Sign into an existing account

deleted

Why are the distances between two lines of longitude the same at 60 degrees north and 60 degrees south latitudes, and both are shorter than the distance between the same two longitudes at the equator?

How does GPS work?

How do you explain the ability to calculate the distance to the sun using different types of radiation emitted by the sun?

And, has there ever been a whistle blower that claims to have seen the great wall, if you think there is a such thing?

Another jew tactic to sow division through hyper focus on the trivial. OP knows the issue is inane. It's the same tactic all the jews posing as pseudo pagans use. The goal is to distract from the real issue, which is the evil of the jew. Once someone devises a workable solution, the jig is up. The thing preventing that are these constant incursions into topics that enrage, but are meaningless.

Arguing with some one who either doesn't believe, or doesn't understand their base proposal is a massive waste of time.

deleted

Someone’s got a big brain.

The lies of covid, global warming, and especially the jews behind these lies affect my family and I directly. If I were to be convinced that the earth is flat and space is fake and gay (which I am open to), it still would not change my life directly.

I already boycott everything globohomo from amazon to netflix to any store that supports blm or lgbtqia+kysfgt. Other than my understanding about apace and earth, what would change in my life? Would I distrust the government even more than I do now? I doubt it. I already do not trust them at all (NASA and the others included).

So what the fuck is the point? I want to redpill normies about the jews. That is something we can fight against. Complaining about space is not helping anyone, whether you are right or wrong (I have not done enough research to have an opinion)

Evolution has multiple examples to it, but by far the simplest argument for it comes from one simple fact.

You accept that we'd get half our DNA from that of each of our parents if our mother was only ever sexually active with our father, and that this produces the traits of our parents in us.

You accept that some of that inherited DNA is not an exact copy of that of our parents, and that this could possibly produce variations which set us apart from either of our parents.

You accept that this effect is cumulative, that it stacks upon itself over successive generations.

It's also a guarantee that some get to reproduce and continue this process with their descendants, while others do not, and see their bloodlines end with themselves.

You may also see it as being natural that some people are better at surviving in certain environmental conditions than others, and that thus is due to their genetic traits.

It follows that if they are more likely to survive, they are more likely to reproduce, and thereby more likely to pass on their traits.

And if the pattern of traits accumulates over enough generations, we see larger changes to the DNA occur as the result of many smaller changes adding up to major ones.

Imagine a statue made of wood, every day you cut off a small piece, and replace it with one made of metal.

The pieces being replaced could be very small indeed, miniscule, in fact, but it doesn't matter, as you'd have to accept that continually removing wood and replacing it with metal will eventually cause the wooden statue to become one composed entirely of metal.

Imagine an empty jar, every week one grain of sand is added to the jar, would you not accept that eventually you'd have a jar filled to the brim with sand if thos process were to continue long enough?

Knowing the mechanisms and the number of iterations, we can not come to any conclusion but the idea that complex things can result from many simple things interacting together, and that large changes can result from many small ones building up upon one another.

You are like someone who sees the metal statue, or the filled jar, and claims that the statue cannot have been wood at one time, or that the jar cannot have been empty, because you've never seen the wooden statue become entirely composed of metal all at once, and you've never seen the empty jar become filled to the brim all at once.

Thus there is no evidence that the statue could've changed its composition, nor that the jar could have been filled with sand.

We could show you the statue and jar at different points in time, and show the small changes that were made at each point, but you'd then make some solid categorization that groups statues and jars at various stages together into clean types, you'd also stamp your foot and say that evidence of small changes are not evidence for larger ones, even though the large changes are the result of the accumulation of small ones.

You'd need to see all the changes occur at once, an empty jar one day, a full one the next, but this goes directly against the hypothesis of how an originally empty jar got tp be full of sand, because that theory is based on it being filled one grain of sand at a time over successive instances of the grains being put in.

This is why we reject you when you reject evolution, and this is why you use vague terms to hide the simple process which you deny, and you accept all the parts of that process, merely drawing the lines at the inescapable conclusions that could could drawn from them.

Space is Fake and Gay is the best method to destroy the kike lie.

How do you feel about abrahamic religions?

You are a gay niglet with super aids