Enoch2021

Are you saying this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is a Photograph?

1. So where's "The Portrait" ?? 2. More Importantly, shouldn't this be in: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/forum/17-humor-need-a-good-laugh/ ?? regards

You mistakenly ASSUMED "What"?? Draw us a Picture...? My Goodness. Allow me to draw you a Picture, K? You said: "Ironically Christianity will boast that it's different from other religions because it says people will have a personal "relationship" with God." So the STEREOTYPE is this part: "Ironically Christianity will boast that it's different from other religions...". 1. Looking at this Closer, it's also a Reification Fallacy: Christianity doesn't "boast" or "says" because "Concepts" are Inanimate. 2. It's also Factually Incorrect because Christianity is NOT a Religion. So you're saying that you're not a Philosophical Naturalist/Realist (aka: atheist) ?? So Philosophical Naturalism/Realism is your Starting Point and an Assumption (And is Scientifically Falsified) but you're NOT a Philosophical Naturalist/Realist (aka: atheist) ?? You wanna run that by us again, please...? And yet others have some semblance of "COHERENCY" in theirs. regards

Well it's not "Real Hard", just Painfully Irrelevant. Yes you did, THEN...I showed quite explicitly that it was Nonsensical. Well then, you should have Explicitly SAID SO. Then Why is it ALWAYS Juxtaposed with "Science" (Empirical) if it wasn't NON-Empirical (Belief without Evidence)?? Is it comparing Like with Like?? Faith: "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." -- American Heritage Dictionary, 1991, p. 486 SEE it? Yes, we do. Yes, "NEW" as in... You said: Premise: "Ironically Christianity will boast that it's different from other religions because it says people will have a personal "relationship" with God." Conclusion: "I find that personally [my opinion] to be one of the grand failures of Christianity [divine hiddenness]." This is Non-Sequitur Fallacy because your "[divine hiddenness] " wasn't a part of your premise. Making it "NEW" to your Original Claim (Premise). Oh brother. Oh Brother. Yes it's the FIRST CLUE that you're Contradicting Yourself. You understand that there are ONLY TWO CHOICES (Ontological Primitives) for How/Why we (Universe/Us) are here?? And that they are Mutually Exclusive?? 1. Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: atheist. (Scientifically Falsified) AND... 2. Idealism. (Theist) You can't be a Supernatural Naturalist . It violates the Law on Non-Contradiction and would Rival Married Bachelors. regards

WHY?? You said: "Just like at what point will theists admit Jesus isn't coming back, it's been 2000 years." What "context" will change what your claim simply means? Yes, I'm well aware who you were responding to. It wouldn't have mattered if you were responding to the Dalai Lama or Joe Coffee at Walmart. Well the "HALLMARK" of Religion is "Belief without Evidence". That's why it is Juxtaposed with "Science" because "Science" is based on EVIDENCE (Empirical). However, Christians are admonished to: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." This ^^^^^^ is the ANTITHESIS (Polar Opposite) of Religion; Ergo... Christianity is not a Religion. Simple Not without Evidence. Correct. Factually Incorrect: I (A Christian) never boast or even think this ^^^^^^^. Ergo...Stereotype Fallacy. 1. Well this conclusion is based on your Stereotype Premise (Directly Above); Ergo...it's Fallacious, rendering the whole charade invalid. 2. "[divine hiddenness]" ?? This is a New Concept you slipped in here. What do you mean specifically...? Correct. The Main Reason is...Christianity is NOT a Religion. (SEE Above) Factually Incorrect: It's NOT a Religion (SEE: Full Explanation Above) Naturalism (aka: Philosophical Naturalism/Realism/atheism) is Scientifically Falsified; IN TOTO. Would you like me to Validate in Detail for the 1268th Time? This is quite perplexing. How can a Philosophical Naturalist/Realist (aka: atheist) who's Bedrock Cornerstone Foundation rests on: "Matter/Energy is ALL that there Is... consider "NON-Natural" (i.e., NON Matter/Energy) as an explanation for anything ?? regards

Where'd you get "Blank Space"? regards

No, The Exact Opposite: What we call 'The Universe' most assuredly did have a Beginning. ps. "Infinity" doesn't exist Mathematically, let alone in Reality. According to Scripture, ~6,000 years ago. regards

1. I don't 'peddle' anything. 2. For the 1278th TIME, Flat Earth isn't a "Theory". 3. Well it's actually not that you don't have a 'Coherent' argument/position...you haven't posted a single argument for your position. regards

Well then you have no 'Coherent' argument/position. simple

Try again, this time FALSIFYING my argument ---(You know, the one you "QUOTED" in its entirety and spoke not a single word to it ) THEN, Refute the Scriptures I posted. regards

The Earth doesn't "Spin"... Not "Spinning": For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)... "CC.12 The Coriolis Effect: When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY. Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an apparent deflection called the “Coriolis effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth." Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html In other words, anything not "Tethered" to the Earth is 'Freely Moving'. 2. The Object in question not Physically Attached to the Rotating Coordinate System appears to deflect (i.e., Moves Independently of the Rotating Coordinate System) from the vantage point anywhere on the rotating coordinate system -- aka: the 'Coriolis Effect'. So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*) Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph. So in my example: 1. Two differing Frames of Reference: (Earth and Atmosphere -- and everything in it) 2. The Plane in the Atmosphere is "Freely Moving" (not attached) to the Rotating Coordinate System and is flying in a straight path. In other words, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction each (The Coriolis Effect and the Charlotte Flight at 1.5 hours) are either: Both TRUE or Both FALSE. The Flight is most assuredly FALSE!! In conclusion, the Earth is *NOT* "Spinning"; ERGO..."The Ball" goes by way of the DoDo Bird or you're a Stationary Ball Geo-Centrist. Voila. The only way the above can be refuted is if you're of the position that the Atmosphere 'spins' with the Earth. So then: 1. Please explain how the Coriolis Effect can EXIST when the NECESSARY CONDITIONS for it to EXIST are Two Differing Coordinate Systems (Reference Frames) -- One Rotating --"Earth" and One Non-Rotating-- the "Atmosphere" and everything in it...? 2. Show the Experiment where 'Gases'/Gas rotate in Lock-Step with a Rotating Solid Body just 5 cm above the surface, then provide the mechanism....? 3. Please explain "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds...? (Bonus Question: How you can have different wind speeds and directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is collectively 'spinning' East, in Unison...?) btw, These are Contradictory Statements: 1. The Atmosphere 'spins' in Lock-Step with the Earth. 2. The Existence of "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds. Which do you think is FALSE? MOREOVER, following the 'yarn'... Every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere traveling horizontally from the equator to the center of rotationMUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds; and every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere rising in elevation from each respective horizontal Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds (In fact, the higher the elevation... the faster they'll need to travel to keep up !!); and all of this rolling along at differing speeds... in Unison, EAST?? This is so far beyond Preposterous Ludicrousness Absurdity, 'evolution' (whatever that is??) and Multiverses... are BLUSHING!! AND, does anyone know how far up this 'Increasing Speed' Rope-A-Dope Fairytale Spinning Atmosphere ENDS?? I'd like to see that...it'll give a Whole New Meaning to Guillotine "WIND SHEAR"!! Goodness Gracious People. ps. Are the Gas Molecules attached to each other by: Velcro?? Glue?? Pixie Dust?? Other?? And where is the energy coming from for the continuous "Shot in the Arm" injections needed to keep each successive Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere higher elevation brethren in tow? Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the "Spinning-Ball" religion. And God has already established the Earth is Stationary: Non-Spinning "Immovable": (1 Chronicles 16:30) "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be NOT-MOVED." (Psalms 93:1) "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it CANNOT BE MOVED." (Psalms 96:10) "Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall NOT BE MOVED: he shall judge the people righteously." (Joshua 10:12) "Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon." If it was the Earth that was moving, Why didn't Joshua say: "EARTH STAND STILL" ?? regards

Ahhh, no. Ahhh, no. That's what PRIESTS and Philosophers do. Scientists, on the other hand, provide Explanations and Illustrate their Confirmations through Validated EXPERIMENTS -- "Science". See the Juxtaposition? Discoveries?? So let's say the Town Drunk is stumbling/bumbling/fumbling through the woods and DISCOVERS (Discover), a Mastodon Tusk; is the town drunk now a Scientist? Explanations (Stories) aren't "Science", Explanations via Validated Experiment IS "Science". Well "Crime Scene Investigators" aren't "Scientists". Thanks for providing that example. regards

Huh? ... (Matthew 24:36) "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Which part of this ^^^^^^^ is particularly confusing? What if something didn't happen for 2000 years but then happened in the: 2001st, 2006th, 2022nd, 28,654th ad Nauseam... does that mean it still didn't happen?? Can you post the Syllogism Validating your claim here...? How many times does it need to be Illustrated and Explained to you that Christianity isn't a Religion before you stop appealing to this?? Furthermore, It is "YOU" that adhere to "Religion"... Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism). In fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Willfully Dumb Scientifically Falsified Religion. Would you like me to show you step-by-step for the 1687th Time? regards

Jack NEVER performed any Experiments; Ergo...neither did his colleagues, so this entire yarn is nonsensical. To refute, please post one of them... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? 2. Moreover, the ENTIRE genre of Origin of Life (OOL) Research isn't "SCIENCE"/Scientific to begin with. Horse Pucky. There was NEVER one Viable Scientific Hypothesis ever constructed in the entire history of OOL research. Watch, Post this 'Hypothesis' from Oparin and Haldane...? This has nothing whatever to do with the conjured "God of the Gaps" argument (Actually, it's a TEXTBOOK 'evolution' of the GAPS , but I digress) . Why?? Well... There are ONLY Two Possible World-Views (Ontological Primitives) that can be held to account for how we (Universe/Us) are here; Unguided -- Nature (Matter) or Guided --- Intelligent Agency (God) George Wald (Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology)... “The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of SUPERNATURAL CREATION . THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION." Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954. http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal (Page 175-176) Let's break this down so you can see it... 1: "The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation". Nature (UnGuided) The Only Alternative ... 2: "a single, primary act of supernatural creation." God (Guided) True Dichotomy: Nature (UnGuided) vs. God (Guided); "THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION". If you outright refute/deny One Choice; THEN, based on the Laws of Logic -- you Ipso Facto MUST 'believe' the other. Disjunctive Syllogism: A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other MUST BE TRUE. In short, whenever a claim can be defined--in this case "CAUSED", by only 2 possible outcomes (Disjunctive Syllogism) then it is the ANTITHESIS/Polar Opposite of any "GAP" appeals. Follow? NEVER. Why? Well there is no progress and never will be any progress because that's the way it's been designed ("Set-Up") . They and their incoherent hoards couch the question in Two Fallacy Camps: 1. We just don't know the answer (Argument from Ignorance Fallacy), denoting a probability by clumsy innuendo. AND/OR... 2. We may find out in the future (Appeal to the Future Fallacy). When... ever since these 2 camps magically appeared (and are Forever MINDLESSLY PARROTED ) those that could/can 'fog a mirror' ALREADY KNEW the Answer. However, whenever challenged to support their fairytale beliefs they need to have some recourse; hence...POST THE FALLACY CAMPS even after being shown they're Fallacious Ways and even after the ANSWER has been given to them. RINSE/REPEAT, RINSE/REPEAT, RINSE/REPEAT. It's a Perpetual Fairytale Game. Ahhh "Yea". And more importantly... THEY'RE NOT SCIENTISTS !!! regards

This: https://pds.nasa.gov/ isn't a Fact, it's a "Link". And in this specific case, it's an Elephant Hurling Fallacy... Elephant Hurling (Fallacy): a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that the evidence does indeed support the argument. http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Elephant_hurling regards

Yes, like I said: an ABJECT SPECULATION (Conjecture). 1. How does an Abject Speculation get "Proven" ...? Post the steps...? THEN... 2. What is it called ...? regards

AGAIN, How can these be "Scientific Theories" and at the same time not be "Definite" when Scientific Theories (Actual REAL Ones) are Definite/CONFIRMED... "A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING." https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-hypothesis-theory-law-definitions-604138 "A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING." https://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/ "A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html So what exactly are you talking about ?? It's my contention that 'those things' in the article are not even VIABLE Scientific Hypotheses let alone Scientific Theories. And... if they're not even VIABLE "Scientific Hypotheses", then they're ABJECT SPECULATIONS (colloquial "theory") and have as much veracity and applicability as Alice in Wonderland. regards

1. Elephant Hurling Fallacy. So... 2. What is your point? regards

Well you forgot to list the content after the ellipsis (...), just after As Evidenced by. By what measure...? List this measure for everyone that ever lived and juxtapose 'Einstein's Measures' with them to SUPPORT your claim...? So now you're 'Divining' what deceased complete strangers would care about? Objection your Honor: Flailing Baseless Hyperbole. regards

Well stop posting Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacies. This is tantamount to objecting to 15 X's (wrong answers) on 15 Question Quiz by complaining to the Professor that the "X's" are "Redundant". regards

All of your images have this Blurb next to it: "The camera was pointing toward SATURN, and the image was taken using the CB2 and CL2 filters. This image has not been validated or calibrated. A validated/calibrated image will be archived with the NASA Planetary Data System." I need "Validated" images and their Source Files...? It makes little sense to Invalidate Non-Validated images. regards

Sure. Post One with the Source File...? regards

ok Yes it surely was. ok. Post the Syllogism that SUPPORTS your 'Spinning-Ball' Religion...? Good, I'm not selling any "Theories". I already answered this question. Well Einstein was a Blundering Nincompoop and his Mytho-MatheMAGICAL Fairytales PUMMELED. As Evidenced by... So Relativity, sr and gr via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME !! 1. Primary School Falsification: TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions. Specifically, it's based on an "Alleged" single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day). It's a "CONCEPT" (Non-Physical). It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location. You can't put some in a jar and paint in red. I mean c'mon now, let's reason together...can you Dilate/Bend Warp Non-Physical "Concepts"?? Is it your contention that if you have Poison Ivy on the brain you could scratch it by thinking of Sand Paper?? " FREEDOM " is a Concept also...can you Bend that? That which you are using to measure...isn't the thing you're measuring. ** A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn't Yardsticks!! If I bend a Yardstick...does the Football Field bend also? ** (The Yardsticks are analog to the Clock) -- (The Football Field is analog to TIME) So if something affects say...Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern "Clock" for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth's "Alleged" rotation in relation to the Sun is Affected? These Two Mytho-matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ recess, for goodness sakes. IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids!! 2. Grown-Up Falsification: "Non-Locality"-- a brief synopsis: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html Nonlocality occurs due to the phenomenon of entanglement, whereby particles that interact with each other become permanently correlated, or dependent on each other’s states and properties, to the extent that they effectively lose their individuality and in many ways behave as a single entity. Because of this Well Established Phenomena in 1935, which Pummeled his Fairytales gr and sr, Einstein coined the phrase "Spooky Action @ a Distance", then he and his buddies conjured a 'thought experiment', (SEE: 'EPR Paradox' 1935 ) in a feeble clumsy attempt to 'Debunk' Quantum Mechanics. Why? Well... he couldn't have anything traveling faster than the Speed of Light, cause his 'theories' would IMPLODE. (Side Note: He never published in Physical Review Letters again because he didn't appreciate the Paper being "Peer-Reviewed" i.e., Pretentious Pompous Pseudo-Scientific Bleep http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 Because of the seemingly Impossibility of TESTING his 'thought experiment', it apparently covered the Pretentious Pompous Pseudo-Science Mytho-Mathemagical Philosopher's Butt and the very public argument between he and Niels Bohr (who was of the opposite position) was relegated to the dustbin of history never to be reconciled. BUT THEN... In the 1960's, John Bell explored Einstein's 'alleged' Paradoxical thought experiment and proposed an Inequality (Bell's Inequality). If it was shown to be false, Einstein and his theories would take a dirt nap. http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf Then John Clauser, a frustrated Grad Student...because of his poor grades in QM, was rustling through books and papers in the campus library when he came across John Bell's Paper. And that, as they say folks, is HISTORY !! ... Bell's Inequality was first Violated Experimentally in 1972 by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman: http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Freedman.pdf Then in 1982, Alain Aspect PhD Physics Jacked it "Yard" FOREVER !! Ergo, Einstein and his "theories" = Dirt Nap !! (He got "De-Bunked") http://www.qudev.ethz.ch/phys4/studentspresentations/epr/aspect.pdf Ever since Aspect's Falsification, "Non-Locality" has been CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT roughly 1875 times, Without Exception!!! See... New Scientist "RealityCheck" 23 June 2007: Speaking to the Landmark Experiment: Gröblacher, S. et al; An experimental test of non-local realism Nature 446, 871-875 (19 April 2007) | doi :10.1038/nature05677. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html "There is no objective reality beyond what we observe". Leggett's Inequality along with Bell's (again) have been violated. "Rather than passively observing it, WE IN FACT CREATE REALITY". Physicsworld April 20 2007: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality , also speaking to this experiment, went as far as to claim that, ‘quantum physics says goodbye to reality.’ Validated/CONFIRMED AGAIN (for the 1874th Time), here: "Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place". Manning A.G et al. (2015): Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343. http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/abs/nphys3343.html And another, just a Flurry of Blows... "Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis." i.e., Goodbye Realism. Hensen, B et al: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686 (29 October 2015) doi:10.1038/nature15759 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/abs/nature15759.html Who else wants to Chime In on Realism (??) ... Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again). "The presence of PATH INFORMATION anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough." [Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!] "No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/ THEREFORE: There are 2 Doors that can be breached per the results of these Experiments: Door #1: Information (however they conjured that ?? ) can travel Faster than the Speed of Light. 'Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!! Door #2: Space and Time are Illusions. 'Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!! Take your pick....? Einstein himself after 30 years of attempting a Unified Field Theory finally reckoned with it prior to his death and was partial to the Latter Door (as am I)... "I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is if that the objective description through the field as an elementary concept is not possible then one has to find a possibility to AVOID the continuum (together with SPACE and TIME) ALTOGETHER but I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory". Letter from Albert Einstein to David Bohm, 28 October 1954. Colodny, Robert G; From Quarks to Quasars--Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986, p. 380 To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize... Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012) https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294 http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 ... ( The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [You, as it were] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model.) https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is... Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent. 4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why? I'll monitor the Presses!! A 2FER: Einstein's Mytho-matheMAGICAL Fairytales and atheism taken to the Woodshed and PUMMELED into the Incoherent Oblivion in One Fell Swoop!! regards

So you answer a question with a question? btw: Yes...I surely do. Still waiting for you Photos of your Spinning-Ball...? Here's my "Pictures"... Flat: Sea Sparrow (NATO): "Bistatic, semiactive seekers in the nose of a missile receive a reflected signal from a target that is being “illuminated” with an RF signal transmitted from a fire control radar on a stand-off platform (e.g., aircraft, ship). Such systems REQUIRE that the platform maintain LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) to the target until it is engaged by the missile. Ship-based standard missile (SM) and NATO Seasparrow AAW missiles are examples of such a semiactive mode." http://m.eet.com/media/1111959/819_radar3.pdf Range is MORE THAN 35 Miles ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/ ). The target is "Illuminated" with a 2 inch Pencil Beam (RF) which has to be maintained "Painted" on the target until detonation. At a more than generous 80 Feet Elevation above Sea LEVEL (Tracking Radar Height), the target should be hidden behind 385 Feet of Curvature. Please explain how you can have Line of Site (LOS) 35 Miles Away on a "Spinning-Ball" by showing how an 2" RF Pencil Beam can penetrate 385 Feet (117 METERS) of Target Hidden Height through a WALL OF WATER 24 MILES in Length...?? (ps. 35 miles is "Low Balling": (The 'Official' Max Effective Range is Classified ---- i.e. it's MUCH MUCH greater than 35 Miles!). So Either.. A. The NATO Sea Sparrow Exists, OR... B. The Spinning-Ball Religion Exists. BOTH can't be TRUE !!! Savvy? Scripture: (Isaiah 40-22 ISV) "He's the one who sits above the DISK OF THE EARTH, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He's the one who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in". (Revelation 20:9) "And they went up on the BREADTH of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." "Breadth" = "Platos" Strong's Greek Definition G4114 --- from G4116 (plat'-oos)..: Spread out "FLAT". The Passage (In English) should read: "And they went up on the Flat Earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." DOMED: 1. How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When... "The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER". http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... WITHOUT THE TIRE !!! Scripture: (Genesis 1:6) "And God said, Let there be a FIRMAMENT in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." (Genesis 1:7) "And God made the FIRMAMENT, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so." (Genesis 1:8) "And God called the FIRMAMENT Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." (Genesis 1:14) " And God said, Let there be lights IN the FIRMAMENT of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" Firmament = Strong's #07549 // eyqr // raqiya` // raw-kee'-ah // from 07554; TWOT - 2217a; n m AV - firmament 17; 17 1) extended surface ("SOLID"), expanse, firmament 1a) expanse (flat as base, support) 1b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above) 1b1) considered by Hebrews as SOLID and supporting 'waters' above. Brown-Driver-Briggs: רָקִיעַ noun masculineGenesis 1:6 extended surface, ("SOLID") expanse (as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳ר Ezekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְ Genesis 1:14 +; —ᵐ5 στερέωμα, ᵑ9 firmamentum, compare Syriac below √above; — 1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support (WklAltor. Forsch. iv. 347) Ezekiel 1:22,23,25(gloss ? compare Co Toy), Ezekiel 1:26 (supporting ׳י's throne). Hence (CoEzekiel 1:22) 2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as SOLID, and supporting 'waters' above it. Crystal Clear Logical Consistency and Scriptural "Pictures". Straw Man Fallacy: I never made that claim. How many more ya need? Straw Man Fallacy: I said the Pseudo-Sciences were Fairytales: astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, paleontology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics. WHY?? Well... Post One Formal Scientific Hypothesis EVER constructed in the entire history of any of these Pretenders...? OR... Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? Voila Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy. regards

1. False Equivalence Fallacy. 2. It's Not. 1. Post the Scripture? 2. Where did I say TO study "Man's Ways"...? ps. What does "Always" mean in this context?? Is there a chance if I take a second or third look at Scripture at a later date, that Scripture will somehow change? Why are you discussing Politics?? What's "they"...? What's "Them"...? regards