Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[cannot]

Because the world being flat doesn't fit the facts.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

well thats what the last 73 pages is talking about

but my question is according to Occam's Razor ; is the world being flat and still more simple than all the jesuit-mumbojumbo?

 

[Santoz]

Without gravity, how do planets form? How are stars powered?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Genesis

In the beginning ...

 

[darth_timon]

well thats what the last 73 pages is talking about

but my question is according to Occam's Razor ; is the world being flat and still more simple than all the jesuit-mumbojumbo?

The world being flat requires pseudo-science, and the outright denial of evidence, which is why Occam's Razor doesn't support it.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[cannot]

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Genesis

In the beginning ...

there was nothing

then nothing exploded, as it does

then it made stuff like cornflakes and hats

 

[CJApples87]

did you attempt to look for an answer at all btw ?

I've gone through the links provided for me in this thread and subsequent pages and these questions aren't addressed properly.

Again, it is up to the people who are going against the grain of the accepted norm of society to provide the proof to change society's thinking, not for is to continually prove something that has been taught for a long time now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[darthbards]

Even a response like 'it's magic' would be great at this point. It's been two weeks since the link was first posted and still hasn't been discussed.

But I'd prefer the theory behind it backed up with some sort of factual evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool response so I'll get round to it.

 

[cannot]

I've gone through the links provided for me in this thread and subsequent pages and these questions aren't addressed properly.

Again, it is up to the people who are going against the grain of the accepted norm of society to provide the proof to change society's thinking, not for is to continually prove something that has been taught for a long time now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i respectfully dont agree, the globehead poster boy sagan said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

there is no proof earths moving apparently... the realm in which we live according to human senses appears flat and still

its only indoctrination that makes us think its moving faster than sound, many different directions simultaneously. What we are taught are the extraordinairy claims and the lack of evidence let alone extraordinary evidence is frankly astounding

 

[CJApples87]

i respectfully dont agree, the globehead poster boy sagan said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

there is no proof earths moving apparently... the realm in which we live according to human senses appears flat and still

its only indoctrination that makes us think its moving faster than sound, many different directions simultaneously. What we are taught it the extraordinairy claim and the lack of evidence let alone extraordinary evidence is frankly astounding

Sorry but this is completely and utterly wrong for the reasons explained above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cannot]

Sorry but this is completely and utterly wrong for the reasons explained above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

feel free to think that

against the grain of the accepted norm of society to provide the proof to change society's thinking, not for is to continually prove something that has been taught for a long time now

i dont think that claim holds as much weight as you seem to

 

[darthbards]

I've gone through the links provided for me in this thread and subsequent pages and these questions aren't addressed properly.

Again, it is up to the people who are going against the grain of the accepted norm of society to provide the proof to change society's thinking, not for is to continually prove something that has been taught for a long time now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure about this response. The accepted norm?
And now there's a different bloke throwing meaningless excuses round like occams Razor and derogatory religious terms like pseudo science.,

 

[cannot]

I'm not sure about this response. The accepted norm?
And now there's a different bloke throwing meaningless excuses round like Osscams Razor and derogatory religious terms like pseudo science.

i started William of Ockham razor thing , sorry bout that

the accepted norm angle is an odd one

 

[darthbards]

i started William of Ockham razor thing , sorry bout that

the accepted norm angle is an odd one

Nah,it must have been a coincidence because someone replied to an old comment of mine in regards to the term just previous to your mentioning of it.(spooky).
I'm not big on the term personally, it's just a garbage term to say my unproven theory is better than your unproven theory,while ignoring the unproven part. It's religious mumbojumbo.

 

[CJApples87]

Stop deflecting and get on to answering my queries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[darthbards]

Stop deflecting and get on to answering my queries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol...I was replying to someone quoting me.
Yes,I'll do it in the morning.
I'm pretty sure point one has already been done but I'll include it again.

 

[CJApples87]

Lol...I was replying to someone quoting me.
Yes,I'll do it in the morning.
I'm pretty sure point one has already been done but I'll include it again.

You're fine mate, wasn't directed at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[darthbards]

You're fine mate, wasn't directed at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know
Bare in mind it's not my theory,I'm just not writing it off.
My thoughts could be considered far crazier but I have been restricted to discussing the model in the op only

 

[darthbards]

CJApples,I actually think answering your questions will be both good and timely to get the thread back on track in some regards.

 

[darth_timon]

Why would it be necessary to conceal a flat earth from the public? To what end would such a conspiracy exist? I have read of the idea that a giant ice wall exists at the edges of the world, guarded by NASA (right, because NASA is a military organisation, oh wait...). I have read of plane pilots swearing to secrecy. I have read of many ways and means of hiding the 'truth' from the public. I have not read of a single explanation as to why. These undertakings would be monstrously expensive, and they would be on-going expenses, and all for what? There isn't a satisfactory explanation for why this conspiracy exists.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Why would it be necessary to conceal a flat earth from the public? To what end would such a conspiracy exist? I have read of the idea that a giant ice wall exists at the edges of the world, guarded by NASA (right, because NASA is a military organisation, oh wait...). I have read of plane pilots swearing to secrecy. I have read of many ways and means of hiding the 'truth' from the public. I have not read of a single explanation as to why. These undertakings would be monstrously expensive, and they would be on-going expenses, and all for what? There isn't a satisfactory explanation for why this conspiracy exists.

Apparently we are just to stupid to understand why it needs to be hidden from us.
The reality however is people prodding that theory should be in a padded cell.

 

[Santoz]

The truth.
Don't know about you but i don't like being lied to.

What is the benefit of believing in a flat earth?

 

[darthbards]

Apparently we are just to stupid to understand why it needs to be hidden from us.
The reality however is people prodding that theory should be in a padded cell.

Padded cell lol,why not go the whole hog with the hyperbole and mention straight jackets as well.

 

[BlueSherrin]

Seriously GTFO I absolutely refuse to believe there are people so thick that they believe the earth is flat. It's a troll

Of course it is. I can't decide who is dumber the trolls that set it up or the people that fall for it.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

"It is the organ responsible for synthesizing DMT* in the body. Fluoride, among other things, calcifies it and hampers production, which, along with promoting submissiveness and lower IQ (possibly due to this calcification) is why TPTB put it in the tap water. DMT is responsible for dreams, out-of-body experiences, and near-death experiences, which in of itself makes one wonder about its spiritual worth

*N,N-Dimethyltryptamine is a powerful psychedelic compound of the tryptamine family

I've had DMT several times - it's an absolutely crazy and intense experience that I just cannot justify with words. You have to try it for yourself to understand.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Yep the ancients had a way higher consciousness than we possess today.

How do you know they did?

And explain what you mean by 'higher consciousness.'

 

[macmate]

there was nothing

then nothing exploded, as it does

then it made stuff like cornflakes and hats

I don't know why i am bothering to post in here, but this retort to the big bang theory annoys me more than anything.

How is believing in a theory based on the knowledge/evidence we currently have available to us all that much worse than believe in something just because someone wrote it down (the history of how our holy books came to be is littered with less than solid processes)? Furthermore, and here is the kicker for me, even if the book actually did accurately explain how earth and humans came to be, it doesn't explain who made god, where this god resides, is god metaphorical? a physical being? if so, what properties does his environment have? is he alone? where were the building blocks, for everything we know, actually taken from? etc etc etc. You can't discount and mock a theory based on current evidences, and instead favour one that not only goes against evidence, but also raises more even bigger questions, but then not bother trying to explain those bigger questions. They can't be explained which is why it called "faith".

Have a cursory look at history, and how science works, things progress from faith, to theory, to law. We move through this process with experimentation to acquire evidence. Why stop at faith just because it suits you and because the acquisition of evidence is fraught with challenges and many wrong turns? Even laws have been found to have holes in them but are accurate enough for the purposes we require of them. We never actually stop trying to improve on current knowledge.

I am 100% open to there being a creator, I am 100% open to the earth being flat. However you will need to provide me an argument for both that doesn't require me to ignore available evidence while simultaneously having blind faith in "facts" that would need to exist to make the argument plausible.

The secret to gaining accurate knowledge is to start by being open to all possibilities no matter how unlikely.