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


Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 04:33 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 02:18 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 10:56 AM

Bart Ehrman on oral trans...
by zeca
October 24, 2021, 03:57 PM

Covering Your Internet Tr...
October 22, 2021, 09:34 AM

The essence of the facts
October 19, 2021, 06:44 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
October 17, 2021, 04:40 PM

MP murdered
October 17, 2021, 11:45 AM

France Muslims were in d...
October 17, 2021, 09:41 AM

Freely down loadable Boo...
October 15, 2021, 11:44 AM

Afghanistan
October 13, 2021, 08:24 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
October 11, 2021, 08:59 PM

Theme Changer

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

 (Read 111230 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 29 30 3132 33 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #900 - October 25, 2015, 09:39 AM

    I do not think so as he is still attempting to use evidence and ignores data which renders his view incorrect. Remember the geocentric view? That is not based on intuition but based on refuted "evidence" and statements in the Quran he interprets a certain way. That or he is a troll as I claimed.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #901 - October 25, 2015, 06:21 PM

    The responses from the folk here just go to sure they don't have a clue about what it means for Einsteins theory to be proven wrong or what quantum entanglement means. I'm glad I gave arguing about science when you guys don't even have a clue about the basics of science.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #902 - October 25, 2015, 06:46 PM

    I'm still waiting for you to present your evidence for the muslim god in the one on one.

    `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 #903 - October 25, 2015, 08:51 PM

    The responses from the folk here just go to sure they don't have a clue about what it means for Einsteins theory to be proven wrong or what quantum entanglement means. I'm glad I gave arguing about science when you guys don't even have a clue about the basics of science.




    The thing is, he believed that a lot of quantum stuff was "spooky" and he dogmatically refused to believe it; as he said, "God does not play dice with the universe." And he spent the last few years of his life trying to prove his position, because the idea that a subatomic particle could be in more than one place at a time until you observe it was too difficult for him to accept, on an emotional level. He fought for his position because of his faith that the universe makes sense. And it turns out, it doesn't. At least, not with math that describes a 3 dimensional world. It's possible that it does make sense if you're in a higher dimension, but we don't have a way to comprehend or explain that (mathematics may provide a way to prove it on paper, but not in a practical sense)

    So, he held his position because of his faith, and continued to accept his position as dogma, no matter what anyone said, and it's been proven wrong by evidence. That's pretty much exactly what you're doing.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #904 - October 25, 2015, 09:48 PM

    The responses from the folk here just go to sure they don't have a clue about what it means for Einsteins theory to be proven wrong or what quantum entanglement means. I'm glad I gave arguing about science when you guys don't even have a clue about the basics of science.




    You haven't proven anything wrong yet so your grand claims are empty. I mean you believe in the geocentric model yet NASA has launched probes using the heliocentric models since the 60s yet you ignore it. If the model was false then these probes would have never reached the different planets each collected data from. This very fact renders your view nonsensical and based on ignorance. You ignore the pendulum experiments again due to your religion and ignorance. You ignore evidence which has proven your belief in the model wrong. So come back when you actually know something about science not what you think is science based on your lack of education. The only reasons you do not present argument is you lack arguments in most cases or your argument have already been refuted for centuries or decades. Once you run out of your scripted arguments you have nothing left as you are incapable of creating your own thus just parrot what you read.

    How fast does Neptune move?

    How fast do the nearest stars move?

    How fast does more distant stars move?

    How fast do other galaxies move?

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #905 - October 25, 2015, 10:20 PM

    Einstein was wrong - this is just the beginning of the end for the position of non-believers...

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-22/einstein-was-wrong3a-spooky-entanglement-is-real/6876262


    Do you want to explain why, or is this another example of your handwaving substitution of vagueness for argument?

    The responses from the folk here just go to sure they don't have a clue about what it means for Einsteins theory to be proven wrong or what quantum entanglement means. I'm glad I gave arguing about science when you guys don't even have a clue about the basics of science.


    Never mind, it seems like you won't be giving any of us any surprises. Go ahead, accuse me of trolling or basic incomprehension of very simple sentences. That's all you're good for. That, and never admitting that you are capable of errors of fact, despite your definition of whatever facts are pertinent changing to suit whatever you find most convenient to believe at a given moment.

    Your shtick is to be as persistently tedious as you possibly can, because that's how you think arguments are won. If that's genuinely your principal criterion for establishing matters of fact, then good luck to you.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #906 - October 26, 2015, 08:13 AM

    The responses from the folk here just go to sure they don't have a clue about what it means for Einsteins theory to be proven wrong or what quantum entanglement means. I'm glad I gave arguing about science when you guys don't even have a clue about the basics of science.


    You're like a child throwing a tantrum, spilling the milk everywhere when things don't go your way.

    You're angry that people don't share your geocentrism, you're angry that your idea of what "quantum entanglement" mean to you doesn't mean the same thing towards everybody else... You're angry that you THOUGHT that you had it, you thought that this is the final proof to prove atheists that they're wrong, then you found out that nobody really gave two craps about Einstein being wrong, including the German scientists who went ahead to disprove him. It seems the world just go about as normal, how could people not think exactly as you do?

    You were so angry that the words you spout were pretty much insults and garbage.

    And then you got even more furious that everybody else acted calmly - why does nobody share your genius beliefs? You have all the evidence! What you feel is important, but others are always wrong. It can't possibly happen that there are many people who hold more knowledge than you - are atheists. That would invalidate your beliefs, and you are never wrong. Simply put, atheists are to hold less knowledge than you. There is no other way.

    Ted why don't you write papers and submit them to muslim websites? That way muslims will benefit from your theories, and we can read them to see what you really think.

    Quote
    I think I'm starting to understand--Ted do you have an ancient Greek philosophical worldview, where providing evidence is not as important as something being intuitive? Where "proof" is about talking how something "just feels right," instead of doing a repeatable experiment under controlled conditions, and then drawing conclusions from the evidence?


    Oh my god I'm laughing. So hard.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #907 - October 26, 2015, 08:40 AM

    The Greek school of philosophy led to some very interesting--and yet very, very wrong--ideas about the world, that went unchallenged pretty much until Galileo. Like, "heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones." It sounds intuitive. It makes sense--I mean, when we pick up a heavy thing, it's hard for us to hold it up, compared to a lighter one, so probably whatever's holding down the rest of the things is going to feel the same. But it's just not true. You can observe that it isn't true. Another idea they had was that testicles were a weight that pulled down on the vocal cords to make the voice deeper, which "explains" why women have high pitched voices, and so do young boys, but at the same time as when the testicles develop, the boy's voice gets deeper. But that's also completely just plain wrong, the correlation is not causal.

    Another one of theirs was the geocentric model that Ted seems to subscribe to. It sort of makes sense--every human who had ever lived (at that point) had only seen things from the perspective of being on or near the ground. No one had ever been higher into the atmosphere, much less outside of it; and so from that perspective, adding in a bit of hubris, it seems like we're at the center of it all. The sun and the planets and the stars seem to orbit us, we see them go up and down in a regular pattern (for the most part), and then they added some totally crazy gods to explain the crazy behaviors they would sometimes see the celestial bodies perform. But it turns out, the crazy behaviors of the planets can be explained much better through "they are not orbiting us" than by "Mercury is a crazy dude who probably has some heavy metal poisoning."

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #908 - October 26, 2015, 10:27 AM

    Check this video out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XjS4I4oQDY

    Although the video is about the famous neutrino experiment It's kind of related in that it mentions how Einsteins work is used. If Einstein is wrong then it means many things have to be rethought - for example the distance to the stars (geocentrism?).

    Sorry to disappoint but I'm not angry at all. I'm very happy with all the new scientific discovering being made. With modern scientific understanding continually being revised. I know it will all be leading to Creationism. It will support the Quran. But even when some peoply are shown clear scientific evidence of God they will either say show us God direct (like the Children of Israel) or say it's an illusion or maybe that it's just a mystery.

    I sense that some people here are maybe frustrated with my comments/position. I apologies. It's not my intention to do that. But I honestly feel that many of teh people on this forum don't understand the basics of science or have forgotton it from high school. The evidence of God is very clear and sometimes it takes a some humility to accept it. I did try to go through some scientific topics but it seems some of you are either too lazy to do some simple calcs (yeez - you done with them calcs yet buddy?) or you simply don't understand the observations made from science experiments.

    My humble suggestion is to keep reading about the new scientific discoveries and keep an open mind Smiley.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #909 - October 26, 2015, 10:35 AM

    My humble suggestion is to keep reading about the new scientific discoveries and keep an open mind Smiley.


    Of course it is, you Dunning-Kruger effect poster child. Try again.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #910 - October 27, 2015, 05:22 AM

    Although the video is about the famous neutrino experiment It's kind of related in that it mentions how Einsteins work is used. If Einstein is wrong then it means many things have to be rethought - for example the distance to the stars (geocentrism?).


    You... you. Einstein got one thing wrong, doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. People don't just rely on Einstein's statement, everything was measured and experimented AGAIN AND AGAIN. We are dealing with science, not prophethood when one can just say something without proof and then it's accepted as real.

    Quote
    Sorry to disappoint but I'm not angry at all. I'm very happy with all the new scientific discovering being made.


    You just keep on backpedalling. You clearly insulted many people and reacted like a child, it doesn't really matter what you say now.

    Quote
    With modern scientific understanding continually being revised. I know it will all be leading to Creationism. It will support the Quran. But even when some peoply are shown clear scientific evidence of God they will either say show us God direct (like the Children of Israel) or say it's an illusion or maybe that it's just a mystery.


    What you know isn't what the world is. Your "knowledge" isn't reality. The world doesn't exist in your head.

    I've seen tarot-reading seers who can make better prophecies than Quran or bible did. Prophecies are easy to make.

    Also, we need that clear scientific evidence of God.

    Quote
    I sense that some people here are maybe frustrated with my comments/position. I apologies. It's not my intention to do that.


    That's why you dished insults and gave no proof, great.

    Quote
    But I honestly feel that many of teh people on this forum don't understand the basics of science or have forgotton it from high school.


    You did. Remember the biology thing back then when you said you don't know about Genus? You don't know much about science and would fail basic highschool experiments.

    I mean, high school experiments debunk everything you said about science.

    Quote
    The evidence of God is very clear and sometimes it takes a some humility to accept it.


    You are anything but humble. Seriously.

    Quote
    you simply don't understand the observations made from science experiments.


    You mean just like you don't understand how NASA managed to send probes and landed a rover on Mars? Or how photos of Earth show the actual shape of Earth?

    Quote
    My humble suggestion is to keep reading about the new scientific discoveries and keep an open mind Smiley.


    My humble suggestion to you Ted, you should really speak with an actual physics professor to get some basic explanations Smiley
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #911 - October 27, 2015, 05:29 AM



    My humble suggestion to you Ted, you should really speak with an actual physics professor to get some basic explanations Smiley


    I think he needs a lot of foundational courses before he can even begin a conversation with a physics professor. I mean, hell, I came out of a primary school "education" that taught most of the same stuff he says, and it took a long time researching (both in uni and on my own time) before I got to where I am now, and he's not even where I was ten years ago in terms of education, and that's saying something.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #912 - October 27, 2015, 06:33 AM

    You... you. Einstein got one thing wrong, doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. People don't just rely on Einstein's statement, everything was measured and experimented AGAIN AND AGAIN. We are dealing with science, not prophethood when one can just say something without proof and then it's accepted as real.

    You just keep on backpedalling. You clearly insulted many people and reacted like a child, it doesn't really matter what you say now.

    What you know isn't what the world is. Your "knowledge" isn't reality. The world doesn't exist in your head.

    I've seen tarot-reading seers who can make better prophecies than Quran or bible did. Prophecies are easy to make.

    Also, we need that clear scientific evidence of God.

    That's why you dished insults and gave no proof, great.

    You did. Remember the biology thing back then when you said you don't know about Genus? You don't know much about science and would fail basic highschool experiments.

    I mean, high school experiments debunk everything you said about science.

    You are anything but humble. Seriously.

    You mean just like you don't understand how NASA managed to send probes and landed a rover on Mars? Or how photos of Earth show the actual shape of Earth?

    My humble suggestion to you Ted, you should really speak with an actual physics professor to get some basic explanations Smiley


    So you didn't understand the video. Disappointing.

    I challenged you all to go through a simple physics calculation.  You ALL failed to take up the challenge. Yet here you are questioning my knowledge of science. If you think i don't know much about science why not take up the challenge?  You guys are just trolling in my opinion. You're all delusional believing in what you want to believe. You just like making excuses and talking nonsense rather than  make an effort.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #913 - October 27, 2015, 09:58 AM

    Aaaand... it's another round of Ted's Omnicompetence Bullshit Bingo! And what a prize we have for you tonight!

    .. oh, what's that? It's the same one it always is, a mental image of some guy stroking his ego in a mirror? Well, I *hope* for his sake that it's his ego. Oh dear.

    Better luck next time, viewers. Now, here's Tom with the weather.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #914 - October 27, 2015, 11:26 AM

    I challenged you all to go through a simple physics calculation.  You ALL failed to take up the challenge.

    Yet here you are questioning my knowledge of science.


    Excuse me what? You failed the Biology one, remember? You were so proud to say that Genus doesn't exist.

    You have no knowledge of science, and your answers have been pretty much garbage.

    To top it off, you hilariously posted videos of crackpot evolution denier. Your science is delusional science.

    Quote
    If you think i don't know much about science why not take up the challenge?


    Why don't you take the challenge? Go to any physics teacher and explain why geocentrism is true. Why don't you do it? Propose the same challenge you gave to us and see what they'll say.

    Quote
    You guys are just trolling in my opinion. You're all delusional believing in what you want to believe. You just like making excuses and talking nonsense rather than  make an effort.


    You are talking about yourself, aren't you? So much for humility.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #915 - October 27, 2015, 11:48 AM

    Quote
    I think he needs a lot of foundational courses before he can even begin a conversation with a physics professor. I mean, hell, I came out of a primary school "education" that taught most of the same stuff he says, and it took a long time researching (both in uni and on my own time) before I got to where I am now, and he's not even where I was ten years ago in terms of education, and that's saying something.


    The thing is......... I think Ted cares a lot about "degree" and "title" of someone. I don't want him to dismiss high school teachers by calling them unqualified or something.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #916 - October 27, 2015, 01:09 PM

    Quote
    Although the video is about the famous neutrino experiment It's kind of related in that it mentions how Einsteins work is used. If Einstein is wrong then it means many things have to be rethought - for example the distance to the stars (geocentrism?).


    Irrelevant. Question of one subject does not mean your assertion are correct. Besides we have evidence confirm the heliocentric model every time we get data from a probe, every time calculation are done for trajectory. You know all those pictures of Jupiter from close orbit? That is confirmation of the heliocentric model.  Just as there is evidence refuting Einstein. Your problem is your lack evidence and ignore evidence that refutes you. This is due to your religious ideology.

    Quote
    Sorry to disappoint but I'm not angry at all. I'm very happy with all the new scientific discovering being made. With modern scientific understanding continually being revised. I know it will all be leading to Creationism. It will support the Quran. But even when some peoply are shown clear scientific evidence of God they will either say show us God direct (like the Children of Israel) or say it's an illusion or maybe that it's just a mystery.


    Your faith does not override empirical data which you lack. Your speculation about "ifs" are irrelevant. Maybe one day a magic toaster will appear thus confirming my previous claims about magical toasters. Any day now.... Just wait for it..... Now! No.... now... Umm just you wait!

    Quote
    I sense that some people here are maybe frustrated with my comments/position. I apologies. It's not my intention to do that. But I honestly feel that many of teh people on this forum don't understand the basics of science or have forgotton it from high school. The evidence of God is very clear and sometimes it takes a some humility to accept it. I did try to go through some scientific topics but it seems some of you are either too lazy to do some simple calcs (yeez - you done with them calcs yet buddy?) or you simply don't understand the observations made from science experiments.


    No people are frustrated by your arrogance mixed by your ignorance when people present empirical dating refuting your claims. You claim to understand science but you do not since you lack the ability to understand the basic idea that if we sent probes from Earth to Jupiter the heliocentric model is used thus confirmed. So no you do not understand science at all.



  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #917 - October 27, 2015, 01:16 PM



    I've seen tarot-reading seers who can make better prophecies than Quran or bible did. Prophecies are easy to make.




    You should of seen me years ago. I was into tarots when I lost my faith. I did a reading on a woman which made her go wide-eyed. She thought I was the real deal. Told her she was going on a distant trip with her family. This is very likely event for most people. She respond that she was moving to New Zealand with her kids. I told her she was going to a new home for the sake of a lover. She was moving since her B/F lived there. I now know the face people make when they shit bricks.

    My experience with psychics and tarot made me very skeptical of prophecy. If I could do a reading like above on a stranger anyone can claim prophecy or whatever. Hence the prophecy that the Romans would lose in the low-lands within 9 years and the victory prophecy. It is like predicting a sports event. The Blackhawks will win the Stanley Cup within 10 years. If you know hockey at all this is very likely. A tiny bit of data can create a prediction which will become true.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #918 - October 29, 2015, 03:56 PM

    Irrelevant. Question of one subject does not mean your assertion are correct. Besides we have evidence confirm the heliocentric model every time we get data from a probe, every time calculation are done for trajectory. You know all those pictures of Jupiter from close orbit? That is confirmation of the heliocentric model.  Just as there is evidence refuting Einstein. Your problem is your lack evidence and ignore evidence that refutes you. This is due to your religious ideology.

    Your faith does not override empirical data which you lack. Your speculation about "ifs" are irrelevant. Maybe one day a magic toaster will appear thus confirming my previous claims about magical toasters. Any day now.... Just wait for it..... Now! No.... now... Umm just you wait!

    No people are frustrated by your arrogance mixed by your ignorance when people present empirical dating refuting your claims. You claim to understand science but you do not since you lack the ability to understand the basic idea that if we sent probes from Earth to Jupiter the heliocentric model is used thus confirmed. So no you do not understand science at all.




    Sorry but your comments just go to show how silly and undeducated you are. Which explains why you couldn't go through that simple calculation I challenged all the supposed intelluctuals on this forum. Instead you guys love to spend lots of time thinking of useless comments to respond with. It's quite amusing.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #919 - October 29, 2015, 04:08 PM


    You do realise that if the distance to the Sun is wrong and it is in fact found to be a lot closer to the Earth then the distances to the planets and stars are wrong. Then the mass of the stars and planets are wrong as well. I don't think you realise how a lot of modern scientific is dependent on a few theoretical calculations/assumptions. If those change then so does everything that relies upon it.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #920 - October 29, 2015, 06:17 PM

    Hello call me Ted ....  how are you doing??
    You do realise that if the distance to the Sun is wrong and it is in fact found to be a lot closer to the Earth then the distances to the planets and stars are wrong. Then the mass of the stars and planets are wrong as well. I don't think you realise how a lot of modern scientific is dependent on a few theoretical calculations/assumptions. If those change then so does everything that relies upon it.

    Hmm well said...  ........  .. but I am sure every one realizes in the forum that there are "ERROR BARS" on any experimental numbers such as..

     "the distance to the Sun could have some error bars
      the distances to the planets  could have some error bars."


    I have to agree with you there.. but what does it mean? It means, we have to remeasure and correct it., IT DOESN'T MEAN SOUNDS FROM RELIGIOUS BOOKS  such as Quran are from allagod..

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    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 #921 - October 29, 2015, 06:41 PM

    I'm still waiting for your explanation on what this has to do with atheists.

    `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 #922 - November 10, 2015, 02:18 PM


    Quote
    Pandemonium! Motion of Pluto's Moons Perplexes Scientists

    The orbits of Pluto's four smallest moons are even more chaotic than scientists had expected, according to new results from the New Horizons mission, which made a close flyby of Pluto in July.


    http://www.space.com/31071-plutos-moons-orbit-pandemonium-new-horizons.html

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #923 - November 10, 2015, 03:22 PM

    And Pluto orbits the Earth, right Ted?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #924 - November 10, 2015, 08:52 PM


      and Happy_M says 
    And Pluto orbits the Earth, right Ted?


    Nah!  CallMeTed  didn'tmean that., but he thinks "that the observation of Astronomers on  Pluto's four smallest moons  chaotic motion PROVES THAT THE QURAN IS WORD OF ALLAH/GOD.. "

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    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 #925 - November 11, 2015, 12:11 AM

    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.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #926 - November 11, 2015, 08:11 AM

    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.



    Ooooh, a guessing game about why things are moving differently than they were previously thought to! Let me provide a few alternative explanations too:
    • The mass of Pluto is larger than previously believed, because it is more dense than we'd estimated.
    • The moons of Pluto are also being pulled around by an external, heavier thing we haven't located/identified yet.
    • The moons of Pluto are actually satellites put there by aliens.
    • The moons of Pluto are less heavy than we'd estimated because they're made of lighter materials/less dense.
    • The moons of Pluto are the aliens, just really big ones.
    • The moons of Pluto are actually not moons at all, they're giant dust bunnies.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #927 - November 11, 2015, 01:04 PM

    I seriously think he's a troll now.

    Like he can't be serious.

    Like his own sentences contradict one another so much it's not even funny.

    Quote
    I guess it was expected for you guys to not nderstand the discovery. There is no natural explanation for the observations. It's just a matter of time before geocentrism is proven.


    No like seriously. Science is false because scientists keep on finding better methods/technology to observe nature. There is no explanation for these cosmic events but there will be explanations and proofs for geocentrism.

    Everything the scientists have done so far are false and their proofs are wrong but if they find geocentrism then their explanations/proofs are true. Because muh Bible, muh Quran.

    Ted, you are only interested in reputation and not really science. You don't care much about science, you just want science to prove your religion.

    OOT: Poster of the month!!! under my nick! oyey!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #928 - November 11, 2015, 01:34 PM

    Helaine,

    Sorry but you don't even understand what science is. Try looking it up in Wikipedia and understanding it. I shall try to explain something to you althought I doubt you will understand.

    Ptolemy used science to determine motions of the planets and stars. Based on what he observed he made the assumption that the earth was at that the center of the universe. Today scientists use other observations to make the assumption that the earth is a planet orbitting in a heliocentric model. New observatations different assumptions. Important thing to understand is that at the moment we simply don't KNOW what the truth is. We need more information.

    The Pluto phenomena is pointing out that some things in teh solar system are just not behaving the way SCIENTISTS assume them to. Scientists use the current knowledge at hand to make assumptions. When those assumptions don't explain a new phenomena then they look for a new explanation. Who knows, it could be that some of Ptolemy's work/ideas might actually be relevant and it could be the beginning of the end for the heliocentric model.

    Accusing people of trolling is one sign that you just don't understand what's been said. Try thinking differently. Believers/Non believers have the same facts yet different conclusions.
  • Re: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #929 - November 11, 2015, 01:48 PM

    Important thing to understand is that at the moment we simply don't KNOW what the truth is. We need more information.


    Quote from: CallMeTed
    It's just a matter of time before geocentrism is proven. Please don't ignore it.  Come back and join the side of truth.


    Quote from: CallMeTed
    The Pluto phenomena is pointing out that some things in teh solar system are just not behaving the way SCIENTISTS assume them to. Scientists use the current knowledge at hand to make assumptions. When those assumptions don't explain a new phenomena then they look for a new explanation. Who knows, it could be that some of Ptolemy's work/ideas might actually be relevant and it could be the beginning of the end for the heliocentric model.


    Quote from: CallMeTed
    There is no natural explanation for the observations.


    Contradictions, Ted. Lots of it.

    So do you know the truth or not? Are there natural explanations of this phenomena?

    Quote
    Accusing people of trolling is one sign that you just don't understand what's been said. Try thinking differently. Believers/Non believers have the same facts yet different conclusions.


    Excuse me but what facts support geocentrism?
  • Previous page 1 ... 29 30 3132 33 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »