How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:22:10 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 16, 2010, 04:37:54 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 03:08:02 PM

This is still idiotic.
The pictures only show that you would be able to see birds around a plane.

If you were paying attention, you'd find the pictures were answering this.

http://www.rif.org/

What part of my post suggested otherwise. Your photos damn your own point. Someone before posed that surely we'd have photographs. it was then said that people couldn't see the birds. therefore with all the pictures we have of south hemispheric flights, and no birds, your theory is debunked. Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?

You are the one that needs to learn to read. If you were paying attention at all, you'd find these pics were posted showing birds Are not afraid of planes as lorddave said. You pic of the boat would show humans are not so afraid of boats they would avoid them.

Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:22:10 PM

Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?

If you were making a statement along the lines of, "people push boats to make them go faster," and then showed pics of people next to boats it would indeed lend credibility to your statement. 

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:22:10 PM

Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?

If you were making a statement along the lines of, "people push boats to make them go faster," and then showed pics of people next to boats it would indeed lend credibility to your statement. 

Quote from: John Davis on June 19, 2010, 04:18:27 PM

I fail to see the relevance too.

It is not relevant at all to the topic.
it is however relevant to the society

More than anything, this thread shows how we can't resist the urge to fall into the hands of the trolls.

Has anyone seen an argument worth a second look in the last pages of this thread? Meanwhile, the true attempts at discussing evolution are buried so deep that nobody will find them.

This thread is a wild success for the trolls, It shows it is easier to troll than to argue.

Please, let the troll's "arguments" shine by their own stupidity, instead of commenting on them.

Quote from: Pongo on June 19, 2010, 01:34:28 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 16, 2010, 11:22:10 PM

Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?

If you were making a statement along the lines of, "people push boats to make them go faster," and then showed pics of people next to boats it would indeed lend credibility to your statement. 

Incorrect.

No, that is actually very correct.  Let me save you the time and embarrassment of falling further into my word-trap.  If you would read closely, I said that it would "lend credibility" to a statement.  And it would do exactly that.  If you made the statement, "All radishes are red," then showed a picture of a few red radishes, it would "lend credibility" to your statement.  What it would not do is prove your statement true.

Now, what I said was that if you showed a picture of people by boats and said that, "people push boats to make them go quicker," it would "lend credibility" to that statement.  What I did not say was that it would conclusively prove the boat pushing theory; merely make it more believable.

Endeavor to read for meaning as well as content.

Quote from: Pongo on June 20, 2010, 02:57:16 AM

No, that is actually very correct.  Let me save you the time and embarrassment of falling further into my word-trap.  If you would read closely, I said that it would "lend credibility" to a statement.  And it would do exactly that.  If you made the statement, "All radishes are red," then showed a picture of a few red radishes, it would "lend credibility" to your statement.  What it would not do is prove your statement true.

Now, what I said was that if you showed a picture of people by boats and said that, "people push boats to make them go quicker," it would "lend credibility" to that statement.  What I did not say was that it would conclusively prove the boat pushing theory; merely make it more believable.

Endeavor to read for meaning as well as content.

Analogy fail.

1. If you claim that all radishes are red, then a picture showing red radishes sure helps.

2. If you claim that people push boats to make them go quicker, then a picture of people beside a boat shows nothing.

In the first claim, you show an example of your claim. In the second you simply show a boat accompanied with people. To make a decent analogy, you would have a picture of people pushing the boat(And in turn making it go quicker). This is obviously impossible to do, unless you're really good at analyzing photos, as a still photo can't show movement.

Quote from: Catchpa on June 20, 2010, 09:01:02 AM

1. If you claim that all radishes are red, then a picture showing red radishes sure helps.

2. If you claim that people push boats to make them go quicker, then a picture of people beside a boat shows nothing.

In the first claim, you show an example of your claim. In the second you simply show a boat accompanied with people. To make a decent analogy, you would have a picture of people pushing the boat(And in turn making it go quicker). This is obviously impossible to do, unless you're really good at analyzing photos, as a still photo can't show movement.

It shows they are at least in a position for it to happen.  Just like if you could show they are not in such a position it would be evidence against it.

Now I'm not saying its strong evidence, or even something I would consider important but it is evidence even though its weak.

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 09:03:22 AM

Quote from: Catchpa on June 20, 2010, 09:01:02 AM

1. If you claim that all radishes are red, then a picture showing red radishes sure helps.

2. If you claim that people push boats to make them go quicker, then a picture of people beside a boat shows nothing.

In the first claim, you show an example of your claim. In the second you simply show a boat accompanied with people. To make a decent analogy, you would have a picture of people pushing the boat(And in turn making it go quicker). This is obviously impossible to do, unless you're really good at analyzing photos, as a still photo can't show movement.

It shows they are at least in a position for it to happen.  Just like if you could show they are not in such a position it would be evidence against it.

Now I'm not saying its strong evidence, or even something I would consider important but it is evidence even though its weak.

It remains however, that people besides boats is a lot weaker than red radishes.

In the case of the radishes, evidence is shown for a specific group to make a generalization of the whole
In the case of the people, you have not shown proof for the specific, but rather have shown one of the criteria for the theory has been met in a specific case. that is undeniably less powerful. in one case you have proof for a subset. in the other you have circumstantial evidence for a subset

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 12:41:42 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2010, 09:03:22 AM

Quote from: Catchpa on June 20, 2010, 09:01:02 AM

1. If you claim that all radishes are red, then a picture showing red radishes sure helps.

2. If you claim that people push boats to make them go quicker, then a picture of people beside a boat shows nothing.

In the first claim, you show an example of your claim. In the second you simply show a boat accompanied with people. To make a decent analogy, you would have a picture of people pushing the boat(And in turn making it go quicker). This is obviously impossible to do, unless you're really good at analyzing photos, as a still photo can't show movement.

It shows they are at least in a position for it to happen.  Just like if you could show they are not in such a position it would be evidence against it.

Now I'm not saying its strong evidence, or even something I would consider important but it is evidence even though its weak.

It remains however, that people besides boats is a lot weaker than red radishes.

In the case of the radishes, evidence is shown for a specific group to make a generalization of the whole
In the case of the people, you have not shown proof for the specific, but rather have shown one of the criteria for the theory has been met in a specific case. that is undeniably less powerful. in one case you have proof for a subset. in the other you have circumstantial evidence for a subset

Obviously.  He nor I ever claimed otherwise.

Everyone but Pongo does(.. but he's a troll). Which means in reality: none.

I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a troll, and I certainly don't call people trolls just because they disagree with me. Your entire reply falls apart.

1. If you claim that all radishes are red, then a picture showing red radishes sure helps.

2. If you claim that people push boats to make them go quicker, then a picture of people beside a boat shows nothing.

In the first claim, you show an example of your claim. In the second you simply show a boat accompanied with people. To make a decent analogy, you would have a picture of people pushing the boat(And in turn making it go quicker). This is obviously impossible to do, unless you're really good at analyzing photos, as a still photo can't show movement.

Quote from: Catchpa on June 21, 2010, 02:36:32 AM

Everyone but Pongo does(.. but he's a troll). Which means in reality: none.

You call anyone a troll that has a conflicting theory to your indoctrinated ways.  It's almost like a conditioned response.  I could be willing to concede that I have not presented indelible proof of how evolution proves a flat earth, but what in the non-mathematical sciences does?  (Does prove anything completely that is.)  The point of this thread is to show one of the many subtle indications of a flat earth that we overlook everyday.  All the indications are out there, you just have to look for them. Personally, I think, when presented with these unconventional ideas, is when your brain is unable to cope and defaults to calling people trolls.

Quote from: Catchpa on June 21, 2010, 04:17:24 AM

I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a troll, and I certainly don't call people trolls just because they disagree with me. Your entire reply falls apart.

Are you an idiot? Only half of his post has to do with you disagreeing with him. Read it again.

Your entire reply falls apart.

You know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available.  If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.