Originally posted by josephwThe answer is not obvious.
As far as I know the consensus is that the universe came out of nowhere. Science has it that it happened by chance, but creationist believe it was created.
I think the answer is obvious.
It is a very deep question which science is getting closer and closer to unravelling.
When Creationists can give an equitable answer to where
their "god" came from then we can have a sensible debate.
What you mean by "obvious" is "what my pea-brain can understand".
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI'd smack him in his smart mouth, were he in reach.
If I insulted you sir, but was standing below the horizon line in the company of Buzz Aldrin, would you still take offense?
(The above is an example of my 'morning posts' where the quality of humour is significantly compromised).
Originally posted by KeggeI never made-believe I was the best of the best; just better than you.
You behave exactly like Very Rusty used to. A internet make-believe best of the best of everything. Of course not a single shred of "evidence" he actually was stronger, wealthier, raised more children and to top it of visited more psychologists than I, was ever produced.
And that is also exactly what you do. An internet loud mouth with a superiority comple ...[text shortened]... call. (Another member here did though, which was cool).
To me you're Very Rusty from now on.
That's an objective fact, so don't get your panties in a bunch--- just go with the flow.
I don't know if the six kids I've raised/am raising is more than your status, but I do know my children have a better example.
What kind of man (even jokingly) insults others' children with the vile refuse you've taken to?
Do you think your kids would be offended seeing how their father behaves anonymously?
Stronger or wealthier, hard to say.
My guess is yes to both accounts, but quite frankly, I couldn't care less.
It is entirely possible you kick ass on a daily basis and then head to Nova Scotia to see the total eclipse of the sun... but given your penchant for insulting people only when you know it's safe, I'm going to lean toward 'not really' rather than 'more than likely.'
I've paid a visit to only one psychologist in my entire life, adult or otherwise.
I won, by the way.
What's your score?
You could give me your number, but the truth is I already have it.
What good would it do to call you?
Shouting back and forth, talking each other down?
Who would want to dialogue with someone with such disgusting cowardice, anyway?
I'll be your new Very Rusty, if it makes you feel good.
You'll continue to be my little hemorrhoid.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI see you like violent words more than flat earth concepts. I see you finally gave up the belly laughs.
I never made-believe I was the best of the best; just better than you.
That's an objective fact, so don't get your panties in a bunch--- just go with the flow.
I don't know if the six kids I've raised/am raising is more than your status, but I do know my children have a better example.
What kind of man (even jokingly) insults others' children with the ...[text shortened]... be your new Very Rusty, if it makes you feel good.
You'll continue to be my little hemorrhoid.
Originally posted by KeggeAlthough his support might not have come out as intended, josephw can vouch for whatever few claims I've made about myself: my general appearance, where I reside, gainful employment and etc.
Of course you do! And because you also know me (NOT) you can make the claim you just made. Are you an idiot?
You, on the other hand, have a phantom member who called you once.
Oh, and I nearly forgot: you also have your charming online personality which is demonstrated through your faceless character assassinations.
So you have that going for you.
Which is nice.
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd what has the meteor strikes on the visible face of the moon vs the back have to do with anything like the shape of Earth?
And what has the meteor strikes on the visible face of the moon vs the back have to do with anything like the shape of Earth? You are just spitting out strawman after strawman, and if for some reason you don't know what that is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You see how this works? I put up a link supporting my case but all you do is put up ...[text shortened]... ed a line of bullshyte and you can't come up with anything like a real argument all by yourself.
Directly?
If they were orbiting in conjunction with each other, the hits clearly evident on the moon's earth-facing surface could not have occurred, shielded as it were by the earth.
You are just spitting out strawman after strawman, and if for some reason you don't know what that is:
Perfectly comfortable with the term, thanks.
In keeping with your normal tack of veering as far from the point as possible, you introduce the concept... by doing the very same thing.
I have not argued against a point you haven't made.
I have made my position very clear, and quite frankly, introduced 80-90% of the topics discussed up to this point.
When you've thrown something into the mix (applicable or as in most cases, not), I've addressed them, as well.
Laughable.
Also drilling down past 7 miles, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
How is it that this doesn't bother you, doesn't make you the least curious?
Since you know so much about optics, tell us why we can't see over the horizon on the moon.
I wouldn't know since no one has been there to test it.
What I do know is that the proportions of the earth (as shown in images reported to be from the moon) simply do not agree with each other or with their positions otherwise.
If the earth were, indeed, nearly four times the size of the moon--- without Googling it--- how big in the sky would you expect it to appear, were you standing on the moon?
Now that you have that image in your mind, go ahead and Google it... and you'll find images which depict the earth as (roughly) the same size in the moon's sky as the moon is in the earth's.
No matter what math you use, it doesn't add up.
Also, if Earth was flat, why can't we see the Eiffel tower from the Bronx? Your so-called arguments keep getting thinner by the hour.
Seriously?
How tall do you think the Eiffel Tower is, exactly?
Did you forget that the further one is from an object, the smaller the object appears?
At some point, Mt. Everest would disappear from a person's view simply because its height increasingly melds with the horizon at a distance.
But, just for giggles, let's use the tower for a little illustration.
Let's move the tower to a platform in the ocean, unobstructed by waves or any other obstacles.
A person 6' tall standing on a similar magical platform shouldn't be able to see the tower once their platform was 41.45 miles away from the 984' high tower were the earth curved.
You can play with the numbers on any of the three inputs: a person's observation height, the distance between the observation and object and the height of the object itself.
So it really doesn't matter what the object is, once you know:
1. The height of the observation point;
2. The height of the object in view; and
3. The distance between the observer and the object
you can determine at what distance the object ceases to be visible... on a spherical earth.
Instead what we have seen are distant objects clearly visible from impossible distances.
At all times of the day or night, and in nearly all weather conditions (excluding those impacting normal vision: clouds, mist, haze, fog and smog).
And you studiously avoid trying to rationalize why the moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and such are all globes at the same time thinking Earth has to be flat.
I don't know that any of the mentioned are, indeed, globular.
But even if they are, their shape doesn't necessitate the earth is the same shape.
The earth doesn't have to be flat; it just isn't a globe.
Don't worry, I'll give you time to consult your flat Earther buddies, since it is quite obvious you have just been fed a line of bullshyte and you can't come up with anything like a real argument all by yourself.
You've asked for my support on the points that I bring up.
I provide them but you've ignored them.
That the idea of a flat earth didn't originate with me is somehow an argument against it?
While I appreciate your nod to my obvious genius, not all ideas rise and set in my lap: some other people have actually come up with some pretty good stuff, too.
And by your argument, I guess I can discount 100% of your position.
You know: since none of it came from you.
Just plain silly.
You've yet to answer the oft-repeated question:
WHY HAS NASA LIED ABOUT ANYTHING?
as well as one of the companion questions:
HOW ARE DISTANT OBJECTS WHICH SHOULD BE BEYOND THE CURVE STILL VISIBLE?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou have said exactly nothing, again, as usual. No supporting evidence, again, as usual, just more bullshyte meaningless words.
[b]And what has the meteor strikes on the visible face of the moon vs the back have to do with anything like the shape of Earth?
Directly?
If they were orbiting in conjunction with each other, the hits clearly evident on the moon's earth-facing surface could not have occurred, shielded as it were by the earth.
You are just spitting out strawman ...[text shortened]... stions:
[b]HOW ARE DISTANT OBJECTS WHICH SHOULD BE BEYOND THE CURVE STILL VISIBLE?[/b]
You don't know for instance, Jupiter is a globe? When we can clearly see it with hubble?
What the hell is wrong with you, are you really that stupid you can't look in a telescope for yourself or would that destroy your fantasy world?
Forgetting about basic physics like how Earth would NOT protect the moon because it is too far away, Try looking at it in real perspective, to scale and you wills see Earth is 8000 odd miles across vs 240,000 miles to the moon, That means it only covers about 2 degrees at the distance of the moon out of the moon's 360 degree sky. So you tell ME how well Earth would protect anything as a shadow at that distance.
Of course none of that will sway you anyway so you can go back to your belly laughs.
So you don't think Earth is flat now? And it is a personal insult to say nobody walked on the moon since I was one of the dudes involved back in '70.
You never answered how we could put a retroreflector on the moon pointed accurately enough that a laser beam from Earth sends enough light to that little reflector to count the few photons coming back to the optical detector to measure the distance to the moon with centimeter accuracy.
Of course that wouldn't bother you either, just saying it never happened over and over again, NASA lying about everything. You are a world class assshole and I hope never to have the disgust of actually meeting you in real life. You are an insult to science and me personally.
Originally posted by sonhouseI think I might have missed your response to the two questions put to you.
You have said exactly nothing, again, as usual. No supporting evidence, again, as usual, just more bullshyte meaningless words.
You don't know for instance, Jupiter is a globe? When we can clearly see it with hubble?
What the hell is wrong with you, are you really that stupid you can't look in a telescope for yourself or would that destroy your fanta ...[text shortened]... he disgust of actually meeting you in real life. You are an insult to science and me personally.
Were they in that rambling response of yours?