Oh. My. God.

[Ryoga]

http://www.hollowplanets.com/

Discuss.

I honestly couldn't believe this was a serious website when I saw it at first. How the **** do you get a .com for this BS, anyway?

[Cpt_Frank]

???????? WTF???????? big balloon earth????

[Mr Bean]

I find the defant guilty of being an idiot I sentance him to be throw into the Red-Hot Mantle of the Earth he belives does not exist

[Evil Jerk]

Yes. Right. What a stupid theory.

<If they find out I control a large evil empire inside the Earth which will soon rise out and take over the surface all is lost..>

[Lagmonster]

As I recall, there's a "Flat Earth Society" out there somewhere too. Loonier than these chaps, to be sure, but just as disgusting that they exist.

[NecronLord]

Disproved in three words

"Earthquakes, shockwaves multiple"

I do of couse refer to seismographs picking up mulltiple shockwaves from earthquakes

e.g. an earthquake in india will read as one event, possibly with aftershocks, nearby. In the USA however it will read as several overlayed readings. caused by shockwaves travelling through layers in the mantle and core.

Clearly they have gone to great pains to explain geothemal energy volcanoes and contintal drift. hence the star? in the middle. This is pure ANTI science, not psudo science, this bears absoloutely no resembelence to thought whatsoever. I sentance this person and their blood relatives to sterilisation, for the good of the gene-pool.

[Joe]

I read an article about this once, in a crackpot encyclopedia. Apparently, a number of years ago, a satellite took a picture of the Earth, and around the North Pole, where ocean should have been, what appeared to be a giant hole was instead. It turns out this hole appeared due to some kind of computer anomaly that occured when the shot was taken, but obviously this does not phase crackpots.

[Evil Jerk]

I read an article about this once, in a crackpot encyclopedia. Apparently, a number of years ago, a satellite took a picture of the Earth, and around the North Pole, where ocean should have been, what appeared to be a giant hole was instead. It turns out this hole appeared due to some kind of computer anomaly that occured when the shot was taken, but obviously this does not phase crackpots.

Are you kidding?
The dead heads probably think that was a cover up.

[NecronLord]

If that stuff could be weaponised we could send people back several levenls on the evolutionary scale.

[Singular Quartet]

Further proof that large portions of humanity need to be wiped out, or at least sterilized to prevent breeding.

[Durandal]

Maybe they'll try and pop the Earth one day.

[HemlockGrey]

....antilogic overload.

I'm meeelting...

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I believe there was once a theory that there were planets inside the Earth. Well, some people just refuse to join the 21st century. Or the 19th, for that matter.

[Colonel Olrik]

I read a book where in fact we live inside the earth, and the outside layer is inhabited by more advanced humans ruled by an evil monarch who got tired of all our pollution [it got out from the holes in the poles]. His solution was to shut the holes completely so that everybody inside would die from oxigen privation.

Author: Robert Rankins, a really great writer with a twisted sense of humor.

Maybe this moron is also his fan..

[ArmorPierce]

Try this one http://pathlights.com/

I especially liked the part where they try to disprove evolution.

[NecronLord]

Behold the witty reply of the Necrontyr, persuers of cold science



The evolutionists' problem was how to explain away the fact that everything in nature exists. They have used theories, which they call cosmology, to explain how matter and stars could have come into existence.

no, just no

Here is what the Big Bang theory teaches:

When nothing gets together. The emptiness is supposed to have gathered together in one place, and gotten so thick that the "nothing" exploded&#8212;and blew itself into hydrogen gas.&#8212;p. 14.

Laws appear. The laws of nature somehow invented themselves during the explosion.&#8212;p. 14.

alrightyy then, this is as oppsed to 'the big man set them up?'

Gas gets into clumps. Then the outward exploding gas supposedly gathered itself into clumps.&#8212;pp. 14-15.

It's called gravity, it was why you were brain damaged when your momma dopped you

A universe of explosions. The loose, outward flowing gas next decided to push itself into stars. Then all the stars began exploding in super-nova explosions. But, just before light rays from the explosions could reach our planet in our time in history, the explosions are said to have conveniently stopped.&#8212;p. 15.
'nuff said
Heavier elements made. Those explosions are supposed to have made all the heavier elements (those above hydrogen and helium).

ahh fusion, disprove, come on you odious crettin

Rearranging time. In order to adapt to the theory, the supposed age of the universe has been pushed back to a theoretical age of 15 billion years, when the Big Bang is said to have occurred.&#8212;p. 15.

again

No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.&#8212;pp. 16-17.

In concert with the necron, develop humans into a decent species assignement, please sterilise youself and all genetic relatives, you species needs you to.

30 - Many stars rotate too fast. According to the theory, stars should not have the high rotational speeds they have; in fact, they should not have any.&#8212;p. 23.

31 - High-spin stars. The theory could not produce extremely rapid spinning stars. Yet there are stars in the sky which do rotate at such high speeds.&#8212;pp. 23-24.

Behold the double posting king

35 - There is not enough antimatter. Any type of initial origin-of-matter theory requires the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter (neutrinos, etc.). But only a few neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. In addition, at the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter would immediately have destroyed one another. An equal amount of each would have been made, and then the two would have united, blotting out both.&#8212;pp. 24-26.

antimatter annihalition releases energy, conservation of energy don't make me make it manditory

40 - No theoretical "infinite point" for matter. Only in theory can everything unite in one point. In reality, it cannot do that. First, the inrushing nothingness would not stop, but go on past the central point. Second, there would be no gravity (because no matter supposedly existed!) to pull it in. Only when there is matter, is there gravity.&#8212;p. 28.

a sigularity is not nothing, idiot

41 - No Population III stars. All elements above the two simplest (hydrogen and helium) are called "heavier elements," "post-helium elements," and elements with "more metal." These definitions will help explain that which follows:

fusion plasma can be made, proving it's possibility

7 reasons why background radiation does not support the Big Bang.

"Background radiation" is a very weak microwave radiation flowing throughout space in all directions. It was first discovered in 1965, and is said to be the final leftover outer-space radiation from the Big Bang. Although called the "dying breath of the Big Bang," it is not an evidence of it (pp. 29, 31) for several reasons:

1 - It is omnidirectional. Background radiation flows toward us from all directions; yet it would come from only one direction if it was from the Big Bang.&#8212;pp. 31-32.

foolish idiot, is earth at the edge of the universe? no, is the universe hypercurved? probably {though I know the answer, i'm not telling humans}

2 - It is too weak. The radiation should be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than it is.&#8212;p. 32.

according to the rectal cortex?

3 - It lacks the proper spectrum. The radiation does not have the ideal "black body"; that is, it should have total light absorption capacity.&#8212;p. 32.

specify

4 - Its spectrum should be far hotter (5 degrees K) than it actually is (only 2.73 degrees K). If the explosion had occurred 15 billion years ago, the background radiation should now be emitting a far higher temperature heat [K = Kelvin, or absolute zero, which is -273.15 degrees centigrade].&#8212;p. 32.

dark matter, any number of complex things I need not explain to you.

5 - It is too smooth. Research proves that this radiation is definitely too smooth to agree with the Big Bang theory. It is not clustered enough, and even if it was, it could not produce stars. Gas in outer space (and on earth) always pushes outward, never inward.&#8212;pp. 32-33.

as is the suface of your brain {the wrinkles being where mose activity takes place}

6 - A failure from the beginning. Predictions made as to the nature of the required radiation (its temperature and its single directional source) were not fulfilled even when background radiation was first discovered in 1965.&#8212;p. 32.

even the necrontyr's scentists aren't always correct

7 - What is the source of the radiation? Everything in the universe is lumpy, except the gas in outer space: (1) background radiation (which is microwave radiation) and (2) infrared radiation. It appears that the source of both types of radiation is nothing more than the outflowage of radiation from the stars and galaxies on all sides of us.&#8212;pp. 33-34.

twit, it comes from your hot air

stellar evolutionary theories,

would this be natural selection of stars by c'tan eating the tasty ones?

CONTENT: Origin of Matter - 3
Other Origin of Matter Theories - In addition to the Big Bang, there are other theories floating around

namely your 'god,' come on, your species has greater potential than slave labour doesn't it? as that is what we usually tell pimatives we are.

The Elemental Forces - The delicate balance of three elemental ratios

elemental?

#1 Gravity - The universe, as we know it, would be destroyed if gravity was not in perfect balance

yah, that'll do for now, if I just told you then you would never advance

#2 Proton to Neutron Ratio - The neutron can exceed the weight of the proton by only a certain amount

again yes, at your level

#3 Photon to Baryon Ratio - The photon to baryon ratio is crucial to gravitational attraction

again yes, at your level

#4 Nuclear Force - The atoms are held together by a precise amount of attraction

again yes, at your level

#5 Electromagnetic Force - No chemical bonds could form if it were different

that being how our main weapons work

The basic forces of matter and the universe are astounding. yesThey could not have come into existence by accident.no There are several basic forces in nature which would destroy the universe&#8212;or not let it form&#8212;were it not for the delicate balance within each of them. I have seen the failed univeres unable to support anything, has it not occured to you that they are there? Here is scientific evidence. Evolutionary theory is a myth; creation science is correct. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Leap in logic, dispreoved already you are a waste of protein

THREE MEN WHO GAVE US OUR MODERN STELLAR THEORIES
Three men stand out as highly influential in giving scientists their speculative theories of how matter and stars originated. Learning who they are, one is startled to think that their musings were accepted by the scientific community&#8212;especially in view of the fact, as we have shown elsewhere, that scientific evidence runs counter to their theories

If I had time i'd investigate you

3 - Astronomical records. Prior to 2250 B.C., we have not one record of a solar eclipse ever having been seen by people! Because it is totally accurate, that earliest recorded astronomical event is a significant date. It comes only about a hundred years after the Flood. We have reason to believe the sky was darkened with volcanic eruptions for years after the Flood ended.&#8212;p. 32.

apep, the serpent god of egyptian mythology would occasionaly try to swallow the sun, hence the sun god Re's constant beating th S**t out of him.

6 - Growth of coral. Coral growth rates indicate the earth is quite young. No known coral formation is older than 3,500 years.&#8212;p. 29.

and this has no relevence at all it's almost as bad as "no community is over 3,500 yars old" you think because there are no gesalt organism's alive from this time that ... ahh forget it


1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., was erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.&#8212;pp. 29-30.

what more do you want, an eternal 'world tree'?

2 - Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,&#8212;and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased this genetic load.)&#8212;p. 30.

not only do you ignore the fact that natural selection explains this, you ignore the vast number of inherited desised humans can suffer from (not as many as we necrons used to have though) the you use a stunning pile of reverse logic and make a conclusion, and skew reality with it?!?!?!*@&^!^%!!!!!

1 - Historical records. If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, we should find records extending back at least 500,000 years. (Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a million years.) But, instead, records only go back to about 2000-3500 B.C. When writing began, it was fully developed. The earliest dates are Egyptian (Manetho's king lists), but should be lowered for several reasons. Well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600 B.C.&#8212;pp. 30-31.

I was there, you have been around that long, and you have a feeble rate of develpoment, I have seen the great king list of Rammeses, it is broken at both ends, idiot, also just how old do you think egypt is???


2 - Early Biblical records. Bible records carry us back to a Creation date of approximately 4000 B.C., with a Flood date of about 2348 B.C. Scientific facts point us toward the same dates.&#8212;pp. 31-32.

shut up

7 - Population statistics. Estimates, based on population changes, indicate that, about the year 3300 B.C., there was only one family.&#8212;p. 33.

again tought up by your rectal cortex

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Does anyone here know flat-Earth sites? Any moere young-Earth sites? I like how that person thought that because trees were the oldest things living on earth, they were here since the beginning of time.

[Howedar]

Is it possible that x? Might y possibly be z? Maybe, just maybe, n is really m?


For crying out loud, make a freakin assertation, don't just suggest mindless ideas with the fallback position that you never actually said they were true!

[Nick]

How the **** do you get a .com for this BS, anyway?

All you need to register a '.com' site is $10, an internet connection and about 10 minutes of free time.

Also, on the topic of 'Flat Earth':
Scary:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... atHome.htm
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... hyFlat.htm
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Funny:
http://www.flat-earth.org/index2.html

Debunking:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

And a rather creative scriptural smoke-and-mirrors job:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

Basically it seems to boil down to "I don't understand standard cosmology, therefore it isn't true"

[Nick]

The OTHER Flat Earth Society :
http://www.thomasdolby.com/index_frameset.html

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

<This page is currently under construction. Please come back when we have our act together.>

Translation: We can't debunk the facts of a round earth with out using conspiracy theories.

I'm suprised they know how to use the Internet, considering they're from the 15th century.

[NecronLord]

I really have seen the king list, as well, Its next to the rosetta stone in the british museum, and it gets far less attention, despite being almost half as important to egyptology

[NecronLord]

I'll apply my cutting wit to those links between lectures next week.

[Sea Skimmer]

STOP NOW

If you keep refuting these anti logic theories, the reaction will reach critical mass and explode with the force of a 5 Gigaton bomb! Don&#8217;t you people know anything about crude logic/anti logic munitions safety?

[NecronLord]

Fear not, I am using liberally sprinkled quantum manifold plasma conduit insults to supress the reaction



Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [DD]

fool, the sun RISES OVER THE HORIZON, and SETS UNDER IT

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]

okk

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."


fluidic space? Sphere=circle?


Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

sphere circle, you see the difference?


The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]

and you again do not understand the differance between abstract 2d shaped and 3d objects, nincompoop.

Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica]

yes, and?

The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]

fool the maps you refer to are basically road maps, they saw no purpose in making a globe to direct their road network

The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]

and, jehovah is too dumb to see that!

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, "In that day," then in verse 34, "In that night." This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]

OI TWIT, NO

"When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate." [DD]

ahahahahahhahahahhahahahahaha, FOOL I MOCK YOU!!!!

remain where you are, do not move, I am sending a necron flayed one to castrate you.

frantic sreaming