NationStates Jolt Archive

The final, definitive answer in the evolution vs. creationism controversy!

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/9chickweedlane;_ylt=Amby9Ac4y8RpgZEkWgP6eG_dcLQF

Not that funny.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r137/SamuelLBronkowitz/volivamap.jpg


Smite the evolutionists and the round earth conspirators.

That's not the kind of proof creationists like, I'm afraid. Mind you, evolution is not about perfection at all, it's actually a rather random process in which the least inept traits of a species tend to become stronger over generations.

Why does God and Evolution have to be mutually exclusive from one another?

Why does God and Evolution have to be mutually exclusive from one another?

They don't. The main problem most people have is not with evolution* - which essentially boils down to believing that children are not identical to their parents and that changes can add up - but with the concept of natural selection. That after all means that God does not actively involve Himself in the course of evolution - though of course one can reason around that with His supposed omniscience.

Biblical literalism and the scientific method and scientific knowledge on the other hand definitely bite eachother - the earth for instance is not older than the sun, is not about 6000 years old, women do not seem to originate from a mans rib and humans and dino's did not live together. Scientifically speaking, the concepts put forward by young earth creationists and the ID movement have been conclusively disproven.

* Though some find it hard to accept that men may be descended from "lesser" creatures.

Why does God and Evolution have to be mutually exclusive from one another?

Because.

Not that funny.

Cmon it's hella funny because it's true. :p We are getting worse instead of better. It's because of technology that natural selection no longer functions. In my personal opinion both evolution and creation are true. God desires His creation to see how great He is, so instead of snapping His cosmic fingers and creating everything instantaneously, I believe He'd probably create one organism and have it evolve into millions of others. Seriously, if you were God which would make the humans think you were cooler? Instant and effortless creation or the slow and meticulous evolution of all life. When all powerful creating stuff in a flash is easy but to keep tabs on it's evolution for many millennia (this includes keeping tabs on all the base pairs and changing each one in each creature on earth and changing it accordingly so that said creatures would best suit their environment and to continue managing it nonstop).

And He had also let people have an illusion of imagining Earth as some kind of ball, to test their faith through doubting his Bible, clearly stating it's planar.

And He had also let people have an illusion of imagining Earth as some kind of ball, to test their faith through doubting his Bible, clearly stating it's planar.

The Bible never said the earth was flat. :confused:

The Bible never said the earth was flat. :confused:
Yeah, the Bible just said that the Earth had corners.

Well that was a waste of time.

The Bible never said the earth was flat. :confused:

"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
(Matthew 4:1-12)

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth."
(Daniel 4:10-11)

If it was a ball, no mountain could let one see to the end of all Earth.

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it"
(Job 38:12-13)

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."
(Ecclesiastes 1:5)


That's just a small part of where it clearly says the Earth is flat. And actually, today we have scientific proof that it is flat, primarily the Bedford Level Experiment.

Cmon it's hella funny because it's true. :p We are getting worse instead of better.

You know.. there actually are quite a few people that have devised "degeneration 'theories'". Some Creationists and some who misinterpreted Darwin (famous example: the nazi's).

Nice website for a creationists look: http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=2577

Cmon it's hella funny because it's true. :p We are getting worse instead of better. It's because of technology that natural selection no longer functions. In my personal opinion both evolution and creation are true. God desires His creation to see how great He is, so instead of snapping His cosmic fingers and creating everything instantaneously, I believe He'd probably create one organism and have it evolve into millions of others. Seriously, if you were God which would make the humans think you were cooler? Instant and effortless creation or the slow and meticulous evolution of all life. When all powerful creating stuff in a flash is easy but to keep tabs on it's evolution for many millennia (this includes keeping tabs on all the base pairs and changing each one in each creature on earth and changing it accordingly so that said creatures would best suit their environment and to continue managing it nonstop).

If I was God I would care what morals thought of me why...?

If I was God I would care what morals thought of me why...?

Insecurity issues? :confused:

What's wrong with backwards baseball caps? :(

If I was God I would care what creation thought of me why...?

corrected. Hey, God likes His creation to think He's cool, always did and I don't believe that that's gonna change anytime soon.;)

They don't. The main problem most people have is not with evolution* - which essentially boils down to believing that children are not identical to their parents and that changes can add up - but with the concept of natural selection. That after all means that God does not actively involve Himself in the course of evolution - though of course one can reason around that with His supposed omniscience.

Biblical literalism and the scientific method and scientific knowledge on the other hand definitely bite eachother - the earth for instance is not older than the sun, is not about 6000 years old, women do not seem to originate from a mans rib and humans and dino's did not live together. Scientifically speaking, the concepts put forward by young earth creationists and the ID movement have been conclusively disproven.

* Though some find it hard to accept that men may be descended from "lesser" creatures.

these 'concepts' are concepts in the other sense of the word. No one truelly knows how old either the sun or the arth truelly are. we by all measure could be decieving ourselves on the essnse of time. Time is measureless when it comes to a deity. Women did not originate from a mans rib persay. That may have happened or it is used as an illustration to shew peoples of the world and all who comprehend the writings of the Bible, to show that the woman in all forms of society and supposedly in origen that the woman is to submit to the man. Not submit as a slave submits to a master, but to take the role similarity of a child to a parent; yet also to that of an equal. like unto a brother to brother or man to man, when all else is stripped away, we are all basically equal. so it was conceptualised for the imagery of that particular visual aide.

The final, definitive answer in the evolution vs. creationism controversy!

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/9chickweedlane;_ylt=Amby9Ac4y8RpgZEkWgP6eG_dcLQF

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/umedia/20080907/cp.ccfb87d43be9f75a04cf47c8593af8a2

corrected. Hey, God likes His creation to think He's cool, always did and I don't believe that that's gonna change anytime soon.;)

But why? You're not even trying to answer the question, If I was god I wouldn't give two shits about the things below me.

That's just a small part of where it clearly says the Earth is flat. And actually, today we have scientific proof that it is flat, primarily the Bedford Level Experiment.

I know for a fact that the Earth, just as all the other planets, is round like a ball. If that does make me a vile heretic and a brutal blasphemer, so be it.

I know for a fact that the Earth, just as all the other planets, is round like a ball. If that does make me a vile heretic and a brutal blasphemer, so be it.

No, you don't. You were simply taught that in school, and blindly believe it like a lemming. You haven't seen any real proof apart from "But they say so!" (like they said about WMD in iRaq).

No, you don't. You were simply taught that in school, and blindly believe it like a lemming. You haven't seen any real proof apart from "But they say so!" (like they said about WMD in iRaq).

How do you you he has not been in the ISS ?

How do you you he has not been in the ISS ?
Because it doesn't exist. It's a NASA project of embezzling 100 billion dollars.

So Vault 10, you're suggesting that everything in Genesis is the ultimate truth and should be interpretated literally, even though the first book of the Bible is not of Jewish origin? Before it became part of the Torah, the content of Genesis were actually Sumerian myths and part of a polytheistic tradition. This was more or less edited out in the run of the centuries, but it does explain why God has several names in Genesis.

Not necessarily. It's right about the shape of the Earth, though.

And read that again - it's not about literalism, the Bible consistently speaks with the knowledge that we live on a planar world, and not some flying testicle, as the deicidal globalist conspiracy tries to make us think.

Repeating yourself does not lend strength to your statements. May I suggest that you remove one of your double posts? And I don't know anything about a deicidal globalist conspiracy, but I do have a few albums of Deicide in my music collection.

And I don't know anything about a deicidal globalist conspiracy,
Of course you don't. It wouldn't be a conspiracy if you knew.

But you are paying taxes, some of which are embezzled by it for so-called "space research", filmed in Nevada.

Not necessarily. It's right about the shape of the Earth, though.

And read that again - it's not about literalism, the Bible consistently speaks with the knowledge that we live on a planar world, and not some flying testicle, as the deicidal globalist conspiracy tries to make us think.

I'd love to hear your explanation as to why the distances to circumnavigate the 'disc' don't increase south of the equator as the current flat earth model suggests it does. Or the existence of a south pole.

I'd love to hear your explanation as to why the distances to circumnavigate the 'disc' don't increase south of the equator as the current flat earth model suggests it does.
As for distances, if you're familiar with the modern FET, you've read the explanations, it's largely REC-induced RE map inaccuracies. And the satanic cult of aerospace barons has something to do with it too.

Or the existence of a south pole.
There is no "south Pole". It's just where the Ice Wall is (Antarctic we see is its beginning). Earth is magnetically charged, with North in the center and South at the rim. As such, our compasses mistakenly lead us to believe in two Poles.

Of course you don't. It wouldn't be a conspiracy if you knew.

But you are paying taxes, some of which are embezzled by it for so-called "space research", filmed in Nevada.

For all you know, I could be a part of this conspiracy of yours. I'm quite sympathetic towards the Illuminati, you know.

And since I haven't fled to the hills to escape the claws of my oppressive government (:p), I pay my taxes like a good citizen. A citizen from an European country, to be exact... therefore I'm only funding the ESA space program.

As for distances, if you're familiar with the modern FET, you've read the explanations, it's largely REC-induced RE map inaccuracies. And the satanic cult of aerospace barons has something to do with it too.


There is no "south Pole". It's just where the Ice Wall is (Antarctic we see is its beginning). Earth is magnetically charged, with North in the center and South at the rim. As such, our compasses mistakenly lead us to believe in two Poles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Flat Earth Society also does not have an answer for the apparent discrepancies that arise in surface distances between a round Earth map and that of the flat Earth equivalent. The map of the flat Earth severely distorts the distances and appearance of land masses in both hemispheres. In the southern hemisphere (outer disc) the distances on the flat earth appear extended while the opposite is true for the northern hemisphere (inner disc).

This becomes apparent with the distance between New Zealand and Chile. The exact distance between Auckland, New Zealand and Santiago, Chile is 6011 miles on a round Earth map. That same distance using the flat earth map appears to be between 20,000 – 30,000 miles. No distances are given by the Flat Earth Society.

"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
(Matthew 4:1-12)

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth."
(Daniel 4:10-11)

If it was a ball, no mountain could let one see to the end of all Earth.

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it"
(Job 38:12-13)

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."
(Ecclesiastes 1:5)


That's just a small part of where it clearly says the Earth is flat. And actually, today we have scientific proof that it is flat, primarily the Bedford Level Experiment.
Because there is no way in Hell they were talking poetically or using metaphors. But, go on, you're being oh so funny and original.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
Nice, Wiki is your source.... Some guy took a loose glance at the IAFES, posted his twisted interpretations, and you put them here.
Why not to come to one of FES forums and read the appropriate threads? You'll see responses and explanations from the FE believers.


Because there is no way in Hell they were talking poetically or using metaphors.
Then Christ also never turned water into wine, and never resurrected anyone, and wasn't really crucified, it all was just metaphors.

These quotes are as clear as they could be, the entire Earth can be seen from a sufficient height.

Nice, Wiki is your source.... Some guy took a loose glance at the IAFES, posted his twisted interpretations, and you put them here.
Why not to come to one of FES forums and read the appropriate threads? You'll see responses and explanations from the FE believers.

Could you share a few?

Because there is no way in Hell they were talking poetically or using metaphors. But, go on, you're being oh so funny and original.

A voice of reason, hm? There was a proper response for that, based upon a proud tradition that has worked excellently for centuries. But what was it again? Let me think...

...

...

...

Of course! How could I have forgotten? Here we go:

KILL THE HERETIC! EVISCERATE THE BLASPHEMER AND BURN HIS BELOVED ONES IN FRONT OF HIM... IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE LOVE OF GOD!!! YAAAAARGHHH!!!

Could you share a few?
There's no zetetic proof of the distance between these places, other than flight times on a pretty marginal route. And these are short part due to the jet streams assisting flight, part due to maps inaccuracy, part to arc-cutting.

Then Christ also never turned water into wine, and never resurrected anyone, and wasn't really crucified, it all was just metaphors.
So newspapers and biographers can't use poetic turns of phrase? What a dull world you must live in.
More importantly, if he didn't, why do you care?
These quotes are as clear as they could be, the entire Earth can be seen from a sufficient height.
The first two quotes are obviously describing visionary experiences, thus they don't have to have any connection with the real world.
The last two quotes are both poetic turns of phrase. The one from Job is part of God's speech putting Job down (and any attention to the context would demonstrate that the writer didn't intend for the speech to be literal), and the one from Ecclesiastes is part of a whole section that says, in essence, "A shit ton of time passed."

This is only proof that humanity is evolving for stupidity. Why? Because, under the current system of human society, The superior support the inferior and protect them from their own uselessness, while the inferior outbreed the superior at an alarming rate.

There is no "south Pole". It's just where the Ice Wall is (Antarctic we see is its beginning). Earth is magnetically charged, with North in the center and South at the rim. As such, our compasses mistakenly lead us to believe in two Poles.

Okay, I understand that pretending to stubbornly cling to pseudoscience is fun when Devil's advocating online, but dig this: Antarctica has been crossed, okay? It's not an ice wall. By all means, keep beating your head against the wall, 'cause it is entertaining, but no amount of attempted scientological (lowercase s, denoting a pseudoscientific bent, like astrology) fakery is going to disprove Ptolemy. Remember the obelisk/shadow experiment? Yeah. It's a globe.

There's no zetetic proof of the distance between these places, other than flight times on a pretty marginal route. And these are short part due to the jet streams assisting flight, part due to maps inaccuracy, part to arc-cutting.

How do you refute gps? Or laser measurements?

Okay, I understand that pretending to stubbornly cling to pseudoscience is fun when Devil's advocating online, but dig this: Antarctica has been crossed, okay? It's not an ice wall. By all means, keep beating your head against the wall, 'cause it is entertaining, but no amount of attempted scientological (lowercase s, denoting a pseudoscientific bent, like astrology) fakery is going to disprove Ptolemy. Remember the obelisk/shadow experiment? Yeah. It's a globe.

I have a friend who has physically been to the South Pole. He's also a really crappy liar with a low threshold for wedgie pain. Had he been trying to cover up the existence of an ice wall, I'd know about it. *nod*

That's just a small part of where it clearly says the Earth is flat. And actually, today we have scientific proof that it is flat, primarily the Bedford Level Experiment.

Oh god are you serious? Do you not feel embarrassed when citing that as evidence for anything? Seriously, even the other aspects of FE beliefs, like the idea that approximately 800 million people are all lying and all perfectly conspiring against the public, for absolutely know pragmatic or economic end at all, is more credible.

Antarctica has been crossed, okay?
No, it hasn't. There have been a few government controlled expeditions, and a few who have been misled (or didn't want to return empty-handed) and simply worked an arc about the edge.


Remember the obelisk/shadow experiment? Yeah. It's a globe.
It's just how Sun moves.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r137/SamuelLBronkowitz/Flat-Earth-diagram.png

I have a friend who has physically been to the South Pole. He's also a really crappy liar with a low threshold for wedgie pain. Had he been trying to cover up the existence of an ice wall, I'd know about it. *nod*

You'd have to resort to wedgies down there. Pies go from funny to lethal in air that cold!

Antarctica has been crossed, okay? It's not an ice wall.

"That's what we call a divine illusion, put in place to test the faith of God's children. Infidels such as you just wouldn't understand. The Bible is God's word and thus is perfect. The world is flat, because the Good Book says so. Now get down on your knees and praise the Lord or forever burn in Hell!"

:hail:


I love the smell of satire emanating from my keyboard. It smells like mockery.

How do you refute gps?

Actually, it's the Round Earth theorists who should refute GPS, not FE believers.

http://www.freewebs.com/vault_10/GPS%5Fround.png


While, with FET, it all springs in place:

http://www.freewebs.com/vault_10/GPS%5Fflat.png

No, it hasn't. There have been a few government controlled expeditions, and a few who have been misled (or didn't want to return empty-handed) and simply worked an arc about the edge.

http://www.willsteger.com/content/section/19/97

No, sorry. Nice try, though! Keep it up -- your sheer imperviousness to futility is really amusing!

By the way, Fault 10 has illustrated something even more depressing than news tailored to consumers: SCIENCE tailored to consumers. Now we'll all be able to point to unverified bullshit to source ridiculous claims, just like we've been able to source crappy spin-meisters for news.

Makes me wanna hworph my biscuits, and I made those fuckers myself this morning.

And I'm sure they used GPS, or at least compasses (that might be why the REC-involved governments keep "research stations" there).

The problem with people like Vault 10 is that their theories are completely unfalsifiable (thus the complete opposite of scientific), whenever anyone presents proof against their claim, these people have the convenient qualifier that it's merely "a conspiracy", thus no evidence could ever be presented against them to convince them otherwise.

By the way, Fault 10 has illustrated something even more depressing than news tailored to consumers: SCIENCE tailored to consumers. Now we'll all be able to point to unverified bullshit to source ridiculous claims, just like we've been able to source crappy spin-meisters for news.
One.

The problem with people like Vault 10 is that their theories are completely unfalsifiable (thus the complete opposite of scientific), whenever anyone presents proof against their claim, these people have the convenient qualifier that it's merely "a conspiracy", thus no evidence could ever be presented against them to convince them otherwise.
Two.

Two.

What?

What?

People that have gotten his point? Is he pointing out how science has become pliable depending on to whom it's being sold? God, I hope so.

What?
I figured, if I count you openly, that won't discourage you a single bit.

I figured, if I count you openly, that won't discourage you a single bit.

Okay, what now?

People that have gotten his point? Is he pointing out how science has become pliable depending on to whom it's being sold? God, I hope so.

Indeed, would be a great satirical approach.

I just finished scanning the posts. With a couple of notable exceptions, I find that Thorax is right.

these 'concepts' are concepts in the other sense of the word. No one truelly knows how old either the sun or the arth truelly are.

Between 4 and 5 billion years old.

we by all measure could be decieving ourselves on the essnse of time.

Radioactive decay doesn't lie.

Time is measureless when it comes to a deity.

Because deities don't exist?

Women did not originate from a mans rib persay.

No, not persay, not even at all.

That may have happened or it is used as an illustration to shew peoples of the world and all who comprehend the writings of the Bible, to show that the woman in all forms of society and supposedly in origen that the woman is to submit to the man.

Because the Bible was written by a bunch of degenerate jerks.

Not submit as a slave submits to a master, but to take the role similarity of a child to a parent; yet also to that of an equal.

Why should a woman submit to men if they're equals, shouldn't men submit to women equally?

I just finished scanning the posts. With a couple of notable exceptions, I find that Thorax is right.

He usually is. I love that character. I wish he were running for President.

He usually is. I love that character. I wish he were running for President.

Have you noted that, generally speaking, fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians (or for that matter, any extremely religious types) completely lack the capacity for understanding humor? Especially that which requires that they laugh at themselves?

I wonder if this is a function of intelligence or just a basic moral lack.

Have you noted that, generally speaking, fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians (or for that matter, any extremely religious types) completely lack the capacity for understanding humor? Especially that which requires that they laugh at themselves?

I wonder if this is a function of intelligence or just a basic moral lack.

Evangelical atheists aren't much better, to be honest. Both of these groups are so obsessed with their own worldview and forcing it on others that they have no room for humor in their lives, let alone humor regarding their beliefs. It's like they're so miserable that those worthless dolts don't grasp their profound ideas that they are simply devoid of joy. I think it's profound arrogance combined with condescension that really produces that kind of behavior.

I wonder why religion is so particularly good at bringing out that rancor...my guess is because it's one of the only things none of us know the answer to, and really can't. Suffice to say, the happiest people seem to be those confident in their beliefs and possessing an attitude that right or wrong in the end, their beliefs help them make the world a better place.

Evangelical atheists aren't much better, to be honest. Both of these groups are so obsessed with their own worldview and forcing it on others that they have no room for humor in their lives, let alone humor regarding their beliefs. It's like they're so miserable that those worthless dolts don't grasp their profound ideas that they are simply devoid of joy. I think it's profound arrogance combined with condescension that really produces that kind of behavior.

I wonder why religion is so particularly good at bringing out that rancor...my guess is because it's one of the only things none of us know the answer to, and really can't. Suffice to say, the happiest people seem to be those confident in their beliefs and possessing an attitude that right or wrong in the end, their beliefs help them make the world a better place.

Many happy people also seem to be those who are able to accept that nothing is certain. They say, in essence, "I don't know if God exists or not. I don't know if there's an afterlife or not. So, I'll make the best of what I do know."

This thread is very confusing when you get here a day late and stare at the new comic strip trying to figure out what the hell it has to do with creationism/evolutionism.

Evangelical atheists aren't much better, to be honest. Both of these groups are so obsessed with their own worldview and forcing it on others that they have no room for humor in their lives, let alone humor regarding their beliefs. It's like they're so miserable that those worthless dolts don't grasp their profound ideas that they are simply devoid of joy. I think it's profound arrogance combined with condescension that really produces that kind of behavior.

I can't think of a single Western atheist who want to "force their worldview on others" in the same way that many religious evangelists do (e.g. taking over schools, shouting at people on the streets, trying to get legislation passed against groups they don't like and generally infringing on the liberties of others), unless you count one or two Internet loners.

You could probably find some if you went to China, but otherwise this is a crude and blatant strawman, not worthy of an intelligent person like yourself.

To offer a psychological diagnosis of my own, I think posts like these are influenced by a misplaced, relativist desire in the media to view both sides of a dispute as essentially equivalent, combined with an ingrained bias towards religion and against atheism: this is the origin of that most hypocritical of terms, "militant atheist" (usually defined as one who thinks religion is false, shouldn't be given privileged status in law and has the nerve to share their views rather than being ashamed of them) which is equivocated with "militant Christian" (usually one who blows up abortion clinics, murders 'sinners' and/or wants to impose Old Testament law on the nation) and "militant Muslim" (one who blows himself up or films himself cutting an infidels head off). The same hypocrisy applies to talk of "evangelical atheism": to be accused of "forcing their beliefs on people" a Christian usually has to either try and get their religion enshrined in law or stand on a street corner shouting at people; all an atheist has to do is write a book arguing that there is no God. To use a UK example, a politician saying that all schools should indoctrinate children with religion is seen as a moderate, while one who says that schools should be religiously neutral is accused of being an intolerant, fundamentalist/militant bigot.

I suggest you actually read a few blogs by 'evangelical atheists' and look for humour: you'll find plenty, including self-deprecating humour. To give just a few examples from two atheist websites which are frequently accused of being fundamentalist, evangelical, militant etc.:

Pharyngula: If you heard my voice, you know I wouldn't be the backup singer (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php)
Pharyngula: follow up to the above link (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/who_made_the_beware_the_believ.php)
Richard Dawkins: also hosting the 'Beware the Believers' video (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2409,Beware-the-Believers,RandomSlice)
Richard Dawkins: a very piss-taking article which named him as one of the ten sexiest men alive (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,317,The-sexiest-man-living,Saloncom)

Those are four examples I found almost immediately, even restricting myself to humour which could be considered self-deprecating. The idea that 'evangelical' atheists have no sense of humour is absurd.

Then Christ also never turned water into wine, and never resurrected anyone, and wasn't really crucified, it all was just metaphors.


And the bible also tells you to (Literally) beat your child with a metal rod, right?

And the bible also tells you to (Literally) beat your child with a metal rod, right?
Specific verse pls...

And you know what Rule Of Thumb is, right?

Specific verse pls...

And you know what Rule Of Thumb is, right?

Verses are here:

Proverbs 13:24
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Proverbs 19:18
Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.

Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13
Withhold not correction from the child: for if though beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

And yes, I know what a rule of thumb is. Ever think that the verses you quoted might be exceptions? But that would harm your argument, wouldn't it?

Nowhere does that say anything about a metal rod.

The rod Bible speaks of is simply a few soft twigs held together, applying harmless punishment akin to that of a belt, but a bit sharper stinging.
Which used to be its meaning until very lately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod

So yes, Bible does tell you to spank your son with a rod - of that kind.

Nowhere does that say anything about a metal rod.

The rod Bible speaks of is simply a few soft twigs held together, applying harmless punishment akin to that of a belt, but a bit sharper stinging.
Which used to be its meaning until very lately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod

So yes, Bible does tell you to spank your son with a rod - of that kind.

You know this how? Now, it's your turn to show me the verse where it specifically states what a rod is. Okay?

You know this how? Now, it's your turn to show me the verse where it specifically states what a rod is. Okay?
No, I did my turn - I explained to you what a rod is and gave a link.

Now it's your turn. And it is to prove metal rods were mass produced, available to the common man, and called rods in the Biblical times.

No, I did my turn - I explained to you what a rod is and gave a link.

Now it's your turn. And it is to prove metal rods were mass produced, available to the common man, and called rods in the Biblical times.

Oh, no, I want you to show me exactly where in the bible it says what rods are, and didn't I read you complaining about Wikipedia in a previous post? Yes, yes I did.


Nice, Wiki is your source.... Some guy took a loose glance at the IAFES, posted his twisted interpretations, and you put them here.
Why not to come to one of FES forums and read the appropriate threads? You'll see responses and explanations from the FE believers.

So wiki is fine, but only if it supports your arguments, right?;)

How's the angling in this spot, Vault? Any luck?

Oh, no, I want you to show me exactly where in the bible it says what rods are,
It doesn't. Thus, it doesn't say anything about a metal rod.


So wiki is fine, but only if it supports your arguments, right?;)
Why would a source be not fine if it supports my arguments?

It doesn't. Thus, it doesn't say anything about a metal rod.

Exactly, and in the bible, it says nothing about the Earth being flat, however, I forwarded that argument by isolating verses and twisting them around, just like you.
Why would a source be not fine if it supports my arguments?
Because you aren't always right. No human ever is.

Exactly, and in the bible, it says nothing about the Earth being flat, however, I forwarded that argument by isolating verses and twisting them around, just like you.
No, you didn't base your argument on the bible whatsoever. Never did it say anything about a metal rod.

And why would Bible imply that Earth is of some testicle-like shape, considering that it's a holy book and is always right?


Because you aren't always right. No human ever is.
Well, yes. Doesn't change the way how good and bad sources can be told apart, though.

No, you didn't base your argument on the bible whatsoever. Never did it say anything about a metal rod.

And why would Bible imply that Earth is of some testicle-like shape, considering that it's a holy book and is always right?

Why would the bible imply that the Earth is some paper shape, considering that it had almost a thousand years in which the Catholic church could mess it up and read off whatever it wanted to to the unwashed masses in medieval Europe?
Well, yes. Doesn't change the way how good and bad sources can be told apart, though.
It's the same source you said was unreliable!!!!!!!

Why would the bible imply that the Earth is some paper shape, considering that it had almost a thousand years in which the Catholic church could mess it up and read off whatever it wanted to to the unwashed masses in medieval Europe?
Well, why would it imply anything else? Earth looks flat, it's the most critical argument for its shape.


It's the same source you said was unreliable!!!!!!!

Wikipedia is not a single source. Its reliability depends on page. Some page written by a dude banned from FES, saying "FE people are ridiculous and have no answers!" is obviously unreliable. A page defining such a neutral object as a rod obviously is much more reliable.

Then Christ also never turned water into wine, and never resurrected anyone, and wasn't really crucified, it all was just metaphors.

Now you seem to be getting it.

Well, why would it imply anything else? Earth looks flat, it's the most critical argument for its shape.

... Wow. I really don't know what to say.

...

Okay, compose yourself, no flames, no flames, no flames...

I want you, to go, to someplace flat and open, with nothing standing in the way of you and the horizon, and then, I want you to find something large and mobile, and I want you to tell whoever is controlling it to go past your sight. Then, you tell them by radio or an IM or something like that, to come back. If the Earth is round (Which it is), then you'll see the top of them before the rest of them first, no?
Wikipedia is not a single source. Its reliability depends on page. Some page written by a dude banned from FES, saying "FE people are ridiculous and have no answers!" is obviously unreliable. A page defining such a neutral object as a rod obviously is much more reliable.
...

I'm stopping this. I'm stopping the lunacy right now. No more. I'm through arguing with you, as nothing seems to get through. Find someone else who is willing to waste their time.

Nowhere does that say anything about a metal rod.

The rod Bible speaks of is simply a few soft twigs held together, applying harmless punishment akin to that of a belt, but a bit sharper stinging.
Which used to be its meaning until very lately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod

So yes, Bible does tell you to spank your son with a rod - of that kind.

that's also wrong.

the greek word used for Rod is acually referencing the shepard's crock that is used to guide sheep.

if you watch how shepards guide their flocks, they nudge the sheep with their rod by gently laying the rod on the sheeps back and giving them a gentle push.

so looking at those verses...

Proverbs 13:24
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13
Withhold not correction from the child: for if though beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
this speaks more of Guidance and discipline and not beating anyone. even with a belt or a twig.

Proverbs 19:18
Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
Sounds more like "be firm, don't give in to your child's whining."

Sounds more like "be firm, don't give in to your child's whining."

Exactly. It's a metaphor, and vault seems to be in total disbelief that there could be metaphors in the bible.

Exactly. It's a metaphor, and vault seems to be in total disbelief that there could be metaphors in the bible.

I'm marvelling that he's saying a belt is a form of harmless punishment.

Why would the bible imply that the Earth is some paper shape, considering that it had almost a thousand years in which the Catholic church could mess it up and read off whatever it wanted to to the unwashed masses in medieval Europe?]

The truth is, no serious scholars or Church theologians believed the Earth was flat at any time in its history. It was clearly known that the Earth was round and had been calculated to an extremely accurate degree for thousands of years, and none of them doubted those calculations since many of them did the same thing to establish it for themselves. There's a gigantic list on Wikipedia that shows just the caliber of people that held this conception.

The concept that those guys were ignorant fools that believed the Earth was flat is nothing more than a pretty recent invention designed to contrast the "backward" Middle Ages with the Enlightenment. And not only that, we're talking not just Late Middle Age and Renaissance scholars that thought it was a sphere, but 5th and 6th century "Dark Age" writers including some fairly notable saints and theologians revered by modern Christians. The truth is, the medieval church was very important in preserving Classical knowledge and building upon it not only through their own studies but through knowledge obtained from Islamic and Asian scholars.

The Middle Ages were a period of considerable scientific advancement, even if there were plenty of excesses that inhibited its development in some parts of the world.

I want you, to go, to someplace flat and open, with nothing standing in the way of you and the horizon, and then, I want you to find something large and mobile, and I want you to tell whoever is controlling it to go past your sight. Then, you tell them by radio or an IM or something like that, to come back. If the Earth is round (Which it is), then you'll see the top of them before the rest of them first, no?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

...IT has already been proved that the astronomers of the Copernican school merely assumed the rotundity of the earth as a doctrine which enabled them to explain certain well-known phenomena. "What other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" is the language of Professor de Morgan, and it expresses the state of mind of all who hold that the earth is a globe. There is on their part an almost amusing innocence of the fact, than in seeking to explain phenomena by the assumption of rotundity, another assumption is necessarily involved, viz., that nothing else will explain the phenomena in question but the foregone and gratuitous conclusion to which they have committed themselves....


Find someone else who is willing to waste their time.
Oh, we have dozens of people wasting their time in futile attempts to prove that Earth is some kind of ball, on theflatearthsociety.net, and hundreds at .org.

The thing is, no serious scholars or Church theologians believed the Earth was flat. It was clearly known that the Earth was round and had been calculated to an extremely accurate degree for thousands of years, and none of them doubted those calculations since many of them did the same thing to establish it for themselves.

The concept that those guys were ignorant fools that believed the Earth was flat is nothing more than a pretty recent invention designed to contrast the "backward" Middle Ages with the Enlightenment.

And not only that, we're talking not just Late Middle Age and Renaissance scholars that thought it was a sphere, but 5th and 6th century Dark Age writers including some fairly notable saints and theologians revered by modern Christians.
Really? I was under the impression that it was a pretty popular belief in the middle ages that the Earth was flat, not necessary all-prevailing, but a popular belief nonetheless.:confused:

Really? I was under the impression that it was a pretty popular belief in the middle ages that the Earth was flat, not necessary all-prevailing, but a popular belief nonetheless.:confused:

Nope, that's a very common misconception that has unfortunately been propagated since the start of the 19th century. The Church is hardly innocent when it comes to interfering with science, but they also fostered the rise of some very learned individuals that have been instrumental in preserving and building human knowledge.

Really? I was under the impression that it was a pretty popular belief in the middle ages that the Earth was flat, not necessary all-prevailing, but a popular belief nonetheless.:confused:
He's partially correct. The RET has been very popular for centuries, particularly before science actually started to research the subject. Actually, the Flat Earth Theory is one of the younger branches of modern advanced science.

Nope, that's a very common misconception that has unfortunately been propagated since the start of the 19th century. The Church is hardly innocent when it comes to interfering with science, but they also fostered the rise of some very learned individuals that have been instrumental in preserving and building human knowledge.
True, but my point with the comment about the Catholic church wasn't that they encouraged a lack of knowledge, but rather that oftentimes they filtered out only their viewpoint, which is harmful to new theories.

True, but my point with the comment about the Catholic church wasn't that they encouraged a lack of knowledge, but rather that oftentimes they filtered out only their viewpoint, which is harmful to new theories.

Yes, that is one of their biggest flaws. Of course, they're hardly the first or the worst perpetrator.

I'm marvelling that he's saying a belt is a form of harmless punishment.
Of course it is.

http://www.spare-rods.com/OrderPaddle.html

Of course it is.

http://www.spare-rods.com/OrderPaddle.html

None of these paddles are perfect. Neither are we! :p :D

these 'concepts' are concepts in the other sense of the word. No one truelly knows how old either the sun or the arth truelly are. we by all measure could be decieving ourselves on the essnse of time. Time is measureless when it comes to a deity. Women did not originate from a mans rib persay. That may have happened or it is used as an illustration to shew peoples of the world and all who comprehend the writings of the Bible, to show that the woman in all forms of society and supposedly in origen that the woman is to submit to the man. Not submit as a slave submits to a master, but to take the role similarity of a child to a parent; yet also to that of an equal. like unto a brother to brother or man to man, when all else is stripped away, we are all basically equal. so it was conceptualised for the imagery of that particular visual aide.

Bullshit. We measure the age of the earth by use of radiometric dating, to a large degree of accuracy thanks to several different factors, including the reliability of uranium-lead decay.

You really should consider educating yourself on a subject before you go ahead and make yourself look like a fool.

Such things as Biblical history and predictions tend to be so wildly shoehorned by people like you that any reasonable debate goes out the window.

As far as the sun's age, incidentally, current models of stellar development are pretty well-supported by empirical observations of other stars. Couple that with what we know of the sun's chemical composition, and it (really) doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Bullshit. We measure the age of the earth by use of radiometric dating, to a large degree of accuracy thanks to several different factors, including the reliability of uranium-lead decay.
This is called a circular proof. We make a few unsubstantiated assumptions about when uranium got somewhere and in what proportions, then measure some ratio, compare it to some other ratio, and proclaim it as a greatly precise measurement.

For all we know, it could be just random distribution of metal atoms.


As far as the sun's age, incidentally, current models of stellar development are pretty well-supported by empirical observations of other stars.
"Empirical" is when you do experiments and get results. But all we know about other stars is their color (wavelength-amplitude relationship), and just that. We make assumptions about their distance and age all based on just their color.

This is called a circular proof. We make a few unsubstantiated assumptions about when uranium got somewhere and in what proportions, then measure some ratio, compare it to some other ratio, and proclaim it as a greatly precise measurement.

For all we know, it could be just random distribution of metal atoms.
You can accurately calculate the enormous odds against such a distribution happening by sheer chance.
"Empirical" is when you do experiments and get results. But all we know about other stars is their color (wavelength-amplitude relationship), and just that. We make assumptions about their distance and age all based on just their color.
We know about the behaviors of the different wavelengths of light from massive experimentation.

You can accurately calculate the enormous odds against such a distribution happening by sheer chance.
You just take a single number, make a dozen assumptions, and use math thought up based on them to make far-going conclusions.
All the data radiometry delivers is concentration of elements.


We know about the behaviors of the different wavelengths of light from massive experimentation.
This is good and cool.
But all we know about stars themselves is their color.

And based on that, we build a whole detailed picture of the universe and its whole history, without a single question unanswered.

It's just like the modern science simply can't bring itself to answer "We don't know" to any question at all.

This is called a circular proof. We make a few unsubstantiated assumptions about when uranium got somewhere and in what proportions, then measure some ratio, compare it to some other ratio, and proclaim it as a greatly precise measurement.

are you actually proposing the ongoing spontaneous generation of uranium isotopes?

Vault 10, now I understand your political views.

Vault 10, now I understand your political views.

Yeah, this really explains a lot.

This is called a circular proof. We make a few unsubstantiated assumptions about when uranium got somewhere and in what proportions, then measure some ratio, compare it to some other ratio, and proclaim it as a greatly precise measurement.

For all we know, it could be just random distribution of metal atoms.

This is a fairly silly line of reasoning. Half-lives of unstable isotopes are fairly well calibrated, and borne out of hundreds of independent experiments of the 40 or so radioisotope decay-chains that are used in dating.

Sure, the uranium and lead product could randomly appear, just like how the uranium decay-chain could have a series of half-lives that are not as we have observed on a vast, vast number of different observations.

But that would be like saying gravity at the earth's surface could randomly go from the average 9.81 m/s^2 that it presently is to 100 with no seeming explanation. But given that this hasn't been observed ever, science tends to err on the side of experimental results rather than the speculative shit the above post spews forth.

"Empirical" is when you do experiments and get results. But all we know about other stars is their color (wavelength-amplitude relationship), and just that. We make assumptions about their distance and age all based on just their color.

Bullshit. Utter rubbish. The simple color (really, the wavelength bands that spectroscopy shows us) is not the only piece of information we have available to us for use in calculations. The wavelength shift (a Doppler shift similar to what change in sound frequency of a passing car), whether redshift or blueshift, is an indication of motion toward or away from the observer (us, for the slow).
In addition, measurements of proper motion are often used to determine the mass of groupings of stars like globular clusters, where "color" observations obviously would not suffice.
There are, your flippant response aside, dozens of different measurements, like apparent magnitude, that go into the analysis of stars and their behavior.

Not to mention that passing off just the "color" of the star shows a keen LACK of understanding of basic science.
Stars don't radiate in just one wavelength. Far be it from the case. In fact the light from stars is typically broken up in a series of narrow wavebands that correspond to their molecular composition. These molecular compositions, by the way, are understood by their comparison to the wavebands of those very same molecules and atoms radiating independently.

And besides, what can you possibly offer in exchange? What possible bit of data or useful piece of information can you possibly put forth as a counter-scenario to the models we have today? All you can do is try and attack something you understand next to nothing about, only making yourself look the fool in the process, and even if you were (In that great unlikelihood) to find a crack in the wall, you would have nothing of value to fill it with.

Yeah, this really explains a lot.

Indeed.

Evangelical atheists aren't much better, to be honest. Both of these groups are so obsessed with their own worldview and forcing it on others that they have no room for humor in their lives, let alone humor regarding their beliefs. It's like they're so miserable that those worthless dolts don't grasp their profound ideas that they are simply devoid of joy. I think it's profound arrogance combined with condescension that really produces that kind of behavior.

I wonder why religion is so particularly good at bringing out that rancor...my guess is because it's one of the only things none of us know the answer to, and really can't. Suffice to say, the happiest people seem to be those confident in their beliefs and possessing an attitude that right or wrong in the end, their beliefs help them make the world a better place.

Agreed.

But given that this hasn't been observed ever, science tends to err on the side of experimental results
Except the experiments have nothing to do with the conclusions directly. Our experiments have observed the elements for days. We're extrapolating it to billions of years, without even wondering if it could not work exactly the same way.

The simple color (really, the wavelength bands that spectroscopy shows us) is not the only piece of information we have available to us for use in calculations. The wavelength shift
The wavelength shift (and hello, you don't need to tell me about what it is) is simply different frequencies. And color is the light-band frequency spectrum. So, actually, it is the only piece of information we have.


FET/RET aside, you should understand that our "knowledge" of the universe is akin to a blind-born man's imagination of a Picasso painting based on the products of burning a small sample of paint in it.

As such, both Biblical, FET, and Big Bang cosmologies are about as accurate. Some are more zetetic, some less; some match more data, some less; but they're all self-satisfied, knowitall-style ignorant speculations, if looked at closely.



And besides, what can you possibly offer in exchange? What possible bit of data or useful piece of information can you possibly put forth as a counter-scenario to the models we have today?
The problem is not this. The problem is that the modern pop science doesn't answer "we don't know" when it doesn't know something - instead, it always presents one of the hypotheses, no matter how far-fetched, as an absolute truth.

It's little different from religion and mythology, in doing the job of explaining everything in the world to shut up your interest in it, except being a bit more practical in some of its basic postulates, but that's it.

if you were to find a crack in the wall, you would have nothing of value to fill it with. Beats pretending there are no cracks and can't possibly be.

Except the experiments have nothing to do with the conclusions directly. Our experiments have observed the elements for days. We're extrapolating it to billions of years, without even wondering if it could not work exactly the same way.

Not really, no. Again, half-lives for the various elements have been consistent over the length of radiometric dating research. There's really no reason to believe that, if it holds for fifty-odd years, it shouldn't hold for far more, as there's no real mechanism for why it wouldn't.

The wavelength shift (and hello, you don't need to tell me about what it is) is simply different frequencies. And color is the light-band frequency spectrum. So, actually, it is the only piece of information we have.

Ever heard of apparent magnitude and stellar parallax? Using both, we can easily compute the distance to nearby stars in light years and the absolute magnitude of said stars. Not to mention that those distance calculations can then be used with observations of proper motion to determine many other pieces of information about them.

There's far more to astronomy than color, regardless of how hyberpolic you wish to be.

FET/RET aside, you should understand that our "knowledge" of the universe is akin to a blind-born man's imagination of a Picasso painting based on the products of burning a small sample of paint in it.
As such, both Biblical, FET, and Big Bang cosmologies are about as accurate.

Really? How is FET accurate at all, when we have satellite and lunar observations of a round, rotating earth? Not to mention the proof I'd like to hear of how the Bible accounts for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the redshifting of galaxies away from one another, and all the other pieces of evidence for the Big Bang theory.


The problem is not this. The problem is that the modern pop science doesn't answer "we don't know" when it doesn't know something - instead, it always presents one of the hypotheses, no matter how far-fetched, as an absolute truth.

It's little different from religion and mythology, in doing the job of explaining everything in the world to shut up your interest in it, except being a bit more practical in some of its basic postulates, but that's it.

Beats pretending there are no cracks and can possibly be.

Really? We have observations, we have data to back things up, and when we don't we do admit that we don't. There is no great conspiracy to confirm all of presently known science as true. If there was, scientific development would grind to a halt, in fact would've ground to a halt at the turn of the last century, when things like the Young-Mills Double Slit experiment and the Michelson-Morley Experiment were knocking our preconceptions of how science worked out of the water.

And in the end, the products of those experiments have proven useful and beneficial in other lines of research. Michelson Interferometry pops up all over the place in various fields because of how bleeding accurate it is. The results of the development of Quantum Mechanics, first hinted at with the Double Slit experiment and others, has led to the very computer you're using without much seeming care for the underlying physics behind it.

And in the end, what has the Bible given us that is of any use compared to this, but bloodshed and war? Where is the humility to admit fault in the religious community, that same humility you seem to find lacking in the fields of science?

Not really, no. Again, half-lives for the various elements have been consistent over the length of radiometric dating research. There's really no reason to believe that, if it holds for fifty-odd years, it shouldn't hold for far more, as there's no real mechanism for why it wouldn't.
Ergo, the Universe started from a small ball of ultra-dense matter exploded by something we have no idea about, but have a name for.


Using both, we can easily compute the distance to nearby stars in light years and the absolute magnitude of said stars.
We can compute, we can't verify.

A medieval man could compute all this stuff based on his ideas. And yes, use these calculations to determine a lot more information about them.



Really? How is FET accurate at all,
It's not the point; the point is that neither is accurate.

when we have satellite and lunar observations of a round, rotating earth?
Go to any IAFES board (better the .org), they'll present you some explanations. And remind that the sats can be emulated with stratellites.

Not to mention the proof I'd like to hear of how the Bible accounts for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the redshifting of galaxies away from one another, and all the other pieces of evidence for the Big Bang theory.
The will of God, or maybe random spills from his work.


Really? We have observations, we have data to back things up, and when we don't we do admit that we don't.
First, let's set things straight. I'm not sure, but from what I've seen, I can presume you're not an astronomer or a cosmologist. So there's no you in this; thus, don't say "we". "You" as the pop-science-educated populace don't have any observations or data, you just have a memory of overhearing that someone said he has them.

Second, no, they don't. It's hard to find anything the pop-science admits not to know. Give me some examples.



And in the end, what has the Bible given us that is of any use compared to this, but bloodshed and war?
It's not an argument over the value of Bible.
Where is the humility to admit fault in the religious community, that same humility you seem to find lacking in the fields of science?
There's at least the humility not to pretend to know something absolutely and empirically, better than others, and to say straight, "We've read it in a book we have faith in".

The book in which I have faith:

The First Book of Apes, Called Kinesis

Chapter 1

1. At the beginniing there was nothing but a big ball of gases.
2. For a long time it just sat there in the nothingness, getting hotter and hotter.
3. Then it exploded.
4. The explosion created the stars, which were burning bubbles of the first big ball of gases.
5. The stars threw out chunks of debris that cooled and became planets.
6. The planets spun round and round.

from The Boomer Bible, a Testament for Our Times, by R.F. Laird.

This is a real book, published in 1991. It's in the original language, it's not a bad paraphrase of a poor translation of a Semitic book of myths.

Here's more - http://www.boomerbible.com/boomhome.htm

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r137/SamuelLBronkowitz/volivamap.jpg

.

Setting aside the reason for its existence, this picture is just plain awesome. I love artistic, poetic stuff like this.

Ergo, the Universe started from a small ball of ultra-dense matter exploded by something we have no idea about, but have a name for.

Not really, no. Radiometric dating doesn't have much to do with the dating of the universe. The earth, certainly, but not the universe. The experimental evidence for the Big Bang includes the existence of the CMBR (something other cosmological theories can't account for), the movement of galaxies away from us and from each other, and what's been developed out of Einstein's General Relativity with respect to the curvature of spacetime and our own attempts to observe such with instruments like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

Really, you might want to consider educating yourself on the subject.

We can compute, we can't verify.

A medieval man could compute all this stuff based on his ideas. And yes, use these calculations to determine a lot more information about them.

Of course we can verify. That self-same parallax can be used to determine the distance of objects in the solar system. If such were inaccurate, NASA probes would never have made it to Mars, nor the various moon landers to the moon. Not to mention the various satellites we've sent out past the inner planets, and the observations we've made as a result.

It's not the point; the point is that neither is accurate.

Hardly true at all.

Go to any IAFES board (better the .org), they'll present you some explanations. And remind that the sats can be emulated with stratellites.

And this emulation helps your argument...how?

Regardless, you mean This Flat Earth Society? (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

Let's take a look at some of the things they have to say:

Argument One - Experimental confirmation of the Earth's rigidity in space

1) The ether factor

In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.

In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.

Yes, scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.

But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.

The bolded, actually, is a bald-faced lie, that tries to paint the situation as if Michelson and Morley enacted some sort of elaborate cover-up. In reality, Michelson himself had a belief that there was a hidden flaw in the apparatus that had introduced error in the experiment sufficient to disrupt attempts to observe the ether's effects on light. They, like any good group of scientists, redid the experiment several times, changing and attempting to fix what they could, and published after exhausting every option. (This is, incidentally, not unlike the discovery of the CMBR. The Big Horn radio receiver was taken apart, checked, rechecked, had parts replaced, and had those parts replaced before the team behind finally had to admit that the signal they were observing had to come from some external source that did not line up with any known stellar radio sources).
That too, there was a good deal of consternation in the scientific community, and several attempts to explain away the results of the experiment in a way that would still account for a luminiferous ether.

Add to, that Maxwell's equations show that electromagnetic waves can in fact be a self-propagating wave that does not require a medium. The fact the luminiferous ether, if the Flat Earthers are right in this argument, would also be completely undetectable one way or another, renders its existence more or less irrelevant to the discussion.

The fact that site makes frequent references to a conspiracy enacted by one "Grigori Efimovich," someone the site never goes into much detail over (but simply uses as a sort of scientific bogey man), I'm not entirely sure what the loonies are crowing about, but a quick wiki search shows that the only real individual who might fit this bill would be Grigori Efimovich Rasputin.

Which, if true, only adds to the absurdity that is FET.

The will of God, or maybe random spills from his work.

How cute.

First, let's set things straight. I'm not sure, but from what I've seen, I can presume you're not an astronomer or a cosmologist. So there's no you in this; thus, don't say "we". "You" as the pop-science-educated populace don't have any observations or data, you just have a memory of overhearing that someone said he has them.

I work in Physics, I school in Physics, and if all goes well I'll be first author on a paper coming out sometime next year. Sure, I don't work directly in cosmology, but I am a part of the scientific community, the "we" I keep referring to.

The fact that my line of research ties in with space weather research does help a little.


Second, no, they don't. It's hard to find anything the pop-science admits not to know. Give me some examples.

Pop-science? You're going with pop-science on this one? Who gives a shit what pop-science says? It's being said to make money. If you want to know what's going on in the scientific community, try picking up a journal or two. Nature would be a good start.

Are you honestly suggesting mainstream science doesn't admit that it does not know what dark matter is? Or dark energy for that matter. There is ongoing research, as there always is in situations where a gap in knowledge exists, we have theories that are being looked into that could explain what dark matter and dark energy are, but no one claims to know what either one truly is.

The experimental evidence for the Big Bang includes the existence of the CMBR (something other cosmological theories can't account for), the movement of galaxies away from us and from each other,
This is not experimental (empirical) evidence. This is a hypothesis, based on another theory, based on, basically, the color of stars. Now, if we produced or directly observed a "small bang" in any way, that would be empirical evidence.


Of course we can verify. That self-same parallax can be used to determine the distance of objects in the solar system. If such were inaccurate, NASA probes would never have made it to Mars, nor the various moon landers to the moon.
The space missions are carried out using direct observations, not Doppler shift based predictions.


Regardless, you mean This Flat Earth Society? (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)
Let's take a look at some of the things they have to say:
Funny. You've found the parody one, that has been goodlebombed to appear on top of the list.


Sure, I don't work directly in cosmology, but I am a part of the scientific community, the "we" I keep referring to.
Use "we" when you do work in the cosmology. Otherwise your "we" is no better than the "we" of a Xmas Gift Christian who has never seen the Bible.

The science today is too separated into branches and sub-branches.


Are you honestly suggesting mainstream science doesn't admit that it does not know what dark matter is? Or dark energy for that matter.
Fortunately, the actual science - or at least the people who aren't in just for the money - does.
These are holes in the current model, incoherence between different mathematical predictions it makes. These are calculations that don't add up.

These holes might be filled, or be the ones through which the current cosmology will be broken apart. Which, from what I know, the actual science admits.


There is ongoing research, as there always is in situations where a gap in knowledge exists, we have theories that are being looked into that could explain what dark matter and dark energy are, but no one claims to know what either one truly is.
The thing is, all the pop-science pretends to know they exist. Which is a big question. They are not some matter that is dark. They are holes in the theory. Some centuries ago, observations not matching the theory would be seen as a reason to consider other theories. These days, at least in the pop science, they are plugged with "dark matter we're looking into". It asserts this is proven to indeed be "dark matter" and "dark energy", and in no way can be an indication of errors in the model.

It's not all that much different from the way FET plugs it holes, really.

This is not experimental (empirical) evidence. This is a hypothesis, based on another theory, based on, basically, the color of stars. Now, if we produced or directly observed a "small bang" in any way, that would be empirical evidence.

Not really true. That would be like saying we'd have to reproduce fossilization to prove that animals can become fossilized, as opposed to the rock structures we associate with fossils randomly appearing there or being "Jesused" into being. This "we need to directly observe"

The space missions are carried out using direct observations, not Doppler shift based predictions.

Might want to work on your reading comprehension. I was talking about parallax in use in distance calculations of nearby stars and planets (incidentally, this parallax has absolutely fuckall to do with wavelength, so I don't know why you're still crowing about color).


Funny. You've found the parody one, that has been goodlebombed to appear on top of the list.

Then find the right site. I'm not going to wander google for half an hour because you're too lazy to source.

Use "we" when you do work in the cosmology. Otherwise your "we" is no better than the "we" of a Xmas Gift Christian who has never seen the Bible.

That's a silly notion. Those Xmas Gift Christians are just as Christian as the bible-humpers who go door to door on Saturday mornings, who are just as Christian as the church-and-confession-every-Sunday Catholics.

What an absurd notion.

The science today is too separated into branches and sub-branches.

Umm...what? "Too separated"? I don't see how this makes sense at all. There's no reason for there to not be a separation between fields like middle-upper atmosphere research, solar physics, astrophysics, etc. The level of specialization required to obtain the toolset to work in any of these fields precludes combining fields together, except in particular scenarios.
There's still a lot of cross-disciplinary work, for instance solar physics in its relation to the aurora, and the analysis of gravity waves produced by such an aurora. Or the effects of solar winds on the magnetosphere as observed by ground-based magnetometry.
No, I'm pretty sure it's about as separated as it needs to be.

Fortunately, the actual science - or at least the people who aren't in just for the money - does.
These are holes in the current model, incoherence between different mathematical predictions it makes. These are calculations that don't add up.

These holes might be filled, or be the ones through which the current cosmology will be broken apart. Which, from what I know, the actual science admits.

And that's the point. Who gives a damn about popular science. They're going to put spin on things just like any "good" journalists and reporters.

The thing is, all the pop-science pretends to know they exist. Which is a big question. They are not some matter that is dark. They are holes in the theory. Some centuries ago, observations not matching the theory would be seen as a reason to consider other theories. These days, at least in the pop science, they are plugged with "dark matter we're looking into". It asserts this is proven to indeed be "dark matter" and "dark energy", and in no way can be an indication of errors in the model.

It's not all that much different from the way FET plugs it holes, really.

Again, who cares about pop sci?

Vault 10, are you a creationist? Or are you testing people's ability to argue their case?

Vault 10, are you a creationist? Or are you testing people's ability to argue their case?Look at his location.

Look at his location.

Thanks. He's providing a useful service. Sorta like using bacteria to clean sewage.

Not really true. That would be like saying we'd have to reproduce fossilization to prove that animals can become fossilized,
We have observed its earlier stages.

I was talking about parallax in use in distance calculations of nearby stars and planets
What does it have to do with the Big Bang Theory?

Then find the right site. I'm not going to wander google for half an hour because you're too lazy to source.
I thought it would be kinda obvious to seek The Flat Earth Society at theflatearthsociety.net (more serious) and theflatearthsociety.org (older and larger).


That's a silly notion. Those Xmas Gift Christians are just as Christian as the bible-humpers who go door to door on Saturday mornings, who are just as Christian as the church-and-confession-every-Sunday Catholics.
Well, if you think that people who only remember about religion in the mall on Xmas noon are as Christian as faithful church regulars, then, of course, you can consider yourself as much of an insider as the creators of the Big Bang Theory.

The level of specialization required to obtain the toolset to work in any of these fields precludes combining fields together, except in particular scenarios.
Yes. Which is why you should use "they" when speaking about cosmologists - you don't develop their theory, you just trust their words.

And that's the point. Who gives a damn about popular science. They're going to put spin on things just like any "good" journalists and reporters.
My definition of pop-science used here extends beyond the Discovery channel, well into the science given in the college to non-specialist - all cases where a person is given the conclusions without the knowledge required to understand the underlying research and reach the same conclusions independently.

And the assertion of BBT being a known uncontroversial fact is its most prominent example.