Tazarah
Well-Known Member
of course I can. You made a nonsensical claim and I asked you why.
Please explain which part of that post was nonsense? Was it the part that you chose to criticize instead of address head on with a rebuttal?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
of course I can. You made a nonsensical claim and I asked you why.
I am keeping the debate on topic. You mentioned evolution and confirmed it initially, though it appears that you do not realize that you did. If you use terms you should at least understand the terms that you use.I thought you were a pro debater? Withholding evidence from a discussion because of the assumption that the other person will not understand the information is a new tactic that I have never heard of before. Sounds like a load of BS to me. But hey, at least you tried.
All of it. Once again let's try to stick to one point at a time.Please explain which part of that post was nonsense? Was it the part that you chose to criticize instead of address head on with a rebuttal?
I am keeping the debate on topic. You mentioned evolution and confirmed it initially, though it appears that you do not realize that you did. If you use terms you should at least understand the terms that you use.
By the way "assumption" is another term you should not use. The only assumption was that you could properly use the English language.
All of it. Once again let's try to stick to one point at a time.
Ha ha! I love this one - where do you get your jokes from?The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.
Ha ha! I love this one - where do you get your jokes from?
There were no ad hominem fallacies there. I was giving advice. You keep using terms that you clearly do not understand.Now with the ad homs.
Where is the proof of evolution being possible? It’s a simple question.
Now watch it, you do not want to break the rules of the forum here so soon. I like to have some entertainment first.You’re right, let’s stick to one topic at a time so that we can make it easier for you to make a fool of yourself.
There were no ad hominem fallacies there. I was giving advice. You keep using terms that you clearly do not understand.
And he to ask sensible questions. The "proof" that evolution is possible occurs every time a baby is born.. It will have on for order of 100 mutations of the genome handed to It By its parents.
Now watch it, you do not want to break the rules of the forum here so soon. I like to have some entertainment first.
You forgot so soon!. You asked for "proof" that it is possible. Evolution depends upon changes in t he genome so mutations "prove" that it is possible.Producing offspring is not evolution. Producing offspring is producing offspring.
Still waiting for a scientific study confirming the “fact” that evolution is possible.
You forgot so soon!. You asked for "proof" that it is possible. Evolution depends upon changes in t he genome so mutations "prove" that it is possible.
Explain the seasons and the day/night cycle.Let me start off by saying:
— the earth is flat.
and...
— the theory of evolution is nothing more than a theory.
1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show
a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flatplane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.
5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.
6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.
7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.
8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the EarthReview regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this – that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle.”
10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.
11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”
12) The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.
13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!
14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.
15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute... Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
You are relying on idiots and liars. To even work at AiG one must swear not to use the scientific method. They are not a valid source when it comes to the sciences.Hahaha! Sad.
“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.”
Explain the seasons and the day/night cycle.
I'm not reading all of that. I just wondered what your answer to those things would be. I'm curious.Explain the 15 points that I raised. If the earth is a curved ball/globe then it should be easy to explain them, right?
You are relying on idiots and liars. To even work at AiG one must swear not to use the scientific method. They are not a valid source when it comes to the sciences.
And why would you use them? They laugh at your flat earth beliefs there.
Explain the 15 points that I raised. If the earth is a curved ball/globe then it should be easy to explain them, right?
I'm not reading all of that. I just wondered what your answer to those things would be. I'm curious.