Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LogicalKiller

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« on: May 04, 2015, 07:36:13 AM »
Haha, you still mess with this troll, oh my gosh. It's clear that he's trolling. His "belief" in FE, fairies, "evolution" of technic inventions... Come on guys, don't feed the troll.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how evolution disproves fixing broken limbs
« on: May 04, 2015, 07:34:46 AM »
That is so brilliant... It's interesting our bodies regenerate themselves but we can't evolve... lol

Doctors can't explain why the body heals itself but it does. The power to heal comes from the same source that turns a tiny seed into a Giant Tree. It is the same source of power that drives the stars to their courses year after year.

That power comes the Almighty God of Heaven and Earth who sits on the throne above.

Ever thought of regenerative power of cells? No? Then gtfo.

3
Let's start to be FE'ers (and so I talk that to like 90% of users of this forum, 10% are FE'ers, I even count these troll FE'ers). Then, we all know conspiracy exist. But what's the point of it? Why do governments keep the conspiracy for hundreds of years? Why do they do it? How can that little and simple people discover something and know that much about it, if it's hidden so well by greatest governments specialized in their work, because of hundreds of years they were doing it? Explain me that.

No one has explained it yet.
Because they can't.
/
Boom, FE crushed. That's basicly a major malfunction of conspiracy theories - WHY???
Why 9/11, even if oil? If they take over and made some oil machines, then its prices would drop down because there would be more of it, so no profit.
Why moon landing, if Russia would discover it quickly?
Why chem-trails, why government wants to poison us and even poison them by themself?
Why Illuminati is that bad, even if they exist (first of all), even if they believe in non-exisiting satan (which they don't)?
FE crushed yes.
9/11 is actually pretty suspicious as a "terrorist" act, but I'm not drawing any conclusions.
The moon landing would make sense to fake. I still don't fully understand how the lander managed to get BACK to earth, maybe I missed SOEMTHING.
Illuminati is not bad. They exist as a branch of Freemasons and as an orgnisation believing in a new world order, a better world. Their views aren't bad and have nothing to do with many conspiracy theories, my friends father is a Freemason who knows some stuff about the illuminati branch.
Flat earth takes many known conspiracy theories and just adds "in order to hide a flat earth"

I don't see any suspicious stuff in 9/11 as an outside job.
How they did that? There were two parts close to the Moon - it was an operational module and a lander. The operational module had to wait while orbiting and the lander had to land on the Moon and go back to the orbit. Then it was linked together and both lander and operational module got back to the Earth.
Illuminati and masons are totally different things.

4
Let's start to be FE'ers (and so I talk that to like 90% of users of this forum, 10% are FE'ers, I even count these troll FE'ers). Then, we all know conspiracy exist. But what's the point of it? Why do governments keep the conspiracy for hundreds of years? Why do they do it? How can that little and simple people discover something and know that much about it, if it's hidden so well by greatest governments specialized in their work, because of hundreds of years they were doing it? Explain me that.

No one has explained it yet.
Because they can't.
/
Boom, FE crushed. That's basicly a major malfunction of conspiracy theories - WHY???
Why 9/11, even if oil? If they take over and made some oil machines, then its prices would drop down because there would be more of it, so no profit.
Why moon landing, if Russia would discover it quickly?
Why chem-trails, why government wants to poison us and even poison them by themself?
Why Illuminati is that bad, even if they exist (first of all), even if they believe in non-exisiting satan (which they don't)?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how evolution disproves fixing broken limbs
« on: May 04, 2015, 01:58:27 AM »
In your Jrowe program you forgot to add a ToLower() or a .LCase to the output.

Where? I'm a programming amateur, so I don't know. I don't even have to know, because I'm just making a JRowe program, he's stupid, so the program will be simple.

6
Let's start to be FE'ers (and so I talk that to like 90% of users of this forum, 10% are FE'ers, I even count these troll FE'ers). Then, we all know conspiracy exist. But what's the point of it? Why do governments keep the conspiracy for hundreds of years? Why do they do it? How can that little and simple people discover something and know that much about it, if it's hidden so well by greatest governments specialized in their work, because of hundreds of years they were doing it? Explain me that.

No one has explained it yet.

7
Let's start to be FE'ers (and so I talk that to like 90% of users of this forum, 10% are FE'ers, I even count these troll FE'ers). Then, we all know conspiracy exist. But what's the point of it? Why do governments keep the conspiracy for hundreds of years? Why do they do it? How can that little and simple people discover something and know that much about it, if it's hidden so well by greatest governments specialized in their work, because of hundreds of years they were doing it? Explain me that.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth's Magnetic Field
« on: May 02, 2015, 11:02:16 AM »
Jrowe, fuel Earth still has many of the weaknesses of FET including the lack of an explenation for sunsets and time zones.  Also, you clearly don't know how magnetic field lines work because it would mean that on a duel Earth compases would point up or down.

more lies. seriously, educate yourself on a theory. i've even specifically addressed sunsets lately. this is getting tedious.

Mikeman has got it right.   You need to  modify your dual earth theory to explain magnetic fields we can easily observe.   Or just admit the earth is round.

And also, just by saying a is right just because i think so, and b is right because of a deduction of an a which is obviously right (because i said so), is wrong.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« on: May 02, 2015, 11:01:12 AM »
Less gas means less retained heat.
so more gas means there should be more heat, right?
this is the implication of what you have said. contraposition, if you wish to be logical, but you do seem incapable of that.

Actually the thin air at high altitudes is really cold because it's far away from any ground which heats up when the Sun shines on it.  Presure also has an effect on temperature, lower presure cooks things down while higher pressure heats things up. 
so now the sun heats the ground, which heats up the air? that makes no sense, the sun should be heating the air. you're just admitted that the earth's heat comes from the ground, and yet you still rely on the sun. how?
i think you'll find pressure increases as temperature increases. learn a little math. pressure is a consequence of heat, not a cause.


Sunlight generally passes right through air without much interaction and so air doesn't convert much of the Sun's light into heat.
so the poles should be plenty warm, by that logic.

Sinlight passes right through the air, hits the ground and becomes heat, then conducts into the air.  I don't get what's so hard to understand here.

The poles are so cold because of the low angle of the Sun.  Take a piece of paper and hold it so it faces the Sun, it will get quite warm.  Now take that piece of paper and hold it at an angle to the Sun and it won't get as hot.  The same thing happens at the poles.

Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers use the release of presure to lower the temperature of the carbon dioxide escaping it and it works so well that it becomes dry ice.

What's so difficult in understanding that less energy means less heat? Light, like any all matter is energy. And on the poles less energy gets to, therefore there is less heat. End of the story.

10
Flat Earth Debate / how evolution disproves fixing broken limbs
« on: May 02, 2015, 10:53:52 AM »
[AWESOME CODE FOR A JROWE PROGRAM]

{jrowe grammar set: on
sig. no = unlim. [+0]
       sane mind set: off
;
mind - false
stupdes - true
homosx - true
hetr - false
re - false
trollng - true
;
exmpl; start--
-
--

evolution makes each type of animal better, therefore if some predator is better, then prey should e.g. better escape. but if predators damage its prey badly, but it'll suddenly escape, then the prey must regenerate itself. fixing broken bones and limbs by using plaster would be extremely effective for prey animals. but we don't see any animals that fix their broken bones by plaster and fixing it perfectly, therefore fixing bones and limbs by plaster is not possible and doesn't exist.

-
--exmp; finish
;
end}

11
Maybe we should have a new term for flat earthers,   flat heads perhaps?

That's not a new term, I have used it a few times.  Another somewhat popular term is flat liners.

I know why are they that stupid, that's because of their flat mouth. Their mum wanted to feed them, but their flat lips were kept shut.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite Earth?
« on: May 01, 2015, 07:54:42 AM »
Australia has different down to everywhere else.....Ant are attracted to mountains.....

What are you on boy?  ;D

It's called objectivity, you should try it some time.  WARNING: thinking objectively might endanger your flat Earth beliefs.

There is no such thing as objectivity.

13
Not even in the slightest. You know better than that.

So an ordinary 14 year old farm boy with very little education just decided one day to start a new religion and proceeded to translate a book only a highly educated person could have written, fake miracles, get witnesses to say they saw the golden plates and an angel, and not deny his faith even when it would save his life.  Joseph Smith was tared and feathered one time by a mob and the next day he continued running the church as if nothing happened, what kind of con man would do that?  The existence of a God explains a lot of things and there are boat loads of evidence supporting it.  I am not saying that you have to believe in God and become a Christian but the least you could do is not actively fight against Christianity.  I don't hate you for being an atheist and I don't think you an ignorant fool for it either, why can't you do the same with my beliefs?

God doesn't exist. His existence rather complicates situation than explains it.
What a stupid statement to make . If your GOD creation ,then your the property of GOD the creator & no other.No  3rd party can have a claim to that property or ownership of  that property.  With out  GOD  & your concent .You & GOD hold an exclusive contract. But it seems you  would rather  be enslaved though lack of faith .

Write this in English second time, please.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« on: May 01, 2015, 06:54:08 AM »
Why must the universe behave logically? Logic is a creation of the human mind.

No.  No it's not.  Your computer is doing logic right now and it does that by exploiting the predictable logical behavior of electrons.  The fact that the universe obeys the laws of physics proves that the universe behaves logically.

They don't do logic by exploiting predictable logical behavior of particles, they do that by exploiting the predictable behaviors of particles that humans INSTILLED them. Machines don't think, machines work in the way they're programmed. Logic is a rational view based on common thinking of people. People base they view on their accidents only on Earth, and as we know, Earth is not a lone planet. On other planets, in other places of the universe, things might get very illogical.

And by the way - JRowe uses arguments that he deduces something on something and it's wrong, because he bases his ideas on previously not proved things. That means his wrong, that means DFE and FE is wrong. And if DFE and FE is wrong, then this site shouldn't exist. And by the way - we all know that FE is wrong. It needs a huge conspiracy, which is impossible.

15
A ring laser gyro measures the angle the device is rotated to an accuracy of 0.01 Degree per hour by using the speed of light/Sagnac effect.    One degree on a round word is 60nm.  So after one hour a 747 flying parallel to the surface at 900kmph will have rotated 8.1 Degrees and will know its position to within less than 2nm with no requirement to use any transmissions or receptions of external information.   After a flight from London to new york these devices will still be accurate to within a few tens of miles while showing the aircraft has rotated 40 degrees downwards while still flying level to the surface.

When using an inertial guidance system no assumptions need to be made about the world before taking off.   The device simply shows you are descending in three dimensional space while the aircraft flies level as you make any journey in any direction while flying level.

Inertial navigation systems have been in use since ww2 and not one single pilot or technician has come forwards to claim they prove the world is flat.    Any aircraft service engineer testing inertial guidance systems can know the world is round very quickly as the aircraft descends in three dimensional space while flying level to the surface.



I see, I see, zero flat earthers I see.

16
Not even in the slightest. You know better than that.

So an ordinary 14 year old farm boy with very little education just decided one day to start a new religion and proceeded to translate a book only a highly educated person could have written, fake miracles, get witnesses to say they saw the golden plates and an angel, and not deny his faith even when it would save his life.  Joseph Smith was tared and feathered one time by a mob and the next day he continued running the church as if nothing happened, what kind of con man would do that?  The existence of a God explains a lot of things and there are boat loads of evidence supporting it.  I am not saying that you have to believe in God and become a Christian but the least you could do is not actively fight against Christianity.  I don't hate you for being an atheist and I don't think you an ignorant fool for it either, why can't you do the same with my beliefs?

God doesn't exist. His existence rather complicates situation than explains it.

17
You call me illogical and yet you are the one making assumptions that I am delusional.

It is the more probable and logical theory.

But you didn't address any of my points.

So the more probable and logical theory is that the Universe actually just popped into existence for no reason and me and most people around me are all delusional?  You have a strange definition of probable.

We're losing you. I don't think anyone knows exactly if the Universe just popped out. Could have always existed, but I will wait for the evidence to show us.

If universe had been always existing, then how we wouldn't have seen stars older than 13,82 bb years?

Some key points. Evolution is a process, natural selection is the engine of this process.

Natural Selection is NOT a maximizing engine, it is a slightly better than engine. That is to say it does not produce the best organisms, just ones slighter better than their competition. Analogy: the old bear and camping joke. If you and your friends are camping and a bear attacks, you need not be faster than the bear, you need only be faster than your friend. Also any organism has variations amongst its members. Environmental pressures at anytime select some of the members, i.g. a new disease enters the system that only some can resist.

Darwin proposed Natural Selection as the engine of Evolution. Stop pretending biologists have added nothing to the science since Darwin. Darwin did not know about DNA as an example. Biology has progressed, learn some of it.

The amount of evidence in support of Evolution by Natural Selection is overwhelming.
http://talkorigins.org/    One of the best sites to answer any question you have.

Was it respond to me? If and even if not, then you're wrong. Natural selection doesn't produce anything, natural selection is just a "judge".

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How exactly is space travel impossible?
« on: April 30, 2015, 11:28:13 AM »
Hahaha, how lovely. I knew nobody will respond!

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How evolution proves deep-mining is impossible
« on: April 25, 2015, 12:35:36 PM »
If space travel is impossible, because any other animal couldn't send itself into it, then deep-mining is also not possible, because if it was, then there would be some animals that would mine few kilometers below the ground to hide from the predators, but as we see, no animal excluding us is capable of doing so.

This does not make sense.  Not only have microorganisms been found thousands of feet below the surface, but so have worms.  In fact, it has been theorized that up to half of all biological matter on Earth is located far below the surface. 

I guess you kind of shot yourself in the foot with this one.

What kind of worms live 5 km below the ground? And these microorganisms live there, because millions of years ago it wasn't few kilometers below, but ON the ground.

20
Flat Earth Debate / How evolution proves deep-mining is impossible
« on: April 24, 2015, 07:53:11 AM »
If space travel is impossible, because any other animal couldn't send itself into it, then deep-mining is also not possible, because if it was, then there would be some animals that would mine few kilometers below the ground to hide from the predators, but as we see, no animal excluding us is capable of doing so.

22
Flat Earth Debate / How exactly is space travel impossible?
« on: April 24, 2015, 07:47:59 AM »
How exactly is it impossible? List here your scientific points based on mathematics and physics.

23
    Evolution is a slow process, really, really, really slow process in which totally random mutations happen and decide of later future of whole specie. Mutations decide of the future because they are brought up to natural selection. It's not simply like "always positive mutations win and negative loose" but it's a bit more complex. We've got 3 types of mutations - positive,neutral and negative.

    Negative mutations in a period of thousands, even tens of thousands of years make the number of animals representing particular specie with this negative mutation to decrease. Neutral mutation in current (the time of when mutation happened to occur) time does nothing and just stays, but there might be a change of environment, when neutral mutation turns to positive, and positive mutation makes number of animals representing particular specie with this mutation to increase. 1 of 3 particular mutations can be positive or negative or neutral in 2 ways. It can be positive, negative or neutral in 2 ways just by being positive, negative, etc., etc. in 1 way of 2, or by being positive, etc. etc. in 2 of 2 ways. These 2 ways are these two points:
a) reproduction factor,
b) survival factor.


     Reproduction, just as survival factor, can be positive or negative or neutral (nothing changed). If in specie mutation happened, we count these two parts of the same species the subspecies. The subspecie of a specie A, let's say A1-2, has a positive mutation that makes its reproduction factor bigger (wider loins for example), the subspecie A1-2 will - in a period of time of thousands of years - eventually displace subspecie A2-2 without this mutation.


     And let's get back to the "It's not simply like >>always positive mutations win and negative loose<<" point. Yes, negative mutation can actually displace specie without this mutation, so we can say it can displace a specie that is healthier. How? Species were living on several places on Earth, and also cataclysms were taking place on several places on the Earth, so if subspecie A-H (subspecie of specie A without negative mutation, therefore "healthier" - H) meets cataclysm and subspecie A-S (subspecie being "sick" - negative mutation) don't, then subspecie A-H will eventually die and subspecie A-S survive, therefore the "displacement" won't happen, therefore A-S will later be no A-S because it doesn't have any other subspecie to compare with, that it can measure if mutation is negative or not and actually it has even a future for maybe positive mutations that will "cancel" the effects of last negative mutation. I think I explained it that much that some idiot on this forum or other "feed-me-with-your-idiotic-statements" guys won't say stupidest thing about evolution.

cheers

24
Is the aetheral wind simply the collective movement of various air molecules as it is above the surface of the earth, or is it the movement of particles of some other type? 

The Aetheral Wind is made out of Aether.

Why does the aetheral wind only move in ONE direction all the time, unlike the winds on earth that change direction constantly?

Why do Galaxies travel away from each other in only one direction in RET?  Your question seems a little nonsensical.

1. If AW is made out of aether, then from what is made out aether itself?
2. What direction do you exactly mean?

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is the Earth really flat?
« on: April 12, 2015, 06:06:26 AM »
What happened to the 'The Earth is Obama's penis,' option?
you're implying it's flat? XD

Nope, he's seen that in the mountain lair where he was brought to by Obomaists. Unfortunately he couldn't run away when he was looking at a mountain that grown up immediately when he didn't look, next to the river.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: April 12, 2015, 06:02:31 AM »
And you still guys fight with this idiot, and from what I see if you couldn't change his mind in week, you wouldn't change his mind for years.


it's a waste of time talking to JRowe

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« on: April 12, 2015, 05:58:50 AM »


you're ignoring the benefits of escaping predators. if a bird can fly higher than its predator, it will survive better: and being able to fly higher should be an easy adaptation.
that's how evolution works.
Nope that is not how evolution works.  The changes are random.  There might also become a point where flying higher is harder to do than say becoming more maneuverable.

For example, if a bird evolves and can fly higher, it might come with some drawbacks.  Needing to eat more, increased weight, etc.  SO it might not be as advantageous as becoming more maneuverable where they might not need to eat more and their weight might have actually decreased.

So the ones that can fly higher have a less chance of surviving since they are more likely to starve and might be more prone to injury since they are larger.  However, the maneuverable birds can have more offspring since more can evade a predator and have more offspring.

if you're saying evolution is random, you have no understanding of the theory. the very point of evolution is that it does away with randomness.
there are many ways to survive. going high could be useful for fleeing, mating displays, and there is just as much access to food as before, it just allows for further escape. there is nothing to increase weight: if anything, the opposite.
Read my statement again.  I said the changes are random.  That means that the offspring may or maynot be more suited to survive than the parent.  ALso read my example of why flying higher might not be advantageous.  In order to fly higher, the bird would need stronger and larger wings.  Which increases weight.  Which increases the amount of food they would need to eat.  If they need to eat more food, yet the food supply does not increase too, that would actually mean less food per individual which means it is harder to find enough food to survive.

Oh and I didn't bother mentioning the oxygen since Jrowe doesn't believe in air.

This idiot don't know how evolution works. That's how it works. Evolution is a really, REALLY slow process based on RANDOM mutations that are being "taken to the judge" of natural selection. This "judge" is also really slow. Let's say a negative mutation happened to some animal when he was born. He's death is a small fraction of a percent of a progress of judge. Each percent of progress of the judge is showing off by the decrease of animals with this mutation. The 100% progress, the judgement, is the moment when last mutated animal dies. And the same but reversed with positive mutations. The judge is still going on, but the bigger the progress of it is, the more the positively mutated animals are living on the world. Simple as that.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 05, 2015, 09:49:17 AM »
You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

as does every flat earther here. refusing to accept evidence doesn't stop it being there.

Yes, well I feel like round Earthers have much more conclusive evidence like photographs, videos, and studies and experiments that can be repeated by anyone.

photographs can be faked, as can videos, and both can be misleading. studies and experiments are often based either on presupposition, or have multiple explanations.

Actually we now know that photos from Moon COULDN'T HAVE BEEN FAKED.

Exactly. Usually we can tell if photos and videos are faked or not. In this case, the moon landing photos and videos can be seen as authentic, because there is nothing in them that would be from a faked video/photo. It also helps that they come from a trusted source like NASA.

'usually'. you've refuted yourself.
nasa are known to develop and used advaced technology, and the moon photos exist in a different environment, tells would be different. in addition, nasa is far from a reliable source: they had kennedy's promise spurring them on when it comes to the moon landing, and were given billions of dollars. if they turned and announced that actually space travel was impossible, they would be ruined.
they are not remotely reliable.

Do you realize that realistically faking those photos and videos would be harder than actually going to space and taking them? And besides, I'm having a hard time believing that alll those people that are in on this conspiracy and still are able to keep that secret.

do you have any more than assertion?
in addition, under flat earth theory, travel into space is essentially impossible. you would run into the problems of the aetheric whirlpools, which (to an observer on earth) would seem to trap the rocket. after being paid billions and given a challenge, nasa and all such agencies would not admit failure. this is all the more true now people believe it's possible.
not everyone does keep the secret, you just need to look up nasa whistleblowers, you just choose to laugh at the people who deny the moon landing. think about it, would you actually believe anyone who says the moon landing isn't possible?

You're assuming the Earth is flat, which it isn't, you stupid pricksucker. Moon landings were real, your mother was assertion because you have two fathers, and Earth is round.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 05, 2015, 09:47:51 AM »
Because the moon has no atmosphere to cause the light to behave in such a way.

well neither does the earth, but still, i'll accept your model here. so, the sun's light goes red when it travels through the earth's atmosphere? that is evidently untrue, just look out your window.
or, if the angle is somehow special, why does the majority of the moon often go red, rather than just the edges? and why is there no rainbow, as misero implied there should be?

Well, that's just a proof for atmosphere you dumbass, so don't say there is no atmosphere you prick.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19