Enoch2021

This was a legitimate point after a very thorough explanation made to you PERSONALLY better than 10 Times. Just because you, WITHOUT WARRANT WHATSOEVER flippantly "couch it" with your conjured... "attempts to sound smarter" nonsense... doesn't make it so and doesn't relieve you of the conclusion or the facts leading to said conclusion. Because it's NOT Condescending as I just explained. A Better Question is, why do you CONTINUOUSLY fall back to Appeals to Emotion Fallacies ?? Could it be that you have no coherent Argument/Positions? (It's Rhetorical) regards

Go ahead...? "YOU" do because "YOU" Claim it to be true. If you don't, then it's an Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy and MUST BE Dismissed. To call this an Incoherent Flailing Straw Man is insulting to ACTUAL Incoherent Flailing Straw Man Fallacies. regards

Factually Incorrect. Watch... Define a "Theory"...? THEN... SHOW how Flat Earth is a "Theory"...? Non-Sequitur Fallacy. How can the shape of something be a Conspiracy...? Or a Theory...? Well, as Explained to you personally better than 10 TIMES now... Ya See, Flat/Sphere (or any other shape) is OUTSIDE the purview of The Scientific Method. WHY?? Well... The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". "The Scientific Method is Hypothesis-Driven;" http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/students/hypothesis.html A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) . It's a classic: "If" this "Then" that, motif. "A Scientific Hypothesis is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning. A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but EXPLAINS WHY they are related. Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010 Because Experiments (Hypothesis Tests) ONLY adjudicate 'Cause and Effect' --- How/Why questions. Whatever SHAPE something is (Flat, Sphere, or Spinning/Not Spinning ect)...is a "WHAT/IS" question; it's tantamount to asking: How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False?? i.e., You can NEVER formulate a Viable Alternative Hypothesis; Ergo...you can NEVER formulate a Viable Null Hypothesis; Ergo...This isn't "Science"!! Which part of this ^^^^ is particularly confusing?? Appeal to Age (Fallacy). regards

And how does this PROVE that "nasa's" CGI isn't... CGI?? "SHOW" that they're not paintings...? We just didn't "HEAR" something . We've "SEEN" them... then after we send them through Photo Forensics (the ones that have Source Files) we CONFIRM that they are CGI. With others, the Belly Laugher is Self Evident, For Example... Mars Rover (Pic)... https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/694114main_Watkins-2-pia16204_full.jpg With others, we just listen to Rob Simmon- Lead Data Visualizer and Information Designer "NASA" tell us that .... "it is PhotoShop but it's it's HAS TO BE." And how he turns "DATA" into "Pictures" aka: CGI. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html How many do you know that you can say this one is real? regards

Why?? So why do you PARROT what you think is "Science"? So you can't SUPPORT your (and National Geographic's ) Claim; Ergo...your claim is BASELESS and MUST be DISMISSED. Actually, I learned The Scientific Method in 5th Grade....that's how I know "paleontology" and its incoherent sisters: astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics... are Demonstrable FAIRYTALE Maquaraders. Crocheting is more Scientific than these Clowns..."COMBINED !!!" regards

Yep 1. The Original Greek of "What"...? 2. H4208: mazzaloth Came from 2 Kings (Remember, YOU posted it?? ). Are you saying that the Original "Kings" was written in Greek? 3. From your Source above... "Cyclone, a noun meaning a wind storm that revolves around a center of low pressure, has a somewhat interesting etymology in that it is a modern coinage using ancient roots. It is also one of those rare words that we can pinpoint its precise origin, a situation somewhat more common with scientific and technical terms." Ahhh, can you explain what "CYCLONES" have to do with this discussion ?? regards

No. Factually Incorrect. Watch... Define "Theory"...? THEN... Show how Flat Earth is a "Theory"...? Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy. 1. Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy. 2. Non-Sequitur Fallacy. How can the shape of something be a "Conspiracy"?? No. They are what "YOU" do here. Really? Show one...? Do you understand the "Concept" of SUPPORTING what you claim by chance? Juxtapose (Compare and Contrast) SUPPORTED Claims vs. Unsupported (Ipse Dixit) Claims...? regards

So let me get this straight: paleontology is a "Science" because National Geographic says it's Science?? A Thing isn't that "THING" unless it contains Inherent Characteristics of that "THING"...not because someone/organization says so; Ergo, Non Sequitur Fallacy. Ya see, to "BE" something you have to exhibit the Characteristics/ Traits of that something. Follow? Bananas grow on trees, they are: green, yellow, red, purple, brown, contain complex/simple carbs, chock full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6. That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries. It's how we differentiate between Tumbleweeds and Texas Toast. It's the same with "Science". "Science" exhibits characteristics/traits of it's Method, "The Scientific Method"...without it , it's not "Science". Science without Hypotheses then Experiment--(Hypothesis TESTS) is like Water without Hydrogen...it's painfully Non-Sequitur. So, show ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis ever constructed in the entire history of paleontology...? or Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? regards

So a "Na'ahh" Defense? Riveting!! You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance? The funny part, you actually don't have to be 'educated' very much to reconcile these subjects. 1. Loaded Question (Fallacy). 2. Because it's not nonsense. Nope. I "know" it. Do you have a coherent Substantive argument/position in support of the 'spinning-ball' religion in lieu of your personal subjective generalized opinions regarding me...? regards

You wanna run that by us one more time...? ps. And again Flat Earth isn't a "Theory". regards

Incorrect: planets = H4208: mazzaloth Strong's Concordance: mazzaloth: constellations, perhaps signs of the zodiac Original Word: מַזָּלוֹת Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: mazzaloth Phonetic Spelling: (maz-zaw-law') Short Definition: constellations regards

I don't know any other way. Huh?? I don't deny (Not Exhaustive): Hydrogen Bonding, Computer Interfaces, Bread Ties, Swimming Pools, Aminoacyl tRNA Synthetases, Knowledge of the 'Which Path Information' Collapsing Wave Functions, Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion, Paintings of Dolphins, Condensation Reactions, Pizza Hut, Redox Reactions, Information, Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity, Logging, Apples, The Color Orange, Teeth, Alpha Helices, Water, Straws, Rifles, Tanks, Oceans, Ponds, Bullfrogs, Picnic Tables, The State of Missouri, Hair Dryers, Nails, Glue, Jelly Doughnuts, Rain, Snow, Clouds, Hair... Do you need more?? And, For the 687th TIME: Flat Earth isn't a "Theory" it's a SHAPE. For the 688th TIME: Flat Earth isn't a "Theory" (Conspiracy or otherwise) it's a SHAPE. Do you understand this or do I need to break this down further? regards

Yes, it would be more coherent. ok. You forgot to answer these... "Really? For instance...?" In response to your 'claim': "I'm sorry but you don't promote science" and... "THEN, show a for instance...?" In response to your 'claim': "you promote CTs pretty much exclusively." Or should we just chalk these up as your Garden Variety: Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacies that contain as much Veracity as Phlogiston? regards

Really? For instance...? What are "CT's"...? THEN, show a for instance...? ps. Why do you incessantly quote my ENTIRE POSTS...but never actually speak to any of the POINTS within what you have quoted?? regards

Factually Incorrect: Michio Kaku is a Japanese American theoretical physicist, futurist, and popularizer of science. He is professor of theoretical physics at the City College of New York and CUNY Graduate Center. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku Correct My League is "SCIENCE". His League is "Fairytales"....with a Mytho-matheMAGICAL twist. Yes, they were less coherent/insightful than what my 12 year old daughter realized 4 years ago. Because I have Two Degrees in an ACTUAL "Science" Discipline and worked half my life in said discipline. regards

Well since this is "SCIENCE", i.e., follows The Scientific Method: Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon ...? Step 2: Lit Review ...? Step 3: Construct Formal Hypothesis ...? Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT ...? Step 5: Analyze Data ...? Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis ...? Step 7: Report Results ...? Can you please post the answers to Each (...?) from each Paper? If not, then aren't the "Papers" above worth The Same as these "Papers"... http://www.the-office.com/bedtime-story/classics-alice-1.htm http://princess.disney.com/cinderellas-story ????? Paleontology isn't a Scientific Discipline. regards

What on Earth? 1. What is the General Cosmology believed at the time...? 2. Believed by "WHO"...? 2. And how did the "WHO" come to their belief in their Cosmology...? It's high time to Nip this Nonsensical Buffoonery in the Bud... Let's deal with this "Ambiguous" appeal to Ancient Near East Literature/Culture and its bearing on God's Word/the writers of the OT. This is quite the Non-Sequitur on a number of levels via a Clumsy Red Herring Fallacy (Irrelevant). 1. The Ancient Near East is quite a vast area with a long history. There's a massive unfordable gap between saying that a certain people group from the Ancient Near East thought a certain way about Creation, AND; So ERGO...that's what the Israelites/Biblical Writers thought about Creation; So ERGO...for us poor dumb saps, we need to recognize that Conjured "CONTEXT" so we can understand Scripture!! It's tantamount to claiming that I couldn't properly understand Tom Sawyer without understanding the beliefs of the Osage Indians!! 2. What came first Ancient Near East Beliefs or the Israelites Influence on those Ancient Near East Beliefs? 3. The Israelites Worldview came FROM God. The other "nations" were separate according to God...Jacob (Israel) was God's Inheritance/Portion. (SEE: Deuteronomy 32:8-9). And speaking of which... (Deuteronomy 4:19-20) "And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. {20} But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day." SO...why would God allow the Biblical Writers/Israelites to be: muddled down, Frame HIS Words, continue with a Trainwreck World-Views (Cosmology) from the other Nations (Gentiles), that he just WARNED ... NOT to PAY ANY ATTENTION TO, Por Favor?? smh What a Trainwreck. Steve Austin would Blush over this Crash and Burn!! 4. (2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" NOT the "Inspiration" of: Moses, Isaiah, David, ect ect... AND/OR Framing HIS Word according to GENTILE (other "Nations") BELIEFS!!! All this Juvenile Nonsensical Buffoonery is nothing more than a feeble re-packaged Genesis 3 Tactic... Garnished with Pseudo-Intellectual mental and linguistic gymnastics (Wrapped in a "Scholarly" Cloak...Lipstick on a PIG) to Undermine/Water Down/Render Null what GOD PLAINLY SAYS !!! Just FYI: KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK, psssst ... God's WATCHING !!! A good example of what? Please explain, IN DETAIL...? regards

What does the PENMAN's Knowledge of the Natural World have to do with anything?? GOD is "The AUTHOR" of Scripture: Remember this... (2 Timothy 3:16) "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" inspiration of God = God-Breathed. regards

There were no "Scientific Predictions" because they're isn't A SINGLE Viable "Scientific Hypothesis"...that which BIRTH "Scientific Predictions", in this entire genre. There were however many Nostradamus/Jimmy-The-Greek/Carnival Tent "Predictions" back in the day about "The Next Ice Age" (rotflol) and then they switched to "ALL The Coastal Cities will be Underwater". (rotflol) It's like watching Laurel and Hardy Reruns!! x 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ----> regards

Yea, because NONE of it is "Science". "Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method. "Science" doesn't: "WORK", say, jump, run, swim, point to, or do the hokey pokey. To do such things takes, Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence...to be ALIVE. Science isn't ALIVE, Ergo...Reification Fallacy. regards

Who cares, the man's a Clown. Astonishing. Who cares what he "BELIEVES". Right, he's a Heavyweight Clown. What on Earth? I wouldn't trust him if he told me the air pressure in his tricycle tires. Let's get to some "Cow Bell" ... Can you explain something to us: How in the World can you use your Computer/Smart Phone which is enabled by Quantum Mechanics, and at the same time Stage 5 Cling to with a Kung Fu Death Grip that which Quantum Mechanics has Bludgeoned then Jettisoned into the Incoherent Oblivion !! ...The Fairytale ? Philosophical Naturalism/Realism -- aka: atheism Religion? regards

Who cares, He's not a Scientist. Even if he was... still, who cares. It's akin to heading up to Walmart and asking a random person the same questions. regards

Nope. Straw Man (Fallacy): I never said that or implied it. Nope. Straw Man (Fallacy): I never said that or implied it. Yes No because you made it up. What's a "CT"?? 1. That Picture along with thousands of others is from "NASA" launching Satellites on Balloons from New Zealand... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/wallops/2017/nasas-super-pressure-balloon-takes-flight-from-new-zealand 2. Satellites on Balloons are not a Flat Earth Proof; they're a Proof of Satellites on Balloons. In a sense. We are providing cases in SUPPORT of our arguments/positions to the Public Court for adjudication. Me too. For starters, Why don't you attempt to refute my "ACTUAL" arguments/positions in lieu of the ones you conjure. regards

Now I just PUMMELED this very same appeal above, but that didn't stop you from appealing to it again? Your claim here is tantamount to a Defense Attorney appealing to the Judge and Jury by saying: "The Prosecutor has pages of pre-prepared proofs indicting my client and keeps on repeating the same boring/tedious things over and over again: Finger Prints on The Murder Weapon, DNA of the my client underneath the victims fingernails, CCT capturing my client in the very act of murder...BUT Ladies and Gentleman, since the Prosecutor has pages of these proofs pre-prepared and has Cut and Pasted them from his Notebook into the Court Record; Therefore, My Client is INNOCENT !!! ... I move for an Acquittal with the Court's deepest apologies. First... they power up the telescopes THEN Suddenly...look through the optics and see Lights in the Sky. Second... they then assign by mere fiat the "Pre-Ordained Watch Words": galaxies, nebula, stars, and solar systems. The End. ps. They don't see black holes. Well we go to a Launch Pad; then after 10...9...8...7 ect we all of a sudden... "LOOK". ps. I'm not refuting combustion or flight. These ??... Show a Pic...? Imagination. So you can see 'the curve of the Earth' at 26,400 Feet (5 Miles) but at 121,000 Feet (23 miles), it's FLAT... SEE the Problem? Well if the Sun and Moon each had a diameter of ~33 miles and a distance from us of 3-5 thousand miles then it would merely be a Matter of Perspective. Everything in what is called 'the universe' is INSIDE the Dome/Firmament including the Sun, Moon, and Stars. Just like God Said... (Genesis 1:14-15) "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: {15} And let them be for lights IN the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so." regards

Yes, Nobody has a Time Machine. What did you expect: A Picture of Adam? A Lock of Eve's Hair? Other? The Bible... is weighted on it's adherence to standards of Historical Documentation. Yes, but that wasn't your initial complaint. Your initial complaint was: How did Plants survive "DAYS" without the Sun? Which was answered quickly and precisely. Ergo...it's a Fairytale. This is Non-Sequitur as noted previously. Who is "We've"? What's the Mechanism to descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute ...? More Importantly, why have I... who've flown over 200 Times, or anyone EVER since the Wright Brothers... not experienced this Roller Coaster Ride? Copy and Paste, eh? Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does Copy and Paste have to do with the Veracity of the Message? Would it be better if I typed it out? Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)..? What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure), and Hydrogen Bonding". Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Copy and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email. Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED...because it was Copy and Pasted?? You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance? Would the students dismiss it out of hand due to lack of credibility? This is Tantamount to saying: Your Case is Refuted because you: wrote it in German, submitted it on Legal Paper (wrong Stationary), used 'Word Pad" instead of "Microsoft Word", it's in Blue Ink rather than Black, used the wrong Font, Folded it, Stapled it, ad nauseam. I mean, R-Ya-Kiddin me sir? 1. What "Theory"?? I posted 5 DIFFERENT Proofs...do you think that's all just A "Theory"? That doesn't even make sense. 2. Agree/Disagree have no place in our discussion. Something is either True or False. 3. If you 'agree' with: The Salt Flats/NATO Sea Sparrow/Lack of Coriolis Effect/The Container (Pressurized System) ...THEN: You're a Flat Earther. Huh? No I PreSupposed a 'Spinning-Ball' then I took it to the Woodshed and gave it "What For!!" Just because you've 'purportedly' done something before doesn't magically transfer veracity to that something. It's called simple logic. Ya see... 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. Natural Phenomena vs Intelligent Design (God) (Atheism) (Idealism) Therefore, The Atheist's "Creator" MUST BE ...: "Matter "/(Nature)...i.e., Philosophical Naturalism/Realism. <--- This has been Scientifically Falsified by Quantum Mechanics. Essentially... 1. The Universe had a Beginning. 2. The Universe is made of Matter. 3. Matter is The Consequent, "A Knower" is The Necessary Antecedent. (SEE: Quantum Mechanics, 1LOT and 2LOT) 4. Therefore: "A CREATOR". Voila ps. Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: atheism is PUMMELED. Your only other choice is "Matter" Pre-Existed before it Existed then Poofed itself into Existence. (before that... it Poofed itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence.) I don't "accept" these ^^^^^ in the same way I don't "accept" 3 Toed Gnomes: Because they're FAIRYTALES. In the particular case of General Relativity (and therefore, Black Holes), 'gr and sr' were Falsified by 3rd Graders at recess 15 minutes after their respective publications THEN... "Officially" Scientifically Falsified by Quantum Mechanics Experiments...in the Thousands Without Exception. All this has been Explained and Illustrated to you personally on this forum > 25 TIMES! There are ZERO Problems. I didn't dodge anything. I noticed you didn't utter a PEEP in response to my evaluation. That was Quick!! Wise Move. ps. that's not gonna save your arguments. regards