NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[p4pking]

Nobody ran away from the evolution stuff, @Alpha, it's just that you seemed to be muddling up biology with physics. But then dismissed all the evidence for evolution and like with the testimony of thousands of scientists who debunk the moon conspiracy, you claim they are either wrong or bullshitters.

It's no different to flat earthers who end up claiming - all the evidence/pictures/science is fake.

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.





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

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.

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..

[Freedom]

Russian cosmonauts will walk on the moon in early 2030s

https://www.rt.com/russia/444381-rus...-landing-base/

[Alpha]

You're asking for evidence you can actually observe even though you don't believe the science or sources.

If you had spent every single day for dozens and dozens of years observing an ape in a locked cage, then took a holiday and returned to find it replaced by a human in a three-piece suit, you wouldn't claim - "Blimey! They've been right all along. Evolution is kosher." You'd ask who's stole your bloody ape.

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.

What did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?

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.
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.

Nobody ran away from the evolution stuff, @Alpha, it's just that you seemed to be muddling up biology with physics. But then dismissed all the evidence for evolution and like with the testimony of thousands of scientists who debunk the moon conspiracy, you claim they are either wrong or bullshitters.

It's no different to flat earthers who end up claiming - all the evidence/pictures/science is fake.

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.





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

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.

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 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.

[Spicoli]

Flat Earthers oh dear . Think I need more coffee.

[p4pking]

You're asking for evidence you can actually observe even though you don't believe the science or sources.

If you had spent every single day for dozens and dozens of years observing an ape in a locked cage, then took a holiday and returned to find it replaced by a human in a three-piece suit, you wouldn't claim - "Blimey! They've been right all along. Evolution is kosher." You'd ask who's stole your bloody ape.

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.

What did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?

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.
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.

Nobody ran away from the evolution stuff, @Alpha, it's just that you seemed to be muddling up biology with physics. But then dismissed all the evidence for evolution and like with the testimony of thousands of scientists who debunk the moon conspiracy, you claim they are either wrong or bullshitters.

It's no different to flat earthers who end up claiming - all the evidence/pictures/science is fake.

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.





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

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.

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 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.

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.

[Alpha]

You're asking for evidence you can actually observe even though you don't believe the science or sources.

If you had spent every single day for dozens and dozens of years observing an ape in a locked cage, then took a holiday and returned to find it replaced by a human in a three-piece suit, you wouldn't claim - "Blimey! They've been right all along. Evolution is kosher." You'd ask who's stole your bloody ape.

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.

What did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?

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.
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.

Nobody ran away from the evolution stuff, @Alpha, it's just that you seemed to be muddling up biology with physics. But then dismissed all the evidence for evolution and like with the testimony of thousands of scientists who debunk the moon conspiracy, you claim they are either wrong or bullshitters.

It's no different to flat earthers who end up claiming - all the evidence/pictures/science is fake.

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.





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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

[Alpha]

Oh and I don't believe every conspiracy, I don't believe in aliens. Like a space invasion type of alien.

[Freedom]

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

[p4pking]

You're asking for evidence you can actually observe even though you don't believe the science or sources.

If you had spent every single day for dozens and dozens of years observing an ape in a locked cage, then took a holiday and returned to find it replaced by a human in a three-piece suit, you wouldn't claim - "Blimey! They've been right all along. Evolution is kosher." You'd ask who's stole your bloody ape.

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.

What did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?

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.
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.

Nobody ran away from the evolution stuff, @Alpha, it's just that you seemed to be muddling up biology with physics. But then dismissed all the evidence for evolution and like with the testimony of thousands of scientists who debunk the moon conspiracy, you claim they are either wrong or bullshitters.

It's no different to flat earthers who end up claiming - all the evidence/pictures/science is fake.

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.





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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

A group of you and your friends got together to do some actual physics on it....... 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.

[walrus]

I proved the whole thing fake poring vinegar on baking soda in my homemade volcano

[Alpha]

Alphito do you disbelieve satellites and gps and what not. Direct TV

I don't believe in satellites in space, I could speculate that it's all done by high altitude air balloons.

You're asking for evidence you can actually observe even though you don't believe the science or sources.

If you had spent every single day for dozens and dozens of years observing an ape in a locked cage, then took a holiday and returned to find it replaced by a human in a three-piece suit, you wouldn't claim - "Blimey! They've been right all along. Evolution is kosher." You'd ask who's stole your bloody ape.

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.

What did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?

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.
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.

Nobody ran away from the evolution stuff, @Alpha, it's just that you seemed to be muddling up biology with physics. But then dismissed all the evidence for evolution and like with the testimony of thousands of scientists who debunk the moon conspiracy, you claim they are either wrong or bullshitters.

It's no different to flat earthers who end up claiming - all the evidence/pictures/science is fake.

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.





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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

A group of you and your friends got together to do some actual physics on it....... 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.

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.

[Fenster]

You're asking for evidence you can actually observe even though you don't believe the science or sources.

If you had spent every single day for dozens and dozens of years observing an ape in a locked cage, then took a holiday and returned to find it replaced by a human in a three-piece suit, you wouldn't claim - "Blimey! They've been right all along. Evolution is kosher." You'd ask who's stole your bloody ape.

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.

What did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?

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.
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.

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.

[Fenster]

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?

[Alpha]

You're asking for evidence you can actually observe even though you don't believe the science or sources.

If you had spent every single day for dozens and dozens of years observing an ape in a locked cage, then took a holiday and returned to find it replaced by a human in a three-piece suit, you wouldn't claim - "Blimey! They've been right all along. Evolution is kosher." You'd ask who's stole your bloody ape.

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.

What did Darwin mean by "Kinds?" Can you give me the actual quote?

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.
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Alpha]

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.