Again. You failed to provide evidence. Why would I change my mind about anything if you can’t back up your claims with actual evidence and hard facts? I’m starting to wonder if you know what these things are.
Again. You failed to provide evidence. Why would I change my mind about anything if you can’t back up your claims with actual evidence and hard facts? I’m starting to wonder if you know what these things are.
... GO GET YOUR OWN EVIDENCE ... TAKE WHAT I SAY AS A CHALLENGE AND TRY 2 DEBUNK IT ... PROVE 2 ME YOU CAN BACK UP THAT YOU LIVE ON A GLOBE ...
But you said you'd already presented evidence to me about your take on evolution. I'm telling you that what you presented wasn't evidence, in fact it was just an image of one live animal and what was meant to be a fossil, even though the fossil image was clearly photoshopped.
And if you're wondering why I'm saying it's photoshopped it's for the simple fact that when a kangaroo dies the muscles along its back contract and pull the spine and head back at a very painful looking angle. Your "fossil" image was a kangaroo in its upright hopping position. That's not how kangaroos look when they're dead.
Want to know why I know this? Because I've studied science, I've even studied palaeontology. And to top it off, I've spent countless hours in the outback and have seen more with my own eyes than you're likely to ever see.
Ignorance is easy buddy. I know what real evidence looks like. Sadly, you don't. And it's taken you down a path similar to those that cult followers take.
... OK MAN ... HERE'S MORE EVIDENCE ...
Exactly as expcected. You have nothing.
It’s like I’m trying to have an intellectual discussion with a brick.
... EXACTLY ... NOW YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ... AGAIN YOU'RE GONNA DISPUTE ANY EVIDENCE THAT I PRESENT CAUSE YOU'RE 2 COMFORTABLE IN YOUR BUBBLE ...
No mate, you and I are experiencing very different things in this "discussion". You simply don't understand how to have an actual discussion. All you do is post images and pretend that they are some form of evidence. This is another absurd image.
What species of scorpion is that? Have the two scorpions been confirmed as being the same species? I see immediate differences in their form. What age is the fossil? What location was the fossil found and are both the scorpion still found at that location?
And then there's the other questions. Such as why do you believe that every single species on this planet has needed to or been forced into a position to evolve and adapt. For example, the crocodile hasn't really changed over millions of years. It didn't need to. It's at the top of the food chain and is perfectly well adapted to its environment.
Many other species needed to change to suit their changing environment. Which happened. Those that couldn't evolve simply died out.
So again, you've failed to provide any evidence. You don't understand what evidence is. This picture is not evidence. It doesn't provide any argument. Try again.
... I SIMPLY RECOGNISE THAT YOU ARE GULLIBLE AND WON'T GET THERE WITH WORDS THAT'S WHY I USE DRAWINGS / PICS / IMAGES / MEMES SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND ... IT'S AN ATTACK ON BOTH SIDES OF YOUR BRAIN SO I CAN MAKE SURE THE MESSAGE GETS HOME ... THESE ARE SENSITIVE TOPICS THAT CHALLENGE THE MAIN STREAM NARRATIVE AND YOUR DICKHEAD ATTITUDE AIN'T HELPING ... IT WOULD HELP IF YOU DID SOME RESEARCH AND CAME HERE A BIT MORE PREPARED ... I'M NOT BABYSITTING YOU ... BEAR IN MIND THAT I USED TO BE YOU BUT BROKE THE SPELL THUS PERCEIVING THE MATRIX ... I SHARE WHAT I'VE LEARNED OUT OF LOVE CAUSE I LIVE IN A STATE OF AMAZEMENT ... I CAN SHOW YOU A PICTURE OF MY DOG BUT YOU'RE PROBABLY THINK IT'S FAKE !... IT'S OBVIOUS THAT I'M SHATTERING YOUR COMFORT ZONE THAT'S WHY YOU'RE ARMED TO THE TEETH !... EVOLUTION IS A HOAX BUT ADAPTATION IS REAL ... NOTHING EVOLVED BUT SPECIES DO ADAPT TO KEEP UP ... ADAPTATION ISN'T EVOLUTION ... THE FACT THAT A SPECIE LEARNS SOMETHING NEW DOESN'T MEAN IT TURNS INTO ANOTHER SPECIE !... FROM NOW ON BRING COMMON SENSE WHEN YOU COME HERE OR DON'T BOTHER ...
I tried. Now I’m done with you.
Let's play your game then. So I'm in Victoria, Australia, and I think you're in New South Wales.
So let's say you were in America and staring up at the night sky. You're going to see one set of constellations.
If I were looking at the sky at the same time, firstly it would be daylight, but secondly, there would be different constellations.
If the earth were flat, then it would be daylight across the planet at the same time, and we would be staring a tthe exact same constellations.
How is it that we can have night and day at the same time on a disc? How is it that we have people in 2 different countries seeing different constellations at the same time?
... NOT NECESSARILY ... THE WIDTH MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE ... I CAN SEE YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE FLAT EARTH MODEL ... AGAIN RIDICULE B4 INVESTIGATION IS THE HEIGHT OF IGNORANCE ... HERE'S A CLUE ...
That is truly laughable. If the sun is above the disc, there will be some level of daylight across the surface. True darkness won't happen until the sun is below the earth's surface.
Another question would be, what light is reflecting off the surface of the moon if the sun is on the other side of the disc?
You still didn't answer any of my questions. I was quite honest in asking them. Under that model, the constellations would be the same no matter where you stood on the planet. And yet they're not. Answer that.
... YOU CAN LAUGH WHAT YOU WANT BUT THAT DON'T MAKE YOU CLEVER EITHER ... THE SUN IS ABOVE THE DISC AND NEVER GOES BELOW ... IT DESCRIBES AN ELIPTICAL EAST / WEST ORBIT ... AGAIN I'M NOT RELIGIOUS BUT THE BIBLE BACKS IT UP WHEN IT SAYS THAT BOTH SUN AND MOON SHINE THEIR OWN LIGHT ... WIDTH AVOIDS YOU SEEING THE SAME CONSTELLATIONS ... IF IT'S RAINING IN AMERICA THAT DON'T MEAN IT HAS 2 RAIN IN AUSTRALIA SO DON'T BE DUMB ...