T1B

Dinsdale wrote:Flight time from Satiago to Auckland: 12:35

Flight time from London to Auckland: 23:40


So, I guess that moronic model is out the window. Try another. Maybe one that can't be disproved in a few seconds next time.

You really are an incredible dumbass.


1. Link us up to where I said this is the map of the earth.

2. It was evident that Rooster was not aware of the concept of a flat earth, so I simply showed him an example of a flat earth model.

poptart wrote:You are not aware of a basic flat earth model.

There are a variety of models, but they tend to look something like this...

I never claimed that is the earth, or that that is the map of the earth.


3. Did you take the flight and document it?

4. Did you post the science experiment which shows that water can cling to the outside of a flying and spinning ball? When are you going to get around to addressing this fantasy of yours that you pass off as fact?


You are a mess, Dinsdale.
A total mess.

Dinsdale wrote:It makes perfect sense -- every other body we can see in space (including that one at night we can see with the naked eye)is spherical, and the earth is the lone exception. Perfectly logical.

How do you know they are spherical?

If they are spherical, how does that prove your globe?



Zero for two.

shutyomouth wrote:Yeah - but all pilots (like Lefty) are secretly told to fly different routes and to bend time to keep the globe theory going.

LOOK -- a babbling idiot!!

Softball Bat wrote: How do you know they are spherical?

Ask a 3rd grader.

No 3rd grader would ever believe water clings to the outside of a flying, spinning ball -- unless they were indoctrinated into that completely irrational fairy tale.

You believe something utterly ridiculous.
And compounding your stupidity is the fact that you have no science experiment to show that will confirm the laffable nonsense you believe.

Even further, you have now been alerted to the folly you believe in, and yet you continue to vigorously defend it.


Summary: You are mentally ill

shutyomouth wrote:You've yet to address the most logical aspect of this all - economics. 'Tardt, AGAIN, what would be the advantage of this all? I know one time you said "NASA!!!". Really? Would the entire rest of the planet be geared towards saving their asses? If what we're on is flat - then so what? We're here, and we have to make do. The distances between two places would all be different than what it's based on now. The costs would be absolutely mind-bending about how it would be to keep the illusion up that the earth is round if it were really flat - and all for really not a big fucking reason (again - we're here regardless). There would be no logic in keeping up an illusion of whether what we're on is flat or round. It really wouldn't be a huge fucking deal.

I have addressed this now multiple times.

You are making assumptions and you have created scenarios in your mind which are, imo, not accurate.

I can say no more to you on this.
If because of this, you are sure your globe is correct, so be it.
Enjoy your globe!

If we're in a sphere, what's on the outside of the sphere? You may call it "nothing", but something has to house all of this.

I assume water is above the firmament.
I don't claim it for a fact, but it is my assumption.

And finally - people had figured out the earth was round waaaaay before NASA. Way before flight. Hell - damned near before money. Are you grasping any of this? Pythagoras was probably the first person that proposed the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C.. What in Charlie Daniels' fuck would it have made at that point? Have we been keeping this illusion up for over 2500 years?

Where's the logic?

People made theories long ago about the earth being a globe, yes.
But they did not know it.
When rockets began going up, people could know for sure about the earth.

To paint with a broad brush, those who pushed the idea of the globe were "anti-God."

As I have told you...
If the earth is a random rock flying around in space, and it is one of a near infinite number of such rocks, it is pretty easy to deny a Creator.
But if the earth is flat and enclosed, it is evident that there is a Creator.

Something along these lines has been commonly understood as an earth model for most of human existence.
It is what is presented in the Bible.







The idea is that the earth is flat and stationary.
It is covered by a firmament which contains the sun, moon, and stars.
Waters are above the firmament.

The globe is the more radical idea, for many reasons.
It demands that water behave in ways that we know water does not behave.
It is irrational and frankly stupid.
This has now been pointed out to you many times.

The globe model also goes against what we directly experience.
We experience that we are flat (basically) and stationary, with the celestial bodies moving in a circuit above us.

It is only in more "recent times" that the globe has become a more (much more) accepted idea.
What you see above is what the majority of people have thought through human history.

I wasn't talking about you denying the Creator.

I was talking about those who deviated from Biblical cosmology and pushed the globe, such at Pythagoras.

You brought him up and I said this...

poptart wrote:People made theories long ago about the earth being a globe, yes.
But they did not know it.
When rockets began going up, people could know for sure about the earth.

To paint with a broad brush, those who pushed the idea of the globe were "anti-God."

Softball Bat wrote: I was talking about those who deviated from Biblical cosmology and pushed the globe, such at Pythagoras.

Yup, Pythagoras read that bible, then cast it aside, and said "fuck you, Jesus."

That's toooooootally what happened.

But is is all contained inside......a round sphere type thing. Why is this illustration not in a rectangle ??

Papa Willie wrote:Where did I deny a creator, dumbass?

The last time you covered this probably....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAqZb52sgpU

Derron wrote:





But is is all contained inside......a round sphere type thing. Why is this illustration not in a rectangle ??

And God shakes it to make it snow.

shutyomouth wrote:You’re an absolute mess, dude. Seriously.

It isn't my fault that you can't read or pay attention.

Oh well.

Dinsdale wrote:

Softball Bat wrote: I was talking about those who deviated from Biblical cosmology and pushed the globe, such at Pythagoras.

Yup, Pythagoras read that bible, then cast it aside, and said "fuck you, Jesus."

That's toooooootally what happened.

He lived 500 yrs before Jesus, 'tard.

Derron wrote:





But is is all contained inside......a round sphere type thing. Why is this illustration not in a rectangle ??

Like the shape of your head?

.088 wrote:Too bad the Good Book didn't include a few chapters devoted to things like physics, chemistry, astronomy, logic, and basically self-identifying when you've pushed a dumb fucking notion way the fuck too far. If it had, the snow-globe within which we apparently live would be a much better place.

Do you want to post the science experiment which shows water clinging to the outside of a flying and spinning ball?



GO...

Softball Bat wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Softball Bat wrote: I was talking about those who deviated from Biblical cosmology and pushed the globe, such at Pythagoras.

Yup, Pythagoras read that bible, then cast it aside, and said "fuck you, Jesus."

That's toooooootally what happened.

He lived 500 yrs before Jesus, 'tard.

So, you understand just how badly you KYOA (again)?

Kind of hard for him to "deviate" from something that didn't exist, no?

Softball Bat wrote:

.088 wrote:Too bad the Good Book didn't include a few chapters devoted to things like physics, chemistry, astronomy, logic, and basically self-identifying when you've pushed a dumb fucking notion way the fuck too far. If it had, the snow-globe within which we apparently live would be a much better place.

Do you want to post the science experiment which shows water clinging to the outside of a flying and spinning ball?



GO...

You're really struggling with the whole gravity concept, ain'cha, pop. A ball large enough to not only create its own gravitational field, but cancell out our globes field would be kinda big.

Dunce wrote:So, you understand just how badly you KYOA (again)?

Kind of hard for him to "deviate" from something that didn't exist, no?

I understand that you are a desperate, stupid, flailing freak.

YOU brought up Jesus, not me.

I said anti-God and I spoke of Biblical cosmology -- which existed LONG before Jesus walked the earth.


Eject, 'tard.

smackaholic wrote:You're really struggling with the whole gravity concept, ain'cha, pop. A ball large enough to not only create its own gravitational field, but cancell out our globes field would be kinda big.

Stop making up stupid shit and post the experiment showing water clinging to the outside of a flying and spinning ball.

You pop your head in this thread and post NOTHING of value.


Read only.

Softball Bat wrote:You are mentally ill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreligiosity

Intense religious beliefs that interfere with normal functioning -- Check

Delusions -- Check

Extravagant expression of religiosity -- Check

Get some help, dude.

Softball Bat wrote:

smackaholic wrote:You're really struggling with the whole gravity concept, ain'cha, pop. A ball large enough to not only create its own gravitational field, but cancell out our globes field would be kinda big.

Stop making up stupid shit and post the experiment showing water clinging to the outside of a flying and spinning ball.

You pop your head in this thread and post NOTHING of value.


Read only.

More KYOA. This is getting ugly.

Now since none of you delusional half-wits can produce the experiment which shows your fantasy as a reality, why not admit what is blatantly obvious?

That what you believe is simply a THEORY.


And an obviously VERY stupid one at that.

Dunce wrote:More KYOA. This is getting ugly.

Eject, 'tard.

Unreal.

Screwey better watch out. Our boy from soko is making his move on the outside. The BBoY contest ain't over just yet.

Dinsdale wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:You are mentally ill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreligiosity

Intense religious beliefs that interfere with normal functioning -- Check

Delusions -- Check

Extravagant expression of religiosity -- Check

Get some help, dude.

Duncedale scouring Wikipedia.

Who would ever guess?

smackaholic wrote:Screwey better watch out. Our boy from soko is making his move on the outside. The BBoY contest ain't over just yet.

Where is your experiment, 'tard.




#absent

#deluded

Gravity is more than a theory. How's about you go find a tall building near you and prove it.

Softball Bat wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Screwey better watch out. Our boy from soko is making his move on the outside. The BBoY contest ain't over just yet.

Where is your experiment, 'tard.




#absent

#deluded

That's it. I tap out. There is just no point in trying to discuss anything with a 12th degree black belt in tae tar do.

smackaholic wrote:That's it. I tap out.

Bye bye, dummy.

smackaholic wrote:Gravity is more than a theory.

Where is the center of the earth, and how do you know?

How do you know that there is a center of the earth?

For the sake of argument, let's say gravity is a fact.
How does that prove that the earth is the globe you say it is?


Educate yourself.

Softball Bat wrote:That what you believe is simply a THEORY.


And an obviously VERY stupid one at that.

Uhh, you do realize that "theory" as it pertains to science means something much different than the way it's used in every day conversation? Something that reaches the status of scientific theory has gone through repeated experiment or observation backed up by many independent lines of evidence and is essentially considered fact. Have you ever taken even a basic college level biology course before?

And what is a fact?



In science, a theory is superseded or becomes obsolete when a scientific consensus once widely accepted it, but current science considers it an inadequate, incomplete, or simply false description of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersede ... in_science


A pretty long list, Charlie.

Take a look at it.

Softball Bat wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:You are mentally ill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreligiosity

Intense religious beliefs that interfere with normal functioning -- Check

Delusions -- Check

Extravagant expression of religiosity -- Check

Get some help, dude.

Duncedale scouring Wikipedia.

Who would ever guess?

Actually dude, he hit it out of the fucking park really. The diagnosis of Hyperreligiosity seems pretty accurate which you then completely support with more manic rambling. I have to agree with suckaholic here, your BBTY chances are gaining huggge ground every post. Queerland's ankle biting is annoying, but yours is drop kick worthy.

Duhrron, did you ever get around to looking at the laser test data?

7 tests in 7 locations in 7 different weather conditions.




Flat water in all instances.
Science.

DId you ever produce an experiment showing water clinging to the outside of a flying and spinning ball?



Shutting your very dumb hole is your best option.
Trust me.

I'm here for you.

Softball Bat wrote:And what is a fact?



In science, a theory is superseded or becomes obsolete when a scientific consensus once widely accepted it, but current science considers it an inadequate, incomplete, or simply false description of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersede ... in_science


A pretty long list, Charlie.

Take a look at it.

I don't care to define a fact for you. I'm just trying to help you understand the difference between what a theory is in layman's terms and what a scientific theory is, because you seemed to dismiss gravity as being the former, as if it's nothing more than a hunch or a guess. Believe in gravity, or don't. I don't really care. I just don't know why gravity is so mind-bendingly difficult for you to accept, but when you're presented with a story about an old dude who herded two of every animal species on his boat to evade a global flood, your conclusion is, "Yep, that totally checks out!"

Bat Shit Crazy wrote: did you ever get around to looking at the laser test data?

Why no. That would be you assuming I give a fuck about your rants, or your theory's.

So Tart is back to moving the goal posts and then getting good and work up about it.

Softball Bat wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:It makes perfect sense -- every other body we can see in space (including that one at night we can see with the naked eye)is spherical, and the earth is the lone exception. Perfectly logical.

How do you know they are spherical?

Left Seater wrote:

Softball Bat wrote: How do you know they are spherical?

Ask a 3rd grader.

Softball Bat wrote:No 3rd grader would ever believe water clings to the outside of a flying, spinning ball -- unless they were indoctrinated into that completely irrational fairy tale.

You believe something utterly ridiculous.
And compounding your stupidity is the fact that you have no science experiment to show that will confirm the laffable nonsense you believe.

Even further, you have now been alerted to the folly you believe in, and yet you continue to vigorously defend it.


Summary: You are mentally ill

This is exactly why it is my belief that you are trolling or have a learning disability. Anytime you are put on the spot you move the goalposts or attack a straw man. You rant and rave like above but completely ignore the post/question/fact. In this case observations a 3rd grader can make. See also eclipses, Southern Hemisphere non stop flights, a working map, etc.

You think you are claiming some moral high road by asking people to think yet you refuse to do the same. When pressed repeatedly you will drop a quick I don’t know, but I know what it isn’t. Yet on the flip side if someone doesn’t have an immediate answer you start to yell and scream scoreboard. You really need some self reflection, or just keep trolling on.

Left Seater wrote:In this case observations a 3rd grader can make.

How do you know that the bodies we see in space are spherical?

Mgo wrote:I don't care to define a fact for you. I'm just trying to help you understand the difference between what a theory is in layman's terms and what a scientific theory is, because you seemed to dismiss gravity as being the former, as if it's nothing more than a hunch or a guess. Believe in gravity, or don't. I don't really care. I just don't know why gravity is so mind-bendingly difficult for you to accept, but when you're presented with a story about an old dude who herded two of every animal species on his boat to evade a global flood, your conclusion is, "Yep, that totally checks out!"

I'm really not interested in talking about Noah's Ark in here...

But it is pretty easy.

Jesus Christ rose from the dead, totally and phenomenally fulfilled the Old Testament, and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt (imo) that He is indeed the promised Messiah.

That Messiah (God Himself) spoke about Noah, and the flood, as being real.

So...

I assume Noah's Ark to have been real.

You can believe as you wish.

Softball Bat wrote:

Left Seater wrote:In this case observations a 3rd grader can make.

How do you know that the bodies we see in space are spherical?

Simple. Take the moon. Look at the differentiation between where sunlight and no sunlight fall on the moon. The shape of this boundary is always an arc. Only a sphere can cast this sort of shadow in any orientation when viewed from earth.

Then there is the oft mentioned eclipse. The entry and exit shadows are always arched. Never once has a non arched shadow been recorded.

Or take a look at Mars with a telescope. If it were flat why do we see different “views” of it over time? If it were truely flat we would see the same surface area each time we looked at it. We don’t of course and we can accurately know when certain surface features are visible which is evidence of a sphere.