Yes, I can prove just one "thing." The "thing" is outside-the-universe. If we were able to understand it as more than one thing, it would be part of the universe, simply by the fact of us being able to understand it that sufficiently. What does this mean? It means that if you and I were in that outside-the-universe "realm," and we were part of it enough that we could understand it, there might be countless "things" that we would "see" and understand. But since we are not "out there," and don't have any understanding whatsoever of "it," the only thing we know is one "thing"... outside-the-universe. The only two ways that this can be different are: 1. The universe Maker in some way allows information about outside-the-universe to come to us inside the universe, thereby telling us what the situation is outside-the-universe; 2. We find something within the universe that shows that the universe spontaneously made itself. Number 1 is a religious idea, and would only be part of this topic if the OP and title had set it up that way. But it is easy to start other topics. Number 2 is something that we have no example of even within the universe. Everything within the universe is made by something else. Just the idea of something spontaneously making itself doesn't fit with anything that we know. C&E is part of the example of this. So, there is no way to show that the universe might have made itself. Saying such would be directing towards a religion or philosophical thing. Since I have said all this before, I have something to thank you for. The fact that you ask the question again, shows that my previous explanations weren't clear enough for you. And if they weren't clear enough for you, they probably weren't clear enough for at least a few other people, as well. So, you have given me chance to clarify. And every time I get to clarify, I get the way to explain situated in my mind. So, thank you for this.  Uhmm ....... ok ....... badecker, are you ok? I know at this point you have to desperately try to say something but come on. We don't know what's outside the universe, then how can you claim it was god who created the universe if god should be outside the universe? Does the outside of the universe only allow room for 1 god? This is not proving that the universe wasn't caused by multiple causes, your argument is still bad. Thank you for maintaining the science aspect of this thread, rather than applying number 1 that I said above. Please explain, further, what you mean. After all, I answered what your questions seem to be, in my post you quoted, above. What's outside the universe? God is outside the universe. Why is God One? Because that's all we know about outside the universe... not two outside-the-universes, but only the one outside-the-universe. ''Because that's all we know about outside the universe... not two outside-the-universes'' Do you realize how stupid this is? So the universe is just one, therefore inside the universe only 1 thing can exist? How come we have trillions of planets then? What do you think outside the universe actually means? I don't think you really know, do you? Science doesn't even know if such thing exists but there are some theories, some of them even state that multiple universes exist so how can you claim it's only 1 god that created this universe and not multiple? |
|
|
|
^^^ I've included physical and mathematical proof if you don't trust your eyes.
If seeing the proof, calculating it with mathematics or interacting with it mechanically isn't your thing you can feel it. You've got a sixth sense you can use to prove it, your sense of balance; the earth isn't spinning.
Math is not a language, can't prove anything with it. You didn't prove anything, show me the flat earth. ...
The distance to the horizon on a globe at 33k' is 222.7 miles, if you can find a photo of an object on the ground below the horizon line and prove it's greater than 222.7 miles from the aircraft then you've got mathematical proof the earth is flat. There's infrared images available (just ask) that conclusively show landmarks of over 500 miles that are below the horizon.
If there's an island between your aircraft at 33k' and the globe horizon at 222.7 miles and, you can positively identify that island and determine the aircrafts current position then, you can calculate the distance from the aircraft to the island and, if that island is 500 miles away then you've got proof, mathematical proof the earth is flat. Like the convex dome of water 3 miles out that ships sail up, over and behind, a horizon formed by the top of a dome 222.7 miles out while flying at 33k' is unavoidable on a globe. Then do it, show it and you will finally prove the earth is flat, what are you waiting for? You certainly have a lot of free time, might as well use it for something. First we need to agree on a couple of points: 1. Assuming a globe earth, the visible horizon line at an altitude of 33,000 feet is about 222.7 miles from from the observer. TRUE or FALSE? 2. Any point on the ground between the visible horizon line and the observer at 33,000 feet has a distance of less than 222.7 miles on a globe earth. TRUE or FALSE? edit: Here's one example:  Source: https://youtu.be/7CpAlOuZb2o LUL |
|
|
|
We already discussed that. Let me use simple examples. ''Cases die to wild poliovirus have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350 000 cases then, to 22 reported cases in 2017.'' So let's say, we have 350.000 cases of polio, we use the polio vaccine, we get rid of over 99% of all the polio cases but then we are left with some bad side effects, they don't happen too often but they are there. Your article says 33 cases of paralysis due to the vaccine, let's say it's true. Do you think it would have been better to leave the 350.000 cases of polio exist and prevent those 33 cases of paralysis in the end? Or perhaps getting rid of 350.000 cases of polio is better even though the vaccine might cause paralysis rarely? Yes I know it's not a perfect scenario, as already discussed, drugs/medicine have some terrible side effects, however it's better to use them than not. Let me show you where you are mistaken. It's simple. We have proof, now, that the polio vaccine causes more polio than nature, right? So, what does the fact that polio case numbers are dropping have to do with the idea that polio vaccines are the thing that is doing it? The only thing your point shows is, somebody was smart enough to notice the natural drop in polio cases, and that the natural drop was faster than the polio vaccine made new cases of polio, and they capitalized on the idea. In other words, if there never was a polio vaccine, the polio case rate would have dropped even faster. Now we have the proof. ''We have proof, now, that the polio vaccine causes more polio than nature, right?'' No? We have the proof that polio vaccines almost eradicated polio and they have some terrible side effects that don't happen to often. The reason polio vaccines paralyze more children now than polio itself is because there is almost no polio, thanks to the VACCINES. Your article cites: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/28/534403083/mutant-strains-of-polio-vaccine-now-cause-more-paralysis-than-wild-polio"The fact is this [the live oral polio vaccine] is the only tool that we have that can eradicate the disease," says Zaffran.That eradication effort has been incredibly successful. In 1988, when the campaign began, there were 350,000 cases of polio around the world each year compared with the six so far this year. Zaffran credits the oral polio vaccine with getting the world incredibly close to wiping out a terrible disease. "Four regions of the world have totally eradicated the disease with the use of the oral polio vaccine," he notes. "Of course we need to recognize that there have been a few cases of children paralyzed because of the vaccine virus, which is regrettable. But, you know, from a public health perspective, the benefits far outweigh the risk." |
|
|
|
You were never able to prove the cause of the universe is one thing and not multiple, it's as simple as that to disprove your whole argument. Unless you can prove the universe requires only 1 cause or 1 god instead of multiple your argument fails. There you go. Getting silly again (Did you ever stop being silly?). Since we don't know anything about outside-the-universe, the one thing that made the universe is Outside-The-Universe. But you knew that, because I already explained it to you. However, thank you for requesting this info again, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it already. How does that answer the question of multiple causes? The thing or things that made the universe are outside the universe, the question is, can you prove it's just 1 ''thing'' and not multiple? Yes, I can prove just one "thing." The "thing" is outside-the-universe. If we were able to understand it as more than one thing, it would be part of the universe, simply by the fact of us being able to understand it that sufficiently. What does this mean? It means that if you and I were in that outside-the-universe "realm," and we were part of it enough that we could understand it, there might be countless "things" that we would "see" and understand. But since we are not "out there," and don't have any understanding whatsoever of "it," the only thing we know is one "thing"... outside-the-universe. The only two ways that this can be different are: 1. The universe Maker in some way allows information about outside-the-universe to come to us inside the universe, thereby telling us what the situation is outside-the-universe; 2. We find something within the universe that shows that the universe spontaneously made itself. Number 1 is a religious idea, and would only be part of this topic if the OP and title had set it up that way. But it is easy to start other topics. Number 2 is something that we have no example of even within the universe. Everything within the universe is made by something else. Just the idea of something spontaneously making itself doesn't fit with anything that we know. C&E is part of the example of this. So, there is no way to show that the universe might have made itself. Saying such would be directing towards a religion or philosophical thing. Since I have said all this before, I have something to thank you for. The fact that you ask the question again, shows that my previous explanations weren't clear enough for you. And if they weren't clear enough for you, they probably weren't clear enough for at least a few other people, as well. So, you have given me chance to clarify. And every time I get to clarify, I get the way to explain situated in my mind. So, thank you for this. Uhmm ....... ok ....... badecker, are you ok? I know at this point you have to desperately try to say something but come on. We don't know what's outside the universe, then how can you claim it was god who created the universe if god should be outside the universe? Does the outside of the universe only allow room for 1 god? This is not proving that the universe wasn't caused by multiple causes, your argument is still bad. |
|
|
|
Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random. However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all. Evolution is a hoax. They are evidence and they are considered random. Why should I listen to a random nutjob religious guy instead of well established science? 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? '' We simply don't know the cause(s).'' Prove it. |
|
|
|
We already discussed that. Let me use simple examples. ''Cases die to wild poliovirus have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350 000 cases then, to 22 reported cases in 2017.'' So let's say, we have 350.000 cases of polio, we use the polio vaccine, we get rid of over 99% of all the polio cases but then we are left with some bad side effects, they don't happen too often but they are there. Your article says 33 cases of paralysis due to the vaccine, let's say it's true. Do you think it would have been better to leave the 350.000 cases of polio exist and prevent those 33 cases of paralysis in the end? Or perhaps getting rid of 350.000 cases of polio is better even though the vaccine might cause paralysis rarely? Yes I know it's not a perfect scenario, as already discussed, drugs/medicine have some terrible side effects, however it's better to use them than not. |
|
|
|
You were never able to prove the cause of the universe is one thing and not multiple, it's as simple as that to disprove your whole argument. Unless you can prove the universe requires only 1 cause or 1 god instead of multiple your argument fails. There you go. Getting silly again (Did you ever stop being silly?). Since we don't know anything about outside-the-universe, the one thing that made the universe is Outside-The-Universe. But you knew that, because I already explained it to you. However, thank you for requesting this info again, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it already. How does that answer the question of multiple causes? The thing or things that made the universe are outside the universe, the question is, can you prove it's just 1 ''thing'' and not multiple? |
|
|
|
^^^ I've included physical and mathematical proof if you don't trust your eyes.
If seeing the proof, calculating it with mathematics or interacting with it mechanically isn't your thing you can feel it. You've got a sixth sense you can use to prove it, your sense of balance; the earth isn't spinning.
Math is not a language, can't prove anything with it. You didn't prove anything, show me the flat earth. ...
The distance to the horizon on a globe at 33k' is 222.7 miles, if you can find a photo of an object on the ground below the horizon line and prove it's greater than 222.7 miles from the aircraft then you've got mathematical proof the earth is flat. There's infrared images available (just ask) that conclusively show landmarks of over 500 miles that are below the horizon.
If there's an island between your aircraft at 33k' and the globe horizon at 222.7 miles and, you can positively identify that island and determine the aircrafts current position then, you can calculate the distance from the aircraft to the island and, if that island is 500 miles away then you've got proof, mathematical proof the earth is flat. Like the convex dome of water 3 miles out that ships sail up, over and behind, a horizon formed by the top of a dome 222.7 miles out while flying at 33k' is unavoidable on a globe. Then do it, show it and you will finally prove the earth is flat, what are you waiting for? You certainly have a lot of free time, might as well use it for something. |
|
|
|
Since you are talking absolutes, evolution and random fail a lot easier than C&E. Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random... or ETE. Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it. ''Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random'' Lies and a hoax, you can't even begin to prove everything has a cause, earth is only 1 planet among trillions, even if you prove all the causes of the things here, you are not even close to everything. Examples of pure random exist and I already mentioned them like 50 times, virtual particles, radioactive decay. You are a hoax and apparently have Alzheimer's too. All you are saying is that there isn't proof for anything, because things might be different somewhere else. Right here, there isn't even one example of pure random or evolution. But there are lots of examples of C&E, adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. You are certainly welcome to head out there to find some proof for random and evolution if you want. Have a nice journey. Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it. `^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random. However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all. Evolution is a hoax. They are evidence and they are considered random. Why should I listen to a random nutjob religious guy instead of well established science? |
|
|
|
There is no evidence of anything magically appearing in this world, Look at buildings, cars and the aeroplanes, they were all made and it shows that everything has a creator so that means that Human Being who has made all these things must also have a creator, it's just logical.
There is plenty of evidence of simple living beings evolving to really complex animals, they didn't need a creator. Spontaneous and autonomous emergence of complex behavior is not evidence against a creator. For Example: Google's DeepMind AI Just Taught Itself To Walkhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gn4nRCC9TwQThere is no evidence of a creator, there is evidence that we evolved though. And no, you can't prove god, using ''logic''. |
|
|
|
^^^ I've included physical and mathematical proof if you don't trust your eyes.
If seeing the proof, calculating it with mathematics or interacting with it mechanically isn't your thing you can feel it. You've got a sixth sense you can use to prove it, your sense of balance; the earth isn't spinning.
Math is not a language, can't prove anything with it. You didn't prove anything, show me the flat earth. |
|
|
|
There is no evidence of anything magically appearing in this world, Look at buildings, cars and the aeroplanes, they were all made and it shows that everything has a creator so that means that Human Being who has made all these things must also have a creator, it's just logical.
There is plenty of evidence of simple living beings evolving to really complex animals, they didn't need a creator. |
|
|
|
Don't you just love notbatman and his buddies? The more they talk, the more they tell us that they have a comical, pseudo, flat-earth religion going for themselves. And the pictures show it best of all. Probably this thread is one of the most religious threads in this whole forum. Watch, now. if they answer my post here, it will be with more FE religion content.  I can show you the horizon rising to eye level, can you show me a convex dome three miles out that causes your horizon? You're fucking with me here bro, you can't back up your claims, period.  Image: CGI rendering of a commercial attitude indicatorGo drink yourself to death motherfucker! You can't, it's photo shopped and you are spreading propaganda. You can't back up your claims, period. Shows us the projectors or the flat earth. I don't need a physical image to show the horizon rising to eye level, I can just point to it and say look, it's consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane. What kind of evidence that a commercial attitude indicator (artificial horizon) points directly at the horizon at any altitude do you need? There are purely mechanical variants available and when you see how they work with the gyroscope, you know it doesn't correct for 8" per mile squared worth of horizon drop (3 degrees at 33k'); the gyroscope is locked in position. This is physical proof the earth is flat. The distance to the horizon on a globe at 33k' is 222.7 miles, if you can find a photo of an object on the ground below the horizon line and prove it's greater than 222.7 miles from the aircraft then you've got mathematical proof the earth is flat. There's infrared images available (just ask) that conclusively show landmarks of over 500 miles that are below the horizon. ''I don't need a physical image to show the horizon rising to eye level, I can just point to it and say look, it's consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane.'' Lies, your own eyes are betraying you, it's obviously because of perspective but in reality its different. |
|
|
|
I would never buy a Tesla. I hate that prick Musk. Watch your mouth, Musk will save humanity soon. |
|
|
|
Thank you for acknowledging that God exists. By ignoring the scientific evidence you are acknowledging that the bible is a hoax, thank you for that. - Blah, blah, blah. By ignoring the scientific evidence you are acknowledging that the Bible is fact.Age of the earth: - Not known scientifically. The scientific writings about the age of the earth all tell you this right inside themselves, by the language they use, though many of them don't say it outright. It's in the way they talk about their findings regarding the age of the earth.https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_EarthAge of the universe: - Not known scientifically. The scientific writings about the age of the universe all tell you this right inside themselves, by the language they use, though many of them don't say it outright. It's in the way they talk about their findings regarding the age of the universe.https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/29/how-do-we-know-the-age-of-the-universe/#473db16a6155https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universeThis is scientific proof, accepted by virtually all scientists, if this is not proof, I don't know what is. - Scientists are people. Simple acceptance of something by a bunch of people doesn't make it factual. However, the idea that "... accepted by virtually all scientists ..." is accurate is entirely too generalized, and is completely wrong because of this. Sounds like you don't know what proof really is.There is also plenty of evidence that the flood didn't happen, in fact no history book talks about it anywhere. - Now you are getting really goofy. The greatest history book of all - the Bible - talks about the flood. In addition, there is a lot of written history about the Great Flood. One very common ancient written record about it besides the Bible, is the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.https://www.csicop.org/si/show/twenty-one_reasons_noahs_worldwide_flood_never_happenedhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_floodRip badecker. But the funniest part of everything you say is that you seem to think that this is a personal thing. What's the matter? Don't you like me because I show you science that you can't refute? Don't you think that enough people already know that you are a deceitful troll? Or are you simply subtly putting your resumé out there for anybody who wants to hire a freelance troll? Do you think they will hire you when you troll around this way? Get back on topic, hey? All the scientific proof that anybody needs to know that God exists is right here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. You were never able to prove the cause of the universe is one thing and not multiple, it's as simple as that to disprove your whole argument. Unless you can prove the universe requires only 1 cause or 1 god instead of multiple your argument fails. |
|
|
|
Don't you just love notbatman and his buddies? The more they talk, the more they tell us that they have a comical, pseudo, flat-earth religion going for themselves. And the pictures show it best of all. Probably this thread is one of the most religious threads in this whole forum. Watch, now. if they answer my post here, it will be with more FE religion content. I can show you the horizon rising to eye level, can you show me a convex dome three miles out that causes your horizon? You're fucking with me here bro, you can't back up your claims, period. Go drink yourself to death motherfucker! You can't, it's photo shopped and you are spreading propaganda. You can't back up your claims, period. Shows us the projectors or the flat earth. |
|
|
|
Since you are talking absolutes, evolution and random fail a lot easier than C&E. Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random... or ETE. Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it. ''Real world speaking, C&E is proven all over the place, but no examples of pure random'' Lies and a hoax, you can't even begin to prove everything has a cause, earth is only 1 planet among trillions, even if you prove all the causes of the things here, you are not even close to everything. Examples of pure random exist and I already mentioned them like 50 times, virtual particles, radioactive decay. You are a hoax and apparently have Alzheimer's too. All you are saying is that there isn't proof for anything, because things might be different somewhere else. Right here, there isn't even one example of pure random or evolution. But there are lots of examples of C&E, adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. You are certainly welcome to head out there to find some proof for random and evolution if you want. Have a nice journey. Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it. `^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
|
|
|
On a globe the horizon is a convex dome of water that ships go up over and behind. On a flat earth the horizon rises to eye level due to convergence and perspective on a plane.
Observation of the horizon is consistent with convergence and perspective on a plane no matter how much you mock me, or insult me, or claim the I'm lying and report me to the mods, or tag me as a scammer or try to hide my posts with spam about the earth being a pretzel, or cry to the mods to censor my posts, or post photoshopped images from NASA and PBS.
The horizon just keeps on rising and I want you all to die horrible deaths for lying to my face.
Observation of the earth from space indicates otherwise. The russians have photos of earth too, are they faked as well? |
|
|
|
''Negative trust for an opinion! Check it out.''
You seem to be a crying troll to me.
I left him negative trust because he is mentally limited and should not engage in any trades. I don't leave trust for opinions lol... Certainly not, if you lend him money he will start asking for proof. You show him the transaction and he will reply: Yeah but is it repeatable? Where is the proof? What if NASA faked the transaction? |
|
|
|
Damn you gave it away to quickly!! We could have probably gotten 10 pages of them proving they have no clue about what they are talking about by throwing out bullshit science experiments that anyone can clearly see is not following the scientific method and is pure rubbish. I was hoping Vod would come in and prove gravity with math before we used up the cavendish experiment. Who knows what suchmoon would have come up with. suchmoon is my favorite by far. His replies are a thing of beauty. He is also easily triggered which is real fun. Aren't you the guy who is butthurt about a negative rating in this forum? If you are so smart and you discovered the ''truth'' go ahead and do something useful with it, apparently debating with us here in a bitcoin forum is more important? ''Negative trust for an opinion! Check it out.'' You seem to be a crying troll to me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
