NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[Alpha]

Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.

Logical to be hurtling through space?

What are the odds that we're one of the only flat planets though. Or the only one, and exactly how many known spherical planets can be seen with the naked eye across the World or with high powered telescopes, observatories etc. If one is a flat Earther do we dispute that these are 'known' Planets to begin with?

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

[Freedom]

A look at some of the best images from Mars

[Alpha]

So are these the ones from Greenland or Devon Island? Fake, fake, fake, fake.

No one ever got back to me about all the dirt on the lens cap but the very next photo they released, there was no dirt to be seen.

We should start a GoFundMe for NASA to get a bunch of GoPro's to attach everywhere 'next time', obviously 50 million a day only goes so far.

[Spicoli]

Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.

Logical to be hurtling through space?

What are the odds that we're one of the only flat planets though. Or the only one, and exactly how many known spherical planets can be seen with the naked eye across the World or with high powered telescopes, observatories etc. If one is a flat Earther do we dispute that these are 'known' Planets to begin with?

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Pool table.. huh . So you're saying there's a great chance Earth would be the only flat planet, or what we see through telescopes is indistinguishable as flat or round? Save for the Moon clear to the naked eye as round. I thought there were other planets clear to the eye as round also? Depending on location.

[Alpha]

Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.

Logical to be hurtling through space?

What are the odds that we're one of the only flat planets though. Or the only one, and exactly how many known spherical planets can be seen with the naked eye across the World or with high powered telescopes, observatories etc. If one is a flat Earther do we dispute that these are 'known' Planets to begin with?

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Pool table.. huh . So you're saying there's a great chance Earth would be the only flat planet, or what we see through telescopes is indistinguishable as flat or round? Save for the Moon clear to the naked eye as round. I thought there were other planets clear to the eye as round also? Depending on location.

I'm just saying by you're reasoning the pool table example can be used. Just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is as well.

Sure planets look round, but solid? Take a look yourself if you get the chance. They look nothing like NASA's 'super' telescope images. Like I mentioned, the ancients referred to them as 'wandering stars'.

We only ever see 1 side of the moon from earth. Take away NASA's fake images and you can see the possibility of it being a disc.

[Freedom]

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Thanks for the humorous posts, Alpha.

I for one can tell you're not serious, you're just playing with us.

[Alpha]

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Thanks for the humorous posts, Alpha.

I for one can tell you're not serious, you're just playing with us.

I'm serious Freedom, and I mean know offense when I say this to you but you have already mentioned that you happily believe the bible, with no empirical evidence, so it's no surprise you believe this as well. Even when the evidence is shown clearly to you, you will continue to deny it.

There's a quote by someone saying something like 'it's harder to convince someone that they have been deceived, than it is to deceive them'.

You will freely agree that governments lie to us about everything, but are 100% sure they are telling you the truth about this. The propaganda they use to fool us is powerful.

I prefer to follow natural science rather than the formal science, that do not involve empirical procedures.

[Alpha]

And I just want to point out 1 thing, look at how quick they got Steph Curry to change his tune, to now being all jokes.

[p4pking]

That probably just means the corporation he plays for doesn’t want a guy who generates so much revenue for throwing a ball around to alienate some of their fan base and lose revenue by making himself look like a lunatic. When anonymous trolls do so it just provides a laugh. I’m sure there are plenty of people who might otherwise wear his jersey or shoes think “yea maybe not”.

[Alpha]

That probably just means the corporation he plays for doesn’t want a guy who generates so much revenue for throwing a ball around to alienate some of their fan base and lose revenue by making himself look like a lunatic. When anonymous trolls do so it just provides a laugh. I’m sure there are plenty of people who might otherwise wear his jersey or shoes think “yea maybe not”.

So you agree he was controlled?

Yea why have his own opinion? Follow what everyone else says, sheep.

[p4pking]

That probably just means the corporation he plays for doesn’t want a guy who generates so much revenue for throwing a ball around to alienate some of their fan base and lose revenue by making himself look like a lunatic. When anonymous trolls do so it just provides a laugh. I’m sure there are plenty of people who might otherwise wear his jersey or shoes think “yea maybe not”.

So you agree he was controlled?

Yea why have his own opinion? Follow what everyone else says, sheep.

I don’t watch basketball, but any athlete who plays for a franchise is controlled, of course. They work for that company and depend on viewers and merchandise sales to make everyone and themselves money. There is a line between having an opinion and saying ridiculous things, and people with a public image to maintain have to be much more careful of course. He might say “I feel women shouldn’t have rights and gay people should be killed”, but it would be career over, unless he was a Muslim I suppose.

[Freedom]

I'm serious Freedom, and I mean know offense when I say this to you but you have already mentioned that you happily believe the bible, with no empirical evidence, so it's no surprise you believe this as well.

I believe in Jesus and His teachings. There is nothing in science that can prove He was wrong.

But I don't believe in the Old Testament, especially not Genesis and the story of Jonah.

I do believe in evolution, but at the same time I believe in God, and yes that requires faith. Although I'm not sure of the true nature of God, I think the best explanation is panentheism.

[Alpha]

I'm serious Freedom, and I mean know offense when I say this to you but you have already mentioned that you happily believe the bible, with no empirical evidence, so it's no surprise you believe this as well.

I believe in Jesus and His teachings. There is nothing in science that can prove He was wrong.

But I don't believe in the Old Testament, especially not Genesis and the story of Jonah.

I do believe in evolution, but at the same time I believe in God, and yes that requires faith. Although I'm not sure of the true nature of God, I think the best explanation is panentheism.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing in science can prove he was wrong"

There are numerous contradictions in the bible, would that constitute as proof?

End of the day you say you "believe", so you don't claim it to be real? Or do you know it's real?

You don't have to answer if you feel uncomfortable discussing it.

[Freedom]

There are numerous contradictions in the bible, would that constitute as proof?

There no serious contradictions in the four Gospels, although they were written by four different people in three different languages (Matthew and John wrote in Hebrew, Mark in Latin and Luke in Greek) so there's bound to be some minor differences. Matthew and John were disciples, while Mark and Luke were not.

Different authors give different emphasis to the three core beliefs in Christianity - faith, works and love. For example John consistently emphasized love while Paul more often emphasized faith. Yet in I Corinthians 13 Paul acknowledges that love is greater than faith.

[Master]

Richard Branson and Virgin flew into space and the world did not look flat from the pictures they showed.

Amazon and others want to do the same.