Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Us government's trick to violate civil liberties
View Single Post
Old 02-07-2012, 04:06 PM   #489
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
Oh hey, look. Both of these guys agree that someone should be proving a negative, meaning they both have no clue how the burden of proof works. What a surprise.
Burden of proof.
Let's see, in a discussion of possibilities (not things that are, but things that could be) someone comes along and says you are wrong.

That is the positive claim, because it implies knowledge. A possibility isn't an assertion, it's a musing. The positive claim implies knowledge whereas a musing implies lack of it. To insist that the one who implied knowledge is not the one who should have to back it up is fucking asinine.

Since someone was only musing about what was possible, claiming they are wrong means you must then prove the musing impossible, since you were the one who made the positive claim that it was not possible.

To attribute the burden of proof the way you all do is similar to how pickpockets distract their prey.
Originally Posted by kael03 View Post
Doesn't telling me to do this go against your personal philosophy of not giving someone the answer? I mean, are you so afraid of being wrong that you would contradict yourself in such a profound way?
Not really, you are claiming it is in the realm of the known, and therefore provable.

So we would then have an orbit like Pluto? You do realize that in order for Earth to end up where it is now it would have to be pulled past 6 planets AND an asteroid belt, right? Hell, Jupiter alone would rip Earth apart, as it has done to numerous comets.
There you go talking about probability when the topic at hand is possibility.

There's also the small detail that when a planet gets locked into an orbit around its star, that's it. The orbit is established and doesn't move unless there is some catastrophic impact to knock it off orbit. Otherwise the star's gravity would continue to pull said planet in and eventually consume it.
The size of the the orbit is a balance between speed and gravity, i understand how the concept works (though my understanding is that there is no truly stable orbit, some eventually will end with the object being pulled to the center in one form or another, while the rest end up flying away eventually). Whatever is theorized to have caromed into us to have spit the moon out could have increased our speed and shrunk our orbit, or done the reverse, It could have changed the rotation of the planet when it happened. I mean come on, how do you really determine with 100% certainty what speed and direction a ball of molten lava was rotating billions of years ago? I don't buy it, I call BS.

Nope, it's been slowing down for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years. Evidence given by rhythmites (layers of sandstone that have a set pattern to them) show that a day was 21.9 hours ~620 million years ago. Using this data, a computer simulation estimated that the day cycle with the Earth was ~100 million years old was about 6 hours.
Periods of stability are not evidence that there was never a period of instability, or periods of different stability. Just because it had a pattern for a while doesn't mean it always had the pattern.

It's called research, you wannabe intellectual. Learn to use it. We know by research of rock samples taken from the moon that the composition is similar to Earth's own crust, giving way to the giant impact theory. We know based on research of the Pillars of Creation (a nebula containing millions of stars that are constantly being born and dying) about how stars are formed. We know based on observations inside our own Galaxy that solar systems are formed via solar nebula condensing at various points.
I don't care to talk about what it already known, I only wish to discuss what might be, you jackass. You just keep blundering your way in and insisting that unknowns are knowns.

Prove what is impossible? That the earth is only a couple thousand years old? I believe that has been established long before I was even born. Or that it's impossible for the solar system to have formed in any other way than it has? That has been established as well.
Prove that it is impossible that the day on this planet didn't used to be much longer, prove that the orbit couldn't possibly have ever been different.

Nono, I know exactly what you said. You said that the bible was written in a language you more or less speak and understand. That means either in English, or Latin, or some dialect of those languages. Which is what your retarded excuse for an analogy means.
There goes your stupid know-it-all rhetoric again, assuming you know what a person is talking about when they're discoursing upon something you are obviously unfamiliar with.

"You speak their language" means "you can speak and understand the words that they use to convey information". That means that the person in question knows the dialect/slang being used by the group in question. That's all.

Hi, I believe I just schooled you on solar system formations. I can go into more detail on that if you want. But it might just overload that mass of fat you call a brain.
No, thank you, I have no desire to hear you discourse more of other people's probabilities in a discussion of possibilities, please refrain.

If I really wanted to hear something repeat irrelevant shit some other people said first anyway, I'd go buy a fucking parrot.

Last edited by almightywood; 02-07-2012 at 05:30 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote