How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth

Google

Yeehaw.  Thanks, Raist.

And what do you mean by "more interesting"?

...It's pretty sad that I have to use flashy colors, etc, to catch the attention of FE'ers.  I was hoping the promise of a satisfying debate/discussion would be enough, but I forgot where I was.

Sigh. It's not that you have to use bright colors, you have to come up with an idea that is thought provoking or intellectually stimulating. It also helps to make topics that haven't been discussed before. People generally don't like having the same discussion repeatedly. It would also help your chances if you would stop going with the condescending angle. Look at the other RE'ers that come to this site and realize that RE'ers are in general retarded.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 10, 2010, 01:59:53 PM

Google

Yeehaw.  Thanks, Raist.

And what do you mean by "more interesting"?

...It's pretty sad that I have to use flashy colors, etc, to catch the attention of FE'ers.  I was hoping the promise of a satisfying debate/discussion would be enough, but I forgot where I was.

Sigh. It's not that you have to use bright colors, you have to come up with an idea that is thought provoking or intellectually stimulating. It also helps to make topics that haven't been discussed before. People generally don't like having the same discussion repeatedly. It would also help your chances if you would stop going with the condescending angle. Look at the other RE'ers that come to this site and realize that RE'ers are in general retarded.

You're right about the condescending angle, but don't make generalizations like that.  We're not all retarded.

In response to the first post you say that birds would fly lower to the ground because this would mean a faster way to get around a round Earth. You also use evolution. A primary belief of evolution is adapting to the world. As previously stated the birds can simply not fly close to the ground because of obstacles. Going back to evolution it is possible that they birds could have flown close to the ground until earth changed and more and more predators started to evolve. This would cause the birds to adapt to their environment and fly higher avoiding the predators and obstacles. This piece of evidence shows that evolution is indeed possible on a RE.

Quote from: Pongo on June 10, 2010, 02:51:37 AM

Quote from: The Question1 on June 09, 2010, 07:15:47 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on June 07, 2010, 08:02:11 PM

I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.

*cough*
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.

It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.

Which they would still have to do on a flat earth.

Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.

In response to the first post you say that birds would fly lower to the ground because this would mean a faster way to get around a round Earth. You also use evolution.

I don't use evolution, evolution uses me.

Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.

Right now, it seems like you're saying the birds changed the shape of the Earth to suit their needs.  If the Earth is a sphere, the birds are already taking the fastest/shortest path possible.  If the Earth was flat, I'm quite sure they would be taking the fastest/shortest path possible, which may or may not be faster/shorter than anything possible on a round Earth.  For this reason, I'm not sure how evolution proves a flat Earth at all.

I don't use evolution, evolution uses me.

Where do you live, Soviet Russia? 

Quote from: Pongo on June 11, 2010, 03:47:41 AM

Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.

Right now, it seems like you're saying the birds changed the shape of the Earth to suit their needs.  If the Earth is a sphere, the birds are already taking the fastest/shortest path possible. 

The fastest/shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a round earth.

Pongo, you are a true ignoramus.

Note carefully the different heights in which birds migrate.  If the earth were round, all birds would fly their great distances as close to the surface as possible as to shorten their journey.  If you were flying on a sphere, the shortest line from point A to point B would be as close to the surface as possible.  However, as you can see, birds have again proven the shape of the earth to be flat in their evolutionary endeavor to conserve energy.  They do not have to worry about altitudes on a flat earth.  The trip will be just as short at any altitude (minus the rises and falls to and from their flight height).

You have used proof by contradiction here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction), i.e. assume the earth is round, then derive a contradiction. In order to use proof by contradiction, you have to assume what you're trying to prove is false, i.e. that the earth IS round, in order to derive a contradiction in the statement "the earth is round," and therefore prove that "the earth is NOT round." In your own argument, you attempt to show that if the earth were round the birds would be expected to fly low; they don't, so it can't be round. HOWEVER, AT THE VERY SAME TIME, you DENY here that one can use the RE numbers to disprove RE:

Your numbers were based on assumptions gleaned from maps of a round earth.  In particular, the distance variable.  Therefore, they are sadly skewed to an erroneous model.  I hope you did not spend long retrieving the numbers or on the calculations.

This was said by you after an RE'er tried to use RE numbers to show there was no inherent contradiction, in that the difference was only 0.05% between RE and FE distances, which is negligible. How can one show there is no inherent contradiction in a model without first being allowed to assume the model is true?

So besides the utter twaddle you have presented, you inherently contradict your own cause here. In conclusion, you are an idiot.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 11, 2010, 04:04:42 AM

Quote from: Pongo on June 11, 2010, 03:47:41 AM

Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.

Right now, it seems like you're saying the birds changed the shape of the Earth to suit their needs.  If the Earth is a sphere, the birds are already taking the fastest/shortest path possible.

The fastest/shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a round earth.

Animals work in mysterious ways.  As far as you know, when birds fly at high altitude, they may very well be avoiding predators, foul weather, or any number of things.  Animals have evolved to be very smart creatures, in general.  Just because you don't know the benefits of their behaviour doesn't mean there are none.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 11, 2010, 04:04:42 AM

Quote from: Pongo on June 11, 2010, 03:47:41 AM

Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.

Right now, it seems like you're saying the birds changed the shape of the Earth to suit their needs.  If the Earth is a sphere, the birds are already taking the fastest/shortest path possible. 

The fastest/shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a round earth.

The fastest shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a flat earth, if such a thing existed.

You have no argument here.

This argument is pointless; birds would take the most efficient flight path no matter the shape of the Earth.  Not sure where Pongo got off saying it proved FE.

Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.

Not necessarily.  Like many things, birds are likely to take the path of least resistance rather than the shortest route.

Wow you guys are still feeding the troll?

He has already been proven wrong dozens of times here, but you keep bumping the thread?

Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.

I don't use evolution, evolution uses me.

Pongo is trolling us all. Never mind he does not even deny that his whole argument has been totally debunked, he just pretends nothing has happened and continues like nothing had happened.

For the last time, birds cannot detect a 2 km difference in a 5000 km long migration any more than you can, and winds, temperatures, barometric pressure and predators all make a much bigger difference in the migration path and the migration probabilities of success than an additional 0.05% in distance.

Pongo knows his idea is worthless but likes the attention he is getting. Please do not feed the troll.

Quote from: Pongo on June 11, 2010, 03:47:41 AM

Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.

I don't use evolution, evolution uses me.

Pongo is trolling us all. Never mind he does not even deny that his whole argument has been totally debunked, he just pretends nothing has happened and continues like nothing had happened.

For the last time, birds cannot detect a 2 km difference in a 5000 km long migration any more than you can, and winds, temperatures, barometric pressure and predators all make a much bigger difference in the migration path and the migration probabilities of success than an additional 0.05% in distance.

Pongo knows his idea is worthless but likes the attention he is getting. Please do not feed the troll.

Actually, I don't mind that the newer trolls get that attention. Their ideas are worthless and because it's so easy to debunk flat earth ideas, their posts get ripped apart.

Actually, I don't mind that the newer trolls get that attention. Their ideas are worthless and because it's so easy to debunk flat earth ideas, their posts get ripped apart.

Heh.  Brings back memories of Parsifal criticizing someone for saying something like that.  "You can't phyiscally rip someone's post apart"... blah blah.  Trolls are good entertainment, and the ease of proving them wrong is enticing.

Hey maybe if you stop bumping this ridiculous thread, we won't have to look at it anymore.

Yes, let's please stop bumping this silly thread.

I agree.

In concur. 

The fastest/shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a round earth.

Same would be true on a flat earth, correct?

The fastest/shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a round earth.

Not necessarily.  If they flew close to the surface, they would be almost constantly dodging things like trees and buildings.  They would also have to exert more energy because they would be too close to the ground to take advantage of updrafts and wind currents.

This might quite possible be the biggest fail theory ever.

No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.

No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.

maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did

Quote from: markjo on June 12, 2010, 08:40:54 AM

No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.

maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did

So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 12, 2010, 10:02:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 12, 2010, 08:40:54 AM

No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.

maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did

So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.

You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.

The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.

if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 12, 2010, 10:33:10 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 12, 2010, 10:02:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 12, 2010, 08:40:54 AM

No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.

maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did

So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.

You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.

The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.

if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.

What about the minor detail of finding a species of bird that can fly faster than a jet airliner?  To the best of my knowledge, there isn't one.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 12, 2010, 10:33:10 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 12, 2010, 10:02:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 12, 2010, 08:40:54 AM

No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.

maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did

So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.

You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.

The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.

if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.

that would be assuming that this theory's only hurdle is free food vs planes being chopped up.
even if it was greater for birds to become helpers, you still have the problem that birds cannot get in the position to be able to test that niche. thats like saying that it is plausible for people to travel through time to get free and all powerful healthcare, if x (dying from time travel) is less than y (uber healthcare). congratulations, Aristotle, you just created an Existential fallacy, the kind that would fool idiots for centuries before real science was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_fallacy

Quote from: Raist on June 12, 2010, 07:45:23 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 12, 2010, 10:33:10 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 12, 2010, 10:02:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 12, 2010, 08:40:54 AM

No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.

maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did

So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.

You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.

The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.

if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.

that would be assuming that this theory's only hurdle is free food vs planes being chopped up.
even if it was greater for birds to become helpers, you still have the problem that birds cannot get in the position to be able to test that niche. thats like saying that it is plausible for people to travel through time to get free and all powerful healthcare, if x (dying from time travel) is less than y (uber healthcare). congratulations, Aristotle, you just created an Existential fallacy, the kind that would fool idiots for centuries before real science was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_fallacy

Traveling through time at speeds different from other objects on earth is not equivalent to flying beside a jet. Please be at least plausible you ignorant jackass. I was not siding with flat earth theory, but just giving a reasonable critique. Please be a jackass somewhere else on the internet.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 12, 2010, 11:28:59 PM

Quote from: Raist on June 12, 2010, 07:45:23 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 12, 2010, 10:33:10 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 12, 2010, 10:02:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 12, 2010, 08:40:54 AM

No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.

maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did

So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.

You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.

The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.

if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.

that would be assuming that this theory's only hurdle is free food vs planes being chopped up.
even if it was greater for birds to become helpers, you still have the problem that birds cannot get in the position to be able to test that niche. thats like saying that it is plausible for people to travel through time to get free and all powerful healthcare, if x (dying from time travel) is less than y (uber healthcare). congratulations, Aristotle, you just created an Existential fallacy, the kind that would fool idiots for centuries before real science was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_fallacy

Traveling through time at speeds different from other objects on earth is not equivalent to flying beside a jet. Please be at least plausible you ignorant jackass. I was not siding with flat earth theory, but just giving a reasonable critique. Please be a jackass somewhere else on the internet.

sorry, I was calling you out for being absurd, not for siding with anyone. traveling through time and birds that can pull airplanes are equally absurd. no need to get all sore and call me an ignorant jackass, as clearly I am not ignorant and am no more of a jackass than you. Your argument was an existential fallacy and you know it