exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Now I wonder why an algorithm thought you needed to see that...............
Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith
- Thread starter Kermos
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I wonder if Kermos will 1. Come back with the same lies 2. Come back with different lies. 3. Not come back.
In order of probability, highest to lowest, I expect 1, followed by 2, with 3 a distant third. Actually, it might be both 1 and 2, depending on how much effort Kermos is willing to put in to dig up some new lies from his favourite creationist sources.
Kermos is a self-declared devout creationist, and those guys aren't in the habit of changing their minds after being shown that they – or the standard creationist sources they usually mindless copy from – are wrong about something. Instead, they apparently feel compelled to lie for their faith, which is ironic because it's not the kind of behaviour that their Lord Jesus Christ is on record for having ever advocated.
On the other hand, once Kermos reads this post, there's a small chance he might change his mind and implement option 3 out of spite, just to prove me wrong.
Given past history, it might take Kermos months to catch up with the latest posts to this thread, so I'm not holding my breath for a speedy reply from him.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
These guys do however get bored and give up eventually, normally when the replies stop because everyone else has got bored with them.
But in this case there seems to be a theory that the poster is a bot, in which case there probably isn't a boredom threshold at its end. In that case it would be up to us to get bored with it (a state I reached 4 months ago).
At some point, I guess they work out that there are diminishing returns - in terms of new converts to the faith - from their continuing to argue fruitlessly and dishonestly in the one place.
I think that the most dedicated creationists just move from one place of discussion to the next, presenting the same tired arguments each time to a new audience while pretending that all prior debunkings of their bullshit never happened. It must take a special type of bloody-minded determination to keep beating your head against multiple brick walls, unless for the particular individual involved the whole creationist schtick is just part of a trolling habit that gives them some kind of low-grade kick, for want of anything better to do with their lives.
I don't think so. He'd be responding a lot faster if he was a bot. Also, I think he'd be less pendantically repetitive. Would also probably have better grammar and would be better able to use words correctly, according to their meanings. Fewer run-on sentences. Those kinds of things.
I'm not completely bored yet. Some of Kermos's posts have led me to look more carefully into the specifics of a few things I would probably not otherwise have spent that much time on. In other words, in spite of Kermos's best efforts, I have managed to learn one or two new things as a side-effect of our interactions.In that case it would be up to us to get bored with it (a state I reached 4 months ago).
I have taken to skipping over most of Kermos's preaching and his threats that I will be eternally damned by his impotent god at some unspecified future date, because that kind of thing is interesting only insofar as I want to know why he believes any of it, but he's not telling. I'm also now skipping over his attempts to redefine words to suit himself. I take that kind of behaviour as an implicit admission that one doesn't have any concrete arguments left to make.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I don't believe for an instant these guys are hoping to make converts on a science forum. That is misreading their motivation, I'm sure.
If that were their intention they would be far more conciliatory and persuasive*. No, this for them is an opportunity to vigorously assert their beliefs in the face of the "unbelievers". They think of this as virtuously "bearing witness" (something evangelical Protestants are always going on about
), when it is actually an excuse to indulge their baser instincts to troll and annoy, something they get a perverse satisfaction from, as trolls are wont to do.So the whole thing is an exercise in hypocrisy in which vice masquerades as virtue - something all too familiar among religious believers of all sorts, unfortunately.
* We do occasionally get people who may be trying to make converts. The last one of those I can recall was Concordicus. He was someone with whom one could have a discussion and did respond on the whole constructively to points made, etc. Quite unlike this idiot.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
It is almost like he is being coached by AIG or something. He certainly has no clue about anything he is posting, not even the Bible quotes.
His MO or rather his creationist teacher's is, make an argument defining words, cite, "were you there," mention Hubble 50-100 (no units) mention parallax, Cepheid variables, Leavitt, Bible quotes, CMBR "red-shift red spectrum" (whatever the fuck that is) Bible quotes, star Bible, Stephan's Quintet, a defiant, "You don't scare me evolutionist!" then calls someone a pharmacist/witch.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This sounds familiar. Flerfers and Moonhoaxers give off the same vibe.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
I thought I may go back to the opening post and just see how much Kermos is fooling himself, or just plain lying....
(google) The Big Bang theory is considered scientific not because it was witnessed, but because it is supported by overwhelming indirect observational evidence that makes it the best explanation for the universe's evolution. Science often studies past events—such as forensic investigations, geology, or paleontology—by examining their lingering effects, rather than observing them directly.
The Big Bang is a scientific model that describes how the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state, not an "explosion" in the common sense.
The CMBR perfectly matches the predicted spectrum of blackbody radiation (a specific signature of hot gas cooling over time.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Wrong! Faith is not proof. Faith is the opposite of proof. Faith is a (in this case) a comforting belief, without evidence, to avoid the overwhelming evidence of the finality of death.
How did he do that? Did he appear to you in a dream? or in the form of a burning bush" or just some bellowing from the sky? More likely you were just hallucinating.
Scientists though accept the evolution of our universe, 13.83 billion years ago, based science and evidence.
Firstly it was not an explosion as normally envisaged. That was a name given in derision by an opponent of the big bang. It was according to the evidence, an evolution of space and time, (as we know them) from a hot dense state.
When scientists infer the big bang arose from nothing, they mean nothing that we have any evidence for. You see our scientific data on the big bang, fails us at that very instant of the evolution of space and time, which was at the quantum/Planck level. From that point though, there is scientific speculation such as the big bang arising from a fluctuation in the quantum foam, (space and time at the quantum/Planck level) and that this "quantum foam" can be defined as nothing and that which has existed for eternity. Remembering that we once thought empty space as nothing until the coriolis effect showed us differently. Such gaps in science, is often dishonestly then slotted in by what we call "the God of the gaps" instead of having the courage to say we don't as yet know.
You seem to be simply focusing on trying to fool people in accepting your own faith, nothing else.
Yes, all that is faith, nothing more, nothing less. Stop trying to class it as anything else. It isn't.
Your faith i strong certainly, and your Overlords have taught you well on your faith, much of which is actually disproven nonsense. eg: the 6,000 year old Earth. The big bang is based on scientific evidence, (1) The observed expansion, redshift, and the Hubble constant (2) the CMBR at 2.73K. (3) The abundance of the lighter elements.
You show your dishonesty in misapplying the scientific method.
(google) The Big Bang theory is considered scientific not because it was witnessed, but because it is supported by overwhelming indirect observational evidence that makes it the best explanation for the universe's evolution. Science often studies past events—such as forensic investigations, geology, or paleontology—by examining their lingering effects, rather than observing them directly.
The Big Bang is a scientific model that describes how the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state, not an "explosion" in the common sense.
The CMBR perfectly matches the predicted spectrum of blackbody radiation (a specific signature of hot gas cooling over time.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
I've had a few hillarious arguments with these clowns.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I have flipped on this issue.
At first, I declared they are all just trolls. But I am concluding that this is part of a larger, more coordinated effort to sow misinformation and doubt in science and western establishment.
(Not exactly a new idea, but I'm connecting the dots now). I see religious fundies and non-western actors had both having strong motives to undermine education and critical thinking. And, ultimately, it's working: it contributed to getting Trump elected.
IOW, I'm beginning to think that flerfers and hoaxers and creationists of all kinds are not just fringers- they're a threat that are ignored at our peril.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
Seriously, I thought similar a few years ago. But I kept giving myself an uppercut and thought I was stretching it a bit. Then as you say Trump was elected. Then elected again! I am still wondering how the previously great country, that put men on the Moon, 6 times, has now so many apparent fringe dwellers. Sad.
I am wary about inferring a conspiracy when simple ignorance and incompetence are more than enough on their own to adequately explain most of what we see.
I've been watching Dr Blitz's phone-in show on youtube a bit lately - especially the ones where he invites flerfers to call in and defend the flat earth. While some callers are certainly trolls (as evidenced by some of the things they claim to believe, which surpass the level of idiocy that even the most ardent and sincere flerfer can manage), most of them just appear to be very poorly educated. Of course, these are people who tend to be big youtube users, so it's a rather selective sample of the general population. Many seem to have gone down the flerf rabbit hole after having the algorithm push flerfer videos at them for long enough to make them think there must be something to it all. Since they don't know how to evaluate claims critically, the flerf ends up being an article of faith for them, presumably along with many other things they accept as fact.
Like religion, science denial tends to come from prioritising what makes you feel good over what is trustworthy information.
Again, maybe a biased sample, but the flerfers seem to be predominately based in the USA. It's a sad indictment on the average level of grade-school education that takes place in the US. But, again, also an indictment on the failure to appropriately regulate social media.
Having said all that, I still think that flat earth is a position held by a tiny minority of people. A person has to be obtuse - usually with a long streak of anti-authoritarian sentiment added - to buy into that nonsense. After all, in these modern times we have plenty of direct photographic evidence that the Earth is spherical, just for starters. You have to be conspiracy theorist as well as poorly informed to accept flat earth, which is an additional bar to entry into the faith.
Sure. And fascists. Basically, anybody who wants an uneducated, oblivious, obedient, populace.
I guess what I'd say is that you can't put all the blame for Trump getting elected (twice!) on bad external actors. The US people committed two deliberate acts of self-harm, with and without the help of misinformation from outside.
I think flerf is a probably a passing fad. As for creationists: to fix that problem you really need to go to the root cause, which is fundamentalist religion. There are no signs of the US wanting to do anything to address that problem in a hurry. (Also, now that I've mentioned it, a lot of flerfers also believe in the flat earth for explicitly religious reasons: e.g. their bible talks about a 'firmament' etc., which is built into the standard flerf cosmological model, and not by accident.)
The usual caveat goes after all this: obviously, not ALL Americans, not ALL voters, etc. There are plenty of bright, well-intentioned people fighting the good fight against the tides of intellectual darkness in the US (and elsewhere).
This moment we're in will surely pass. I wish it would hurry up, though.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
A guy i know personally (used to be my son's best friend) is a Hoaxer. He finished high school. He insists that we have never left LEO and that there are no real pics of the Earth are not composited.
So LEO is OK. But MEO, GEO and TLI orbits are just too crazy?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I don't really know. I didn't want to engage him. But yes, I think that's the idea.
He's come back trolling around about Artemis, which of course, he thinks is a hoax.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
That’s like some creationists. “Micro” evolution is fine. It’s just “macro” evolution that can’t be true, because, er, er, it doesn’t fit Genesis 1.
Yep. The Internet Research Agency, which is the troll farm in St. Petersburg, has been sending out flat-Earth content via its bots since 2015. These show up on Facebook, Instagram etc. The Russians know that a conspiracy-addled US is a weaker US.
It's not just flat-Eartherism. It's anti-vax content, chemtrail content etc. In a world where Putin sees the US as a bigger threat, making Americans:
1) dumber through flat Earth content
2) sicker through anti-vax content
3) distrustful of the government through things like the "Trump really won in 2020" conspiracy
works to Russia's advantage.
This helps him by reducing the overall power, population and economic output of the US. Russia called this their "Active Measures" campaign, intended to undermine trust in Western power, science, governments etc. It also makes them more susceptible to OTHER misinformation, since their critical thinking facilities have been eroded.
Last edited:
I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy" but there absolutely is an active Russian campaign to push misinformation (including the flat-Earth thing) into Western media, and there has been for a long time. In the words of a KGB general from the 1980s:
" . . .not intelligence collection, but subversion: active measures to weaken the west, to drive wedges in the western community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO, to sow discord among allies, to weaken the United States in the eyes of the people of Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and thus to prepare ground in case the war really occurs."
Yeah, this is what has enabled everything - the "media bubble" that social media algorithms build around people.
It is growing fast. In 2021, 19% of Americans either thought the Earth was flat or thought it might be flat. In 2025 it was up to 24%. (Source - Polar, Environment, and Science (POLES) Survey, by the Carsey School of Public Policy.)
Definitely! But it's absolutely ONE of the factors, and it's a big one.
What do you think will change? The power of social media algorithms to create media bubbles will increase. Governments will continue to use misinformation as a political tool against their enemies. The explosion in technology and science makes people less likely to WANT to learn to begin with; it's just "too hard" there's too much to know, science keeps changing etc. The increasing competence of both computer graphics and AI makes it much easier to 1) fake flat Earth data and 2) claim that (for example) pictures of the Earth from the Moon are "just CGI."
It's currently getting worse and I see nothing that will reverse that trend.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
