^^^ Pickled Earth hahaha

---

---

We haven't found even one thing in the universe that came about spontaneously.

We haven't found even one thing that we know for a fact was not made.

But we have found countless numbers of things that were made by something.

The whole operation of the universe that we know of is based on chains of things making other things.

Entropy shows that there was a beginning to the universe, and that the beginning wasn't in the too distant past. If there were no beginning, or if the beginning were far in the past, entropy would have broken down all the complexity that exists, by dispersing and diffusing everything in the universe, long ago.

Combining all this shows that "something" outside the universe made the universe.

But we don't know that. All we know is that vaccines exist and that the cases of polio went to zero (if they really did). Polio might have gone to zero a lot faster without the vaccines creating more polio. And the articles says that vaccines create more polio than nature. And, what about all the autism, etc., that the vaccines create as are shown by other studies?

Everything works in cycles. So, nature creates polio more at some times than at other times. As I said in a previous post:

^^^ it's funny how you're triggered by criticism of the ORAD virtual set backdrop NASA uses in their studio.

later wave function is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random).

Actually, it's pretty clear, explained 3 different ways. Not deterministic, unpredictable and random, if you don't know what it means, use a dictionary

How is the distance to the horizon a straw man, do explain? Horizontal curvature is not conclusive, therefor claiming that it's proof of anything is bullshit. You can't show that it's not distortion especially with the center of the image being brighter/overexposed. I've got evidence for distortion meanwhile you completely ignore the distance to the horizon based on landmarks and prop up this straw man.

I've exposed your intellectual dishonesty asshole.

Yes, changed the topic from the horizon distance to the straw man of horizontal horizon curvature. Also there's an angle between the line that's been drawn and the horizon line. Rope yourself.

I'm sorry BADecker but that's not an argument.

Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.

Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.

Standard Astargath attempted deception. We know nothing about outside-the-universe. We know a lot about the universe (though only a fraction of things that are within). Did you get that? We know one thing about outside-the-universe. What is that one thing? That it is outside the universe. We don't know if it is complex or simple. We don't know if it has anything that we can understand or not. What we do know is one thing... outside-the-universe... one. That is, unlike within-the-universe, which we know there are many things, we don't know anything about without except that it is outside-the-universe, one thing.

You are right. Understanding what outside the universe really means is something people don't know. If they did, it would be part of the universe, like inside the universe. But, we know that the universe was made by something other than itself. Since it isn't in the universe, it is outside the universe.

When you get out there, count the things that are out there for us all... if you can even understand it. So far it is only one... outside the universe.

The article isn't that long. If you had read it, you would have the answer to your question - https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/28/534403083/mutant-strains-of-polio-vaccine-now-cause-more-paralysis-than-wild-polio.

Blah, blah, blah. Science says that they don't know that it is random.

Evolution is a hoax.

The only way that they might be considered random, is the same way that the dictionary explains simple random. We simply don't know the cause(s).

Say that you see a leaf on a tree twisting and turning in the sunlight with the breeze. We know the causes for the leaf turning, in general. It has to do with things like the heat from the sunlight, the breeze itself, and the way the whole tree is swaying. And there might even be other things that we understand as the cause, such as the rate of evaporation of water from the leaf. But we can't track the causes to know how many causal parts there are, and how they all interact to make the leaf sway.

Regarding radiation, we might know some of the parts because we can measure the changes in microscopic quantities of radioactive material, but we don't know exactly why the material dissolves into radiation at the rate in which it does. So, some scientists simply suggest that C&E doesn't work in this case, simply because they don't know all the answers.

It's like saying that the leaf on the tree turns about in the summer breeze spontaneously, because we can't see but a few of the millions of minute forces that are acting on the leaf as it moves. The fact that the material is there, and that the material dissolves into radiation, shows that the whole thing is a C&E operation, even though we don't know the tiny details.

Besides, the scientists don't point-blank say that such radiation is spontaneous without C&E. Rather, they say that it is their idea, and that they think that they have some evidence for lack of C&E.

So, what does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax?