Quote (tard_sultan @ Mar 3 2017 11:30am)
So your issue is that their might be a God/Designer and he/she/it is in conflict with your faith?
So you're just a triggered Atheist, interesting.
And secondly i didn't even mention God, but you did mention High altitude satellites, So what is your proof they are real? What is your proof they can exist in 6500 degree temperature? What is your proof that sensitive electronic equipment can operate indefinitely in High EM Radiation like in or past the van allen belt? What is your proof that we can go beyond the impenetrable plasashere? What is your proof that rockets can operate in space? What is your proof that space is a vacuum?
You have no actual proof - just the word of Nasa who shows you pretty pictures to fap to. and tells you how to think. You have nothing else. Geocentricity offer many proofs you can test yourself, heliocentricity offers nothing.
I'm not an atheist. But I don't for a second fail to understand the difference between knowledge and faith. I have faith that God exists. I don't have knowledge that God exists.
You didn't have to mention God for me to draw the apt comparison.
What proof do you require for the existence of satellites to be valid? What constitutes irrefutable in your world? Because over here in reality, we know who makes them, we know who launches them, we know who and how they are tracked and controlled from the ground, we have the imagery they beam back to the surface, and so much more. What proof do you have that satellites do not exist? You have painful twists of logic that complain "well that just can't be," because you're so willfully ignorant.
Satellites don't "exist in 6500 degree temperatures." What fucking fantasy world are you in now?
What proof do you require that we can engineer machines to resist radiation? Would the existence of remote control robots that they use to try to repair the damaged nuclear plant at Fukushima suffice? How about nuclear missiles that are made to withstand EMPs so their guidance systems continue to function even when they are flying in second or third waves? What do you need man?
Why do you continue to claim that there's an impenetrable zone above us when A - that was one of your two sources that directly refute a flat Earth, and B - that I showed exactly what that article actually did say, not what you intentionally misconstrued it as?