Flat Earth YoTube video du jour! 7 Flat Earth Footages Nobody Would Believe If They Were Not Filmed -- https://youtu.be/zREUjouPLZ0edit: best comment: "... There is nothing wrong with math or the mathematics used to describe the fictional planet you don't live on. ..." -- dave And you are the one complaining about fish eye effect and I also thought that you said outer space is a hoax? Oh, and it's also amazing these are taken exactly in the middle of the "flat earth" and don't show the edge ever. |
|
|
|
My account flagging 'wrong login'. Was in yesterday and funds there. BTC still in my deposit address.
That's because they are messing with the database and your login credentials are stored there. |
|
|
|
You need to calm down. Maybe they are scamming but right now coins are still in their wallets so calling it a exitscam is a bit of a stretch.
My COLX is not in my wallet. It was broken down and sent to many different wallets. Granted, I'm not the most technical and there could be a reason for this, but my balance is 0 right now. I still remain hopeful. Was it really? Can you provide a link? |
|
|
|
|
You need to calm down. Maybe they are scamming but right now coins are still in their wallets so calling it a exitscam is a bit of a stretch.
|
|
|
|
If evolution were to happen by any random method, it would take a universe billions of times older than the 13.5 billion years attributed to our universe.
Evolution is not random - it is the furthest thing possible from random. Yes, DNA gets mutated by some random act and that causes the new generation to evolve. But whether that next generation survives or not (producing evolution) is determined by the advantages the new generation has. If the mutation produced a disadvantage, then that DNA line would die off. I don't expect you to understand BD, but that's how life works. I'm married to Jennifer Lawrence!  If evolution is not random, then why are the evolutionists talking about it being random? I mean, if it is natural selection, then nature is selecting to make life and advance it way beyond anything we can do in the lab by trying to do it. If we could do it in the lab, the researchers would have fixed themselves so that they could live 200 years by now. This means that nature is way smarter than we are, by billions of times. You are starting to talk God here. EDIT: Poor Jennifer Lawrence! If a dice is not random then why are casinos calling it random? Why is the lottery considered random? Why are random events considered random? You might as well say that you are fake because everything you say is programmed, right? |
|
|
|
Say, thanks for the nice examples of complex cause and effect in action. If you want to call programmed C&E activity evolution, that's entirely up to you, of course. But it is in no way evolution as evolution scientists interpret evolution. And it isn't any greater than breeding, although it may be a little different. No proof of evolution in them. Evolution is a hoax. If you want to keep claiming that everything has a cause, you can but it wont make you right. You said that science supports this, yet you never shown a single scientist or a science field that says everything has a cause. Badecker is a liar, he will often ignore past comments to fuel his delusion. What you are writing here is a hoax too because it has a cause. Consider the blockchain. We are using 26 uppercase letters, + 26 lower case letters, +10 numbers. We are combining them at random into, what is it(?), 34 random character strings... or larger. Yet the odds of cracking a bitcoin password or hash via brute force would take thousands and thousands of years. Now, arrange all the atoms necessary for life into the exact proper position and kick-start them into motion in just the right way to produce life. The improbability of this happening once is beyond impossible, partly because there are multitudes more atoms and molecules in a living cell, to say nothing about the forces necessary for the precise kick start, than the 26+26+10 used in a blockchain, that evolution is impossible to happen by any method we can start to dream of. And then on top of that, there would have to be multiples of atoms and electrons plopping into place over the eons, adding more complexity to the probability/impossibility than ever, just for mutations to be beneficial. If evolution were to happen by any random method, it would take a universe billions of times older than the 13.5 billion years attributed to our universe. The blockchain is proving that evolution is impossible. We might say, "Well this or that might have happened to make evolution probable." But saying such is simply drawing at straws, and a gigantically large number of straws, at that. In other words, evolution is all guesswork. All the grubbing around in the dirt for skeletons from the past is simply a method for evolutionists to make money. Evolution is a hoax. ''Now, arrange all the atoms necessary for life into the exact proper position and kick-start them into motion in just the right way to produce life. The improbability of this happening once is beyond impossible, partly because there are multitudes more atoms and molecules in a living cell'' First of all, you cannot calculate this because you don't know what exactly needs to happen. I've seen your links many times, they always make up stuff like, ''it needs 200 mutations in a row'' these creationist arguments stems from the fact that in any probability calculation, one must first very carefully define the ensemble space. But anyways, we are here, aren't we badecker? No matter how ''difficult'' the odds were, we are here. The odds of humans existing are just as possible as the odds of not existing or the odds of humans evolving into dolphins or anything that was possible. |
|
|
|
^^^ Outer space is a hoax.
^^^ The military has pictures of the dome from operation fishbowl (nukes are fake they're just a flash bomb).
^^^ Plenty of pictures of the Antarctic ice wall have been posted here.
Alright, that convinced me.. convinced me that you are a troll, thanks. |
|
|
|
How as an individual can I know if the Earth is a sphere or a flat disc? What experiment can I do that doesn't involve trusting information from a 3rd party that would prove what the geometry really is?  Almost 500 pages and close to 3 years later and this deluded baffoon is still babbling away in the most farcical thread on btctalk about nonsense that was debunked centuries ago. Seriously dude, are you shitting me? You really need to get a life or see a shrink . Either that or you are just taking the piss and laughing at everyone that wastes their time engaging with you about this FE malarky..... Stop your vain babbling and provide us proofs or leave this thread for good: We are still waiting for spinning ball earth believers to provide us: 1. A real authentic footage of a curved oceans.
2. A live feed of southerners living upside down.
3. A real authentic footage of a curvizon.
 bonus video for nasa lovers(hilarious): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo3btAFI0O0 We, globeheads, are still waiting for: Live footage of the flat earth from space. Photos or videos of the dome. The edge. |
|
|
|
CEX.IO is among the worst in the exchange market, unresolved issues, a huge chunck of unconfirmed transactions, missing deposits, high exchange rate etc
Yep, getting ridiculous now, a month for 1 document verification which I don't even care anymore because I surely wont try to withdraw any fiat with them. I was forced to leave them some negative feedback at least for the time being until they solve their issues. At least they should change their descriptions and tell people that verification can take months and withdrawals too, at least that way they wont be dishonest. |
|
|
|
Say, thanks for the nice examples of complex cause and effect in action. If you want to call programmed C&E activity evolution, that's entirely up to you, of course. But it is in no way evolution as evolution scientists interpret evolution. And it isn't any greater than breeding, although it may be a little different. No proof of evolution in them. Evolution is a hoax. If you want to keep claiming that everything has a cause, you can but it wont make you right. You said that science supports this, yet you never shown a single scientist or a science field that says everything has a cause. Badecker is a liar, he will often ignore past comments to fuel his delusion. What you are writing here is a hoax too because it has a cause. |
|
|
|
Probability and Statistical Impossibility But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.
By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]
In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future. As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3]. Evolution is a hoax. That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none. Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1. And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows... Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself. Nice copy paste, look I can do it too. Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself. But I showed a website that was backed up with references that are reasonably common knowledge. All you did was debunk yourself. So what? Just because it posts a bunch of references doesn't mean it's true. I can post counter references to the references there too: http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/Means I'm right now. Neither of your sites shows any proof for evolution. Nobody has ever seen evolution happening that they can prove is evolution. In fact, all the so-called evidences fit creation better. You sites debunk themselves, besides having nothing to do with the site that I linked above - http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/84-contra-atheism/512-probability-statistical-impossibility.html. Evolution is impossible, partly because science shows that life is impossible... except for the fact that life exists. Evolution is a hoax. Your site linked above debunks itself, it doesn't prove evolution is impossible. We have seen evolution in the peppered moth or the Live Birth in Three-toed Skinks. https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/https://www.thoughtco.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896 |
|
|
|
Religion has two tasks. 1 To give an opportunity to learn about God 2. To clarify what is good and what is evil.
Religion endorses slavery and rape. Slavery will always exist. Religion only seems to endorse it, because religion is trying to reduce the unfairness of slavery, slavery that will exist anyway. All powerful god can't get rid of slavery? LUL Who thinks God isn't getting rid of slavery? Consider. Keeping people alive and free isn't something that can easily be done while forcing them to not be free at the same time, by forcing them to not make slaves. God has a solution worked out. Be free to follow His commands. Be free to believe in His Jesus-salvation or not. Then die to get rid of your slave-making and doing. Then arise to go into Heaven or Hell, depending on the free choices you made back here on Earth. See, you have some sort of cognitive dissonance. -Who thinks God isn't getting rid of slavery? -Slavery will always exist. Conflicting statements right there. |
|
|
|
Religion has two tasks. 1 To give an opportunity to learn about God 2. To clarify what is good and what is evil.
Religion endorses slavery and rape. Slavery will always exist. Religion only seems to endorse it, because religion is trying to reduce the unfairness of slavery, slavery that will exist anyway. All powerful god can't get rid of slavery? LUL |
|
|
|
Probability and Statistical Impossibility But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.
By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]
In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future. As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3]. Evolution is a hoax. That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none. Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1. And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows... Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself. Nice copy paste, look I can do it too. Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself. But I showed a website that was backed up with references that are reasonably common knowledge. All you did was debunk yourself. So what? Just because it posts a bunch of references doesn't mean it's true. I can post counter references to the references there too: http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/Means I'm right now. |
|
|
|
Religion has two tasks. 1 To give an opportunity to learn about God 2. To clarify what is good and what is evil.
Religion endorses slavery and rape. |
|
|
|
Probability and Statistical Impossibility But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.
By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]
In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future. As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3]. Evolution is a hoax. That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none. Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1. And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows... Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself. Nice copy paste, look I can do it too. Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself. |
|
|
|
Not only them, most exchanges or services that offer btc to fiat are just slow. Bitwala and others are also slow as fuck. They are saying that it's not their fault and regulations are hitting them hard. However they could advertise their services in a more honest way instead of saying ''withdrawals will take 1-3 days'' when in reality it takes weeks.
Have a look at this: https://www.reddit.com/r/cexio  https://www.trustpilot.com/review/cex.io  Yeah... It seems that they are indeed borderline scamming. I gave them a negative rating for now, maybe they will fix everything but it does looks sketchy now. |
|
|
|
Probability and Statistical Impossibility But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.
By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]
In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future. As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3]. Evolution is a hoax. That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none. Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1. And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows... |
|
|
|
Check out this video, if someone hasn't already linked it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs
Vsauce does a great job
No he doesn't, he's a fucking shill. That's not an argument. The video explains it really well but your delusional mind wont let you see it. That IS an argument from him, you could get used to it... He confuses me because sometimes he does look like he seriously believes this but on the other hand looking at his insults like: ''he's a Jewish prostitute.'' and others also make me believe that he is just trolling |
|
|
|
|
''Science has proven thousands of C&E actions''. Science however has never proven that everything has a cause as you claim. There is also no scientific law of ''cause and effect'' only the 3rd law of Newton. Most things do have a cause, the mystery is what caused the first event. Theists like you claim that it was their god, and there are thousands of different purported gods. But if there were a god, it too would have to of had a cause. To claim otherwise is a cop out, a plead to ignorance. The most honest answer is simple that we do not know. There are plenty of hypothesis and claims to what started everything. Could be that there is no beginning and there is no end. Big Bang wasn't the start. Maybe a start of this cycle, but not the start of everything. Effectively, there is no cause. Just effect.
Now I'm not claiming that that's what happened, I'm simply explaining to you that there are a lot of possibilities and yours is not necessarily true, in fact I already debunked it in the other thread ''scientific proof of god''
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
