|
Post by ayezatulbrite on Sept 6, 2012 19:37:57 GMT -5
the earth is hollow and has been expanding for 70 million years... FACT... now DEAL with it!
the short version
|
|
|
Post by marisol on Sept 7, 2012 0:27:14 GMT -5
So whats in the middle?
|
|
|
Post by StormInateacup on Sept 7, 2012 2:21:19 GMT -5
Hades? Lizards? Ancient Alien space ships?
|
|
|
Post by Random Panther on Sept 7, 2012 11:17:53 GMT -5
Dinosaurs,a massive underground sea and early humans. Jules Verne was right.
|
|
|
Post by marisol on Sept 7, 2012 13:38:04 GMT -5
Ayez needs help ya know I'm worried.
|
|
|
Post by alyceavary on Sept 7, 2012 17:01:14 GMT -5
A nougat center.....
|
|
|
Post by ayezatulbrite on Sept 7, 2012 17:34:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ayezatulbrite on Sept 7, 2012 17:35:13 GMT -5
Ayez needs help ya know I'm worried. yeah, yeah, yeah.... they said the same about Darwin, and I'm a monkey's uncle!
|
|
|
Post by ayezatulbrite on Sept 7, 2012 17:36:40 GMT -5
not heard one reasoned scientific argument in opposition yet
|
|
|
Post by alyceavary on Sept 7, 2012 18:11:11 GMT -5
That's because I'm not a scientist......I'm a witch and a secretary.
|
|
|
Post by ayezatulbrite on Sept 7, 2012 18:56:22 GMT -5
That's because I'm not a scientist......I'm a witch and a secretary. anyone can be a "scientist"... it's a talent, a temperament, an attitude many "non-scientists" would make better scientists than the so called "scientists" there are different aspects to science, a valid opinion is still a valid opinion, a valid observation is still a valid observation there is nothing stopping you from making the next big scientific breakthrough... except, maybe, you!
|
|
|
Post by marisol on Sept 7, 2012 20:00:20 GMT -5
What kind of gas and do we need to be concerned?
|
|
|
Post by Random Panther on Sept 7, 2012 20:04:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by marisol on Sept 7, 2012 20:21:00 GMT -5
Ok........
|
|
|
Post by ayezatulbrite on Sept 7, 2012 22:18:55 GMT -5
I do not agree with eevrything Neal Adams says. He "overextends" himself and goes off on certain tangents that are too speculative, which tends to detract from the rest of his arguments / observations. Neither do I agree with everything Steven Novella says. The salient points raised in the video remain almost entirely unrefuted by Steven Novella in thta little piece. I'm sure Steven is a very clever boy with better qualifications than me, but he never addressed the salient points in my opinion. That article was a diversion and a distraction from the main points (in my opinion) raised by Neal Adams. It's like some Prof who wrote a paper "refuting" conspiracy theories on 9/11 that I read (can't remember his name). He didn't really refute anything. He dealt with straw man arguments. He ignored certain key observations. He didn't do a single calculation on the strength of any structural element. He never did a finite element analysis. He never specified modes of failure. I wasn't very impressed by Steven Novella either The article was mostly peripheral, i.e. a lot of fluff!
|
|