It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: chr0naut
You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: chr0naut
You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.
A fallacy is a logical flaw, it has nothing do with capabilities of knowing if things are true or false. It's about logical reasoning.
And please stop the libelous defamation. I am not a troll, never have been.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: chr0naut
You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.
A fallacy is a logical flaw, it has nothing do with capabilities of knowing if things are true or false. It's about logical reasoning.
And please stop the libelous defamation. I am not a troll, never have been.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: chr0naut
You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.
A fallacy is a logical flaw, it has nothing do with capabilities of knowing if things are true or false. It's about logical reasoning.
And please stop the libelous defamation. I am not a troll, never have been.
fallacy
ˈfaləsi/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
originally posted by: chr0naut
fallacy
ˈfaləsi/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
Logical fallacy
n. A fallacy; a clearly defined error in reasoning used to support or refute an argument, excluding simple unintended mistakes.
fallacy (fălˈə-sē)►
n. A false notion.
n. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
n. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
In reasoning to argue a claim, a fallacy is reasoning that is evaluated as logically incorrect and that undermines the logical validity of the argument and permits its recognition as unsound.
Internet Troll from Wikipedia
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: chr0naut
You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.
A fallacy is a logical flaw, it has nothing do with capabilities of knowing if things are true or false. It's about logical reasoning.
And please stop the libelous defamation. I am not a troll, never have been.
fallacy
ˈfaləsi/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
Having an unsound argument is not the same as having the capability to know if something is true or false.
Very smart and capable people can engage in fallacious arguments.
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: turbonium1
The moon is simultaneously moving past and away from the earth and at the same time being pulled toward the earth, it fall's but is moving fast enough that it never reaches the ground this is called a stable orbit and it work's.
The fact is that the time we live, the moon earth and sun and all those mysteriously almost perfect ratio's is far too unlikely to just be chance so the solar system in at least some measure show's the presence of an intelligence behind it's form.
Gravity is real, the moon is a separate body from the earth but has a necessary stabilizing effect upon our climate and rotation, it is however the most unlikely moon in our solar system BUT then there are the mysterious moon'let's of mars which also defy standard model's with one having to be a hollow body to account for it's orbit and having all those lovely perfectly linear scar features on it's surface?.
When you fire a bullet it does not immediately fall to the ground or gun's would not work, if the bullet was moving fast enough then it would simply never reach the ground as it would fall at the same rate as the curve of the earth's surface fell away beneath it - of course a bullet would slow down because of wind resistance so it would never maintain such an orbit and our ground is not level so it would hit terrain at some point but the argument stand's.
The moon is like that bullet, it is passing the ground at the right speed so that it follow's the curve of the earth and never reaches the ground, it is both large enough and there sufficiently little impedance to it's motion in space were there is very little gas that it's inertia is not slowing down, in fact the moon may be receding from us about 1 meter per year which will actually slowing increase over the millions of years until it break's away from the earth's orbit entirely and goes off on it's own path through the solar system but that is a very long time from now AND if it's orbit was engineered then it is possible that some unknown force would once again intervene.
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: turbonium1
The moon is simultaneously moving past and away from the earth and at the same time being pulled toward the earth, it fall's but is moving fast enough that it never reaches the ground this is called a stable orbit and it work's.
The fact is that the time we live, the moon earth and sun and all those mysteriously almost perfect ratio's is far too unlikely to just be chance so the solar system in at least some measure show's the presence of an intelligence behind it's form.
Gravity is real, the moon is a separate body from the earth but has a necessary stabilizing effect upon our climate and rotation, it is however the most unlikely moon in our solar system BUT then there are the mysterious moon'let's of mars which also defy standard model's with one having to be a hollow body to account for it's orbit and having all those lovely perfectly linear scar features on it's surface?.
When you fire a bullet it does not immediately fall to the ground or gun's would not work, if the bullet was moving fast enough then it would simply never reach the ground as it would fall at the same rate as the curve of the earth's surface fell away beneath it - of course a bullet would slow down because of wind resistance so it would never maintain such an orbit and our ground is not level so it would hit terrain at some point but the argument stand's.
The moon is like that bullet, it is passing the ground at the right speed so that it follow's the curve of the earth and never reaches the ground, it is both large enough and there sufficiently little impedance to it's motion in space were there is very little gas that it's inertia is not slowing down, in fact the moon may be receding from us about 1 meter per year which will actually slowing increase over the millions of years until it break's away from the earth's orbit entirely and goes off on it's own path through the solar system but that is a very long time from now AND if it's orbit was engineered then it is possible that some unknown force would once again intervene.
An unknown force, right!!
What happened to gravity, after Earth orbit, up to the point it holds the moon??
The current definition of gravity is that masses distort spacetime.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
The current definition of gravity is that masses distort spacetime.
No. The definition of gravity is that it is something that appears to attract masses to each other.
The theory of general relativity says that attraction is actually due to the distortion of spacetime by those masses.
The there's the law of gravity.
In discussions like this it's important to keep our terms straight.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
And you still would be wrong.
It is not a definition, it is a theory about its cause. A theory that works pretty damned well.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
You missed the point.
In discussions like this it's important to keep our terms straight.
A theory one thing, a hypothesis another, a law yet another. A definition something else still, but perhaps somewhat like a law.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: turbonium1
We have never, ever, found a single species, on Earth, to show any indication of 'evolving' into a different species.
Not over 10,000 years.
Complete nonsense. Everything evolves constantly. Thre is no end goal of "evolving into" anything. Organisms just slowly change.
Let's consider the odds...
Every species is evolving, continually, into different species, and we are all evolving now...
About 8.7 million different species exist on Earth, today, by current estimates.
That's a fairly decent sample size, to find 'evolution' of just one, single species.... isn't it?
Over 10,000 years, nothing.
Evolution is measurable and testable. It has been seen dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times. Why make a dishonest argument like that? The genetic mutations can be measured in every single replication.
How many thousands of years does it take before they finally have no choice but to admit 'evolution' was all made up, it's just a bunch of BS, and how sorry, and ashamed, they all are?
As soon as somebody can falsify ALL the evidence and come up with a better or more accurate explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
When they think a pile of crap, over billions of years was how all life began, on Earth, or anywhere else life is/was/shall exist, it's all formed in piles of crap, too
There are theories about both evolution and gravity. Neither are taken as "fact". A "fact" would be a law. There is a law of gravity (not to be confused with the theories). There is no law of evolution as such, other than the fact that it happens.
Evolution and gravity are both theories, taken true, as if they were 100% fact.