Flat Earth

1574102882742.png
 
That said, I do tend to marvel at the whole "save the planet" bullshit. The planet will be fine. If at some point we the parasites remove all the things we need to sustain life, we will die off because our host can no longer support us and the planet will go on without us. If they wanted more credibility for me with regard to their save the planet agenda, they should change the slogan to "Save Humanity".
I marvel at this too. You would have thought in the early 1900's that the world would end if we ran out of whale oil. Then human minds conceived alternative energy sources and the human race continues...This has likely happened many, many times in the past. IIRC, this can be observed in the changes in Indian civilizations as we study their agrarian practices.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chris
What test would you run to see how old the earth was?

Yes, humanity knew the earth was round long before space travel.

We have present evidence that we can observe for the existence of dinosaurs. Not only is that evidence bones, as you know, but also skin and organ imprints, though these are extremely rare, as even dinosaur remains are rare proportionally to other fossil remains.

Have we seen a dinosaur? IDK, I haven't seen one. Some people have claimed to see them. Are they valid? IDK. It is interesting to read descriptions of human contact with large beasts before the invention of the word "dinosaur" in 1842 and before the discovery of the first dinosaur fossils. Rhetorically, what would accounts read like if a species was going out of existence? Would we believe those accounts if we were living but had never seen the species ourselves? IDK.



Yes, I've been to several caves, Longhorn Caves, Sonora Caves, all in central TX. I understand build rates, they are proportional to the amount of water that seeps through the ground. If that is a constant, then we can back calculate to get an estimated age. However, no one was there to observe if they were constant from the beginning of formation. So, it is less credible/certain, than an observable phenomena from the onset.

Erosion is another process that we can measure a present rate, but whether that rate was the same in the distant past is unknown. Did a breached dam occur via overtopping or piping that played a role in the formation of the Grand Canyon? There is evidence of an ancient lake known as Hopi Lake in NE Arizona. These processes would be adequate for cavitation and plucking, two catastrophic geological processes that we can observe today and may employ to explain the formation of Grand Canyon. Just saying, everything is not as cut and clean when scientists give explanations of distant past formations, etc...as they are when doing scientific experiments in a modern laboratory.

In short, if the present is the key to the past, we don't have any problem unlocking it. But how do we know? Nobody was there to observe it and take a measurement. If intellectually honest, which some are, it is a guess.

You are relying heavily on your own personal ignorance and inability to prove or disprove the science, while ignoring the existence and the abilities of those who are experts in the relevant field.

Relying on epistemological ramblings to undermine the process of scientific knowledge opens the door wide open to unfounded flat earth conspiracy theories where anything and everything is valid as long as you ignore any evidence to the contrary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrblaine
Has it, did you observe it, or just guessing?
Just reading some Indian documents, folklore, myth, though that is also subject to interpretation. It's definitely not scientific.

EDIt: Oh, and the word "likely" that I used, means I was guessing, so the proof is in the pudding of what I wrote.
 
Last edited:
You are relying heavily on your own personal ignorance and inability to prove or disprove the science, while ignoring the existence and the abilities of those who are experts in the relevant field.

Relying on epistemological ramblings to undermine the process of scientific knowledge opens the door wide open to unfounded flat earth conspiracy theories where anything and everything is valid as long as you ignore any evidence to the contrary.
If I am ignorant, my degrees in biology and chemistry are not evidence enough. I worked in plant physiology with genetics and cropping research for five years after my university work. I had a great interest in all the sciences though, particularly geology, and have retained some of that interest over the years..

All I have said is that a scientific claim about the non-observable past and a scientific claim about a observable present are not the same level of credibility/certainty. I don't know why that is so egregious that it evokes ad hominem attacks.

I actually quoted someone else to this effect, who was more of an expert than I, Dr Lewontin. That is what got the ball rolling...

To state it again for clarity: these two claims are not the same type of claims.

The earth is flat

The earth is only thousands of years old
 
My goal in my OP was simply to say that the conclusions of modern science regarding the distant past are not the result of neutral interpretation of data.

Someone had brought in a philosophical claim about the age of the earth, equating it with the flat earth type of claim. One is observable, the other is not. One is testable, the other is not.

That’s my only point. The two conclusions have a different degree of credibility/certainty
Treating the way that science accounts for phenomena that are beyond direct observation as being untrustworthy conjecture is like me saying that you can't prove that you won't open your front door tomorrow only to be sucked into the gaping maw of a 6,000,000 foot tall, fanged Richard Simmons just because you haven't experienced tomorrow yet and therefore have no proof to say otherwise."

Scientists account for data beyond the simple observable by utilizing what has been observed, tested, repeated, and published, such as through the Lambda-CDM model or by simply observing the oldest stars we can find.

There is nothing philosophical about this sort of scientific knowledge.

I marvel at this too. You would have thought in the early 1900's that the world would end if we ran out of whale oil. Then human minds conceived alternative energy sources and the human race continues...This has likely happened many, many times in the past. IIRC, this can be observed in the changes in Indian civilizations as we study their agrarian practices.
Whale oil??

Whale oil was responsible for lighting lamps (in an age where people also had candles) and making soap. That's hardly the same consequences as from climate change that affect natural disasters and extreme weather patterns (including droughts and floods) that directly result in human deaths.

Humanity has overcome difficult odds in the past, but that doesn't prove that this outcome is infinitely inevitable, regardless of how comforting that thought is. Changes that have occurred from climate and other similar situations have generally happened over a much longer period of time than we are going to be allowed with the rate of current climate change.

This is why even though evolution has allowed the earth to maintain homeostasis throughout the emergence of new species and extinction of old ones, this isn't assured to be the case with the climate change we're seeing. Life will almost certainly persist, but it won't be anything recognizable to what we have experienced and could easily not include us humans at all at some point.

https://skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wakeangel
Treating the way that science accounts for phenomena that are beyond direct observation as being untrustworthy conjecture is like me saying that you can't prove that you won't open your front door tomorrow only to be sucked into the gaping maw of a 6,000,000 foot tall, fanged Richard Simmons just because you haven't experienced tomorrow yet and therefore have no proof to say otherwise."

Scientists account for data beyond the simple observable by utilizing what has been observed, tested, repeated, and published, such as through the Lambda-CDM model or by simply observing the oldest stars we can find.

There is nothing philosophical about this sort of scientific knowledge.


Whale oil??

Whale oil was responsible for lighting lamps (in an age where people also had candles) and making soap. That's hardly the same consequences as from climate change that affect natural disasters and extreme weather patterns (including droughts and floods) that directly result in human deaths.

Humanity has overcome difficult odds in the past, but that doesn't prove that this outcome is infinitely inevitable, regardless of how comforting that thought is. Changes that have occurred from climate and other similar situations have generally happened over a much longer period of time than we are going to be allowed with the rate of current climate change.

This is why even though evolution has allowed the earth to maintain homeostasis throughout the emergence of new species and extinction of old ones, this isn't assured to be the case with the climate change we're seeing. Life will almost certainly persist, but it won't be anything recognizable to what we have experienced and could easily not include us humans at all at some point.

https://skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm
Did you actually read everything I wrote in this thread?

Any claim about the past that is not observable, testable, repeatable and published (in peer reviewed journal) depends on a philosophical premise. In this case, as I said before, on the premise that the present is the key to the past, which may be highly logical, but is not observable, testable, repeatable, et al. I.e. it is not science, so it is a philosophical claim.

I never compared whale oil to climate change. Non sequitur.

Nor did I claim that this outcome of constantly finding a solution to a problem is infinitely inevitable. Straw man. Optimism does not = infinite inevitability.

I never brought up climate change, but having been a member of the Heritage Foundation, I am more than familiar with the real issues and the real data. The real issue is anthropogenic climate change, an issue of source and an issue of past historical data and trends (when such human factors as claimed today were not a factor). It is also an issue of politicized science (not only in the area of climate change, but in all politicized science). Money talks, I've worked as a scientist, I know what it is to be living on grant money, and we are 20 years behind the journal literature if we don't recognize that it has been admitted, in the journals, that science is now politicized and that this is a valid way to pursue political agendas through falsified science.

But, I won't discuss this issue because my only point was one point, which can be read many times if anyone cares to read the posts before chiming in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bofa-Deez
I see many supposedly intelligent people who believe their own version(s) of "flat earth" based simply on what they've been told on TV/Internet. I wonder sometimes why logic classes aren't taught to children at a young age.

The best human invention may have been the internet because people can use it to communicate, share knowledge, expand thought, and group problem solve (see this forum). The worst human invention may have been the internet, because people will drag it down to the lowest level and tyrants will us it to control the masses with a steady stream of garbage and peer pressure. (see Facebook)

At some point the internet will persuade a large percentage of the world that the earth is indeed flat, or some other major erroneous thing, in a effort to stifle the population. Heretics will not be permitted. Everyone will know their "flat earth" is right because the internet says so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reddvltj
Did you actually read everything I wrote in this thread?

Any claim about the past that is not observable, testable, repeatable and published (in peer reviewed journal) depends on a philosophical premise. In this case, as I said before, on the premise that the present is the key to the past, which may be highly logical, but is not observable, testable, repeatable, et al. I.e. it is not science, so it is a philosophical claim.

I definitely read what you posted and replied directly to the points made. I don't think you understand the difference between science and philosophy.

Science is categorized by systematized learning (i.e. the "observable, testable, repeatable, published" that you've repeated), but that doesn't mean that scientific knowledge is strictly based on what is directly observed. Science gives the ability to understand beyond what is observed because of what has been observed/tested. It is not something to be argued out of belief or conjecture, like philosophy.


I never compared whale oil to climate change. Non sequitur.

You compared the way that people talked about whale oil to the way that people have talked about climate change unless you mistakenly quoted the wrong post.

Nor did I claim that this outcome of constantly finding a solution to a problem is infinitely inevitable. Straw man. Optimism does not = infinite inevitability.
No, that was Mrblaine's point about "saving the planet" being "bullshit". You are correct that you didn't make this exact claim, but you seemed to be referencing this argument in the way you framed your response to his post. If I misunderstood your actual position, then I apologize.

I never brought up climate change, but having been a member of the Heritage Foundation, I am more than familiar with the real issues and the real data. The real issue is anthropogenic climate change, an issue of source and an issue of past historical data and trends (when such human factors as claimed today were not a factor). It is also an issue of politicized science (not only in the area of climate change, but in all politicized science). Money talks, I've worked as a scientist, I know what it is to be living on grant money, and we are 20 years behind the journal literature if we don't recognize that it has been admitted, in the journals, that science is now politicized and that this is a valid way to pursue political agendas through falsified science.

But, I won't discuss this issue because my only point was one point, which can be read many times if anyone cares to read the posts before chiming in.
I hope you know that I mean no personal disrespect to you, but aligning your credibility to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with a mission to " formulate and promote conservative public policies..." does not help your case.

Any organization that exists to promote one side of the political debate, rather than to follow the facts and reasons to where they lead, regardless of political affiliation, should never be trusted outright. It's the same reason I wouldn't ever trust a liberal think tank.

I don't doubt the existence of corruption in scientific circles at all. Claiming that "science is now politicized" is a problematic statement on several levels:
Corruption has always existed and has tainted science plenty in the past, whether you're going as far back as when Galileo was put under indefinite house arrest for promoting a heliocentric model of the universe with the earth revolving around the sun because it offended the political and religious sentiment of the time, or if you consider how fat was treated as the ill behind obesity instead of sugar because of influence of the sugar industry.

This is why it's always good to know the sources of funding behind organizations. For example, if a group was receiving funding from a tobacco company and also making arguments that work in that industry's favor:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/n...ntrol-polices-database#0/?heritage-foundation
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wakeangel and JMT
You compared the way that people talked about whale oil to the way that people have talked about climate change unless you mistakenly quoted the wrong post.
No, I did not make this comparison. I just checked and there is nothing there about climate change. There was a comment about Indians!

I hope you know that I mean no personal disrespect to you, but aligning your credibility to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with a mission to " formulate and promote conservative public policies..." does not help your case.
How did I know you were going to pick up on this and pick on it? Because I've been on this forum long enough to know that's what you always do. That's why I cited the organization. 😉

You seem to believe in the concept of neutrality, and that you, yourself are neutral. Neutrality is a myth, even in the supposedly most rational of all disciplines, mathematics. Mathematician Godet died with his final proven assumption that any equation that has addition or subtraction cannot be proven. This was the end of rationalism in the 1930's. Go read his proof if interested. It lead to a dying off of theoretical mathematics and an increase in practical mathematics. Russell's dream was over...Others have published proofs showing that mathematics is not even religiously neutral. It is all very interesting for a small subset of the population that cares about these things. And what about the question of geometry? We all studied Euclid, did we not? What about Lobatchevskian or Riemannian geometry? Which one has the truth when they all propose contradictory axioms? Maybe there is a practical application in different contexts (i.e. it works), but there is certainly no logical coherence between them.

Anyway, I'm not ashamed of once being a part of a conservative think tank. People who claim to be a part of one that is neutral is much more suspect. You shold only applaud those who are being truthful about where they are coming from. We are all coming from somewhere. Fossils don't have tags on them identifying the animal or plant they came from and little notes about their age. This stuff has to be interpreted under some lens. Usually that lens is the past is the key to the present. This is not a new idea.

What I mean by politicized science is special interest groups funding research and researchers that will produce statistics that support their political agenda. This is happening.

I know you don't mean any ill. Don't take it the wrong way from me either. 😉
 
Science is categorized by systematized learning (i.e. the "observable, testable, repeatable, published" that you've repeated), but that doesn't mean that scientific knowledge is strictly based on what is directly observed. Science gives the ability to understand beyond what is observed because of what has been observed/tested. It is not something to be argued out of belief or conjecture, like philosophy.
All this means, is as I've stated, that the present is the key to the past. It is conjecture. We could just agree to disagree. For clarity, I hope, I'm not saying that we can't use instruments to see further, see smaller, slow down time and capture things, etc...but I am simply saying that we cannot go back in time to confirm that rates, etc...were the same then as now, nor can we go in the future and say what things will be like tomorrow with the same level of certainty than we can say what is now.
 
There is a Starman in a Tesla Roadster, in orbit around the Sun.
All your arguments are invalid. 🤣
B6F236C6-703A-4D55-B9D6-4BF0CD9F230A.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: reddvltj and JMT