Debunking Alleged proofs against modern science

In summary, the conversation revolves around the presenter discussing arguments from a strongly religious person and inviting others to further explain and possibly refute them. The arguments touch on various topics such as the weight of the Earth and oceans, the moon's effect on tides, and the validity of scientific research. The presenter also mentions their own thoughts on redshift and the age of the Earth. They encourage respectful discussion and encourage their friend to join the platform to learn more.
  • #1
Tegewaldt
7
0
Hello fellow PF'ers!

I have been conversating with a strongly religious character for some time now, and thought i'd present some of his arguments to you. I have myself tried to explain the basics of the problems, but maybe some of you can have a laugh and go into further details as to why he may be wrong on these views.

>>well we could ask a fagmason if he can calculate the weight of the Earth (and they claim they can), then what's the weight of the ocean? so what amount of ((G)) would be necessary to hold the oceans on the ball?
okay say he says 6 gorillion g's. they say that's like some sort of strap force that's holding everything including the oceans on the spinning ball right?
well I'm standing next to the ocean and I'm not squished into a pancake? and a bug flies over the ocean and 6 gorillion g's doesn't squash that?

>>another one:
if the moon causes the tides because of its ((g)) force, why is it if i take a scale to the beach i weigh exactly the same as before the tide?

>>also:
if speed is relative as einswine says, then why use seatbelts in cars? lol

>>if the speed were relative to the car, i wouldn't fly around the inside of the car when it changes direction. the speed is transferred through the seat, which literally pushes me with the car. when we take out the passenger seat and someone drives the car, we fly to the back of the car, weeee

>>the ligo magnetic waves thing was a hoax. their bosses control the info they have to interpret. a week earlier they were hoaxed and ligo even made fun of all of them for believing it

Me:
"Redshifting, as well as the loss of energy from light photons traveling long distances affects the luminosity of the distant stars we see on the night sky. And most of them are so far away, that the expansion of the universe makes the light move away from us faster than it's moving towards us. Therefore, we only (currently) see the light from our closest stars"

>>yeah but the redshift scientists just got nosed because what they're publishing suggests that we're at the center of the universe (aha! angainst the "copernican principle", nihilism)...so the nose found out about them and they are shut down. can't namenames at the moment but the gist is the professor doing red shift things these days was shut down because he has been forced into the conclusion that we are in the center

>>we only have around six thousand years of human history. all the other history is fabricated from methods that are illogical and easily invalidated.
we can also add the oldest tree in the world is about five thousand years old

Have a good one
Disclaimer: I'm a High School student, so my arguments may be unprecise
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi @Tegewaldt

We cannot have an argument with a third party in absentia. It becomes frustrating for all parties involved.

If you yourself have specific questions, such as the scientific evidence for a specific theory, or the evidence against alternative theories then we can certainly discuss that. Also, you can encourage your friend to sign up here, although he or she should pay attention to the rules and recognized that they are enforced. We aren't here to argue, but we are here to educate and would enjoy explaining why scientists accept the current mainstream theories.
 
  • Like
Likes m4r35n357

Related to Debunking Alleged proofs against modern science

1. What is meant by "modern science"?

Modern science refers to the current scientific knowledge, theories, and methods that are widely accepted and used by the scientific community.

2. What types of alleged proofs are commonly used against modern science?

There are various types of alleged proofs used against modern science, including religious or spiritual arguments, pseudoscientific claims, and conspiracy theories.

3. How do scientists approach debunking alleged proofs against modern science?

Scientists use critical thinking skills, evidence-based reasoning, and scientific methods to examine and evaluate the validity of alleged proofs against modern science. They also rely on peer-reviewed research and scientific consensus to support their arguments.

4. Are there any legitimate criticisms of modern science?

Yes, there can be legitimate criticisms of certain aspects of modern science, such as biases, limitations, and ethical concerns. However, these criticisms do not invalidate the overall validity and usefulness of modern science.

5. What is the importance of debunking alleged proofs against modern science?

Debunking alleged proofs against modern science is crucial to maintaining the integrity and progress of scientific knowledge. It helps to prevent misinformation and pseudoscience from spreading and promotes the use of evidence-based practices in various fields.

Similar threads

  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
5K
Back
Top