There are many ways to test it and people even hundreds of years ago knew the earth wasn't flat now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.
Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.
Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat
If you stick a stick in the ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow but they don't because the earth is round
Earth is not a sphere, the shadow during an eclipse is caused by the Black Sun, Foucault's pendulum has too wide a margin of error to prove anything at all and the shadows from a couple of sticks in the ground actually prove the earth is flat; light rays from the Sun don't strike the Earth in parellel you fucking dunce. What is the black sun lmao. Varying Star Constellations: This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator. After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10) The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat: Standing in a flat plateau, you look ahead of you towards the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see. Then, you climb up the closest tree – the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. You then look again, strain your eyes, stare through the binoculars out to the horizon. The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground. This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat: The Earth is different from other planets, that much is true. After all, we have life, and we haven’t found any other planets with life (yet). However, there are certain characteristics all planets have, and it will be quite logical to assume that if all planets behave a certain way, or show certain characteristics – specifically if those planets are in different places or were created under different circumstances – our planet is the same. In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they are taking this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same. In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it (click here to see a beautiful video reconstruction of his observations). He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet – a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept as it followed a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun. A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (as our sun would have to behave quite differently to accustom a “flat earth” theory), what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets orbits, and the effects of gravity, etc). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it. The time in New York, at the moment these words are written, is 12:00pm. The sun is in the middle of the sky (though it’s hard to see with the current cloud coverage). In Beijing, where Michael Phelps is likely getting ready for yet another gold medal, it’s 12:00am, midnight, and the sun is nowhere to be found. In Adelaide, Australia, it is 1:30am. More than 13 hours ahead. There, the sunset is long gone – so much so, that it’s soon going to rise up again in the beginning of a new day. Here’s a list showing what time it is around the world when it is 12:00pm in New York city. This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vise versa. That allows for time differences and timezones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours. Another point concerning timezones, the sun and flat/spherical Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would have seen the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). The same way you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you – the crowd – are in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate timezones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical. There’s an interesting fact about mass: it attracts things to it. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object. Consider a sphere. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you. Imagine an ant (perhaps the same one from the previous point) walking around on a crystal ball. Assuming the crystal ball is polished, the ant’s only indication of movement would be the fact it’s moving its feet. The scenery (and shape of the surface) would not change at all. Consider a flat plane. The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less – if you want to be more accurate, feel free to do the entire [shriek] integration [shriek] process), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience. I am quite positive that even for Australians an apple falls downwards, but if you have your doubts, I urge you to try it out – just make sure it’s nothing that can break or hurt you. Just in case gravity is consistent after all. Further reading about the center of mass and about distribution of mass can be found here. And if you are brave enough to handle some equations (not involving integration), you can learn some more about Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. More Methods Throughout History Abu Rayhan Biruni (sometimes known as “The Father of Geodesy“), has managed to calculate the circumference of the Earth using complex triangulation equations. I couldn’t find the actual calculation, or the method, so I can’t judge it this as a relatively easy “DIY” way to do it, but it’s still worth mentioning. If anyone has any more information about the method used, do post in the comments. Bedford Level Experiment: At the Bedford river in Norfolk, England. The experiments were done initially in order to prove that the Earth is flat. Though the first results of this experiment seemed to agree with the flat-earth contention, later attempts to repeat this experiment agreed with the fact that the Earth is, in fact, spherical. Who figured out the Earth is round? http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question54.htmlEarth from Space (from NASA) http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/efs/First Photo from Space 1946: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/FEATURE-FirstPhoto.htmlHistory Channel’s “History of Space Exploration” interactive website (with Videos): http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=51655&display_order=5&mini_id=1438Non stop flight around the world: http://www.didyouknow.cd/aroundtheworld/flight.htmFoucault Pendulum (in Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulumGalileo Galilei (in Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_GalileiGalileo’s Observations and Inventions: http://www.2020site.org/galileo/observations.htmlSpherical Earth (in Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_EarthThe Flat Earth: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htmLunar Eclipse (in Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipseHistory of Geodesy (in Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy |
|
|
|
People accepting things doesn't make fact.
Scientists only accept hypothesis when they are fully tested and become scientific theories. Their acceptance includes rigorous testing of the hypothesis BEFORE it is ever called a scientific theory. What matters is what is truth.
A quick survey of what most people really prize, even in this thread, would disabuse us of that notion. Comfort rather than knowledge seems to be the currency. God tells us truth about evolution in the Bible.
I won't argue about specifics of what God says or does not say, frankly religion shouldn't enter the debate at all. However, given that you and others have demonstrated a lack of understanding of not only what evolution actually is but also elementary science concepts how would you be able to discern anything God says as relating to evolution at all? If God is speaking about evolution in the bible how would you even understand it? Evolution tells us truth right within the fact that it is theory - not known to be factual.
"Scientific theory" NOT "theory". Scientific theories are factual. They describe observed reality. They have been tested. They are fact not conjecture. The conjecture part of science is called the "hypothesis". Science tells us truth in the fact that it shows evolution to be impossible.
I suspect your personal definition of "science" does not track with what the word actually means because otherwise your statement is flat out false. It doesn't matter, badecker will simply ignore what you said. We already explained to him what a scientific theory means and he keeps saying the same shit over and over again as if only things that have the label ''fact'' on them are actually useful. You will not convince a religious extremist like badecker of anything, he can't critically think. Science THEORY is only what scientist believe what theory mean BUT i still think they are wrong  .. But ok IT'S CALLED SCIENCE JARGON .. But not the masses jargon  I thinks it's about science jargon to baffle the public with lies ..SCIENCE THEORY ..Yes it's fact in science but not in my world .. And i am sure many feel the same about getting science scammed with science jargon.. Theory is not fact Posted by Sarah Salviander Whenever someone even hints at a criticism of Darwinism or “climate change,” the True Believers come out of the woodwork to try to shame the heretics. You can always tell who they are, because they say things like “climate change is a fact” or “evolution is a fact the same way gravity is a fact.” The implication here is, you wouldn’t be so dumb as to deny the reality of gravity, would you, so why are you denying the reality of evolution or climate change? But here the True Believer shows his blind faith, for with his inability to distinguish between fact and theory he exposes himself as someone whose understanding of how science works doesn’t even rise to the level of middle school. Another way to describe this sort of blind faith is science fetishism. As I told the anklebiting commenter to Surak’s article, we do not permit people to fetishize science here. A fact is something we observe; for example, that objects in free fall accelerate toward the Earth’s center at a rate of 9.8 m/s2 or that the Moon orbits the Earth with an average orbital speed of 3700 km/s. There is no doubt of the fact that objects fall toward each other, because we see it and measure it all the time; this is what the science fetishist means when he says “gravity is a fact.” But what he apparently doesn’t realize is that gravity is a theory. Theories are not facts, they are models that attempt to make sense of the facts. And, as it turns out, there are several theories of gravity that attempt to make sense of what we know: Newton’s universal law of gravitation, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, modified Newtonian dynamics, and so on. And, as we all know from the various scientific revolutions that have taken place in the last several hundred years, no theory is invulnerable to being overturned by new and better evidence or new ways of thinking. When a science fetishist leaps into a conversation to tell you that evolution is a fact, the first thing you should tell him is that you are fully aware of the fact that different lifeforms have emerged over the course of the Earth’s natural history and that lifeforms have been observed to change over relatively short periods of time. And then ask him which theory explains it — microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, microbial evolution, or chemical evolution — and why. At that point you will expose what Hugh Ross describes as the evolution shell game when fetishists argue about evolution, wherein he will either substitute the facts of fossils and other evidence for theory or well-established forms of evolution for those that are not at all supported. As for climate change as “fact,” I can only surmise that our True Believer is not aware that scientists — including the famous hockey stick guy, himself — are now finally admitting that there has been no significant warming in the last two decades. It’s only a matter of time before the whole edifice of human-caused “climate change” collapses. UPDATE: im2l844 asks in the comments: Do you have a concise response to the “consensus” argument that is invariably trotted out by the AGW faithful? Yes, there are two responses: who cares? and what consensus? Who cares if there’s a consensus? Reality isn’t decided by a vote. There was a time when 97% of scientists thought the Earth was the center of the universe, so that tells you the value of consensus. The reality is, there isn’t a consensus about global warming or climate change or whatever the True Believer wants to call it. The 97% statistic that is invariably trotted out is based on a very small number of scientists polled — just 77 — who met the criteria for a 2-minute survey as part of a student’s thesis. What the True Believer either doesn’t know or refuses to acknowledge is that over 31,000 scientists from an array of scientific fields have signed a petition stating they believe “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” You realize that what you posted there acknowledges that evolution theory is true but there are parts of it that are unknown? So what you posted there is helping us more than you. You think the theory of evolution is something invented by scientists for whatever reason? If so how are scientists able to apply evolution theory to so many things and make them work. Like: Wider biology The evolutionary approach is key to much current research in biology that does not set out to study evolution per se, especially in organismal biology and ecology. For example, evolutionary thinking is key to life history theory. Annotation of genes and their function relies heavily on comparative, that is evolutionary, approaches. The field of evolutionary developmental biology investigates how developmental processes work by using the comparative method to determine how they evolved. Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony. Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders. For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves. This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor. Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells. And even Computer science. |
|
|
|
|
There are many ways to test it and people even hundreds of years ago knew the earth wasn't flat now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.
Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.
Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat
If you stick a stick in the ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow but they don't because the earth is round
|
|
|
|
|
User: XinXan
Postion to Apply: Hero member
Posts Start: 1613
Address: 1988L7bpKspCjwcoTvqc5s5SGrK6HzMB24
|
|
|
|
|
User: XinXan
Postion to Apply: Hero member
Posts Start: 1610
Address: 1988L7bpKspCjwcoTvqc5s5SGrK6HzMB24
|
|
|
|
|
User: XinXan
Postion to Apply: Hero member
Posts Start: 1609
Address: 1988L7bpKspCjwcoTvqc5s5SGrK6HzMB24
|
|
|
|
|
Badecker is just a crazy religious person who can't think critically. As previously said in my post where I explain why he is just factually wrong, cops are people like us, some of them are going to be bad, welcome to the real world. He keeps posting cases of police doing bad things like that would help him. As I said there are 700.000 cops, even if you find 1 case per day thats only 0.05% of cops. Also keep in mind that every day they are called thousands of times and nothing bad happens. Again badecker is just a retard so I don't expect him to understand but hopefully other people don't listen to his bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
User: XinXan
Postion to Apply: Hero member
Posts Start: 1609
Address: 1988L7bpKspCjwcoTvqc5s5SGrK6HzMB24
|
|
|
|
|
Can I know when the payments will be? I'm just not sure If im even in the campaign still because the first half week I wasn't able to post the minimum because I joined later, I did post the minimum for this week but the spreadsheet is still not updated so i was just wondering
|
|
|
|
Episode 21: 'Chaos and randomness inside the mind of a retard named...you know the name'
Ever won an argument with a decent, intelligent human being? Things change, the argument changes from his side, he thinks about it, even if he still sustains his idea, his argumentation will take new thinks into consideration. Try the same with dumb, stupid, idiotic people and it will go like this: no matter how evident your argument is, his argument will always stay the same. He can never realize the fallacy in his thinking so he will always believe he is right, never researching further. That is what is happening with our small retard, Badecker. His answers have a randomness, many times he does not answer to what you said but to what crosses his useless mind. But no matter how random his answer is, he will always keep claiming the same stupid shit, over and over again. For him, the big bang is not real. He can't really understand that the Big Bang has been scientifically observed, its traces have been seen, they completely match the theory. He does not understand that there was first a theory and a prediction of what they would find and they found exactly the same thing the theory contained (Background Radiation). He does not understand the Big Bang was not a myth (as Gods are), it was properly defined, it obeys scientific laws, it is completely understandable and it has already been reproduced, on a very small scale. He somehow surpasses all of the facts in favor of his brainwashing fairy tale. He can not understand logic and he does not realize that cause and effect can not be a definite law since some things may except from the rule (radioactive decay, the big bang itself) because a cause has not yet been found, which turns cause and effect into an imperfect rule. He does not understand complexity, neither entropy and we can tell that just by the very own fact that he calls them 'scientific laws'. He does not understand that a God could not be proven based on the fact that cause and effect, entropy and complexity exist since all of these might (and might is the right term because of the exceptions) lead to the existence of a cause of the beginning, one that is undefined and unseen at the moment. He does not understand that because of our understanding of this universe (an understanding that works, it gets things going) science never mentions God as a possible first cause since there are an infinite more probable causes than this one. He does not understand that all religions have the same 'characteristics' of the Creator, they differ on the stories an are all man made and 90% they are historically erroneous which makes it all to seem a 'forgery' from the beginning. He does not understand that the age of our universe is an approximation, a very close one, not a theory and that it is a fact because the proofs have already been made, observations were clear, research was strongly done. All that Badecker can think of is that whatever the circumstances, God exists. No matter how hard the evidence would be, he would believe the same. That is a mental illness and a huge level of stupidity. The funny thing, the one that makes us not give a flying spit on his ideas, is that he doesn't even understand that he is stupid. Stay tuned for more, the chaotic retard will most surely come back with some new package for his own shit.
LOL! Did you write that before my last comment? Or did you start it as soon as you saw I was online? The scientific laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, when combined, not only prove that God exists, but also prove that there is no other way. Check out the summaries here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380, and then research it to see for yourself. HWW, your humor is simply too much   Ha ha ha ha ha ha You still posting your links. Have you ever asked yourself why noone else posts your links? Its because they prove nothing. You are the only one who believes them. That is why i laugh at you. It's not that other people don't believe. It's like you... don't understand. Science isn't a believing matter. It is an understanding of knowledge matter. Interlude: Of course, our small idiot will never be able to surpass his stupidity, he actually believes he is so important that someone would follow to see when he is online. He believes himself to be a small God. He also believes people were healthier before and they could all be inbred. They could, but they were not healthy and neither were the off springs...it's just a science thing, we can't expect Badecker to understand it. He always says about anyone who actually knows a bit of science that they do 'religious talk', he does not believe in the Big Bang...and then he goes telling stats science isn't a believing matter. A religious apologist who believes God exists because cause and effect exists says science is not believing matter. Not that he wouldn't be right, science really isn't a believing matter, it's just the irony of it all: he only makes false assumptions (he believes stuff) while he knows science is not about that. Understanding of knowledge? This guy does not even understand in what he believes anymore. That is indeed mental illness with a shit ton of stupidity. Stick around for episode 21! Our subject test, badecker, believes in god, the christian god. He claims there is scientific proof for it yet he never actually posts any evidence that leads to think that the real god is the christian god, he just believes it. He doesn't believe in evolution, of course, that would require some scientific understanding of the world, something that badecker doesn't have. He doesn't believe that the earth is flat, this is a surprise because you would expect an idiot like badecker to believe in any stupid shit but he doesn't. However he does have a thread called, US cops are worse than ISIS which is just fucking retarded, again, expected from badecker. List of beliefs by badecker: Believes in God Believes that cops are worse than ISIS Believes the earth is only 6000 years old (rofl) Believes humans and dinosaurs lived together (rofl) Believes a God watches you masturbate Believes that all languages originated thanks to the babel tower (rofl) And I'm still waiting for that definition of God, badecker, I asked you like 10 times, you seem to ignore it. and HWW both believe that by talking religion they will be able to disprove science. So, that's what they have done... above. Yet, they don't have any rebuttal for the scientific proof that God exists, except political science. Political science says that if you talk long enough, people will believe you, even if you are wrong about what you are saying. God and the scientific proof that He exists stand, with or without any rebuttal they might think that they have. EDIT: Btw, XinXan. Thanks for placing me in the position of authority for describing God. Anybody can Google "What is God?" But you are setting me up as authority higher than Google responses. Thank you for that honor. Badecker: Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is. Badecker: At the same time, cause and effect, entropy, and complexity point towards that "Something" that we can't fathom, as being the Creator. So you still avoid the definition I see. |
|
|
|
Episode 21: 'Chaos and randomness inside the mind of a retard named...you know the name'
Ever won an argument with a decent, intelligent human being? Things change, the argument changes from his side, he thinks about it, even if he still sustains his idea, his argumentation will take new thinks into consideration. Try the same with dumb, stupid, idiotic people and it will go like this: no matter how evident your argument is, his argument will always stay the same. He can never realize the fallacy in his thinking so he will always believe he is right, never researching further. That is what is happening with our small retard, Badecker. His answers have a randomness, many times he does not answer to what you said but to what crosses his useless mind. But no matter how random his answer is, he will always keep claiming the same stupid shit, over and over again. For him, the big bang is not real. He can't really understand that the Big Bang has been scientifically observed, its traces have been seen, they completely match the theory. He does not understand that there was first a theory and a prediction of what they would find and they found exactly the same thing the theory contained (Background Radiation). He does not understand the Big Bang was not a myth (as Gods are), it was properly defined, it obeys scientific laws, it is completely understandable and it has already been reproduced, on a very small scale. He somehow surpasses all of the facts in favor of his brainwashing fairy tale. He can not understand logic and he does not realize that cause and effect can not be a definite law since some things may except from the rule (radioactive decay, the big bang itself) because a cause has not yet been found, which turns cause and effect into an imperfect rule. He does not understand complexity, neither entropy and we can tell that just by the very own fact that he calls them 'scientific laws'. He does not understand that a God could not be proven based on the fact that cause and effect, entropy and complexity exist since all of these might (and might is the right term because of the exceptions) lead to the existence of a cause of the beginning, one that is undefined and unseen at the moment. He does not understand that because of our understanding of this universe (an understanding that works, it gets things going) science never mentions God as a possible first cause since there are an infinite more probable causes than this one. He does not understand that all religions have the same 'characteristics' of the Creator, they differ on the stories an are all man made and 90% they are historically erroneous which makes it all to seem a 'forgery' from the beginning. He does not understand that the age of our universe is an approximation, a very close one, not a theory and that it is a fact because the proofs have already been made, observations were clear, research was strongly done. All that Badecker can think of is that whatever the circumstances, God exists. No matter how hard the evidence would be, he would believe the same. That is a mental illness and a huge level of stupidity. The funny thing, the one that makes us not give a flying spit on his ideas, is that he doesn't even understand that he is stupid. Stay tuned for more, the chaotic retard will most surely come back with some new package for his own shit.
LOL! Did you write that before my last comment? Or did you start it as soon as you saw I was online? The scientific laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, when combined, not only prove that God exists, but also prove that there is no other way. Check out the summaries here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380, and then research it to see for yourself. HWW, your humor is simply too much Ha ha ha ha ha ha You still posting your links. Have you ever asked yourself why noone else posts your links? Its because they prove nothing. You are the only one who believes them. That is why i laugh at you. It's not that other people don't believe. It's like you... don't understand. Science isn't a believing matter. It is an understanding of knowledge matter. Interlude: Of course, our small idiot will never be able to surpass his stupidity, he actually believes he is so important that someone would follow to see when he is online. He believes himself to be a small God. He also believes people were healthier before and they could all be inbred. They could, but they were not healthy and neither were the off springs...it's just a science thing, we can't expect Badecker to understand it. He always says about anyone who actually knows a bit of science that they do 'religious talk', he does not believe in the Big Bang...and then he goes telling stats science isn't a believing matter. A religious apologist who believes God exists because cause and effect exists says science is not believing matter. Not that he wouldn't be right, science really isn't a believing matter, it's just the irony of it all: he only makes false assumptions (he believes stuff) while he knows science is not about that. Understanding of knowledge? This guy does not even understand in what he believes anymore. That is indeed mental illness with a shit ton of stupidity. Stick around for episode 21! Our subject test, badecker, believes in god, the christian god. He claims there is scientific proof for it yet he never actually posts any evidence that leads to think that the real god is the christian god, he just believes it. He doesn't believe in evolution, of course, that would require some scientific understanding of the world, something that badecker doesn't have. He doesn't believe that the earth is flat, this is a surprise because you would expect an idiot like badecker to believe in any stupid shit but he doesn't. However he does have a thread called, US cops are worse than ISIS which is just fucking retarded, again, expected from badecker. List of beliefs by badecker: Believes in God Believes that cops are worse than ISIS Believes the earth is only 6000 years old (rofl) Believes humans and dinosaurs lived together (rofl) Believes a God watches you masturbate Believes that all languages originated thanks to the babel tower (rofl) And I'm still waiting for that definition of God, badecker, I asked you like 10 times, you seem to ignore it. |
|
|
|
God exists. Scientists have always known this. From Apologetics Press:Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?” Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.
Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.
Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes. Read more at https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=879.The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God because...  ?? Yet again a stupid christian webpage claiming that God did it without not one single shred of evidence. Look I can do it too. The evidence is the complexity. Stuff doesn't become complex without a more complex precursor. Entropy shows this. The complexity of the universe is so extremely great that the term "God" fits Whatever made the universe.
The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is the (Pick any God from any religion you want)
Religions are usually misguided in their understanding of God. Choose the real God, the one that science proves through cause and effect, entropy, and complexity. Then find the religion that most correctly matches the real God. Then study that religion to find the things about God that science is too weak to find out.
If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms.
That we know, only the things of the universe are cause and effect things. In fact, we can barely conceive of anything that would be outside of the universe at all. Nothing random has ever been proven. But, God, being outside of the universe (at least in part) may have randomness within Himself. We just don't know through scientific observation, because science can barely observe things in this universe, but hasn't found a way to observe anything outside of the universe. Further, even if a person wanted to accept that there was such a being there is nothing at all in the cosmological argument to indicate that the being would have any of the properties of humans that are projected into the concept of the deity of any particular religion. The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic. The point is that through scientific observation, we know very little about the characteristics of God. Many religions have elements of truth regarding the characteristics of God, because the religious info has been passed down or written down from the beginning. Science has a long way to go to find out as much about God as religion has found out about Him. Science is going in the wrong direction. Used to be that science searched for truth, and only accepted it as truth when it was proven. Now science accepts as truth the unproven big bang, and an unproven 13 to 14 billion year old universe, when religion shows us that the universe is less than 6,200 years old. Science is going the wrong way, and will ultimately fail if it doesn't change. Let's get back to real science, both in this thread, and in scientific observation. Real science proves God exists. The proof is found through combining the basic scientific facts/laws/principles of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity. These could not exist together as they do in the universe without God, Whatever He may be. Nope, stop it. Science doesn't prove any god at all. You haven't shown a single piece of evidence pointing to a specific god. Complexity? How does complexity point to your specific god? You have to define what god means which you haven't. You always talk about the god from the bible because thats your belief, a belief based on faith, not science. So you don't have much scientific understanding about complexity. Look above at what I said about it. We have no evidence in the universe of complexity coming about without something more complex being its precursor. The fact that you want me to "stop it" shows that you are irritated because you don't have an answer to the things that I am showing you. Why are you so against reality? What changes in your life if you realize God is real? You still go on living just like you always have. The only thing that you might achieve is peace if you come to be on God's side rather than against Him. Still not defining god. Still no evidence that proves anything you say points to your specific God. I can agree with everything you said and it still doesn't show God exists. The precursor has to be more complex but it doesn't have to be God. If it is God, who is the precursor of god then? Same argument over and over again. Self refuting arguments that you keep using. -Everything has a cause (then you would say but god doesnt have a cause but you just said everything has a cause but god doesn't have a cause....) -Everything that is complex requires a more complex precursor (then you would say god doesn't but you just said everything does....) Loop arguments and none of them point to a specific God. You keep avoiding the question. Where is the evidence that shows your specific God is the real God. |
|
|
|
So you are comparing ISIS to cops? I mean, i think you can't do that.
Both are agressive, but if you meant to know who would win i think it's more than obvious.
People compare apples and oranges. I mean, consider their skins. Oranges have much thicker skins. Cops must be oranges. No people use the quote ''you are comparing apples to oranges'' when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared. Basically like what you did. You can read my post above to fully explain why your post is retarded, I know you ignored it because you don't have an argument for it. LOL! Actually, I kinda liked your post you are referring to. The fact that you are irritated enough with things I say to badmouth me, shows that I am posting in the right direction. The idea that cops and ISIS is like comparing apples with oranges, shows the fallacy in the idea that apples and oranges can't be compared. They CAN be compared. Everything can be compared in one way or another. Wake up, Dude. You need to start thinking if you want a fulfilled life. However, as Solomon said, "The more the wisdom, the more the pain." So, maybe you would rather not wake up so much after all, eh? So you can't really refute anything I said, can you? You are just an idiot. Saying cops are bad. Where is your evidence for that, you saw a few news about some cops that shoot innocent people and you can call all cops bad? 0.001% do things that are wrong therefore all cops are bad? Your logic is a joke, just like you, a joke. You can't think, you are just a brainwashed idiot. Maybe you should wake up to reality and stop posting bullshit retard. Oh, wow. Didn't realize you were having such problems in life. You really ought to turn to God. He'll give you a much more peaceful life, more rewarding, and happier. You'll even be able to communicate with other people without getting yourself all tied up in a knot. Say a little prayer with me right now: Dear God, Please come into XinXan's life right now. Give him the peace only you can give. Lead him to everlasting life through Your Son, Jesus. Please help us with this. XinXan is a wonderful person. We would value his time with us throughout all eternity. Please, oh God. We don't want to lose him. And, thank You in advance for hearing and helping. In Jesus Name we call to you... amen. Thanks for making it clear that you do not have any arguments and you just wanted to call cops bad for whatever reason. You are either a bad person or stupid, could be both. |
|
|
|
I'm opposing the gay marriage. They can be together but marriage? I dont think so. But I'm okay about them adopting children because childrens needs parents no matter what the gender of the parents would be.
Why would anyone care if someone wants to merry a man, woman or a fucking dog. Who the fuck cares, why do you care? Does it affect you in any way? You should be far more concerned about the adoption but instead you are concerned about them getting married. Your logic is so flawed I don't even know what to say. Good luck in real life. |
|
|
|
So you are comparing ISIS to cops? I mean, i think you can't do that.
Both are agressive, but if you meant to know who would win i think it's more than obvious.
People compare apples and oranges. I mean, consider their skins. Oranges have much thicker skins. Cops must be oranges. No people use the quote ''you are comparing apples to oranges'' when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared. Basically like what you did. You can read my post above to fully explain why your post is retarded, I know you ignored it because you don't have an argument for it. LOL! Actually, I kinda liked your post you are referring to. The fact that you are irritated enough with things I say to badmouth me, shows that I am posting in the right direction. The idea that cops and ISIS is like comparing apples with oranges, shows the fallacy in the idea that apples and oranges can't be compared. They CAN be compared. Everything can be compared in one way or another. Wake up, Dude. You need to start thinking if you want a fulfilled life. However, as Solomon said, "The more the wisdom, the more the pain." So, maybe you would rather not wake up so much after all, eh? So you can't really refute anything I said, can you? You are just an idiot. Saying cops are bad. Where is your evidence for that, you saw a few news about some cops that shoot innocent people and you can call all cops bad? 0.001% do things that are wrong therefore all cops are bad? Your logic is a joke, just like you, a joke. You can't think, you are just a brainwashed idiot. Maybe you should wake up to reality and stop posting bullshit retard. |
|
|
|
God exists. Scientists have always known this. From Apologetics Press:Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?” Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.
Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.
Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes. Read more at https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=879.The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God because... ?? Yet again a stupid christian webpage claiming that God did it without not one single shred of evidence. Look I can do it too. The evidence is the complexity. Stuff doesn't become complex without a more complex precursor. Entropy shows this. The complexity of the universe is so extremely great that the term "God" fits Whatever made the universe.
The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is the (Pick any God from any religion you want)
Religions are usually misguided in their understanding of God. Choose the real God, the one that science proves through cause and effect, entropy, and complexity. Then find the religion that most correctly matches the real God. Then study that religion to find the things about God that science is too weak to find out.
If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms.
That we know, only the things of the universe are cause and effect things. In fact, we can barely conceive of anything that would be outside of the universe at all. Nothing random has ever been proven. But, God, being outside of the universe (at least in part) may have randomness within Himself. We just don't know through scientific observation, because science can barely observe things in this universe, but hasn't found a way to observe anything outside of the universe. Further, even if a person wanted to accept that there was such a being there is nothing at all in the cosmological argument to indicate that the being would have any of the properties of humans that are projected into the concept of the deity of any particular religion. The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic. The point is that through scientific observation, we know very little about the characteristics of God. Many religions have elements of truth regarding the characteristics of God, because the religious info has been passed down or written down from the beginning. Science has a long way to go to find out as much about God as religion has found out about Him. Science is going in the wrong direction. Used to be that science searched for truth, and only accepted it as truth when it was proven. Now science accepts as truth the unproven big bang, and an unproven 13 to 14 billion year old universe, when religion shows us that the universe is less than 6,200 years old. Science is going the wrong way, and will ultimately fail if it doesn't change. Let's get back to real science, both in this thread, and in scientific observation. Real science proves God exists. The proof is found through combining the basic scientific facts/laws/principles of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity. These could not exist together as they do in the universe without God, Whatever He may be. Nope, stop it. Science doesn't prove any god at all. You haven't shown a single piece of evidence pointing to a specific god. Complexity? How does complexity point to your specific god? You have to define what god means which you haven't. You always talk about the god from the bible because thats your belief, a belief based on faith, not science. |
|
|
|
God exists. Scientists have always known this. From Apologetics Press:Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?” Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.
Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.
Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes. Read more at https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=879.The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God because... ?? Yet again a stupid christian webpage claiming that God did it without not one single shred of evidence. Look I can do it too. The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is the (Pick any God from any religion you want) If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms. Further, even if a person wanted to accept that there was such a being there is nothing at all in the cosmological argument to indicate that the being would have any of the properties of humans that are projected into the concept of the deity of any particular religion. The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic. |
|
|
|
So you are comparing ISIS to cops? I mean, i think you can't do that.
Both are agressive, but if you meant to know who would win i think it's more than obvious.
People compare apples and oranges. I mean, consider their skins. Oranges have much thicker skins. Cops must be oranges. No people use the quote ''you are comparing apples to oranges'' when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared. Basically like what you did. You can read my post above to fully explain why your post is retarded, I know you ignored it because you don't have an argument for it. |
|
|
|
Wow - unbelievable how much ignorance and stereotyping there is in the modern world.
My partner and I adopted two children at birth. They both have turned out to be very impressive and beautiful human beings.
If only heterosexual couples had to go through the same countless home-study interviews, drug tests and medical physicals just to prepare to have a child -- the world would certainly be a better place.
Well, the truth is that children will do better with gay parents than no parents at all, the places where they keep all the abandoned children are just not good for children. I personally don't care whether gay parents adopt or not. What really matters is how they treat their kid, not their sexual orientation. As you said there are plenty of ''normal'' parents that raise absolutely terrible children all around the world and no one gives a shit. |
|
|
|
|
Of course a fucking badecker post. There are approximately 750,000 "cops" in the US, statistically a few of them are going to be bad in terms of sociopathic or psychopathic behavior, but police agencies vet candidates for those traits, so there are far fewer in that population than the general population. Most cops are good people, sheepdogs who are motivated to protect, and underpaid to do it.
The police in the US definitely have a PR problem for a few reasons:
The police are rarely the bearers of good news, so for most people, their interaction with the police is negative for reasons that are their own fault, or at the very least, not the fault of the police
Americans are bi-polar when it comes to police: we sure want them around when the shit goes down, but the other 99.9995% of the time we wish they'd fuck off and not bother us for speeding, parking illegally, and trying to score a dimebag.
Americans have built a shrine to personal responsibility in the temple of public discourse, yet practice none of it, so when most people get a ticket, or busted for whatever crime, they blame the cop, who is unfairly labeled an asshole
Everyone and their mother has a camera, including the police, so any error on the part of the police, no matter how minor, is played out in the news and social media while the police are shredded by the armies of professionally outraged social warriors armed with keyboards and opinions based on over-hyped headlines, ignorance, and their own agendas. 750,000 cops can't fight off tens of millions of idiots who don't want to hear the truth anyway.
What often looks like police brutality is necessary force, but anytime the cops win a fight, it's police brutality. Anytime the cops lose a fight, we cheer. Yet we still expect them find our stolen TV.
The majority of the time a cop does make a mistake or use unnecessary force, it's due to a judgment error or they were operating on bad information, not because they're bad people. Yet in the media, they're instantly labeled a racist, violent, pig before the investigation even starts.
The tiny percentage of cops that are actually bad often are terminated or prosecuted, but a few high profile cases in recent memory where they were not have tainted the public's opinion of how we watch the watchmen.
I'm not saying the police are perfect, there are plenty of active & retired police that will admit the failures of the police. Sometimes you'll get pulled over by an officer that's a bit of an asshole. They're human; they have bad days too, pet peeves, and personalities that clash with the people they interact with. That doesn't make them bad.
Their image in the US and therefore abroad, is entirely focused on a few flecks of shit in a sea of diamonds. The police interact with millions of civilians every day without major incident, policing a huge territory with an armed, anti-authoritarian and often discourteous population for very little pay. The biggest problem with police in the US is the society, not the police themselves.
People are not perfect, cops are people and some of them are going to be bad people, comparing cops to ISIS is just fucking retarded but expected from someone like badecker.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
