Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: NBA Flat Earthers

  
  1. #11




    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    554
    SCF Rewards
    795
    Country

    I know there is wide-spread debate on the issue, I was just saying that a penny is a flat circle so the word circle does not necessarily mean a sphere and could mean a flat circle.

    I'm not God and don't know the exact shape of the earth ... but I do know NASA's pictures are straight nonsense and that anyone with a brain can easily understand such.

    We have a pretty good idea that the shape of the Earth is a sphere. Not a perfect one due to gravitational forces, but pretty close. I am a bit scared to ask, but what NASA pictures are nonsense? There have been thousands of pictures of Earth from space, all showing a round sphere. That case is closed.
    This Ad will be removed when you a member of sportscardforum.com



    I didn't realize the Brontosaurus and Triceratops were both considered have not existed at one point. Looks like they both were thought to never have existed and are both on the "existed" side of the ledger again. Dinosaur fossils have to be really difficult to figure out which animal it belonged to. I can see how it is all a bit of moving target as more evidence gets found.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  2. #12





    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    2,230
    SCF Rewards
    4,733
    Blog Entries
    2
    Country

    We have a pretty good idea that the shape of the Earth is a sphere. Not a perfect one due to gravitational forces, but pretty close. I am a bit scared to ask, but what NASA pictures are nonsense? There have been thousands of pictures of Earth from space, all showing a round sphere. That case is closed.

    I don't trust NASA at all, not at all ...

    I didn't realize the Brontosaurus and Triceratops were both considered have not existed at one point. Looks like they both were thought to never have existed and are both on the "existed" side of the ledger again. Dinosaur fossils have to be really difficult to figure out which animal it belonged to. I can see how it is all a bit of moving target as more evidence gets found.

    This is why I have a hard time taking much of what's called "science" seriously ... much of it is nonsense and based on "faith" ... I mean, can you imagine if there was a 2,000 page scientific textbook as old as the Bible? It would be filled with millions of errors and be the laughing stock of the world. I get that science is constantly changing and all, but that makes me very skeptical of much of it right from the get-go.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I collect true 1/1 autographed RCs of Jameis Winston with my son Hidden Content

    We champions ... through everything that we went through, through all the haters ... we came out victorious. And God did this. I’m so blessed.
    – Jameis Winston, after winning BCS National Championship game

  3. #13




    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    554
    SCF Rewards
    795
    Country

    I don't trust NASA at all, not at all ...



    This is why I have a hard time taking much of what's called "science" seriously ... much of it is nonsense and based on "faith" ... I mean, can you imagine if there was a 2,000 page scientific textbook as old as the Bible? It would be filled with millions of errors and be the laughing stock of the world. I get that science is constantly changing and all, but that makes me very skeptical of much of it right from the get-go.

    There are scientific journals that old. They obviously have errors, but a lot of the that foundation is still in use today. A lot of those early works are held in very high regard. I am referring to people lie Hypocrates, Pythagoras, Euclid, all the way to modern science with Galileo, Copernicus, or Newton. That is the beauty of science in my opinion. It builds on previous knowledge. Since scientific data is based on observations and experiments, they can be repeated. Then confirmed, tweaked, expanded, etc.. It isn't based on "faith". Two Hydrogen molecules + one Oxygen molecule will create water whether I "believe" it or not. I guess the "faith" part comes with the scientific process itself. If you don't believe that, than none of the results would matter to you. I would argue that you would have hard time not believing in at least the basics of Biology, Physics, etc and still function.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  4. #14





    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    2,230
    SCF Rewards
    4,733
    Blog Entries
    2
    Country

    There are scientific journals that old. They obviously have errors, but a lot of the that foundation is still in use today. A lot of those early works are held in very high regard. I am referring to people lie Hypocrates, Pythagoras, Euclid, all the way to modern science with Galileo, Copernicus, or Newton. That is the beauty of science in my opinion. It builds on previous knowledge. Since scientific data is based on observations and experiments, they can be repeated. Then confirmed, tweaked, expanded, etc.. It isn't based on "faith". Two Hydrogen molecules + one Oxygen molecule will create water whether I "believe" it or not. I guess the "faith" part comes with the scientific process itself. If you don't believe that, than none of the results would matter to you. I would argue that you would have hard time not believing in at least the basics of Biology, Physics, etc and still function.

    Much of science is faith-based and has never been observed let alone tested and repeated ... and the indisputable fact that science is always changing because much of what scientists thought was true turned out to be completely false, makes me doubt much of it. I'm just being honest.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #15
    Advisor





    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    63,696
    SCF Rewards
    886,500
    Blog Entries
    16
    Country

    If the world was flat how do you explain the setting or rising of the sun. The earth being flat would mean it has to operate somewhat differently than the rotation theory. Do these same players believe the Moon is flat or is Nasa doctoring all our telescopes and eyeballs when we look at the moon. In the end people are entitled to their opinion and I could really care less if the world is flat or round. I have other things to worry about lol.

    I think it is good to question things but to just flat say you do not trust Nasa at all make me go why. Is there a reason or experience why you distrust Nasa?
    @James1of1

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Great Prices on soft sleeves and top loaders!

    Standard Soft sleeves .75 each or (5 for $3), Thick Soft Sleeves $1 each or (5 for $4), Top Loaders 60 point $2.75 each (3 for $8), Top Loaders 100 point $4, Top Loaders 140 points $2.50 each or (3 for $7) Top Loaders 190 point $1.75 each or (3 for $5), Top Loaders 240 point $2 each or (6 for $10). Prices do not include shipping!!

    Check out Truebluecustoms on Instagram!!
    Hidden Content

  6. #16







    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    19,124
    SCF Rewards
    1,231
    Blog Entries
    2
    Country
    Oklahoma City Thunder Cleveland Cavaliers
    See lantern-marsh's Items on eBay

    You have a pretty broad view of 'science' as being questionable. I'd be curious to know which aspects of it you think are debatable, and which are factual.

    Most of my research has been on neuroscience, the human genome/epigenetics, and effects of diet on the brain and body. Notice how all these sciences are related to humanity; I know less of the more impersonal, engineering-based sciences (women are less likely to be found in those sorts of STEM fields because our brains, on average [there are always some rare exceptions], are arranged differently in the occipital and parietal lobes, which are heavily involved in the most technical aspects of mathematical and visual-spatial processing).

    On the more "controversial" science issues, I've no particular opinion on global warming (haven't studied it thoroughly; couldn't give you a well-formed opinion on how much is man-made or whether the statistics are interpreted in proper contexts), I've no particular opinion on the age of the Earth (I've seen theists debate from both sides), I believe microevolution clearly exists but I have lots of questions about macroevolution, I think veganism is unnatural and absurd (you CANNOT get B12 from this diet -- I can respect vegetarians, and one can make a compelling case that our diet should be PRIMARILY plant-based, but there is NO empirical support for it needing to be EXCLUSIVELY so, as vegans insist), and I think biology clearly and objectively determines sex and that those who have "gender identity" issues are placing cultural expectations of gender too far above biological realities (the only people who logically have the right to insist they are more comfortable being the other gender are those born intersex, because they have a real biological choice there). Oh, and homosexuality appears to be epigenetic. This doesn't mean theists can't still claim it as a sin -- we can inherit something, or be exposed to something in the environment, and it can still be deemed "wrong." For example, a bad temper. So whether or not gays are 'born that way' is ultimately completely irrelevant to the moral questions about it.

    Maybe this thread would be best-served on the Chat forum, given our latest rabbit trails. :)

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by WilyWestbrook0; 03-30-2017 at 12:41 PM.
    Collecting OKC Thunder (any player, team name or uni on card, except Durant), Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook
    Personal Collection 50 Favorite Card Showcase (Updated 07/20/19): Hidden Content

  7. #17




    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    554
    SCF Rewards
    795
    Country

    Much of science is faith-based and has never been observed let alone tested and repeated ..

    That is just flat out wrong. Most (if not all) of what is deemed "scientific fact" is not only observed and tested but repeated, peer-reviewed, and confirmed. Some scientific theories have changed, but most of those have at least been observed and peer-reviewed before they can be confirmed as theory. Some theories (such as gravity or relativity) are very difficult to fully test.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  8. #18







    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    19,124
    SCF Rewards
    1,231
    Blog Entries
    2
    Country
    Oklahoma City Thunder Cleveland Cavaliers
    See lantern-marsh's Items on eBay

    This is an interesting discussion, but as it's now veered completely away from the basketball component and into just the science component, I'll go ahead and move it to General Chat.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  9. #19





    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    46,032
    SCF Rewards
    83,341
    Country
    New York Yankees New York Giants New York Rangers

    Then there is the case of ex ABA great Marvin Barnes not understanding the concept of time zones:

    http://www.celticslife.com/2011/07/w...in-barnes.html

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Always looking for Graded Vintage (Pre-1980)

  10. #20





    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    2,230
    SCF Rewards
    4,733
    Blog Entries
    2
    Country

    If the world was flat how do you explain the setting or rising of the sun. The earth being flat would mean it has to operate somewhat differently than the rotation theory. Do these same players believe the Moon is flat or is Nasa doctoring all our telescopes and eyeballs when we look at the moon. In the end people are entitled to their opinion and I could really care less if the world is flat or round. I have other things to worry about lol.

    The Flat Earth crowd has scientific answers to your questions and hundreds more ... and they aren't being refuted by the Globe Earth crowd which makes me go hmmm ....

    I think it is good to question things but to just flat say you do not trust Nasa at all make me go why. Is there a reason or experience why you distrust Nasa?@James1of1

    No, I absolutely do NOT trust NASA ... I don't give the benefit of the doubt to any bought and paid for or political organization no matter who they ... they all have agendas and I am not just going to take their word for it ... on anything.

    As for NASA specifically ... there are tons of reasons not to trust them:

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/...own-employees/

    http://yournewswire.com/nasa-caught-...onaut-footage/

    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/nasa-lies-kill/

    http://www.thedailybell.com/news-ana...a-willys-jeep/



    You have a pretty broad view of 'science' as being questionable. I'd be curious to know which aspects of it you think are debatable, and which are factual.

    Most of my research has been on neuroscience, the human genome/epigenetics, and effects of diet on the brain and body. Notice how all these sciences are related to humanity; I know less of the more impersonal, engineering-based sciences (women are less likely to be found in those sorts of STEM fields because our brains, on average [there are always some rare exceptions], are arranged differently in the occipital and parietal lobes, which are heavily involved in the most technical aspects of mathematical and visual-spatial processing).

    On the more "controversial" science issues, I've no particular opinion on global warming (haven't studied it thoroughly; couldn't give you a well-formed opinion on how much is man-made or whether the statistics are interpreted in proper contexts), I've no particular opinion on the age of the Earth (I've seen theists debate from both sides), I believe microevolution clearly exists but I have lots of questions about macroevolution, I think veganism is unnatural and absurd (you CANNOT get B12 from this diet -- I can respect vegetarians, and one can make a compelling case that our diet should be PRIMARILY plant-based, but there is NO empirical support for it needing to be EXCLUSIVELY so, as vegans insist), and I think biology clearly and objectively determines sex and that those who have "gender identity" issues are placing cultural expectations of gender too far above biological realities (the only people who logically have the right to insist they are more comfortable being the other gender are those born intersex, because they have a real biological choice there). Oh, and homosexuality appears to be epigenetic. This doesn't mean theists can't still claim it as a sin -- we can inherit something, or be exposed to something in the environment, and it can still be deemed "wrong." For example, a bad temper. So whether or not gays are 'born that way' is ultimately completely irrelevant to the moral questions about it.

    Maybe this thread would be best-served on the Chat forum, given our latest rabbit trails. :)

    WOW, I loved your thoughtful and well written reply! Great stuff!

    I think you and I would agree on a great many issues as I have no qualms with any ZETETIC (look it up) science ... my issues lie with science based on untestable and repeatable guesswork ...



    That is just flat out wrong. Most (if not all) of what is deemed "scientific fact" is not only observed and tested but repeated, peer-reviewed, and confirmed. Some scientific theories have changed, but most of those have at least been observed and peer-reviewed before they can be confirmed as theory. Some theories (such as gravity or relativity) are very difficult to fully test.

    See my replies to the other fella above ... I have no qualms with anything that has truly been tested, repeated and proven ... but there are many accepted theories in science that have never been tested or repeated ... they are little more than guesswork and many seem "faith based".

    Also ... as for "science" in general, if such a thing even exists ... much of it is no longer trustworthy and is little more than "bought and paid for", biased, propaganda while legitimate scientists and scientific findings are BURIED if they go against the grain ... in short, it's much like cult these days:

    https://www.firstthings.com/article/...ntific-regress

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...cience/308269/

    http://www.nature.com/news/science-l...iments-1.21432

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/11/prweb3141214.htm

    https://theintercept.com/2017/03/05/...rson-cover-up/

    There are literally THOUSANDS of examples on-line on could read of "science" being anything but true, honest and unbiased ... pardon me if the ONLY "book" I give the benefit of the doubt to is the Bible ...

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
SCF Sponsors


About SCF

    Sports Card Forum provides sports and non-sports card collectors a safe place to discuss, buy, sell and trade.

    SCF maintains tools that will allow collectors to manage their collections online, information about what is happening with the hobby, as well as providing robust data to send out for Autographs through the mail.

Follow SCF on