Value of Thought

Originally posted by googlefudge
[quote]Your density knows no bounds, this is quite clear.
We are not discussing the skyline.
We are discussing the horizon.
While the two may be used interchangeably, the true horizon is not to be confused (as you continually have been doing, despite constant correction) with the line where one's immediate surroundings are separated from the sky.
Sin ...[text shortened]... o problems with what it says on that site because it agrees with everything WE have been saying.

Oh my.
It's much worse than I thought.
I actually held out some hope for you, that once you were face-to-face with actual undeniable evidence you would relent.
Or shut up and stop making such a fool of yourself.

Not sure what is compelling you to trudge on so wholly unsupported, but you're definitely doing so with gusto!

If I am looking down, at a skyline or visible horizon consisting of buildings and trees, then the true horizon will be even lower.
We're not talking about you looking down at the ground, numbnuts.
We're talking about you looking straight ahead, from literally any position on the earth.
Looking straight ahead, your line of sight will be along the plane of the earth and will eventually terminate at that point where the earth appears to meet the sky.
That line is called the horizon.
You might not be in a spot where you can see the actual horizon, owing to natural or man-made obstacles.
If, however, you were able to ascend above the natural or man-made obstacles between you and the horizon, you would be able to see that same horizon by simply looking directly straight ahead.
The only difference, of course, is that your elevated position now affords you the ability to see further, albeit with the same physical restrictions you currently are saddled with, i.e., blind as a bat.

If you are not talking about the dividing line between earth[sea] and sky. Then you are not talking about the horizon, you are talking about something else.
This is exactly what has been the topic since it was first broached, as evidenced with literally every post I've made since then.
You've offered up some nonsense to combat the verifiable fact that the horizon remains at eye level no matter what one's elevation in altitude.

If you are talking about those things, then you are wrong. As demonstrated by the reality we can all see, by the photos you linked, by the websites we linked, by all possible available evidence.
Now you're completely out of your head.
The photos which are EVEN NOW available all show the horizon in the line of sight of the photographer, no matter what the photographer's elevation from sea level.
You are either an idiot, a troll, or--- most likely--- both.
It would be one thing if I was referencing some unreachable evidence, maybe some pictures I have squirreled away in my attic somewhere, but you aren't challenging that situation, are you?
You are challenging pictures readily available to anyone with internet access who is able to type "pictures from the top of mount everest" into the search bar.
The very first one which populates is from the website "How It Works" depicting a man with hands triumphantly raised in celebration... with the horizon dissecting the image almost exactly in half.
Here's the link of the picture from the actual website since the address from Google images is a bit long:
http://www.howitworksdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Everest2011-JPG.jpg

If you are unable to tell from all of those pictures otherwise--- especially in light of the fact that NONE of them support your absurd claim--- there's simply no hope for you whatsoever.

This article confirms what we have been saying, and includes diagrams showing the horizon being below eye level.
Surely you must realize the chart is an extreme exaggeration.
Right?
The chart has a line of sight for anyone on earth to be ONLY the sky, able to see the ground between him and the horizon either by peripheral vision or holding his head at an awkward angle.
Laughable.

Unless someone has changed it recently (and it's doubtful anyone has), the statements therein completely demolished everything you have claimed.
One of the gems is one already discussed earlier, when I taught you how pilots retain their spatial orientation by referencing the horizon--- you know, that's that line they try to keep directly in front of them at all times.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Very few things are perfectly round, and this includes the Earth. Spherical though is closer to the mark than flat.(By a long chalk!)

Happy to answer any other questions you have, once you respond to my own question about how the Earth appears in photographs taken from space. Either every picture (and live footage) is faked or the Earth is indeed 'round.'

Clearly you have a point not yet expressed. Please do so.

Every single image of the Earth reportedly taken from space shows it perfectly round.
Aren't plates perfectly round?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Every single image of the Earth reportedly taken from space shows it perfectly round.
Aren't plates perfectly round?

Every single image of the Earth reportedly taken from space shows it perfectly round.

No, every photo from space shows the Earth to be close to being perfectly spherical.

Which it is.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Just to clarify, when I said 'someone' claimed a refrigerator is more complex than the human body I was not referring to t-head. It was C hess that made that claim. I haven't looked at your link yet, but I suspect your googlefudging has yielded the wrong thread or has pointed you in the wrong direction.

Edit: as I suspected, you assumed the 'someone' was twhitehead.

No, I read the thread and determined that the 'discussion' you were having was with C Hess.

It's exactly the right thread, and I got exactly the right discussion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Oh my.
It's much worse than I thought.
I actually held out some hope for you, that once you were face-to-face with actual undeniable evidence you would relent.
Or shut up and stop making such a fool of yourself.

Not sure what is compelling you to trudge on so wholly unsupported, but you're definitely doing so with gusto!

[b]If I am looking down, a ...[text shortened]... e horizon--- you know, that's that line they try to keep directly in front of them at all times.

Looking straight ahead, your line of sight will be along the plane of the earth and will eventually terminate at that point where the earth appears to meet the sky.
That line is called the horizon.

Wrong.

You are talking gibberish.

EDIT: Here is a picture of a sky scape.

http://orig14.deviantart.net/13bf/f/2011/024/6/f/skyscape_by_julianna_w-d37yy40.jpg

Describe for us in detail where you think this magical horizon line that you can apparently see is on this picture.

EDIT2: Actually there is a better point.

The argument is about the shape of the Earth.

Thus, whatever you call it, the only point that matters is the skyline, the point where the land meets the sky.

Not some magical imaginary line that is always at 90 degrees to vertical.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, I read the thread and determined that the 'discussion' you were having was with C Hess.

It's exactly the right thread, and I got exactly the right discussion.

You got the right discussion, but are you sure you got the right page? It was not a short discussion. I'll go back and look again, but if I don't see him literally saying a refrigerator is more complex than the human body then you're probably pointing to the wrong page.

Originally posted by lemon lime
You got the right discussion, but are you sure you got the right page? It was not a short discussion. I'll go back and look again, but if I don't see him literally saying a refrigerator is more complex than the human body then you're probably pointing to the wrong page.

I got the thread, I got the commenter, if you want to flag up any particular post feel free.

I read several pages and C Hess was not arguing what you say he was arguing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I got the thread, I got the commenter, if you want to flag up any particular post feel free.

I read several pages and C Hess was not arguing what you say he was arguing.

He was being clever. The closest I got to getting him to clarify his position on complexity didn't occur until pg. 71:

"...clearly I was saying that biological complexity is simpler in design, not function. The point I made there, however, is the same I made in the analogy thread."

The thrust of his argument was that there are different kinds of complexity. He seemed to want to focus on different complexities, which doesn't address the much simpler question of which can be deemed more complex... this is a question btw that can be answered, and without all of the fancy footwork and showmanship demonstrated for (in my opinion) the purpose of avoiding the question.


So anyway... iyo does that thread really exist, and did this discussion actually happen, or do you think (as twhitehead seems to believe) I just made it all up?

Originally posted by lemon lime
He was being clever. The closest I got to getting him to clarify his position on complexity didn't occur until pg. 71:

"...clearly I was saying that biological complexity is simpler in design, not function. The point I made there, however, is the same I made in the analogy thread."

The thrust of his argument was that there are different kinds of co ...[text shortened]... cussion actually happen, or do you think (as twhitehead seems to believe) I just made it all up?

I think you got the wrong end of the stick and nobody made the evidently ridiculous claim
that you are bandying around as a supposed example of 'crazy things atheists say'.

Which is I suspect is exactly what twhitehead was saying/thinking.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think you got the wrong end of the stick and nobody made the evidently ridiculous claim
that you are bandying around as a supposed example of 'crazy things atheists say'.

Which is I suspect is exactly what twhitehead was saying/thinking.

If you want speculate on what he was thinking that's fine... I mostly prefer to comment on what he says. By the way, I'm curious as to why your google search led you to pg. 63. because the topic actually began on pg. 61.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If you want speculate on what he was thinking that's fine... I mostly prefer to comment on what he says. By the way, I'm curious as to why your google search led you to pg. 63. because the topic actually began on pg. 61.

Actually it brought up one of your posts on page 65, but page 63 had a long post by C Hess explaining
what he was talking about.

I only spent about 3 mins for the purpose of short circuiting the argument by providing actual evidence.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually it brought up one of your posts on page 65, but page 63 had a long post by C Hess explaining
what he was talking about.

I only spent about 3 mins for the purpose of short circuiting the argument by providing actual evidence.

I appreciate you finding some evidence showing I wasn't just 'making it all up'. I included the refrigerator example because I thought it might be easier to find, and because it was an interesting debate. I just wish it was as easy for me to claim victory in chess (regardless of the outcome) as it seems to be for evolutionists... regardless of the outcome.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Every single image of the Earth reportedly taken from space shows it perfectly round.
Aren't plates perfectly round?

Not from every angle numbnuts©




©RJHinds

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or perhaps you are both on something?

If FreakyKBH is dropping some acid, or something, while coming up with these arguments, that would explain a lot.

Originally posted by LemonJello
If FreakyKBH is dropping some acid, or something, while coming up with these arguments, that would explain a lot.

I think if a person is going to put good money down for some drugs, they ought to be very careful in how they handle it.

Now, were you going to talk about the subject or follow the usual tack and take potshots from the sideline?