How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth

Now, I am starting to understand your trouble with the world. You never flew a kite, you never watched the birds migrate. Your childhood has not finished! Of course you are not a civil engineer, since they learn about the increasing wind speed with altitude in their first Static Mechanics course. Even if you were an occasional viewer of the Discovery Channel, or the History Channel, or National Geographic Channel, they explain some details about high rise buildings.

I will not dignify your lack of will to do your own research with an extensive study on bird migration. Just to wet your appetite, http://whyfiles.org/006migration/ tells you how Monarch Butterflies manage to do their migration with such a small energy capacity.

But the best thing you can do is go, fly a kite! Learn by yourself a few facts about the world you live in, instead of declaring that somewhere in the books lies the clue to a Flat Earth, and a Flat Earth Conspiracy!

Do you ever have any data to support anything?

Quote from: trig on May 16, 2010, 12:27:55 AM

Now, I am starting to understand your trouble with the world. You never flew a kite, you never watched the birds migrate. Your childhood has not finished! Of course you are not a civil engineer, since they learn about the increasing wind speed with altitude in their first Static Mechanics course. Even if you were an occasional viewer of the Discovery Channel, or the History Channel, or National Geographic Channel, they explain some details about high rise buildings.

I will not dignify your lack of will to do your own research with an extensive study on bird migration. Just to wet your appetite, http://whyfiles.org/006migration/ tells you how Monarch Butterflies manage to do their migration with such a small energy capacity.

But the best thing you can do is go, fly a kite! Learn by yourself a few facts about the world you live in, instead of declaring that somewhere in the books lies the clue to a Flat Earth, and a Flat Earth Conspiracy!

I am going to take this as a "no".

Quote from: sillyrob on May 16, 2010, 04:32:00 AM

Do you ever have any data to support anything?

Irrelevant.

You see how they are up in the air, being more stable than the ones closer to ground?

You know, Parsifal, you're probably the worst troll on this forum, in the sense that your ideas are easily disproved and your own lack of providing informations leaves you at a huge disadvantage, when looking at the more prominent trolls(Tom, James, Ichi). Maybe Johannes is worse, but I haven't seen him enough.

You can't disprove an idea someone keeps building more to, when evidence is used to disprove it. You say light bends, people say it doesn't bend there and there, you say of course it doesn't because of "new idea".

Quote from: Catchpa on May 16, 2010, 07:39:13 AM

You can't disprove an idea someone keeps building more to, when evidence is used to disprove it. You say light bends, people say it doesn't bend there and there, you say of course it doesn't because of "new idea".

Nobody who understands bendy light has yet presented a valid disproof.

And nobody who understands bendy light has yet presented a valid proof.

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2010, 08:02:33 AM

And nobody who understands bendy light has yet presented a valid proof.

Correct. However, the issue being discussed is whether my ideas are easy to disprove.

Furthermore, Catchpa, if you don't know which ideas are mine, how do you know they are easily disproved?

Because the ideas you have presented have been either disproved immediately, or you haven't provided enough information for anyone to come up with a related disproof(As no one knows what the hell you're talking about. The thing about YOUR ideas, is that you never claim that they are yours. As I said, most notable around the bendy light idea, you claim it's irrelevant whether it's your idea or not.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 08:04:01 AM

Furthermore, Catchpa, if you don't know which ideas are mine, how do you know they are easily disproved?

Because the ideas you have presented have been either disproved immediately, or you haven't provided enough information for anyone to come up with a related disproof(As no one knows what the hell you're talking about). The thing about YOUR ideas, is that you never claim that they are yours. As I said, most notable around the bendy light idea, you claim it's irrelevant whether it's your idea or not.

Because the ideas you have presented have been either disproved immediately, or you haven't provided enough information for anyone to come up with a related disproof(As no one knows what the hell you're talking about). The thing about YOUR ideas, is that you never claim that they are yours. As I said, most notable around the bendy light idea, you claim it's irrelevant whether it's your idea or not.

Which ideas have you had? As I've explained, I don't know which ideas are yours and which you're simply just constantly mentioning for trolling.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 09:01:05 PM

Quote from: James on May 13, 2010, 05:06:24 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 12:59:53 PM

Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread

What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!

So Can I quote you that you think evolution is goal oriented?
the College board and the worlds biology majors would like to have a word with you.
look at pg. 16 http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/lolson/AP%20Biology/Powerpoint%20files/22.25Evolution/49Ch24speciation2004b.pdf
plz lrn2highshoolbiology, the concept that evolution is not goal oriented is a key concept. Evolution isn't some predetermined or organized force. It is simply that a) genes allow heritable traits to be passed through generations. b) new genotypes can occur due to mutation. and c) alleles that are linked with increased biological fitness are more likely to become more abundant in a given population. Aka no blueprint saying "birds have to fly in the most efficient way possible". In fact one of the questions on my AP prep exam was something like: why did evolution lead to the avian wing if designs such as airfoils are more efficient at achieving flight?

It not being goal orientated mostly has to do with complexity.  There is no final "goal" but there is the short-term goal of greater survivability that is true across the board.  To be more correct, the goal of having your offspring reproduce successfully and "mate" and theirs do the same.  Obviously no one is claiming in the long term all birds should look the same and be ideal creatures or that all creatures will eventually be birds.

I suggest you learn the content instead of memorizing multiple choice questions for your globularist brainwashing courses.

Please, moderators, put some order in this thread!

Parsifal has made this thread about his lack of acknowledgment that his "theories" have been proved, and the birds and their migration have been forgotten.

I have no idea why Parsifal has time to write message after message of "I have my head in the sand, therefore you will never prove anything to me", but has no time to research the many holes in his "theories".

Being in this forum as a round Earther is like being Mexican in Arizona. You have no rights!

BA DING! TOO SOON?

All humor aside, our threads and posts can be moved/deleted because you guys are simply too close minded to accept round Earth. We don't disregard flat Earth because we're close minded, we disregard it because there is no evidence. So when Parisfal goes and acts like an idiot and posts nonsense, it's going to get looked over as opposed to something one of us posts just because it's not your view.

Quote from: sillyrob on May 17, 2010, 02:17:51 AM

Being in this forum as a round Earther is like being Mexican in Arizona. You have no rights!

BA DING! TOO SOON?

All humor aside, our threads and posts can be moved/deleted because you guys are simply too close minded to accept round Earth. We don't disregard flat Earth because we're close minded, we disregard it because there is no evidence. So when Parisfal goes and acts like an idiot and posts nonsense, it's going to get looked over as opposed to something one of us posts just because it's not your view.

I've never seen a post moved or deleted because it supported a different shape of the earth that was moved to the lounge.  We encourage new ideas and evidence and are constantly reexamining our thoughts and methods.  

However, I have seen many posts moved and deleted because they are of very low content and consist of nothing more than, "You're stupid, here's a pic of a round earth!"

We're the ones waiting for proof, you're the ones not providing them. First person testimonial from Tom Bishop or lazy experiments from Ichi don't count either since both of them should be admitted for even thinking those were legit forms of science.

Quote from: sillyrob on May 17, 2010, 02:33:03 AM

We're the ones waiting for proof, you're the ones not providing them. First person testimonial from Tom Bishop or lazy experiments from Ichi don't count either since both of them should be admitted for even thinking those were legit forms of science.

No one is asking you to wait.  Nor are we under and obligation to provide you with any information.  However, if you would like to try and disprove a flat earth, we would be more than happy to read it.  Also, calling people's experiments lazy when, to my knowledge, you have produced none yourself is questionable at best.

I guess everyone missed that I showed it was just as inefficient for birds to fly high on a flat earth as it is on a round one...

Quote from: General Disarray on May 16, 2010, 11:06:00 AM

I guess everyone missed that I showed it was just as inefficient for birds to fly high on a flat earth as it is on a round one...

Errr, theres some very simple reasons why birds don't fly in a spherical pattern,

Evolutionarily you mentioned that birds came from lizards, lizards that come from the ground,  now evolution teaches that lizards did not sprout wings overnight, nor did they learn their migration patterns.  So it's entirely plausible that birds keeping to a rough land-path to migratory patterns stems from a long evolutionary chain.

Using a spherical model, most birds would have to pass through the arctic circle/antarctic, meaning it would get considerably colder (I won't even go into the lack of food and unsurvivable temperatures for birds in those places) before it would get any warmer.   Now its safe to assume birds aren't that bright, I don't think they understand the concept of the world, hemispheres and seasons, so I don't think they would fly with such foresight,  a bird is much more likely to think along the lines of 'if i go north it gets colder, if i fly south it gets warmer'

I could debate the other garbage you mentioned about altitude to birds migrating and how its more efficient on a flat world (its not). but this site is hurting my brain
 

Over the duration of the next few paragraphs I intent to show you how the indisputable theory of evolution by natural selection is in direct contradiction with the theory of a round earth.  These words will be sure to irritate and offend many readers as a flat earth contrasts what they were taught in school, and evolution goes against what they were told in church.  However, I am sure that anyone perusing the material with an open mind will see the truth.  I can only hope that I can help some of you shed off years of forced indoctrination and see the world in its true form.

As is commonly known, Charles Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution in 1859 to a sea of scientists and thinkers.  Some people read his works and accepted the facts with an open mind, some took a great deal longer but eventually saw the truth, but many rejected the theory outright and fought fervently in opposition till their dying day.  Why would one fight so strongly against a new idea?  Mainly, because it directly opposed their current understanding of the Judeo-Christian god's role in the creation of the universe.  At the time, only a fictitious entity could be used to explain the phenomenon of life; much like today's NASA explaining space travel.  This is why people have clung so long and hard to their fight against evolution despite the endless libraries of facts supporting the theory.  

As finches were an integral part to Darwin creating his world-renowned theory, I shall use birds to explain how life on a round earth is simply not practical.

Birds, in all their forms and facets, constitute half of all the animals on earth.  They thrive on every continent and even excel as swimmers and runners in addition to their obvious talent of flight.  They are decedent from great lizard kings which departed this flat land some 65 million years ago.  Most interesting of all perhaps, is their migratory habits.  Below is an image of migration paths of birds that live, at least partly, in the arctic.  (I apologize for the inaccuracies of this map)

As you can see, birds only migrate in a north/south pattern.  Which would look like spokes on a wheel if drawn on a correct flat-earth map.  This is because it is inefficient to fly around the outer rim of a wheel when an easier route is up and down a 'spoke'.  But how does this relate to evolution?  I'm glad you asked.  Evolution favors the individual that can best adapt to its environment.  This superior adaptability translates to more successful genes being passed onto its offspring until such a time that the species' gene pool is saturated with only the best genes.  Natural selection favored the birds that used less energy by following migration patters that best suited a flat earth.

Other genes for efficient flying can also be seen in how birds use air currents and updrafts to expend less energy in flight.  This graph shows the various altitudes in which birds fly:

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).

In summation, remember that birds are some of the most highly evolved species on the planet.  They are descended from the ancient dinosaurs and as such, have come quite adapt to living on this flat earth.  Meaning that if any species is equipped to reduce energy output in any way possible, it's the birds.  Next time you see a bird, which I suspect will be soon, give a silent thank you to our feathery friends for helping us see the world for truly what it is; a flat disc.  I hope this has helped you as a reader understand some of the 'truths' you take for granted.  I know many of you won't or can't accept the words I write here, but please keep them in mind over the course of the next few years.  Slowly, as the ideas mull around your brain, I'm sure you will come to accept them, just as many scientists slowly came to accept Darwin's groundbreaking theory over a century and a half ago.

The relative energy of migrating on land vs. in the air was never an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage considering the inability of land based animals to migrate long distances easily.