Printable View
Again I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
The Finches adapted and evolved.
Yep they did, guess what into?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Miles, I don't know who pulled your chain, but you're obviously on permanent "knee-jerk mode".
FFS tell me where in my last post did you get ammunition for your tired "you're oblivious to facts" parrot-like grunts. I'll continue to believe that all men are created equal until someone much smarter than yourself proves to me otherwise.
Now..... I'm purposely avoiding falling into another "Miles-Beanz nuclear war"..... but you appear to be starting your girly stalking mode.
Knock it the fuck off. If you miss fighting with Beanz, go find him and you guys can do handbags at dawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmerq
Good one. ;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Here's an interesting theory from the flat-earthers:
THE WORLD IS ROUND - It isn't I'm afraid. It's flat. But it's not static, the land is constantly moving across it like a supermarket conveyer belt. Hence we get night and day, night is when the belt is on the underside of the Earth. This also explains why some long-haul flights take less time on the way back than the way there or vice versa. Planes are either going the opposite way to the direction of travel of the belt, or trying to accelerate in the same direction, which takes longer.
;D
It's an excerpt from an article by Dean Burnett, who by the way hails from Wales and is a neuroscientist to boot, so he obviously has a high IQ and should be believed. All evidence points to his not being raised by a single mom, so there's that too.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ce-confessions
Tito, you are the one making sly comments based on your complete ignorance of scientific data. It is a fact, a scientific fact, that differentials exist between races. You cannot deny that unless you are a flat earther. Now are there possible different reasons for it? Sure, but that does not deny the numbers. We are not the same otherwise the data would be the same. It is not and instead of accepting this research you want to put your head in the ground like an ostritch and call me a racist, so yeah, I take issue with that as it is you refusing to prove to me that there are no IQ differentials between the races and insulting me. That's what kicked this all off and I dislike it. If I am wrong then prove me wrong. You should either prove I am wrong or never talk about bogus data ever again.
Flat earthers don't tend to worry about theories, they prefer to focus on the scientific method, stuff that can be observed, measured and repeated. Water always finds it's level, horizon is always flat at any height, no curvature, a pressurized system (the atmosphere) must have some sort of containment and couldn't be beside a claimed vacuum with no separation etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Here's an interesting theory from the flat-earthers:
THE WORLD IS ROUND - It isn't I'm afraid. It's flat. But it's not static, the land is constantly moving across it like a supermarket conveyer belt. Hence we get night and day, night is when the belt is on the underside of the Earth. This also explains why some long-haul flights take less time on the way back than the way there or vice versa. Planes are either going the opposite way to the direction of travel of the belt, or trying to accelerate in the same direction, which takes longer.
;D
It's an excerpt from an article by Dean Burnett, who by the way hails from Wales and is a neuroscientist to boot, so he obviously has a high IQ and should be believed. All evidence points to his not being raised by a single mom, so there's that too.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ce-confessions
Also a lot of the physics of a spinning earth doesn't make sense. Satellites and the space rockets for example, defy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
Flat earthers seem like the only skeptical thinkers these days.
What did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAgain I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFlat earthers don't tend to worry about theories, they prefer to focus on the scientific method, stuff that can be observed, measured and repeated. Water always finds it's level, horizon is always flat at any height, no curvature, a pressurized system (the atmosphere) must have some sort of containment and couldn't be beside a claimed vacuum with no separation etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Here's an interesting theory from the flat-earthers:
THE WORLD IS ROUND - It isn't I'm afraid. It's flat. But it's not static, the land is constantly moving across it like a supermarket conveyer belt. Hence we get night and day, night is when the belt is on the underside of the Earth. This also explains why some long-haul flights take less time on the way back than the way there or vice versa. Planes are either going the opposite way to the direction of travel of the belt, or trying to accelerate in the same direction, which takes longer.
;D
It's an excerpt from an article by Dean Burnett, who by the way hails from Wales and is a neuroscientist to boot, so he obviously has a high IQ and should be believed. All evidence points to his not being raised by a single mom, so there's that too.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ce-confessions
Also a lot of the physics of a spinning earth doesn't make sense. Satellites and the space rockets for example, defy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
Flat earthers seem like the only skeptical thinkers these days.
You basically do away with any chance of being taken seriously from here on. Nobody wants to continue “debating” with you for the same reason they don’t want to with an orangutan. A flat earth... it’s unbelievable people could still think like that..
Russian cosmonauts will walk on the moon in early 2030s
https://www.rt.com/russia/444381-rus...-landing-base/
https://img.rt.com/files/2018.11/art...ff0c8b4569.jpg
I never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAgain I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.
There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.
I don't need anyone to take me seriously, couldn't care less to tell the truth. I find it interesting that people are happy to believe fake images, stories and video rather than science that can be observed, repeated and measured in front of their own eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFlat earthers don't tend to worry about theories, they prefer to focus on the scientific method, stuff that can be observed, measured and repeated. Water always finds it's level, horizon is always flat at any height, no curvature, a pressurized system (the atmosphere) must have some sort of containment and couldn't be beside a claimed vacuum with no separation etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Here's an interesting theory from the flat-earthers:
THE WORLD IS ROUND - It isn't I'm afraid. It's flat. But it's not static, the land is constantly moving across it like a supermarket conveyer belt. Hence we get night and day, night is when the belt is on the underside of the Earth. This also explains why some long-haul flights take less time on the way back than the way there or vice versa. Planes are either going the opposite way to the direction of travel of the belt, or trying to accelerate in the same direction, which takes longer.
;D
It's an excerpt from an article by Dean Burnett, who by the way hails from Wales and is a neuroscientist to boot, so he obviously has a high IQ and should be believed. All evidence points to his not being raised by a single mom, so there's that too.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ce-confessions
Also a lot of the physics of a spinning earth doesn't make sense. Satellites and the space rockets for example, defy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
Flat earthers seem like the only skeptical thinkers these days.
You basically do away with any chance of being taken seriously from here on. Nobody wants to continue “debating” with you for the same reason they don’t want to with an orangutan. A flat earth... it’s unbelievable people could still think like that..
Flat Earthers oh dear ;D. Think I need more coffee.
Your first sentence is self evident. There literally couldn’t be more observable evidence than the earth isn’t flat. If you’d rather just believe every conspiracy theory out there than read anything or learn something, that’s your perogative.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAgain I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.
There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.
I don't need anyone to take me seriously, couldn't care less to tell the truth. I find it interesting that people are happy to believe fake images, stories and video rather than science that can be observed, repeated and measured in front of their own eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFlat earthers don't tend to worry about theories, they prefer to focus on the scientific method, stuff that can be observed, measured and repeated. Water always finds it's level, horizon is always flat at any height, no curvature, a pressurized system (the atmosphere) must have some sort of containment and couldn't be beside a claimed vacuum with no separation etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Here's an interesting theory from the flat-earthers:
THE WORLD IS ROUND - It isn't I'm afraid. It's flat. But it's not static, the land is constantly moving across it like a supermarket conveyer belt. Hence we get night and day, night is when the belt is on the underside of the Earth. This also explains why some long-haul flights take less time on the way back than the way there or vice versa. Planes are either going the opposite way to the direction of travel of the belt, or trying to accelerate in the same direction, which takes longer.
;D
It's an excerpt from an article by Dean Burnett, who by the way hails from Wales and is a neuroscientist to boot, so he obviously has a high IQ and should be believed. All evidence points to his not being raised by a single mom, so there's that too.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ce-confessions
Also a lot of the physics of a spinning earth doesn't make sense. Satellites and the space rockets for example, defy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
Flat earthers seem like the only skeptical thinkers these days.
You basically do away with any chance of being taken seriously from here on. Nobody wants to continue “debating” with you for the same reason they don’t want to with an orangutan. A flat earth... it’s unbelievable people could still think like that..
It does sound crazy, trust me, I've been into it from around early 2016. When brought up to me at the time, I thought Flat Earth, those people are stupid. Then I tried to debunk it, a group of friends and myself got together to do some actual physics on it and found stuff that didn't make sense. I'm not trying to convince you or anybody, but I can only tell you that if you actually look into the physics, breakdown the problems of a spinning earth, a spinning atmosphere etc you come to the conclusion that you either follow logic and laws or something that doesn't add up. You don't have to believe me, and that's fine, but make sure you prove it to yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingYour first sentence is self evident. There literally couldn’t be more observable evidence than the earth isn’t flat. If you’d rather just believe every conspiracy theory out there than read anything or learn something, that’s your perogative.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAgain I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.
There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.
I don't need anyone to take me seriously, couldn't care less to tell the truth. I find it interesting that people are happy to believe fake images, stories and video rather than science that can be observed, repeated and measured in front of their own eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFlat earthers don't tend to worry about theories, they prefer to focus on the scientific method, stuff that can be observed, measured and repeated. Water always finds it's level, horizon is always flat at any height, no curvature, a pressurized system (the atmosphere) must have some sort of containment and couldn't be beside a claimed vacuum with no separation etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Here's an interesting theory from the flat-earthers:
THE WORLD IS ROUND - It isn't I'm afraid. It's flat. But it's not static, the land is constantly moving across it like a supermarket conveyer belt. Hence we get night and day, night is when the belt is on the underside of the Earth. This also explains why some long-haul flights take less time on the way back than the way there or vice versa. Planes are either going the opposite way to the direction of travel of the belt, or trying to accelerate in the same direction, which takes longer.
;D
It's an excerpt from an article by Dean Burnett, who by the way hails from Wales and is a neuroscientist to boot, so he obviously has a high IQ and should be believed. All evidence points to his not being raised by a single mom, so there's that too.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ce-confessions
Also a lot of the physics of a spinning earth doesn't make sense. Satellites and the space rockets for example, defy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
Flat earthers seem like the only skeptical thinkers these days.
You basically do away with any chance of being taken seriously from here on. Nobody wants to continue “debating” with you for the same reason they don’t want to with an orangutan. A flat earth... it’s unbelievable people could still think like that..
Oh and I don't believe every conspiracy, I don't believe in aliens. Like a space invasion type of alien.
Some conspiracy theories are true, some are false.
1. Men did walk on moon
2. The planet we live on is an oblate spheroid, not flat
3. There are no aliens from other worlds here
However,
1. A certain ethnic group does control most of the news and entertainment media in the USA and other western countries, and they have a great influence over less intelligent people. Anyone would need to be simple-minded to not be aware of this.
2. The JFK assassination was by a larger group of people who used Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy. A member of that group, namely Jack Ruby, shot Oswald to silence him
3. Some of the UFO sightings could have been secret government military experiments
1. Got a real picture of that oblate spheroid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
2. Do the physics on spaceships, ISS and satellites in the thermosphere. They defy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
3. Agree
Next
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
I may have wrote this already but if they pull the wool over the worlds eyes like that why would they do it so many more times with the last two Apollo missions 16,17 staying three days each? The 11 or so moon landings would bring in thousands of people, may 10,000 over the years. That is relying on a lot of people to stay quiet in a leaky government apparatus with a bunch of private contractors. We only know the government lied to us as eventually the truth has come out through leaks and or reporters
The truth is already out there for everyone to see. But we're all brain washer and refuse to see it. Just because you think the secret would be to big does not disprove it. And 19 billion a year is a good starting point. Let alone ESA.
Have a look at this vid, it's one of my favs, but there a so so many it's comical. But I like this one cause it's shows the technology available and how they are faking space. I'm putting it here for any one wanting to question why as the people paying for all this we are being deceived. And to make everyone aware that it's going to get much harder to spot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_6Oh2DSIM
Alphito do you disbelieve satellites and gps and what not. Direct TV
A group of you and your friends got together to do some actual physics on it.......:vd: As opposed to the fake physics, done by physicists? Jesus h Murphy. You’d think there might be one qualified person who came to the same conclusion you and your friends brain trust did. That’s the problem with conspiracy theorists, you spend so much time imagining “what if everything were a lie”, you never bother to learn about things that actually are true, and are interesting. I’d assume you were very young, but you mentioned having a child, so I think it’s probably just a lost cause continuing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaIt does sound crazy, trust me, I've been into it from around early 2016. When brought up to me at the time, I thought Flat Earth, those people are stupid. Then I tried to debunk it, a group of friends and myself got together to do some actual physics on it and found stuff that didn't make sense. I'm not trying to convince you or anybody, but I can only tell you that if you actually look into the physics, breakdown the problems of a spinning earth, a spinning atmosphere etc you come to the conclusion that you either follow logic and laws or something that doesn't add up. You don't have to believe me, and that's fine, but make sure you prove it to yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingYour first sentence is self evident. There literally couldn’t be more observable evidence than the earth isn’t flat. If you’d rather just believe every conspiracy theory out there than read anything or learn something, that’s your perogative.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAgain I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.
There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.
I don't need anyone to take me seriously, couldn't care less to tell the truth. I find it interesting that people are happy to believe fake images, stories and video rather than science that can be observed, repeated and measured in front of their own eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFlat earthers don't tend to worry about theories, they prefer to focus on the scientific method, stuff that can be observed, measured and repeated. Water always finds it's level, horizon is always flat at any height, no curvature, a pressurized system (the atmosphere) must have some sort of containment and couldn't be beside a claimed vacuum with no separation etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Here's an interesting theory from the flat-earthers:
THE WORLD IS ROUND - It isn't I'm afraid. It's flat. But it's not static, the land is constantly moving across it like a supermarket conveyer belt. Hence we get night and day, night is when the belt is on the underside of the Earth. This also explains why some long-haul flights take less time on the way back than the way there or vice versa. Planes are either going the opposite way to the direction of travel of the belt, or trying to accelerate in the same direction, which takes longer.
;D
It's an excerpt from an article by Dean Burnett, who by the way hails from Wales and is a neuroscientist to boot, so he obviously has a high IQ and should be believed. All evidence points to his not being raised by a single mom, so there's that too.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ce-confessions
Also a lot of the physics of a spinning earth doesn't make sense. Satellites and the space rockets for example, defy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
Flat earthers seem like the only skeptical thinkers these days.
You basically do away with any chance of being taken seriously from here on. Nobody wants to continue “debating” with you for the same reason they don’t want to with an orangutan. A flat earth... it’s unbelievable people could still think like that..
I proved the whole thing fake poring vinegar on baking soda in my homemade volcano
I don't believe in satellites in space, I could speculate that it's all done by high altitude air balloons.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Yes physics and actual math, there are laws in our reality. We did a about a dozen different things, planes on a spinning earth and atmosphere, satellites in the thermosphere, propulsion in space and a vacuum, perspective, curvature etc. 1 of my mates is a structural engineer, I myself have taken a lot of physics and course in my life. Another mate had also done thermaldynamics to get his engineering degree. I can dig out my notes and give you detailed math in regards to each example. You'll just dismiss it tho, but I challenge you to do the math in regards to a satellite in the thermoshere and prove to me how they don't defy the 2nd law of thermaldynamics in regards to how heat and pressure works.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingA group of you and your friends got together to do some actual physics on it.......:vd: As opposed to the fake physics, done by physicists? Jesus h Murphy. You’d think there might be one qualified person who came to the same conclusion you and your friends brain trust did. That’s the problem with conspiracy theorists, you spend so much time imagining “what if everything were a lie”, you never bother to learn about things that actually are true, and are interesting. I’d assume you were very young, but you mentioned having a child, so I think it’s probably just a lost cause continuing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaIt does sound crazy, trust me, I've been into it from around early 2016. When brought up to me at the time, I thought Flat Earth, those people are stupid. Then I tried to debunk it, a group of friends and myself got together to do some actual physics on it and found stuff that didn't make sense. I'm not trying to convince you or anybody, but I can only tell you that if you actually look into the physics, breakdown the problems of a spinning earth, a spinning atmosphere etc you come to the conclusion that you either follow logic and laws or something that doesn't add up. You don't have to believe me, and that's fine, but make sure you prove it to yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingYour first sentence is self evident. There literally couldn’t be more observable evidence than the earth isn’t flat. If you’d rather just believe every conspiracy theory out there than read anything or learn something, that’s your perogative.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAgain I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.
There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.
I don't need anyone to take me seriously, couldn't care less to tell the truth. I find it interesting that people are happy to believe fake images, stories and video rather than science that can be observed, repeated and measured in front of their own eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFlat earthers don't tend to worry about theories, they prefer to focus on the scientific method, stuff that can be observed, measured and repeated. Water always finds it's level, horizon is always flat at any height, no curvature, a pressurized system (the atmosphere) must have some sort of containment and couldn't be beside a claimed vacuum with no separation etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Here's an interesting theory from the flat-earthers:
THE WORLD IS ROUND - It isn't I'm afraid. It's flat. But it's not static, the land is constantly moving across it like a supermarket conveyer belt. Hence we get night and day, night is when the belt is on the underside of the Earth. This also explains why some long-haul flights take less time on the way back than the way there or vice versa. Planes are either going the opposite way to the direction of travel of the belt, or trying to accelerate in the same direction, which takes longer.
;D
It's an excerpt from an article by Dean Burnett, who by the way hails from Wales and is a neuroscientist to boot, so he obviously has a high IQ and should be believed. All evidence points to his not being raised by a single mom, so there's that too.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ce-confessions
Also a lot of the physics of a spinning earth doesn't make sense. Satellites and the space rockets for example, defy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
Flat earthers seem like the only skeptical thinkers these days.
You basically do away with any chance of being taken seriously from here on. Nobody wants to continue “debating” with you for the same reason they don’t want to with an orangutan. A flat earth... it’s unbelievable people could still think like that..
Sorry that one might be a bit hard.
Let me give you an example of a plane one we did. And again I can provide every equation in noted detail for you, but I'll just summarize, but you can do the math yourself.
Basically those that believe the globe will say a plane doesn't need to constantly dip it's nose to adjust for the curvature of the earth because the atmosphere and gravity are pulling it down. But if you do the math, then the reverse would need to be true. Basically meaning if that was true, then planes would need to have their rudders down to fly in a straight line. And we know that doesn't happen. Again, don't take my word for, go and work it out for yourself. And like I said we did about a dozen of these problems.
F_g-F_l=\frac{mv^2}{r}
Fucking magnets, how do they work?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed
Do you understand "humans came from apes" doesn't mean modern apes turned into us, right? That's why you can't observe it. They mean we are related to the same family - cousins.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAgain I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.
There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.
Alpha, how do you know the "science" carried out by you and your mates - which proves the earth is flat - was correct? How can you trust the methods you've learned weren't designed to fool you?
And why exactly is every other scientist in the world lying?
I understand the theory of evolution. I just don't understand why we don't have millions of these transitional creatures along the fossil record.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterDo you understand "humans came from apes" doesn't mean modern apes turned into us, right? That's why you can't observe it. They mean we are related to the same family - cousins.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAgain I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.
There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.
We used their math, physics and astrology and couldn't get it to work. The methods were the details they give us, size of the earth, speed it is rotating, how much curvature they tell us we should see etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
But I haven't just done the physics, there's stuff like canals, railway lines, you can see much further using a good camera they you sould be able to, based on the supposed curvature. I've talked with pilots, I've been on planes.
Think about water in a bottle turned on its side, and you draw a line from the top of the bottle to the bottom, so that it's about 5mm below the surface of the water, straight obviously.
Now there's no way you could bend the bottle to make the surface follow the line / curve. It wouldn't matter how big a bottle was, it could be miles and miles long, it wouldn't change the fact that the surface will always be level. Your common sense tells you this, but the brain washing will make your question your own senses. They'll tell you it's gravity that pulls everything towards the centre of a molten core. But yet again we are unable to observe and repeat this.
Sorry didn't reply to the last part about why.
I could speculate, 19 billion a year, more land etc, but I try to concentrate on the stuff I have experience with and can observe. Water, photograph, physics, astrology. The physics stuff was really to use their story and prove it wrong.
Did it ever occur that maybe you made a mistake with your experiment?
I don't understand why everyone would be lying? You're not just claiming all the millions of pictures of the earth are faked by the government, but any Tom, Dick and Abdul can do a simple experiment which proves the earth is flat.
You claimed earlier that "Lucy" was proved to be fake, right? Yet it was a scientist who revealed a fragment of bone wasn't right which led to dozens of experts reexamining everything. Maybe you're right but I find it even harder to believe so many scientists know the earth is flat yet happily delude themselves.
While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show species with intermediate or transitional features, it was virtually unexplored at the time. Knowing what he knew about rarity of fossilization and incomplete nature the geologic record, Darwin actually imagined the record was so poor, it was likely paleontologists would never find the transitional fossils.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI understand the theory of evolution. I just don't understand why we don't have millions of these transitional creatures along the fossil record.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterDo you understand "humans came from apes" doesn't mean modern apes turned into us, right? That's why you can't observe it. They mean we are related to the same family - cousins.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAgain I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.
There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.
In 1859, when On the Origin of Species was published, very few fossils had been discovered and described. It was only in the early 19th century that fossils of ancient beasts like dinosaurs were formally identified. These days, with millions of specimens resting in museum drawers, no one would say paleontologists don’t have enough material to work with for many, many lifetimes - with more and more to be discovered.
Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution
Archaeopteryx
Pakicetus and other amphibious whales
Pezosiren portelli
Tiktaalik
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenam...ort-evolution/
Your welcome to do experiments yourself. Try to explain how satellites are able to stay in the thermoshpere of anywhere between 1500 - 2500 degrees at roughly 560kn up. Aluminum melts at around 600 degrees. Now if you heat anything, it will expand. They tell us that because of the heat the gases and particulars are spread far apart due to expanding away from each other, this is basically what they tell us to explain how the ISS/ satellites don't get affected by the heat and melt. Ok so that's their explanation on why they don't get hot. But then how does it get cold? Should be a 2 way street. If there's no air in space for the heat to radiate into, to move through, through conduction or convection, how does heat leave? Right? Only light can transfer energy through space as we're told. On earth you have to have some sort of medium for it to travel through, this is common accepted truth. Heat has to move through something, unless it's light. So the question was, how does heat that builds up inside the space station get out? Right? There's an imaginary barrier around the space station that doesn't allow heat to get in or out, how does this work? Satellites are made of metal and dense matter and they're cool, they are going to absorb that light too, how do they not? How does it choose to heat the atmosphere but not the satellites. That defies logic. The solar panels also absorb light to make electricity, lets say they can work in 1500 degrees temperatures, shouldn't they be transferring heat into the station through the matter they're connected with? Metals conduct heat, basically all matter does, hot goes to cold. How does this work? We have to obey our laws of science. In my opinion this disobeys the 2nd law of thermaldynamics, so it's contradicting the method of analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Like I said, do the science for yourself. Check it for yourself. Prove it to yourself.
Again just because you feel the secret is to big, isn't proof that it's not happening.
I don't really care about being right, I know what I know, and what I have been able to see and do. And you can do some easy stuff yourself. All I ask is that people do their own research. If you watched that vid about faking space, and still choose to believe that you're not being lied to, that's fine, but that's why they can get away with it.
I like that you said support, not prove. There's so much to go into here. DNA wasn't around then yet either. Again carbon dating is only accurate to roughly 60,000 years. Anything beyond that is speculation. But I would challenge you to visit any dinosaur exhibition, and while there ask what displays have real dinosaur fossil's. I can guarantee it will be none. They'll give you some story about keeping the real ones locked away safely.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhile Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show species with intermediate or transitional features, it was virtually unexplored at the time. Knowing what he knew about rarity of fossilization and incomplete nature the geologic record, Darwin actually imagined the record was so poor, it was likely paleontologists would never find the transitional fossils.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI understand the theory of evolution. I just don't understand why we don't have millions of these transitional creatures along the fossil record.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterDo you understand "humans came from apes" doesn't mean modern apes turned into us, right? That's why you can't observe it. They mean we are related to the same family - cousins.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI never said Darwin said a difference of kinds, I said he spoke of a difference of kinds. It think the kinds arguement comes from the religious side. It's been a minute since I visited Origins but simply it's the thought that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. I do recall him mentioning something about life being breathed into a few forms or into one. Maybe mordern science f-cked him, with the theory of 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWhat did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAgain I'll point you the the scientific method, must be observed and repeatable, I'm just asking for 1 piece of observable evidence. Just 1. Darwin spoke of a change in kinds, can you give me an example of this change in kinds? Don't say finches, because although the beak size changed, they were still finches. Same with bacteria, still bacteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
When I speak of kinds, I'm talking genetic kinds and animal types.
Evolution appears to define Entropy the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. It also violates biogenisis. We've never seen a cell come from nothing, or a DNA strand come from nothing.
The chances of a single cell forming from nothing are considered mathmatically absurd.
Mendel's laws of genetics puts raises flaws in the evolution theory.
All the fake missing links. I've got textbooks from elder members of my family that claimed humans were 98% identical genetically to chimps. Turns out that was a lie, modern comparison techniques puts it closer to 79-80%, the same we also share with pigs and horses.
Beyond that the biggest smoking gun disproving human evolution is the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome doesn't fully recombinate with the X chromosome in men like the two X chromosomes can in women. It stays very consistent through generations, and when comparing the Y chromosomes of any of the primate species compared to humans the difference gets even greater sharing only about 60% of the same genes. So an almost unchanging chromosome from generation to generation hasn't had enough time to account for such a huge difference from the supposed divergence of our common primate ancestors we descended from til today.
There's some much more but look into it for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, I'm just giving my thoughts and beliefs.
In 1859, when On the Origin of Species was published, very few fossils had been discovered and described. It was only in the early 19th century that fossils of ancient beasts like dinosaurs were formally identified. These days, with millions of specimens resting in museum drawers, no one would say paleontologists don’t have enough material to work with for many, many lifetimes - with more and more to be discovered.
Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution
Archaeopteryx
Pakicetus and other amphibious whales
Pezosiren portelli
Tiktaalik
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenam...ort-evolution/
I have seen many programmes where children/adults have sent cameras on balloons into the atmosphere and the world looks round. They explode and come back down to earth. The cost now is relatively cheap.
It will be a fish eyed lense, like a go pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
And just back to the claim that I am saying the images are fake, NASA freely admits that the images of earth have been photo shopped. Other images you can download from NASAs official gallery, download some free photo forensic software and find evidence for yourself that images have been altered or shadowed areas display no sign of noise.
I would love to take you in a rocket and show you the world is round.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaIt will be a fish eyed lense, like a go pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
And just back to the claim that I am saying the images are fake, NASA freely admits that the images of earth have been photo shopped. Other images you can download from NASAs official gallery, download some free photo forensic software and find evidence for yourself that images have been altered or shadowed areas display no sign of noise.
Your common sense tells you a pressurised system needs some sort of containment or the gases will float away (think a can if deodorant for example), our atmosphere has no containment, and what's worse they tell you it's side by side with a vacuum.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI would love to take you in a rocket and show you the world is round.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaIt will be a fish eyed lense, like a go pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
And just back to the claim that I am saying the images are fake, NASA freely admits that the images of earth have been photo shopped. Other images you can download from NASAs official gallery, download some free photo forensic software and find evidence for yourself that images have been altered or shadowed areas display no sign of noise.
You believe the earth is what shape now? I can't keep up with the changes. The had to create the tilt because of polarise. Now the earth is pear shaped. Funny cause all those photo shopped images of earth look round.
The flat earth troll stuff is really weird(and funny) to read (the ancient Greeks worked it out over two thousand years ago).Even though it total troll stuff or the words of the deranged or both(aka kanye west), it is actually a really good oportunity for people to learn some physics and astronomy(and that satellites really don't defy the second law of thermodynamics.... errrr wot), so you can learn some stuff rather than the earth is round coz it looks round. Astronomy is actually pretty cool.