Hoax is a hoax

[Balthazar]

I've seen a lot of "Evolution/Vaccination/ISIS/Global warming/XXX is a hoax" threads, so I came to conclution that we need a more generic one.

Dear antivaxxers, feel free to comment this chart:

[1713311816]

1713311816

[1713311816]

1713311816

[1713311816]

1713311816

[styca]

The Zionist margarine lobby have been filling our margarine with chemicals for decades. They do this so they can control our brains. We all know that margarine is bought disproportionately by families, which is why they have been working so hard to keep the divorce rate down. Unfortunately it is failing them because margarine consumption is dropping as well, but don't worry they have other plans as I will explain in a moment. But marriage/margarine, yes, anyone who wants to get a divorce has been targetted by margarine chemicals so that they stay married and buy more margarine. It's a well-known tactic, they first trialled it with their vaccination scam where they filled innocent bodies with harmful margarine chemicals. They also perpetuate the global warming myth... why? Simple. Butter increases sunburn, but margarine reduces it. It's not enough that we eat their stuff, now we must cover our bodies in it to protect from 'global warming' and the Evil Death Rays that are suddenly supposedly coming out of the sun. But frankly I have never seen any of these so-called Death Rays. Of course they push the evolution hoax as well. God made us and made all natural things, butter is natural but margarine is man-made and evolved through man-made chemicals. If they can get us thinking that the stuff God made is second-rate, they will push us from buying butter and straight into their waiting margariney arms. There is nothing about margarine in the bible and that is because margarine is the Devil's foodstuff.

I've tried using evidence and it's got me nowhere. Satire might be worth a go.

[franky1]

coughing causes lung cancer

studies show that ALL people with lung cancers initially showed signs that they cough more often then people without lung cancer. so its not smoking, nor carcinogens, nor bad diet nor vaccinations.. but the simple act of coughing that causes lung cancer

[yazher]

ISIS was a hoax, the American created the group to further destroy the bond between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. they planned it from the start and they are successful to destroy the bond between these two huge Arab nations. After that, they come up with the news of killing the ISIS leader for some funny reasons. They said: they execute the mission after they confirm the leader's DNA via his underwear. can you believe this? this is the funniest hoax I've ever heard, I mean come on man, can you come up with some good explanations to make us believe.  

[franky1]

ISIS was a hoax, the American created the group to further destroy the bond between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. they planned it from the start and they are successful to destroy the bond between these two huge Arab nations. After that, they come up with the news of killing the ISIS leader for some funny reasons. They said: they execute the mission after they confirm the leader's DNA via his underwear. can you believe this? this is the funniest hoax I've ever heard, I mean come on man, can you come up with some good explanations to make us believe.  

lets just where conspiracy hat for once

so they killed him without a drop of blood spilled? meaning no blood to test
so they tested dna from when he shat himself? naturally a terrorist fears many things to easily mess thier pants(sarc)
or
did thy kill him by putting a dildo up his behind

by the way dna of his boxer shorts aint proof. what if a gay jizzed on a random male prostitute and it was the jizzer who walked away and still lives that is the leader

[squatz1]

When we're talking about antivaxers I think there is a very clear distinction that must be made. As not all antivaxers are the same.

There are some people who don't support certain vaccines because the side effects on them on their child / etc are not worth the benefit from taking the vaccine. Think of people who may get extreme reactions to the flu vaccine, so they opt not to get it due the fact that it could cause more harm then good for them. This is a legitimate concern, and I think we must not forget about these people.

But there is the other group, the one that we all love to shit on. This is the group of people who think that vaccines are given out by the government in order to brainwash the entire population, or to spread a certain disease, or to spread autism, or whatever.

The first group has legitimate concerns, the 2nd group is full of shit.

[franky1]

there is always a difference between those with opposing view and then those with extremes of that opposing view
normal:                                                   extremes
female equal rights                                   feminists
vegetarians                                              vegans
not wanting antiotics for common cold        antivaxxers
christians                                                 KKK white supremecy
muslims                                                   nutjob isis
thos wanting to be thin                              anorexics
those ok with a bit of a belly                       morbitly obese

[yazher]

ISIS was a hoax, the American created the group to further destroy the bond between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. they planned it from the start and they are successful to destroy the bond between these two huge Arab nations. After that, they come up with the news of killing the ISIS leader for some funny reasons. They said: they execute the mission after they confirm the leader's DNA via his underwear. can you believe this? this is the funniest hoax I've ever heard, I mean come on man, can you come up with some good explanations to make us believe.  

lets just where conspiracy hat for once

so they killed him without a drop of blood spilled? meaning no blood to test
so they tested dna from when he shat himself? naturally a terrorist fears many things to easily mess thier pants(sarc)
or
did thy kill him by putting a dildo up his behind

by the way dna of his boxer shorts aint proof. what if a gay jizzed on a random male prostitute and it was the jizzer who walked away and still lives that is the leader

This is where they good at, they claimed that they killed the man without providing a video or image files from the said operation. how will they expect to be believed? when they always giving us some out of this world explanations. they've been doing this for a decade now. that's why I said earlier they need to come up with another reason that can be digested to our minds or else people will not be fooled all the time, there will become a time when no one believes them.

[creepyjas]

ISIS was a hoax, the American created the group to further destroy the bond between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. they planned it from the start and they are successful to destroy the bond between these two huge Arab nations. After that, they come up with the news of killing the ISIS leader for some funny reasons. They said: they execute the mission after they confirm the leader's DNA via his underwear. can you believe this? this is the funniest hoax I've ever heard, I mean come on man, can you come up with some good explanations to make us believe.  

Same sentiments. I am really confused with  the videos released about ISIS with their hostage some time ago. It looks awkwardly fake. Any thoughts?

[Viper1]

The pro vaccination people that spout of the mantra that it's "safe" are such morons. Science is what we know TODAY. Tomorrow that could change. Way back there was a scientist that proved some ulcers are caused by a virus. He was ridiculed by the medical community. He injected himself to prove his point and so they looked into it more and now it's a "fact" that he was right. A decade or two ago they said you should take Asprin in order to reduce the chance of heart attack. Fast forward to 2018 and it's "oops".. For some it can lead to bleeding and death so don't do it now unless your doctor recommends it and you understand the risks. When it comes to vaccinations and anti biotics, they're now extremely concerned that we're creating super strains of everything because of them and that we may not be able to come up with new things to combat them. We need to stop being so pro drug and stuffing things in our bodies that we don't always need and focus on just the top critical ones instead or better yet, focus on the treatment to perfect that for when someone actually comes down with something.

[yazher]

ISIS was a hoax, the American created the group to further destroy the bond between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. they planned it from the start and they are successful to destroy the bond between these two huge Arab nations. After that, they come up with the news of killing the ISIS leader for some funny reasons. They said: they execute the mission after they confirm the leader's DNA via his underwear. can you believe this? this is the funniest hoax I've ever heard, I mean come on man, can you come up with some good explanations to make us believe.  

Same sentiments. I am really confused with  the videos released about ISIS with their hostage some time ago. It looks awkwardly fake. Any thoughts?

ISIS is the American product for continuously manipulating people of their so-called "Terrorist Eliminator". they want to introduce to the world how they eliminate this "Evil People" when they themselves create it. The Victims are real, the ISIS group is Fake there are some groups created by the join forces of the American and Israel to inject on the people's minds how bad are the Muslims.

[franky1]

ISIS was a hoax, the American created the group to further destroy the bond between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. they planned it from the start and they are successful to destroy the bond between these two huge Arab nations. After that, they come up with the news of killing the ISIS leader for some funny reasons. They said: they execute the mission after they confirm the leader's DNA via his underwear. can you believe this? this is the funniest hoax I've ever heard, I mean come on man, can you come up with some good explanations to make us believe.  

Same sentiments. I am really confused with  the videos released about ISIS with their hostage some time ago. It looks awkwardly fake. Any thoughts?

my sentiment is that some atrocities did occur people did die, buildings were destroyed and such.
but
although there was before isis alot of radicals who were angry about the abuses they received due to the many wars of the ottoman era all the way through to the gulf wars (1900-2000)
but after the millenium. the organisation and formalisation of all the radicals became a planned group.
funny part is in the UK a few years back there was news of stuff happening in the middle east. they had someone that was so called high up in the rankings who was organising attacks and doing propaganda stuff to recruit radicals..
the guy was a british. went to british schools and colleges and had business management skills due to his university degree.

so his particular 'cell' was of british management as h was nicknamed because he and a few other british based leaders were given the tag the beatles and h was called jihadi john.

so t me if it wasnt for the management/formalisation of the cults of radicals.. the radicals as independant nut cases would have just been angry armchair activists that their ancestors got hurt. and less recent events would have occured without the formalisation of the group(s)

so. in summary
dead or secretly alive being questioned in Guantanamo style prison.. doesnt matter. as long as there is no/less leaders organising the radicals. then great.
so unless a vido surfaces that shows h is alive and organising more attacks, it just doesnt matter

[notbatman]

Here are a few of my favorite hoaxes:

Atheism,
Gravity,
The Big Bang,
Outer Space,
Planets,
The Globe,
Evolution,
Dinosaurs,
Everything NASA,
Nuclear Weapons.

[styca]

Here are a few of my favorite hoaxes:

-snip-

Nuclear Weapons.

I think I've argued against you on most of those. Not nuclear weapons yet though.
Do you believe in nuclear power stations? That might be a good starting point.

[Balthazar]

Here are a few of my favorite hoaxes:

-snip-

Nuclear Weapons.

I think I've argued against you on most of those. Not nuclear weapons yet though.
Do you believe in nuclear power stations? That might be a good starting point.

Nuclear energy is a government conspiracy. There are no NPPs.
The so-called NPPs are secretly burning gas to generate power, while the gas is delivered via underground pipelines.

[Foxpup]

Nuclear energy is a government conspiracy. There are no NPPs.
The so-called NPPs are secretly burning gas to generate power, while the gas is delivered via underground pipelines.

So you're saying the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is just a cover-up for the fact that it was really a gas explosion? But then what was the gas explosion a cover-up for? (They're always a cover-up for something, aren't they?)

[Balthazar]

So you're saying the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is just a cover-up for the fact that it was really a gas explosion? But then what was the gas explosion a cover-up for? (They're always a cover-up for something, aren't they?)

That's the case for sure. I suppose we need to ask local representatives for Zionist Occupational Government. Maybe they have declassified some papers.
But even their refusal to answer will serve as confirmation.

[franky1]

So you're saying the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is just a cover-up for the fact that it was really a gas explosion? But then what was the gas explosion a cover-up for? (They're always a cover-up for something, aren't they?)

That's the case for sure. I suppose we need to ask local representatives for Zionist Occupational Government. Maybe they have declassified some papers.
But even their refusal to answer will serve as confirmation.

or take a geiger counter on a world tour
if you hear lots of clicking noises.. try not to stay there too long or you'll get more than just a tan

[BADecker]

I've seen a lot of "Evolution/Vaccination/ISIS/Global warming/XXX is a hoax" threads, so I came to conclution that we need a more generic one.

Dear antivaxxers, feel free to comment this chart:

All you are showing that if hoaxes are hoaxes, we can't believe anything until it is taken to a jury with real tests, and real witnesses, and evidence, before we can believe. Get them on the stand, under oath with penalty of death, and let them prove what they are saying.

[Balthazar]

or take a geiger counter on a world tour
if you hear lots of clicking noises.. try not to stay there too long or you'll get more than just a tan

Well, if we will talk seriously, there are places on Earth where natural backround is much higher than that in the Exclusion Zone.

Like this place, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/lance2/

People are living there, and there is a significant tourist flow. Nice place for vacation, but not for those who like to drink alcohol because it's banned in Iran. 

[styca]

All you are showing that if hoaxes are hoaxes, we can't believe anything until it is taken to a jury with real tests, and real witnesses, and evidence, before we can believe. Get them on the stand, under oath with penalty of death, and let them prove what they are saying.

Facts and evidence aren't enough to convince people though. We have mountains of factual evidence, and still that isn't sufficient proof.
Just yesterday, 11,000 scientists published a paper warning of a climate emergency (and including lots of evidence, 29 charts to start with, plus references to supplementary evidence). They also list the actions we need to take. That is, actions to change human behaviour, to rein in human-caused climate change:

• Use energy far more efficiently and apply strong carbon taxes to cut fossil fuel use
• Stabilise global population – currently growing by 200,000 people a day – using ethical approaches such as longer education for girls
• End the destruction of nature and restore forests and mangroves to absorb CO2
• Eat mostly plants and less meat, and reduce food waste
• Shift economic goals away from GDP growth

[Balthazar]

Use energy far more efficiently and apply strong carbon taxes to cut fossil fuel use

You forgot that global warming is a hoax as well. Recursion.

[notbatman]

Globe earth is a hoax, "global warming" is a hoax, the dangers of atomic energy is a hoax and, "peak oil" is a hoax.

Jesuit mind control is a fucking bitch, remember the 5th of November!

-- https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

[styca]

Globe earth is a hoax, "global warming" is a hoax, the dangers of atomic energy is a hoax and, "peak oil" is a hoax.

Evidence is a hoax, though? Fact is a hoax?
You can't just dismiss facts without considering them and explaining why you disagree.

[notbatman]

^^^ You mean like the fact NASA can't produce a photograph of the globe or, that I can go swimming and drink the water in the cooling pool of a uranium nuclear plant with no ill effects?

Feel free to disregard everything I say, you tow the "official narrative" on every issue thus it's pearls before swine offering you any facts. If you're interested in any of my claims then do your own research.

[Foxpup]

I can go swimming and drink the water in the cooling pool of a uranium nuclear plant with no ill effects

Yeah, good luck with that:

In our reactor? You'd die pretty quickly, before reaching the water, from gunshot wounds.

Turns out the nuclear people are even more serious about keeping the truth under wraps than the missile commanders defending the Antarctic ice wall.

[Balthazar]

^^^ You mean like the fact NASA can't produce a photograph of the globe or, that I can go swimming and drink the water in the cooling pool of a uranium nuclear plant with no ill effects?

Feel free to disregard everything I say, you tow the "official narrative" on every issue thus it's pearls before swine offering you any facts. If you're interested in any of my claims then do your own research.

There are countless thousands of globe photos. But fanatics are simply dismissing them without any argumentation.
All what they can say is "CGI" or "Photoshop". Then why even bother to ask, you will tell the same.

[notbatman]

^^^

Name: Robert Simmon
Title: Lead Data Visualizer and Information Designer
Formal Job Classification: Senior Program Analyst
Organization He Works For: Code 613, Climate and Radiation Branch, Earth Sciences Division, Sciences and Exploration Directorate
...
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

Robert Simmon Big Blue Marble "It Has to Be Interview" -- https://youtu.be/CbRQlgt0mfE

[BADecker]

All you are showing that if hoaxes are hoaxes, we can't believe anything until it is taken to a jury with real tests, and real witnesses, and evidence, before we can believe. Get them on the stand, under oath with penalty of death, and let them prove what they are saying.

Facts and evidence aren't enough to convince people though. We have mountains of factual evidence, and still that isn't sufficient proof.
Just yesterday, 11,000 scientists published a paper warning of a climate emergency (and including lots of evidence, 29 charts to start with, plus references to supplementary evidence). They also list the actions we need to take. That is, actions to change human behaviour, to rein in human-caused climate change:

• Use energy far more efficiently and apply strong carbon taxes to cut fossil fuel use
• Stabilise global population – currently growing by 200,000 people a day – using ethical approaches such as longer education for girls
• End the destruction of nature and restore forests and mangroves to absorb CO2
• Eat mostly plants and less meat, and reduce food waste
• Shift economic goals away from GDP growth

The article you linked talks briefly about how some climate change people are taking things to court to make climate change a legal thing. Let's get the scientists on the stand, themselves, under oath, so that they can show exactly the research that they did, and swear that it is as they say.

Then, let the opposition do the same.

But before this is done, we need to get the media on the stand to prove that there were 11,000 scientists the way they say.

Are they all willing to put their money where their mouths are? If they aren't, this is simply some kind of a game they are playing. but it might turn into damage for the public if they are lying, or don't know what they are talking about.

Btw, we need more CO2 in the atmosphere so we get more GW, so that we get more moisture and heat up there, so that we can open more lands up for cultivation and habitation.

[styca]

I can understand people saying 'conspiracy!' when it's just a few voices claiming something as fact. But when it is literally thousands of the world's greatest experts, armed with vast amounts of cold hard facts, surely it becomes harder to dismiss?
Soon the conspiracy will be so big that almost the entire world will be in on it!

[styca]

Btw, we need more CO2 in the atmosphere so we get more GW, so that we get more moisture and heat up there, so that we can open more lands up for cultivation and habitation.

Whilst we're on the subject of conspiracies I'd like to offer my own: the Russians benefit from global warming!
At least as far as I see it from my admittedly amateur position. GW opens up the vast Siberian wastelands for habitation and development. Whilst everyone else bakes and suffers with fire and drought, the great wastes of Russia gradually thaw out. Russian influence on the world has been far smaller than you'd expect over the years, given its size - largely because it lacks a warm water port - global warming will provide the answer to this as well.

What do people think? Does this sound reasonable?

[Balthazar]

Whilst we're on the subject of conspiracies I'd like to offer my own: the Russians benefit from global warming!

Actually, they don't. Because it will open the way for infections we don't have since 1930s, like malaria or other tropical diseases.
So it must be americans, they're trying to attack Russia with climatic weapon, just as usual.

[af_newbie]

I've seen a lot of "Evolution/Vaccination/ISIS/Global warming/XXX is a hoax" threads, so I came to conclution that we need a more generic one.

Dear antivaxxers, feel free to comment this chart:

Correlation does not imply causation.

It is a logical fallacy to assume causation based solely on correlation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[Foxpup]

Whilst we're on the subject of conspiracies I'd like to offer my own: the Russians benefit from global warming!

Another benefit comes from the Northwest Passage, a formerly unnavigable shipping route between Western Europe and Eastern Russia by way of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Crossing the Arctic Archipelago used to require a sleigh, but now that it's starting to become accessible by boat, the economic advantages to Russia are obvious.

[styca]

Whilst we're on the subject of conspiracies I'd like to offer my own: the Russians benefit from global warming!

Another benefit comes from the Northwest Passage, a formerly unnavigable shipping route between Western Europe and Eastern Russia by way of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Crossing the Arctic Archipelago used to require a sleigh, but now that it's starting to become accessible by boat, the economic advantages to Russia are obvious.

Indeed. For those of us who do believe in and are deeply troubled by (human-caused) global warming, Russia is a huge cause for concern.
As the climate worsens, you can envisage a lot of countries coming on board and starting to take steps to counteract the problem. Even the US, once that orange fuckwit has been impeached, and once they've had enough of flooding Louisiana and burning California, and when Miami is the world's first undersea city.

Russia though? I know they're not the cartoon villains they're portrayed as, but still, they gain significant strategic advantages by watching the rest of the world burn.

[yazher]

Ok, guys, let's turn this way around. according to the study of science, mythical creatures are not real. in short, they are a hoax, what if they are not hoaxed? as they claimed. I'm talking about (Giants, Elves, Dragons, and Fairies) you guys always talking everything is a hoax, I can accept the other things but it seems too hard for me to understand why the other facts is also a hoax. every study of science comes at theory at first, if they can prove it after sometimes they can assure it as a fact and if they failed, they will make another theory out of it.

[GideonGono]

Ok, guys, let's turn this way around. according to the study of science, mythical creatures are not real. in short, they are a hoax, what if they are not hoaxed? as they claimed. I'm talking about (Giants, Elves, Dragons, and Fairies) you guys always talking everything is a hoax, I can accept the other things but it seems too hard for me to understand why the other facts is also a hoax. every study of science comes at theory at first, if they can prove it after sometimes they can assure it as a fact and if they failed, they will make another theory out of it.

What they believe is they believe and also they show it to others so some people who have a lack of knowledge from everything do believe easily. There's a lot of cons and prons of the happenings outside here or from hoax topic.

In my observation some people do make story for us to believe that other thing can be true even if its not based on how they present it even without evidence we believe.

[BADecker]

Regarding hoaxes and things that are called hoaxes, prove it.

Either way, prove it.

If you don't even look at the facts or evidence of both sides, how can you ever even begin to know if something is a hoax or not?

One of the best ways is to take it to a common law court of law, with people getting on the stand, and swearing to tell the truth. If we added execution for liars on the stand, people would be very careful to tell the truth.

[styca]

Regarding hoaxes and things that are called hoaxes, prove it.

Either way, prove it.

If you don't even look at the facts or evidence of both sides, how can you ever even begin to know if something is a hoax or not?

It's a good point, and it's important to see both sides and challenge your own viewpoints.
It can be difficult though - what one side considers overwhelming proof, say on man-made climate-change, the other side sees fake papers, global network of climate scientists lying to us etc. Personally I see people linked to oil companies and establishment interests lying to us by denying climate change so they can protect their vested interests.

It's difficult. We each see conspiracies on the other side. All we can do, either side, is accrue and present what we think is evidence.

[DaftAjax]

Flat Earthers, Atheists, Feminists, Anti-social, etc.

A lot of things can be said as facts, and those so-called facts can also be said as a hoax--false, hearsay, just like that (easy, right?). But then again, those who claimed that these facts are a mere hoax and false claimed facts they themselves do not provide "evidence" that these are indeed false claims, hence makes them a hoax themselves. I can't stress this enough, conspiracy (theory crafting) about facts being a hoax, in the end, are hoax themselves.

Heck, after reading all these makes me think that words in the dictionary are a hoax as well, that these didn't really mean what is written, and people who translate from language to another aren't accurate or correct at all. And when I think about it, "religion" always comes to my mind, that the "bible" we know now is just a propaganda of a hidden organization that is playing the strings of how the world works right this very moment.

I mean look at it now, "religion" has a huge influence.

[styca]

Flat Earthers, Atheists, Feminists, Anti-social, etc.

A lot of things can be said as facts, and those so-called facts can also be said as a hoax--false, hearsay, just like that (easy, right?). But then again, those who claimed that these facts are a mere hoax and false claimed facts they themselves do not provide "evidence" that these are indeed false claims, hence makes them a hoax themselves. I can't stress this enough, conspiracy (theory crafting) about facts being a hoax, in the end, are hoax themselves.

Heck, after reading all these makes me think that words in the dictionary are a hoax as well, that these didn't really mean what is written, and people who translate from language to another aren't accurate or correct at all. And when I think about it, "religion" always comes to my mind, that the "bible" we know now is just a propaganda of a hidden organization that is playing the strings of how the world works right this very moment.

I mean look at it now, "religion" has a huge influence.

Religion is a good example, as it stands in opposition to science.
Science is just the name for truth proven by evidence.
Religion demands that science provides evidence, which it does by definition.
However if science demands that religion provides evidence that God exists, they can't. Apparently they don't need to... it's all based on faith... you need to provide evidence but we don't need to.

[notbatman]

ESL

Religion is a good example [of a hoax], as it stands in opposition to science.

Can you give an example of the Bible opposing science?

You take it on faith that gravity is a fact in defiance of the scientific method, then you label gravity as science. The KJV says directly that the earth has "breadth" between its four quarters in The Book of Revelations; this is confirmed with the scientific method using a super-zoom camera such as the P900.

Just FYI:

"Definition of breadth

1 : distance from side to side : width
// the height, breadth, and depth of each piece of furniture
...
Synonyms
distance, expanse, expansion, extent, field, length, plain, reach, sheet, spread, stretch, waste..."

Science is just the name for truth proven by evidence.
Religion demands that science provides evidence, which it does by definition.
However if science demands that religion provides evidence that God exists, they can't. Apparently they don't need to... it's all based on faith... you need to provide evidence but we don't need to.

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." -- Revelation 20:7-9, KJV

Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test - Part 1 - 1st Test -- https://youtu.be/X8YrYoCyw0g
Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test - Part 2 - Retest and Confirmation -- https://youtu.be/GAdd4aidDbg

[styca]

I meant religion opposes science because religion is based on faith.

Faith being the opposite of science.

Science meaning truth obtained through evidence and provable facts.
Faith meaning truth obtained in the utter absence of any evidence or facts.

That's what faith is, right? The onus is on the individual to believe in say, the existence of a God, purely through word that has been passed down through the generations in a book written a couple of thousand years ago. If you say: I'll believe in God when he shows himself to me, then you don't have faith.

That's what I meant.

[BADecker]

Flat Earthers, Atheists, Feminists, Anti-social, etc.

A lot of things can be said as facts, and those so-called facts can also be said as a hoax--false, hearsay, just like that (easy, right?). But then again, those who claimed that these facts are a mere hoax and false claimed facts they themselves do not provide "evidence" that these are indeed false claims, hence makes them a hoax themselves. I can't stress this enough, conspiracy (theory crafting) about facts being a hoax, in the end, are hoax themselves.

Heck, after reading all these makes me think that words in the dictionary are a hoax as well, that these didn't really mean what is written, and people who translate from language to another aren't accurate or correct at all. And when I think about it, "religion" always comes to my mind, that the "bible" we know now is just a propaganda of a hidden organization that is playing the strings of how the world works right this very moment.

I mean look at it now, "religion" has a huge influence.

Religion is a good example, as it stands in opposition to science.
Science is just the name for truth proven by evidence.
Religion demands that science provides evidence, which it does by definition.
However if science demands that religion provides evidence that God exists, they can't. Apparently they don't need to... it's all based on faith... you need to provide evidence but we don't need to.

Religion doesn't stand in opposition to real science. Religion is simply something that is different than science, and way ahead of it.

There is, of course, some stuff that is called science, but it isn't really science... like big bang, evolution, black holes, the idea that stars are nuclear rather than electric plasma, and a whole lot more.

The only reason flat earth isn't in there is that it is easy to disprove. Nobody has gone to those other things to prove or disprove them.

[styca]

I think we're going round in circles a bit. There is a huge amount of evidence for those things.

[BADecker]

I think we're going round in circles a bit. There is a huge amount of evidence for those things.

There's huge amounts of evidence, not for those things, but that people can say that the evidence is for those things.

Two hundred years ago, the several main sciences were separate. Professionals in one field didn't want to get into the fields of others. Electrical engineers wanted to stay in electricity. Physicists wanted to stay in physics. Medical doctors didn't want people of other fields in medicine. Chemists stuck with their own kind. None of these wanted to be farmers, and the farmers didn't want them in farming.

Gradually over the years the various fields of science merged at least somewhat. Because of this merging, we are finding all kinds of things that we never knew before.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity shows that Gravity Theory works with the Relativity of the universe. About a year ago, a physicist mathematician in Germany showed how Einstein's Theory of Relativity doesn't work with gravity when you get down to the size of the atom, itself.

The point? Further combine all kinds of things from all kinds of fields to the evidence of the major science theories, and you will be able to develop all kinds of other science theories that fit the same evidence that the current theories do. The only way we will find out what is right, is by going there.

The only way to find out if big bang is real, is to develop a space/time machine and go back there. But if creation by God is real, and if it is only about 7,500 years ago like the Septuagint and Josephus say, you will only prove to destroy yourself by space/time-ing yourself right out of existence.

[Balthazar]

Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test - Part 1 - 1st Test -- https://youtu.be/X8YrYoCyw0g
Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test - Part 2 - Retest and Confirmation -- https://youtu.be/GAdd4aidDbg

These "tests" were proven to be fake a long time ago. Meanwhile, I still see these funny references in almost every flat-earthers thread.
"Tests" are done by various people but in same manner.

[notbatman]

Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test - Part 1 - 1st Test -- https://youtu.be/X8YrYoCyw0g
Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test - Part 2 - Retest and Confirmation -- https://youtu.be/GAdd4aidDbg

These "tests" were proven to be fake a long time ago. Meanwhile, I still see these funny references in almost every flat-earthers thread.
"Tests" are done by various people but in same manner.

Can you give me an example of those two distance to the horizon tests being proven fake? It looks like a dude with a Nikon P900 at the beach to me. Anybody (with a super-zoom camera) can replicate these tests and confirm it's fact.

@BADecker relativity is a hoax, the University of Paris has repeatable experiments that falsify it.



"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV

[styca]

The only way to find out if big bang is real, is to develop a space/time machine and go back there. But if creation by God is real, and if it is only about 7,500 years ago like the Septuagint and Josephus say, you will only prove to destroy yourself by space/time-ing yourself right out of existence.

The speed of light is real though? You can go back way further than 7,500 years just by pointing a telescope at the sky.

[TwitchySeal]

The 'lets make fun of stupid hoaxes thread' has one guy trying to argue that the world is flat and another insisting that the Bible is based on Science.  They aren't trolling, they  are serious. lol

[Mometaskers]

Congratulations to the inhabitants of Maine! They've finally found the solution to America's high divorce rate. Margarine helps in relationships coz people feel satisfied after eating it and when that happens their brains release chemicals that prime them up for reproduction.

And margarine help with that too. It's used as a... you know what. It also stays in there helping the child slip out easily 9 months later. No more C-sections! And the child comes out with +50 IQ points because of the nutrition.

It's wonderful. The Japaness are going to replace the whale in their diet with organic, free-range margarine. Their birthrate will finally go up.

[BADecker]

The only way to find out if big bang is real, is to develop a space/time machine and go back there. But if creation by God is real, and if it is only about 7,500 years ago like the Septuagint and Josephus say, you will only prove to destroy yourself by space/time-ing yourself right out of existence.

The speed of light is real though? You can go back way further than 7,500 years just by pointing a telescope at the sky.

The speed of light changes slightly when light moves through a transparent or translucent object. We even have evidence that the speed of light fluctuates slightly when going through the same medium. Have we been getting measurements of the speed of light from Voyager or other artificial satellites?

Have you been out to Alpha Centari lately, to measure the speed of light out there?

Regarding the science hoaxes I have been talking about. A small group of scientists walks into the kid's room. There on the floor are a pair of dice. The scientists start to discuss the position of the dice thrower in order to get the dice to land exactly as they are on the floor. The talk gets heated. The kid comes into the room and says, "Who knocked my dice off the top shelf onto the floor?" Everybody looks up at the top shelf. There's the mouse.

The assumptions in all this science theory are so great that science that is not closely tied to engineering is just a game.

A scarier example. Einstein figured out E=mc². This gave other scientists the go ahead to crack the atom. We got the atom bomb out of it. But we still don't know for a fact that it is the science of E=mc² that makes the bomb work like it does. It just seems to work that way. There might be some other unknown chunk of science that rides right along with E=mc² that is doing the actual work. It's kinda scary.

[styca]

The speed of light changes slightly when light moves through a transparent or translucent object.

Sure. Slightly, through a medium. We're talking about vacuum though, space. Even if the speed of light fell to 1% of its normal value, which it doesn't, it wouldn't make the universe 7,500 years old. We can see way further out (and therefore back in time) than that.

[BADecker]

The speed of light changes slightly when light moves through a transparent or translucent object.

Sure. Slightly, through a medium. We're talking about vacuum though, space. Even if the speed of light fell to 1% of its normal value, which it doesn't, it wouldn't make the universe 7,500 years old. We can see way further out (and therefore back in time) than that.

So you HAVE been out to Alpha Centari and checked light speed out there, right? Congratulations. Were you the first?

[DaftAjax]

Religion doesn't stand in opposition to real science. Religion is simply something that is different than science, and way ahead of it.

In fact, Religion doesn't have anything to do with Science, because first of, they are in a different field. What I mean by that is, when we talk about Science, it will always imply discoveries, experiments, inventions--facts, things that have evidence to prove its existence. While Religion is neither necessarily opposed nor on the same level, you could say it doesn't have the same "goal". In religion, the evidence isn't really important. If a "well-educated" person read the bible you would just simply understand it as it is, and will not (supposedly) urge for proof. As the goal of Religion is to make people mentally healthy and morally aligned through its teachings. It's more on the "rational" side of thinking rather than "making any sense".

But what I have to nitpick about Religion is, when 2 people read the same "bibble", they will sometimes have a different understanding. As we are all not of the same mind (well, after all, you're entitled to your own opinions). So the (supposedly) same "teachings/religion" will have "sects".

There is, of course, some stuff that is called science, but it isn't really science...

I got confused a bit when you said "real science", but I think there's no such thing as real science but just science. The term you're looking for is "theories", that means--not proven yet, but is a possibility if performed to practice.

[styca]

The speed of light changes slightly when light moves through a transparent or translucent object.

Sure. Slightly, through a medium. We're talking about vacuum though, space. Even if the speed of light fell to 1% of its normal value, which it doesn't, it wouldn't make the universe 7,500 years old. We can see way further out (and therefore back in time) than that.

So you HAVE been out to Alpha Centari and checked light speed out there, right? Congratulations. Were you the first?

We have so much evidence for the speed of light. We have a theory that has been comprehensively verified. You can't just say oh well it doesn't agree with the universe being a few thousand years old, so my theory of a young universe (which has no evidence to back it up) must be right, and established verifiable science must be wrong.
I will go out there and prove it for you as soon as God gives me a magic space chariot. I can't prove that magic space chariots don't exist, therefore they must exist, right? The Spaghetti Monster can give me a tow if God is busy.

(By the way... I know we are always on opposite sides, but I do enjoy these discussions - thanks for providing a constant challenge! )

[BADecker]

The speed of light changes slightly when light moves through a transparent or translucent object.

Sure. Slightly, through a medium. We're talking about vacuum though, space. Even if the speed of light fell to 1% of its normal value, which it doesn't, it wouldn't make the universe 7,500 years old. We can see way further out (and therefore back in time) than that.

So you HAVE been out to Alpha Centari and checked light speed out there, right? Congratulations. Were you the first?

We have so much evidence for the speed of light. We have a theory that has been comprehensively verified. You can't just say oh well it doesn't agree with the universe being a few thousand years old, so my theory of a young universe (which has no evidence to back it up) must be right, and established verifiable science must be wrong.
I will go out there and prove it for you as soon as God gives me a magic space chariot. I can't prove that magic space chariots don't exist, therefore they must exist, right? The Spaghetti Monster can give me a tow if God is busy.

(By the way... I know we are always on opposite sides, but I do enjoy these discussions - thanks for providing a constant challenge! )

If people wanted to, they could make logical theories all day that fit the reason why variations in the speed of light are minimal these days. But since we have found that the speed fluctuates slightly, even through space, nobody can say with certainty that it ever was a constant, and that it always was a constant.

Prove it was a constant 5,000 years ago. All we have is guesstimations, at best. If you gotta get out there to test stuff, you might ask God if you can borrow Ezekiel's spaceship - https://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/The_Spaceships_of_Ezekiel.

Guess all you want. But if you think that we have proof, you are only deluding yourself.

[styca]

if you think that we have proof, you are only deluding yourself.

This is the point about religion though, isn't it? Religion is just another word for all of the stuff that we are supposed to take as true with zero evidence to back it up.

[BADecker]

if you think that we have proof, you are only deluding yourself.

This is the point about religion though, isn't it? Religion is just another word for all of the stuff that we are supposed to take as true with zero evidence to back it up.

You don't need me explaining religion to you all the time. Simply follow this link - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t - and apply every definition part in every way you can.

[styca]

The assumptions in all this science theory are so great that science that is not closely tied to engineering is just a game.

A scarier example. Einstein figured out E=mc². This gave other scientists the go ahead to crack the atom. We got the atom bomb out of it. But we still don't know for a fact that it is the science of E=mc² that makes the bomb work like it does. It just seems to work that way. There might be some other unknown chunk of science that rides right along with E=mc² that is doing the actual work. It's kinda scary.

Science does proceed in this way though, it is all about getting closer to the truth. Way back in the 1600s we had Newton's Laws of Motion, which explained how objects move. And this was close enough to truth that we could use these laws for engineering, and did for a couple of hundred years, and indeed still do today. Then it became apparent that although the laws were great for everyday life and situations, they didn't really hold up so well with very small scales, very high speeds, or very strong gravitational fields. Nowadays we have relativity and quantum mechanics that describe these extreme situations very well... but no-one is saying these are absolute truths, just that they are the best we have at the moment. Through science our understanding of the universe is improving all the time.

[BADecker]

The assumptions in all this science theory are so great that science that is not closely tied to engineering is just a game.

A scarier example. Einstein figured out E=mc². This gave other scientists the go ahead to crack the atom. We got the atom bomb out of it. But we still don't know for a fact that it is the science of E=mc² that makes the bomb work like it does. It just seems to work that way. There might be some other unknown chunk of science that rides right along with E=mc² that is doing the actual work. It's kinda scary.

Science does proceed in this way though, it is all about getting closer to the truth. Way back in the 1600s we had Newton's Laws of Motion, which explained how objects move. And this was close enough to truth that we could use these laws for engineering, and did for a couple of hundred years, and indeed still do today. Then it became apparent that although the laws were great for everyday life and situations, they didn't really hold up so well with very small scales, very high speeds, or very strong gravitational fields. Nowadays we have relativity and quantum mechanics that describe these extreme situations very well... but no-one is saying these are absolute truths, just that they are the best we have at the moment. Through science our understanding of the universe is improving all the time.

The point isn't that people are trying to refine their understanding. Refining understanding and knowledge is a good thing.

The point is that average people don't understand one basic thing about science theory (and it seems that a lot of scientists don't, as well). This is the little part that science theory is designed to change.

Many scientists talk and act like the current theory is the factual answer. If they don't say it this way, they leave openings for the media to talk this way.

It's the engineers who are the scientists who make things happen. The theoreticists only supply something that they know isn't really factual. Sometimes it gets in the way fo what engineers would have accomplished if they had not heard the latest theory.

[styca]

Not really, it all starts with theories.
You have a hypothesis, test it, and if the results validate the original premise then great, it becomes a rule and can be used as a basis for future engineering and future theories.
The established rules don't suddenly appear fully formed, they are the results of theories that have been tested against evidence.

Yes we have engineers and we have theoreticians. But the engineers are working on rules and techniques supplied by previous generations of theoreticians.

[BADecker]

I would say that most of it starts with some kind of theory. Some of the simple stuff is simply recognition of the obvious. Science theories are different than regular theories.

[styca]

Science theories are different than regular theories.

Yes, in that science theories can (in the vast majority of cases) be proven or disproven.
The stuff we can't prove - well, we might be able to prove or disprove in the future, once our science has advanced some more.

[BADecker]

Science theories are different than regular theories.

Yes, in that science theories can (in the vast majority of cases) be proven or disproven.
The stuff we can't prove - well, we might be able to prove or disprove in the future, once our science has advanced some more.

But they never are proven. If they were, they would no longer be theories of any kind. They would be laws or facts.

[styca]

Science theories are different than regular theories.

Yes, in that science theories can (in the vast majority of cases) be proven or disproven.
The stuff we can't prove - well, we might be able to prove or disprove in the future, once our science has advanced some more.

But they never are proven. If they were, they would no longer be theories of any kind. They would be laws or facts.

Yeah, they are proven, of course they are. You can't say no science is ever proven! I don't know whether you are typing that on a phone or a laptop or whatever, but there is a hell of a lot of proven science that built that device. You really think it's all guesswork?

Here's a cell phone. It wasn't created just by someone saying I'll get some green stuff and put some silver stuff on it.

[BADecker]

Science theories are different than regular theories.

Yes, in that science theories can (in the vast majority of cases) be proven or disproven.
The stuff we can't prove - well, we might be able to prove or disprove in the future, once our science has advanced some more.

But they never are proven. If they were, they would no longer be theories of any kind. They would be laws or facts.

Yeah, they are proven, of course they are. You can't say no science is ever proven! I don't know whether you are typing that on a phone or a laptop or whatever, but there is a hell of a lot of proven science that built that device. You really think it's all guesswork?

Here's a cell phone. It wasn't created just by someone saying I'll get some green stuff and put some silver stuff on it.
https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/750b8d8b-4375-40d6-8d31-6f64446b288a_1.b6642decb416e5fcc8044da82c7f0ed4.jpeg?odnWidth=450&odnHeight=450&odnBg=ffffff

But you are proving that you can't read, or can't think about what you read properly. I certainly didn't say that no science is ever proven.

I was talking about theories being proven. Just because there is engineering that works, doesn't mean that any scientific theories that are associated with the engineering, are associated exactly as the theories say. Most of the time engineers have to tweak the theories in their engineering, or the simply use the theories to give them ideas about how to engineer something. Almost never does a theory fit the engineering exactly.

[styca]

Just because there is engineering that works, doesn't mean that any scientific theories that are associated with the engineering, are associated exactly as the theories say. Most of the time engineers have to tweak the theories in their engineering, or the simply use the theories to give them ideas about how to engineer something. Almost never does a theory fit the engineering exactly.

I don't know how to respond to that.

[BADecker]

I don't know how to respond to that.

I appreciate your sincerity.     

[styca]

I don't know how to respond to that.

I appreciate your sincerity.     

 

I think you are sincere as well, although I disagree with everything you write

[BADecker]

I don't know how to respond to that.

I appreciate your sincerity.     

 

I think you are sincere as well, although I disagree with everything you write

Oh, drat! I knew I should have said that I didn't think you were sincere.

[DaftAjax]

<...>

<...>

I have to say. I enjoy reading them.

To spice things up. If scientists, or should I say, theoreticians didn't come up with theories, do you think engineers would even engineer something(?) or rather, would engineering even exist in the 1st place? You would probably argue and say that those are just regular theories and not scientific theories--for instance, gravity is a scientific theory tho we can say its just a regular theory just because we experience/see it every day, but no one really figures it out, until Newton had scientifically proven it. The same goes for everything in engineering. True, every theory that is associated with what they're engineering doesn't have to be exactly as what the theories said, but they use it anyway. Why? They tweak their works most of the time because they can, or should I say, these theories let them do so, not because the theories are proven to be wrong, BUT those theories provide these so-called "formulae"--that depending on the given situation will provide different results OR the answers that they needed. In fact, what we use right now are just temporary laws/facts, it is subject to change and depending on the circumstances, other theories might actually finally be proven and other laws might be completely abolished.

[BADecker]

<...>

<...>

I have to say. I enjoy reading them.

To spice things up. If scientists, or should I say, theoreticians didn't come up with theories, do you think engineers would even engineer something(?) or rather, would engineering even exist in the 1st place? You would probably argue and say that those are just regular theories and not scientific theories--for instance, gravity is a scientific theory tho we can say its just a regular theory just because we experience/see it every day, but no one really figures it out, until Newton had scientifically proven it. The same goes for everything in engineering. True, every theory that is associated with what they're engineering doesn't have to be exactly as what the theories said, but they use it anyway. Why? They tweak their works most of the time because they can, or should I say, these theories let them do so, not because the theories are proven to be wrong, BUT those theories provide these so-called "formulae"--that depending on the given situation will provide different results OR the answers that they needed. In fact, what we use right now are just temporary laws/facts, it is subject to change and depending on the circumstances, other theories might actually finally be proven and other laws might be completely abolished.

Engineer theories aren't necessarily scientific theories. Engineers aren't necessarily engineers in the way science describes engineers. A person inventing a better wheel 5,000 years ago might be an engineer.

Gravity isn't a scientific theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory. Gravity is a word given to the gravity experience that happens to all people all around the world all the time.

An engineer can make a scientific theory. But that doesn't stop him from engineering without using a scientific theory. He might use a non-scientific theory. Or, if it's simple enough, he might barely use a theory at all.

An engineer can tweak his engineering to be different than the theory says, not because the theory is proven wrong, but because he can't make the object of his engineering to work according to the theory. This doesn't prove that the theory is wrong. It simply shows that there is a glitch somewhere in this particular scientific theory application to this particular feat of engineering. Might be the theory, but could be something in the engineering.

If you search for it, you can find that scientists have generally agreed that something is a law when there are less than 10 to the 40th power odds in favor of the thing, with only one or less against. Of course, the scientists could be wrong about this.

[styca]

Gravity isn't a scientific theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory. Gravity is a word given to the gravity experience that happens to all people all around the world all the time.

Yes, gravity is a thing that happens. We didn't know what it was until we had a theory to describe it. Crazy as it might seem, some people actually thought it was a work of "God". But now we know what it is and why it happens, we can apply it to explain many other things, such as the motion of the planets.

An engineer can make a scientific theory. But that doesn't stop him from engineering without using a scientific theory. He might use a non-scientific theory. Or, if it's simple enough, he might barely use a theory at all.

No, you're thinking of wizards. Engineers use physics. Wizards use made-up magic stuff.

 

[BADecker]

Gravity isn't a scientific theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory. Gravity is a word given to the gravity experience that happens to all people all around the world all the time.

Yes, gravity is a thing that happens. We didn't know what it was until we had a theory to describe it. Crazy as it might seem, some people actually thought it was a work of "God". But now we know what it is and why it happens, we can apply it to explain many other things, such as the motion of the planets.

An engineer can make a scientific theory. But that doesn't stop him from engineering without using a scientific theory. He might use a non-scientific theory. Or, if it's simple enough, he might barely use a theory at all.

No, you're thinking of wizards. Engineers use physics. Wizards use made-up magic stuff.

 

If you don't understand that gravity is a work of God, you don't really understand about gravity. However, gravity does what it does without having any gravity theory involved. People who are affected by gravity, and want to call the affect "gravity," don't need to understand gravity theory to know that it's gravity.

Engineers using physics doesn't have anything to do with engineering. We all use physics all the time for everything that we do. Or do you think that if we aren't engineers, or that engineers themselves, suddenly stop using the physics of the universe? Maybe at death. Is that what you are talking about?

[Balthazar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tytOwMLqufg

[notbatman]

I can't confirm or deny any of this, nor am I sure if this even qualifies as a hoax but:



5G LED WEAPON SYSTEM DEPLOYED ON THE STREETS OF THE UK -- https://youtu.be/qWzIh1OOa8Y

[styca]

If you don't understand that gravity is a work of God, you don't really understand about gravity.

There is no evidence for God!!!

gravity does what it does without having any gravity theory involved. People who are affected by gravity, and want to call the affect "gravity," don't need to understand gravity theory to know that it's gravity.

True. But a benefit of having the scientific explanation is that science advances. If we just relied on the stuff that we can physically witness, without trying to understand what it is and how it works, we'd still be living in caves.

Engineers using physics doesn't have anything to do with engineering. We all use physics all the time for everything that we do. Or do you think that if we aren't engineers, or that engineers themselves, suddenly stop using the physics of the universe? Maybe at death. Is that what you are talking about?

Not sure what you're suggesting. Engineers use physics (and the laws of physics), yes.

[BADecker]

If you don't understand that gravity is a work of God, you don't really understand about gravity.

There is no evidence for God!!!

gravity does what it does without having any gravity theory involved. People who are affected by gravity, and want to call the affect "gravity," don't need to understand gravity theory to know that it's gravity.

True. But a benefit of having the scientific explanation is that science advances. If we just relied on the stuff that we can physically witness, without trying to understand what it is and how it works, we'd still be living in caves.

Engineers using physics doesn't have anything to do with engineering. We all use physics all the time for everything that we do. Or do you think that if we aren't engineers, or that engineers themselves, suddenly stop using the physics of the universe? Maybe at death. Is that what you are talking about?

Not sure what you're suggesting. Engineers use physics (and the laws of physics), yes.

Everybody uses physics. Engineers aren't some special class of people who use physics while the rest of the people don't. So, why pick on them or physicists?

There is no proof that science advances with scientific explanations. Why? Because some of the explanations are wrong. And because they are wrong, they get in the way of continued exploration and advancing that would have been done by scientists who believe the wrong explanations, and quit exploration because of it. So, scientific advancements are often more like religion than science.

Search here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 and you will find the proof that God exists... if you happen to be enough of a scientist that you know how to apply scientific proof.

[af_newbie]

If you don't understand that gravity is a work of God, you don't really understand about gravity.

There is no evidence for God!!!

gravity does what it does without having any gravity theory involved. People who are affected by gravity, and want to call the affect "gravity," don't need to understand gravity theory to know that it's gravity.

True. But a benefit of having the scientific explanation is that science advances. If we just relied on the stuff that we can physically witness, without trying to understand what it is and how it works, we'd still be living in caves.

Engineers using physics doesn't have anything to do with engineering. We all use physics all the time for everything that we do. Or do you think that if we aren't engineers, or that engineers themselves, suddenly stop using the physics of the universe? Maybe at death. Is that what you are talking about?

Not sure what you're suggesting. Engineers use physics (and the laws of physics), yes.

Everybody uses physics. Engineers aren't some special class of people who use physics while the rest of the people don't. So, why pick on them or physicists?

There is no proof that science advances with scientific explanations. Why? Because some of the explanations are wrong. And because they are wrong, they get in the way of continued exploration and advancing that would have been done by scientists who believe the wrong explanations, and quit exploration because of it. So, scientific advancements are often more like religion than science.

Search here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 and you will find the proof that God exists... if you happen to be enough of a scientist that you know how to apply scientific proof.

MRCA is used in reference to the ancestry of haplotypes rather than organisms. The people who wrote your proof #65 completely ignored the fact that humans share 4% of Neanderthal DNA.  MRCA for Homo Sapiens lineage is estimated to be around 200,000 years old.  LUCA is estimated to have lived 3.5 to 3.8 billions years ago.

The person who wrote this 'proof' knew diddly squat about human evolution.

Learn a bit more about speciation so that you can read such 'proofs' and understand what you are reading.

[styca]

Everybody uses physics. Engineers aren't some special class of people who use physics while the rest of the people don't. So, why pick on them or physicists?

I didn't, you brought up engineers.

Search here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 and you will find the proof that God exists... if you happen to be enough of a scientist that you know how to apply scientific proof.

Yes, I have a science background, thanks, I know how it works.
That link talks about mitochondrial Eve. What does that have to do with religion? It's just the most recent common female ancestor. It's not a fixed person, it can change over time. Have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Popular_reception_and_misconceptions
The only link to religion is the name 'Eve'. A bit of an unfortunate choice, like the Higgs Boson being dubbed the God particle.

[notbatman]

^^ Space carnival physics, the science of the mad tilted ride spinning in your mind. Monkey machine mechanics, fueled by coincidence and chance. See with your eyes not with your mind.

An argument founded in assumption [evolution] is a clowns gambit. We have two clowns who agree on a theoretical framework i.e. the Copernican system, who then takes shots at one another. One clown says "reeeee evolution!", while the other who has agreed to rig the system, says he's a fool. One clown feeds the rope while the other one takes it and ties it into a bow.

These two are engaged in sodomy of the mind with one or both actively rigging the system.

[styca]

^^ Space carnival physics, the science of the mad tilted ride spinning in your mind. Monkey machine mechanics, fueled by coincidence and chance. See with your eyes not with your mind.

An argument founded in assumption [evolution] is a clowns gambit. We have two clowns who agree on a theoretical framework i.e. the Copernican system, who then takes shots at one another. One clown says "reeeee evolution!", while the other who has agreed to rig the system, says he's a fool. One clown feeds the rope while the other one takes it and ties it into a bow.

These two are engaged in sodomy of the mind with one or both actively rigging the system.

The '^^' suggests that you're responding to my post, but I can't see any link at all between what I've put and what you've put.
Not too sure about these clowns taking shots at each other, either - wouldn't they just use custard pies?

[BADecker]

Everybody uses physics. Engineers aren't some special class of people who use physics while the rest of the people don't. So, why pick on them or physicists?

I didn't, you brought up engineers.

Search here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 and you will find the proof that God exists... if you happen to be enough of a scientist that you know how to apply scientific proof.

Yes, I have a science background, thanks, I know how it works.
That link talks about mitochondrial Eve. What does that have to do with religion? It's just the most recent common female ancestor. It's not a fixed person, it can change over time. Have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Popular_reception_and_misconceptions
The only link to religion is the name 'Eve'. A bit of an unfortunate choice, like the Higgs Boson being dubbed the God particle.

No. You brought up engineers - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5198202.msg53078198#msg53078198. But even if I brought it up in a previous post, you continued with it. But now it seems that you are trying to play ignorant. Perhaps you are.

So you read all 500+ pages of that thread. So you see that the scientific proof for God exists... or you don't, and really aren't a scientists at all.

[styca]

No. You brought up engineers - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5198202.msg53078198#msg53078198. But even if I brought it up in a previous post, you continued with it. But now it seems that you are trying to play ignorant. Perhaps you are.

You are saying I brought up engineers, and your evidence is a post in which you bring up engineers and I respond to it?
Evidence is proof that something does happen (like evolution), not proof that it doesn't (like creationsim).

So you read all 500+ pages of that thread. So you see that the scientific proof for God exists... or you don't, and really aren't a scientists at all.

I'll admit I've not read the whole thing. Please could you show me the bit where there is scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

No. You brought up engineers - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5198202.msg53078198#msg53078198. But even if I brought it up in a previous post, you continued with it. But now it seems that you are trying to play ignorant. Perhaps you are.

You are saying I brought up engineers, and your evidence is a post in which you bring up engineers and I respond to it?
Evidence is proof that something does happen (like evolution), not proof that it doesn't (like creationsim).

So you read all 500+ pages of that thread. So you see that the scientific proof for God exists... or you don't, and really aren't a scientists at all.

I'll admit I've not read the whole thing. Please could you show me the bit where there is scientific proof that God exists?

We don't have to go there. I showed it to you right here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg53112081#msg53112081.

Since your memory is so short, stop reading anti-God literature, and start reading the Bible. Soon you will believe in God, because you will have forgotten all about atheism.

[af_newbie]

No. You brought up engineers - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5198202.msg53078198#msg53078198. But even if I brought it up in a previous post, you continued with it. But now it seems that you are trying to play ignorant. Perhaps you are.

You are saying I brought up engineers, and your evidence is a post in which you bring up engineers and I respond to it?
Evidence is proof that something does happen (like evolution), not proof that it doesn't (like creationsim).

So you read all 500+ pages of that thread. So you see that the scientific proof for God exists... or you don't, and really aren't a scientists at all.

I'll admit I've not read the whole thing. Please could you show me the bit where there is scientific proof that God exists?

We don't have to go there. I showed it to you right here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg53112081#msg53112081.

Since your memory is so short, stop reading anti-God literature, and start reading the Bible. Soon you will believe in God, because you will have forgotten all about atheism.

What is God and how was 'He' created?

[notbatman]

Created Gods are false.

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." -- Revelation 22:13, KJV

[BADecker]

What is God and how was 'He' created?

God is love.

As notbatman said, God was never created, but always exists.

[af_newbie]

What is God and how was 'He' created?

God is love.

As notbatman said, God was never created, but always exists.

First of all, you are confused, you insisted that God is a male.  Now it is love. WTF.

More like, God was never created because it never existed until someone called love a God. LOL.

So it is a human emotion, that is what I expected.

If God is love, then it did not exist before human life.  It makes sense.

BTW, why do you guys using a new word for love?

If love is love, why do you need to call it a God?  To scam poor and uneducated people?

PS. Maybe that is why chimpanzees don't organize themselves into religious groups.

[BADecker]

What is God and how was 'He' created?

God is love.

As notbatman said, God was never created, but always exists.

First of all, you are confused, you insisted that God is a male.  Now it is love. WTF.

More like, God was never created because it never existed until someone called love a God. LOL.

So it is a human emotion, that is what I expected.

If God is love, then it did not exist before human life.  It makes sense.

BTW, why do you guys using a new word for love?

If love is love, why do you need to call it a God?  To scam poor and uneducated people?

PS. Maybe that is why chimpanzees don't organize themselves into religious groups.

Where did I ever insist God is male? But Jesus is male. God is Creator, and Creator is in the direction of male. So, God is God.

God always was love. People have been given love as they were originally made in God's image. So, it is people learning love from God. When people have love, because their love is imperfect love, such love is a human emotion. Nobody knows what the great love of God is really like.

Since you want to twist God into something that He is not, you simply show that you are trying to hide your own guilt. But you can't. You might be able to cover it somewhat. But it will always poke its way through into your consciousness. As you get older, you will not be able to keep it down so easily. As it comes through more and more, you will become bitter, like Voltaire in his later years. Why was he bitter? Because he was unwilling to accept God's Jesus-forgiveness, so that the bitterness could actually dissipate. But hey. Maybe you enjoy being bitter.

Take a look at your posts. Your bitterness is showing. Even though you are reasonably young, it's poking its way through already.

[notbatman]

@af_newbie the Copernican system is a filter for your mind.





As long as you're onboard BADecker's mad carnival ride,





he's just going to keep plowing your face with custard pies.

[af_newbie]

What is God and how was 'He' created?

God is love.

As notbatman said, God was never created, but always exists.

First of all, you are confused, you insisted that God is a male.  Now it is love. WTF.

More like, God was never created because it never existed until someone called love a God. LOL.

So it is a human emotion, that is what I expected.

If God is love, then it did not exist before human life.  It makes sense.

BTW, why do you guys using a new word for love?

If love is love, why do you need to call it a God?  To scam poor and uneducated people?

PS. Maybe that is why chimpanzees don't organize themselves into religious groups.

Where did I ever insist God is male? But Jesus is male. God is Creator, and Creator is in the direction of male. So, God is God.

God always was love. People have been given love as they were originally made in God's image. So, it is people learning love from God. When people have love, because their love is imperfect love, such love is a human emotion. Nobody knows what the great love of God is really like.

Since you want to twist God into something that He is not, you simply show that you are trying to hide your own guilt. But you can't. You might be able to cover it somewhat. But it will always poke its way through into your consciousness. As you get older, you will not be able to keep it down so easily. As it comes through more and more, you will become bitter, like Voltaire in his later years. Why was he bitter? Because he was unwilling to accept God's Jesus-forgiveness, so that the bitterness could actually dissipate. But hey. Maybe you enjoy being bitter.

Take a look at your posts. Your bitterness is showing. Even though you are reasonably young, it's poking its way through already.

Here you crossed 'it' and put 'He'.  It was you who did that.

What is God and how was it He created?

The fact that God was not in the universe before He created it, shows that the essence of God is something that we can't know except that He tells us. Why? Because we, being universe beings, can't think in extra-universal terms necessary for knowing anything about God.

However, you ask this question in the wrong thread. This is the thread where we emphatically prove that evolution is a hoax.

I hate to have to hurt all those evolution religion believers' feelings. But it is better that their feelings are hurt here, so that they find God and get saved.

Evolution is a hoax.

My original post, which you corrected is here:

...

What is God and how was it created?

BTW, love is a feeling and as such, it cannot physically create anything.  Independent thinking agents can. Dig deeper.

[notbatman]

^^^ Stop asking for an explanation of God within a system powered by the Copernican revolution; there is no God on the impossible mad carnival ride spinning in your mind.

Your brain cell is stuck in an infinite loop-de-loop, first take off the blindfold then behold the light!

[BADecker]

What is God and how was 'He' created?

God is love.

As notbatman said, God was never created, but always exists.

First of all, you are confused, you insisted that God is a male.  Now it is love. WTF.

More like, God was never created because it never existed until someone called love a God. LOL.

So it is a human emotion, that is what I expected.

If God is love, then it did not exist before human life.  It makes sense.

BTW, why do you guys using a new word for love?

If love is love, why do you need to call it a God?  To scam poor and uneducated people?

PS. Maybe that is why chimpanzees don't organize themselves into religious groups.

Where did I ever insist God is male? But Jesus is male. God is Creator, and Creator is in the direction of male. So, God is God.

God always was love. People have been given love as they were originally made in God's image. So, it is people learning love from God. When people have love, because their love is imperfect love, such love is a human emotion. Nobody knows what the great love of God is really like.

Since you want to twist God into something that He is not, you simply show that you are trying to hide your own guilt. But you can't. You might be able to cover it somewhat. But it will always poke its way through into your consciousness. As you get older, you will not be able to keep it down so easily. As it comes through more and more, you will become bitter, like Voltaire in his later years. Why was he bitter? Because he was unwilling to accept God's Jesus-forgiveness, so that the bitterness could actually dissipate. But hey. Maybe you enjoy being bitter.

Take a look at your posts. Your bitterness is showing. Even though you are reasonably young, it's poking its way through already.

Here you crossed 'it' and put 'He'.  It was you who did that.

What is God and how was it He created?

The fact that God was not in the universe before He created it, shows that the essence of God is something that we can't know except that He tells us. Why? Because we, being universe beings, can't think in extra-universal terms necessary for knowing anything about God.

However, you ask this question in the wrong thread. This is the thread where we emphatically prove that evolution is a hoax.

I hate to have to hurt all those evolution religion believers' feelings. But it is better that their feelings are hurt here, so that they find God and get saved.

Evolution is a hoax.

My original post, which you corrected is here:

...

What is God and how was it created?

BTW, love is a feeling and as such, it cannot physically create anything.  Independent thinking agents can. Dig deeper.

God is not male. He is a "He" because He is Creator and Father of life. Jesus is male.

Love is way more than a feeling. But if feeling is all you consider, it explains why you are so shallow at times.

[styca]

So you read all 500+ pages of that thread. So you see that the scientific proof for God exists... or you don't, and really aren't a scientists at all.

I'll admit I've not read the whole thing. Please could you show me the bit where there is scientific proof that God exists?

We don't have to go there. I showed it to you right here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg53112081#msg53112081.

Ah. Thanks, here it is. The thread, I mean. Not the proof. I didn't remember it as proof, because there is no scientific proof that God exists.

there is the proof for God in the fact that when you combine cause-and-effect, entropy and complexity as they are in this universe, there is no other method for the universe to exist other than creation by God.

Agreed we don't know how the universe started (big bang is a theory not proven) or why it exists. We can't probe the very beginning. At least not yet. Science advances though. We know so much now that we didn't know 10 years ago, 100 years ago. Perhaps the origin of the universe will always remain beyond human understanding, perhaps not. That's no reason to say 'God did it'. It's fine that we don't (yet) know. There's no need to invent a deity to hide the uncertainty.

Throw handfuls of element dust into the air for a hundred years. Nature will never make anything approaching the complexity of life out of any of it. There has to be design, and nature isn't intelligent, so it can't design things.

Sure. But throw some organic molecules into a pool somewhere, give them nutrients, sunlight, leave it for a billion years... that's 1,000,000,000 years... just maybe... we get the simplest form of single-celled life.
Then over (vast) time... multi-cellular life. A billion years wasn't enough in this case, single-celled to multi-celled took 3 billion years. Then after that, over the last 650 million years or so... fish, amphibians... eventually mammals... eventually man.

[BADecker]

So you read all 500+ pages of that thread. So you see that the scientific proof for God exists... or you don't, and really aren't a scientists at all.

I'll admit I've not read the whole thing. Please could you show me the bit where there is scientific proof that God exists?

We don't have to go there. I showed it to you right here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg53112081#msg53112081.

Ah. Thanks, here it is. The thread, I mean. Not the proof. I didn't remember it as proof, because there is no scientific proof that God exists.

there is the proof for God in the fact that when you combine cause-and-effect, entropy and complexity as they are in this universe, there is no other method for the universe to exist other than creation by God.

Agreed we don't know how the universe started (big bang is a theory not proven) or why it exists. We can't probe the very beginning. At least not yet. Science advances though. We know so much now that we didn't know 10 years ago, 100 years ago. Perhaps the origin of the universe will always remain beyond human understanding, perhaps not. That's no reason to say 'God did it'. It's fine that we don't (yet) know. There's no need to invent a deity to hide the uncertainty.

Throw handfuls of element dust into the air for a hundred years. Nature will never make anything approaching the complexity of life out of any of it. There has to be design, and nature isn't intelligent, so it can't design things.

Sure. But throw some organic molecules into a pool somewhere, give them nutrients, sunlight, leave it for a billion years... that's 1,000,000,000 years... just maybe... we get the simplest form of single-celled life.
Then over (vast) time... multi-cellular life. A billion years wasn't enough in this case, single-celled to multi-celled took 3 billion years. Then after that, over the last 650 million years or so... fish, amphibians... eventually mammals... eventually man.

https://cdn.britannica.com/98/398-050-C8C36AE1/scale-events.jpg

Since you show that you would rather believe the hoax rather than understand the truth, you absolutely show that you are a religions being.

[notbatman]

Time spans of greater than ~10,000 years are a hoax.

Q: How do they know how old a fossil is?
A: They know because of the type of rock it's found in. They pass the buck to another field of science who tells them how old the rocks are.

Q: How do they know how old a rock is?
A: They know because of the fossils found in the rock. They pass the buck to another field of science who tells them how old the fossils are.

This is how modern science works, it shuns the scientific method all-together for an authority driven circular philosophy with cartoon pies and charts, to the face.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Have you honestly never heard of radiocarbon dating?

Or maybe they used uranium thorium dating. Or uranium lead dating. Or lead lead dating. Or potassium argon dating. Or argon argon dating. Or rubidium strontium dating. Or iodine xenon dating. Or amnio acid dating. Or luminescence dating. Or rehydoxylation dating. Or carbon wiggle matching dating. Or archaeomagnetic dating. Did I miss any out?

But yeah, I'm sure we should be trusting the opinion of someone who doesn't even know these exist, let alone understands them, as to how scientists determine the age of objects.

[BADecker]

-snip-

Have you honestly never heard of radiocarbon dating?

Or maybe they used uranium thorium dating. Or uranium lead dating. Or lead lead dating. Or potassium argon dating. Or argon argon dating. Or rubidium strontium dating. Or iodine xenon dating. Or amnio acid dating. Or luminescence dating. Or rehydoxylation dating. Or carbon wiggle matching dating. Or archaeomagnetic dating. Did I miss any out?

But yeah, I'm sure we should be trusting the opinion of someone who doesn't even know these exist, let alone understands them, as to how scientists determine the age of objects.

Have you honestly never heard of the flaws in radiocarbon dating?

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago, and radiocarbon dating results were still the same as we have today, what would such mean? There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Radiocarbon dating has the same flaws in it that notbatman is talking about.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

[notbatman]

^^ You know all those carbon dating, etc.. methods you mentioned give such conflicting results that scientists base the age of fossils on the type of rock instead, they go on how old the geologists says (a variation of "rabbi says") it is.

[BADecker]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?

Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Because we have performed carbon dating on samples taken from trees, and used tree ring dating to independently verify that the carbon dating results are accurate.

We also know thanks to magnetite containing clay artifacts, in which the strength of Earth's magnetic field when the clay was fired is permanently recorded, that the magnetic field was weaker 5,000 years ago, not stronger. The field being weaker means more carbon-14 due to cosmic radiation, not less.

Now please answer the same question. How do you know there was less carbon-14 5,000 years ago? Creationist websites aren't valid answers, by the way.

[af_newbie]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?

Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.

Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago?  Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?

If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).

[BADecker]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?

Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.

Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago?  Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?

If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).

I suppose that is possible, but I was referring to the idea that we don't know how much if any C-14 was in the atmosphere back 5000 years ago... like I sorta posted, and you sorta quoted.

[af_newbie]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?

Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.

Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago?  Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?

If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).

I suppose that is possible, but I was referring to the idea that we don't know how much if any C-14 was in the atmosphere back 5000 years ago... like I sorta posted, and you sorta quoted.

Isn't carbon dating calibrated using things like tree rings to make sure we start with the correct initial content of C14?

If you want to question carbon dating you have to question the actual decay rates, but that will get you nowhere fast.

[notbatman]

What do the folks who spend most of their time destroying archaeological evidence [of giants] think about carbon, warming balls and radio activity?

"Today, the amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into Earth’s atmosphere is threatening to skew the accuracy of this technique for future archaeologists looking at our own time. That’s because fossil fuels can shift the radiocarbon age of new organic materials today, making them hard to distinguish from ancient ones."

-
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/ | http://archive.ph/KDvVZ

Looks like they've thrown radiocarbon dating under the bus for global warming virtue signal points. The so-called experts on this sort of thing claiming this method is flawed when shit burns.



disclaimer:
   The globe, global warming, ancient earth [older than 10k years], and "so-called experts" are all hoaxes.

[styca]

What do the folks who spend most of their time destroying archaeological evidence [of giants] think about carbon, warming balls and radio activity?

"Today, the amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into Earth’s atmosphere is threatening to skew the accuracy of this technique for future archaeologists looking at our own time. That’s because fossil fuels can shift the radiocarbon age of new organic materials today, making them hard to distinguish from ancient ones."

-
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/ | http://archive.ph/KDvVZ

Looks like they've thrown radiocarbon dating under the bus for global warming virtue signal points. The so-called experts on this sort of thing claiming this method is flawed when shit burns.



disclaimer:
   The globe, global warming, ancient earth [older than 10k years], and "so-called experts" are all hoaxes.

I think we're okay with historic carbon dating. It's not like our distant ancestors burned loads of fossil fuels. Neither did the dinosaurs. Have you seen a T-Rex's arms? No way you can build a coal-fired power station with those things. But then you probably don't believe in dinosaurs. Or arms. Or ancestors. Or fossil fuels. Or the passage of time. Or reality.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Now please answer the same question. How do you know there was less carbon-14 5,000 years ago? Creationist websites aren't valid answers, by the way.

I like how you just glossed over the hard evidence I provided and refused to answer where your "evidence" is coming from. Please address this.

destroying archaeological evidence [of giants]

Lol.

[notbatman]

^^ Evolution and the "official" historical narrative are hoaxes and destruction of evidence [of giants] is part of the fraud.

@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.

[styca]

@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.

What about the rest of it though? What about arms, ancestors, fossil fuels, the passage of time, and reality? Hoax or not?
Is this forum a hoax? Am I a hoax? Am I a person? My Wikipedia entry suggests that I'm actually a small coin minted in the 8th or 9th century. Are coins a hoax? Is the 8th century a hoax? How can we ever know? We've already established (sort of) that facts are a hoax and evidence is a hoax - right?

Please answer these important questions.

[BADecker]

@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.

What about the rest of it though? What about arms, ancestors, fossil fuels, the passage of time, and reality? Hoax or not?
Is this forum a hoax? Am I a hoax? Am I a person? My Wikipedia entry suggests that I'm actually a small coin minted in the 8th or 9th century. Are coins a hoax? Is the 8th century a hoax? How can we ever know? We've already established (sort of) that facts are a hoax and evidence is a hoax - right?

Please answer these important questions.

The answer is simple and easy. Everything is perfect to an exactness of zero imperfection. But, we aren't strong enough to see or understand the perfection... except by faith, perhaps.

Regarding what people see and understand, there are those who are more accurate than others.

[notbatman]

T-Rex arms prove the dinosaur hoax.





Radiocarbon dating "accuracy" is a hoax.

[Spendulus]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?

Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.

Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago?  Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?

If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).

I suppose that is possible, but I was referring to the idea that we don't know how much if any C-14 was in the atmosphere back 5000 years ago... like I sorta posted, and you sorta quoted.

Isn't carbon dating calibrated using things like tree rings to make sure we start with the correct initial content of C14?

If you want to question carbon dating you have to question the actual decay rates, but that will get you nowhere fast.

Tree rings are the joke in climatology, but I think they'd be fine for establishing average compositions of C14 for various years in the past. On a regional basis.

[o_e_l_e_o]

@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.

If fossils are a hoax, is gasoline a hoax too? What about plastic?

[tvbcof]

I've seen a lot of "Evolution/Vaccination/ISIS/Global warming/XXX is a hoax" threads, so I came to conclution that we need a more generic one.

Dear antivaxxers, feel free to comment this chart:

Ah, so this is where your laughably ignorant 'chart reading' thing came from.  The one which I smacked down hard on another thread specific to vaccines.

(Teaser:  The guy is showing that two basically straight lines look like one another.  Yeah, no shit.  If he had any intellectual curiosity he would muse about the minor squigle, but he doesn't.  Corp/gov tells him how he should think about vaccines so for some reason he wants everyone else to do the same.  Insecurity I suppose.)

Anyway, why do you need to call up phony straw men about things which nobody believes?  If you have a disagreement about vaccines, or instance, state your case about vaccines.  Calling up some 'margarine of 'flat earth' or whatever straw-man shows that you've got nothing.

[notbatman]

@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.

If fossils are a hoax, is gasoline a hoax too? What about plastic?

1. The comment is not directed at you.
2. I said "dinosaurs are a hoax".
3. You said "fossils are a hoax".

Prepare your brain cell, concept incoming...

Some fossils (dinosaurs) are a hoax.

Keyword "some".

...?



Most fossils are real but they're created rapidly like concrete; the devil is in the details. The devil is also into gasoline but that's another argument.

[BADecker]

Tree rings are the joke in climatology, but I think they'd be fine for establishing average compositions of C14 for various years in the past. On a regional basis.

If we only knew for a fact that tree rings were an accurate representation of the past.

[DaftAjax]

^^^^

BADecker and nobatman: Questions the accuracy of Carbon dating... Questions the Earth's existence 5M years ago... Questions the existence of dinosaurs... Questions the evolution...
also BADecker and nobatman: Does not question the existence and validity of God.

When you put it that way, I guess "cultures" and "traditions" are hoaxes as well. Well, you know I don't know how old these things are, or how it came to be in just 10, 000 years of existence. Oh, I almost forgot, the Pyramids and Stone Henge are hoaxes as well. Well, you know, few "stupid" people just "perfectly" planned, aligned, and built it, no big deal.

This just came to mind: if I want to believe that it's only been 10, 000 years since we are here on Earth, then we must be a "colony" from another planet or from a superior civilization (where the so-called God resides). I wonder why they didn't teach us everything, Oh! That's the "apple" right? 

[styca]

Most fossils are real but they're created rapidly like concrete; the devil is in the details. The devil is also into gasoline but that's another argument.

So are fossils created by the devil in order to (literally) fuel his gasoline habit? Or did God create them? Or are they a waste product of the concrete industry? Or are they created naturally over a period of time by the replacement of organic matter with minerals?

Actually scratch that last one, it's clearly ridiculous.

Being serious for a moment, yes, actually some fossils are created rapidly - it depends in part on the size of the organism being fossilised - very small stuff can become fossilised in mere weeks. So the process doesn't have to violate the creationist world-is-a-couple-of-thousand-years-old argument.

[notbatman]

@DaftAjax the earth is flat, motionless and covered by a dome; outer space is a hoax. NASA is a propaganda agency, their planets are a hoax, just paintings and CGI, the real objects in the sky are just wandering stars; small bits of electrical plasma above us. Space alien colonies are a hoax.

@styca organic material can be tuned to stone (fossilized) rapidly in an energetic hydrolyzed process; lime can be made from ash and water for example.

[Foxpup]

So are fossils created by the devil in order to (literally) fuel his gasoline habit?

Actually, it's worse even than that:

Fairly certain that crude oil is a genuine eldritch horror.

• lied in wait in the Earth's crust for literally millions of years
• made from the dead bodies of creatures nobody in recorded history has ever seen alive
• almost immediately granted us advanced technology
• naturally occurring, yet has a scent incomparable to any other natural substance
• pitch black liquid
• kills anything it touches
• using it to make anything kills everything it DOESN'T touch, but very slowly
• inexplicably addictive to the money-poisoned
• Is the cause of the mass extinction event we're currently experiencing, and that 95% of people are completely unaware of or outright deny.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Slow down, I'm struggling to keep up here.

Dinosaurs are a hoax. Some fossils are hoax, but the way the ones which aren't a hoax are created is a hoax. Planets are a hoax. Space is a hoax. Stars are a hoax. Am I correct?

Question to the group: Is notbatman a hoax? Can someone so monumentally disconnected from reality even be real? Answers on a postcard.

[notbatman]

The globe is a hoax, the earth doesn't move.

[BADecker]

The globe is a hoax, the earth doesn't move.

But there's all those concav(ish) valleys on moving globe earth?

[BADecker]

Slow down, I'm struggling to keep up here.

Dinosaurs are a hoax. Some fossils are hoax, but the way the ones which aren't a hoax are created is a hoax. Planets are a hoax. Space is a hoax. Stars are a hoax. Am I correct?

Question to the group: Is notbatman a hoax? Can someone so monumentally disconnected from reality even be real? Answers on a postcard.

A real hoax?     

[notbatman]

He thinks he's on a carnival ride travelling 66,600 MPH, spinning 1,000 MPH in an elliptical orbit around a 864,340 mile wide thermonuclear bomb while tilted at 66.6 degrees, and he says I'm mad?

I'm crazy? hello?

[BADecker]

He thinks he's on a carnival ride travelling 66,600 MPH, spinning 1,000 MPH in an elliptical orbit around a 864,340 mile wide thermonuclear bomb while tilted at 66.6 degrees, and he says I'm mad?

I'm crazy? hello?

Well, even if you were mad, you wouldn't be mad at him. You'd be mad at all those scientists and engineers who won't let you prove that the earth is hollow.

 

[notbatman]

Get on your horse and take the world for a spin?

[BADecker]

^^^ Get off your horse and walk it.     

[styca]

So are fossils created by the devil in order to (literally) fuel his gasoline habit?

Actually, it's worse even than that:

Fairly certain that crude oil is a genuine eldritch horror.

• lied in wait in the Earth's crust for literally millions of years
• made from the dead bodies of creatures nobody in recorded history has ever seen alive
• almost immediately granted us advanced technology
• naturally occurring, yet has a scent incomparable to any other natural substance
• pitch black liquid
• kills anything it touches
• using it to make anything kills everything it DOESN'T touch, but very slowly
• inexplicably addictive to the money-poisoned
• Is the cause of the mass extinction event we're currently experiencing, and that 95% of people are completely unaware of or outright deny.

Thank you, that's brilliant!

Slow down, I'm struggling to keep up here.

Dinosaurs are a hoax. Some fossils are hoax, but the way the ones which aren't a hoax are created is a hoax. Planets are a hoax. Space is a hoax. Stars are a hoax. Am I correct?

Question to the group: Is notbatman a hoax? Can someone so monumentally disconnected from reality even be real? Answers on a postcard.

Yes, I think it's trolling. The flat earth thread is impressive; I can't believe he's kept that one going for years. But then the next question - what sort of person would be able to keep that up for so long? And to post day after day that everything is a hoax...

@notbatman - You still haven't adequately answered my question from a couple of weeks ago: can you prove that you're not batman? I think your name is an elaborate bluff. I'm calling you out on it. I mean I'm literally calling you out. Watch the skies, everybody.



How to make a bat signal

[BADecker]

So are fossils created by the devil in order to (literally) fuel his gasoline habit?

Actually, it's worse even than that:

Fairly certain that crude oil is a genuine eldritch horror.

• lied in wait in the Earth's crust for literally millions of years
• made from the dead bodies of creatures nobody in recorded history has ever seen alive
• almost immediately granted us advanced technology
• naturally occurring, yet has a scent incomparable to any other natural substance
• pitch black liquid
• kills anything it touches
• using it to make anything kills everything it DOESN'T touch, but very slowly
• inexplicably addictive to the money-poisoned
• Is the cause of the mass extinction event we're currently experiencing, and that 95% of people are completely unaware of or outright deny.

Thank you, that's brilliant!

Slow down, I'm struggling to keep up here.

Dinosaurs are a hoax. Some fossils are hoax, but the way the ones which aren't a hoax are created is a hoax. Planets are a hoax. Space is a hoax. Stars are a hoax. Am I correct?

Question to the group: Is notbatman a hoax? Can someone so monumentally disconnected from reality even be real? Answers on a postcard.

Yes, I think it's trolling. The flat earth thread is impressive; I can't believe he's kept that one going for years. But then the next question - what sort of person would be able to keep that up for so long? And to post day after day that everything is a hoax...

@notbatman - You still haven't adequately answered my question from a couple of weeks ago: can you prove that you're not batman? I think your name is an elaborate bluff. I'm calling you out on it. I mean I'm literally calling you out. Watch the skies, everybody.



How to make a bat signal

Looks like a few teeth in an open mouth, to me.     

[BADecker]

The concept of God is a hoax, because if there is, why people’s ‘merciful and loving God’ lets disasters happen. If their God saves, I guess the World Wars didn’t happen then. What is written in the Bible may be a work of a group of people who have too much heaven on their minds.

God is a giver. He can't help it if most of the people ask for bad things, if only they are going to wish them on somebody else. He simply answers their prayers.

God isn't trying to get Bible people. He has them already. He's going after the rest. Why? To give them more gifts, but good ones this time.

[DaftAjax]

@DaftAjax the earth is flat, motionless and covered by a dome; outer space is a hoax. NASA is a propaganda agency, their planets are a hoax, just paintings and CGI, the real objects in the sky are just wandering stars; small bits of electrical plasma above us. Space alien colonies are a hoax.

If the earth is flat, motionless and covered by a dome, then how would you explain the seasons? Why do the North and South poles have frozen lands and freezing temperatures? Does that mean the Sun is a Hoax? If so, this Earth would have been molten lava long ago just by the exposure of the sun. And if this is true what's pulling us back to the earth when we jump if gravity is a hoax?

Can someone please contact NASA and flew this guy out of space.

The globe is a hoax, the earth doesn't move.

I guess you don't believe in history then. I don't know if you ever knew this guy: "In September 1519, Magellan set sail from Spain with five ships. Three years later only one ship, the Victoria (depicted on a 1590 map), made it back to Spain after circumnavigating the world.".

[BADecker]

@DaftAjax the earth is flat, motionless and covered by a dome; outer space is a hoax. NASA is a propaganda agency, their planets are a hoax, just paintings and CGI, the real objects in the sky are just wandering stars; small bits of electrical plasma above us. Space alien colonies are a hoax.

If the earth is flat, motionless and covered by a dome, then how would you explain the seasons? Why do the North and South poles have frozen lands and freezing temperatures? Does that mean the Sun is a Hoax? If so, this Earth would have been molten lava long ago just by the exposure of the sun. And if this is true what's pulling us back to the earth when we jump if gravity is a hoax?

Can someone please contact NASA and flew this guy out of space.

The globe is a hoax, the earth doesn't move.

I guess you don't believe in history then. I don't know if you ever knew this guy: "In September 1519, Magellan set sail from Spain with five ships. Three years later only one ship, the Victoria (depicted on a 1590 map), made it back to Spain after circumnavigating the world.".

How to turn every thread into a Flat Earth thread!

 

[notbatman]

^^^ That's not a fair analysis, we've got a plethora of hoaxes here! It's just that the globe is the big lie.

[BADecker]

^^^ That's not a fair analysis, we've got a plethora of hoaxes here! It's just that the globe is the big lie.

Your "here" is exactly where it is... with you. You have a plethora of hoaxes. But most of them attach to FE in some way.

[notbatman]

^^^ That's why the globe is the big lie, it sets the stage.

[BADecker]

^^^ That's why the globe is the big lie, it sets the stage.

Exactly what I am saying. Whatever you won't accept on your stage is a lie to you, whether it is generally true or not.

[notbatman]

The globe fails a distance to the horizon test with a wide margin or error using the modern super-zoom lens; with a Nikon P900 I can prove my point conclusively, a test anybody can replicate.

You need Photoshop to replicate the big blue balls NASA gives you. They're not a space agency, they're a propaganda agency!

The Earth is flat by default, it's a falsifiable theory that the earth curves just beyond the limit of human eyesight. The globe is truly the king of hoaxes.

[Balthazar]

Now I understand why the jews created photoshop. Jews needed it to maintain support for fake globe. It's all about global control. I feel myself enlightened in my sadness by a better understanding of flat earth theory.

Meanwhile, I believe it's somehow connected with margarine production rates as well.

[notbatman]

^^^ No, flat earth is not a theory, flat earth is the default!

The falsifiable theory [the globe] is that the earth's surface curves at a point just beyond the limit of human eyesight.

[BADecker]

^^^ That's the reason why GE can be proven and FE can't. LOL!

 

[DaftAjax]

@notbatman

If you're willing, I ask you to do a simple "test", an "experiment" if you may.

If it so happens that you went to the beach, time this exactly when the sun is setting.
Step 1: lie down, well, more likely in a "flanking" position and face where the sun is.
Step 2: wait until you can't see the sun in your current position.
Step 3: quickly stand up or stand in a chair.
Step 4: mindblown, surprised!, YOU CAN SEE THE GODDAMN SUN AGAIN!

Why you'd ask? Because it's a globe, and not flat.
You can search for a better explanation, but oh, I think "science" is a hoax for you, so no point in doing that.

[notbatman]

@notbatman

If you're willing, I ask you to do a simple "test", an "experiment" if you may.

If it so happens that you went to the beach, time this exactly when the sun is setting.
Step 1: lie down, well, more likely in a "flanking" position and face where the sun is.
Step 2: wait until you can't see the sun in your current position.
Step 3: quickly stand up or stand in a chair.
Step 4: mindblown, surprised!, YOU CAN SEE THE GODDAMN SUN AGAIN!

Why you'd ask? Because it's a globe, and not flat.
You can search for a better explanation, but oh, I think "science" is a hoax for you, so no point in doing that.

So you're just going to ignore the fact the globe fails a distance to the horizon test with a wide margin of error? This is a test anybody with a super-zoom camera can perform (weather permitting i.e. no superior mirages on hot days) and confirm.

Here's one (of many) example of the globe failing a distance to the horizon test: https://youtu.be/6hqzqmY9ny8

As for your example [viewing the sunset twice] it completely disregards how optics works. Remember this is a hoax and you're being deceived by a group of highly educated magicians; the globe is their stage.

When you stand up it increases the observers angle of attack thus increasing the distance to the observers vanishing point (horizon line). An object, the sun in this case has its apparent size increased so that it's within the observers angular resolution limit^† thus can be observed [again].

Proof of this effect also known as foreshortening is as simple as checking that a pool cue is straight. When you hold the cue at the correct angle the entire length is visible but, its apparent size is compressed thus exaggerating any deformations.



"science"



^{† reference:
Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. p. 54. ISBN 978-0444511416.}

[BADecker]

@notbatman

If you're willing, I ask you to do a simple "test", an "experiment" if you may.

If it so happens that you went to the beach, time this exactly when the sun is setting.
Step 1: lie down, well, more likely in a "flanking" position and face where the sun is.
Step 2: wait until you can't see the sun in your current position.
Step 3: quickly stand up or stand in a chair.
Step 4: mindblown, surprised!, YOU CAN SEE THE GODDAMN SUN AGAIN!

Why you'd ask? Because it's a globe, and not flat.
You can search for a better explanation, but oh, I think "science" is a hoax for you, so no point in doing that.

So you're just going to ignore the fact the globe fails a distance to the horizon test with a wide margin of error? This is a test anybody with a super-zoom camera can perform (weather permitting i.e. no superior mirages on hot days) and confirm.

Here's one (of many) example of the globe failing a distance to the horizon test: https://youtu.be/6hqzqmY9ny8

As for your example [viewing the sunset twice] it completely disregards how optics works. Remember this is a hoax and you're being deceived by a group of highly educated magicians; the globe is their stage.

When you stand up it increases the observers angle of attack thus increasing the distance to the observers vanishing point (horizon line). An object, the sun in this case has its apparent size increased so that it's within the observers angular resolution limit^† thus can be observed [again].

Proof of this effect also known as foreshortening is as simple as checking that a pool cue is straight. When you hold the cue at the correct angle the entire length is visible but, its apparent size is compressed thus exaggerating any deformations.



"science"



^{† reference:
Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. p. 54. ISBN 978-0444511416.}

You can prove what is right and real. And then you can see your mistake. The next step is to axcknowledge your mistake.

Many people have done all kinds of FE experiments. Others have proven Earth is a globe. The GE people have better proof.

Have you made it to the seeing-your-mistake stage, yet? Or are you continuing to muddle around in ignorance.

[notbatman]

People often ask "if the earth is flat then where's the edge, why hasn't anybody fallen off?".

The answer leads us to another hoax: the continent of Antarctica and the south pole. The earth is like a circular lake with islands in the middle, Antarctica is a wall of ice that forms the shore. Above the wall there's a plateau for some distance and then a ring of the highest mountains in the world, beyond that is the firmament of heaven.

Here's the edge:


Don't fall off, that water is ice cold and you wont survive long!

[Spendulus]

People often ask "if the earth is flat then where's the edge, why hasn't anybody fallen off?".

The answer leads us to another hoax: the continent of Antarctica and the south pole. The earth is like a circular lake with islands in the middle, Antarctica is a wall of ice that forms the shore. Above the wall there's a plateau for some distance and then a ring of the highest mountains in the world, beyond that is the firmament of heaven.

Here's the edge:


Don't fall off, that water is ice cold and you wont survive long!

Islands in the middle?

[notbatman]

^^^ Well if I stated the islands were all close to the shore that would be a pretty shitty analogy; the continents are in the middle.

Antarctic link:

  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/olimbos



"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" -- Isaiah 40:22, KJV

[DaftAjax]

<....>
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" -- Isaiah 40:22, KJV

Well I guess this guy believes that we're living in Asgard.

But your argument of how optics works is bullish. I'm not talking about using a fancy camera--use your eyes instead. I know cameras are meant to work like how eyes work, but then again, standing up to see the object (sun) again after vanishing from your point of view from a lower position only proves that the "horizon" is not a straight line. If it's really flat, no matter how low or high my position would be, even if I stand up it will not appear again.

[BADecker]

^^^ Well if I stated the islands were all close to the shore that would be a pretty shitty analogy; the continents are in the middle.

Antarctic link:

  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/olimbos

https://i.imgur.com/D8OggYR.jpg

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" -- Isaiah 40:22, KJV

The great majority of evidences you use are plays that play on the minds of ignorant, simple people. The few things that you use that have real science behind them have been debunked.

[notbatman]

@DaftAjax my source is a ophthalmology textbook.

Atheism is a hoax.

[styca]

Atheism is a hoax.

How do you keep this going? Thread after thread, year after year. I disagree with everything you post, and I have no idea whether you believe any of it yourself, but your endurance is certainly impressive.

[alexkamillakroy]

This thread's title is pure gold 

[styca]

-snip-

NotBatman is a hoax. NotBatman - you claim to be Bruce Wayne, but I have uncovered your origins. I have proof that you are actually a dangerous cave-dwelling bat-god from Mexico. You are not a mild-mannered billionaire crime-fighter from Gotham City, you are actually the Mesoamerican deity Camazotz.

I am willing to accept evidence to the contrary, if any exists.

[styca]

Furthermore, you have an additional secret identity as a city in Turkey. You are currently 4°C, and mostly sunny.

[BADecker]

Atheism is a hoax.

How do you keep this going? Thread after thread, year after year. I disagree with everything you post, and I have no idea whether you believe any of it yourself, but your endurance is certainly impressive.

He made a bunch of money off Bitcoin, and doesn't have anything else to do other than sit around and spoof people, and then to mock them when he can't answer logic in a logical way.

[notbatman]

@BADecker go hang yourself with a length of rusty piano wire!

I invested every penny I had at the time (2013) in bitcoin mining hardware from a company called BLACK ARROW, they kept my money without delivering the miners. In the years afterwards I never held any significant amount of crypto during Bitcoin's epic rise, always finding myself flat broke and spending any alt-coins I mined with the few low-end GPUs I have on cost-of-living shit.

The punchline here is that BLACK ARROW was named after a UK space program of the same name and the miner, was named after the satellite they calmed to launch, the "Prospero X-3".



There are no satellites in space, outer space is a hoax.

[BADecker]

@BADecker go hang yourself with a length of rusty piano wire!

I invested every penny I had at the time (2013) in bitcoin mining hardware from a company called BLACK ARROW, they kept my money without delivering the miners. In the years afterwards I never held any significant amount of crypto during Bitcoin's epic rise, always finding myself flat broke and spending any alt-coins I mined with the few low-end GPUs I have on cost-of-living shit.

The punchline here is that BLACK ARROW was named after a UK space program of the same name and the miner, was named after the satellite they calmed to launch, the "Prospero X-3".



There are no satellites in space, outer space is a hoax.

The Bitcointalk forum has become very popular. Even ISS people take a break now and again. I can visualize them sitting up there chuckling to themselves about your inner space.

[notbatman]

^^^ Freemason actors flying around like superman far above your head, is a hoax.

The biggest consumer of helium is NASA, using annually almost 75 million cubic feet.† They use the helium to hoax space satellites with "super" weather balloons called satelloons.






NASA launches all sorts of glorified weather balloons including some from rockets then lie to your face, claiming they spent billions launching space satellites.




Reference:
† -- http://www.issuesmagazine.com.au/article/issue-june-2012/helium-party-really-over.html

[Balthazar]

Up

Hoax is still a hoax

[BADecker]

Up

Hoax is still a hoax

Are you being truthful when you say that you are a liar?

A hoax isn't always a hoax. Sometimes it's a downright lie.

[Balthazar]

Are you being truthful when you say that you are a liar?

I assume it's safe to say that it's not safe to drink acetone.

[BADecker]

Are you being truthful when you say that you are a liar?

I assume it's safe to say that it's not safe to drink acetone.

Thank you for showing us that the most dangerous liars are those who are truthful much of the time.

[styca]

Thank you for showing us that the most dangerous liars are those who are truthful much of the time.

... and yet Donald Trump is still dangerous. Particularly if you're Iranian.

[BADecker]

^^^ Freemason actors flying around like superman far above your head, is a hoax.

The biggest consumer of helium is NASA, using annually almost 75 million cubic feet.† They use the helium to hoax space satellites with "super" weather balloons called satelloons.

https://i.imgur.com/LUB2XZF.jpg




NASA launches all sorts of glorified weather balloons including some from rockets then lie to your face, claiming they spent billions launching space satellites.

https://i.imgur.com/2ueFoZn.jpg


Reference:
† -- http://www.issuesmagazine.com.au/article/issue-june-2012/helium-party-really-over.html

If there were any Freemason actors that flew around like superman, they would be superman, not Freemason actors.

Thanks for explaining how easy you made it for the BLACK ARROW company to keep your gift to them. Of course, you might not have explained directly, but your posts in the Flat Earth thread and the Flat Mars thread do the explaining for you.

[BADecker]

Thank you for showing us that the most dangerous liars are those who are truthful much of the time.

... and yet Donald Trump is still dangerous. Particularly if you're Iranian.

Most Iranians are Muslims who will never change. Trump is doing them a favor by seeing that they are killed off. Less time for them to sin more by living longer, thereby having more to pay for in Hell.

[notbatman]

@BADecker, I'm not the only BA customer who got their money embezzled. How about BFL's customers, did they also make it easy for BFL to mine bitcoins with their customers hardware? Did they fall for a hoax?

[BADecker]

@BADecker, I'm not the only BA customer who got their money embezzled. How about BFL's customers, did they also make it easy for BFL to mine bitcoins with their customers hardware? Did they fall for a hoax?

A hoax is a hoax, of coax, of coax,
And no one can talk to a hoax of coax
That is, of coax, unless the hoax is the infamous Mr. notbatman.