Same crap they've been spouting for the last 624 pages with MSPaint drawings.
All been properly rebuked, but hey, thanks for keeping up.
As for this horizon crap. You know, I used to live very close to the ocean, within walking distance of major ports. Not once did I ever see a ship disappear over the horizon as you idiots propose. No they all just gently slipped into the mists of the sea.
Yes he did, don't lie. I can even see the word right there in his post. More proof that you are a liar.
Obviously, the plane would have fuel. Xeon was talking about the gas (as in, not liquid or solid) outside the plane.
Solid gas? I find that hard to believe. Gasoline has to be below -100F to freeze, why would a plane be somewhere that cold? No, the gas should definitely be liquid.
Bachelor of Science in Physics
Bachelor of Science in Mathematics
Associates in Science (specializing in physics).
Gravity IS JUST A THEORY!
Yes, Gravity is a theory.
Your point?
I think the misunderstanding here is that you don't actually know what theory means.
I'm serious, ask for your money back.
Now why would I do that?
I believe he said he's a confirmed atheist.
Whoever wrote the article you linked to was either writing it as a joke, or the author was an idiot.
No I said I had a BSc. and sucked at Physics. I still obviously know more than you do. Then again, I believe my 10-year-old son knows more about physics than you do.
I find it very hard to believe that you have a BSc, considering you don't know what the word theory means.
Uh huh, according to you.
According to everything the human race knows about science.
You do realize that denial isn't a river in Egypt, right?
You're the one in denial here.
Again, what are your credentials?
Listed above.
A quick internet search of Dr. Shempp
1967, Ellery received his Ph.D. in physics from Brown (not exactly the school you went to, now is it.
He's a teacher at Tufts College
He's a Unitarian Universalist, which is basically an atheist.
He's a member of the American Humanist Association
His work was the precourser to the MRI
His thesis was "Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance in Nitrogen Heterocycles" What was yours?
If Dr. Shempp did indeed write that article, then he was writing it as a joke. There's no way a physicist would not understand what the word theory means.
See, there you go proving that it's a religion. According to you a computer is "science" and therefore incapable of being used for Holy work.
You're the one insisting science is a religion, not me. If you really think it is, then have nothing at all to do with it, and get rid of your car, your computer, your house, any electronic device you own, ect.
Or just admit science isn't a religion and stop whining about it.
So something that you disagree with.
You have a serious problem with reading comprehension, it seems.
If the Big band didn't come from nothing, what did it come from. I'm sure the entire Scientific community is waiting with baited breath for your keen insights, especially since you know more than Scientists with PhD's from Ivy League Universities.
No one in the scientific community believe that the universe started "from nothing".
Just because we don't currently know all of the answers doesn't mean the whole system is flawed. I may not know how it happened, but I do know it was "from nothing".
What school did you go to again?
RPI
I'm so happy I home school.
Oh really? And where exactly did you get your degree?
Just because I insulted you doesn't mean it isn't right. Yes I know what an insult is, and I know what a retard is.
First you claim you didn't insult me, and then you come back with this when I point out you did? I seem to remember something about not lying in the bible...
Technology is creating useful things. Science is a bunch of theories. My computer really exists, therefore it is technology. If it was science, it would only theoretically exist.
Further proof you don't actually have a degree. If you did, you'd know what science actually is. Repeatedly spouting this inane hogwash won't make it true.
Again, what school did you go to? Not that I really believe you. I think you're some bored kid who's lying on the internet.
RPI.
By burning, twit.
And yet, not all fires are caused by octane...
Do you even know what a combustion reaction is?
I've backed it up with Ivy league scientists, exactly what have you backed yourself up with?
No; you've "backed up" your position by linking to an article written by someone who doesn't know what the word theory means, and then tried to use his credentials to make your position look infallible. That's known as a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". Which, actually, doesn't back up your position at all.
Uh huh, and of course that couldn't happen in a flat earth right?
Again, you're using strawman arguments.
While technically, volcanoes could exist on a flat Earth, I used other points to address the non-flatness of the Earth. Perhaps you could try responding to some of those for once?
Oh wow, so now you're a physics teacher and an astronaut. When did you receive your Nobel Prize? Are you also a professional weight lifter? A black belt in 14 different martial arts? Isn't lying on the Internet fun?
I'm not an astronaut, a professional weight lifter, a black belt in any discipline, and I've never won the Nobel prize.
Astronauts aren't the only ones allowed in planes, you know.
But please, it's painfully obvious now that you're lying about earning your degree. Stop projecting your own insecurity about being found out onto me. Thank you.
Pardon? I received my BsC. from Simon Fraser University. An accredited Canadian University (look them up if you don't believe me). My BBA from the University of Lethbridge, not as prestigious as SFU, but still accredited.
If you went to either school, then please, explain to me why you don't know what the definition of word "theory" is in the context of science.
Again, what school did you go to? Oh never mind, you'll just lie and tell me you went to Yale or Harvard.
Nope; I never applied to either school. Nice try though.
Yes he did, don't lie. I can even see the word right there in his post. More proof that you are a liar.
In Xeon's original post about gas, the poster was referring to the state of matter, not to gasoline.
Solid gas? I find that hard to believe. Gasoline has to be below -100F to freeze, why would a plane be somewhere that cold? No, the gas should definitely be liquid.
It must take a lot of hard work to intentionally misread a post so much.
In Xeon's original post about gas, the poster was referring to the state of matter, not to gasoline. It must take a lot of hard work to intentionally misread a post so much.
It is you who has a serious problem with reading it seems. The title of this thread is about Earth being flat. Yet you keep going on and on about gasoline. I already explained my Hummer does fine with gasoline, now please get back on topic.
To most "Christians" The Bible is like a license agreement. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree". All those "Christians" will burn in Hell! James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
It is you who has a serious problem with reading it seems. The title of this thread is about Earth being flat. Yet you keep going on and on about gasoline. I already explained my Hummer does fine with gasoline, now please get back on topic.
No; your friend Heathen Basher is the one going on about gasoline. I'm trying to set him straight.
I think the misunderstanding here is that you don't actually know what theory means.
It is you who fails to understand even a simple English word.
"A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."
You can look up things like this in something called a dictionary. Look, you learned something new today!
To most "Christians" The Bible is like a license agreement. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree". All those "Christians" will burn in Hell! James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
It is you who fails to understand even a simple English word.
"A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."
You can look up things like this in something called a dictionary. Look, you learned something new today!
And...that's still not the definition used in science.
The scientific equivalent of what you posted would be "hypothesis".
And...that's still not the definition used in science.
It seems to me a scientist who isn't even capable of using a dictionary should go looking for a different job. Preferably not in the food industry though, I prefer to survive my meals. Perhaps something like cleaning sewers.
To most "Christians" The Bible is like a license agreement. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree". All those "Christians" will burn in Hell! James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
It seems to me a scientist who isn't even capable of using a dictionary should go looking for a different job. Preferably not in the food industry though, I prefer to survive my meals. Perhaps something like cleaning sewers.
Is that what you do? Could you give me a reference? :p
Comment