Critical Science Failure

Anyone else think Super Sport had a kid?

Quote# 77519

Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact.

The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity".

See there are different theories for the same phenomena - and none are facts, they are just theories.

Cassiterides, Evolution Fairytale Forum 246 Comments [11/17/2010 4:55:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 296
Submitted By: DevilsChaplain

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | bottom


So...what DOES Cassiterides regard as fact (BESIDES the Bible)?

11/17/2010 10:35:48 PM


You have got to be fucking kidding.

11/17/2010 10:47:55 PM

Also, if you believe that the Earth is round, how does your "theory" explain the people in the southern hemisphere?
And if you believe the world is flat, where do pictures like these come from? A hoax?

As per our recent visitors, to be sure, Cassiterides isn't actually claiming that he s/he believes the world is flat--Cassiterides is only reiterating that s/he doesn't trust or understand scientific experiments, including the ones that were used to show that the planet is a sphere, and doesn't understand what a "theory" is; as a result, Cassiterides seems to believe that every theory deserves the exact same consideration as every other theory, even when the evidence does not support them or flatly contradicts them, or they've been proven wrong by later experiments. And because other theories exist, none of them should be taught or discussed as fact, even when one is clearly correct and one is clearly not.

At least that's what I'm getting out of it.

11/17/2010 11:05:49 PM

Tolpuddle Martyr

I hear a terrible, terrible chorus of science teachers weeping...

11/17/2010 11:33:26 PM


...and that visitor couldn't debate without finishing off with an insult

11/17/2010 11:43:49 PM


This is a joke, right?!?!

11/18/2010 12:43:20 AM

So what if you are on the "bottom?"

You do realize the earth is round right? Someone would have to be on the wrong side.

11/18/2010 12:48:10 AM


Such a hypothesis (lets stick to appropriate nomenclature here) would be easily disproven by the lack of effect on gases, and on objects in orbit, not to mention the Earth's (oblate-) spherical shape - which is not just a hypothesis as it can be easily observed.

Even if the world were flat, all other observable celestial bodies would have to be travelling at the same velocity to appear stationary in relation to Earth, which though possible is extremely unlikely.

11/18/2010 4:18:10 AM


Oh wait, that's the guy who thinks we can see because our eyes produce light which bounces of objects.

Not surprised...

11/18/2010 4:36:43 AM


Let's assume the way you do, that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Standard acceleration of 9.8m/sec^2 would give a present velocity of 350866407628800000000000km/sec or approximately 1169554692096000000 times the speed of light. Your theory fails. If the Earth is 4.7billion years old, the numbers become even more mind boggling.

11/18/2010 4:38:53 AM


Some people should refrain from posting before getting their own physics right.

@Cabraxas, ChrisInManc, Paler_Face, christian leftie,... : Wrong, read this article about uniform proper acceleration and relativity:

@Brendan Rizzo: airplane would just accelerate up with anything around them. You should read about motion in different frames of reference before spouting such crap.

@TGRwulf: Every direction is up? That prase doesn't even make sense.

You people fail at physics...

11/18/2010 4:55:25 AM

Quantum Mechanic

"You people fail at physics... "

Ya think?

11/18/2010 4:57:34 AM



11/18/2010 5:45:14 AM


@ gaijinlaw

I would have thought the sarcasm towards Cassiterides was sufficiently evident without having to signal it. But if it makes it better: "/sarcasm"

11/18/2010 6:28:26 AM

How do you manage to breathe?

11/18/2010 6:29:07 AM



"That's the joke about this place. It's just filled with cocky pseudo-intellectual evolutionists who think they know the answers to everything."

As opposed to... forums/blogs/boards filled with creationists, who think a book written by Bronze Age goatfuckers who had ideas above their stations, is fact? That's really funny. And not in a 'funny-ha-ha' way, neither.

With all the evidence (especially Darwinius massilae & Ardipithecus - the Missing Links - discovered last year), the Theory of Evolution is looking more & more like the Facts of Evolution. Sputnik 1 sent up in 1957 (to say nothing of Yuri Gagarin sent up in 1961; as well as messrs. Armstrong, Aldrin & Collins in 1969 - 'One Small Step For Man' and all that jazz) destroyed the Bible cosmologically (a 'flat' Earth with four corners on pillars, with a solid 'dome' - the 'Firmament' - above such).

All that's left now is the Large Hadron Collider to confirm the mathematical model by cosmologists & theoretical physicists such as Prof. Stephen Hawking. Then Genesis in the Bible will be utterly annihilated, as the Big Bang is proven as fact.

Not many gaps left eh, 'Truth'seeker?

But then the Bible's 'truth' = Lies.

And you & your fundie ilk have been lied to all along.

We have the evidence. We win. All you have is a book. And... that's it. Religion no longer controls people - certainly governments, as it did in pre-Renaissance medieval times. After all, one of the earliest gaps was filled when the first church put up a lightning conductor.

Scientific advancement, thus Secularism via Humanism & Atheism has already won the war. Facts destroy 'faith'.

That's the real joke - how you & your fundie ilk have been fed all this pointless, superstitious lies, and you've been suckered into it.

'A sucker is born every minute'

-PT Barnum

The last laugh will be from we Atheists.

"He said the same thing for the origin of vision and light."

Yeah, about that...:

Apologetics for a pseudo-Flat Earther Poe/Troll, much, Liesseeker? What next? Gonna stick up for Supersport (a.k.a. StuporSport) and defend his fundie bullshit?! While you're about it, how about doing a search in FSTDT for Andy Schlafly (a.k.a. Andy Schaftafly)? His 'theories' have got to be worth your defence of such! To say nothing of his 'Conservative Bible Project'.


'Misrepresenting'. 'Misreading'. 'Misunderstanding'. 'Taking out of context'. The standard membrane-thin (and equally transparent) excuses used by fundies who are intellectually cornered and/or caught saying what they shouldn't (by those not like the 'already converted being preached to').

@David B

"Hence Michael Behe had to redefine science until it included astrology just so he could shoehorn ID in."

And see how well it did for him in Kitzmiller vs. Dover? Oh, there's something else for you to chew on, Liesseeker: Kitzmiller vs. Dover. The precedent has been set. 'I.D.'/Creationism is lies. Evolution is fact.

The law says so. KvD was found & decided in favour of the plaintiffs by Judge John E. Jones III. A Conservative Christian. Personally appointed by George Dumbya Bush: a Conservative Christian who believes in Creationism. In turn, voted in - twice - by the Religious Right. The likes of you, Liesseeker.

Your own beliefs (via your own educational agenda in the US; KvD ensured the teaching of Creationism as 'fact' in all US schools/colleges etc is now illegal and unconstitutional) annihilated by you fundies yourselves - and we Atheists didn't have to lift a finger. The irony is exquisitely sweet, is it not?!

[/smug & superior]


(emphasis added):

"As it happens, Eyebeam-Boy lists his location as being the UK."

Oh, bollocks...! >_<

11/18/2010 6:48:04 AM

David B.

Gravity is a fact, not a theory, just like evolution. There are also theories of gravity and evolution that purport to explain these phenomena.

Cassitrerides' example is flawed because the 'theory' he advances is contradicted by empirical evidence, while the Newtonian model of an attractive force proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them is not.

So not only has Cassiterides incorrectly confused fact and theory, he has attempted to demonstrate his erroneous stance with an inaccurate example.

Double fail.

It is a testament to how weak and illogical their arguments are that proponent of creationism and ID will spout fallacy after fallacy and make error after error rather than acknowledge that "evolution is just a theory" isn't any kind of argument and try to come up with a better one. Hence Michael Behe had to redefine science until it included astrology just so he could shoehorn ID in.

11/18/2010 7:08:26 AM

Please tell me.....which way is "UP" ?

11/18/2010 8:12:31 AM


Oh snap. Anon-e-moose is full of win.

11/18/2010 11:20:30 AM


''With all the evidence (especially Darwinius massilae & Ardipithecus - the Missing Links - discovered last year), the Theory of Evolution is looking more & more like the Facts of Evolution.''

There is no evidence for evolution.

You are entitled to your faith in it though.

11/18/2010 2:58:09 PM


There is no evidence for evolution.

*gapes* You ... can't .. be serious. I would like to see your biology degree, the several papers you've written on your stance, and the evidence you've gathered that contradicts just the DNA/gene-based aspect of evolution itself. Please humor us and point us to links explaining the contradictions and how you came up with your conclusions.

11/18/2010 4:28:08 PM


"There is no evidence for evolution.

You are entitled to your faith in it though."

Sure, buddy.

11/18/2010 4:30:18 PM

Brendan Rizzo

@ Raskolnikov:

I see. Physics is not my strong suit. I'm more of a biology man myself. However, that does not change the fact that what Cassiterides is proposing is impossible with a spherical Earth (and he DOES believe that the Earth is spherical, by the way.) Otherwise, people on the other side would fall off as the ground was yanked out from under 'em! Oh, the humanity!

11/18/2010 5:06:29 PM


(Originally I posted this here. One copypasta deserves another, right?)

Hi, Atheistsfail, Truthseeker. I thought I'd help you by pointing out one of your lies.

''Nowhere did cass state he believed in emission theory. He merely was exploring different theories on the origin of vision and light.''link

Really? Here, let me snip the relevant passage and bold it for you. You know, so you guys can seek the truth while you white-knight for Cassiterides.

I don't believe light travels at all, i've looked at various models and worked on many but none of it works. The basics of visual perception is often overlooked. When we look at something what is actually going on? The emission theory states that the light emits (not a travelling speed) from our own eyes not from the object we look at. The intromission theory states the opposite.

I dunno about you guys, but it sure looks like he said he believes in Emission Theory to me.'s the link back to the original post, even. Also, he went on to say this:

The emission theory is the most common sense, so i don't believe there is any speed of light. The 'Starlight Problem' has never been a problem for me and the YEC model. The earliest Church Fathers (2nd-4th century AD) who believed in emmision theory also had no problem with starlight and a young universe.

Yeah, that seems pretty cut and dried to me too. I know, I'm misrepresenting him by directly quoting him. My bad.

For seekers of truth, you seem to have a difficult time finding it or seeing it. It's okay, though, because I know you don't really give a damn for what C. actually said (hypocrites often don't care about facts when they're pointed out to them), and I doubt you'll acknowledge the "error" you made, so I'll just let you get back to spamming up the boards. Have fun, guys!

Edit: Since people who get quoted here often like to claim they've been misquoted, or even (horrors!) go back to edit their posts afterward (you know, for the sake of "clarity") or just delete it outright, I thought I'd help you out by posting a nice screenshot of your original post so that people can actually see the original in all of its glory. Not that I'd actually accuse YOU of doing that or anything. You know, because of your devotion to truthiness and all.

After all, you are the Truthseeker.


11/18/2010 5:49:42 PM


@ Truthseeker:

There is no evidence for evolution.

Really? A bacteria that lives off nylon - a synthetic material that did not exist before 20th century - is pretty strong evidence.

11/18/2010 5:50:40 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | top: comments page