insist, I'll address that disparate comment at the end.
This is for Andruszkow and Rama Set (Who should really know better. I can forgive this noob, but you disappoint me, Rama):
Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?
One need look no further than this very post to see what constitutes a "theory." Venus laid it out quote nicely when she said, "In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena." This is what constitutes a theory and I say that flat-earth meets these requirements. However, that's beside the point. I'm here to shred your argument, Andruszkow.
In science, being observable doesn't graduate something from a theory to a fact. As Venus points out, a theory is an explanation of observations. The theory of evolution is undeniably true, but it will never (correctly) be called "the fact of evolution" because it's an explanation for a set of observations.
By definition, round-earth theory is a theory. Even if it was conclusively demonstrated to everyone in the world, it would still be called round-earth theory because (say it with me now) it's an explanation for a set of observations.
So in this light, saying, "...round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact," is mind-boggling. It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's a statement so deeply flawed of that it betrays a strong degree of ignorance to the use of scientific terms.
That you have trust issues with the authority that made these observations publicly available to begin with doesn't change that
To address your second non sequitur ad hominem... Well I sort of just did. But because you seem to think it's a valid argument I suppose I'll explain why it's a non sequitur ad hominem.
Non sequitur: This does not logically track. Me having trust issues with the source data does not make the source data valid. Nor does it in any way lend credibility to the source data. Restated, it reads, "Because I have trust issues with the data, it does not change that flat-earth theory is a fact." It's a conclusion (round-earth is a fact) that does not follow it's premise (I have trust issues). My level of trust does not effect the validity of the data.
Ad hominem: You are attacking me, not the argument. The notion that I have trust issues with the source data does not mean that the source data is valid or invalid and it certainly does not mean that the world is round or flat.
77
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 04:58:58 PM »Except round earth theory isn't a theory, but observable, so a fact.
Do you feel good about that? Would you consider that to be an A-game argument? Would you like to retry or shall I shred this one?
Also, in establishing the usefulness/correctness of an alternative theory, the only useful predictions are those that are different from the mainstream theory. No one doubts that the hammer will fall, regardless of the shape of the earth.
...What? By your definition round-earth theory cannot make any useful predictions because it's not different from the mainstream theory, it IS the mainstream theory.
No, that's not what I meant.
In this context, by "useful", I mean "useful for determining which theory is correct". If both theories predict that the hammer will fall, then that prediction is useless for determining which theory is correct. The useful predictions are those that differ from the other theory. We can use the different predictions to test which theory is correct.
I was merely trying to demonstrate that flat-earth theory makes predictions. To say it doesn't is preposterous. If you want to debate the validity or uniqueness of these predictions, then may I recommend you starting a new thread? This one is about whether or not flat-earth theory is a theory or not.
78
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 04:19:20 PM »Also, in establishing the usefulness/correctness of an alternative theory, the only useful predictions are those that are different from the mainstream theory. No one doubts that the hammer will fall, regardless of the shape of the earth.
...What? By your definition round-earth theory cannot make any useful predictions because it's not different from the mainstream theory, it IS the mainstream theory.
79
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 02:14:51 PM »In Science a THEORY is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits ALL the observations, and can be used to make predictions about future phenomena.This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.
I might add that a scientific theory never "invents" explanationsIf you think so, then might I suggest you look into String Theory. Also, this is exactly how round-earth scientists invented dark matter. The galaxies couldn't work in their model so they invented something to increase their mass and fit their model. We may hypothesis things from time to time, but don't pretend for an instance that round-earth scientists don't do it as well.
Perhaps then we might start to take you seriously.I doubt it. Experience has shown that round-earthers almost never change their beliefs when presented with facts. They take the dogma from their scientists like a religious zealot and cling to it hard as they can.
80
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 02:07:16 PM »
I moved this from Suggestions and Concerns because that forum is really more for site improvement rather than debating semantics.