Hoax is a hoax

[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.