They didn't get to the important questions though... Naim or Linn? Source first or speakers? Do USB cables make a difference?  Can a NAS alter the sound of your streamer?

Meanwhile, Brits are debating whether they should be in or out...

Man throws propane tank into fire. Darwinism in action

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

I have had many a long torturous discussion on social media with flat earthers (not the hifi kind) and they always end acrimoniously.  It baffles me that people can believe this in this day and age but each to their own

I know a Flat Earther.

It seems to me that FE'ers also subscribe to many conspiracies such as man didn't land on the moon, 9/11 was a Government plot etc etc. I admire them for not accepting things at face value, and their questioning, but common sense does have to come into play somewhere. 

It's worse than you think. Proof of a flat earth here.

Jump!, Blow! Get High!, Christian science in action

Thanks for that piece of amusement and I could only read one page before dissolving into laughter.

James L posted:

I admire them for not accepting things at face value, and their questioning, but common sense does have to come into play somewhere. 

Right - at some point it becomes a bit like arguing against the fact that 1+ 1 equals 2. I really have no admiration for these idiots. Often the same ilk that lobby to have Creation taught in science classes in US public schools because it offers a "parallel theory" to Evolution and our knowledge on the origin of the universe. Sound outrageous? It's actually occurring in Texas and several other states, and all that can really be accomplished is to undermine the value of science in student's minds. This in a country where we are supposed to have separation of Church and State.

joerand posted:

James L posted:

I admire them for not accepting things at face value, and their questioning, but common sense does have to come into play somewhere. 

Right - at some point it becomes a bit like arguing against the fact that 1+ 1 equals 2. I really have no admiration for these idiots. Often the same ilk that lobby to have Creation taught in science classes in US public schools because it offers a "parallel theory" to Evolution and our knowledge on the origin of the universe. Sound outrageous? It's actually occurring in Texas and several other states, and all that can really be accomplished is to undermine the value of science in student's minds. This in a country where we are supposed to have separation of Church and State.

I most certainly wouldn't want the "Biblical" version of creation taught in science classes.

However, teaching it in a class about religion seems perfectly reasonable to me. However, I would make it clear that the Biblical time-scales which suggest the beginnings of "Heaven and Earth" to be approx 5,000 to 6,000 years ago are not in line with scientific estimates of c.14 billion years for the present Universe, and c. 4 to 5 billion years for the Solar system and the Earth.

I would also make it clear that there is no proof either way for the existence of a "Divine Being" or what preceded the coming into being of the Universe. You simply have "Faith" that there is a "Divine Being" or "Faith" that there isn't.

Don Atkinson posted:

I would also make it clear that there is no proof either way for the existence of a "Divine Being" or what preceded the coming into being of the Universe.

Don,

Nothing preceded the universe. Tough concept for some to swallow in a complex world I realize, but for me there's ample accepted evidence of a finite timescale for the universe that began at time zero. To delve prior requires faith as you say and has no scientific merit.

Fine to teach faith-based axioms in private/religious schools. Another thing to draw conjecture into the teachings of science in a publicly funded institution. It opens all kinds of doors and stands in the face of science. As you say, you really have to separate the two.

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

It's worse than you think. Proof of a flat earth here.

Jump!, Blow! Get High!, Christian science in action

I'm amused ... Sky have that site on the blocked list for our own protection.

The site was blocked because it matched the following categories: Weapons, Violence, Gore and Hate

Now, if 'flat earthers' arguement was about maybe the nature of time, and whether thare was anything before the universe we know, etc, I could understand that. But are they seriously suggesting the Earth is flat, not a globe? Presumably none of them go on long-haul holidays? And presumably they accuse anyone who claims to have circumnavigate the Earth liars? Are none of them tempted to charter a boat or plane and set out with a video camera to film the edge of the Earth to prove it?

Reminds me of a Hamlet cigar advert from around 1980 featuring Paul Darrow (Avon from Blake's 7), set in the time of the great explorers, a sailing ship set out to prove the Earth was round, strikes up theme tune (Bach's Air on G string) and lights cigar as they sail over the lip of a waterfall at the edge of the ocean...

joerand posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I would also make it clear that there is no proof either way for the existence of a "Divine Being" or what preceded the coming into being of the Universe.

Don,

Nothing preceded the universe. Tough concept for some to swallow in a complex world I realize, but for me there's ample accepted evidence of a finite timescale for the universe that began at time zero. To delve prior requires faith as you say and has no scientific merit.

Fine to teach faith-based axioms in private/religious schools. Another thing to draw conjecture into the teachings of science in a publicly funded institution. It opens all kinds of doors and stands in the face of science. As you say, you really have to separate the two.

Joe,

That's an unjustified statement at present. We simply don't know.

I appreciate that you consider there's ample evidence of a finite timescale for the (current) Universe, I am inclined towards it having a specific start, but that's not the same as proof that nothing preceded its coming into being.

Sometimes science defines its own boundaries, a bit like a military operation. And is reluctant to tolerate "Mission Creep"

Being a tax-payer (like many others), I feel somewhat entitled (like many others) to recommend what should and should not be included in publically funded education. I would include both (a lot of) science and (a little bit of) religion.

Don Atkinson posted:

I would also make it clear that there is no proof either way for the existence of a "Divine Being" or what preceded the coming into being of the Universe. You simply have "Faith" that there is a "Divine Being" or "Faith" that there isn't.

But you are forgetting the Bable fish Don... it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NONexistence of God.

The argument goes like this: 

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.

The moral to the story being ... Don't cross the road when the green man's flashing.  Or I may be mixing my anecdotes.

Shouldn't 'religion' only be included only in state education more along the lines of an 'awareness'. I.E. Let the kids know what some people believe.

You know, some people believe in a God or Gods. Some people believe in Santa. Some people believe in fairies. Some people believe that belief in any kind of Godhead like spirit came about as a form of hope and then a means of trying to resolve ones hopes into a connection with the real world, rather than remaining only in a dream state. Some people believe that religion was and remains a form of organised control and exploitation of peoples hopes, dreams and wishes to the benefit and enrichment of those in charge and it is all complete and utter bollox.

Some people believe it's entirely justified to ridicule people who believe The Earth to be flat. Some people believe it's fair to ridicule those who believe in an omnipotent fairy (especially those who believe the world was created in 6 days flat about 5000 years ago). After all, why ridicule one and not the other?

Oh and I am happy to believe that Babelfish exist. It's only logical in a Universe teeming with life. Infinite number of monkeys and all that...

JamieWednesday posted:

Some people believe it's fair to ridicule those who believe in an omnipotent fairy (especially those who believe the world was created in 6 days flat about 5000 years ago).

One thing I find interesting; is that if you read the story of creation it is actually fairly accurate in terms of the order.  The 6 days thing is patiently ridiculous and the "5000 years ago" part too; but if you think of the story in abstract terms the idea it was written to explain evolution somewhere between 2500 and 3500 years ago.

Its only in more modern (supposedly enlightened times) that people have taken it literally.  Some of it is a stretch, but in order...

Day 1: Let there be light ... the big bang in other words.

Day 2: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters ... okay so there was never waters as part of the big bang, but out of the big bang came matter which came together to form the planets.

Day 3: Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear ... again a bit of a stretch ... but when the earth first form it was a rather wild places, over time the tidal forces calmed everything down, forming distinct land and seas.

Day 4: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years ... okay so my thinking does fall down completely here as the planets don't exist until AFTER the stars.

Day 5: Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens ... combined with Day 6 ...

Day 6: Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"... okay so this and Day 5 are not completely correct ... but if you "forget" the reptiles and amphibians then you can make it fit.  First were single celled creatures which grew into fish, those fish became amphibious and many evolved into birds first.  Only later did mammals and then primates and humans evolve.

So all in the story of creation follows the right path ... which is pretty amazing considering it was likely a story passed through successive generations before it was ever written down, and before investigative science was wide spread.

Not that any of this is supposed to prove the existence of a "god" ... but if you take it as stories to explain life, then its a pretty accurate one.  Its not like someone would take a mid 20th century pulp writers work and turn it into a religion so why do we do it with 1st millennium BCE writings?

People are entitled to believe anything they want; in God, in science, that politicians will deliver their promises, the number 49 etc etc.  What I find irritating about the flat earthers is that they persist in believing despite ample evidence and deny that evidence as CGI, or lies as part of a conspiracy that doesn't seem to benefit anyone.   

This is absolutely hilarious, I sincerely hope these flat earthers don't breed because if they ever become dominant we're doomed

Any school aged child could prove the earth is spherical while at the same time disproving the flat earthers' 'experiments'

It reminds me of the creationism/evolution debate, what a mess that is

Eloise posted:

JamieWednesday posted:

Some people believe it's fair to ridicule those who believe in an omnipotent fairy (especially those who believe the world was created in 6 days flat about 5000 years ago).

One thing I find interesting; is that if you read the story of creation it is actually fairly accurate in terms of the order.  The 6 days thing is patiently ridiculous and the "5000 years ago" part too; but if you think of the story in abstract terms the idea it was written to explain evolution somewhere between 2500 and 3500 years ago.

Its only in more modern (supposedly enlightened times) that people have taken it literally.  Some of it is a stretch, but in order...

Day 1: Let there be light ... the big bang in other words.

Day 2: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters ... okay so there was never waters as part of the big bang, but out of the big bang came matter which came together to form the planets.

Day 3: Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear ... again a bit of a stretch ... but when the earth first form it was a rather wild places, over time the tidal forces calmed everything down, forming distinct land and seas.

Day 4: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years ... okay so my thinking does fall down completely here as the planets don't exist until AFTER the stars.

Day 5: Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens ... combined with Day 6 ...

Day 6: Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"... okay so this and Day 5 are not completely correct ... but if you "forget" the reptiles and amphibians then you can make it fit.  First were single celled creatures which grew into fish, those fish became amphibious and many evolved into birds first.  Only later did mammals and then primates and humans evolve.

So all in the story of creation follows the right path ... which is pretty amazing considering it was likely a story passed through successive generations before it was ever written down, and before investigative science was wide spread.

Not that any of this is supposed to prove the existence of a "god" ... but if you take it as stories to explain life, then its a pretty accurate one.  Its not like someone would take a mid 20th century pulp writers work and turn it into a religion so why do we do it with 1st millennium BCE writings?

Hi Eloise -

One of the more memorable books I read as a teen was "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra.  Not sure how accurate it is by today's scientific standards, but he drew lots of interesting comparisons between physics and Eastern mysticism.  I think his point was that when studying the very smallest, largest and oldest stuff in the universe, science requires a bit of educated guesswork (a.k.a. faith).

ATB.

Hook

But not faith in fairies I suspect. Not even Eastern fairies.

JamieWednesday posted:

But not faith in fairies I suspect. Not even Eastern fairies.

I don't imagine too many of us believe in fairies. But pre-universe, beyond the universe..........we simply don't know.

As I said above, some scientists try to define the limits of science beyond which they fear to tread - in case it gets too difficult (I suspect) and undermines the credibility of some of their more practical  work.

JamieWednesday posted:

But not faith in fairies I suspect. Not even Eastern fairies.

Recently returned from the IOM after the TT and I can assure you that we all saluted the fairies whenever we passed the fairy bridge.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Man throws propane tank into fire. Darwinism in action

Interesting replies by everyone!  It is a good sign so far that no CDS2's or CDS3's have been hurled in the fire.

Bruce, I initially had a low opinion of the father in this incident as well.  While I still would not condone his actions ever, my sympathy does go out to him now.  Personally, I believe the girlfriend is the problem here and by extension I would draw in a vast majority of the generation y's (millennials).  This opinion of course fuelled by my own experiences with them.  If I were to guess, I would say this is not the first time this girlfriend glibly pushed the buttons of the father.  Add to the mix, they probably all had a few too many sitting around the campfire. I'm sure for the father, it was just the breaking point after keeping his frustration in many many times before. 

However, in the end, I think both the father and girlfriend need to own up to the result.  I cannot see any resolution to this as if they avoid the question of the shape of the earth, I am quite sure she will find a multitude of other sure fire starts to other conversations such as 1 + 1 = 3 and so on.

Don Atkinson posted:

JamieWednesday posted:

But not faith in fairies I suspect. Not even Eastern fairies.

I don't imagine too many of us believe in fairies. But pre-universe, beyond the universe..........we simply don't know.

As I said above, some scientists try to define the limits of science beyond which they fear to tread - in case it gets too difficult (I suspect) and undermines the credibility of some of their more practical  work.

Don, I really agree with your responses so far.  Very common sense and level headed.

I would say that a discussion of flat/round earth vs. something such as creation / evolution are two very different conversations.  One is obvious given the facts and the other we all have to just believe (or have faith) in our own views.   I know that it is very easy to find the worst example ever to illustrate your proof against creation or vice versa but this only shows that you found the worst example and are applying this to everyone who may hold a view about creationism / evolution.  There are some strange people out there.  It is unbelievable how people find these guys (or gals).

Today, with what we know, the flat earth position is easily disproved, as some one above stated, by a child.  The creation / evolution theories are just that - as Don stated - we simply don't know.  None of us were around at the beginning so better to keep an open mind about any of this?

Eloise, thank you for some very wise and informative responses.  For myself, I often wonder why we all get hung up about days vs. billions of years.  Because I know that I will never know the real answer I would prefer to think about this subject differently.  For me, then it becomes a question of whether I believe nothing created everything (by chance) OR was a higher power (God) responsible for life on our planet?  If the latter, then I don't believe it matters whether this was illustrated to us in a six day framework (for easy understanding of a principle) or whether creation happened over billions of years.  Believing in a creator is then the essence of the viewpoint and the only important question you have to answer to yourself.  Also, what is time to the creator of the universe?