Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


What music are you listen...
Today at 12:04 AM

Qur'anic studies today
Today at 12:03 AM

Richard Dawkins...
Yesterday at 08:36 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 04:14 PM

Father "decapitates" Daug...
Yesterday at 01:18 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:23 AM

Daisy Chain
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:47 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
June 01, 2020, 02:20 PM

Modern muslim stereotypes
June 01, 2020, 11:21 AM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
June 01, 2020, 05:22 AM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
May 30, 2020, 08:04 AM

Coronavirus crisis
May 27, 2020, 02:14 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves

 (Read 89101 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 31 32 3334 35 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #960 - November 22, 2015, 09:45 AM

    what kind of question is that Ted.. How this concept of  geocentrism is  evidence of God dear Ted...

    don't you want to question that?  didn't you read wiki?  let me put a bit of it from wiki

    Can you read more from that wiki link??  that is your favorite reference..

    http://www.slideshare.net/jundel3/chapter-13-43936904

    and let me give you this slide link which will help you to understand the origin of geocentric model


    It's quite difficult discussing things with people who don't have much knowledge of science and maths. But I'll try.

    On earth we can do science experiments to learn about forces such as gravity and the properties and behaviour of physcial matter. We have learnt that you need some kind of force/energy to cause the behaviour of physical matter to change in most cases. Now if we look out in heavens and see motion we deduce that some force is behind the motion of the planets and stars. Now if it turns out that the planets/stars/galaxies are indeed spinning around the earth then we deduce that it must be some incredible force that is doing this and the energy required is astronomical (pun intended).

    Any sane logical person would agree that this is indeed evidence of God based on the fact that the known universe is spinning round the earth which makes it the central focus point.

    The silly statements that other religions already had this concept is well just silly. In every religion there may be certain elements that are true. It doesn't make the entire religion true or the concept of God in that religion true. As Muslims we accept Gospels and Torah however we can never accept Jesus as God or the concept of the Trinity. But we totally agree with the teachings of the Gospel.

     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #961 - November 22, 2015, 10:37 AM

    It's quite difficult discussing things with people who don't have much knowledge of science and maths. But I'll try.

     that may be true Ted,  but it is worse if the guy doesn't have high school background in basic sciences..

    Quote
    On earth we can do science experiments to learn about forces such as gravity and the properties and behaviour of physical matter. We have learnt that you need some kind of force/energy to cause the behaviour of physical matter to change in most cases.

    good...good...
    Quote
    Now if we look out in heavens to sky and see motion we deduce that some force is behind the motion of the planets and stars. Now if it turns out that the planets/stars/galaxies are indeed spinning around the earth then we deduce that it must be some incredible force that is doing this and the energy required is astronomical (pun intended).

    '
    OK..........  but that  "IF" is a very biiiiiiiig "if "   dear ted

    Quote
    Any sane logical person would agree that this is indeed evidence of God based on the fact that the known universe is spinning round the earth which makes it the central focus point.

    The silly statements that other religions already had this concept is well just silly. In every religion there may be certain elements that are true. It doesn't make the entire religion true or the concept of God in that religion true. As Muslims we accept Gospels and Torah however we can never accept Jesus as God or the concept of the Trinity. But we totally agree with the teachings of the Gospe
    l.


    dear Ted bundy of Astrophysics  and Ted Bummer of weak force/strong force enquirer ..  rethink and rewrite all that above assumed nonsense .. otherwise I am forced to fail you..  and start with this link

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #962 - November 22, 2015, 11:48 AM

    Yeez is willing to accept that geocentrism would be evidence of God which kind of puts Quod in a strange position. If peopl like yeez can acceprt then Quod, maybe you need to take a look at your logical reasoning.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #963 - November 22, 2015, 11:50 AM

    that may be true Ted,  but it is worse if the guy doesn't have high school background in basic sciences..
    good...good...'
    OK..........  but that  "IF" is a very biiiiiiiig "if "   dear ted

    dear Ted bundy of Astrophysics  and Ted Bummer of weak force/strong force enquirer ..  rethink and rewrite all that above assumed nonsense .. otherwise I am forced to fail you..  and start with this link

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html


    For people who lack scientific knowledge it's a big if. For those who know science properly it's nothing hard to believe. Like I said before, be patient, the truth will be found out.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #964 - November 22, 2015, 12:08 PM

    For people who lack scientific knowledge it's a big if. For those who know science properly it's nothing hard to believe. Like I said before, be patient, the truth will be found out.

    Dumbo.. ted.. dear ted... learn something about galaxies start with wiki

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



    find out how our galaxy Milky Way looks like..  find out position of sun and earth in Milky Way..



    and watch a 1 hr tube on Journey Through the Milky Way

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUNFI2-12h0

    and my good wishes to you.. incidentally  NOTHING IS UNQUESTIONABLE...

    what I say, what you say.. what scientists says and what religious bums and their books that were written by some cave dweller say.,   all are on the table for questioning..

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #965 - November 22, 2015, 07:26 PM

    bogart,

    Please stop showing how flawed your understanding of science and education is.


    Considering I am supporting the scientific concenus which is validated repeatedly I understand science at a greater level than you do, or claim to. To the point that I provided experiments which validate my views while you have produced "ifs" which is speculation not science and ignore, not refute, my evidence.

    Quote
    You weren't even able to do a simple mathematical calculation yet here you are making references to thing you don't fully understand. You're just another product of brainwashing by the media and educational institutions. Learn to use your intellect to see the truth. The truth will set you free.  Afro


    I showed your example was in error thus answering a flawed question is illogical. I told you the specific effects showing your question is flawed. Your comment is irrelevant and irrational.

    "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Yes or no? Stupid questions do not need to be answered, only shown that the question is idiotic in the first place.

    Quote
    The reality you exist in is a lot more bizarre than you think and science is showing this. I know why you and the other billions of people consider the heliocentric model to be fact. If you can't be bothered to look at the problems with it then just be patient. The truth can't be hidden for long. The question for you is what are you going to do/believe when you do discover the geocentric model is true and modern science accepts it.


    No it is a fact due to constant verification and has not be falsified by any geocentric nutter, like you, yet. You produced nonsensical problems and based your views on "Ifs" when unable to provide evidence which is not centuries out of date.

    Quote
    Will you consider it as evidence of God or will you simply wait for other evidence or more evidence?




    I hope your evidence for God is not as laughable as your evidence for the geocentric model. Let me guess "ifs", "maybes" and argument from incredibility
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #966 - November 22, 2015, 09:49 PM

    Yeez is willing to accept that geocentrism would be evidence of God which kind of puts Quod in a strange position. If peopl like yeez can acceprt then Quod, maybe you need to take a look at your logical reasoning.

     015

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #967 - November 22, 2015, 10:47 PM

    Considering I am supporting the scientific concenus which is validated repeatedly I understand science at a greater level than you do, or claim to. To the point that I provided experiments which validate my views while you have produced "ifs" which is speculation not science and ignore, not refute, my evidence.

    I showed your example was in error thus answering a flawed question is illogical. I told you the specific effects showing your question is flawed. Your comment is irrelevant and irrational.

    "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Yes or no? Stupid questions do not need to be answered, only shown that the question is idiotic in the first place.

    No it is a fact due to constant verification and has not be falsified by any geocentric nutter, like you, yet. You produced nonsensical problems and based your views on "Ifs" when unable to provide evidence which is not centuries out of date.

    I hope your evidence for God is not as laughable as your evidence for the geocentric model. Let me guess "ifs", "maybes" and argument from incredibility


    Lame comment to avoid taking up the challenge. You failed.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #968 - November 23, 2015, 01:19 AM

    For people who lack scientific knowledge it's a big if. For those who know science properly it's nothing hard to believe. Like I said before, be patient, the truth will be found out.


    You mean all the scientists who subscribe to heliocentric model lack the scientific knowledge that only you know?

    Once again, nothing to show. Just barging about "ze truth" forever and ever.

    You want your delusions to be the truth, Ted? That's really pathetic.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #969 - November 23, 2015, 03:01 AM

    Lame comment to avoid taking up the challenge. You failed.


    I already answered your flawed challenge months ago while also showing it's flaws and why at it's core is illogical. Try to keep up son, you are falling behind.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #970 - November 23, 2015, 03:19 AM

     pccoffee Whaat is going on in here. When did this get to be thirty pages long? Quod, what did you do?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #971 - November 23, 2015, 07:27 AM

    pccoffee Whaat is going on in here. .....

    huh! what?  what do you mean what is going on??  .. eating popcorn and watching the show??  here read this

    yeezevee says   all this

    Quote
    Dumbo.. ted.. dear ted... ..


    what I say, what you say.. what scientists says and what religious bums and their books that were written by some cave dweller say.,   all are on the table for questioning..

     
    that may be true Ted,  but it is worse if the guy doesn't have high school background in basic sciences..
    .........................

    dear Ted bundy of Astrophysics  and Ted Bummer of weak force/strong force enquirer ..  rethink and rewrite all that above assumed nonsense .. otherwise I am forced to fail you..  and start with this link
     

    what kind of question is that Ted.. How this concept of  geocentrism is  evidence of God dear Ted...



    with all those words of yeezevee CallMeTed comes up with this  
     
    Yeez is willing to accept that geocentrism would be evidence of God which kind of puts Quod in a strange position. If peopl like yeez can acceprt then Quod, maybe you need to take a look at your logical reasoning.  


    So Lua.,  it is indeed popcorn time for people like you.. but for me I AM PULLING MY HAIR to figure out.,   "How Ted came to the conclusion that I am willing to accept the  geocentric model of universe.."??

    please explain that to me..   Anyways .. Girl work hard at your job placedon't distract yourself with all that what is going on around the globe...

    So going back to my good friend Ted.. and to the readers.,  and to  me and to Ted       to know what we are talking about.,  let me throw a bit on  "the cosmological models of universe"  with  some silly links..

    Quote
    Ancient Cosmology: Theories on the Origin of the Universe_ RC Davison

    Quote
    http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/intro.html

    Cosmological Theories Through History

    "Cosmos" is just another word for universe, and "cosmology" is the study of the origin, evolution and fate of the universe. Some of the best minds in history - both philosophers and scientists - have applied themselves to an understanding of just what the universe is and where it came from, suggesting in the process a bewildering variety of theories and ideas, from the Cosmic Egg to the Big Bang and beyond. Here are some of the main ones, in approximate chronological order:

    Brahmanda (Cosmic Egg) Universe - The Hindu Rigveda, written in India around the 15th - 12th Century B.C., describes a cyclical or oscillating universe in which a “cosmic egg”, or Brahmanda, containing the whole universe (including the Sun, Moon, planets and all of space) expands out of a single concentrated point called a Bindu before subsequently collapsing again. The universe cycles infinitely between expansion and total collapse.

    Anaxagorian Universe - The 5th Century B.C. Greek philosopher Anaxagoras believed that the original state of the cosmos was a primordial mixture of all its ingredients which existed in infinitesimally small fragments of themselves. This mixture was not entirely uniform, and some ingredients were present in higher concentrations than others, as well as varying from place to place. At some point in time, this mixture was set in motion by the action of “nous” (mind), and the whirling motion shifted and separated out the ingredients, ultimately producing the cosmos of separate material objects, all with different properties, that we see today.

    Atomist Universe - Later in the 5th Century B.C., the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus founded the school of Atomism, which held that the universe was composed of very small, indivisible and indestructible building blocks known as atoms (from the Greek “atomos”, meaning “uncuttable”). All of reality and all the objects in the universe are composed of different arrangements of these eternal atoms and an infinite void, in which they form different combinations and shapes
    Quote
    Aristotelian Universe - The Greek philosopher Aristotle, in the 4th Century B.C., established a geocentric universe in which the fixed, spherical Earth is at the centre, surrounded by concentric celestial spheres of planets and stars. Although he believed the universe to be finite in size, he stressed that it exists unchanged and static throughout eternity. Aristotle definitively established the four classical elements of fire, air, earth and water, which were acted on by two forces, gravity (the tendency of earth and water to sink) and levity (the tendency of air and fire to rise). He later added a fifth element, aether, to describe the void that fills the universe above the terrestrial sphere.


    Stoic Universe - The Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece (3rd Century B.C. and after) believed in a kind of island universe in which a finite cosmos is surrounded by an infinite void (not dissimilar in principle to a galaxy). They held that the cosmos is in a constant state of flux, and pulsates in size and periodically passes through upheavals and conflagrations. In the Stoic view, the universe is like a giant living body, with its leading part being the stars and the Sun, but in which all parts are interconnected, so that what happens in one place affects what happens elsewhere. They also held a cyclical view of history, in which the world was once pure fire and would become fire again (an idea borrowed from Heraclitus).

    Quote
    Heliocentric Universe - The 3rd Century B.C. Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus of Samos was the first to present an explicit argument for a heliocentric model of the Solar System, placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the center of the known universe. He described the Earth as rotating daily on its axis and revolving annually about the Sun in a circular orbit, along with a sphere of fixed stars. His ideas were generally rejected in favour of the geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy until they were successfully revived nearly 1800 years later by Copernicus. However, there were exceptions: Seleucus of Seleucia, who lived about a century after Aristarchus, supported his theories and used the tides to explain heliocentricity and the influence of the Moon; the Indian astonomer and mathematician Aryabhata described elliptical orbits around the Sun at the end of of the 5th Century A.D.; as did the Muslim astronomer Ja'far ibn Muhammad Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi in the 9th Century.


    Ptolemaic Universe - The 2nd Century A.D. Roman-Egyptian mathematician and astronomer Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) described a geocentric model largely based on Aristotelian ideas, in which the planets and the rest of the universe orbit about a stationary Earth in circular epicycles. In terms of longevity, it was perhaps the most successful cosmological model of all time. Modifications to the basic Ptolemaic system were suggested by the Islamic Maragha School in the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries including the first accurate lunar model by Ibn al-Shatir, and the rejection of a stationery Earth in favour of a rotating Earth by Ali Qushji.

    Abrahamic Universe - Several medieval Christian, Muslim and Jewish scholars put forward the idea of a universe which was finite in time. In the 6th Century A.D., the Christian philospher John Philoponus of Alexandria argued against the ancient Greek notion of an infinite past, and was perhaps the first commentator to argue that the universe is finite in time and therefore had a beginning. Early Muslim theologians such as Al-Kindi (9th Century) and Al-Ghazali (11th Century) offered logical arguments supporting a finite universe, as did the 10th Century Jewish philosopher Saadia Gaon.

    Partially Heliocentric Universe - In the 15th and early 16th Century, Somayaji Nilakantha of the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics in southern India developed a computational system for a partially heliocentric planetary model in which Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn orbited the Sun, which in turn orbited the Earth. This was very similar to the Tychonic system proposed by the Danish nobleman Tycho Brahe later in the 16th Century as a kind of hybrid of the Ptolemaic and Copernican models.

    Copernican Universe - In 1543, the Polish astronomer and polymath Nicolaus Copernicus adapted the geocentric Maragha model of Ibn al-Shatir to meet the requirements of the ancient heliocentric universe of Aristarchus. His publication of a scientific theory of heliocentrism, demonstrating that the motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the centre of the universe, stimulated further scientific investigations and became a landmark in the history of modern science, sometimes known as the Copernican Revolution. His Copernican Principle (that the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position) and its implication that celestial bodies obey physical laws identical to those on Earth, first established cosmology as a science rather than a branch of metaphysics. In 1576, the English astronomer Thomas Digges popularized Copernicus’ ideas and also extended them by positing the existence of a multitude of stars extending to infinity, rather than just Copernicus’ narrow band of fixed stars. The Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno took the Copernican Principle a stage further in 1584 by suggesting that even the Solar System is not the centre of the universe, but rather a relatively insignificant star system among an infinite multitude of others. In 1605, Johannes Kepler made further refinements by finally abandoning the classical assumption of circular orbits in favour of elliptical orbits which could explain the strange apparent movements of the planets. Galileo's controversial support of Copernicus' heliocentric model in the early 17th Century was denounced by the Inquisition but nevertheless helped to popularize the idea.

    Cartesian Vortex Universe - In the mid-17th Century, the French philosopher René Descartes outlined a model of the universe with many of the characteristics of Newton’s later static, infinite universe. But, according to Descartes, the vacuum of space was not empty at all, but was filled with matter that swirled around in large and small vortices. His model involved a system of huge swirling whirlpools of ethereal or fine matter, producing what would later be called gravitational effects.

    Static (or Newtonian) Universe - In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his “Principia”, which described, among other things, a static, steady state, infinite universe which even Einstein, in the early 20th Century, took as a given (at least until events proved otherwise). In Newton’s universe, matter on the large scale is uniformly distributed, and the universe is gravitationally balanced but essentially unstable.

    Hierarchical Universe and the Nebular Hypothesis - Although still generally based on a Newtonian static universe, the matter in a hierarchical universe is clustered on ever larger scales of hierarchy, and is endlessly being recycled. It was first proposed in 1734 by the Swedish scientist and philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg, and developed further (independently) by Thomas Wright (1750), Immanuel Kant (1755) and Johann Heinrich Lambert (1761), and a similar model was proposed in 1796 by the Frenchman Pierre-Simon Laplace.

    Einsteinian Universe - The model of the universe assumed by Albert Einstein in his groundbreaking theory of gravity in the early 20th Century was not dissimilar to Newton’s in that it was a static, dynamically stable universe which was neither expanding or contracting. However, he had to add in a “cosmological constant” to his general relativity equations to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity which would otherwise have caused the universe to collapse in on itself (although he later abandoned that part of his theory when Edwin Hubble definitively showed in 1929 that the universe was not in fact static)

    Big Bang Model of the Universe - After Hubble’s demonstration of the continuously expanding universe in 1929 (and especially after the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965), some version of the Big Bang theory has generally been the mainsteam scientific view. The theory describes the universe as originating in an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense point (or singularity) between 13 and 14 billion years ago, from where it has been expanding ever since. The essential statement of the theory is usually attributed to the Belgian Roman Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître in 1927 (even before Hubble’s corroborating evidence), although a similar theory had been proposed, although not pursued, 1922 by the Russian Alexander Friedmann in 1922. Friedmann actually developed two models of an expanding universe based on Einstein’s general relativity equations, one with positive curvature or spherical space, and one with negative curvature or hyperbolic space.

    Oscillating Universe - This was Einstein’s favoured model after he rejected his own original model in the 1930s. The oscillating universe followed from Alexander Friedmann’s model of an expanding universe based on the general relativity equations for a universe with positive curvature (spherical space), which results in the universe expanding for a time and then contracting due to the pull of its gravity, in a perpetual cycle of Big Bang followed by Big Crunch. Time is thus endless and beginningless, and the beginning-of-time paradox is avoided.

    Steady State Universe - This non-standard cosmology (i.e. opposed to the standard Big Bang model) has occurred in various versions since the Big Bang theory was generally adopted by the scientific community. A popular variant of the steady state universe was proposed in 1948 by the English astronomer Fred Hoyle and the and Austrians Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi. It predicted a universe that expanded but did not change its density, with matter being inserted into the universe as it expanded in order to maintain a constant density. Despite its drawbacks, this was quite a popular idea until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 which supported the Big Bang model.

    Inflationary (or Inflating) Universe - In 1980, the American physicist Alan Guth proposed a model of the universe based on the Big Bang, but incorporating a short, early period of exponential cosmic inflation in order to solve the horizon and flatness problems of the standard Big Bang model. Another variation of the inflationary universe is the cyclic model developed by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok in 2002 using state-of-the-art M-theory, superstring theory and brane cosmology, which involves an inflationary universe expanding and contracting in cycles.

    Multiverse - The Russian-American physicist Andrei Linde developed the inflationary universe idea further in 1983 with his chaotic inflation theory (or eternal inflation), which sees our universe as just one of many “bubbles” that grew as part of a multiverse owing to a vacuum that had not decayed to its ground state. The American physicists Hugh Everett III and Bryce DeWitt had initially developed and popularized their “many worlds” formulation of the multiverse in the 1960s and 1970s. Alternative versions have also been developed where our observable universe is just one tiny organized part of an infinitely big cosmos which is largely in a state of chaos, or where our organized universe is just one temporary episode in an infinite sequence of largely chaotic and unorganized arrangements.



    Lua you really made upset with your popcorn eating..,  you made me hate popcorn.,  I hate popcorn...  

    Now  you tell me.. why the hell I AM COPY/PASTING  all that nonsense on those models of universe and why Ted says I agree with his eccentric posts and geocentric model??

    Damn........ are you drinking coffee ?? or eating popcorn?? .. I need wine.. beer.. hell mix it together....
     

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #972 - November 23, 2015, 08:58 AM

    It's quite difficult discussing things with people who don't have much knowledge of science and maths. But I'll try.

    On earth we can do science experiments to learn about forces such as gravity and the properties and behaviour of physcial matter. We have learnt that you need some kind of force/energy to cause the behaviour of physical matter to change in most cases. Now if we look out in heavens and see motion we deduce that some force is behind the motion of the planets and stars. Now if it turns out that the planets/stars/galaxies are indeed spinning around the earth then we deduce that it must be some incredible force that is doing this and the energy required is astronomical (pun intended).

    Any sane logical person would agree that this is indeed evidence of God based on the fact that the known universe is spinning round the earth which makes it the central focus point.

    I just made the mistake of taking a quick look at this thread for the hell of it. Question: is this bloke taking the piss, or is he serious?

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #973 - November 23, 2015, 05:57 PM

    Either he is a troll or follows pseudoscience to support his views.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #974 - November 23, 2015, 10:48 PM

    huh! what?  what do you mean what is going on??  .. eating popcorn and watching the show??  here read this

    yeezevee says   all this
     

    with all those words of yeezevee CallMeTed comes up with this  
     
    So Lua.,  it is indeed popcorn time for people like you.. but for me I AM PULLING MY HAIR to figure out.,   "How Ted came to the conclusion that I am willing to accept the  geocentric model of universe.."??

    please explain that to me..   Anyways .. Girl work hard at your job placedon't distract yourself with all that what is going on around the globe...

    So going back to my good friend Ted.. and to the readers.,  and to  me and to Ted       to know what we are talking about.,  let me throw a bit on  "the cosmological models of universe"  with  some silly links..

    Stoic Universe - The Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece (3rd Century B.C. and after) believed in a kind of island universe in which a finite cosmos is surrounded by an infinite void (not dissimilar in principle to a galaxy). They held that the cosmos is in a constant state of flux, and pulsates in size and periodically passes through upheavals and conflagrations. In the Stoic view, the universe is like a giant living body, with its leading part being the stars and the Sun, but in which all parts are interconnected, so that what happens in one place affects what happens elsewhere. They also held a cyclical view of history, in which the world was once pure fire and would become fire again (an idea borrowed from Heraclitus).

    Ptolemaic Universe - The 2nd Century A.D. Roman-Egyptian mathematician and astronomer Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) described a geocentric model largely based on Aristotelian ideas, in which the planets and the rest of the universe orbit about a stationary Earth in circular epicycles. In terms of longevity, it was perhaps the most successful cosmological model of all time. Modifications to the basic Ptolemaic system were suggested by the Islamic Maragha School in the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries including the first accurate lunar model by Ibn al-Shatir, and the rejection of a stationery Earth in favour of a rotating Earth by Ali Qushji.

    Abrahamic Universe - Several medieval Christian, Muslim and Jewish scholars put forward the idea of a universe which was finite in time. In the 6th Century A.D., the Christian philospher John Philoponus of Alexandria argued against the ancient Greek notion of an infinite past, and was perhaps the first commentator to argue that the universe is finite in time and therefore had a beginning. Early Muslim theologians such as Al-Kindi (9th Century) and Al-Ghazali (11th Century) offered logical arguments supporting a finite universe, as did the 10th Century Jewish philosopher Saadia Gaon.

    Partially Heliocentric Universe - In the 15th and early 16th Century, Somayaji Nilakantha of the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics in southern India developed a computational system for a partially heliocentric planetary model in which Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn orbited the Sun, which in turn orbited the Earth. This was very similar to the Tychonic system proposed by the Danish nobleman Tycho Brahe later in the 16th Century as a kind of hybrid of the Ptolemaic and Copernican models.

    Copernican Universe - In 1543, the Polish astronomer and polymath Nicolaus Copernicus adapted the geocentric Maragha model of Ibn al-Shatir to meet the requirements of the ancient heliocentric universe of Aristarchus. His publication of a scientific theory of heliocentrism, demonstrating that the motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the centre of the universe, stimulated further scientific investigations and became a landmark in the history of modern science, sometimes known as the Copernican Revolution. His Copernican Principle (that the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position) and its implication that celestial bodies obey physical laws identical to those on Earth, first established cosmology as a science rather than a branch of metaphysics. In 1576, the English astronomer Thomas Digges popularized Copernicus’ ideas and also extended them by positing the existence of a multitude of stars extending to infinity, rather than just Copernicus’ narrow band of fixed stars. The Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno took the Copernican Principle a stage further in 1584 by suggesting that even the Solar System is not the centre of the universe, but rather a relatively insignificant star system among an infinite multitude of others. In 1605, Johannes Kepler made further refinements by finally abandoning the classical assumption of circular orbits in favour of elliptical orbits which could explain the strange apparent movements of the planets. Galileo's controversial support of Copernicus' heliocentric model in the early 17th Century was denounced by the Inquisition but nevertheless helped to popularize the idea.

    Cartesian Vortex Universe - In the mid-17th Century, the French philosopher René Descartes outlined a model of the universe with many of the characteristics of Newton’s later static, infinite universe. But, according to Descartes, the vacuum of space was not empty at all, but was filled with matter that swirled around in large and small vortices. His model involved a system of huge swirling whirlpools of ethereal or fine matter, producing what would later be called gravitational effects.

    Static (or Newtonian) Universe - In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his “Principia”, which described, among other things, a static, steady state, infinite universe which even Einstein, in the early 20th Century, took as a given (at least until events proved otherwise). In Newton’s universe, matter on the large scale is uniformly distributed, and the universe is gravitationally balanced but essentially unstable.

    Hierarchical Universe and the Nebular Hypothesis - Although still generally based on a Newtonian static universe, the matter in a hierarchical universe is clustered on ever larger scales of hierarchy, and is endlessly being recycled. It was first proposed in 1734 by the Swedish scientist and philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg, and developed further (independently) by Thomas Wright (1750), Immanuel Kant (1755) and Johann Heinrich Lambert (1761), and a similar model was proposed in 1796 by the Frenchman Pierre-Simon Laplace.

    Einsteinian Universe - The model of the universe assumed by Albert Einstein in his groundbreaking theory of gravity in the early 20th Century was not dissimilar to Newton’s in that it was a static, dynamically stable universe which was neither expanding or contracting. However, he had to add in a “cosmological constant” to his general relativity equations to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity which would otherwise have caused the universe to collapse in on itself (although he later abandoned that part of his theory when Edwin Hubble definitively showed in 1929 that the universe was not in fact static)

    Big Bang Model of the Universe - After Hubble’s demonstration of the continuously expanding universe in 1929 (and especially after the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965), some version of the Big Bang theory has generally been the mainsteam scientific view. The theory describes the universe as originating in an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense point (or singularity) between 13 and 14 billion years ago, from where it has been expanding ever since. The essential statement of the theory is usually attributed to the Belgian Roman Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître in 1927 (even before Hubble’s corroborating evidence), although a similar theory had been proposed, although not pursued, 1922 by the Russian Alexander Friedmann in 1922. Friedmann actually developed two models of an expanding universe based on Einstein’s general relativity equations, one with positive curvature or spherical space, and one with negative curvature or hyperbolic space.

    Oscillating Universe - This was Einstein’s favoured model after he rejected his own original model in the 1930s. The oscillating universe followed from Alexander Friedmann’s model of an expanding universe based on the general relativity equations for a universe with positive curvature (spherical space), which results in the universe expanding for a time and then contracting due to the pull of its gravity, in a perpetual cycle of Big Bang followed by Big Crunch. Time is thus endless and beginningless, and the beginning-of-time paradox is avoided.

    Steady State Universe - This non-standard cosmology (i.e. opposed to the standard Big Bang model) has occurred in various versions since the Big Bang theory was generally adopted by the scientific community. A popular variant of the steady state universe was proposed in 1948 by the English astronomer Fred Hoyle and the and Austrians Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi. It predicted a universe that expanded but did not change its density, with matter being inserted into the universe as it expanded in order to maintain a constant density. Despite its drawbacks, this was quite a popular idea until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 which supported the Big Bang model.

    Inflationary (or Inflating) Universe - In 1980, the American physicist Alan Guth proposed a model of the universe based on the Big Bang, but incorporating a short, early period of exponential cosmic inflation in order to solve the horizon and flatness problems of the standard Big Bang model. Another variation of the inflationary universe is the cyclic model developed by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok in 2002 using state-of-the-art M-theory, superstring theory and brane cosmology, which involves an inflationary universe expanding and contracting in cycles.

    Multiverse - The Russian-American physicist Andrei Linde developed the inflationary universe idea further in 1983 with his chaotic inflation theory (or eternal inflation), which sees our universe as just one of many “bubbles” that grew as part of a multiverse owing to a vacuum that had not decayed to its ground state. The American physicists Hugh Everett III and Bryce DeWitt had initially developed and popularized their “many worlds” formulation of the multiverse in the 1960s and 1970s. Alternative versions have also been developed where our observable universe is just one tiny organized part of an infinitely big cosmos which is largely in a state of chaos, or where our organized universe is just one temporary episode in an infinite sequence of largely chaotic and unorganized arrangements.

    Lua you really made upset with your popcorn eating..,  you made me hate popcorn.,  I hate popcorn...  

    Now  you tell me.. why the hell I AM COPY/PASTING  all that nonsense on those models of universe and why Ted says I agree with his eccentric posts and geocentric model??

    Damn........ are you drinking coffee ?? or eating popcorn?? .. I need wine.. beer.. hell mix it together....
     


    "Yeez is willing to accept that geocentrism would be evidence of God "

    How did you take that to mean that I said you accept the geocentric model? C'mon yeez, do you need to learn the basics of English as well as Maths now?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #975 - November 23, 2015, 11:47 PM

    I just made the mistake of taking a quick look at this thread for the hell of it. Question: is this bloke taking the piss, or is he serious?


    We haven't figured that out yet lol...   -_-
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #976 - November 24, 2015, 03:21 PM

    I guess it was expected for you guys to not understand the discovery. There is no natural explanation for the observations. It's just a matter of time before geocentrism is proven. Please don't ignore it.  Come back and join the side of truth.



    Argument from ignorance. The inability to explain something at this time does not mean your idea is right. Geocentrism has been refuted repeatedly. It will never be proven. Come back you figure out how science works and stop denying it when it doesn't align with your silly beliefs
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #977 - November 24, 2015, 03:54 PM

    "Yeez is willing to accept that geocentrism would be evidence of God "

    How did you take that to mean that I said you accept the geocentric model? C'mon yeez, do you need to learn the basics of English as well as Maths now?

    Ted... ted....ted... you are very smart guy

    Yeezevee one of those guys.. who learns from rats, cats and dogs.. I am of the opinion that there is also something that I can learn from you. Every biological species is special  and you are no exception to that  rule..

    So  did you read all those physical models of universe that are floating around?

    and  I said to Lua..

       "How Ted came to the conclusion that I am willing to accept the  geocentric model of universe.."??  


    and you are saying to me
    "Yeez is willing to accept that geocentrism would be evidence of God "

    what is the difference between the two statements dear Ted??

    with best wishes
    yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #978 - November 26, 2015, 08:00 PM

    "Yeez is willing to accept that geocentrism would be evidence of God"

    The sentence above is stating that you are willing to accept that geocentrism would be evidence of God. I'm guessing you probably misread "accept that geocentrism" to be "accept geocentrism" and didn't read the end part.

    Quod is of the opinion that geocentrism would not be evidence of God which I personally find very strange.



  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #979 - November 26, 2015, 09:20 PM

    You and Quod are both wrong, sorry. You are omitting all possible explanation and those we could discovery for your bias. Quod is likewise omitting God as a possibility. However Quod is only omitting one answer while you omit all answers except one. You are making a conclusion which is far greater than Quod has.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #980 - November 26, 2015, 09:52 PM

    Correction, I said it wasn't evidence solely for the god of islam. Which it isn't. In no way is it evidence for the muslim god only and not thousands of others as well, if we accept it as evidence.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #981 - November 27, 2015, 02:31 AM

    My bad, honestly I didn't read your comment. Should of never trusted TED's post as he has shown a habit of being dishonest when it suits him.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #982 - December 03, 2015, 12:29 AM

    Correction, I said it wasn't evidence solely for the god of islam. Which it isn't. In no way is it evidence for the muslim god only and not thousands of others as well, if we accept it as evidence.


    I think I've already explained to you that logically there can only be one God. The other gods are just made up.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #983 - December 03, 2015, 02:32 AM

     says

    I think I've already explained to you that logically there can only be one God. The other gods are just made up.


    Ted with same logic you can prove even that  one God also just "made up" as  other gods are just made up"

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #984 - December 03, 2015, 02:35 AM

    lmao

    "If you don't like your religion's fundamentalists, then maybe there's something wrong with your religion's fundamentals."
    "Demanding blind respect but not offering any respect in reciprocation is laughable."
    "Let all the people in all the worlds be in peace."
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #985 - December 03, 2015, 06:11 AM

    I think I've already explained to you that logically there can only be one God. The other gods are just made up.



    Actually, no.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #986 - December 03, 2015, 08:23 AM


    Ted with same logic you can prove even that  one God also just "made up" as  other gods are just made up"


    Not really. The science proves that we are in fact created. That there is no natural explanation for the stars, planets and many of the phenomena observed on the earth like weather and sea levels being stable. Which points to God. So all other gods must be made up since logically there can only be one God.

    There can only be one all powerful being, only one all knowing being. If there were 2 or more then they can't both be called the all powerful and the all knowing. And if any being is not the all powerful or the all knowing then they can't be god. You can call any being a god, such as Thor, Brahmin, Jesus, Zues, etc. but none of them fit the definition of God.

    The above is probably hard for many of the forum members to understand which explains why they are atheists. But give it some though and it may make sense sooner or later.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #987 - December 03, 2015, 11:31 AM

    Not really. The science proves that we are in fact created.

    Ted.... DUMBO.... use the same logic......with that same brain that you use for investigating science.,  I am confident that  you can prove yourself  that your god also created as other zillion gods ..

    Quote
    That there is no natural explanation for the stars, planets and many of the phenomena observed on the earth like weather and sea levels being stable. Which points to God. So all other gods must be made up since logically there can only be one God.

    RUBBISH......

    your god and all other gods are made up by human mind  which  is asking questions/explanations for the existence of those so-called "Natural Phenomenon" .. There are scientific principles/rules behind every natural  Phenomenon.  

    Quote
    There can only be one all powerful being, only one all knowing being. If there were 2 or more then they can't both be called the all powerful and the all knowing. And if any being is not the all powerful or the all knowing then they can't be god. You can call any being a god, such as Thor, Brahmin, Jesus, Zues, etc. but none of them fit the definition of God.

    .. TED.. dear Teddy.,

    it appears  all of your logic/rational that you use to dispute all those gods Thor, Brahmin, Jesus, Zues.. doood.. dudes....poop...allah .. virus.......bacterial gods .. THAT LOGIC/RATIONAL  GOES OUT OF YOUR BRAIN, out of the window the moment you start thinking about that POWERFUL BEINGY......THINGY

    Quote
    The above is probably hard for many of the forum members to understand which explains why they are atheists. But give it some though and it may make sense sooner or later.

    No..  No..

    Hmm good to watch and read this stuff

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

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=25800.0

    God/s and Goddesses Across The World From Ancient Times

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #988 - December 03, 2015, 01:35 PM

    Oh well Yeez, I guess it's still something beyond your level of understanding. Nevermind  Roll Eyes.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #989 - December 03, 2015, 01:46 PM

    What's life like down under that bridge, ted? I'd assume it's getting cold by now. Though I guess you could use the money you demand from the passers by up top to buy yourself a nice heater.

  • Previous page 1 ... 31 32 3334 35 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »