Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[Proper Gander]

Holy shit. What is this thread???

 

[Watchyourwaite]

I don't care for your religious beliefs regarding the religion of science.
I think alternate theories need to be taught in schools,including FE.
I'm well within my rights to keep an open mind to the possibility the earth is shaped like a ball,while at the same time believing it's flat.

How is your mind open to the possibility that the earth is an oblate spheroid. If you state that the earth IS flat?

That isnt open minded.

The Earth is flat.

Why dont you try keeping an open mind. Why do you want to remove the scientific method from being taught at school? Why do you want to replace the scientific method with random guesswork and memes?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Holy shit. What is this thread???

A place of pure amazement and awesomeness.


Don't you agree?

 

[Proper Gander]

A place of pure amazement and awesomeness.


Don't you agree?

I do. I certainly do.

Why have I never noticed that I am indoctrinated by NASA? Actually, what on earth is in it for them? I may be a "baller" but it's not like I'm sending money to the prince of Nigeria's balling fund???

 

[Thrawn]

And that's your opinion.

Opinions mean absolutely nothing if they are beaten by facts.

This is not a subjective matter, like "what is the best beer". Though you're probably going to claim that it's flat, but only 60% sure.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Holy shit. What is this thread???

This is real life. That people are real and they're breeding!

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Opinions mean absolutely nothing if they are beaten by facts.

This is not a subjective matter, like "what is the best beer". Though you're probably going to claim that it's flat, but only 60% sure.

I'm 60% sure that Hawthorn won the 2016 premiership.

People keep telling me that Bulldogs won, but there's only a 20-30% chance that's a reality.

Clearly everyone else is in on the lie.

 

[cannot]

oh look whos into alternative facts

 

[Watchyourwaite]

oh look whos into alternative facts

You?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

oh look whos into alternative facts

Ironic.

 

[darthbards]

Name these brilliant scientific minds.

Samuel Shenton and Charles Johnson for a start. If just care to follow the religious part of today's science,while completely overlooking factors such as censory observation for example,your selling yourself short.
There are also alternate flat earth earth theories,some suggesting the flat earth could even be two dimensional. This has also been discussed in the thread also.
A great scientific mind isn't inclusive of only who you decide to agree with or who abides by its religious nature the best.

 

[darthbards]

How is your mind open to the possibility that the earth is an oblate spheroid. If you state that the earth IS flat?

That isnt open minded.


Why dont you try keeping an open mind. Why do you want to remove the scientific method from being taught at school? Why do you want to replace the scientific method with random guesswork and memes?

25-30% chance the earth is a ball is open minded,if you don't like the percentages,to bad.
No one is saying to remove your religion of science methods from schools. What is being said is to teach the religious methods of the religion of science in conjunction with other methods and theory. No removing of one of your two religions,just the adding of other things....again,no removing of the method of the religion of science.

Arrogance and ego can tell someone that all we know and all we can see is all there is. It is more likely than not, that not everything is perceptible to our minds currently,that is why we are not an overly intelligent being in a universal sense.
If you can't see past your religion of sciences viewpoint and method,there is a science forum on this very website where your religious method and viewpoint will be greater acknowledged. I'm not acknowledging it,and I'm not on the science forum,so I don't have to.

Once more so I don't have to say it again....No one is saying to remove the religious type teachings of the current scientific method that you believe in. It should remain and be taught in conjunction with other methods and other theories. No removing,just adding. In conjunction.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

More deflection and more tactics. I am not impressed.

Once again you say that my religion is science. It is not my religion. Christianity is my religion and to try and say that I share that mantle with another religion is very offensive to me.

You keep pretending to act like you dont know what the scientific method is. But your not fooling me. But your willing to embarrass yourself by pretending you dont even know what the scientific method is, in order to continue trying to discredit the scientific method.
Who trained you in this tactic?

25-30% chance the earth is a ball is open minded,if you don't like the percentages,to bad.

How can it be a percentage when you stated that the earth IS flat?
How can you claim to be open minded when you state that the earth IS flat?
You keep avoiding this because its a slip up and slip ups are frowned on by your boss.

Once more so I don't have to say it again

But your definitely going to say it again. Part of your tactic is to repeat the same thing over and over. Without actually adding substance or information.

Once more so I don't have to say it again....No one is saying to remove the religious type teachings of the current scientific method that you believe in. It should remain and be taught in conjunction with other methods and other theories. No removing,just adding. In conjunction.

So one more time so I dont have to say it again.
The curriculum is overloaded as is. So how can you implement additional anti scientific method education without reducing existing scientific method education?
If a glass of water is full and you start pouring cola into it, you are going to reduce the original volume of water. (this is only true following existing science. It might not be true using your versions of anti scientific method)

 

[darthbards]

More deflection and more tactics. I am not impressed.

Once again you say that my religion is science. It is not my religion. Christianity is my religion and to try and say that I share that mantle with another religion is very offensive to me.

You keep pretending to act like you dont know what the scientific method is. But your not fooling me. But your willing to embarrass yourself by pretending you dont even know what the scientific method is, in order to continue trying to discredit the scientific method.
Who trained you in this tactic?


How can it be a percentage when you stated that the earth IS flat?
How can you claim to be open minded when you state that the earth IS flat?
You keep avoiding this because its a slip up and slip ups are frowned on by your boss.


But your definitely going to say it again. Part of your tactic is to repeat the same thing over and over. Without actually adding substance or information.


So one more time so I dont have to say it again.
The curriculum is overloaded as is. So how can you implement additional anti scientific method education without reducing existing scientific method education?
If a glass of water is full and you start pouring cola into it, you are going to reduce the original volume of water. (this is only true following existing science. It might not be true using your versions of anti scientific method)

 

[Thrawn]

Samuel Shenton and Charles Johnson for a start.

Shenton was a signwriter and had no background in science and mathematics. Furthermore, when someone says "that modern astronomy and space flight were insults to God and divine punishment for humankind's arrogance was a mere matter of time" they are not brilliant scientific minds, they are religious fundamentalists and thus should not be taken seriously.

Charles Johnson was also a religious fundamentalist with zero scientific background, who claimed that space exploration was fake. I'd say they were brilliant comedic minds if it weren't for the fact they did a lot of damage by influencing other people into believing something that is geometrically impossible.

 

[darthbards]

Shenton was a signwriter and had no background in science and mathematics. Furthermore, when someone says "that modern astronomy and space flight were insults to God and divine punishment for humankind's arrogance was a mere matter of time" they are not brilliant scientific minds, they are religious fundamentalists and thus should not be taken seriously.

Charles Johnson was also a religious fundamentalist with zero scientific background, who claimed that space exploration was fake. I'd say they were brilliant comedic minds if it weren't for the fact they did a lot of damage by influencing other people into believing something that is geometrically impossible.

To be fair I never mentioned anything about their participation in the religious strain of science you seem to prefer,which there is a specific board for such discussions.
I think their other interests and achievements in other aspects of life is seperate from their brilliant scientific minds and can be inclusive with other activities.

As for damage,I guess that's just a matter of opinion. I think those overlooking what is and isn't perceptible to the human mind are causing damage, which can again be described as a matter of opinion.

You can have the people you believe have brilliant scientific minds, and I can have mine, That would be the best criteria to go with.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Shenton was a signwriter and had no background in science and mathematics. Furthermore, when someone says "that modern astronomy and space flight were insults to God and divine punishment for humankind's arrogance was a mere matter of time" they are not brilliant scientific minds, they are religious fundamentalists and thus should not be taken seriously.

Charles Johnson was also a religious fundamentalist with zero scientific background, who claimed that space exploration was fake. I'd say they were brilliant comedic minds if it weren't for the fact they did a lot of damage by influencing other people into believing something that is geometrically impossible.

Next he will try and tell us Eric Dubay is a brilliant scientific mind.
They may be many things, but brilliant scientific minds aren't amongst the list.

Before any accusations are thrown my way, no I don't follow science as a religion.

 

[CJApples87]

Shenton was a signwriter and had no background in science and mathematics. Furthermore, when someone says "that modern astronomy and space flight were insults to God and divine punishment for humankind's arrogance was a mere matter of time" they are not brilliant scientific minds, they are religious fundamentalists and thus should not be taken seriously.

Charles Johnson was also a religious fundamentalist with zero scientific background, who claimed that space exploration was fake. I'd say they were brilliant comedic minds if it weren't for the fact they did a lot of damage by influencing other people into believing something that is geometrically impossible.

It's funny when people actually look in to these so called brilliant minds and expose them for what they are. Good work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thrawn]

Next he will try and tell us Eric Dubay is a brilliant scientific mind.
They may be many things, but brilliant scientific minds aren't amongst the list.

Before any accusations are thrown my way, no I don't follow science as a religion.

Brilliant yoga instructor though!

 

[Thrawn]

You can have the people you believe have brilliant scientific minds, and I can have mine, That would be the best criteria to go with.

No, the best criteria would be an actual scientific background and/or achievements in the field.

 

[darthbards]

No, the best criteria would be an actual scientific background and/or achievements in the field.

No,that criteria would be for the science forum,this is not the science forum and under the criteria of this thread,those names and their backgrounds are just fine.
If this was the science forum,where you should probably ask the question if you must set certain criterias ,I would respectfully answer under the guidelines of that forum and probably say Tom Campbell,Leonard Susskind and James Gates Jnr,for the work they do in the strain of science you prefer.

You quite clearly have no interest in flat earth theory,which is your right,but you have made your feelings known,which I respect,but it could be time to perhaps start a relevant thread about round earth or the the background of the scientists you admire on the relevant forum

 

[Heisenberg_]

Talk about shifting the goal posts to suit yourself, you're the one who labelled them as brilliant scientific minds who support the flat earth theory, but now that it's been pointed out that bot only are they not brilliant scientific minds but they have zero background or expertise in the field of science so you try and change the definition of the term and then ask that it not be a topic in the thread.

 

[darthbards]

Talk about shifting the goal posts to suit yourself, you're the one who labelled them as brilliant scientific minds who support the flat earth theory, but now that it's been pointed out that bot only are they not brilliant scientific minds but they have zero background or expertise in the field of science so you try and change the definition of the term and then ask that it not be a topic in the thread.

Mate,I'm not shifting the goal posts at all. When I made my comment it had no criteria attached. After answering I was given a criteria I have no plans in following and pointed out I have no intentions on following that criteria.. I also pointed out I'd follow that specific criteria in the appropriate forum. I consider science more the field of everything,if you want to follow it in its mainstream religious format,fine. Not everyone does though,which is good and healthy.
I think I've been pretty kind and respectful,or I hope I have and answered the questions during the thread the best I can,especially considering the outrageous lack of funding FES get to do further research on their theories.
I think the round earthers have made there point here, and perhaps a round earth theory thread could be started in the science forum,if it's so important we follow that method.

There is a flat black hole thread on the science forum,that follows in line with traditional scientific method if you'd like to check that out.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

almost like people forget the rules: Debate and disagreement is fine and encouraged....as long as it's done sincerely and is not directed at posters. Debate the topic itself only.

Good post cannot. Thanks for bringing it to darthbards' attention.



And I think there is a huge difference between talking about conspiracies and the reasoning and pros and cons. Compared to saying that facts are no longer facts and everything is opinion therefor nothing is real.


Just saying whatever you want without having to back it up in any form, while replying to facts that counter your point with "Yeah well you know thats just like your opinion man" is not a sincere debate. Its actually meaningless spam.

 

[darthbards]

Good post cannot. Thanks for bringing it to darthbards' attention.



And I think there is a huge difference between talking about conspiracies and the reasoning and pros and cons. Compared to saying that facts are no longer facts and everything is opinion therefor nothing is real.


Just saying whatever you want without having to back it up in any form, while replying to facts that counter your point with "Yeah well you know thats just like your opinion man" is not a sincere debate. Its actually meaningless spam.

I answer your questions,you just don't like the answer. How can anyone debate you,I'm still not even sure you get it I don't want to take your currently taught scientific method out of schools. Yes we can debate,there doesn't have to be a winner,and you don't have to get so angry and sooky because someone's not following your scientific rules,it's not the science board.
I don't dig what you say,live with it.