Are there any Flat Earth believers here?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I saw your text:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurius (341-270 BC)

He gave us free will, else we would be just robots. He wants us to learn that Hes Guidance is Wiser.
~ Random internet dude (1993 - 20** AD)

Free Will is 100% cop out. You don't need "evil" to enable free will.

You don't even need faith!

Your cutsy "quote" does not excuse the Conundrum that Epicurious posed way, way back before Islam had been invented.

Epicurious was a smart guy. No theologian has manged a sane or rational answer to his question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

[
What about these points? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com

Sorry, none of that is evidence for a flood. What is the testable hypothesis?:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia


What you have there is only misinterpretation of evidence. If you bring up a point at a time I will discuss it. Gish Gallops are a dishonest debating technique. I do not respond to those.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Free Will is 100% cop out. You don't need "evil" to enable free will.

You don't even need faith!

Your cutsy "quote" does not excuse the Conundrum that Epicurious posed way, way back before Islam had been invented.

Epicurious was a smart guy. No theologian has manged a sane or rational answer to his question.

Ooh! Ooh! Let me take a shot at Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

He is correct. God is willing but unable to prevent evil. There is only so much that one can do with Noodly Appendages.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

That is not the case for the FSM (Ramen) Whew! Ducked that one.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

See above. And another Whew! Ducked another one

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Simple answer, he does the best that he can and in heaven there are beer volcanoes and stripper factories. 'Nuff said. Clearly the God of the universe is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He is the only God that can legitimately answer Epicurious's questions. Ramen! May you be Touched by His Noodly Appendages.

 

[Tazarah]

Nope, you didn't. You forgot which post I was responding to. I don't have to lie to make you look bad.

You never proved anything. You lied and now you’re lying about lying. When did you prove that the theory of evolution is a fact? Please direct me to the post, instead of repeatedly saying “I already proved it”, or simply copy/paste what you wrote down in the post where you proved it.

 

[Tazarah]

is your memory that poor? Did you forget already? Or did you just not understand? And no, I did not claim that childbirth is proof of evolution. I proved it was possible. You do not appear to understand the difference between the two.

You said that prove of evolution occurs everytime a child is born. Why do you keep lying? I attached the screenshot again. Read what you said. Clearly you are the one with poor remember, you deny literally everything even when there is evidence of what you said right in your face.

STILL waiting for that proof that evolution is a factual phenomenon.

 

[Tazarah]

Once again here is the post where the demand was made to prove that evolution is possible.

the mutations present at childbirth "prove" that evolution is possible.

Child birth is not proof that evolution is possible... I thought that you said child birth ISN’T proof that evolution is possible? Which is it. We’ve been through this several times, now we’re going in circles.

“The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.

Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still, no.”

 

[Tazarah]

Really? The aircraft relies on gravity, and would not
work without it.

Yes, without gravity the aircraft would not be able to defy gravity... lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You never proved anything. You lied and now you’re lying about lying. When did you prove that the theory of evolution is a fact? Please direct me to the post, instead of repeatedly saying “I already proved it”, or simply copy/paste what you wrote down in the post where you proved it.

Since logic is not a tool that you seem to know how to use you cannot properly claim this. You did not understand your error and you still won't admit it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Child birth is not proof that evolution is possible... I thought that you said child birth ISN’T proof that evolution is possible? Which is it. We’ve been through this several times, now we’re going in circles.

“The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.

Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still, no.”

Why not? And you need to work on your ability to follow a conversation. I made it quite clear which error of yours that I was addressing.

And you used a lying source again. Every time that you use a lying source you throw in the towel. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said that prove of evolution occurs everytime a child is born. Why do you keep lying? I attached the screenshot again. Read what you said. Clearly you are the one with poor remember, you deny literally everything even when there is evidence of what you said right in your face.

STILL waiting for that proof that evolution is a factual phenomenon.

LOL!! Can't you even read or understand the post that you copied? It says that childbirth proves that evolution is possible. It does not say that "You said that prove of evolution occurs everytime a child is born." Why can't you understand the difference? The fact that you are not reasoning logically does not mean that I am lying.

Have fun. See you in a couple of hours. If you take your time you may understand your error.

 

[Tazarah]

Something like the color red is nothing more than red. What an utterly dense and useless remark.


Ah yes, the government fakes the curvature of the horizon because why? They have stuff hidden behind it?

As photos from space clearly show; no you don't.


Have you absolutely no concept at all of how the gravity of a sphere works?


Why would this necessarily be the case?


If you're not going to show your evidence why should anyone believe you?


Absolutely no understanding of solid geometry or basic physics. This is sooo sad.


That's a lie, or just plain ignorance.

Q. Structural Engineers: At what point does the curvature of the earth have to be factored in? As in, at what size does a project have to take account of the curvature of Earth

A. Geotechnical, not structural. But the answer is pretty big. It affects long span bridge construction somewhat since you want the main supports to be parallel to the direction of gravitational acceleration as opposed to parallel to each other. So your supports will be farther apart at the top than they are at the base by a little bit.

In general though with buildings, it doesn't really matter all that much if you follow the curvature of the earth. Even if you were building something really big, any load bearing vertical elements aren't likely to be spaced out so much that it is an issue like it would be with a long span bridge.

If you were building something like a linear accelerator that has to be very long and very straight, than you would have to do some extra math because you wouldn't be able to hold to one plan elevation and still get a building with no curvature. But that is about it.
source​

So just what are the altitudes of the water at the Mediterranean end and the Red Sea end? FYI, both are zero. What does that tell you?


Simply stupid beyond belief.


Please note that plagiarism is against RF rules.

Let’s see, you answered one question with the OPINION of some other person, and then you answered the rest with insults. And you know what they say about people who rely on insults to get their point across. If you are going to be irrational then why respond at all? Like I mentioned earlier, I only deal with facts. All of the information that I posted can be confirmed and verified. I don’t care if you believe me or not, but if you are going to respond and attempt to criticize then you should at least have some evidence supporting your rebuttal. I did not plagiarize anything, I simply copy/pasted those bullet points from another source and then put them into quotes on this website. I never claimed it as my own information. If that’s “plagiarism”, then you are guilty as well because you did the exact same thing. Come on now, let’s be rational. Grow up.

 

[Skwim]

I agree with your logic. Can you really disprove the flood?

There are scientists who have evidence for the flood. Have you spoke with them, maybe they can convince you?

Curious, what scientists are these and what is their evidence?

.

 

[Tazarah]

Why not? And you need to work on your ability to follow a conversation. I made it quite clear which error of yours that I was addressing.

And you used a lying source again. Every time that you use a lying source you throw in the towel. Try again.

I used a lying source? Lmao!!! Everything that was said in that post is a fact. You do not even know which source I got the information from, so how you are able to call it a lying source is beyond me. Please, explain to us all which part of that post is not factual information?

 

[Tazarah]

LOL!! Can't you even read or understand the post that you copied? It says that childbirth proves that evolution is possible. It does not say that "You said that prove of evolution occurs everytime a child is born." Why can't you understand the difference? The fact that you are not reasoning logically does not mean that I am lying.

Have fun. See you in a couple of hours. If you take your time you may understand your error.

Oh wow.

I asked for proof that evolution is possible. Then you said “the proof of evolution occurs everytime a child is born”. How am I not reasoning logically, by calling you out on your mistakes? You yourself earlier admitted that you “misused your tablet” or whatever it was that you said, but now you’re back on the defensive? What’s your deal, are you bipolar or something? I asked for you to prove something and then you attempted to prove it with a statement. Then I countered your statement and showed you that you were wrong and then you said “I never said that”. So then when I show you that you DID in fact say what you denied saying, you twist it around and say “no I said this” when it’s the SAME exact thing. LOL! And then the cycle repeats.

How old are you kid?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Ooh! Ooh! Let me take a shot at Epicurus:



He is correct. God is willing but unable to prevent evil. There is only so much that one can do with Noodly Appendages.



That is not the case for the FSM (Ramen) Whew! Ducked that one.



See above. And another Whew! Ducked another one



Simple answer, he does the best that he can and in heaven there are beer volcanoes and stripper factories. 'Nuff said. Clearly the God of the universe is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He is the only God that can legitimately answer Epicurious's questions. Ramen! May you be Touched by His Noodly Appendages.

R'Amen!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

STILL waiting for that proof that evolution is a factual phenomenon.

I gave you several. Pity, you must have missed it.

Oh well. Willful Blindness is like that; missing out on most of actual reality itself.

Do tell? Are your glasses, perchance, the color and hue of a freshly bloomed rose petal?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Curious, what scientists are these and what is their evidence?

.

Let me guess.... they researched the question using ...

.... a magic 8 ball?

No? Well.... they might've had better luck if they had....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

STILL waiting for that proof that evolution is a factual phenomenon.

I got a whole buncha proofs... Alas, they all require you to read. And to click a link.

I am not hopeful you are willing, but here you go anyhow....


Proof of evolution:
1) 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
2) Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
3) http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558
4) Human Evolution Evidence
5) http://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/multicellular-life-evolve/
6) http://www.talkorigins.org/
7) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
8) http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/
9) http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
10) <bad link... article no longer available>
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
12) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
13) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
14) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

[Tazarah]

I gave you several. Pity, you must have missed it.

Oh well. Willful Blindness is like that; missing out on most of actual reality itself.

Do tell? Are your glasses, perchance, the color and hue of a freshly bloomed rose petal?

No you didn’t... you posted this post claiming that you did, and then you posted sources after. What’s up with all of these childish tactics from these so-called adults?

 

[Tazarah]

I got a whole buncha proofs... Alas, they all require you to read. And to click a link.

I am not hopeful you are willing, but here you go anyhow....


Proof of evolution:
1) 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
2) Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
3) http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558
4) Human Evolution Evidence
5) http://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/multicellular-life-evolve/
6) TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
7) Evolution
8) 101 Reasons Why Evolution is True | ideonexus.com
9) Human Evolution Evidence
10) <bad link... article no longer available>
11) Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
12) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
13) Understanding Evolution
14) Welcome to Evolution 101!

Look, another straw man!

I know how evolution supposedly works. But where is the PROOF that these THEORIES are FACTS?

The THEORY of evolution cannot and has not been proven by using the scientific method.

1. Facts are observations whereas theories are the explanations to those observations.

2. Theories are vague truths or unclear facts whereas facts are really facts.

“EVOLUTION, we have always been told, results from natural selection sifting through countless random variations over millions of years. Natural selection can explain which adaptations survive over time, but it falls far short of explaining where those adaptations came from. With due apologies to Charles Darwin, he never proved that natural selection is the driving force of evolution.

Understandable, because it is only a THEORY of evolution.”