A flat earth

[Doveaman]

They're not exactly...*ahem*....around right now.

Besides, I do recall hearing somewhere about the blind leading the blind.

You heard it from Jesus.

 

[Doveaman]

Even better:
Ivy Mike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike

Even better?

Where is the nuclear sun model. I don't see it. Do you?

 

[Cabal]

Sounds like you are describing the Electric Sun, Cabal.

Not hardly - the Coulomb force is a central force, like gravity. That's the only comparison I was drawing.

You heard it from Jesus.

I know - the people Nathan was talking about should take it on board.

 

[Cabal]

Even better?

Where is the nuclear sun model. I don't see it. Do you?

Nuclear fusion has been demonstrated on the lab scale without the presence of oxygen. This is what was being discussed.

(My goalpost-moving sense is tingling.....)

 

[Asycthian]

Fusion: Look up NIF, ITER, or any contemporary fusion experiment, they do fusion reactions all the time.

Elliptical motion can be shown using a suitable analogue, such as charged particles in an electric field (this is besides the massive amounts of, y'know, actual work done IN SPACE that relies on these kinds of mechanics).

Evolution - look up bacteria evolving the ability to digest nitrogen or Lenski's epic E.Coli experiment where new information was gained. And before you say that's not a new species, search this forum for lucaspa's list of observed instances of speciation.

As for them not being atheistic, the only person who can change your prejudiced mind is you.

I don't see what any of this has to do with the Sun. You are going way off topic. No one has landed on the Sun, so it's pretty ignorant on your behalf to claim what is it's source for it's light.

Typically atheists will loose a debate, and change topic, either that or they resort to pointing out spelling mistakes, or resort to the 'poe' or 'troll' claim.

 

[Asycthian]

Even better:
Ivy Mike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia link = evidence?

Are you people for real?

Also still waiting for you atheist's evidence for the earth to be round. So far the mast head and pole star arguements have already been debunked. Your next step is probably to spam pictures from NASA, or again spam more of 'poe'.

None of you people can debate properly at all.

 

[Cabal]

I don't see what any of this has to do with the Sun. You are going way off topic.

In other words, I handed you your backside about scienti - sorry, "atheists" not having any observations to their claims and now you're backpedalling.

You make sweeping statements like that, that just leaves you open for a massive pwning with the discovery of a single counterexample.

No one has landed on the Sun, so it's pretty ignorant on your behalf to claim what is it's source for it's light.

Yes, apart from the fact that we can SEE IT (spectroscopy much?) and we have a consistent theory to describe it.

Typically atheists will loose a debate, and change topic, either that or they resort to pointing out spelling mistakes, or resort to the 'poe' or 'troll' claim.

That's nice. Not relevant to me. Or to atheists in general. Or to the point.

And I said before, you should really see some of the Christians.

 

[Cabal]

Wikipedia link = evidence?

Are you people for real?

Right, H-bomb tests never happened via the process of nuclear fusion, what were we thinking.

Also still waiting for you atheist's evidence for the earth to be round. So far the mast head and pole star arguements have already been debunked. Your next step is probably to spam pictures from NASA, or again spam more of 'poe'.

None of you people can debate properly at all.

We've been into space. And unless the earth-disc was cheekily rotating with us just to thwart us, it's round.

And seriously, stop with the atheists thing. Quite a few Christians happen to not be stuck in middle ages on this topic.

 

[Asycthian]

Yes, apart from the fact that we can SEE IT (spectroscopy much?) and we have a consistent theory to describe it.

You (or someone else) in this thread, wrote something about the Sun and 'nucleur fusion', yet this is pure speculation - since it is not observed.

Also an astronomer can only guess at the size of the sun. Therefore my belief the Sun is 32 diameters, is as equal as any other belief regarding the size of the Sun. However i presented a mathematical piece of evidence against the idea the Sun is larger than the earth, it certianly isn't. See what i pasted from Homer, and the ancient Greeks; the ancients knew the Sun was far smaller than the earth.

 

[Asycthian]

Right, H-bomb tests never happened via the process of nuclear fusion, what were we thinking.

A wikipedia article isn't evidence for anything. It's not a valid source. It's a heavily biased website, edited and moderated by Atheists, it's founders were even Atheists (Jimmy Wales it's co-founder is a well known Atheist, following an Atheistic philosophical school called ''Objectivism'').

I have no idea why this forum, being Christian, would allow users to paste Atheist websites in here anyway.

We've been into space. And unless the earth-disc was cheekily rotating with us just to thwart us, it's round.

There is no evidence for 'space', or that man has gone higher then a few hundred miles off the ground.

Planes can only go 30,000 feet (5. 68 miles) or only slightly higher.

 

[laconicstudent]

There is no evidence for 'space', or that man has gone higher then a few hundred miles off the ground.

Planes can only go 30,000 feet (5. 68 miles) or only slightly higher.

Your right. Totally no proof.

YouTube - On board view of a Space Shuttle launch sequence

 

[Spacewyrm]

There is no evidence for 'space', or that man has gone higher then a few hundred miles off the ground.

Planes can only go 30,000 feet (5. 68 miles) or only slightly higher.

Nonsense. Men have landed on the Moon. Astronauts go up in orbit all the time! We've sent probes to all 8 planets. We have the global positioning system orbiting the planet. Why on Earth would we waste billions of dollars funding NASA if they were just making stuff up!? Get real.

 

[Wedjat]

Wikipedia link = evidence?

Are you people for real?

Also still waiting for you atheist's evidence for the earth to be round. So far the mast head and pole star arguements have already been debunked. Your next step is probably to spam pictures from NASA, or again spam more of 'poe'.

None of you people can debate properly at all.

The mast argument has not been debunked. You still have not explained why the same "sinking" phenomenon can be observed through a telescope.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nonsense. Men have landed on the Moon. Astronauts go up in orbit all the time! We've sent probes to all 8 planets. We have the global positioning system orbiting the planet. Why on Earth would we waste billions of dollars funding NASA if they were just making stuff up!? Get real.

Forget it. Poe's Law Strikes Again.

 

[Ellinas]

POE!

 

[Cabal]

I'm really starting to think this is AoS socking.

 

[Asycthian]

The mast argument has not been debunked. You still have not explained why the same "sinking" phenomenon can be observed through a telescope.

The mast argument has been debunked, and i already proved it is an optical angular illusion created by the law of perspective. The evidence for this, is that if you get a telescope you can restore the vision of the entire ship and mast, therefore there is certianly not a ''hill of water'' obscuring the ship, the earth has no curvature.

As the page on FES explains, this is irrefutable evidence the earth is flat.

 

[Split Rock]

Forget it. Poe's Law Strikes Again.

This has been pretty obvious for a while now.... he is rather amusing, though.

 

[Cabal]

You (or someone else) in this thread, wrote something about the Sun and 'nucleur fusion', yet this is pure speculation - since it is not observed.

We have (the spectrum of) the light emitted by the sun, so travelling to the Sun would make little difference. We also have a theory of gravity that is well backed up by observation, and we know the mechanism by which nuclear fusion reactions occur. I'm failing to see why we CAN'T posit that the sun operates via nuclear fusion besides the sheer obfuscation that you're putting forward.

Also an astronomer can only guess at the size of the sun.

Not hardly. Blackbody radiation levels depend on size.

Therefore my belief the Sun is 32 diameters, is as equal as any other belief regarding the size of the Sun. However i presented a mathematical piece of evidence against the idea the Sun is larger than the earth, it certianly isn't. See what i pasted from Homer, and the ancient Greeks; the ancients knew the Sun was far smaller than the earth.

What, the "mathematical impossibility" described by someone who clearly hasn't opened a high-school physics textbook? Don't make me laugh.

A wikipedia article isn't evidence for anything. It's not a valid source. It's a heavily biased website, edited and moderated by Atheists, it's founders were even Atheists (Jimmy Wales it's co-founder is a well known Atheist, following an Atheistic philosophical school called ''Objectivism'').

Evidence please - not that it matters. Articles are externally referenced anyway - this is just evidence of your own unwarranted bias against atheists.

I have no idea why this forum, being Christian, would allow users to paste Atheist websites in here anyway.

Because apart from the fact that wiki is not an "Atheist" site, you don't have to spend long on here to realise that the Christians don't know everything (or indeed a lot about anything in some cases).

There is no evidence for 'space', or that man has gone higher then a few hundred miles off the ground.

Well, space is 100 miles up, so guess that means we have gone into space

Planes can only go 30,000 feet (5. 68 miles) or only slightly higher.

And?

 

[Asycthian]

We have (the spectrum of) the light emitted by the sun, so travelling to the Sun would make little difference. We also have a theory of gravity that is well backed up by observation, and we know the mechanism by which nuclear fusion reactions occur. I'm failing to see why we CAN'T posit that the sun operates via nuclear fusion besides the sheer obfuscation that you're putting forward.

Nuclear Fusion is based on two things: the Atomic Theory, and Gravity. Neither have been proven. The Atomic theory, was invented by Atheistic materalists, and the theory of Gravity was founded upon an error. See my earlier post where i have debunked gravity. Note, how no one could refute my evidence again.

Yes, heavy objects will fall to the ground, that's not a law of attraction though, that's a natural tendancy, not gravity. What Newton thought he discovered was already known, all he did was add a pseudo-sceintific theory of attraction to it, which can never be observed.

What, the "mathematical impossibility" described by someone who clearly hasn't opened a high-school physics textbook? Don't make me laugh.

Like my post on gravity, you can't refute anything i post here, so you resort to simply dismissing it on the grounds either ''I am stupid'' or ''I am a poe'' (as the troll Split Rock continues to spam).

Evidence please - not that it matters. Articles are externally referenced anyway - this is just evidence of your own unwarranted bias against atheists.

Wikipedia isn't a valid source.

Well, space is 100 miles up, so guess that means we have gone into space

''Space'': first recorded use - from Milton's Paradise Lost (1667), meaning where the stellar depths or stars are. This is only a few hundred miles up.

''Space'' according to NASA is 75 miles. Yet according to them, Stars are not 75 miles up but millions or billions. According to NASA the ''earth's atmosphere'' is 600 miles, still no stars they say are within this range.

I am talking of the real meaning of 'space', not the atheist's alteration of the word. Atheist's pervert/change words. Another one they have abused is the 'scientific method' (1810).

And?

Modern technology can not get into space. Planes can only go 5 miles.