Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[katana]

What facts about the solar system are they being taught to memorize, that you think they shouldnt be until they understand physics?

fundamentally children ought to be taught how it is supposed that we arrived at the sizes and masses of those planets. they ought to know how it is that the gravitational constant was arrived at, and that experiment should be demonstrated.

this would be teaching children science, memorising 'facts' from textbooks about giant balls of gas that are billions of miles away and calling it science is laughably ******ed.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

fundamentally children ought to be taught how it is supposed that we arrived at the sizes and masses of those planets. they ought to know how it is that the gravitational constant was arrived at, and that experiment should be demonstrated.

this would be teaching children science, memorising 'facts' from textbooks about giant balls of gas that are billions of miles away and calling it science is laughably ******ed.

So you are ok with them learning the names of the planets?

 

[Roylion]

i agree. why then are we teaching children to memorise inconsequential 'facts' about the 'solar system' before they've an understanding of logic or scientific method and rigor?

The scientific curriculum in Victoria consists of three main parts - science understanding, science inquiry skills and science as a human endeavour. So for example, 5 year olds are taught to observe, ask questions about, and describe changes in, objects and events relating to the biological, chemical, earth, space and physical sciences.

it is not 'science' to teach children the solar system before they can understand how humans supposedly came to know this.

See above.

the reality is that cosmology and archaeology are pseudoscience in a very real way - they cannot, within their experiments manipulate or control independent variables.

Pseudoscience consists of claims, beliefs, or practices presented as being plausible scientifically, but which are not justifiable by the scientific method. Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, evolution is not. Archaeology is a methodology. Archaeometry (the scientific study of archaeological artifacts) and cosmology are scientific studies and therefore use the scientific method to justify theories such as the 'Big Bang' or the likelihood of a claimed historical event.

it requires a nuanced and open mind to process this reality because to do so is to reject so much of the nonsense perpetuated in the ........ 'education system'.

Such as?

 

[katana]

The scientific curriculum in Victoria consists of three main parts - science understanding, science inquiry skills and science as a human endeavour. So for example, 5 year olds are taught to observe, ask questions about, and describe changes in, objects and events relating to the biological, chemical, earth, space and physical sciences.

this is a nothing response. you've literally said nothing of substance or relevance. thanks.

Pseudoscience consists of claims, beliefs, or practices presented as being plausible scientifically, but which are not justifiable by the scientific method. Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, evolution is not. Archaeology is a methodology. Archaeometry (the scientific study of archaeological artifacts) and cosmology are scientific studies and therefore use the scientific method to justify theories such as the 'Big Bang' or the likelihood of a claimed historical event.

please explain to me how evolution is justifiable by the scientific method with a research design and a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Roylion]

this is a nothing response. you've literally said nothing of substance or relevance. thanks.

What do you want? I'm telling you what the existing science curriculum teaches 5 year olds. What exactly should 5 year old children learn about science in your view?

They should be taught how it is supposed that we arrived at the sizes and masses of planets? They ought to know how it is that the gravitational constant was arrived at? They should know how the experiment should be demonstrated?

All of that comes later, once a level of knowledge about different fields of science, as well as an understanding of a basic scientific methodology has been developed, as per the curriculum outline given earlier.

please explain to me how evolution is justifiable by the scientific method with a research design and a falsifiable hypothesis.

Scientists have extreme confidence that the scientific theory of evolution, (the model of evolution), is correct because every piece of empirical evidence (and there are multiple hundred of thousands of pieces across a variety of fields including biochemisty, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, comparative embryology, molecular biology, palaeontology and radioisotope dating,) collected thus far supports that theory / model.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement / hypothesis / theory is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.

Evolution is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles, evolution must occur. If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable.

Consequently any of the following would falsify the theory:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Common descent could also easily be falsified if there was discovered a form of life that was not related to all the life we know - most simply, by finding life that does not use the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) for information storage and retrieval as known biological life does.

No piece of evidence found so far has falsified the scientific theory.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Is this flat earth lunacy still going on? Surely not. I'm flatearthgasted.

I'll get my coat.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

What do you want? I'm telling you what the existing science curriculum teaches 5 year olds. What exactly should 5 year old children learn about science in your view?

They should be taught how it is supposed that we arrived at the sizes and masses of planets? They ought to know how it is that the gravitational constant was arrived at? They should know how the experiment should be demonstrated?

All of that comes later, once a level of knowledge about different fields of science, as well as an understanding of a basic scientific methodology has been developed, as per the curriculum outline given earlier.



Scientists have extreme confidence that the scientific theory of evolution, (the model of evolution), is correct because every piece of empirical evidence (and there are multiple hundred of thousands of pieces across a variety of fields including biochemisty, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, comparative embryology, molecular biology, palaeontology and radioisotope dating,) collected thus far supports that theory / model.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement / hypothesis / theory is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.

Evolution is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles, evolution must occur. If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable.

Consequently any of the following would falsify the theory:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Common descent could also easily be falsified if there was discovered a form of life that was not related to all the life we know - most simply, by finding life that does not use the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) for information storage and retrieval as known biological life does.

No piece of evidence found so far has falsified the scientific theory.

You can tell these people were home schooled by loonie conspiracy fundamentalists.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Stop destroying our children's future based solely around your own brainwashed theories and ego.

LOL

You will be destroying your children's future by telling them bullshit like the earth is flat. They will become social pariahs once they start talking to any normal kids about this. Unless of course you round up all 4 of you flat earth loonies and live in an underground compound somewhere.... Which, now I think about it, I imagine you lot already do.

 

[CJApples87]

LOL

You will be destroying your children's future by telling them bullshit like the earth is flat. They will become social pariahs once they start talking to any normal kids about this. Unless of course you round up all 4 of you flat earth loonies and live in an underground compound somewhere.... Which, now I think about it, I imagine you lot already do.

How would you round them up? They don't believe in that kind of thing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[katana]

Consequently any of the following would falsify the theory:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• 
  
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Ok so a bit to respond to here, and I don't really have all day however, do you believe the burden of proof that a fish can become a monkey ought to be on the person making the claim? According to my reading of your post, you do not. you believe that because 'scientists' have accepted evolution theory then it ought to be on the average person to falsify an un-falsifiable hypothesis. this is belief in science. not science itself.

If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection

lastly, this claim here. can you link me to a study that proves the necessary phenotypical changes to turn one species (a trivial classification, i admit) into another? because it would certainly be impossible to design a study to prove that in the negative. this isn't really an evolution thread but i'm not unhappy necessarily to have some level of dialogue about contemporary scientism.

 

[CJApples87]

Ok so a bit to respond to here, and I don't really have all day however, do you believe the burden of proof that a fish can become a monkey ought to be on the person making the claim? According to my reading of your post, you do not. you believe that because 'scientists' have accepted evolution theory then it ought to be on the average person to falsify an un-falsifiable hypothesis. this is belief in science. not science itself.



lastly, this claim here. can you link me to a study that proves the necessary phenotypical changes to turn one species (a trivial classification, i admit) into another? because it would certainly be impossible to design a study to prove that in the negative.

They haven't just 'accepted' it, it has been extensively researched all over the world by many, many scientists.

 

[katana]

They haven't just 'accepted' it, it has been extensively researched all over the world by many, many scientists.

what is the point of this reply? who are the scientists? what is the research they're doing? how is that research relevant to the current trajectory of the thread?

just leave the thread if your going to reply in such a pointless way. i think they're playing simpsons re-runs on the TV.

 

[CJApples87]

what is the point of this reply? who are the scientists? what is the research they're doing? how is that research relevant to the current trajectory of the thread?

just leave the thread if your going to reply in such a pointless way. i think they're playing simpsons re-runs on the TV.

Do we really have to go through 150 years of research in to the Evolution Theory? Far out. Have a look at my replies to people earlier in the thread, I've done my best to reply to people in a reasonable manner many times without having to resort to memes, videos and stupid quotes that don't make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roylion]

Ok so a bit to respond to here, and I don't really have all day however, do you believe the burden of proof that a fish can become a monkey ought to be on the person making the claim?

Of course. That's why empirical evidence in a variety of forms has been collected and continues to be collected. Not one piece of evidence (from the hundred of thousands of pieces (at least) that has been collected via a variety of scientific methods has been falsified.

you believe that because 'scientists' have accepted evolution theory then it ought to be on the average person to falsify an un-falsifiable hypothesis.

I said no such thing. Evolution is falsifiable and I have already explained how it might be falsified. To date, no evidence has been found to falsify the model of evolution or common descent.

lastly, this claim here. can you link me to a study that proves the necessary phenotypical changes to turn one species (a trivial classification, i admit) into another?

Well let's define phenotype. Phenotype is the set or type to which an organism belongs based on observable anatomical or structural, physiologial, biochemical and behavioral inherited characteristics. Natural selection is only able to occur if the genetic variations result in physical, chemical, or behavioral expressions (phenotypes) in individuals.

Try "New Genes as drivers of phenotypic evolution" by Sidi Chen, Benjamin H. Krinsky and Manyuan Long.

because it would certainly be impossible to design a study to prove that in the negative.

Genetic variations don't consistently result in changes to phenotypes?

 

[Righteo]

Stop destroying our children's future based solely around your own brainwashed theories and ego.

**** I hope the post where you said you had children was a lie and that this entire thread is indeed just a really elaborate trolling excercise

 

[cannot]

**** I hope the post where you said you had children was a lie and that this entire thread is indeed just a really elaborate trolling excercise

to be fair "they should teach flat earth theory in schools" is the new best post of the thread , an absolute rip snorter

and if you dont like it tough t***ies,

knocking "the earth feels like a moving-globe" to 2nd place

the comments like "we should kill you" or "its better for humanity you dont reproduce" is quite sad hyperbole and makes me wonder if its not the result of some deep seeded multi generation pysch op. there are more worthy causes to save your pitchforks or internet words at

 

[cannot]

Of course. That's why empirical evidence in a variety of forms has been collected and continues to be collected. Not one piece of evidence (from the hundred of thousands of pieces (at least) that has been collected via a variety of scientific methods has been falsified.



I said no such thing. Evolution is falsifiable and I have already explained how it might be falsified. To date, no evidence has been found to falsify the model of evolution or common descent.



Well let's define phenotype. Phenotype is the set or type to which an organism belongs based on observable anatomical or structural, physiologial, biochemical and behavioral inherited characteristics. Natural selection is only able to occur if the genetic variations result in physical, chemical, or behavioral expressions (phenotypes) in individuals.

Try "New Genes as drivers of phenotypic evolution" by Sidi Chen, Benjamin H. Krinsky and Manyuan Long.



Genetic variations don't consistently result in changes to phenotypes?

100000s eh?

how many proofs are there of alien seeding? same number? globe-moving earth? same number?

 

[Roylion]

100000s eh?

how many proofs are there of alien seeding? same number? globe-moving earth? same number?

Are your powers of comprehension that limited that you cannot understand what I have already said on the subject of so-called 'alien seeding'? The correct term is "panspermia". That's clearly in the first sentence of my post. Try looking it up and doing some actual research on the subject.

Yet again, the link of what I said is here. Re-read what I said. Carefully. Slowly.

If you still don't understand what I said, then I can dumb it down further for you. Use shorter words or sentences or something similar perhaps.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

some deep seeded multi generation

Do you mean deep seeded multi-grain?

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

This conspiracy makes zero sense. What would NASA actually gain by making us believe that the Earth is round? Who even benefits from it? Rand McNally? Big Globe who make money off of globe sales? The fact that this is even a thing makes me very concerned for the future of humanity.

 

[Thrawn]

fundamentally children ought to be taught how it is supposed that we arrived at the sizes and masses of those planets. they ought to know how it is that the gravitational constant was arrived at, and that experiment should be demonstrated.

this would be teaching children science, memorising 'facts' from textbooks about giant balls of gas that are billions of miles away and calling it science is laughably ******ed.

Yeah, we should have yoga instructors like Eric Dubay teach them instead!

 

[Thrawn]

Why are you in these threads?

It's pretty obvious.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

You asked questions regarding the theory,I was polite enough to answer them.

Do I believe the earth is flat? Yes.
Do I believe the earth is flat in the model presented in the op? Not exactly,but that doesn't mean this model can be discounted,or I disbelieve. I would encourage people to investigate all models and theories with an open mind,with any bias put to the side.
Do I believe the earth is round in the model currently presented? 25-30% chance,which is far to low to discount other possible theories such as this one.

Really?
I had always assumed that the "flat earth" thing was some intellectual exercise to show that with enough effort the absurd could be made to fit the facts.

But you are saying there are some who actually believe this alternative fact?

 

[Thrawn]

But you are saying there are some who actually believe this alternative fact?

He's 60% sure of that.

 

[katana]

I said no such thing. Evolution is falsifiable and I have already explained how it might be falsified. To date, no evidence has been found to falsify the model of evolution or common descent.

look. i really do appreciate your civil responses, rather than the sort of garbage that is leveled at those asking questions within this thread. however, if you believe that the hypothesis, at it's essence, that all life evolved from single cell organsims, when nobody has ever seen an invertebrate 'evolve' into a vertebrate ought to be taught to children as 'science', then fundamentally you and i shall never agree. i scarcely wish to bicker and argue but if the evidence, and i've read the study you linked, is good enough for you then so be it. to me, i would like more.