Flat Earth is a Front for Intelligent Design

a reply to: peter vlar

Lol, not that anyone on these threads actually cares about anybody elses other opinions...

Their minds are made up. Here, its this simple, Without origins, ether in Evolution or Genesis of the Bible, they are both fairytales.

My solution is a lot simpler. Life was brought here. Explains the sudden appearance in the record, the complexity, procreation, and continuation.

Next time you dismiss me as a religious nut, remember that.

a reply to: intrptr

So still no response as to why a programmer is necessary. Okay then.

How did the life that was brought here develop? Where did the beings that brought it here come from? Your position only raises a ton more questions and still doesn't address origins. If life was brought to earth, it was brought here 4 billion years ago in the form of single celled organism and then evolved as the evidence shows. The beings that brought it here would need an explanation of their origin, if that's the case.

a reply to: Barcs

Your position only raises a ton more questions and still doesn't address origins.

Neither does evolution.

a reply to: intrptr

So what? Nothing about evolution has anything to do with the origins of biological life on earth and nothing in either Darwinian evolution of the MES requires that information. Evolution is, at the end of the day, nothing more than a measurement of change in allele frequencies over time. The origin of life isn't relevant to evolution aside from the existence of life is a prerequisite for things to evolve. So the act of dragging evolution into an argument over a completely separate field of inquiry is a non sequitor and totally irrelevant straw man.

a reply to: peter vlar

Nothing about evolution has anything to do with the origins of biological life on earth and nothing in either Darwinian evolution of the MES requires that information.

Blind leading the blind, just fell in the ditch.

Proof that evolution is also a fairy tale, just like religion.

In religion god 'poofed' life on earth. In evolution... well you get the point.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs

Your position only raises a ton more questions and still doesn't address origins.

Neither does evolution.

No kidding. The origin of life hypothesis is abiogenesis. The one you are talking about is more like panspermia. Evolution explains how life changes, and your argument is dishonest because you literally keep taking one line of a response and ignore everything else to twist what I'm saying. Please stop that. Either address the claim you made and show evidence for or stop wasting our time.

People are really desperate to derail this thread for some reason.

a reply to: intrptr

Sorry chief, the only ditch here is the one you keep digging and the sad part is that you don't even realize how ignorant you are and how every point that you seem to think is a "gotcha moment " is nothing more than another non sequitor from you.

Either you're willfully ignorant in your insistence that evolution is flawed because hypothesis such as abiogenesis and panspermia (which delve into the chemical interactions that could have led to the initial conditions that created organic life on Earth) are a completely separate field of study or you're a troll who needs to work on his game.

Rates of mutation are easily calculated, charted and compared to other Hominids and the mutation rates corroborate the changes seen in the fossil record. Speciation has been observed in controlled experiments such as the ongoing decades long Lenski experiment. The fossil and geologic records and a variety of radiometric dating techniques which are cross referenced with dendrochronology and ice core data demonstrate change over time within multiple species. And those are just off the top of my head while I'm driving so truly and honestly, trying to state that evolution has no evidence and is analogous to mythology because you can't differentiate between a theory, a hypothesis and biology or chemistry all while showing not a single piece of data supported by citations... is ludicrous, incredibly ignorant and beyond hypocritical.

originally posted by: Myollinir
It was evident that in the realm of debate and science that Intelligent Design was losing massive amounts of traction toward human origins. It has been ridiculed time and time again, and it could not be used to ammo in our literal understanding of reality. It had no experiments to confirm, and it only could observe what reality was while never being able to measure a "Creator".

Enter: Flat Earth Theory. This is a theory that has experiments that individuals can try themselves such as moonlight temperature, observing the horizon, measuring shadows with close lights vs. far lights, etc... People can repeat these experiments and actually give themselves hard logic to back up this idea.

The one repeated observation I have with most FE explanations and theories is that they are all backed by Christians... They always cite Jewish writings for their evidence and will always go back to it. Not nearly enough non-religious sites, videos, blogs are created to follow this theory.

I don't have much evidence beyond my own observations while plowing through the internet, but if you ask me it can appear that the Intelligent Designers made this movement to attempt to re-credify the ID movement. It is repeatedly attempted to circle logic back to the Christian Bible to show how it supports a flat earth and since we can observe experiments that would reflect a flat type earth then that would verify the biblical writings... And so here they are back and swinging with something new!

Thoughts?

its cool as # and y'all are gonna love it. imagine an endless plane of life in its simplest form and hidden all throughout is a grid of every galaxy in the universe. It sets the earth free which is a big deal. I'll probably sell it or dump it in the trash or some #.

a reply to: Barcs

The origin of life hypothesis is abiogenesis.

And bridging the gap... whats that called?

The one you are talking about is more like panspermia.

No. I mean intelligent designers brought life here. But not Panspermia, or religious theory or electric mud puddle 'genesis', lol.

a reply to: peter vlar

...hypothesis such as abiogenesis and panspermia (which delve into the chemical interactions that could have led to the initial conditions that created organic life on Earth)...

Talk about digging holes...

"hypothesis, delving, interactions, could have, Led To..."

originally posted by: intrptr
And bridging the gap... whats that called?

Abiogenesis. I really am getting tired of the word games. Semantics don't prove anything. Lay out your argument, please. You sound like a third grader that just learned addition and subtraction trying to debunk calculus. Why even bother? You aren't going to trick us when faulty arguments like that.

a reply to: Barcs

Lay out your argument, please.

Derp...

a reply to: intrptr

So you got nothing but insults and extremely over simplified one liners? I honestly did not get the point you were making. Were you trying to get me to say creation or something absurd like that?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter vlar

...hypothesis such as abiogenesis and panspermia (which delve into the chemical interactions that could have led to the initial conditions that created organic life on Earth)...

Talk about digging holes...

"hypothesis, delving, interactions, could have, Led To..."

It's hilarious that the irony is completely lost on you that you've got nothing but insults for me and haven't shared anything the even remotely resembles evidence to support our contention let alone disputes the MES which has far
More evidence supporting it than any other scientific theory in history. And here you are spouting your utter twaddle as ignorant you've got all of the answers and 7 pages N you have yet to even attempt to support your position. At this point I'm pretty sure you're running. A comedy routine at my expense because like I said, you haven't even put up a half assed attempt to support your position. Typically that level of braggadocio and arrogance brings at least something to the table but jo, nothing but insults, non sequitors and hyperbole laden conjecture.

But you don't try to support you twaddle and you won't because you can't and everyone reading this knows you're completely full of s#

a reply to: Barcs
It's a joke bro. There's no point at all in trying to have an honest dialogue with someone who's not remotely interested in the same thing.

a reply to: peter vlar

I think you are correct. Is it really too much to ask him for an explanation of his argument? Normally I wouldn't think so, and would have no problem doing such a thing myself, but people like this generally just like to push their personal opinion as if it's a verified fact, completely derailing the thread to make it about him specifically and his half baked attempt to make a point. He almost reminds of that Itsthetooth guy from a few years back.

I have a couple questions. The Foucault Pendulum experiment can be observed in museums today but was initially used to prove Earth is rotating. My question is; How is the pendulum free of any influence from Earth's atmosphere? Why doesn't the pendulum rotate with the Earth like everything else that is attached to Earth? Before you answer, take another look at how the Foucault Pendulum works. a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

a reply to: donutviper

From what I understand, the pendulum test was conducted at several latitudes, including near the equator and at the south pole, and extreme precision micro level calculations were done to determine the difference from all those positions.