How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth

Right, birds can fly so high
And they can shit on your head
And they can almost fly into your eye
And make you feel so scared.
But when you look at them
And you see that they're beautiful
That's how I feel about you

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 03:26:22 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 03:16:33 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:13:51 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 02:59:32 PM

Typical of you to include no facts in your post.

The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.

So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?

Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.

I see, so you claim the reason for flying higher is simply that it's easy and efficient. So what was your point again?

As explained the benefit of gliding is negated by the RE distance. It would be better to be low on a round earth in this instance. So as Pongo says, at least the birds know its flat.

Really? Please justify your claim.

Have you just woken up or something? The RE distance is around 60 miles further. If you don't understand a thread, stop posting in it.

You just claimed that flying higher and then gliding was the way to go over 27miles, so why wouldn't it be the best way to go over even longer distances since thermals are so easy to catch and gliding so easy? Perhaps you need to revisit your own posts.

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:28:31 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 03:26:22 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 03:16:33 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:13:51 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 02:59:32 PM

Typical of you to include no facts in your post.

The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.

So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?

Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.

I see, so you claim the reason for flying higher is simply that it's easy and efficient. So what was your point again?

As explained the benefit of gliding is negated by the RE distance. It would be better to be low on a round earth in this instance. So as Pongo says, at least the birds know its flat.

Really? Please justify your claim.

Have you just woken up or something? The RE distance is around 60 miles further. If you don't understand a thread, stop posting in it.

You just claimed that flying higher and then gliding was the way to go over 27miles, so why wouldn't it be the best way to go over even longer distances since thermals are so easy to catch and gliding so easy? Perhaps you need to revisit your own posts.

They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 03:40:32 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:28:31 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 03:26:22 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 03:16:33 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:13:51 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 02:59:32 PM

Typical of you to include no facts in your post.

The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.

So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?

Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.

I see, so you claim the reason for flying higher is simply that it's easy and efficient. So what was your point again?

As explained the benefit of gliding is negated by the RE distance. It would be better to be low on a round earth in this instance. So as Pongo says, at least the birds know its flat.

Really? Please justify your claim.

Have you just woken up or something? The RE distance is around 60 miles further. If you don't understand a thread, stop posting in it.

You just claimed that flying higher and then gliding was the way to go over 27miles, so why wouldn't it be the best way to go over even longer distances since thermals are so easy to catch and gliding so easy? Perhaps you need to revisit your own posts.

They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.

So you still have nothing. Noted and expected.

new issue:
why doesn't the conspiracy try to kill all the birds, since they can do anything they would surely have thought of this.

new issue:
why doesn't the conspiracy try to kill all the birds, since they can do anything they would surely have thought of this.

What do you think happened to the passenger pigeons?

Berny
Feels horrible that the passenger pigeons had to suffer from the conspiracy.  It was the evil Penguins.

new issue:
why doesn't the conspiracy try to kill all the birds, since they can do anything they would surely have thought of this.

Why would they do this? 

Birds are required to alter plane flight times!

Yes, it's well understood that birds are required to hasten flight times in the southern hemisphere. These birds, unlike the ones in question in this thread, are a product of artifical selection. We bred them to be stronger, endure further, and fly faster; we took them right to the peak of perfection.  The birds in this thread were also selected, but they were selected to preform by nature, not man. As a result, they are perfectly adapted to survive on a flat earth. 

It's painfully apparent. All you have to do is open your mind to the truth and let your prejustices fly away. 

Warblers are fulfilling an urge to build nests and Peacocks are brightly colored because of sexual selection.  Both a well built nest and bright colors improve chances of successful reproduction.  Are there any other areas of evolution that I can clear up for you?

How about this one:
When you were in the womb, at one point you grew a tail, then lost it well before you were born.
Not everything serves a purpose.
Some things are just vestigal.

Yes, it's well understood that birds are required to hasten flight times in the southern hemisphere. These birds, unlike the ones in question in this thread, are a product of artifical selection. We bred them to be stronger, endure further, and fly faster; we took them right to the peak of perfection.  The birds in this thread were also selected, but they were selected to preform by nature, not man. As a result, they are perfectly adapted to survive on a flat earth. 

It's painfully apparent. All you have to do is open your mind to the truth and let your prejustices fly away. 

There are so many things wrong with this.

1)  "well understood" by whom, exactly?  Just you?
2)  Evidence of any of this?
3)  "perfectly adapted"?  You saw my point that birds save only .05-.3% travel distance by flying closer to ground level, right?  The possible benefits of high altitude flight far outweigh the small distance they'd save.  They may be flying high to avoid predators, or for better weather.  Who are you to say otherwise?

They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.

A self admitted troll derails another thread. So what is new?

All this idiocy, like saying that birds migrate across the Pacific Ocean, and that penguins have artillery, shows how Thork has become the worst troll in a land filled with them.

He said that this forum was a good place for newbies to train on science and debating skills, and yet a newbie made an excellent argument some three pages away and he was trolled away.

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:42:25 PM

They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.

A self admitted troll derails another thread. So what is new?

All this idiocy, like saying that birds migrate across the Pacific Ocean, and that penguins have artillery, shows how Thork has become the worst troll in a land filled with them.

He said that this forum was a good place for newbies to train on science and debating skills, and yet a newbie made an excellent argument some three pages away and he was trolled away.

No. Penguins are for ClockTower. After he has ruined any chance of debate, with "prove it" or "justify this claim" written several times without any attempt to contribute to a subject or suggest why something might be wrong with an example or some numbers, he gets a penguin.

You will note before that post, I had desperately tried to have the proper debate, discussing bird altitudes, speeds distances etc. Follow the thread and see how much ClockTower contributes from my first post in it, until I give up and show him another penguin.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.msg1079457#msg1079457
Having been forced to give up on the debate, I do not follow the penguin story on. I had left through frustration and given up in this thread. The penguin is the last post.

Quote from: trig on October 27, 2010, 05:09:20 AM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:42:25 PM

They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.

A self admitted troll derails another thread. So what is new?

All this idiocy, like saying that birds migrate across the Pacific Ocean, and that penguins have artillery, shows how Thork has become the worst troll in a land filled with them.

He said that this forum was a good place for newbies to train on science and debating skills, and yet a newbie made an excellent argument some three pages away and he was trolled away.

No. Penguins are for ClockTower. After he has ruined any chance of debate, with "prove it" or "justify this claim" written several times without any attempt to contribute to a subject or suggest why something might be wrong with an example or some numbers, he gets a penguin.

You will note before that post, I had desperately tried to have the proper debate, discussing bird altitudes, speeds distances etc. Follow the thread and see how much ClockTower contributes from my first post in it, until I give up and show him another penguin.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.msg1079457#msg1079457
Having been forced to give up on the debate, I do not follow the penguin story on. I had left through frustration and given up in this thread. The penguin is the last post.

So you can't prove any of your claims?

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 08:26:48 AM

Quote from: trig on October 27, 2010, 05:09:20 AM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:42:25 PM

They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.

A self admitted troll derails another thread. So what is new?

All this idiocy, like saying that birds migrate across the Pacific Ocean, and that penguins have artillery, shows how Thork has become the worst troll in a land filled with them.

He said that this forum was a good place for newbies to train on science and debating skills, and yet a newbie made an excellent argument some three pages away and he was trolled away.

No. Penguins are for ClockTower. After he has ruined any chance of debate, with "prove it" or "justify this claim" written several times without any attempt to contribute to a subject or suggest why something might be wrong with an example or some numbers, he gets a penguin.

You will note before that post, I had desperately tried to have the proper debate, discussing bird altitudes, speeds distances etc. Follow the thread and see how much ClockTower contributes from my first post in it, until I give up and show him another penguin.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.msg1079457#msg1079457
Having been forced to give up on the debate, I do not follow the penguin story on. I had left through frustration and given up in this thread. The penguin is the last post.

So you can't prove any of your claims?

Do you want a penguin as well, or were you going to provide some content in the rebuttal?

I just don't see the point in debating the science of a claim if both of us know that the claim is false.

I'll say it again for emphasis: birds only save .05-.3% travel time by flying closer to ground level.  The benefits that high-altitude flight likely have (less predators, fairer weather, etc) far outweigh this insignificant benefit.

Now stop posting here, this topic has been disputed (and disproven) to death.

I'll say it again for emphasis: birds only save .05-.3% travel time by flying closer to ground level.  The benefits that high-altitude flight likely have (less predators, fairer weather, etc) far outweigh this insignificant benefit.

Now stop posting here, this topic has been disputed (and disproven) to death.

You cannot make an incorrect statement and say that no one can post after you to argue it. As shown in my example, some birds migrate across the Pacific. There are no predators for them across the vast ocean as brids of prey do not live out in the ocean. Here is the link again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3307832/Bar-tailed-godwits-non-stop-Pacific-crossing.html
Here is a picture of their route.

Ignore the crude globe shape in wiki, but it does show they are crossing the Ocean.
As for fairer weather I have addressed this as wind is stronger at altitude, creating more severe windsheer and hence more turbulence. Birds are also strictly VFR animals. They NEVER fly through cloud. So being down low would help them to avoid cloud. 6,500 ft is not a good height to avoid cloud, you will be diverting all around it.

However most bird migration is in the range of 150 m (500 ft) to 600 m (2000 ft). Bird-hit aviation records from the United States show most collisions occur below 600 m (2000 ft) and almost none above 1800 m (6000 ft).

The most significant influence on the altitude at which birds fly is the weather, especially cloud cover and wind fields. Birds may fly lower when it is cloudy or, if the overcast is not too thick, they may ascend through it to reach the clear skies above. If favorable tail winds are to be found in certain altitudinal strata, birds often ascend or descend in order to take advantage of them.

with most migrations in the range of 500-2000 feet

Weather and species of bird all play a role.  More food for thought:

Seabirds fly low over water but gain altitude when crossing land, and the reverse pattern is seen in landbirds

Quote from: Hessy on October 27, 2010, 09:28:06 AM

I'll say it again for emphasis: birds only save .05-.3% travel time by flying closer to ground level.  The benefits that high-altitude flight likely have (less predators, fairer weather, etc) far outweigh this insignificant benefit.

Now stop posting here, this topic has been disputed (and disproven) to death.

You cannot make an incorrect statement and say that no one can post after you to argue it. As shown in my example, some birds migrate across the Pacific. There are no predators for them across the vast ocean as brids of prey do not live out in the ocean. Here is the link again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3307832/Bar-tailed-godwits-non-stop-Pacific-crossing.html
Here is a picture of their route.

Ignore the crude globe shape in wiki, but it does show they are crossing the Ocean.
As for fairer weather I have addressed this as wind is stronger at altitude, creating more severe windsheer and hence more turbulence. Birds are also strictly VFR animals. They NEVER fly through cloud. So being down low would help them to avoid cloud. 6,500 ft is not a good height to avoid cloud, you will be diverting all around it.

And of course this would be true in FET as well, so you've again made no point by your lame post. Are you just going to troll from now on?

Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.

Even more food for thought:

Birds exploit the winds to their favour so they can go the distance by burning minimal fuel. They may shift altitude to find the best wind "conveyor belt". Winds at high altitude may blow in the opposite direction from wind on the ground, and usually are blowing strongly. Larger birds rely on thermals (hot air) rising from the ground in the mornings to gain altitude by simply soaring. These birds usually migrate during the day. They may also follow strong updrafts along ridges.

Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.

My point is that birds migrate at varying altitudes (low and) to ride thermals, (possibly) avoid predators, depending on the weather, etc.  Reference the many quotes I've provided you.

And since birds migrate even lower than I orginally thought, the distance that birds save migrating at ground level over their normal migratory paths is closer to .01-1%.

Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.

Have you read this thread? That point has been refuted more times than I can count.

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 10:02:47 AM

Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.

Have you read this thread? That point has been refuted more times than I can count.

And don't ask "How?? Where??"... just reference my previous post.

Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.

I'd be happy to debate your point once you substantiate it. If you wish to troll by just throwing out unsupported, unrelated, or just ludicrous "facts", you'll find that we will continue to challenge you.

So bird in FE would fly high even though that increases the distance, right? Why wouldn't birds in RE do the same for the same reason? You'll have to show a cost-benefit analysis to win the point.

I can't even follow what everyone is arguing for or against in this thread. My best guess is that some people are saying something along the lines of "birds fly too high for the world to be round because if it were round they would fly lower in order to decrease distance flown, ergo the Earth is flat" and others are saying "the increase in distance is negligible so the world could still be round"

Have I got this right? And if so can I just go back to my request that those who say birds should fly lower go and find out for what reason the birds might fly so high?

I can't even follow what everyone is arguing for or against in this thread. My best guess is that some people are saying something along the lines of "birds fly too high for the world to be round because if it were round they would fly lower in order to decrease distance flown, ergo the Earth is flat" and others are saying "the increase in distance is negligible so the world could still be round"

Have I got this right? And if so can I just go back to my request that those who say birds should fly lower go and find out for what reason the birds might fly so high?

You've got it right. It's an extremely successful troll thread that has gone on way too long.

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 10:02:47 AM

Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.

Have you read this thread? That point has been refuted more times than I can count.

The word you are looking for is disputed, not refuted. Also, you cannot count very high.

Quote from: General Disarray on October 27, 2010, 10:07:46 AM

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 10:02:47 AM

Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.

Have you read this thread? That point has been refuted more times than I can count.

The word you are looking for is disputed, not refuted. Also, you cannot count very high.

He also cannot read. I posted the links with the altitudes, speeds, distance route etc.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.msg1079457#msg1079457

Quote from: General Disarray on October 27, 2010, 10:07:46 AM

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 10:02:47 AM

Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.

Have you read this thread? That point has been refuted more times than I can count.

The word you are looking for is disputed, not refuted. Also, you cannot count very high.

Oh bother, Pongo will you ever be more than an uneducated troll?

Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute:

to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous